q_id
stringlengths
5
6
title
stringlengths
3
296
selftext
stringlengths
0
34k
document
stringclasses
1 value
subreddit
stringclasses
1 value
url
stringlengths
4
110
answers
dict
title_urls
list
selftext_urls
list
answers_urls
list
8unc5y
why can documentaries such as “super size me” or “in the defense of food” display major brands in a negative and uncensored way but random t.v. shows are forced to blur out branded products on t-shirts/etc.?
I understand that name brands like Coca-Cola wouldn’t want to be associated with the activities in shows like “Trailer Park Boys” or “Jackass” but surely a company like McDonald’s wouldn’t want to be associated with documentaries that reveal their unethical behavior either. At what point does a company get to decide who can display their brands in media?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8unc5y/eli5_why_can_documentaries_such_as_super_size_me/
{ "a_id": [ "e1gn8ct", "e1go1gw", "e1i43gl" ], "score": [ 9, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Why do you assume they are forced to? Typically brands will pay money for product placement. If a company doesn't pay them the show won't show their product.", "Random companies are not forced to blur out corporate logos. They *choose* to blur them out because the owners of those brands haven't paid to have their product presented on their show.\n\nIt's not a crime or a tort to display a brand in a negative way as long as it's not libelous. In short, if what you are saying is true, then there's little resource for the brand.", "I'm a lawyer who works in intellectual property, so I'll try to give a more direct answer here, at least for american trademark law (and to some extent american property law).\n\nCompany names like McDonald's are what is called a Trademark. It's a type of intellectual property protection that is specifically made to help consumers figure out who makes a product. So for burgers, it can help you figure out which burger is made by McDonald's vs. burgers made by Burger King. And you can imagine owning the rights to the name like owning anything else.\n\nWith a few MASSIVE exceptions. So, McDonald's has a right to license its name (that is people can come up to McDonald's and say they want to rent the name for their own use). That's partly how they franchise out. However, what if you want to criticize a company? What if you think McDonald's burgers were shit? If you needed to license the McDonald's name everytime you were to complain about it or compare it to burger king, no one would be able to, because McDonald's would never allow that. So, partly because of the first amendment (i.e. free speech) and partly because the system of trademark wouldn't really work without it, there is something called Nominative Fair Use. It basically means if you are actually talking about the product, you have the right to do that. So, if you were to say \"McDonald's is disgusting.\" Or, \"I ate McDonald's 30 days in a row and it destroyed my health\" you are totally within your right. \n\nOn the other side, it gets a little weirder with TV shows. On one hand, TV shows are looking for any ways to make additional money. By having an identifiable product on their show, they are effectively giving out free advertising. So they won't do that unless they get paid, or have some other deal with the company. In addition, if a TV show puts a product in a bad light, it's not exactly the same as nominative fair use because it's a fictionalized account of a product, so the owner of the trademark might be able to successfully sue. Like if I had an episode of *generic police procedural* and some drug dealer was all about Apple products, apple could sue arguing that this associates them with drug dealing which doesn't fit their image. \n\ntl;dr Company's can't do shit when it's REALLY about their product. When it's fictionalized shit gets more complicated. \n " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
mkzh1
game theory
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mkzh1/eli5_game_theory/
{ "a_id": [ "c31reza", "c31ro89", "c31tsj2", "c31u2jj", "c31reza", "c31ro89", "c31tsj2", "c31u2jj" ], "score": [ 21, 7, 3, 5, 21, 7, 3, 5 ], "text": [ "The highest rated ELI5 response I found. If you have any questions on something in particular, feel free to ask for further explanation and I will be happy to provide it.\n\n > A game (in the math sense) is a group of players and each of them have a set of actions they can take (can be different for each player) and utility functions that assign how good each combination of chosen actions is for each player.\n > \n > It can get a bit more complicated like players taking turns picking actions, and so on, but the above is the simplest kind.\n > A useful concept to examine for a game is an \"equilibrium,\" which means in some sense the outcome is stable. One kind of equilibrium is called a Nash equilibrium, which is an outcome where no player can improve her utility by switching to a different action (everyone else's actions stay the same).\n > \n > There's also the concept of a \"mixed\" Nash equilibrium, in this case the players are picking probability distributions over their action sets instead of just picking an action straight up, and it's a mixed NE as long as no player can improve her expected utility by changing up her selected distribution.\n > \n > In taking turns games there is another kind of equilibrium called a subgame perfect equilibrium but I won't go into detail for now.\n > One example of a game is the Prisoner's dilemma. In this game there are two players and they can each choose to confess or stay quiet. Their utility functions are defined such that if they both stay quiet they don't go away for that long; if one person confesses and the other doesn't, the confessor gets time taken off his sentence and the quiet one gets time added; and if they both confess then time is added but not as much as in the confess/quiet case. The NE here is both confessing, even though they would both be better off if they were both quiet. Neither can improve his utility alone by switching to quiet while the other person is confessing. In any other outcome, it's not a NE because the quiet one can always confess to improve his utility (assuming the other one keeps the same action).\n > \n > Another game is called Matching Pennies, where the players can each choose heads or tails. One player's utility is such that she prefers if the actions match (heads/heads or tails/tails) while the other one prefers if the actions are different. There is no pure NE here because no matter the outcome, one of the players will want to switch to the other actions (if the actions are the same, the second player will want to switch, if the actions are different the first player will want to switch). But there is a mixed NE where the players pick their actions with 50/50 probability. Then no one can improve their expected utility by shifting it to something other than 50/50.\n > \n > Source: my master's research was in game theory and I've taken courses on it.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)", "An example of a variation of it: \n\nSteve and Mark are both suspected of murder. The scenarios are as follows: \n\n1. If Steve and Mark both shut up, they'll each get 6 years.\n2. If Steve rats out Mark while Mark shuts up, Steve will get 2 years and Mark gets 10. \n3. If Mark rats out Steve while Steve shuts up, Mark will get 2 years and Steve gets 10. \n4. If they rat eachother out, they both get 10 years.", "Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to explain what Game Theory is because there are a lot of things that are considered Game Theory. It's like asking \"Explain Math to me,\" which could mean anything from addition to geometry to calculus.\n\nHowever, there are some things that all studies of Game Theory have in common.\n\nGames are no different from the ones you make up with your friends in your free time. There are players, goals, and rules. However, in Game Theory, everything is based on how math says people *should* play the games rather than how they *actually* play them.\n\nSome famous games involve whether two prisoners will tattle on each other, which girl is the guys in a group should try to dance with, and how terrorist groups might react to different army strategies.\n\nScientists have to be very careful about how they make the rules of their games, because little changes in the rules can either make the answers from the math look a lot like real life (which is what they hope for) or not at all. That's also the reason Game Theory isn't fully trusted outside of school... because people are wary that a math problem can fully explain what goes on in real life.", "In case people are interested to learn more, Stanford is offering a free [Game Theory online course](_URL_0_) in the spring term ([List of free courses](_URL_1_)).", "The highest rated ELI5 response I found. If you have any questions on something in particular, feel free to ask for further explanation and I will be happy to provide it.\n\n > A game (in the math sense) is a group of players and each of them have a set of actions they can take (can be different for each player) and utility functions that assign how good each combination of chosen actions is for each player.\n > \n > It can get a bit more complicated like players taking turns picking actions, and so on, but the above is the simplest kind.\n > A useful concept to examine for a game is an \"equilibrium,\" which means in some sense the outcome is stable. One kind of equilibrium is called a Nash equilibrium, which is an outcome where no player can improve her utility by switching to a different action (everyone else's actions stay the same).\n > \n > There's also the concept of a \"mixed\" Nash equilibrium, in this case the players are picking probability distributions over their action sets instead of just picking an action straight up, and it's a mixed NE as long as no player can improve her expected utility by changing up her selected distribution.\n > \n > In taking turns games there is another kind of equilibrium called a subgame perfect equilibrium but I won't go into detail for now.\n > One example of a game is the Prisoner's dilemma. In this game there are two players and they can each choose to confess or stay quiet. Their utility functions are defined such that if they both stay quiet they don't go away for that long; if one person confesses and the other doesn't, the confessor gets time taken off his sentence and the quiet one gets time added; and if they both confess then time is added but not as much as in the confess/quiet case. The NE here is both confessing, even though they would both be better off if they were both quiet. Neither can improve his utility alone by switching to quiet while the other person is confessing. In any other outcome, it's not a NE because the quiet one can always confess to improve his utility (assuming the other one keeps the same action).\n > \n > Another game is called Matching Pennies, where the players can each choose heads or tails. One player's utility is such that she prefers if the actions match (heads/heads or tails/tails) while the other one prefers if the actions are different. There is no pure NE here because no matter the outcome, one of the players will want to switch to the other actions (if the actions are the same, the second player will want to switch, if the actions are different the first player will want to switch). But there is a mixed NE where the players pick their actions with 50/50 probability. Then no one can improve their expected utility by shifting it to something other than 50/50.\n > \n > Source: my master's research was in game theory and I've taken courses on it.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)", "An example of a variation of it: \n\nSteve and Mark are both suspected of murder. The scenarios are as follows: \n\n1. If Steve and Mark both shut up, they'll each get 6 years.\n2. If Steve rats out Mark while Mark shuts up, Steve will get 2 years and Mark gets 10. \n3. If Mark rats out Steve while Steve shuts up, Mark will get 2 years and Steve gets 10. \n4. If they rat eachother out, they both get 10 years.", "Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to explain what Game Theory is because there are a lot of things that are considered Game Theory. It's like asking \"Explain Math to me,\" which could mean anything from addition to geometry to calculus.\n\nHowever, there are some things that all studies of Game Theory have in common.\n\nGames are no different from the ones you make up with your friends in your free time. There are players, goals, and rules. However, in Game Theory, everything is based on how math says people *should* play the games rather than how they *actually* play them.\n\nSome famous games involve whether two prisoners will tattle on each other, which girl is the guys in a group should try to dance with, and how terrorist groups might react to different army strategies.\n\nScientists have to be very careful about how they make the rules of their games, because little changes in the rules can either make the answers from the math look a lot like real life (which is what they hope for) or not at all. That's also the reason Game Theory isn't fully trusted outside of school... because people are wary that a math problem can fully explain what goes on in real life.", "In case people are interested to learn more, Stanford is offering a free [Game Theory online course](_URL_0_) in the spring term ([List of free courses](_URL_1_))." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l7eh5/eli5_game_theory/c2qdk3y" ], [], [], [ "http://www.game-theory-class.org/", "http://www.uncollege.org/archives/1441" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l7eh5/eli5_game_theory/c2qdk3y" ], [], [], [ "http://www.game-theory-class.org/", "http://www.uncollege.org/archives/1441" ] ]
44emkb
how did they come up with the theory that a mars sized planet, theia, collided with early earth creating the moon?
Watching The Universe on H2 and they told about a Mars sized planet, Theia, colliding with Earth and creating the moon. Is there any proof of this? If not what lead to that theory?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44emkb/eli5_how_did_they_come_up_with_the_theory_that_a/
{ "a_id": [ "czpp168", "czpqi10", "czpqsul", "czpsucx" ], "score": [ 12, 2, 10, 3 ], "text": [ "It's impossible for a satellite the size of the Moon to be caught in a planet the size of Earth's gravity. Plus the material make up of the moon is similar to that of our crust/mantle.\n\nCouple that with lots of simulations showing that another planet had to swipe by the Earth a couple times to put up enough material without destroying them both, and it's the best theory we've found thus far.", "The primary evidence for this comes from the Apollo missions and them bringing back samples. The material on there was partially from Earth and partially from a foreign body, which is why this theory was created.", "We have a large moon (most moons are tiny compared to the planets they orbit) and we got it somehow. It's possible that it wandered by and got caught in the earth's gravity, slowed down, and settled into the nice orbit it has. But that's *very* unlikely, like nearly impossible.\n\nAlso, the earth has a particular composition, unlike that of other planets (some of which we have pieces of) and very unlike meteorites, of which we have a lot. The moon, on the other hand, is composed of roughly the same elements in the same proportions as earth (we went there, took samples). That's weird, and suggests a similar origin for both.\n\nSo best guess, earth had already formed from a bunch of shit knocking around the early solar system when something just a little smaller smashed into it. The stuff that didn't rejoin the now-smoking-hot earth coalesced in orbit around it, and we call this the moon. It's a nice hypothesis, and lively debate continues about how big the object was that hit us (if it was too big, it should have just blasted us to smithereens) and at what angle (a glancing blow might have affected the proportions and compositions of the two bodies). ", "That theory's more plausible than it sounds at first. Let me explain it a bit better.\n\nI don't think it's accurate to call it a planet. It was an [Earth trojan](_URL_0_) which is in many ways more like a moon. It orbited a [Lagrangian point](_URL_1_). This is a stable orbit that's 60 degrees off of the planet, so it makes a right triangle between the planet and the star it orbits. It's only stable if it's much smaller than the planet though.\n\nSo, if a body formed in a stable orbit where it seems like it naturally would form, and it got to the size of Mars, then it would eventually collide with Earth. It gives an accurate conclusion without too many assumptions. It's a good theory. And without any other theories that explain the result well, it's probably correct." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_trojan", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point" ] ]
2a48ca
the debate about hobby lobby hurts my head. please decode the legal jargon of the court's decision
I have a lot of religious conservative friends. I have a lot of atheist liberal friends. I have a lot of religious liberal friends. I feel lost in this debate and the legal jargon everyone throws around hurts my head. In particular, I have seen these two opposing articles linked repeatedly: 1) _URL_0_ 2) _URL_1_ I would like to cut through all the "They're just using soundbites!" and "They are lying! These are the facts!" claims and bullshit. In particular, the confusing jargon of the courts decision, the emergency decision, this thing about the accommodation, and what actually went down. Thank you.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a48ca/eli5_the_debate_about_hobby_lobby_hurts_my_head/
{ "a_id": [ "circqg4", "cirfral" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Argument: Not only should I not be forced to provide something I feel a religious objection to (a reasonable objection), other groups should not be able to provide something I have a religious objection to to others at no cost to me when I refuse to provide that service (an unreasonable objection).\n\nNOTE: That's my ELI5 of what the nature of the argument was (that signing wavers to not provide contraceptives that would trigger some insurance companies to provide them anyway was objectionable because of the groups religious belief). I make no statement about whether the court's argument is constitutional, what it means for other cases, or that my interpretation is correct.", "I'm blatantly stealing much of my answer from /r/outoftheloop and /r/eli5 answers. \n\nIf you have more questions then ask me. I may not be able to answer them, but I'll do my best to tell you if I can't answer your question(s).\n\n-----------------\n\n\n**Summary**\n\nBusinesses (generally) have to offer health plans which (generally) include birth control. Hobby Lobby objected to providing some of the types of birth control. The government said \"[suck it](_URL_1_)\" and Hobby Lobby sued them. \n\nThe Supreme Court said that Hobby Lobby could choose to not offer some types of birth control. Many people are upset because they think that it's wrong for a business to choose what birth control to offer based on the owner(s) religious beliefs. Other people think that it's right because it would be wrong to force an owner to violate his or her religious beliefs, and that the owner isn't stopping the employee from getting birth control elsewhere.\n\n**Background facts**\n\n**1**: The Supreme Court can only rule on the case before it. This means that there is tons of speculation about what rulings mean for the future.\n\n**2**: Hobby Lobby is a chain of stores that sell [arts and crafts and home accents and whatnot](_URL_0_). It is *for-profit* and it is closely-held (i.e., one family owns it) and the owners try to run it according to their religious beliefs. \n\n**3**: The Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) has approved 20 different kinds of birth control for women.\n\n**4**: The health care law (Obamacare/PPACA/ACA) says that businesses have to offer health insurance plans and that the plans have to cover certain basic things. One of those basic things include all 20 kinds of birth control. However, the ACA had some exemptions for people who are:\n\n* A religious organization (e.g., a church)\n* A non-profit\n* A business with fewer than 50 employees\n\nHobby Lobby doesn't fall under any of those categories. Which meant that Hobby Lobby has to offer a health insurance plan that covers all 20 forms of birth control. However, Hobby Lobby objected to 4 of those types of birth control claiming that those 4 caused abortions and that they have a religious objection to abortion. \n\nThe government said 1) federal regulations don't classify those 4 as being abortifacients, and 2) Hobby Lobby doesn't fall under one of the exceptions. Therefore, Hobby Lobby has to have their health insurance plan cover all 20 or get hit with massive fines. Thus came the lawsuit. \n\nThe Supreme Court said that in this case the interest of the law could be served by not making Hobby Lobby provide all 20 types of birth control. They said that Hobby Lobby is closely-held, Hobby Lobby has genuine religious objections, and Hobby Lobby is willing to offer a plan that covers 16/20 birth control types, so it's OK to not make them cover *all* 20.\n\n**What does this mean for the future?**\n\nThis brings us back to point 1: The Court can only rule on the case before it. What does closely-held truly mean? What if a business objects to 5 (instead of 4) types of birth control? What if they object to different types than the ones that Hobby Lobby objected to? What if they object to blood transfusions?\n\nWe don't know. We can speculate; some speculation is a heck of a lot more informed than other speculation! But we don't know for certain. \n\n***Why are many people so upset?***\n\nMany people think that it sets a dangerous precedent. They think that it's allowing a business to control the reproductive choices of their female employees and they think that's wrong. They think that a business has no role in telling women what legal medicine she gets to use based solely on the religion of the owner(s). \n\nThis is particularly hair-raising -- or \"shit-losing\" -- because of the historical imbalance between 1) employers and employees, and 2) men and women. Plus it hits all of the hot button issues on all sides: religious freedom, abortion, reproductive rights, women's rights, the government's role, etc. \n\nPlus the Supreme Court has 6 men and 3 women. It has 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. The ruling that was the majority was by 5 Justices:\n\n* Alito: **male; Catholic; appointed by a Republican**\n* Roberts: **male; Catholic; appointed by a Republican**\n* Scalia: **male; Catholic; appointed by a Republican**\n* Kennedy: **male; Catholic; appointed by a Republican**\n* Thomas: **male; Catholic; appointed by a Republican**\n\n" ] }
[]
[ "http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/wheaton_college_injunction_the_supreme_court_just_sneakily_reversed_itself.html", "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-07/gullible-liberals-misread-birth-control-ruling" ]
[ [], [ "http://shop.hobbylobby.com/weekly-offers/", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYuOHcp8RZw" ] ]
3xfeje
why are "riders" allowed in the us bill-making process?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xfeje/eli5_why_are_riders_allowed_in_the_us_billmaking/
{ "a_id": [ "cy46t23" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Because it gives the lawmakers power. A straightforward bill would be easy to vote yes or no. Being able to attach bills lets lawmakers gain support for bills that wouldn't otherwise get any, or hinder bills because the don't want to vote for the newly attached part.\n\nLawmakers are the ones that could change this, but they're not going to vote to limit their own power." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
aroc3p
how does the brain change itself when you're doing meditation/cbt?
I've seen some articles suggesting that meditations restructured the brain. At the same time in David Burns' book "Feeling good" confirms a study that watched patients with CBT having their brain also restructure. How does it actually change itself and what kind of change is that?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aroc3p/eli5_how_does_the_brain_change_itself_when_youre/
{ "a_id": [ "egp6x0o", "egp795n", "egqovly" ], "score": [ 5, 52, 2 ], "text": [ "Imagine your brain is a meadow. You’re taking a walk and without even intending to, you follow the matted down path of where you walked before.\n\nWith CBT you learn to identify this path, where it leads, intentionally make a new and better path, and practice following it.", "It is pretty complicated but at its core you are basically changing the way that neural cascades occur. Imagine you hold the belief you are undesirable. When you get invited to a party this belief will color the invitation to seem threatening because there is an automatic assumption that 'I will get hurt emotionally' and so you don't go. In therapy you access the emotion and then change the script. Increasingly there is goodnresearch showing that CBT is less effective when there is not emotional activation because people's views change (e.g. they learn their thoughts are irrational) but they still feel scared. When there is emotional activation there is more room for neural plasticity and reconsolidation. Nonetheless some hard core cognitive therapists may disagree with me here and think that changing your thoughts is enough but same difference wrt your question.\n\nCBT also involves changing how you act. This also gives a chance for new lived experiences that disconfirm old scripts and help you build new ones. The new script might be \"parties are kind of fun\" so now when you are invited out the threat system is not activated and instead the reward system turns on. Again not 1:1 but generally that's how it works.\n\nAt another level by noticing your thoughts as thoughts you are using metacogntive awareness to defuse from the script and see it as a belief instead of a fact. This means that when the script is activated the prefrontal cortex can activate along with the threat system which gives room for more change. Also the human mind and body reacts to imagined stimuli in a congruous way to the actual stimuli. Think about your favorite food and imagine how it smells and tastes. You might start salivating or feeling a craving for it. Same happens when you actually smell and imagine the food. Similarly if you are having lots of self critical thoughts, thoughts about being hurt, thoughts about being rejected etc the threat system is being activated as though the bad thing was actually happening. This causes those pathways to become potentiated meaning they need a weaker stimuli to fire which increases the odds of feeling that way and on the cycle goes. When you notice your thoughts and check to see if they are accurate you can update your thinking with a balanced thought that is more true and you are now starting to potentiate a new pathway.\n\nMindfulness meditation works by increasing metacogntive awareness and so when you have upsetting or pleasurable experiences you can notice them instead of being consumed by them. The neuropbysiology is much the same as with the CBT bit described above.\n\nCompassionate meditation stimulates the safeness/affiliation/caretaking system which both potentiates it and also helps build more repitoirs for how you self relate. Again the neuropbysiology is similar to the above.\n\nA metaphor I like is this: imagine the mind as a field of tall wild grass. For your whole life you were walking down one trail so now it is a dirt road. That makes it the easiest and most automatic path. In therapy you start building a new path but it is hard. You trip in holes you didn't know about, your ankle gets cut by thistles, you get lost etc. By walking that new path over and over it becomes a dirt trail while the old path grows over. Neurophysiologically therapy helps you pilotentiate different systems and build new connections so that when the stimulus is there you automatically go down that new path OR it is easier to go down that new path using conscious effort.\n\nThis is all super simplified but the broad strokes are accurate IMO. \n\nSource: I research mechanisms of how therapy works", "The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe. Take any responses here with a grain of salt. Even the smartest brain scientist in the world knows next to nothing about how the brain works. Most of it is educated guesses and theories." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
3eqic4
how are we able to tell the features of a newly discovered planet without a clear visual?
Normally when I see a "New planet with 40 triangle moons orbiting it found!" kind of headline, there really isn't any actual photographs of said planet or some sort of a visual, just models or illustrations. I'm pretty sure there's a simple answer to this, but can someone explain to me how we can identify such features through the telescope/planet finding device? For example: J1407b. That planet apparently has rings around it, bigger than saturn. How were astronomers able to tell? Thanks!
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eqic4/eli5_how_are_we_able_to_tell_the_features_of_a/
{ "a_id": [ "cthk9h2", "cthlhcf" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "It varies by how they're detecting the planet, but a lot of these details come from looking for planets which are passing between us and their star. When this happens, the apparent brightness of the star is reduced. By looking at the profile of the change in brightness, it is possible to discern the presence of an atmosphere, or rings, as they will partially block the light of the star, instead of blocking it entirely.", "There's a variety of methods apart from pure imaging that astronomers use to determine what far away things look like. One is spectroscopy. Telescopes that have spectrographs can detect the emission and absorption lines in planets and stars. These tell us what elements the object is composed of, as well as it's redshift (how fast it's moving away from us) and its temperature. Measures of brightness over time also provides us with information. Essentially, astronomers collect as much data as possible about an object. Then, they use models and simulations to match physical conditions (mass, number of rings, moons, composition) to the data they obtained. When there is a good match, they can conclude with some degree of accuracy what the physical factors most likely to result in the information they observed are." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
ft1ipg
why rain is seasonal if evaporation takes place everyday?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ft1ipg/eli5_why_rain_is_seasonal_if_evaporation_takes/
{ "a_id": [ "fm4hrtz", "fm4iejx" ], "score": [ 3, 11 ], "text": [ "I believe this is due to the fact that under a warmer and more humid climate , the process of evaporation and cloud formation is happening faster, easier.\n\nIn colder and dryer climate the evaporation process is more difficult leaving most of the water in its liquid form on and under the ground and eventually in the oceans , preventing cloud formations.\n\nAs various parts of the globe cycle through these changes of climate according to the rotation of the earth , the evaporation conditions change from easy to difficult according to the same cycle, and is therefore seasonal.\n\n\nI wrote this completely out of my ass , so feel free to correct me if wrong :)", "Because it takes more than just evaporation to make it rain. Of course, that's the primary requirement, but there has to be triggers in the atmosphere to actually make it rain. In lots of places, those triggers only happen during certain parts of the year.\n\nTake Florida, for example. Summer there is the rainy season because the Gulf stream is very warm and there's lots of moisture in the air from the evaporation. Combine this with the daily collision of the sea breezes over the interior of the state starting up lots of thunderstorms (this is the trigger I spoke about), you get lots of rain. During the winter, the gulf stream is much cooler and there is less evaporation, so much less rain. The sea breezes are also weaker, so there's less forcing to start up storms." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
4bima8
why do some light bulbs need to warm up, while others don't?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bima8/eli5_why_do_some_light_bulbs_need_to_warm_up/
{ "a_id": [ "d19gx5s", "d19hg9u", "d19lajq" ], "score": [ 3, 43, 4 ], "text": [ "This generally has to do with the type of light bulb. Each type creates light using different methods. For instance, Incandescent light bulbs (the ones you picture when you think of a light bulb) use a thin wire called a filament that when electricity passes through gets really hot and bright. Florescent lights use a chemical reaction to create light and can take time to \"warm up\" to full brightness as the reaction takes time to occur throughout the light bulb.", "There are a few different types of artificial light in common use, and they all behave differently.\n\n- The good old-fashioned light bulbs are called \"incandescent.\" They work by making running electricity through a tiny little tungsten wire to heat it until it glows. These have to be warm to work, but they warm up completely in a fraction of a second, so they're pretty much instant-on from your perspective. Problem is, they're super inefficient and waste lots of electricity, although we've made some more refined varieties (called halogen) which run even hotter and use a bit less energy.\n\n- Fluorescent bulbs are a newer, more efficient technology. Both the long, straight tubes in office lights, and the little twisty spiral bulbs at home, use this technology. They pass electricity through a special gas at low pressure, and the electricity makes that gas glow. These turn on pretty fast, but don't reach full brightness immediately. They keep getting brighter gradually over the next few minutes as the gas inside warms up. These are much more efficient, but some people don't like the gradual warm-up. They also contain a small amount of mercury, so they're not totally environmentally friendly.\n\n- Vapor lamps are the worst offenders for slow warm up. It's so bad, they are only used for big lights which stay on for a long time like streetlights, warehouses, and school gyms. These work by using an electric arc to vaporize a little blob of sodium, which gets so hot it glows super bright. The lights take five minutes or more to turn on at all, and then they gradually get brighter over the next few minutes. That's just how long it takes to heat up the blob of sodium to melt and vaporize it. The reason we put up with this kind of lamp at all is that they're very efficient. The most efficient ones, for things light street lights, make a very ugly yellow light, so stores and schools and warehouses use a slightly less efficient type which runs at higher pressure and makes nicer white light.\n\n- A new kind of light is called LED. These are little semiconductor devices, like computer chips. They're the most efficient type of all, and can be made into all different shapes and sizes, with all different colors of light. They also last a very long time (years or decades). And they turn on *immediately*. So fast, in fact, that you can turn them fully on, then fully back off again, *thousands of times per second*. We sometimes use this to our advantage, to dim their output very efficiently by blinking them on and off faster than the eye can see. The only reason we don't use LEDs absolutely everywhere is that, as a newer technology, they're pretty expensive. In the coming years, these will likely start to replace all the other kinds above.", "There are different types of lights which work in different ways.\n\nIncandescent (filament) lamps work by heating a filament up to several thousand degrees. At mains voltage, the filament is very light and thin so warms up very quickly (faster than you can notice). However, some low voltage lights (for example in bathrooms) need thick filaments. Because there is more metal in these filaments they take longer to warm up, and can take a noticeable fraction of a second to heat up (and several seconds to cool down).\n\nLEDs switch on instantly (a couple of billionths of a second), afterelectricity flows into the LED crystal. However, LEDs can't run directly off the mains, so they need some sort of power conversion circuit to work (which can be built into the bulb). The power conversion circuit may take a fraction of a second to stabilise when the power is turned on.\n\nDischarge lamps, however, can take quite some time to warm up, because they work in a different way. These work by passing electricity through a tube filled with gas. If you have a long, fat tube like a big fluorescent lamp, then the light will work with very low gas pressure. Normal fluorescent strip lights use mercury as the gas. A tiny amount of mercury is placed into the tube and all the air removed, then the tube is sealed. A tiny amount of mercury evaporates into the tube, but that is all that is needed to allow the power to flow and produce plenty of light. Compact fluorescent lamps, used as incandescent lamp replacements, work on a similar principle, but the tube is much thinner and much shorter. The problem is that you can't push enough power through such a thin tube with low gas pressure. You need more gas pressure. Just adding more mercury won't help, and adding a different gas would change the color. However, if you make the tube compact and spiralled, you allow heat to build up in the tube. As the tube heats up, more mercury evaporates, so the gas pressure increases, allowing more power to flow. Eventually, the tube reaches full temperature and optimal gas pressure. \n\nThere are alternative gases available - you can use sodium instead of mercury. Sodium gives a yellow light at low pressure. In fact, sodium doesn't evaporate at all at room temperature, so a small amount of neon gas is added. The neon gas is used to start the lamp. As the lamp warms up, the sodium evaporates, allowing gas pressure to increase and getting the lamp up to full brightness. Because the sodium requires quite a high temperature to evaporate, it can take 15 minutes or so for the lamp to reach full brightness.\n\nSome variants of discharge lights work at extreme pressures, allowing very bright, compact lights (high intensity discharge). These use compact chambers with a special gas mixture. Common gases are sodium and salts of rare metals. In order to get these substances to completely evaporate, you have to get them super hot - like 1000 C (1900 F), so these lamps can take 5 minutes or so to reach full temperature. So, there is a starter gas, which lets the power flow and starts to warm up the main substance. For sodium lamps, often mercury is used as a starter which gives a faint blue glow, then as the sodium evaporates the light goes yellow from the sodium, and then as the pressure increases, the sodium light goes pinky-orange. If you replace the sodium with salts of rare metals (chemicals like dysprosium iodide, or indium bromide) then you can make a variety of colors, including various shades of white. These salts are known as \"halides\", so this type of lamp is called a \"metal halide\" lamp.\n\nMetal halide lamps are used on high-end cars. However, the warm-up is a problem. To get around this, the lamps are filled with xenon gas which is already at very high pressure. When the light is first powered up, the high pressure xenon instantly produces a nice bright white light. Then as the metal halides evaporate, the lamp reaches its full brightness and correct color. Xenon gas is rare and extremely expensive, so it's not used for normal metal halide lamps, only where instant start is required (like car headlights). " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
6p6pot
how come animals that are smaller and lighter than humans,like wolves,be stronger than us ?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6p6pot/eli5how_come_animals_that_are_smaller_and_lighter/
{ "a_id": [ "dkn1hjq", "dkn5r3k", "dkn7yx1", "dkn9e5q", "dknjrjs" ], "score": [ 13, 2, 3, 29, 2 ], "text": [ "Because prey animals have developed over millennia to hunt with weapons such as claws and teeth. They have evolved to fit their environment and prey perfectly, this means that whatever their prey, they will tend to be heavier, faster and more ferocious than the thing they eat. Humans on the other hand evolved to use their brain and body for hunting, relying on weapons and cunning rather than brawn and instinct. For instance it is thought that one technique ancient humans used to kill deer was to run them down until they were exhausted and then kill them. This is possible because due to being the only animal that runs on two legs, humans are the only creatures able to breath independently from their stride giving far greater endurance than anything else in the animal kingdom.", "Are they really? They have teeth and claws that gives them an advantage, but I think a grown man clad to protect themselves from their \"weapons\" will stand a good change to wrestle down a wolf or some feline that is lighter than us.\n\nA leopard is about our size, I wouldn't like to face that! but mostly because of their claws and fangs!", "My Basset Hound is low to the ground, has four thick legs and is very strong. Consider her a big dog with little legs and about 60 pounds. I weigh 225 and she can pull me around with ease because I am two legged and tall and am on the receiving end of a lease that when she suddenly changes direction without my knowing it I am caught off balance and ill prepared for the sudden change. Even when I have to pull her along, and she is stubborn enough to not want to follow, she can hold her ground and manage to slip out of her harness if I pull too hard. Basset hound front legs have an unusual structure in that the [paws turn outward](_URL_0_) and angle the legs inward. This I suspect improves their strength.", "Because you are afraid to be hurt.\n\nIf you are not afraid to be hurt, in a life and death situation you can kill the wolf. You just have to face it that you will be hurt severely.\n\nNext thing is experience. The wolf has killed many things before you have met it. You probably haven't. If you have spent your whole life hunting and killing animals, you will kill that wolf in a second.\n\nYou will jam your hand straight into its mouth to the elbow. So it can't bite. And then you break its tiny legs with your massive legs with stomping. \n\nOr just suffocate it.\n\nOr strangle it.\n\nAnd this is without using your most powerful weapons, your mind, and your opposable thumbs. Grab a stick and jam it into its mouth. Grab a larger stick and wreck its spine. Grab its legs and swing it by them into something. Or if you are powerful enough just grab it by its neck lift it and stomp their legs. And then comes the brain... Traps, guns, anything will kill the wolf without even doing any damage to you.", "For human strength competitions you will notice something odd: they almost all have multiple events. Why?\n\nBecause humans are generalists. You might be able to have a horse contest where the only thing that matters is running speed, but humans are the only creature on the planet that can run on sand, crawl through mud, climb a rope, swing off the rope into a pool, swim across the pool, hop on a bike that you ride for five miles, and then shoot a gun accurately. \n\nA great white shark is undefeatable in the ocean but it is as harmless as a wood chipper if you get it on land. A lion is the king of the jungle but ask it to hunt birds and it will starve to death. A monkey can do a lot of the same stuff we can, but give it a bike and it can't out ride a human." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=P%2fRqqJb%2b&id=7442DAD2B5A090F6F731520D39F4E28FDE5B8F35&thid=OIP.P_RqqJb-H3Pm9JrUjEjrKgEsES&q=basset+hound+legs&simid=608016952405002895&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0" ], [], [] ]
cz5nq6
does squinching your eyes really affect the focus of your eyesight? why?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cz5nq6/eli5_does_squinching_your_eyes_really_affect_the/
{ "a_id": [ "eyw6323", "eywlu8x" ], "score": [ 3, 7 ], "text": [ "It can! Squinting narrows the amount of light entering your eyes which may make something temporarily clearer, however it is usually straining on your visual system to try to look like that all the time. \nYou can do the same thing without squinting by looking through a very small hole or holes close to your eyes. Check out pinhole glasses. They work using the same principle of squinting without being as straining on your face", "it does. squinting your eye covers part of the eye's lens, especially the outer areas. Light from the outer areas make the image on the retina blurry (\"spherical aberrations\"). So blocking this light actually makes the image quality better, at the cost of being darker." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
251xl5
would knowing constellations be useless in space?
Since the stars only visually line up the way they do when viewed from Earth, wouldn't they appear different from another vantage point? Why should anyone even know what each one is?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/251xl5/eli5_would_knowing_constellations_be_useless_in/
{ "a_id": [ "chcu0yz", "chcu26w", "chcu3tx", "chd0zi0", "chd286r" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Stars would appear in different orientations only if you were very distant from Earth. No human has ever been nearly that far away, so constellations might be somewhat useful for getting your orientation.", "Tracking the way the stars' positions appear to \"change\" is actually one of the methods deep space craft use for navigation. In those cases yes, you do need to know the positions of the stars from Earth's vantage point, so that you can measure how different the positions are from your current location.", "They would appear different. On Earth, looking up, the stars and things that look relatively close to each other are actually very far apart. In order for the constellations to take on different shapes than what we see on Earth, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be light-years away.\n\nThe Big Dipper, for example, looks the same from the [International Space Station](_URL_0_)", "Yes. For example, If your where to look at the constellation Cassiopeia from Alpha Centauri it would appear to have an added star, that star would be Sol (our sun).", "My local observatory has an exhibit where you can look through a viewpiece and see a constellation (Orion, I think). Then when you look at the model externally you see the stars are all lightyears apart and are nothing to do with each other. The constellations are purely a function of Earth's viewpoint." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://www.space.com/images/i/000/031/583/original/nyberg-big-dipper-iss.jpg?1375977953" ], [], [] ]
75elsh
how does the brain turn on? or in other words, what tells a fetuses brain to start working?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75elsh/eli5_how_does_the_brain_turn_on_or_in_other_words/
{ "a_id": [ "do5mgro" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I studied brain science in university.\n\nThe brain is not a computer, it does not turn on or boot. It is made of living cells, and they start doing their thing from the moment they are created via cell division. (Just like all the other cells in the body.)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4ur58y
how does one successfully wake up early, without the use of an alarm clock or any similar device.
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ur58y/eli5_how_does_one_successfully_wake_up_early/
{ "a_id": [ "d5s47ca" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because your brain is pretty smart. When I started high school, I would wake about 1-10min before my alarm clock." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
5ybu3y
how does watching tv or playing video games "rot" your brain?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ybu3y/eli5_how_does_watching_tv_or_playing_video_games/
{ "a_id": [ "deormje", "deos18d", "deovlcc", "deovohm" ], "score": [ 3, 10, 2, 7 ], "text": [ "Generally speaking it's not entirely true. It's about content. If your watching mindless tv and videos and playing games off muscle memory and not taking real thought then your not exercising your brain. But if you watch interesting and thought provoking tv movies and videos it can stimulate and exercise the mind. Basically it's a use it or it's useless ", "To continue from what u/allfeelingsaside said, it's been proven that playing video games actually strengthens connections in the brain, especially if you're learning as you go and staying away from the increasingly-available guides and help on the Internet. Most games take a certain amount of strategy, and as a gamer since the late 80s I can say that the repetition in certain games helps me relax. Beyond that, studies have shown that games like Tetris can actually help to lessen symptoms of PTSD, which if you ask me as a prospective nursing student is the *opposite* of “rotting the brain.”\n\n[*Scientific American*] (_URL_0_) ", "There has to be a balance with socialism and flat out gaming. Locking yourself away for to long would have a bad effect simply as humans we need to interact face to face occasionally. ", "It doesn't. That's an old-school concept that stems from a generation where sitting in front of the tv was labeled inappropriate leisure activity, unlile going to a play or the theater. But fact of the matter is before tv, there was radio, and listening to too much radio was considered bad, when compared to listening to live music. Entertainment and liesure activity always has a bad connotation, because it is neither physically productive nor academic, and every generation considered themselves moderate consumers of liesure while the generation that proceeds them has been labeled with no self-control." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tetris-shown-to-lessen-ptsd-and-flashbacks/" ], [], [] ]
4jp1yt
why is it that when you take a picture of certain computer or television screens it comes out stripped only where the screen is on the picture?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jp1yt/eli5why_is_it_that_when_you_take_a_picture_of/
{ "a_id": [ "d38ephq", "d38eqbc" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Horizontal or vertical. It could be that the refresh rate of the screen is slow enough to be captured on a camera. Besides from that it could be the screen and/or the camera has too low of a resolution, and the pixels between the screen and camera don't line up correctly.", "The screen flickers at a very high rate, too high for your eyes to notice. \n\nThe camera takes pictures at a very high rate. When you show these pictures at the same rate as they were taken, it's too fast for your eyes to notice that they are just pictures.\n\nBut the rate of the screen flicker and the rate at which the camera takes pictures is not the same and doesn't sync up. Every so often the camera will take a picture during a moment when the screen happens to be in the middle of changing. \n\nAgain because they timing isn't the same between the camera and the screen, the point on the screen where this coincidence happens is constantly shifting which results in the rolling stripes you're talking about. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
5t06e8
when writing an amount of money, such as '£50' or '50p', why does the '£' come before the amount of money but the 'p' comes after?
I guess the same logic applies to American currency with '$50' and '50c' (I don't have the symbol for cent on my laptop). I'm just wondering why money values have the larger symbols ahead of their money, but the lesser values always come after?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t06e8/eli5_when_writing_an_amount_of_money_such_as_50/
{ "a_id": [ "ddj51sn", "ddjcdnc", "ddjh600", "ddjw94a" ], "score": [ 133, 15, 21, 34 ], "text": [ "It's a quick glance tactic to avoid mistakes. If there is not a 0 and a decimal written before the number, one might actually misread ¢50 as $50 or vice versa, so the ¢ was after the amount. This was more prevalent in days of handwritten books as the two symbols were really only one curved stroke apart from each other. However, the presence of the 0 and decimal point can work just fine in electronic spreadsheet modernization. $0.50 is much more largely considered acceptable today as it's usually a computer doing the calculations.", "Follow up question...\n\nWhy do interwebs people put the $ after?!?\n\nIt's $50, not 50$.", "I've read before that it's a historical holdover from when everything was handwritten. It would have been extremely easy to add a digit, at the least a 1 in front of a value and defraud someone. Putting the $ sign at the beginning eliminates this because at worst someone could tack .99 onto the end of a dollar value. Same reason you put the little squiggly line in the area behind the value you write on a check.\n\nThis could all be made up (not the squiggly line part, that's legit) but it seems more palusible to me personally than anything else in this thread.", "If you put the dollar (or pounds sterling, or whatever) in front, it keeps some one from adding a number infront of that. If you put the cent (or pence) after, it becomes obvious when it goes from 50p to 150p. Easy red flag, and far less expensive to the person whos check is being forged than 50$ turning into 150$. So we pu it in front $50." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
5onw8s
why do childhood illnesses are usually more dangerous when infected in adolthood.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5onw8s/eli5_why_do_childhood_illnesses_are_usually_more/
{ "a_id": [ "dckrvnw", "dcksf87", "dcksgox" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Because your body is small and developing, and most of your body antivirus are still active, when people grow cells die and within those cells there are antiviruses too.\nNow let's get back at your body being small, illnesses like chickenpox can be treated by attacking one place that when you grow (and you are going to grow) builds up to be immune to it and teaches other cells to be immune, so when they grow and reproduce more cells can defend against not only that virus but similar enough ones. When you reach adulthood you can't grow anymore so you will have to deal with the active antiviruses you have to deal with your virus, which as expected is going to do noticeably worse.", "Most illnesses don't follow this pattern. Most illnesses are more dangerous when you're very young or very old, as your immune system isn't as strong and able to fight off the illness.\n\nHowever, there are a few well-known diseases where this pattern doesn't occur. Measles, for instance, is very dangerous for infants and adults but not for children and young adolescents. I assume this is what you're asking about. \n\nIt's a bit of a medical mystery but [it's thought to be due to the different kind of immunity that we have as children compared to as adults](_URL_0_). The immune system starts to decline in adulthood, so people between 40 and 65 would have less resilience to the disease than children (especially if they have other risk factors like cancer, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy or lung damage from smoking). It's not just the immune system, adults may have less flexible lungs and have a harder time clearing their lungs than children, so are more likely to get pneumonia when they get sick.\n\nThere are also some diseases, like certain strains of flu, which seem to kill adults more easily because the stronger immune system of adults can become so strong (a [cytokine storm](_URL_1_)) it damages the body.", "The immune system is divided into two main branches:\n\n* Innate immune system - always active and recognizes things that are obviously pathogenic\n\n* Adaptive immune system - develops a long lasting memory following exposure to an antigen (part of a pathogen), and this memory can provide lifetime protection\n\nThe adaptive immune system is most important when it comes to childhood disease as the innate immune system is only present initially.\n\nNewborn babies lack the ability to mount an adaptive immune response and will be vulnerable to disease but as a child ages, the adaptive immune system will reach a peak where it is most active around puberty. Following puberty, there is a slow decline in the number of available adaptive immune cells. \n\nWe call adaptive immune cells that have never encountered an antigen they can recognize \"naive\". These can be B-cells that release antibodies, or T-cells which can directly kill pathogens. Following activation that occurs when these naive cells encounter an antigen that they can recognize, they will become active \"effector\" cells and long lived \"memory\" cells that will stay around long after the infection to create lasting immunity. The memory cells will recognize and respond much faster during subsequent infections, usually before you develop any symptoms. This is why vaccines work.\n\nSource: I do immunology research. Feel free to ask questions if that wasn't clear.\n\nTL,DR: There are more immune cells ready to fight off infections during childhood than in adulthood, with the exception of memory cells that provide lasting immunity.\n\nEdit: formatting" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm" ], [] ]
1tv32l
why do dentists need to drill a bigger hole when they fill a cavity?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tv32l/eli5_why_do_dentists_need_to_drill_a_bigger_hole/
{ "a_id": [ "cebq6t2", "cebqe1u" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Cavities aren't just an empty hole. They are filled with decayed tooth material. Dentists have to remove this first before plugging it up.", "To access your wallet." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2odpqd
why is it that companies like gamestop haven't gone the way of blockbuster and moviegallery even with similar digital distribution for both materials?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odpqd/eli5why_is_it_that_companies_like_gamestop_havent/
{ "a_id": [ "cmm551f" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "You're comparing apples and oranges. Gamestop sells video games for consoles. Blockbuster, Netflix, and MovieGallery rent movies (and Netflix beat out the others because of digital distribution, like you said), and Steam sells video games for computers. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4ajoh0
why are some countries like the us hesitant to force supermarkets to give their unsold food to the needy?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ajoh0/eli5_why_are_some_countries_like_the_us_hesitant/
{ "a_id": [ "d10wx8v", "d10x58a" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "I would recommend watching John Oliver's piece on [food waste](_URL_0_). It does a very good job of explaining the issues with food donations.", "Traditionally, US business policies try to favor freedom over government control. If the supermarket company paid for the food, it's their private property, and if they wish to throw it in the garbage, that's a private decision. Once the government starts telling businesses what they may do with their private property, tough legal issues about freedom are raised -- and it sets a scary precedent regarding what *else* they may tell businesses to do." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY" ], [] ]
9ezt6n
why viruses being so fragile yet so hard to eliminate. for example, herpes are caused by well studied and understood viruses but the disease is incurable.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ezt6n/eli5_why_viruses_being_so_fragile_yet_so_hard_to/
{ "a_id": [ "e5spmhx", "e5sq1el", "e5ssljt", "e5t3wcw", "e5tcunx" ], "score": [ 37, 5, 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "They're not \"alive\" so they're almost impossible to \"kill\". They're made of the same parts your own cells are so any chemical that would destroy them physically would also destroy you. You can't poison them because they don't eat.\n\nSo you're left with trying to block their mechanics (without blocking every cell function) or trying to teach your immune system how to find them.\n\nViruses with particularly tricky mechanisms and hiding places are hard to stop permanently. It only takes one to start replicating again, and it can hide anywhere in your body for any length of time.", "The \"fragility\" of the virus is not necessarily relevant. For instance, you can easily eliminate virtually any virus with incineration. The problem is that since viruses we want to destroy are usually inside things we don't want to destroy, we must find techniques that can eliminate a (potentially) rapidly multiplying infestation without causing excessive damage to the host. ", "Viruses adapt quickly, and make use of the host's cells to replicate, with viral DNA or RNA entering host cells and not leaving until a new virion is formed. The infected cells are often indistinguishable from the other host cells.\n\nIn the case of retroviruses, like HIV, they transcribe viral RNA into DNA, and inject that into the host's DNA, making a cure virtually impossible without rewriting the genetic code of the host, not just destroying all of the currently-existing virions.", "In the case of herpes, I would guess the lack of body count is directly proportional to the lack of urgency on curing it. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think herpes kills people and so maybe there’s no money in the research. Also yes to the scientific explanations about viruses in general.", "Just adding.\n\nViruses are really small. Whenever they invade, they \"reproduce\" many more. That means each \"victim\" cell churns out oodles. We will call that number X. \n\nAnimals (like humans) have oodles of cells. Only certain cells will ever become \"victims\" because the virus' first step is to have a \"hand shake\" between proteins. Most antiviral stuff tries to stop that hand shake. After that handshake, it's pretty muc h all downhill for the victim cell. \n\nAs has been said, viruses mutate quickly. That's why you get vaccinated for the flu every year. (Get vaccinated!)\n\nOf those cells that are potential victims, only so many are successfully invaded with this handshake. Let's call that number Y.\n\nSo, simply put, your number of virus particles produced in your body are X*Y. That number is huge. X must be above a threshold. I believe Ebola is something like 10. That's super low. If X is above the \"invasion threshold\", then you \"get\" whatever disease. When Y crosses the \"symptom threshold\" you get sick. \n\nThere are just too many virus particles to track down and \"kill\". We use systems to prevent the handshake, and, sometimes, we can screw up the virus kinda like it screws up cells. We eradicated smallpox in the 1970s after about a century of active vaccination. Even then, the last victim just kinda died. (Somalia, I think)\n\nThat being said, herpes is mostly annoying. There are bigger fish to fry." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
2v8yhi
masturbating too much affects actual sex?
Guess this is kind of obvious but it's hard to put to words?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v8yhi/eli5_masturbating_too_much_affects_actual_sex/
{ "a_id": [ "cofi558", "cofk1vw", "cofkdoi", "cofp0eo" ], "score": [ 3, 4, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "You can desensitize yourself, both physically and mentally. You learn control, so you can go longer. Watching pornography changes your perception of sex, which may increase or decrease how much you're stimulated by the real thing.", "Generally for guys, their hand puts a lot more pressure on you than a woman's mouth or vagina typically can, and you get used to it. It makes it difficult to properly feel the vagina. In short: It desensitizes you. ", "From the guy's perspective, while masturbating, many guys get a 'death-grip' kind of thing going on, where they use a very tight grip. Along with this, they can often go to fast, as compared to actual sex, while masturbating. Like many others have been saying, these will desensitize you to actual sex. ", "If you are constantly rubbing one out every time you have slightest urge, you are less likely to be in the mood when the real thing is available. Add in death grip and unrealistic expectations from crazy porn, and you end up in a place where you'd rather fuck your computer than your girlfriend. Eventualiy, your girlfriend figures out she is the third wheel and gets the fuck out." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
2qhn84
what's the difference between shades, tints, and colors?
And under which category does grey fall? I hear so many different opinions from everyone I just don't know which one is right now :/
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qhn84/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_shades_tints/
{ "a_id": [ "cn66e32", "cn6ijd2" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "Shades are colors with black added.\nTints are colors with white added.\nTones are colors with grey added.", "Exactly what /u/dammitkarissa said.\n\nAlso, a colour can technically be the same tone as another colour, but a different tint.\n\nLike when you have one colour that's the complete opposite of another in the spectrum, although when you convert it to black & white they appear the same shade of grey" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2orlk3
how do space probes fly such far distances without damage or fuel?
I read voyager 1 is almost out of the solar system! How is this even planned?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2orlk3/eli5_how_do_space_probes_fly_such_far_distances/
{ "a_id": [ "cmptkrq", "cmptmpi", "cmptnuh", "cmputni" ], "score": [ 3, 7, 37, 4 ], "text": [ "Most of the flight is coasting after a rocket burn. As to the planning, Isaac Newton had that figured a long time ago. Try over at /r/space for a more detailed answer.", "There's \"no\"friction in space and the probes are so small (compared to space) there's little chance of them colliding with anything. ", "Distance: An object in motion stays in motion. There's negligible resistance in space, so once they've undergone the initial acceleration, they'll just keep going in that direction.\n\nDamage: space is empty. Very empty. So empty that we don't even have to account for the asteroid belt when we fly right through it because it's unlikely they'd we'd get close enough to see any asteroids, much less hit one. There is wear-and-tear from dust and radiation, but probes are built to withstand that.", " > How do space probes fly such far distances without damage or fuel?\n\nBoth are false premises.\n\nFirst, damage: all objects in space are constantly bombarded by harsh radiation, which erodes materials and damages electronics. Deep-space probes are hardened against such damage, but they can only survive so long before they are damaged beyond use. The longer a probe is in space, the more likely it is to get clobbered by small bits of dust and whatnot, which at high orbital speeds, can pack a staggering amount of kinetic energy. But space is BIG, and the chances of getting hit by something significant are slim.\n\nSecond, fuel: in the absence of any external force, such as gravity or friction, an object in motion will stay in motion. Once a probe has been set on a trajectory by a rocket, it will stay on that course until something else acts on it strongly enough.\n\nHowever, a spacecraft without fuel (or power) is just an inert lump flying through space. Deep-space probes use radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), a nuclear-based device that can generate modest amounts of electricity for a few decades. If the probe's thrusters still have fuel, it can make minor course corrections. The Voyagers still have working RTGs and some maneuvering fuel left.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
1w0p8n
do humans have lower surviving propability than animals while giving birth?
If so, why?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w0p8n/eli5_do_humans_have_lower_surviving_propability/
{ "a_id": [ "cexl7y8" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Yes, they do. When we evolved to walk upright, that caused the birth canal to narrow because narrower hips facilitated bipedal walking. Combine that with the increase in brain size, and that results in unusually high frequency of complications compared to other mammals." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
25tgmn
why you can make syrup from the sap of some plants like maple trees and corn, but not all plants like apple trees and palm trees
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25tgmn/eli5_why_you_can_make_syrup_from_the_sap_of_some/
{ "a_id": [ "chkkbz3" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Actually, they do make palm syrup, and some other trees are used in syrup production, like birch. Corn syrup, by the way, isn't made from sap, it's made from corn starch.\n\nTo answer your question, however, the basic answer is that not every plant species concentrates sugar in it's sap to the same degree as the sugar maple does. While you can make something out of the sap from nearly any tree by boiling and reducing the sap, you're not going to get something that's very sweet, or fit to eat. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4km3cy
hubble's law (and how he figured out the universe was expanding)
I've read articles on this, but to an astronomy layman, it's like reading greek. ELI5 how this amazing mind using a 1930's telescope was able to determine this, please.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4km3cy/eli5_hubbles_law_and_how_he_figured_out_the/
{ "a_id": [ "d3g2xhm", "d3g3u9h" ], "score": [ 16, 3 ], "text": [ "You know how an ambulance sounds higher pitched when it's moving towards you, and lower pitched when it's moving away from you? Light does this too, but it becomes bluer when moving towards you and redder when moving away. Hubble discovered that pretty much every galaxy in the sky was redshifted - moving away from us - and not only that, but the farther away they were, the more redshifted they were, and *not only that*, but the distance from us and the velocity away from us are directly proportional (that's Hubble's Law). It turns out that if you imagine you were observing from a distant galaxy, Hubble's Law would still hold - no matter where you are, it looks the same. Therefore, the universe is said to be expanding.", "Certain astronomical phenomena have the same brightness and the same color (frequency of light). Hubble used Cepheid variables-- a kind of star that pulses in brightness with a specific period. Because the standard candles all have the same intrinsic magnitude (how much light they're putting out), you can know how far away they are based on their apparent magnitude (how bright they appear). \n\nHubble looked at a bunch of these standard candles in \"spiral nebulae\" and found that these stars were in fact way too far away to be in our galaxy-- they must be in other galaxies. This in itself was an astounding revelation, as Hubble had proven for the first time that there were other galaxies. \n\nIt was known even in those days that a light source moving toward the observer would have a higher apparent frequency. Think of it like waves in the ocean. If you're moving into the waves, the time between waves is shorter because your motion makes the wave get to you sooner. The time between waves is shorter (the period is shorter) so the number of waves per minute is higher (the frequency is higher). This is the Doppler effect in a nutshell. Higher-frequency light is blue, and lower-frequency light is red, so a light source moving away the observer will be redshifted. \n\nHubble looked at the standard candles and found that, for the 25 galaxies closest to Earth, only four were blueshifted and the rest were redshifted. If everything is flying around the universe randomly, you'd expect around half to be redshifted and half to be blueshifted. The odds of so many being redshifted by chance are extremely slim. \n\nThis got Hubble wondering. Why is everything moving away from us? Was it something we said? Do we have some sort of cosmological body odor? Hubble did some more observations and noted that there was a strong correlation between redshift and distance. That is, the further away something was, the faster it seemed to be moving away. This led to the logical conclusion that *everything* must be moving away from *everything* else. This, combined with some theories from theoretical physicists, gave us the big bang theory. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2cdwz0
why i unintentionally cry every time i am in an argument
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cdwz0/eli5_why_i_unintentionally_cry_every_time_i_am_in/
{ "a_id": [ "cjehz3m", "cjejhmj", "cjejm93", "cjek9jo", "cjekvh9", "cjesda6" ], "score": [ 10, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Happens to me too, I'm 21 now and can control it better now, however when i fight with my girlfriend i can't, she felt guilty at first, but now she always thinks i'm trying to control her.\n\npd: doesn't help when you are a fountain of sperm.", "[WebMD says that crying helps flush out stress hormones.](_URL_0_)\n\nso it's probably because arguments tend to be stressful and your body doesn't have any other outlet. Better than lashing out violently or vomiting, I'd say.", "I have no idea why it happens, but it always does and its extremely frustrating. I think it might be in part because I really hate confrontation, and I'm often overwhelmed by really strong emotions, and crying seems to be my reaction to it. Also introvert, INFJ specifically, but I don't know if that has anything to do with why it happens. Interested to see if anyone has a good answer or solution!\n", "I used to do this when I was frustrated. I think it's generally an age or maturity thing. I suspect that as you age you will stop doing this. ", "One possible explanation: it appears to you that the other person is not acknowledging your ability to reason well. This makes you think that the other person is not respecting you. This makes you question whether you are worthy of respect. This makes you angry or sad or worried and that makes you want to cry. ", "You're not a true man until you're not afraid of crying." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/why-we-cry-the-truth-about-tearing-up?page=2" ], [], [], [], [] ]
2wmb0n
genetically modified food - what does it mean and should i be concerned?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wmb0n/eli5_genetically_modified_food_what_does_it_mean/
{ "a_id": [ "cos6aea", "cos6eye", "cos7347" ], "score": [ 6, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "There is no scientific evidence that GMO foods pose any danger to us when consumed. All foods are genetically modified from their 'original' forms, having been selected through human-intervened natural selection and cross breeding (hybridization) to make heartier food crops that grow in a variety of climates with larger yields.\n\nGMO takes this out of the field and into the lab where genetics are analyzed and selectively inserted into plants for a hyper accelerated or specialized growth cycle, pest resistance, or greater nutritional value. They can do this by introducing external DNA, like animal sourced DNA that codes for proteins the plants couldn't otherwise have made on their own, and it's this introduction that many people have issue with, citing unknown environmental variables, like interaction with other plants and animals in the area to create new superpests or weeds resilient to herbicides; and the fact that the resulting offspring are often sterile, requiring farmers to continually return to seed providers for the next year's planting vs. storing seed crop year to year. Some GMOs may, in connection with pesticides, be killing off beneficial insects like bees, though it may be possible through better research and creation, to create plants that are bee-friendly without being susceptible to other pests.\n\nWhile it may sound like \"the answer to solving any problems with GMO foods is more GMO creation\", it's actually more like \"the fastest answer to monoculture farming that has created large pest problems and reduced food crops is GMO foods\".\n\nBut as for the direct effect on you, the end consumer, they pose no health risk. It's the misunderstanding of what is done scientifically, and the tendency of vocal advocates who promote naturalism as the ideal lifestyle, that make GMO foods sound far worse than they really are.", "No, there is no reason to be concerned. Practically all the food you eat has been genetically modified in one way or another, everything from [cows](_URL_1_) to [corn](_URL_0_) are completely different from their wild ancestors. The only difference between these everyday foods and the 'GM' counterparts is that we waited for evolution to run its course and selectively bred for the traits we were looking for. With modern GM foods we don't have to wait for mutations, we don't have to spend thousands of years honing the product, we use our scientific knowledge and insert or remove genes to achieve the changes we are looking for.", "If you're a hipster, yeah be concerned and be sure to let everyone know about it. Throw on a fedora while you're at it just for good measure. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://distantmirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/corn-evolution-truth-saves-com.jpg", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs" ], [] ]
1pk10q
why would another country keep lending the united states money if the federal government just keeps raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more money? why don't they realize that we probably won't pay it back?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pk10q/eli5_why_would_another_country_keep_lending_the/
{ "a_id": [ "cd3310p", "cd33565", "cd33ckc", "cd33d5r", "cd33g3y", "cd354ui", "cd354w3", "cd360f3" ], "score": [ 11, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ " > Why don't they realize that we probably won't pay it back? [T]\n\nIn our entire history we've never failed to pay a loan (government bond) back when it was due.\n\nWe are also continually paying back money loaned to us 10-20 years ago. the money loaned to us today will be paid back in 10-20 years, as agreed. In the same way money loaned to us 10-20 years ago is being paid back this year, as agreed.", "I heard something that the US is the only country in the world that has this issue with a debt ceiling and its pretty much only a US thing. ", "The national debt isn't what the US owes other countries, as most people believe. The national debt is what the government owes its people. When you buy government bonds, you are adding to future debt because the government gets that money now but has to pay it back later with interest. Every generation is basically just unloading their financial problems on future generations (think social security apprehension).", "A country being in debt isn't much different than a person being in debt. \n\nAs in, it's not uncommon for an average person to be in the red a years salary+ on their home and/or school loans. The US has had surpluses in the past, and will have them in the future. The US doesn't default on its debts, so what's the risk in loaning?\n\nThe US's debt relative to its income (its GDP) is in line with the rest of the Western World. Canada / Japan / lots of Europe owe more, proportionately, than the US. _URL_0_.", "Here's what I'm reading:\n\n > Why do people buy US bonds if it is true that they probably won't get paid back?\n\nThe answer is: it is not true. That is, it is true that they will get paid back.\n\nI feel like I'm answering your question but not really answering what you mean by it? If so, feel free to clarify/expand.", "The United States government will always have the mechanism to meet its financial obligations because it has both the ability to issue debt and increase the money supply to meet that debt.\n\nThe government can \"print money\"^1 to pay off debt it issues in its own currency, so theoretically it can always meet the face value of a bond, even if this means reducing how much each dollar is worth (i.e., each dollar's purchasing power is less).\n\nThe **Federal Reserve (\"Fed\")** has the primary task of controlling the money supply. It does this in three ways:\n\n* **Changing the reserve requirements of commercial banks**. Your neighborhood bank never actually has on hand all the cash that their customers have deposited. The bank actually only holds a fraction as cash and invests/lends the rest out. If the bank did not do this, the money would literally lose value sitting around due to inflation. This fraction is called the reserve requirement. Increase the reserve requirement, and less cash goes into circulation. Decrease the reserve requirement, and more cash goes into circulation.\n\n* **Changing the discount rate**, which is how much interest the Federal Reserve charges commercial banks to borrow money in the short term. This affects the rate consumers can borrow at and thus the amount of money that's spent on loans.\n\n* **Open-market operations**, which is when the Fed buys and sells Treasury instruments (i.e., bonds) on the open market.\n\nThe **Bureau of the Public Debt** (part of the Treasury) borrows the money needed to run the government (up to the limit set by Congress) by issuing or auctioning Treasury securities like bonds and bills, which accrue interest to the holder that is paid off later.\n\nThe national debt is not the same as personal debt, because the vast majority of it is actually [held by either the American public or different parts of the government](_URL_0_). This is basically so that those departments of the government have enough liquidity to pay their workers and effectively conduct their day-to-day operations. Even though money at the national economy level behaves much differently than at the personal level, the best analogy I can think of is that it's vaguely like writing a check to your SO from your joint bank account.\n\nUntil 1968 (and then 1971), the value of a dollar was pegged to a discrete unit of gold. But because there's a finite amount of gold in the earth, this also hampered expansion of the US economy because the money supply couldn't be *legitimately* increased to keep up with economic expansion. To really oversimplify, the number of dollars demanded was greater than the number of dollars that could be supplied into circulation.\n\nToday we are on a credit system, where the value of a dollar is tied to the \"full faith and credit\" of the US government's ability to pay it back. This is because *anything* is only worth something if *the overwhelming majority of people* believes it to have value. (Think Beanie Babies circa the late nineties and early 2000s). And because the US can 1) always meet the face value obligation of any given debt instrument, and 2) has the world's largest and one of the strongest economies, people do actually have faith that the US dollar has credibility.\n\nThe national debt is so high in part because the annual governmental budget currently operates at a deficit (i.e., tax receipts and revenues from investments and sales aren't high enough to cover the amount of money that Congress instructs the government to spend). So any deficit is borrowed from the public. \n\nThis \"deficit spending\" isn't necessarily bad, especially when the government makes up a big chunk of GDP (remember that GDP = Consumer spending + Government spending + Biz Investment + Net Exports). If you ran a business and wanted to expand, you'd probably take out a loan if it meant long-term gain over the cost of the interest rate, rather than wait to save up enough cash to do it).\n\nWhen you're talking about national debt for any country, the true issue is really the debt-to-GDP ratio. If economic expansion and production isn't greater than the amount of debt issued, then you start to have problems with your currency losing value and credibility as a reserve currency. And as other posters have mentioned, the US debt-to-GDP ratio isn't really *that* high.\n\n**TL;DR: The \"debt ceiling\" is something politicians use to exploit people in their constituency who don't really have a solid understanding of US civics or national economics.**\n\n---\n1: This is a metaphor. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the US Mint actually do the actual physical printing of bills and minting of coins", "For comparison let's say the US is a person• that makes $100,000 a year. The US has about $75,000 in debt. And unfortunately is regularly borrowing more. Right now that seems like a bad deal. But the US has gotten really good deals on the loans. So his payments are really low. In fact because his rates are so low, they are less than inflation. So all he has to do is make the minimum payments and in 100 years that debt will shrink to about the equivalent of $750.\n\nAnd he is likely to see his income climb. In fact he has generally gotten raises significantly faster than inflation. So 50 years ago when he only made $10,000 that kind of debt would have been outrageous. But now it is well within his means to carry that kind of debt load.\n\nBut there is a problem. US knows he's going to have some extra expenses in a few years. A lot of his kids are going to have some planned medical bills, and things like college are on the horizon. So it sure would be nice if he could pay a bit of it off early and if he could get his budget in order. But comparatively speaking he is doing ok. In fact he's right about where his buddy Germany is. And he's doing a lot better than Japan, who has about twice as big of a debt to earnings ratio. And he is doing a lot better than Greece who is cutting deals with bill collectors.\n\n•For a lot of reasons comparing countries to people isn't ideal. But I'm using I anyway.", "Because the US has consistently paid its bills, has a large, growing economy (even if growth isn't great right now) and it is not borrowing at the rate of Japan, whose national debt is around 200% of GDP.\n\nBut the real reason? The US will pay it back. Let's assume a doomsday scenario where the US has a serious cash shortfall and is unable to borrow more money to pay off its debts. Unlike individuals, the US *can always* find ways to produce more cash. We call this \"raising taxes.\" And that's not the only failsafe. The US government has any number of desperation measures it can employ to increase cash flow:\n\n* There are several government-owned corporations, such as the Postal Service or the Tennessee Valley Authority (which provides electricity to a large portion of the Southeastern US), which it could sell to private corporations or in an IPO-style auction to raise cash.\n\n* The US government owns wide swaths of land that can be sold.\n\n* Building on that, the government could sell national parks, such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or Great Smokey Mountains, to the highest bidder. Any one of these larger parks could potentially sell for several billion dollars.\n\n* In a very extreme measure, the federal government could potentially sell or give territory to a foreign debtor in case of default. If China thought California was worth $1 trillion, the US and China could call it even Steven by handing California over. Obviously there would be a lot of challenges (both politically and constitutionally), but in theory this could be done.\n\n* There are other assets the US could sell for smaller amounts of cash, such as technology (particularly from DoD and NASA), military equipment, and pretty much everything else the US owns.\n\nSo, while constantly running a deficit isn't necessarily a fiscally responsible strategy, there are lots of measures the government could take to avoid a default or settle debts." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map.PNG" ], [], [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Holders_of_the_National_Debt_of_the_United_States.gif" ], [], [] ]
1wcwpq
why do bacteria that kill people exist? how does it make sense to kill the host?
I have read that there are many bacteria that live in and on our bodies that help us carry our daily functions. Because we prosper, they prosper, symbiosis. This I understand. But why do some bacteria exist that multiply until their host dies? Won't this just kill the large colony it just built? Why doesn't every bacterial species just decide to live with us in peace?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wcwpq/eli5_why_do_bacteria_that_kill_people_exist_how/
{ "a_id": [ "cf0t0cf", "cf0t0m2", "cf0z4sj", "cf0zou3" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "In some cases, they don't overly care about us - we just happen to be an environment where they can grow, and that growth kills us in the process. Few bacteria actively try to kill their host; usually death comes indirectly from things like dehydration. But since that dehydration comes from things like vomiting or diarrhea, which can spread the bacteria around, it can propagate even if the host dies.\n\nIn some cases, they don't have a choice about \"living in peace\" - our immune system is going to try to kill them regardless, so they don't *want* us to be healthy.\n\nThat being said, your point is correct: highly deadly diseases tend to evolve to be *less* deadly over time, as a rule.", "Bacterial species do not \"decide\" to live either peacefully or hostile. They evolve into available niches through the non-random selection of random mutations. This is one of the basic principles of evolution by natural selection.\n\nIf one evolved to eat dirt from under our toe nails, good for it, symbiosis. However, if it *randomly* evolved to eat our lungs, then it will survive just as long as it does, independent of the morality of it's host.", "The Fever by Sonia Shah is actually a good read [about malaria] that does a really excellent job of explaining, in layman's terms, how viruses and bacteria work with their hosts. ", "It largely depends on the natural host of the bacteria in question. The bacterial flora that exist in/on our bodies have evolved over the long term to live in a symbiotic relationship with us, where both the bacteria and the human host benefit.\n\nMany bacteria have a natural host or reservoir in the environment where they can replicate without causing disease but are still shed into the environment to propagate into new hosts. Some examples are influenza in birds and hantavirus in rodents (Those are viral examples, but same idea). They cause no disease in the hosts that they have evolved in, but when spread to a new non-natural human host (in what's called a zoonotic infection) it can cause severe disease. In many cases the pathogen does not survive in us (cleared by our immune system) or we do not survive (it kills us) before an adaptation can occur. \n\nFinally, in many cases the bacteria or virus itself is not doing anything damaging to our bodies, but our body's response to clearing the infection can cause more harm than good (dehydration by vomiting or diarrhea, damage of healthy tissues by chemicals released by the immune system, high fevers caused brain damage etc.) if we do not intervene." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
as20im
how is single ply toilet paper better on plumbing over double or triple ply if you just use twice as much?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/as20im/eli5_how_is_single_ply_toilet_paper_better_on/
{ "a_id": [ "egr6h7t", "egr793m", "egr83ep", "egradg4" ], "score": [ 2, 8, 5, 5 ], "text": [ "I often wonder why one ply even exists because we do end up using twice as much. \n\nOne ply is likely more easily dissolved or torn up during the flushing process.\n\n_URL_0_", "I'd put my money on there being more surfaces exposed with single ply. Also you may not exactly be using 2:1 or 3:1 ratios of toilet paper, you may be using 1.5x instead of 2x the length of paper", "Toilet paper is supposed to dissolve after a few seconds exposure to water. In order to make tp more sturdy and softer the dissolvablity is compromised, thus making a multi-ply piece of paper take longer to dissolve than even a larger amount of single ply.", "You don't use less toilet paper when it's thicker. That's a marketing gimmick. Thicker paper does not have more surface area. It just feels nicer.\n\nIt also takes longer to fully dissolve in water" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.andersonplumbingheatingandair.com/blog/2014/march/how-to-avoid-emergency-plumbing-calls-toilet-pap/" ], [], [], [] ]
auh42n
why movies are shot in a different aspect ratio with bars at the top and bottom
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/auh42n/eli5_why_movies_are_shot_in_a_different_aspect/
{ "a_id": [ "eh88qg4", "eh88qt1", "eh89c5q" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Reason 1: Our eyes are side by side so we see more horizontally than vertically. The art is trying to make their visual story believable to our senses. \n\nReason 2: The artist (director) chose to because they are an artist and liked how it looked.", "Tradition. \n\nMost movie screens are made to accommodate that aspect ratio. Modern TV's are closer, but still not quite the same iirc.\n\nTV started with a different aspect ratio due to limitations in technology and stuck to that ratio for a long time. Shows now do have a wider aspect ratio than in the past, but not the same one traditional movies use iirc.", "I’ve seen comments like “it’s directors choice of style” but that’s actually not quite the WHOLE reason\n\nThere are lenses called [Anamorphic Lenses](_URL_2_) that actually do shoot in a 16:9 aspect ratio (which is standard for videos on YouTube and most videos in general). However an anamorphic lens actually [stretches the image](_URL_0_) vertically and makes the image look taller.\n\nNow why would someone use an anamorphic lens of it ruins the footage? The reason actually IS stylistic purposes.\n\nWhen you normalize the stretched anamorphic footage from a 16:9 ratio by making it a 2.39:1 aspect ratio or “two-four-zero” (which is the same thing as 21:9 aspect ratio), the lens flares look very long horizontally as seen in movies like Blade Runner and shows like [Stranger Things](_URL_1_) \n\nNowadays the aspect ratio has been seen as the cinematic quality instead of the actual anamorphic look itself, so you’ll see videos on YouTube where they will use the 21:9 (or 2.39:1) to simulate the oh so beautiful anamorphic look.\n\nIn fact some movies don’t even use anamorphic lenses because they’re not as sharp and are fairly expensive, but they still use the 21:9 aspect ratio.\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://goo.gl/images/HBAJ5M", "https://goo.gl/images/VTRfHF", "https://goo.gl/images/GfXjTf" ] ]
1j0loj
when someone uses these brackets [] in journalism?
Alright so lets say for example "[He] went to the corner store to get a chocolate bar, it wasn't much later until he realized he didn't have change in his pocket" Why do they always put a particular noun in those square brackets like that? I hope this makes sense, if not I can provide a link to an article using this...
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j0loj/eli5_when_someone_uses_these_brackets_in/
{ "a_id": [ "cb9vtjj", "cb9vzfd", "cb9y5aj", "cb9zlpr", "cb9zpj4", "cb9zvfv", "cba0d75", "cba0dcl", "cba2qqo", "cba2txb" ], "score": [ 158, 9, 139, 7, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 8 ], "text": [ "When you quote someone, sometimes it may not be clear what is being talked about without including other parts of the quote that aren't otherwise needed. The brackets are used to clarify what is being talked about in a quote while making it clear that the words within are not actually the original speaker's words.", "The actual quote was likely \"He went to the corner store to get a chocolate bar, it wasn't much later until he realized he didn't have change in his pocket\"\n\nSo they substitute [Bob] in for \"he\" and it makes it more clear for the reader.", "Sometimes you'll also see [...] where they cut out part of the quote. For example:\n\n\"He took the knife from the kitchen drawer and plunged it into the inocent tomatoes\"\n\nbecomes\n\n\"[Ekalowl] took the knife [...] and plunged it into the inocent [sic] tomatoes\"", "Even more simply, brackets denote something that was not in the original quote verbatim.", "Brackets are primarily used for direct quotations where the original text is altered in some way or text is added. \n\nOtherwise, brackets can be used to have a parenthetical sentence within a parenthetical sentence. For example, \"We climbed Mount Everest (super cold [by the way]).\" ", "Increasingly, I've seen articles where the writer uses ( ) instead of [ ] when quoting someone. It's maddening. It makes it look like the person speaking whispered or something.\n\nAnd when I pointed this out to an editor, he said 'Oh, that's the way the stylebook says we should do it'. Dickhead.\n\n", "They show editor's changes, often for clarification, spelling, or brevity (in the case of [...])", "What are the ones that just contain single letters, like [t], [s] and so on?", "In a legal context we use it to show an edit that we made which is different from the context or original. We don't start sentences with ..., though we use those in the middle and the end to denote there is more to a quote. [we] being sentences with these brackets to denote differences. IE being sentences with [these] brackets to denote differences. See what I did there?", "The brackets are code to the reader indicating that what is in these brackets was inserted by me BUT rest assured it's what the person I'm quoting intended to convey with his statement.\n\nSo you might have a quote\n\n\"He stabbed that guy in the face six times!\" \n\nFor clarity's sake I edit it to \n\n\"[John Patterson] stabbed that guy in the face six times\" \n\nThat way it's more clear. But it also lets you know I changed it so if you doubt my quotation, you can go back to the original text and see \n\nJohn Patterson was a great guy. Except for that one time we went out. He stabbed that guy in the face six times!!!\n\nIt's important to keep in mind that unscrupulous and/or lazy journalists and essayists have and do use the [] square brackets to manipulate the truth. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
9rfgcb
what is the thoery of cosmic inflation?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rfgcb/eli5_what_is_the_thoery_of_cosmic_inflation/
{ "a_id": [ "e8gkdmc", "e8gl1zt" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Think of the ocean. If you look at it from the side of a boat in the wind, you see it's surface is rough. There are waves, foam, splashes and sea spray. But if you look at that same ocean from an airplane, it will appear perfectly calm and flat. The universe is like this. The droplets of sea spray are galaxies, and the waves are super-clusters. And when we look at the universe as a whole, it's like looking at it from the window of the plane - its perfectly calm and flat. \n\nThe theory of cosmic inflation tries to explain *why* the universe is calm and flat. \n\nIt says that just after the big bang, when the universe was smaller than an atom, and less than a quadrillion of a second old, it suddenly expanded very quickly, doubling in size over and over and over again. It went from a microscopic size, to that many times larger than a galaxy, and we call this *hyperinflation*. This all happened in a tiniest fractions of time imaginable. When it ended, the expansion slowed down. The universe was still getting larger, but at a much more sedate speed. \n\nHow does this explain why the universe is calm and smooth? When the universe was smaller at atom, before hyperinflation, all the energy what would one day form the visible universe was here. And when the space it was sitting on expanded, that energy got stretched out with it. The expansion was smooth, and that caused the distribution of energy to also be smooth. The energy crystallized into tiny fragments which became protons and elections, which later formed hydrogen, and then the first stars. ", "There's some pretty significant background information to know going into this. Here's a short ELI5, but you can search for more on these topics.\n\nTo start with, we know that the universe is expanding because of red shift, verified from other things. We also know *about* how old the universe is, in part by \"rewinding\" the expansion of the universe. *Assuming the rate of expansion is constant through most of time* we can do some simple calculations and get an age for the universe. The universe is expanding faster over time, but that acceleration is constant, so it's still easy to rewind that.\n\nAlso important to understand is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB. That is the heat glow from the very early universe, the heat left over from the \"Big Bang\" itself, redshifted from the expansion of the universe until it's microwave radiation instead of the energetic gamma radiation and Xrays and visible light and such that it started as.\n\nIn the very very early parts of the Big Bang, everything was so hot that particles didn't really interact. They couldn't sit still long enough. As the universe cooled off due to expansion, different forces started being able to tame the hot atoms and they started to clump together or repel each other. Looking at the CMB, astronomers can identify patterns that show that these interactions were happening.\n\nThere's a catch, though. There are very obvious signs in the CMB of patterns where matter was interacting, but they are *way* too far apart now to have ever interacted. See, all interactions are limited by the speed of light. Sure, gravity goes on forever, but it still takes time to get there. And the universe isn't old enough for some of those things to have had time to affect each other - they're too far apart. Despite that, they *definitely* have affected each other. That means that at some point, they were much closer together. Makes sense, right?\n\nMoreover, if the universe had expanded more slowly, matter would have had more time to clump up due to gravity and other forces. There should be bigger clumps of matter (on the cosmic scale - not just galaxies but clusters of clusters of galaxies). The universe is too spread out, so the universe must have expanded too fast for that to happen.\n\nExcept we know how fast the universe is expanding, and how fast it *should* have been expanding a long time ago, if the acceleration of the expansion were constant. We know how fast the universe has been expanding for a very *very* long time, and it isn't that fast. It's much slower now, although it's speeding up (slowly). So the expansion of the universe *cannot* have been constant.\n\nThere's another hiccup, which is that we see plenty of other signs confirming how fast we think the universe is expanding and *was* expanding for most of time. We have to have a universe that both expanded *very* quickly shortly after the BB - fast enough that these obviously connected points in the CMB could be next to each other *then* but very far apart *now*; and also a universe that is expanding slowly enough for what's going on in the universe *now* to make sense.\n\nHence Cosmic Inflation: there was a period shortly after the BB when the universe expanded *really damn quickly*, much faster than the speed of light even. Almost just as quickly, the expansion slowed waaaaaay down to a crawl, and has been creeping slowly back up since then to its current rate. That's the only currently reasonable theory available right now.\n\nWhy did the universe expand so quickly? We don't know. Why did it slow down? We don't know. Why is it expanding faster over time since then? We don't know. All we know is that in order for the universe to make sense as we have observed it, it had to expand very quickly and then stop and then slowly start back up again." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
38d4cp
why whisking whipping cream creates whipped cream, and some more questions.
Hi, I've just screwed up a whipping cream batch, and I'd like to ask some question. Why whisking whipping cream creates whipped cream? Why whipping whipped cream creates butter and butter milk? Why whipping butter to smooth and then add the butter milk creates a whipped-cream-like texture? What is the different between whipped cream and whipped butter-butter milk blend? What will happen if I continue to whip that butter-butter milk blend? Thank you.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38d4cp/eli5_why_whisking_whipping_cream_creates_whipped/
{ "a_id": [ "cru5f8x", "cru8yjc" ], "score": [ 6, 2 ], "text": [ "For the whipping cream question, I think it has something to do with air getting trapped between the particles of the whipping cream", "Whipping cream adds air into the cream creating a foam. Beating it more causes the butterfat to stick to itself and perciputate from its suspension. \n\nThen after separation you can beat air into the butterfat. And add liquid to smooth it out. The difference is fat content and sugar (whipped cream has sugar.) " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3b5ci0
how did/does a currency like the u.s. dollar derive its value (after it was no longer tied to the gold standard)?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b5ci0/eli5_how_diddoes_a_currency_like_the_us_dollar/
{ "a_id": [ "csj00ru" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because other people have agreed that it has a value. Currency, as a means of exchange does not need to have any actual value as long as people treat it as if it has value.\n\nBasically it's a case of perception equals reality. Now if that perception were to start to change, we'd start to see inflation. If the inflation continues the perception becomes validated and the inflation gets worse. The reality is that the government steps in before it becomes a problem and prevents the snowball effect from happening." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
cg7ext
how did early humans ever come up with translations to words such as "the", "a" , "an" , etc?
Person K can point at an apple and says language K's name for apple, and person L points and says language L's for apple. But how do each end up coming with translations for stuff that doesn't exist, but needed grammatically. In this example, "an apple" would only translate apple, not an, if they just pointed and blurted out its name. However, in various languages, you see the term "an" apple when written as a sentence. & #x200B; Words like "the", "a", "those", etc---how did they get translated way back when people first began to travel and discover other languages/countries? & #x200B; Note: I remember learning there's a name for terms such as "an, the, ..." but I completely forgot.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cg7ext/eli5_how_did_early_humans_ever_come_up_with/
{ "a_id": [ "euf53i2", "eufeade" ], "score": [ 6, 38 ], "text": [ "Articles. The concept is not as weird as you make it sound. “This” apple is not very hard to distinguish from “that” apple. Same with “my” apple vs. “your” apple.", "Let's imagine a hypothetical situation in which you speak one language, and I speak another. \n\nI want to show you an apple. I say: \n\n\"This is an apple.\" \n\nExcept you hear nonsense. So I point at the apple, and say \"Apple.\" You know what food and fruit looks like, so you know it might be edible, before I even tell you. So you're not *sure* if I'm saying you should eat it, if that's what it's called, or if I'm naming a quality about it. \n\nSo I pull out an orange, and say \"Orange.\" Now, you're fairly sure I'm naming it. I point at the apple and say \"Apple.\" You're certain I'm naming it. You point to the apple and say \"Ukoja,\" and I know what you mean because we've figured out what we're doing. You point at the orange and say \"Alenus,\" and again I know that's your word for an orange. \n\nWe go through this for a while, but over time we need more complex concepts. Eventually, you have an apple and I have an apple, and we have a rough system. You know the words for trees, and grass, and maybe rain and snow. You probably know my name, and words for common tools. I know your words, too, since we've shared them equally. \n\nAt some point, you pick up my journal, and you start rifling through it. I get angry, and I say \"My journal,\" but you don't understand. What is \"My\" and what does it mean? So I pick a word you already know, like \"Shirt\", and point at your shirt and say \"Your shirt\". I point at my shirt and say \"My shirt.\" We go through this a few times with different objects in slightly different contexts, like \"Your food\" and \"My food\" but you begin to understand that \"my\" and \"your\" are possessive terms. \n\nWhat happens when I want to say *the* apple? *An* apple? *Those* apples? Well... it sounds crazy, but \"the\" apple isn't that complex in theory. It's harder to explain in one sitting, but it's not impossible to explain over all. \n\nLet's say I put three apples on a table. I point to one apple and say \"apple important, apple *the* apple, because we talk about apple.\" Then I point to another apple and say \"apple not important, apple *an* apple, because we not talk about apple\". It would take a few variations on that, but eventually you might begin to understand that \"the\" means the one I'm talking about or the one we've been interested in, it's the subject of my point. You'll probably figure out that \"an\" mean just one random object like what we're talking about but not the one we are talking about. \n\nThose might be interesting, and that might be interesting as well. Still, not too hard. \n\nLet's say that I set up three baskets of apples. I point to one basket and say \"get those apples\", so you go grab the apples. You're not sure what \"those\" means, but you know \"apples\" is plural. What if I said \"those\" and made a circle around the ones I pointed at, and then said \"not those\" while pointing at different apples. Do you think you might figure out, over time, that I'm referring to specific apples? That apple would be similar. I'd point an a specific apple and say \"that apple\". \n\nNow, in practice, the above would take months or years to truly translate over time, and easily a decade or more to truly understand all the minor nuances of a language. The point was to illustrate the cognitive adaptations as we begin to see how things work, even if on a much smaller scale." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
aemils
what makes people enjoy hating other people?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aemils/eli5_what_makes_people_enjoy_hating_other_people/
{ "a_id": [ "edqjo66", "edqmbsc" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "\"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.\" -President Lyndon B. Johnson\n\nHate is one of our basic emotions that can override more complex thinking. It's easier to control/distract a group of people who are looking for a target to hate rather than a group of others who are wondering \"why should we be hating?\"", "Its basic tribalism. Its built into us via evolution. We naturally form tribes of people we like that are similar to us and find groups of people we don't like or are not like us as enemies and threats. Served us well 5-10,000 years ago, but now when we are fighting over resources and space that instinct leads to pointless hate and fear." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
36pbf5
how does one decide to be a republican or democrat?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36pbf5/eli5_how_does_one_decide_to_be_a_republican_or/
{ "a_id": [ "crfw8qw", "crfwndn", "crfwqah", "crfy3jh" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Which ever party has party members that match your political views. I'm more of a Barry Goldwater Republican, but since Regan, none of those have been in office. So now I mostly vote for democrats instead.", "One decides to become a Republican or Democrat when they have decided that the best interests of 380 million people can be easily condensed into two broad choices.\n\nTo be conservative or liberal is something most people straddle depending on the subject of discussion, but to believe that a political establishment can singularly address all of their concerns is absurd.", "First method is that you decide what matters most to you, and what you believe. Choose the party that best aligns with your beliefs. If neither party fits well, abstain from voting or vote for a third party that matches your beliefs.\n\nFor example: socially, I am very very liberal. Fiscally, I would say I'm moderately conservative. I also believe social issues take precedence over fiscal issues. Ergo, I vote democrat.\n\nOthers may use different methods. For example, they may only care at all about one issue. Depending on which side of the issue a party typically sides, that's how you vote.\n\nFor example: I believe abortion is the murder of babies. Baby murder should be stopped no matter what. The Republican party tries to stop abortions. I vote Republican.\n\nThe third and final way that I know about is based on family and community. You vote based on how your family votes.\n\nFor example: I don't care about politics. My family, however, does. I want to fit in with my family. So I vote for whoever they vote for.", "In a sense it is similar to asking why a person prescribes to certain religion. A very fair and relevant question that can perhaps be answered though a thorough understanding of psychology. But I think I have made my point. I believe that with an informed electorate there are more parties and far more independents. Unfortunately Red vs Blue sports based logic tends to prevail among idiots. Everyone likes sports, they just might not realize it. Also to be fair to idiots. I used to work for the Republican party." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
5zxqbs
how drunk would i have to be to get somebody else drunk via a blood tranfusion?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zxqbs/eli5_how_drunk_would_i_have_to_be_to_get_somebody/
{ "a_id": [ "df1um41", "df1upe0", "df1uvx4", "df1ya43" ], "score": [ 23, 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "You'd have to be dead drunk.\n\nLiterally, you'd have to be dead.\n\nA unit of blood in a transfusion is about 1/10 (at most) of a persons total blood. So you'd have to have a BAC of 10x the legal limit to theoretically get them drunk.", "The body has about 5 liters of blood. A Red Cross donation is 470ml. That means that you're going to need to be more than 10x the \"drunk\" level to have the effect desired. Alas, the lethal level of alcohol is about 0.4%, and the \"too drunk to drive\" is usually about 0.08%. So, you're dead before this happens.", "You give about 8% of your blood when you donate so the recipient of your unit is going to be about 12 times less drunk than you. Around here the legal limit of alcohol in your blood is 0.05% for driving and 12 times that is 0.6%. By comparison 0.4% is about where coma and the chance of death starts. A big guy donating for a young child would have more of a chance.\n\nTLDR: A donor would have to be so wasted that they could barely walk before the recipient even felt anything. ", "Some things that people aren't considering here is that people who recieve blood usually arent full to begin with. \n\nSo at the very most they have lost two litres of blood. Legal limit is .08. You can give 470ml. Theres 5 litres in the body but in this case at most 4.5 litres because obviously your not going to give blood to someone who is full. (These other answers are from dumbasses lol).\n\nSo if they have lost 2 litres you would have to be about (.08 × 7 = .56) at an alcohol blood level of .56. Remember as well that nowadays people are being declared drunk at .05 or higher. So you may even get away with a blood alcohol level of .35. That could get them drunk. In this scenario.\n\nIf they only needed the one bag o blood then you would have to be (.08 × 10 = .80) at a blood alcohol level of .80 and probably dead or soon to be.\n\nLike i said though nowadays people are being declared drunk and unfit to drive et cetera way below the .08 limit. So theoretically you could be as low as .30, give blood, and get the recipient drunk. It all depends on body size, weight and so on and so forth.\n\nSo now im sure that this is the part where everyone downvotes me to hell because i used logic in my answer. So you can all go fuck yourself ahead of time. Sincerely yours. Killswitch.\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
1igftp
why does a moving magnetic field induce a voltage in a wire?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1igftp/eli5_why_does_a_moving_magnetic_field_induce_a/
{ "a_id": [ "cb4728n", "cb480dw", "cb496jq" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The magnetic field interacts with the electrons and \"drags\" them with it.", "The only good reason here is \" 'cause universe.\" That's just what magnetic fields do to charges and a wire has electrons (charges) that are free to move around. The fact that magnetic field pushes on charges in that way is part of the rules that the universe has. There isn't really a reason for it. ", "Here it is, as simple as I can make it.\n\n- Electricity relates to voltage and current.\n\n- Current is actually the flow of electrons between atoms within the material.\n\n- The movement of electrons (negative charge), electron flow, in itself creates a *magnetic field*. This phenomena is called *electromagnetism*. That is,\n\n- **Movement of charge = magnetic field**. This is a law of physics.\n\nThis is where it gets interesting. \n\n- This magnetic field can lead to attraction or repulsion (physical forces) between electrons. (Its why, for example, they separate the powerlines when they run them through the air. Magnetic fields.) \n\n- Also, a magnetic field in itself will change the alignment of charges...leading to *electricity*.\n\nSo applying that in reverse, \n\n- *by simply moving a sufficiently strong magnet along the material, we can move the electrons, creating our own electrical charge*.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
3o31gi
why clubs and bars can apply a cover charge to males only during "ladies nights" with out it being sexist, discriminatory, or illegal?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o31gi/eli5_why_clubs_and_bars_can_apply_a_cover_charge/
{ "a_id": [ "cvtjyf1", "cvtjzok", "cvtkko2", "cvtky8a", "cvtnr5f", "cvtpoke", "cvtr7gy", "cvu2lxl" ], "score": [ 22, 53, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It is discriminatory but since the bargoing population is usually significantly more men than women, nobody cares. It's being done in an effort to get women to actually show up, not to provide regular customers with a special benefit based on gender.", "Challenges have been made to \"ladies nights\" under federal law, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, these claims have failed because the actors in question are not state actors, but private. Therefore, **ladies nights are not disallowed by the Constitution or any federal legislation.** *See* Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub, 580 F.Supp.2d 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (upholding a summary judgment dismissal of a section 1983 gender claim based on a NY bar's purported gender discrimination). \n\nSome states, on the other hand, have ruled that ladies nights *are* discriminatory, and enacted specific laws outlawing them. I know Pennsylvania is in this bunch, and I think California, Maryland, and Nevada have outlawed such as well. In some of these states, bars are allowed to have \"lipstick night,\" for instance, giving reduced rates to patrons wearing lipstick. This is legal under the state's requirements. ", "don't try to push it! they'll just get rid of ladies night altogether and Ill have to pay for two covers", "The way I look at it, it's pretty much the same thing as giving cops/emt workers/military vets a discount. I'm not gonna get salty because someone else didn't pay cover or gets a discount or something, because it doesn't affect me.", "We do ladies night but have additional specials that apply to all patrons regardless of their sex/gender.\n\nWe don't charge a cover so really its just one extra-good special for the gals and then a bunch of good specials for everyone.\n\nAlso, the purpose of our ladies night is to get people talking to each other. If a guy has a gal order his drink for him, he can get the ladies discount as well.\n", "[Well, it's not legal everywhere](_URL_0_)\n\n**Pennsylvania**\n\nSuch promotions violate the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act as unlawful gender discrimination where male patrons are charged an entrance fee or a greater charge for drinks and female patrons are not charged an identical entrance fee or the same charge for drinks as male patrons. In Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Dobrinoff, the Commonwealth Court specifically found that where a female patron was exempt from a cover charge, a go-go bar engaged in unlawful gender discrimination. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has stated as recently as 2009 that it will issue citations against establishments which charge patrons differing amounts based on gender. [source](_URL_1_)\n\nAlso, its a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.", "It's not legal everywhere, it's still sexist and discriminatory everywhere. The reason it generally isn't challenged is because males generally want to go to clubs with lots of females. This encourages women to congregate in one club, allowing the men to find them easily.", "It's been said deep down in some of these threads, but fundamentally, the reason it's not illegal federally is because the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination in public accommodation based on race and religion, does *not* ban discrimination based on gender. \n\nSome states have anti-discrimination laws which specifically cover gender in public accommodations, and in those states, ladies' nights are technically illegal. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1o6v5e/til_that_in_california_and_3_other_us_states/", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies%27_night" ], [], [] ]
2jj8hx
the practice of cryopreserving a legally dead person (or animal) and why we are currently incapable of 'rejuvenating' those who have been cryopreserved.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jj8hx/eli5_the_practice_of_cryopreserving_a_legally/
{ "a_id": [ "clc7wds", "clc82zz" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Animal tissue has a large amount of water. If frozen, water expands. This tends to destroy all of the cells and thus prevent any attempt to thaw them back out. If kept just above freezing, the animal doesn't survive very long. The only other solution is to find some sort of antifreeze that isn't toxic and will permiate every vital cell of the body. So far, scientists haven't found any such substance which can achieve this.", "Ice crystals destroy cells like porcupines destroy balloons. Bodies are made of cells. If all our balloons are popped, we are really just frozen goo. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1oexil
why does my jaw hurt when i am going to cry but am trying not to?
Is this normal?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oexil/eli5why_does_my_jaw_hurt_when_i_am_going_to_cry/
{ "a_id": [ "ccrch9p" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Yes, it is normal. You are tensing the muscles in your jaw, both the muscles that close your jaw and the muscles that open it. This tires out these muscles, producing an effect that your brain senses as pain." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
7db4dy
what is the factual difference between hamiltonian mechanics and classical newton mechanics? why is hamilton mechanics useful? aren't lagrangians the way to go?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7db4dy/eli5_what_is_the_factual_difference_between/
{ "a_id": [ "dpwlfsx" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all complementary methods which make identical predictions in systems where they can be applied.\n\nThey each have their own benefits and drawbacks. Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics give you an easy and systematic way to derive equations of motion for any system where the forces can be described in terms of a potential energy. However if you're working with forces which can't be written as a potential energy, you may have to use Newtonian mechanics, or some other method.\n\nLagrangians are very nice because they make it easy to treat relativistic systems in a way that works in any frame of reference.\n\nHamiltonians are nice because rather than giving you a single second-order differential equation for each coordinate, they give you two first-order differential equations for each conjugate coordinate/momentum pair. First-order differential equations can be easier to solve than second-order differential equations." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
7s4gw0
what will happen to a tall building if a tornado went through it?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7s4gw0/eli5_what_will_happen_to_a_tall_building_if_a/
{ "a_id": [ "dt1xdpy", "dt2h1vj" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "How big is the tornado?", "I think you may be interested in reading about the [2000 Fort Worth tornado](_URL_0_). A large tornado went right through the heart of downtown Fort Worth, striking several skyscrapers. \n\nHere's an expert from the article: \n\n > The tornado struck several skyscrapers as it moved across downtown Fort Worth over the course of approximately a minute between 6:25 p.m CST (00:25 UTC) and 6:26 p.m. CST (00:26 UTC). The first high-rise building impacted was the nine-story Cash America building, which was nearly destroyed by the tornado. All windows on the building's northwestern and southwestern faces were blown out by the strong winds, and the travertine stone façade framing the building's exterior crumbled. While a number of interior partition walls and suspended ceilings collapsed, the building's steel frame remained intact. The tornado also peeled some of the brick masonry off the dome and five-story prayer tower of a nearby Baptist church. The tornado was at its peak strength when it struck the ten-story Mallick Tower, causing the building to lose most of its glass exterior. High-speed debris thrown up by the tornado broke windows in adjacent low-rise office and condominium buildings.[3] Similar damage occurred to several other high-rises including the 35-story Bank One Tower, which lost 80 percent of its 3,000 windows; the Union Pacific Resources Building lost 1,300 of its 5,000 windows." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Fort_Worth_tornado" ] ]
4qqkzb
how does a sweet scent (such as in soaps or perfumes) smell, but not taste sweet?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qqkzb/eli5how_does_a_sweet_scent_such_as_in_soaps_or/
{ "a_id": [ "d4v3fo5", "d4vhtls", "d4vi8yo", "d4vz2rw" ], "score": [ 11, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Naturally occurring sweet items such as fruits and berries, have a semi sweet smell to them to help lure animals towards them, consume them, and then proceed to spread their seeds and make new plants. Part of what makes them enjoyable is the taste. This association of sweet smell = sweet taste from an evolutionary standpoint helps to ensure the survival of the species. \n\nIn things such as soaps and perfumes, that may or may not contain the same chemicals/plant based ingredients, there are other chemicals that have tastes that far outweigh that of the 'sweet scent' on your tongue. Usually these are chemicals meant to make the smells and product last a long time. \n\nIn products that don't contain the plant/sweet item derivative, they chemically reproduce something that is close to the original to pass it off as the same or similar smell. These chemical reproductions of scents generally won't taste good unless taste is also a factor considered in the development process. ", "Something tasting sweet is it having sugars like fructose, sucrose, lactos, and other substances in it. There are also a small handfull of artificial sweeteners which can stimulate the tongue to taste sweet. \n\nSmells are not made up of carbohydrates and sugars though, even if they smell sweet. You are smelling chemical compounds and using your olfactory sense and not your sense of taste. \n\nThere are some very nice smells, that can taste horrible. \n\n\nYour question might be rephrased \"Why does kool aid smell so good, but taste so bad if you make it without sugar\". ", "nigga did you eat your soap? ", "I'm a bit late to the party but I'm not satisfied with any of the answers because they don't really give the core answer.\n\nA scent is a result of specific receptors in your nose responding to molecules (or a single one) in the air. It is determined as a \"sweet\" scent by the type of molecule. There's a special kind of molecule that is typically fruity smelling.\n\nA taste is a result of molecules activating your taste buds. These taste buds are coded to respond to salty, sweet, sour, bitter and umami. Something tastes sweet because the sweet taste buds are activated.\n\nThat all being said, a molecule that you smell might be sweet to your nose, will not be sweet to your tongue because it will not activate the sweet taste buds. In the cases of soaps and perfumes, even though the single molecule that is responsible for the sweet smell is present with other chemicals/molecules, it is possible that it will not activate sweet taste buds on your tongue, making it taste not sweet. The presence of other chemicals will add to the poor taste of the soap/perfume.\n\nTL;DR: Smell and taste are independent processes. They can function perfectly without one another. (The combination of smell and taste creates \"flavor\", without smell, you can still taste the 5 tastes). Chemicals can smell sweet but not taste sweet because the chemical is interpreted as sweet in your nose but not on your tongue." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
3nsx2r
zelda ocarina of time?
So I just recently got the wii u and decided to order one of my favorite games of all time. While downloading the file I noticed it wasn't even more than 75MB's!!!! How is this possible? How can a game that took me more than 20 plus hours to be loaded into such a small file, while Assassins Creed and other games that require Gigs are barely able to keep me entertained with 10 good hours. I understand graphics take up a big portion but still, how can such a small file contain such a large amount of story, text, and gameplay? Thanks in advance!!
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nsx2r/eli5_zelda_ocarina_of_time/
{ "a_id": [ "cvqz6u0", "cvqzz1z" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "The Nintendo 64 cartridge held 32 megabytes. Fundamentally, the game has pretty minimal textures, which is really where most of the megabytes go. Modern games have extremely high-res textures, and also have high-res normal maps and other shader textures. \n\nIn terms of a story and text, that takes basically nothing. War and Peace is probably well under a megabyte with compression. Audio can take up a decent amount depending on compression, but generally the textures are what take up the space. ", "Stuff like more detailed 3D models, larger more detailed textures, cutscenes, music and voice acting all take up lots of space. Ocarina of Time didn't have much of any of those. The levels may be large but they're relatively simple and the texture maps are small and reusued as much as possible.\n\nText, story, and gameplay don't take up much space. Text is basically zero when you compare it to an audio file or a huge HD texture." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3vq38s
what would change in our society if we became democratic socialists?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vq38s/eli5_what_would_change_in_our_society_if_we/
{ "a_id": [ "cxpp18d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You're gonna need to clarify your question. What do you mean \"we\"? Democratic socialism is just a political philosophy that argues for greater government participation and regulation in certain activities. So, your question is kinda equivalent to asking \"What if we became Republicans?\" " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1teb1b
why can't humans tolerate high temperatures of water when they can tolerate high temperatures of weather?
Hey Reddit, Say, for example: An average person can stand to be outside in 35 degrees Celsius weather, but if they put their hand into a bowl of 35 degrees Celsius water, they immediately can't stand it and take it out. Why is that? What is the difference?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1teb1b/eli5_why_cant_humans_tolerate_high_temperatures/
{ "a_id": [ "ce720ci", "ce724zg" ], "score": [ 23, 7 ], "text": [ "There are two things going on: how well water conducts heat and how well you can sweat.\n\nWater conducts heat much better than air, so when you put your hand in hot water your hand gets hot much faster than it would in the same temperature air. On top of that, sweating is your body's main cooling mechanism and it works very well in hot air, but it doesn't work at all in water.\n\nSo, in hot water, your hand it warming up faster and can't cool down.", "You'll find 35 C water isn't actually that hot or uncomfortable, if you're doing the dishes you can easily tolerate 50 C.\n\nThe more interesting question then, is why does 35 C water feel hotter than a 35 C day?\n\nAll substances have what is known as a *heat capacity*, how much energy you need to put into it to raise it by a certain amount (also known as specific heat). Water has a relatively high specific heat; it takes a lot more energy to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by one degree C than it does to raise the temperature of a kilogram of air by the same amount. About 4 times as much energy in fact.\n\nAs you know, two different temperate objects placed next to each other will even out in temperature. However, when you place your hand into a bucket of warm water, there is more energy in that bucket than in a bucket of just about anything else at the same temperature. This means the equilibrium point (where your hand and the liquid are the same temperature), is going to be higher. So the bucket of water will raise your hand's temperature by more than a bucket of ethanol would for example.\n\nThe other hugely important factor, is that water is a reasonably good conductor of heat, whilst air is a really bad one. Water is liquid, which means there is much less space between the molecules than there is in a gas mixture like air. This means they bump into each other (and your hand) more often than air molecules do. It is when molecules bump into each other than energy is transferred, so water is able to transfer energy faster than air can.\n\nThat's also why so many of our warm winter clothes are really bulky; we go to a lot of effort to trap lots of air in them to try and stop our body heat escaping. If your nice woollen jumper gets wet though, you'll be freezing in no time at all." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
z9u5m
why homosexuals refer to the person they're together with as partners instead of a wife/husband?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z9u5m/eli5_why_homosexuals_refer_to_the_person_theyre/
{ "a_id": [ "c62qm24", "c62r4tx", "c62r8h8", "c62rbss" ], "score": [ 3, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Some homosexuals do refer to their partner as their husband or their wife. In places which recognise the right of homosexuals to marry, that's actually more common in my personal experience.", "Partner is not gendered and therefore can easily be used to talk about women and men at the same time. So, general statements are much simpler.\n\nAlso, as mentioned, loads of people (including heterosexuals) aren't married. If anybody understands how unimportant it is to somebody's relationship to have that sheet of paper, it must be the lgbt community.\n\nSo, to sum up: much more inclusive, all-encompassing, non-intruding term to call your other half - just like SO has become common on reddit.", "It's the pronoun game. Long ago (read 1990's and before) in many places, being gay was a bad thing. When I said I had a boyfriend/husband, people immediately knew I was gay, or at the very least ask about it. This opened Pandora's box for some people (i.e. discrimination). \n\nInstead people said Partner to obfuscate the gender of their husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/etc. \n\nAdditionally: Partner is easier to remember than all the other pronouns. Never have to worry about offending anyone. ", "Homosexuals until recently couldn't get married. They couldn't have have a husband or a wife, because using those terms mean they are married, which homosexuals can't be. You can call anyone your girlfriend, boyfriend, soul mate, whatever, but you don't just call someone your wife. For someone to be a wife/husband it means you've decided to spend the rest of your life with them, and have gone though the process of getting married to gain the social and legal recognition of your union. The concept is not unique to heterosexuals, but homosexuals can't go though the process of getting that title. \n\nThe solution was to create their own term that refers to the same thing. Instead of saying wife/husband people refer to their SO as their life partner. It lets you know they've settled down and chosen the one person to spend the rest of their days with, and it is a term that 'belongs' to the LGBT community. \n\nThat got shortened to the generic 'partner'\n\nI have a feeling that if gay marriage was legal nation wide, the phrase would still get used, because it's made its way into the cultural identity of the LGBT community, but a lot of people would prefer the ability to just say husband/wife" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
4drh7n
how can countries decide to use foreign currency as their own? wouldn't they be dependent on the foreign counties and wouldn't that cause some kind of deflation? example: kosovo using the euro.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4drh7n/eli5_how_can_countries_decide_to_use_foreign/
{ "a_id": [ "d1tm934", "d1totjt", "d1tu9gx" ], "score": [ 10, 9, 3 ], "text": [ "Hopefully that currency is really stable, like the dollar. UAE I believe pegs their currency to the US dollar because their oil-dominated economy would have huge inflation/deflation levels because of changing oil prices.", "Often it isn't really a choice. They currency becomes so weak, their citizens switch to a more stable currency on their own. Making it official is usually just accepting what has already happened.\n\nAnd it does make them dependent on fiscal policies they have no control over, but this is often preferable to a weak currency they have almost no control over.\n\nKosovo isn't the best example of this. They aren't fully recognized as a country, and exist in sort of a grey area where having their own currency might not be practical.", "Ecuadorian here. We adopted the US dollar some years ago. It is not all that good. When the dollar goes up, the currencies around us (colombia, Peru) goes down. so their products become cheaper. Ours become more expensive and we loose exports and traffic of goods become a problem. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
8mdkil
what makes some drugs suitable for transdermal patches (nicotine, otc pain patches) but not others?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mdkil/eli5_what_makes_some_drugs_suitable_for/
{ "a_id": [ "dzmssns", "dzmtwxt", "dzmy2hz" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Because they are fat soluble and therefore can pass the skin barrier. However the bio-availability will be much lower than other means of administration. ", "Nicotine and pain patches are possible because their active ingredients\\(nicotine and fentanyl, respectively\\) are very potent by weight. This means that a single patch is able to hold 1\\-3 days' worth of drug without being huge.\n\nMost common drugs are less potent by weight, and thus a normal\\-sized patch would not be able to hold enough of the drug to be practical, nor would the patch be able to diffuse a high enough dose through the skin.\n\nAlso, some drugs are much more bioavailable through the skin than others, making them more suitable for patch use.\n\nIn addition to that, patches are only suitable for drugs that need to stay in the bloodstream 24/7. It would be pointless to make a patch for a drug that is taken \"as needed\" or occasionally\\(such as a sleeping pill\\).", "Could be dependent on the condition, for example, if the patient is suffering from unstable angina, they’d preferably need a GTN transdermal patch, which would release slowly throughout the day. As their pain is unpredictable, the patch is perfect for prophylaxis.\n\nIt’s also drug dependent too, ideally, the drug should be small (in molecular weight), and lipophilic to penetrate the epidermis and dermis layer. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
3wkoec
what does some of the lingo for reddit stand for? like til or nsfw?
If you guys could just list all the terms you know that would be great :)
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wkoec/eli5_what_does_some_of_the_lingo_for_reddit_stand/
{ "a_id": [ "cxwvz35", "cxww119", "cxwxwot", "cxx7wii" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "TIL=Today I learned\n\nNSFW= not safe for Work\n\nSFW=safe for Work\n\nHIF(W)=How I feel (when).....\n\nMRW=My reaction when\n\nEDIT:\n\nELI5=explain like Im 5\n\nNSFL= not save for life\n\nTIFU=today I fucked up\n\nTL,DR=to long, didnt read.\n\nEdit^2:^grammar", "TIL: today I learned\nNSFW: not safe for work\nNSFL: not safe for lunch\nOP: original post\n\nthere might be some that i am forgetting but those are the basics", "[Here is a list from the reddit FAQ that includes a lot of them.](_URL_0_)", "SO: Significant Other (At first I thought it meant Superior Officer, which made a lot of the posts containing this very confusing/funny)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_what_do_all_of_these_acronyms_mean.3F" ], [] ]
16m53l
why is it so bad for china to own areas such as tibet and inner mongolia when the us owns areas that used to, and arguably still, belong to native americans?
Sorry about the sensitive nature of the question. I recently saw [this](_URL_0_) link, and it made me wonder what the actual difference is? In both cases, there seems to be oppression of the minority, but what makes one justified and the other not?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16m53l/eli5_why_is_it_so_bad_for_china_to_own_areas_such/
{ "a_id": [ "c7xa0yj", "c7xa8z6", "c7xcyzx" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Because the native Americans would be much worse off on their own, but those regions off china would be better off independent. \n\nChina is known for it's human rights violations, and are often very brutal when it comes to quelling rebellions. The US doesn't oppress the natives (anymore), and in fact the federal government gives money to the natives americans. ", "Before I answer I wqnt you to understand that there are 2 rules for everything: \n\n1: There is an exception to the rule.\n\n2: Context is everything.\n\nFirst off, I am neither an expert in modern Asian History or Colonial American history, but lets examine the contexts of the two cases.\n\nThe People's Republic of China (PRC, we have to be specific, because there is also the Republic Of China, ROC who disagree a lot about PRC land claims) claims that the land it currently possesses is originally part of China way back in the Imperial ages, and due to its remoteness and the odd civil war (on the scale of say the Three Kingdoms War) they effectively got left out when the communists \"fixed\" things. At the time that the PRC brought these lost lambs back into the fold Tibet was a theocratic state and I'm not too sure about Mongolia but I'm pretty certain they had a history of either being ignored by China or ROFLstomping China with Trolololo Horse archers etc, so fairly certain that neither group identifies with the PRC and its predominantly ethnically Han population. Note that these reclamation efforts are pretty recent and from what I know about historical evidence neither country was actually part of China, amongst other things in this historicl context, neither country is actually worth conquering due to pretty bad agriculture, difficult terrain, smallish populations, less than impressive mines and isolation from the world.\n\nIn other words this is less legit than France asking for control of German after WW2 because they previously occupied Germany way back with Napoleon, before either modern version of these countries existed. The idea that a country can make a land claim and just help themselves is an abhorrent idea in the 20th century, nearly all of the defining wars of the 20th century were armed reactions to these landgrabs: WW 1 and 2, Gulf War, Vietnam isn't so clear cut but that describes that war in nearly every context, Korean War, Falklands War, the Winter War, pretty sure a military/political history scholar can fill that out. My point is that the PRC is committing an act that isnot accepted in today's globalised society, with the whole globalisation, internet etc, the concept of conquest becomes less and less appealing as well as less and less tangible; I may criticise the US a lot for its bombastic self-appoint to being the world's police, but I won't disagree that its interventions have saved lives, I will argue that it is often too enthusiastic and buries itself in terrible situations leading to war weariness and the lack of action in cases like Syria or Libya where stronger US support would have resolved conflicts faster and left the new governments in a less disorganized mess.\n\nNow to the issue with Native Americans (I don't know what the current PC term is so I'm going with this because it also covers Canadian natives), its actually a little similar to the issue in my home Australia. What we have is a set of former colonies that broke away from the initial central authority to form their own state, with that whole separation of Canada stsying under English control etc. Context of the time was that the Natives were savages (this is literally the opinion white Europeans had on anything that wasn't white and European), in the case of Australian Aborigines this was worse as they were legally considered wildlife until 1968. The main point is that natives were considered a resource, they were too dumb to take control of the world and master it, the white man was burdened with doing this for them, the lands they live on belonged to \"real\" people who knew how to use them properly. On the bright side there were some individuals who weren't such egomaniacal pricks, but they were few and weren't going to be able to stop a lot of the dicks in control of the milita groups. So anyway yes a lot of land was nicked and atrocities were committed because it was \"the right thing to do, for their own good\" and this has sat down for a while and got swept under, the US rose and expanded rapidly, become quite widely settled by many different migrant groups, many of these groups were antagonistic to each other in the early days but all could agree that the land their houses on was their own, truth be told a lot of them had suffered for this, so when the Natives come round basically asking for their land back because it really is theirs, people responded defiantly, thus causing many of the later conflicts as the natives strove to reclaim their birthright , considering the force advantages pretty much favoured the settlers our natives came off the losers in the long run. As is often the case \"History is written by the victor\", the natives get hauled off to placse out of the way and eventually earn the rights to reservations as this nation modernizes its ideal of human rights. The oppression comes because our natives were never given a right to speak for themselves, they were effectively drip-fed an equivalent to equality nd them some more, so our big government can pat its citizens on the back and say, *\"those guys there, we're fixing them up now, I mean we can't give them their land back, thats our land right? But we can give them a few incentives here and there as an apology, and you won't mind because your cultural identity wasn't raped and you don't have generations of social humiliation, so whats the problem with a few tax and legal tokens for them? Now watch this, this is interesting an not related to the Natives at all..\"*\n\nI'm not sure if my meandering post helps you but really the point is at the very start, Context is everything.\n\nApologies for factual errors I have a rough knowledge on both historical eras and I am mostly extrapolating for my analysis.\n\nApologies for typos, I'm on a tablet and lying on my back, typing on this thing hurts like a fucking door slamming on my joints.\n\n", "In a nutshell: The US killed most of the native indians unlike China who on the other had did not exterminate the native population like the US did." ] }
[]
[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16ltgs/china_without_the_separatist_regions_of_tibet/" ]
[ [], [], [] ]
10z69m
the $7 trillion in increased spending that obama kept on repeating and romney kept on denying in last night's debate.
During the first 20 minutes of the debate it must have been repeated 6 or 7 times. Each time with Obama saying how it's simple arithmetic and then Romney saying how that is absolutely not his plan. What are the facts on the ground?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10z69m/eli5_the_7_trillion_in_increased_spending_that/
{ "a_id": [ "c6hw5au", "c6hwnvv" ], "score": [ 6, 5 ], "text": [ "Romney proposes to cut income tax rates 20% across the board; this would lead to 5 billion less in revenue. He claims that he would offset this by closing tax loopholes, but he has not identified any specifics of this plan, and except in the debate he has consistently said that getting the cuts implemented would be the priority.", "From what I read after the debate last night, Obama is implying that there would be $5 trillion less in tax revenue over the next ten years. It wouldn't be an immediate loss. Estimates are that tax cuts by Romney would bring in 500 billion less dollars a year. 10x500 billion=$5 trillion. On top of the $2 trillion going to the military under Romney's plan, that adds up to $7 trillion. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2l4fll
how do tv stations know how many viewers "tuned in" for a program at a specific time, especially back then with antenna tv?
Also, if i record a program with my DVR, does it count toward the number of views?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l4fll/eli5_how_do_tv_stations_know_how_many_viewers/
{ "a_id": [ "clrdwfl" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Radio sent out postage paid log books to fill in. It included a dollar bill for your troubles - this was 20 years ago. TV used this _URL_0_. Doubt if a DVR would be counted, to easy to skew the views, play it every hour for a month etc." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings" ] ]
1sabqw
eil5: how can we be running out of fresh water, when the world is full of water. can't we just purify it?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sabqw/eil5_how_can_we_be_running_out_of_fresh_water/
{ "a_id": [ "cdvieyr", "cdviibn" ], "score": [ 6, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes, but to purify any significant amount of water takes a *tremendous* amount of energy", "Purifying water takes a lot of resources. Fresh water needs far less purification than ocean water.\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
7gqarg
why is charcoal black and ash gray?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gqarg/eli5_why_is_charcoal_black_and_ash_gray/
{ "a_id": [ "dqmjwvy", "dqkxypp" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Charcoal is formed by incomplete combustion, they make it basically by burning wood without enough oxygen. What you’re left with is carbon rich. \n\nAsh is completely combusted, and is so carbon poor. ", "Charcoal still has all its carbon in it which gives it a dark color, ash has no carbon left thus the gray or white color." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
221j3r
if the president flies on air-force one, how does 'cadillac one' get to the location?
Who drives it? What if it's overseas, like at the [Nuclear Security Summit](_URL_0_)?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/221j3r/eli5if_the_president_flies_on_airforce_one_how/
{ "a_id": [ "cgifiut", "cgifjxo", "cgifky7" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "You mean \"The Beast\"?\n\nThey have cargo planes. Marine 1 and the Beast always travel with the President.", "I believe it's flown aboard a military transport. (like a C130 or something)", "Also remember, Air Force 1 is not specifically a plane, so much as it is the call number assigned to ANY aircraft the President is currently riding on. BattleStar Galactica (2003) made reference to this when Roslin learned she had become president, the pilot of the commercial liner initially called it Colonial 768 or something, and then realizing, corrected himself to Colonial 1. I'm sure the same applies to other vehicles." ] }
[]
[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/21fdsg/the_helicopter_arrival_was_impressive_but_it_was/" ]
[ [], [], [] ]
arybmx
negative g-forces
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arybmx/eli5_negative_gforces/
{ "a_id": [ "egqf2uq", "egqf6dd", "egqf7fd", "egqfczf" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Just like regular g-force, but you're upside down. Pilots experience g-forces every which way during maneuvers, so by convention the normal direction (ball falls toward feet) is called positive, and the other way (ball falls toward face) negative. \n\nJust like you are pressed back into your seat when you hit the gas in your car, and are pushed forward when you slam on the breaks, pilots can accelerate or turn in basically any direction they want. So the plane doesn't have to be literally upside-down for the to be negative g-force, they just have to dive severely.", "It's only about direction. If you accelerate upward you feel G-Force, so if you accelerate downward faster than the natural gravitation of the earth, then we call that negative G.\n\nThe difference is mostly because of the effect on the body. Positive G will push your blood toward your feet, while negative G will push your blood toward your head. ", "You are right that you can not have negative forces. However you can have forces going in the opposite direction. So when you are talking about negative G-forces you are talking about forces that is pulling you upwards unlike normal gravitational forces which pulls you downwards.", "Hook the back of your knees on a pullup bar and hang upside down. You are now experiencing -1G.\n\nNegative Gs means you are being pulled up rather than down." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
44tf9c
i commit a crime. nobody finds out until after it becomes legal. could i be sanctioned?
Example. I have extra-marital sex in 1920. Which then becomes legal in 1925. In 1926, my affair is discovered, along with proof that it's been going on for ten years. Does the law apply at the time I committed the offence or at the time it's discovered?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44tf9c/eli5_i_commit_a_crime_nobody_finds_out_until/
{ "a_id": [ "czsr2kk", "czsr7t2", "czsrvyy", "czt5vl5" ], "score": [ 2, 23, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The law applies at the time the offense was committed. That said, the prosecution would probably choose not to charge you.", "That depends on how it became legal (and I'm assuming you're in the US). If the legislature changed their minds about the law and passed a bill to make the conduct legal, then you could still get in trouble for it because it was illegal when you committed the act. Whether there would be any political will to actually prosecute you is another question, but it could be done.\n\nIf a court finds that the law was illegal because it was unconstitutional, then it should never have been enforced and, therefore, you can't be charged with violating it.\n\nFor example, if you got caught with marijuana in Colorado the day before it became legal to possess there, you could still be charged and convicted for possession of marijuana since possessing it was a crime when you were caught. However, if you committed sodomy in Texas in 2002 and then someone found out about it in 2004 after the *Lawrence v. Texas* decision, you could not be tried since the sodomy law should have never been enforced against anyone.\n\nEdit: Including a post from further down up here:\n\nThe question is much more complicated than I initially gave it credit for. This varies by state in the US, but in most criminal cases it works like this:\n\n* If a law is amended to provide for a lighter sentence, then any judgments which are not final make use of the new, lighter punishments. If a judgment is already final, the sentences imposed under the old law remain.\n\n* If a law is repealed and someone has been charged under the repealed law, they may still be prosecuted under that law assuming the action is still generally criminalized. For example, in *Ex parte Mangrum*, 564 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) a woman was charged with welfare fraud. Between the time she was charged and her trial some statutory changes came into effect and the law she was being charged with was repealed. She argued that there was no longer any law under which she could be charged. The Court held that since her actions were still criminal actions under the law against theft it was clear the legislature was not trying to make it so that her actions were legal. Therefore, she could be tried under the old law.\n\n* If a law is repealed and the legislature has included guidelines stating how to deal with the change in the law, courts will usually follow those. For example, if the legislature repeals a law criminalizing certain actions because the legislature no long thinks those actions should be criminalized, it can put language in the bill saying something to the effect of “all pending prosecutions against a person for conduct committed under this section shall be dismissed on the effective date.” If the legislature still wants to prosecute people for violations committed before the repeal it could include language like “this section shall apply only prospectively and any conduct that is a violation of the former code may be prosecuted under the law that was in effect when the violation was committed.\n\n* If the legislature repeals a law and says nothing about what to do with it, Courts will apply the appropriate “savings statute” and try to figure out the legislature’s intent. A savings statute in this context is a statute, like [this one]( _URL_0_) for Texas, which specifies that other statutes may be enforced for the time they were in effect even if they are later repealed. Some states’ saving statutes are friendlier towards criminal defendants with regards to appeals, but Texas’ seems pretty clear that “any . . . investigation, proceeding, or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment imposed, as if the statute had not been repealed or amended.” Nonetheless, the court may undertake the task of trying to figure out whether the legislature intended for no punishment to be imposed when repealing a criminal statute or whether old punishments should old violations were meant to stay in effect. The only case I could find that addressed the exact issue concerned two defendants who were charged with running an “open saloon” in 1969. The law prohibiting that was repealed in 1970 before their trial and they were let off entirely. However, the opinion is very, very short and I don’t know what the statute repealing the law said or what the savings statute said at that time.\n\nAll of this is to say, it really depends. If it’s something like adultery where the repeal of the statute was probably done because the legislature no longer thought the conduct should be a crime at all, then it seems likely that a court would refuse to apply the old law to someone who had violated it when it was in force, but had not been convicted for the violation. If it’s for something like distribution of marijuana in a state where the sales are now legal, but heavily regulated, it seems slightly more likely to me that the courts would enforce the law that was in effect at the time but it would clearly depend on several factors.", "Thank you for answering all. \n\nProbably should have mentioned I live in the UK but I doubt the principles differ greatly, except in that we don't have a constitution to state which laws should never have been enforced.", "This sort of thing would differ by country.\n\nFor example, in Canada the constitution explicitly says that the lesser penalty (between when the \"crime\" was committed and when sentencing occurs) applies. As such, you'd be off the hook if the crime is no longer illegal." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.311.htm#311.031" ], [], [] ]
aogflg
in biological terms, what is the determining factor whether or not you can "walk off" an injury? is it purely down to each person's constitution, or is there a physical threshold?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aogflg/eli5_in_biological_terms_what_is_the_determining/
{ "a_id": [ "eg0l5ku", "eg0lkyo", "eg0lo00", "eg0qz7t" ], "score": [ 5, 4, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Generally there is a pain threshold at least to my understanding. For example you can move a fractured or sprained ankle but you won't be able to move a broken one. Not sure though.", "Soft tissue damage usually results in painful inflammation. For certain minor injuries, if you remain at rest, the inflammation response kicks in and swells the afflicted area causing more pain. If you remain lightly active, the inflammation response remains limited. There is also a psychological component to pain. If you sit and dwell on the pain, it takes up most of your attention and will hurt more. If you, \"walk it off\" you can distract yourself from the pain until ot subsides", "Pretty much comes down to can you walk. If you can walk then it probably doesn’t hurt enough to stop you. If you can’t walk then it hurts too much and you need to stop. \n\nWhether or not it heals properly is a different conversation. \n\n(Disclaimer : I am not a medical professional nor do I play one on TV. I just know that when I broke my ankle I was able to walk it off but it healed wonky and bothers me occasionally, compared to when when I broke my hand and it hurt so bad I could barely stand.) ", "It primarily comes down to: is further damage possible if we just \"walk it off\"?\n\nFor example... I've strained an ankle several times from hiking and slightly twisting it. Walking it off tends to make it feel better for me, although in the moment it's excruciating.\n\nIf, however, it's something that could potentially get worse from continuing then it's time to stop. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
ct6e51
how hard is it to publish a book and how easy is it to make it sell?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ct6e51/eli5_how_hard_is_it_to_publish_a_book_and_how/
{ "a_id": [ "exiwahx" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "How hard is it to publish a book? Easy. There's plenty of companies that will let you self-publish a book. You pay them money, they register the book, print them out for you, and probably offer them for sale on their website. It's up to you to convince people to buy the book though.\n\nHow hard is it to publish a book and make it sell? Crazy difficult with a ton of luck involved. There's always the exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking if you want to sell books, you don't want to self-publish. You don't have the marketing skills, resources, and ability to get physical books on physical shelves yourself. \n\nSo, you end up writing a book, editing it, likely having various other writers critique and edit it, do final revisions. \n\nThen, you need to research literary agents that might be a good fit for you. Then, you write a personalized query to each one (basically the equivalent of a cover letter) along with a short snippet of your book, but not too many agents at the same time. Then, you wait anywhere between a few days to several months for what will probably be a form rejection letter about how your book isn't right for the agency at that time. Maybe you'll get lucky and get a personalized rejection. Maybe you'll get REALLY lucky and the agent will reply back and ask for more of your book. Maybe you'll get SUPER lucky and the agent will want the full manuscript. If you get no bites (as is likely), time to start over and find some new agents. Fast forward a year and a bunch of form rejections, then it's probably a sign that the book isn't going to sell and you should consider writing a different one.\n\nIf you happen to hit the right agent at the right time in the right mood with the right book, you might get a deal. You sign a contract that gives them the right to peddle your book to publishers in exchange for a cut, they use their connections to (hopefully) sell your book to publishers after convincing them that they'll make money off of it, and you happen to be one of the lucky few that get published." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
62jkoi
what is liquid breathing and how does it work?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62jkoi/eli5_what_is_liquid_breathing_and_how_does_it_work/
{ "a_id": [ "dfoikrv", "dfn37p1", "dfn3owv", "dfn5ytl" ], "score": [ 2, 159, 99, 13 ], "text": [ "[This mouse](_URL_0_) is breathing an oxygen enriched liquid. It works so long as there's enough oxygen in the liquid that lungs (designed to extract oxygen from the air) can extract what they need from it.", "Liquid breathing is breathing an oxygen enriched liquid instead of a gas. Oxygen will be able to dissolve in some liquids in high enough concentrations that it is possible for your lungs to extract enough oxygen from the liquid to stay alive. The advantage to using liquids and not gas is that gas will compress under pressure which can cause complications in some cases. The two main areas where liquid breathing may be used is in deep sea diving where super compressed air makes things more complicated and for high force maneuvers in jet fighters and rockets where suspending the body completely in liquid can prevent g-lock.", "Unfortunately there a currently unsurmountable problem with it. While we can get enough oxygen into the blood by saturating the liquid we don't have a way of getting the carbon dioxide out fast enough. The buildup would kill you within minutes. ", "Liquid ventilation (I think this is what you're referring to) is something that's currently being developed/researched/looked at.\n\nIn terms of mechanically ventilating someone, from a physics standpoint, all ventilation is fluid ventilation, since you can treat gasses like a fluid. for ventilating someone, we currently use an air/oxygen mixture (or just 100% oxygen) depending on what's required. Liquid ventilation would be just changing the mixture, from air/oxygen to something else (that would still likely contain oxygen).\n\nVentilation functions based on pressure gradients (and a bunch of other factors but we'll focus on this one for now). Things tend to go from high pressure to low pressure, high concentration to low concentration (in this case pressure and concentration are essentially the same, just a term for measurement.)\n\nSo when we want to get oxygen into your blood, we need more oxygen inside your lungs then in your blood to force the oxygen from the high concentration side (lungs) to the lower concentration side (your blood). The process is the opposite for carbon dioxide. The reason the average healthy person breathes is to get rid of CO2. So we need less CO2 in your lungs than in your blood, so the CO2 will leave the blood and go into your lungs to be exhaled.\n\nSo the mixture of air/oxygen is just a medium. We could use literally anything, as long as all the gas diffuses correctly. The only issues we might come across are the actual fluid mechanics (how they vary between solutions) and dealing with how that would affect the lungs." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQr0IZIb5I" ], [], [], [] ]
lekdj
the magic powers of baking soda
In particular, why/how does baking soda absorb and kill nasty smells?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lekdj/eli5_the_magic_powers_of_baking_soda/
{ "a_id": [ "c2s266n", "c2s266n" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Any powder has a huge surface area, so vapors will get trapped. I wonder if baking soda works any better than plaster, clay, or lime powder? Activated charcoal is supposedly best, because it has much larger total surface (since each little speck is full of pores.)", "Any powder has a huge surface area, so vapors will get trapped. I wonder if baking soda works any better than plaster, clay, or lime powder? Activated charcoal is supposedly best, because it has much larger total surface (since each little speck is full of pores.)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
fn7urw
why does it take several days to get used to a new pair of glasses?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fn7urw/eli5_why_does_it_take_several_days_to_get_used_to/
{ "a_id": [ "fl8h0kz", "fl8o9ti", "fl824zf" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "If the prescription changes your brain has to adjust to the new input. In fact your brain receives a flipped image in your eye and then unflips it so you can see normally. So in a study they gave people glasses that flipped everything upside down and after three days of being off balance and nauseous they had flipped back to normal with the glasses on and reversed with them off.\n\nNow back to your new glasses they probably tweaked the prescription so your brain has to adjust to that albeit less than my example.\n\nSo if your curious take off your glasses once your used to them and you will have exactly the same experience until your brain adjusts. And if you notice your vision problems whatever they are will be almost filtered out by your brain, like the zoom and enhance feature in movies. Your brain takes the blurry image and tries to fill in details that are missing sharpening or undistorting the image that you see. Quite incredible really, it's the same mechanism that your brain uses to block out your nose, or remove that annoying noise from your heater, or even ignore your breathing.", "A friend told me to wait until morning to put on my new glasses. He said to put them on before you open your eyes and your eyes will adjust to them easily. I tried it and haven’t had a bit of trouble", "The machinery used to cut eyeglasses is considered to be sensitive dual use technology whose export is restricted.\n\nIf you don't live in the US, Russia, Japan, or China then the machinery that your optometrist has access to is going to have some degree of error in it. That error means that no two pairs of glasses that you get will be *exactly* the same.\n\nBecause every new set of glasses you get is slightly different your brain has to adjust to the new pair." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
39mju3
why did lincoln say "all men are created equal", not "equally"?
EDIT: Thanks guys, now I understand it, English is not my native language and I thought *equal* was refferring to *created*, hence the confusion.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39mju3/eli5_why_did_lincoln_say_all_men_are_created/
{ "a_id": [ "cs4ljy2", "cs4lkdc", "cs4lkxn" ], "score": [ 3, 7, 4 ], "text": [ "Equally is an adverb referring to the manner in which man would be created. You and me are equal. You and me are not equallys. ", "All men are created equally, implies that there is something about the act of creating men that he's addressing - how were they created? They were created equally.\n\nAll men are created equal, is a description of the men. What are the men like? The men are all equal", "The adverb \"equally\" would try to modify the verb. The adjective \"equal\" reflects upon the subject, \"men.\" " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
717z2c
why do microwaves and oven doors have small dots on them?
It seems that the microwaves have small dots on the door because of radiation, but with an oven it is just heat, correct? I am wondering why oven doors have these small dots, hindering your view of the inside.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/717z2c/eli5why_do_microwaves_and_oven_doors_have_small/
{ "a_id": [ "dn8sa58", "dn8t73u" ], "score": [ 20, 84 ], "text": [ "You are correct about their purpose on microwaves but they serve a different purpose on ovens. On ovens they help both reflect heat back into the oven for efficiency and help more efficiently remove the heat that does get absorbed by the glass so you don't burn your hand touching the glass door. ", "Those aren’t dots on the door of a microwave oven, those are holes, in a thin layer of metal. An interesting thing about radio waves, microwaves, and light—it’s all the same stuff, called the Electromagnetic Spectrum—is that the waves cannot “shine” through holes that are smaller than the length of the wave. Microwaves are several centimeters long, *much* longer than the diameter of the little holes in the metal screen in the microwave oven’s door. But visible light waves are incredibly tiny, about a billionth as long as a microwave. So the light in the microwave oven can shine through the holes just fine." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
bz0pdc
how do the 7 layers in the osi model of networking work?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bz0pdc/eli5_how_do_the_7_layers_in_the_osi_model_of/
{ "a_id": [ "eqohkl7" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In short: each layer only concerns itself with the narrow part of the communication process it is assigned and communicates with the other layers via a more or less standard interface. Which means for example that you can swap out the Physical layer from a copper CAT cable transceiver to a fiber transceiver and the layers above it can pretty much work just the same regardless, or how the MAC layer doesn't have to give a toot about which transport layer protocol the packet has, it only has to make sure it gets to the right device on the local network. This provides good adaptability and avoids weird spaghetti code issues." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
331kb0
the purpose of ibm and cisco commercials
It never seems like they're selling anything, so why advertise
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/331kb0/eli5_the_purpose_of_ibm_and_cisco_commercials/
{ "a_id": [ "cqgme7z" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "They are selling things, just not to you. Just because you're not a member of their targeted demographic doesn't mean their commercials are pointless." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4ucsdf
why do some religions still condemn things that are now 'socially accepted'?
Such as homosexuality
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ucsdf/eli5_why_do_some_religions_still_condemn_things/
{ "a_id": [ "d5on975", "d5oni3b", "d5op1l2", "d5oqo1l", "d5oxhob", "d5oz5kk", "d5p0d4t" ], "score": [ 5, 36, 56, 21, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Religious morality is always based on the laws and culture of the place and time they originated or got organized. Christianity for example, had tons of manuscripts and books. Then in the year 382, there was the council of Rome, where it was decided what to accept and what not from centuries of writing (the gospels aren't eyewitness accounts for example, they were written by followers of the apostles dozens of years after Jesus died), so forming the new testament and the bible.\n\nPeople of faith then treat these books and scripture (of any religion) and consider it the word of their god, as holy. People are not supposed to question this, and so they keep the centuries old morality and apply it today.\n\nThe following is more speculation on my part, but I think morality back then was strongly based on the contributions people had to society. Homosexuals would not have sex with women, therefor not fulfilling their \"duty\" to father children for example.\n\nOur morality (mostly Western morality) has grown to accept people outside the norm, religion (mostly organized religion) hasn't grown alongside it. It's mostly stuck in the past.\n\nNow I have to make myself clear, I'm talking about the overall ideologies here, not the individuals that compose the ideology. There are plenty of religious people that did grow with the time, that do accept LGBT rights and so on.", "As a Christian, I'll answer for Christians only, but I imagine similar reasoning is at play for other religions.\nChristians believe that the Bible is the true word of God; that everything it contains was written by people whom God used to convey his words. Christians believe that this makes what is taught in the Bible extremely important.\nChristians also believe that the Bible is a \"meta-narrative\", which means it is piece of work that is true in all time periods and for all people. This is why Christians can't (not won't, but truly can't) say that homosexuality, per your example, or any sin, is acceptable: because the Bible, the source of absolute Truth that is meant for all people throughout history, says that they cannot accept it.\n\nAs a Christian, I feel it is important to explain why Christians care so much about what other people are doing, rather than \"living and letting live\". Jesus told his disciples to travel out after his death and resurrection, and to teach the Gospel (the story and teachings of Jesus Christ) to all people. Sometimes, what people (both Christians and non-Christians) focus on is the list of \"don'ts\", instead of the true message of Jesus: that Jesus is God, that he lived a sinless life, and died so that anyone who believes in him can be restored to the perfect creation they were meant to be, and can live forever in the presence of God.\nSo the answer, when you dig down, is because Christians love the world. We want everyone to experience the true happiness and satisfaction that can only be found in having a relationship with Jesus. Those Christians who act hatefully are wrong; it's certainly not my place to say who is or isn't a Christian, and we all fail to live up to God's perfection, but not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is one.\n\"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.\" 1 John 4:8", "Religions condemn them because their texts and doctrines condemn them. \n\nReligion is not dictated by society, religion dictates to society. If/when society drifts away from religion religion does not change (much) to match it. In stead religion dwindles in power and is relegated to myth. ", "Because nobody starts a religion with the intention of constantly changing its positions based on what's popular at the time. ", "My answer is simply that the beliefs of some religions, or at least some subsets of them, do not agree with the social conventions of our time. Just because something is socially accepted does not mean it is socially acceptable to every individual or institution, only to the majority of that society. In the first half of the Nineteenth Century, slavery was socially acceptable, but not to all.\n", "Religions that spread through word of mouth changed too quickly to successfully pass down helpful rules for society. Once religions adapted the idea of a holy book, they became more resistant to change, which helped them thrive for a long time. Society is currently experiencing a lot of change at once, and this resistance to change that was once an asset is now a flaw.", "Because \"socially acceptable\" ebbs and flows freely over time while \"religiously acceptable\" is anchored to ancient writings that weather very slowly against society's waves." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
10s1ag
the s & l crisis in the 80's...
I've read a little about it but I can't seem to really get my head around it. What exactly is a S & L? Is it like a bank, credit union? What caused it? etc.. I do have an accounting degree so I'm not completely in the dark on these topics so if you need to get technical feel free.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10s1ag/eli5_the_sl_crisis_in_the_80s/
{ "a_id": [ "c6g85mh", "c6gctf2" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "So, back in the 19th century, banks were for rich people. Unless you had a certain amount of money, they didn't want to deal with you, and they certainly wouldn't lend to you. Some reformers got the idea of getting poor people to club together and pool their savings and make small loans with it, allowing poor people to earn interest on their savings the same way rich people could. At the start, every person who joined the pool got a vote on who the group lent to and pretty much all the loans were for houses. In the UK, these groups were known as \"building societies\" and in the US they were called \"savings & loans.\"\n\nThe difference between an S & L and a regular bank is that they tended to have much less money (capital) and they tended to be very cautious when lending it --- mortgages, yes, business loans, no. Basically, they were baby banks for poor (or poor-ish) people. Jimmy Stewart's bank in *It's a Wonderful Life* is an S & L. \n\nBack in the 1930s where tons of banks were going under because of the Great Depression, the federal government started a bunch of programs to get lending back to normal. One of the big things they pushed were ways to let more ordinary people buy houses and so forth, and one of the things they did to encourage that was to create the Federal Home Loan Banks (there's I think 12, scattered across the country). \n\nThe FHLBs were like a big bank who *only* lent to baby banks --- that is, S & Ls. The advantage was, instead of having to rely solely on the pooled savings of their customers --- which there weren't a hell of a lot of, in the Great Depression --- the S & Ls could now get capital at low rates from the FHLB and lend it out to their customers. As a result, hundreds of new S & Ls rose up across the country. \n\nCut to the late 1970s. By then, the regular banks have kind of woken up and smelled the coffee and are now a lot more willing to lend to small-time customers, so S & Ls are competing with them, and S & Ls are losing customers. (In part because there were caps on how much interest S & Ls could offer for their savings accounts, and larger banks and money market accounts didn't have such caps.) \n\nThey also have another problem: Like I said, all S & L loans are extremely cautious 30-year-fixed-rate mortgages to good borrowers. When they want to make a new loan, they go to their FHLB and get some money, and then find a customer to lend it to. \n\nBut in the early 1980s there were some problems going on the broader economy. Inflation was high and every day stuff was costing more and more, but economic growth was slow and people weren't getting to many raises or new jobs (stagflation). In order to fix the problem, Jimmy Carter appointed this guy Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve Bank --- the big bank for big banks, the Biggest Bank of Them All --- and he responded by cranking up the basic interest rate level to 20%. When interest rates are that high, a lot fewer people can afford to borrow money, and the economy slows down --- but so does inflation, which was the main thing Volcker was trying to fix. \n\nIn the meantime, though, the S & Ls were up shit creek. They have all these old loans on their books, and they're gonna be waiting, 10, 15, 20+ years for them to get paid back --- at interest rates of between 7% to 11%. But if they want to make any new loans, they have to get money from the FHLBs at 20%. You see the problem? Basically, the level of money flowing in from the old loans isn't enough to support new loans flowing out, and the S & Ls can't make any profits. \n\nSo, what did the S & Ls do? Well, they bitched to Congress. They said, \"Listen, we know that back in the '30s you set us up with all these rules about how safe our loans had to be so that ordinary folks would feel safe keeping their money with us. And that's great. But here and now, these rules are choking us. We're dying over here. You've got to let up, and let us go out there and get capital from places besides the FHLB (like, say, Wall St.) and start offering other kinds of loans than just these plain old mortgages, or we're gonna go under.\" \n\nAnd Congress said, \"Sure. These are the Reagan Years. Clap your hands three times and the De-Regulation Fairy will appear and bless you with her magic wand and you will be free of these terrible rules.\" And it was so. \n\n", "An S & L is a type of bank that must now legally do 80% of its loans to mortgage and consumers. \n\n\n\nIt is like you [the S & L] have lots of money in your piggy bank. You want to save enough to buy a bike, but your allowance is small. You want to let other kids use your money to buy things they cannot afford until their next allowance. When their allowance comes in, they agree to pay you back, plus a small extra amount to help you make more money. Your parents allow you to do this, but most of it must be with your siblings and cousins. These kids in turn can only buy school and bicycle supplies with the money. They must give you a toy to hold until you get paid back [collateral]. They must also pay you back an extra 5¢ for every $1 they borrow [interest rate cap]. Your parents let you do this with the intent of you teaching your relatives about savings and investment. They will only allow you to loan a $20 for every $100 in savings to the older neighbor kids to buy candy and baseball cards. You also aren't allowed to lend to classmates. This is disappointing because the older neighborhood kids want to borrow more and can pay it back easily because they make larger allowance than your relatives. You would profit more from loans to the neighborhood kids, but you do what your parents [regulators] say because they're always watching you. They also want to teach you that life isn't free and give 25¢ of every allowance $1 into a fund to pay for pizza and soda on Friday nights [taxes].\n\n\n\n\nYour parents make you write down all your loans and calculate how much you have in your piggy bank vs. what is loaned out. Once you can account for $500 total, they will get the bike for you. You must keep $5 of every $100 savings in the piggy bank. One day, you get a new daddy [new prez deregulates banking with reform act]. You're able to talk him into letting you keep just $3 in the piggy bank for every $100. He also doesn't limit you to charging a 5¢ for every dollar you lend anymore. You write a loan to yourself and buy pop rocks, but your parents think it is a legit loan.\n\n\n\n\nThis is nice, but you aren't making money as fast as you want because you don't have a lot to lend. You really want to get a new bike as soon as possible. You need more money fast. You talk your siblings into letting you use the money in their piggy banks too. You give them some money to help cover the $3 in the piggy bank for every $100 lent with the agreement that they pay you 6¢ for every dollar you help them lend [loan origination fee]. You write another loan to yourself and buy pop rocks, but your parents think it is a legit loan. You take them to school and share with your friends.\n\n\n\nYour new daddy still makes all the kids write down all your loans and calculate how much you have in your piggy bank vs. what is loaned out. A lot of new kids move into the neighborhood and they want to build tree houses, but need money for nails and other supplies. These kids will not let you hold onto their toys, but you've always wanted your own tree house. So you agree to pay them $5, but they still need more money. So you lend them more money to help you build your tree house with the understanding that one of the tree houses is for you. You tell your dad and he doesn't make you pay 25¢ for every $1 allowance dollar [tax] if you can show him you are spending time and money to keep the lawn mowing tools clean and in shape [depreciation]. \n\n\n\nYour sister sees these tree houses and wants one too. You tell one sister that she can get the one you are building if she gives you ten dollars from her savings. She agrees. You take $5 and mark your loan to yourself as paid and write another loan from your sisters piggy bank for $10. More kids in the 'hood want to build tree houses. Your old dad would have been concerned about how you would get your money back if there isn't a finished tree house, but your new dad isn't as concerned and just make you take your brother to the site where the build will happen. If it is OK with your bother [appraiser], it is OK with your parents. Your brother isn't really into it, but you offer him a 5¢ for every ten dollars you help loan out [kickback]. Pretty soon, he's gushing to your folks about how great the tree house are going to be. Your parents are proud of you.\n\n\n\nThe numbers you are calculating still aren't looking good for you to get a bike anytime soon. So you start lending out more money than people are asking for so they can build more tree houses and use the extra to pay the 5¢ per each dollar loaned. This looks good on paper to your dad. The next thing you know, it is a full on fad [the boom] and all the kids are trying to build tree houses. You end up taking every last dollar out of every one of your siblings piggy banks to maximize your loans. Your brother now really wants a tree house. You and your sister agree if he will pay $15. You mark the loan from your sister's piggy bank as paid and write a new loan from your brother's piggy bank. You take the profit and spend it on pop rocks. You need more money to lend out, so you talk some classmates into letting you save their money in your piggy bank. You tell them that you will pay them 7¢ for every dollar they let you hold onto for 3 months. 15¢ for 6 months and 25¢ for a year [raise interest rates to attract depositors]. \n\n\n\nThe next hot new gaming system everyone wants has a big price drop right in time for Christmas [the slide]. No one wants to play in tree houses anymore, so the kids stop building them. The kids that were building tree houses to sell can't find anyone to buy and lots of tree house work just stops. Your dad finally notices all these half finished junky looking tree house and hints that he wants to look at your records. \n\n\n\nYour dad starts to become irritated with all the records and the lack of actual cash in the piggy bank. He makes you start paying for pizza night again and for all the pizza nights you didn't pay in the past [new reform act that rescinds previous act]. This is shocking to you. You have already spent the money. You start to go around trying to collect on the money owned to you. Parents of these kids talk to your dad and make agreements to pay 25¢ for every dollar loaned [bankruptcy]. \n\n\n\nYour dad is irritated even more and says that he wants you to sell all tree houses that you have lent money out to be built. He doesn't understand the gaming system means no one wants a tree house right now. You stop trying to collect and start making deals with your siblings to move most of the remaining tree house loans off of your records and onto their records [daisy chains]. When your dad finally looks at your records he sees some of the tree house loans are paid off. He writes down the value of the loans for the tree house loans that are still open because they look so trashy.\n\n\n\nNext week he will check your sister's book, so your brother pays of her loans and moves them to his books. It will be another week before he looks at your brother's, and you will just move the loans to your piggy bank before that. Your classmates start wanting their money, but you don't have enough to pay them all. You pay off a few and convince the others not to collect just yet.\n\n\n\nYou realize this won't keep up forever and kids are starting to look for money to help buy the latest game. You offer them more than they want if they will buy some of the tree houses too [cash for trash]. You don't have much too loan out anymore so this only helps so much. So you find a piggy bank in the attic. It has no money, but add a record sheet and start to move the unsold tree houses to that [holding company]. You mark the loans as paid on you and your siblings records. The money you do have to lend, you make make the kid get 25¢ worth of stock in the attic piggy bank for every dollar lent. \n\n\n\nOne day you notice a call coming in from school, but you hang up before your mom notices. A few days later, your current dad move out and your mom [new prez] announces that the trip to Hawaii has been canceled because she has had to pay off all the money you took from your classmates. You are directed to the closet and told to pick out a belt for what you assume will be worst spanking ever. \n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
100cg2
why are notes in different registers still considered the same note?
I'm a musician, and my girlfriend recently asked my why a C and a C an octave higher are considered the same note, even though they sound different. I was totally humiliated that I couldn't give her a good answer and I'd love to hear somebody explain it.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/100cg2/eli5_why_are_notes_in_different_registers_still/
{ "a_id": [ "c69ag8z" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Notes are characterized by their frequency in Hertz (Hz). An octave is twice (or half) the original note's frequency, for example Concert A is 440 Hz, so the next \"A\" would be at 880 Hz. [Here](_URL_0_) is a diagram of what those two would look like side by side. As you can see the two line up every cycle of the lower note (the one on top), which means the higher note contains all the nodes of the lower note. \n\nThe reason why we call 440 Hz \"A\" and 880 Hz \"A\" is because the other notes fit into them in a similar way. That means another note \"C\" (523 Hz) will fit into the same nodes of both A's which means both chords will resonate in a similar fashion. Of course it will be slightly different because the '880 Hz \"A\"' has twice as many cycles, but all of the \"A's\" have more in common with each other in terms of tonality than they have with any other notes on the scale which is why we group them all together. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://cnx.org/content/m10862/latest/octavewaves.png" ] ]
axeefu
how does a force quit on an application work compared to pressing the close button normally?
Why do unresponsive applications respond to force close but not regular close?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axeefu/eli5_how_does_a_force_quit_on_an_application_work/
{ "a_id": [ "eht0kad", "eht2g4o" ], "score": [ 5, 27 ], "text": [ "Ultimately the difference is how the operating system, like Windows or macOS, goes about *asking* the program to close. When using the “x” or close button, your computer is asking nicely that the program wrap up anything (like saving edited documents) and exit. If the program is unresponsive, this ask won’t be handled. When you force close, your operating system unmediated terminates the program without asking - because it’s not asking it closes immediately but there is a slight risk of data loss if there was any unsaved edits to files that are open.\n\nSource: Computer and Software Engineer", "Basically think of it as getting a guest to leave your house. There are a few different ways to close a program. The most \"polite\" way would be to use the red 'x', or alternatively the file- > close button. This allows the program to save data and then close on it's own. Think of it as telling a guest \"It's getting kind of late, I ought to be going to bed\". The guest might respond with \"Okay, I'll get going then\". The guest (program) then wraps up whatever it was doing and excuses itself out.\n\nIf the guest doesn't respond to this, (or the program doesn't close) you might resort to the \"end task\" button on task manager. This basically equates to saying \"you need to leave\" to your guest. It might hurt their feelings, but it allows the program to close without corrupting anything.\n\nHowever, if that doesn't work, you may have to resort to the extremes. If you go to the processes tab, right click on your program, and click \"end process\", it stops the program instantly and stops running it without question. This basically equates to throwing the guest out of your house by force. This might cause some problems, as you may have corrupted any data that the program was accessing (or your relationship with your guest).\n\nIf a program stops responding, that normally means that it has crashed or it has hit a bug (or perhaps your guest has had too much liquor?) This means that the code that they wrote to gracefully close it won't work, as the program has essentially stopped running. Since the red x just asks the program to leave, it won't really respond to that. (drunk people don't have much logic). So, you must resort to yeeting your now incapacitated guest out of your place of residence. (the force close button)\n\nI hope that put it in more understandable (and memorable) terms.\n\nEdit: Ooh, my first gold! nom nom!" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3cm6qw
methanol fires
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cm6qw/eli5_methanol_fires/
{ "a_id": [ "cswu7kh", "cswuryr", "cswxdai", "csx1g43" ], "score": [ 2, 11, 2, 6 ], "text": [ "Could you perhaps be more specific about what you wish to know about methanol fires?", "All alcohols burn with no visible flame. You can see them if you have thermal imaging camera, and you can definitely feel the heat, but you can't see anything with the nekkid eye", "When I was young, I held a shovel while my friend poured rubbing alcohol in the bevel of it... he struck a lighter to it, and nothing happened (we thought). So I, kinda shruggingly, lowered the shovel down to just throw the alcohol onto the concrete floor of the carport. SWOOSH half the carport is on fire now, it was lit the whole time; but with an invisible fire. ", "The orange color we associate with fire comes largely from soot particles that are heated in the flame to the point of glowing. These soot particles come from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. Methanol burns cleanly and does not form soot. Instead, it burns with a faint blue flame that can be seen in a dark room. The blue color comes from the chemiluminescence of carbon oxidation. Similarly, hydrogen burns with no visible flame." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
arkzvc
the cremation process.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arkzvc/eli5_the_cremation_process/
{ "a_id": [ "egnw8kw" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "The body is put into a cardboard box an put into a huge wall oven. After it finishes burning they sift through what is left and take out any metal you may have had in you like metal plates or screws or anything like that. They put that in a small bag. And set it aside. The small bone pieces that have not turned to ashes are then put into a grinder and turned to powder. This is added to the ashes of the person. When you are given the ashes back it will be a small bag with the ashes and another one with whatever metal was in the body. Today is the seventh anniversary of my mother death and I have her ashes with me as well as the small bag with all of the metal implants she had in her mouth. I was with her till the very end and saw as they rolled her into the crematorium. Didn't leave till I heard the gas oven fire up. It took about three hours and we waited. I promised I would never leave her alone and I never did." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
55fhr1
why did the gdp of several countries increase significantly since the turn of the century.
Some examples: [Argentina](_URL_8_) [Brazil](_URL_6_) [Colombia](_URL_2_) [Croatia](_URL_0_) [Ghana](_URL_4_) [Laos](_URL_7_) [Iran](_URL_5_) [Nigeria](_URL_1_) [Romania](_URL_9_) [Venezuela](_URL_3_)
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55fhr1/eli5_why_did_the_gdp_of_several_countries/
{ "a_id": [ "d8a8q77", "d8as02u" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Economist here. I specialize in growth theory, and long story short: it's not as odd as you'd think and certainly isn't the first time something like this happened.\n\nLower income countries often grow in spurts, then level off for a long period of time. For example, if you look at high-income countries such as US or Germany, the growth is much more steady in the same period.\n\nIt is very difficult to give a good answer while keeping it simple, since growth theory is a relatively new topic. But basically, a country's economic development often centers around being able to avoid 2 significant growth traps: the poverty trap (around 2-3k GDP per capita) and the middle-income trap (around 12-15k GDP per capita). The exact thresholds are disputed, but it's somewhere along those lines.\n\nThe growth leading up to these traps is often rapid, especially on countries that are able to get past the poverty trap. Getting past the first trap and reaching the 2nd involves basic things like machinery and factories (actual physical capital), which causes strong growth until around the 12-15k mark where the effects of physical capital investment start wearing off and getting past that trap involves more research and technology.\n\nInvestment (both foreign and domestic) can be very effective in getting past the first growth trap, but is not necessarily the 2nd growth trap. You will also notice that the growth spurt almost invariably tapers off once it reaches there. Post 2001 just happens to be an investment boom period.\n\n", "Wealth management guy here - the numbers are deceiving. during that time the dollar had a lot of weakness. What you see is in large part due to the currency the gdp is priced in. We have printed a lot of money since 2001\n" ] }
[]
[ "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp%20of%20croatia&es_th=1", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+nigeria", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp%20of%20colombia&es_th=1", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+venezuela", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+ghana", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+iran", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+brazil", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+laos", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp%20of%20argentina&es_th=1", "https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+of+romania" ]
[ [], [] ]
5hijxo
why do suppliers of commodities use middle men?
What are the benefits of using a middle man? An example of what I am talking about is Dunder Mifflin from The Office. They buy paper from suppliers (Hammermill) and sell that paper to companies (White Pages) at a marked up price. I feel like it is easier for suppliers to sell to a middle man so they get the most fair price but what other benefits does using a middle man provide? Also, do all middle men handle shipping and have to carry inventory or do some just coordinate where the suppliers should send their trucks? Any answer or guidance on how I can learn the answer is much appreciated. Thanks.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hijxo/eli5_why_do_suppliers_of_commodities_use_middle/
{ "a_id": [ "db0j49g", "db0j5yd", "db0j87j", "db0mc3c" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The idea is that Dwight, Jim and the Dunder Mifflin family are so excellent at selling paper, that they are able to connect hammermill to more markets, including what I'm sure is a very exclusive contract with the white pages. Additionally Daryl and Roy are working faster and have enough experience that they bring down the cost of warehousing to distribute paper.\n\nThis basically means dunder mifflin is delivering their services to hammermill at a cheaper cost than it would take for them to do the same service.\n\nHowever, as we all know, dunder mifflin hits some hard times when they are not able to keep delivering the same service at the same cost. They loose much of their contracts, and end up selling printers.\n", "Let's say you run a coal mine, and you mine a ten thousand tons of coal a day.\n\nOne of your customers is a 500MW generating plant, and he burns 3,000 tons a day. You sell directly to him, but he's the only big consumer in your region. All the other people who want to buy coal only want a few hundred pounds each.\n\nNow you can spend all your time trying to sell your remaining 7,000 tons a day output one 50lb bag at a time, or you can just sell it in big lots to wholesalers, who will sell it to retailers, who will then sell it to consumers.\n\nSure, you could make a little more money selling direct, but the amount of time you'd spend doing it would be insane, and you have a coal mine to run.\n\n", "For simplicity let's assume a very simple distribution channel.\n\nmanufacturer - > wholesaler (middleman) - > retailer (middleman)- > end user\n\nThe manufacturer makes paper in bulk, for them a \"small order\" is a truck full of pallets of paper. They've designed their warehouse workflow to quickly load a trailer full of paper. When the wholesaler orders yellow colored printer paper, they order a pallet loaded with 50 cases of paper. One cases has 10 reams of paper, each ream has 500 sheets. So you as a consumer don't need 50 * 10 * 500 sheets of yellow paper. \n\nIf the manufacturer of the paper had to sell to retailers, they'd have to break pallets into smaller orders, that means more warehouse staff to handle more orders. \n\nA wholesaler of paper doesn't just sell paper from hammermill, they might sell paper from other paper mills, maybe also stock other office supplies. So a retailer can order maybe a few cases of paper from different mills, pens, toner cartridges, bulk boxes of pens, etc. \n\nYou might want a box of a dozen pens, you don't want a box containing a dozen boxes of a dozen pens. The wholesaler makes it easier for the retailer to get multiple products from different manufacturers or importers from a single source, in quantities that a retailer wants to order.\n\nThe retailer like an office supply store provides a nice store or website with everything neatly displayed or organized, so you as the end user can go there and browse products from maybe 300 different manufacturers and maybe 4000 different items. This way you buy 4 BIC pens, maybe 2 uniballs, a ream of paper and maybe more ink for your printer. \n\nWith out the retailer or wholesaler, you'd have to go to 4 different manufacturers to get the product you want. ", "saving money: logistics/shipping has complexity, costs, issues, and some companies can do it far cheaper so despite the mark-up it could be much more.\n\nMiddle-men can do whatever they want as long as they meet the contract-conditions they agreed to with suppliers and customers. This condition of timing, inventory, etc., is generally called a \"service level agreement\" or SLA" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
bunfbb
is it better for your eyes to have a phone brightness set low or high when it's night (pitch black), and why?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bunfbb/eli5_is_it_better_for_your_eyes_to_have_a_phone/
{ "a_id": [ "epejapn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Better to set it to low.\n\nYour eyes use blue light (light of the sky) to synchronize the body's internal clock. Blue light means daytime which means you should stay awake. Our digital devices nowadays produce a great deal of blue light. The more blue light exposure at night you get, the more your body's internal clock gets confused, causing you to have worse sleep at night.\n\nHigh brightness will also cause your eyes to lose dark sensitivity at night. If you stare at something bright for a long period of time, you'll notice that you won't be able to see well in dim lighting. This recovers in ~20-40 minutes in darkness and is known as dark adaptation. If you find yourself taking a long time to adjust to darkness, go see an eye doctor as this is a symptom of eye disease." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
8knmc8
why to breath through your nose when working out.
Everyone always says breath through your nose and out through your mouth when working out hard, why would this have a physiological advantage?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8knmc8/eli5_why_to_breath_through_your_nose_when_working/
{ "a_id": [ "dz91ao2", "dz94ual", "dz9xlmn" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "because when you breathe through your nose you get less air than if you were to breathe through your mouth, but if youre not at that moment physically active you dont require extra oxygen, so when you breathe through your mouth you get more oxygen in a shorther amount of time.", "The reason is probably that your nose is built to moisturize the air you are breathing in. Try breathing through your mouth on a very cold day, you will notice your throat getting sore. When you work out, you have to breathe a lot. Doing this could dry out your alveolas, which will harm them and reduce the efficiency of gas exchange.", "As someone who runs alot, i use the nose intake mouse exhale method. The reasoning has changed per person but through my experiences it comes down to utilizing less oxygen in your blood while running while maintaining a proper o2 intake.\n\nAs humans we are able to condition ourselves to environments. While running and breathing slowly but steadily through your nose while exhaling quick seems to lead to exhaustion quicker, in reality it does not.\n\nBreathing through our noses while we run and exhale through our mouth forces us to be more aware of our breathing in general and allows better monitoring of ones self. While doing this we also force our bodies to adjust to less oxygen in large doses, we get used to extending our oyxgen in our blood. We are forcing adaptation within a controlled environment. Breathing through our noses forces concentration on our running which ultimately boosts our performance.\n\n\nHowever you look at it, it comes down to how you feel and if you can increase your performance. It works for alot of us, but exercise is a battle we all have to overcome." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
63qlbt
are diesel cars better or worse for the environment than petrol cars?
As I understand it, diesel is worse for the local environment as they cause more air pollution. So if all the cars in your city use diesel, you will have lower air quality than if all the cars in your city used petrol. On the other hand, diesel cars have better mileage than petrol and so contribute less to climate change. Netting these two factors, are diesel cars greener than petrol ones?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63qlbt/eli5are_diesel_cars_better_or_worse_for_the/
{ "a_id": [ "dfw9l2b", "dfwqp2s" ], "score": [ 14, 6 ], "text": [ "It is an ongoing debate whether diesel or gasoline causes more pollution. \n\nDiesels often seem to cause more pollution, as they release more of the visible pollutants, like NOx and soot. However, they release fewer hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, things you can't see as easily. They also don't release lead, which is less of concern in places that mandate unleaded gasoline.", "It depends on what you're looking at.\n\nIf you're just taking the engine into account, and nothing else, Diesels are considerably cleaner. Spark Ignition vehicles typically operate in such a way that they have an immense amount of partial combustion, which produces all sorts of hydrocarbon compounds (which are typically both bad for you *and* the environment), as well as carbon monoxide. Diesels, on the other hand, generally burn pretty cleanly, because they generally operate with spare oxygen in the cylinder (if they're not, you're literally shoving fuel out of the exhaust).\n\n**However**, there are two major caveats. First, it's actually surprisingly easy to clean the exhaust from Spark Ignition engines. We use catalytic materials to actually promote this cleaning process, and those catalytic materials generally perform better when they have all sorts of chemical species to work with (particularly, hydrocarbons). Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal until we get to the second problem.\n\nDiesels have what is called the NOx-PM tradeoff, whereby every diesel will either make particulate matter (PM), which is basically just fuel droplets that didn't burn completely and are shoved out the exhaust, or oxides of nitrogen (which are, collectively, NOx), which are some of the worst compound to come out of your engine that aren't the hilariously bad things like BTEX compounds. The tradeoff exists because you can't really run the engine without producing one or the other without getting into particularly interesting engine cycles that are kind of difficult to control. PM we can sort of deal with, but you generally don't want to be making PM (as you're literally just shoving fuel, and therefore money, out the tailpipe), so we generally end up making NOx instead.\n\nThe big issue with this is that NOx is **really** hard to clean up in diesels. There are various convoluted methods to do so (the gold-standard of which is Selective Catalytic Reduction, or SCR, which typically requires urea injection). Note that Spark Ignition engines will *also* produce NOx, but the same dirty exhaust helps in cleaning that NOx out through normal catalysis. In diesels, the exhaust is extremely clean already, so we can't take that path.\n\nSo, as for which one is better...Diesels. Diesels are far more efficient, in that you'll get more energy per liter of greenhouse gases emitted by the engine, but they make NOx and PM. Both NOx and PM can be cleaned, but that makes the engine more expensive upfront, and can eat into the cost savings from having lower fuel consumption. If you're okay with the added costs, then diesels are considerably cleaner.\n\nFWIW, what VW did was try to use the tests to justify their deletion of their SCR systems, which costed a significant amount of money, and thus forced them to raise the prices, which in turn hurt sales. The specifics of how they did their cheat are actually hilariously easy to pull off, such that I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the other diesel manufacturers in the US and the EU hadn't at least considered attempting it.\n\nSource; Two degrees in Mechanical Engineering, working on a third, research includes diesel engine combustion and emissions." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3wlys5
how do scientists tell the age of the moon?
For example we can tell the age of the earth because we have direct samples, but not for the moon. Unless you count meteorites, but then it's no guarantee it's from the moon.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wlys5/eli5how_do_scientists_tell_the_age_of_the_moon/
{ "a_id": [ "cxx6yep" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Rocks from the moon were brought back by the Apollo missions. Those were direct samples. The age of the moon can also be estimated by its orbit. It keeps getting further away. But there was a limit to how close it could be." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
15qrxr
why are the edges of some coins, such as the quarter, two different colors while the faces are the same color?
Like this _URL_0_
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15qrxr/why_are_the_edges_of_some_coins_such_as_the/
{ "a_id": [ "c7oxx89", "c7ozyib", "c7p0ee9" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because there's copper in the middle.", "This simply has to do with the composition of a given coin. A quarter is \t91.67% copper and 8.33% nickel. What you're seeing in the middle is the copper (which is what most of the coin is made of) with an exterior of nickel to give it its look", "Coins used to be made out of silver and gold that had value based on the metal in them. This is why they have the 'bumpy' edges - so you could tell if somebody shaved them down. Somewhere along the line money became a representation of value, rather than actually being valuable itself (something too complex to go into here - you can probably find a good ELI5 about \"fiat currency\" or departure from the \"gold standard\" if you search) which meant we could make coins out of cheaper metals.\n\nThe \"old\" quarter was mostly silver - a composition that is [worth $5.50 today](_URL_1_). As you can imagine, making a $0.25 coin that could be melted down for several dollars worth of silver would be a bad idea, so they reformulated it to have a copper core with a nickel face (nickel looks pretty much the same as silver but is far cheaper) - a composition that's only about $0.05 worth of metal.\n\nAs for why you can see it on some coins and not others... that's just a \"it's how they're made\".\n\nOn a tangentially related note - pennies made after 1982 are 97% zinc with a very thin copper coating. Zinc has one of the [lowest melting temperatures of common metals](_URL_0_). You can easily melt one with a common butane jet lighter (the ones with the bright blue flames) - be careful if you do this, it's still 800 degree hot melted metal that might do unpredictable things - you should have eye protection and a glass of water nearby to drop it into." ] }
[]
[ "http://i.imgur.com/uJUf2.jpg" ]
[ [], [], [ "http://www.onlinemetals.com/meltpt.cfm", "http://www.coinflation.com/" ] ]
2bh1w6
why is there so much hate between feminism and men's rights activists if they both claim they want equality?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bh1w6/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_hate_between_feminism/
{ "a_id": [ "cj598j8", "cj59h1r", "cj5a4nm", "cj5a8u0", "cj5ajo7", "cj5cvqp", "cj5czgu", "cj5eumt", "cj5fgmt", "cj5fqjb", "cj5hd4h", "cj5hrnk", "cj5ie8x" ], "score": [ 6, 145, 7, 2, 34, 133, 89, 24, 24, 6, 4, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "They have different definitions of what equality would look like.", "no common definition of \"equality\".\n\n**edit:** this was not an invitation for you to flood my inbox with your bargain basement gender politic rhapsodising. when you're saying things like \"feminists *say* they want equality, but *act* like they want special treatment\", you're being fucking banal. everyone has known this since the beginning of time. please don't state the obvious and expect a cookie.\n\nalso, a sub with almost 3 *million* readers is not the best place for gender theory discussion. he asked *why* there's so much hate. i told him why. how to stop the hate isn't something i'd like to get into now, because i have no respect for almost all of your asinine, obvious opinions.\n\nthanks.", "Because the fringe of third-wave feminism and the fringe of MRA are both hilariously misandrist/misogynistic, respectively. This effectively polarizes the debate and prevents more moderate egalitarians from collaborating in any meaningful way. Mentioning things like Father's unfair treatments in family courts gets you lumped in with [Return of Kings](_URL_0_) (Warning: Awful content). Complaining about the treatment trans people receive in modern society makes people assume tumblr is leaking.", "both groups have different issues they want to resolve in the name of \"equality\" \nMRA - have issues with how the court system oppress men, how society continues to ignore men's health and men are stuck in the traditional gender role \nfeminism - complaining about patriarchy, rape culture, male privilege, etc. \nbasically both are saying \"we are the victims!\"", "Mary wanted the orange during snack time. Jack also wanted the orange. Mary said that it would be fair if she had the entire orange because Jack had it yesterday. Jack said that that orange was rotten so it would be fair if he got a good one today. The teacher said they should both have half. Mary and Jack both said that wouldn't be fair, Mary because Jack had one yesterday, and Jack because the one from yesterday was rotten.", "Turn back while you still can; no rational debate is to be found here.", "I think there is one main point that is being missed here. In both groups, the vocal minorities are assholes.\n\nThe majority of MRAs and Feminists really want the same thing: basic human rights for all.", "They disagree on which gender is the victim of gender inequality, and which gender benefits from and/or is to blame for that inequality. Here are two ways of thinking about this.\n\n1. Let's say I'm doing something that I think is within my rights to do. But you perceive my doing that as an infringement on your rights. So you try to stop me from doing it. Now I feel like my rights are being infringed upon. So I try to stop you from stopping me doing the thing. We each think we're the victim in this situation, and we each think the other one is to blame. \n\n2. Another way to think of it is in terms of equity, as opposed to equality. [Here](_URL_0_) is a well-known graphic to summarize the difference. Short Person thinks it would be fair if they had two boxes so they can watch the game, same as Tall Person. Tall thinks it's not fair, because Short has two boxes and Tall has none. Tall isn't paying attention to the game, they just care about the number of boxes, while Short thinks the number of boxes doesn't matter, as long as they can both watch the game. Feminists and MRAs both believe themselves to be Short (i.e. victims of gender inequality), and the other to be Tall (i.e. benefactors of that inequality), and so each group wants more boxes (compensatory benefits) than the other group thinks they deserve. \n\n**Edit**: formatting, and added below:\n\nOf course, there are other issues that feminists and MRAs focus on that have little or nothing to do with each other, i.e. things that are perceived to harm only men or only women, but are not believed to be the result of the other's action. I don't mean to suggests that these issues are not important to their respective movements, but that is not generally where the conflict is coming from.", "Feminism is basically a socialist movement. This isn't to say that all feminists are socialist in an absolute sense, but they want to move government policy in a socialist direction. Feminists (in first-world countries) generally believe that the government is oppressing women by not doing enough to help them. The feminist agenda is centered around things like the pay gap, welfare, health care, child care, discrimination, etc., and they want the government to intervene to correct what they perceive as unfair treatment by private actors. There are some issues where they see government as the problem, like abortion restrictions, but they usually go beyond asking government to stop being the problem and argue that it should not only not restrict abortion, but also provide free abortions.\n\nThe men's rights movement, on the other hand, is basically libertarian. Again, this doesn't mean that all MRAs are libertarians, but most of their complaints involve ways in which they perceive the government to be harming men. The draft, alimony, discrimination in child custody cases, discrimination in criminal sentencing, excessive child support payments, and things like that.\n\nSo while they both want equality, the differences in their perceptions are such that there's very little common ground. MRAs believe that the main obstacle to equality is the government doing things that harm men. Note that many of the items on the feminist agenda are things that would harm men by forcing them to pay higher taxes and such. Obviously they're not going to be too keen on this agenda when they believe that the government is already discriminating against men.\n\nConversely, feminists believe that the main obstacle to equality is the government not doing enough to help women. So they're not terribly keen on the men's rights agenda, which includes many items that would require the government to do less to help women.\n\nNote that there are some libertarian feminists, but they tend to sympathize more with MRAs. Likewise, left-wing MRAs tend to be more sympathetic to feminists. And there are lots of issues where there's agreement (MRAs don't usually have a problem with women in combat, and many are pro-choice, feminists usually don't support the draft and do generally support more lenient criminal sentencing for men), but these are issues that don't cross the libertarian-socialist divide.", "Same as always with two oppositions, the extremists get involved. Extreme feminists and extreme \"men's rights activists\" put their five minutes into the forum and create an environment of hostility and hatred between the two groups. \n\nMy own personal definition of feminism includes the rights of men too, it's about equality for all - the only reason it's been called \"feminism\" perse it because women have - generally - had it harder from a social standing point of view for a good proportion of our modern history, so what originally became a fight for women to receive the same rights as men should now be a fight to preserve equality between the sexes and respect each other regardless of our gender. \n\nI also agree with those saying ambiguity creates animosity between the two, it absolutely does. The ambiguity makes the ideology vulnerable to extremist views because it's easy to hide your extremism and claim it as in the name of what was originally a moderate and fair ideology. ", "What everyone else has said about equality, but also the stupidest and most ignorant voices are always the loudest.\n\nFor every thousand people who believe in 'true' (dictionary definition) equality, there is one guy/girl screaming 'ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS' or 'WOMEN SHOULDN'T GET MATERNITY LEAVE'.\n\nThis also applies to why most 'peace loving' religions don't follow their holy books and *just get along*. Most ignorant/extremist views, loudest voices. Looking at you here, WBC.", "The modern men's right movement has it's roots in a reactionary movement that developed primarely as a response to late 2nd and especially 3rd wave feminist influences on politics. Basically, the original 'mens right activists' were more concerned with clinging onto traditional values that they felt defined manhood than with solving the actual problems faced by men. Evidence for this can be found in older literature, in which feminism is derided for emasculating men and breaking down traditional family values. Modern concerns, such as the draft, circumcision and parental rights came later and many MRA communities have not yet been able to shed the shroud of animosity and hypermasculine values that stem from those time.\n\nIt should also be noted here that the men's right movement used to be much more of a fringe movement before the internet allowed for easy communication and as a result there's a profound lack of in-depth literature or analytical tradition ascociated with the movement. Basically, it's history hasn't really given it's adherents much tools beyond blaming feminism or the influence of women for their problems.\n\nOn the other hand, while feminist movements have been relativwely succesfull at developing an academic framework that allows for the analysis of the problems faced by men, they have generally been unsuccessfull to actually connect to non-accademic men, something which the Men's Rights movement has been quite successfull at recently. However, one has to remember that untill not long ago, the Men's Rights movement was basically not on the radar for feminists. They knew it existed, but it held no political sway and they were more concerned with other matters\n\nThe recent advent of the Men's Rights movement on the internet then obviously explains the problem. On the one hand there are the feminists, who're suddenly faced with the advent of a political group that is strongly rooted in anti-feminist traditions and on the other hand, MRA's first of all find sollace in the early works even if their critique of the feminist movement doesn't make any sense. In addition to that, even if they shake off the anit-feminist rethoric and make an effort to reach out, feminists are generally aprehensive to respond positively.", "[I think this comic sums it up.](_URL_0_)\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://www.returnofkings.com/" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/50/90/7f/50907fae894d4b2f548c6fe3e6ccc62e.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic" ] ]
f2cygn
- how does depression help creatures?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f2cygn/eli5_how_does_depression_help_creatures/
{ "a_id": [ "fhbpwbl", "fhbq0xr" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "More of a defect than anything. Often times it is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. By definition, an imbalance is something that shouldn’t be happening, and thus a defect.", "It's not adaptive, but it is technically the result of an adaptive system. One of the major regulatory networks in your brain (the HPA axis) is designed to both role you up and calm you down, as appropriate. It achieves both goals with a system of checks and balances between brain regions. If some event or chemical mishap pushes the system too far out of balance, the result is a stable, persistent imbalance that reinforces itself (because that's what it has evolved to do)." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
tbn16
what does horsepower mean exactly, and how do companies give cars more of it.
How is horsepower measured, is there anything to compare it to? How do companies such as Underground Racing, or Heffner performance put more horsepower into cars? If this is possible, why don't car companies just make their own super performance divisions and start offering "tiers" of performance?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tbn16/eli5_what_does_horsepower_mean_exactly_and_how_do/
{ "a_id": [ "c4l89rd", "c4l8g5o", "c4l9dqy" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ " > How is horsepower measured, is there anything to compare it to?\n\nIt was invented as a unit to compare steam engines to what a real, live horse in terms of how much work each could do. So if a horse could do X in an hour, that's what they measured an engine's output with. \n\nIn modern day terms, there's a wattage that it's defined as ~750 Watts (varies by \"horsepower definitions\" but all are fairly close to that number).\n\n > How do companies such as Underground Racing, or Heffner performance put more horsepower into cars?\n\nThis is a very broad topic. There's lots of areas where you can squeeze more performance out of an engine. One common and broad area is redesigning parts to get more performance. From parts connected to the engine to parts within the engine, you can redesign parts to be more aggressive, efficient, etc. \n\nThe big ones though tend to be *forced induction* whether by a turbo charger or super charger. A normal \"naturally aspirated\" engine (most cars out there) pulls in the air/gas mixture with essentially vacuum suction. When you add a super/turbo charger to an engine, you change it to basically force more air into the motor. With more air, you can put in more fuel -- when you ad both of these in proper ratios, you get more power. \n\n > If this is possible, why don't car companies just make their own super performance divisions and start offering \"tiers\" of performance?\n\nPlenty do.\n\nMost manufacturers offer several variants of the same car, often times with better performance in the pricier models. However, some have specific performance divisions.\n\nFor example, BMW has their \"M\" division, which takes the standard car and makes a very performance oriented version of it.\n\nMercedes has a similar concept with their AMG section.\n\n", "Horsepower is a unit of power, obviously. It's equivalent to about 750 Watts (the SI unit for power). It comes from a time when steam engines started to replace horses, and there was a need for a way to describe the power of steam engines by comparison to the power of horses.\n\nThere are ways to increase the power of a car by fine-tuning or modifying the engine. The downside is that you may have an engine that may be less reliable and less durable than a commercial engine, or it might require more maintenance. All of these are important for a commercial car, so car companies prefer to optimize their engines for reliability rather than purely for power. The way they can offer performance tiers is simply by putting a bigger engine in the same car.", "As if you were a really bright 5-year old:\n\nHorsepower is a measurement of work (torque) done over an amount time (RPM).\n\nLet's say you connect a little trailer to your dog with some books in it. The total weight he is pulling will be 10 lbs. If your dog tries his best, he can pull the trailer a distance of 10 feet in 1 minute. \n\nSo your dog can move 10 lbs x 10 feet in 1 minute. That equals = 100 foot-pounds worth of work in 1 minute.\n\nSo we would say 100 foot-pounds per minute = 1 dog-power.\n\nNow lets say I build a little motor that can pull a trailer weighing 100 lbs a distance of 10 feet in 1 minute. 100 lbs x 10 feet = 1000 foot-pounds in 1 minute.\n\nThat's 10 times as much work as your dog could do, so that's a 10 dog-power engine.\n\nHorsepower is measured the same way. The engine in a car makes power by lots of little explosions over and over again inside metal tubes called cylinders. The explosions move something called a piston up and down. \n\nThe pistons have arms attached to them and as the move up and down with the explosions, they move those arms. Those arms turn a big long metal pipe called a crankshaft. The crankshaft is attached to a bunch of gears and stuff which then turn the wheels and make the car go.\n\nThe way the measure horsepower in an engine is by seeing how much work that turning crankshaft can do over time. So how many pounds can it pull over a certain distance in 1 minute? \n\nA cars power is measure by both horsepower and something called torque, they are both different ways of looking at the power that an engine makes. Without getting into too much detail, torque is a measurement of that twisting power. Horsepower is the measurement of that twisting power applied over both distance and time.\n\nThe way companies make engines produce more horsepower is by changing things so that the engine can produce more powerful explosions in the cylinders to twist the crank harder (torque) and/or by helping the engine to twist the crank faster and faster. So they make the engine able to pull more weight or pull the same weight faster over a shorter distance.\n\nThere are a lot of different ways to make the engine make more horsepower. They are almost always tricks to make it so the engine can burn more gasoline with more air in less time. Sometimes they use a special fan to push more air into the engine faster (turbo or supercharging) \n\nSometimes they make the space where the explosion happens smaller so the explosion will have more force (higher compression ratios). They may also change when the air and gasoline comes into the cylinder to make the explosion and when the spark lights the gasoline (valve modifications, valve timing, ignition timing). \n\nSometimes they also polish and change the inside parts of the engine so that gasoline and air can flow through better (porting and polishing, performance manifolds)\n\nWhen car companies make the engine, they are usually trying to make the engine the best it can be for most people, at a certain price. Most people don't want to use too much gasoline or have the engine act funny when it's going slow just to make it go faster when it's working (loping idle). \n\nThe car company also wants to make sure the engine lasts a long long time, so they don't want to make it work too hard and wear out too soon. They also don't want to spend too much money making the engine extra good if it means the car will cost too much.\n\nCar companies do have their own super performance divisions and offer tiers of performance for people who want to pay extra for an extra good engine. Mercedes-Benz has the AMG division. Ford has/had SVO. Dodge/Chysler has MOPAR. BMW has M-power. Toyota has TRD. Nissan has NISMO and so on... Car companies also work together with other companies who make special engine parts to make their cars faster.\n\nMany of those car companies also compete in racing, and they use what they learn from their race cars to make their regular cars better and to make special parts for their super performance divisions.\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
1m1z24
is eating organic really worth it? i hear people say you can just wash your produce and then other people say pesticides are absorbed in the soil. what are the facts?
Can you please cite sources?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m1z24/eli5_is_eating_organic_really_worth_it_i_hear/
{ "a_id": [ "cc4zwur", "cc501we" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "This is one of those [All I know is my Gut says Maybe](_URL_1_) things.\n\n\nFirst of all Organic Food definitely taste better if the person know it's organic or if the person thinks it's Organic when it's not. This is apparently in many scientific test and show how or mind changes flavours.\n\nIn blind tests it is less obvious. Very few people are able to tell the difference between organic and non organic food in a blind taste test.\n\nAs for your studies \n\n_URL_0_\n\nConcluded there was no nutritional difference and there was little scientific evidence that the pesticide residue would cause damage in humans. But it did not conclude that these problem did not exist. \n\nIt's important to note that Organic is a marketing and production term not a health term. You can for instance create organic poison or organic potato chips, nether of which is probably healthy to ingest.\n\nKeep in mind Organic food is less productive then traditional growing mechanism and it would be difficult to feed the entire world with out industrial farming techniques.\n\n", "Choosing organic foods over non-organic foods will not effect your health. The only reasonable argument in favor of organic food is environmental." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpaQpyU_QiM" ], [] ]
3o5cxk
why aren't cigarettes considered a gateway drug?
Cigarettes have worse long term effects and are much more addictive than marijuana. However, marijuana is considered a gateway drug and cigarettes aren't.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o5cxk/eli5_why_arent_cigarettes_considered_a_gateway/
{ "a_id": [ "cvu6130", "cvu66v6", "cvu85em" ], "score": [ 13, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Because long term effects and addiction rates aren't what makes something a gateway drug. The idea that it leads to other drugs is. Marijuana is seen, and this is debated, as a gateway drug because it gets you high. If you enjoy getting high of marijuana, you may want to explore getting high off of other drugs, like heroin, cociane, meth, etc. Also, the fact that it is illegal can be seen to contribute to this, since you're spending time with illegal drug users and dealers, there's more of a chance to encounter those harder drugs. That doesn't happen when just buying cigarettes.\n\nAs comedian /u/thehofstetter puts it, pot is a gateway drug because we teach kids that all drugs are bad, so once they've done pot and seen it isn't that bad, they're more likely to explore other \"bad\" drugs.", "First, you have to consider that there is no such thing as a [gateway drug](_URL_0_). That was a myth created during the War on Drugs to try to convince kids to stop smoking marijuana. Regardless of whether or not marijuana *should* be illegal, it *is* and *was* illegal, so there were campaigns to stop its use.\n\nSo, why aren't cigarettes considered a gateway drug? Because no one called them one. It was all a PR campaign, and tobacco companies have been trying very hard to make cigarettes look anything other than evil, deadly, and gross. They're not illegal, there was no particular reason to stop their use (at least, that particular administration was not trying to stop it), and they have an entire industry lobbying in favor...No one that much against them, plenty in favor, so they were not targeted by the anti-drug campaigning, including the gateway drug myth.", "Gateway doesn't mean something has bad effects or is addictive. Gateway means that it leads people to try other things, like the gate in a fence allows you outside a protected area. I know exactly one (1) person who told me that he only tried smoking marijuana because he was already comfortable smoking tobacco, and that if he hadn't already been smoking tobacco he probably would have never given into peer pressure and tried marijuana. He's also the only person I ever met who was actually actively peer pressured into trying drugs.\n\nAlso, there's the chance that tobacco companies will sue the crap out of you if you make that claim. Here in the US, it's commonly believed that telling the truth is a 100% effective defense against claims of slander or libel. The reality is that if a person has enough money and enough lawyers, they can sue you for pretty much anything. If you can't afford to defend yourself, you can lose even though you were in the right. Also, in very rare occasions, the claim of \"Yes, she said nothing but the truth, but she said it with the intention of causing harm to my client\" has been upheld by courts." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ending-addiction-good/201408/marijuana-the-gateway-drug-myth" ], [] ]
a6vik3
matcha tea
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6vik3/eli5_matcha_tea/
{ "a_id": [ "ebycpdm" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Most teas are leaves from the Camellia Sinensis plant that is infused in water. The difference between green tea and a black tea, for example, lies in how it's processed.\n\nMatcha is a tea that is grown in a specific way (shaded before picking) and ~~penises~~ processed into a green tea that gives it a grassy flavor and higher L-theanine content (L-theanine is a psychoactive chemical that increases energy and focus). The leaves are then picked and grind into a fine powder. Matcha is this powder.\n\nInstead of steeping the leaves in water and straining them out, you mix the powder in water to form a suspension and drink the whole thing. This gives you the bright green color and higher levels of caffeine and L-theanine than you normally get from normal tea.\n\nFun fact: when tea was originally being drank in China, it was all ground into a powder and drank in this method. It wasn't until later that tea was infused and removed from the liquid." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
73jan2
why can't we make cheese from human breast milk?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73jan2/eli5_why_cant_we_make_cheese_from_human_breast/
{ "a_id": [ "dnqqe6i" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There’s no reason we can’t make human milk cheese in theory. A quick googling shows a bunch of stories about it and even a recipe. \nThe main reasons we don’t encounter it normally are two fold. First is the hygiene angle. There are a number of diseases that can be passed in breast milk. The second is supply. A woman can only produce so much breast milk and a hungry baby can drink a surprising abound of it" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2csoha
why aren't hospitals required to provide abortions?
Hospitals can't opt out of providing other health services (nope, can't get your appendix out here! nope, go elsewhere to have your baby!) so why don't they all provide abortions by default?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2csoha/eli5_why_arent_hospitals_required_to_provide/
{ "a_id": [ "cjikz6h", "cjil0se", "cjil5cq" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Abortions are not (usually) a necessary medical procedure. Hospitals will not turn you away if you need treatment. But the operate word there is \"need\". They aren't going to let you die, but you having a kid isn't really their problem.", "Many, many, many hospitals will opt out of providing health services that it does not have the right equipment or staff for, and instead direct you to the correct facilities that will. \n\nThat's pretty much all hospitals, really.", "Hospitals can indeed choose to opt out of providing elective medical procedures. For example, a hospital may also decline to perform cosmetic surgery." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
1tnld9
why does it hurt so much to pee after sex
Maybe only for men, but what causes that uncomfortable/ burning sensation down below when I piss shortly after sex?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tnld9/eli5_why_does_it_hurt_so_much_to_pee_after_sex/
{ "a_id": [ "ce9p5oz", "ce9p6m7", "ce9p6u1", "ce9p7p9" ], "score": [ 14, 3, 11, 2 ], "text": [ "you might want to get that checked. like with a doctor", "You got a dose of the clap?\n\nGo see a doctor. This sounds like a medical question. ", "For men, there is a sphincter that will open and close the seminal ducts leading from the testicles to the urethra of the male. When you ejaculate, that sphincter closes off the path to the bladder. If it were left open, the urea in the urine would kill off the sperm. When you take a leak right after sex, you are forcing a fluid through an almost closed hole. That's why it hurts. You haven't given your body time to relax the muscle in that area.\n\n\nSource: I'm like a jack of all trades. I know a little bit about a lot of things. If I made an error, please tell me kindly. ", "Didn't Frank Zappa write a song about this very thing?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
89zjqc
in 1933, the us government confiscated gold from the citizens. how did they get people to turn in their gold?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89zjqc/eli5in_1933_the_us_government_confiscated_gold/
{ "a_id": [ "dwun7o6" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "By offering them money for it. A lot of people didn't turn in their gold, and as a result were prosecuted. This was usually a result of them attempting to sell their gold, or withdraw it from banks. Keep in mind also that the law allowed for any individual to own up to $100 in gold coins." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
a5pzt9
how do mobile games get away with advertising blatantly fake gameplay?
I'm not referring as much to the legality of the issue, as I understand it would be difficult to prosecute. I'm more curious as to how these adverts don't seem to be in violation of Google Play's own policies (I can't speak for the App Store since I've only ever used Android). A lot of these games promote fake CGI gameplay with a user interface attached on top to make it seem legit in an attempt to attract players who are probably not the most tech-savvy. This is exploitative no matter how you slice it, yet these games are somehow allowed to be hosted on the biggest app platform.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a5pzt9/eli5_how_do_mobile_games_get_away_with/
{ "a_id": [ "eboj29i", "ebokcg7" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "It's not exclusive to mobile apps. You see it quite a bit in regular videogame commercials, I can remember them from the 90s showing little to no actual gameplay, or stuff that doesn't happen in the game sometimes, or bits and pieces of FMV sequences, etc. If it loosely correlates then it's probably given a pass.", "What, specifically, is fake? Are you talking about graphics ridiculously better quality than the ads than in the actual game? \n\nOr are you talking about gameplay that is completely different from what is depicted in the ads (e.g. ad depicts matching the correct tool with a problem, when the actual game is just standard match-3 with some cutscenes)?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
akdj14
the mlb salary cap and how it fluctuates from team to team instead of being a set number like the nba or nfl.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/akdj14/eli5_the_mlb_salary_cap_and_how_it_fluctuates/
{ "a_id": [ "ef41h2u" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "MLB has a luxury tax instead of a salary cap. \n\nThe luxury tax acts as a deterrent for large market teams (yankees, boston, etc.) from spending too much money compared to small market teams (Tampa Bay, Oakland, etc.). When a team goes over the luxury tax limit ( ~$189 million) they are required to pay a certain percentage of the overage to MLB. For each consecutive year they are over the limit the percentage increases 17%-year 1, 30% year 2, 40% year 3, 50% year 4+. \n\nThe goal is to keep teams with small markets somewhat competitive with the large market teams in regards to free agents and other player extensions. Otherwise a team like the Yankees could just have a player payroll of $300 million and just buy all the free agents every offseason and make a super team which is not very exciting, unless you are a Yankees fan." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
c1gqbp
why do photos of stripes/patters get all messed up on computer screens?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1gqbp/eli5_why_do_photos_of_stripespatters_get_all/
{ "a_id": [ "erd8t1i", "erdb1vj" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Do you mean moire patterns? \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn television and digital photography, a pattern on an object being photographed can interfere with the shape of the light sensors to generate unwanted artifacts. ", "The Moire effect is caused by the grid-like orientation of pixels in modern displays. If you film something with a contrasty pattern that has fine lines that are almost aligned with the rows and colums of pixels, you'll see those patterns show up. This doesn't happen with film or analog photography because the \"pixel\" equivalents in those cases are the light reactive molecules that are chemically altered when exposed to light, and they are randomly distributed within the liquid emulsion rather than being organized in a grid." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern" ], [] ]
fe5rzc
why do touchscreen surfaces not work when something other than a finger touches it? what property of the touchscreen makes it not register touches from other objects?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fe5rzc/eli5why_do_touchscreen_surfaces_not_work_when/
{ "a_id": [ "fjlzfaj" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "When a finger hits the screen an electrical charge is transferred to the finger to complete the circuit, creating a voltage drop on that point of the screen. (This is why capacitive screens don’t work when you wear gloves; cloth does not conduct electricity, unless it is fitted with conductive thread.) (source:scienceline)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]