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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13q7q6
|
why do we have scotch and whiskey and then some bottles say scotch whiskey? well, which is it? scotch or whiskey? why are they put together on the label if it's not the same thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13q7q6/why_do_we_have_scotch_and_whiskey_and_then_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c765k12"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Scotch whiskey is a type of whiskey that is made in Scotland (there's also Irish whiskey, bourbon like Jack Daniel's, Japanese whiskey like Suntory, and others).\n\n\"Scotch\" is just a shortened term for \"Scotch whiskey.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6nqlcd
|
how do professionals know when it's the right time to release a patient from a mental institution?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nqlcd/eli5_how_do_professionals_know_when_its_the_right/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkbi6xh",
"dkbnsyy"
],
"score": [
14,
6
],
"text": [
"They don't. Generally, for most people, they decide they are sane when their insurance money runs out. When a court commits someone for insanity they are generally never let out, or let out after many decades when they are no longer any possible threat.\n\nThese days, for the most part, mental 'institutions' are money making operations that take in people committed by the court or by family members only for as long as the money lasts.",
"TL;DR: If the patient is self-committed they can leave whenever they want. If the patient is there on court order, they must get approval from a licensed psychologist and meet court-appointed criteria. If the patient runs out of money, a ward may kick them out regardless of their condition (though not against court orders). In less developed countries, mental wards are used much like prisons - a place to put people whom the government doesn't like.\n\n-----\n\nIt depends upon the patient, the ward, and the circumstances in which the person arrived.\n\nSome people voluntarily commit themselves to wards. This is common for manic-depressive people, or for drug addicts who are convinced by family intervention to try rehab. Sometimes people will have \"an attack\" of their psychosis that is more severe than normal, they will seek help, and when the episode is over go back to their lives. These types of people are there on a voluntary basis and cannot be detained. If they tell the staff they'd like to leave then they must be allowed to leave regardless of what the therapists say.\n\nPeople who are committed because of court order typically have some sort of condition that they must meet in order to secure release. This is usually something simple such as \"not being a danger to themselves or society.\" This can be accomplished using medicine, psycho-therapy, or by teaching coping mechanisms. While living in a ward, patients are evaluated daily and notes are made about how various treatments are working, how the patient describes themselves as feeling, how the patient interacts with other patients or staff members, general progression of the disease/disorder, etc. When the doctors see that improvement has plateaued, or has reached a level that they deem safe for a non-supervised setting, the patient can be released if they also meet the court criteria (not being a danger). There are professional standards for this, and the pattern must hold true for a period of time -- you aren't released the first time the doctor says you seem sane, you have to remain sane for a few days at least.\n\nThere are some individuals who have no hope of being released. Severe cases might not be able to reach a 'normal' level of functionality needed to hold a job, pay bills, or live without supervision. For these individuals, the only possibility of leaving is if they loose funding. It is not unheard of that an individual is committed, they make little or no progress, their insurance or funding runs out, they are released despite not being safe or healthy, they are then arrested for assault or indecency, and then the state has them committed and tax-payer money keeps them in the ward. It is also common that such individuals end up being shot by police because they fail to comply with officer orders or violently resist arrest. It is also common that such individuals are placed in jail and not given proper mental-health treatment, serve a sentence, are released, and then commit another crime.\n\nAnd then, as other users have noted, some wards are simply really shitty places. People might be held against their will because the ward staff has deemed them 'too dangerous' to leave, or refuses to acknowledge that they have met the court ordered progress. Like being in prison, a person in this situation will find it very difficult to convince someone to help them out - and that is if they are even allowed communication with people outside the ward. This is done to milk patients for insurance money or the tax-funded stay. I don't know much about how common this is now, but it used to be quite normal and lead to mental wards being more heavily regulated in the United States during the 1940's, 50's, and 60's."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
480420
|
physical fatigue
|
How does it work? I'm on /r/NBA and they are saying that Lebron is conserving his energy for the Post Season. I don't understand that. Why would he do that? He has months till then and days to rest within those months. So how would he be tired by the post season?
EDIT: Explained Thanks guys. IDK how to mark my post so this will have to suffice.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/480420/eli5_physical_fatigue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0gmnk4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The human body, upon physical exertion, requires a certain amount of recovery time for it to function optimally. Basically put, you need to be able to rest a certain amount of time after you do a lot of physical work/labor. This is important for anything physical, but especially important for sports, where performing in an optimal physical manner is required in terms of competition. So it becomes a factor to be able to provide the human body what it needs to rejuvenate.\n\nAs part of the aging process, this recovery time goes up considerably as one ages - in other words someone in their 30's or 40s requires more recovery than someone who is 20. Nutritional science has helped in this regard, both in positive and negative ways (think banned drugs like steroids/HGH). \n\nBut nothing can substitute time. Which is what is being meant here. You will see it in this case and many others where older players are time-limited to conserve their abilities to perform at peak physical shape. You'll also see it in general in things like baseball where they don't run pitchers out to pitch a lot of innings everyday, or in football where they limit themselves to one game a week and the prospect of more games in shorter periods (say a Monday game then a Thursday game) causes problems in them being able to recover."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38h1ff
|
how effective are spoilers on commercial cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38h1ff/eli5_how_effective_are_spoilers_on_commercial_cars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crv1fau"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, on really fast cars, the spoiler (also called a wing or airfoil) actually helps press the car to the ground. It is angled down like an upside down airplane wing so that the wind hits the spoiler and helps the car hug the road. If a race car is going fast, and the spoiler isn't right (or non-existent), wind can get under the car and literally throw it up into the air. Not sure if this answer has anything to do with commercial cars though. Since they never would reach such speeds. Check out the concept of [downforce](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downforce"
]
] |
||
4xbwlv
|
how, in a county where smoking is banned, a casino can have smoking privileges.
|
I live in an area where all of the counties within a 50 mile radius have outlawed smoking in public. Why is my casino, where I work, allowed to force me to inhale so much second hand smoke? And who do I write a letter to about the unfairness of this decision?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xbwlv/eli5_how_in_a_county_where_smoking_is_banned_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6e66vp",
"d6e98vb"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Is it an Indian casino? Native American territories have different laws than the rest of America ",
"What country or state are you in? Laws vary. Some have laws that specifically exempt certain kinds of places."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
91zix6
|
how do so many bars get away with only hiring "sexy" female staff without facing a huge backlash?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91zix6/eli5_how_do_so_many_bars_get_away_with_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e31y3z3",
"e31y8it",
"e31zkpm"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"They dont interview the ugly people. They don't need to say why they didnt interview them so how could they ever receive backlash?",
"Appearance is not a legally protected class. Furthermore, a bar can make a legal case that attractiveness is actually part of the job.\n\nIn some cases they can even make a legal case that being female (or being male) is a *bona fide occupational qualification,* that is, a job requirement.",
"They can say that the bartenders are technically performers, in which case they can hire whoever they want. I believe that's how places like Hooters get away with it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2h6ff2
|
how is the history of the civil rights movement taught in mississippi and other southern states?
|
How is it taught in schools? What about the KKK?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h6ff2/eli5how_is_the_history_of_the_civil_rights/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckpszfy",
"ckpuzxy",
"ckpxeyk",
"ckq4idm"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We went to the Charleston Federal Court with Sen. Fritz Hollings and he told us what it was like being opposing counsel to Thurgood Marshall for one of the precursor cases that was later consolidated into Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka Kansas. We studied the Supreme Court cases involving civil rights issues from interracial marriage to the college admissions series. My teacher brought his mother's poll tax receipt in for show and tell and she (his mother) came to tell us about 'separate but equal' public accommodations. \n\nAs for the KKK, we were taught that they began as sort of a neighborhood watch and then became extreme. \n\nEdit: I went to Catholic and Jesuit schools in South Carolina and Mississippi",
"Late twenties; went to high school in Louisville, Kentucky.\n\nOur education on the civil rights movement was cursory at best. We learned that MLK and Rosa Parks were good. We learned that the KKK were bad. We were not taught a full understanding of what actually *propelled change*. The way that certain events (e.g. bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins) were portrayed were simplistic and without full context. The brutality that black Americans experienced at the hands of the state and their fellow white citizens was not taught.\n\n\"Civil rights\" was a feel-good story about how The Great America overcame its sins, not a decades-long struggle of a number of political and intellectual movements which coalesced toward change at great sacrifice.",
"The same way it's taught in northern states, I'd imagine.",
"Growing up in Alabama, I dont remember actually learning too much about it in school. Mostly just the standard \"Rosa Parks did this and MLK jr did this and it caused this. These children died in a church bombing. There were marches here and here and here\". We really just went over the big things that happened, which i guess is appropriate for kids... One year we read \"The Watson's go to Birmingham\" and that's all i remember from that year. Of course black history month was always a huge deal. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4f2fc5
|
why is dr dre so revered in the rap community? what did he do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4f2fc5/eli5_why_is_dr_dre_so_revered_in_the_rap/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d25b3ag"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, he was a part of NWA, and that group made a lot of history, he is regarded as a good producer, he signed Eminem, he's from Compton (street cred), etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4kn4ae
|
how computers / search engines are able to recognise the content of an image.
|
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kn4ae/eli5_how_computers_search_engines_are_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3g6qk0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There are various different techniques which all need to come together.\n\nEdge detection, for example, is a simple mathematical formula that can be applied to an image to convert it into a line drawing.\n\nThen, these lines can be searched for regular patterns - two circles next to each other might be a pair of eyes, for example.\n\nHowever, the latest technology involves something called \"deep learning\" - artificial intelligence algorithms look at pictures where they \"know\" what the picture contains, then they try to match other pictures to those known ones. This results in the most accurate image recognition yet.\n\nThe thing is, [no one knows how it works](_URL_0_). Google have built computers which use deep learning, and they understand the deep learning algorithms in general. But they don't know, nor do they need to know, exactly what features the computer looks for in order to recognise that the animal in your image is a wolf."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/YCj8Qy0.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/15/google_thinking_machines/"
]
] |
|
8079il
|
why do companies use trans-fats? (to give cookies "desired consistency" and not just saturated fat?)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8079il/eli5_why_do_companies_use_transfats_to_give/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duu9l1s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When Oreo cookies were buttered the butter would grease the bag. Customers don't like greasy bags. Switching to trans fats gave the same taste color texture but didn't grease the bag and increased shelf life.\n\nCustomers demand clean bags and long shelf life. They don't demand clean arteries so they don't get it.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
j43c2
|
can someone please explain the economic recession that is going on in the us right now like i'm five?
|
Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j43c2/can_someone_please_explain_the_economic_recession/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28yszt",
"c28yx63",
"c28yxbn",
"c28z0ds",
"c28ze1k",
"c28zrrv",
"c291gf3"
],
"score": [
5,
12,
3,
49,
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
" > Banks extended loans so people could buy houses they could not afford. Several banks did not care how much they loaned. People could not make payments, banks lost lots of money on bad loans when people defaulted. Banks needed bailout to cover the loss.\n\nFrom [Enganeer](_URL_0_)",
"Right now we are in a \"liquidity trap\" which means that no matter what policies the government tries, it is almost impossible for them to increase demand (economic activity).\n\nBasically what happened when the banks were bailed out is that they didn't want to use the money the government gave them to give out loans (which is one of the essential functions of a bank), which means that new small businesses, home, and student loans became much harder to come by, thereby restricting economic activity. \n\nAt the same time, corporations still have to post profits in order to please shareholders, and when the economy is doing badly, the easiest way to make money is to cut workers and make the remaining ones do more (as opposed to selling more products and making more revenue). \n\nThis means that unemployment rose and the people that were previously spending money at businesses suddenly have no money so household consumption decreases. \n\nThat's a very basic picture of some of the things that are going on right now. ",
"It's like jumping on a trampoline: the faster you jump up, the faster you'll come down.\n\nThe up part started in the 1980s, when people loaned more and more money from banks (with their credit cards and through mortgages) and the government loaned more and more money from banks and from other countries. They were spending like drunk sailors.\n\nThen, the party was over and the hangover came. Banks wanted to have their money back, eventually. Always happens, without fail. And yet millions of people acted all surprised that a credit card loan is not the same as a lottery win and that mortgaging a house is not the same as owning it. The same with politicians: it's part of their schtick to pretend that debt doesn't matter, and it's completely normal for governments to get more and more into debt every year -- even though this never happened before about 1980.\n\nNow, people either can't or won't get more loans; at the same time, many of them are still paying back their old loans. As a consequence, there is less money to spend in the country. And that's a recession.\n\nSo far, the US government hasn't stopped spending like a drunk sailor. At this point, the options are nasty. If it stops spending, the recession will get much worse, because there will be much less money to go around. If it doesn't stop spending, it will go broke in a few years, and then the recession will also get much worse, and at the same time much of government will stop functioning -- less police, less fire firefighters, less schools.\n",
"It pretty much boils down to debt and jobs.\n\nHouses cost a lot of money--more than most people could ever afford to just save up and pay cash. So most of the time, somebody borrows all that money from a bank so they can live in the house and pays the bank every month over 30 years or so plus interest.\n\nThe bank wants to be sure it's going to get its money back, so they ask for a lot of paperwork from the person asking for a loan so they can prove they have a good job, make enough money, and are responsible enough to pay their bills on time and will take care of the house.\n\nBut eventually, things started to fall apart. The bank you got a loan from didn't really want to wait 30 years to get their money back, so they sold your loan to somebody else. Your bill still has your bank's logo on it, they still handle the paperwork, but your monthly payments are now going to somebody else.\n\nAfter a while, this meant that banks weren't as careful when lending money as they used to be--if you can't make your house payments, it's not their problem anymore. They make their money off of you in the beginning, and sell off the loan. You're someone else's problem now.\n\nSo it gets easier and easier to get a mortgage. People go nuts, buying houses left and right. People start to make piles of money, selling a house they bought for $100,000 five years ago to somebody for $200,000. And then they go buy another house and figure some new paint and a bit of yardwork will make them even more money. Heck! Let's buy two houses!\n\nHouse prices keep going up up up up up. Banks aren't just selling mortgages to other institutions now, they're making deals on top of them too, selling \"insurance\" to other big bankers in case somebody stops paying their bills.\n\nEventually, people couldn't pay their bills, and the whole mess came tumbling down. Banks failed, others couldn't afford to lend any more money so other businesses had to shut down because they couldn't get loans any more. So people lose their jobs, and now even more people can't pay their bills. Many of these people are stuck in houses they \"bought\" for $300,000 but it was never really worth more than $100,000.\n\nHouse prices go down, down, down.\n\nAnd now that so many people are broke, they can't afford to buy toys and gadgets and cars like they used to . . . so the companies making those things start to go under or have to shrink and cut more jobs . . . which makes more people broke and unable to afford stuff . . . so more jobs cut . . . on and on and on. That's where we are right now.",
"I could not explain it any better than this movie, [Inside Job](_URL_0_). Please watch it, it will do a great job at helping sort things out, and it's narrated by Matt Damon.",
"There is no recession. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Last quarters GDP growth was positive, therefore there is no technical recession.",
"Bad economies can be a vicious cycle:\n\n* Everybody is afraid of losing their job, so they save their money just in case.\n\n* Because everyone's saving, nobody's spending.\n\n* Since nobody's spending, businesses have not enough customers.\n\n* Businesses without customers end up laying off employees.\n\n* When businesses start laying off employees, everyone becomes afraid for their job.\n\n* So now everyone's even more afraid of losing their job, so they save even more.\n\nWhat's surprising about this vicious cycle is that it's basically a self-inflicted wound. There's no real reason that the economy is tanking - that original fear starts the vicious cycle, and once the cycle is going, it just makes itself worse. Really, there's nothing inherently wrong with American productivity, it's just the cycle. The only thing you need to do to fix it is break that vicious cycle.\n\nWhat's weird about this is that when you're stuck in this sort of cycle, normally \"good\" things like encouraging people to save money makes the situation worse. Similarly, if the government tries to save money during this kind of vicious cycle, then that means even fewer customers for businesses (the government is a big customer), and that makes thing worse too. People find it hard to understand how spending money can make the economy better, but it's because of this vicious cycle. Government spending can break the cycle:\n\n* Government spending means that businesses gain a big customer.\n\n* Businesses with customers hire employees.\n\n* When people see that businesses are hiring, they worry less about losing their job, so they start spending.\n\n* Spending means that businesses have more customers.\n\nSome people in this thread are talking about the bad stuff that happened back in 2007, involving banks. That stuff triggered the vicious cycle, but now, I think the vicious cycle is self-perpetuating. In other words, the banks are fine now, but that doesn't get us out of the vicious cycle.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2ez3/can_someone_explain_the_housingcrisislike_im/c28kmmy"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
58dsls
|
why do we let many foods sit or age, for instance, wines, cheeses and meats?
|
Recently I watched a Buzzfeed series where they went to different restaurants at totally different price ranges just to compare the different foods. One episode featured steak, and one of the restaurants used "dry-aging" to make the steak taste better?
So, after google searches, many sources say aged wine does not make better tasting wine but many other sources also say that aging wine improves the quality of it?
So I was just wondering why so many different foods age or taste better when aged and what is happening to the wines, cheeses or meats when they age, and if they are related at all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58dsls/eli5_why_do_we_let_many_foods_sit_or_age_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8zmego"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
" Keep in mind these techniques mostly began as a way to preserve food before the age of refrigeration; allowing certain bacteria/yeast/fungi can produce something that will last months, even years. Salting and drying are also used, but fermenting with live culture has it's advantages.\n\nThis does typically result in something that tastes different, and then people began to refine the process to make different kinds of tastes (hundreds of kinds of cheese for example). some may even taste kind of awful but are highly traditional, unique, or rare, making them valuable, and can be highly desired by ~~snobs~~ experts. \n\nAging, whether fermented or not, can bring more or new flavour. Aged steaks remove water **and** allows enzymes in the meant to have more time to break down connective tissue and long protein chains into shorter ones and you get a more flavourful, which is really different from a fermented product like wine.\n\nBasically if there is a way to change the flavour of something, someone will do it, and since wine ,cheese, and aged meat are *old*, they are traditional and famous and have cultural baggage because they've been around a long time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2iehrb
|
who cleans up a bloody crime scene after it's been processed and who has to pay for it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iehrb/eli5_who_cleans_up_a_bloody_crime_scene_after_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl1gtti",
"cl1gxcs",
"cl1kb6i"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are businesses contracted by police departments/county/city governments to clean up hazardous crime sites. The state, and therefore taxpayers, pay for this service.",
"There are companies that do this. There was a movie made about it where the girls in the film did it. It was called \"Sunshine Cleaners\"\n\nPro Tip - Amy Adams boobs",
"Funeral director here. There are various companies that offer these services, Aftermath Inc is one. Some Servpro franchises do as well. It's actually a pretty specialized service due to the potentially hazardous nature of a crime scene/decomposed body. As for who pays, generally a homeowner/property owner would either pay out of pocket, or it can be claimed on a homeowners/renters insurance policy. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xbm2x
|
why is there no humor-based talk show, or any formatted program, by the right wing conservatives? the left it seems spends a lot of time laughing at the right's proclivity to lie and distort truths, while the right are simply angry about every tiny details that makes up the left.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xbm2x/eli5_why_is_there_no_humorbased_talk_show_or_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coyo32e",
"coyo77t",
"coyohoo",
"coyp5sa",
"coyq0pg",
"coyq7j9"
],
"score": [
4,
13,
4,
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Fox News tried something like that a few years back but the ratings weren't there.",
"As the good reverend Stephen Colbert once said - \"Reality has a well know liberal bias\".\n\n\nYou can make fun of liberals and play up stereotypes, but if you try to make fun of the policies they advocate there is a lack of material unless you flat out make shit up. Generally reality is on the liberals side, they don't say stupid stuff that can easily be fact checked and found to be wrong. I'm not saying you can't make a jab at PETA or other far \"left\" groups, but the majority of liberal leaning people wouldn't associate with PETA et al.\n\n\nTLDR: There aren't a lot of jokes to be had, because the facts are on their side.",
"I, too, just watched Wednesday's episode of the Daily Show.\n\nThere is, more or less. Many of the well-known conservative faces - O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and even Glenn Beck - tend to play for comedy on their shows. They're not as deliberately satirical as Stewart's, since they're running as actual editorial programs and not a comedy show, but they do a lot of the same style of segment.",
"There *are* satirical conservative shows on the air (Red Eye on Fox News and Flipside on syndicated TV), but they aren't nearly as popular as The Daily Show or the Colbert Report. While there really isn't one clear reason for this, many suspect that it's due to demographics. Those likely to watch a satirical news program tend to be younger, and younger people tend to be more liberal.",
"\"Ultimately, the left will lose. Big business will pollute the planet, capitalist culture will kill off the arts and humanities, schools will all be privatised, libraries will all close, social mobility will cease, the gulf between rich and poor will grow and everything beautiful will die. The left may note little human rights victories – gay marriage and the odd bit of better pay – but the machine is rolling inexorably forwards to crush it. \n\nThe African-American stand-up Chris Rock maintained that stand-up comedy should always be punching upwards. It’s a heroic little struggle. You can’t be a right-wing clown without some character caveat, some vulnerability, some obvious flaw. You’re on the right. You’ve already won. You have no tragedy. You’re punching down. You can be a right-wing comedy columnist, away from the public eye, a disembodied, authoritarian presence that doesn’t need to show doubt. Who could be on a stage, crowing about their victory and ridiculing those less fortunate than them without any sense of irony, shame or self-knowledge? That’s not a stand-up comedian. That’s just a cunt. \" - [Stewart Lee](_URL_0_)",
"Same reason journalism has a (I'd argue slight) left bias, the type of people attracted to the area are mostly liberal.\n\nJournalists are about seeing something wrong with those in charge, the big guys, and pointing it out to help the people or the little guys. Comedy does something similar.\n\nComedy tends to be about \"punching up\" at the big guys. The right tends to be aligned with the \"big guys\" Corporations, the rich, etc. What are you going to do, make fun of the people trying to help poor people? Make fun of the poor who tend to be more liberal? The most you can do without being an asshole is say, \"That's not going to work.\" \n\n\nConservatives want to \"conserve\" the status quo. Meaning keep things as they are or were. It's hard to make that have forward momentum for a joke.\n\nI could go further but I think I got the idea across?\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/press/writtenformoney/formoney.php?page=2013-04-16-new_statesman-rightwingstandup.php"
],
[]
] |
||
pu8tt
|
the difference between the reported unemployment rate versus the actual unemployment rate
|
I understand that those who are not receiving unemployment checks are no longer counted in the unemployment rate. But how does the shrinking "universe of jobs" figure into it as well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pu8tt/eli5_the_difference_between_the_reported/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3s9vm8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A very perceptive man once said that there are \"lies, damned lies, and statistics.\"\n\nThe point he was making is that statistics can be misleading because the way they are calculated may not correspond with what they purport to measure.\n\nThe unemployment rate is such a statistic. There are limitations on the government's ability to collect relevant data and it is also politically more popular to construct the rate in a way that makes it seem lower.\n\nFor instance, people who have been unemployed so long that they gave up looking for work, even if they want it, are not counted. Neither are people who are working part time, or working part time at multiple jobs, even if they would prefer full time work. There are several other exceptions of this kind.\n\nSo the unemployment rate, while useful when understood properly, does not in itself fully reveal the level of unemployment or employment-related angst in the population."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1yb6ep
|
what exactly is that "hospital" smell?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yb6ep/eli5_what_exactly_is_that_hospital_smell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfiy5sf",
"cfizdjf"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Cleaning products. Hospitals need to be kept clean otherwise people go in with one thing and come out with another........ or die in hospital of something they picked up.",
"Disinfectant ?\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://humantouchofchemistry.com/what-causes-hospital-smell.htm"
]
] |
||
1qhd0x
|
the margin of error factor in opinion polls
|
It would really help me with an investigative piece of coursework if I had a really clear understanding of the meaning of the margin of error. How is it determined and what factors cause it to vary between different sets of data?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qhd0x/eli5_the_margin_of_error_factor_in_opinion_polls/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdcsnt0",
"cdctasx"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"When people are doing opinion polls they are usually only asking a small, but proportional group that is similar to the makeup of a country as a whole. For instance if you asked 2500 people who all together were similar to the demographic makeup of the US you would be able to pretty accurately extrapolate that data to be representative of the country as a whole. \n\nThe margin or error is how right or wrong they likely are with their reporting. Lets say something has a margin error of + or - 2, and they get a result that 51% supports X and 49% support Y. This means that in actuality that support for X could be as low as 49% or as high as 53%. Because you can not ask *everyone* you are going to naturally have some variance. \n\nWhat makes it vary is based on how many people you poll and how accurate of a sample size that group was. \n\n",
"Opinion polls only sample a small number of people in a population (the sample) in order to estimate the opinions of the entire population. There are many potential sources of error, but the the only error number which is usually reported is the statistical margin of error. This is a measure of how likely it is that this poll's result accurately reflects the opinion of the total population. It is usually given as a margin of percentage points (e.g. +/- 3.5%); this tells you that there is a 1 in 20 chance that your random sample was so unlucky that the real result is outside of that range.\n\nThe factors which interact most often in polling are the population size, the sample size, the type of question being asked, and how the result falls on the range of possibilities.\n\nIf a sample is small compared to the population, the margin of error is going to be larger. If you only sample ten people in a sample of one thousand, you are going to have a larger chance for statistical error than if you sampled one hundred.\n\nThe larger the population, the smaller the sample needs to be relative to its size to get a similar result. If your population is 10, missing one can give you large error, but if your population is hundreds of millions, a few thousand people in your sample can give you fairly good results.\n\nIf your question is yes or no, you will have less statistical error than if your question has more choices with the same population and sample size.\n\nIf the result of a question is close to an upper or lower bound (e.g., 90% of people polled agreed with the statement) then your margin of error is going to be a bit smaller.\n\nThis always assumes that the sample was chosen randomly from the population, which is extremely rare in any significantly large population. Also, there are plenty of opportunity for pollers to introduce bias to the polling activity, which is not covered in statistical margin of error."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5e0qvf
|
why is deep frying so much faster than baking?
|
Whenever I bake f.e. potatoes (even thinly sliced) it takes so much more time than if I would deep fry them. What is the reason? I've read that the temperature of deep frying is about 100C more than in an oven, but that can't be the only reason, can it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5e0qvf/eli5_why_is_deep_frying_so_much_faster_than_baking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da8rc5h",
"da8rf5w",
"da92xhr"
],
"score": [
13,
48,
3
],
"text": [
"Hot oil carries much more energy than hot air, and that helps the heat penetrate in to the food much more quickly. Hot air more quickly loses its heat when it comes in to contact with cold food etc.",
"Heat transfers faster through liquids then through gasses. You can be in a sauna without any harm to your body, but if you get covered with boiling water for a few minuites you at best will be covered in scar tissue and in pain for the rest of your life.",
"Also, liquids like oil and water take a lot more energy to heat up than air does, so by the time it's actually that hot, it's giving off a lot more energy than air of the same temperature would."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5j6jgh
|
why is science budget always being cut?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j6jgh/eli5_why_is_science_budget_always_being_cut/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbdpc3w",
"dbdprm1",
"dbdptik",
"dbdqktg",
"dbds0kp",
"dbe1jl4",
"dbe2sou",
"dbe35ut",
"dbe4fva",
"dbe4qil",
"dbe4s65",
"dbe63as",
"dbef1x9"
],
"score": [
530,
16,
11,
103,
72,
3,
51,
5,
2,
6,
337,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Science wins you no votes (at least not many since the biggest part of humanity is stupid and has other priorities like cheaper gas or less taxes on alcohol) or prestige. If you want to lower taxes to please your voters you need the money to come from somewhere so you cut expenses that only affects a minority of your voters. Thus science funding is cut. \nThe sad reality is, governments do not want, whats best for the people, they want to be voted again and again and again. So they do whatever is best to win voters. Where i live a party actually won 15% with a slogan against science and academics because stupid people liked that they want to cut funding to things they don't understand.",
"In general, politicians prefer programs where they can show tangible benefits directed at their constituents. So they favor programs that either go directly into the pocketbooks of their voters or have a big, visible presence. 'Scientists' aren't a very big voting bloc and they rarely produce much in the way of tangible results.\n\nIn the less cynical view, funding for science also suffers from the problem that it rapidly devolves from funding 'science' into funding 'scientists' - at the expense of science itself. Excellence at obtaining grants and excellence at research are completely different skill sets. Couple this with the fact that scientific research by its nature doesn't generally yield tangible deliverables and you have a recipe for graft. If you just keep the same programs in place indefinitely, 'bad science' drives out 'good science' because the bad scientists spend all their time learning how to game the system while the good scientists spend all their time doing science.",
"Science funding is like movie accounting. It ALWAYS is getting screwed, yet somehow work continues. It's just in how you do the numbers.\n\nI work in a field* that is supported by research grants. These grants come from a lot of different sources. Sometimes a federal program may move from one department to another, prompting the \"funding is being cut!\" cries, but never the \"we got new funding!\" on the other end.\n\nHow many full-time paid researchers do we have in the U.S. now. And how many did we have in 1960?\n\nIt is NOT advantageous for people to say, \"We are adequately funded\". That is why you always hear about the cuts.\n\n**Administer grant systems. Very familiar with the funding, sources, totals, etc.",
"It's a lot easier to cut because the benefits of science (and the arts, and various other things) are much less tangible. Roads are tangible, schools are tangible, national defense is tangible, government jobs are tangible. Research into climate change isn't tangible, space travel itself is tangible but the benefits are much less so.",
"There are some pretty good comments here regarding how tangible money spent on science is and the lack of political will to put more money into science.\n\nAnother aspect is that science is really expensive. Depending on the level of research being done and the area, projects can cost from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. A lot of the expense in procuring equipment and materials for labs is the certainty of quality and consistency. From the equipment end of it, even simple things like scales are expensive. This is because while scales are inexpensive, there is a need for a scales to be accurate and reliable. Then on the other end of the scale a project may involve building for example a nuclear reactor. Even buying relatively common chemicals is expensive. While the chemical you need is the same as what could be in a brand of drain cleaner, you are paying for the certainty of purity. All of this is because any uncertainties can sway results quite far and thus make it useless. This expense is very hard to justify when the person pulling the strings has not actually worked in a lab environment. \n\nNot to mention the ethical question of private funding of research and its impact on results. Leading to a preference of academic researchers seeking impartial funding, which usually comes from government bodies but can also come from sources such as charities. \nedit: punctuation",
"There are good answers but one neglected aspect is that that funding cuts get more attention than funding increases, and so there is a natural bias to think cuts happen more often than they do.\n\nIt is the same bias as the focus on child abductions or plane crashes.",
"Funding seems to be fodder for political attacks. For example, in the past you may have heard that the federal government spends 2 million dollars studying the sex life of fruit flies. You won't hear that the citrus fruit industry saved billions a year because now sterile male fruit flies are being released and since they only reproduce once in their short lives this has led to a reduction in fruit flies.\n\nMore about this here _URL_0_\n\nI'm not saying this is the only reason budgets are cut but it sure doesn't help.",
"I feel like there's an important side of this issue that's not getting much comment. Obviously, if the science budget was always being cut there'd be little or nothing left. But one thing that often happens with government funding is that an increase in the funding is proposed, the increase gets scaled back, and the scaling back of the increase is called a 'cutback' by people with a political agenda. Price inflation further complicates the issue because it's never self evident what portion of the proposed increase is merely keeping up with inflation and what is an actual increase. There are a lot of numbers and assumptions that can be manipulated for political purposes.\n\nSince I don't know what country you're in I can't comment on the situation there, but in my country this problem is so common that more knowledgeable observers of politics pay little attention to complaints of cutbacks, since they are so often a misrepresentation of the facts.",
"Most people don't understand what scientists are doing or how it affects their lives. Their only exposure to science is oversimplified headline articles saying that scientists have found that X thing causes or prevents cancer, or that scientists have found a miracle cure for something.\n\nThe general public doesn't realize that most scientific findings are very small and specific on their own, but together they make up the body of knowledge from which developments arise. \n\nEveryone is excited about CRISPR technology (all that embryo gene editing stuff, though its applications are much broader), but they don't realize that we only have that technology because someone studied bacterial responses to phage infections. CRISPR is the next big thing in gene therapy, but most people can't see why we should possibly be spending money studying phage in bacteria (and there are plenty of other reasons to study that and other \"basic science\" as opposed to \"translational research.\")",
"Because it's a long-term payoff with no guarantee of ever paying off. Long-term thinking requires rational thinking, rational discussion, and everybody being willing to sacrifice now for potential gains later.\n\nLong-term payoffs lose when there is short-term panic.\n\nThe current political climate is very largely anti-rationality and anti-thinking.\n\nThe last 20 years have been characterized by the rise of agendas convincing people to misjudge risk vs. reward, which makes \"potential, not-guaranteed\" rewards later translate into \"no, I'd rather have a $50 rebate check now than a potential sciency thing later.\"",
"So believe it or not, overall science funding really isn't a major target for cuts.\n\nScience funding as a percentage of discretionary spending in the U.S. Federal government has been pretty stable since the mid 1970s. It's fluctuated a little bit, but has [consistently stayed between about 9 and 13 percent of the federal discretionary budget](_URL_1_).\n\nWhen one sees [declines in real dollars in Federal R & D spending](_URL_0_) that's really more reflective of declines in the overall federal discretionary budget, or more specifically the military budget. Non-defense R & D funding has stayed pretty consistent at roughly $70 billion in adjusted 2016 dollars over the last 15 years.\n\nReally the biggest changes you see over the years [are which disciplines get more funding priority](_URL_2_) rather than more or less science funding overall.\n\nAnd to everyone who says that science doesn't drive votes, that's not entirely accurate. Some of the staunchest supporters of science funding in congress are the legislators who have national laboratories or spaceflight centers etc. in their districts. All politics is local, even science politics.",
"It's not always being cut. The actual trend is that science funding is increasing (even adjusted for inflation), not being cut. The problem is sometimes a certain agenciy's science funding (like NIH) gets increased very rapidly, followed by a long periods of stagnant funding. It would be much better if there was a slow and steady increase in reliable funding. Scientists are very good at lobbying for more money and making it appear that their funding is being cut (while at the same time exclaiming that there is a shortage of scientists).",
"Science can tell you stuff you don't want to hear. Like the fact that abortions do not cause mental illness. Or that the earth is warming and sea levels are rising. Or that we must curb carbon dioxide emissions if we want to maintain our current standard of living. When politicians don't like what they are being told, they try to silence the messenger."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique?wprov=sfla1"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DefNon%3B.jpg",
"http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/BudgetDISC%3B.jpg",
"http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Disc-1.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3nf437
|
why are sirens, klaxons, and emergency warning sounds so effective at grabbing our attention and startling us?
|
Think of the emergency alert system tones that come over the radio sometimes. Or if you're an iPhone user, the warning tone that is played during inclement weather.
Nothing is so effective at freaking me out and getting my heart racing. Which makes sense. But why are these similar sounds so good at that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nf437/eli5_why_are_sirens_klaxons_and_emergency_warning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvnj0tp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some of it is conditioning - you've always known that tone means \"danger\". Some of it is the urgency of the tone - it's loud, it's usually high-low, and it often repeats. These are attention grabbing traits that, combined with the conditioning, make you pay attention. \n\n(re: shutting down intersections - some emergency vehicles have one strobe in their light bar that flashes a certain way which is \"read\" by a sensor on the traffic light and flips the lights to an all-ways-stop as the EV approaches... nothing to do with the sound, but very nifty)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5zt6gp
|
does the weather shifting from hot to freezing and back again actually affect my health?
|
I live in Tennessee where it's 70 one day and freezing the next. People always say the weather fluctuating like that will make you sick, and here I am with a fucking cold. So did the weather influence this? Or was I just destined to have a cold?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zt6gp/eli5_does_the_weather_shifting_from_hot_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df0vnsh",
"df0vrv6",
"df0wlgl",
"df1a942",
"df1lhnk",
"df1plq8"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Can't comment about it contributing to making you sick or not, but I can certainly attest to swings in weather (high and low pressure systems) playing hell on my wife's arthritis and my hands becoming achey",
"I also want to know the answer to this question. I live in Nanchang, China, and in the last 3 weeks it's been humid, really hot, freezing, wet, snow hot again, and now just cold and wet.....next week is forecasts as hot. \nI've wondered how this affects health",
"Not sure but I think the reason weather shifting makes one sick is because people can't adapt to the changing weather quick enough both physically and behaviorally as well. \nJust like after rigorous activity or hot tub. It is very easy to catch a cold after when you think you are still warm but actually cooling quickly.",
"No it can't make you sick. Some weather, like cold dry weather, can make it easier for a cold or flu virus to infect you, mainly by drying your mucus membranes while also making it more likely you will touch your nose and face. Some viruses (flu for example) appear to be more robust in cold weather as well. However weather alone cannot give you a cold and being cold (or going quickly from warm to cold or cold to warm) won't make you get a cold. \n\nWash your hands and try to keep them away from your face and you will cut the numbers of colds you get drastically. Not all, but many can be prevented with some simple hygiene considerations. ",
"significant changes in weather can aggravate certain conditions. arthritis, most famously, but there are others. inner ear and joint disorders sometimes respond to barometric pressure changes. \n\nlocal plants and animals can also respond to large temperature changes in ways that trigger allergies.",
"I believe so. When the weather shifts from hot to cold i get a terrible headache and likewise from cold to hot. My body can't handle the change. I live in a weird sporadic weather city - Melbourne, Australia so it happens often and its very frustrating. I think it has something to do with the atmospheric pressure for me, as a similar thing happens when flying. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
xds76
|
why do loansharks loan debtors money when they know it will be hard getting the money back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xds76/eli5_why_do_loansharks_loan_debtors_money_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5lhj5s",
"c5lhlqy",
"c5lhv6r",
"c5lhyq8",
"c5lhzt0",
"c5lia6m",
"c5lk2tl",
"c5lkuos",
"c5lmmvr"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2,
4,
14,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are less risk averse compared to other lenders. They take on higher risk loans but charge a higher interest rate to compensate for the risk\n",
"They want the debt to stand as long as possible. They want the borrowers to keep paying the interest. In the situation where I was around them it was 5-10% a week and they did their best to make sure that the person could pay that before loaning them the money. \n\n",
"They put the \"mort\" in mortgage.",
"Interest is the price of money over time.\n\nIf I give you and 99 others like you $100 each, most of you are going to pay me back. I charge a bit of interest (let's say $10 for 1 year) to make it worth the risk that a few of those 100 people won't pay me back, and to compensate me for the fact that I can't spend that $10,000 on what I want to for a whole year.\n\nIf you're a pretty shady character who has a habit of not paying back loans plus the interest, it's more likely that you won't pay me back if I give you a new loan. Since I don't really want to lose my money, I have to charge you higher interest to cover the higher chance that I will lose it, and to cover my additional costs of trying to get my money back if you try to not pay me.",
"Some times loansharks are looking for things other then money. They get you to \"owe them\" and \"work off your debt\" by running drugs, spying, using your property as a front, laundering money etc. ",
"I am not an expert, but my answer would be three words: high interest rates.",
"Because they know they will *eventually* get the money back, plus a very high amount of interest, even if they have to break some legs.",
"So they can own that persons life.",
"They do a volume business. If you are charging 5% a week, you can make money even if a lot of people default.\n\nThey can take collateral from you, like your house or business, with worse terms than you would get from a bank.\n\nThey can also take non-monetary payment, like compelling you to help with some of there other criminal activities."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
e40fpq
|
how come blackface is offensive to blacks but drag queens are not offensive to women?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e40fpq/eli5_how_come_blackface_is_offensive_to_blacks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f95xguw",
"f95y44r",
"f95y78s"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably because drag queens aren't usually for the purpose of making jokes at women's expense.\n\nThat said, racism against black people is also extremely charged due to the history with slavery and segregation.",
"Blackface comes from a long history of white comedians painting their faces to make fun of black people, to go \"Look at me! I'm a black person, I'm so dumb! Ooops, I can't do anything right! Because I'm black!\" It's got a history of being used in cruel ways that were meant to hurt people. \n\n\nNow, drag hasn't had the same intentions. While drag queens are performing exaggerated over-the-top cariactures of women, they aren't trying to claim that all women are sassy queens who wear tons of make-up and have elaborate outfits. You're supposed to laugh at the drag queen, not at women as a whole. \n\n\nThat being said, there's recently been some discussion about the future of drag in the LGBTQ community, mainly that it can be harmful to trans women, and some people are torn about it, as they feel that on one level, the gender performance and playing with the idea of what gender really is that comes at the core of drag is helpful to create a more inclusive society, on the other hand, many people feel that drag is insulting to trans women, especially those who are transitioning later in life and can't easily pass for cis. \n\n\nBut blackface has you laugh at black people, while drag, done well, has you laugh at the performer, not women as a whole.",
"Women are not all focused on the victim-driven identity politics of being outraged. Not even all blacks are engaged in outragism, but their activists certainly are.\n\nDrag isn't \"pretending to be women to caricature women\", it's about expressing ones feminism, even when one is not female.\n\nBlackface, on the other hand, has a long history of disrespectful caricaturism of blacks. That's a negative historical perspective that's not going to come off anytime soon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
32ak7u
|
why do some submissions gain huge popularity, even if an identical post was submitted earlier?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32ak7u/eli5why_do_some_submissions_gain_huge_popularity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq9g02z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Different things. The time of day it's posted is a major one. If it's at a time where, worldwide, more people can see it it's likely to be more popular as a result. The title, use of grammar, etc., can also be significant factors. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2vmh0e
|
how do hydroelectric dams work?
|
I do understand that potential energy is converted to electrical energy, but how exactly is it converted?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vmh0e/eli5_how_do_hydroelectric_dams_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coizfgd",
"coizkqv"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"They chanel water through the dam into turbines that spin magnets over coils of wire inducing a current. ",
"All electricity is generated the same way, but by using different sources. In a dam, the water falls from the lake, and passes through multiple turbines. The water spins the turbine blades (like a propeller, but in reverse). When the blades spin, they move magnets over wire coils. The rapid back and forth movement of a magnet over a wire coil gets the electrons in the wire to start moving, which is electricity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
51g76n
|
how is it discovered that an animal is endangered
|
I always wondered how they knew how many animals are left on a planet.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51g76n/eli5_how_is_it_discovered_that_an_animal_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7bp0n9",
"d7bp1a6"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"So there's different levels of endangered: threatened, endangered, \nand critically endangered. \n\nMath models can help tell when an animals moves from regular status to threatened status. For example, if one out of every 20 fishing boats brought home species \"X\" ten years ago, but now it's one out of every 50, you know something's going on with the species, and so there might be a bump in funding to determine what's happening. Then your math model can tell you the expected population in the area based on extending the known data. For example, if fishing boats catch about 1 in 20 Species X fish, and they catch 1000 Species X fish, there's something like 19000 Species X of breeding age left.\n\nAn animal that's endangered has reduced in population, or habitat, or both to the point that there's a decent chance that they could be wiped out. In this case, their territory has shrunk or their population has declined to the point where you can guesstimate how many are left. And they ban any hunting or fishing of that species.\n\nUsually when an animal is critically endangered, there's only a few clusters or a very small territory left that support the animal. So physical inspection is the ticket then. Those ones get lots of funding so you can support tagging programs, moving them into captivity, or create a breeding program for them.",
"In most cases, you don't need to find and count every single individual. You can look at a representative sample area, count how many individuals are there, and then multiply by the total area to get the approximate total number of individuals. \n\nThis is usually good enough, but isn't 100% accurate, as demonstrated by species thought to be extinct turning up alive and well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bk8sbh
|
how comes some trees have leaves that are pink/red/orange? do they photosynthesize the same way as green trees do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bk8sbh/eli5_how_comes_some_trees_have_leaves_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emey9xd"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Usually that only happens when the tree is going into senescence for the winter. Photosynthesis slows or even stops as less sunlight is available to the tree and temperatures drop, the leaves change color and eventually fall off. The tree stores the energy from within the leaves in its root system to survive through the winter.\n\nTrees that have red or purple or other colored leaves all the time, like Japanese maple, still have some chlorophyll in the leaves. Those plants just have higher base levels of anthocyanins and carotenoids that make them appear red, orange, purple, or whatever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8trvjn
|
why does bread have a thin layer of crust instead of a continuous gradient from most cooked to least?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8trvjn/eli5_why_does_bread_have_a_thin_layer_of_crust/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e19pznw"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Bread dough isn't very good at conducting heat, so the outside layer gets really hot but it cools down quickly away from the edge.\n\nAlso, when the dough rises and gets all puffy, it prevents the dough from browning even more since the air bubbles are even better at insulating than the dough itself. \n\nSo you end up with an uneven texture where only the outside is browned and crunchy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
kzed0
|
why do people hate corporations and banks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kzed0/why_do_people_hate_corporations_and_banks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2oi8eg",
"c2oiilk",
"c2oivpg",
"c2ok14t",
"c2om0um",
"c2oi8eg",
"c2oiilk",
"c2oivpg",
"c2ok14t",
"c2om0um"
],
"score": [
10,
14,
12,
35,
4,
10,
14,
12,
35,
4
],
"text": [
"They both have money and use their money to dictate public policy giving them a greater say in government then any individual which goes against the concept of democracy.",
"The biggest complaint that people currently have with corporations and banks is essentially greed. Banks and corporations have a large amount of money. Because of this money, they have a lot of power. \n\nIf a person has a legitimate problem with the way they are treated by the bank or corporation, they can't really do anything about it. People believe the government should step in and help out the individuals, since there is no way (most) individuals can have enough resources to properly fight for their rights. However, since banks and corporations have so much money, they use this money to finance politicians' campaigns. They can then use this power they have over the politicians to make policy changes and laws to protect themselves instead of the individuals.",
"A corporation exists to make money, and they will do this at the expense of other human beings (child labor for dollars a day around dangerous machinery) and the environment (they want to drill for oil in the Everglades, they are cutting down the rainforests, essentially destabilizing ecosystems without any care given to long-term consequences). If left unchecked, corporations would literally use up all the planet's resources and plunge the human race into an extinction scenario as long as their profits looked good. Many people are afraid that this is exactly what is happening, or is what will happen if we do not put some limits on corporations.",
"Banks use *your* money to do business, and that's why they pay *you* interest.\n\nThey then loan out your money at a *premium* to others looking for loans, and charge them a higher interest. So essentially the bank is simply a middle-man charging a percentage fee for finding borrowers from investors.\n\nThe problems come when banks start trying to make more money for managing *your* money:\n\n* They start adding minimum amount accounts.\n\nWhy? Because they want to have a *known* amount of money they can turn around and invest with. This is like saying, you expect a paycheck every two weeks of a certain amount of money, therefore you go out and purchase things hoping to pay it off with the next check. If your next check is not what you expected, you turn around and charge your employer a minimum account fee. Can *you* do that? No, so why should banks be able to do it? Why is it that banks can expect a minimum amount of money while you can't? Their argument being, \"it costs money to manage accounts\" but they forget that that's the purpose of *their* business - to manage accounts. You don't go to work and charge your employer the cup of coffee you have in the morning because you *need* it to do your job.\n\n* They add overdrawn fees.\n\nEvery business contract should have an expectation of living up to it's goals. Thus if you failed to have the necessary funds to pay for your transactions it's your fault. But what happens when *they* fail to place all your funds into your account? Therefore you go to withdraw money, or a check you wrote is cashed, your account is overdrawn? They hit you with a fee. You say \"It's not my fault, you guys made the mistake\" and it becomes a hassle of trying to argue with them about a systems error. Lack of customer service is a big problem with banks because of limited abilities to correct things right away. This is also to ensure there's limited power among employees to limit more errors from occurring, or to eliminate embezzlement, but think about the difference of customer service attention you get at a Mom & Pop shop than you do retail chain, and how quickly they can resolve issues.\n\n* They add monthly account service fees.\n\nThey make *you* pay for their ability to invest *your* money for a profit. All banks are middlemen, and they're profits come from the differences in percentage rates in what they pay and what they recieve. Think about it this way, if you have a friend who's selling some art, and you, being an art dealer, find a buyer for the art. You then you take a percentage (let's say 10%). You don't turn around and charge your friend another fee saying \"Well, I *did* spend three months looking for the buyer, so you owe me three months of service charge\". No, you already took your cut in the form of the 10%. Banks feel entitled to charging you money, for investing your money and turning a profit. Makes no sense. \n\n* They add services such as overdrawn protection, online banking, direct deposit, with the notion that it's to help the customer.\n\nThe reason they add overdrawn protection is to have another steady source of monthly income, it has nothing to do with saving *you* money. Most people, once they've been hit with an overdrawn fee of ~$40 try to remember not to do it again, and thus there aren't many repeat offenders. This is just a ploy to get more money.\n\nOnline banking saves the customer over $XYZ per year! Yes but it save banks much more money by not having to send out monthly bills, paying for postage, and paying as many mail room clerks to handle mail. Postage costs add up when you have millions of customers.\n\nDirect Deposit has less to do with making it 'easier' for you than it does with making it so that banks have a known date of when to expect a steady source of income. Banks essentially cut out the middleman between them and your money - you being the middle man, and the time it takes you to give the bank the check.\n\n* Too big to fail.\n\nThis is probably the biggest problem with banks today. Banks invest in many different forms of investments and many of them include Government Subsidized contracts, such as Mortgages and School Loans handled by Fannie and Freddy Mac. Thus banks can willingly invest in potentially bad investments because it won't matter if it's a bad investment, the government has *guaranteed* the investment and the bank will make their money back anyways. No harm, no foul. \n\nDuring the Real Estate bubble, you could be a low-income individual, walk into a bank, ask for a 100% loan to purchase a home, and get rejected. Good. You then turn around and go through an Real Estate agent to purchase a home, the Agent finds a loan company willing to finance you, you get the loan and the home for a 5yr fixed. You bought the home, and the bank purchases your loans from investment companies, and repackage them with other 'healthy' investments and sell the to other institutions (such as Freddy Mac) at a profit. The bank didn't have the confidence in *you* to directly loan you the money, but they have the confidence to buy and resell your loan to the government for a profit. Seems sad and it's what led to the bubble collapsing since there was nobody to take the hit except the government. If businesses took the hit, then they'd be more conscientious in their investments. \n\nThe notion of Too Big Too Fail - in other words, I have too much debt, give me money. If an individual took on too much debt and were unable to pay it, what happens? You declare bankruptcy - stuff happens. The individuals no longer qualify for loans, it's difficult to purchase things on credit, and life because a struggle for the next ten years or so. Now flip the roles and ask if Banks are the same way? No, they still continue to make government backed loans and investments loans, private loans and purchase on credit, and on the bright side, the government gave them a big fat check and near-zero percent interest to pay off debt. Did you get a check when you declared bankruptcy? \n\nThe problem with banks is that they forgot that all they are is a middleman. That's it. You want to have the sympathy from your investors and customers, but they never have to deal with the problems their customers deal with. They're not entitled to any money, except that which they've contractually loaned out, but not from their customers. The feeling of entitlement needs to be taken from them. \n\n\n**As for corporations:** simply put there are two problems. 1) No international boundaries, and thus corporations go into other nations and disrupt their economies - this is where the hate for America comes from other nations. Taking natural resources from one location to another, and depleting the people of that resource, and leaving when they're done. Think of it as what happened in Flint Michigan, on a global/international scale. 2) Corporations have lots of influence in politics. Having money does not make you an individual. Investing money does not make you an individual. Votes are made by individuals, thus corporations are not individuals. But donating money can be used for speech (you pay someone to speak for you) and thus is constitutionally protected, therefore investing money in someone (or organization) is constitutionally protected. Thus corporations can give lots of money, which is protected by the constitution, and can influence politics. Corporations have much more money than individuals, and therefore have much more influence in politics. Why hate corporations? They have too much power, without any limit to that power. Even our government has limits to it's powers (Checks and Balances) but corporations don't, only in that you don't purchase their products. Thus, people can choose not to purchase from certain corporations. ",
"They take more and more and claim they need even more every year to help you and this country.",
"They both have money and use their money to dictate public policy giving them a greater say in government then any individual which goes against the concept of democracy.",
"The biggest complaint that people currently have with corporations and banks is essentially greed. Banks and corporations have a large amount of money. Because of this money, they have a lot of power. \n\nIf a person has a legitimate problem with the way they are treated by the bank or corporation, they can't really do anything about it. People believe the government should step in and help out the individuals, since there is no way (most) individuals can have enough resources to properly fight for their rights. However, since banks and corporations have so much money, they use this money to finance politicians' campaigns. They can then use this power they have over the politicians to make policy changes and laws to protect themselves instead of the individuals.",
"A corporation exists to make money, and they will do this at the expense of other human beings (child labor for dollars a day around dangerous machinery) and the environment (they want to drill for oil in the Everglades, they are cutting down the rainforests, essentially destabilizing ecosystems without any care given to long-term consequences). If left unchecked, corporations would literally use up all the planet's resources and plunge the human race into an extinction scenario as long as their profits looked good. Many people are afraid that this is exactly what is happening, or is what will happen if we do not put some limits on corporations.",
"Banks use *your* money to do business, and that's why they pay *you* interest.\n\nThey then loan out your money at a *premium* to others looking for loans, and charge them a higher interest. So essentially the bank is simply a middle-man charging a percentage fee for finding borrowers from investors.\n\nThe problems come when banks start trying to make more money for managing *your* money:\n\n* They start adding minimum amount accounts.\n\nWhy? Because they want to have a *known* amount of money they can turn around and invest with. This is like saying, you expect a paycheck every two weeks of a certain amount of money, therefore you go out and purchase things hoping to pay it off with the next check. If your next check is not what you expected, you turn around and charge your employer a minimum account fee. Can *you* do that? No, so why should banks be able to do it? Why is it that banks can expect a minimum amount of money while you can't? Their argument being, \"it costs money to manage accounts\" but they forget that that's the purpose of *their* business - to manage accounts. You don't go to work and charge your employer the cup of coffee you have in the morning because you *need* it to do your job.\n\n* They add overdrawn fees.\n\nEvery business contract should have an expectation of living up to it's goals. Thus if you failed to have the necessary funds to pay for your transactions it's your fault. But what happens when *they* fail to place all your funds into your account? Therefore you go to withdraw money, or a check you wrote is cashed, your account is overdrawn? They hit you with a fee. You say \"It's not my fault, you guys made the mistake\" and it becomes a hassle of trying to argue with them about a systems error. Lack of customer service is a big problem with banks because of limited abilities to correct things right away. This is also to ensure there's limited power among employees to limit more errors from occurring, or to eliminate embezzlement, but think about the difference of customer service attention you get at a Mom & Pop shop than you do retail chain, and how quickly they can resolve issues.\n\n* They add monthly account service fees.\n\nThey make *you* pay for their ability to invest *your* money for a profit. All banks are middlemen, and they're profits come from the differences in percentage rates in what they pay and what they recieve. Think about it this way, if you have a friend who's selling some art, and you, being an art dealer, find a buyer for the art. You then you take a percentage (let's say 10%). You don't turn around and charge your friend another fee saying \"Well, I *did* spend three months looking for the buyer, so you owe me three months of service charge\". No, you already took your cut in the form of the 10%. Banks feel entitled to charging you money, for investing your money and turning a profit. Makes no sense. \n\n* They add services such as overdrawn protection, online banking, direct deposit, with the notion that it's to help the customer.\n\nThe reason they add overdrawn protection is to have another steady source of monthly income, it has nothing to do with saving *you* money. Most people, once they've been hit with an overdrawn fee of ~$40 try to remember not to do it again, and thus there aren't many repeat offenders. This is just a ploy to get more money.\n\nOnline banking saves the customer over $XYZ per year! Yes but it save banks much more money by not having to send out monthly bills, paying for postage, and paying as many mail room clerks to handle mail. Postage costs add up when you have millions of customers.\n\nDirect Deposit has less to do with making it 'easier' for you than it does with making it so that banks have a known date of when to expect a steady source of income. Banks essentially cut out the middleman between them and your money - you being the middle man, and the time it takes you to give the bank the check.\n\n* Too big to fail.\n\nThis is probably the biggest problem with banks today. Banks invest in many different forms of investments and many of them include Government Subsidized contracts, such as Mortgages and School Loans handled by Fannie and Freddy Mac. Thus banks can willingly invest in potentially bad investments because it won't matter if it's a bad investment, the government has *guaranteed* the investment and the bank will make their money back anyways. No harm, no foul. \n\nDuring the Real Estate bubble, you could be a low-income individual, walk into a bank, ask for a 100% loan to purchase a home, and get rejected. Good. You then turn around and go through an Real Estate agent to purchase a home, the Agent finds a loan company willing to finance you, you get the loan and the home for a 5yr fixed. You bought the home, and the bank purchases your loans from investment companies, and repackage them with other 'healthy' investments and sell the to other institutions (such as Freddy Mac) at a profit. The bank didn't have the confidence in *you* to directly loan you the money, but they have the confidence to buy and resell your loan to the government for a profit. Seems sad and it's what led to the bubble collapsing since there was nobody to take the hit except the government. If businesses took the hit, then they'd be more conscientious in their investments. \n\nThe notion of Too Big Too Fail - in other words, I have too much debt, give me money. If an individual took on too much debt and were unable to pay it, what happens? You declare bankruptcy - stuff happens. The individuals no longer qualify for loans, it's difficult to purchase things on credit, and life because a struggle for the next ten years or so. Now flip the roles and ask if Banks are the same way? No, they still continue to make government backed loans and investments loans, private loans and purchase on credit, and on the bright side, the government gave them a big fat check and near-zero percent interest to pay off debt. Did you get a check when you declared bankruptcy? \n\nThe problem with banks is that they forgot that all they are is a middleman. That's it. You want to have the sympathy from your investors and customers, but they never have to deal with the problems their customers deal with. They're not entitled to any money, except that which they've contractually loaned out, but not from their customers. The feeling of entitlement needs to be taken from them. \n\n\n**As for corporations:** simply put there are two problems. 1) No international boundaries, and thus corporations go into other nations and disrupt their economies - this is where the hate for America comes from other nations. Taking natural resources from one location to another, and depleting the people of that resource, and leaving when they're done. Think of it as what happened in Flint Michigan, on a global/international scale. 2) Corporations have lots of influence in politics. Having money does not make you an individual. Investing money does not make you an individual. Votes are made by individuals, thus corporations are not individuals. But donating money can be used for speech (you pay someone to speak for you) and thus is constitutionally protected, therefore investing money in someone (or organization) is constitutionally protected. Thus corporations can give lots of money, which is protected by the constitution, and can influence politics. Corporations have much more money than individuals, and therefore have much more influence in politics. Why hate corporations? They have too much power, without any limit to that power. Even our government has limits to it's powers (Checks and Balances) but corporations don't, only in that you don't purchase their products. Thus, people can choose not to purchase from certain corporations. ",
"They take more and more and claim they need even more every year to help you and this country."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3xwkrn
|
how do pornstars have sex for so long without having an orgasm?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xwkrn/eli5_how_do_pornstars_have_sex_for_so_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy8ffwm",
"cy8fg6v",
"cy8g02z",
"cy8iskn",
"cy8jzso",
"cy8ol6y",
"cy8s6c8"
],
"score": [
8,
25,
27,
15,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Lots of them do. Clever editing and (recharge) time accounts for a lot of it. Also some guys just know how to lock it down.",
"How do marathon runners run for so long without getting tired? Same thing: a lot of practice. The other important fact that it's just work for them; it's a lot easier to not hit orgasm as fast when it's just a random person you met 10-20 minutes ago. ",
"Editing. It may look like one long shot most times it's editing. You know when it cuts to dudes face right as you're about to nut? Or it cuts to the other girl licking a boob? All separate shots. Now I am sure that there are guys who can last that long and if you practice Men can learn to control orgasm. To get very close and stay there and never hit \"the point of no return\" it's all mental. Plus there are numbing creams and I'm guessing drugs are ingested before a shoot a lot of the time. Also, as great as sex is if you have a lot of it, believe it or not, it can be boring. Especially if it's your job. No emotional connection. No love anything deeper than \"he/she has a great body and I'm getting paid 5000 bucks for 3 hrs worth of work\". ",
"It is important to remember that porn sex is usually less than ideal. You have to contend with uncomfortable positioning, stop-and-go filming, and the (typically) dispassionate eyes of a half dozen or so people watching who are (typically) not dreamy porn stars. Imagine six swarthy dudes judging how you look while you bone a stranger who has a charlie horse from playing to the camera for the last twenty minutes and a boyfriend who knows exactly what's happening. Oh, and if you don't get it right, you have to start over. \n\nSorry if I broke the fantasy for you. ",
"Most in the thread say it's a mixture of practice and editing. While true, what is probably the most important factor is that actors with better control and stamina are selected for the role more often than those who can't control it. Two pump chumps simply aren't hired to be porn actors.\n\nSame reason why male actors tend to be more endowed...they're hired for that quality.",
"While the males do have stamina, as far as I know the climax scene is usually filmed first and then just edited into the end. Then they have more stamina for the regular scenes. ",
"Does anybody ever get the weird feeling when you realize that there is a camera taping this stuff and somebody is behind it in the scene? Sometimes, it's rather existential when it comes out of nowhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
65wf2j
|
why food burns my mouth and leaves damage, but doesn't do anything to my insides (throat, stomach, etc.)
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65wf2j/eli5_why_food_burns_my_mouth_and_leaves_damage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgdofa7",
"dgdrnf5"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I think it does - just harder to feel. This is based on no information other than feeling into my body- but I can feel hot food burning it's way down ",
"Compared to your body the amount you can stuff in your mouth is very small, meaning it cools quickly. Basically, when something burns your mouth it transfers heat to your mouth and cools down. You rarely swallow food that hot immediately when you burnt your tungue"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9eqaml
|
when listening to a new song, how do we know exactly when the refrain starts even though we never listened to the song before?
|
I was looking for new music and listened to some bands I've never heard before. Even though I didn't know the songs I could always tell when the refrain started and ended. What sets the refrain apart from the rest of the song and makes it so recognizable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9eqaml/eli5_when_listening_to_a_new_song_how_do_we_know/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5qp69r",
"e5qpnyb",
"e5qq0do"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Some songs follow a \"standard\" pattern. For examples 4x4 beats and then swap to the next part (intro, verse, refrain, bridge. etc...). This makes the songs extreamly predictable and (according to me) boring.\n\nAppart from that, songs are also mostly built up by another more general pattern: Intro - > **Verse** \\- > **Refrain** \\- > outro. (not sure of the names or order, sorry)\n\nRepeat the bold text for as many times as you like and you got yourself a song.",
"You've been conditioned, by your constant exposure to arranged music, to subconsciously recognize the time signature a piece is recorded in. \n\nBecause of this, you are able to anticipate upcoming transitions based on the amount of beats and/or measures which have occured in any particular section (intro, refrain, hook, bridge, etc.) of a piece. \n\n4/4 time - AKA \"common time\" is - obviously, the most commonly used in modern western music, which indicates each measure contains four quarter note beats. Your subconscious syncs to this and the repitition of modernly arranged music allows it to see these transitions coming. ",
"Cultural expectations. There is nothing inherently musical about a chorus to label it as such. Usually they're more melodic (they should be the most sing-along-able part of the song) with a good hook (something that distinguishes it, makes it stick in your head). They might have a shift in register as compared to the verses. There might be a strong iteration of the tonic chord right at the beginning of chorus. Many performers are also giving cues. They might sing louder or with more energy or make any number of small vocal changes at the chorus. At live performances or even when listening with others there are probably visual cues. \n\nEdit: as others have pointed out, another musical cue is a lyrical break between the verse and chorus. Usually 4 beats without any words. This makes the chorus feel more like an arrival.\n\nNone of this defines anything as a chorus. You can't say \"this song doesn't do x, so that's not a chorus.\" Or \"well, musically, y happened, so that *must* be the chorus.\" They are just cultural cues. Most musicians probably aren't even doing anything consciously - they're just immersed in the same musical culture. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4t64v4
|
what causes dissociative disorders and what's going on in the brain to cause them?
|
I have marijuana induced dissociation I believed to be known as depersonalization/derealization, I've been to many doctors and the ones I've been to don't know much on the topic so I have come to reddit for understanding. I hope this topic educates and informs people about mental illness, Thank you.
I probably have a ton of grammar mistakes, I'm bad at English.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t64v4/eli5what_causes_dissociative_disorders_and_whats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5f0oyv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Speaking from a psychiatry sense, dissociation can describe a wide array of experiences from mild detachment from surroundings to severe detachment from emotional and or physical experience. The most commonly associated trait with dissociation is detachment from reality rather than a loss of reality (psychosis). \n\nDissociation is displayed on a continuum. Many mild cases like marijuana or less heavy induced drug dissociations can be regarded as coping mechanisms or defense mechanisms in seeking to master, minimize or tolerate stress this includes boredom or conflict. So, if you abruptly stopped 'marijuana' or kept smoking it everyday theres a high probability of you experiencing dissociation to cope with the stress.\nThere are other continuums also for dissociation, many events can occur such as day dreaming while driving. These can be seen as non-pathological altered states of consciousness. (Depending on the event, this type of dissociation is dangerous and serious)\n\nTo further assist your question towards actual dissociative disorders, these disorders all include dissociation (detachment from reality). Traits for dissociative disorder can include dissociative figure (irreversible amnesia for personal identity), and very commonly develop depersonalization disorder with or without alterations in the sense of self. These alterations can be seen as: the world is unreal or sense of self is false (depersonalization and derealization); loss of memory (amnesia); forgetting identity or assuming a new self (fugue); and fragmentation of identity/self into separate streams of consciousness (dissociative identity disorder) and complex post-traumatic stress disorder. \nFun fact: before dissociative identity disorder was made up the term multiple personality disorder was mostly prevalent due to the separate streams of consciousness.\n\nSometimes dissociative disorders are triggered by trauma, but may be preceded only by psychoactive substances (marijuna), stress, or no identifiable trigger at all.\nAlthough some dissociative disorders involve amnesia while other dissociative events don't; dissociative disorders are experienced as startling, autonomous intrusions into the person's usual ways of responding or functioning. Since this disorder has quite unexpected and largely inexplicable nature, this tends to be quite unsettling.\n\nSource: Psych major"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5du3wx
|
how can a fighter jet, which has a massive combustion engine, refuel mid-air when i'm told not to refuel my sedan with the engine on?
|
I've always been told it's extremely dangerous to refuel my car with the engine on. If that is true, then how can fighter jets refuel mid-air when their engines are combusting at a much higher, and more intense temperature?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5du3wx/eli5_how_can_a_fighter_jet_which_has_a_massive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da7b0so",
"da7cl64",
"da7fjvk",
"da7gi70",
"da7k7jg",
"da7kix6"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2,
22,
21,
39
],
"text": [
"Different type of fuel plays a big part. The fuel in your car (petrol/gasoline) is a lot more volatile than jet fuel, with a low flash-point. The flash-point is the lowest temperature at which the vapours alone will ignite given an ignition source such as heat, flame or spark. The flash-point of petrol/gasoline is about -43 degrees C.\n\nThe common types of jet fuel is in between kerosene and diesel, with a higher flash-point, higher than +38 degrees C.\n\nThe possibility of accidently igniting petrol/gasoline vapours on the ground is quite high by comparison, given the proximity to heat sources and electrical equipment just on the car alone (exhaust and wiring).\n\nThe chances of igniting the fuel vapours of jet fuel are a lot lower, just because you're flying along at speed (the vapour won't be accumulating), AND being at altitude where the ambient temperature is a lot lower.",
"A parked car with the engine on wastes fuel, and contributes to additional pollution. In previous eras when backfire were more common, and car fill tube design, and gas nozzle designed contributed made overfill and fuel spills more common, the risk of a fire was greater. \n\nIn an airplane, the fuel isn't as volatile, so the risk of accidental fire is lower. Then there is the reality, that it's not always possible to land a fighter plane at an airport during a war, so this might be an acceptable risk. Finally, if there is a problem, the \"gas station\" or tanker can just fly away from the problem. \n\nIn a car fire at a gas station, neither the vehicle nor the gas station can move away from the danger.",
"Gs stations just don't want static sparks igniting gasoline vapors which are explosive as hell (don't ask how I know). Jet fuel is very similar to diesel or kerosene and much less volatile. ",
"actually, it's not that big of a deal to refuel a car while it's running. nascar does it. cops do it. there is a small percentage increase in the overall likelihood of a fume-ignition, but realistically you could almost certainly refuel your car while it's running for the rest of your life and not experience a negative outcome.",
"A lot of people don't understand evap emissions controls.\n\n\nSo basically, your entire car has sensors everywhere, all designed to do one thing: Make sure you're not releasing excess pollutants. One of these systems controls gasoline fumes, the evaporative emissions controls.\n\nRefuelling your car with the engine running will show the system that there is a pressure loss from the fuel tank - triggering a check engine light that you'll have to get cleared. It's the same error that would occur if your gas cap is starting to wear out and can't maintain a seal when closed anymore. Since these sensors only take readings when the car is running, turning the car off means you can refuel without triggering an alarm.\n\nNow, in a lot of newer cars, there are different systems for checking the gas cap that don't necessarily use the Check Engine Light. Nowadays, there are even some vehicles that don't even use a gas cap! But in general, it's still a good idea to not leave the car running.\n\nIn addition, there's still a risk posed by a pump that doesn't shut off correctly. If your car is running, you could theoretically have gas pool beneath a hot pipe and cause the fumes to ignite, or even have fuel overflow the fill port, dribble down the vehicle, and touch a hot pipe, leading to a fire. All of this is highly, highly improbable - almost impossible.\n\nBut do you really want to be that one in a million person who just happens to be the one who catches on fire?",
"Medium duty mechanic here....\n\nI know nothing about fighter jets but, they tell you not to refuel your car with it running because in any modern vehicle it will kick the CEL (check engine light) on and you'll have to make a trip to a dealer/mechanic/part store to have the code read and reset, i literally see it every day. the environmental alphabet soup agency says gas fumes are bad for the planet so your gas tank has a vacuum on it from the evaporative emission system. (ever notice how youre tank sucks air in when you pop the lid? old cars dont do that they have a vent to equalize pressure). \n\nTLDR it kicks the CEL on and makes you a pain in the rear for the dealerships +EPA hates gasoline fumes. \n\n\nAlso i finally made an account to post something because i thought i could be legitimately helpful :D"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3u0cpk
|
why does the united states need enough nukes to destroy the earth 5 times over? wouldn't having enough to destroy the planet only once make more sense?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u0cpk/eli5why_does_the_united_states_need_enough_nukes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxarc05",
"cxardsg",
"cxarib0",
"cxarij0",
"cxarizy",
"cxarl1r",
"cxarme9",
"cxarrjp",
"cxasl2i",
"cxatr7d",
"cxawvcc",
"cxawxjr",
"cxawxy5",
"cxayzpo",
"cxb0cc4",
"cxb1n5d",
"cxb1w5d",
"cxb2671",
"cxb2eoq",
"cxb2v7n",
"cxb3dyu"
],
"score": [
9,
7,
37,
669,
2,
254,
2,
115,
48,
9,
12,
2,
5,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are making an effort to dismantle some of them. But what if the silo containing a bunch of nukes gets nuked? Now you've lost a ton of bombs so better have some backups. Some of them are bound not to work. Some of them are outdated and have been replaced with better tech... but you can't exactly just throw a nuke in the trash. Some of them are spread all over the world so they don't have to launch across the planet to reach their target.",
"Pfft. The world's nuclear arsenal couldn't dent the Earth if it tried. Sure, the surface would be severely scarred and much of life would die, but destroy the Earth? No.\n\n\nIt is probably a figurative term. But to actually destroy the world, you are gonna need something a little bigger. An antimatter comet may do it.\n",
"Not necessarily advocating large nuclear weapons stockpiles, but some of the reasoning is\n\n* Some might not work\n* Some might get intercepted by anti-missile defenses\n* Some might get blown up by the bad guy's nukes before they're launched\n* You want to have them spread out all over the world for quick strikes i.e. in submarines or in foreign bomber bases\n* Realistically, you won't be carpet bombing the whole planet. You might want to bomb a certain large, mostly rural country multiple times though\n* Also you want to let the bad guys know you're not fucking around",
"When you want to destroy a target, you don't hit it with 1 nuke. You hit it with 4-5 from different sources and methods, maybe one doesn't work, maybe 2 get destroyed, maybe another doesn't ever make it there, but you need it destroyed. You need at least 1 to get through.\n\nIf you have a thousand targets, and need 5 for each, just in an initial strike, than you may need 5000 weapons. This does not even account for all of the other craziness and aftermath of a war that you will need more weapons for in subsequent rounds of firing. Because surely after a nuclear war, you're not making any new ones anytime soon.\n\nYou have to make absolutely sure that no matter what happens, if they shoot missile out of the sky, nuke the missile sites, destroy subs, sabotage, anything, that you still have plenty available to completely annihilate the enemy, so that there is no hope to ever win in an exchange.\n\nEdit: If anyone is looking for a really cool book about nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare check out [Command and Control](_URL_0_) by the quite famous [Eric Schlosser](_URL_1_) ",
"If 4/5 nukes get shot down before they reach their target or destroyed in a preemptive strike, you need that last set to strike back",
"\"Destroying the Earth\" is a political term, not to be taken literally. We could probably wipe out a lot of the life on the surface, but we don't have anywhere near enough power, or even the technology, to actually physically destroy the planet.",
"You have to have enough nukes to assure that at least one will get past the defenses of your enemy to hit its target thus prompting your enemy to not use their nukes against you for fear of retaliation. So yes, we do need more than the number needed to carpet bomb the earth once. ",
"Both sides in the Cold War wanted enough bombs to ensure that they could destroy the other side in the event that they were attacked first. They made a huge excess just in case the rest were unusable.\n\nThe idea is that neither side would ever risk firing on each other because it would be guaranteed both sides would be completely destroyed.\n\n_URL_0_\n",
" > destroy the Earth 5 times over\n\nDefine \"destroy the Earth\". \n\nThousands of nukes wouldn't even be a scratch to the Earth.. \n\nFor example the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake released 4.0×10^22 joules of energy. Tsar Bomba (the biggest nuke ever made) had 2.4x10^17 joules of energy, about 200,000 times less powerful than the earthquake.\n",
"And not have enough when the aliens invade? Fuck that.",
"You need to have enough nukes to survive a counter-attack. \n\nImagine that the Soviets had launched a sneak attack and destroyed 2,000 of our missiles. If we only have 2,000 missiles, we would be unable to counter attack. \n\nWe needed lots and lots of missiles in order to show the Soviets that no matter how devastating their initial attack, we could also respond with a world-destroying counter attack. \n\nIt was an insane strategy. It cost trillions of dollars but it worked. ",
"If the communists attacked first and they destroyed 99% of our nuclear missiles, there'd still be enough left to do some pretty serious damage to them. Making them think twice about striking first. ",
"Information is Beautiful actually did a really great breakdown of this. Essentially, we don't have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization (let alone destroy the planet) largely because the complete destruction radius of a nuke is extremely small. According to this, we'd need 1.2M heavy duty nukes and we only have around 10k. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The US doesn't have enough nukes to destroy Earth 5 times over.\n\nWe used to have a lot, maybe that much (kind of hard to say exactly how many times we could have destroyed Earth), but we don't any more.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWe've actually been doing a fairly decent job of dismantling our stockpiles with the Russians.",
"Another fun fact on this topic is that iirc, there are an unspecified amount of nukes, preprogrammed to hit specific coordinates autonomously should they not be deactivated every 30 days or so. This guarantees that if we're nuked catastrophically(all military members with the deactivation code and access to the bunker die), everyone else will be too.\n\nI tried to research it on my mobile but I couldn't find anything about it, I forget the operational code name.",
"Everyone explained this topic pretty well but i didnt see the common term-second strike capability. A nuclear arsenal is only a deterrent if retaliation is gauranteed. For instance if the vatican had an ICBM they could launch from st peters no one would care or be scared because if you nuke them they wouldnt be able to attack you back. If they had thousands of them someone might think twice about attacking because you only need < .1% to be functional after an attack. Other ways to increase the odds lf second strike is to have multiple delivery methods(subs, bombers, missles) spreading weapons around the world, fail deadly systems, etc",
"In order to win WW2 the US built massive arms manufacturing capacity. Existing large companies could sell allot of things at very high profit. \n\nOnce WW2 was won it was very lucrative to pick an enemy (Soviet Union) and claim that they would be superior in crucial weapons technology. \n\nThe so called \"Missile Gap\" and \"Bomber Gap\" claimed that they USSR would have more weapons than the US. They did not. But people were scared and felt could about spending money on weapons. Of course the USSR was scared as well and tried to build as many weapons as they could. \n\n\n",
"Nothing else is a valid excuse for gratuitous military overspending. Duh. Learn2Warpolitics",
"So far, there's been 2,053 nuclear tests, and 9 countries have a total of 15,963 nukes. Russia and the US account for 93% of that. That would alter the climate, but it wouldn't destroy the world. Launching them would be the start of a doomsday scenario where remaining forces battle it out.\n\nFor the US and Russia, they have about 7,500 nukes apiece. In a war, not all of those would be launched. Taking out each other's nukes would be the first targets. So much of the action would be in the first wave, where both countries launch their nukes as missiles are midway into their flights. A flight takes about 30 minutes, and both countries keep about 900 nukes on missiles.\n\nRelated, [this video](_URL_0_) shows how the missiles work and has some actual footage of reentry vehicles at the end.",
"Related- a time-lapse video showing all 2,053 nukes detonated between 1945 and 1998\n\n_URL_0_",
"1. Having more nuclear weapons actually makes the world safer, up to a point. If the U.S. only had barely enough nuclear bombs to defeat Russia, then Russia would think about maybe trying to attack first; if Russia can knock out enough American nuclear bombs in a first strike that came out of the blue, then America's retaliation may not hurt as much. But if America has so many nuclear weapons spread out over so many places and devices, then the Russians would not even bother trying because American would retaliate no matter what. \n\n1. Not all nuclear warheads are constantly deployed. At any given time, nuclear warheads are being refurbished, etc. \n\n1. The U.S. doesn't want to evenly destroy the world. Russia has hardened bunkers that can survive direct hits. So those sites might get hit like twenty times. \n\n1. Not all nuclear weapons will work as designed. Perhaps a guy in a silo refuses to hit the button that kills everyone. Perhaps a nuclear missile sub sinks before shooting. Perhaps a booster fails on a missile and it drops into the sea. Perhaps a silo is attacked in a first strike and is useless. Perhaps a nuclear warhead is a dud. Might as well really make sure a hardened target is fucked rather than risk its survival. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schlosser"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/"
],
[
"http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-V6MZlyCqE"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY"
],
[]
] |
||
1nvclu
|
why can't i think unless i talk to myself in my head?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nvclu/eli5_why_cant_i_think_unless_i_talk_to_myself_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccme13l",
"ccmh0cl",
"ccmk1vq"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"You can; Imagine a Circle, Figure out 6 times 7, Remember the last song you heard and then go to the fridge and pick out your next meal.\n\nMost thoughts you have aren't verbal or linguistically based, but your more discrete and self apparent layer of thought is. The translation into language is really the final output of some types of thinking, it's not really the thinking itself, and you make a lot of decisions and thoughts without linguistic links. ",
"I have no idea if this is true, but it's a theory that I came up with after I had the exact same thought: You aren't actually \"talking\" to yourself. Your brain is simply translating your thoughts into a language.\n\nI've talked to some non-native English speakers, including a Korean friend who came here when he was 7 (in high school at time of asking), a German and Norwegian exchange student, and a Russian man who moved when he was 24 and had lived here for about ten years (I didn't ask at the same time, just when I could work it in to a conversation). I asked them if they still thought in Korean, Russian, German, etc. The Russian and Korean had, but it took the Russian several years before he began thinking in English. The Korean took much, much less, and didn't notice a distinct breaking point. After a while, he just started thinking in English and stopped thinking in Korean over the course of a couple months. The German and Norwegian still thought in their native languages.\n\nMy thought is that your internal monologue is just your conscious mind interpreting what the nerve impulses and chemical reactions in your brain. Obviously, humans can function mentally without having any concept of a spoken language, as anybody who was deaf from birth can demonstrate. It may just be a way to reduce the cognitive load on the brain by translating it into something immediately understandable instead of emotions and impulses. \n\nTake everything that I just said with a massive grain of salt, but that's how I understand it. If someone has more concrete sources, please, correct me.",
"Heres something fun to do: Try and hear an entire sentence in your head. Im not saying say each word one after the other. Im saying, hear the entire sentence all at once in the space of a second like its one word.\n\nYour mind will be blown."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4fbvk0
|
how do they make cpu processors smaller (65 nm to 40 nm)?
|
After doing so, the processor is capable of what the bigger one was, yet its smaller, cheaper, and more energy efficient. How?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fbvk0/eli5how_do_they_make_cpu_processors_smaller_65_nm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d27jaya"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"By engineering. I know that seems broad, but there isn't one way or one method that magically happens and they can shrink things down. If there was they would be able to do it from the start! \n\nIt's part of semiconductor process engineering and packaging engineering. The process is the methods they use to physically grow the circuit, packaging is how they encase it in hard plastic and attach metal leads so it can be soldered to a circuit board. The packaging engineering is not trivial and often more complex than the process and circuit itself. \n\nI'll give you an example. Say you want to make a transistor smaller but operate the same. The way they make a transistor is by taking a silicon wafer, a really thin slice of a big crystal of pure silicon. What they do is \"dope\" it, or expose it to arsenic and gallium gasses under heat and pressure to introduce impurities into the crystal. Then they etch away sections of the wafer to isolate the doped areas into individual transistors. \n\nSo if you want to make your transistor smaller, you need to make etching technology that is more precise (better at etching things smaller) and the doping system increase its concentration. So you pay engineers to design and improve the etching machine and doping system. \n\nBut wait. Now the transistor is smaller and more vulnerable to impurities. This means your process system has to have tighter control and absence of dust, so you pay engineers to design a clean room factory where dust is totally gone. As well, light impacts the transistors so you pay engineers to design a factory lighting system that balances the color and intensity of lighting for the workers, while not harming the circuits. \n\nAll told it costs billions of dollars to develop a new process, as engineers work to solve new problems that arise as the transistor you're making shrinks in size. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dhy4vr
|
why do heavily spiced or pungent foods cause intestinal gas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dhy4vr/eli5_why_do_heavily_spiced_or_pungent_foods_cause/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3seidl",
"f3sxblm",
"f3t62jk"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of times, the spicy or bad-tasting food sends a bad signal throughout your body after you ingest it. Your body will try to get rid of it quickly and it will start to work your digestive system faster, which can Rumble your stomach and cause mild uncomfort.",
"The heavily spiced foods that give me gas are full of onions and garlic, both of which have indigestible fiber and sulfur compounds that the bacteria in my gut use in some horrible alchemy to produce smells of fundamental evil. Things that are just spiced (tandoori chicken, eg) are far less gassy.",
"Some foods are digested quickly by the body and processed so thoroughly that there's nothing left over. Most simple carbs (starches and table sugar), some fruits and vegetables (like bananas), and meat all go through the body relatively easily.\n\nSome foods have elements that aren't digestible by the body, or take longer to digest. This is totally normal and healthy - fiber, for example, isn't digested, but is still useful in regulating cholesterol and controlling the composition of stool.\n\nWhen something takes longer to digest, it can feed intestinal bacteria and ferment, which produces gas. This is especially true if that thing is a sugar. While foods like garlic don't taste sweet, they contain fructose, which is a kind of sugar. Lactose is also a kind of sugar. Polyols (sugar alcohols) are found naturally in foods like cabbage and beans but are also used as artificial sweeteners, and those can also ferment.\n\nMost of the time, this doesn't affect people, or it affects them very little (again, not being able to digest everything is normal and healthy). But some people – for example, people with IBS – are particularly sensitive to smaller amounts of gas, or have a digestive system that works slower than other people's, and so react worse to smaller amounts of these foods. Or they can't absorb the food at all, like people with lactose intolerance or fructose malabsorption. Even a healthy person will feel the effects if they eat a lot of the stuff (which is why people tend to get gastrointestinal problems after eating a lot of, say, chili)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
75aiar
|
if they took a multivitamin and ate 100 calories of protein and fat per day, about how long would an average, healthy-weighted person be able to survive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75aiar/eli5_if_they_took_a_multivitamin_and_ate_100/
|
{
"a_id": [
"do4ni5p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Not very long as the energy gained through eating (the calories) will be massively overshadowed by general energetic demands needed by vital organ function (heart, brain, lungs, etc.) as time goes on. Now initially they may be okay-ish through the burning of fat and muscles (atrophy) for an emergency supply of energy, but I don't see them making it past 1-2 months (depends on metabolism and other things, hence the wide range). \n\nThis is all speculation of course, this is definitely open for debate!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1jgpnt
|
how do people who slackline massive canyons and gorges connect their lines to traverse?
|
I always see this on these ridiculous videos and photos, but I never see how they set these lines up for people to traverse.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jgpnt/eli5_how_do_people_who_slackline_massive_canyons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbehg5c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They fire an arrow! Or sometimes a rocket if it is a very long distance. It will have a very light length of thread attached to it, and someone on the other side will grab hold of it. They will then tie progressively heavier ropes to one end, and pull those across the gap using the lighter thread. People even use this technique when constructing bridges."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2rcc8e
|
how do independent artists on sites like deviant art get around licensing costs when drawing or reimagining pop culture figures?
|
I know some license holders like Nintendo are less picky, but what about stuff like "gender bent Disney Princesses"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rcc8e/eli5_how_do_independent_artists_on_sites_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnejpjs"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's because of [Fair Use](_URL_0_).\n\n > Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law and the Copyright Act 1987 of Malaysia, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.\n\nAlso companies aren't likely to try and enforce their copyrights unless there is some reason to put in the time. Like if the artist was selling prints of their renditions of copyrighted work.\n\nNo reason to want to stop fan art anyways, mostly it is probably just good publicity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use"
]
] |
|
4efm2a
|
why do so many animals love belly rubs when it seems like that should be dangerous to their survival?
|
My dog, for example, loves nothing more in the world than for me to scratch his tummy. But this seems like it should be a really dangerous instinct to have. I've also seen videos of wild animals (penguins, koalas) that also love belly rubs. Why are belly rubs so good that they would risk getting killed for this attention, or is something else going on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4efm2a/eli5_why_do_so_many_animals_love_belly_rubs_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1zobs5",
"d1zod30",
"d1zodgg",
"d1zp71j",
"d1zw6b6"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
3,
33,
2
],
"text": [
"Being continually stressed is also bad for animals. In the wild, within a group they trust, mutual grooming is normal and important. With those they don't trust, grooming doesn't occur.\n\nYou fall into the group of \"others I trust\" for your dog.",
"Dogs are not wild animals. They have been bred for being human Companions over hundreds of years. They don't do well in the wild anymore.\n\nCompare to cats, where most species still roam outside and hunt, and basically stick to humans for convenience. unless they feel safe and feel like playing or cuddling, they will defend their stomach with tooth and claw.",
"It is a display of trust to reveal a sensitive area to you. Since it is so delicate, it responds well to the touch.",
"Dogs can't reach their bellies. Belly rubs feel good. Animals (your dog) have autonomy. Your dog allows you to belly rub. It is vulnerable. Sharing of vulnerability = trust. Trust =friendship. Friendship = someone else is invested in keeping your species alive. Belly rubs = life. ",
"This is actually important to know with cats that when they show you their belly they don't necessarily want you to rub it. It took several tries with my cat to figure out what she actually likes rubbed. Cats mostly just show you their stomach as a sign of trust but not as a sign of \"come pet me!\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
74iley
|
why is there an entire discipline of chemistry (organic chemistry) surrounding just one element (carbon)? why is carbon so important, instead of reactive, abundant elements like hydrogen, etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74iley/eli5_why_is_there_an_entire_discipline_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnyjwfn",
"dnym4kd",
"dnymq06",
"dnz248y"
],
"score": [
17,
4,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Carbon is important because it provides much of the structural foundation for life. So, understanding the chemistry of carbon is critical for us to understanding the chemistry of living systems (such as cells).\n\nWhy is Carbon the main structural atom behind molecules necessary for life? Well, because of its electron configuration, it's really good at bonding to other Carbon molecules in a large variety of ways. This allows a lot of molecular complexity, which life (as we know it) seems to require. Think of it like a universal Lego connector.\n\nOrganic chemistry isn't just about carbon, though. It's also about the interactions between carbon and other life-critical atoms like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and many others.",
"In some ways it is better to think of organic chemistry as biological chemistry.\n\nIn earth like conditions, carbon forms complex molecules in a way that other elements do not. These compounds are the foundation of life.\n\nAbout 95% of all known compounds contain carbon, usually was their principle atom. That makes it an important field of study in its own right.",
"Carbon is the lightest (and therefore most abundant) element that can form 4 bonds.\n\nThis provides carbon with a huge number of potential configurations with itself and other elements, particularly the ability to form more-or-less linear chains of functionally unlimited length.",
"Synthetic organic and medicinal chemist here. There's a lot of good answers here, but I'll take a stab:\n\n1) Abundance: Carbon is extraordinarily common. As stars fuse atoms the elements get heavier and heavier. Carbon is pretty early in the chain, so hydrogen burning stars get to it pretty quickly. It's before iron on the periodic table, which means most stars can form it easily (i.e., it doesn't require a super nova).\n\n2) Carbon is almost uniquely comfortable sharing electrons with other elements due to a property called electronegativity. It's neither too electron liking (like chlorine) nor is it too electron disliking (like sodium). It is pretty much dead in the middle of the scale (i.e., just right). That means it tends to share electrons in a type of bond called a covalent bond when it can find partners of of the right size (I'm oversimplifying descriptions about orbitals here)\n\n3) Carbon has lots of similarly sized neighbors like oxygen and nitrogen. Also, The similar size makes it relatively easy for to form covalent bonds. Carbon is so accomodating though that it tries to form covalent bonds with almost anything even metals.\n\n4) Carbon in addition for forming stable bonds, carbon forms up to four of these bonds. This allows for a wealth of structures to be formed. Also, unlike silicon (which can also form four bonds), carbon forms preposterously stable double and triple bonds. This leads to even more structural diversity. \n\n5) Despite the stability of it's bonds, carbon atoms can be activated in very specific ways to favor diverse types of chemical reactions (I'd argue that the chemistry of carbon is the most diverse of any element on the periodic table, but that could be due to the fact that we study it more intensively - tough to say). \n\nSo in a universe where carbon was abundant and capable of forming diverse structures with other common elements that were stable enough to persist, but not too stable so as to enable interesting chemistry, through random combinations of these molecules eventually some of them started to catalyze their own formation. This led to the accumulation of certain types of molecules, which eventually became life.\n\nBecause it's the building block of most stable biological structures (due to evolution), we build drugs out of carbon because living systems can readily metabolize and excrete carbon based molecules. Because life on Earth has been building carbon-rich biomolecules for 4 billion years we have coal a crude oil reserves which enable the large scale production of plastics and other petrochemicals.\n\ntl;dr: Carbon is abundant, forms stable structures that still participate in interesting reactions, and life is based on it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
du87ga
|
why do you get a headache after a massage?
|
When you have tension in your neck and shoulders and go get a massage or exercise at gym, it releases some of the tension. Why does that cause a headache?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/du87ga/eli5_why_do_you_get_a_headache_after_a_massage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f72mygq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Tension in muscles is often times caused by toxins and lactic acidosis buildup. When you have a massage and those toxins and acids are released the go circulating through your body. This can result in the headaches.\n\nI used to date a massage therapist and have gone to full service spas and they tell you to hydrate afterwards to help flush the toxins out.\n\nAfter a good full body massage I can crush ounces upon ounces of water and have the best relief afterwards. \n\nIn short: Toxin and acid buildup which goes back circulating in your body can result in headaches.\n\nEdit: Additional comment got me to research more and this information may not be 100% accurate. I was going by what professional massage therapists shared with me. I need to do more research!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8k4hq7
|
how do people in a coma eat and go to the toilet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8k4hq7/eli5_how_do_people_in_a_coma_eat_and_go_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz4pjbe",
"dz4pmv1"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Tube down the throat.\n\nTube in the colon.\n\nNurses and medical professionals to oversee everything.",
"They wear diapers that get checked and changed regularly and they get fed through a tube going directly into their stomachs. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7c7yv4
|
why do we say "ha" when we laugh?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c7yv4/eli5why_do_we_say_ha_when_we_laugh/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpnu4dl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think that's the natural sound you get/make when you start laughing, specially when you laugh out loud. \n\nWhen you make the \"ha\" sound, it comes from the gut. It's more like you enjoy it while laughing. No other sound(as far as I can think of) comes from the gut.\n\nWhen you see babies smiling or laughing, they don't laugh out loud. Hence, the sound doesn't come. So, it can be thought of, as an acquired trait as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3q9i5d
|
right side (of the vehicle) driving.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q9i5d/eli5_right_side_of_the_vehicle_driving/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwd7x5n",
"cwd7xgg",
"cwd7yrr"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Pedals are in the same order, yes. Pretty much the same configuration as the American layout, just shifted along to the right hand side.\n\nObviously the gearbox stays in the centre. Even though I've never driven anything else, I like keeping my right hand on the wheel when changing gears. Feels like I have better control.",
"It is the same. The most awkward thing about changing the position is the gear shift, especially if you drive stick.",
"Yes. Accelerator and brake controlled by right foot (normally), clutch by the left. Gearstick is normally in the middle of the car. The brake to keep you stopped is normally called the handbrake, and located in line, and slightly towards the rear of vehicle, with the gearstick.\n\n(Having driven both automatic and manual vehicles in left and right hand drive countries - whilst gearsticks and keep-stopped-brakes can be found everywhere from car-centre to dashboards to footwells, the basic footpedals are always in the same configuration)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5yr109
|
how do chemicals in smoke enter the bloodstream?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yr109/eli5_how_do_chemicals_in_smoke_enter_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"desa8fh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Some you breathe. They go through your mouth and lungs, and cross into the blood through the same membranes that transfer oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other chemicals.\n\nSome you absorb. They go through similar soft membranes of the nose, mouth, tongue, and eyes, or they are absorbed through the slightly thicker (but still quite thin) skin of the lips, eyelids, and so on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3700j4
|
how do people forget their children's names as alzheimers progresses but not other simple things?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3700j4/eli5_how_do_people_forget_their_childrens_names/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crij5ss",
"crij6za",
"criugy4"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Memory and brain activity is still largely unknown in modern brain research, but simple retention and processing has be identified. Meaning, singular words and memories are easily lost, but long convoluted and involved processed are harder to lose.\n\nSo, It appears that simple words, like names, and adjectives, and nouns, are easily forgotten, but processes like, driving, and walking, or speaking entire sentences, are kept for longer. Research shows that simple things likes words are retained in long term memory, and another process in the brain tries to recall that memory, and the recall function can be easily damaged or slowed down. But physical processes, like, walking, talking, driving a car, or riding a bike, will actually rewire large parts of the brain, and become a physical part of how the brain functions, and is more impervious to damage and change once learnt.\n\nSo this can give the appearance of 'forgetfulness' in Alzheimer patients, or even in anyone, despite them being fulling functioning in other abilities.",
"They forget all sorts of shit, not just children's names. Forgetting names is just a widely recognized sign that something is *seriously* wrong, and they're not just getting a little forgetful.",
"They do forget simple things. How badly their memory is affected is dependent on the stage of Alzheimer's - and other dementias. They will eventually forget how to eat, feed themselves, drink, and even swallow. They forget that they need to go to the bathroom and will start to soil themselves. They forget where they are, where they came from, and where they are going. Alzheimer's destroys the brain. It's a progressive disease without a cure. You can learn more at _URL_0_."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"alz.org"
]
] |
||
3l4a8n
|
what is cern really doing on sept. 23rd and why do people think its opening a portal to hell?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l4a8n/eli5_what_is_cern_really_doing_on_sept_23rd_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv3236p"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Why? Because most people are pretty much totally ignorant when it comes to even the most basic science. A lot of people think the Sun goes around the Earth, that the seasons are caused by the Earth being closer or further away from the Sun, etc, etc, etc. Wouldn't expect them to understand science of CERN's level.\n\nIt's just ramping up the power of its beam that it uses to smash particles. Nothing weird. The Earth gets hit by cosmic rays more powerful and that hasn't opened a portal to hell, created a black hole that swallowed the Earth, etc, etc, etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cvywky
|
what is a fatwa? and why did salman rushdie get one?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cvywky/eli5_what_is_a_fatwa_and_why_did_salman_rushdie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ey7bujc",
"ey7el0o"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"A fatwa is a religious ruling by an Imam (sort of like a priest). It's basically advice, which may carry more or less weight depending on who is issuing it. If it's a fatwah from some random dude... not much is going to happen. If it's a fatwah from the head of a country like Iran? Stuff happens. In Mr. Rushdie's case he pissed off some very powerful people, who had a lot of influence, and they made a ruling saying, \"Kill this dude.\" \n\nStill, it just boils down to a ruling on a matter of Islamic law.",
" > [A fatwa is a nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law (sharia) given by a qualified jurist in response to a question posed by a private individual, judge or government.](_URL_0_)\n\nBasically, Rushdie wrote a popular book called the Satanic Verses. Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy and of mocking their faith. Someone asked Ayatollah Khomeini (the leader of Iran and a qualified jurist) what to do. His nonbinding legal opinion was that Muslims must kill Rushdie.\n\nLots of people tried to kill Rushdie, but no one was successful. The Fatwa is still in place, but Iran no longer officially supports it. Rushdie became extremely famous, sold a lot of books, made a ton of money, and dated famous models, actresses, and other women who otherwise were way out of his league. This last bit might sound like I'm editorializing, but seriously google it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa"
]
] |
||
1v6l0a
|
why aren't magnets from smart covers harmful for other hardware (like my laptop).
|
I know that a magnet can wipe a hard drive or cause damage to it. So what's the difference between a regular magnet and a hardware-safe magnet (like the magnet in the ipad's [smartcover](_URL_0_) or [this magnetic mat](_URL_1_)). Is this maybe because mobile devices work with flash storage instead of hard disk drives?
*The Magnetic Mat states:
> Magnetic surface is safe for **hard drives** and other modern electronics.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v6l0a/eli5_why_arent_magnets_from_smart_covers_harmful/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cep83vz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A hard drive cannot be erased by a weak, static magnetic field. Commercially available hard drive erasers do their job by strong magnetic fields that vary in both strength, direction, and frequency of the change.\n\nThink about how a hard drive works - the magnetic domains are lined up in particular directions to encode information. A static field (and a weak one at that) will only attempt to realign the domains that don't line up with the external field. A strong, varying field is what affects all the domains, leaving them pointing in a random direction."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.apple.com/ipad/accessories/#smartcase",
"http://www.ifixit.com/Store/Tools/Magnetic-Project-Mat/IF145-167"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
53sn6d
|
how could our brain remember such a tragic memory from something bad that happened to them during their entire life growing up?
|
When a relative dies or when you've seen a tragic moment like the 9/11 attacks and your brain could still remember the moment that when it happened right in front of them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53sn6d/eli5_how_could_our_brain_remember_such_a_tragic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7vvac5",
"d7vwgt0"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"It remembers them the same way it remembers anything else. \n\nAs for *why* it remembers them and so vividly - tragic events tend to spark off your survival instinct and your brain wants to work out how you could avoid being killed the same way yourself. That's partly why people get things like PTSD or replay nasty events over and over working out what they 'should have done differently' etc. ready for next time it happens.",
"Often, confabulation comes into play. \n\nWhen I was a young child, my mother accidentally stepped on me when I crawled behind her when she was washing up. My leg was broken. My mother took years to live down the guilt. And I remember the incident and the surrounding events incredibly vividly. I was 6 months old. \n\nHere's the problem - my vivid, clear and detailed memory of the event takes place *in the wrong house*. After I turned one, we moved, and I spent the next 12 years of my life growing up in a house with different decor and a very different room layout. My memory of the leg-breaking incident is set in this new house, and is entirely false. \n\nWhat happened was that I had heard the story told so many times as I was growing up that my mind confabulated the whole affair into a memory that I didn't ever actually have. It was all imagination. \n\nThis aspect of confabulation is why witness reports need to be treated so carefully when investigating a crime. There are some fascinating experiments, research papers and documentaries out there showing how easy it is to fabricate vivid memories. Certain counselling techniques are also now being called into question, as the claims of unveiling repressed memories may in fact be a case of sowing false memories. \n\nI'm not saying that people in trauma don't have vivid memories of the events. But I am saying that sometimes the brain \"makes up\" the memories after the event and then convinces itself that those memories were always there. It is hard to be objective about such things. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5882gw
|
how and why do hard drugs drastically change a person physically ?
|
In all aftermath pics, the drug user ends up looking horrible with scabs, anorexia and overall a near completely different face!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5882gw/eli5_how_and_why_do_hard_drugs_drastically_change/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8y9jka",
"d8ybbhc"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"A few reasons, let's use methamphetamines as an example. \n\nA person using Adderall is using the same? similar? chemical doesn't get the same negative effects, because the dosage is hopefully monitored. Aside from that, it's made with pharmaceutical grade compounds, which are pure and free of other substances. \n\nA person using illegally made and purchased meth may be using meth that was made by a street cooker. These guys cant go to a pharmaceutical supplier and get the ingredients they need. So they have to get stuff like lye from drain cleaner, ether from starting fluid, etc. You can google for the full recipe. Plus a street cooker won't use the same precision to measure the various chemicals. So the final product isn't pure.\n\nInjecting or smoking impure meth causes reactions in the body, triggers infections, etc, Add in their addiction keeps them awake, instead of getting the rest their body needs. They often wonder the streets, because their addiction has drained their money and cost them their job. So living on the streets exposed to the weather, lack of hygiene and poor diet just compounds the problem.\n\nNote: Some of the cartels that previously shipped marijuana into America have switched to meth, because locally grown marijuana is cutting their business. Plus a backpack full of meth is easier to ship than a few truck loads of weed.\n",
"As Snewzie alluded to, it's mostly about what the drugs do to a person's behavior that changes their physical appearance.\n\nIf someone smoked meth or became a coke addict and continued to eat healthily, get regular sleep, exercise, and maintain social bonds, their appearance would not degrade in the same way. (Over time, methamphetamine does also destroy the teeth and gums.)\n\nUnfortunately, hard drug addiction does not allow for healthy living. Sleep goes by the wayside, food that might be spent on good food instead goes to drugs, and then of course there are the \"bug\" sensations which literally cause some users to pick at their skin and face until they have many open sores. Intravenous drug use also lends itself to infection, collapsed veins, and \"trackmarks.\"\n\nIf a sober person didn't sleep, ripped their skin to shreds, and became severely malnourished, I can't imagine they'd look much better than a drug addict after a few years. Most sober people don't engage in such activities because there are literally no benefits to doing so."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
eyjih4
|
how long have humans been thinking like modern-day humans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyjih4/eli5_how_long_have_humans_been_thinking_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fghl6el",
"fghlvyf",
"fghniid"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Just food for thought...try to remember your level of understanding at age 5. Now, you probably understood the world slightly better than a caveman. But, you had the coordination and intelligence of a 5 y/o. Imagine being stuck at that level and aging to your 20s. Now, you are basically a caveman. \n\n\n\nAs I understand it, philosophy is a big part of where our modern understanding of the world grew from. It grew in stages. An evolution of thought over many centuries. Once the written word came in, it increased exponentially. Oral tradition is all they had before that. And crazy cousin Al might have forgotten the tribal origins story or decided to make up new details...so, that's just a few thoughts on it.",
"Behavioral modernity in humans is generally dated to around 40,000-50,000 years ago. Most competing ideas push that timeline further back, even up to hundreds of thousands of years. Barring individual developmental or health issue, as far as we can tell, any humans alive from the time that behavioral modernity arose should be essentially the same as any modern humans.\n\nCertainly anyone alive from the start of recorded history would be, and that pre-dates the Middle Ages and Renaissance by thousands of years.",
"Just off the bat, how do we really think today? If we're going to compare, we have to have a handle on what we are now. That sounds simple, but it's really not. How do we describe ourselves, and how do we account for cultural differences in that description?\n\nSecondly, there's really little way for us to know about this kind of thing. We only really have two avenues to glimpse into another time's way of thinking, which is art and, especially, written texts. Our written texts are all pretty young, but even in those, we can see that there's a similarity that we share with ancient people, ie: we can read ancient Greek, Celtic, Chinese or Mesopotamian stories and make sense of the stories being told, but there's also a distance, ie: in those same texts, sometimes, things and the way they happen appear illogical to us. Sometimes, ancient literature almost feels childish, in that characters act very brashly or just very emotionally. Think of the way Achilles acts in the Iliad. Ancient books that dive into the inner life of the characters are pretty rare, and they sometimes feel like they're describing surface-level people. That leads to one important aspect that probably differentiates modern people, especially in the West, from ancient ones, and that's individualization. Ancient people saw the group as the basic unit of social life, and not the individual. When you read old stories, you have to remember that often, these characters are acting as they're expected from their social position and their general circumstances. It's almost like there's nothing \"beneath\", where we would find what we would call the individual today. Achilles gets mad because he's a warrior and the leader of the army has taken what he considered to be owed to him as a warrior. His morality isn't a set of personal beliefs, it's a series of unwritten rules that the group usually recognizes as valid.\n\nSo if you go by this method of trying to find \"modern self-awareness\" in literature, while recognizing that you're excluding the experiences of everyone who didn't write anything down, you'd find that modern consciousness is really... modern. Our individualization, to which we can tack on a scientifist outlook on ourselves as a species, is pretty unique. Are we smarter or more aware than previous people? Those are kind of meaningless questions, as previous human periods probably understood the world and themselves with other categories, which are often very coherent and sophisticated in themselves. As for cavemen, we don't really know, and we probably never will, but consider that the cavemen would have had to have the dormant capacity for self-awareness, since there's little difference biologically between us and people 50,000 years ago. They probably just had narrower horizons, put a lot of stock in the social group as a unit and generally had thought patterns that reflected their often dangerous existence as hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, the fact that they drew themselves on cave walls probably hints at the fact that we share something with them, on a human level."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ss2wz
|
- how do x-rays work?
|
I saw a post on Reddit today with some images of different electronic devices that were xray'd, which allowed you to see inside them. This got me wondering: How in the world can something let you see through solid material?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ss2wz/eli5_how_do_xrays_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ght3y",
"c4giiz4",
"c4glwc1"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"X-rays are electromagnetic waves of such high energy they pass through almost anything but are as all electromagnetic waves shielded by metals and some other substances. If you know how to capture them (similar to standard photography) you can see an image of what they passed and didn't pass through.\n\nThey are created when electrons of very high speed are abruptly stopped / slowed down and the excess energy escapes as X-rays.\n\n(edits for spelling)",
"You know light, normal light, it can go without problems through air. But between you and light source there can be something else than air like water. It will go through it without much problem, but you can already notice that light gets scattered slowly as you have more water between. You could increase light emited to see things better but...\n\nSomeone got idea that you could replace light with sound waves and still observe what is between detector(you) and transmitter, and thats how USG was born. \n\nThen someone replaced sound/light rays, putting X rays instead. They have some neat properties like going through objects, but it works just like another type of light.",
"**And now to actually do it LY5:**\n\n\nShadows. X-rays are the **exact same thing as light**, just more excited and energetic so they can pass through more things. Light **can't** pass through very many things and it casts a shadow of the outline of the thing that is blocking it. X-rays ***can*** pass through skin and soft squishy parts of our body but not bones. Bones cast a shadow on special paper that is placed behind the body part you are x-raying. Thats how x-rays work. Shadows. \n\nThis is why we use things like ~~CAT~~ MRI scans to look at soft, squishy parts; because x-rays will just go straight through them. ~~CAT~~ MRI scans are also safer because they don't have any risk of cancer (X-rays are very energetic and excited, which can cause your cells to behave funnily)\n\nEM waves can be absorbed, reflected and refracted. What happens and to what degree depends on the material that the EM wave comes in contact with. For example most matter reflects and absorbs light and glass refracts light. The calcium in bones absorbs X-rays. Stuff that is good at absorbing EM Radiation is said to be radiodense. Two common radiodense elements used in medical imagery are barium and iodine. You can swallow barium so that doctors can use X-rays to see your digestive tract. Iodine is injected to make blood vessels visible on x-rays. \n\nTo everyone else:\n*[/r/askscience](/r/askscience) is that way...*\nlets keep this ELI5."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8po63v
|
why can we see rays of the sun when it is being blocked by a cloud but not otherwise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8po63v/eli5_why_can_we_see_rays_of_the_sun_when_it_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0cr2uu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You can only see light that is reflected towards you.\n\n So if light travel in clear air there is almost nothing that can be hit by the light. So almost nothing is reflected towards you so you.\n\nIf the light travel trough something with a lot of dust or water droplets in it the light will be reflected and can hit your eye and be visible.\n\nSo in relative clear condition you can see the small amount reflected light because the sky behind it brighter and all the air reflect the same amount of air. But when it is blocked out by a cloud and a small part is illuminated you will notice the the brighter part.\n\n\nA flashlight of a laser is the same. It is invisible in clear air until it hit anything but if it is smoke or for you will see a ray. Look at how a flashlight or car light look a clear vs a foggy night.\n\n[Look a this video](_URL_0_) with laser and smoke. The laser is visible in the smoke but where it is less smoke you can't see it but there is a visible ray where it hit smoke later.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/ro_gou6HmHg?t=18"
]
] |
||
5wjag4
|
what does the "tag a friend who ..." sites on facebook get out of it?
|
Is it only for internet points or are there a money purpose?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wjag4/eli5what_does_the_tag_a_friend_who_sites_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deapmgw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People sell facebook like pages for a lot of money. They amass as many followers/shares/impressions as possible then sell the page off. The person that buys it rebrands it and suddenly they have all the existing social media power."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
40fjhc
|
what's the difference between nerds and geeks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40fjhc/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_nerds_and_geeks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cytsxms",
"cytt06s"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"These words have changed meaning over time, which is common in English and many other languages.\n\nOriginally, a nerd was someone into technical things and with limited social skills, while a geek was totally unrelated: a freakish person who did strange things in a circus sideshow to sell tickets.\n\nFor a while, a nerd became someone with computer skills, and a geek was unheard of.\n\nMore recently, a nerd is back closer to the original meaning, while a geek is someone with computer skills.",
"A geek is somebody obsessed with a hobby or an intellectual pursuit. It's usually used to refer to people with eccentric or dorky interests, but it would also be accurate to refer to somebody as a sports geek or gun geek, etc. A nerd is a subset of geek whose obsession results in a useful or marketable skill - computer programming, math analysis, actually building things, etc. A car geek can tell you how many CCs are on the engine of every Ford car 1960-present, a car nerd can also rebuild those engines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
az6iej
|
what are corporations
|
I’ve managed to go 26 years without ever gaining any kind of understanding into what corporations are or do. I always thought it just meant businesses that are chains that have upper management but I guess franchises aren’t necessarily corporations? On that same note, what the hell is a franchise? Can someone break this down in layman’s terms without too many weird business terms
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/az6iej/eli5_what_are_corporations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei5pjck",
"ei5r5qw",
"ei698pb"
],
"score": [
3,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"A corporation is a legal container for money and products. \n\nFranchises are premade containers that people can rent/buy \n\n\n\n",
"a corporation is a legal entity; there are many kinds of corporations but the traditional for-profit corporation generally being referred to exists to limit liability for shareholders. Essentially this means that if a corporation goes bankrupt, its shareholders lose only the value of their shares; the rest of their assets cannot be pursued as collateral against their debts (in most cases.)\n\nA business doesn't necessarily have to incorporate but probably should once it owns property or grows past 1-2 employees.\n\nFranchising (of restaurants, for example) is the practice of licensing the use of a name/logo/etc to a smaller operator. Most Subways for example are not owned by the Subway Corporation; instead they license their name to smaller operators who actually run and in most cases own the store.",
"Some of the most important concepts in business and law are about who owns what and who controls what. Ownership and control are very important concepts where the exact details and limits matter greatly.\n\nA corporation is a fictional person created to open and control the \"business\".\n\nLet's say I have a lemonade stand that sells lemonade. When I initially setup this business, I likely night the lemons, glasses, and sign myself with my own money. I am the business and the business is me. I have direct ownership and control over everything going on with that lemonade stand.\n\nI could file to make myself a corporation without changing anything about how I run the business. This would likely be expensive and an unneeded headache, but I could be a corporation that is just one dude selling lemonade if I wanted to.\n\nIf I make a corporation, I now create a fictional person, and I can give them ownership of my stuff and control over it. The corporation can own the lemons, the glasses, and the sign instead of me. I will instead control the corporation. This distinction may seem pointless when it's just one dude and a small lemonade stand, but it becomes increasingly important as the business grows larger and more complex.\n\nWhile I might like living in California as a resident, my corporation can live in Delaware and live by their laws instead.\n\nIf someone Sue's the corporation because they got poisoned by the lemonade, they can only go after what the corporation owns. If I painted them, they could go after everything I own even if it had nothing to do with lemonade. This limited my liability.\n\nI can sell off pieces of the corporation to other people so they can have some ownership and control (for a price). It's easier to sell parts of a fictional person than a real one.\n\nI can give someone the rights to make decisions on the corporation's behalf knowing it is separate from me and that I'm not giving them rights to decide on my behalf."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5g1o4o
|
do taste buds taste all types, or is there a "sour" taste bud?
|
I understand there are 5 types of sense we can taste but I'm not sure how the taste buds themselves work.
Do they all taste and tell or do certain taste buds only capable of tasting a certain type of flavor, for example only sour taste buds can taste sour?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5g1o4o/eli5_do_taste_buds_taste_all_types_or_is_there_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daos2k3",
"daov7fv"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"All taste buds taste all flavors. \n\nIt used to be believed that different regions of the tongue tasted different flavors however that's not true. ",
"They are all the same but they got different receptors INSIDE the cells to register different tastes. Also all flavors apart from sweet, sour, bitter, salty, umami, and fatty are not realy tasted but smelt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fr8ejb
|
how would it be possible for gut bacteria to influence such things as mental health or autism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fr8ejb/eli5_how_would_it_be_possible_for_gut_bacteria_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flucgz8",
"fludarx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Did you read the article at all? They don’t know how it works or if it works at all. They’re just reporting on a thing some researchers noticed and say that we should explore it further but no conclusions can be made at this stage.",
"As with so many things in science...we don't really know. Science is actually two things: it's the sum of all knowledge we've collected, but it's also the *process* by which we collect that knowledge. \n\nThere's a lot we currently don't understand about how the bacteria in our gut affect our health—studies have shown the composition of bacteria may affect everything from your risk of developing autoimmune disease to obesity and as you've pointed out, mental health. \n\nA few things we do know about gut bacteria—they help you process food by breaking down what you eat into smaller molecules that are absorbed into your body through your intestines for nutrients. They keep bad bacteria from overgrowing the rest of your body using a \"strength in numbers\" strategy. They also help keep your immune system in check. Without getting too far into the weeds, the bacteria in your gut are just like any bacteria—they should be seen as foreign invaders and be destroyed, but through a lot of complicated processes, gut bacteria and your immune system learn to live together, which seems to be helpful in keeping your immune system from going out of control. \n\nA couple of hypotheses for how your gut bacteria affects your mental state is some of the chemical byproducts they make might cross the blood-brain barrier and alter your mental status just like some drugs. Another possibility is they might activate your immune system too much, which can lead to an overactive immune response and some of the chemicals secreted by your immune system can affect your mental state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3p5va6
|
why can some animals like chickens, rabbits, deer, and bears go in the cold and it doesn't seem to bother their feet? because when us humans and certain other animals like dogs go outside we get frostbite and it can be painfully cold.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p5va6/why_can_some_animals_like_chickens_rabbits_deer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw3dtqx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Im really sorry for the wordedlikeim5"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
24pups
|
when i drink a bunch of red fruit punch and i pee clear or yellow, where did all the red go?
|
So your able to break down and absorb and use most of it then. I guess i pictured more of what you were calling synthetic coloring. So that brings another question. When you drink amp or monster energy you pee green or something is that the synthetic coloring?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24pups/eli5_when_i_drink_a_bunch_of_red_fruit_punch_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch9hbz2",
"ch9hfcl",
"ch9hgoe"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"You're body breaks it down.\n\nMost colours are the result of various proteins, minerals, vitamins, etc. and are easily broken down by the body's digestive process.\n\nThere are a few that aren't, but those are mainly extremely synthetic food dyes.",
"Because pee isn't a direct translation of what you drink. \n\nWhen you drink something, you're digestive system basically absorbs all of the water and it goes into the blood stream. Your blood is then filtered by your kidneys of impurities and excess water and that's what pee is.\n\nAnything that's not water is passed through and comes out in your poop :)",
"When you drink a liquid, in order for it to get to your pee it needs to be absorbed by the gut, enter the blood, not be broken down in the liver or kidney, excreted by the kidney, and enter the urine. Many things never leave the gut, are broken down in the circulation, or otherwise never reach the bladder"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
an0fy2
|
what is the difference between american football and rugby?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/an0fy2/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_american/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efpudqh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"American football uses a smaller egg shaped ball made of leather. It’s played on a field that’s 100 yards long with ten yards of end zone. In each end zone is the yellow upright goalposts used for extra points and field goals. They wear helmets and big shoulder pads and line up in rows to start most plays. Throwing the ball to a member of your team further down the field advances the ball\n\nRugby uses a much bigger egg shaped ball. It’s much more contact/rough than American football. They mostly just wear cleated shoes, shin guards and an athletic cup/jock strap for the men. They can only advance the ball with it in hand or by kicking it. \n\nBoth sports involve sweaty people making grunty noises, rubbing against each other with some protection and leather. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1txrti
|
does better healthcare = longer life expectancy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1txrti/eli5_does_better_healthcare_longer_life_expectancy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceci90r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The short answer is yes. A great example is when the Communist party took over China. Mao did alot of healtcare reforms, making healtcare more available for the masses. The result was an increase in life expectancy by more than 20 years. And this is something that is seen over and over. Mostly it is seen when you provide children with healtcare."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f63y34
|
how come boiling water before freezing it makes the ice clear?
|
It doesn't make sense to me you boil it but when you freeze it it just goes back to the same temperature before you boiled it before freezing how does it change anything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f63y34/eli5_how_come_boiling_water_before_freezing_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fi2in26",
"fi2sagt"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Boiling water allows dissolved gases to escape, so recently boiled water may form fewer bubbles when freezing.",
"Cloudiness in ice is the result of a few thing. One is dissolved gasses or other particulate. This is why using distilled water can lead to clearer ice. Boiling helps by letting trapped gas and particles to escape, aiding in clarity. However air itself will reduce clarity, and can't entirely be boiled away. Because impurities arise at the end of the freezing process, they can be avoided by creating the ice in a container that is insulated on 5 of the 6 sides, leaving the top exposed. This results in something called directional freezing, where the water is forced to freeze down, pushing anything that would disrupt the clarity to the bottom. This explains why icicles tend to be clearer, as they freeze from the top down.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe YouTube channel The Modern Rouge did a [video](_URL_0_) on this exact topic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/0rPcHPY7gKs"
]
] |
|
2v32cb
|
google runs both android and youtube. why is voice recognition so good when i do "okay google", but so poor at automatic captions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v32cb/eli5_google_runs_both_android_and_youtube_why_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coe0av8",
"coe0g8x",
"coe0ga3"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It does pretty good job when there's zero background noise, which effectively means that it doesn't work on 99% of the videos.",
"The captions are programmed differently to voice recognition, it's one thing for the computer to take in the words for a few select commands and translate them into actions but translating full videos of dialogue on the fly is prone to problems, especially when you consider how little time it has to think about each word. ",
"When you do \"Okay Google\", you're probably deliberately (or even subconsciously) making an effort to speak clearly and distinctly.\n\nIn a typical YouTube video, speech may be particularly fast, indistinct, spoken with strange accents or contain lots of slang or dialect. There may also be music and sound effects, and possibly more than one speaker at a time. All of this will confuse any speech recognition system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
jix9m
|
what's the deal with michele bachmann? (i'm from england)
|
So i keep seeing posts on Reddit about this lady who everyone seems to dislike. Who is she? What are her policies? Is she like Palin? Is she worse than Palin? Why is she creating such a stir over in the states? Is she crazy?
This sort of news doesn't really filter down into England!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jix9m/eli5_whats_the_deal_with_michele_bachmann_im_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2cih0b",
"c2cil52",
"c2ck14g",
"c2cih0b",
"c2cil52",
"c2ck14g"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
4,
14,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"To take a different perspective from the previous poster:\n\nMichelle Bachmann is a hard right conservative who has fired up the Republican base. Her stances follow typical Christian conservative stances. Abstinence only sex education, no abortions, lower taxes, etc.\n\nBut here's where I differ, she has zero chance at being President. She is the Republican party's Howard Dean or Michael Dukakis. They lover her and all, but at the end of the day, either Republicans or the American electorate will decide she is too extreme.\n\nHere appeal to Republicans is that she is saying things they wish other politicians would say. But it's not that other politicians don't know to say these things, or can't say these things credibly, it's that it is a losing proposition for them to say them. I can promise you the world whatever you want to hear and while I may win your vote, or your towns vote or whatever, when 120 million people get to way in, I won't win.\n\nDemocrats have too many things to take her down with. From migraines that she finds debilitating(which will be an issue if she gets past the first three primary states - trust me - remember the 3 A.M. ad by Hillary Clinton) or the fact she doesn't understand basic Constitutional theory. Democrats will be able to tear her limb from limb and make her look like the nut job Reddit believes she is(and I personally don't disagree).",
"Whereas I want someone to reassure me like I'm 5 that she will never become president.",
"She wants to teach creationism, eliminate the minimum wage, phase out Social Security an Medicare, and reduce the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.\n\nShe opposes gay marriage and to some extent, gays.\n\nShe's a member of our House of Representatives, which is our lower house.\n\nShe seems less crazy than Palin and more dangerous, from a left-ish perspective, which you seem to be asking for.\n\nWe'll be doing this generalized political mud fight until the Republicans pick their nominee. Officially that will be about a year from now, but it could be all but decided by next Spring.\n\nAfter that there will be a shrieking freakout about some combination of the economy, the wars, abortion, gay marriage, and some pointless last minute scandal to be named later, until we vote for a President in November, 2012.\n\nShe's won the first election in the series of elections held before the series of elections before the election before the real election, which is followed by one other election whose results are determined by the result of the real election, or something. I think that's right.",
"To take a different perspective from the previous poster:\n\nMichelle Bachmann is a hard right conservative who has fired up the Republican base. Her stances follow typical Christian conservative stances. Abstinence only sex education, no abortions, lower taxes, etc.\n\nBut here's where I differ, she has zero chance at being President. She is the Republican party's Howard Dean or Michael Dukakis. They lover her and all, but at the end of the day, either Republicans or the American electorate will decide she is too extreme.\n\nHere appeal to Republicans is that she is saying things they wish other politicians would say. But it's not that other politicians don't know to say these things, or can't say these things credibly, it's that it is a losing proposition for them to say them. I can promise you the world whatever you want to hear and while I may win your vote, or your towns vote or whatever, when 120 million people get to way in, I won't win.\n\nDemocrats have too many things to take her down with. From migraines that she finds debilitating(which will be an issue if she gets past the first three primary states - trust me - remember the 3 A.M. ad by Hillary Clinton) or the fact she doesn't understand basic Constitutional theory. Democrats will be able to tear her limb from limb and make her look like the nut job Reddit believes she is(and I personally don't disagree).",
"Whereas I want someone to reassure me like I'm 5 that she will never become president.",
"She wants to teach creationism, eliminate the minimum wage, phase out Social Security an Medicare, and reduce the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.\n\nShe opposes gay marriage and to some extent, gays.\n\nShe's a member of our House of Representatives, which is our lower house.\n\nShe seems less crazy than Palin and more dangerous, from a left-ish perspective, which you seem to be asking for.\n\nWe'll be doing this generalized political mud fight until the Republicans pick their nominee. Officially that will be about a year from now, but it could be all but decided by next Spring.\n\nAfter that there will be a shrieking freakout about some combination of the economy, the wars, abortion, gay marriage, and some pointless last minute scandal to be named later, until we vote for a President in November, 2012.\n\nShe's won the first election in the series of elections held before the series of elections before the election before the real election, which is followed by one other election whose results are determined by the result of the real election, or something. I think that's right."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cu7byf
|
my neighborhood (wealthy, with lots of tourists and residents alike) has lots of empty stores on a popular street. they’ve been vacant for months. why might the bldg owners not just lower the rent until a business would sign a lease? are their tax benefits or other reasons to keep rent high?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cu7byf/eli5_my_neighborhood_wealthy_with_lots_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exrwzxc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Let’s put it this way. \n\nCurrent rent: 5000\nLower rent 4000\n\n5-year lease = 240k In revenue at 4000 per month. \n\nIf they keep the 5000 per month that is 300k for the 5-years. \n\nThat’s a difference of 60k over 5 years which is equivalent to 15 months of revenue at 4000 per month. \n\nThey can typically find a tenant within 15 months."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2yif74
|
daylight savings time. i get why we set the clocks forward.. but why, in autumn, do we set them back an hour? is there something gained by having an extra hour of darkness in the winter? why don't we just keep time at "daylight savings time" year-round?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yif74/eli5_daylight_savings_time_i_get_why_we_set_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp9urmd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Historically, people like to think of Noon as being when the sun is at its highest point in the sky. Under DST, you're an hour off from that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2zewpl
|
why is it that old people are hard of hearing, yet still complain about music being too loud?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zewpl/eli5_why_is_it_that_old_people_are_hard_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpiae15",
"cpiaime",
"cpiask9"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You're making a huge assumption and generalization in your question there. Not everyone loses the ability to hear as they get older. Most everyone loses the ability to hear higher frequencies, but that's hardly the same as being deaf or severely hard-of-hearing.",
"Because you young whippersnappers think it's all about the base, and the thump-thump-thump still comes through, loud and clear.",
"Most old people like my grandad are hard of hearing but certain tones are easier to hear than others. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2u2h44
|
what does an art history major do?
|
What is a typical job (I'm guessing one of them is working in a museum?). And considering this is a major offered in many universities, how many new ones are churned out each year and where do they all go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u2h44/eli5_what_does_an_art_history_major_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co4io2u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're right that the carreers where an art history degree are required & directly applicable are limited. Many college degrees outside of the engineering & the sciences are similar. \n\nThere are a number of jobs out there that simply require somebody have a college degree - any degree. Tons of random office jobs out there that aren't expecting any particular training, but they want somebody literate & educated.\n\nA degree like AH involves writing lots of papers, doing research, critically analyzing trends that can't be quantifiably measured and so on. These are all useful skills that can be applied outside the world of art.\n\nIf you want to know more, most college departments have a section on their website that goes into the career opportunities available to graduates."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
51q5b7
|
an old teacher of mine once told me that democracy is the least worst form of political system. but why haven't we found a better one and what makes it not great and just good?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51q5b7/eli5an_old_teacher_of_mine_once_told_me_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7dxm7v",
"d7dxtim",
"d7dyie1"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Democracy isn´t one form of government, rather it refers to all forms of government that are legitimated by the power of the people.\n\nSwitzerland is a democracy as is the UK and the US, yet all three have very different forms of government.\n\nThere cannot ever be a better one (at least in the spirit of the saying) because any form of government that is not legitimated by the people fails to be legitimate at all.\n\nIt´s not the best form of government because people are stupid and make stupid decisions/ vote for stupid things and that will never change.\n\nThe saying of your teacher is a way to lament that democracies are often frustrating (because of the nature of people) yet without alternative (as the power needs to come from the people).\n\nThat said, it is very much possible to optimize single forms of democratic government which many people and countries strive to do.",
"No govt. is great because all govt.'s are made of people and we can kind of be a stupid, near-sighted, petty species most of the time. However, what makes democracy better than most government systems is it broadens the number of humans that have to be bad/stupid/crazy from 1 person (the monarch) to millions of people.",
"\"Least worst form of government\" is saying it is the best available form of government.\n\nIt is better than all other forms of government which essentially require an oligarchy or else no government.\n\nBut it is far from perfect because the basic principle of democracy is that some people are going to be unhappy with those in charge.\n\nThe foundation of democracy is \"We have all these different people that need a government. Let's have them vote and whoever has the largest group of supporters is in charge.\"\n\nThat immediately means that there are going to be some people that don't agree with whoever wins and that means some people are going to be unhappy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
crgxwf
|
whats the difference between a chart and a graph?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/crgxwf/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_chart_and_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ex4ytnr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They can be confused/overlap in use but Chart usually plot data in linear representation over time period or over variables but graph is usually just snapshot of mathematical percentages"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3tvok5
|
how airlines lose luggage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tvok5/eli5_how_airlines_lose_luggage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx9lpfr",
"cx9m0yc",
"cx9phk3",
"cx9q9iy"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's pretty rare that they lose luggage; more often than not when your luggage doesn't arrive, it simply got put on the wrong plane. In those cases, they know (or will shortly know) where your bag is. It just is in a place where you're not.\n\nThat said, I did have a coworker that experienced truly lost luggage, and the airline reimbursed him for the loss... and eight months later, it was found in an airport somewhere. They sent it to him and he said it looked like it was beat all to hell.",
"There are a lot of people who bring luggage and lots of different places where the baggage is supposed to end up, so mistakes are bound to happen. It could be that someone writes the wrong destination for a bag. It could be that a baggage handler accidentally groups a bag with luggage headed for other destinations. It could also be that the label with the bag's destination gets damaged, making it hard to determine where it should go. ",
"Maybe it doesn't always work like this, but whenever I've flown you're at the gate and they ask if anyone wants to check any luggage and then they start boarding. How does someone get handed a piece of luggage right in front of the fucking plane and put it on a different plane?",
"There's human error involved. One more factor: have you ever had to run across the terminal to catch your next flight? Your luggage does too and it very well may not make it. That generally only causes delay of receiving your bag. Lastly, there's weather, conveyor belts, rough handling and many other ways for tags to be torn, smeared or removed completely, in which case there's a chance you'll never see it again (the odds are generally in your favor though).\n\nLPT: Always put your full itinerary and contact information *inside* your luggage because whatever cute tag or ribbon you decide to put on it to make it distinguishable has an equal probability of being torn off. Do you have any idea how many black rolling suitcases there are in the world? A fuckton. So what happens when nobody has any clue who it belongs to? They check a list of bags reported lost and contents. You say you had toiletries and three days worth of generic clothing? Ya, that helps. Finally, it gets tossed in storage until there's a match (if ever). That's why there are auctions that airlines do for unclaimed bags and damn near all are black roller suitcases. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
22gpku
|
why do dogs have black skin in and around their mouths?
|
rather than the pink ones that many other animals have
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22gpku/eli5_why_do_dogs_have_black_skin_in_and_around/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgmr2nc",
"cgmxo9e"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Dogs don't really have lips like a human. Lips on a dog are made of a different kind of skin tissue.\n\nNot all dogs have black \"lips\". If they have black lips it's because their skin is dark under their hair. They have less hair around their mouth and it gets even darker since it's exposed to the sun and cold. A dog's skin will darken considerably if exposed to the cold.",
"_URL_0_ years working with dogs finally comes in handy. If your dog has a black tongue or mouth it means that somewhere down their line they are part chow. Chow are the only breed with black tongues because they were bread to have them due to Chinese beliefs that the black tongue would scare off evil spirits. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"Yay.My"
]
] |
|
44edbg
|
what would happen if drugs were to be injected into arteries instead of veins?
|
I was thinking along the lines of heroin, but I suppose this applies to any drug.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44edbg/eli5what_would_happen_if_drugs_were_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czpml0a"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Arteries contain blood that is moving at a high pressure so poking one with the needle is gonna result in some blood spurting everywhere. They also have thicker walls and have more pain receptors. Lastly, you do not want to injure the wall of an artery with a needle because blood rushing by can further press on the wall and cause it to baloon up...and thats how anuerysms develop. \n\nAlso, arteries are going towards the tissue so if you put in a drug at the brachial artery it is going to go towards the fingers before anywhere else in the body. Blood in veins goes to the heart and then to the rest of the body. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fnnjhi
|
if the government were to give everyone $1,000 how/why would it be beneficial for the economy? wouldn't companies raise all their prices?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fnnjhi/eli5_if_the_government_were_to_give_everyone_1000/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flah0fz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"$1000 will let mom who can't work because the restaurant closed keep the rent up for another month and maybe buy enough groceries to not need to go out again for hopefully a week. Paying the rent on time keeps the family in the house. Staying in the house prevents Covid-19 from spreading. The sooner Covid-19 is stopped, the sooner we can rebuild.\n\nShould there be a way to get that $1000 to just the people who are at risk of not paying rent? Sure. But that will take lots of people lots of time to figure who does and doesn't need it. And in that time, Covid-19 gets worse. Just get $1000 to everyone and figure out how to get it back in taxes from those who didn't need it later. \n\nIf people who don't need it to survive and shelter right now spend it on other things, that will be their prerogative. Yes, prices might go up, but the costs right now are worth it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
d3vo33
|
why do mac trucks have spinning death spikes on their front wheels?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d3vo33/eli5_why_do_mac_trucks_have_spinning_death_spikes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f05gfc9",
"f05ggyd"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It is decorative, some truckers like them because it makes ignorant people pay more attention to keeping their distance. For some reason people think that spinning spikes over the wheel bolts are somehow worse than the spinning wheel bolts themselves.\n\nThe spikes are plastic.",
"Those are just lug nut caps, they'll pop off if you actually hit them.\n\nThey serve no purpose beyond making all the people planning to cut off the giant speeding metal killing machine think about it a little harder."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
651uzn
|
why is the reverse gear next to the last one?
|
I've noticed that on manual transmission cars, the reverse gear is beside the last one in the gearbox. Wouldn't it be simpler to put it beside the first?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/651uzn/eli5_why_is_the_reverse_gear_next_to_the_last_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg6rftz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some cars DO have it near first gear... But with a lockout, to keep you from going into reverse unless you absolutely want to. \n\nThe reason it's where it is on most 5 speed cars is because you would never make the movement required to get into R in normal driving. Which is the point... It's a safety feature to prevent you from trying to go to R by accident. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
40t0e4
|
if cancer is caused by your cells making errors when they duplicate, won't all multi-celled organisms, provided they live long enough, eventually get cancer?
|
Holy shit, front page!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40t0e4/eli5_if_cancer_is_caused_by_your_cells_making/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cywt8sa",
"cywta7p",
"cywthur",
"cywuitc",
"cyww1qn",
"cyww42c",
"cyx0ne8",
"cyx5g11",
"cyx6kv4",
"cyx7ubb",
"cyx7ztl",
"cyx829u",
"cyx8bfb",
"cyx95kn",
"cyxb2m0",
"cyxb9o7",
"cyxbylt",
"cyxeejz",
"cyxely8",
"cyxenk6",
"cyxf4y6",
"cyxhite",
"cyxht5k",
"cyxi2j8",
"cyxi3r9",
"cyxidgw",
"cyxies6",
"cyxio9y",
"cyxixzh",
"cyxjlka",
"cyxjog1",
"cyxjs63",
"cyxkfbu",
"cyxnp9f",
"cyxo1bp",
"cyxo2hp",
"cyxpf4y",
"cyxrz12",
"cyxt9wp"
],
"score": [
3684,
605,
99,
2,
168,
258,
52,
21,
91,
6,
16,
14,
7,
2,
5,
14,
2,
2,
5,
23,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"By sheer statistical probability, yeah. \n\nThere are organisms like naked mole rats that have numerous barriers to tumor development that enable them to resist cancer so well that we've never documented it in the species. However, *eventually* we would expect there to be mutations in enough of the genes that prevent tumor formation for one to form. DNA replication and DNA maintenance can't be 100% perfect.",
"Pretty much, yes. That is why we focus on cancer so much more than civilizations in the past did (and yes they had encountered and recognized some types of cancer). Life expectancy is so long for people a lot of health issues come up that weren't nearly as common before.",
"Yes, and essentially all statements demonstrating counter-examples have been debunked (e.g. for a long time we'd say \"sharks don't get cancer\").\n\nFurther, for your statement to be true, you'd have to mean \"live long enough, including to ages that are not realistic for certain animals\". E.G. a mosquito doesn't live long enough to develop cancer and there is no way a mosquito is going to given the way death is programmed into their existence.",
"Yes, actually that is true. We are more likely to die from other disease than a cancer that has grown enough to be detectable in most of the cases.",
"Your body has numerous ways of detecting malfunctioning cells and destroying them before they become significant. Your cells themselves even have ways to detect when they are malfunctioning and signal to your immune system to come kill it. Your cells will mostly kill themselves when they detect an uncorrectable malfunction. Most fatal cancers are where these systems fail and not where the cell has malfunctioned. Cells developing problems are a everyday event, your body failing to deal with it is not.",
"Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, dementia, Arthritis are a class of diseases known as age related diseases. A better way to think of these diseases are as symptoms of getting older. You never die of old age or \"natural\" causes. Instead you suffer from the effects of aging such as heart failure, cancer, dementia, loss of motor functions, and other complications. ",
"That's actually one of the arguments as to why cancer is on the rise. There are so many conspiracies about microwaves, GMOs, pesticides, birth control, etc. causing cancer. \n\nBut it could simply just be that now that human beings are living longer, most end up getting cancer eventually, since other things aren't getting them first. \n\nWell, that and the fact that we're better at identifying the disease. \n\nEdit: Yes, human beings are living longer because we're getting so much better at curing just about everything else. We're more conscious of what causes disease, and how to prevent it. Sanitation is better. Overall, we're healthier as a population (with the exception of diseases of affluence).\n\nCancer is one of the few things that still pretty much has us beat. ",
"Yes, that's right. That's why cancer is known as a gerontological disease, or more simply a disease of ageing. \n\nSome creatures, like the Hydra and the Dahlia Anemone are thought to have indefinite lifespans since they have a supply of continuously proliferating stem cells that replenish any defective cell line.\n\nUs humans eventually lose the ability to produce new cells meaning ageing tissue cannot regenerate.",
"Something I haven't seen addressed here yet: Cell mutations go wrong all the time and don't develop into cancer. Your cells mostly terminate themselves when they go wrong, cancer requires both that they go wrong in function *and* that they go wrong in their termination process. ",
"If a male lives into his 80's or 90's they're almost guaranteed to end up with prostate cancer but will often die from something else. ",
"Basically, yes. The only reason we don't constantly get cancer is that cells have mechanisms to correct mistakes. After a while, even those can't catch everything, so everyone will get cancer. Here's vsauce: _URL_0_",
"It's my assumption that this is why cancer is such a big deal nowadays. We've managed to wipe out all the diseases that used to shorten peoples' lives, so now there is nothing left to kill us except cancer.",
"Don't quote me on this, but if my memory serves me, our bodies get cancer often, but most of the time it is naturally eliminated",
"In many ways cancer is a symptom of aging. A recent study into aggressively screening for cancers showed that screening didn't noticeably improve the general mortality rate. I believe the quote was \"even if you can catch something early through screening, in many cases you are simply trading one cause of death for another.\" - paraphrased \n\nArticle: [Ars Technica: There’s almost no evidence that cancer screening saves lives, say researchers](_URL_0_)",
"Elephants get cancer very rarely because they have so many copies of the P53 tumour suppressor gene.",
"Don't overestimate the power of statistics. Statistically, if you live long enough, the molecules in your body will spontaneously reorganize into a Boeing 747. This is extremely rare, but statistically it is inevitable.",
"yes. But there are error control system, and some organism has crazy amount of control mechanism. duplicate of everything. So even if huge amount of dna strand are exposed to damaging radiation, it would still have another copy somewhere. I guess if you are water bug, reconstructing messy gene is not a problem\n\n\nfor example: water bug.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAnalysis of DNA Repair and Protection in the Tardigrade Ramazzottius varieornatus and Hypsibius dujardini after Exposure to UVC Radiation\n\n_URL_0_",
"But is having this minor skill worth being so unattractive?\n\nThat's for the fan to decide\n\n",
"How do tortoises battle cancer then?",
"Not lobsters. They make less biological mistakes as they age. Research has found that lobsters could potentially live forever. That is, of course, if they weren't so very delicious.",
"Technically yes; however, we have certain proteins (p53, and retinoblastoma 1) that act as \"tumor suppressor genes\". These are basically bouncers at the door of the club. They make sure these \"bad cells\" are killed off before they divide. ",
"It just seens like degradation after a while. I don't think anything is meant to last forever. And the older something is doesn't it require more energy for upkeep and reserve. obviously not in all cases but certainly a few. Not in anyway saying that cancer is something we should stop fighting but i feel that when we eradicate cancer and our life expectancies increase we will reach the next hurdle.",
"We get cancer all the time, it just isn't usually problematic for the immune system to deal with. ",
"Sooooooo basically my body needs a better file system that protects against bit rot? :( ",
"Every multi cellular organism and thus everyone has cancer at some point. You may even have cancer right now, the problem becomes when your body fails to eliminate the cancerous cells. ",
"I knew an intelligent 60 year old who swore up and down that \"given long enough, we will all die of colon caner, he died at 79 of colon cancer (survived WWII).",
"This will probably get buried but I know Sweet FA about all of this so I am interested.\n\nGiven the conversations about errors introducing beneficial changes does that mean that we should aim to cure cancer after it has formed by eradicating non-beneficial mutations (when they are cancerous)? As I understand the conversation in this thread, the alternative is to stop cancer occurring in the first place which would have potentially risky side effects for the human race because we wouldn't be able to evolve.\n\nBe nice, I admit I know nothing.",
"Yes, and to protect against this, most cells only replicate [40-60 times](_URL_0_) and then become [senescent](_URL_2_); this is the process we perceive as aging.\n\nThe lifespan of most creatures is a balance between cancer and aging; attempts to delay aging in mice leave them tumor-ridden, and attempts to genetically prevent cancer (e.g. an extra copy of the [tumor suppressor gene](_URL_1_)) result in premature aging.\n\nThat is why increasing lifespan doesn't lend itself to a quick fix (and why studying [naked mole-rats](_URL_3_) is so important).",
"Ooh ooh I almost know this one! From the \"the immortal life of Henrietta Lacks\" : cancer cells stop producing some chemical that tells cells to die. Cells don't die, but then make more that don't die. It piles up!",
"This is a bit late, but I just listened to a colleague practice their doctoral thesis on DNA replication mechanisms a couple days ago. The replication process is actually riddled with mistakes; according to him, every time a human cell replicates, there are about 600 mistakes made in the DNA copying. There are also quite a few proteins in place whose job it is to find and repair those mistakes. The exact mechanism of how these DNA repair proteins work is not yet known, and he represented some of the earliest in depth research on the topic.\n\nAs to the original question, cancer is (put simply) when cells forget how to die. In the case that a DNA replication mistake would cause damage to the overall organism, protocol is for the cell to self-destruct. If the stars align just right and a cell mutates in a way that stops the self-destruct button, there's cancer. Bad DNA replication can cause this as well as a few other disorders such as Huntington's disease.",
"I recall my gross anatomy prof in college saying that if people live long enough, everyone would eventually die of cancer",
"My wife recently died of cancer so I am very interested in this sort of discussion. Thanks to the respondents for what appears to me very serious, intelligent posts. ",
"**TL:DR** *Intermittent fasting and constant motion basically constitute the existential cage that evolution has locked us in.*\n\nNo, not necessarily. Despite the party line, modem western lifestyle promotes tumor growth, if not carcinogenisis. There has been a marked increase in incidence, though lately a slight decrease in mortality (woohoo, victory is neigh! Not) from all cancers since the mid 20th century. The rise in incidence is roughly concurrent with the rise in obesity, type II diabetes, and heart disease.\n\nThe so called 'modern diseases' are all caused by two somewhat related conditions. 1. disruptions in cell signalling 2. chronically elevated blood glucose. These conditions are themselves caused by two factors. 1 chronic lack of exercise, specifically sustained low-intensity exercise 2. chronic overfeeding.\n\nCancer cells, of all types, ferment blood glucose rather than or in addition to respiring. Healthy cells on the other hand are capable of ketone metabolism in the absence of glucose. In our prehistorical environment we would normally be slipping in and out of ketosis frequently, and running somewhat low on glycogen stores constantly, basically any time we had physically demanding tasks to do and not much food to eat. So even normal resting glucose is not, in fact, a normal thing to have 24/7 for decades at a time. Additionally, skeletal muscle isn't just some dumb organ who's only job is to contract via nervous impulse, it's actually a massive endocrine organ that doesn't function properly unless it's contracting and expanding repeatedly on a regular basis. It's supposed to be regularly dousing your other organs in large amounts of various signaling molecules called myokines, but fails to do so when you don't move your ass.\n\nBasically, proper diet and exercise are massively preventative, but the vast majority of people, even if they are dieting and exercising, just aren't doing it right. Eating lots of soybeans (or whatever the kool kids are doing this week), or tearing it up in the gym for an hour a day don't really help you much, and might actually do a fair bit of additional harm.",
"You will only get cancer if your immune system fails to control it. Period. Age, etc. Doesn't matter outside of that respect.",
"Maybe, there seems to be two current competing theories on cancer, being that it is a genetic disorder, or a metabolic disorder.\n\nI believe that it is probably a metabolic disorder. The Warburg Effect, a concept that won a nobel price, showed that cancer cells utilize a high quantity of glucose or blood sugar to rapidly duplicate and was done in a metabolic pathway that does not utilize large amounts of oxygen. \n\nLooking at the human diet, it has only been recent that LARGE amounts of processed carbohydrates, such as sugars and refined grains, have been introduced into our diet. I think this could correlate to the increase in cancer, as our diet now increases the amount blood sugar we are feeding these cells.\n\n",
"Here's an interesting related fact: one would logically also assume that larger animals who have *more cells* should also get cancer at *higher rates* (more cells, more chances of error) ... *but they dont!*\n\nThis is known as Peto's Paradox.",
"Yes, we actually have many cancer cells over our lives. You have probably already had a few, but our bodies do a pretty good job to kill/repair them. This is why kids generally don't develop tumors, our bodies start off great but develop more and more problems as we grow old. \n\nOnce we're past our prime age to reproduce our bodies are in \"who cares\" mode.",
"I took a statistics/probability class long long ago. My teacher said that if you extend the lifeline long enough, you WILL die of heart disease or cancer, barring nothing else kills you. And he showed the line approaching 100%. He said that doctors always ask you to look for a history of heart disease or cancer in your family. He goes, considering they are the #1 and #2 killers and they WILL eventually get you, you should not be concerned. What you SHOULD be concerned about is if you don't have a family history of cancer and heart disease. Because it means your family is being killed by lightning and gunshots and car accidents and knives--things you can actually do a whole lot about.",
"Can we genetically modify DNA to add a SHA256 checksum? DNA needs a SHA256 checksum."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qja4z1HGDQo"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/theres-almost-no-evidence-that-cancer-screening-saves-lives-say-researchers/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064793",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3nhbkr
|
why is it legal to send a letter telling a person they've been pre-approved for a credit card, only for the company to then deny that person a credit card?
|
I had this happen to me once, but it seems to be common practice. It seems like this would fall under false advertising, yet credit card companies seem to get away with doing it without any repercussions. How is this practice legal?
The worst part is that simply applying for these cards damages your credit rating if they are denied.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nhbkr/eli5_why_is_it_legal_to_send_a_letter_telling_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvo2nc7",
"cvo2q9g"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You have been PRE approved. Not final approved. The qualification process is many steps. Just because you passed the first one doesn't mean you'll pas the last",
"I don't really know but health insurance can operate on the same logic. Their favorite line to deny a claim is \"authorization is not a guarantee of payment\" so they can preauthorize a surgery and then deny payment for it after it has been performed. The credit and insurance companies have the politicans bought and paid for. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bfc1xa
|
- why does the kettle stop whistling as soon as you turn off the heat? i would think it would continue for a little while after
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bfc1xa/eli5_why_does_the_kettle_stop_whistling_as_soon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elcidjg",
"elcjl8z",
"elcngim"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Water in liquid form does not rise above 212 deg. F, it turns to gas at this point. Once removed from heat and the water falls just one degree below 212, it will stop producing gas.\n\nEDIT:\nThere are a lot of factors in addition to what I stated such as surface pressure, surfactants, hermetic seals, etc, but nonetheless is the same conclusion.",
"The water in the kettle is 100c. Any additional whistle after the heat is removed would come from residual heat. What could store the residual heat? The heating element could have been much hotter than 100c, but it is gone now. He kettle itself where it was touching the heat could have been slightly hotter, but it was immediately cooled by the water to 100c. \n\nAnother way to think of it: liquid water is just as good (technically better) at staying at 100c as solid water is at 0c.\n\nEdit: this is different for other materials. A steak, for example can be 200c on one side and 100c on the other (or even more different depending on the heat source). Resting it after removing the heat would allow the residual heat to spread to the cooler areas.",
"This is due to water's latent heat of vaporization and water's volume increase during the liquid to gas phase change.\n\nTo boil water, it must be raised to 100c. At this point, additional heat input is required to make it change from a 100c liquid to a 100c gas - a lot of additional heat. In fact, if heating a mass of water from 0c to 100c takes x amount of energy, then boiling (just changing that volume of liquid into gas) that same mass takes about 5x energy. \n\nAs water boils, the volume of it increase dramatically. This steam exits the teapot through the whistle, so as long as liquid is turning into gas, there will be steam exiting through the whistle.\n\nCombine these two effects, and we see why the whistle stops as soon as the heat is removed. Boiling requires so much energy that the boiling process stops immediately when the heat input stops. When the boiling stops, steam production also stops. With no steam production, nothing will be going through the whistle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4htp98
|
how come it's so hard for us to reach the bottom of the ocean due to pressure when we're equipped with high-end technology, but fish and other animals can live down there with no problems at all?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4htp98/eli5_how_come_its_so_hard_for_us_to_reach_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2s87y5",
"d2s9kk5"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"Their bodies have evolved to withstand that pressure. The fish that live at the bottom of the deepest trenches have no bones and are just squishy flesh that can stand the pressure. Humans are not built to be able to survive in that kind of environment and even the technology that we have today is still not reliable enough to go to the bottom of the ocean safely. ",
"There are fish living in the deepest parts of the ocean: the pressure in and around them is equalised i.e. they are not resisting the pressure. We humans can't handle that pressure because we are air-breathers, and the air needs to be in the range we can breath. If you compress air it becomes denser and harder to breathe. The same is not true of water: under massive pressures it barely compresses at all, meaning that water-breathers like fish can still extract oxygen from it at extreme depths. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6lm50n
|
why can brushing your teeth too hard damage them, but the sharp metal points dentists use to scrape enamel off don't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lm50n/eli5_why_can_brushing_your_teeth_too_hard_damage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djuwkm6",
"djuzv6q",
"djv0pfm",
"djv0ya1",
"djv2g2u",
"djv2ou6",
"djv2tvn",
"djv31v8",
"djv3bq6",
"djv3d0b",
"djv4h87",
"djv5ois",
"djvaa7t",
"djvar9q",
"djvcki5",
"djvddyj",
"djvh79l",
"djvhq3k",
"djvjp15",
"djvjs82",
"djvn61d",
"djvo379",
"djvqjsf",
"djvrnx9",
"djvtp99",
"djw5h8o"
],
"score": [
964,
11,
35,
26,
4,
2,
3,
3,
378,
9654,
7,
24,
32,
5,
6,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Gum erosion is what you are trying to avoid with a soft brush and moderate pressure. The tooth under the gums doesn't have the same protective coating and is super sensitive.\n\nThe enamel is super hard, actually harder than the metal equipment. The dentist / hygienist is carefully scraping around the gum line to ensure they don't damage the gums.\n\nSource: I suffer from gum erosion, my cousins are dentists, they explained a lot of this to me in detail.",
"The point of brushing your teeth is to dislodge plaque which is sticky but loosely attached to the surface of your teeth. Putting too much force consistently over time removes enamel, especially when brushing in the same directions and motions.\n\nCalculus, which is mineralized plaque and not as easily removed with bristles, must be removed by precise instruments and technique.",
"Along with what other people are saying, frequency. You go to the dentist twice a year (on average) and they scrape your teeth with the metal hook, but you're supposed to be brushing your teeth every day, if not twice. If you scraped your teeth like at the dentist every day it would likely do far more damage than brushing too hard, but between the dentist knowing just how hard is too hard and only doing it twice a year it does far less damage overall.",
"I mean, to be fair, doctors use scalpels and syringes all the time, but it doesn't mean it's safe for uneducated people to be scratching their skin with scalpels. \n\nDentists scrape at the base of your teeth while carefully looking at exactly what they are doing, and doing it in a very carefully trained manner. It's not the same when a random person at home scratches their gums randomly with a hard bristle.",
"Dentists don't use the tools to scrape enamel. They are scraping off plaque build up. When they brush your teeth, the brush isn't touching your gums, which is where the concern is for brushing too hard.",
"Acidic drinks (pop/soda/soft drinks/juice) softens enamel and isn't a good combination with immediate brushing.\n\nRinse out well or don't brush too soon after consuming acidic drinks.\n\nI believe plaque also produces acid, and sugar is what plaque bacteria feeds off.\n\nDisclosure: I'm not a dentist; but have visited them at too-irregular intervals.",
"Dental Assistant here! Brushing with a hard brush toothbrush will wear at your gums, not the enamel. Enamel is actually the hardest tissue of your body, but it can be brittle. When your dentist or hygienist uses their tools to scrap your plaque off it has a sharp edge that they hold at about a 45 degree angle pick te plaque off. ",
"The hygienists take off calculus with there tools. When you brush your removing plaque. If you brush too hard you can damage the gums and make them pull away from the tooth. This exposes the root of the tooth which is softer. That part of the tooth can be removed with the tools or other harder things. It's also the part of the tooth that's closest to the nerve of the tooth. ",
"Lots of misinformation here\n\nAs many have said, the key factor here is frequency. If you had your teeth scraped with the metal instrument (periodontal scaler) twice a day every day, you would see damage. Dentists and hygienists are trained to scrape your teeth to remove calculus or tartar from your teeth but minimise damage to the tooth structure as well. \n\nNow where people seem to be getting confused: the damage that hard toothbrushing can cause. Hard traumatic toothbrushing can cause damage in two ways: to the gums and to the teeth. Hard toothbrushing can risk damaging the gums and cause recession (shrinkage of the gum away from the tooth). Bleeding from the gum is very rarely a sign of excessive toothbrushing and more likely a sign of gum inflammation (gingivitis or periodontitis). If you have persistent bleeding from your gums, you should have them checked by a dentist to assess for the cause. It's worth noting that aggressive toothbrushing can damage the gum, but not cleaning the gum margin risks gum problems as well. Remember, what you are trying to remove (plaque) is actually soft and so doesn't need to be scrubbed off. \n\nNow unlike what many people are saying here, hard toothbrushing can cause damage to the tooth structure as well. The most common area to see this is around the necks of the teeth (where the tooth meets the gum). This is because the enamel (the hardest structure in the body) ends around this point and so is less resistant to wear. This is called toothbrush abrasion. Look it up if you want to get an idea what it looks like. Enamel is much less likely to be worn away with a toothbrush but if the enamel is softened with acid either from the diet (fizzy drinks or citrus drinks) or from the stomach (reflux) then a toothbrush can wear the enamel away too. \n\nSource: dentist",
"General Dentist here. \n\nBrushing too hard, or with a hard bristle toothbrush, won't damage enamel (the outer, protective layer of the teeth). It's simply too hard of a material. It CAN however, damage the gum tissues and/or the cementum (a much softer layer that covers the root surface) of a tooth.\n\nBrush too hard = > damaged gums = > recession = > exposed cementum = > damage or removal of cementum = > sensitivity, root surface cavities (BAD!!)\n\nFor healthy individuals during a cleaning, yes the hygienist or dentist is carefully removing calculus/tartar (not scraping off enamel as op suggested) from the teeth. Even with these instruments, it is very difficult to damage the enamel. \n\nFor individuals with periodontal or gum disease, they often already have recession and exposed cementum (from the bone loss, recession associated with periodontal disease) and yes, we can do damage. In these situations, we will use an ultrasonic scaler to remove the calculus rather than scraping the teeth to avoid damaging these tissues. \n\nTL: DR - just use a soft-bristle toothbrush, or even better, use an electric toothbrush that tells you if you are brushing too hard\n\nEDIT: calculus = tartar ",
"Most hygienists can clean teeth without looking. Basically they know the shape of each tooth and can scrape just the plaque much more precisely than we could. My hygenist said she uses the metal tools on herself monthly at least",
"_URL_0_\n\nTooth enamel is harder than steel.\nTooth enamel has a hardness of 5, but steel is 4-4.5\n\nTooth enamel is softer than the silica found in many toothpastes\nSilica is quartz, which has a hardness of 7.",
"So, if anything more than a soft brush is gonna risk damaging gums, etc., then why do they make, and every pharmacy ever carries, medium and hard bristle toothbrushes?\n\nWho actually needs, or should use, a hard toothbrush -- and what for?",
"Dentists don't scrape off enamel, they scrape off plaque.",
"I hate it when dentists scrap the sharp metal points against your gums then your gums start bleeding. Then they are like, \"You need floss more often so this doesnt happen.\"",
"A tip I've found that helps me to keep from brushing too hard: grip the toothbrush at the far end (away from the bristles) so you exert less normal force on your gums/teeth.",
"I dont have to worry bout scraping my enamel. Wanna know why? I havent got any. I got fed penicilin when i was 1 month old and this lead to my enamel not developing like it should have.\n",
"A pretty general note, but the tools also aren't random pieces of metal. They're \"soft steel\"(whatever that means), so they're designed to do less damage.\n\nyou can pick these up at drug stores. Of course please find out how to use them before you go scraping your teeth.",
"Also, think like a rock with water dripping over time. Repeated abuse over time will wear away your enamel, just as a rock with wear away stone ",
"Is it okay to brush with baking soda? ",
"uh, the sharp metal point *will* damage your teeth. poking into incipient cavities and such with an explorer is a pretty frowned-upon practice in modern dentistry but they do it anyway. they also teach dentists not to use the high speed on their drills with a wink and a nod, and dentists use it anyway because they have to maximize chair time. hygienists spend an entire semester (or more) working on hand skills specifically so they will not hurt your teeth.\n\nthe bigger threat to your teeth from your daily self-care is damaging your gums from overbrushing and neglecting to floss - which is just so much more important than it seems.\n\nalso, for what it's worth, teeth are fucking durable and valuable and you should do whatever you can to take care of them...there's not a replacement that is even half as good...",
"I haven't visited my dentist in over 3 years.. how badly are they going to shout at me when I do? (no aches, pains or chips) - all the dentists I've seen in the past are just horrible!",
"If you think Geology, apatite(basically what enamel is) is a 6 hardness, the scraper is a 5 hardness, smaller numbers can't hurt the bigger numbers, your toothbrush is like a 1 hardness. You are hurting the soft pink stuff above your teeth, which is also a 1 hardness.",
"interesting. Here ive been wondering why my gums seem to have a lot of problems when i constantly brush my teeth. I do brush them very aggressively. ",
"they do. but dentists are very careful.\n\nalso unless something is very wrong it's shouldn't be your teeth you'd damage with the brushing its your gumline(and then teeth get damaged indirectly as a result)",
"Dental student checking in. We sharpen the instruments so that when we (or hygienist) removes plaque and calculus it's like using a windshield wiper to clean a bowling alley floor. If there is stuff stuck on the floor then the wiper will get it up without damaging the floor (or at most mere microns of removal that is fixed and polished). \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26bjn3
|
why do some sports have weight classes and others do not?
|
And why is it always weight classes and not some other physical metric like height?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26bjn3/eli5_why_do_some_sports_have_weight_classes_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chpgsbv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Boxing someone who weighs significantly more than you means they have more momentum behind their punch - at a certain point this is unfair\n\nIn hockey everyone is on razor blades on ice slapping a brick with sticks at a net the size of two people with a guy who is wrapped in pads is blocking it and other guys are allowed to knock into you and steal the brick (puck) - there are already far too many disadvantages in this game for your weight to be that much of a factor. If you weigh too much you will be too slow. If you are too light you will break."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16l6xq
|
why are nearly the led lights in my life (computer, phone, router etc) blue? how did blue end up being the (seeming) default for so many devices?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16l6xq/why_are_nearly_the_led_lights_in_my_life_computer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7x12i0",
"c7x13j7",
"c7x15d7"
],
"score": [
35,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Developing the blue LED was very difficult. The first usable blue LEDs were created by Japanese scientist Shuji Nakamura, who followed research leads that others had dismissed as dead ends. Nakamura essentially crafted a new technique for making LEDs, instead of simply extending the processes already used for red and green LEDs. So early blue LEDs required an untried, and very expensive, manufacturing process.\n\nThis meant that when they began to appear in products, about seven years ago, they had real kudos. “Every product designer wanted the blue LED,” recalls industrial designer Brandon Eash of Design Continuum, “suddenly there's this brand new color, and it's kind of cool and high-tech looking.”\n\nHowever, as blue LED makers gained experience, prices fell. An LED arms race resulted. In a battle for consumer attention, product makers adorned their products with more and more of the intense blue highlights.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"For a long time, we had just green and red LEDs (and colors that were mixtures of green and red). So, LEDs came to be associated with those colors. In 1994, the blue LED was invented in Japan, but it wasn't until the early 00's that you really began to see these in any kind of common usage. \n\nNowadays, I suspect blue is used for so many devices because it was impossible to create, and when they did come out, they were kind of status symbols (and much more expensive).",
"Because they're new.\n\nBlue LEDs have only been in consumer equipment in the last ten years or so - thus, to appear modern, the obvious choice (as a designer) is to use the newest components. Constant exposure to blue light is actually a detriment to good sleep health, and should be avoided when considering a standby indicator for a device.\n\nThis is the same reason that capacitive buttons are on bloody everything these days, despite being a less useful switch type (because you can't \"feel\" when they engage)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://texyt.com/bright+blue+leds+annoyance+health+risks"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3v8rq7
|
why do dogs act unable to jump up on a piece of furniture and refuse to jump up on it until you pat/tap on the furniture to call them up?
|
My dogs are familiar with the furniture, they get up without me, and they know they are allowed on the furniture. However, when I'm sitting on my couch or bed, they will not jump up unless I pat/tap on the furniture to call them up.
It's not just my dogs being strange though, I've asked family members and friends and heard their dogs do the same thing.
What's the deal with this? Some sort of evolutionary trait?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v8rq7/eli5_why_do_dogs_act_unable_to_jump_up_on_a_piece/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxle9ky"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Dogs are a pack animal with a hierarchy mentality. If they require your permission to leap onto the couch that you're sitting, then they most likely view you as the alpha.\n\nIf the dog is jumping onto the couch without permission, it would be their basically challenging you for the alpha spot. By waiting for your permission before jumping up, they are proving their submissiveness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7i44ma
|
how does ink get removed from paper in the recycling process?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i44ma/eli5how_does_ink_get_removed_from_paper_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqw0t08"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"After the recycled paper is turned back into pulp, a bleaching agent is used to remove the pigment from wood fibers. No matter what was on the paper, it all ends up white!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1qbw5r
|
how does a computer fully work from power on to the pixels on screen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qbw5r/eli5_how_does_a_computer_fully_work_from_power_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdb8xz1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is kinda a broad question and probably beyond the scope of a eli5 question, perhaps break down the question a bit more?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5myyuh
|
gas price increase in mexico and pemex energy reform
|
Sorry, I meant "PEMEX, and the new Energy reform"
From what I've seen on the news, Mexico's gas prices have increased between 16% to 20%, apparently due to the government not being able to subsidize prices any more. I also read that the Energy reform that Mexico is trying to implement is causing this, however I don't quite understand the whole situation. Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5myyuh/eli5_gas_price_increase_in_mexico_and_pemex/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc7k24t"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"PEMEX is wholly owned by the Mexican government and controls all oil/gas production and distribution in Mexico. By law only it can distribute gasoline and prior to 2015 only it could carry out oil exploration.\n\nPEMEX also subsidizes the gas sold in Mexico, but this hasn't been a traditional subsidy where PEMEX runs at a loss and the government offsets its losses to allow it to function. Rather, PEMEX would sell gasoline domestically either at or below its cost of production. But despite that, PEMEX was still exporting enough oil and gas to still turn a profit. This profit historically made up a decent percentage of the Mexican government's budget.\n\nThis changed starting in 2012. Since that time PEMEX has lost around $70 billion. The government has directly subsidized about $23.5 billion of those losses, with the remainder of the losses being financed. This is an unsustainable position for PEMEX to be in because the Mexican government depends upon PEMEX's profits to function, and now the government has to pay to keep PEMEX in existence.\n\nPEMEX's losses are blamed on two things: chronic mismanagement and its domestic fuel subsidy. To help return PEMEX to profitability the Mexican government is taking steps to address both of those problems.\n\nThe first is that although PEMEX still officially controls oil production in Mexico, the government has opened oil exploration up to foreign investors if they bring PEMEX into the deal as a minority \"shareholder\" (and I put shareholder in quotes because the idea behind these deals is that the only thing PEMEX will bring to the deal is the oil exploration rights it gives up; ie, PEMEX puts in no money or work but gets some percentage of the profits for simply allowing the exploration to proceed). The idea here is that PEMEX would have nothing to do with the actual management of these new oil development projects, therefore bypassing PEMEX's bloated and incompetent management. \n\nThe ultimate problem that the government is trying to solve here is that a large percentage of PEMEX's workforce are managers who do nothing but manage other managers. This is both costly, because you're paying a lot of people to do essentially nothing, and also inefficient because all of those people are needed to sign off on anything the company does, and there are now so many people who need to sign off on everything that its hard for the company to actually do anything. Then to add another layer of bad onto this structure, a lot of these managers got their jobs because they were someone's family or friend - most of the people working at PEMEX have no qualifications and no idea what they're doing. The Mexican government is trying to bypass PEMEX's management while keeping it in place, rather than internally reforming PEMEX because doing so would result in the firing of large numbers of middle class workers which could cause possible social unrest.\n\nOfficially the government opened PEMEX up to foreign investment in 2015, but thus far there has been very little interest in it due to a combination of low oil prices and the absolutely horrible terms that PEMEX has been offering foreign investors. Not only has this first attempt to revitalize PEMEX been a failure, but the collapse of oil prices in 2015 has accelerated the rate at which PEMEX is losing money.\n\nThis led to the Mexican government deciding to abandon PEMEX's domestic fuel subsidy as of the start of this year, hence the increase in domestic gas prices.\n\nThe Mexican government wants to bring PEMEX back to profitability, and based on the slow rate of reform thus far appears to be taking a wait and see approach - it only went ahead with the fuel subsidy abandonment because allowing foreign investment didn't work. So now if oil prices rise and the abandonment of the domestic fuel subsidy allow PEMEX to become profitable again then there probably won't be any more reform. However, if PEMEX continues to bleed money then you'll probably see the Mexican government do something else in another year or so, but what that is is anyone's guess."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1668lw
|
if the cold war went 'hot' during the cuban missile crisis, what would the world be like now?
|
Try to describe what the situation would be like in Canada.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1668lw/eli5_if_the_cold_war_went_hot_during_the_cuban/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7t8jau"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cmepce
|
would background checks really take that much money out of the nra and gun manufacturers’ pockets? why are they so vehemently opposed to them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cmepce/eli5_would_background_checks_really_take_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ew1r4d2",
"ew1rnvw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, it wouldn’t. It’s virtue signaling. They are pandering to most extreme gun-rights contingents who believe that any government oversight of any kind - no matter how reasonable- is a violation.",
"Sadly it has little to do with gun manufacturing profits. This is an ideological issue.\n\nAny gun legislation, no matter how benign or effective, is seen by the NRA and Gun lobbyists as a slippery slope and a violation of the 2nd Amendment. They oppose any attempt to restrict firearms usage and ownership regardless of how well intentioned and they have proven to be VERY good at it.\n\nEven though the supreme court disagrees with that, much of gun legislation including background checks has held up as constitutional."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2j4of3
|
what are the differences between the different apple varieties? what's the tastiest?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j4of3/eli5what_are_the_differences_between_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl8c4n6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Apples are wildly different. Some are firmer than others, some are sweet, some are tart. Some are downright hard (which I like) while others are soft and spongy (which I hate).\n\nMy personal favorites are Pink Ladies and Honeycrisp apples. Good hard juicy apples that are very sweet. The worst is Red Delicious which is tasteless and squishy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4w3qff
|
what is a cvt transmission? is it really that bad despite it being the "latest" transmission?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w3qff/eli5what_is_a_cvt_transmission_is_it_really_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d63s8m1",
"d63x5dk"
],
"score": [
12,
7
],
"text": [
"CVT or continuously variable transmission essentially removes the slight jerking movement of the car while shifting gears, known as shift shock. It works by dynamically adjusting a belt, which corresponds to a gear in a regular automatic. Imagine the CVT like a bicycle’s gear system. It’s made up of a pulley system, with cones at each pulley, all connected by a chain belt. These cones move closer together or further apart to increase or decrease the diameter at which the belt operates. These ratios are always changing in order to find the perfect combination for speed, fuel efficiency or both.\n\nCVT has many advantages and drawbacks. It’s good on fuel economy, gives a relatively smooth ride, and is versatile enough for daily driving. CVT is much better at travelling uphill because where traditional automatics can struggle, a CVT can seamlessly provide power without shifting. Even-speed hill driving can prove to be a tough endeavour for novice manual transmission drivers.\n\nBut, car enthusiasts will say that it’s nowhere near as fun or engaging as a dual clutch automatic or manual transmission. CVT also tends to make quite a racket when accelerating hard, and isn't very good at towing in some cars. .",
"CVT, or continuously variable transmission works like two cones sliding to change the gear ratios. What that does is that it always puts the transmission where it needs to be depending on the pressure exerted on the gas pedal. \n\nWhat many people disliked with the CVT is that it \"made\" more noise than regular automatics or manual transmissions. Why? Because a CVT is, imo, more dependant on the motor coupled to it. If the motor is relatively powerful, the transmission won't have to let it spin to 6k RPM (producing more noise) in order to achieve the speed you are dictating. CVTs came out first on relatively underpowered cars, so they had to rev the engine much higher than a regular transmission. Also, a CVT will stay at the RPM it needs to be until it achieved the speed you wanted, that is, until you remove your feet from the accelerator where as, a regular transmission has gears to go through, hence going from 2k to 6k RPM in 1st gear, than 2nd,etc.\n\nA CVT is phenomenal at reducing fuel consumption (in properly powered cars), it is much faster than regular automatic transmissions (slower than DCTs), requires much less maintenance (in fact, many companies don't require any maintenance up until 160k kilometers). \n\nA CVT, due to it's operating principles (2 cones sliding up and down to modifiy the ratio), has not been deemed really reliable for high torque engines, yet. \n\nIf you want to feel a nice CVT, try out any Subaru equipped ones, you'll see the engine's power is sufficient to allow the transmission to do what it needs to do. If you want to experience a really bad car, try out any first gen Nissan equipped CVTs. It was noisy, rough and the CVT didn't know what to do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
c4n1s2
|
do our bodies absorb things like caffeine and alcohol at a set rate or do we absorb faster if we consume more?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c4n1s2/eli5_do_our_bodies_absorb_things_like_caffeine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erxgju6",
"erxlizg"
],
"score": [
10,
29
],
"text": [
"The effects of caffeine and alcohol are felt because they connect with certain parts of certain cells in our body, and cause a subsequent reaction. Both chemicals are countered by the body, because they are foreign chemicals that have no business being in the body in such amounts. \n\nThe more the body encounters them, the more efficient it becomes at dealing with them - the more cells it creates that counter the alcohol and caffeine. These cells hang around after the encounter in case they're needed again quickly.\n\nSo, the more you drink over an extended period of time, the 'better' your body is able to counteract these chemicals at the next encounter. \n\nYou're not actually absorbing them - you're just kicking off the reaction they cause, and your body is processing them until they have no further effect.",
"Essentially, we absorb them faster - up to a point.\n\nThink of digestion like pouring water through a funnel. Up to a point, things pass through into the bloodstream faster, but there's an upper limit on that speed. In a funnel, that's based on how narrow or wide the opening is - in your body, it's based on how many cells are doing the work of passing things into the bloodstream. Caffeine and alcohol don't just seep into the bloodstream, they have to be carried across the gut lining and blood vessel walls before they can make it to the blood.\n\nIn pharmacology, this is called the dose-response curve, and it usually looks vaguely S-shaped: at low doses, the absorption (and the response to the drug) is quite slow, and it speeds up quickly as the dose is increased, but then it will usually level out again at high doses, and anything above that level will just stay sitting in your stomach.\n\nConcentration can also have an impact on how fast you absorb a drug (including things like caffeine and alcohol; in this sense, \"drug\" means anything that has an effect on your body's metabolism). This is why certain alcoholic drinks (such as poitín) are notorious for getting you drunk *the next day* - because it's at such a high concentration that your body recognises it as poison and doesn't absorb very much of it, but when you get up and drink some water, it dilutes the alcohol and a whole lot more alcohol gets into your system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ct2v28
|
digit separation outside of america (decimal vs comma)
|
In the USA, writing 30,001 means thirty thousand and one. Writing 30.001 mean thirty and one hundredth. It's a decimal.
But I've seen people from Europe (I guess most metric countries) use "dots" in place of commas for digit separation where commas are used. 300.000 would be three hundred thousand.
So how do you then differentiate between thousands and decimals if the same glyph is used?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ct2v28/eli5_digit_separation_outside_of_america_decimal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exi81hu",
"exi90zu",
"exi9vrg"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4
],
"text": [
" > \tSo how do you then differentiate between thousands and decimals if the same glyph is used?\n\nIt *isn’t* the same, they would use the comma for the decimal.",
"I think it's an English thing rather than a metric thing (for background, I'm from the UK, and a scientific editor so I come across this relatively often). In English we generally use periods as decimal separators and commas (sometimes - it depends on the style being followed) as thousand separators.\n\nIn other countries it's the other way around - commas as decimal separators and periods (sometimes) as thousand separators. Germany springs to mind for that, just because I've lived there, but I think it's quite common in other European countries too. I don't know about Asian countries - I edit quite a lot of manuscripts from China and Japan and I seldom see authors from those countries mixing the separators up, so maybe they use them the same way as in English (not sure). \n\nI don't think any countries use the same punctuation mark as decimal and thousand separators, because that would obviously be confusing.",
"They just switch the comma and decimal.\n\nSo to write thirty thousand and two tenths you would do the following by region. \n\nUS:\n\n30,000.20\n\nEurope:\n\n30.000,20"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2i0keh
|
why can't i whistle when i exhale smoke/vapor?
|
Whenever I inhale on a cigarette (electronic or not) and try to whistle the smoke always stops any sound from escaping. Why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i0keh/eli5why_cant_i_whistle_when_i_exhale_smokevapor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckxoksp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know why for you, but it doesn't stop me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3pcopb
|
why will the universe eventually "die"? is there a way we can stop it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pcopb/eli5_why_will_the_universe_eventually_die_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw54gpr",
"cw55ehn",
"cw55l1g"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The universe itself won't die, as in cease existing. However, from what we can currently observe, it is expanding and the energy within it is generally becoming more diffuse. That is to say, concentrations, like the sun, are radiating away into space. \n\nThe potential end result is the universe approaching maximum entropy, a state where basically energy has 'spread out' so that it more or less fills the universe equally everywhere.\n\nThe problem with this is that to do work, you need to exploit differences in energy. You need high concentrations and low concentrations. If energy is in equilibrium, you can't exploit that, and you can't do physical work. Physical work includes things from stars burning to life being alive. \n\nSo ultimately, you wind up with a universe that exists forever, but doesn't really *do* anything. \n\nThere does not appear to be, at present, a way to fix this. ",
"If I interpret the current theories correctly, the energy in the Universe came from the initial Big Bang, pushing everything away from the point of origin. *Eventually* that energy will finally run down as it seeks it's lowest level. This is called [Entropy](_URL_0_), it is a fundamental Law of nature and **cannot** be stopped. Entropy can be reversed in (relatively) small areas, but only by taking energy from something else, so there isn't really a reversal of entropy, just a shifting of it.\n\nWhen entropy throughout the Universe reaches a point where it has equalized [the Universe will die](_URL_2_) and nothing can be done to stop it.\n\nFortunately [we have way over 100 Trillion years](_URL_1_) before the Universe \"dies\". The primary theories about what happens after that are:\n\n* The force of expansion is stronger than gravity and a dead, cold Universe simply keeps expanding\n\n* Expansion & gravity balance out and a cold, dead Universe slowly stops expanding and just \"sits there\"\n\n* (my preferred) Gravity is stronger than expansion and, eventually, all of the cold, dead Universe contracts back into a single point; there's a new Big Bang and it starts all over again.",
"If you put a fire in the middle of a room, it will slowly heat up the whole room. If the room is closed (no heat can enter or leave). It will eventually reach a constant temperature.\n\nNow think of the universe as the room, and every form of energy as the heat. After an obscenely unimaginable amount of time, every part of the universe will have the exact same amount of energy, which means nothing can happen (*all* motion is fundamentally exploiting a difference in energy levels).\n\nHowever, the time is really obscenely long, it is in the order of 10^100 years. The universe is only ~10^10 years old, and standard form makes things really big."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Timeline",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.