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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4l2kpl | why is it illegal to use foreign currency in some countries? | In Canada, American currency is widely accepted as major stores have automatic conversion buttons on cash registers. It is just not as convenient | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4l2kpl/eli5_why_is_it_illegal_to_use_foreign_currency_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3jrvre",
"d3js3ev"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is very desirable for a country to be able to control (either directly or through a central bank) the currency used for transactions in the country. It allows the country a significant amount of economic control through exercising monetary policy. If a different currency is used for most transactions, the country loses control over monetary policy. In principle, the country whose currency was being used could use its influence to either positively or negatively influence the economy of the other country. All of this undermines the effectiveness of the government.",
"What exactly do you mean by illegal?\n\nIf you are asking why you cannot pay with dollars in Germany, for example, that doesn't really have anything to do with legality. Stores can accept any currency they want. Accepting foreign currencies is just too much of a hassle and not worth it. You need to keep up to date on the exchange rate, keep money available to make change, keep space in the register available to store that cash. Not exactly worth the while if you only get one customer who wants to pay in dollars every few weeks.\n\nIn Canada, dollars are widely accepted (but again, not by every store) because the amount of Americans coming there trying to pay with dollars makes it worth it. But they only do that for currencies that show up often enough. If you try to pay with Danish krone in Canada, they are not gonna accept that either. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1z9iew | why is it generally accepted that men have had more sexual partners on average than women? | Unless I'm missing something here, this concept defies basic maths, but it's often stated as fact in textbooks and such. If straight men have had more sexual partners on average than straight women, who exactly are they sleeping with? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z9iew/why_is_it_generally_accepted_that_men_have_had/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfrp5pz",
"cfrpfs5",
"cfrpz59",
"cfrr0zy"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Its considered more acceptable for men to have more partners so men often say they've had more and women say they've had less. (Key that can open any lock Is a master key. Lock opened by many keys is a shitty lock )",
" > If straight men have had more sexual partners on average than straight women, who exactly are they sleeping with?\n\nI raised the exact same question when I first heard the statistic. If every woman has slept with 5 different men and every man has slept with 6 different women, then clearly someone is lying if the populations are the same size.\n\nPossibly, this is the answer: there are slightly more woman than men, and thus there are actually more women to be slept with and less men to go around.",
"Mathematically there are several other potential explanations - if there are a lot of younger men having sex with older women, than if you do a cross-sectional survey of the population, you'll see the average number of partners a man has is higher than women. This, of course, is somewhat the opposite of the real trend. Another possible explanation is that men may have a higher average number of homosexual partners. But most likely, the primary contribution to this trend is that men are exaggerating and/or women are minimizing their numbers. This could either by blatantly making up numbers or by differentially counting some cases of ambiguous sexual activity that falls short of full coitus.",
"Have you heard of the \"Rule of Three\"? When a woman tells you how many partners she's had, you're supposed to multiply that number by three to get the truth. For men, you divide it by three. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
39pqwd | why do i have a hard time speaking fast, while others can rap insanely fast like eminem? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39pqwd/eli5_why_do_i_have_a_hard_time_speaking_fast/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs5bktw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because this is asking about a condition affecting you it qualifies as a personal problem according to the sidebar rules.\n\nI'm not sure what, if any, subreddit would be better for you, but if you find one that works for you, let me know and I'll edit it into this template so anyone in the future will know, too!\n\nAlternatively, *if* this really is a complex conceptual question about the human body and not a question about *you* specifically, you can rephrase and resubmit without reference to yourself and try again. (Body questions are pretty common though, so try a quick search!)\n\nGood luck! "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3n0uf4 | why are the freeways in indiana in such terrible shape? | Drove through the state in 2006 and was appalled by all the potholes and terrible state of the roads. Driving through the state again now and nothing seems to have changed, almost 10 years later. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n0uf4/eli5_why_are_the_freeways_in_indiana_in_such/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvjtpnd",
"cvjv414"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"because we start 400 fucking construction projects at once, then the equipment sits around for 3 years while they do little to no work. Seriously does anyone else from IN want to chime in on how often we drive through construction zones vs how often people are actually out working on them? ",
"City roads are 100x worse than highway roads. Thats why we have so many tire repair shops. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3hyyey | what did devaluing the yuan against the dollar achieve? also how does it affect gold rates? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hyyey/eli5_what_did_devaluing_the_yuan_against_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cubt1bw",
"cubwz0f"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"It made contracts and debts in Yuan worth fewer dollars. A Yuan buys less gold than it die the day before. Gold prices are heading back to sane level after the scares of the past few years.",
"By artificially devaluing the Yuan, it made gave all other currencies strong buying power within China, it made exporting labour to and buying goods from China much cheaper and more profitable for the US, Europe, etc. At the expense of labour laws and humanitarian issues it went in China's favour as it was essentially the pouring of foreign currency into the Chinese economy which then wasn't redistributed to the world because China didn't need to import things from elsewhere, and also had very harsh import taxes and such. As to how it affects gold, the Chinese have been buying large quantities of gold, or it seems that way to the gold market, because their own currency isn't backed by gold (a more universally accepted form of monetary worth) this shocked a large number of people into thinking that it was a currency back up, and seeing as the Yuan is so weak it would reflect that in the worth of Chinese gold. In reality the gold isn't for money at all, their economy is so huge it couldn't be sufficiently backed by all the gold in the world, as more and more people realise that the gold they have been buying is for products and research and all sorts of other stuff, gold prices return to normal. :) Hope this helped."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
243mx4 | how did china go from north korea lite™ to a successful world player with a burgeoning middle class? | When I was in Middle School like 15 years ago, I remember learning that China was a miserable communist country that sounded a lot like the descriptions of North Korea today--and yet they still made all of our stuff.
Then all of a sudden within the past 5-7 years, it was being described as an economic power house and soon-to-be superpower with an ever growing bourgeoisie class.
What changed and how? And are there still places in the country that are miserable that we just don't hear about in the West?
**Edit:** Thank you for all of the great answers. My wife and I spent the day in Chinatown and I really enjoyed glancing at my phone every now and then to see some of the feedback. I have some great starting points to go off of, so I really appreciate all the resources and links.
One thing though: I wasn't surprised by some of the demeaning comments, but I truly don't understand why these redditors bother coming onto ELI5 to make judgmental comments about the OP. The point of this subreddit is to ask questions that you've always wondered so you can have them explained in a simple way, and then get yourself educated. To look down on someone for asking is pretty backwards. Not to mention the fact that given the upvotes, clearly others have wondered the same thing. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/243mx4/eli5_how_did_china_go_from_north_korea_lite_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch3ao5v",
"ch3awbh",
"ch3b2mi",
"ch3bakg",
"ch3blna",
"ch3bwqs",
"ch3cztb",
"ch3d1wb",
"ch3dhpl",
"ch3dk2q",
"ch3dq1d",
"ch3dse7",
"ch3dz7j",
"ch3emj0",
"ch3en34",
"ch3ey8i",
"ch3f3ew",
"ch3funu",
"ch3fuxo",
"ch3fw26",
"ch3h72d",
"ch3hg8x",
"ch3hq0d",
"ch3idrp",
"ch3ks18",
"ch3la12",
"ch3mqp1",
"ch3mrpd",
"ch3mwvm",
"ch3nezc",
"ch3nyex",
"ch3os76",
"ch3pqka",
"ch3tv9w",
"ch3vhu0",
"ch3y6q0",
"ch3yvgz",
"ch3z37k"
],
"score": [
149,
137,
2,
6,
1504,
35,
33,
4,
6,
2,
18,
11,
90,
2,
2,
7,
3,
2,
3,
37,
3,
2,
2,
14,
2,
3,
4,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I have included some of the main concepts and talking points. Obviously there is much more than to this topic than I have written about below, but it should be enough to give you an idea.\n\n\n > What changed and how?\n\n**Economic factors**\n\n* Until mid-2005, the value of the Chinese Yuan (CNY) was artificially tied to the value of the US Dollar (USD). The People's Bank of China (PBC) is the Chinese central bank. PBC artificially inflated and deflated the CNY until 2005 to match the USD. This allowed stability for the Chinese economy until it could stand on its own in the world market.\n\n* Economic reform. Shuffling around laws and policies to distance themselves from the traditional communist system. Allowed the Chinese government to tailor themselves for optimal performance in the world market.\n\n\n* Basic goods are more expensive for a minimum wage Chinese worker. Minimum wage is locally set in China. It ranges from USD 1.20/hour to USD 2.43/hour. Minimum wage in the US is $7.25. The cost of Chinese consumer goods (milk, clothes, apartment rent) is generally 50-75% less than in the United States. Thus, a Chinese factory worker makes roughly 30% of the money but still pays 50-75% of the price. \n\n\n**Legal/Ethical**\n\n* Chinese environmental protection measures are minimal compared to the United States. Destroying the environment is bad in the long run, but it keeps costs way down and allows Chinese factories to do things that are US factories can not. A prime example is removing plastic coating from electrical wire; it is a costly and painstaking process in the US due to environmental concerns. The Chinese just burn the plastic off.\n\n* Workers rights and safety. The Chinese government has no qualms with snuffing out union unrest and other civil disturbance in the interest of economic output. It is faster and cheaper to quietly imprison a few trouble makers than carry out lengthy negotiations, as seen in the US.",
"Could possibly be that your assumption isn't totally accurate, and it wasn't totally miserable.\n\nMy dad started working in china about 15 years ago, and it was already considered to be making big progress by then.",
"Would the amount of land and population that China has (compared to North Korea) also be a big factor to their growth? ",
"* introduction of capitalism/free market \"concepts\"\n* manipulation/devaluation of it's currency\n* intellectual theft",
"_URL_0_\n\nBasically, he took over power after Mao died and started economic reforms. Dude is basically Littlefinger of China.",
"When China was communist farmers had to hand over a certain quota of grain to the state. After 1978/9 farmers could keep for themselves whatever they managed to produce beyond that quota. This incentive hugely increased their productivity. Farmers became so productive that no longer everyone who lived in the countryside needed to farm, and a lot of people could work in factories. \n\nBecause China has such a large population, these factory workers were easily replaceable and as such needn't be paid very much (if they didn't like it there were plenty of people willing to do their job). This meant a lot of foreign companies built their factories in China, because it was very cheap. That's why money has been pouring in for about 30 years at unprecedented rates.",
"The holier than thou sentiment in this thread is astounding. it wasn't that long ago we had similar working conditions and poor environmental management. in the grand scheme of things, while we have cleaner air and more rights, the life of the lower income worker is still not great.",
"There is A LOT of corrupted teachings in the public school systems world wide. Depending on what country you are in or where you are in the world will differ on how radically different the truth is from the actual.\n\nLook at Columbus for an example if you want one. Look up the history books version of his \"finding america\" then look at what actually happened and who he actually was. Will make your head spin real fast. Hope this helped, good luck!",
"I grew up in Europe, 15 years ago or so in middle school, we learned that China was a world force to reckon with.\nIts very much like America, the coasts are developed and thats where the money and a majority or the educated folk live. if you drive coast to coast then you reealize that the midwest is pretty much a developing nation. The rampant poverty and ignorance is awe inspiring.\nThing that shocked me the most, Trailers. What the hell are those things, thats emergency shelter right? No? people actually permanently live in those things. It is still hard for me to believe because I had never seen anything like them before I moved to America.",
"[Deng Xiaopeng](_URL_3_) came to power in the early 80's and intensified the economic reforms which began after Mao Zedong died. Specifically, he opened it up to foreign direct investment and began allowing capitalists to build factories on Chinese soil and \"exploit\" their workers, who flocked to the factories in droves, just happy to have a job and not starve any more. Widgets began flowing out, money began flowing in, and more factories opened, *ad infinitum*. [Like magic, the Chinese economy almost immediately began growing at double-digit percentages, a trend which continues to this day.](_URL_0_) The answer to your question is quite simple, really: capitalism. \n\nTwo books you might want to read if you're interested in Chinese politics during this period are [Prisoner of the State](_URL_2_) and [Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China](_URL_1_). \n\ntl;dr: Capitalism works.",
"Your starting point was way off. Maybe 30 years ago it wasn't that great. But to discribe it as \"a miserable communist county\" is just incorrect. ",
"Deviation from economic communism as well as an extremely advantageous pro-business/capitalist environment that led to a mass transfer of western nations manufacturing capabilities to china made possible by globalization and facilitated by free trade.\n\nChina took advantage of the global business environment at the expense of their ecological environment and has made themselves a soon to be superpower using the power of capitalism, enriching their people in the process.\n\nSource: masters in international business and studied in China",
"If you learned in 1999 in your school that China was a North Korea-style communist country back then, your teachers last updated their knowledge in the late 1960s! So better forget what your teachers told you first to understand China as a whole.\n\nWhat we call China today did have a functioning social and governmental society already back in 5000B.C. - prior to the Romans, the Greek or the Egyptians. China did develop over thousands of years and the sizes of the armies facing of in battles between the various Chinese kingdoms which developed prior to the \"Year Zero\" could easily match with any battle of World War I or II. They were in fact the world's number one economic power (in size) for several thousand years.\n\nLike any culture rising China became subject to people fighting to get as much of a share of the prosperity of the country. Its sheer size as a single entity already back then meant that China was ideal for bureaucracy to grow and for special interests and bribery as well as corruption to grow, with those profiting from these circustances trying their very best to keep the status-quo.\n\nThis lead to China becoming weak and while Napoleon already warned about the effects which a rise of the \"sleeping giant\" China would have on the world, Europe did find China to be an easy and willing victim to its mercantile and thereafter imperial economic system. This marked the wakening-bell though!\n\nWhen in Europe the ruling kingdoms (the old order) started to fall apart slowly, so did western control over China's elite and bureaucracy. The Japanese took over, after WW I had weakened Europe substantially and their rule was very brutal and inhumane by any standards. This helped a new movement inside China to grow supporters: The Communists (who were the only hope for change). \n\nWhen the prosperity of a nation only serves a few people or interest groups or some individuals then the large part of the nation suffers badly. In the end of the 19th century industrialisation lead to the birth of a new philosophy and to the new political ideas of socialism and communism which were seeking to end the lack of prosperity of the masses in otherwise rich nations or nations with growing prosperity. \n\nWhile China had been sealed off for centuries form other nations the fact that Europe and the US had forced their economic ways into China meant that these political ideas also took root in China where hundreds of millions of people had been living in poor conditions for centuries due to bureaucracy, corruption and a cultural systems only aiming to preserve rules and rituals while avoiding innovation as all countries/systems in decline do.\n\nWith hundreds of millions of poor it took few words and only one charismatic leader to cause a revolution and to throw over the old Chinese empire which had no chance to withstand the revolutionary armies of Mao, who even got supported by the USA because he was fighting Japanese occupation of China and thus was considered a helpful puppet by some US strategists n their war against Japan.\n\nWhen communism started its rule over China the country was largely unindustrialized, facing huge population growth and widespread poverty. However its size dictated that the Communists as well needed a large bureaucracy to keep control of the country in a time of tidal shifts, namely the Cold War. And while internal struggles kept China itself in some turmoil it nevertheles was free from its old dogmas (except bureaucracy) for the first time after centuries of decline. This did cause a frist wave of small growth.\n\nSo when the USA sought friendship with its new enemy China under then US-President Nixon (who saw the huge cheap labor-market in China for US-businesses as well as consumers) China did accept and started learning from the USA what none of its rulers/elite had learned in centuries before. While this lead to some more growth in welfare for the country only the 1980s politics of freeing up entrepreneurship systematically in China under its back then leader Deng caused a real change in economic development and the fate of its 1.2 billion citizens. \n\nWith China now trading more openly with other countries like it did 2000 years ago, with China exporting and importing goods and services it managed to raise over 400 million of its citizens out of poverty within just two decades (woing largely to low wages and foreign companies hungry to raise their earnings and thus quaterly executive bonuses). \n\nThose 400 million are more in absolute numbers than at any time in recorded human history. And it represents over 80 percent of the global poor who economically advanced in the past 20 years. India, Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East account for the remaining 20 percent.\n\nAnd while some again have profited more from the economic upturn in China than others the rule of the Communist Party remains unchallenged for as long as the masses do prosper from its unilateral rule and see a rise in their standard of living, income and a better future for their children. Indeed today economic growth and environmental protection along with access to high-level educational insitutions make up the core of desires of Chinese people. China's midle-class today is larger than the population of the USA.\n\nWhile this is unexplainable to most westeners it is totally in line with a culture which is centuries older than western culture. Communism in China is not communism like Engels or Lenin understood it. It has become a guardian of change, a control institution avoiding excesses where possible and limiting possibilities if they seemed to endanger the whole growth szenario.\n\nAnd while China will grow economically because almost any consumer good today in the world is being manufactured there, China will also account for the majority of global income growth in the tourism-sector for many decades. China is due to the sheer size of its population (=national demand in traditional economics) destined to become the economic centerpiece of the world within this century and to remain in this position for some centuries to go. It is not about statistical numbers, it is about the tendencies of the overall system-of-systems of which China is just one system.\n\nAnd while the few centuries of bad government in its 7000 years of history mean that there are still 500 million people living under conditions of impoverishment or alike that, these 500 million also mean that there is much more economical power left to develop, consumers as well as producers and innovators. \n\nThe only things which could slow China down are the massive environmental destruction, individual greed and misconduct leading to masses suffering and the cultural conflict between chritian-based cultures and islam-based cultures swapping over the Chinese borders (slow it NOT stop it).\n\nThe China we see today did not happen over a decade or over a century. It took eversince its first days to become what it is today. Napoleon understood this and seemingly wanted to build his own French Empire before China awoke again from its long sleep - long by western definition of time, but just sleep by Chinese philosophy.\n\n\nIf you want to read on this scientifically read Macur Olson's \"Rise and Decline of Nations\" once you are at academic age. And once it comes to learning foreign languages in school: Opt for the hard way and choose Chinese. If it is not being offered sue your government for killing your own economic future and that of your kids once you are legally able to do so :-D",
"I do a lot of work over there and live there several months per year - it's still a pretty miserable communist country, they just have better PR",
"I'd like to point out that North Korea is more like China Lite ^tm than the other way around. Considering China came first and is much more powerful.",
"You might also wonder why China's reforms under Deng Xiaoping were so successful when the USSR's under Gorbachev failed spectacularly. As mentioned above, Deng opened the economy so that farmers didn't need to hand over their surpluses to the state but could instead sell them off for a profit, which obviously improved productivity.\n\nThis was effectively a bottom-up approach and therefore the positive effects of the reforms were felt by the general people immediately (many of whom were farmers). In contrast, Gorbachev's perestroika only emphasised top down approaches with the state enterprises dictating how Soviet producers should change their way of production. His second mistake was the idea of transparent government (glasnost) which only served to show the Soviet people just how corrupt their rulers are, and unsurprisingly resulted in a loss of confidence and eventually separatism.\n\nSpecial Economic Zones (SEZ) were also key to opening up China's market to the West, since they were catered to foreign investment with favourable trading conditions and regulations. It is also important to note that China entered the World Trade Organisation in 2001 and this dramatically boosted the Chinese economy. \n\nYou mention that 15 years ago you were taught China was a miserable communist country when in fact it had undergone two decades of reform courtesy of Deng, so your notion of China was far from accurate. Added to that China's GDP growth during much of those years was in the double digits and you can see why 15 years can be sufficient time for China to become an economic power. China is also not an exception (although a country of its size is); Singapore also managed to transform from a Third World country to a highly developed economy with a sophisticated service sector in around 30 years.\n\nTL;DR: Deng's Reform and Opening policies in China and double digit growth since joining the WTO in 2001.",
"/r/AskHistorians would also be a good sub for this question, by the way.",
"I'm curious to see how China responds to their burgeoning environmental disaster. China is now so polluted that its own government says that 20% of all of its arable land is polluted and parts of China are so polluted that farmers are now forced to pollinate their crops by hand since they killed off all of the bees from pollution and pesticides. ",
"They left Marxism and Maoism behind. A new system was created that embraced elements of capitalism and helped bring wealth to the country. I don't think Mao would be happy at all with the changes. ",
"In the mid-70's the Chinese government did not have enough foreign currency to send diplomats on diplomatic missions. They simply could not afford the air fare and hotel rooms. China had just gone through a series of disasters including a famine which may have killed 20 million Chinese (or perhaps 45m no one is sure) and the Cultural Revolution that killed thousands and purged much of the country's leadership leaving it in disarray. Parts of the state were in a constant state of conflict with each other and rifts between factions were tearing it asunder. The Sino-Soviet split had left the country vulnerable and practically without allies. China was poor, dirt poor. Bereft of industry, jobs, education and infrastructure. Mao's influence still loomed large but the population was often starving, starvation caused by unrealistic quotas and ridiculous economic policies. \n\nMeanwhile across the border in Hong Kong the real estate market was booming and the towers were going up while Mercedes' flooded the street( Hong Kong now still has the highest per capita Mercedes Benz ownership in the world). Hong Kong had traditionally been the trading hub between China and the world. Due to the Korean war China blocked trade with Hong Kong, effectively putting almost everyone out of business overnight. The resilient Hong Kongers started to mass manufacture plastic toys and other inexpensive items bringing the first wave of cheap disposable consumer goods to the world. They were the original workshop of the mass production world. Two decades later the town was rich, booming and moving from manufacturing to finance and real estate. This must have been both jarring and inspirational to Deng and others. Same people, different system but they manage to go from nothing to wealth within two decades. Singapore, also was booming. Taiwan, the same. \n\nOh how different it was in 1839. Hungry for Chinese porcelain, tea, silks and manufactured items the British wanted to trade and King George sent a letter wanting to open up trade. This is the Chinese emperors response: \n\"As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures. . . Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence.\" \nLetter to George III, 1793\n\nNot having anything the Chinese wanted lead the British to import Opium manufactured in India to China. While the British strictly prohibited the sale of opium at home and in the colonies. When the Chinese government tried to stop opium, China was defeated in the Opium wars so that opium could be imported. This defeat and subsequent opium addiction of many Chinese on English opium would have had to be one of the most humiliating things ever to happen to such a proud country with such a long history. To top it all off land was seized, Hong Kong. Read Lin Zexu's Letter to Queen Victoria asking for the opium trade to be stopped here:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI don't make any pretense understanding China or the Chinese but in order to understand their relationship with the West I think that the story of Hong Kong is crucial. If ever the Chinese government shows any skepticism towards European calls for freedom, democracy and justice please do remember that 174 years ago we invaded them in order to facilitate the large scale importation and sale of drugs in their country under the flag and laws of one of our states. Something for which we've never apologized. 174 years sounds like a long time, but it isn't for a country with a 4000 year history. And how would you feel if a country that had gone to war with you, defeated you and then imported millions of dollars of drugs to your country was later telling you in a high minded way how to run your affairs? \n",
"By making good use out of 1.3 billion labor work force and investing profits to money making ventures.\n\nThis cannot be easily replicated by small nations though.",
"A strong government banking system along with financial support for industry were definite key factors.",
"These guys have it right about the reform in the 70s but I think the biggest impact was education reform. They made education free and easy to access in masse. ",
"The thread I have been waiting for for 3 years! Finally!\n\nAnd....[ I am too late](_URL_0_) to explain some things other people have already gone over.... \n\nI have been screaming (typing?) as hard as I can on reddit for YEARS that the chinese are coming. They are about to consume us, the world, everything. and I have been mocked, ridiculed, ignored, ya know.. typical day on reddit.\n\nI became interested in china's major series of reforms after attending a lecture given by Jon Huntsman (former ambassador to china, polyglot, and an absolute genius of a man) and walking out of the room white as a ghost. \n\nThere is so much about china to go over, there are so many things to say, yes it is true they have a great president right now who walks and rides the bus to work everyday and lives in a modest home...but there is more...\n\nBut this is ELI5: So I am going to give a quick a concise answer with little elaboration. \n\n\n\nChina was held back for so long because they lacked any concern for the individual. \nIn a ten thousand year history, when you expect to still exist 10,000 years in the future, a single human life is not that important. \nThis concept is very unsettling to us (the west) because we are used to thinking in terms of the individual human rights, and families that only have a few generations. We think in the now in our quest to make profit with little regard for the fact that, profit doesn't matter, the human race will still be here 1,000 years from now and your bank account will not.\n\nSo china may be new to the whole human rights thing, and we are used to snubbing our nose up at them for it... but now china has changed...in a [major](_URL_3_) way.\n\nSo how did this happen.? \n\nThe truth of how it happened is extremely complicated and has involved millions of people, and thousands of govt reforms. But this is ELI5\n\n**Here is the ELI5 answer.** \n\nChina noticed their govt was a failure full of crooked politicians.\nThey took them all out back and shot them. And even still [continue to find and destroy](_URL_1_) some of them even to this day.\nThen they said, \"Hey! Scientists, Engineers, people who got a Ph.D. in america! etc... Come and help us govern better.\n\nThen they set an initial goal. Every single chinese citizen will be given what we in the west call a \"middle class\" lifestyle.\n\nThen they went to work on it...and they still are working on it.\n\nThe chinese govt will write blank checks all day long for any infrastructure they deem in the peoples interests. Housing, power stations, rail-lines, amusement parks larger than disney world. Space port larger than cape Canaveral. I could go on and on...\n\nThey have an almost infinite pool of workers to pull from. When they decide to build a runway, they teak 10,000 people and hand them a shovel and say, \"make it long and perfectly flat\". \n\nThe west has been screaming \"you can't do that! You will eventually bounce checks and go broke, your economy is doomed to BUST!\"\n\nBut no, it wont, because the chinese economy and even what american capitalists regard as the \"capitalist miracle in china\" (and the capitalists claim its a testament to the power of capitalism) is actually not capitalism at all!\nIt is full communist central banking through strategic FIAT currency manipulation.\n\nTHEY MAKE UP THE MONEY! And the capitalists were the one that taught them how to do it. WOOPS! History books will show that capitalism was brought under the control of communism and then it became supercharged.\n\nIt's like this.\n\nEven if their economy hits a snag, the govt will just come together on a Friday, and by Tuesday they will have new economic reforms that suddenly wipe the slate clean and continues forward moving expansion.\n\nYou know how libertarians talk about how money is just a made up concept here on reddit and that it's worthless paper and is only a tool?\nWell....the chinese were listening, they heard it, and they took it literally!\n\nThey control their banking with an iron fist and that means they are no longer at the whims of human nature or mass market psychology or even potential failures. \n\nThey just write off the failures with a stroke of a pen. \n\"Oh we lost a billion dollars here? That's ok let me sign this paper saying we now have another billion dollars here, and let's put a stop payment on the check to the failed project, meanwhile find the guy who lost that billion and lock him up or shoot him.\"\n\nChina is a technocratic communist experiment. \n\nChina has ONE PARTY, no arguing, no bickering, no fighting, no campaigning just getting together and banging out legislature in a few days.\n\nTheir ability to modernize and transform their country is coming along so well that the chinese govt's ambitions have even gotten grander and more extreme.\n\nThey are currently proposing a one world currency.\nThey are currently proposing a chinese city on the moon!\nSeriously, their ambition is off the charts!\n\nI can't say this enough! \nEven if the economic \"meltdown\" or \"bust\" that capitalists say will one day hit china because constant economic expansion is impossible... even if it does happen.\n\nThe Chinese govt will just meet on a Tuesday and by Thursday have an entire new economic reform signed and ready to go, and they will be back on their feet!\n\nCan china be stopped at this point? Nope.\nCan we compete with china at this point? Not for much longer.\n\nThe only thing that would help (I am american so I will talk about america but this applies to all countries) us compete against china now is to go running to our govt and demand they start being just as ambitious!\nWe need modern infrastructure here in america to have any chance of competing much longer and our politicians are **arguing over how LITTLE we can spend on science and technology so that they can funnel more tax dollars into the banks and wall street to boost our their investment portfolios**.\n\nWe are beyond doomed.\n\nBut do not worry. China has actually released an official govt policy (Zhōngguó hépíng juéqǐ) telling the people of earth as they ascend to the one and only super power in the entire SOLAR SYSTEM, they will treat us like pets and take pity on us.\n\nThe *final* war of humanity, will not be won with rockets and bombs and aircraft carriers. It will be won by the country that has 2 things.\n\n* Proper modern infrastructure that is self sustaining and capable in a non environmentally destructive way. \n\n* The technological singularity. (super science, advanced A.I and automated empirical learning.)\n\nSo how are we doing in this race so far?\n\n[Not good](_URL_2_). We are beginning to lose.\n\n\n*Special note* This entire post was an attempt to a give a brief almost cliff notes ELI5 (explain it like I am five) answer and may inspire a ton of dissenting opinions that think I am wrong about certain aspects.\n\nBut the overall message put forward in this very simplified explanation of the ongoing chinese growth is as true as I could make it in such a short, concise, rough draft type-up.\n\nIf you read this post and you are worried (and you should be) you should be on the phone with your representative, senator, city hall etc... DEMANDING we abandon this ludicrous notion that govt spending money is a bad thing.\nYou should be demanding we expand out scientific research budgets 100 fold!\n\nThe economic outputs from the huge surge in funding that would result in major advances in technology would pay for itself a million times over just like the apollo program, the manhatten project, the silicon revolution... etc... \n\nThank you for reading this post and I hope I was not too late to this thread and I hope this comment gets seen.\n\n\n\n\n\n ",
"The government embraced capitalism (while the whole time denying that socialism doesn't work. They continue justifying their existence with communist theory while following little of it. Blatant hypocrites.)",
"I really want to recommend _URL_0_ Which is just about the most informative/entertaining podcast you can find on Chinese history. Podcast 63 - 70 is dedicated to Deng Xiao Ping, arguably China's most influencial leader since the 1970s and will answer your question if you want a ELI20 answer.\n\nAnswering you question is difficult, especially in ELI5 terms. I will try to use the Lion King as an analogy. To start, it is more accurate to say that Chinese society in the 1970s was very much like North Korea today, in that 1) the west knew very little about what was going on in China and 2) China knew very little about what was going on in the West.\n\nLets take a step back and look at the time line, going all the way to 1949. The Chinese civil war had just ended and the victors, the communists, stood on top of Tiananmen Square with swag and pomp, while the losers, the nationalist party escaped to Taiwan. This was like Scar killing Mufasa and taking control of Pride Rock and all the lionesses. The problem is, human conflicts are never as simple as the animal kingdom. The communists are not one dimensional and sinister as Scar. In 1949 China, the new alpha male, Chairman Mao, while great at giving Braveheart style speeches to stir the masses, was not so great at making policies. Nevermind that he was always eyeing up the young lionesses and had constant paranoid delusions about other young male cubs in the pride. Mao trusted no one, especially the \"Simba\" of our story, Deng Xiao Ping.\n\nOne of his first big policies was the \"Great Leap Forward.\" AKA \"lets get all the farmers to stop farming and make steel instead, because you know...farmers are good at that. This is like Scar telling the pride to hunt all the animals without fear of repercussions. This of course was a terrible idea. In the years that followed, China also happened to experience the worst famine ever. A lot of people starved to death. This is were you get those statistics spouted by redditors on r/worldnews, where everyone seems to be a China expert, that Mao is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Satan combined because he killed 30 million people. \n\nBy this point, a few of the other young male lions, especially ones with balls of steel, told Mao \"dude, you fucked up...that was not cool.\" Can you guess what happened to these challengers?\n\nFor most of 1950s and 60s, China had horrible economic policies. Between getting the cold shoulder from the US and getting back stabbed by the Soviets, Mao had plenty of reasons feel paranoid. The cultural revolution, which can be summed up as Scar having his gang of hyenas terrorize the rest of the pride, to the point where no one dared question him. This was the late 1960s, when China, a fear state, most resembled North Korea today. China's nonexistent economy was closed to the outside world. We all know from what happened in the Lion King when Scar did not honor the circle of life: all the animals died/fled and hyenas danced around green balls of fire. Not cool at all.\n\nOur hero of the story, Deng Xiao Ping...aka Simba, was exiled and told to never return to politics. By the mid 1970s, Scar was getting old. His eye sight was not good anymore and he was constantly sick. The hyenas also knew that their time was at an end. Sure enough, as soon as Scar died, Simba makes an triumphant return. Deng Xiao Ping looks out at the wasteland before him. For close to 30 years, Mao's shitty policies and general lack of respect for the circle of life had reduced the once beautiful grassland to ashes. As rain falls down on him, he roars majestically and the lionesses roar with him, casting off the shackles of the old regime, ushering in a new era of Chinese government.\n\nDeng knew from the start that China needed to be open and he had a plan. If you were a child of the 70s, not everything was made in China like they are today. Deng sought to change that. He knew that pride rock was a pile of shit and ashes, but some how, he needed to attract back all the animals that had fled during Scar's rule. And wouldn't you know it, a whole bunch of Chinese businessmen who fled during the cultural revolution to Hong Kong heard Simba's majestic roar and felt that longing to return tug at their heartstrings. \n\nDeng toured southern China, especially cities and towns nearby Hong Kong. Where as Mao's science fair projects failed, Deng's succeeded. He basically turned these towns into \"special economic zones\" which is like having a garage sale where everything is free, no strings attached. Hong Kong, being great and all, was a small island. The rich businessman who lived there knew that China was a much bigger pie, and they all wanted a piece, especially when there were no strings attached. All the stuff you can buy now at the super market, from underwear, to toothpaste, to plastic Christmas trees are all made in these factories. It was as if Simba told all the animals that fled, \"come back to the prideland, were the grass is greener now and we won't hunt or eat you. And sure enough, the animals came back in droves. By the late 80s and early 90s, sunlight bathed the new pride rock and Deng walks out to greet his kingdom. His two most trusted advisors, Timon and Pumbaa (or Hu Yao Bang and Zhao Zi Yang), stuck by him even during the worst of times, helped him defeat the hyenas and return to power. The old baboon Chen Yun, who heralded Simba's return from exile, holds up Simba's new cub Jiang Ze Min, China's next generation leader. Deng whispers to Jiang, who overlooks wide-eyed at the animals congregated below, \"Some day, this will all be yours.\"\n\nSoon after, Timon and Pumbaa, for all their singing of hakuna matata and living the vegetarian lifestyle rubbed some people the wrong way. The old baboon Chen Yun and many of the lions still believed in the circle of life, that they can hunt and kill some grass eaters, whose remains fertilize the grass they eat. Timon and Pumbaa argued, why eat meat at all? Why can't the grass eaters elect someone to stand on top of pride rock? Why does it always have to be a lion? For their ideas, Timon and Pumbaa lose support with Simba and are cast out of politics. In light of Timon and Pumbaa's departure, the animals of the Savannah rise up in protest. This was the infamous Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. Simba, a great leader as he is, still cannot bear to see an animal that is not a lion stand on top of pride rock. While making tremendous strides to further the Chinese economy, he also introduced a whole host of new problems such as rampant corruption and pollution. For this, and ordering the put down of protesters in 1989, he remains a great but controversial figure in history. Without him, there is a distinct possibility China's economy would not have opened up in the 80s and you would not see all the \"Made in China\" stickers you see today.",
"I don't see this link posted anywhere, so I thought that I'd link you to it. \n\nIt is about an agreement between farmers in 1978 that introduced the idea of capitalism in China. Maybe it's common knowledge, but I did not know about this until a few months ago and thought that I'd share it for the benefit of people like me. \n\nThanks to my Economics Instructor that introduced me to it.\nAlso, My first post, please be kind and excuse any formatting mishaps.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTL/DR: A story from 1978 of the introduction of Capitalism in agriculture in China from NPR Radio.",
"What you thought of China in middle school is a common misperception of China by the west. China went through a rough time during the 60ties and early 70ties, buy by the 80ties most of the country was running just fine. It was very socialist and thus spartan, but definitely not North Korea. China is very successful today because they embraced capitalism, but it doesn't translate to happier people. I went to middle school in China during the 80ties.",
"They have one of the largest supplies of cheap labor with little to no human rights regulation. That helps a lot. ",
"Your books 15 years ago were outdated by a decade or two, apparently. ",
"They Switched from hardline Communism to figurehead communism with capitalist underpinnings. ",
"A lot of people will disagree, but the answer is Nixon. He basically opened up china to the west. I know the dude seriously screwed up with the Watergate scandal and all but he was actually a pretty good president on economic and foreign policy. He also wanted to increase social spending but Ted Kennedy turned down his package thinking they could get more later if they waited it out. They never got more and Teddy later said that he regretted not taking the package. Say what you want about the guy but in my book he was a good president aside from Watergate. ",
"America lifted the trade embargo… poof!",
"They ditched collectivism in favor of capitalism, essentially. They never officially ditched Communism. They stopped following it in principle, though.",
"One word and one person (however unpopular this may be): McDonald's and Richard Nixon",
"Middle 1980's, Cleveland Ohio. As a still then relevant auto city, one local elderly and lifelong auto parts supplier told one of my close friends that China will destroy US manufacturing in 20-30 years. \n\nWhen I started working in banking in the nineties, it was obvious that Asia was killing American industry. The US sold its soul for cheap clothes and electronics. Capitalism... Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.",
"The real answer is that China **finally** swallowed its pride and learned everything it could from the foreigners, as Japan had wisely done a century before it. China went through several painful phases of adjustment to the reality that it was **not** the center of the world, and that any such thinking at high levels was as delusional as it was dangerous. \n\nAfter its ideological break with the Soviet Union and its various struggles trying to cope with modern technology and warfare in the 60's and 70's, China realized it was falling too far behind without a \"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em\" strategy. \n\nThe so-called wisdom of doing this has been somewhat exaggerated by China hands and cheerleaders, but the reality is China had no real choice. If it was to remain relevant, it had to take this step. The roots of this decision and its causes go back a *long* time. \n\nRoundabout **1780**, the arrogance and insolence of the Ch'ing emperor and his mandarins was so overbearing that foreign powers newly arrived in China quickly found the situation intolerable and took matters into their own hands. Unable to trade or even enjoy normal diplomatic relations with China, it wasn't long before wars erupted . These wars did not go well for China -- at all. But to say they were inevitable or entirely the fault of the foreigners is to be sadly mistaken. \n\nIn short, China's delusional and instransigent foreign and trade policies provoked a century and a half of lost opportunity, conflict, defeat and, in places, the total subjegation by the western powers and later, the Japanese. \n\nOnce all this had worked itself out naturally, and especially after two world wars, by the **1980's** China found itself at a crossroads. It's true that China made some bold and clever gambits once it had decided to fully modernize but you should never forget that without **vast** amounts of foreign capital and technology, fully-developed consumer markets able to soak up everything China could produce, and huge quantities of **goodwill** on the part of the foreigners, who saw the best in China, nothing really major would have happened. \n\nThe key to everything was China getting its head right and accepting the rightful demand of the civilized world that it trade and behave normally, conducting itself both internally and externally according to rules that civilised countries could agree on. When this finally began happening in the late 1970's and early 1980's, only then did the West trust China enough to invest the vast sums of money anually that would slowly but surely lift China out of the swamp in which it had found itself.\n\nedit: snipped the last paragraph which was a distraction...",
"How much is North Korea Premium^TM ?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prc1952-2005gdp.gif",
"http://www.amazon.com/Deng-Xiaoping-Transformation-China-Vogel/dp/0674725867/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398616693&sr=1-1&keywords=deng+xiaoping",
"http://www.amazon.com/Prisoner-State-Secret-Journal-Premier/dp/B004J8HXKY",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1839lin2.asp"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://evangelicaloutpost.com/images/firstworldproblemsgirl.jpg",
"http://www.bdlive.co.za/businesstimes/2014/04/27/sabmiller-partner-in-chinese-corruption-crackdown",
"http://www.top500.org/list/2013/11/",
"http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18whf7rdc5oflgif/ku-bigpic.gif"
],
[],
[
"http://chinahistorypodcast.com/"
],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-secret-document-that-transformed-china"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3pdbc4 | why reaganomics "failed", but the gdp increased, unemployment dropped, and inflation decreased. | I'm trying to write an essay about Reagan's administration and his character but I just can't wrap my head around the consequences of Reagonomics. Every source I seem to come across denounces his policies, but when it comes to the numbers, many groups benefited from his fiscal policies.
I understand his debt grew by 186% percent, and unemployment hit a high when the recession came in, sparked by tax cuts, but he left with a 4% unemployment rate. Through 1990, there was a 21 million job net increase and he raised the minimum wage.
I'm not well versed in economics and perhaps this is falling outside the realm of my essay but I just can't come to grips with how this happened! Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pdbc4/eli5_why_reaganomics_failed_but_the_gdp_increased/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw5a48t",
"cw5b2st",
"cw5cq9w",
"cw5dtvs",
"cw5eihh",
"cw5fh3h"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
7,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's pretty likely that his huge deficit binge on military spending and absolutely certain that Fed policy had more to do with economic expansion than tax cuts.",
"Part of it was there was a huge recession right after he left office that people blamed on his policies and helped Clinton get elected.",
"Largely because the biggest thing that public took away from Reaganomics was trickle down economics, where the rich have a ton of money and that money \"flows downhill\" to the poor. It totally did in decades past, because the very rich were taxed the hell and back in the very top tax bracket (so in today's money that would be like if after your first million or so you were taxed at 90%, so you'd be incentivized to spend that money on tings like improving companies, giving good employees higher wages, etc). But since that top teir tax bracket was removed (by Reagan, IIRC), then that system didn't really work anymore and still doesn't really work. There is really no longer a real incentive to do that, because saving and investing that money is very effective at making you MORE money for you. So why would you share? Sure, you might if you're a nice person, but that's probably a bad assumption to make and an even worse one to rely on. ",
"The biggest problem with evaluating *any* economic policy is the following question:\n\n\"How much of the difference we see would have happened anyway?\"\n\nFor any president, his supporters claim that things would have been worse without his policies, and his opponents say thing would have been better without his policies.\n\nFor example, look at 2001: Around the same time Bush came into office, the Dot-Com bubble burst (before, but recently enough that most of it's effects happened in Bush's presidency), and 9/11 happened. Bush's supporters blame the Dot-Com bubble on Clinton, and the rest of the economic woes on 9/11. Bush's opponents say that if Gore had been in office, we would have done better after the Dot-Com bubble; and that Bush could have done a lot better after 9/11.\n\nAnd there is evidence to support both sides, and no way to know for sure.",
"It's important to keep in mind first that presidents don't control the economy. Although they get most of the credit or blame, they have little to no actual control over what happens, although they and Congress can help put measures in place that they think will help matters.\n\nWith this in mind, most of the indicators you're looking at aren't a result of his administration's policies. An increase in debts and deficits (which will inevitably result when you increase military spending while cutting taxes) will pose large problems for the government later down the road. But when these things happen, the private sector will remain largely unaffected for some time. \n\nReagan's real legacy is on the state of the federal government's finances and wealth distribution in the country. By lowering taxes on the highest earners, you're essentially distributing a greater share of the country's wealth to the richest members of society, away from lower earners and the government. This lowers the amount of societal benefits that can be provided to the poorest members of society, further decreasing their share of the country's wealth. The basic idea behind this (assuming that the rich aren't simply dictating policy because they want to keep their money) is that by lowering taxes, you increase the amount that the richest people will invest back into the economy, thus producing growth which will result in a net revenue increase. Experience has proven this not to be the case - the rich spend, compared to their total amount of wealth, a comparatively small amount of their total earnings on goods that actually contribute back to the economy. Thus, giving them a tax break simply hands them more money that isn't recycled back in the form of goods and services, but sits there in the form of unused capital. Since growth doesn't occur, this leads to a loss of revenue for the government which adversely affects public services, courts, infrastructure, etc.",
"**Because they kept the money**. The US on the whole recovered from the recession, the economy grew, and people got back to work. But the profits from that growth and the jobs people were working went exclusively to the rich.\n\n[Look at these numbers.](_URL_1_)\n\nReagan had this idea that if you give money to the business owners, that they'd spur the economy, do more business, and from that net increase in wealth the business owners would **pay more to the lower classes**. But that didn't happen. You could say the rich employed more people and it reduced unemployment, that'd be fair to say. But by and far they took the extra money, grew the economy, and kept the profit. \n\n > the [1980's] recession came in, sparked by tax cuts,\n\n[Oh sure, that's was the only cause. Sure.](_URL_0_)\n\n > he raised the minimum wage.\n\n[Not if you take into account inflation.](_URL_2_) (Fighting inflation was also one of the causes of the 1980's recession)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=us+inequality&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAmoVChMI072n_ZPPyAIVQ9tjCh2S5Q4I&biw=1570&bih=638",
"http://sociologytoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-09-at-12.07.13-PM.png"
]
]
|
|
8wckq4 | what is my half-brothers sister by a different father to me? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wckq4/eli5_what_is_my_halfbrothers_sister_by_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1uet1h",
"e1ueu9a",
"e1ufudv",
"e1uo23r",
"e1uv0gc"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You aren't related by blood, so she won't really be your sister, if that is what you are asking.\n\nBut in our culture, she would still be addressed as a step-sister to you.",
"Not technically, AFAIK. You could call them you brother/sister half-removed. 😅 It's not technically correct, but it's as good as anything else. ",
"She would just be your brothers sister. She has no other ties to you,unless you both get on and call each other bro and sis. My mum has a half brother who has a brother with no relation to her or me but i call him uncle as i see him that way.",
"Not the OP, but lately I've been wondering. Before my mother married my father she was married to a man who had children with his previous wife. She was widowed young, and later married my father and I was born. What are her step-children to her first husband to me? Are they still some kind of step-siblings to me? Those kids were adults by the time she married my father.",
"You are not related in any way to that person. You may consider them a sibling or something similar to a cousin if you are raised around them and have developed familial bonds with them, but there is no actual connection to you and so there is no term for such a connection. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2gyrzb | why are firearm designs so old, specifically handguns? | The 1911 is over 100 years old. Popular revolver models date back to the 1920's. Even the "new age" Glock is largely unchanged since the 80s. Why is it that the firearms industry is so lock-step devoted to these very old designs? Have humans really made all the progress there is to make in terms of handguns? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gyrzb/eli5_why_are_firearm_designs_so_old_specifically/ | {
"a_id": [
"cknqarz",
"cknqs3o",
"cknqsj8",
"cknqxvt",
"cknqzqx"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they are reliable. And there is a small reason for making a new design when the old one is still making money. Hope that helps :)",
"We haven't reached the end of the road, but we have reached a plateau. When someone buys a gun, they're making choices about a few major factors. Ease of use, reliability, stopping power, price, availability of ammunition, and similar things. I *could* spend $4000 and get a top of the line, custom, prototype pistol which fires unique triangular flechettes at the cost of $14 a round. *Or*, I could spend $300 and get a revolver based on a 100 year old design, which fires common ammo and will still kill someone just as dead.\n\nSee, guns are always getting better, but new models aren't usually better enough to justify completely replacing old and proven models. Especially for civilians, who are almost certainly never going to be shooting at someone wearing better armor than a leather jacket, an old 9mm/.38/.45/whatever is going to be good enough. It's the same deal with the military; the SCAR might technically be better than the M-16, but it's just not worth it to spend tens of billions of dollars to replace a proven system with one which is only marginally better.",
"Simplicity and reliability. Firearms use very basic mechanics. An explosion of gasses pushes out a projectile. When dealing with basic mechanics the simplest designs usually work best. Circles and straight lines.\n\nAdding rifling to impart spin took a very long time to work out so that the benefit of the rifling was greater than the disadvantages involved in loading a rifled barrel.\n\nChanging from single shot to revolver then to magazines also to a very long to make them reliable.\n\nGiven the theoretical use of guns for self defense, it takes an incredible advantage to make up for a loss of reliability.",
"There really isn't much more you can do to modern firearms without reinventing them completely. The actual mechanisms are pretty simple, and there isn't any reason to change that. The one exception is from the argument of 3-D printing of weapons, due to the fact that the material itself is not conducive to making a reliable weapon.\n\nThat being said, they are *continually* upgrading the internal features to make them more reliable, as with any device.",
"The development of technology is kind of like evolution. It's not moving to a particular goal, we try new things, if they work, we keep them, if they don't, they're forgotten. There isn't really any improvements you can make on a handgun design that makes it better or more useful than the 1911. All of the new things in handgun design are peripheral, like rail mounting systems, laser sights, etc. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4ltefb | how come sometimes when you break a bone, you feel pain immediately, but other times you dont feel pain until later? | Ex- my mom broke her ankle a few years back, but didnt know it was broke until she couldnt walk on it a couple days later | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ltefb/eli5_how_come_sometimes_when_you_break_a_bone_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3q35iv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've seen people who have broken bones and not known it. I myself have broken a bone and not known it was broken. That doesn't mean there was no pain when it happened, only that the pain wasn't as severe as one would imagine it would be in the instance of a broken bone. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
31epz8 | why has evolution not taken care of the need for glasses and how did our early ancestors survive? | Before the invention of convex and concave prescription glasses, how did early humans 'see'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31epz8/eli5_why_has_evolution_not_taken_care_of_the_need/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0upsb",
"cq0vsz8",
"cq0z89z",
"cq11df7",
"cq12j4l",
"cq1aspz"
],
"score": [
58,
20,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Evolution is not survival of the perfect but survival of those who survive. Humans developed tool making skills. A nearsighted person who could produce a good spear point was as valuable as an eagle eyed person without a weapon.\n\nNatural selection does not actually cull all deficient genes. There is so much genetic material some perfectly useless stuff gets passed on.\n\nUntil writing and sewing came along the need for perfect vision was not that great.",
"None of the answers here yet are correct. The simple truth is that before the modern era nobody _needed_ glasses. Nearsightedness is almost entirely environmentally induced, and seems to largely arise only among people who spend large amounts of time indoors as a child. There's very good epidemiology on this...rates of myopia can rise dramatically in a generation if conditions change, and rates of nearsightedness differ dramatically among genetically similar populations living under different conditions. Rates of nearsightedness among hunter-gatherers are found to be very low.\n\nAnd it's a good thing to, because you absolutely did need excellent distance vision to survive and thrive in an era before glasses. The world is a dangerous place for hunter gatherers and small plot farmers, who needed to be able to spot danger at a distance and tell friend from foe even if they weren't hunting prey or gathering (both of which also require good distance vision). \n\nEDIT: Further reading for the interested\n\n_URL_0_",
"Just as a corollary, at the turn of the millennium there was a big survey asking notable thinkers and scientists what the felt was the most important discovery of the last two thousand years? \n\nOne gave the answer ' glasses' (or corrective lenses) otherwise the world would be run entirely by people under the age of forty. The discovery or use of spectacles allowed older people to continue to be able to read and do other close up work therefore continuing to make useful contributions to society.\n\n ",
"Evolution isn't about being stronger or faster, it's about having more offspring. \n\nFor the bulk of human history we were hunter/gatherers. Men went out and hunted, many died in the hunt. \n\nBut Ooog can't see shit. He's not much use on the hunt. Leave him back at the cave with the women. \n\nWho fosters more offspring? Ikat who's a strong hunter but spends his time out hunting for days or weeks, or Ooog left home with the women? ",
"Eye problems myopia are correlated greatly with indoor living and reading.\n\nErgo, early men did not have this problem and indoor living was somewhat uncomfortable for long periods of time unless it's winter.\n\nWe now have climate control and windows so staying indoors all day is comfortable....and we can read. ",
"You don't need 20/20 vision to know a bear is charging at you. And people with flawed vision can rely on other members of their society to survive long enough to reproduce. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2m78dr | why can't i sneeze voluntarily? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m78dr/eli5_why_cant_i_sneeze_voluntarily/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm1lrsb",
"cm1rbg2"
],
"score": [
34,
3
],
"text": [
"Sneezes are caused when a a foreign particle irritates the hairs in your nose. They trigger the release of histamines to a specific nerve that starts up a reprogrammed response, a sneeze. Although you cannot voluntarily sneeze you can trick yourself into releasing histamines. Some people have a certain sensitivity to light and when exposed to bright light very quickly they sneeze. This is called the [Photic Sneeze Reflex](_URL_0_). ",
"I have a friend that actually sneezes every time she eats too much. I thought she was completely full of shit but finally looked it up and apparently it's an actual thing. Sneezing when you get full. Humans are weird. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_sneeze_reflex"
],
[]
]
|
||
5ahphf | why did certain animals develop poison? | I ask this because it seems that every animal who can poison it's enemies with poison bites or barbs are much smaller and incapable of eating or doing anything positive with the corpse of the animal who attacked it. It is just strange to me that animals developed this defense mechanism when it does not seem to benefit them all that much. On top of this are animals able to have retroactive memory that this animal that bit me 3 hours ago caused my death and that future generations of mine should avoid them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ahphf/eli5_why_did_certain_animals_develop_poison/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9gj75o",
"d9gjepc"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"In the case of venom: why wouldn't that be beneficial? If you kill a predator or something and don't do anything with its body it still didn't eat you, so that's a win. Plus many venomous creatures do eat things they kill with their venom.\n\nAs far as poison goes: if there are more of your species (ie you have more babies) than that of your predator, a one-for-one trade is beneficial to your gene pool. So those prey that developed poison to have potential predators die if eating them is again beneficial. On top of that, it makes those predatious creatures less inclined to eat the poisonous species more likely to reproduce, thus making predators that don't avoid the poisonous species less common.",
"Animals that became venomous did so most of the time in order to get food. By injecting a venom into a prey item they are able to quickly subdue their prey (important when you eat something that is fast) or it allows them to eat larger prey (as is the case with many insects). Very few venomous creatures use that as a defense mechanism, or at least primarily use it as a defense. \n\nPoisonous animals are different. Poisonous animals are those that are toxic on their skins or in their tissue and harm something when bitten, eaten, or touched. Some, like the poison arrow frogs, get their toxins from the things that they eat. Poison arrow frogs eat a lot of ants and the way that their bodies process the toxins in the ant venom is that they store it in the mucus membranes of their skin. This not only makes them taste bad to predators, it makes the predator ill if not outright kills them when they attempt to eat the frog even if they do not succeed. If they do kill the frog they still likely die so kill no more frogs. If the animal survives the poisoning they learn that those types of frogs are bad ans stop trying to eat them so even if they did kill the first frog the species is protected by the poison adaptation. Other animals get the toxins from plants or make it themselves for similar reasons. Being poisonous is not about protecting yourself as much as it is about protecting the species. Advertising that you are poisonous with bright colors or patterns, that is about protecting yourself. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
ejdj5r | the legality of the assassination of qassem suleimani | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ejdj5r/eli5_the_legality_of_the_assassination_of_qassem/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcx1ogo",
"fcx2wvy"
],
"score": [
2,
13
],
"text": [
"He’s a designated member of a terrorist organization recognized by NATO. It’s no different than targeting any other terrorist member.",
"It seems difficult to argue legality for state actions taken outside a state's borders (in general). For the most part, it is political and military expedience and intent that really counts. Legality means little when jurisdiction, oversight, investigation, due process and finally enforcement of punishment is pretty much undefined. \n\nWithout making any legal claims, the one thing about this action is anticipating, forestalling or mitigating any future adverse reaction and ensuring that it somehow contributes to a long term strategy."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2rfm42 | is it really possible to 'fix damaged hair'? | I've always heard you can't really do anything for spilt ends except to temporarily mask them or cut them, but there's always commercials and ads for hair products that 'reverse the damage', repair, and/or 'fix split ends'. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rfm42/eli5_is_it_really_possible_to_fix_damaged_hair/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnflwfk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Some conditioners can smooth the hair and make the split ends less noticeable, but the hair is already dead and nothing can be done to fix it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1te03z | why don't car companies put better technology in their cars? | When I buy a car most cars have shitty radios built in and when I pay like 1k more, I can get a touchscreen radio. If I'd buy a tablet for 200 bucks and put it in my car it has more functionality than all other cars on the market(except Tesla)
Why do the other car companies sell these old radios when they're clearly outdated when they could just put a android tablet in their cars?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1te03z/eli5_why_dont_car_companies_put_better_technology/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce6zlvv",
"ce708fb",
"ce70l91",
"ce70rlb"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
13,
5
],
"text": [
"They sell old/inferior tech because people keep buying it. \n\nMore to the point, despite the competition in the industry, most vehicles in a particular class are startlingly homogeneous across the different brands and therefore the consumer is left with little choice. \n\nI'm still pissed off that the 2013 Juke I bought earlier this year has bluetooth but does not, for some unthinkable reason, support the A2DP bluetooth stack allowing streaming audio, despite the fact it supports it on the UK version of the vehicle. It's not like A2DP is some bleeding edge tech. ",
"The gadgetry in cars will be outdated far quicker than the car itself. Take a car from 2007 which would be considered fairly recent - Tablets as we know them today didn't exist back then, modern smartphones were only just breaking onto the market too",
"It's a really good question, and one that I have asked while working for an auto company. Note: I am not an expert on this since I didn't work in our electronics group, but this is what I gather.\n\n1) Markups for optional equipment make a ton of money. Base cars have little to no profit. They exist mainly to either be fleet vehicles (like rental cars) where the sheer volume of orders can make a decent profit in a market where price is the sole reason for purchase and for advertising purposes so the car can appear inexpensive. So the base radio is going to be a super cheap POS, and then when you want the upgrade they charge a ton. This is true for pretty much every upgrade, not just radios.\n\n2) Packaging. This causes a design to be specifically made for that vehicle or group of vehicles. So the product is a low volume product and therefore higher cost. Tablets will sell way more than optional equipment for a vehicle. Economies of scale plays a role. On top of that, in order to get a decent return on the investment and the inherent low volume of cars vs. computers, the lifespan of the tech is way longer than you see in tablets.\n\n3) Popular third party manufacturers in technology will charge a ton just for the right to use their name. For example, we had a vehicle that had an option for Boston Acoustics. The system actually cost a fair amount just for the right to have the name on the speakers. I know Ford used Microsoft to develop a system for their cars a while ago and I believe that also cost them a fair amount (I can't really speak on this very much though since I didn't work for Ford). Famous suppliers will often charge an arm and a leg just to use their stuff, and once again, the low volume of optional equipment leads to the need to use that tech over a very long lifespan. \n\n4) Vehicle life cycles are very long in comparison to tech life cycles. Most vehicles will have around a 8-10 year life cycle with a cosmetic refresh in the middle (this makes the vehicle appear to be new, but for the most part it's the same). So tech grows old rather fast. Some cars do come out with cool tech stuff for a new model, but it grows old really fast. I know my vehicle has a really nice touchscreen and GPS. It was as good as anything out at the time because it was launched at the same time as the vehicle I bought. Now it's rather outdated, but that same system is still used in new vehicles today.\n\n5) Many people just don't care about fancy, high tech devices. It can be a nice selling point for high end vehicles, but for lower end vehicles many people just want the basic stuff.\n\n6) People like aftermarket products. Many people don't want the upgrade an OEM provides even if it's current tech. So that lowers the take rate and of course increases price.\n\nAnyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. There are probably other reasons I don't know about, and some of it may actually just be ignorance to technology trends at the higher levels of management. I have bosses that still have their admin (aka secretary) print out their email because they don't know how to use it.",
"while your 200 dollar tablet will have more functionality it will not take the abuse the vehicle does. \n\n\ntake your shitty car radio, if start your car in sub zero weather it works, if you start it on a 100 degree day it works the same. \n\nsame thing if you drove to the north or south pole, you would have your car heater on, now while the cabin, is nice and warm around 80 or so, the heat to keep the cabin about that is about 150 or so degrees behind your dashboard. and then you got the heat from the radio. your tablet would not live through that. \n\nnow the other thing to design a device, like navigation radios with screens etc to do this, if you take it apart the system is broken down by thermals alot. what can be heated to what degree etc, its not a 1 piece assembly, they fly over an audio car network to function and make it look a radio. \n\nthey could go android, but android does have royalties, and then you have to design the system, you still have to account to the weight of the vehicle, people want mpg, now that shitty radio gets the car to 30 mpg, but that android tablet added so much weight to it, so it can live thorough some harsh environments, that now the vehicle can only get 29 mpg. \n\nor look what happens to an ipad left locked in a vehicle on a nice hot summer day.\n\nnow when you make something to live through harsh environments, you notice 2 things, r & d then make money on your investment, or alt least try to break even back. \n\nnow comes how safe is the car to operate, picture you can play angry birds on your dashboard, great, but people are all now distracted drivers and crash into you.... "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3ytb5t | why aren't we using magma as a power source? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ytb5t/eli5_why_arent_we_using_magma_as_a_power_source/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyge7su",
"cyge8ud",
"cyge9kc",
"cygf5gm"
],
"score": [
2,
22,
2,
18
],
"text": [
"We do it in some placed - the vast majority of iceland's electricity is produced by geothermal means. ",
"Geothermal heating, which is basically what you're describing, already exists. Fortunately, you don't need the ground to be so hot that it's melting either. Many new buildings are heated, at least in part, by sending air or water deep underground where it's warmer allowing you to bring that heat back up to your building. One of the big problems with it, though, is that it's expensive to build and even pricier to repair when something goes wrong.",
"how do you harvest and return this magma? \n\nthough in some ways, this is what geothermal is.",
"We do, it's called geothermal energy. There are quite a few things that make it very difficult. \n\nIceland gets almost a third of it's national power from magma and much of it's economy depends on the industrial use of geothermal energy. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
35siig | why are canada geese still a protected species? | Everybody seems to know that killing a Canada Goose could land you a huge fine since they've been a protected species under the [Federal Migratory Bird Act of 1918](_URL_0_). Almost 100 years later, they're everywhere in my area (Northeast US), pooping on everything and generally being a nuisance. Why are they still protected? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35siig/eli5_why_are_canada_geese_still_a_protected/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr7egti"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Protected doesn't mean you can't hunt them.\n\n > More than 500 000 Canada Geese are taken in Canada each year by hunters.\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.wildgoosechasers.com/fed_law.php"
]
| [
[
"https://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/default.asp?lang=En&n=98A918B1-1"
]
]
|
|
6033mx | how is blood transfusion biologically possible? | i don't know if i am being too stupid right now, but this question used to scratch my head for years. well, as i know due to my school-level biology knowledge, DNA's literally everywhere in one's organism; thus in a blood too.
what i can't get is the fact that blood transfusion is very viral and common in medicine nowadays; when one gets another human's blood, it's logical he gets different dna too. and what does happen then? are these two kinds of dna mixed together? how one can have dna different from his own and original one (and especially both his own and transfused ones?).
shouldn't new blood change a person due to the fact he has new dna? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6033mx/eli5how_is_blood_transfusion_biologically_possible/ | {
"a_id": [
"df33sng",
"df34007",
"df34e5f"
],
"score": [
2,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"blood cells don't reproduce. yes there are cells with different DNA for a period of time but most die relatively quickly.\n",
"Actually, red blood cells, RBC for short, mature, their nucleus and its DNA shrinks and disappears. This allows that concave shape that they appear to have, which fills with oxygen/CO2. Only mature cells have no DNA or nucleus.\n\nThe thing that gets tricky is the antigens and antibodies associated with the blood types. For example, if you have Type O blood, you hold no antigens (acceptable types of blood) to types A/B/AB, so your body will attack them because your body holds antibodies to these. (Keep in mind type O is recessive and considered harmless to the other types of blood)\n\nSay you have Type A, you hold antigens to type A, meaning it's an acceptable type, but to O as well, since it's the recessive blood type. You have antibodies to B. The same way if you hold type B blood, just the opposite to A. If you have AB blood, you hold antigens for A, B, and AB (And O because O has no antigens since it's recessive and harmless)\n\nAs for the negative and positive, this is based off the plasma of the blood, being negative or positive. \n\nIf the wrong blood is placed into the body, it causes an immune system attack, and you will most likely die. \n\nSource: school for hematology.",
"**TL;DR**: *The mousetrap that is your body's defenses doesn't spring because it doesn't recognize the right types of transfused blood as bad.*\n\nBlood transfusion is biologically possible in the same way that replacing a bad knee with a titanium joint is biologically possible. \n\nWhat you're putting into the body doesn't make your body go \"Holy cow dangerous foreign stuff attack attack!\" and trigger its own defenses.\n\nYour body and your life depends entirely on a whole bunch of defenses, a bit like a medieval castle under siege does. In the same way the castle defenders need to be able to tell who's the good guys and who's the bad guys because there's not an infinite supply of castle defenders, your body needs to recognize what's okay to have in there (like, say, food) and what's not okay and needs to be gotten rid of quickly (like, say, nausea-causing food that makes you get dizzy and barf). \n\nBut it can't react to EVERYTHING nature throws at it, so it has various triggers that tell it to attack some things (like that infected splinter in your finger) but leave others alone (like that titanium replacement knee joint.)\n\nFor most people, transfused blood (and specifically compatible types of blood) don't have any chemicals or structures that trigger the response. So your body leaves 'em alone. It has nothing to do with DNA - much simpler chemical structures are recognized as part of this.\n\nAnd since any residual blood DNA isn't ever merged with your own DNA, that doesn't factor into it at all."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
9bnsdb | how are brain surgeons able to remove a tumor inside the brain without damaging the brain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9bnsdb/eli5_how_are_brain_surgeons_able_to_remove_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e54e6ta",
"e54efng",
"e54faox",
"e54flpt",
"e54gmu1",
"e54ibpc",
"e54jbce",
"e54jez5",
"e54jg63",
"e54jiaz",
"e54jvbf",
"e54k5dq",
"e54k6ot",
"e54kefl",
"e54kmpe",
"e54kvhn",
"e54lmla",
"e54m7h9",
"e54mvf7",
"e54n4pd",
"e54npdn",
"e54ob5b",
"e54ob8w",
"e54pmgn",
"e54qvb9"
],
"score": [
1418,
306,
98,
3,
46,
618,
4,
17,
5,
5,
31,
12,
7,
2,
11,
6,
3,
45,
12,
2,
4,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I’m not sure there is a good ELI5 besides “very very carefully”. It is an absurdly difficult task which requires both a lot of skill, talent, and care.\n\nThat is why brain surgery is touted as one of the stereotypical challenging professions, because there is no trick to it, its just really really hard.",
"Sometimes they aren't. Tumors can sort of grow \"roots\" which tendril out into the brain, and any of these being left behind would result in recurrence. In this case they remove the bulk of the tumor and continue chemo/radiation to knock out what remains. Trying to go after those tendrils would require excision of the surrounding healthy tissue.",
"They do damage the brain. It's just that the human brain is remarkably resilient and can often recover from partial damage.\n\nAfter brain surgery, people typically lose the ability to speak, some lose the ability to walk, and much more. Over time, many people slowly regain abilities and are able to function as normal human beings again, because the brain has a remarkable ability to learn and grow and adapt to missing neurons. However, many people never fully recover from brain surgery in that their brain function is permanently diminished.\n\n & #x200B;",
"They are only able to do it sometimes. Many times, a tumor is inoperable. Other times, they can operate but part of the brain may be damaged. So it varies.",
"They're not, but they can minimize the damage. The brain is able to sustain some damage (though we don't understand well enough to guarantee 100% what can be sustained). When possible, the operation takes place with a conscious patient and someone constantly asking them simple questions to verify that the patient is still able to see, speak, read, recognize things, etc",
"Excerpts from neurosurgeon Henry Marsh's book \"Do No Harm\":\n\n* “Each brain tumour is different. Some are as hard as rock, some as soft as jelly. Some are completely dry, some pour with blood – sometimes to such an extent that the patient can bleed to death during the operation. Some shell out like peas from a pod, others are hopelessly stuck to the brain and its blood vessels. You can never know for certain from a brain scan exactly how a tumour will behave until you start to remove it. This man’s tumour was, as surgeons say, cooperative and with a good surgical plane – in other words, it was not stuck to the brain. I slowly cored it out, collapsing the tumour in on itself away from the surrounding brain. After three hours it looked as though I had got most of it out. The operation continued until I had removed all of the tumour without injuring any of the surrounding vital architecture of the brain.”\n\n\n* “This type of tumour (solid haemangioblastoma) is the only time in brain tumour surgery that you have to remove the tumour ‘en bloc’ – in a single piece – since if you enter the tumour you will be instantly faced by torrential bleeding. With all other tumours in brain surgery you gradually ‘debulk’ it, sucking or cutting out the inside of it, collapsing it in on itself, away from the brain, and thus minimizing damage to the brain. With solid haemangioblastomas, however, you ‘develop the plane’ between the tumour and the brain, creating a narrow crevice a few millimetres wide by gently holding the brain away from the surface of the tumour. You coagulate and divide the many blood vessels that cross from the brain to the tumour’s surface, trying not to damage the brain in the process. All this is done with a microscope under relatively high magnification – although the blood vessels are tiny, they can bleed prodigiously. One quarter of the blood pumped every minute by the heart, after all, goes to the brain.”",
"They do lots of damage to the brain, just hopefully parts that will heal or aren't responsible for important things.",
"I’ve been told that they keep you awake and thinking shit while the surgeons slowly advance through your brain to reach the tumor, and at each step they slowly apply pressure forward, then they’ll stop to check you haven’t lost any functionalities, and if you do, they back up and relieve the pressure, changing directions to try on another possible route. \nNormally it seems that the damage manifest itself before being permanent, so they can backtrack and try another way in\n\nEdit: better wording/translation of “gone stupid”",
"With great difficulty, research is constantly ongoing to improve this. One thing that helps is having a range of high quality brain images. Different images will tell you different properties of the tumour, e.g. how solid is it, is there more or less blood than the rest of the brain, how aggressive is it, as we as telling you what brain regions are at risk of damage during the procedure. Most likely brain imaging is done before surgery, so that a plan is formed ahead of time, but it can now be performed as part of the surgery, with scanning and operating rooms. \n\nThe patient can also be kept awake if needs be, so that brain function can be monitored throughout. \n\n",
"Avocados seem to be in the news. So let’s use removing the avocado pit as a metaphor for brain surgery. The skin takes a little effort, like the skull. The avocado fruit is like the brain tissue, which you have to divide to reach the tumor. And then the pit is the tumor, which you try to excise in one piece, without damaging the brain, or fruit. A benign tumor is more like an avocado pit because it has well defined border, and is therefore relatively easy to excise. A malignant tumor attaches to the surrounding tissue, like an unripe avocado, which requires you to scoop out some of the brain tissue. Chemo or radiation will sometimes shrink the tumor to allow easier excision. ",
"I play a role in this with my career in Intraoperative Neuromonitoring. I work in surgeries including brain tumor removal procedures as a patient service requested by the surgeon to help identify neural structures and insults to the nervous system during surgery. tEMG is used to localize nervous structures that are important for functions such as movement, sensation, language, etc. During brain tumor removal surgeries in particular, we may assess language by performing an awake craniotomy in which a patient performs languages tasks after being “woken up” to a degree in the OR while the surgeon stimulates sites of the brain. If the patients language is affected by the stimulation, that site is mapped out as a “do not cut” area. This is how surgeons are able to minimize language deficits. We can also detect stroke via EEG and SSEP tests and the integrity of motor function from brain to muscles with TcMEPs. ",
"Not an actual surgeon, but I teach doctors how to use Electronic medical records software (EMR) and have sat in on many surgeries while teaching anesthesiologists how to computer...\n\nBasically it all depends on the location of the tumor. First they have to drill a hole in the skull, then use a saw to cut a bigger hole in the skull, which can be screwed back into place later. Then a small small hole is made in the brain (after getting bleeding etc under control) then very small diameter instruments are inserted into said small hole and the cutting begins. One micro neuro surgeon couple let me sit in on a sub-arachnoid tumor removal. How they explained it was something like this, \"we need to remove a tumor that is equivalent to the size of a watermelon through a hole the size of a garden hose, we need to cut the tumor into tiny pieces, piece by piece, and remove it through the hole (garden hose).\n\nKeep in mind, a lot of tumors are inoperable due to their location, cutting into the brain that deep or in some spots would cause too much damage and therefore the surgeon wouldn't perform the surgery.\n\nHope this helps, sorry for formatting etc, writing this from the bus on my phone.\n",
"It's also useful to know the brain pulses with the heartbeat, it doesn't hold perfectly still (like a muscle). During heart and most lung surgeries they route blood through a machine that oxygenates and pumps the blood through the body, taking the patients heart and lungs offline. \n\nAlso, many brain surgeries are done with local or minimal anesthetic, only enough to not feel the incisions. The surgeons need the patients input to determine if they are harming sections of the brain. A decrease in consciousness or reporting odd smells or sounds are warning signs. ",
"A great discussion with Charlie Teo. A neurosurgeon who specialises in this sort of thing.\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"They do damage the brain. They just damage the absolute minimum required to remove the tumor, if they're good.",
"Read “Do No Harm” by Henry Marsh. He’s a world renowned neurosurgeon and he talks in depth about it, but it’s surprisingly easy to understand. By the time you’re done, you’ll have so much respect for his profession.",
"I lost all use of my left arm and most of my left leg. Luckily thru lots of rehab I gained back partial use of my left hip and knee joints below the knee has never come back. So in response to ops question, they do as best they can and it really depends on the type of tumor. ",
"I work in neurosurgery as someone that monitors the integrity of the nervous system during such surgeries. Many of the top comments touch on the main points. I'll add a bit to what others have contributed. First, it depends upon the tumor. Some tumors have rigid edges and some are more fluid filled. Solid tumors (an example is a hemangioblastoma) have a consistency similar to a meatball (from observation, I can't touch the tumors!) and often they'll radiate the tumor to kill off some of the tissue. This results in a barrier between the healthy brain tissue and the tumor itself. Think about a frozen water bottle that is about halfway melted. The liquid water in this analogy is natural cerebral spinal fluid, which is like blood for your brain, while the ice is the tumor itself. If you were to have a very steady hand, a microscope, and a hot pair of tweezers, I bet you'd be able to pick out the ice without melting the plastic bottle itself—the healthy brain tissue in this analogy.\n\nFor less solid tumor, such as the glioblastoma that John McCain died from, the boundaries blend with healthy tissue. In these cases, surgeons must define and prioritize the areas along the edges of the tumor while defining how they might affect the quality of life versus how long the patient stands to live with that portion removed. For example, if a tumor grows along the \"motor strip,\" a thin band of brain tissue that sits under where the bar of headphones would rest atop your head, the patient stands to be paralyzed in certain areas. This is because as the surgeon removes those parts of the tumor, they may be taking parts of healthy brain tissue with it. This is where my job comes in. Surgeons are able to trace a thin metal rod along the border of the tumor. As they alternate tracing the borders and removing tumor, I repeatedly send a current from my machinery into the probe. I also have needles in various muscles along the patient's body. If let's say, needles in the patient's shoulder show me \"electrical twitches\" when I pass electricity through the metal rod that the surgeon is holding on an area of the tumor that may be near where your cowlick (callick??) of your hair lies, that tells him something. That tells him that if he removes that part of the tumor, the patient stands to lose the ability to lift said arm. We often stimulate like this continuously throughout the surgery and I talk to the surgeon about how much weaker has become that \"electrical twitch\" in a specific area (let's say the shoulder). This informs him of how much of the tumor he/she can safely remove.\n\nThis is just ONE aspect of many that go into tumor removal. Search for BrainLab and Stryker tumor imaging technology to see some other cool stuff.\n\nSource: I do my described work everyday. I also monitor spinal surgeries, spinal cord tumors, etc.\n\nEdit: clarity",
"I'm not a brain surgeon, but I have a bit of first-hand experience with brain surgery. Often there is damage. When I was 17, I had surgery to remove a golf ball sized cancer tumor in my brain. The tumor was on the pineal gland, right in the very center of my head, surrounded by brain tissue. I had one of the best surgeons in the U.S., and he did an excellent job, the surgery went as well as could possibly be expected. Now, over 2 years later, I still have double vision, difficulty looking upwards, and my pupils dilate out of sync.\n\nSo there is damage, but I can still live my life pretty normally.\n\nIf anyone wants to learn a bit more, I made a post about it while I was in treatment. I'll try to link it here.\n\nEDIT: Here is my original post _URL_0_",
"There’s a new tool called a gamma knife. It’s a helmet that you wear that looks kind of like a spaghetti strainer and where each hole in the strainer would be is a little laser (gamma ray) gun that fire into the brain. Each ray is too weak to do any damage by itself, but they become stronger where they cross paths. Using computers, a doctor can tell the helmet to shoot the rays so they cross exactly where the tumor is and no where else so it gets burned out without needing to open the person’s head or hurting any of the brain. (Had a friend go under the gamma knife a few years ago, it saved his life)",
"My cousin in a neuro surgeon who specializes in certian types of tumors. She didn't graduate school until she was in her 30s. It's a very skilled and intense field of medicine. \n\nFrom what I understand. It's a very delicate process. Also it's unlikely that a person will not suffer any damage. Sometimes it can be very minor, but every part of the brain has a purpose. I know in some cases the patient is kept awake to ensure they don't go in a coma or something. Could you imagine how freaky that would be? Also the brain lacks pain receptors.",
"I lost my mom last December to brain cancer and had to learn a lot about the brain in a short amount of time. I had this exact same question for the neurosurgeon that performed the biopsy and here's how he laid it out to me:\n\nThere is no way to cut into the brain without causing trauma. It's simply not possible, so the best they can do is to try and be as careful as possible to keep the trauma to a minimum.\n\nThat said, over the years the mapping of the brain has been very well documented, so they know where \"the important\" areas are located which aids them in any surgery.\n\nIf they can get in and out with as minimal amount of trauma as possible, then obviously that's what they'll do. However, there are still places that even the most skilled neurosurgeon will not operate on with the knowledge that the trauma caused by going into that area isn't worth the potential benefit. In my mom's case, the tumors were so deep and close to the stem that a biopsy was risky enough and they wouldn't consider surgery.\n\nWith that said, the brain is like any other part of the body and good at healing. There can still be permanent damage done, but enough is known now that many people have surgery every year and do just fine.",
"The short answer is “they don’t”. What’s more likely is that you are unaware of the result of the damage because unless you hit specific parts of the cortex that deal with language, motor, vision, or other core processes, the results will be very subtle. Maybe you’re 20 ms slower to react to something. Even slight damage that can show up on a screener may be undetectable to you, at least subjectively. Plus, they won’t go in unless the good done by the surgery outweighs the potential for harm and the unavoidable damage of brain surgery. ",
"I actually work in a field that assists in reducing potential damage to the brain while removing tumors. The field is called intraoperative neuromonitoring. Essentially I help the surgeon by monitoring spinal tracts and cortical regions. We can directly monitor certain nerves such as 8 with a test called Brainstem auditory evoked potentials. We can monitor cranial nerves 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 very reliably. Research is being done in visual evoke potentials also(cn1). Along with direct cranial nerve monitoring utilizing direct stim and recording the response on the face we can also record motor and sensory pathways. We can localize the central fissure of the brain and also assist in localization of the speech production and understanding portions of the brain. We also record eeg and watch for vascular compromises.",
"They can use the 'gamma knife' technique wherein a number of gamma ray emitters are positioned at roughly equal points around the head. These each emit a tight-beam gamma ray that experiences constructive interference with the others where they cross. The waves synchronize, emparting enough energy to burn in just that spot. This enables the surgeon to cauterize tumors in the middle of functioning brain tissue without having to cut through that tissue. I'm not sure how common this type of brain surgery is, but it's an option. I had it explained to me in some detail by the neurosurgeon who was about to cut my back. He did a microdiscectmy on me as part of 'taking a break from brains for a while'. I guess he was taking it easy.. He indicated that was a high stress surgery, the gamma knife. I could see that. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://iview.abc.net.au/show/anhs-brush-with-fame/series/1/video/DO1523H003S00&ved=2ahUKEwjnoLL__JXdAhXRdt4KHS4ZC9YQwqsBMAF6BAgGEAo&usg=AOvVaw23No98afXJ9YtGRmjXoGju"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5fdxka/my_golf_ball_size_brain_tumor/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
kjyjt | i'm on a bus using wifi as it travels from cincinnati to pittsburgh, how is this possible? | Satellites? Routers placed every 100 feet along the highway? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kjyjt/im_on_a_bus_using_wifi_as_it_travels_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2kvdda",
"c2kvg7p",
"c2kvjcr",
"c2kwcyf",
"c2kxoho",
"c2kvdda",
"c2kvg7p",
"c2kvjcr",
"c2kwcyf",
"c2kxoho"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
50,
12,
16,
2,
5,
50,
12,
16
],
"text": [
"The routers are definitely placed on the bus itself, since the WiFi is not available to other automobiles on the highway. I do not know this for a fact, so hopefully someone who actually knows can verify, but I always assumed that the Internet connection was Satellite based.\n\nThere's no way that they could get the speeds they do for the number of people they have via 3G or radio signals.",
"Cell phone networks according to [this](_URL_0_)\n\nMore impressively, wifi is also offered on planes. This is either done over satellite or using towers on the ground similarly to cell phones.",
"There will be a router on the bus that has a mobile data connection instead of a cable/dsl connection. Just like how you can use most phones as a mobile hotspot. \n",
"Bus probably has a 3g/mobile connection, router turns it into wifi.",
"You know how you can continue to talk on your cellphone while driving down the road? Well a few years ago they added a way to use those same towers to send data and not just voice calls.\n\nYour bus has a cellphone-like box on it which talks to the cellphone towers and part of that box also has a wireless router which can talk to your laptop. When you want to browse the internet you send a message to the box on the bus, which then talks to the cellphone towers for you.",
"The routers are definitely placed on the bus itself, since the WiFi is not available to other automobiles on the highway. I do not know this for a fact, so hopefully someone who actually knows can verify, but I always assumed that the Internet connection was Satellite based.\n\nThere's no way that they could get the speeds they do for the number of people they have via 3G or radio signals.",
"Cell phone networks according to [this](_URL_0_)\n\nMore impressively, wifi is also offered on planes. This is either done over satellite or using towers on the ground similarly to cell phones.",
"There will be a router on the bus that has a mobile data connection instead of a cable/dsl connection. Just like how you can use most phones as a mobile hotspot. \n",
"Bus probably has a 3g/mobile connection, router turns it into wifi.",
"You know how you can continue to talk on your cellphone while driving down the road? Well a few years ago they added a way to use those same towers to send data and not just voice calls.\n\nYour bus has a cellphone-like box on it which talks to the cellphone towers and part of that box also has a wireless router which can talk to your laptop. When you want to browse the internet you send a message to the box on the bus, which then talks to the cellphone towers for you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3736816"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3736816"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2tii1j | what do surgeons do or rather, what happens with the extra fat off someone whose had lipo or skin removal surgery? | Do they zap it and it disappears?
Is it attached to someone who may need it more?
Is it flushed down the drain, so perhaps, we've been drinking fat??? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tii1j/eli5what_do_surgeons_do_or_rather_what_happens/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnzbrbg",
"cnzbyi3",
"cnzbys0",
"cnzbzfg"
],
"score": [
4,
17,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Have you ever seen fight club? \nThey put it out back in bins for people to take and make into soap. It's free if you're interested...",
"If there's skin attached, say from a breast reduction or pannectomy (overhanging belly skin), it is sent to a pathologist for gross examination. Basically, they say, \"Yep, this is 2.5 kg of breast tissue\" and it gets documented for record keeping purposes. Then it is incinerated.\n\nFor liposuction, the adipose (fat) tissue is measured in the operating room, Then disposed of in a biohazard container and incinerated. It would never sit in plastic bags in an open dumpster like in Fight Club. \n\nSource: I assist surgeons in these procedures. \n\nEdit: To clarify, the fat is not zapped away. It is suctioned into a container. ",
"I'm a biomedical engineering student working on stem cell research. I specifically work with adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, a very special and very valuable type of cell that we isolate form the waste fat from surgeries! We're working on using people's fat to cure arthritis!",
"It is actually disposed of by Bio hazard companies along with all other human byproduct and all the disposable sharps."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5lz71i | why do people in third world countries make so little for the goods they produce? | Same with farmers. Why do they make so little? For example, if I bought a daniel wellington watch in Canada, it costs ~200 dollars, where in reality these watches are made in China for roughly 1 dollar, and the people who make these watches make dollars a day. Why is it if you work in Canada making watches all day, you would be paid atleast 12 dollars an hour, but in china they make so little? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lz71i/eli5_why_do_people_in_third_world_countries_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbzj3dp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > where in reality these watches are made in China for roughly 1 dollar\n\nHow do you know?\n\n > but in china they make so little?\n\nThey make less than in Canada, but for labor that requires true skill, they make a decent wage. That's why most of the really lavish spending - from corporate buyouts to tourist shopping - comes from China these days. China is increasingly not a terribly cheap place to live, compared to the West.\n\nAnyway... people who have very low living costs are prepared to work for little money, because at the start, they just want to improve the situation they're already in. In Canada, your living costs are going to be high just because you need to have a car, a heated house, and food that's grown only in the summer and/or trucked in from far away. Somewhere like Bangladesh or Vietnam, unskilled laborers can live in poorly constructed shacks with no insulation or central heating, and they eat local food that grows plentifully and all year in that climate.\n\nBut wage demands constantly rise in those places anyway, which is why the real unskilled labor jobs are now moving out of China into Southeast Asia, and might move somewhere else afterwards."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
24wh17 | why do older guys' eyebrows go crazy | So, I've noticed this in middle aged guys and it's started happening to me: why is it that when you hit a certain age, your eyebrows that previously all grew to the same length and in the same direction start to grow to different lengths and stick out at weird angles? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24wh17/eli5_why_do_older_guys_eyebrows_go_crazy/ | {
"a_id": [
"chbj5qd"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Forget the eyebrows. I can deal with eyebrows. What I want to know about is all that growth inside the ears!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6r1pp8 | process of getting stitches and the fine details? | Preface: Some of my questions were answered in posts when I searched, but not all, or not in as much detail as I would have liked.
Okay, to give a backstory, yesterday I was at the doctors and had to get a vaccine and after getting it I passed out while waiting to make the next appointment and hit my head and had to get 6 stitches. So my questions:
1.) What is vasovagal syncope, like I know what it is but how exactly does it happen, what goes on that makes you faint, specifically with a vaccine interacting with your body.
2.) Why did hitting my head off a chair and needing stitches barely hurt, less than stubbing a toe, getting a paper cut, etc.?
3.) How do stitches help heal the wound? Besides holding it together to reduce scarring and chance of infection. Like how would it heal if it wasn't held together(appearance,healing time, etc. difference)?
4.) Why do I barely feel it the next day? I would think something needing stitches, especially a head injury, would at least hurt more than a bad headache, but I feel pretty much nothing unless I touch it or disturb the area, and even then it's minimal pain.
5.) How does novacaine stay concentrated on the area they inject it? I understand it has stuff that makes the veins smaller or whatnot but what exactly is it doing that makes that happen?
6.) Why do some shots hurt more than others and leave your arm sore for days while others don't have anything besides the slight pinch of the needle?
Okay, I think that's all. I'm just extremely curious, probably because it's my first real injury.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6r1pp8/eli5_process_of_getting_stitches_and_the_fine/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl1olxr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I have vasovagal syncope, so I can handle that one. \n\nIt's not the vaccine that made you faint. It was the needle proper. Your blood pressure dropped and your body's way to sort that out is to make it easier for blood to get back to the brain by making it all level. \n\nSource: I have a pinched nerve in my neck and when I was getting blood tests to sort out what it was, EVERY TIME I had to get a poke I went down. It got to the point where I would specifically request to be laid down and have my shoes off with a juice box ready. I scare a lot of nurses."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
40h5e2 | what's the reason that everybody doesn't just use one account for something like netflix? | If anyone can use a web service logged in on any device, but the device costs money, what's the reason people haven't just all started using one account?
Edit: Solved!
Thank you | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40h5e2/eli5_whats_the_reason_that_everybody_doesnt_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyu2tm0",
"cyu2to7",
"cyu2tu9",
"cyu2tx9",
"cyu2v4o"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Netflix used to allow like 10 or 12 screens on an account, but now they only allow 2 screens running concurrently on the same account for the $7.99 package and you can upgrade to an $11.99 package for 4 screens and some other minor perks. Other services either do something similar or are banking on people sharing their accounts actually growing their market exposure and drawing in more customers. ",
"Netflix prevents more than 5? Devices being used at once i think. So enough for a family to share but not the whole town",
"Netflix limits the number of devices that can be logged concurrently on the same account (1-4 devices, depending on your plan).",
"Most limit the number of streams.\n\nA standard netflix account can only have 2 streams going at once. For two people thats fine. Get 10 people on the same account and its not going to work well for you anymore. Everyone will be fighting over getting to use the 2 steams.",
"Netflix will only allow a single account to be used on a certain number of devices at any one point in time. My account for example I pay for 2 concurrent connections. if EVERYONE used one account then a lot of people would never have the chance to use the service as only the first X people to connect would be able to use it. Also, trolls. Trolls would change the password, and finally. Who is the one sucker who is going to pay for 'everybody' to use their account?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2g35go | why does apple juice make me need to piss so quickly after drinking it? | Why is it that every time after I drink apple juice, I need to piss within the next 20-30mins compared to any other drink where the urge sets on later? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g35go/eli5why_does_apple_juice_make_me_need_to_piss_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckfethl",
"ckfkmoc",
"ckfsrwk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"High acidity. You'll see the same results with orange juice and low quality coffee (think has station coffee).",
"Things get digested faster than others. Fruit and fruit products are digested very quickly (10 - 15)\nSource: Observations and experiments.",
"Diuretics.\n\nHere's the wikipedia page: _URL_0_\n "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diuretic"
]
]
|
|
60a60o | why wearing thick clothes in summer doesn't keep us cold ? | We wear thick clothes in winter because they are a good thermal insulation and thus reduce the heat transfer from our body to the cold atmosphere around us
Now in summer we feel hot because the hot atmosphere around us start transferring heat to our body,if that's true wouldn't wearing a jacket in summer keep us cooler ? if the atmosphere around us is hotter than our body temperature ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60a60o/eli5_why_wearing_thick_clothes_in_summer_doesnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"df4o8vk",
"df4p885"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"This actually is why lots of people, especially in the Middle East and Northern Africa wear clothes to protect them from the heat (and the sand!) like this Tuareg in Algeria here: _URL_0_\n\nMost Europeans and people in the Americas don't experience temperatures that far above their body temperature, so there this concept is less known. \n\n",
"Your metabolism is always generating heat which needs to escape or our body temperature will just keep increasing. Clothing is insulation which will slow down the escape of heat. However hot it is in summer, we still need the heat to escape. As the air temperature approaches and exceeds the body temperature, this heat loss is almost all due to evaporative cooling so you need clothing that allows air circulation to reach your perspiration."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Tuareg.JPG"
],
[]
]
|
|
alyaoz | if the first airplane was flown in 1903 in south carolina, how was it possible that by the start of ww1 (1914) so many countries already had reliable fighting aircrafts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/alyaoz/eli5if_the_first_airplane_was_flown_in_1903_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"efhxl4l",
"efhy0n7",
"efhy22s",
"efi0o12",
"efi9l6z"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The utility of powered flight to the military was very obvious. \n\nBasically, in world war 1 they had reliable aircraft that they stuck machine guns on. They were not very good at fighting, because they were intended to gather information. ",
"In a nut shell, your timeline is wrong. [Wikipeida has a lot of data](_URL_0_) that might be useful but the good parts version is WW1 started with planes and pilots as Reconnaissance roles. over the next couple months the technology got better, because it was initially you know.. Pistol shots at each other. It developed up to interrupt gears, so that a machine gun could be fired, by a pilot, and snowballed from there.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nGranted, it was a very, very fast ramp-up, but it wasn't an overnight development of military air forces prior to world war one.",
"They didn't. Aircraft in WWI started off as unarmed scouts. Planes from both sides would commonly pass by one another while on the way to check out the enemy's positions.\n\nThat all changed when one pilot started taking potshots with a handgun. Things escalated from there.",
" > how was it possible that by the start of WW1 (1914) so many countries already had reliable fighting aircrafts?\n\nThere was not fighter aircraft in the beginning of WWI. The airplanes was for recognizance not air to air combat. The first time a airplanes brought down another in the air was 2 month into the air when a Russian aircraft rammed a Austrian and both planes and crews was killed. A month later a french pilot opened fired with a machine on a german airplane and brought it down after unsuccessfully attempts with handheld weapons.\n\nThe first aircraft that was design as a fighters was the Vickers F.B.5 that reached the front and was operational in 5 February 1915. So no county had any fighters of any other types of combat aircraft when the war begun only recognizance planes\n\n\nThe flight in 1903 in South Carolina was not the first flight in a aircraft but the \"the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft\" all part is important. Gliders existed before that but and powered flight but with thing like steam engine.\n\n\nThe first experiments with aircraft all had a huge problem and that was a engine with enough power the was light enough\n\nPractical cars start to emerge ~20 years earlier and the start in may way with in 1995 with a car wit a internal combustion engine in 1885 by Karl Benz. So you have development of the engines in that field the engine used by the Wright brother was not from a car but a custom engine by one of there employee Charlie Taylor that certainly used the knowledge that have been developed for cars for his engine.\n\nThe other problem is control and design of the wings etc and that is the primary new invention by the Wright. Most earlier attempts had wings that look like bird wing but the Wright used win that look a lot like the one that we use today but one on top of the other. \n\nThe primary idea they had was to control it but twisting the wind so the angle relative to the airflow changes for roll control. The had a canard wing in front for pitch and a rudder in the back for yaw.\n\nWith a small changes to fixed wing and small control surfaced (ailerons) on the wing and a move of the canard wing back so you had a vertical and horisontal stabilizer with flight control surface on them like today the planes quickly started to look like today,\n\nSo with the idea of how to design and control airplanes and motors that provided enough power resulted in huge interest for the technology they developed so the worked ok in the beginning for WWI. The problem that everyone had of control was solved by the Wrights and engine technology was good enough so aircraft development happen in all advanced industrial countries. Development is fast when the initial problem are solved and a lot of people can work in improving it.\n\nThere was also a lot of development during the war then the military on all sides put huge amount of money into the problem and the development was huge during the war so late WWI aircraft are a lot different from early WWI aircraft.\n ",
"10 years is a long time in the world of technology. It also took barely ten years from the first ever orbital launch to the moon landing!\n\nBut you have to expand the time frame a bit. People like [Otto Lilienthal](_URL_0_) had already made successful gliders by that point, and other people had tried to build powered aircraft as well. So the basic principles of making an airframe were already known, the key development was the advancement of combustion engines. The Wright brothers managed to build a lightweight gasoline engine, which weighed \"only\" 80 kg and produced 12 hp - that is laughable by today's standards, but it was revolutionary in their time. It was barely enough to get the flyer airborne. Over the next 10-15 years, engines became even better, and airframes more aerodynamic, but nevertheless aircraft relied on the same principles as the Wright Flyer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight#World_War_I"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal"
]
]
|
||
39lbas | what is happening when my browser trips up and makes modern sites look like it's 1998? example inside. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39lbas/eli5_what_is_happening_when_my_browser_trips_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs4a440",
"cs4aydg",
"cs4btfb",
"cs4d6fm",
"cs4dml9",
"cs4dzy0"
],
"score": [
180,
23,
8,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely the CSS styles sheet for the site failed to download so instead you're looking at the raw HTML, the way sites looked before implementation of CSS.",
"To clarify also: Think of HTML as the content of the page, as in the words, the images, etc. CSS is the \"where does it go and what does it look like?\" ",
"Why is the default rendering without CSS still like a 1998 page though - is it defined in the HTML standard or just what browser code ended up being left as? \n\nI love it when you come across bad websites that look like that on purpose, like [this one: _URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"You mean this isn't what Reddit looks like? Is my browser broken?",
"You have the legos.\n\nYou can make a basic car.\n\nYou can't make a fancy car because you don't have instructions.\n\nCSS is instructions for the browser to style the page, it hasn't processed the style sheets yet.",
"The CSS (cascading style sheets) have failed to load from the site into your web browser. \n\nYou're seeing the raw HTML content only, without any styling (colors, layouts, padding, margins, etc). \n\nThis can be caused by many things. Usually the server/site end, but sometimes your internet or network connection, your web browser or addons. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fabricland.co.uk/"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3mitzy | can we "bottle" greenhouse gases and send them to mars? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mitzy/eli5_can_we_bottle_greenhouse_gases_and_send_them/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvfapmw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That would be, to put it mildly, incredibly inefficient.\n\nAlso probably counterproductive considering how much rocket fuel you'd need to burn to do it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
12f7ym | if humans are still evolving then why don't we have any spare parts? | My partner at work asks me this question any time we talk about evolution. I wasn't able to find an answer to this using Google and this question has turned into his only argument against evolution. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12f7ym/if_humans_are_still_evolving_then_why_dont_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6um8d8",
"c6umpxs",
"c6ujvuz",
"c6uk14u",
"c6uk5en",
"c6ukvtp"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
4,
18,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"What makes you think you don't? Your useful parts today may be spare parts tomorrow.",
"You mean like your:\n\n* appendix\n* tail bone\n* wisdom teeth\n* second eyelid\n* muscle that used to move your ears\n* floating ribs\n* extra nipples\n* goosebumps\n* nonfunctional pseudogenes",
"What do you mean by \"spare parts\", and why would we expect evolution to produce them in humans?",
"The [appendix](_URL_0_) is a vestigial structure. In fact, the wikipedia page for [human vestigiality](_URL_1_) is probably helpful. ",
"Evolution takes millions ans millions of years. We don't have spare parts that we will evolve to use because thats not how evolution works. Things evolve through natural selection. Humans have probably slowed their evolution significantly because we control our environment so we no longer need to evolve to survive particular climates. Also, people don't really choose mates based on their genes anymore simply because it doesn't matter what genes humans pass on to their offspring because even if they are born with a debilitating disease they will still be taken care of. If it were up to nature, that person most likely wouldn't survive, therefore making it impossible to pass on the disease gene, eventually naturally eliminating the disease all together.. But it's not up to nature anymore, it's up to people. And morally, it would be wrong to let that person die or not let them reproduce. However, we do have extra parts that are left over from evolution. We have an appendix. It now serves no purpose to us at all, but to our ancestors it was needed to help them digest raw food. Humans eliminated the need for an appendix when they started cooking their food. Some babies are even being born without an appendix completely today...thats evolution. Also, humans still have a tail bone. Indicating that at one time, our ancestors had tails. Most likely used for balance when trees were their habitat. We lost our need for a tail when we moved on to the ground and didn't need extra balance anymore. Our tail bone and appendix are extra parts left over from evolution and we are still evolving today, slow as it may be.",
"Your friend has provided a pretty good example of [Begging the Question](_URL_0_). He says \"*if* man were still evolving, we'd have spare parts; so why don't we have spare parts?\"\n\nHe provides you with a premise (\"if man were still evolving, we'd have spare parts\") and then uses our lack of spare parts as evidence that we are not evolving. But the initial premise remains to be proven."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Begging_the_question"
]
]
|
|
28q3e6 | how did the united states' republican party develop the position to be for drug control when generally they are for less government. | Generally speaking, Republicans are normally for less government regulation. How did the drug issue develop such that liberals are for less regulation and conservatives for more. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28q3e6/eli5_how_did_the_united_states_republican_party/ | {
"a_id": [
"cidbl9b",
"cidbrkq",
"cidcws7",
"ciddaux",
"cideqpy",
"cidf5bc",
"cidoofk"
],
"score": [
4,
23,
41,
5,
2,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Because there are many hypocritical things in the Republican platform. They don't want government to control anything except the things they want government to control. Drugs and abortion are examples.\n\nNeither of the two major parties want less government (no matter what they say), they just want different government.",
"The US might be a 2 party system, but the Republicans and Democrats are basically coalitions of smaller parties, which leads to situations where parties have conflicting ideological points.\n\nIn the Republican party, it's the wallstreet execs, libertarians, corporate lobbies, and states rights crowds that are for smaller government and more \"personal freedom\" (for whatever that means). \n\nMeanwhile, the drug regulation push comes from the religious conservatives, the elderly, the tough on crime hawks, and the \"family values\" groups. ",
"When I was a kid a High school government teacher explained it to me in a totally simplified yet overall pretty accurate way that i still remember...Democrats want lots of government intervention economically and minimal government intervention in ones personal life. Republicans want minimal government intervention economically and lots of government intervention in ones personal life.",
"The Moral Majority (a coalition of evangelist televangelists and other Christian ministries) joined the Republican party in 1978 after being disappointed by the supposed 'Christian' candidate, Jimmy Carter. They made a deal with the Republican party to help label them the party of Christians and the Democrats as the party of godless atheists in exchange for having their agenda items addressed. So Reagan got elected, and thus began the War on Drugs. ",
"Many prominent conservative writers are against the War on Drugs, like many prominent liberal writers. Republican politicians are for prohibition for the exact same reason Democrats are, because they want to get elected. ",
"The Republican Party these days is an odd mix of free-enterprise business men and religious social conservatives. \n\nIt's not a particularly natural alliance in terms of economic best interests, but rather one formed from the enemy-of-my-enemey-is-my-friend scenario after FDR, when the civil rights movement caused the racist / religious southern wing of the democratic party to leave Kennedy/LBJ en mass an join the big-buisness republicans (who desperately needed a large group of supporters to cast the votes).\n\nThe only reasons that marijuana is a \"drug\" and alcohol/tobacco aren't lumped into that category is because marijuana is a historically 'black' drug and the alcohol/tobacco big business don't really want competitors.\n\nI of course don't mean to suggest that there aren't ideological differences in the democrats, but the republican divide is a little bit sharper and a little bit more obvious these days with the Tea Party vs. the old money. \n\nTL;DR: history and ideological divide in the party.",
"They want the government to control the poor people but not the rich people.\n\nHow is this complicated?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
f3eoab | what determines what the lines on the palms of your hands look like and why aren’t they mirror images? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f3eoab/eli5_what_determines_what_the_lines_on_the_palms/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhiajtb"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"These are known as palmar flexion creases, and their purpose is to allow the skin on our hands to bend & fold without creating obstructions which could make grabbing or holding things difficult. \n\n\nThe lines are developed before birth, and their form & structure is determined by ancestry and race. “Why” they are not mirror images I’m unsure, but I’d assume it’s the same as any other developmental trait, such that genes & developmental factors play a role.\n\n\nEdit: just to expand on the parallelism between hands, there is likely to be some variation when compared. This is just general developmental variation, affected by many, many different things while you’re growing inside mom, such as nutrients, hormone levels, activity, maybe even temperature, etc. \n\n\nDevelopmental biology is not well understood, and we’re still trying to figure out why things happen the way they do."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2sbpuu | why do almost all college football lineman use those metal exoskeleton like knee braces, but no pros seem to use them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sbpuu/eli5why_do_almost_all_college_football_lineman/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnz85e"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"In college it protects their knees at the cost of slowing them down, in order to protect them before they get to the NFL. In the pros, speed matters, so they forgoe them to increase mobility. And they are already making money at that point so a blown knee doesn't ruin their lives as much as it could in college."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2u6n8m | why do the points on some of my week old comments always fluctuate every time i refresh reddit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u6n8m/eli5_why_do_the_points_on_some_of_my_week_old/ | {
"a_id": [
"co5o6i1",
"co5xlqe"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely just people stalking you and randomly up or downvoting your comments.",
"The score that reddit displays on the page is fuzzy - meaning that what it shows you varies randomly from its actual value.\n\nThis is an anti-spam measure; a person writing a bot to vote on comments and posts can't know for sure whether it is working (e.g. whether that bot has already been shadowbanned or not)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1elumt | what does a heart attack feel like? can you feel it approaching or is it an instant thing? | I'm not having a heart attack, I'm just curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1elumt/eli5_what_does_a_heart_attack_feel_like_can_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca1jv5t",
"ca1q7qs"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It depends. Some people, especially women, may not feel signs of a heart attack. Most people will feel weak and flush. A lot of people will feel a pain on the left side of their body. Sometimes it occurs in the arm, sometimes in the jaw. Some people will feel a pain in the chest. If you have a chest pain and dizziness, you should have someone drive you to the hospital immediately. ",
"I can describe as best as my memory serves, as I had one six years ago. I'm 25, by the way, so old age or a lifetime of poor dieting wasn't the factor, just unfortunate genetics.\n\nIt hurt. Not immediately, though; at first I thought I was having a bearing headache. I actually went to sleep, thinking it was just from a long day. I woke up a coupe hours later in the thick of it. Have you ever stepped on a lego? Picture that but rolling in a pile of them on your bare ribs. I felt a sting in my arm, like someone was determined to pull my nerves out, especially midway through my forearm. But that was nothing compared to my chest. This invisible monster was doing everything it could to dig and work into my chest. And at the same time, dig out. Like an army of bullet ants without a direction or origin.\n\nI remember trying to explain to my family what was happening but the best I could muster was \"hurts\". Any more effort to talk somehow made my sternum feel as if an anchor pulled down on every consonant. I couldn't fathom what was happening, and having eaten at a new diner the night before I was assuming/hoping it was horrendous food poisoning. But I didn't vomit nor did I even feel my stomach. By that point I could have been missing my intestines and a leg and wouldn't have noticed.\n\nAnd then, it changed. I didn't hurt and I didn't feel. I was only capable of thinking in images; I was stuck in an observer mode. I remember seeing my brother and how alarmed he was, but I couldn't process it any better than \"my brother is upset about something.\" I had gone into a state of shock. I started to lose grasp of time and consciousness, and everything blurred from lying in bed, to being rolled out of my house, to riding in the ambulance, to the treatment at the hospital.\n\nAll cases aren't the same so I can't say everyone has this experience, but I can at least share mine."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1kgq8s | what exactly are puppy mills? | I've read/ heard a lot of things about how pet stores get their animals from places like puppy mills. What do they do? Mass breed dogs under poor conditions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kgq8s/eli5_what_exactly_are_puppy_mills/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbor63r",
"cboso3g",
"cbouikl",
"cbovp1y"
],
"score": [
9,
47,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"yes, that is it exactly.",
"A puppy mill is where puppies for sale (not adoption) in pet stores or online come from. They are large operations whose only goal is to produce and sell as many puppies as possible. Dogs are often kept in crates stacked on top of eachother or crammed into small pens together. The dogs get little to no social interaction, medical care, or attention. They are not moved or walked, and soil their living space. This is why puppy mill dogs and puppies are very difficult to house train (the instinct to not soil their living space guys 'broken').\n\nSince dogs receive little care they are often covered on feces and urine, are matted, and often have significant health concerns. Contagious disease and parasites are very common.\n\nThe goal is to make as much money on puppies as possible, and it is not coat effective to properly care for the dogs.\n\nThe dogs are bred at every heat cycle which is very hard on their body until they are no longer able to whelp, at which point they are often killed, dumped, or sold.\n\nDogs are bred without thought or care to genetic disease or temperment. They are part of the reason popular breeds develop and continue to have terrible genetic problems. \n\nPuppy mills are a business and an operation to make money. Proper care and treatment is not cost effective. Conditions are often deplorable and dogs social and medical needs are not met.\n\nAs an afterthought I think I should mention volume. There is easily upwards of hundreds of dogs crammed in small cages, usually in homes, garages, and barns. There have been puppy mill busts of over six hundred dogs from a single operation.",
"After bing harvested, most puppies are taken to the mill where they will be ground into puppy flour.",
"My sister has always insisted on purebred dogs. Her first golden retriever had a hole in its heart. The breeders told her to return the dog and they would give her a new one. If she returned it they would kill her original dog.\n\nA dog is not an appliance. When you get a \"defective\" dog, it becomes apart of your family.\n\nWe ended up getting her half sister free of charge. Different father, same mother. This dog was born without a kidney. While she will live a normal life, my scumbag stacy of a sister has put all of the financial burden on my parents. So she has a special diet that is expensive.\n\nTHAT is a puppy mill. And to this day my sister still claims it's better to buy from a breeder."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
57i6qg | how do tranquilizers work? how do you ensure that the dosage in the dart is enough to knock the target out in a timely manner, but not enough to kill it? | When they put you under for surgery for example, they have an anesthesiologist there to ensure that you don't wake up and that you don't die. I imagine that tranquilizers are different but it still seems to me that it could pose a serious danger for the target. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57i6qg/eli5_how_do_tranquilizers_work_how_do_you_ensure/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8s6om2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Tranquilizers are extremely dangerous for the animal that they're being used on. It's really nothing like the movies.\n\nToo low of a dose, and the animal will be unaffected, or might not be affected for a long while.\n\nToo high of a dosage, and the animal dies.\n\nDosage is determined based on species, size, and temperament. There may also be other factors that I'm unaware of. Generally, you need a vet to determine the proper dosage for an animal. If I'm not mistaken, zoos keep that info prepared in the event of an emergency, or will have a specialist on-site to handle it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
bsderp | what are investment banks and how do they function? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsderp/eli5_what_are_investment_banks_and_how_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"eom1npv",
"eonm95v"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Say you own a house and you want to sell it to someone else. You hire a real estate agent. Now say you own a giant corporation and you want to sell it to someone else. You hire an investment bank.\n\nInvestment banks are the intermediaries between investors who have money, and corporations who need more money. They make money by underwriting (raising money) and mergers and acquisitions advisory services (helping companies buy and sell themselves).\n\nThey generally function in 5 ways:\n\n1. Underwriting. Uber just went public. That means Uber just created a bunch of stocks (shares in the company) and sold them to people. They Uber used that money to invest in the company. 27 investment banks, let by Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, underwrote that initial public offering (they botched it).\n\n2. Mergers and Acquisitions. Two companies want to merge into 1. Or 1 company wants to acquire another one, or part of one. Banks help support this process. \n\n3. Sales and trading. I call you, a rich person, up and say that I have a great way for you to make money by buying a stock. You invest with me. This is sales. Or I buy and sell stocks on your behalf without your permission every time. This is trading. If I use the banks own money instead of your money, it's called proprietary trading.\n\n4. Equity research. I do a bunch of research on companies and help decide which ones are good and which ones are bad. For example, I look up whether a new cancer drug works. If it works, I say the company is good and tell people to buy the stock. If it's bad, I tell people to sell the stock.\n\n5. Asset management. You are really rich. I invest your money for you so you aren't distracted from sleeping with supermodels on your yacht. I charge you a percentage for this service.\n\nThese are the main ways that investment banks make money. Nowadays, banks are starting to move towards more boring retail banking ways of making money too (e.g., making small business loans, charging fees on checking accounts, etc.)",
"People who don't trade w their own money but the publics. Hedge funds r the real ogs cuz they trades their own money"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3cv4d8 | why do airlines count 12/13 year olds as adults when buying an airline ticket? also, how can they legally do it? | I was buying airline tickets, when I noticed that you are listed under adult tickets at the age of 12/13 depending on the airline. Once you are that age, they charge you as an adult. So, ELI5 please. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cv4d8/eli5_why_do_airlines_count_1213_year_olds_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"csz9aev",
"csz9cqy",
"csz9it2",
"cszaqez",
"cszhbuq",
"cszl2za"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
10,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The airlines don't think the children are adults, they just think the kids take up as much room as adults. So you pay for taking up your whole seat and not sitting on mom.",
"Why do restaurants only let you pay kid's menu prices under 12? They're not giving any legally binding permissions or definitions, they're just stating that they aren't willing to provide the discount for under a certain cutoff. Adult vs kids pricing could just as easily be called \"under 12 year old persons\" and \"persons aged 12 and over\" but kids vs. adults is simpler. ",
"Because there is no law that says airlines have to give a discount to people above or below a certain age. In fact, there is no law concerning any kind of pricing. Airlines give discounts for children as a way to encourage more families to buy from them, and they choose 12 as the cutoff, because that is the point where children start being comparatively similar in size to adults. If they wanted, they could put the cutoff anywhere. If they wanted, they could have no cutoff, and have equal prices for everyone. The law doesn't care. ",
"Contracts are very flexible so long as all parties are at least reasonably aware (or should be aware) of the \"material terms\" (meaning \"stuff that matters\").\n\nFirst, let's change your issue around a bit so that it conforms with your assumption on how it **should** work, then we'll break it and explain why it is how it is:\n\nLet's imagine that you were buying your tickets face to face with the airline. You arrive with your 14 year old child. You walk up to the lady behind the counter, and you ask her \"How much is a ticket to Redditland?\" She replies, \"Adults are $100, and children are $50.\" You say, \"That sounds good.\" Hand her your card. She swipes it. You get on the plane. \n\nLater, you see that you were charged $200 for 2 adult tickets. You bring a lawsuit against the airline to recover $50. You'll win. Why? Because under these circumstances, it was reasonable for you to believe that \"Adult\" was being used in its normal everyday meaning, which is 18+... and you were clearly buying a ticket for yourself and your child. When the airline says, \"Yeah, but we define adult as 12+\" the court will say, \"How the heck was /u/mazidul101 supposed to know that?\"\n\n**However**\n\nLet's say that when you walked up to get your ticket, there was a big sign that said, \"Adults are anyone over 1 year of age.\" It was conspicuous. It was right there when you paid. You acknowledge to have read it and thought it was silly.\n\nNow you owe $200... because at this point, you were aware that the term \"adult\" was a placeholder for \"anyone over 1 year of age.\"\n\nSo long as a company clearly defines its terms, it has a lot of flexibility. Here, they likely use \"adult\" as more of a factor re: size and weight vs. age... so \"children\" are calculated as being a weight that is generally up to 12/13... but 12/13+ is generally an adult weight/size. \n\nIt doesn't matter though... because they defined it. They could say that tickets are $100 for adults and $50 for unicorns. If they included somewhere on their page that \"Unicorn refers to all children under the age of 15 with blonde hair,\" then, as far as the contract is concerned, that specified group of people can get tickets for $50.",
"Almost all kids that age take up a seat so when selling a seat (Who cares the age of the person) you charge for that seat. I know my niece travels for free as an infant but when is that going to stop.",
"If you are in the UK the government do a lower tax on children aged up to 12. This is called the air passenger duty refund. So while the airline will charge anyone over 2 years a full cost for the seat. The taxes that are paid are lower for children, so when the airline is showing a cheaper rate for children, its taking the tax deduction into account."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
9iinbc | what does it mean to pay for co2 emission offsets? | I just spent 30 bucks on [UN CERs](_URL_0_) which supposedly is enough to offset about ~3x my estimated yearly CO2 emissions.
So what does this mean? Am I a net positive for the year now? Can I guzzle electricity guilt free? 30 bucks can't possibly be all it takes. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9iinbc/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_pay_for_co2_emission/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6jx1av",
"e6jx9l4"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Avoiding CO2 emissions is more costly than not otherwise it wouldn't be a problem. So whenever you want people to do something which is eco-friendly you are going to need to provide an incentive not to do the easy, more harmful thing.\n\nAn idea to make this happen was to force companies to purchase vouchers which they would \"spend\" in order to produce carbon emissions. This made carbon emissions costly and desirable to avoid, placing the more intrinsically costly yet eco-friendly low-emission options in a more desirable light.\n\nBuying and selling these vouchers then became a way of trading eco-friendly efforts. An industry which couldn't avoid emitting carbon then might buy vouchers from a company which was capable of lowering carbon emissions, shifting economic pressure into conservation efforts elsewhere.\n\nIn the case of UN CERs you are paying to fund carbon removal projects, where the carbon they remove offsets the amount you produce.",
"If we built 500 wind turbines, it could replace a coal-burning power plant. This would reduce the worldwide CO2 emissions - say, 100,000 tons - and would cost a certain amount of money - say, $1,000,000. These numbers are completely made up and chosen for convenience, not accuracy. \n\nImagine this cost were split between 100,000 people. Each one pays $10, which reduces CO2 output by 1 ton. If they just spent $10 on their own, there's no way they'd reduce CO2 output by that much; but this kind of collective action (managed by a program like UN CERs) allows your money to go surprisingly far.\n\nPower plants are not the only way this money may be used - public transportation, economic development, and other programs reduce CO2.\n\nDoes this mean you can guzzle electricity guilt-free? Well, it's still probably better not to - the more \"negative\" you can get in your CO2 emissions the better."
]
} | []
| [
"https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
86sh9t | how can people with metal braces, screws, plates in their body go into mri machines? | I mean, wouldn't the magnets rip that right out of them? Grey's Anatomy had a kid wearing braces in an MRI last night, and I'm just wondering if it was a goof on their part.
Cheers in advance,
WP | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/86sh9t/eli5how_can_people_with_metal_braces_screws/ | {
"a_id": [
"dw7hcaz",
"dw7hf4u",
"dw7hvhh",
"dw7jn9k",
"dw7jp9f",
"dw7jpvx",
"dw7ms3m",
"dw7tse8",
"dw7vaw4"
],
"score": [
184,
4,
13,
4,
253,
16,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Typically if it's a magnetic metal you won't be let into an MRI. \n\nThat said almost all the metal put into your body is gonna be non magnetic. \n\nAccording to my dad, who has a titanium plate in his back, they said it'd be fine because it wasn't magnetic but the metal still got extremely hot. ",
"The metal used in these things aren't magnetic so it doesn't get affected. I believe screws and plates are usually some titanium alloy. I'm not sure what braces are made out of but a quick google should help with that.",
"Alright so after some googling, it seems that any metal placed in your body is going to either be titanium or surgical steel. As far as I can tell, surgical steel is not responsive to magnetic fields the same way normal steel is. So the real danger is the induction heating of the metallic implant and not the danger of it getting ripped out. I'm sure there are some circumstances where implants can be dangerous, especially things like pacemakers that do contain ferrous metals.\n\nSecondly, and I'm not sure if this is true, but if we're talking about a small pin or something then it's likely pretty small and fixed to bones ect. The reason that large pieces of steel like oxygen tanks get sucked into mri machines is because they are very large and thus can \"grab\" more of the magnetic field. The smaller the item the less force the magnet can exert on it. I am just assuming this because of my loose understanding of how magnetism works. So take this with a grain of salt. ",
"I have a titanium knee and femur and they still do MRIs on that leg. It's not magnetic, though the metal scrambles up the scan so the image is really fuzzy. ",
"Source: was an MRI-operator and researcher for years.\n\nA lot of metals, such as iron, are \"ferromagnetic\". This means they can 1) form permanent magnets, and 2) are drawn towards magnets. \nMost body implants are however made out of metals that are *paramagnetic* such as titatium. This means that while they are not drawn into a magnet (or only very weakly), they still have some kind of interaction with a magnetic field.\n\nFor this reason, many body implants are safe for an MRI scanner. Pins, plates, screws, etc, which are strongly affixed to for example your bones, have no risk of moving. They *will* distort the magnetic field because of their paramagnetism, and it can be problematic to make scans of an area with metal (for example, making an MRI of the head when someone has braces will lead to huge distortions on the image). \n\nThe reason that some implants made out of titanium or surgical steel are NOT safe to go in, is 1) objects may still want to align to the magnetic field, so if it's not affixed to something, it can rotate and damage the tissue around it, or 2) especially in larger implants, the magnetic field can induce a \"standing wave\" in the metal and heat it up very rapidly. Sort of like induction cooking. It can be really dangerous as it can fry you from the inside and lead to severe burns, but this typically only can happen at strong magnetic fields and very large implants ( > 30cm). \n\n---\n\nEdit: [An example of the sort of distortions that metal (in this case, braces) can give to an MRI scan](_URL_1_). \n\nFor those of you who are wondering what happens with \"ferromagnetic\" objects in/near an MRI scanner: _URL_0_ \n\n",
"Cyborg checking in. \n\nIt depends on the type and size of the implant. Modern implants are made from non-ferrous alloys of stainless steel and titanium. Smaller implants generally don't cause a lot of issues. People with much more metal, like me, wouldn't be MRI'd partially because of the risk, but also because the implants create voids in the imaging, making MRI useless. They do CT scans instead.",
"I had two MRIs when I had braces. I was worried about this too. Nothing happened. The most I could say is that I felt slight vibrations when I had my neck MRI, and some metallic taste. But they definitely did not rip off ",
"Would a steel sliver in a person's finger cause any problems in an MRI machine? Slivers happen to people that work with metal.",
"The metal on braces isn’t magnetic. There are 3 elements which are magnetic (iron, nickel, cobalt) enough to be affected by even the powerful magnetic field than an MRI creates. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBx8BwLhqg",
"https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e1354a3c4f6058f6e7125915fed8b68b"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
d0mvhv | why is our data worth so much money? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d0mvhv/eli5_why_is_our_data_worth_so_much_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezaqbbx",
"ezaqrtz"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It is NOT just marketing that data is used for. Data is a weapon used in a global ideological war for the hearts and minds of the planet. See the Netflix documentary The Great Hack, and also \n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Well yes and no, companies rarely sell our data, it's a commodity. Instead of selling that commodity straight up they usually prepare it and let advertisers and other companies have access to the prepared data. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc track us and gain valuable knowledge from what we do online within the extents they are allowed to collect by law. They then process that data and assume meaning behind it. This is called data analysis. They can then sell that analyzed data or use it to target potential customers within their own platforms. After enough data has been analyzed they will know enough about patterns that they need less and less from us but as long as we keep spending our money companies will need this prepared data or services to advertise to specific users. Think of big data as a restaurant and our data is the ingredients to the meals. No company cares about Brad and his dogs, but they do care about dog owners between the ages of 18 to 35. Big data has that info and they will supply those users with ads. No one is selling Brad's info or his dogs. The bigger issue is how data can be analyzed, if you can identify lower intelligence by behavior online or even just people who are easily convinced, or people who are scared of x y and z, you can manipulate those people with x y and z."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://theconversation.com/world-war-three-is-being-waged-in-cyberspace-84974"
],
[]
]
|
||
2mmo8j | will it ever be possible for it to snow in countries near the equator? | I live in a country near the equator and I'm just wondering if the impossible will happen one day! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mmo8j/eli5_will_it_ever_be_possible_for_it_to_snow_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm5nfgp",
"cm5tdwf"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Kilimanjaro is only 3 degrees off the equator. So yeah, it's possible to get snow near the equator.\n\n_URL_0_",
"On mountains, yes. At sea level, probably not, at least not in your lifetime. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro"
],
[]
]
|
|
43rm50 | what is fptp voting and why is bad? | I heard Canada is attempting to getting rid of it, and being a citizen of the country I'd like to know what that means seeing as I'm voting in the next federal election! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43rm50/eli5_what_is_fptp_voting_and_why_is_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"czkdsyp"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"\"First past the post voting\" is a system where the candidate who receives a plurality in a district takes the single seat for that district. It's not bad, but like any voting system, it has its pros and cons. An upside is that you have a lot of influence on the individual that gets elected, and you have a direct connection to him--he's *your* representative, rather than just being one of many national legislators. (Contrast the common implementation of proportional voting, where there are no districts and you only vote for parties, not individuals.) The commonly named downside is that minorities that are spread out over each district may not be reflected in the legislature--10% of the national population might support party X, but if they are not a plurality anywhere they'll get 0% of the seats.\n\nI'm afraid I'm not familiar with Canada's particular reform plans."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8mf360 | how do ceo's trade stock from their company without it being insider trading? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mf360/eli5_how_do_ceos_trade_stock_from_their_company/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzn384c",
"dzn3hub",
"dzn3qj5",
"dzn4g91",
"dzn52h0"
],
"score": [
2,
20,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Paperwork. They have to file with the SEC when buying or selling. That information is then made public. A lot of people use insider acquisitions/disposals to speculate on the future performance of a company. ",
"The important thing about insider trading is that insiders can't trade on insider-only knowledge to get an unfair advantage over the public, not that they can't trade at all.\n\nTo get around this, insiders are held to slightly stricter standards around when they can do trades. You might have to announce plans for a trade well in advance or be limited to a small window after financial reports are publicly released. This removes most of the opportunities for insiders to benefit from acting on information that the regular investors are unaware of.",
"Most high level managers and executives have set dates on which they can exercise stock options as well as buy/sell stock in the companies that they manage. Furthermore, a significant portion of compensation is deferred, this discourages the managers from making decisions that will result in a short term boost in valuation at a long term cost.\n\nFurthermore, they have to file their trades with the SEC so that they can be put under a microscope. Pulling off insider trading on a company that one works for is actually quite difficult because its presumed that such trades are conducted with a degree of inside knowledge. As a result, most insider trading is conducted indirectly, through acquisition of insider information from someone else.",
"Officers, board members, employees, and other insiders often have limited \"trading windows\" during which they can buy and sell shares \\(and exercise options\\). Those trading windows close a few weeks or so before quarterly results are publicly announced \\(and before they're tallied internally\\), and reopen a few days or weeks or so after.\n\nTo further avoid potential insider trading, insiders can set up trading plans well ahead of time. For example, by March 31, an insider might have set up a plan for all planned trades between July 1 and September 30.",
"There are rules about CEOs, execs, board members, even employees must follow. Companies will have “quiet periods” during which trades cannot be executed by those people inside the company. A regular timing for these will be for a few weeks surrounding earnings releases (ie. point when quarter has closed and people inside begin to know whether it was a good qtr or not, until right after earning release to the public). These will also be put in place during times of material news, say right before an acquisition is announced or before a regulatory announcement or court ruling that would have a major impact on company.\n\nAdditionally, senior execs often set up regular automated trading programs, so they sell, say 10,000 shares every quarter always a week after the earnings release. This way, the trade happens no matter what the news is or stock performance is and the CEO can’t be accused of doing anything illegal."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
cy0b7p | how can scientists tell how smart extinct animals were? | I was watching a video that mentioned that Stegosaurus was one of the least intelligent dinosaurs and I wanted to know how that was determined? I thought maybe brain size but then how would animals like rats and certain birds be as intelligent as they are? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cy0b7p/eli5_how_can_scientists_tell_how_smart_extinct/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyotco0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The brain size to intelligence thing is what's being cited in the Stegosaurus case. And you're correct in thinking that it's incorrect. There really isn't a lot to go in in fossilized evidence for dinosaur intelligence but by reading into family care and pack/herd relationships as seen in fossils we can assume to a fair degree that they weren't stupid."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4k2j2h | what implications does the neutrino research at fermi's lbnf have? | I'm curious to know how the research at Fermi's Long-Basline Neutrino Facility can be generalized to other areas of science. I know fundamental computing can be essentially be traced to particle physics (qubits, bits, photons, ect.), but what will the neutrino research allow us to understand further? Can neutrinos be used in developing memory storage? What is the significance of neutrino oscillation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4k2j2h/eli5_what_implications_does_the_neutrino_research/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3blhp2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a case of pure research. There won't be any immediately obvious impacts on technology. Neutrinos don't interact much with things like atoms or light.\n\nNeutrinos have mass, but we aren't sure why. This experiment may help us narrow down the possibilities. Understanding why neutrinos have mass may help explain such things as dark matter or why the universe has more matter than antimatter, in addition to helping fill in the blanks in the Standard Model of particle physics.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3299cr | how do people die? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3299cr/eli5how_do_people_die/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq922h6",
"cq926is"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Ultimately, the cause of death is always infarction (tissue death) of brain tissue. This can be caused by direct trauma (for example, getting shot in the head) or indirect ischemia (lack of oxygen). \n\nFor example, when you die of a heart attack, first, your heart muscle dies. This causes your heart to stop pumping, which cuts off the oxygen supply to the brain. Eventually, the brain dies due to lack of oxygen, which is ultimately the cause of death. \n\nIf you die of a punctured lung, it is because you cannot replenish the oxygen in your blood, which cuts off the brain's supply of oxygen, and it dies. \n\nOrgan failure is where it gets interesting. For example, when you die of kidney failure. When your kidneys shut down, this causes problems with your heart. When your heart shuts down, your brain shuts down soon after. ",
" > How exactly do people die? ... I started wondering again what is the exact mechanism of death\n\nThey stop being able to live.\n\n > and more importantly, why it happens so quickly?\n\nIt's not always quick. Some people just sort of fade out and eventually stop responding at all.\n\n > I know some have drawn out deaths, and I'm not asking about those. I'm mostly concerned with trauma deaths, like gun deaths and jumpers from buildings and bridges, car accidents.\n\nThose can be longer, drawn out deaths too. If you get shot and it destroys your liver it's possible you won't die instantly but you've still got a deathly condition. You need your liver to work, and after a time of no liver your body will eventually be incapable of working anymore due to the failure of the liver to detoxify you.\n\n > What exactly is it that kills these people? Is it a punctured lung and they suffocate? Hit an important organ? If it's blood loss, I always thought that was slower, yet I've seen videos of shot people and they just fall down dead and the blood doesn't ooze until after.\n\nIt could be a lot of things, or a collection of things. It's important to note, though, that just because someone falls over and stops responding doesn't mean they're dead. (Though if it's from a gunshot that pierces an artery death won't be far off.) Death is hard to precisely define medically, but it certainly isn't *just* the inability to respond to stimuli otherwise we'd call coma patients and the like dead. \n\n > I'm not asking what killed them because clearly it was a bullet, what I'm asking is what caused that death? Their autopsy might list homicide due to bullet wound, but that doesn't explain what happened inside them to shut their body down and cause them to cease to live.\n\nThe bullet might cause the issue, but it isn't the cause of death per se as you say. It was the damage the bullet wrought. Plenty of gunshots aren't fatal at all. Gunshots that pierce an artery will generally cause you to bleed out and it's the lack of running blood feeding oxygen to your tissues that kills you. Gunshots that destroy the brain stem will cause your body to stop regulating itself and everything from the heart rate to the breathing is no longer kept controlled. A gunshot that grazes your arm could still lead to an infection and sepsis. \n\nThings kill you because your body can't work anymore. If you bleed out your body can't oxygenate the tissues anymore and that makes the tissue unable to do what it is meant to do. If you can't replace your blood before you start suffering severe tissue damage your body can no longer continue being what it was. If I surgically remove your kidneys and liver you wouldn't necessarily die instantly, but you'd be doomed to die because you can no longer remove problematic toxins from your body. They will eventually interfere with your body to the point it can't operate anymore. If I take your head off you now have no brain regulating the rest of the body and so it'll fail to act as it needs to to preserve life. A lot of things can happen, but ultimately it's just your body not being able to work as it used to."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
9je6hz | why do some sunsets fill the sky and others don’t? | I’ve often seen sunsets where the whole sky can be a deep orange, but last night the horizon was still sun-yellow, but 30 degrees up, it was almost pitch black. What makes the difference?
_URL_0_
I’m guessing something to do with less water in the atmosphere last night to refract the sunlight across the sky, but a clever explanation/confirmation would be great. Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9je6hz/eli5_why_do_some_sunsets_fill_the_sky_and_others/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6r0ftb"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"That's it in a nutshell.\n\nThe more moisture particles in the sky allow for more light to be scattered in different directions, a phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.imageupload.co.uk/image/4x0m"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
4amogl | how can scientists know which number vertebrae dinosaur spinal fossils are, if they only find one or two vertebrae and it's from a species we've never seen before? | I read this article and got distracted by the image halfway down: _URL_0_
How do they know which vertebrae it is if they don't know how many vertebrae the dinosaur has in the first place? How much of it is just guessing what the dinosaur looks like, or can they actually tell it's shape and posture from these random fossils (I mean if they find like, 10 bones from the whole dinosaur and never the whole thing).
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4amogl/eli5_how_can_scientists_know_which_number/ | {
"a_id": [
"d11q3g2",
"d11rfb3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The skeleton is a basic fundamental part of vertebrates. It is often conserved with vestigial limbs long after their utility is gone. Remnants of limbs are found in whale species. Giraffes have the same number of neck vertebrae as other mammals. A lot of changes can occur in the shape and size of a bone. But it can still be identified as the same bone in the basic vertebral skeleton. This is conserved over many millions of years.",
"You have some skeletons that are very incomplete (say, you only find a few bones) and some that are very complete (you find almost all the bones). So if you have an incomplete Tyrannosaur skeleton you can compare the bones you have to the more complete skeleton, and make your inferences that way.\n\nThe same process works if you found just one human vertebra in an ancient tomb, you could compare that to other human skeletons and determine what number vertebrae it is. You can also look at the size and density and work out the age, height and weight of the person, and all the muscle attachment points and know something about what actions they did in their life (like whether they slouched a lot when they were alive). It's never totally precise but it's a very good scientific estimate."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35806780?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5r5ezb | how pilots and trucks driver communicate over the radio ? | For example, a plane is flying over a restricted area, so a military aircraft, Say Turn around... bla bla,
how one plane find the radio signal of another plane ?
and same with trucks drivers, for example one truck pass another truck in the route, sometimes they pick up the radio and say something to each other, how they do that ?
Sorry for my bad london, i have an extra chromosome | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r5ezb/eli5how_pilots_and_trucks_driver_communicate_over/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4kt5k",
"dd4nbpb"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Pilots are advised by air traffic control which channels to use.\n\nTruck drivers use the same CB channels, and there are common UHF and VHF channels in certain areas to use as well.",
"YouTube has interesting conversations between tower and planes. Search for \"ATC recordings.\" A guy named 'Kennedy Steve' is famous because of his delivery/humor. You could just search for that as well. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
5cl5td | if british newspaper the daily mail is so 'hated', why hasn't it gone out of business already? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cl5td/eli5_if_british_newspaper_the_daily_mail_is_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9xbcp0",
"d9xberg",
"d9xeoyn"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They do well with their website (nice layout and comments section) and have an international following.\n\nAlso even if someone hates something they will still click on the site because they love to moan.",
"Lots of people hate it, lots of people don't. They have a very large elderly readership who often don't seem to realise how right wing it is. Loads of right wing people do buy it, just not the one's you've spoken to. \n\nBasically, enough people still read it that it's still profitable; the hatred towards it is skewed by reporting and social media. It's like Donald trump, everyone seems to hate him, but he still managed to win the election.",
"Plenty of companies make money without being 100% popular. It doesn't matter if everyone likes a company. It just matters if a company has enough customers to stay in business.\n\nThe Daily Mail sells just under 2 million print copies each day, plus roughly 14 million online readers. That's about a quarter of the UK's population.\n\nIf 25% of people read your paper, that's a successful paper but also one most people don't care for."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
59wz4i | if the body is supposed to be using fat as fuel, why do we still get brain fog, migraines, and low blood sugar when we haven't eaten in awhile? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59wz4i/eli5_if_the_body_is_supposed_to_be_using_fat_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9bzek5",
"d9bzzi9",
"d9c1n7w"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Glucogenesis from lipid isnt as effective as using glucose directly from blood stream. So, when the body relies on fat to get fuel, it will take time until the energy offer match the need.",
"To ELI5 /u/saintsqc 's answer... the body isn't really supposed to be using fat as a fuel. Fat is used to store *excess* energy for later use if needed. The body would rather use glucose, sugar, but if there isn't enough in the blood stream it will start to convert fat.",
"Fat can be used as fuel but it takes a while for your body to adapt.\nThere is a diet called the \"Keto Diet\" which basically works on the principle that you restrict your daily carb intake to less than 50 grams (people usually do less than 20g). This causes your body to go into a state called \"ketosis\" which is when your body starts to produce ketones. Your body then starts to use ketones as fuel and the small amount of glucose your brain needs is made by gluconeogenisis which is a fancy word that basically means \"your body makes glucose out of other things\". \n\nA big side effect of being in ketosis is lethargy, headaches, fatigue. This is because your body starts to dump sodium, potassium and magnesium (electrolytes) and you pee them out. This has to do with the way the pancreas and insulin works. So the remedy to this is to just up your electrolyte intake. Drink some broth for the sodium, have some sodium-free salt for the potassium and take a supplement of magnesium. This usually brings people back to normal.\n\nThe side effects you described are happening because of this effect. The only difference is that you're supposed to up your intake of fats to give you the missing energy you'd get from carbs. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3t5r8p | why does meat not contain any carbs? don't animals store sugars in muscles like humans do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t5r8p/eli5_why_does_meat_not_contain_any_carbs_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx3etqe"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Meat doesn't contain any carbs, or at least not enough to be significant. carbohydrates are a way of storing sugars. your muscles (IE: meat) uses glucose, unstored energy. to store energy, muscles use fat. we also get calories from meat via protein. (note, i use calories instead of sugars here. i'm not explicitly sure if we get energy from it, or if we 'save' energy by reusing the protein molecules and that's how we 'gain' calories.)\n\nso meat: fat and protein is what gives us calories. (i'm not explicitly sure if we turn this into glucose. I assume we do, but i'm not positive)\n\nplants tend to store energy in the form of carbohydrates. these typically remain intact (or intact enough) when we make things like breads or pasta. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1t4t2t | why does my chest/ribs feel like i'm getting stabbed when i breath to the point where i can hardly take a breath? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t4t2t/eli5_why_does_my_chestribs_feel_like_im_getting/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4cd9l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If this is an actual question (as in something that's happening now) you need to go to a hospital."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2vsc67 | when watching a movie or playing a videogame on my tv, the people sound like they speak in whispers but the anything that isn't talking is loud enough to break my eardrums? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vsc67/eli5_when_watching_a_movie_or_playing_a_videogame/ | {
"a_id": [
"cokhew0",
"cokhr6j",
"cokl4g2",
"cokmjta",
"cokpcqe",
"cokxv5u"
],
"score": [
19,
17,
2,
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Sounds like you have a mismatch between your audio configuration and your actual speakers, or your center channel is turned way down. If, for example, you're set up for 5.1 but only have stereo speakers, the dialog is being sent to a center channel speaker that doesn't exist.",
"It's a concept called \"dynamic range\", and it can vary from show to show, movie to movie.\n\nnwhen it comes to audio, we're discussing how far apart the loudest and quietest sounds are on a scale. Lets use a gun shot (100db) and talking (60db) as an example.\n\nIn normal TV, audio is \"compressed\", which means the loudest and quietest sounds are squished together, decreasing the dynamic range. Same thing for most \"digital\" video, like Netflix or YouTube. The 100db shot and 60db conversation is squished into a band of 80-90db. Conversation is louder, gun shot is quieter, the difference between them is far smaller than real life. Because less range is needed, the file that contains the audio is much smaller.\n\nIn movies and video games, there is no need to compress the audio, the full range may be used. The gun shot is recorded at 100db, the conversation is recorded at 60db. \n\nThe problem is, that's a HUGE difference. Have you ever been chatting and had a gun go off? It's WAY louder. To your ears, every 10db is twice as loud. 100db sounds 16 times as loud as 60db.\n\nLets say 90db is comfortably loud. If your gun shot is 90db, and talking is 40db quieter, the 60db conversation turned into 50db whispers. You bring that whisper up to a normal 60db, and suddenly, you're blown away by 100db gunshots that are twice as loud as you want.",
"Check your cable box (not tv) settings for audio, and look for \"Dynamic Range\", and cycle through the options, off is no changes to the original audio. Also, change the audio output to surround (which will be down-mixed to stereo on your tv and surround through optical to surround speakers) or stereo. \n \nMovies and most tv shows are made in surround sound, being meant for surround sound speakers.",
"Probably my favourite thing about the xbmc player is the ability to set max and min volume. I really wish my TV had it inbuilt ",
"See if you TV has an Audio Equalizer. Most importantly boost the high mid-range and low highs. Also lower the bass, and keep the upper highs flat or a bit up. Visually, left to right, start all the way down, slope upward to level, create a big \"bump\" centered right of the middle of the eq bars, and flat after the bump to the end. This'll make conversions \"pop\" a bit more from the rest of the mix.",
"the entirety of TV and its peripheral market is based on \"improving\" the source material by shitting all over it.\n\nframe interpolation, color adjustment, sharpening, color dithering, upscaling, overscanning everything just assumes the picture you get is so unwatchable that passing it through a gazillion filters will somehow make it more comprehensible.\n\nthe same goes for sound systems, frequency response, sound scapes, dynamic ranges.\n\noptions are good i understand that, but alot of this crap is legacy technology from the days of analog signal when your source very well might have been crap and you needed all this to salvage something pleasant out of all the static. the worst part is some of this shit cant be turned off, and alot of it is on by default its madness. these post proccessing effects have gotten so out of hand that processing times on TVs can become a real factor, ever wonder what \"gaming mode\" does? it turns off as many post proccess effects as possible in order to lower the burden on your TVs processor to lower the display delay as much as possible."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
a8ncg0 | if we know that life can exist in extreme situations in various forms and we know that universe can support insane probabilities to exist - why exactly we still look for "habitable zone" in star systems to search life ? | I mean Life is a difficult to define thing. It can exist in hottest or coldest weather conditions. Many species we know have insanely heterogeneous anatomy. We also know that galaxy can have billion stars and observable universe has billion galaxies... So how does it make sense that NASA and co. still look for habitable zone in star systems out there, and we keep getting annoying news articles of "Look, what NASA just found, it's another earth!" .... I mean what exactly proves the notion that life can't exist beyond our concept of "habitable" zone ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8ncg0/eli5_if_we_know_that_life_can_exist_in_extreme/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecc30zn",
"ecc3diu",
"ecc3sdk",
"ecckj2v"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not because no other life could exist. But because this is one combination we *know* supports life, so the probabilities based on our limited knowledge are higher.",
"Life *can* exist in extreme environments. Humans cannot. We’re assuming that other intelligent life would require the same things we need to survive—liquid water, and a planet close enough to a star to stay warm and keep the water liquid, but far enough away that ice can form and the water doesn’t just boil away. Life as we know it requires water. The habitable zone of a star allows water to exist. ",
"Because nearly all life forms on Earth share a handful of common traits, regardless of their habitat or environmental needs. The most obvious one is a need for liquid water; very few multicellular organisms are capable of living for an extended period without it, and most of the species that *can* survive do so by entering a dormant state. That's why it's such a big deal to find evidence of liquid water on far-off planets: it means that whatever other environmental hazards might be present, there's at least a small chance that the planet could support life. While there *is* a chance that some substances necessary to support life could be replaced by others (for example, silicon-based life forms rather than carbon), there aren't really any known liquid solvents that could replicate all of the biological processes that necessitate water. ",
"Nothing \"proves the notion that life can't exist beyond our concept of 'habitable' zone\". In fact, It's generally agreed that life could potentially exist on several moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which are well outside our sun's habitable zone. The reason it's important is because you look for things where you're most likely to find them. We know that life flourished on Earth, so the conditions of Earth are capable of supporting life. Since Earth is the only place we know that has life, it makes sense to look for other similar planets. Second, we're more likely to recognize life that's similar to our own, since we know what we're looking for. Sure, we could potentially find non-carbon based life on some exotic planet, but how would we know what it is? On the other hand, if we find some organism with amino acids and nucleic acids, we'd know, because we're made of the same stuff."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
47o2zn | why will a network not rent/sell the rights of cancelled shows to independent movies makers who can continue the story for fans of the show? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47o2zn/eli5_why_will_a_network_not_rentsell_the_rights/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0edl7k",
"d0edwc7",
"d0efvpi",
"d0egnmp",
"d0ehk4i",
"d0ehxlm",
"d0ei24f",
"d0ei4j8",
"d0eiclh",
"d0ein45",
"d0eiouf",
"d0eismw",
"d0eiu6v",
"d0eiupx",
"d0eivg3",
"d0ejdjf",
"d0ek051",
"d0ek0sa",
"d0ekenb",
"d0ekhq8"
],
"score": [
2,
268,
793,
37,
6,
15,
7,
40,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are asking why companies made of human beings do things. You are suggesting they sell the rights to do something to what they own so someone else can do things to the story line. But they can look at MeTV and say what they have they can sell sometime with no more work. \n\nFurther production may ruin this for them. So why take a chance?",
"The network may cancel a show, but they don't always own it. When Fox cancels a show the owners of the show can shop it around to other networks. Shows like Futurama and American Dad are now on different networks. ",
"Back in college, a local TV station stopped airing Star Trek: TNG reruns. I called the manager of a smaller station to recommend they pick it up. He said the original station still held the broadcast rights but chose not to exercise them and wouldn't sell them.\n\nI called the original station and asked why they wouldn't sell the rights so another station could show it. He said \"You don't understand, we don't want it on the air to compete with us\".",
"If there was money to be made by producing the show, the tv network (or production company) would still be making it.\n\nI think it's less about rights, and more about financial viability for the potential indies.",
"Because they don't care if a show dies or not once they've cancelled it. It's not relevant to their business model.",
"I'm surprised no one has mentioned Arrested Development. Netflix picked it up after cancelation, gave it a bit more life and will be starting up production yet again.",
"Contracts ... or money which drives contracts.\n\nThere's different levels of these situations - copyright contracts allow \"versions\" of the original works to be used ONLY by a specific party.\n\n**Specific example:**\n\nIn some cases, like Jim Butcher's Dresdan Files - the contract says, you own exclusive rights to all visual live action works (actors in shows/movies/tv series). Which leave rights to animated cartoons/movies/comics/graphic novels/books etc in the hands of the author.\n\n**ELI5**\n\n* The original creator of an idea / show / character gives permission for someone else to use their thing in a limited way as defined by contract. \n* The contract rights usually are normally only for a certain type of media, that the author does not do themselves.\n* The type of medias are (games/digital games/card games/books/magazines/audiobooks/movies/tv series/cartoons/animated movies/toys/commercials on radio or tv)\n* The contracts will often even limit the time period in the story of which the person licensing the creation can act - like young Indiana Jones series.\n* The contracts are sometimes used against the creator of the thing ... like a tv show being licensed for 5 seasons or a movie series running 3 movies ... if the people who negotiated with the creator have exclusive rights - they can hold the creation thing hostage by not making the last movie/season & most contracts from the 90's don't have an expiration of rights - meaning no one can make more movies unless they pay off the group in question - even though they didn't make the creation thing.\n* Interestingly you can have non-exclusive contracts, which allow two competing things by different people to be made...both equally copyrighted and protected against being reused.\n* Alternatively, the original owner can sell all rights - which means the new owner has full power everywhere not stipulated in other contracts (they are bound by previous agreements still even though they didn't make them). This includes the rights to sell all rights to another person - unless stipulated in contract it must be sold back to the original creator. \n\nThis is where you often see different group air a junk episode ... I think there was a stir last year when one of the fantasy/sci-fi books series aired a poorly directed single episode which extended their rights to owning the series for another few years. I think it was Wheel of Time ... [Link](_URL_0_)",
"Because sometimes owning the rights to something can prove more valuable. \n\nLet's say you're the network that owns the A-team. It's cancelled on the 80's and sits on a shelf. Then, 30 years later, 80's shows are getting turned into big studio movies. That property has matured to be worth a lot more than it would have been if sold off at its lowest value. \n\nIt's like anything. You don't sell a possession at its lowest value, if there is any potential for it to increase substantially. Because they can never know which show will be marketable in the future, it is better to hold onto all of them. Unless someone can pay enough to purchase the opportunity cost. ",
"Like [Almost Human](_URL_0_) on Fox. Cancelled after the first season.. Such a good show!",
"Because the money isn't worth looking stupid of the show blows up.\n\nThe HBO exec is still getting shit to this day for saying no to Mad Men.",
"Exhibit A: Family Guy (turned out to be a huge cash cow for Fox even though they canceled it first)\n\nExhibit B: Arrested Development (i.e., they do, sometimes, sell old canceled series)",
"Sometimes the network is willing to sell, but the actors aren't on board.\n\nTake Friends, for example. Everyone wants a movie, some of the actors are in, but others don't want anything to do with it anymore. It wouldn't be the same without them, so nothing ends up happening.",
"Similar question is why wont a video game company with a years dead game allow independent developers to continue to run game servers and improve the game?\n\nAnswer, greed. ",
"Its often known as 'squatting' on the rights. They don't want it, but that doesn't mean they want someone else to make money off of it - or to potentially lose out on using it again later. \nBoils down to greed and selfishness.",
"There are places who own American rights to a series and fine anyone who starts remaking their own version. They no longer sell the show or have plans on making a new series, they just use their rights to get money from others trying to do it.\n\nThe show is an anime called Macross by the way. Owned by some dumb mining company who has no clue what gem they are holding back from America/Canada",
"Super Troopers 2: \"Ironically, the film’s story was based on budget cuts and the withdrawal of funding… which is exactly what prevented a sequel. ...... Until April 2015, that is, when they set up their Indiegogo campaign with a target of $2 million. They smashed the target in 26 hours, becoming one of Indiegogo’s most successful ever campaigns, and have since gone on to raise $4.5 million. Filming began in October 2015 and they’re still open to pledges, promising even bigger car chases, more bears and even thicker moustaches.\"\n\n\"Frat boy sports comedy Blue Mountain State was unceremoniously chopped by Spike TV in 2012 after three seasons. Its fanbase (who were global, thanks to widespread MTV syndication) weren’t happy. ........ The campaign was launched in April 2014, and the $1.5 million target was both topped and exceeded within a month. The production turnaround was pretty swift following that, with filming reportedly completed by the end of 2014.\"\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"There is no reason for them to do this.\n\nLet's take Firefly as an example. Say I want to make another Firefly movie, and I ask Fox to sell me the rights. They do, and I make the film. One of two things will now happen: either a) it's a succesful film or b) it flops over like a dead penguin..\n\nScenario A is not a good outcome for Fox. Now I own the succesful Firefly franchise, and all of the money from the toys and t-shirts I sell and the new movie I'm planning will go to me, not Fox. Fox is losing out on a large amount of money.\n\nScenario B is just as bad. Now I've tarnished the Firefly franchise with my disastrous bomb of a movie AND I still own the rights. The franchise is devalued, so that even if Fox decided they wanted to bring Firefly back (which, again, they can't do beause I own the rights) they'll like make much less money from it because of my flop.\n\nTV networks do not care about you or your wants. They want money. ",
"For the same reason parents don't give their kids to someone else to raise after putting in years of hard work. ",
"The argument that if the new developers make a very poor version of the show it could destroy the IP. Imagine if fans made Buffy continue and made a very low quality version, it could ruin re runs and residual sales of the original Josh Whedon series. \n\nIt could also destroy an potential future products, films or returns. You have to remember even shows that ended 20 years ago have massive followings X Files for instance still generates revenue for its production company, selling the rights compromises that ongoing revenue. ",
"Terra Nova is one I would have liked to have seen. It was a pretty good show with reasonable ratings but just too damn expensive to produce unless it was a blockbuster. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-real-story-about-that-wheel-of-time-pilot-that-aire-1684773094"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2ojHR40TQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.highsnobiety.com/2016/02/24/10-crowdfunded-movies-you-simply-have-to-see/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
11x4d7 | today's reddit outage involving amazon. | I didn't know reddit was linked to amazon. What is amazon providing Reddit and others? What went wrong? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11x4d7/eli5_todays_reddit_outage_involving_amazon/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6qbj1s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Amazon sells a service that will host your website. They have several locations which host thousands of servers called a cloud. If one location goes down then a server will automatically route your request to another location. \n\nEither multiple locations were affected, or the server or router which automatically knows which location to route your request too broke down."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1ysava | how some youtube channels are allowed to post music without infringing copyright? | for example, this music blog site (_URL_0_)
posts a bunch of music, with some very popular and mainstream artists. How are they able to do this? And if they are getting permission from the artist, how do they go about doing this with big name artists like Rihanna and Miley Cyrus? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ysava/eli5_how_some_youtube_channels_are_allowed_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfnazb8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely the music blog site can do this under the \"Fair Use\" reason.\n\nHave a read up at _URL_0_, the Glove and Boots official YouTube Copyright Basics introduction."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUriYApwN0I&list=UU1UMshhDjWrHIDFWkVKZxbw&feature=c4-overview"
]
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVHWsTHcoc"
]
]
|
|
29vn5b | the graphical options in video games and what on earth they do. | In many video games, mainly those on the PC platform, games have options such as antialiasing, anisotropic filtering, VSync, frame buffer, ect. What on earth do they do? Antialiasing and filtering have values such as x2, x4, x8, x16, and then other weird options like x16 DSAA and whatnot. What do these values mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29vn5b/eli5_the_graphical_options_in_video_games_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cioy6a8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"**Antialiasing** is a grouping of options that makes an image smoother. The higher the value, the smoother the picture. I can't explain it easily, so I'll let [lifehacker](_URL_1_) do it for me:\n\nWhat It Does: Anti-aliasing (AA) aims to cut down on the pixellated, jagged edges you see in the game. It's one of the more popular graphics tweaks you'll find, and helps smooth out objects when you can't increase the resolution any further. There are a ton of different types of AA, which we won't get into here, but if you want to read about the different types, check out [this article](_URL_3_) at the Build a PC forum on Reddit. It goes into a lot more detail. Most often, you'll see \"multisample anti-aliasing,\" or MSAA for short.\n\nYou can see the difference between no AA and x4 AA in [this](_URL_4_) gif.\n\n**Anisotropic Filtering** is used when you're watching something from an angle. [This image](_URL_5_) shows that, with no AF on the left.\n\n**VSync** locks your framerate to your monitor refresh rate. Your monitor has a refresh rate (measured in hertz, normally 60 on regular monitors), and if your graphic card is drawing frames at a higher framerate than this, it can lead to [screen tearing](_URL_0_).\n\nThe downside of regular VSync is that it forces a framerate multiple of 15 (iirc), so if your framerate drops to 59 frames per second, it will force it to 30 instead of staying at 59.\n\n**Frame Buffer** stores completed images if your video card draws them faster than your monitor can show them. For example, say your graphics card wants to draw 60 frames per minute (because it's easy to visualise). It draws Screen #1, and sends it to your monitor. Then maybe half a second pass and, but since it only wants to draw 60 frames in a minute, and they should be drawn relatively even in time rather than some taking half a second and some taking two seconds, it sends it to the buffer to be displayed when one second have passed.\n\nAs for the values for AA and AF, this is simply how \"good\" the effect is. The higher the setting, the more performance you require. \n\nAs for the different AA settings like MSAA, FXAA, TXAA etc. they're pretty much the same technology working in different ways. FXAA doesn't require as much performance as MSAA, but also doesn't improve the looks as much.\n\nIf you want to read more, I recommend [This](_URL_7_) guide by _URL_2_, it goes into details about many of the things. There's also a [howtogeek](_URL_6_) guide, and a [lifehacker](_URL_1_) guide.\n\nI'm sorry if my bad english makes it hard to understand, it's my second language and I haven't slept all night."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Tearing_%28simulated%29.jpg/1280px-Tearing_%28simulated%29.jpg",
"http://lifehacker.com/5985304/get-the-most-from-your-games-a-beginners-guide-to-graphics-settings",
"Tweakguides.com",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/gamesettingsguide#wiki_anti-aliasing",
"http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Antialiasing.gif",
"http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Ndbmia42--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18f4vxz6s3blgjpg.jpg",
"http://www.howtogeek.com/175580/5-common-pc-game-graphics-options-explained/",
"http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_1.html"
]
]
|
|
74owxj | why does everyone say to drink lots of fluid when you have a cold? | I have a cold and everyone says drink lots of fluid. What does this actually do if I drink lots of fluid as opposed to not drinking fluid while having a cold? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74owxj/eli5_why_does_everyone_say_to_drink_lots_of_fluid/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnzywxs",
"dnzyyst",
"do01w6b",
"do03mwt",
"do04pw1",
"do04vh2",
"do05xls",
"do06ajj",
"do07ni0",
"do07z9s",
"do0823q",
"do08gg6",
"do08y5r",
"do09hx8",
"do0acdy",
"do0c1bn",
"do0c1ml",
"do0cp1a",
"do0dic5",
"do0e1ci",
"do0ftkb",
"do0g5po",
"do0hwcg",
"do0i6sg",
"do0ie8s",
"do0j1gt",
"do0msly",
"do0namw",
"do0p9uf",
"do0srie",
"do0vxpd",
"do148y7",
"do15j1v",
"do181eq"
],
"score": [
257,
53,
8,
16,
6,
5091,
4,
2,
2,
3,
32,
102,
11,
3,
2,
3815,
7,
8,
4,
2,
190,
3,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3624,
2,
416,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you can lose a lot of fluids when sick. It can also be easy to forget to drink when sick, especially if your throat hurts badly.",
"To put it simply, you need fluids to maintain proper hydration. Especially water or teas. No caffeine. Colds tend to dehydrate your body thus you need to replenish your fluids that the \"cold\" is taking away from your body. Plus fluids help in loosing up congestion in your affected body parts. ",
"Also provides hydration to secretions that occur and eases their elimination. Consolidation, particularly in the lungs, can be problematic.",
"let's say you're really really sick - diarrhea and vomiting. you're losing fluids alarmingly fast if it's this bad. drinking lots of fluids can help prevent dehydration and help flush your kidneys.\n\nAlso when sick i tend to sweat a lot and don't realize how badly i need more water sometimes. often the illness can make me not want food/water for days and without an effort to consume the fluids at least i could be in bad shape. ",
"Water is the key ingredient for life on earth, it is necessary for all basic bodily functions. Your body is 70% water and when this percentage gets too low all sorts of problems start happening. Increased production of mucus and phlegm deplete the body of water when someone is sick, so the body needs more water intake during that time. It also keeps the mouth and sinuses moisturized, which helps a person maintain a level of comfort when that area is inflamed.",
"Your immune response to a viral infection is more demanding on your body than if you weren't actively fighting an infection. Simply put, you need more fluids and electrolytes to build the things to fight the injection. \n\nIt's also easier to not want to eat or drink while you're sick adding to the lack of proper hydration.\n\nFever, chills, hell even just the increased mucus production are draining your fluids quicker than normal.\n\nEdit: TIL you can't mention electrolytes on reddit without at least a handful of idiocracy references being thrown at you. Nice.\n\nEdit again: \"Fight the Injection\" is my new band name. Don't hate. And thanks for gold ? Not sure what it does but thanks",
"A lot of illnesses dehydrate you, and that makes it way harder to recover. When I had mono I probably took an extra month to recover just because I wasn't drinking much and my body was burning through whatever I took in. ",
"Hey. When we have a cold, two things happen. First, our breathing rate increases and we exhale carbon dioxide and water. Also, all the mucus secretions have water in them making them less viscous. As a result, we lose a fair amount of water. There are probably other things involved but that's the only two I can recall at the moment.",
"I believe to help combat dehydration and such. Anytime I feel sickness coming my immediate response it to just slam water for a day...generally it makes me feel better- or its in my head.",
"More fluids = more stuff moving around more efficiently. Your body goes into defense mode by cranking up the heat burning up your fluids faster. Water cools the body temperature while maintaining it defense efficiency speed.",
"Think of your body as a star craft map and you're immune system is playing Terran. \n\nA cold in the form of a MASSIVE zerg rush is attacking and your defenses won't last forever. \n\nYou need a bunch of minerals to build units to counter the zerg (cold). In this case, fluids are the minerals used to pump out immune system units to dunk on the zerg cold.",
"Colds tend to cause mucus in the belly, making you feel full and nauseated. There's no room for food, and more water makes your stomach spew one way or the other. You can lose fluids by urination, blowing mucus, breathing out your mouth all day, sweating under a blanket with chills, pooping water instead of solids, and vomiting. All the while, you're not taking any in.\n\nSmall children are 3/4 water by weight. So a 40lb child is around 30lb (or pints) of water. A 40lb child can easily vomit and poop 2 pints of fluid in seconds; an adult, a whole gallon (8 pints or more). You needed that water to make blood, fight infection, move food around, and cool yourself with sweating. Now it's gone, and it's uncomfortable to drink more. That's why it's important to drink any time you can when you're sick.",
"Not seeing any top response that answers it, so here is my bit.\n\nDrinking fluids when youre sick doesnt actually do anything to \"boost\" your immune system, it is more something to remind people, \"hey, you need to drink water to live.\" When people are sick with a cold (which is usually caused by a virus), its important to keep your body working as best as possible to deal with the infection, and that means you need to make sure you arent dehydrated. Dehydration in general is a bad thing to have as it impacts your whole body and, for simplicity sake, creates more problems your body has to deal with so that it can get back to dealing with the cold. When people are sick, they tend to eat and drink less, either because they cant handle eating/drinking anything or they just have a reduced desire to do so (BTW, people also get water from foods they eat, not just drinks--remember when people say cucumbers are like 90% water?). On top of this, sick people tend to sweat more (from fever), vomit, and potentially have diarrhea. Putting together the fact that a sick person is taking in less water and putting out more water, it is possible to see that a sick person runs the risk of becoming dehydrated, and therefore at risk of becoming even worse off.\n\nTL;DR: You should drink fluids to make sure you dont get dehydrated, especially when sick.",
"When you have a cold, your nose runs, you might sweat more, and you might puke. \nThat means you're losing water a lot faster than normal. \nPlus, it can reduce appetite, so you're getting less water from food. \nThis means it's easier to get dehydrated. \nWater isn't necessarily the best fluid to drink. \nWhen you lose water, you're also losing salts (electrolytes). Drinking a non-caffeinated sports drink replenishes those electrolytes. \nOr you can get oral rehydration powder (such as Pedialyte), which is a mixture of electrolytes that you add to water, to rehydrate you most effectively.",
"For the same reason you put gas in your car more when you're flooring it down the interstate for 3 hours; you're using a lot of gas, to power the car, and you're using a lot of fluids while fighting a sickness.",
"Honestly, not many of the top comments here make sense based on physiology. Generally, drinking fluids and electrolytes (ideally something like dilute gatorade) is good when you are sick with something that is making you lose fluids, such as a diarrheal or vomiting illness. \n\nWhen you have watery diarrhea, the bug making you sick is tricking your intestines into secreting lots of electrolytes into the lumen of the intestines, and water follows salt. So you end up losing large volumes of water and electrolytes, which may lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance (which can be life threatening). In order to replace those, you want to give your body water, electrolytes, and glucose to power the electrolyte-absorbing pumps in your gut... in other words dilute gatorade.\n\nFor upper respiratory colds, water or soup may be helpful for relieving the uncomfortable symptoms of dry throat and thick mucousy cough, but physiologically it won't make much difference.\n\nSource: medical student studying for boards \n\n\nEdit: Didnt realize this blew up. I encourage everyone to read the comment replies, as several physicians have responded with further explanation. Additional fluids are necessary to compensate for the increased metabolic demand, as well as losses through mucous, sweating, etc. ",
"There is no evidence it helps ([Citation](_URL_0_)), but it seems like a bland \"couldn't hurt\" kind of advice. \n\nIt's the same reason doctors recommend peeing after sex for UTIs. There's no evidence for it, but meh, gotta say something. ",
"To add on to some of the advice, drinking a lot of filtered water actually reduces electrolytes in your body, because all the natural minerals have been taken out. The filtered water will flush the electrolyes out that you have consumed through food. \n\nThe best thing to drink is some hot bone broth or even chicken stock because of the sodium and collagen. Even spring water with minerals would be okay.",
"When you are sick you tend to sweat more and/or make a lot of mucus which are both mostly water. The more hydrated you stay, the better your body can defend itself. Also, there are lots of bacteria or virus in your system, drinking water helps a little to flush it out of you, or flush out the dead bacteria/virus that your body has killed. \nMy friend's family had a rule when you are sick - drink 2 glasses of water in the morning. Whenever you go pee, drink a glass of water right after. \n\n",
"In addition to the other comments, when you have a cold and your nose is blocked up, you'll be breathing through your mouth a lot more which has a lot more wet surface area. The added surface area your breath exhales against will cause it to dry out and be uncomfortable as well as possibly increasing your level of dehydration.",
"True ELI5: More fluid = more fluid dragging germs through your lymphatic system (which kills bacteria/viruses) = more killed = you get better faster. Yay. \n \n\nSource: ER Doc",
"The biggest reason is the benefits it has for your immune system. Extra water can help your body get rid of harmful substances quicker which lets the body focus on the sickness.",
"Yay one I can answer. Here’s what I tell my pediatric patients that I care for. \nYou need to drink fluids (juice, water,jello, basically anything that will keep them hydrated) because your body needs that extra boost to fight off the baddies. \nIt will help make your nose and mouth boogers squishy so that it’s easier to blow your nose or cough. It also helps when you get real hot from fever and get sweaty. So you don’t use too much of the water in you. \nHydration is especially important for children as the signs of dehydration are less pronounced in them. Most kids don’t eat very much while Ill, and that’s ok as long as they stay hydrated. Kids are extremely resilient more so than adults and will bounce back. They will do just fine and be ready to be destroyers of their own world. Pediatric nurse here!\n\nMany fine answers are in this thread but too much for my kids.",
"I'm an IM physician(PGY-1). Drinking water helps with many things, namely hydration. You need to stay hydrated when you are immunocompromised since you might be experiencing fluid loss via, diarrhoea, vomiting, perspiration, and simply having no appetite. Further, you need electrolytes for many pumps to work in your body and normally with the presence of the above-mentioned things we experience electrolytic imbalance. ",
"Water is used by the body to make mucus. When you have a cold your body makes a lot of mucus to fight the get rid of the cold. \nIf you don't drink enough water you will get dehydrated because your immune system will use up all the water in your body to fight the cold. When you drink enough water your nose will run and your lungs will start coughing up mucus. \nThis will help your body fight off the cold.\n\nStay warm rest sleep drink plenty of water. \n\nWorks for hangovers too ",
"you lose fluids when you're sick so you need to make up for those loses by increasing your fluid intake",
"And just in general your body functions much better when its hydrated compared to dehydrated. So might as well try and help your body fight the cold.",
"If you get dehydrated while you are sick you will not have a good time. You may feel so ill that you don't feel thirsty or can't be bothered eating/drinking.",
"I'm a physician completing my residency in internal medicine. The answers here miss the mark in that infections kill you from hypotension (low blood pressure) because of fluid loss and shift. The components of this process are:\n-poor intake: people lose their appetite while sick\n-gastrointestinal losses: vomiting, diarrhea\n-insensible losses: sweating which is typical in febrile illnesses \n\nBut the primary reason infections kills you is septic shock: dysregulation of your immune system leading to inappropriate dilation of your arteries/veins, thereby dropping blood pressure. Additionally, your vessels become 'leaky' and you get distribution of fluid from your intravascular spaces (i.e. in the arteries and veins) into your extravascular spaces which include interstitial tissue that make up your organs.\n\nSo when you come to hospital with a serious infection, the most important components of what we do are 1) intravenous fluid, typically 30ml/kg right off the bat intravenously and 2) antibiotics, in that order. The sicker someone is, the more important that order is because what'll kill you is the low blood pressure. \n\nIn most cases, you'll be fine, but influenza kills something like 30k people in the US every year. Malaria has killed more people than anything in human history. \n\nSo drink up.",
"With a cold you loose water in the form of mucus. What makes the mucus moist has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is you.",
"These comments about how dehydration and low blood pressure will kill you and everything are right, but for a normal healthy person that's not the concern. I recommend drinking lots of water for respiratory sickness because it can help you get healthy faster and with less complications.\n\nWhen you're sick you have mucous and nasty gunk pouring out of your nose and draining all day long. When this mucous is thick it will sit in your nose and slowly drain into your throat or lungs. Thick mucous is harder to cough up, which causes more irritation and stress to your lungs. The longer your lungs have this mucous in them, the more likely an infection in the lungs will occur, which is more serious and will cause you to be sick for much longer. \n\nStaying really hydrated caused the mucous that is secreted to be more watery and thinner. Thinner mucous is easier to cough up and you're more likely to get better without further complications or infections. \n\nBut it also makes you pee every half hour so it's totally up to you. ",
"Because if you have a cold you sweat a lot, and your nose is running. So you need to drink lots of fluid to keep up.",
"Personal anecdote: \n\nHad a bad cold and took OTC meds until it went away without increasing fluid intake. \n\nGot badly dehydrated due to cold. \n\n1 week later: kidney stones. \n\nNow I always drink as much as I can stand when sick. ",
"This is what I tell patients and parents. The #1 cause of hospitalization after getting a cold is DEHYDRATION. Most cases are easily preventable. You also feel better and recover more quickly if you are well hydrated.\n\nSource: pediatrician, so I actually see kids with colds for a living. I also literally explain this to 5 year olds on a daily basis. Leave it to an i-med resident to over explain something 🤣"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=hsm_pubs"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3itz74 | why don't dentists just buff out tiny divots that they think might become cavities *before* they go through the enamel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3itz74/eli5_why_dont_dentists_just_buff_out_tiny_divots/ | {
"a_id": [
"cujm9jj",
"cujo9zy",
"cujpa0g"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The issue is that by the time the damage becomes noticeable, bacteria has already burrowed deeply into the tooth. At this point the deterioration will progress from the inside outwards. ",
"I don't know, my dentist filled both of them on the spot even though they were wee tiny. She made some digging then filled them with their white thingie.\nThey were less than a millimeter deep and that was 3 years ago, I don't notice anything wrong.",
"Sometimes you are able to get rid of these black spots on your own by using your tooth brush a lot more on that exact spot. You're basically trying to get rid of the bacteria with a healthier option instead of just going ahead and hammering it out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
20u2x7 | why do front page stories always get up to ~3k-4k and then start dropping? aren't there millions of people on reddit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20u2x7/eli5_why_do_front_page_stories_always_get_up_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg6pqp4",
"cg6tt0c"
],
"score": [
18,
2
],
"text": [
"1. Vote fuzzing. The more popular a post is, the less accurate the upvote/downvote/\"% like it\" numbers are.\n1. There are a lot of people on reddit who don't vote or only vote a handful of posts.",
"I can't explain the specific algorithm explaining drops, but I'm pretty sure it's based on submission age. After a certain amount of time, a 4K post from yesterday will be considered less hot than a 1K or even 100-upvote post from today.\n\nAs for the \"millions\" part, that is counting in terms of sheer accounts/views/etc. and not a good qualitative assessment. There is a very large majority of people who get on for 5 minutes just to look at a few pictures, or post a single image and never visit the site again."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
k9vet | could someone explain to me who rick perry is and what he has done/is doing to make him so hated on reddit? | I know very little about american politics but keep seeing post after post about this guy. My hivemind instinct tells me to hate him but could someone explain to me why exactly I hate him? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k9vet/eli5_could_someone_explain_to_me_who_rick_perry/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2il0tn",
"c2iox0c",
"c2il0tn",
"c2iox0c"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Rick Perry is the current governor of Texas. He has demonstrated beliefs that are very conservative, though that by itself is not the problem. Rather, Perry is like the guy that always raises his hand in class and says \"that's not what my momma said.\" When faced with scientific evidence he'll bulk claiming that science isnt accurate. However, he's willing to try and get texans to pray for rain during the current drought. \n\nHe is also in the pocket so to speak of big business. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but reddit is fairly liberal and does not like big business. Many of the solutions he's offered to the state of Texas have involved gutting benefits and social welfare systems then appealing to the federal government to provide assistance.\n\nIn short, he's a hypocrit that is willing to put money before people. Sarah palin 2.0",
"* current Governor of Texas\n* believes that droughts are best addressed by group prayer\n* wants to bring this kind of leadership to the Oval office\n",
"Rick Perry is the current governor of Texas. He has demonstrated beliefs that are very conservative, though that by itself is not the problem. Rather, Perry is like the guy that always raises his hand in class and says \"that's not what my momma said.\" When faced with scientific evidence he'll bulk claiming that science isnt accurate. However, he's willing to try and get texans to pray for rain during the current drought. \n\nHe is also in the pocket so to speak of big business. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but reddit is fairly liberal and does not like big business. Many of the solutions he's offered to the state of Texas have involved gutting benefits and social welfare systems then appealing to the federal government to provide assistance.\n\nIn short, he's a hypocrit that is willing to put money before people. Sarah palin 2.0",
"* current Governor of Texas\n* believes that droughts are best addressed by group prayer\n* wants to bring this kind of leadership to the Oval office\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
b2usct | what would it take for the uk to stay in the eu, and how likely is it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2usct/eli5_what_would_it_take_for_the_uk_to_stay_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiv4hyv",
"eiv4idr",
"eiv4myh",
"eiv6j19"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The UK still has 10 days left to formally withdraw article 50. They can do that unilaterally without the approval of the rest of the EU.\n\nThe only thing needed would be for May to actually do it.\n\nSince May seems incapable of doing anything that seems rather unlikely.\n\nIn theory the UK could also ask the EU for an extension to hold a second referendum with not leaving being one of the options and when the people vote for that then rescind article 50. the problem with that is that there are only 10 days left to ask for and get such an extension and the maximal length for an extension (limited by the EU parliament elections) might not be enough to organize a referendum.\n\nIt seems pretty much too late for any outcome other than a no-deal brexit at this point.",
"There are really two facets to the answer, the legal one and the political one.\n\nLegally, all it would take currently is for the UK to revoke its notification under Article 50. It's not clear whether the Government currently has the power to do that under the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 or if Parliament would need to pass a new act to authorize it, but either way, the UK would just need to formally revoke its notification that it plans to leave.\n\nPolitically, though, it would take a significant change in the Government's current position. Based on her public statements, the PM appears to believe that she is obligated by the referendum results to take the UK out of the EU one way or another, and thus has not made any statements that indicate she is at all willing to revoke the notification.\n\nAs far as how likely, nobody knows. The circumstances change day to day, many people in various important positions have lots of incompatible opinions about what the UK should do to get past the current impasse, and the upcoming deadline may cause lots of people to reconsider their stances.",
"It would take a reasonable government instead of people just trying to get to the power. So unless there's elections, it's unlikely.",
"Whilst the other answers have given answers that are right, informative and full of detail, they seem to missing a small detail that puts more perspective on this.\n\nThe Tories have had an anti-eu right wig to their party from the inception of the Common Market through Britain joining, the move to the EEC, through to the EU.\n\nThe vast majority of these right wingers have been little englanders, and they hae had a negative impact on the party from the get go.\n\nDavid Cameron's piss poor idea for the referendum, which Is not legally binding, was all down to mollifying the eurosceptics. The referendum itself was also run like a chimps tea party. Then when Mr Cameron ran with his tail between his legs and St Theresa took over, her bright idea of holding a general election saw her lose her majority and need to fall back on the support of a political party who I believe it would be fair to call the most conservative mainstream political party in the UK, the DUP. As a result, the country is being held to ransom by the ERG and the DUP, rich ideologues who will see minimal impact from a no-deal brexit and social neanderthals who should be brought kicking and seaming into the 20th century, then the 21st.\n\nWhat would be needed for thUK to stay, or at least the exit delayed is for Theresa May to grow a backbone and tell the ERG that they are members of the party she is in charge of, if they don't like her decisions, they vote or it anyway or lose the whip. This should not be a party poltical issue, it should a be for the country issue and so far Theresa May has failed herself, her party and her country."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
a02j14 | why do people puff out their cheeks and blow when lifting something heavy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a02j14/eli5_why_do_people_puff_out_their_cheeks_and_blow/ | {
"a_id": [
"eae2xb9",
"eae53vl",
"eaejwct"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s really hard to inhale when your muscles are all contracted, but contracting all or a lot of your muscles is what happens when you lift a heavy thing.\n\nYou inhale, the lift, and as part of the lifting, you exhale. If your mouth is closed, and your jaw is also clenched, their in your mouth builds up in your cheeks until you think to let it out.\n\nBecause this happens kind of naturally, we also learn to do it on purpose to coordinate our breathing and exertion.",
"If you hold your breath and exert maximum force, you can do yourself an injury.\n\nControlled breathing acts like a pressure valve. It still helps produce maximum exertion, but with less risk of damage.",
"A proper valsalva maneuver is a deep breath that gets held by the epiglottis closing, and is a requirement for a heavy lift. It stabilizes the torso (commonly called \"the core\") for a maximal lift. The held breath gives the abdomen something to brace against, and also stabilizes the lumbar spine.\n\nExhaling during the lift causes the core to lose stability and isn't recommended."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5frbv4 | why do we get paid (weekly, bi-weekly, etc)? | Is it for tax purposes or does it somehow benefit the business? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5frbv4/eli5_why_do_we_get_paid_weekly_biweekly_etc/ | {
"a_id": [
"damekmr",
"damfi16"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Usually it's because it takes accounting some time to verify your hours/punches, and then process payments and get 'em out the door to the bank. \n\nThey try and do it weekly or bi-weekly so people still get paid consistently and fairly frequently.",
"It costs time and money to process paychecks, so it's not economical to do so daily. I worked for a smallish business (90 employees at peak) during the financial meltdown, and going from weekly to bi-weekly pay periods saved the company thousands a year. The owner, who'd grown up poor/blue collar prided himself on looking out for the hourly employees like the guys in the warehouse and wanted them to have money in their pocket each Friday, but a tough economy caused him to change the company policy. On the other extreme, my dad worked for a company that only paid their corporate/exec employees monthly!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4ze8et | how come we can see stars and planets that are fifty light years away, but only just now find a planet the was four light years away? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ze8et/eli5_how_come_we_can_see_stars_and_planets_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6v38j5"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"We didn't find the planet by directly looking at it - they're too small for that to work, except in some very rare situations. Usually, we find planets indirectly. One good way is to look at how a star wobbles. As a planet goes around a star, it pulls the star back and forth a little bit. We can see this, because it's easy to measure how fast a star is moving towards and away from us. There are many other ways to find planets, but this is the way we found this one.\n\nIf we were directly looking at the planet, then it'd be much easier to find close planets, because we'd get more light from them, and we'd be able to see them in much higher resolution. But if we find planets by looking at the movement of the star, then distance doesn't matter quite so much.\n\nInstead, it's easier to find a planet if it makes the star move *a lot*. The bigger the planet is, the more it pulls the star. The closer the planet is to the star, the more it pulls the star. So this method is really good at finding big fat planets that are really close to their star. We call these \"hot jupiters\". They're hot because they're close to their star, and they are \"jupiters\" being they are massive gas planets.\n\nThis planet is close to its star, but it's quite small. It's only a little bit bigger than Earth, while many of the other planets we've found with this method were many many times bigger than *Jupiter*. That means it doesn't pull its star around nearly as much, and that makes it a lot more difficult to detect with this method.\n\nEdit: I just read the paper. They say that the signal for this planet isn't particularly small. The problems are:\n\n1) People just hadn't done long-term consistent measurements of Proxima Centauri\n\n2) Proxima Centauri kinda wobbles by itself anyway, so you need to be really careful to tell whether the wobble is caused by a planet, or just as a natural part of the star wibbling about."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
b4whzo | why do many words sound exactly like what they mean? | Like "harsh" really sounds harsh and "mellow" really sounds mellow | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4whzo/eli5_why_do_many_words_sound_exactly_like_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"ej9k5r1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Two possible reasons:\n1. The words for them were chosen based on how those sounds made us feel.\n\n2. Using them for the longest time in a context associates the feeling with the word.\n\n-\nFor example, Harsh in Hindi (with some pronunciation difference) means Happiness and people who speak hindi associate that sound more with that, than with something rigid. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1nz57w | why do americans put so much faith in their constitution? why should a 200 year old document be the be all and end all of what is good? | As a Brit, it seems that in the US "unconstitutional" is pretty much the worst thing something can be. Why is this document so sacrosanct and why shouldn't something be a good idea just because it goes against it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nz57w/eli5_why_do_americans_put_so_much_faith_in_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccndyo9",
"ccne2hw",
"ccne8or",
"ccnelhc",
"ccneuf0",
"ccngjlt",
"ccnhbc7",
"ccni8um",
"ccnix46",
"ccnjgq7",
"ccnjmm7",
"ccnna4r",
"ccnogyf",
"ccnpugn",
"ccnsypa",
"ccnszp8",
"ccnvgnj"
],
"score": [
8,
112,
3,
5,
5,
9,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a bit of a line in the sand. We use the constitution mainly to limit what the government can do in order to protect us from tyrannical rulers. For example, if the entire population is armed to the teeth, no one will be rounding us up into ghettos and shipping us off to concentration camps. \ntl;dr The constitution limits what the government can do, and we see unconstitutional government actions as the first step down a slippery slope to being trod upon by a corrupt government.",
"It was the founding principles of this country, and it has served us well so far. It's not so sacrosanct that it can't be changed though, this is what the amendment process is all about. If we find that the constitution has failed us in some way, congress can create an amendment to it to realign it to a changing world. \n\nIt *created* the union - thus it is what created the United States, it was not a law we adopted into an existing country, but rather a law which established that country by its adoption by member states. It creates congress, it establishes what powers states may *not* have (eg, states cannot mint their own money), it creates the presidency, it creates the judicial system, it makes all states equal, and importantly ***it explicitly allows itself to be amended***. The creators of this document knew they were not infallible, and that they could not predict what the future holds, so they created a way for the document to evolve with time.\n\nWhy do we still use it? Because it still represents the best form of government we've been able to conceive so far. If we wanted to eliminate it, we could not claim to be the same country.",
"Government is all about power. The Constitution is about power -- the limitation and separation of government powers. The third word in each of the first three articles of the Constitution is \"powers\": The legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers. These limitations and separations are important because \"absolute power corrupts absolutely.\" The document not only separates powers among the branches of government but separates powers between the Federal Government and the States -- so called federalism. The Tenth Amendment states, \"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\" When taken together with Article I, Section 8 (the legislature's limited \"enumerated\" powers) the framers' intent to strictly limit government power is most clear. The historical context provides credence to the framers' concerns. The country had just succeeded in an armed revolution against what they perceived to be a tyrannical government. They didn't want another king. Indeed, the granting of titles of nobility are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Unfortunately, over time, due to a variety of factors; the U.S Supreme Court's broad interpretations, the legislature's shrinking accountability, the media, the internet, academia, and Hollywood, the office of the presidency has grown in perception and in reality to something akin to and on par with royalty. This is bad. We are in trouble.",
" > Why should a 200 year old document be the be all and end all of what is good? \n\nIt's not. It gets amended when failings come to light. ",
"The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Absolutely nothing can supersede it. If the Supreme Court decides that the constitution doesn't say that the government is allowed to do a particular thing, then it is simply not legal for the government for the government to do that. If the government goes ahead and does it anyway, then the government is blatantly breaking the law. I don't think I need to explain to you why it's a bad thing when the government starts to think that laws are merely suggestions (to the government, not the people of course) instead of hard rules that can't be broken. That's why \"unconstitutional\" is taken so seriously. If the people really want the government to do that thing, then they can amend the constitution to make it legal.",
"Of the Constitution, I would say the \"Bill of Rights\" is the most important part. It affects the broadest scope of people. \n\nThe \"Bill Of Rights\" is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. They are founding principles for how our government should work. These principles are objectively good and are used as a basis for law & order. See, they're unique because they do not represent rights granted by the government - but actually represent rights the government *may not take away*. \n\nYour right to speak your mind. Your right to believe what you want to believe. Your right to a fair trail. Your right against excessive bails, fines and cruel punishments. Etc, etc.\n\nEven the second amendment is an important one. It's not about guns, it's about balancing people with government. It says if our government becomes too evil - then we can fight back! Because we're armed to the teeth! And we've actually had to do this before: [See Athens, Georgia](_URL_0_)\n\nThe US Constitution is the \"Supreme Law Of The Land\", so there is nothing more important from a legal standpoint. And it's not really an \"old document\", its constantly changing and evolving. And not everyone agrees with it. That's why we have an \"amendment process\" to adjust to modern times. For example: In 1920 we ratified the 18th Amendment which prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol. This reflected the changing times. Yet, many people disagreed with it. Over the next 13 years opposition increased. So much so that we drafted the 21st amendment & nullified prohibition. \n\n",
"/u/ManyRiversToCross - in high school, my American Government teacher had us watch a movie called \"With Honors,\" starring Joe Pesci and Brendan Fraser. It's not a well-known movie but it is a good one. In the movie, Joe Pesci plays a homeless man living at Harvard. In one scene, a pompous professor asks the question \"What is the particular genius of the Constitution?\" and cuts down his students as they try to answer it until this \"bum\" answers for him. To this day, the answer Joe Pesci gave remains one of my favorite speeches and a very true answer as to why the Constitution is so valuable (at least to me), so click below for the video.\n\nFound the speech for you. It's about 5 minutes long, but if you want to go directly to the speech, skip ahead to 2:45 and watch it from there. _URL_0_",
"I don't think you understand the word constitution : A country's Constitution is the guideline that the government intends to follow. If something went against the constitution we would need to start a new government. That seems like a big deal to someone who is very young, but governments actually do come and go - or get complete overhauls with new constitutions. An example that you might have already seen in some recently released movies/Brit pop culture is the Soviet Union.\n\nThe UK is very unique that they do not have single document for a constitution, and still have a monarch.",
"Imagine that you wake up tomorrow, and suddenly England has been connected to, say, Colombia. Colombia and England is now one country with a shared government. How much strong do you want the rules that guide what that government can and cannot do, to be? I'm guessing pretty strong. Now think of the US as several countries within one country, with different economies, cultures and worldviews. In that scenario, it seems fitting that the federal government cannot make the economic needs, culture and worldview of just one of the countries into law for all of them. \n\nAdd to that some patriotism and emotional baggage due to history. It was, at its creation, the greatest document ever created by man kind. ",
"It is the backbone of our Constitutional Republic. In a pure democracy, the majority rules, and that majority could be completely off their rocker. The Constitution makes sure that an idiot majority cannot screw over the individual.",
"For those saying the Constitution is outdated and we shouldn't be living according to laws that are 200+ years old. I don't think you've read a single paragraph of the most important article in the United States. The Constitution was written in a way so it could be interpreted for centuries to come. The Founders knew that times would change and that the first ten amendments would represent far more people than it did in 1787 when it was constructed.",
"Fun fact, the original constitution is not the end all be all. Included in the US constitution are mechanisms for amending the document. Numerous amendments have been made during US history. Similarly, interpretations can change via Supreme Court rulings. So, the role of the US constitution is actually to denote the current powers of the federal government. Something being unconstitutional is heinous to us because it means that is an action by the federal government over what it can legally do and thus infringing on somebody's personal liberties. ",
"Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that \"prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.\" While the government has flaws the Constitution makes guarantees such as Freedom of Speech, Religion, the Press, Assembly, Petition; the right to bear arms; freedom from search and seizure; due process, fair trials, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment; the prohibition of slavery; the separation of powers; equal protection under the law, and nearly universal suffrage. It is unlikely that if the Constitution were thrown out a replacement for it would contain all of these provisions. But, as a Brit you must be familiar with your own, unwritten, constitution as well, which we have as well in the common law system we share.",
"the constitution is the only limit on the government's power, so when americans scream \"unconstitutional\" they are exerting the only power they have to repeal a law they don't like short of revolution or depending on their representatives to repeal it, the constitution is basically the last check and balance, the thing that keeps the government from just passing laws for it's own favour against the favour of the american people.\n\nor as jefferson put it \"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.\"",
"You are looking at the wrong qualities for value. It's age and history are far less important than the content. \n\nUnlike any time in history, a country was founded not on what a leader CAN do, but can NOT. \n\nThe constitution is there to protect the citizens from an overbearing government. Give it a read, that is its entire purpose: limiting federal power and protecting individual freedom. \n\nNow that same federal power is trying to remove protections from individuals and establish greater power for itself, why WOULDN'T individual citizens be upset?\n\nNow I can't claim that every violation of the constitution is an attack on the people, but every attack on the constitution weakens the individuals ability to protect their freedom. ",
"The British system of government has evolved over thousands of years. In the US, there was an intentional effort to define a new system of government. The constitution documents the key assumptions behind the formation of the government. It's a fortuitous accident that the document was created at the height of the Enlightenment and was designed by some extremely clever people. \n\nFinding something unconstitutional means that it contravenes one of the key assumptions about how the government should operate. The document does provide a mechanism for amendment, but as you might suspect it is considered to be a big deal to change any of these fundamental assumptions. \n\nOver time, the document has taken on something like mythic proportions for some people in the US. It is viewed as sacrosanct. Members of the military and elected officials take an oath to defend it. Keeping the idea of the document separate from the actual piece of parchment, it makes sense: the goal is asking people in positions of elevated civic responsibility to remember the key principles around which the society is organized. ",
"The US Constitution is easily one of the most important documents in the world. A lot of countries use our Constitution as a foundation when writing theirs."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJpmFKfHvE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1im88d | why most banks only allow 6 transfers within a month. | I'm so annoyed and frustrated when I have money in my savings account that I can't access because I already transferred money 6 times this month. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1im88d/eli5_why_most_banks_only_allow_6_transfers_within/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb5tcya"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In the US I'm assuming.\n\nCurrent federal guidelines are set up that way. Your savings account is not intended to be used as a revolving account. You should set up a checking, or shared draft account at a bank or a credit union. \n\nReserve Requirements for Depository Institutions (Regulation D) is the applicable rule."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
554v4o | in the 17th century, the average lifespan was half of what it is now. were we always capable of living this long or did we extend life with modern medicine? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/554v4o/eli5_in_the_17th_century_the_average_lifespan_was/ | {
"a_id": [
"d87jh7n",
"d87jxoh",
"d87jz5v"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"Modern medicine and modern agriculture have massively extended average lifespans.\n\nThe widespread availability of nutritious food combined with the near elimination of many childhood diseases (mumps, measles, polio, etc) means that you are far more likely to make it to healthy adulthood.",
"We were always capable of living longer than the average lifespan - there were definitely people in the 17th century living into their 60's and 70's at least. They just weren't nearly as common as they are now. \n\nKeep in mind that \"average\" lifespan includes all of the babies who die in infancy, all of the kids who died of measles, all of the people who died in war. Right now there's a lower infant mortality rate, more cures and treatments for diseases, and fewer people fighting wars than ever before in history - that's one of the main factors in bringing that number up. Three hundred years ago, you were lucky if you made it past all of those possible deaths and made it to 60; today you're considered *unlucky* if you don't.",
"The reason the average lifespan has increased so dramatically isn't because people are necessarily living longer, its because of a massive reduction in *infant* mortality.\n\nAverage lifespan is a tricky statistic for that reason. If you have six kids and one dies at age 1 but the rest live to be 60, their average lifespan is only 50 years.\n\nFor the most part, the life expectancy of people who survive infancy hasn't increased by nearly as much over the last few hundred years. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
8zsdm0 | why do pencils have that hard part in the graphite when you are writing? | You know, when you use a pencil, sometimes there's this weird part in the pencil that is weirdly sharp and does not leave at marks on the paper. It just sorta scratches your paper no matter how hard you press and then you have to turn your pencil a bit to ignore it or break/sharpen the lead to get rid of it. Why does this happen to pencils? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8zsdm0/eli5_why_do_pencils_have_that_hard_part_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2l493h",
"e2l6px1"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"that's the wood around the graphite. it happens when you write on one side of the pencil for too long",
"Yeah fancy expensive pencils and graphite don't have this problem as much, I think it is just imperfections in the graphite itself."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3rm09a | how historically correct the asterix and obelix book series were. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rm09a/eli5_how_historically_correct_the_asterix_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwp8mxk",
"cwpbfu6"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"To about the same degree that Tom and Jerry is a documentary about mouse and cat interactions.\n\nSome broad facts about gaulish and roman culture are there (e.g. the fact there were druids, there was a great chief called Vercingetorix, the roman outfits were pretty accurate). ",
" René A. van Royen & Sunnyva van der Vegt wrote a couple of books about this. I think they tend to judge things a bit biased, but it's a fun read anyway. \n\nDutch link:\n_URL_0_\n\nI don't know about the availability in other languages though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.bol.com/nl/p/de-erfenis-van-asterix/1001004001571565/"
]
]
|
||
ema69n | why does food go bad when it gets old yet alcohol is supposed to age to make it taste better? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ema69n/eli5_why_does_food_go_bad_when_it_gets_old_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdn80nz",
"fdn9u2q"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Food goes bad because bacteria grow in it that are harmful to humans if ingested. Booze is relatively immune to this because alcohol is a hostile environment to bacteria (that's why it's often used as a disinfectant). \n\nAging is a separate thing that only applies to some alcohols, primarily those stored in barrels. Flavors from the barrels leech into the alcohol while it sits there, altering its taste. Vodka in a glass bottle isn't going to change much over time.",
"Not all alcohol is better with age. Wine once opened is exposed to contaminants in the air (like bacteria) but lacks the alcohol content to kill said bacteria which spoils it. Same thing with a lot of cream and liquors as well as beer. Aging alcohol improves the taste largely because the alcohol integrates slowly with the other components of the drink which is what makes it seem more smooth. Some beers (Porter, Stout and Strong Ale mostly) can get aged in barrels previously used for making dark drinks like whiskey, bourbon or even port wine (casks) and it absorbs some of that flavor (and alcohol) content left in the wood of the barrel. Whiskey, bourbon, scotch etc. sits in the barrel the entire its being \"aged\" which allows it to gain more of a unique flavor from said barrel the longer its in there. Also why you don't generally see \"aged\" vodkas, gins and silver tequila (not barrel aged)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4mdq78 | how does mold transmits it's seeds to rotten/old bread for example, and what happens to it after it fully decomposes it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mdq78/eli5_how_does_mold_transmits_its_seeds_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3unv6r"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"All fungi propagate by releasing tiny spores into the air. These are individual cells, which are so small that they can fly through the air like dust or pollen. These spores can travel long distances and survive for a long time, until they settle somewhere where they can grow. When they do, they start growing and duplicating, much like bacteria - forming a network of cells called \"mycelium\", which grows through the substrate (the bread, wood or whatever it is they grow on) like roots of a plant, but is usually invisible from the outside. What you can see on the surface is the \"sporangium\", which has only one purpose: It grows spores, and releases them into the air. Since these spores are tiny, they can be produce in millions or even billions, which is why fungi spores are pretty much everywhere. \n\nSo when you take a bread out of the oven, it will almost immediately come into contact with fungi spores, which will start growing soon after. It will take a long time until they grow large enough to be noticeable, but they are always there.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
b9v5dx | what is involved in porting software from one platform or operating system to another? | For instance:
* Porting an app from Windows to Linux/MacOS
Or:
* Porting a game from PC to a gaming console, or vice-versa from console to PC? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b9v5dx/eli5_what_is_involved_in_porting_software_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek73jfs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"These things are often very hard, depending on how much performance is required. First, you have to find all the places where the program interfaces with the OS or hardware. Then you have to choose between bridging (making the new platform do what the old platform did) which is bad for performance, or refactoring (making the whole program work differently to be optimized) which costs a huge amount of time/money.\n\nThe CREATE project did several experiments with high performance programs, and starting over from just the program requirements is a cheaper way to port a performance sensitive program."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6k2nm2 | how is space cold when there is no transfer of energy between matter? | So space is a cold place, but how does it cool matter down? If there is no matter connecting to other matter how can energy transfer causing something to cool down?
Ps. I though about this looking at Yeti cups. They are vacuum insulated to keep things hot and cold by removing how much contact there is with external elements | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6k2nm2/eli5_how_is_space_cold_when_there_is_no_transfer/ | {
"a_id": [
"djityel",
"djiu8gc",
"djiuwel"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Remember cold is just the absence of heat. Space doesn't cool matter down, but if you were in space with nothing to warm you your body would radiate heat through electromagnetic radiation, which doesn't need a medium. \n\nThere is matter in space, it's just so sparse that it doesn't transfer or spread heat the way it does in the atmosphere. If you're exposed to direct sunlight you'll cook instantly, but if you're out of the sunlight you'll freeze, because there's nothing to diffuse the heat the sun's radiating.",
" > So space is a cold place\n\nSpace itself is without temperature. In fact, it is an excellent insulator, not a chiller. That's why your yeti cup works for hot stuff, and not just cold stuff.\n\nObjects in space, *generally* are cold. But can be quite hot.\n\n > how does it cool matter down?\n\nRadiative cooling. Every object above absolute zero gives off infrared radiation. You can't give that off without corresponding reductions in the object.\n\nSo if you are receiving more energy via radiation (or are yourself generating more heat) than you lose by radiation, you will eventually reach a point where your outgoing radiation is balanced to the incoming, or evaporate. \n\nOtherwise, you will eventually cool, until your incoming is balanced by your outgoing.\n\nThis is why the Earth is not bitterly cold, for instance. The energy we radiate away into space is balanced by what we receive from the sun. Climate Change itself is a result of us reducing the rate radiation escapes into space, resulting in a net gain at the surface.\n",
"The thing is, space IS cold. Around three degrees kelvin, close to absolute zero. This has led a lot of sci-fi and speculative fiction to speak of space as cold, so often and pervasively that people often disbelieve you if you contradict this.\n\nHowever, despite this, you won't freeze. Despite the low temperature of space itself, space usually isn't empty. Particularly in our neighborhood, sunlight carries a lot of energy that will heat the things it meets. \n\nMore importantly the mechanics of heat transfer, as you noticed, don't work well in space - there's no convection or conduction. If you were in a space suit and out of direct sunlight, you would still not be able to radiate enough heat away - eventually, you'd cook in your own body heat unless your suit had heat sinks and radiators to deal with the problem.\n\nTV Tropes has a very good analysis of this subject.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/SpaceIsCold"
]
]
|
|
y6e5g | airports. arrival-to-flight, how do i go through the airport, security, etc. and in what order? | I don't fly much. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y6e5g/eli5_airports_arrivaltoflight_how_do_i_go_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5sqkcm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Steps:\n\n1. Check in online 24 hours before your flight. Go to your airline's website and follow the instructions there. You can print out your boarding pass now or do it at the airport.\n2. Go to the airport.\n3. If you didn't print out your boarding pass in step 1, go to a kiosk near your airline's counter. Type in your information and get a boarding pass printed.\n4. If you're checking bags you'll need to go up to the airline's counter and get them checked. If you're just bringing carry-on bags you can skip this step.\n5. Walk to security checkpoint. There may be multiple checkpoints so make sure you go to the one that gets you to your gate.\n6. Go through the security line. Right before the x-ray machines will be a TSA person checking IDs and boarding passes. They will stamp your boarding pass and then you can put away your ID.\n7. Take everything out of your pockets and put it into a bin. Take off your belt, shoes and jacket and put them in the bin too. You don't need a bin for your bag. Pro Tip: Put all of this stuff in your carry-on before you get to the machine. It'll be faster and your fellow passengers will thank you.\n8. Push your bag into the x-ray machine and walk through the scanner. Hold on to your boarding pass.\n9. On the other side pick up your bag and put your shoes back on.\n10. Walk to your gate and make sure that your flight is still on-time and that the gate hasn't changed. You can also check this information on the Departures screens scattered around the airport.\n11. Wait for your flight to start boarding.\n12. When they call you up, give the gate agent your boarding pass and walk onto the plane."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
37q3nv | charitable donations for tax purposes | I know the donation is tax deductible, but you're still giving up that money. Why is is sometimes a tricky tax move to donate to charity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37q3nv/eli5_charitable_donations_for_tax_purposes/ | {
"a_id": [
"crou9vm",
"crouwdv",
"crp4hro"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"For some wealthy people, donating to a charity is preferable to paying tax because they can reap the benefits of that donation. Social events such as charity balls, buildings named after them, there are lots of ways that they can get compensated in some way for their donation. ",
"Oh charities...\n\nBusinesses like Target and Walmart LOVE to run charities because you donate a few pennies or a dollar in some bin on the counter, and they collect it and donate it in THEIR name. They get to write off your donation to protect their earnings!\n\nThis is why you donate to your preferred charities directly, and get a receipt, or some organization is going to donate your money in their name.\n\nIt's not worth donating for the tax write off unless it's something that cost you nothing. For example, don't throw things away, donate them. Old clothes, furniture, supplies, utensils, electronics, games, picture frames, luggage, and craft supplies. Something I learned when I bought my home: if someone offers to give you something for free YOU SAY YES. I'm getting some old oak chairs in a couple days as a hand me down. They're ugly. I don't want them, but they're worth a $200 donation!",
"You can deduct up to 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) in charitable contributions. This is a huge tax break because your marginal tax rate, which applies to your income, will be based off of your AGI after deducting your contributions. Say you have an AGI of 100,000, if you have contributed 50,000 in the past tax year, you will only be taxed on the remaining 50,000 AGI. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
64nqnm | human vision resolution | I was listening to an interesting podcast this morning in which they were discussing the differences of 720, 1080p, and 4K resolution. It made me wonder what is the resolution (if that term is valid for the human body) of a human's vision regardless of any impairments e.g contacts, eye glasses, bifocals.
Brian | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64nqnm/eli5_human_vision_resolution/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg3p154",
"dg3p6sq",
"dg440p5",
"dg44xq6"
],
"score": [
4,
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a good video on this topic by Vsauce. It answers your question and a lot more. Check it out here: _URL_0_",
"Great question!\n\nIf you stick out your arms and put your thumbs next to each other, that space they take up will be your highest resolution in your whole field of view. In THAT tiny space, depending on your eyesight, it would be roughly equivalent to 7 megapixels. All the other areas in your field of view would be roughly 7 times less focused. \n\nMy answer comes from trying to equate a \"pixel\" to 0.59 arcminutes (an arcminute is 1/60th of 1 degree). If your entire field of view was as focused as your foveal sight (the area in the center of your sight as big as your 2 thumbs), then your field of view would be 576 megapixels.\n\nDisclaimer: our eyes do not work that way, but it's still fun answering an interesting question.",
"You can sort of use resolution to describe human vision. Light is picked up in the retina by rods and cones. These then bundle up into groups each with a nerve, those then get bundled too, until this reaches your visual cortex and gets processed.\n\nSo, some of it gets lost in translation, and human vision isn't a perfectly even grid of squares but yeah - we have a resolution of about 600MPx. \n\nNeeding glasses wouldn't affect that base resolution, just the resulting image is more blurry. Think the other way adding or removing lenses doesn't change the fact my screen is 1920 by 1200. \n\nWhere it gets really interesting is the amount of processing your brain does afterwards. ",
"The old 525 and 625 line TV standards were designed to be viewed at 7 times the screen height, i.e., measure how high the image is on your TV, multiply by 7 and view the image that far away. Then the average person will be able to take full advantage of the image quality. Move closer and many people will start to see the scan-lines. From further away many people won't be able to see all the details in the image.\n\nThe \"Full HD\" (1920x1080) has twice the vertical resolution because it was designed to be viewed at 3 times the screen height (which is 1.5 time the screen diagonal). So a 40\" set can best be viewed at 60\" (5 feet) for most people). Some people have better-than-average vision and can see the all details perhaps 7 or 8 feet away but, unless you plan to view a 40\" screen closer than that, 1920x1080 is enough.\n\n4K is double again so, if you want to view at 5 feet away, buy an 80\" screen. The detail in 4K is wasted on conventional viewing distances but, done properly, it does allow you to have an image that fills way more of your field of view and still not see the pixels."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://youtu.be/4I5Q3UXkGd0"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2fys5x | with how much reliability can a bullet instantly kill a human? | In the movies, we often see the hero running around, shooting at bad guys. Whenever a bullet hits a vital zone, the target is instantly killed or is injured to the point of no longer being a threat.
How often does this happen in real life? I would imagine there would be a variety of alternate possibilities, including but not limited to:
- wounds that do not mortally injure the target
- Wounds that mortally injure the target, but do not stop him from going on fighting and otherwise thwarting his opponents' goals for a couple more minutes.
- Wounds that disable and mortally wound the target, but do not kill him immediately, leaving you with a room full of dying people screaming their heads off.
Any knowledge to be shared about this?
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fys5x/eli5_with_how_much_reliability_can_a_bullet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cke45sg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Instant kills are basically the realm of close-range shots in hostage situations, where you're aiming for the upper lip just below the nose (assuming head-on)\n\nThe goal is a hit on the \"apricot\" (medulla oblongata) in the target's brain, which controls involuntary motor function. A successful shot means your target goes down like a puppet with its strings cut, having no chance to pull a trigger to a hostage's head or even have a finger twitch to do it. There's plenty of videos of this; I won't link them though for the sake of our more squeamish readers.\n\nBeyond that though, let's just say my home defense weapon of choice is a shotgun for a reason. Individual rounds from a pistol, even a \"big\" calibre like .45ACP, aren't enough to reliably stop a cranked-out intruder; there's the famous case in College Park where LEOs basically emptied an entire magazine's worth into a man high on PCP and he didn't stop."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
43s7wc | why are social security cards so fragile? | They're literally the easiest and worst things to lose. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43s7wc/eli5why_are_social_security_cards_so_fragile/ | {
"a_id": [
"czkje05",
"czkl0tq"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Social Security cards are not intended to be carried around or used often. It's more important that they're hard to forge than that they are durable--the typical SS card can last the holder's lifetime, since it is typically stored away somewhere safe.",
"Why do they say \"Do not laminate this card\"?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
6muex7 | why do fan and propeller blades often have different shapes and angles of attack? why does the number of blades vary, shouldn't there be an optimal design? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6muex7/eli5_why_do_fan_and_propeller_blades_often_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk4dk5u",
"dk4gl5z",
"dk4nk63",
"dk4npoa",
"dk4pcl0",
"dk4qk8z",
"dk4zrtk",
"dk52myt",
"dk53wgl"
],
"score": [
285,
17,
14,
7,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There *is* an optimal design... for any given purpose and set of operating conditions. The problem is that such things as expected air pressure, the speed at which it's moving forward (in the case of a propeller), the amount of driving power available, whether or not the fan is ducted, and various others, will change the optimal design. Hence, different designs for different purposes.",
" > Why do fan and propeller blades often have different shapes and angles of attack?\n\nOn all but the smallest airplanes, the angle of the propellers can be adjusted to match the speed, serving the same function as a transmission in a car.\n\n > Why does the number of blades vary, shouldn't there be an optimal design?\n\nFor a given amount of power, few blades are better, but they have to be longer to get the same effect. The number of blades will be a tradeoff between space and efficiency.\n\n",
"Well, I know that on AC condensers/heat pumps, the design of the fan blades can affect system performance. Different blade pitches and counts can have adverse affects on fan motor amperage by increasing or decreasing air resistance, refrigerant liquid (head) pressure by changing air flow across the coil, and compressor amperage by thusly changing the temperature and therefore pressure inside the condenser coil. With infinitely many applications, designs and manufacturers of equipment, it's impossible for there to be a universal fit",
"More blades with low attack will have less buffeting, but more whoosh. Air flow and comfort tend to work against each other. ",
"The reason the angle of attack changes along the blade is because out towards the tip they're traveling faster and would exceed the speed at which they can bite the air if left the same along the whole blade. Conversely inside the angle of attack is steeper to make up for slower speeds. This doesn't really matter on household fans but on propellers it is imperative that the whole blade efficiently bites the air. ",
"I'll take your question to mean different blades on the same fan. Looking at automotive fans and house fans you'll see that the blades have an uneven stagger. This breaks up acoustic resonances and makes the fan quieter. The same is true for tread blocks on tires. What you lose in efficiency you gain in happy customers. ",
"Did you know that variable pitch props on airplanes exist? They can even turn the blades enough to make the planrt go In reverse while still spinning the same direction ",
"Airplane props have a varying pitch from spinner to tip because the tip has might high air speed. You want even loading in the property, so the tip has a much lower pitch, and much more aggressive pitch near the spinner.",
"Propellers: Less number and small size is useful for small boats. If same is used in large ships, vibrations increase and the low pressure behind the props could slow them down. Hence large ships have more propeller blades and they are larger in size."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
21hqps | why do i hear the same song, at a different time in the same day, in a completely opposite tempo? once may be at a slow tempo; same song 6 hours later would be at a much faster tempo, from the same audio source. | For example, this specific song:
_URL_0_
I could listen to this song anytime during the day, and I would hear it at a normal (slow) tempo, but often listen to it at any different time during the same day, and for no reason it will sound to me at a much faster tempo. Does it have to do with my heart rate?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21hqps/eli5_why_do_i_hear_the_same_song_at_a_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgd4xqe",
"cgd4yte",
"cgd5rzh",
"cgd6ozq",
"cgd77qy",
"cgd8p84"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
5,
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Interested in this too. I always thought it was related to either i was tired or not.",
"I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE",
"I think this might be better as a DAE post. I've never experienced or heard of this before.",
"Sometimes I'll yawn during a song and the pitch will ramp up. That's fun too.",
"Humans cannot sense independently. Whether it is time, speed, senses... pretty much anything. Everything is in relation to something else.\n\nIf you drive 150kmh for some hours and then suddenly 50kmh, the 50kmh will feel awkwardly slow. Thats why a lot of people crash in narrow curves when coming from high speed streets.\n\nPlace three buckets of water. First cold, second medium, third hot. If you go in the first and then the second, it will feel hot. If you go in the third and then in the second, it will feel cold.\n\nAsk people to judge the speed of two motorcycles. Even if going at the same speed, people will think the louder one is faster.\n\nAsk ten people in one room to close their eyes and open again, after they think five minutes have passed. You will laugh about the results. \n\nSo if the song feels \"slow\", your internal pace is high. If it feels \"fast\", your internal pace is slow.\n\nEdit: Spelling",
"Imagine somebody talking at a normal volume while you're having fun late in the day; imagine that same volume from the same distance when you're still in the process of waking up. The actual dB level of the sound hasn't changed, but your context for it has, and as a result you will perceive it as many times louder. It has to do with your mood, your level of energy, and what you've been exposed to that day. \n\nThat said, if you did a lot of rhythm and tempo exercises regularly for a few weeks or months, you'd likely have a consistent sense of where tempos lie, and this phenomenon would be much less pronounced. "
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrddMRFyuzs&feature=kp"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
99t444 | what happens to ip rights/licenses when a company goes under? | For example, if Bethesda were to completely shut down tomorrow, what would happen to the licensing for games like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and Doom? Is there some process where the license is sold out to the highest bidder? Would the rights be transferred to a specific individual from the company that shut down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99t444/eli5_what_happens_to_ip_rightslicenses_when_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4q8h24",
"e4qa5ri",
"e4qhfqj"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Someone would buy the rights for pennies on the dollar. The owners of Bethesda are going to liquidate and get cash out of the assets of the company. The software, the trademarks, the office building, the desks and chairs, the computers. They aren't just going to throw away everything if they can get something for it.",
"Fun fact: there are orphan trademarks. When a company goes out of business, the IP is probably for sale too. ",
"The company goes under because it can't pay its debts. The creditors divide the company between them and sell off everything they can. If there's something they can't sell, the creditors own it.\n\nThere might be some games whose IP is owned by a bank or a venture capitalist who won't ever use it. I've heard of one game which ended up being a marginal cult classic, and a game dev wanted to do a remake. They tracked down the rights to one of three companies, but none of them were willing to check if they actually owned the rights to it, so they couldn't use the IP. These are called orphaned works: someone might own the rights, but nobody can tell who, so nobody can use it.\n\nUnder the original copyright duration in the United States, this would be at most fourteen years during which the work was unusable. Annoying, but tolerable. Now, it's more like seventy.\n\nThere was a proposal some years ago for a copyright tax: a $1 fee to maintain your copyright after a certain number of years. This would ensure that your government could figure out who owned the license to a work, and orphaned works would automatically go into the public domain, while being small enough that almosts anyone who even slightly cared about keeping their work copyrighted could afford it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
b27k4v | why do electronics usually require 2 batteries instead of just one bigger battery? ie: 2 aaa instead of 1 aa. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b27k4v/eli5_why_do_electronics_usually_require_2/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiqs5c8",
"eiqsgdt",
"eiqsv3q"
],
"score": [
16,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"It's to do with the voltages at play.\n\nThe common battery sizes -- AAA, AA, C, and D -- are all 1.5V. If you connect two batteries in series, you increase the voltage. So, 2 AAA batteries have a total voltage of 3V, compared to a single AA battery with a voltage of 1.5V.",
"TLDR: Batteries are often chosen to optimize size + weight of the device.\n\nAA, AAA, C, and D batteries all have the same voltage (1.5V), the major difference between them is how long they last. The larger the battery the more energy storage it has, so the longer the battery will last.\n\nYou can replace the batteries in a device with similar batteries that have the same total voltage.\n\nSo 2x AAA's = 2 x 1.5 = 3 volts.\n\nSo if a device is powered by 2x AAA's, you can replace them with 2x D's which would make the device run much longer.\n\nBUT the catch is those D batteries are huge and would make the device very heavy and cumbersome. The reason most devices run on AA's is size + weight.",
"An AA battery is bigger in capacity than a AAA battery but both are at the same voltage.\n\nThink of voltage as water pressure and capacity as the amount of water in a water tank. You're lifting water into the air with a water tower so that you can get water pressure to run your shower. An AA battery would have a larger water tank but both AA and AAA batteries would have the same height.\n\nBy stacking two AAA batteries together, you double the voltage so essentially, you get a water tower with twice the height, doubling the water pressure. A single height water tower would cause a small dribble out of the shower nozzle but with two, there is enough water to properly shower.\n\nWhy 2 AAA and not two AA? Generally, there are size and weight requirements for the device.\n\nSo why two batteries worth of voltage? Each battery is 1.5 volts so two stacked gives you 3 volts. Many electronics require about 3 volts to be powered. Nowadays, there are some electronics that can be powered with a single battery because of the progress we made in shrinking our electronic building blocks."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
spv77 | how can plants grow back their parts after cutting them? why can't people do the same? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/spv77/eli5_how_can_plants_grow_back_their_parts_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4fyorb",
"c4g010d",
"c4g07y0"
],
"score": [
18,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Plants, like all living things, are made of tiny parts. We call these \"cells\" - and there are different types of cells; skin cells on people, cells that can detect light in your eyes and leaf cells in my basil plant.\n\nThese cells have information stored within them - this is why I have the same nose as my Dad, because I share his cells. This information helps the plant grow - two flowers can look the same because they've got the same instructions on what to do, all stored in those tiny little cells.\n\nNow, if I cut off one of my basil plants leaves, the plant knows how to grow it back because the rest of the cells in the plant still have their instruction manual! In some ways, people and animals *are* the same - when I shave my beard, the next day it's grown back in pretty much the same way. If you cut your fingernails, you'll see after a few days that they're growing back the same way because the cells are following their instructions.\n\nNow - your question about why people can't do the same: This is very complicated and even the best scientists still don't completely understand. The most likely explanation is that our cells \"specialise\" into one type of cell. Your head has no trouble growing back your hair after a trip to the barbers, but it couldn't grow a spare foot if you had an accident! If you hurt yourself and cut a little bit off the tip of your finger, it would probably grow back just fine. But if you lost a whole finger, the cells don't know how to rebuild the whole thing - it's too big and complicated (remember that these cells are TINY) - instead, they can just help rebuild the bits around the cut, which is why it would heal over with skin.\n\nSome animals can lose a whole part of their bodies and grow it back - some lizards can lose a tail or even a leg and it'll grow back quite quickly. This is because their cells are very good at changing into other types of cells - a bit like a lump of plastic can be made into a pen, a shoe or a football. These cells are known as \"stem cells\". Remember those scientists I mentioned? They're trying to understand how we can use stem cells in people *before* they turn into hair cells or skin cells or bone cells, to help people hurt in accidents regrow bits of their bodies.",
"The short answer: Any area of rapidly dividing cells is dangerous because of the potential for cancer. \n\nHumans and other more \"advanced\" organisms gave up the ability to rapidly divide and form new tissues because of one very scary byproduct of rapid cell division, cancer. \n\nCancer cells are just normal body cells that have changed due to mutations that allow them to rapidly divide and to not easily be killed or detected by the immune system. \n\n\n\nLet me give you the following situation: \n\nYou have 2 groups of squirrels. In group A, the individuals are able to regenerate limbs and in group B, the individuals are not able to do so. In group A, the squirrels that have a limb chewed off end up regenerating a limb and producing more offspring than the squirrels in group B on average. Great right, squirrel population A will be dominant in no time with their advantageous mutation! Wait, the offspring that are born in group A have a higher chance of developing cancers because the mutation that allows them to grow new limbs also favors cancer formation. The squirrels in group A try to fight off these cancerous infections, but fewer tend to live to sexual maturity and the ones that do tend to live shorter lives. \n\nThe squirrels are an analogy to early vertebrates (things with a backbone). Early vertebrates kind of looked like tadpoles, but lost their ability to regenerate limbs just like the squirrels above. The disadvantage of cancer formation caused early vertebrates to not regenerate tissues quickly. \n\n**Edit:** We are vertebrates by the way. Early vertebrates would be our common ancestor with fish, amphibians, and reptiles etc. ",
"Well, plants grow by adding new leaves, stems, flowers, and other parts, and they keep doing this pretty much their whole lives (except for in winter). So if you cut off one leaf, the plant just keeps growing more leaves. Note that it doesn't grow back that specific leaf - it just keeps growing leaves.\n\nAnimals like dogs and people and orangutans develop all their parts once, when they are inside their mothers (this is called embryogenesis), and then they spend a long time getting bigger, until they are adults. If you looked closely, a 12-week old human embryo would have just about all the same parts as an adult human, even fingers, toes, and eyelids. Some parts can regenerate, like skin, but most of them can't.\n\nNow, there are some animals that are better at regenerating parts than we are. Lizards can grow new tails (they can even grow new tails while the old ones are still attached), starfish can grow new arms, etc.\n\nI guess you could say that we lost the ability gradually as we evolved and became less like lizards and starfish and plants. Perhaps it's because if we were always sprouting new parts, then we wouldn't function very well.\n\nSome people are trying to figure out how to get animal cells to grow into new parts again by tricking them into thinking they are back at the embryogenesis stage. If we can work out how to do this, then we could fix a lot of injuries and make many people very happy. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
cvi2ik | how nat works in terms of networking , and what it could do for network security? | Taking a network defense class. I’m having trouble wrapping me brain around this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cvi2ik/eli5_how_nat_works_in_terms_of_networking_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey4bhje",
"ey4ceml",
"ey4cmc8",
"ey4fy4g"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of NAT as the front door to your house. Everything leaving the house goes through this door meaning all the windows can be locked. Now if you trust a place you can allow a port (doggy door) which has limited access. \n\nSince everything goes through one door you have one address for inside and one for outside with the door being your security feature. If people want to enter they have to knock to figure out whats inside.",
"Maybe a telephony analogy would help?\n\nThink of an office building with 10 phones. Each phone has a 4 digit extension. However when they call outside of the office to your cell phone the number appears as the main number associated with that business which has 10’digits. no matter which phones dials your cell the same main number shows ok your called id \n\n Now substitute extensions with IP address. Those internal ips (phone extensions) only work inside the local network and to reach outside of your network you need a proper IP (essentially you’re being masked behind another IP)\n\nAs far as security goes your hiding your real number. For example- if the ceo has extension 3344 and he/she makes a call to the outside world should that persons direct dial number be exposed? Probably not. Same can be said with ip addresses \n\n(To be honest the security aspect of NAT is the least important reason it’s deployed so much but that’s neither here nor there)",
"TLDR: NAT allows all devices on a network to share a single public IP address. As a side effect it acts like a Firewall automatically dropping any unsolicited traffic coming inbound to your network.\n\nNAT was originally designed as a method to get around IPv4 exhaustion.\n\nAs the internet grew it became obvious that the existing system of IP addressing would soon be insufficient to meet future demand. NAT was invented as one method of getting around this problem.\n\nIt was inspired by corporate phone systems or PBXs (Public Branch Exchange) that allows multiple internal telephone extensions to share a handful of outside phone lines. Allowing a company to have a considerable number of handsets (phones) without needing to have a dedicated telephone number for each one.\n\nSimilarly NAT uses a single, or a small handful of public IP addresses and allows them to be shared by multiple internal devices, just like a corporate phone system. As far as the internet is concerned every device in that company is using 1 or a handful of specific public IP addresses.\n\nDevices inside a company are assigned 'private' IP addresses like extensions on a phone system. Addresses are reserved from the IPv4 pool for this purpose, making them illegal to be used on the internet. Such addresses begin with 10.X.X.X, 172.16-31.X.X and 192.168.X.X\n\nThese IPs can be re-used over and over again at different companies since they never touch the internet directly. Allowing a huge number of devices to potentially exist inside a corporate network while using a small number of public IPs to access the internet.\n\nThe catch is NAT only works one way, with outbound initiated traffic. Traffic initiated inbound to a network (such as email) doesn't know which specific device to send email too by default. Just like a phone system where an outside phone number must be attached to a specific phone for it to ring, so must NAT be programmed with specific rules (static NAT) to allow specific ports and traffic into a network to a specific machine or server. This means that by default NAT acts like a firewall, dropping or discarding all unsolicited inbound traffic to a network that doesn't meet certain parameters.\n\nThe inventor of the technology named the first device to use NAT a Public Internet Exchange or PIX for short, a play on words of PBX. The product was subsequently bought by Cisco becoming Cisco PIX and later ASA. The ancestor to today's Cisco Firepower. NAT technology meanwhile became an industry standard that anyone could use.",
"As you are asking for a network defence class there is a key factor that people are missing here, yes the NAT device changes the IP to its own allowing the packets to get out, but have you ever wondered how they get back?\n\nThe IP packet has a source address and a destination address, and a source port and destination port. When the packet goes out through the NAT device it changes the source address to it's own and remembers the source and destination information in what is commonly called a state table. So when the return packet comes back, it can look at the source and destination info and send the packet back to the machine that requested it.\n\nSo if for example your PC was 192.168.1.100 and requested a web page from _URL_0_ on port 80, it would assign a random source port, for example 2128. When google sends back the web page it will send it with the source and destination reversed, so when the NAT device gets a packet from _URL_0_ with a destination of port 2128 (in this example) it remembers that 192.168.1.100 used that port and sends the packet back to your PC.\n\nAn old attack was to send fake traffic back with faked source and destination info to try and hit one of the combinations in a state table and get the packet through the NAT device. But as you would have to fake every single field in the IP packet perfectly this was more of a lab exercise than a real attack."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"google.com"
]
]
|
|
8dfqns | why do cars travel in packs on the highway, even when there are no traffic stops to create groups? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dfqns/eli5_why_do_cars_travel_in_packs_on_the_highway/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxmqql1",
"dxms2qq",
"dxmyf0r",
"dxmyh5r",
"dxmyizp",
"dxmzc5t",
"dxmzcna",
"dxmzksg",
"dxn0gq3",
"dxn0srt",
"dxn1j04",
"dxn1s5p",
"dxn1ssl",
"dxn2hep",
"dxn2z47",
"dxn3056",
"dxn36ne",
"dxn3aqm",
"dxn409l",
"dxn440r",
"dxn4gcc",
"dxn4oi8",
"dxn5aq3",
"dxn5ylk",
"dxn6ecs",
"dxn7r9d",
"dxn7x5g",
"dxn7zqq",
"dxn8yu0",
"dxnbtq4",
"dxncuoo",
"dxneouq",
"dxnh1iu",
"dxnhhx8",
"dxnlbig",
"dxnll71"
],
"score": [
14145,
1325,
12,
2,
31,
6,
42,
2,
5,
2,
10,
3,
38,
45,
40,
12,
3287,
2,
3,
44,
53,
45,
7,
12,
2,
5,
49,
7,
2,
16,
2,
2,
111,
3,
2,
14
],
"text": [
"Faster cars inevitably stack up behind slow cars, generating this pack formation.\n\nEventually the faster cars will weave through and \"escape\" until they hit the next pack, but there's always another slow-car-slowly-passing-even-slower-car up ahead to cause another group.\n\nThe cars in a group do not stay together long, it's a transient phenomenon that forms and dissolves when cars with different speeds meet.",
"Because very few people follow the rule Slower Traffic Keep Right (or Left if you drive on the left in your country).\n\nWhen slower traffic is in all lanes, it creates barriers to faster traffic. Imagine a three-lane road with three slow cars traveling the same slow speed side by side. Nobody can get around, so traffic backs up behind them. The slow drivers in the front almost always seem to be completely oblivious to this and refuse to change speed or move over.",
"Because it's easier to follow someone going relatively the same speed. People don't like to think when they drive, most don't know how... Following is easier than leading, which is why most people are followers. ",
"Former driving instructor here, I can add a little something. Some of the responses here aren't wrong, but they're leaving something out. Humans are pack animals by nature, and since most of our driving is done using subconscious habits, we often revert to what's in our nature. We used to hunt in packs, live in packs, fight in packs and today we feel safer walking around in packs. With driving, we teach to set aside that mentality in a few areas; pack mentality and vision.\nPack mentality decreases your chances of avoiding an accident when driving. If you have a clear line of sight to every possible hazard, you can see it coming sooner. If you're in a herd of cars, your distance vision is partially obstructed. Visually we have been used to (for millions of years) assessing threats coming at us based on walking speed, so we generally rest our eyes about that distance off the front of our cars. The brain has had less than a century to develop to serious threat analytical response based on movement at 60 MPH.",
"Because people do not leave enough following distance.\n\nIf they did, there would be no constant brake slamming, people would be able to merge, and although it might appear to the inpatient \"there's lots of space in front of you, GO!,\" in actuality, the car (6 or 7 car distances in front of you) isn't going any faster than you are.",
"You get packs of people who say I want to go the speed limit, then people who say I want to go 5 mph over the limit, then u get people who say I want to go 10 mph over the speed limit and so forth. These create packs and then you get the people who want to go 30 mph and weave through the pack until they hit one up ahead",
"This exists 100% because nearly everyone is a bad driver in the sense that they have no clue what to do to keep traffic flowing freely, or they simply don't care to.\n\nHere's a simple tip to be a better driver: \n\nIf you aren't actively passing a vehicle on your right, then move one lane to your right. Do this for EVERY lane, not just the \"fast\" lane, which is actually the passing lane.\n\nJust because you aren't in the fast/passing lane doesn't mean you aren't blocking/causing traffic.\n\n",
"There’s also the traffic signal effect.\n\nTraffic lights let blocks of cars through on a regular timing, this would cause traffic to be interrupted and create packs.",
"I have had this happen behind me when there is plenty of room to pass while driving at a maybe 75 or 80 mph. I have tried pulling into the right lane, speeding up, slowing down and they still stay behind me. I decided that the cars following are very afraid of the speed that they are travelling at and they prefer being behind someone so that their relative speed (in relation to the car in front) is zero. I have seen drivers who seem to be very uncomfortable not tailgating, they don't try to pass or go faster, they just tailgate. I think it is for the same reason\n\nThat you might be in the countryside traveling through a deer migration route and the car in front might need to slam on the brakes does not occur to them.",
"If we could all just use damn cruise control at the speed limit, or maintain and match the constant speed of traffic, we would all get where we want to be much faster than trying to beat everyone else. But no, people drive fast because they are late for work, and people drive slow because they don't want to get in an accident. This war causes the packs to form.",
"People not using the passing lane correctly. You get the first type of moron who will be going balls to the wall until they have to pass someone. Then instead of maintaining their speed, for some reason will match the speed of the car in the slow lane. Then you have the people that don't think they have to clear the passing lane because they're doing the speed limit. As a note, in almost every state in the US, unless you are actively passing or turning left within a mile, you MUST get out of the passing lane as soon as is safe or you are breaking the law. Then the third common cause is the good ol elephant race, where one semi tries to pass another semi both both are near their speed governor so the \"passing\" semi is only going like .2 mph faster than the other so the pass takes a century.",
"There's also people like me who will purposely stay with the pack so I don't accidentally speed and get picked off.",
"Not a scientist but but from years of commuting experience (~1 hour each way) typically it is because of slow drivers in the left lane",
"Because of that one guy who is going too slow and the 2 or 3 guys behind him that won't pass him. It is extremely difficult for the 4th guy to pass them all.",
"If you are scientifically inclined, it might interest you to know that there are papers written in physics journals on the origin of traffic patterns. One set of mathematical models shows that cars in traffic behave in some ways like ice crystals melting into liquids at their surface, with the water molecules jumping off in clumps. These models are used by highway traffic control designers.",
"Two factors:\n\nOne, as u/Lithuim said, \" Faster cars inevitably stack up behind slow cars, generating this pack formation.\" The pack will eventually break up and new packs will be formed as fast cars move ahead to the next wave of slow cars.\n\nOther factor is human negligence. People usually don't pay attention to their speedometers other than to make sure they aren't getting a ticket, but it is very easy to see out the corner of your eye that you're going faster or slower than someone. You can test this, and I'm sure many *have* and were infuriated by the results, by pulling up next to another car and hovering just ahead of them \\(putting them near your blind spot\\) you'll notice that if you speed up just a tad then they'll match your speed. You thought it would be easy to pass the motorist who was doing 5 under the limit, but you took your time accelerating and suddenly they're going 15 over and not letting you pass!",
"The interesting thing about traffic is that it obeys many of the rules of fluid dynamics, behaving like a liquid in a confined space. \n\n\nThis works because cars, like water molecules, don't compress. Traffic on a highway behaves a lot like water in a pipe. Not all traffic moves at the same rate, but when faster moving traffic encounters slower moving traffic, it has to slow down because 2 cars can't be in the same space at the same time. When the car ahead accelerates or moves out of the way, it takes time for the cars behind to take advantage of it and cars farther away take even longer, so the change in speed appears to move like a wave on the ocean, starting at the front, and working its way backwards. \n\nThis delay in passing acts a little like a standing wave and it lasts until either all the cars move at the same speed, or move far enough away from each other not to impede each other. \n\nNow say that pockets like that are spread out on an otherwise empty highway, and some person in a sports car wants to get out from behind them so they can drive as fast as they want. They too have to slow down, temporarily joining the pack of cars, adding to it's size, until they can get out from behind it and drive on. But then they run into another pack of slower cars, and the process repeats. \n\nSo even cars that don't want to drive together, find themselves driving together because of physics. \n\nThat's true for all drivers. There are some drivers though that seek groups of cars on purpose. Either for safety, on a long desert road a breakdown by yourself can be dangerous, but if you have company... Or in order to drive faster than the speed limit and hope that the other cars either see the troopers first, or get pulled over instead of them. That is a flocking behavior that prey species use to protect against predators.\n\nSo in a way some of it is the physics of liquids, and some of it is the behavioral survival strategies of antelope on an African Savannah. ",
"If a car suddenly slows down and causes the cars behind to suddenly slow down also it creates a ripple effect that moves the opposite direction of traffic. It persists long after and far away from the initial incident. Don't follow people so close, it does not help you get to your destination much faster.",
"Honestly I think it’s more than just the bad driver explanation. While that certainly exists, I believe that people actually prefer to follow others, rather than lead the way. They choose to be in groups and lines. Just watch when you go to an amusement park, concert, or sporting event. People will often choose the lines that are bigger even when there are shorter lines nearby ",
"Not sure if this is just me or a universal thing, but when driving longer distances you tend to find someone that keeps a similar tempo to you and stay behind them. This has a number of benefits, one being that you don't really have to watch your speed as closely since you can just match his. Another one is that not being the first vehicle in a stack can give you slightly more reaction time/less risk of wildlife accidents (or any accident really), and in the case of a police check you're less likely to be metered as the second car.\n\nEssentially, having a car in front of you is a form of buffer between you and reality. ",
"Slow drivers are the most dangerous threat on highways by far. Slow lane changes, lane drifting, and poor reaction times / lack of awareness are the cause of most highway accidents.",
"It isn’t the cause of every pack of travel on the highways, but I notice it happens often when a semi truck traveling at 65 mph is being passed by another semi truck going 65.15 mph and block both lanes",
"The term is actually called platoon flow, and is a key factor in highway design.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Do you ever notice someone from your pack turn off? And you feel a certain type of way. Like you got used to that car being there and seeing it leave kind of hurts a little.",
"Lithium is right\n\nAlso some people who drive fast may purposefully slow down in a pack of cars because going fast on an empty highway can lead to a ticket, meanwhile going fast on a crowded section of highway means theres less of a chance to be pulled over.",
"Two words: Semi Trucks. Most states designate the left lane for passing only, so you only have people in those lanes going over the speed limit in short bursts....just to get around the next car. A semi, on the other hand, takes MUCH long to pass another semi. This causes the cars to bunch up behind the two semis. When the passing semi finally gets in front of the other one, all of the cars behind it in the passing lane blast out ahead, and merge into the right lane when spots open up.",
"For a different answer than the others on here, I actually intentionally try to stay in a pack.\n\nWhen I'm travelling somewhere further than an hour away, I like to speed. Almost every time I do, I encounter a couple of other cars speeding similarly, weaving through traffic similarly, and we usually end up sticking together for a while. \n\nI don't know if it's intentional on their end, but I do it because i feel like there's less of a chance of me getting pulled over if im in a small group of speeders. \n\nEdit: Thank you, stranger!",
"[Here's is a pretty cool interactive traffic simulation that sort of self explains this.](_URL_0_)",
"Sometimes people just sit in the left lane and don't pass anybody, it's infuriating, for me at least. ",
"Because people are not self aware enough to realize the traffic behind them is caused by their stupidity. I go far out of my way to never be a burden on people. I never pull out in front of someone unless I plan on driving faster than them and staying out of their way, I always move over if I see a fast approaching car behind me, I put my blinker on at least 3 seconds before I brake. Just common sense shit. How is it possible that no one sees the pattern and self corrects? I know why: we live in a rapidly overpopulating world where a giant percentage of the population still believes there’s a man in the sky that created everything. ",
"“When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives”\n\n- Mahatma Gandhi.",
"As someone that highway drives almost exclusively with cruise control I have a theory that humans tend to clump in packs instinctively.\n\nI drive along a bit faster than 80% of people, passing more than pass me. As you've observed there are definitely packs out there. I think it is more than just faster cars getting stuck with slower cars. \n\nI'll sometimes have someone stick onto me. I don't drive fast enough to be considered a rabbit (the fast driver that will get pulled over first). So it is odd to me when people glom on.\n\nI'll be passing someone and they speed up a little without thinking about it. Maybe instinctively being competitive.\n\nTd;dr: Humans are pack animals and do wierd things without realizing it ",
"Hi y'all,\n\nThis is what I like to call a 'universal experience thread'. Almost everyone has been in traffic. As a consequence of that ubiquity, threads like this tend to get a lot of anecdotal replies.\n\nThis question in particular will also invite a lot of suggestions and 'gripes'.\n\nHere at ELI5 we try to maintain a focus on simplified explanations of complex concepts ([under rule 3](_URL_0_)). Anything that isn't, can't be a reply directly to the OP. That ensures that the sub reliably sees good explanations rise to prominence.\n\nHaving a comment you spent time crafting removed is a negative experience. We like to give a little warning when we can to try to save some people from that.\n\nKeep in mind that replies to other comments don't have that same standard applied to them.\n\n[Here's a link to the rules](_URL_0_), which have recently been rewritten to be more informative/clear.\n\nAs always, I am not the final authority on any of this. If you want my mod-action reviewed you can send a modmail. If you want to have a meta-conversation about the rules of the sub you can make a post in r/ideasforeli5 which is our home for that.",
"\"There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote... of a soul\"",
"If I’m doing 80 and passing cars on the right of me doing 60, and someone doing 100 comes blasting up behind me, is it my job to slow down to 60 to get out of the way?",
"Because some person invariably seems to be traveling in the left lane without passing. This causes the cars who are driving faster than left lane traveler to get stuck behind and form a pack."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.slideplayer.com/26/8496741/slides/slide_6.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.traffic-simulation.de/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
51fkh9 | what happens if one keeps pleading the fifth and the case is not going anywhere? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51fkh9/eli5_what_happens_if_one_keeps_pleading_the_fifth/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7bjdtj",
"d7bjfgm",
"d7bjfnh",
"d7bjnyx",
"d7bjtyt",
"d7bli0f",
"d7bolt0"
],
"score": [
27,
10,
2,
4,
13,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Pleading the 5th doesn't make the case go nowhere, it just means you have a right not to incriminate yourself (which includes choosing not to testify in your defense). This doesn't preclude the state from building a case against you, presenting it to a jury, or that jury finding you guilty.",
"If you haven't given the police any evidence by speaking to them, and they have no other evidence to warrant holding you, you'll be released.\n\nThough it's important to understand that in a very large number of arrests, there's plenty of evidence to convict the person without them ever saying a word.",
"Nothing, they either have enough evidence to convict you anyway or they dont and you go free. Pretty simple.",
"In general police stop questioning after someone pleads the fifth. At that point they either make an arrest based on the evidence they have gathered, or they let the person leave if they are not under arrest and continue looking for evidence/shelve the case in the event they don't have enough evidence to close it.\n\nThe television show, *The First 48* follows detectives doing homicide investigations. It's a reality show, and there is substantial editing for 48 hours of investigations to become 44 minutes of television, so it's unlikely to be the whole truth, but it does an excellent job showing police interrogations and the common strategies used to get suspects to talk and occasionally the effect of requesting an attorney. \n\nAs far as what you should know, [this video](_URL_0_) does a good job teaching what you need to know to exercise your constitutional rights. ",
"This might be a better question for r/legaladvice but I'll give it a go.\n\n\"Pleading the Fifth\" happens when you are testifying in a court case or under oath and you think answering a question may incriminate you. At the most simple level, if you plead the Fifth on every question the prosecutor just has to prove the case or convince a jury without the information (testimony) you would have provided.\n\nThe key with this is there must be a reasonable expectation that the answer to your question might be self incriminating. If not, the judge can compel you to answer or face penalties for being in contempt of court (not doing what the judge says).\n\nA recent example of this is dealing with computer system passwords. Some courts have said that a computer password is like a key, and so isn't protected by the Fifth Amendment. Keys can be used against the defendant's will to open boxes / locks, as long as there's a warrant. Other courts have said a computer password is like a combination lock on a safe or other personal knowledge and should be protected by the Fifth.\n\nThankfully, most courts at least in the US consider passwords protected information - but not all, and I don't think the Supreme Court has ruled definitively on this yet.\n\nAlso, keep in mind that Pleading the Fifth ~~isn't the same as~~ is related to but not exactly the same as (see comment below) your Miranda Rights (Right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc). The Miranda Rights are for talking to police and investigators, and confirm your right not to be forced to aid in your own investigation. The Fifth Amendment deals with court cases and sworn testimony. Both require positive assertion - you have to say that you're invoking the right - but pleading the Fifth is for a specific question, while Miranda silence seems to apply to interrogation in general. ~~and must be positively asserted - you can't just not answer a question, you have to say \"I plead the Fifth\" or similar.~~\n\n*IANAL - I'm a layman who deals with computer security and has an interest in the way law treats such. Inaccuracies may occur.*\n\n*Edit corrections and clarification*",
"Pleading the Fifth Amendment simply means you are invoking your right to remain silent or to refuse to answer questions that may incriminate you. Note, it does NOT mean law enforcement has to stop asking you questions, and if you ever say anything, it can probably be used against you depending on the situation. So, you should always ask if you are free to go, and if they say no, say that you want an attorney (6th amendment right) . If they say yes, leave without saying anything. If they do not have enough evidence without a confession to charge you with a crime, the case will not move forward. If they do, they will charge you with or without your statements. ",
"There's a lot right and a lot wrong with some of the other answers.\n\nThe Fifth Amendment provides that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. In other words, you can never be forced to admit you did something wrong. The burden of proof lies with the state to prove that you committed a crime. You NEVER have to answer questions that would incriminate you. Not if you're on the stand as a defendant, not if you're being interviewed by the cops as a suspect, not if you're being asked questions as a witness in an unrelated matter. You NEVER have to answer questions because at any moment, anything you DO say COULD incriminate you.\n\nIf you \"plead the Fifth\" at trial, you are saying \"I'm not answering because it could be used against me.\" Generally speaking (though not in all situations) the fact that you have refused to answer CANNOT be used as a negative inference. In other words, the state can't argue \"if he wasn't hiding something, he'd have answered.\" This is huge.\n\nSo, in your question, you have taken the stand in trial (you are NOT required to take the stand in your own defense in a criminal case) and you plead the Fifth. The prosecutor will have to move on to other questions as that one has been \"asked and answered\" You're not going to answer the question.\n\nEventually, your testimony will end, and the case will be submitted to the trier of fact (either the judge or the jury if it is a jury case) with the explicit instruction that there is to be no negative inference coming from the fact you plead the Fifth. The trier of fact will then make their decision as to whether or not the prosecution (the state) carried their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Since you imply that they can't otherwise carry the burden because the \"case is not going anywhere\" it would seem that an acquittal is appropriate, but that would be decided at that time.\n\nSource: IAAL, but to be fair, I don't practice crim law."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
63y2am | - as the horrible news breaks of assad and the chemical attacks on civilians, how is this act carried out with said chemicals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63y2am/eli5_as_the_horrible_news_breaks_of_assad_and_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfxwh2a",
"dfxy0sb"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Bomb with bad things inside is dropped.\n\nBomb with bad things inside explodes.\n\nBomb with bad things inside explodes and gets in the air.\n\nPeople use air to breath (and live).\n\nPeople breath in bad things and die.",
"Another commenter covered delivery - I can comment on effects. All nerve agents, including the sarin used in this latest attack and the VX used to assassinate Kim Jong Un's brother recently, work by making it so that your muscles cannot stop contracting. Under normal conditions, your nerves release a chemical to signal your muscles to contract, then quickly break it down to make the contraction stop. Nerve agents block the ability to break down the signaling chemical, so the muscles don't stop contracting. This causes immediate paralysis and eventual death by suffocation when the diaphragm becomes too tensed up to draw breath. It's a horrible death, as the victim remains fully conscious, in terrible pain, and struggling to breathe. A characteristic symptom is very small pupils (contraction of muscles in the iris), which causes the victim's vision to dim.\n\nEven though the killing is slow and inefficient, nerve agents are considered the worst chemical weapon because they are easily absorbed through the skin and lethal in very small doses."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2nj2wb | whats up with all the hate between reddit and 4chan. how did it start and what is it all about? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nj2wb/eli5_whats_up_with_all_the_hate_between_reddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cme2xsu",
"cme32zs"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, Reddit is known for it's circle jerkyness and 4chan is known for it's troll and hate. Typically when you put two opposites together they don't blend well.\n\nEdit: Word",
"4chan despise for not being anonymous (for the most part) and reddit's meritocracy."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2go088 | what does it mean to render something "in real time?" how can something be rendered differently to make it look better? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2go088/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_render_something_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckkw8d1"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Rendered in real-time means that something is being rendered as it is being observed. (For instance, a video game must render its graphics in real-time, whereas a movie is shot beforehand, rendered, then played at a later date.)\n\nTo make something look better with rendering, you can render more items (dust/smoke/fire particles), run more complicated algorithms to determine the paths of these particles, include more light sources, calculate shadows more precisely, more light rays when calculating specular reflections (the reflections from mirrors, puddles, shiny floors, looking at your reflection in a car or spoon, etc).\n\nSince these improvements to rendering fidelity are expensive (that is, they require a lot of work from a computer), things not rendered in real-time can include many more of these effects, render it over the course of hours/days/weeks, record the product, and release it for viewing. This is why special effects in movies tend to look far better than those in video games."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1dsw4l | what would be the international response if its found the rebels are using chemical weapons and not the government | Edit: I mean in Syria, sorry! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dsw4l/eli5_what_would_be_the_international_response_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9tk8cq",
"c9ty8uc"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, people will probably stop arming the rebels. There might even be NATO sirstrikes on rebel extremists to keep them from gaining acess to the weapons. A big part of the decisions that will be made is how the rebels organize to keep these weapons secure, who they give acess to, and what they use the weapons for and who on. Obviously, the rebels managed to keep the possession of the weapons a secret until they used them, that shows some semblence of a organized effort to control them. Or they might have just hijacked some government forces weapons and then immediately used the weapons. ",
"Nothing, nobody wants to get involved because the rebels are just as bad as the government. There is no \"good guy\" in this situation, at least not good enough to want to put your seal of approval on by siding with them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4skm91 | if i traveled to a star that was 1,000 lightyears away from earth, at 99.99999999% the speed of light, from my perspective, would it take me 1,000.000001 years to get there, or would it seem to take me a much short amount of time (like a few days or weeks or something)? | So, from what I understand, as you get closer and closer to traveling at the speed of light, time "slows down" (so to speak) for the traveler relative to the observer's point of view (the people back on Earth observing you rocket away/back towards them/etc).
So, if someone did some loops around the solar system at 99.9% the speed of light or something, the people on earth would age a lot more than he would, like, when he came back to earth, it could be a scenario where his children were in their 60's with gray hair and stuff, and he's still looking like he's in his 30's or whatever (or if he did it to a more severe degree, it could be a scenario where thousands of years had gone by on earth, but for him only a few days or weeks or whatever had gone by).
So, if let's say we invented some spaceship that could go very close to the speed of light: if we were trying to travel to some far away planet that was thousands of lightyears away, would it be a scenario where the people on the spaceship would have to just sit there traveling for thousands of years (and be long dead, or need to repopulate their spaceship crew with children and children of their children's children's children type of scenario) OR is it like, due to the relativity thing of going at near-light speed, for the people on the spaceship, depending on how many 9's there were after the decimal point in the 99.9999x% of the speed of light thing, it could seem to be a fairly short trip, even if traveling thousands of lightyears away, like it would seem to just take a few days or weeks or however long, for them (the people on the spaceship)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4skm91/eli5_if_i_traveled_to_a_star_that_was_1000/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5a3if1",
"d5a9ahg"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The faster you go, up to the point of the speed of light, it will seem to you like length in the direction of travel compresses. ([Length contraction](_URL_0_)).\n\nThe faster you go, the flatter the universe will look. Far away things will look closer to you. The effect is that not only will you see that you're traveling fast by our standard intuitive understanding, but distances to objects will seem to get shorter.\n\nIf you were able to travel at the speed of light (which you cannot because you have mass), the entire universe would flatten into 0 space and time. In other words, when you look at a distant star, that photon that traveled all those light years does not \"think/experience\" there is any difference in time or space from the moment it left the star to the moment it lands on your eye. It's instantaneous from the perspective of the photon.\n\n",
"Moving that fast you would experience time dilation which would make the trip seem shorter from your frame of reference. It's been awhile since I did the math but 99% the speed of light has a much higher lorentz contraction, meaning time is severely dilated. It's exponential with speed so the closer you are to the speed of light, the much slower time will pass for you on the ship versus somebody observing on Earth. So .99c would be something like hundreds or thousands of years passing for an Earth observer for every year you spend on your ship at that speed. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction"
],
[]
]
|
|
yx02k | derivatives trading, or market, or whatever it should be called? | Hey folks, I was reading a while ago in r/worldnews about this big fraud scandal with libor and such, and it was talking about derivatives, and I was very confused, and wikipedia felt like the article was written in a foreign language :/ any help would be a treat, thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yx02k/eli5_derivatives_trading_or_market_or_whatever_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5zkk7e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Example of a derivative.\n\nI am a airline and I need fuel. I don't need it now but actually in 6 months time, what should I do?\n\nWait for 6 months then see what the price is and buy it.\n\nWhat if in 6 months the price goes up by quite a lot? Can we afford it? That's a lot of risk to take.\n\nThe answers? Derivative (in this case one particular type called a future)\n\nThe airline enters into a derivative contract and essentials tries to fix the price of fuel in 6 months. I.e it buys a futures contract which says , \"I can by x amount of fuel in 6 months time for £y.\" By doing this it has fixed its cost and can budget accordingly.\n\nThis was just one example of a derivative, there are many types and essential the idea is that the contract you are buying has been **derived** from some security(such as a stock, or gold or fuel).\n\nSo basically a derivative is not an actually notional product itself but rather a contract that is based on some notional product.\n\nHope that helps, if not then I can try and clear up anything you're not sure about!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.