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
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
68u4gx | how did the common and notable relationship between offshore accounts and switzerland came to be? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68u4gx/eli5_how_did_the_common_and_notable_relationship/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh19osk",
"dh1cc1v"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Swiss law provides an exceptionally strong amount of banking privacy. For many decades it was illegal, even when asked by a government agency, to reveal the name of the owner of a bank account. This enabled people to store funds that may have been illegally obtained, or on which tax may not have been paid, without being caught.",
"At a very high level, the Swiss (historically) required that you prove a individual had broken _Swiss_ banking laws before they would release the information about any account holder to a foreign investigative service. This proved very difficult for two reasons:\n\n- Swiss banking laws were much more favorable to the account holder than most\n- It is very difficult to prove that a specific account was involved in the crime _and_ that it belonged to the individual in question without being able to view the transactions of the account.\n\nThus, even if the supposed crime was illegal in Switzerland, it became a catch 22 - often the evidence you were asking for was required to ask for the evidence in the first place."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
dogt8u | what is exploit kit and how it works? | Thanks in advance | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dogt8u/eli5what_is_exploit_kit_and_how_it_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"f5o9mt2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When making an attack, especially a block box (no prior knowledge of the system) an attacker has to rely on scans to see of there's a vulnerability or a way to make one. These attacks often come in the form of CVE [Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures] and they can be easily deployed from something like Metasploit. \n\nAn Exploit Kit takes these exploits and makes them easy to use and deploy by consolidating them in one place. Metasploit, I guess could technically qualify as it does this, however, many exploit kits also have a GUI [Guided User Interface] and sometimes even automatically detect vulnerabilities and execute them automatically and the user doesn't even have to know what's happening or how it's happening. \n\nMetasploit simply has alot of CVE vulnerabilities in one place and allows an attacker to search, choose, customize, and exploit them so it doesn't quite meet the simplicity or directness of an Exploit Kit. \n\nExploit Kits are often loaded with pre-made and ready exploits and consolidate multiple in one place and are often geared towards just a few, such as website or Apahche and are able to exploit these simply and quickly where as the traditional way with CVEs and Metasploit are very manual and well known, an Exploit Kit may contain ones that are lesser known, such as a 0-day, and are generally pretty automatic. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\n\nP.S I've been into hacking for about 5 years now and currently work as an intern in IT Support and Cybersecurity and I've never heard of Exploit Kits, these are pretty cool, thanks for asking about them!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.f-secure.com/en/web/labs_global/exploit-kits",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_kit"
]
] |
|
4o1n1r | how do people come up with accurate estimates for insanely large numbers (i.e. the recent things i have seen on reddit like "there are 100 trillion trees on earth". | I have seen some stats on reddit lately, specifically around there being more trees on Earth than stars in the Galaxy (correct me if I got this wrong).
The numbers were something like 100 trillion trees compared to 100 billion stars. The stat itself is very interesting and surprising, but I was wondering how someone comes up with an accurate estimate for each of these things given it would be impossible to really measure each one to get an exact number, and the numbers are just so large.
With things that involve huge numbers like chances to win the lottery, there is a simple equation that can be done to figure out the true probability. These kind of things are different though and almost like "guess how many gumballs are in this jar?" but just on an incredibly larger scale.
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o1n1r/eli5how_do_people_come_up_with_accurate_estimates/ | {
"a_id": [
"d48tqa5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Estimates like this are often come to using [Fermi Estimation] (_URL_0_). This method is used to get an estimate that should be within an order of magnitude of the actual answer, which would be impossible to come to in a timely manner.\n\nIf you want a very easy to understand explanation of the process and how it works Randal Munroe [has got ya] (_URL_1_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem",
"http://what-if.xkcd.com/84/"
]
] |
|
26hrk7 | why does razor burn happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26hrk7/eli5_why_does_razor_burn_happen/ | {
"a_id": [
"chr6oy4",
"chraios"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Lots of reasons. \n\nSenstive skin. \n\nSkin's reaction to chemicals used. \n\nWorn blade. \n\nPressing too hard.\n\nShaving \"against the grain\" (in the opposite direction of how the hair grows, which pulls the hair more as you shave it, causing irritation.)\n\nShaving too close, and winding up with ingrown hairs, although this is really razor bumps and not burn.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAmong others regarding the topic.\n\nIt is important to have a *clean* area, and to soften the hair being shorn. In my case, I shave my head in the shower after washing it completely first, then lather and shave. I then clean off the rest of me, then get out of the tub and immediately shave my beard, and this has helped to reduce my burn issues to zero. And hot water for rinsing the blades. I use just Dove soap for the head shaving, but use Edge Gel sensitive for the beard.\n\nAs far as the 'against the grain' problem, well... it would help if my hair all grew the same direction. :p\n\n",
"It's commonly thought that your razor is simply cutting the hair. But it is in fact scratching off the outer most layer of skin as well a surface imperfections. The burn you feel is an irritation as your body repairs the damage the razor did to your skin"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaving#Razor_burn"
],
[]
] |
||
4z0hbo | us treasury notes vs federal reserve notes | It came to my attention that President JFK ordered the dept of treasury to print US Treasury notes intended to compete directly against Federal Reserve notes, so i would very much appreciate a comparison explanation, as i'm not American. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z0hbo/eli5us_treasury_notes_vs_federal_reserve_notes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6rur0n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That was before we completely moved to a fiat currency. For all intents and purposes they're the same. The only real difference is that a treasury note has a commodity tied to it (usually gold or silver) and can be redeemed for said commodity. Federal Reserve notes are not, because their worth is tied to the buyers value of it"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
axb9w8 | why do smartphones seem immune to storage failures, whereas pcs frequently suffer from hard drive crashes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axb9w8/eli5_why_do_smartphones_seem_immune_to_storage/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehsd7jo",
"ehszwpq"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"solid state memory with a constant power source is pretty reliable, hard drives have a lot of moving parts that can wear out and fail. \n\nPCs tend to age 4 or 5 years before they are replaces, some much longer. Phones are typically replaced every year or two. So their systems are newer and less prone to failure. ",
"The hard drives that have been used for many years in desktop and laptop computers are mechanical devices. They use a rotating disk along with a head that moves side to side on the disk to store the data. Moving parts wear out much faster than purely electronic memory, and they also are more prone to physical damage. A hard drive \"crash\" is when the head actually contacts the disk. The heads on a hard drive aren't actually supposed to touch the disk. They are designed so that they float on a cushion of air produced by the wind of the disks spinning. This works extremely well, and since the heads don't touch the disk, they don't wear out very fast. However, if a disk is bumped or dropped while it is working, there is the possibility that the head can touch the disk, which can leave scratches in the disk, or even worse, rip the head off the head arm.\n\nSmartphones don't contain rotational hard disks anymore. The original Ipods used to have miniature hard disks in them, but the proved to be unreliable due to the vibrations and shocks that they are exposed to. Therefore, high density flash memory was developed to be more portable. Flash memory has no moving parts, and is more resistant to physical abuse than hard drives. However, there is a drawback: flash memory wears out. The more writes that are performed on a flash memory chip, the more degraded it becomes. A heavily used flash chip may become unreliable and eventually unusable. At this point, flash memory's advantage of having no moving parts becomes its demise.\n\nWhen a hard drive head crash occurs, or something happens to the drive to make it nonfunctional, it is possible to remove the disks in a cleanroom, mount them in another drive, and read the data. However, with flash chips, once the chip is physically damaged or completely worn out, there is little chance of recovering the data.\n\nPhones usually don't get subjected to the stresses that would destroy flash memory, so their storage is very reliable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2bqyh4 | what happened to the old radio announcer announcer voice? do people just not sound like that anymore? or did it have to do with equipment? | As you would see in commercials and the radio shows. Here are a couple of examples.
_URL_1_
(starts at 0:35)
_URL_0_
_URL_2_
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bqyh4/eli5_what_happened_to_the_old_radio_announcer/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj81i2g",
"cj81ih2"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It kind of never existed. It was an affectation that came and went as a style of speech in a particular form of media, carried over from older public speaking styles. I'm not an expert but I wouldn't be surprised if it had to do with intonation and annunciation being important to having your unamplified voice carry in a room or outside, while maintaining an air of sophistication and wealth.\r\n\r\nBut plenty of radio of the time and over the decades has allowed speech in the media to evolve, becoming more similar to the style of speech that people employ normally, if anything because speaking in a stilted way is seen as a bit gauche.",
"Had a friend who worked in radio who told me the corporate powers today are more interested in a \"natural voice\" than the traditional deep announcer voice."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOgbH0veUgA",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tZVmfZaqgw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wibHcZ4FNbU"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
452g4f | in america, why are there people who think free healthcare is bad? as a brit, its the best thing ever. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/452g4f/eli5_in_america_why_are_there_people_who_think/ | {
"a_id": [
"czuo0fy",
"czuo2zj",
"czuo3va",
"czuoe96",
"czuogzf",
"czuot01",
"czup2iz",
"czup8k9",
"czupyf5",
"czuq3kn",
"czuq4ar"
],
"score": [
8,
10,
7,
4,
19,
37,
5,
3,
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because we're going to fuck it up. Most people are super afraid of it due to how our veterans are treated with their free health care. People are dying in waiting rooms and parking lots. But then again we have Medicare for expecting mothers and it works OK. ",
"I've seen arguments with many people stating: \"why should I be paying for other people's health care with my hard earned money?\" In the form of taxes, that is. ",
"I've been sick since I was a little kid. At one point when I was trying to set up a treatment, the faculty was bending over backwards finding a way to fund it. Out of all of it, they warned me that if I was on govt insurance they just flat out couldn't make it work because what the govt paid was simply but enough to cover any costs. This was directly with the facility, no evil insurance involved in the talks yet, they were not gouging. I'm very nervous about the bottom line determining my care. When that's happened to me in the past with insurance I could fight it or change policies. Little harder to change with one payer. \n\nI think expecting the govt to magically fix all the problems with how they handle Healthcare is rather brave, or naive. ",
"I just saw another post that is one minute older than yours stating that British doctors are on strike. \n\nHow is this something you love, again? ",
"It's not bad. It's not free. Americans are more skeptical of government. \n\nGovernment schools in our inner cities have 50% drop out rate. \n\nGovernment roads don't get repaired until they are falling apart. \n\nEvery year the government gives more money to universities and colleges and the prices go up (because government money is just another revenue source not a solution.) \n\nWhen you go to the post office or the department of motor vehicles you stand in long lines, and get really poor customer service. \n\nThe Veterans Administration has many horror stories of persons not getting the care they need, or getting substandard care. \n\n\nIn the market things get cheaper and better over time. Big clunky cell phones turn into flip phones and now smart phones. Most breakthroughs are made outside government. New vaccines and cancer treatments come because someone wants to make money and is looking for a solution. \n\nWhat breakthroughs do we get from government? New weapons and methods to use force against people. \n\nHow many of the cancer treatments and other new medical innovations are coming from countries with government run healthcare and how many come out of the USA? Now take away the new innovation, it'll be \"free\" (and that free is really expensive overall) but there will be less innovation. \n\nAlso have you thought about things like the doctors strike going on now in the UK? ",
"First of all it's not free, you have additional taxes for it like the VAT tax. Additional sales taxes have a hard impact on the poor and working class. But there are other ways we could pay for it. \nOne of the big worries in the US is that they'll fuck it up somehow. There's plenty of corruption in the federal government where politicians say one thing but then do another in order to please their donors. People are worried that the quality and type of care will change based on what the government decides they want to pay for. For example, the big pharma companies would rather have you buy their product instead of doing something else so the government would push people in that direction. \nSome of this stuff already happens and there are problems with our current system that need to be addressed. Our current insurance system is fucked up. Imagine if you used your car insurance to pay for oil changes but it didn't cover you when your car got totaled. It makes no sense that we have insurance which covers small stuff but isn't there for you when you need something expensive. Isn't that the point of insurance? Some of us are worried about what this government that's bought and paid for by the rich and big corporations would do. If you could ensure me that it would be done correctly Id definitely be for it.",
"It's not free. You just pay for it with taxes instead of paying for insurance. And the government has fucked up everything else it ever touched so giving them more power over us is awful. ",
"It raises taxes and puts the burden on everyone who has a job and can afford their own insurance or already had employer based insurance. I bet in the UK your taxes are through the roof aren't they? Someone has to pay those doctors, nurses, and medical staff plus fund equipment etc. It isn't free. You're paying for it one way or another unless you're a lazy drain on society. Then you probably aren't..",
"Someone is paying for it. Always remember that. *Someone* is paying for it. Yours isn't free.",
"Your healthcare isn't free. So let's get that off the table entirely. Additionally, the poor in America receive healthcare at minimal or no cost to them. Additionally, most Americans receive their healthcare subsidized through their employer as part of their salary/compensation package. The reason I don't want the British healthcare system is because the quality and availability of your healthcare is subpar to the care I currently receive.\n\nIf you look at the Better Life Index you will find that even America's poor have similar scores as the middle class or even the top 10% of other nations.\n_URL_0_\n\nThe problem with the American healthcare system is that there is a group of people between the poor and the middle class who may have difficulties obtaining affordable health insurance. This is a problem that can be resolved without making healthcare worse for everyone. While I'm sure you love your healthcare system as it is all you know and you are used to a high tax rate. I would prefer to be able to drive up the street and find a professional dentist rather than have to pull my own teeth out like many Britians have been having to do under their \"free\" healthcare.\n",
"A lot of Americans have a hard time with the idea that some people might pay less (if at all) for the same thing they work to get.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17"
],
[]
] |
||
fqabdf | what exactly is involved in figuring out how to cure a new disease, and with the existence of supercomputers, why is it not much faster than it is now? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fqabdf/eli5_what_exactly_is_involved_in_figuring_out_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"flpfre2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Lots of diseases have special surfaces which enable them to get inside cells and do the damage a bit like a key and lock, if you can find a chemical which will wrap around the key like bubble gum then the key won't fit in the lock so you have made it harmless working out what fits where is tricky, but it is far easier with a supercomputer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2sxpqi | why is china building a space station of their own instead of collaborating with other countries? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sxpqi/eli5_why_is_china_building_a_space_station_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnttd5z",
"cntu8mq",
"cntzvog",
"cnuavik"
],
"score": [
18,
108,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Partly because they are pretty secretive, but mostly because their space program is serving the same function as the US/USSR's did during the cold war - its a way to brag and show off their technological/economic might. Collaborating on another project diminishing the bragging rights.",
"China had expressed interest in joining the International Space Station project in the past, but the United States had blocked them on fears that they would take the technologies they would gain from the experience for military purposes.\n\nPlease note that Russia is allowed to participate in the ISS despite similar concerns previously.",
"The ISS contains at least 6 Lenovo Laptops all of which contain components manufactured by firms which have been the subject of current or recent investigations for either hacking, espionage, and/or stealing state secrets from the United States. Additionally, manufacturers of at least 3 major components included in every lenovo laptop have had \"major security exploits\" or backdoors discovered within the last 10 years. \n\nSo, short of grabbing my tinfoil hat and standing on a soap box.. is there any way I can reasonably convince anyone that China is already \"very much\" spying on the rest of the world, and quite possibly, in space as well? \n\nI had a really good conversation with an engineer from Cisco who told me that while our equipment's efficient has improved dramatically over the years, suspiciously the packet transfer success rate is not in line with that. His theory is that the HUGE increase in digital spying accounts for the network \"jitter\" and packet failure rate. He also went on to theorize how creating a \"noisy\" environment and causing a lot of packet failures is a strategy used by snoops, because when it's consistent, engineers consider it \"normal\" and raise thresholds and error correction, essentially helping out anyone trying to intentionally \"mess\" with these packets.. when the \"noise\" goes away, the number of packets they can steal goes up infinitely. This guy's brilliant by the way. ",
"It's worth mentioning that Russia's participation in the ISS probably ended up costing the US money. Being able to deliver payloads to the ISS from the launch pads of both space agencies means that it has a kind of funky orbital inclination. The shuttle's payload to this orbit is significantly less than its optimal payload, which meant that it took more missions to construct the ISS than it could have. The cost of the extra shuttle missions dwarfs Russia's fairly modest financial contribution to the ISS.\n\nWhat US/Russian cooperation **did** do for the US was create jobs for all these really smart and capable Russian rocket scientists that involved building a cool space station rather than designing a bunch of next generation super-missiles for fucking North Korea or whoever.\n\nOn this basis alone the ISS should be judged an outstanding success and any science or space technology that comes out of it should almost be regarded as a bonus."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4vz3ng | how my brain decides where to put my hand to catch a ball, for example. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vz3ng/eli5_how_my_brain_decides_where_to_put_my_hand_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d62q6pt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You have a sense called [proprioception](_URL_0_) that your brain uses to determine the location of all the parts of your body. Through the trial and error of you growing up and developing your brain learns to use this sense to determine exactly where to place your hand to intersect the balls trajectory. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception"
]
] |
||
3upcju | why do wall chargers for electronics almost always have bulky, awkward bases that make it difficult to plug them in next to other plugs and chargers? | Can't they just use the standard plug shape that outlets were actually designed for? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3upcju/eli5_why_do_wall_chargers_for_electronics_almost/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxgob2w",
"cxgobnq",
"cxgocaj",
"cxgokxa",
"cxgq8eh",
"cxgsw13",
"cxgtzqu",
"cxh1rww",
"cxh3wt3"
],
"score": [
16,
79,
2,
3,
4,
8,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Electronics use DC current as opposed to AC current (which is what your standard outlet is). The clunky part of the charger is a device called a transformer that changes it into a DC current.",
"The electricity coming out of your wall is AC, or alternating current. Most electronic devices use DC, or direct current. The electricity from your wall is also (probably) around 120 volts which is too much for many electronics.\n\nThe big bulky device often includes a rectifier (converts AC to DC), a capacitor (stores energy to help reduce noise), and a transformer or resistors (reduces the voltage to an appropriate level for your device). Those things take up room. Some devices separate this into a separate unit halfway or so down the cable like you will find on many laptop chargers, but this can also increase the cost.",
"Unlike most appliances like your microwave or TV, your charger doesn't output mains voltage to whatever device you're charging, it has to step the voltage down to (usually for mobile phones) 5v DC from the 110v/230v AC coming out of the wall. This requires a relatively bulky transformer which doesn't fit in the usual sized plug you might find on appliances. There are two options at this point - make the plug bigger which is what almost all phone chargers go for, or go the laptop route and have a 'brick' with the transformer and other electronics in it halfway down the cable.",
"As everyone else has said, the big block thinkgy is an AC to DC converter.\n\nAny cable doesnt doesnt have the transformer in the cable either runs on AC (such as lightbulbs) or have the transformer inside the actual appliance (for example, a PC or microwave)",
"There's a lot of factories making the old style bulky ones, this means that the bulky wire transformers they make are very cheap. The newer style \"digital\" transformers that are a lot smaller cost more and aren't as widely produced.\n\nThis means that you can get nice small chargers (like iPhone chargers for example) but you're more likely to see the bigger ones. You're also more likely to see big chargers for electronics that need really high quality power going in to them with no distortion or noise, like HiFis and musical instruments.",
"They could use 25 cents worth of wire to move the plug away from the power brick, but that would cost them 25 cents to do.",
"As everyone else has explained, these wall warts are AC to DC converters. The question is, why are they different from laptop power supplies, which are also AC to DC converters, and which include cords to the wall plug? I think the reason is that they are intended to be used with small extension cords, because they usually carry relatively low current. Laptop power bricks carry higher current, which justifies the inclusion of an actual AC cord. The makers of wall warts do not want to include short cords, because they do not want the wart to be hanging from the wall.",
"The tiny Electric people that come out off the [frowny faces](_URL_0_) to charge your phone have too many good people (positive), and bad people (negative), coming in all at once that want to travel into your phone. \n\nInside your charger base (the thing you plug into the frowny faces) live three gnomes. One that works there, let's call him Transformer. He uses bundles of wires and an iron gate (but people like to call them cores) to make fewer good and bad people get to your phone at a time. It was too crowded back there anyway.\n\nTransformer sends these people to his pal Rectifier, who works in customs, and boy he hates bad people getting to your phone, so he doesn't let them in, they are bad people and have no business here.\n\nThe scuffle made the good people stressed out, so a social worker named Filter screens every good person to make sure all the good people are clean and smooth, ready to leave base and march down the cable to your phone and charge it.\n\n\n\n",
"Cost. The wire needed for the AC power is thicker and contains more copper than the thin low voltage DC power cord that comes out of the converter. Imagine if they made them all like laptop chargers that had a few feet of AC cord in the front so the blocky part didn't hog up space at the receptacle. Imagine the company making these is making 10 million units a year. Each of these units now has an extra 5' of AC power cable on them. This is now 50 million feet of extra copper wire the company needs to buy to include in their products. By having the DC converter at the start, it saves on product costs. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.wisegeek.com/standard-us-power-outlet.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
4020p8 | why do ant bites get worse the more you scratch them? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4020p8/eli5_why_do_ant_bites_get_worse_the_more_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyqv05g"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"As far as the itching from a bit is concerned:\n\nThe itching you get from bug bites is called pruritus in the medical community. Scratching helps relieve pruritus by producing a small amount of pain. The nerves at the site of the injury send the pain signal to the brain *instead* of the itching sensation, so you temporarily feel relief. A [study](_URL_0_) published in 2014 demonstrated that when that pain signal reaches the brain, the chemical serotonin is released, and may cause increased sensation of pruritus. This is currently thought to be the reason scratching can make pruritus even worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284655.php"
]
] |
|
8m2boh | why do the hairs in our ear responsible for letting us hear not grow back? | I remember watching a video about how ears work and there was something about little hairs that are responsible for sending information back to our brain. It said that permanent hearing loss is caused by a high DB sound that rips the little hairs out. So why can’t the hairs grow back just like any other hair? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8m2boh/eli5_why_do_the_hairs_in_our_ear_responsible_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzk7lcy",
"dzkg8zx"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Basically because humans are shit in every way except for our brains and out ability to sweat. Essentially our survival doesn't depend on having acute hearing and machine tools and firearms didn't exist to completely destroy our hearing when our ancestors where evolving so we never developed the ability to grow those hairs back. Owls for example do rely on perfect hearing and the hairs in their ears are shed and regrow much like the hair on our heads. It's really just an evolution thing",
"Not all cells in your body are able to regenerate. If you lose a finger, it won't grow back. The hair cells in your inner ear are different than the hair cells on your skin and are not able to regenerate. ([source](_URL_0_)) In fact, there are different types of hair on the outside of your body as well. There's quite difference between the hair on your body and the hair on your head. Your eyebrows and eyelashes are also quite different than other types of hair.\n\nThe tl;dr is that there are many different types of hair cells and while some are capable of regenerating, not all of them are such as the ones in your inner ear.\n\nThere really isn't a more definitive reason than that.\n\nAttempts are being made to regrow the hair cells in the inner ears of humans, though. [Further reading](_URL_0_#Regrowth)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell#Regrowth"
]
] |
|
5owxqb | why smart people think they are stupid (and vice versa)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5owxqb/eli5why_smart_people_think_they_are_stupid_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcmncvj",
"dcmng89",
"dcmq70q"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"The more you know about a subject, the more you realize how much information is really out there and what a small portion of it you possess.",
"This is known as the [Dunning-Kruger effect](_URL_0_) and it basically runs on the idea that stupid people don't know information to realize how much they don't still know, while smart people know enough information to see there is so much more to still learn. The same effect applies to almost anything, including things like sports, video games, cooking, driving, etc.",
"The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, and the less confident you become that your uninformed opinions are 100% correct because you know that you don't know a lot of things, and you suspect that this may be one of them.\n\nThe less you know, the less you don't know you don't know, and the more you don't know you don't know, the more confident you become that what you know is all their is *to* know. And since you know you know all there is to know, then your opinion is always informed and correct, as far as you know.\n\ntl;dr [The Dunning-Krueger Effect](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect"
]
] |
||
a2u2ye | why do low quality videos look worse in darker scenes and better in brighter scenes? | Say you're watching a scene of a movie on Youtube, and it's in super low quality, 240p or something. During the bright parts of the video, say, when the character is outside in the sun, the video starts looking almost DVD quality. But then when they go back inside and the lighting gets dark again, it looks pixelated and 240p again. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2u2ye/eli5_why_do_low_quality_videos_look_worse_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb16mw7",
"eb17qyd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a camera artifact, and really doesn't have much to do with low resolution video, just cheap and/or small cameras in generally.\n\nIn full sun cameras work well, the aperture (hole in the lens that determines how much light gets in, it also affects focus) can be any size and the shutter speed required will still be quick and result in utilizing the entire brightness range of the sensor. Using the entire range of the sensor is important because all sensors have noise, that is they randomly detect light when it's not there, and this generally results in a very dim static getting applied over the entire picture.\n\nIn low light though there is barely enough light for the sensor to operate, so you open up the aperture to let in more light (which will make things in the background blurry generally), you slow down the shutter (which will make moving things blurry, including the camera moving), and then after doing this you end up with a picture that is too dim for the sensor and doesn't use it's available range of brightness. Typical cell phone cameras and such then take this and brighten it way up, but this has the effect of brightening up the normal background static as well. So many cameras will then additionally apply an anti-static filter which is basically a blur function to try and make the static less visible.\n\nAll of this extra stuff to try and brighten up the dark picture is what makes it look like crap. In general, the root cause is not enough light hitting the sensor, and the only real fix is a physically bigger lens (so those big pro cameras will always have much better low light performance than an iPhone). Older phones had particularly poor low light performance so it was even worse on those phones.",
"There's a lot more that goes into it, but it has mostly to do with colors and contrast. On Youtube, the video player is kept to the same size. In order to accommodate, lower quality videos have to display those pixels larger. This makes the video appear blockier versus higher quality videos, where there's more pixels and so the difference between pixels is less noticeable. \n\n\nNow darker images have higher contrast, or higher ratios of light pixels to dark pixels. The lighter pixels stand out more against dark pixels and so it becomes very noticeable if you have poor image quality on a large screen (i.e. you'll see big boxes of light next to big boxes of dark). \n\n\nOn lighter images, the contrast is much lower as it's mostly light pixels on light pixels. Therefore they blend together a lot better and don't stand out as much. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe same also goes for color. Differences in color are more noticeable on lower quality images. In bright pictures, colors tend to be more white. In dark pictures, the color actually goes from black to blue to a dark reddish color as you go from dark areas to lighter areas. A white on less white is less noticeable than a black on red, on lighter red, etc. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3q5j74 | in the u.s., how can someone run for a political party nomination without even being a member of that party? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q5j74/eli5_in_the_us_how_can_someone_run_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwc6vr1",
"cwc72ef"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Specifically, Bernie Sanders is the Independent Senator from Vermont. Not a Democratic Party member.",
"Its all down to the rules of that party. A party can certainly make rules regarding party membership required for the nomination. \n\nIn reality though, they want someone who shares their values who could win. Bernie is an independent in name only. He caucuses with the Democrats and is, for all practical purposes, a democrat. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1z266g | why do most predatory animals choose not to eat humans? | I know it happens, but the vast majority of animal / human attacks never end up in with the human actually being eaten unless there are some dire circumstances involved. I've seen and heard many examples of a person being attacked and then the attacking animal just leaves inexplicably. For example, many shark attacks are simply the shark "tasting" its "prey" when they realize its human they take off. Why is this? Do we taste bad? If so why? Or do animals just know that its a bad idea to attack the most awesome predator thats had ever lived on this planet? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z266g/eli5_why_do_most_predatory_animals_choose_not_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfpums7",
"cfpupgi",
"cfput0d",
"cfpwm4h",
"cfq0sy3",
"cfq4sbg",
"cfq95is"
],
"score": [
50,
7,
12,
18,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Through evolution, predators become specialized towards particular prey or categories of prey. They develop hunting patterns that take advantage of their prey's behavior patterns (e.g. stalking vs ambush vs pursuit), and learn to recognize certain types of animals as efficient sources of food. Most of this is pattern-matching instinct, built up over generations of trial-and-error selecting the most effective instincts. Animals that tend towards more-efficient prey succeed.\n\nPredators that adapt to specialize towards humans, don't last very long. We counter-adapt on the order of years instead of generations so animals are always behind the curve in terms of efficiency. We also counter-hunt predators for our own safety, meaning that succeeding in predating humans is actually maladaptive, and will be selected against.\n\nMost modern animal attacks are not specialized predation. Often they are self-defense, which means that the animal is not inclined to eat the remains. Hunting humans for food generally happens out of desperation. There are also some instincts that are not specialized towards prey, like the sharks nibbling--I assume that there's a second step where they specialize hunting behavior based on the first bite, and they have no developed response for us.",
"Very simple, we're not their typical prey. They don't know what we are. They haven't hunted us before. We're not deer, moose, antelope or tuna. What are we? Attacks are much more likely to be out of territorialism or dominance than preying.\n\nIt is worth noting that some animals do develop the knowledge of humans as prey (like the man-eaters of Tsavo) in which case they can be extremely dangerous and regularly seek out humans for food.",
"Then there's the guns...",
"Op's username relevant?",
"Most carnivores tend to go for the old, the sick, and the very young. They will eat people, it they're alone, in the open, and unarmed. If your 2 year old wanders off from a safari, any lion or cheetah will make him into lunch because that child is young, weak and alone. They do the same with other animals -- they aren't taking down the biggest baddest elephant in the herd, they're taking the babies and the old ones, the sick ones. ",
"Many animal attacks are territorial, not hunting.\n\nAnimals know that attacking any animal is dangerous, both from the target and from other animals that might stop by to see what's happening in the now bloody smelling area. Once the goal is met or if it looks like the costs are too high, they disengage.\n\nAttacking humans is very dangerous. We have a lot of weapons, move in herds, and have a history of hunting almost every species.\n\nSharks in particular do think we taste bad. We have neither the nice blubber of our aquatic mammalian cousins or the oils of fish. They can't tell however until they get a taste. Our splashing while swimming actually sounds a lot like a school of small fish.",
"I imagine we do taste pretty awful. Think about the crap we put in our bodies on a daily basis. Unless, of course, you're one of the granola eating, vegan types... in which case you probably taste pretty damn good. I can say from experience that an animal's environment and their diet can greatly affect its flavor. Bear, for example, that habitate near humans and supplement their diet with our trash have a much different flavor than one that has been secluded from human waste and had a natural diet of fish, berries, etc.\n\nNow I want some bear chili."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8rxtzm | why there's no way to see the dislikes on a youtube comment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rxtzm/eli5_why_theres_no_way_to_see_the_dislikes_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0v0we0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Same reason that Reddit doesn't display negative account karma below -100 or let you look for the worst posts/comments. If you put a number on something, somebody is going to see it as a challenge and break the \"high score\".\n\nLetting people see the \"worst\" content just incentives trolls to compete with each other for creating the worst possible shit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
b6osdh | why do only human breasts grow this large? no other mammal seems to have this despite also breastfeeding their children | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b6osdh/eli5_why_do_only_human_breasts_grow_this_large_no/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejlzzsp",
"ejm5f91"
],
"score": [
10,
6
],
"text": [
"To make it short: we don‘t know. There are some theories that reach from sexual selection to attractiveness theories up to random mutation during our species was formed. All of them have points that speak for and against them. ",
"Humans have flatter faces than other species so our species evolved larger breasts so our babies could breast feed while still breathing properly"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1nmsng | why is it legal for the government (in the usa) to require car insurance, a privatized industry? | How can it be legal for our government to require the use of a for-profit private industry? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nmsng/eli5_why_is_it_legal_for_the_government_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cck0tv1",
"cck0uc8",
"cck0z1j"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They only require it if you want to drive. ",
"Typically people who own cars are only required to carry liability insurance. The reason for this is that your average person does not have tens of thousands of dollars lying around to pay for costs related to an accident they cause, so it makes sense to require people to carry insurance that can cover these costs.\n\nAs to how it's legal -- there's no law against it. In fact, most (all?) states have laws that mandate liability coverage for people who operate vehicles. That's pretty legal.",
"The government requires insurance in order for you to ride on government maintained roads. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked and as a result governments are able to place heavy restrictions on it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5xzknf | why can't we wear sports bra all the time instead of normal bra? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xzknf/eli5why_cant_we_wear_sports_bra_all_the_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"dem2k5h",
"dem2qh6",
"dem3ufi",
"dem48at"
],
"score": [
7,
17,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"You can. However a bra does not only keep your breasts in place but also makes them look better. A sports bra will make your breasts look flat and without form.",
"The purpose to a bra is to hold your boobs up to alleviate back pain. \nIf your sports bras do this and make you feel comfortable, then by all means wear them everywhere.",
"You can, but it might not go well with certain clothes that are designed with a regular wired bra in mind. But if that's what you prefer, go for it.",
"You can if you want. No ones stopping you. If a sports bra is what's most comfortable then go for it. \n\nAppearance while they're not considered the most attractive look but that's all subjective and what's attractive in clothing changes constantly. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3eksaz | what is the difference between closing a program and ending a task? | Why is it that I can hit close program 20 times, and then task manager can close it in one click?
It can be especially frustrating when a screen is frozen on the desktop and opening task manager doesn't help because it won't show up in front of the frozen program.
Why don't they just put an "end task" option on right click? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eksaz/eli5what_is_the_difference_between_closing_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctfuikt",
"ctfuqyq",
"ctfuuod",
"ctfxarx",
"ctg281w",
"ctg5udb"
],
"score": [
2,
48,
2,
33,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Closing a program doesn't stop that program from running in the background. Ending task forcibly closes the program and ends all tasks associated.",
"Close program asks the program nicely to finish whatever it is doing, and quit.\n\nEnd task is the operating system putting a knife in the program's back and killing it.\n\nDepending on your program, end task can be a very bad thing - the program doesn't do what it's supposed to do when shutting down, or it may be in the middle of performing an important task. For this reason, they make it intentionally more difficult to kill a program.",
"Closing (or exiting) a program from within the program lets the program follow normal closing procedures (such as automatic saving, event logging, properly clearing memory). This may also include simply moving all the visible aspects to the background so you just don't see it (such as an antivirus program). Ending the program by killing the task prevents the program from doing any of those things, as well as preventing it from running in the background. In many cases, there are few repercussions. In some cases, it could cause problems. \n\nFor example, if you closed MS Word, it will ask if you want to save any changes, and clear out the document normally. If you \"kill\" the task, it will not have the opportunity to save the changes, and could potentially corrupt the document you are working on, and depending on how you have the program set to AutoSave, you could likely lose any and all changes.\n\nSometimes it is necessary to use the Task Manager to kill programs that are frozen, but it is usually best to close them with the program's own Exit function.\n\n\n\nEdit: Grammar and stuff",
"Closing a program: \n\nOS: \"Please close\"\n\nProgram: \"Okay, give me a second to pack-up my things, put everything away, and clean up\"\n\n\nEnd task: \n\nOS: \"Die!\" Pulls out a gun a shoots Program.",
"Closing a program:\n\"Your lease is up. Collect your things and move out.\"\n\nKilling a task:\n\"The sheriff is here; vacate immediately. You can collect your stuff at the landfill.\"\n\nA more technical and accurate description follows.\n\nClosing a program sends a signal or event to the program requesting it to end. The program responds to this request just as it would any other input; though, typical design will have the program clean up any memory, UI elements and hard disk files it's used and exit.\n\nKilling a task has the OS stop execution on the program immediately and attempts to clear up any memory, UI elements and hard disk files for it.",
"Normally when the program runs it tells the operating system the exit status. It returns a feedback. If it ended properly it returns a successful exit flag to the system.\n\nOther than that it can return a variety of feedback codes to the system telling it why it didn't run or why did it crash midway. And if you want to kill it, it just halts what it's doing, does not properly shut down what it's doing and returns a meaningful code that says it got killed to the system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3kut1z | can cops take your car to pursue a suspect and, if so, what happens if your car is damaged? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kut1z/eli5_can_cops_take_your_car_to_pursue_a_suspect/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv0pm2s",
"cv0pw47",
"cv0yusx",
"cv0zc3e",
"cv105po"
],
"score": [
88,
29,
6,
27,
10
],
"text": [
"Its a bit of a grey area.\n\nSome states, like california, have a \"posse commitatus\" statute.\n\nWhich, in a nutshell, states that any able bodied person over 18 can be requested to provide assistance in capturing/re-capturing a fugitive/criminal.\n\nWhat it isn't clear on, is whether assistance extends to the use of property or not.\n\nIf you refuse, the worst they can usually do is fine you, and a cop pursuing a suspect has better things to do than take down your information for a fine.\n\nThere would have to be incredible circumstances for such a thing to even need to happen.",
"From what I have read yes and no. Most would just ask you to drive them and not just try to throw you out of the passenger seat like they do in the movies. I think if you refuse to cooperate you could face a fine. now letting them \"take\" your car without your permission is a different story. from what i read it happens but not very often, and as far as them taking the time to get your information when they are in a hot persuit is highly unlikcly either. you can read this snopes article for more information _URL_1_\nThere have been cases such as Blackman v. City of Cincinnati, where a man's car was damaged after an officer commandeered his vehicle in persuite, but lost the case and they did not have to pay him for the damages. I find that messed up. this website has tons of more information _URL_0_ I hope this helped a little. ",
"I would assume that most police forces around the world would have OHS regs which would prohibit the use of non-authorised vehicles in police pursuits to reduce the risk to themselves and the public. By using a non approved, commandeered vehicle in a pursuit, it obviously wouldn't have sirens, flashing lights, safety ratings, dashcams, radios etc. and if an accident were to happen, the cop would have no legal defense.",
"In the Netherlands, they can [borrow your bike](_URL_0_).\n\nThis is body/headcam video of a cop from Rotterdam, who is chasing a bike thief. At one point he encounters a random bystander on a bike, and borrows his bike to chase the thief. Luckily it wasn't damaged.",
"[Slate article] ( _URL_0_): this almost never happens; they had to go back to the 1920s for a precedent. Most likely you can claim damages against the government if you let the cop drive. Which you should, and GTFO."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars",
"http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/posse.asp"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMxSE0cP0H0&feature=youtu.be&t=118"
],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/05/can_the_police_commandeer_your_car.html"
]
] |
||
2mrywy | how can something be artificial if everything is made from naturally occurring elements? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mrywy/eli5_how_can_something_be_artificial_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm70cuh",
"cm71gmc",
"cm737p4",
"cm73as5",
"cm74n6s",
"cm75iev",
"cm75jqw",
"cm75miv",
"cm75rt2",
"cm76c5e",
"cm77c0z",
"cm784ph",
"cm787js",
"cm78he2",
"cm78s89",
"cm7aaij",
"cm7aeqp",
"cm7azdq",
"cm7b7ze",
"cm7bnji",
"cm7cvrw",
"cm7d2oi",
"cm7ddxv",
"cm7dh79",
"cm7eqhq",
"cm7ffoj",
"cm7fo07",
"cm7hbgf",
"cm7hcgo",
"cm7hifn",
"cm7hr8z",
"cm7i5t9",
"cm7i6ev",
"cm7iiru",
"cm7ils0",
"cm7ixxj",
"cm7ju7p",
"cm7kg1t",
"cm7kv64",
"cm7kz34",
"cm7lckt",
"cm7lyl5",
"cm7mrd2",
"cm7o48a",
"cm7odjr",
"cm7orq0",
"cm7to0d"
],
"score": [
1599,
5,
3,
206,
11,
33,
3,
4,
12,
20,
3,
2,
3,
2,
149,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's essentially a convenient term for indicating a specific group, ala \"Stuff made in a lab\" vs \"stuff we found in the ground, or a plant.\"\n\nCertainly, one can argue it does not really hold to the 'spirit' of the definition of \"stuff in nature\" any more than 'organic potatoes' are any more organic than regular potatoes. \n\nBut language doesn't care about such niceties. People adapt the word for a particular use for marketing, or convenience, or ignorance, etc, and sometimes it takes off, regardless of its applicability. ",
"I guess 'artificial' means something created by humans that mimics the properties of already naturally available things. ",
"Natural apple flavoring come from an apple. Artificial apple flavoring does not come from an apple.",
"Going to approach this slightly differently, using etymology. \"Artificial\" has its roots in the Latin word \"artifex,\" which is composed of the parts ar(ti) literally meaning \"art,\" and -fex, which is a suffix that signifies a maker (producer, craftsman, etc).\n\nSo artificial can be roughly translated as \"the work of a maker.\"",
"Some compounds have bonds between the atoms that would never occur without the introduction of energy in some form. For instance, ompremazole (Prilosec) is an extremely fragile molecule that is difficult to synthesize comparatively. Some medications have to be prepared in two halves and then joined together, which wuld never happen in nature.\n\nAs for food additives, I do not know...",
"Just because a thing's constituent parts are all found in nature, that does not mean that the thing itself is found in nature.",
"Think of it as information/design; is the way something is created (be it a car, a tree, a molecule, a genome sequence, a wavelength of light, a spiral) naturally occurring, or did it require human intervention (either direct or indirect?) for it to come into being.\n\ne.g. did that corn grow on it's own, or has humanity helped make it exist?",
"I would posit that the word \"artificial\" is a pejorative used to label something the user doesn't like. ",
"I prefer to think of \"Artificial\" as meaning \"Constructed by people\", like artifacts. Another way to think of it could be \"This instance would not have happened in nature without man\"\n\nIt's hard to put it definitely into words, and words aren't perfect for definition anyway.\n\nConsider star trek replicators. If we used an industrial replicator to just *make* a tree, and it is a perfect facsimile of a \"natural\" tree, it's still artificial. Even though a similar or even identical tree might have happened the same way, it is artificial because it was man that put it there.\n\nI don't think artifice and nature necessarily have to be in opposition to each other. Like... babies are made by people. But babies are a natural thing. If an egg is fertilized in a lab, is the baby artificial? I don't know... and I don't really care. For me the terms are useful, but not actually important.",
"The concept of \"artificial\" vs \"natural\" is actually a pretty big philosophical topic if you delve that deeply into it. However, the common idea is that anything made by man specifically is considered \"unnatural\" and everything else is \"natural\", despite humanity itself being a product of nature. It could be argued that everything that exists is transitively natural in this regard, but the term \"artificial\" exists and has a concrete meaning nonetheless. ",
"It's important to understand that the root word of \"artificial\" is the latin word \"artifex,\" which basically means \"made by skill.\" The designation of artificial basically just means \"humans had a direct hand in making this.\" The components aren't what matters, it's the means of production.\n\nOf course, people who think that artificial automatically means bad are complete and utter morons. Humans are a lot better than nature at making certain things.",
"The term artificial comes from the term \"artifice,\" which itself comes from Aristotle's distinction between nature and art. Putting it over-simply, something is artificial if it does not exist in nature. Keep in mind; to Aristotle's mind, humanity was not natural. So anything we change becomes artifice.",
"Humans make a distinction between things that humans create, and things that \"nature\" produces. This ignores the fact that humans are still a part of nature, but it is the only distinction.\n\nArtificial comes from the latin, artificium, which means to craft.",
"Natural kinds of things occur without us having to intervene. Artificial kinds are made out of natural kinds, but do not occur without our intervention. \n\nThey are artificial because they are artifacts of human labour, whereas natural entities do not require such labour to be brought into being.",
"Going to be an asshole and just leave this quote from Carl Sagan. \"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.\"",
"Here is a simple way of explaining things via greek philosophy. Anything not found in nature or in a natural state (ie, altered by a human) is then considered artificial. \n\nFor example, while diamonds are natural, the diamond in your ring is not. ",
"Here is the definition of artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural.\n\nAssuming that the \"typically\" part is optional, we can say paper is artificial. It's made by human beings and doesn't occur naturally. However, it's just made of wood pulp, cotton, rice, etc.\n\nKind of works the same way for food products. Quick fact: a large part of some \"artificial strawberry flavorings\" comes from a natural ingredient found in a gland in beaver ass. - _URL_0_",
"I enjoy imagining everything as \"natural\". The problem is that evolution is natural. So you can make something that is away from original nature, but the further away it is the more likely it will be a \"failed mutation\" in evolutionary terms. The more our evolution mimics the environment around us, the more sustainable the evolution is without the pain of large-scale failed mutations. \n\nThis is why we have such a large spectrum of ups in downs as societies progress. We focus much more on growing and now *how* we grow. Which also has evolutionary origins in self-preservation. Hopefully once we view ourselves as one species the *how* will become more important. ",
"Naturally occurring elements can be arranged to synthesize a molecule that doesn't occur in nature",
"I think your definition of \"artificial\" might be wrong. Anything that was made by humans is artificial. It doesn't mean \"unnatural\", just \"made by people\"",
"Everything is made from naturally occurring elements, but artificial things are made from elements that wouldn't naturally be combined, through processes that don't naturally occur. Plastic doesn't naturally occur- it had to be made by humans.",
"People tend to think of artificial as meaning \"fake\" but really it means \"made by humans.\" Similarly, artifact usually describes an ancient man made object, but it really just means \"an object made by humans\" and includes things like your keyboard and mouse. The distinguishing feature that makes something artificial is that it is created by humans. If you break it down, at some point humans used something existing in nature to create every artifact. Once the human converts the natural material into a new form it becomes artificial. A statue is an artifact, but the stone is not artificial. The atoms of an artificial sweetner aren't artificial, but the sweetner is because it was combined in a lab by humans. Thus, the ultimate form of the materials is the artifact if it is made by humans. The final product consists (in an abstract sense) of natural materials + the actions of humans.",
"Anything we make is natural, since our naturally occurring brains created it.",
"In common usage, natural basically means \"without human intervention\"",
"It sounds like you're assuming that the definition of 'artificial' means something like 'made from something other than naturally occurring elements'. That would be a silly definition, since there is nothing in existence that fits that definition.\n\nMaybe you should rethink your definition.",
"The etymology of the word \"artificial\" comes from the Latin Word \"artificium.\" \"Artificium\" itself is a combination of \"ars\" and \"factus\" put together the term almost literally means \"something made by work.\" Artificial tends to mean something made by humans, as opposed to something that is found in nature.\n\nWhile every (nearly) every element is naturally occurring, we don't usually expect to find rivers of mercury or plastic growing out of the ground. The way elements are put together or used is \"artificial\" in the sense that is put together by humans.",
"It's a term to make money from stupid people who are more self-righteous than intelligent.",
"Chemicals are labelled \"natural\" if they were produced by a process with no interference from humans. That tends to be pretty hard to define so you have to use common sense, but it's generally stuff produced by life or mined/extracted from the environment.\n\nAs you point out, everything is made using naturally occurring elements. However, not all chemical reactions happen without interference, so some things are definitely artificial (e.g complex carbon molecules that aren't from organisms).\n\nOn the other hand, we can make practically any chemical that exists naturally, artifically. Aspirin is no longer made from willow bark but synthesised from petrochemicals. Ammonia, for fertiliser, is made with the Haber Process (40% of the nitrogen atoms in your body are from there). \n\nBesides, there is no distinction between artificial and natural chemicals except that evolution hasn't yet evolved the ability to make or use \"artificial\" chemicals. Plenty of natural things kill you, plenty of artificial things are harmless or will save your life.",
"So the real question I think you're asking is \"Why are the materials found in nature considered less harmful than the materials manufactured in a laboratory?\"\n\nMy understanding is that the animals and plants found in nature have evolved to have a balance of materials. The food chain is arranged such that when you consume those things, the proportions you get from your native diet tend to be correct for your digestion. So the amount of sugar/water/carbs/protein in fruit, lettuce, meat, and so forth have a relative balance. Sugar isn't particularly concentrated. Carbs exist, but without a milling process, they're relatively hard to get to. \n\nWhen we started refining food and assembling it ourselves, we started being able to concentrate things in far different densities than exist in nature. Even if you suck on a raw stalk of sugar cane, you're not going to get the density of sugar you can get out of downing a case of pixie sticks. No matter how many apples you eat, you'll never get as much of a sugar high from the fructose as you would from a pop tart.\n\nThe reason is you're consuming a bunch of water and cellulose along with the sugar. Your stomach fills up.\n\nSimilarly we don't really go around chewing on wheat in nature. We're not herbivores, we don't have the stomachs for it. Herbivores do much better with the raw grains than we do. We can process leafy vegetables and stuff. Carrots and celery and nuts and berries. \n\nSo we have millions of years of evolution backing our digestion, and we're tuned to absorbing them in the ratios found in nature. When we change the ratios, even though the elements are the same, we throw things off. Suddenly triggers that make us hungry for food (sugar and fat) are tricked because we're getting far more than we need. The result is an imbalance in our digestion and we get things like diabetes and obesity.",
"I have seriously had this thought so many times in my 24 years but never asked it ",
"Natural vanilla extract is made from vanilla. Artificial vanilla flavoring is made from wood. They're both derived from natural sources. It's not natural vanilla, but if you called it \"natural wood flavor\" no one would argue. Or buy it.",
"The leg of my kitchen table is made from naturally occurring elements, yes. Technically, it's natural.\n\nBut it's artificial because there aren't any \"legs-of-table-trees\" or any naturally occurring kitchen table legs.\n\nThink more as \"manmade.\"",
"Artificial is if something can't occur in nature, though still made from organic things. \n\nI can make a tree house from wood, but I would never find a bunch of wood that grows to form that naturally without a human going in and banging hammer and nails.",
"Well, artificial compounds in my opinion, are compounds that nature wouldn't produce without man made intervention. \n\nEverything that ls produced by natural processes and occurs in the wild, is natural. \n\nIf it can not be made by nature outside of a lab, it's a man made non natural compound. ",
"When the flavor of a grape is recreated without any of the chemicals in an actual grape, or the same chemicals but from different sources, it is artificial. If an orange tastes like an orange because it is 40% A, 40% B, and 20% C, and A, B, and C are also found in the roots of certain flowers and potatoes, you could artificially recreate the taste, with the cheaper potatoes and flowers, but because the flavor wasn't extracted from the fruit that it naturally occurs in, it is artificial.",
"Stepping away from the people attacking the people who try to distinguish it the most. My usage of it is that if it wasn't found in that state, and we had to alter it to make it what we want, then it is Artificial. Which in my opinion means that there isn't much of anything that isn't artificial. Unless you are talking about fruit from a fruit tree in the middle of a forest that hasn't been taken care of by people. ",
"Here's an example, strawberry flavor usually comes from the castor glands of beavers. Sure it's a very natural product, but it's not a natural strawberry product. Therefore artificial.",
"\"Artificial\" comes from the Latin \"artificium\" meaning hand crafted. Creating something artificial is a human process.",
"The distinction between _artificial_ and _natural_ is artificial.",
"Think of alphabet soup, all the letters are there but your unlikely tool see them arranged into anything meaningful unless you do it. The letters are natural, the words are synthetic. ",
"Because of a little thing called rhetoric, artificial as a negative connotation that the speaker/writer hopes will transfer to the thing being objected to. That is, it is a tool to persuade you to take sides with the speaker. Intellectually it is completely vacuous, emotionally it works quite well.",
"I would argue that 'artificial' refers to the production method for that something, not it's composition. At least as we think of chemicals, lot's of 'artificial' are reconstructions of natural materials or compounds, only synthesized in a man-made environment through uncommon processes that are not spontaneous.",
"In the words of George Carlin, the toxic waste from a chemical factory is completely natural, made from all-natural ingredients and elements.\n\nThe reason we refer to things as \"un-natural\" or \"artificial\" is because we can produce things (like elements or chemical compositions) that would never occur in the environment naturally. Certain combinations of materials using scientific processes and machines is what allows us to make plastics and other \"artificial\" materials. Because many of these processes could literally never happen without our intervention, we refer to them as artificial.\n",
"Even plastic is a product of nature because it's made by humans, which are part of nature. Same goes for freeways. And Star Trek.",
"Humans are a naturally occurring process. The \"artificial\" things we produce are the byproduct of a naturally occurring process so when you think about it...",
"The real argument seems to me to be more of a synthesized/concentrated vs naturally occurring ",
"It is an interesting question and one that as a chemist can be a tricky one to explain.\n\nTasked aspirin. Occurs naturally in willow trees (or more specifically salicylic acid does, but aspirin breaks down into the same compound that salicylic acid does without causing indigestion). Back in the day aspirin was made from willow bark. Now it is made from raw chemical feed stock from crude oil\n\nIs aspirin man made or natural? It occurs in nature but the stuff you are taking was made in a lab.\n\nInterestingly too the raw materials (crude oil) for modern aspirin come from dead plants millions of years ago. So again completely natural.\n\nUsually it refers back to safety. There is a great fear of chemicals and drugs made in labs. We are playing god and natural stuff is better.\n\nRicin is naturally occurring but very very toxic (was what Walt and Jesse used in breaking bad) but so is open orange, a synthetic chemical.\n\nOn the other hand sugar is a relatively safe naturally occurring chemical, aspartame is also safe as far as we know (note: there are natural psychological issues associated with eating artificially sweetened products like cravings which I am not addressing now)\n\nTl;dr: usually the natural/artificial argument is used to reassure customers with chemophobia but is also a term that can be used in science. It is a term that needs to be defined be fore use to have any meaning"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/castoreum.asp"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3z6kz6 | why does our eyes hurt when looking at our phones in the dark but not when watching a movie in the theaters? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z6kz6/eli5_why_does_our_eyes_hurt_when_looking_at_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyjmj0o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"With phones, you have to focus on a small object closer to your face, putting more strain on your eyes. At the theaters, you can focus on an object in the distance, which isn't shining light so close. \n\n\n\nIt's the same reason why shining a flashlight in someone's eyes affects them more than lighting a light bulb away from them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4bnssl | sometimes when i'm almost asleep and then suddenly become alert again, i feel light vibrations coursing through me for a few moments afterwards. what is happening here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bnssl/eli5_sometimes_when_im_almost_asleep_and_then/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1atn43"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Happens to me quite often, but would also come with my legs bending a bit. From my researches, I think it's a small case of what we call \"Hypnic jerk\".\n\nCan't talk much more about it than Wikipedia here: _URL_0_ but from what I understand it's benign and we're not sure what is the cause."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnic_jerk"
]
] |
||
2g0jrv | how does buying a company work? | There was recently an article on /r/minecraft about Microsoft potentially purchasing Minecraft for $2 billion. ([here](_URL_0_)). I thought to myself "Notch is already worth a shit ton of money. Why doesn't he just buy Microsoft?" Now the answer to this question is simply because he doesn't have *that* kind of dough. But it got me thinking...
If Company A brings in $3 a year and Company B nets $8 a year, why can't Company A purchase Company B for, say $10 , and pay them back in a year with $1 to spare at the end of the year?
Additional question for bonus points: Let's pretend that, say, the CEO of Apple made the decision to purchase Microsoft. Where does the massive amounts of money go that was used to create this transaction? Is the Apple CEO simply paying $X billion to become the CEO of Microsoft? And if the CEO of Apple is now the CEO of Microsoft, doesn't that mean the the $X billion stays within *his company*?
Thanks, I'm sorry I'm stupid. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g0jrv/eli5how_does_buying_a_company_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckegxys",
"ckegzvu",
"ckeh2s7",
"ckesop2"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When a company buys another company, they are typically agreeing to one of 2 things: purchase all of that company's assets (which includes IP such as the Minecraft brand), or purchase all of that company's stock.\n\nIf they are purchasing the assets, then that means that Company A is going to own everything about Company B, without actually owning Company B itself. So they will purchase all of the computers, all of the real estate (rented or owned), all of the physical products, all of the accounts (i.e. money), and they will assume all of the contracts. Once they do this, Company B doesn't own anything, or have any purpose to operate, and it shuts down.\n\nIf they are purchasing the stock, the exact opposite occurs. Company A purchases all of the stock in Company B, which means Company A now owns Company B, but doesn't actually directly own anything about Company B. \n\nIn either case, the money will go to the shareholders of Company B. If Company A buys Company B for $10, then that $10 is split between all of the shareholders of Company B in the same ratio as their respective ownership amounts. So if 2 people owned Company B, and they each owned 1/2, then they would each get $5.\n\nIn these massive deals, most (or all) of the purchase price is in stock of Company A. So the former owners of Company B will be granted lots of stock in Company A (which makes them part-owners of Company A). There are usually restrictions on when they can sell this stock, but it is really no different than any other stock.",
"Because if Company nets $8/year, it will cost something like $100 to buy them. \n\nFor reference, Microsoft's price/earnings ratio (how much they cost vs how much they earn) is about 17 right now, meaning it would take 17 years to pay back their current valuation, which is $383 billion. And that's for a well established, stable company. For a newer company that people are excited about and think may do better, the price to earnings ratio will be much higher- Facebook has a ratio of 83 for example.\n\nAs for where the money goes, it gets paid to the shareholders. Deals this big are usually a mix of cash and stock in the new company. The CEO doesn't usually own that much of the company (maybe a couple percent of a company as big as Microsoft), unless they were one of the founders. ",
"Cause Microsoft is worth 342 billion. And even if you tried to buy out Microsoft's public shares, there are still majority shares held by internal officers that won't sell it you at market price",
"This gets asked a lot. Please search.\n\nIf you buy an candy bar for one dollar, who do you pay? You pay the person who owns the candy bar - for instance, the owner of the Kwik-E-Mart, or your buddy Joe who has an extra in his lunch today.\n\nIf Apple were to buy Microsoft, they would pay the owners of Microsoft. Microsoft is a public company, owned by it's shareholders. So every shareholder, big and small, would get a chunk of whatever the purchase price was. Sometimes the sale is done by trading stock - so instead of cash, the shareholders would receive X shares of Apple for every share of Microsoft they own.\n\nIn the case of Minecraft, it is owned by Mojang, a private company. Mojang is mostly owned by Notch, with little bits of it owned by other employees and friends. So whatever Microsoft is paying (most likely a mix of cash and stock) would go mostly to Notch, with some proportional share going to other owners.\n\nMicrosoft has somewhere around $80 BILLION in cash in the bank, and a $300 BILLION market valuation, so they can easily afford $2 Billion."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/2fy61m/microsoft_near_deal_to_buy_minecraft_for_2b_dj/"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3mnk4w | why did the earth's shadow move the "wrong way" during tonight's eclipse? | In every other eclipse I have ever seen, the Earth's shadow has moved from right to left across the face of the moon. During tonight's eclipse, it was the opposite. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mnk4w/eli5_why_did_the_earths_shadow_move_the_wrong_way/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvgjy94"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"Lunar eclipses always happen in the same direction, as the moon would always enter Earth's shadow from the same side each time. However, when the moon is viewed from different sides of the Equator, it will appear upside down. This is because the people to the north are looking at it \"upside down\" from the people in the south. [Here](_URL_0_) is a simple diagram to illustrate this point, and [here are two pictures](_URL_1_) taken at about the same time, only one is north of the Equator and the other south. You can see that a different side of the moon is the shadow in each picture.\n\nThe reason this eclipse would appear to move in the opposite direction is because you are viewing it from a different side of the Equator than normal, either because you moved, or because the pictures or videos of past (or the current) eclipses were from the other hemisphere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/moon-upside-down.jpg",
"http://imgur.com/a/u4iRh"
]
] |
|
1liq80 | how do stores get their money when they are paid via credit card? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1liq80/eli5_how_do_stores_get_their_money_when_they_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbzmm2p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Their machine is linked to their account. So if your card is registered as having made a transfer of $, its added to the account thats linked to the device used to use your card. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
68k1uz | why are some states (especially in the midwest, such as kansas and oklahoma) more prone to tornadic weather? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68k1uz/eli5_why_are_some_states_especially_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgz37s8",
"dgz3hds",
"dgz5eyv"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Appalachian mountains, and the Rocky Mountains form a kind of corridor that funnels arctic winds farther south into North America than they would travel otherwise. They also tend to channel moisture rich warm winds north from the Gulf of Mexico. This combination over mostly flat plains leads to there being a lot of tornados where these two air masses meet and mix. ",
"Fun Fact: Kansas and Oklahoma statistically don't get as many tornadoes as places like Georgia... a lot of people think so because of movies like Twister and Wizard of Oz.\n\nBut for real, a tornado is formed by warm air and cool air creating a vortex, which then turns sideways into a vertical vortex and becomes violent. The Rockies, the Appalachians... they act as \"barriers,\" so tornadoes can travel further, do more damage, and become more newsworthy as a result of that fact. There's less to interfere with the air mixing, as well, which makes it more likely for a tornado to form.",
"It's because the jet stream juts down over tornado alley. Tornados form where cold air meets warm air. The jet stream acts like the border between cold air from the north and warm air from the south. If you look at the general flow pattern of the jet stream, there is a sharp dip southeast before a sharp return to the northeast. This sharp turn creates rotation in the midst of cold air mixing with warm air, which is the perfect recipe for a tornado. This dip tends to move around over Kansas, Oklahoma, North Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Alabama and that is why you see a lot of tornados in those states."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ltyd3 | why our eyes move in rapid jolts instead of smooth movements? | Also, why when my eyes dart around so quickly do I not see the rapid eye movement and instead see a smooth, seamless image? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ltyd3/eli5_why_our_eyes_move_in_rapid_jolts_instead_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2vlhln",
"c2vmehv",
"c2vmidj",
"c2vlhln",
"c2vmehv",
"c2vmidj"
],
"score": [
30,
6,
2,
30,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"* \nIt has to do with the way the brain processes information. When you're walking down the street, the eyes move rapidly around, sucking in all the information it can from each specific area. They pause for a very small amount of time to process, then move to the next interesting area. This is what causes the jerky movement. By doing this, your brain can form a sort of composite image in your head. As you read this little paragraph, your eyes are rapidly moving back and forward in the text. This back and forth motion reminds your brain of what it just read, as well as connecting what it's reading with what it will get to soon.\n\n * This being said, when your brain needs to keep focus on a moving object, the eyes actually *do* move smoothly. Try this out: move your finger left and right in front of you. As you track this object, your eyes don't need to take in so much detail. This is because when you're following an object it's more important that you keep the object in the center of your vision, where your eyes are much more effective. Follow your finger again, but this time move it past when your eyes can't continue following it. Immediately, there's a massive loss of information about what it looks like. \n \nEDIT: [These guys](_URL_0_) answer this question very well. I encourage you to take a look. \n\n \n\n ",
"they move that way because your eye muscles are awesome and fast. To move more \"smoothly\" would be to move more *slowly*. Talk to anyone who is serious about computer games: they often change the games default \"look\" or mouse sensititivty (which is usually fairly slow or smooth) to being more sensitive, which allows for faster, more precise movements.\n\nAs far as why your brain processes things that way, it's because your brain is trying to produce a unified perception of what's in front of you. Fun fact: if you're looking straight at something, your eyes are still moving. Super duper quickly and only a small amount. \n\nThe light-sensitive cells in your eyes need time to refresh after they take in light, so to keep you from being momentarily blind, your eyes twitch around to expose different parts of your retina (your eye's light detector) to the scene in front of you. These movements are called [saccades](_URL_0_)",
"You can actually move your eyes smoothly if you're focused on something that is moving vs changing the direction you're looking.\n\nNot really an explanation, just something to try!",
"* \nIt has to do with the way the brain processes information. When you're walking down the street, the eyes move rapidly around, sucking in all the information it can from each specific area. They pause for a very small amount of time to process, then move to the next interesting area. This is what causes the jerky movement. By doing this, your brain can form a sort of composite image in your head. As you read this little paragraph, your eyes are rapidly moving back and forward in the text. This back and forth motion reminds your brain of what it just read, as well as connecting what it's reading with what it will get to soon.\n\n * This being said, when your brain needs to keep focus on a moving object, the eyes actually *do* move smoothly. Try this out: move your finger left and right in front of you. As you track this object, your eyes don't need to take in so much detail. This is because when you're following an object it's more important that you keep the object in the center of your vision, where your eyes are much more effective. Follow your finger again, but this time move it past when your eyes can't continue following it. Immediately, there's a massive loss of information about what it looks like. \n \nEDIT: [These guys](_URL_0_) answer this question very well. I encourage you to take a look. \n\n \n\n ",
"they move that way because your eye muscles are awesome and fast. To move more \"smoothly\" would be to move more *slowly*. Talk to anyone who is serious about computer games: they often change the games default \"look\" or mouse sensititivty (which is usually fairly slow or smooth) to being more sensitive, which allows for faster, more precise movements.\n\nAs far as why your brain processes things that way, it's because your brain is trying to produce a unified perception of what's in front of you. Fun fact: if you're looking straight at something, your eyes are still moving. Super duper quickly and only a small amount. \n\nThe light-sensitive cells in your eyes need time to refresh after they take in light, so to keep you from being momentarily blind, your eyes twitch around to expose different parts of your retina (your eye's light detector) to the scene in front of you. These movements are called [saccades](_URL_0_)",
"You can actually move your eyes smoothly if you're focused on something that is moving vs changing the direction you're looking.\n\nNot really an explanation, just something to try!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fq2w0/why_do_my_eyes_move_smoothly_when_following/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fq2w0/why_do_my_eyes_move_smoothly_when_following/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade"
],
[]
] |
|
1r48s0 | why is it ok to drink beer or wine with dinner or before bed every night but not vodka or whiskey etc? | Most of my family member drink a couple beers or a glass of wine at night and it seems acceptable and normal, more for the men than the women. A lot of families I notice do this but I was thinking if it were a harder drink such as vodka or whiskey it wouldn't be as accepting. Why is this since its all alcohol. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r48s0/eli5_why_is_it_ok_to_drink_beer_or_wine_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdjf5g2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is just as acceptable to drink liquor in the evenings. You just don't hang out with people who do so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
abm08i | what is the y2k38 problem? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abm08i/eli5_what_is_the_y2k38_problem/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed1bc14"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's an issue relating to older computers and how they count time. They store time on 32 bits of data(32 ones or zeroes all lined up), and every second since January 1st, 1980, that set of data has been incremented by 1. \n\nSince you can only store so much data in 32 bits, sometime in January of 2038, any computer or programming language that uses 32 bits to count time will have a thing called a overflow occur, which screws up the set of data (1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 at the last second before this occurs.) \n\nIf you try to add 1 to the set of data, all of those ones listed above will switch to a 0, and the counter will reset. Causing a lot of issues with systems that rely on the time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1keag6 | why is google chrome considered by many to be a better web browser than firefox or internet explorer? | And is PirateBrowser worth checking out? Why/why not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1keag6/eli5_why_is_google_chrome_considered_by_many_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbo1lhs"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Historically speaking, Internet Explorer (IE) has always been behind the curve. Microsoft failed to make Internet Explorer standards complaint for the longest time which caused all sorts of compatibility problems on the web and this made it the bane of many programmers' existence.\n\nHistorically, IE also lacked many features that other browsers had. For example, Tabs were not implemented into IE until 2006, and even when they were added to the browser, the implementation (as I recall) was quite poorly handled. For comparison, some other browsers supported Tabs as far back as 2000.\n\nAdditionally, IE traditionally was slower than other browsers to load/render pages and was slow to update its engine to support new features and add speed-improvements to catch-up with the competition. It was also the target for many security exploits and other browsers like Firefox were generally considered much safer to use.\n\nSo basically IE used to be just so far behind the competition that pretty much the only people using it were those who didn't know any better.\n\nIE has since improved a lot however and is now not so much different from other modern-browsers like Chrome and Firefox. IE is still haunted by its past though and many people refuse to go back after the bad experiences they've had over the years.\n\n---\n\nEdit: As for Pirate Browser, it's basically just a custom version of Firefox with built-in extensions to ~~maximize your privacy online and~~ circumvent censorship by routing your traffic through a proxy service / Tor."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
20wga1 | when i put my hand/face out of the window of a car, why does the air come in quick gusts not a steadier flow? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20wga1/eli5when_i_put_my_handface_out_of_the_window_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg7em1g",
"cg7jm54"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The air around your car is a turbulent flow. This is the opposite of a steady (laminar) flow. Fluids (such as water and air) experience turbulent flow when flowing around an obstacle (such as your car or hand) due to drag the obstacle exerts on the fluid.",
"You know when you turn a small necked bottle upside down? it's two currents of matter meeting in one area. Pressure fluctuations!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
10t0ud | why does republican/democrat on voter registration forms matter? | With these voter registration scandals making headlines lately, it got me wondering. This isn't early voting, is it? The actual votes for the actual politicians aren't being cast, so why does it matter if someone "registers" as republican or democrat? Why are the parties on voter registration forms in the first place for that matter, if the actual voting doesn't take place until Nov 4th? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10t0ud/eli5_why_does_republicandemocrat_on_voter/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6gdupn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In many states, you have to be a registered member of a party to be able to vote in primaries. For the general election, party registration does not matter."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4k94k9 | why are cathedrals and other place of worship so grand and designed so ornate? | Asides from being a place of worship and to show atonement to your God? Is there any other reasons? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4k94k9/eli5why_are_cathedrals_and_other_place_of_worship/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3d3w1e",
"d3day0w"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"There is the whole \"glory to God\" thing that is in play. Also, since faith is such an important aspect of many people's lives, they are willing to spend more time and effort on making sure it looks good, and using quality materials in it's construction. Also also, since there has traditionally been close ties between church and state, an ornate church means a wealthy and powerful state.",
"In addition to some of the reasons given, it was an act of worship on the part of the lay people who dedicated intense and dangerous labor for years of their lives to complete these imposing monuments to their God. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bkwi4s | why do some kinds of meat toughen up when cooked for a long time, but others get softer and "fall off the bone"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkwi4s/eli5_why_do_some_kinds_of_meat_toughen_up_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"emjxbst",
"emjxpyt"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not the type of meat, it's the method of cooking that does this. Cooking for longer times at lower temperatures allows the meat retain moisture and remain tender. Higher temperatures cause the meat to lose this moisture.",
"It's also the cut of meat. You could put a steak cooking at low temperatures in pasta sauce (I know that sounds weird but its an ancient folk recipe), and it will always be tough. No matter what. Pork ribs on the other hand cooked the same way fall off the bone. I think it has to do with the density of the muscle tissue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
201nvz | why are warehouses so cavernous? | Why do warehouses have such high ceilings? Even allowing for perspective distortion, the shelves in this [Amazon Fulfillment Center](_URL_0_) get no closer than halfway up. It seems like there's a lot of wasted energy there: the extra air has to be heated/cooled and you need higher powered lights to reach the floor, not to mention the extra costs of building materials.
Why is this the optimal design instead of lower ceilings?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/201nvz/eli5why_are_warehouses_so_cavernous/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfyy0rq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I believe it result as an engineering/building cost versus business projection maximisation/minimisation problem of some sort.\n\nYou have some land, you want to build both the biggest and cheapest building you can get, taking into account both possible growth in the future and even possible belt-tightening ( so the capital growth of the building itself matters if you have to sell up). And these are the heights that result. Because up to a point, getting the extra height doesn't cost \"much more\". And you want the freedom to be able to turn it into a storage facility with much higher storage racks, or to sell it to a developer who can see how they can cheaply turn it into multiple floors of office space. The bank evaluation and resale value is also a consideration when burrowing to build and in looking to the future (as you can burrow against the value of your building assets)."
]
} | [] | [
"http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/amazon-distribution-center-01.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
1iazsb | why can't africa still provide basic necessities like drinking water? | Why have all other countries solved the basic needs for life such as drinking water and food and Africa has not?
All the other countries seem to have this mastered and are moving on to greater things to progress. What is holding them up? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iazsb/why_cant_africa_still_provide_basic_necessities/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb2pi5q",
"cb2q0ag",
"cb2qg4j"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Colonialism, dictatorship, ethnic conflict, corrupt governments, capitalist exploitation, take your pick.",
"Because Africa is not one country like say the US, imagine if every US state was its own nation, and many of them were very poor and constantly fighting one another or having civil wars. ",
"I highly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It can be a little dry at times but Diamond presents a fascinating theory about the effect of Earth's natural environment on the development of both ancient and modern societies. He basically explains that due to Africa's location and natural resources (lack of fertile land, lack of domesticatable animals) the continent itself was kind of doomed from the start. If you look at the most successful nations/regions (US, the middle east or \"Fertile Cresent\" back in the day) you notice that they are located at a certain favorable latitude and are also \"horizontal\" if you will and also the spread of information, food, etc while the less successful or less developed area like Africa and South American countries are \"lateral\" and have many barriers to dispersal like deserts, mountain ranges etc. This is a horrible explanation but basically the book explains it and it's a really interesting idea about why the world has ended up the way it is ith certain countries being so much more advanced than others. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
18m2nc | why is it illegal to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead(or a "human vegetable") and legal to pull the plug to someone who is on life-support or in a coma? | I know there is such a thing as doctor-assisted suicide in states such as Oregon. But in states where it's not legal, why couldn't I pull the plug on someone who is considered a "human vegetable" versus where I *could* pull the plug on someone who is on life-support or in a coma(Unless stated in their advance directive)?
The way I look at it, it should be the other way around since someone who is considered brain dead isn't coming back as someone in a coma could come out of it.
Edit: What situation occurs for people to get their plug pulled compared to others? I'm really confused on what constitutes as what. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18m2nc/eli5_why_is_it_illegal_to_pull_the_plug_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8fzbw9",
"c8g49lo"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"A \"human vegetable\" is someone who is on life support. Your question is invalid.",
"At the hospital I work at, support is withdrawn from \"brain dead\" individuals pretty regularly. In fact, they must pass a series of tests that demonstrate brain death twice, separated by at least 12 hours, before they can be declared brain dead and the family can agree to withdraw support. It happens frequently, and from what I understand, those standards are similar in every state. I don't live in a state where assisted suicide is legal, but withdrawing life support from a brain dead person definitely is. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's illegal. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7dcxvh | why does aniphone charge faster with their charger but if using another mains to usb converter it's much slower? | Maybe I am imaginging this... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dcxvh/eli5why_does_aniphone_charge_faster_with_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpwrj1m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're not imagining this, but it's not any phone. Samsung is a good example as one of the first to have fast charging. If you look at the source block it will say it has a 9V output instead of 5V. That's the biggest difference. Motorola's \"turbo-charge\" is up to 12V even. It's all about output. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
10eh16 | when you have a stomach flu and you can't keep fluids down, is it better to drink fluids anyway or wait until you are feeling better and not throw everything up? | Was violently ill when I woke up the other day and kept vomiting any and all liquids (water) for six hours. It seemed as though my body viewed water like an obese demon and wanted to exercise that shit right out. I fell into a unpleasant routine of napping, waking, vomiting, napping, waking, vomiting, etc. After the third cycle, I finally gave up trying to hydrate with anything. At hour seven, I finally woke from my last passout session and magically didn't need to dry heave my guts anymore. Should I have given up on my good friends water?
TL;DR is it better to hydrate knowing you are going to vomit those fluids up or wait until you are completely dehydrated but feeling better so you can hold them fluids down? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10eh16/when_you_have_a_stomach_flu_and_you_cant_keep/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6crts3",
"c6cswj8",
"c6ct43v"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Keep drinking small amounts if at all possible. It will help dilute acids in your belly and also keep you from having dry heaves which can sometimes be more painful than throwing up fluids. Try warm water rather than cold.",
"A slow introduction of fluids is the best route. When you feel up for it, take a sip of gatorade. Only a sip at first. Then if you dont throw up by the next hour, drink two sips. 3 sips at the next hour and so on until you finish the whole bottle. It has seems to work best with gatorade rather than water, not sure why. Too much fluids at once and it provokes your stomach because it is weak, and you throw up. But if you slowly introduce fluids back into your body, your stomach will slowly strengthen as the fluids come in and you wont throw up.",
"Keep drinking fluids, if only in small sips. Even though you may continue to vomit, you body will still absorb some of it and it will help keep you from getting dehydrated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7shcrf | why do products go up in price (as a percentage) faster than wages? | So far every product I have looked up follows this trend, but lets use homes as an example;
Today, the median home in the US is $188,900. And the median wage was $44,148. Meaning it takes the average Joe 4.3 years to buy the average house.
in the 1950's those numbers were $8,450 and $4,175. Meaning it used to take "joe" only 2 years to buy the average house.
Every product follows this trend. Why is this? We appear to live "better" lives today, but these numbers suggest we have a lot less money.
Another example, milk, $0.18 in 1950, $3.50 Today, that's an increase of 1940%, where as wages only increased 1057% | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7shcrf/eli5_why_do_products_go_up_in_price_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt4qieo",
"dt4s6kb",
"dt4tjsl",
"dt4vlmm"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In this case, you aren't exactly comparing apples to apples.\n\nSure, the median home price is about 2x what is was in 1950 (inflation adjusted) but the median home _size_ is also about 2x _larger_ than it was in 1950 - [source](_URL_0_). If you went and found a home that was only 950sqft, you might be able to get it significantly cheaper.",
"What products are you talking about? Electronics for example have drastically dropped, as have General Services.",
"I'm not sure that those two things are related in any meaningful way. Your wage and the price of something you buy have no connection outside of 'they are both numbers dealing with money\" to you.\n\nA better example might be why the price of \"Widget X\" has gone up faster than inflation or how college tuition compared to itself 50 years ago.\n\nThe simple answer is the costs of doing business have gone up, and a \"cost\" is the profit margin. Somewhere someone is making more money for the same good.",
"There are also items that haven't grown in line with inflation... food is a smaller percentage of household budgets compared to decades ago. Also, things like TVs, clothing, etc. have benefit from overseas manufacturing, global trade, etc. and seen prices fall relative to wages.\n\nHome prices are a unique situation because land is a finite resource. Same land, more people, more demand, higher prices. Additionally, qualitative aspects of homes play into cost... size, amenities like A/C, washers/dryers, etc. granite counters, multiple bathrooms, finished basements and so on... you might have had a family of 6 in a 1500sq ft. 3BR/1BA house in 1950 but today a family of 4 has a 2500 sq ft. 4BR/3BA house.\n\nSame for cars, which more often have luxury features like leather and bluetooth, as well as safety features like airbags, lane departure, cameras and comfort features like power windows and A/C.\n\nNot sure why milk is up, but could do with drops in subsidies, alternate demand for milk (cheese, yogurt, etc.) driving up prices, costs of raising cattle, concentration of sellers reducing competition..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/the-righteous-small-house-challenging-house-size-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
42dec9 | chemically speaking, is espresso just concentrated drip coffee? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42dec9/eli5_chemically_speaking_is_espresso_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz9g5ie",
"cz9gtg5",
"cz9uqi8"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The high pressure steam used to brew espresso likely extracts oils and other compounds from the beans that normal drip brewing cannot do. So yes, there is a chemical difference.",
" > this would also mean that americana = american drip coffee\n\n...which is clearly not true. The taste is significantly different. Sure, they've got most of the same stuff in them but the proportions are all different.",
"There are chemical composition differences due to brewing style, but there's also more going on. \n\nBeans. In my experience, espresso tends to use better coffee, meaning arabica beans of various extractions. Many industrial drip coffees (the stuff you get at the office) are spiked with robusta coffee beans, harsher taste but more caffeine, and cheaper by the pound. I live on espresso but cheap office brews give me headaches and taste like bootblack.\n\nTime. Brewed stuff tends to sit around and any of those sweet, light aromatics just fly away. Espresso machines are better at delivering these fractions, if only because people tend to drink shots right away.\n\nCleaning. Espresso machines tend to get cleaned pretty often, which is good because coffee oils cling to the apparatus, spoil, and taste punky. The office coffee machine may never be cleaned properly, and even people's french presses tend not to get the cleaning they deserve. Once you learn what an uncleaned machine tastes like, you'll notice it forever, and it's not nice."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7arhpl | what is the meaning of jean paul's quote? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7arhpl/eli5_what_is_the_meaning_of_jean_pauls_quote/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpc74yf",
"dpc7yr3"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A timid person worries before something bad actually happens.\nA coward is fearful of things when they are going on.\nA courageous person deals with the problem and doesnt think of \"how bad it was\" until it's over.\n\nTimid = \"No way I'm doing that!\"\nCoward = \"This sucks I have to bail\"\nCourageous = \"That sucked, thank goodness I handled it\"\n",
"It means that it's easy to brace when the danger is over. And the timid are cowardly during battle but boastful after."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
30onw6 | how are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like the toyota mirai charged? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30onw6/eli5_how_are_hydrogen_fuel_cell_vehicles_like_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpuclpj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Hydrogen is pumped into a tank, pretty much the same way conventional fuels are. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4gxgx3 | if bluefin tuna are going extinct why can't we just breed them like salmon? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gxgx3/eli5_if_bluefin_tuna_are_going_extinct_why_cant/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2lljgm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are very hard to breed. 2015 was the 1st time we've heard of any success\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe article sums up a few great reasons why it's hard\n\n > \"The bluefin hatchlings ate each other, so we then had to introduce other types of hatchling species for them to eat.\"\n\n > The scientists also faced the difficulty of replicating the best conditions for bluefin, which are notoriously hard to breed in captivity due to their sensitivity to water temperature, currents and noise.\n\n > Swimming at up to 80 kilometres per hour and weighing up to 350 kilograms, half of the bluefins die in collisions despite being kept in huge circular pens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/bluefin-tuna-farming-japan/6373310"
]
] |
|
3ve1ee | if dna is the blueprint for creating enzymes that synthesize dna, how did dna first come about? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ve1ee/eli5if_dna_is_the_blueprint_for_creating_enzymes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxmpvub",
"cxmsd5t"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Miller and urey did an experiment some 50 years ago. They took basic chemicals and put it in a special flask that simulated prehistoric conditions such as lightning and volcanic acitivty.\n\nMacromolecules like DNA, RNA, and fats formed.\n\nProbably one of the coolest experiments ever in my opinio ",
"Pretty sure you are asking about the origin of \"life\". Unfortunately no one has been able to answer that yet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6grzue | why do bell peppers sometimes grow little bell peppers inside of them? | Edit: Thanks to everyone who answered, I also can't count the number of "when a mommy and daddy bell pepper.." answers I got haha.
For everyone who wanted to see what it looked like, here are some pictures:
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6grzue/eli5_why_do_bell_peppers_sometimes_grow_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"dismv57",
"dismvc3",
"disn55p",
"disnu3z",
"dissb2x",
"distre5",
"disvdhl",
"diswjo6"
],
"score": [
20,
252,
2612,
19,
29,
2770,
97,
9
],
"text": [
"\"It's an internal proliferation known as a form of parthenocarpy - formation of fruit without fertilization. So it's just a sort of clone or internal baby pepper, sometimes looking like a pepper...Common in sweet peppers and yes, edible.\"",
"Bell peppers, like a lot of modern fruits and veg, can be bred to develop without fertilisation. Sometimes, the ovules in a pepper get \"confused\" and develop into another pepper while inside an existing pepper. It just means there's been an error in communication in growth and development somewhere, as a result of damage or miscopied genetics or hormone confusion. Much as how humans can get cancers.",
"There is not one right answer - This phenomenon can be caused by various reason among which include genetic mutation as well. \n \nThat little pepper inside a bigger pepper is called an “internal proliferation.” Its form can vary from irregular and contorted to a near-perfect but sterile fruit.\n \nA pepper growing inside a pepper is a type of parthenocarpy, which is the formation of fruits without fertilization or the formation of seeds. No one is sure what causes them, but temperature and nutrient levels have been ruled out.\n\nPlant breeders, who consider this anomaly undesirable, keep an eye out for it when selecting for new cultivars, because the trait is inheritable.\n \n*More Details*\n \nDuring the normal development of bell peppers, seeds develop from fertilized structures or ovules. There are a multitude of ovules within the pepper which turn into tiny seeds that we discard before eating the fruit. When a pepper ovule gets a wild hair, it develops an internal proliferation, or carpelloid formation, which more resembles the parent pepper rather than a seed. \n \nNormally, fruit forms if ovules have been fertilized and are developing into seeds. On occasion, a process called parthenocarpy occurs wherein the fruit forms with an absence of seeds. \n \nThere is some evidence that suggests there is a correlation between the parasitic pepper inside a pepper. Internal proliferations most often develop in the absence of fertilization when the carpelloid structure mimics the role of seeds resulting in parthenocarpic pepper growth. \n \nParthenocarpy is already responsible for seedless oranges and the lack of large, unpleasant seeds in bananas. Understanding its role in engendering parasitic peppers may end up creating seedless pepper varieties.\n \n Whatever the exact cause, commercial growers consider this an undesirable trait and tend to select newer cultivars for cultivation. The pepper baby, or parasitic twin, is perfectly edible, however, so it’s almost like getting more bang for your buck. I suggest just eating the little pepper inside a pepper and continue to marvel at the strange mysteries of nature.\n \n_____________________________________________________\n \n[Source 1](_URL_0_)\n \n[Source 2](_URL_1_)",
"The inside of a bell pepper happens to be an excellent environment for growing bell peppers, at least starting them anyhow.",
"Similarly, why does this happen with tangerines too?",
"I've removed about eight or nine \"when a mamma pepper loves a daddy pepper\" jokes.\n\nYou are all hilarious and original. \n\nWe do ask that top-level comments be reserved for comprehensive explanations under [rule #3](_URL_0_)\n\nAlso, by popular demand, [a picture of a pepper in a pepper](_URL_1_).",
"You can find out more about defective agricultural products on the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service site. The defect that you are describing is considered damaged by means of Internal Sprouting (second growth) and you can see it on page 18 of the [USDA Pepper inspection instructions](_URL_0_). As a terminal market inspector I see this often.",
"Can this happen to cayenne peppers as well? \n\nI recently harvested about 40-50 peppers from my cayenne plant and when I was preparing them for dehydrating, I found a bunch that appeared to have a very small green pepper growing inside at the very top. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/gallery/rOPrf"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/diggin-it/2010/0401/Have-you-ever-found-a-pepper-inside-a-pepper",
"https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/pepper/little-pepper-inside-pepper.htm"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/about/rules#",
"https://maxpull-gdvuch3veo.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/pepper-in-pepper-400x300.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pepper_including_Sweet_and_Other_than_Sweet_types_Inspection_Instructions.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
6iw7g6 | what happens in your ear when you pop your ears? and how does popping your ears while diving prevent bursting an eardrum? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iw7g6/eli5_what_happens_in_your_ear_when_you_pop_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj9kl0u",
"dj9klc5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When you pop your ears you open your Eustachian tube. This is a tube that connects your nasal cavity with your inner ear. This leads to equalizing the airpressure of your inner ear with the outer ear. The inner ear is separated from the outer ear by your eardrum. If you would dive deep enough that the pressure in the outer ear is so big that your eardrum stretches to far it could tear.",
"the Valsalva maneuver (forcibly pushing air thru the eustacian tubes by holding mouth and nose close and pretending to breath out)\n\nworks by equalizing pressure in your sinuses - to the outside world of the environment you're in.\n\nYour eustacian tubes are usually very good at equalizing this pressure on their own if your change in atmospheric pressure is gradual. But if you are placed in a situation where the change is very sudden, it can cause extreme pressure and ultimately result in damage to ear drum or even permanent hearing loss, or other problems with the ear nose and throat.\n\nsome situations where the Valsalva maneuver is effective include:\ndiving, flying in a pressurized airplane cabin, and quick ascent or descent of high elevation mountains in a car. \n\nMany people can accomplish the same effects by chewing gum, or sucking on mints or candy which induces swallowing, which can have similar effects to help clear the eustacian tubes\n\n**Some people are unable to do the Valsalva maneuver and thus are unfit for diving"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
a3u8aj | how do fighter jets with guns utilize them when some are capable of going faster than a bullet? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3u8aj/eli5_how_do_fighter_jets_with_guns_utilize_them/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb96tsh",
"eb96uzb",
"eb96yuq",
"eb9tekw",
"ebal344"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"When they fire the gun, the muzzle velocity of the bullet is added to that of the plane, so the plane won't \"catch up with\" the bullets it's fired, if that's what you're asking.\n\nIn the more general sense, modern fighters use their RADAR to help determine where they should be pointing in order to hit their target with their guns.",
"It is possible to shoot a bullet, then accelerate into your own bullet. The short answer is, you don't fire your guns often when you are supersonic. If there is another aircraft that is supersonic, you would fire a missile at it. Guns are typically used against ground forces or slower moving targets, and you would not be flying supersonic to shoot at those.",
"Imagine this: you are riding on a train going 100 mph. You go to the front of the train and throw a baseball at 50 mph. \n\nWhat happens? Well, for a bit, the ball moves forward at a speed of (100mph+50mph) 150mph over the ground. Until the air resistance slows it down, it gets a boost from the trains speed.\n\nA similar thing happens with guns on a plane. Bullets are made to pierce air though and dont slow down as much. So they're much more effective than the baseball would be.",
"Fighter jets generally don't use their guns, they're practically obsolete for air-to-air combat.\n\nThe reason they still have guns is because we thought they were obsolete back in the sixties, so the F4 was designed without guns. What happened was our pilots got their asses handed to them over North Vietnam, until one guy decided to strap a gun pod to his plane.",
"You can read about [the time an F-11 Tiger test pilot managed to shoot himself down](_URL_0_) :\n\n & #x200B;\n\n > On September 21st, 1956, a Grumman test pilot flying a Tiger off the coast of Long Island dropped his nose twenty degrees and pointed it at an empty spot of ocean. He fired a brief, four second burst from his four Colt Mk.12 20-millimeter cannons, entered a steeper descent, and hit the afterburners. A minute later, his windshield suddenly caved in and his engine started making funny noises, eventually conking out as the pilot attempted to return to Grumman's Long Island airfield. \n \n > \n > The test pilot had assumed he had been the victim of a bird strike, but the accident investigation revealed another cause: in his fast descent, the pilot had actually flown into his own stream of 20-millimeter cannon rounds\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27967/the-fighter-plane-that-shot-itself-down/"
]
] |
|
214hn8 | how does plane wreckage float in the open ocean? | How does something made of metal and has some weight manage to stay afloat for over two weeks in the rough ocean (assuming that what they have found is the remains of MH370)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/214hn8/eli5_how_does_plane_wreckage_float_in_the_open/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg9j0up",
"cg9j60w",
"cg9j8s2"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As /u/heruskael said, there are many pieces that are obviously buoyant: seats immediately come to mind (\"Your seat-back may be used as a floatation device\"). But in addition to that:\n\n* wings - the wings are usually filled with jet fuel, but some (most) of it had been used. That would leave a very large piece of metal filled with mostly air\n* other parts of the fuselage - a plane is made to be strong, but it's also made to be light. That means a lot of pieces of the superstructure are actually hollow. Some of these pieces may get a (for want of a better word) fortunate air pocket that will cause them to float",
"Many components are more buoyant than water. Enough so, the net buoyancy of the plane is less than water. ",
"just like how anything will float on a ocean really, due Principal of Flotation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2g2jkz | how do engines turn on/off so quickly/often without damaging the engine? | Specifically, I have a plug in hybrid and after the battery drops below 1kwh it goes into hybrid mode. in this mode if I press the gas on the freeway, the engine turns on. if I let up, the battery takes over. in rush hour this can go back and forth every couple of seconds. if I started a normal car and shut it off every few seconds for years,I wouldn't think that would be bad for the engine. Does this not increase wear on a hybrid engine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g2jkz/eli5_how_do_engines_turn_onoff_so_quicklyoften/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckf1f46"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Different hybrids work differently, but chances are that if you're driving the thing at highway speeds, the engine is always turning, no matter what. To save fuel, though, if you aren't using the engine for power, the fuel injectors stop injecting fuel, and it just spins.\n\nUnder these conditions, you're not really starting and stopping the engine at all. It just sounds like it, because when it's \"off,\" no fuel is being burned.\n\nEven at lower speeds or in other hybrid designs, where the engine really does stop sometimes, it still isn't like starting and stopping a regular car. First of all, the electric motor that starts your hybrid's engine is way more robust than the tiny starter that starts a conventional engine. It has to be, because it's sometimes responsible for powering the entire car by itself. Second, except for the first time you start up the engine, the engine is already warm. A warm start is way less damaging than a cold start."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5iyvfk | how do you ads follow you around on different devices? | Just a second ago I was looking at LED lights on Amazon, and the next thing I know, I open up my phone and on Instagram that exact same LED light is being advertised. How the heck do they follow you like that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5iyvfk/eli5_how_do_you_ads_follow_you_around_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbc0r31",
"dbc0wzx"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"If you are logged onto Google or other services on multiple devices, ads on those services will carry over. Works with Facebook too. ",
"Wait until you see an ad on Facebook for something you were talking on the phone about. Now THAT'S creepy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4kfld5 | what makes someone seem like someone that would have their name? | Sometimes I hear people say something like "you look like a Peter" or "you sound like a Jeff." Why do people associate names with particular qualities? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kfld5/eli5what_makes_someone_seem_like_someone_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3epq8j",
"d3eqvrr"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"It's probably just from personal experience. You meet someone named greg, then you see someone similar and they \"seem like a greg\". \nIf you don't mean just buy looks but by personality, it could be that a certain type of parent is more likely to name their kid a name like Chad. Then the kid would be raised by similar parents and have a similar personality to many other chads?",
"Names generally tell you a lot about the ethnic and socioeconomic background of a person. Certain groups of people will for a time favor some names over others. Subconsciously you can filter that information and come up with stereotypes based on that. \n\nEarl is more likely a blue collar worker than Emmitt. And you can guess Tiffany's class by her age. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
21m50r | how do people who are paralyzed, with no feeling below the waist, enjoy sex? | Me and my friends were talking about this. If you are paralyzed to the point of not being able to get it up and you have no feeling down there how do you orgasm? This is mostly about males since there are times males will get a pump so they can get an erection. What's the point of that if there's no feeling down there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21m50r/how_do_people_who_are_paralyzed_with_no_feeling/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgeczv5",
"cgedlg8",
"cgedttw",
"cgedvyr",
"cgejfn8",
"cgel45e"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
2,
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I actually asked this in a AMA and became friends with the kid in the AMA. He had a girlfriend however he could not even move his arms. His entire body was paralyzed except his Face/head. \n\n\nHe said the tension release from sex/blowjobs is what did it for him. He still got all the endorphins and emotional release from jizzing. ",
"When I worked in healthcare I took care of this lady who was paraplegic. I don't know if she was telling the truth but she said she still had feeling in her vagina and could have sex. I didn't ask for details.",
"The penis still can get erect and vagina can get moist as they are just natural body reactions for paraplegics. Quads I have no idea, but with little to no use of your spine it could be difficult to have sex. \n\nGenerally they can still get the feeling of orgasms and the feeling of released tension, endorphins, tingles, etc. that we would. ",
"There is a really good movie called the Intouchables (based off of real events) about a guy who is paralyzed from his neck down and the caretaker guy asks him about this. The paralyzed man talks about how pleasure regions will move, for him it ended up moving to his ears. In the end we find out he ends up remarrying and having a few more kids even while being paralyzed.",
"Sex is very much an emotional and mental release as it is a physical one. This is why you can find enjoyment out of sex without orgasm. Physical relief is not always the sole drive for sex.",
"A lot of spinal injuries are \"incomplete\" – which simply means the spinal cord is not entirely severed, and some or all sensory perception (feeling) or motor control (movement) is retained. \n\nThat said, for those with dull or no sensory perception – sexual satisfaction varies for the individual – but people usually find their own forms of release. Which is really true of anyone; some completely able-bodied men prefer rubbing their cocks on a woman's feet to actual sex.\n\nPersonally, as a low-level quadriplegic (some feeling, self-propelled chair, independent), my girlfriend and I spend a lot more time on foreplay than prior to my injury. Feels great.\n\nFood for thought: imagine someone you're hugely sexually attracted to wants to ride you wearing a strap-on dildo – would you enjoy it?\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
anp9pb | how do light and heat always come together | I was thinking about this yesterday and I want to know why light always ends up getting warm/hot and why if something is hot enough it always ends up giving off light.
What's the relationship between light and heat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/anp9pb/eli5_how_do_light_and_heat_always_come_together/ | {
"a_id": [
"efv0i5h",
"efv52ck"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Heat is merely light at a longer wavelength than we can see. In other words it's just another form of electromagnetic wave. The visible light spectrum runs from red to violet. Heat is just outside this range at the red end, hence we call it _infrared_ radiation.\n\nThings like sunlight have a wide spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from the infrared (which we feel as heat) through to ultra violet (beyond the violet end of the scale). So when we sit in the sun we are not only illuminated by it but also warmed by it, and the UV can burn our skin if we're not careful.\n\nHot objects glow because the electrons in their atoms become more 'excited' the hotter they get. This makes them flip between higher and lower energy states, and sometimes dropping to a lower energy state means the electron emits a photon to get rid of the energy. It's these photons we see as a glow.",
"Heat is a curious word, and not a great one to use to try to understand whats going on. Just look at these responses, u/NorthawayPhoto explains to you that heat is infrared radiation, while u/[Sheol\\_IK](_URL_0_) explains that it is conductive heat transfer.\n\nIts definitely not ELI5, but I recommend this editorial in the American Journal of Physics: [*Heat is not a Noun*](_URL_1_)*.* The long of short of it is that using the word \"heat\" by itself as a quantity or state of an object itself is an anachronism from an obsolete scientific theory (caloric theory) wherein there \"heat\" was an actual substance that could flow in and out of things.\n\nAnyways all objects have an internal energy. Depending on this object and the conditions it finds it self that energy will manifest itself as a certain temperature (how hot or cold the object is). Temperature is a way of defining a certain amount of vibration that the molecules and atoms are always doing.\n\nA basic law of physics is that objects of high temperature will try to transfer their energy to objects of low temperature around them, we call this *heat transfer or heat flow.* There are three main ways for this to occur. Radiation, Conduction, and Convection.\n\nIn radiation, the hot object creates electromagnetic waves (photons). The frequency of radiation created by any object has to do with how hot it is, and our eyes can only detect pretty high frequency radiation which is only produced by really hot things. The sun is really hot at about 6000K and creates a nice white light with plenty of UV and blue. But you heat metal to about 1000C then it will glow dull red. If light is falling on something, that means energy is being transferred to it via radiation. Go outside on a sunny day and you feel \"heat\" on your skin... basically the energy form the sun is flowing to your skin and causing its temperature to increase. But even not-so-hot-things are transferring energy through radiation that you can't see. Ever stand next to a brick wall at sunset that was heated by the sun during the day and \"feel the heat\" coming off of it?\n\nConduction is another way hot objects can transfer energy to other cold objects. Basically just by touching to things together, molecular vibrations that everything has do to their internal energy state can sort of directly cause the vibrations of the colder object to increase. This is like when you touch something that is hot or cold.... if its hot your skin vibrates more, if its cold your skin causes the object to vibrate more, and in the process loses some of its own vibratory energy and its temperature goes down.\n\nConvection is a short hand way to simplify how heat is transferred through an intermediary substance like air.\n\nTLDR: \"heat\" is a tricky word... it doesn't really exist on its own, but \"heat transfer\" is how energy moves from hot to cold things. Light (EM radiation, visible or otherwise) is one of the main ways that heat is transferred from hot to cold things, which is why they are intricately related."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/user/Sheol_IK",
"https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.1341254?class=pdf"
]
] |
|
7ml4da | what happens when singing along to a recording or in the shower that affects our perception of our own voice compared to singing by ourselves | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ml4da/eli5_what_happens_when_singing_along_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"drusf13"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Singing with a recording will fill in tones and notes you miss, which feels satisfying on your brain. \n-AReal Brainscientist "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6c3pta | why should/does the government (u.s.) be able to tax things twice? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c3pta/eli5_why_shoulddoes_the_government_us_be_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhrmjpa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most governments depend on taxation to exist. But creating tax policy is hard. \n\nThere are a few reasons for this. First---especially in a vast country like the United States which also has multiple mostly independent levels of government---taxation can't be directly monitored and is hard to enforce. More so than most other laws, tax laws really do depend on most people deciding to pay them. \n\nSecond a good government doesn't want taxes to interfere with the economy too much. This is part of the reason that governments getting most of their money from tariffs fell out of favor---if the government gets most of its money from imports and exports rather than spreading the taxes out more, that makes those goods much less attractive on the market. That becomes an extra cost from the taxes that doesn't really benefit anyone. \n\nThird, related to that second point, sometimes governments want to use taxes to achieve some goal---like increasing the taxes on cigarettes to reduce the chances people smoke them. \n\nAll that together leads to tax codes that can be pretty complex as they try to balance all of these different costs and needs. \n\nSo, if the government wants to make $1,000 from the sale of a $10,000 car, it could charge a 10% tax up front. But that might be so high it would overly deter car buying, and people might even just try not to pay it. So, instead, they might charge a 4% tax on the sale, but also charge that same percent on each subsequent sale, which ends up adding up to that $1,000 over all the sales in the life of the car. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2p52dz | "there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all of earth's beaches" | Who counted all that sand? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p52dz/eli5_there_are_more_stars_in_the_universe_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmtfqy5",
"cmtfuyr",
"cmtg58o",
"cmthf0e"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Counted? Nobody. But you can estimate based on the size and density of beaches and deserts. Of course new sand is being added all the time.\n\nWe can do similar about stars in the universe. We can estimate based on density and observation. The stars outnumber grains of sand by several orders of magnitude. The universe is just mind boggling in its size, and stars are common as dirt, so to speak.\n\nThere are no perfect numbers of course, but stars add up to quickly that it doesn't matter. ",
"No one actually counted them, but they can do quick calculations based on volume of your average grain of sand to estimate how many there are. Then they compare it to the numbers we have calculated for number of stars in a galaxy and number of galaxies in the (observable universe).\n\nIt's all estimation, but it's probably true due to a star being about the same size relative to a large galaxy like our own as sand is to the Earth.",
"The other answers sound good but I believe Carl was referring to the amount of stars in the universe are limitless, without measure. Regardless of how many grains of sand are on the planet they are finite. The statement is not in any way meant to goad the audience into equating sand with the stars, merely being a declaritive statement. ",
"No one counted anything, that's sort of the point of the expression.\n\nTry to think of a number that would be *close* to how many grains of sand there are on earth.\n\nYou can't really, it's *unimaginably* large.\n\nWell, the number of stars in the universe is even *larger* than that number that was so large you can't even imagine it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3n8ovk | why is it "acceptable", often with no legal action, for women to hit men? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n8ovk/eli5why_is_it_acceptable_often_with_no_legal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvlsypc",
"cvlvvgy",
"cvlvy1u"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is illegal and women can be arrested for assault if they do it. Now....we live in a society that assumes men are strong and women are weak (total bullshit, right?) so sometimes when a man and a woman get in a fight it is the man who goes to jail. But, it is take seriously when it is obvious that the woman is the one doing the assault and the man is the one assaulted.",
"The reason is because the law is interpreted by jurors, judges, lawyers, cops. All humans. Humans evaluate things on a case by case basis, and so all of the factors of human psychology come into play. Basically i'm saying people are biased and that cannot be filtered out when they are evaluating law.\n\n",
"It is illegal, and CAN be prosecuted, but men have been laughed out of court when they showed to testify."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ik1g0 | why don't cruise missiles render bomber jets obsolete? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ik1g0/eli5_why_dont_cruise_missiles_render_bomber_jets/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl2t8yt",
"cl2to0a",
"cl2v3og",
"cl2vmg9",
"cl2ye5g",
"cl33yaf",
"cl34lzq",
"cl34pqv",
"cl358o6",
"cl3bbkh"
],
"score": [
23,
7,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the main advantage over a cruise missile is that having an aircraft \"on station\", in other words, nearly right over top of the target, allows for more flexibility in general. If the target moves ever so slightly, then adjustments can be made right then and there. If the target is a building and 80 school children walk out of it, it's going to be a lot harder to stop a cruise missile than an aircraft.\n\nOverall, in Iraq and Syria, the environment on the ground is so fluid and changing that lobbing cruise missiles will work only some of the time. ",
"Keep in mind that a cruise missile is expendable, while a a jet is reusable.\n\nAdditionally, once a missile is fired, it is \"wasted\" whereas a jet can be \"recalled\" with \"less waste\" or can be diverted to other missions.\n\nThere are lot's of secondary factors that come into play, including collateral damage, etc. \n\nEach tool in the arsenal has advantages and disadvantages. Unless the tool was specifically designed as a direct replacement for another tool, it won't make it obsolete. It will generally just compliment it.\n\nThink of a cell phone. They now have cameras on them. They however haven't completely replaced the digital or traditional camera yet. They just don't have the same range of capabilities as those other devices. They can fill in, \"in a pinch\" but the others are specialized tools, which offer robust capabilities which the one can't possibly offer, and vice versa.",
" > That's what a cruise missile does as well with far lower cost.\n\nNot exactly. Cruise missiles cost more per mission hour than the planes or bombers, and you have to replace them afterwards.\n\nThe F-22, despite costing much more than an individual missile, can do the bombing missions for a much lower cost, and doesn't need to be replaced after each mission. In addition, the F-22 isn't useless after completing its mission: you can multitask and keep an F-22 in the air to provide continued support and targeting for *other* aircraft. A missile can't accomplish this after it's mission is completed because it's too busy being a fireball.\n\nGranted, many of the capabilities that warrant using the F-22 are unique to the aircraft, and so that doesn't fully answer the question as to why bombers in general aren't obsolete.\n\nOne point is that you don't always know exactly what you're going to be bombing. Having a platform loitering above or near a battlefield that can respond within seconds is far superior to a platform hanging off the coast (ie a destroyer or cruiser) that takes minutes to respond to changing battlefield conditions.\n\nAnother is that you typically want to make sure the target is destroyed successfully, which you can't accomplish without an aircraft or ground troops in the vicinity anyway (or you time your attack to coincide with a satellite passing overhead, but this typically isn't a reasonable expectation because the enemy is dynamic). So if you're going to be putting a plane there, just have the plane do the attack in the first place.",
"Every weapon or weapons system has its advantages and disadvantages. I was a Navy aircraft mechanic deployed to Iraq. We basically did the same missions as UAV's so a lot of us were asking why we were even there, why can't the UAV's do it instead? It's because we can change locations quickly, UAV's have an annoyingly slow cruising speed so if someone needs eyes in the air in point B instead of point A where they were operating, it just isn't going to happen. We also had a few more abilities the UAV's didn't have, but the main thing was how quickly we could get to where we were needed and unlike other manned aircraft, we could stay on station for as long as the mission required.\n\nI imagine they are using F-22's because their smart bomb's are able to follow guided lasers to hit moving targets. They also have the ability to carry different ordinance types so they can choose on the fly which weapon would work best in the given situation. If the F-22's are already on station they provide faster support as well. Not to mention after paying such a fuck ton of money for something that isn't even needed you can bet your ass they are going to use it as much as possible. Especially since it's new, as an aircraft mechanic I can tell you they are saving money on maintenance hours compared to F-15's or other older platforms.",
"The F-22 isn't really designed to drop bombs on a target. It is designed to rule the skies (air superiority fighter). It is supposed to be able to go up and kill any enemy aircraft that dare take to the air (and perhaps put the occasional bomb through an advanced anti-aircraft missile battery). Once you have air superiority you send in specialized aircraft to take out the run of the mill anti-aircraft missiles and then you send in your close air support planes like the A-10, F-18, etc. to drop bombs on tanks and troops.",
"F22 Pilots want combat experience. Can you imagine? You get to fly this awesome piece of machinery designed to deal out death on an enormous scale and guess what? the Era of air-combat is over. Yeah theres a lingering back of your mind threat of WW3 but you know that's really not gonna happen. So besides flying CAP's over the Ukrainian border how is a modern F22 pilot going to get any combat experience? Send em to IRAQ! Strap some bombs on and hope some dumbass syrian pilot is stupid enough to engage one.",
"Cruise missiles would be prohibitively expensive to replace bombers with entirely",
"The on-station aspect of a plane has been covered enough, but there's another benefit... variety of munitions.\n\nA cruise missile is generally going to have one type of warhead on it. We mostly use Tomahawks.\n\n* Need to kill a sniper? Take a 1000 lb warhead that can take down a small fortress. $1.6 million, please. It'll be there in 60 minutes.\n\n* Need to destroy a tank? Take a 1000 lb warhead that can take down a small fortress. $1.6 million, please. It'll be there in 60 minutes.\n\n* Need to destroy a small fortress? Hey! We got the right warhead for you! $1.6 million, please. It'll be there in 60 minutes.\n* Need to level a factory? 4, 1000 lb warheads needed. $6.4 million, please. They'll be there in 60 minutes.\n\nA plane that hangs out over an area can not only provide an immediate response, it can carry a variety of weapons. The A-10 is a great example. In the span of one mission:\n\n* Need to kill a sniper? Here's a burst of 30mm. On target in 5 minutes. $1500, please.\n\n* Need to destroy a tank? Have a Maverick. Be there in 4 minutes. $110,000 please.\n\n* Need to destroy a small fortress? Hey! We got a MK83 for you! 10 minutes out. $5000, please.\n* Need to level a factory? Take some more MK83s or other bombs! Cost and method of destruction up to you! 12 minutes away.\n",
"It's worth noting that both the US and Russia have kept their largely obsolete bombers (B52, Tu95) for the express purpose of sabre-rattling. Both countries love buzzing each others' airspace on mock bombing runs when diplomatic ties are frayed/fraying. Reagan did a fair amount of it early on in his presidency. Source: Arsenals of Folly by Richard Rhodes. \n",
"The F22 is actually an air superiority fighter. The ability to drop bombs is a bit of an afterthought, though something it was always somewhat capable of, the main role is to be able to shoot down other stuff.\n\nAs to bombers just generally. Cruise missiles are regularly launched from bomber aircraft. Launching up into the air (from a ship for example) takes a lot of propellant, which is summarily wasted as the thing then flies back down. If you can launch from the air you can fly farther or with a bigger payload for otherwise equivalent sized things. Aircraft taking off are much more efficient at getting things in the air than rocketry. \n\nCruise missiles are expensive, and not nearly as effective as propoganda would have you believe. I realize that the F22 at (including R & D) a couple of hundred million dollars per aircraft seems very expensive too. But at the end of a mission you're still supposed to have the F22. And flying a missile from a couple of hundred Km away to have it miss by 3 metres is a spectacular feat of engineering. But it still missed. That might be a problem or it might not. If you need to take out a communications tower it's a different problem than trying to put a hole in the side of a warship. Missiles that can launch from a ship are a relatively limited commodity, as a missile cruiser might be able to carry 100 so missiles of various sorts, but a lot of them cannot be cruise missiles but air defence and anti ship missiles for the other duties. And reloading a ship is a bit more of a PITA than reloading an aircraft. \n\nTime on target: A loitering aircraft can look at the ground right now, see what's there, right now, if no one is trying to shoot it down it can even be quite low to the ground and looking in real time. A cruise missile takes a few minutes to fly to the target, and what's guiding it? A satellite? A drone? (drones have missiles too, but are untested against an enemy that can even minimally defend itself so relying on drones might not be a good strategy).\n\nAir defences: The F22 is kinda sorta stealthy. The B2 is stealthier (but there are less of them and they're very expensive). Cruise missiles... not so much. Russia has anti air missiles that it claims can shoot down cruise missiles. I'm not sure anyone has seriously tried, and I can't imagine the Syrians, if they have said missiles in working order, would be inclined to stop people bombing Isis, and the operations in Iraq are at the invitation of the Iraqi government.\n\n \nIt depends on who and what you're shooting at. In Iraq from 1992-2003, and the intervention in Yugoslavia the US needed to take out air defences first, then fly and bomb tanks/vehicles/people/other. In Iraq/Syria there aren't really any static or slow moving air defences or command and control to blow up. ISIS headquarters isn't exactly the pentagon of their country, it's some random building they've stolen from the Syrian army. And blowing up the building probably wouldn't do any good because it's unlikely they have any meaningful centralized command and control infrastructure. \n\nOh and Cruise missiles only carry about a 500Kg warhead, whereas a JDAM can carry about double that, or a lot less, which gives flexibility depending on what needs to be blown up. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c6e9ps | why are black americans so much more prevalent in the news and in pop culture, compared to latino americans, the largest minority in usa? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c6e9ps/eli5_why_are_black_americans_so_much_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"es84rdw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The ways latinos are portrayed in tv and movies are really cringe worthy so the less the better. However if you want to see more latinos watch the Marvel shows on Netflix, there's plenty."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1il409 | why does the term cis-gender exist? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1il409/eli5_why_does_the_term_cisgender_exist/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb5hujo",
"cb5hvat",
"cb5rdni"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Just as the flip-side of transgender. If your gender and your parts match, you're cisgendered, with \"cis\" meaning \"same\" in this case. Compare transgender, with \"trans\" meaning \"across.\"\n\nIs it necessary? Maybe not, but it encourages neutrality when speaking of gender, rather than assuming \"cis\" means \"the right gender.\"",
"In general humans like grouping things, and labeling them. It's comforting to us and helps keep us organized.\n\nPeople who identify as trans-gendered have that desire too. They want to group the people who are not trans-gendered. Calling that group \"normal\" puts a lot of negative stigma on the people who aren't in that group, so they use \"cis-gender\", to refer to that group instead.\n\nIt's worth noting I am not part of that group, and I don't regularly use that term, that's just what I remember from reading about it from people who do use it.\n\nIt's not unlike the use of \"straight\" for people who are heterosexual.",
"because \"cis\" is a prefix with the opposite means of \"trans\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6u1vev | how does transferring your money to another country improve its economy? | For example A person goes to work in another country, makes a lot of money in that country and then brings all the money back to his home country. How does this improve the economy of his home country? He still owns the money, he didn't pay any taxes on his money. So how is this good for his home country? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6u1vev/eli5_how_does_transferring_your_money_to_another/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlp846f",
"dlpcxjs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
" > He still owns the money, he didn't pay any taxes on his money.\n\nPresumably they are going to spend the money. People don't typically do that just to hoard cash.",
"When people go abroad to work and either send money back home or bring money back with them, then they SPEND that money in their home country. They don't save up $20k just to hoard $20k when they return home. They use it to build a house, make sure their (extended) family has enough to eat, add electricity to their house and buy modern conveniences like TVs and washing machines, buy a car, etc. They go abroad to earn more than they could at home to make a better life for their family.\n\nWhen they spend their money, those who are selling the goods and services make money. This allows them to then go and spend money they have earned, and the cycle continues, eventually benefitting the wider economy -- especially when it's not one but many similarly bringing income back home from abroad."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
45q0u4 | why does the world visually keep spinning after i turn around enough times myself? | Now, I understand why I get dizzy and how the middle ear takes a hit when I spin around enough times. But why is there a visual effect of the world around you still turning? Similar to that after one too many drinks, what causes the visual illusion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45q0u4/eli5_why_does_the_world_visually_keep_spinning/ | {
"a_id": [
"czzh83k"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because as the fluid in your inner ears is still moving, it keeps sending the signals to your brain that suggest you are in motion. The spinning sensation is caused by the conflict between what your eyes see and what your vestibular system is telling you.\n\nThis causes motion sickness too. Also, don't try closing your eyes. That just makes it worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
27v0t4 | edward snowden's leaks. why are we being spoon fed? | AFAIK, the cables the Wikileaks had they just dumped everything on everyone. But every week or so, the news reports Snowden's leaked something about some country being spied upon or something similar. How are his leaks being release | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27v0t4/eli5_edward_snowdens_leaks_why_are_we_being_spoon/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci4ne9g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"He gave the full info to Wikileaks because he was afraid of being arrested and the data confiscated, but he also knew that releasing the information as-is could result in the deaths of people, so the Guardian checks everything first to make sure that this doesn't happen, or to warn the people in question first before releasing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1t2vy1 | what does elie wiesel mean with this quote? | Nobel price winner Elie Wiesel once said this:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
Why is it so? Please explain for me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t2vy1/eli5_what_does_elie_wiesel_mean_with_this_quote/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce3rkvf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think it is because indifference doesn't need to be spread, like hate. Indifference is already there, and it is just as dangerous as hate because indifferent people let hateful people operate. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1v761o | why are fossil fuels distributed unevenly around the globe? why is there more oil in the middle east than some other places, etc.? | I've tried googling this but there seems to only be stuff on which countries USE the most fossil fuels. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v761o/eli5_why_are_fossil_fuels_distributed_unevenly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cepchxu",
"cepczp6"
],
"score": [
3,
12
],
"text": [
"There is oil all over the world, the problem is it's quality and the ease of getting to that oil.",
"You need a very specific set of geologic circumstances to have recoverable oil, and those circumstances only happened in specific locations.\n\nFirst, you need a bunch of organic matter to die and pile up. That happened in a lot of places.\n\nThen that matter needs to be covered up by something to prevent it from just rotting (silt, sand, brine, etc.). That happened in a lot less places.\n\nThen that trapped organic matter had to break down and form hydrocarbons or coal. That happened in even fewer places. The coal didn't move much, so we just dig it up.\n\nThe hydrocarbons, however, are mobile. In order for them to accumulate in a spot we can find them we need some kind of porous rock (like standstone) to store them with some kind of seal above it (like shale or salt) to prevent them from migrating away.\n\nThe chance of all this coming together is relatively low."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3eknrh | what would happen if we sent a satellite into a black hole? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eknrh/eli5_what_would_happen_if_we_sent_a_satellite/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctfta37",
"ctfukpx",
"ctfws9l",
"ctg04pw",
"ctg980e",
"ctgdct8"
],
"score": [
70,
112,
10,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well that is impossible to know, since information cannot pass the event horizon.\n\nI think our best guess at the time is that we never see or hear anything of that satellite ever again.",
"The gravity of a black whole is so strong that past a certain point (called the event horizon) nothing, not even information or light, can escape it's pull. If we shot a satellite into a black hole, once it passed over the event horizon we wouldn't not be able to gather any information from it. \n\nHowever, there are theories about what it would be like to descend into a black hole. As you fell towards the event horizon, the black hole would expand in your field of vision until if covered half of your field of vision. Photons orbit a black hole near the event horizon, so it is theoretically possible that you would be able to look parallel to the horizon and see the back of your head. \n\nTo someone watching you fall, you would approach the event horizon, and then slow down, until you seemed to stop just at the event horizon. This is due to the fact that the gravity of a black hole is so great that time is slowed in its vicinity. The frozen image of you that they see is the last light that you reflected before you crossed the event horizon. This image will redshift overtime, until it becomes impossible to distinguish.\n\nAfter you crossed the event horizon, things would be fairly calm, at least to start. The black space around you would continue to expand to fill your entire field of vision. You would continue to fall as you approach the center of the black hole, called the singularity. \n\nAs you came closer to the center, the force of gravity would become so strong that it would pull your feet with much more force than your head, causing your body to stretch. This process is called spaghettification. This continues until gravity even pulls your body, and then individual atoms apart. \n\nThen, aren't entirely sure. The singularity of a black hole is theorized to be a one-dimensional point with infinite gravity. At this point, the rules of General Relativity no longer apply, and the laws of physics begin to break down. We don't have a way to describe what happens because we have never observed it and mathematics is unable to describe what happens here.",
"Well, there is a realistic answer and a thought-experiment answer. Realistically, the tidal effects of gravity near a black hole (difference in gravitational pull between your left side and right side) are so great that you would undergo spaghettification _URL_0_ . So a satellite would be ground up into its constituent atoms and cease to be of any practical use to us when crossing the event horizon. As a thought-experiment (much like what they did in Interstellar), let's say you successfully make a device that can transmit quanta of information over the event horizon. Well, due to time dilation, you will see the device move towards the event horizon - slower and slower as it approaches it. More importantly, the message you would be receiving (assuming you were able to receive the transmission and remove the gravitational distortions on it etc.) would start stretching out. For a simple 1 second EM wave pulse emitted per second being the message, the incoming message would get less frequent and longer. Eventually, you would get one last long (infinitely long) beep that attenuates over time as the quantum of energy transmitted stretches out over the beep. That last infinite beep signifies crossing the event horizon. That's the last info that will ever make it out of the black hole. The time dilation stretches it out to infinity. Once inside, we may never (currently) know. It could be receiving a cosmic blowjob for all we know (more seriously, it could reappear in a new universe at its big bang or \"white hole\") but no information would escape the event horizon, at least in our 4D spacetime. What goes on inside has no current consensus (or even good guesses) amongst Mathematicians and Theoretical Physicists. Our science can only tell us the Physics till the event horizon and our miracle transmitter can only transmit in our 4D spacetime universal fabric and as Einstein said \"once you go black, you never go back\". Or was that Hawking?",
"We'd lose one satellite. Great way to spend money, right?",
"This: \n_URL_0_ \n\nLook at the white disk. The satellite would approach the event horizon, and assuming it could resist tidal forces (which could break it apart), it would smear out on the horizon. If it had a clock on board you would see it slow down to a stop and the light it gave off or reflected would redshift and become dimmer until it disappeared into the blackness. \n\nFrom the satellites perspective, it would keep falling with the event horizon ever below its feet, stretching out to a flat disk below colliding with it in a finite amount of time—this would be it hitting the singularity. Here's another animation of the the process, \n_URL_1_",
"We would lose a satellite. That's about it. The satellite would have stopped sending information long before it reached the event horizon because the radiation would completely fry any electronics we would stand little or no chance of shielding. Getting information from something falling into a black hole would be one hell of a challenge. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification"
],
[],
[
"http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bhtorp_gif.html",
"https://vimeo.com/8723702"
],
[]
] |
||
6766ns | how are we able to keep water in our mouths without it flowing down our throats, until we swallow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6766ns/eli5_how_are_we_able_to_keep_water_in_our_mouths/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgnztg4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The throat is not a hole, it is a series of muscles. They are able to expand and contract to allow food in, and they push it down, it does not fall. Swallowing is a fairly deliberate use of these muscles to push food or liquid down the throat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
34s8xw | why is talladega considered the fastest track in nascar? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34s8xw/eli5why_is_talladega_considered_the_fastest_track/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqxl2hh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because it's the fastest track? Not sure what answer you're expecting. Cars there are able to go faster than at, say, Dover. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2udvhs | how are escort services legal? | Isn't it pretty much assumed that there will be sex involved?
Edit: for the record, not looking to hire an escort. I was watching The Killing and there was this scene with cops talking to an escort, just made me curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2udvhs/eli5_how_are_escort_services_legal/ | {
"a_id": [
"co7ibmx",
"co7jhs7",
"co7lsvm"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Escort services are not legal once sex acts and their prices are discussed.",
"The laws differ from place to place, but generally, it's assumed you're hiring an 'escort' for companionship, like some sort of social event in a foreign city and you're expected to bring a date.\n\nThere are 'codes' used when speaking to the agencies. For example, asking for a 'full service' escort means you want sex. If they do that sort of thing (because not all of them do) they'll ask you what sort of woman you're looking for, and where to meet you. Prices are discussed for the evenings companionship, but there's never any specific mention of sex, it's all implied.\n\nThe escort will show up at your address, you exchange pleasantries, and she'll usually ask to use the bathroom, or some place to freshen up. You typically leave an envelope containing the prerequisite cash on the counter, or maybe the dresser, or whatever, she'll count it, and if everything is ok, she'll call her handler/agency/driver to say everything is good to go, come back in 'x time' to pick her up.\n\nThat part is key, because there is no mention of sex, and money does not change hands. As far as the law is concerned, she is a consenting adult who instigates sex with you, with no mention of money. The money she 'finds' is irrelevant. If the cops somehow bust her with $500 in cash, it has nothing to do with you, and even if they were spying on you, you never handed her any money.\n\nSource ; Worked as an escort driver for 7 months. Met a lot of interesting women, but never slept with any of them. I can't afford that shit, although I did get free road head once when one of the girl's calls went sour, and I was (thankfully) hanging out nearby to get her out of there. Some drivers will fuck off and go gambling or whatever until the time is up.",
"Prostitution is legal in many countries, because the demand is just too high. It's the oldest profession, after all. This doesn't change in countries where prostitution is illegal, either. Those countries just have certain mechanics to skirt the issue. Thailand, China, etc just look the other way. In Iran, you marry her for 2 hours. In US, you have escorts. People need a way to get hookers, without half the country getting jailed, yo."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a65oi4 | why are people compelled to touch babies? | I have a 5 month old, and it is so surprising to me how many people (adults, kids, friends, strangers) reach out to pat or grab a hand, etc. Why do humans do this? It seems like often it is a compulsion, not an intentional movement. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a65oi4/eli5_why_are_people_compelled_to_touch_babies/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebs3z5p",
"ebsae95",
"ebttovu"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"In traditional South Texas Hispanic culture, it's proper to touch babies if you admire them to avoid giving them the evil eye. To admire a baby and not touch them would be seen as impolite, or worse, and there's even a special amulet often worn by babies to ward off the evil eye. ",
"not a single person in germany has touched my kids. i'm originally german, dont live there anymore, but visit frequently with my kids.\n\ni live in ireland now, and every single day some random woman comes up to us and pets my kids like \"oh look at you beautiful\" \"what a gorgeous boy\" etc.pp.\n\nits also a mindset in people. germans generally dont like kids a lot. and even when they do, they wouldnt just randomly touch a strangers kid. irish are crazy for kids.",
"Basically human evolution. We find things cute because of our genetics to like things that look and resemble a baby, and we find babies cute well because, babies cannot do anything. They cannot defend themselves, they aren't intelligent and can easily die with the wrong footsteps. It's cruicial to human survival to protect them since they are clueless about the world unlike kitties who can run away from danger in a few weeks. It's like \"Hey I like looking at this thing, we should keep it alive\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2l7t3q | what's the difference between the alcohol we drink vs. the alcohol we use as mouthwash? | Or like rubbing alcohol for instance | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l7t3q/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_the_alcohol_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"cls93vi",
"cls9438",
"cls96c3",
"cls9e4s",
"cls9i5x",
"clsextj"
],
"score": [
46,
11,
3,
2,
38,
2
],
"text": [
"They are similar (but different) molecules. Drinking alcohol is ethyl alcohol, which is a molecule made up of 2 carbon atoms, 6 hydrogen, and 1 oxygen. Rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol, which is another type of alcohol with three carbon atoms, 8 hydrogen, and one oxygen.\n\nThese molecules may be similar, but the body digests them very differently. Ethanol is fairly safe to drink because it gets converted into acetaldehyde which is mostly safe, while isopropyl alcohol gets converted into acetone, which is toxic.\n\nMouthwash contains 20-40% ethanol (the same stuff we drink) However, it also contains other stuff that is toxic if swallowed in large amounts, so don't drink it.",
"My SO is a chemistry major and could answer this for you quite well if she wasn't asleep but just in case no one replies I'll answer with what little I do know:\n\nAlcohol is a general term and there are several different types.\n\nThe alcohol you drink is ethanol. The same ethanol is in mouthwash, but in very low quantities. I went through rehab many, many years ago with some alcoholics that would chug mouthwash off of grocery store shelves when they were really hard up. But you have to drink so much it will end up just making you sick. Also, the ethanol they use as biofuel is the same that you would drink, but they add stuff to make you sick so people won't just drink it.\n\nRubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol and is actually incredibly poisonous. That stuff can straight up kill you.\n\nThere's also methanol which is sometimes what gets created when people try to make moonshine. Also poison. Causes brain damage, blindness, etc. An old-school trick to check your moonshine is to burn some. Blue flame is safe (ethanol) yellow flame is bad (methanol).\n\nSource: alcoholic. I hope someone with better credentials chimes in and clears this all up. But if not, just remember not to drink anything you don't purchase from a proper liquor store. :)\n\nEdit: Ethanol = Ethyl Alcohol. Methanol = Methyl Alcohol.",
"There is no difference between the alcohol in mouthwash and the alcohol in drinks. In organic chemistry, an alcohol is a general name for anything with an -OH group on it. Ethanol (which is the alcohol in drinks and mouthwash and what people normally mean when they say 'alcohol') is an -OH group attached to a two hydrocarbon chain. Rubbing alcohol (isopropyl alcohol) is still an alcohol in chemical terms, but different from ethanol. ",
"The alcohol is liquor is the same as mouthwash, both are ethanol.\n\nThe ethanol in mouthwash is *denatured*, meaning special ingredients are added that make you sick if you try to get drunk off of it. Otherwise it would be subject to regulation and taxation like liquor. \n\nRubbing alcohol either denatured ethanol or isopropyl alcohol, which is more poisonous than ethanol.",
"The alcohol we drink is [ethanol](_URL_3_). The same stuff is used in mouthwash because you might accidentally drink it & they don't want people getting poisoned. \n\nFor uses where people won't be drinking it, ethanol can be [denatured](_URL_2_) by adding chemicals that make it taste *really* bad or are flat out poisonous. This makes sure that people won't drink it, so that it doesn't need to be taxed.\n\nThere's other common chemicals referred to as [alcohol](_URL_0_) such as the [isopropyl alcohol](_URL_4_) used as a disinfectant or the [methanol](_URL_1_) used in race car engines. You don't want to drink these because they're quite poisonous. ",
"I recall reading somewhere that a prison had a problem after they installed hand sanitizing dispensers. The prisoners were drinking the stuff."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol"
],
[]
] |
|
1j6yar | if my brain is so advanced compared to regular computers, how come i struggle to remember phone numbers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j6yar/eli5_if_my_brain_is_so_advanced_compared_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbbphqt",
"cbbpwid"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain is very good at many things. It is much better than any computer at speaking languages. It is great at coordinating its movements. These are things that humans and their ancestors have needed to do for millions of years. None of our ancestors, however, needed to remember arbitrary numbers, so we have to fall back on our general-purpose learning; we are much worse than computers at those things.",
"Your brain is doing hundreds of things at once from regulating blood pressure, hormones, movement, conscious thought, etc while a computer is focused on doing a handful of things. \n\nAlso our brains weren't really designed for stuff like that. Our brains function is to keep us alive and out of harms way, not remember a random string of numbers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1tbeou | why cancer foundations despite making billions a year, charge for surgeries ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tbeou/eli5why_cancer_foundations_despite_making/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce68x5o"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I haven't heard of a cancer foundation actually performing the surgeries. \n\nYou may be onto something....guy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1a9ydy | how is sand created? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1a9ydy/eli5_how_is_sand_created/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8veyn5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sand is mostly made from a mineral called quarts. Quarts is in all sorts of rocks, it gets broken down by weathering and when it gets to a certain size it is considered sand. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3gf3cd | why do they say people who are drunk are more likely to survive traumatic car accidents than those that aren't? | I've always heard that drunk drivers tend to be more likely to survive the crash when they hit sober drivers because they're "relaxed". Why is that? If I'm about to be hit while driving sober, should I just go limp?
Edit: A few more questions. Why haven't we evolved to go limp on impact? Just because early humans never had high-impact scenarios? Are there other situations besides car crashes where we should remain limp (plane crashes, falling a few stories, getting punched in the face, etc.)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gf3cd/eli5why_do_they_say_people_who_are_drunk_are_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctxjwij",
"ctxjy3k",
"ctxk3kw"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When people stiffen their limbs in preparation of an impact, they don't allow their limbs to \"give\" or \"flex\" upon impact. Because they're so stiff, the bones are more likely to fracture and break.\n\nThink of how buildings and bridges flex in the wind. They're designed to sway and have a bit of give so they don't break.\n\nSadly, impaired drivers usually survive because they don't have time prepare their body for impact. They are basically a rag doll and their body bends and twists without the human being providing force against the movement the accident caused.",
"You are less likely to tense up at impact if you're drunk. I saw a guy fall head over heels down a 2 story flight of stairs. Should have messed himself up pretty good but since he was drunk he didn't get more than a bump on the head.",
"You should yeah but you'll find actually doing that is practically impossible. You'll see it coming and tense up for it.\n\nWith drunkeness, your awareness is severely reduced a are your inhibitions, so the result is you tend to be more limp and floppy in an accident and yourv body goes with the flow more. This hugely reduces the chance for serious injury because you absorb the bumps and bashes now effectively, rather than transferring the energy to your more rigid and breakable skeleton. \n\nSame kinda idea as why a car with extensive crumple zones is kinder on passengers in a crash than one with a rigid non deforming frame, because it absorbs the impact instead of transferring the energy to you. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7ndvql | how do you calculate how long it’ll take to freeze water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ndvql/eli5_how_do_you_calculate_how_long_itll_take_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds141sv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It changes based on the temperate of the water/freezer, amount of water, and the container. A cup of normal water doesn't freeze evenly because the ice on the edges of the cup can insulate the water on the inside to stop it from freezing. For the purpose of this, let's ignore that.\n \nA simple calculation can get the energy needed *energy=(4.184)x(mass of water)x(delta temperatures)*. Let's take 10 grams of water at 30 degrees celsius. That would be *4.184x10x30* which is *1255.2* joules of energy that we need to take away from the water. That takes the water down to 0 degrees celsius or 32 degrees fahrenheit.\n\nNow we need to crystalize the water to make it into ice. The formula to calculate the energy needed to crystallize water is very complicated, but it rounds out to 333 joules per gram. So now we need to remove 3330 joules of energy on top of the 1255.2 from earlier bringing us to a total of 4580.2 joules.\n\nA good Chiller (Freezer) can remove 75% of that making the actual total 1145 joules. If we assume that the chiller can go at 50 watts or 50 joules per second then we would just need to divide 1145 by 50 giving us 22.9 seconds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1765hd | why do some formerly obese people have a lot of skin to remove and some don't? | On shows like The Biggest Loser they never say if the winners had to have a bunch of skin removed. How can that be-- are they leaving that out? How is the skin removed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1765hd/eli5_why_do_some_formerly_obese_people_have_a_lot/ | {
"a_id": [
"c82k90d"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It's all a matter of how fast you lose the weight. Gaining weight is a natural process. The body is meant to gain weight when it receives excess energy that it does not use. Just as gaining weight is natural, so is losing weight. When you lose weight in a healthy way (I believe it is supposed to be no more than 2 pounds per week, but I could be mistaken) the body slowly removes excess skin with your fat. This is how people on The Biggest Loser do it, and how you are supposed to lose weight.\n\nBut if you use drugs or surgery to lose weight, you can lose much more weight much faster. After liposuction, for example, the body obviously couldn't work fast enough to keep up with the sudden loss of 50 to 100 to 200 pounds, so there is excess skin. This is usually solved with a tummy tuck or similar skin removal surgeries. This is obviously the unnatural way to lose weight, and it can have side effects."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3ici54 | when someone finds treasure, do they get to keep it? | After reading about the divers who found gold and someone who had also found gold under a city, I was curious if they get to keep the treasure they found? Is it a simple finders-keepers losers-weepers rule, or is there some law about property etc.? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ici54/eli5_when_someone_finds_treasure_do_they_get_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuf6s7m",
"cuf72aj"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"This depends entirely on where in the world you are, but in most cases, the local government has some right to take whatever you find, based on the premise that it is of cultural or historic significance. In the UK, the law also depends on the size of the find, as a single coin or small item you are allowed to keep, but a horde or treasure must be declared to the state. The state then evaluates it an forcibly acquires it. The obvious flaw in this system is that the state decides what it will itself pay, so often people are severely underpaid for their finds. Further, it encourages people to lie about what they found where, which hampers academia, and also to split items up and sell them individually so as not to declare that they have found a large treasure. There are very specific salvage laws for the sea.",
"It's a big, fat it depends.\n\nTypically if you find something, you have an obligation to try to return it to its owner. Only after you do that and wait long enough does the property become legally yours.\n\nHowever, there are laws governing salvage and abandoned property that apply. If I go through the effort to recover something from 200 feet underwater, you can't just swoop in and take it because it was yours.\n\nFinally, many gov'ts have asserted that treasures are protected historical artifacts, and will try to claim them on that basis. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
31gh9z | why does it take such a long time for consciousness to wake up after events like concussion? | And more specifically, what exactly happens in brains during this awakening? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31gh9z/eli5_why_does_it_take_such_a_long_time_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq1dsr6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Imagine your brain. It is [your motherboard](_URL_0_). \n\nYour i7 chip has, let's be generous, almost 8 billion transistors, which can be in 2 positions, either off and on. The total machine (CPU, GPU, bus controllers, bios, etc) can probably have a several billion total transistors. The brain is layed out in [the same way](_URL_9_).\n\nNew research has found at that the brain is [86 billion neurons](_URL_2_), which is a little bit smaller than the predicted 100 billion.\n\nBut in the brain... Neurons are like transistors, but since they function on [an electrochemical process](_URL_11_) rather than a simple off-on, they are essentially the holy grail, [quantum computing](_URL_12_), except instead of 2^2 possible positions on the switches, the brain is [at least](_URL_5_) 2^50. Again, on [86 billion switches](_URL_6_). This estimation of raw computational abilities is the basis for some people who theorize we might live to see [the technological singularity](_URL_10_). The brain's computational ability is so complex that it takes a supercomputer [to model a single neuron](_URL_4_), and as you'll notice on that page, science is still learning exactly what's happening. We are essentially reverse engineering the system, and [learning the programming language](_URL_7_) as well.\n\nAnyway, now you want to [smack this computer](_URL_3_) so hard [it reboots](_URL_1_). Or cut off the oxygen supply. Or the blood.\n\nMaybe it needs a quick syscheck and then quickly restores electrochemical connections. Maybe there's swelling and it has to reroute connections. Maybe the swelling is too bad and critical components are left more or less functional... and that's what determines the difference between [someone popping right back up and putting someone in a coma](_URL_8_), or even killing them.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/gif/glassbrain.gif",
"http://www.webmd.com/brain/concussion-traumatic-brain-injury-symptoms-causes-treatments?page=2#2",
"http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/feb/28/how-many-neurons-human-brain",
"http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/39469/straight-dope-the-physics-of-punching-someone-in-the-face",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience#Single-neuron_modeling",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter#List_of_neurotransmitters.2C_peptides.2C_and_gasotransmitters",
"http://www.ufblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/computer-power-future.gif",
"http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/528141/the-thought-experiment/",
"http://www.webmd.com/brain/coma-types-causes-treatments-prognosis?page=2#1",
"https://sveglia.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/jk379fig1213amygdala_con.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity",
"https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/cells.html",
"https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-computing-101"
]
] |
|
26oyqz | why is it that i can hold my breath for like 30-45 seconds in a pool but in the shower i can't last five seconds while washing my face beforebi have to gasp for breath? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26oyqz/eli5_why_is_it_that_i_can_hold_my_breath_for_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cht3iyv",
"cht6485"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"This is likely related to something called the [mammalian diving reflex](_URL_0_). When cold water contacts your face, your heart rate immediately slows by 10-25%, and the blood vessels to your extremities begin to close off. This reduces the oxygen being consumed by your body, and leaves more available for your vital organs and brain.",
"I have the same type of thing happen when I'm swimming. (My times are a bit higher) I found that when submerged fully your instincts to hold your breath outweigh your \"need\" to gasp for air. Whilst in the shower you aren't fully submerged and your instincts to breath increase. \n\nHere's an experiment. Try sinking (in a standing position) to the bottom of the pool and holding your breath. After finding the time for that find the time for holding your breath in a shower. And then in a bathtub submerge your face only.\n\nI found these results\nPool: 65 seconds \nShower: 32 seconds\nPool: 54 seconds.\n\nResults vary depending on lung capacity, health and fitness level and age. \nMy results are on a 20y.o M, smoker, distance runner and diver. \n\nI found that full submersion results in a more relaxed muscular state which provides for less oxygen consumption (muscles are rest require less oxygen) it's kind of like meditation uses slower breathing and less oxygen consumption.\n\nSorry to the OP for the long response. Just wanted to share my findings after reading the post and doing an experiment myself. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_diving_reflex"
],
[]
] |
||
1yu4ro | why is there so much stigma in the us for welfare benefits to the poor but little to no stigma for the benefits given in the us to those who are middle class and rich? | **Edit:** Apparently people are confused about what benefits can entail.
Benefits = Entitlements = Redistribution through taxation = Subsidizing business = Welfare
So for example all the corporate subsidies. _URL_0_
It appears to me there is a huge stigma when poor people ask for subsidies (welfare) but when rich people get subsidies (welfare) it's apparently okay or at least not as stigmatized as the former because it's "stimulating the economy" or something. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yu4ro/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_stigma_in_the_us_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfns2dm",
"cfns51f",
"cfnsg75",
"cfnshb6",
"cfntg7v",
"cfntw1s",
"cfnxbgp"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Which benefits to middle/upper class are you referring to? ",
"Paying taxes is not a benefit",
"I believe that throughout history the poor have always been looked down upon by the 'higher' classes. It's just the way things are unfortunately. *My opinion, could very well be wrong.",
"Because there are essentially four major things you can make a big deal of how much they cost, and how much money cutting them would save, in the federal government: the bureaucracy, tax loopholes, the military, and social welfare programs. Not enough people understand the first two enough for there to be anything more than a general discontent about them, which is not enough to get rid of them because they do serve a purpose. Between the last two, our perception of America, and the American Dream, make the military (strong) seem much more likable than welfare (lazy). I personally think welfare serves a purpose, but should be administered completely different than it currently is.",
"It's because when the wealthy or corporations ask for benefits (tax cuts, tax benefits, government guaranteed loans, etc) they claim that the benefit to them allows them to contribute to society by hiring more people (job creating) or expanding the economy (generating benefit or tax revenue elsewhere).\n\nThe poor are perceived to contribute nothing, so giving them benefits is stigmatised.",
"I think it's what David Graeber called \"the communism of the rich.\" Rich people don't mind seeing money go to other rich people, because they identify with those people. They see poor people as different, so they're suspicious because we're all kind of suspicious of people we think are different from us. Interesting insight anyway- I'd definitely recommend his book Debt. _URL_0_",
"The rich control the media. They tell the middle class that it's the poor people on welfare that are fucking them over."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188.html"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6617037-debt"
],
[]
] |
|
5qprcs | how do we see the color magenta if it doesn't have a wave length? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qprcs/eli5_how_do_we_see_the_color_magenta_if_it_doesnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd134q8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Magenta is what we interpret simultaneous stimulation of our red and our blue color receptors.\n\nJust like how we see yellow when our red and green get stimulated together and how we see cyan when green and blue are stimulated together.\n\nOf course, in the case of yellow, *actual* yellow light stimulates both the red and green receptors a little, just like how separate red and green light being detected would. We can't tell the difference between *true* yellow and things that just reflect both red and green light back.\n\nWith magenta, that isn't a problem since there isn't magenta light."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2tinnd | what is the female equivalent to the random erections males get during the day? | i.e. Morning wood, etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tinnd/eli5_what_is_the_female_equivalent_to_the_random/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnzd57e",
"cnzd7y0"
],
"score": [
41,
49
],
"text": [
"It is really hard to compare because our sexual organs are so different. I guess the closest comparison would be random vaginal wetness for absolutely no reason? Oh, and of course, the clitoris could randomly become engorged/aroused from pressure / clothes rubbing up against it. ",
"In terms of a physiological response we can't control but are embarrassed by, I'd say hard nipples. It kinda sucks to be out someplace and realize your high beams are on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
eiifvu | when you push an object (but don't push hard enough to move it!) you use up energy but don't get any work done. where does this energy go? | Imagine you push against a wall. You won't move it because it's too heavy and fixed in its position. But since you continuously apply a force to it there needs to be some sort of energy transfer. Does the wall take up that energy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eiifvu/eli5_when_you_push_an_object_but_dont_push_hard/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcqjb4z",
"fcqjj6b",
"fcqk1v1",
"fcqm71y",
"fcqn006",
"fcqnsrj",
"fcqnx7t",
"fcqsmlo",
"fcr9y78",
"fcrbpet",
"fcrxrlu"
],
"score": [
11,
21,
993,
104,
2,
3,
5,
19,
32,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm pretty sure most of the kinetic energy gets transformed into thermal energy, therefore making the wall or your body a bit hotter.",
"Imagine a spring in a clamp. Continuous force is applied but no energy is expended or transferred. Applying a force requires no energy, force over a distance requires energy. Ft pounds is actually a unit of energy, commonly used to describe the muzzle energy of firearms, a foot pound is defined as a pound of force over a distance of 1 foot. In the case of uselessly pushing on a wall you are doing no work, but you get tired because your body is inefficient.",
"There is no **mechanical** energy gained/transferred. All the energy is \"lost\" within your body and mostly turned into heat etc.\n\nOtherwise this is essentially the same thing as an object being rested against the wall or just standing on the floor. There is a force but no transfer of energy.",
"While to a first approximation there is no transfer of energy to the wall because there is no macroscopic wall movement, this doesn't gel with the intuitive fact that you get tired if you push on a wall, and energy must be conserved. Your muscles and the wall both flex a little bit, with energy going into distorting the bonds in them just a little. When force is released, that energy going into distorting the bonds is released and ends up as heat in both the wall and your body.",
"All material have something called elasticity, when you push on the wall you are displacing the atoms by a certain amount from each other. When you continue pushing you create a equilibrium. The reason you feel tired is because your body is constantly micro adjusting. If you provided enough energy the wall would shear ( the atoms move past elasticity.",
"The force (not energy) you exert is dissipated into the support and foundation. \n\nInside your body your fat(chemical energy) is converted to potential energy to thermal energy(to power muscles). \n\nIf the wall was weak(able to fall) the energy would have gone from potential to kinetic.",
"As others mention, you need a force and a distance to have mechanical work being done. Your body has to expend biological/chemical energy to tense your muscles to attempt to apply a force...but being overpowered by the wall you don't end up moving.",
"Many of the explanations here fail to take into account elasticity. When you push an object but don’t yet move it, you are fighting against two forces, the static friction of the surface that the object is on, and the elasticity of the object itself. Until you overcome friction, your work will be absorbed by deflection of the object. When you stop pushing, some of that work will be returned as the object returns to its original shape (hopefully, otherwise you’ve dented it...). \n\nElasticity is the same reason that the floor “knows” what just the right amount of force is to hold up the wall.",
"TL;DR: Your individual muscle cells are repeatedly contracting and relaxing and that burns energy.\n\nAhh yes, the old physics class debate over the meaning of the word \"work\". The solution here is to realize that you actually are doing work when you try to move a wall, it just depends on the context you're looking at. If you are looking at you and the wall, sure, you haven't done any work. However, if you could look at your muscle fibers, you'd find that there's quite a bit of work going on.\n\nSkeletal muscles aren't like a hydraulic cylinder, they don't apply smooth, continuous force. Instead, they're made up of groups of muscle cells often referred to as *motor units* that activate at different stages of the muscle contraction. When your aren't fatigued, movement feels smooth, because all of the motor units are contracting in an overlapping fashion. When you're pushing against an immovable object, however, your motor units will individually get fatigued quite quickly, and \"take turns\" dropping out, and then reactivating. This means that even if your body isn't actually moving, your individual muscle fibers are using up energy contracting and then relaxing when they get fatigued, and then contracting again. This is also the source of the shakiness you get if you try to lift too much.",
"It is not correct that “since you continuously apply a force to it there needs to be some sort of energy transfer.” A book resting on a table continuously applies a force to the table, but there is no energy transfer.\n\nWhen you **start** applying the force, you push against the wall. Flesh, muscles, and other materials in your body will compress, so you use some energy to do that. The material of the wall will compress slightly, and you use some energy to do that. Some of the energy exerted while compressing your body and the wall will be stored as potential energy, as in springs (when released, your flesh and the wall will spring back), and some will be lost as heat.\n\nWhile you are merely **holding** the force against the wall (assuming you are completely still, neglecting microscopic motions), you are not transferring any energy to the wall. Energy is being consumed in feeding your cells, operating your muscles, and so on, but that has nothing to do with the wall. (Your muscles use energy when pushing even though they are not moving because there is motion on a cellular level; nutrients are going in, waste is going out, and so on. And I think muscles vibrate when they exert force, although I do not have a reference for that.)",
"Your muscle is made up of countless (a.k.a. i don't remember the amount, but a LOT) small fibers. When you use your muscle those fibers don't all 'clench' at the same time but alternating, some of them 'turn on' for a veery small amount of time and then some other ones and so on.\n\nSo even when you apply a steady force, like flexing, all those fibers are rapidly 'turning on' and 'off', moving, using up energy, even if the limb as a whole doesn't move."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d1b1t3 | do people with perfect pitch actually hear themselves perfectly or do they have a different talent? | Most people when they hear a recording of themselves are surprised to hear that [their voice sounds differently](_URL_0_) from what they hear inside their head.
Does someone with perfect pitch hear themselves differently?
Are they so well attuned musically to know how to adjust to the difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1b1t3/eli5_do_people_with_perfect_pitch_actually_hear/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezjuvgc",
"ezjvs13"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Your voice sounding differently in recordings isn’t a change in pitch, but in timbre. When you sing, you don’t produce one single pure tone, but a complex series of overtones that gives each voice a slightly different sound. The difference between how you hear yourself and how a recording of you sounds is a change in which overtones you hear more than others. The pitch stays the same. This is why you will sometimes see people cover one ear while singing harmony, so they can better hear their own voice and keep it in tune.",
"So what happens when you talk is that there are soundwaves propagating out from your mouth as well as inside your head towards your ear canal. People listening to you and microphones only pick up the sound waves coming out from your mouth. When you speak you hear an interference of both of the sound from inside your head and the one from your mouth. This is why it feels awkward to hear yourself on a recording - it's not the same sound wave you're used to.\n\nPeople with perfect pitch are people that can perfectly distunguish different frequencies of sound from each other. They can, with a little bit of practice, tell what a C# on the third octave is without hearing another tone of reference. How this impacts how they interpret their own voice, I'm not completely sure. However, the frequency of your voice doesn't change depending on whether it's going through your skull or air, so if I can guess I'm going to say that they experience their own voice the same way we do - maybe except for the fact that they can tell which frequency they are talking in."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130913-why-we-hate-hearing-our-own-voice"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5bl7ym | will james webb space telescope see the process of ignition of the first galaxies? | I mean the following: you observe some area of the Universe - nothing is there. And then ops!... the galaxy ignited. We will see it because the first light of this galaxy finally has reached us.
Will we see these appearances with JWST? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bl7ym/eli5_will_james_webb_space_telescope_see_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9pkhsr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Galaxies don't have a single light source, so an entire galaxy won't light up all at once. They get gradually brighter as more and more stars begin to start their own fusion processes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
x4dxa | why horsepower is measured at different rpm in different engines, and how rpm relates to hp. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x4dxa/eli5_why_horsepower_is_measured_at_different_rpm/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5j3cqs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Engines are measured in two quantities - horsepower and torque.\n\nTorque is how much the engine can move. If you have 200 ft lbs of torque, that means that if you attach a 2 foot long rod to the crankshaft, sticking out flat, perpendicular to the crankshaft, and hung a 99.9 pound weight from it, the motor would just barely be able to turn the rod. This amount of torque varies based on the speed of the engine - at really slow speeds, it won't be as strong, nor will it be as strong at really fast speeds.\n\nNow, let's say you are building a motor to lift bricks from the ground to a certain height. There's a 1 foot rod on the end of the motor, and as it spins, it hooks into a brick, lifts it up, and lets go. Let's say for simplicity that a brick weighs 1 pound.\n\nIf the engine produces 200 foot pounds of torque, it can lift 200 bricks every rotation. If it's moving at 1,000 rpm, that's 200,000 bpm (bricks per minute).\n\nNow, let's say that the peak torque for this motor is 350 foot pounds at 3,000 rpm. Now we're lifting 350 bricks per rotation, for a total of 1,050,000 bpm. When we write our promotional materials, we're going to say \"This motor can lift a maximum of 350 bricks per rotation\"\n\nHowever, let's say that our torque is only 250 foot pounds at 6,000 rpm. We're only lifting 250 bricks each rotation, but the engine is moving much faster, so we're all the way up to 1,500,000 bpm. So now when we write our advertising, we say \"The motor can lift a maximum of 1,500,000 bricks every minute\"\n\nNow, our buddy is a professional bricklayer. Turns out that he lifts 1 brick per rotation, and works at 5,250 rpm, for 5,250 bricks per minute. If our motor is moving 1,500,000 bricks per minute, that's 285 times as much as our buddy can move, so we say that the motor is 285 bricklayerpower. \n\nAnd, if you plot out the motors maximum brick per rotation load, and its bricklayerpower as a function of rpm, you'll see that a motor producing *x* foot pounds of torque at 5,250 rpm also produces *x* bricklayerpower at 5,250 rpm. \n\nIf someone tells me that they have a 100 horsepower motor, I have no idea what the torque is, unless I know the RPM. The motor could make 200 ft lbs of torque at 2,575 rpm. Or it could make 100 ft lbs of torque at 5,250 rpm. Or 50 ft lbs of torque at 10,500 rpm."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
24v0h2 | why do arabic numbers (1,2,3,4...) not look like any other characters in arabic? and when did the west adopt them? | When did the West switch from Roman numerals? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24v0h2/eli5_why_do_arabic_numbers_1234_not_look_like_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"chawphk",
"chawzol",
"chb5t3f",
"chb5w30",
"chb61zy",
"chbc0fs",
"chbkcf9"
],
"score": [
168,
36,
6,
153,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"\"Arabic numerals\" is a misleading name. They are actually from India, and became popular in the Arab world, which at the time, was a great place of science, mathematics, and trade. Around 1000 CE Europeans began encountering these numbers the Arabs were using and referred to them as \"Arabic numerals\", as they were the numbers used by Arabs.\n\nAround 1500 CE a lot of Europe had adopted the system, because it was very good, however there was much debate about adopting it since you can easily alter a number to look like another (for example a 1 can easily be changed to a 4 or 9), it is quite more difficult when working with roman numerals to easily alter the values. \n",
"Also, 1,2,3,4... is not how they are written in Arabic, at least in Egypt:\n\n9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0\n\n٠\t١\t٢\t٣\t٤\t٥\t٦\t٧\t٨\t٩",
"Because they come from India and were adopted by the europeans from the arab traders that came to use them because of their simplicity.",
"There's a lot of misinformation in these answers and some partial answers (and a few really wrong answers). The numerals we call Arabic numerals (often called in Arabic simply Indian Numerals) do, in fact derive ultimately from India and came to the rest of the world via Arab-Persians scholars. In particular, the influential and very important polymath Al-Khwarizmi (A Persian Muslim writing in Arabic) is credited with introducing them into Arabic where they spread throughout Islamic lands in the High Caliphal period of the Abbasid Empire (mid-eighth century to the 13th century). They developed many different forms but what made it unique and powerful was positional notation, i.e. the ones place, the tens place, the hundreds, etc. That, and the 0 made it much more powerful and simple for use in mathematics. Try doing multiplying CDXLVII and CCXXXIV versus 447 and 234. The power of Arabic-Hindu numerals quickly becomes apparent. \n\nThe reasons these don't resemble Arabic characters is quite simply that they were devised originally by non-Arabs so you would not expect them to. Europe first became aware of them through Italian traders working with Arabic merchants. We call them Arabic Numerals because that is how the Italians became acquainted with them (in their Western Arabic form--the Eastern Arabic World had a slightly different version like the difference between Greek and Latin letters--same ultimate origin, different evolution). In fact, it was the famous mathematician, IIRC, Fibonacci (he of the Fibonacci Sequences 1,1,2,3,5,8 ...) who wrote the first book on Arabic Numerals and how to use positional notation for a European market and he was addressing not scientists, but merchants who wanted an easier way to keep track of accounts than the old Roman numerals. Fibonacci lived in the 12th/13th centuries (1100 and 1200s) so we can date the adoption of this system to the 13th century thought it took time to spread.\n\nBefore that, though, many people used abaci to do adding and subtracting since you can't easily do math with Roman numerals.\n\n",
"Just a random factoid about the origin of us using X for unknown variables that i think will be appreciated here. \n_URL_0_\n\nTo long didn't watch:\nWe use X because the spanish couldn't pronounce a sh sound and the start of Sh-alam looked kind of like a X. ",
"Found this image on Google; it seems that they used to be a lot more like the other Arabic characters but the Westernization evolved them into what we have today: \n\n_URL_0_",
"I've never heard of them referred to a simply Arabic numerals, always Hindu-Arabic numerals."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX_OxBfsvbk"
],
[
"http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/HistoryOfNumerals.gif"
],
[]
] |
|
30dd3h | why don't flights ever go over or under the globe instead of around it? | I just cant' wrap my head around why you would go all the way around in an East-West manner on pretty much all flights. I can't find a good source online, but am I just vastly underestimating how far it is to go over the north pole?
Edit: It seems I just wasn't having success because I didn't know where to look. /u/stuthulhu led me to finding this wiki page: _URL_1_, and /u/lobster_conspiracy provided this great link _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30dd3h/eli5_why_dont_flights_ever_go_over_or_under_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cprc77l",
"cprc7oo",
"cprcbt3",
"cprcklq",
"cprf6il",
"cprkvz2"
],
"score": [
30,
6,
2,
9,
11,
6
],
"text": [
"Lots of flights take polar routes when connecting North America and Asia. ",
"They DO fly over the poles, constantly. Go to _URL_0_ and plot some great circle routes. They are more or less the routes that flights take.",
"They rarely go directly over the North pole, but most routes from Europe to the US is in fact very far north (England/Norway - > Iceland - > Greenland - > Canada - > US. What makes you think they follow the equator when crossing the Atlantic?",
"Some flights opt for longer routes if it keeps them closer to emergency landing sites. But generally flights do take approximately great circle routes. Shorter flights means cheaper flights.",
"I was super confused at first. I was like, \"Umm because flying underground is difficult, submarines are slow, and we don't have a lot of planes going into space yet.\"",
"Yes, it is true there are many flights that fly over the poles. Another important factor is the aircraft standard ETOPS. This is a rating per airplane that states the longest distance an aircraft can be from an airport at any given time in flight. So there may be some planes/engines that have the capacity to fly over the poles but because of their ETOPs rating and general lack of airports at the poles... they can't make the flight.\n\nSource: Logic... so someone correct me if I'm wrong"
]
} | [] | [
"www.gcmap.com",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route"
] | [
[],
[
"www.gcmap.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d14f5q | do other animals experience anxiety? why do humans feel anxious in non-threatening enviromentments? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d14f5q/eli5_do_other_animals_experience_anxiety_why_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezh3jkn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Anxiety is experienced by other advanced animal, the reason for anxiety isn't just down to physical threats, but also social situations which could have negative effects on generational survival like breeding and humans can worry if the outcome of a situation means that they might be less likely to breed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ilabc | how can my computer reach temperatures that are hotter than 115 but it feels cold to the touch? | I'm starting to think that my computer is lying to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ilabc/eli5_how_can_my_computer_reach_temperatures_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb5jkfg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Brcause you are not touching the internal components that get hot, you Are just touchingthe case of it"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1z9n9n | what really happens when i push the power button on my computer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z9n9n/eli5what_really_happens_when_i_push_the_power/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfrr1me",
"cfryhqn"
],
"score": [
44,
2
],
"text": [
"When you push the power button, an electrical signal is send to the motherboard, and something called POST (power on self test) happens, this is possible because a CPU once is powered it becomes nothing but a little machine that receive orders sequentially, so the only real problem is to send it the first instruction, the first instruction contains the direction of the second instruction an so on.\n\nThis signal does that, force the CPU to load the first instruction from ROM Memory (a memory that does not erases after you turn off the computer) that contains that first instruction and CPU starts reading that, this is what is called the BIOS.\n\nThe BIOS work is to discover all pc components(RAM, all your video cards and usb, hard disks, keyboard etc) by routines.\n\nOnce bios made an index of what the computer has, it reads an specific location of the hard disk where your operating system, like Microsoft Windows, starts and BIOS transfers all the data it recollected and the control of the computer to the operating system.\n\nAt this point Windows check what bios said your computer was and start charging their own routines to manage that devices, what ppl often call drivers, and Windows starts. :)",
"The exact answer is that pushing the power button shorts two leads on the motherboard. This starts a chain of events, as others have mentioned. You don't need a button to perform this short, anything will do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4gest4 | i'm about debate my data cap with my cable co. after they called regarding my fcc complaint. can you explain congestion and if it's a valid excuse for them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gest4/eli5im_about_debate_my_data_cap_with_my_cable_co/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2gx2yx",
"d2h0eto",
"d2h0ij4",
"d2h4hx6",
"d2h5tj4",
"d2h8gt2"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
6,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on where you live, but it usually isn't. Congestion is when lots of people are trying to push 1's and 0's through a network, and the network can't always deal with all of it at the same time, so some 1's and 0's have to wait a bit. If your ISP is justifying a data cap with the qualification that the vast majority of customers never exceed it, they're almost certainly lying about congestion. A small number of people using larger amounts of data is not going to cripple a network of appreciable scale. Also, if the data cap doesn't actually shut off your data, it's not solving a problem. It's taking your money to indirectly make you stop breaking something they made that probably isn't breaking.",
"You have a great answer already, but if you're not currently subscribed (or want additional resources), check out /r/cordcutters. Even if you have cable still, lots of us have experience disputing claims or dealing with cable companies in general.",
"The reason they are lying is actually a completely different matter. Look at the amount of money they charge for the over cap fee. They might, say, give you a cap of 600 gigabytes for $40 a month, and then charge $10 per 50 gigabytes over.\n\nNotice anything wrong with this? They are charging you more per gigabyte than they did with the basic package.\n\nThis is predatory pricing. You don't have an alternative, or if you do, they are following basically the same scheme.\n\nI think it's fair to charge a fee in general. However, the fee needs to be\n\n1. Connected to the company's documented actual cost\n2. Assessed for data traffic during congested periods, not just anytime.",
"I think you need to let us know what you hope to accomplish. Then we can tell you some arguments that might help. \n\nI think the biggest issue you will have is the person you will be speaking with isn't there to debate with you. They are there to placate you. ",
"Go on the highway at 5pm and sit in congestion. Go on the highway at 5am and blaze on through. Now I decide you can only drive 250 miles a month. What does that do for congestion at 5 am? Nothing because it doesn't exist. So you see the monthly limit is arbitrary and a cash grab. \n\nNow if they said hey if you use more than 250gb a month you will be throttled down to slow speeds between 5 pm and 8pm and 7am and 9am that would alleviate congestion. Or you can take a toll road and pay more to avoid that. Then they have more money to throw at infrastructure. However it's a choice you make not an arbitrary one they made. \n\nTraffic is traffic and 1s and 0s are the same as cars. Congestion just means demand exceeds capacity. That's infrastructure. You can limit it in various ways but data caps don't directly address it. Throttling would but they don't throttle at peak times they throttle all the time once you hit an arbitrary limit. It's no different than saying you can only go 5mph on the highway once you've driven 250 miles. ",
"Howdy, this might have already been answered to your satisfaction but here's my little speech lol:\n\nI work at an ISP that doesn't sell tiers of speed. Whatever is physically available in your area is what we can sell you i.e. up to 20mbps or 50mbps or for some lucky people, 1gbps. Data caps and congestion are complete bs. Each persons internet has their own line pair and shouldn't be interfering with anyone else. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be able to argue one of the big companies AT & T, Comcast, Time Warner down, especially cause the people on the phones aren't techs and probably don't know anything about it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7b1jwg | why do cheap lighters die when they still have 50%-plus fluid? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7b1jwg/eli5_why_do_cheap_lighters_die_when_they_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpei24a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"How, specifically, are the lighters you refer to dying?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.