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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1q4wke | why haven't carnivorous land mammals reached the same size as the biggest predatory dinosaurs? | The largest predatory terrestrial mammals ever to have existed have only reached just over 2,000 kg. The largest theropod dinosaurs are thought to have gotten up to 21,000 kg. Why don't I see 23-ton lions running around terrorizing the neighborhood? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q4wke/eli5_why_havent_carnivorous_land_mammals_reached/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd97gw5",
"cd97lzt",
"cd97qtn",
"cd99fpu"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The Earth is colder now than it was in the late Cretaceous.\n\nAt the time plants thrived to such an extent that enormous volumes of plant and animal matter were present and some preposterously large animals evolved.\n\nThe current climate is colder and there just isn't enough biomass in most ecosystems to sustain a population of ten ton carnivores.",
"There was much more oxygen in the atmosphere which will result in larger organisms.",
"There's two reasons, and they're both related to trees.\n\nThe first reason is because megafauna usually require a large amount of food to survive. While some megafauna were carnivores, a significant number of megafauna were (and are) herbivores. Grass evolved in the Cretaceous, after the Mesozoic when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Because of this trees were actually far more common overall, as grass can interfere with the growth of trees. And as you may have guessed, due to their size certain types of trees are a much better source of food for megafauna herbivores than grass. Megafauna carnivores, and several smaller species, would therefore have benefitted from the abundance of trees because they in turn supported their food source, the megafauna herbivores.\n\nThe second reason is because the lack of grass, and abundance of trees in the environment led to higher amounts of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Trees are more efficient than grass in generating oxygen within any given region. Megafauna have greater oxygen requirements than smaller species, so the atmospheric environment was better suited to support megafauna. This is why, for example, it would be impossible for Mesozoic insects to currently survive on Earth.\n\nThere's two things worth mentioning, as a side-remark. First of all early humans did most likely hunt a number of megafauna to extinction, particularly in North America. Second of all, megafauna -- both as a food source and through the droppings they leave -- do play an integral role in supporting smaller species in an ecosystem. The diminishing number of megafauna could have seriously negative effects on an ecosystem, or numerous smaller species.",
"Being so large is why they're dead. Larger animals require more resources and more time to produce fewer children. A herd of gigantic behemoths losing 3 of their mating pairs is hurting a *huge* bunch more than a group of rabbits that loses 3 mating pairs... or 6. Really the rabbits could be brought down many times more and still recover faster than creatures who are able to turn out maybe one child per breeding pair per year. \n\nLarger creatures tend to live longer, but are much more vulnerable to even a slight drop in resources available and sudden losses from illness or whatever. Larger creatures need stability.\n\nRabbits, shrews, and other small mammals? They can repopulate so fast some ancient cultures believed they were spontaneously generated by the weather, and they're small enough that even a paltry sum of resources can keep a few of them alive long enough to get to the other end of a drought or whatever, at which point they explode back into prominence. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
485z8r | what happens when dna is repaired and what noticeable effects could come from it? | I have read that zinc helps aid in DNA repair but unsure of what this is | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/485z8r/eli5_what_happens_when_dna_is_repaired_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0hbg5j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is going to be kinda long, and I'm not a geneticist - I'm not even a biologist, I'm an engineer - but I've studied up on this and really enjoy the topic, so you can consider me an informed layman. I'd take my thoughts as perhaps OK from an ELI5 perspective, but certainly not AskScience worthy, so this is just in case another person who is more qualified doesn't show up.\n\nDNA gets damaged all the time, it's a really long, relatively fragile, and very complicated molecule. Things like radiation (which is where I'm most familiar with the topic from) can zap the atoms in the DNA or nearby molecules, which change their chemical properties (e.g. blasting away an electron, which changes the reactivity of that molecule). This can damage or break the molecule, and it happens _a lot_. I believe hundreds if not thousands of times per second, though I can't find something easily citeable on that. Clearly, we have to have some solid mechanism to correct breaks, as our DNA encodes the instructions for building proteins - if it breaks, we can break.\n\nWhat happens is that other proteins scan the DNA frequently, double checking that it's structurally sound. If they find a break, they can chop up and splice other molecules in the cell to rebuild the DNA molecule. If only half the DNA molecule is damaged, this is often not a big deal: the DNA molecule is singly-redundant; each half matches its other half, like zippers where the teeth only mesh with teeth of the same \"color\" on the other side of the zipper (using the letter abbreviations for [nucleobases](_URL_0_), A _always_ bonds with T, and C _always_ bonds with G. If you see a broken sequence like a frayed thread, but its partner thread - the other helix - matches perfectly pair for pair, you know you can just fix the fray). The repair proteins can simply splice up the DNA in a way that ensures that they use the other half of the molecule to make the correct repair. This happens with absolutely no noticeable effect.\n\nIf, however, the molecule splits cleanly on both threads, breaking both sides, a dangerous state can occur: the DNA itself is the blueprint, and it's been torn in a way that cannot be inferred from its other half. Think of someone cutting a zipper in half horizontally: you can't necessarily tell what ends connect with the other ends in the torn molecule. You could, potentially, attach the previous start of the DNA strand to the middle or end of the DNA, flipping half the DNA.\n\nThe repair will be done in a way that makes sense, if possible: for instance, if the ends are ragged, with partial halves on both ends, the halves will only fit like a puzzle piece. If, however, there happens to be a close match nearby from another split strand, for instance, the splice may be hastily done and cause a transcription error: a mutation. (This is one of a number of possible ways for mutations to occur). Transcription errors are essentially where the previously sound \"speech\" of our genetic code suddenly starts to sound like gibberish, not making _sense_, but is still recognizable as the same language. I guess an ELI5 analogy might be pig latin: you understand _that_ the DNA is speaking, but the message is all garbled now.\n\nThis means that the proteins that that strand of DNA encodes for will come out all wrong. A large part of our DNA is \"junk DNA\" (which is a very poor term, but works for the following concept): it's either an evolutionary appendix, which has no known purpose, or it manages the regulation of DNA somewhere else in the cell. It's non-coding DNA. This won't produce a visible effect in the cell. If, however, the DNA _is_ coding DNA, and produces a malformed protein, it can be a catastrophic mutation. If the protein is bad for the cell, it can cause the cell to die or produce \"poisonous\" proteins (more technically, malicious proteins) that can damage other cells. This often causes the cell to kill itself, or to be recognized as malformed and killed by our immune system.\n\nIf, however, the cell performs perfectly as normal, but begins a runaway reproductive cycle... we call that cancer. Bad news, a perfectly well-behaved cell which looks to our body like a normal cell now takes all the body's time and resources to make more malformed children of itself. Even now, sometimes our body can determine the cell is cancerous and attack it.\n\nSo the body has many mechanisms to repair DNA, and it does it all the time in many ways, often in ways that perfectly fix the problem. If it can't do this effectively, its feedback and control systems can get out of hand. Most DNA repairs are completely benign and happen with absolutely no effect. Some, however, can have a bad effect, which is often caught. Rarely - but clearly not \"never\" - the effect from damaged DNA can be subtle enough to not be caught, but kill us regardless. Also rarely, the effect can be subtle enough to not be caught, but give us some cool new feature, like a new X-Man cell being born. If this happens in, say, reproductive cells, it can even give new traits to our children, like new eye or hair color. So not all mutations are bad, but you still want the cell to be able to repair DNA as effectively as possible.\n\nFinally, zinc is a trace mineral that is of value in the process; a trace mineral means we need to take it in from dietary sources. Some trace minerals, like sodium, are used for other parts of the body's functionality (i.e. nerve signal propagation for sodium); zinc just happens to have close ties to DNA management. Eat your veggies, everyone.\n\nIf someone better informed, or even who wishes to move out of ELI5 territory wishes to comment or correct my story-time version, feel free to comment or post additional info."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleobase"
]
] |
|
1pmed9 | why is when a beaver makes their dams, it's consider "part of nature" but not when humans build buildings? | This question was asked by my teacher 3 years ago, and I'm still curious since she didn't give an answer to my class and just made us think about it.
I know beaver builds their dams for shelter just as humans makes buildings for shelter. We use different materials to make them. Both of us harm the enviorment in a way?
Also, it doesn't even have to be a building...it can be a comparion between a dam vs. wooden house (but that still not considered natural?).
Edit: Humans are part of nature, but not the things we make to live in?
**Read all of your comments, upvoted each - thank you!** | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pmed9/eli5_why_is_when_a_beaver_makes_their_dams_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd3ro8v",
"cd3rpv9",
"cd3sft8",
"cd3v3nc",
"cd3ytc5"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We define \"natural\" as all the stuff that isn't made by humans. That's just what the word means in normal language.\n\nThe confusion is that some people imply that natural = good and artificial = bad, which obviously isn't true as a rule.",
"Because for some purposes we tend to define \"natural\" specifically as \"whatever isn't done or caused by humans\". For other purposes it includes us. The problem is that the word natural has multiple meanings. It's an issue arising from the English language, not some property of the universe itself. ",
"I think it's not just the human vs. non-humans, but the relative time frames and scale.\n\nLots of animals do things that change their environment. But they've been doing it for millenia, and the dams are relatively small, and the ecosystem, for better or worse, has adapted to it. Or at least achieved a new steady state. True, some plants and animals got the short end of the stick when the beavers flooded their home, but that's the \"natural\" way of things.\n\nIn contrast, humans have been building things for nearly all of their existence, but the scale and extent of is far faster than anything in nature. ",
"You might be interested in a book called \"*[Wild Ones: A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America](_URL_1_)*\" by Jon Mooallem. It's about the human hangups that mold our perceptions of what's natural and wild. You can hear a [performance of some of the material here](_URL_0_).\n",
"There really is no difference. Beavers build structures they deem necessary out of the materials available to them. Humans do the same."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/wild-ones-live/",
"http://jonmooallem.com/ABOUT-THE-BOOK"
],
[]
] |
|
cjc2gn | how do gps satellites and receivers compute our position without synchronous clocks between them? | So I recently read that GPS satellites use atomic clocks and all the GPS satellites have synchronous time, but the receivers on the ground use a quartz clock which is not so accurate compared to the atomic clocks onboard the satelites. We know that the transmitted signal travels at the speed of light, so if we find out the delay between the time when the signal was transmitted and the time the signal was received we can calculate distance, and by using 4 satelites we can pinpoint our location. But this is all assuming that both the transmitter and receiver have the same exact time, but one uses a atomic clock and the other a local quartz clock. So how do they achieve sub-meter accuracy with GPS? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cjc2gn/eli5_how_do_gps_satellites_and_receivers_compute/ | {
"a_id": [
"evcbnmf",
"evcbp32",
"evcca0f",
"evcclba",
"evcit4i"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you assume that the receiver have the exact same time as the transmitter then you would only need 3 satellites as you would be able to know the exact distance to each satellite alone just based on the difference in time. However the receiver does not have an accurate clock. But it is accurate enough to measure the time between the signals from two satellites. So it does not know its exact distance to a single satellite but it knows how much closer it is to one satellite then the other. This is why you need 4 satellites instead of 3. In practice 4 satellites is too few to get an accurate position and you need far more in different directions.",
"Part of what sent by the GPS satellites is their time. GPS receivers can use this in their calculation to deal with the problem that the GPS clock is more accurate.... which is to say, the GPS signal tells the time, and the less accurate clock on the ground changes its time constantly to be in alignment with the accurate clock from GPS, which then allows them to perform the correct calculation as it now has the correct time (according to GPS)",
"The receiver has \"atomic time\" by constantly resetting itself based on the satellite signals it receives. \n\nIt receives 4-5 signals all of which can *only* overlap at a single point in 3D space. The receiver, knowing it's inaccurate, also knows that 4+ spheres can only overlap at a single point when given the \"correct\" (atomic) time. From there it can do some fancy math to figure what the correct time *must* be for all of those spheres to overlap at a single point, any other time must be wrong so it sets itself to the calculated \"correct\" time. \n\nIt then uses that correct time to perform the appropriate calculations against all the signals it received to figure out its location in relation to the satellites. \n\nSo essentially, because of how spheres relate in 3D space, the receiver is able to calculate the atomic time itself by calculating exactly where the spheres overlap (only the atomic time will cause all the signals to overlap at a single point).",
"What's important is the delta between the times transmitted from the satellites. If I know that, then I know how much further away from one satellite than another I am. Given that I know where the satellites are (they're geosynchronous), each pair of satellite info generates a limited area where I could possibly be (the set of location points where dist(sat(a)) - dist(sat(b)) = dist(delta)). Adding the information of one more satellite generates three pairs, which narrows down the set of locations. A fourth satellite's information give us six sets of location points to compare. The point that's a member of all six subsets is where you are.",
"The GPS satellite transmits it's own location, and the time. The US military has base stations that update the satellites with their locations based on radio/radar telemetry daily or so. It's an actively managed system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e1ow11 | . what is the difference between death metal and deathcore? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e1ow11/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_death_metal/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8qw4q8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"**Death Metal** – A subgenre of Heavy Metal Music that generally employs heavy distortion and low tuned guitars. Guitars usually are played with techniques such as *palm muting* (*muffled sound*) and *tremolo picking* (*high speed picking*). Vocals produce a mix of growls and screams and are typically aggressive. Drumming on the other hand, also aggressive, will blend with the other instruments with its *double kick* (*producing a fast bass beat*) and *blast beat* (*producing a very fast tempo*) techniques. \n\n\n**Deathcore** – A combination of Death Metal and Metalcore, you can expect techniques used from both genres like *blast beats* and *breakdowns*. It generally has fast drumming, fast down-tuned guitars, low-tuned growls and shrieked screams, and of course melodic riffs and breakdowns from your Metalcore. \n\n\n**Metalcore** – The name originated from a fusion of two genres, namely extreme metal and hardcore punk. It emphasizes its slow *breakdowns* (*part of a song where various instruments are given emphasis by having solo demonstration)* through their songs that will usually turn into *moshing* (*a dance style where people tend to push or slam into each other during a live music show*)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5h0dfx | why do ears not have a natural defense mechanism like eyes (eyelids which we can close when we want) ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h0dfx/eli5why_do_ears_not_have_a_natural_defense/ | {
"a_id": [
"dawdqz3",
"dawdun5",
"dawe7w4"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
21
],
"text": [
"They do. One of the functions of wax is to trap and contain foreign bodies before they enter the canal. Additionally there are hairs in the outer third of the ear canal which also contribute some form of physical obstruction. Little pointless obstructions. ",
"They do have a defense mechanism; earwax. Its purpose is breaking down and transporting away debris and dirt from your ear canal. Just as the purpose of your eyebrows/eyelids is to keep stuff from getting into your eye, earwax prevents shit from getting deep enough into your ear to cause damage.",
"All these responses are correct, but there's something else to consider: early homo sapiens would rarely be exposed to noises loud enough to damage the ear (in the same way they would be exposed to bright light, i.e. the sun). Most really loud noises are man-made; jet planes, speakers turned up too high, car horns, etc. Early humans would have no need to evolve protection against too-loud sounds.\n\n(There are of course things like volcanic eruptions that are louder than anything humans can produce, but they're rare enough to hardly be an evolutionary driver)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3f232z | why does the president get criticism for high unemployment rates when our exponentially-advancing technology is designed with the purpose of minimizing human labor? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f232z/eli5_why_does_the_president_get_criticism_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctkjmy2",
"ctkmnjy"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Our society is not ready to accept that some people just can't find a job no matter how hard they try, and its not a matter of them being lazy. ",
"Because minimizing labor is the same as increasing productivity. People can work less, or they can work the same and do more. Technological advances result mostly in the latter.\n\nIn the 1940s, if you want to make a report and sent it to a bunch of people, you would:\n\n* call in your secretary and dictate the report to her\n* she would type it up, and give you a draft\n* you would correct the draft, and she would type up a final report\n* she would give the final report to a few other secretaries from the pool, and they would type up duplicates\n* she would gather the duplicates, address them, and send them down to the mail room\n* the mailboy would hand deliver them to people in the office as part of his normal rounds\n* the mailboy would mail or arrange a courier for the duplicates sent externally\n\nSo what might take one person 15 minutes today would take 4 or 5 people days to accomplish. So where are all those secretaries and mailboys today? They are doing better jobs, because companies are able to do such much more than they were before."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
tszdz | "jailbreaking" phones | I know that I'm going to have to have an iPhone jailbroken here soon, so I'm just curious as to what exactly I'll be paying someone to do when I pay them to jailbreak my phone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tszdz/eli5_jailbreaking_phones/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4pgilf"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"An iPhone is made up of bits of metal and code. The metal bits are called the hardware. The code is called the software and is the operating system and apps. There is also something called 'firmware\" which allows the software to talk to the hardware.\n\nWhen Apple sells you an iPhone they only want you to be able to deal with their operating system in the software. This is because they want users to have to buy apps for their operating system. To prevent users from installing their own software they have special firmware that prevents it.\n\nJailbreaking an iPhone is installing one's own firmware so that they can then install their own software. Firmware however is very sensitive. If the installation messes up then the iPhone won't even know what pressing the power button means and it can \"brick\" your phone (make it as useful as a brick).\n\nYou are paying someone to flash your firmware and thereby allow you to edit absolutely everything about the operating system not just what apple wants you to be able to edit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3g2f3j | does drinking cold water hydrate your body more then warmer water | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g2f3j/eli5_does_drinking_cold_water_hydrate_your_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctu7e3k"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think warming the cold water takes a significant amount of extra energy to \"dehydrate\" you at all. However, a simple law of diffusion is that substances with more kinetic energy (more heat/warmer) will flow and diffuse faster than those with less kinetic energy. Think of it like cold syrup vs hot syrup; obviously the hot is more \"runny\" and thus will be more readily absorbed. However, this effect is much less pronounced with ordinary water. In addition, the vast majority of the water you uptake occurs in the intestines, and by the time it reaches this point, it is warmed to body temperature, making the initial temperature Pretty much irrelevant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3xeadx | how is it that, seemingly every time i drink out of a mug, a small drop of the liquid within manages to avoid my mouth? | Edit: For reference, the liquid I was drinking at the time of asking was tea. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xeadx/eli5_how_is_it_that_seemingly_every_time_i_drink/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy3vlpw"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Capillary action.\n\nSurface tension of your liquid is broken by your lips, or you'd never get any of the liquid in your mouth. The liquid now has access to your skin, and the forces of capillary action causes it to travel along the connection between your lips and the mug, and find it's way down your cheek. Pressing the mug more tightly against your face only gives more liquid an opportunity to follow suit. So, don't tilt the mug as much, or wait until it's a little cooler to drink, and use a straw. Or sip noisily. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5kli3r | city water waste | I'm curious as to why something like taking really long showers or running the tap wastes so much water. Doesn't it just go down the drain and back through the city water system? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kli3r/eli5_city_water_waste/ | {
"a_id": [
"dboxf81"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Put plainly, treated sewage water is not potable. \n\nWhere does the treated water go?\n\nThis largely depends on the city / area of the water company. Most is treated through different processes and then released into the rivers or other water collection areas. Other more rural places might use it for irrigating fields.\n\nThe better question is, where does all the stuff go they take out of the water?\n\nThey turn it into fertilizer! Yep, the same stuff used in farm fields and your azalea's.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
542t6w | why does food in the microwave sometimes make popping sounds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/542t6w/eli5_why_does_food_in_the_microwave_sometimes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7yf3vl"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The rapid expansion of steam as water boils, then bursts out of the food. Popcorn is a good example, it pops more violently because the kernels are effective pressure vessels and only pop after a relatively high internal pressure is achieved. Duds either withstand the pressure or have a leak and cannot get up to the pressure required for popping. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4gmdok | why do mushy blueberries taste sweeter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gmdok/eli5_why_do_mushy_blueberries_taste_sweeter/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2iup9z"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Plant parts have chemicals in them. Fruits are plant parts. Fruits start out as not ripe yet. The chemicals in not ripe fruits are not sugars. When fruits get ripe, the chemicals change into sugars. Blueberries are fruits. When blueberries are softest, they are the most ripe too.\n\nELI21: this process often continues and those sugars can get turned into your good friend ethanol under the right circumstances."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2c67tr | if making your heart work strengthens it (like via cardio exercise) does that mean anxiety/stress can do the same if it makes your heart beat faster? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c67tr/eli5_if_making_your_heart_work_strengthens_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjcbzx8",
"cjcn0h5"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a great question, with quite a complex and not complete answer. Currently there are some interesting concepts to introduce. One is pathologic (disease causing) and Physiologic ( normal body response) hypertrophy (muscle growth). This is a very complex series of events that involves your brain and nerves (sympathetic nervous system/ innervation of SA node via this system and its chemical messenger epinephine( adrenaline). It is true that Cardio or exercise will help strengthen your heart like any muscle you work it out you make it grow. Like lifting weights for bigger biceps except this is increasing heart size to make your heart have to work less under normal conditions without disease. However signals from your body overlap yet have an unknown source of divergence.(aka no knows the difference between pathologic and physiologic hypertrophy, besides the outcome.) The negative stress or pathologic in this case is the anxiety/stress that raises your blood pressure and depending on the severity of the stress can cause heart failure and stress (Takotsubo cardiomyopathy _URL_0_) The cause of death from the heart becoming an ineffective pump via disease either long standing (chronic) or short term (acute) from stress is electrical impulse activity from the nervous system (which the heart has it's own built in and is able to react to stimulus from the brain). \n\nIn summation to answer the question as simple as possible the heart in the case of stress/anxiety will not have the same effect as exercise, however it is not exactly known why this phenomena occurs. Hopefully this answers your question, if not I would be glad to answer any questions.",
"Exercise is generally a controlled use of the muscles and systems, which builds strength and endurance over time.\n\nMental stress/anxiety primes your system for a fight/flight type response and waits for your body to start moving. If it doesn't (since anxiety is typically about non-physical things), it keeps the heart and cardiovascular and endorphine systems in a state that isn't healthy.\n\nImagine if you're just constantly holding the starter for your car. You just keep doing an extended start then immediately shut it down. That's a lot of wear on the system and it will probably fail much more quickly.\n\nsource- have anxiety. Bad anxiety episodes can tangibly be felt and it's not in a good way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takotsubo_cardiomyopathy"
],
[]
] |
||
8gihtj | the birthday paradox and what are the odds that someone was born the same month and day (not year) as me? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8gihtj/eli5_the_birthday_paradox_and_what_are_the_odds/ | {
"a_id": [
"dybx067",
"dybx3ip",
"dyc2nw7"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The Birthday Paradox isn't that somebody was born on the same day **as you**, it's that when you have a room full of people, the odds that at least **two of them share a birthday** gets very high, very quickly. Once you properly define the problem, the apparent paradox goes away.\n\nIf you have 5 people, let's call them A, B, C, D, E & F, we're not *just* looking to see if BCDEF have the same birthday as A, we're looking to see if ACDEF has the same birthday as B, ABDEF has the same birthday as C and so on. This gives you **far more** chances of finding a match.",
"Because it's not a chance of YOU having a birthday the same as 1 single person sample size (1/365). It's the chance of ANY 2 people in the room (of 23 in the most common example) having the same birthday. \n",
"It is easier to understand if you phrase the question as \n\n\"What is the likelihood of all the other people in the room NOT having the same birthday as anybody else in the room?\"\n\nFor example there are 23 people in the room including you and 365 possible birthdays.\n\nFor nobody in the room to have the same birthday that means you must succeed a 364/365 then a 363/365 then a 362/365 chance ... 343/365 etc in 22 times in a row.\n\nThe of chance nobody having the same birthday decreases as you add more people to the room."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
f9uw3y | what is a virtual network and a vlan and how are they different? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f9uw3y/eli5_what_is_a_virtual_network_and_a_vlan_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"fitxjik",
"fiuij5b"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I will give an explanation using the widely accepted definition of these terms, but they are often exchanged.\n\nVLANs connect physical clients together as if they were in a LAN, even if they are in different locations and on different physical networks.\n\nVirtual networks connect Virtual Machines together in a completely virtual environment where both the clients and network are virtual.",
"VLAN lets you and your buddies be in a \"pretend\" LAN connection over the Internet. This lets you play LAN games together. Try the Radmin program, it's a simple and easy way to play some CS 1.6.\n\nVirtual Networks are special rules that let you make a secret, small members-only network within a big existing network. Like your Big Company has only 1 router and 50 PCs, 45 of which are employees and 5 are bosses. Even if they're all on the same network in the physical world, you can make a special, secret virtual network for only bosses and one more virtual network for only employee computers. \n\nThis prevents the boss PCs and the employee PCs to interact with each other, as if they were in completely different networks, on different routers.\n\nVirtual Networks are what big companies use to keep their clusters of computers safe from one another; if all the employee PCs got infected or hacked, the boss PCs are safe despite being on the same physical network."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2fywg8 | why are 3rd party data brokers are allowed to collect our private information ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fywg8/eli5_why_are_3rd_party_data_brokers_are_allowed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cke6tq3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you use Facebook for free. So Facebook is like oh hey I see OP is googling gift ideas for his mom, I'll show an add for a lovely set of flowers for her! It's a trade off. Had Facebook charge users to use the site, they wouldn't need add revenue. \n\nNow replace Facebook with every other site"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1bqqqd | the definition of a second (the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a cesium 133 atom at rest at a temperature of 0k). | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bqqqd/eli5_the_definition_of_a_second_the_duration_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c994yfq",
"c995bhl",
"c995nt5",
"c996uy9"
],
"score": [
31,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"ELI5: The title of this question",
"Let's forget about hyperfine transitions and all that stuff. Atoms give off light. Light is a wave, so it oscillates a particular number of times per second. This also means that each oscillation takes a fixed amount of time.\n\nWe have defined the second to be the amount of time for 9,192,631,770 oscillations for the light given off by that particular isotope at that temperature.",
"We need ways to measure stuff, and for science they need ways to measure stuff *exactly*. Not only do they need to be able to measure it exactly, but they need to be able to tell someone else how to measure it *the same way*. By defining time using an atom of cesium, you have a way that anyone, anywhere with the right equipment could figure out exactly how long a second is without already knowing anything about how we are used to measuring time. \n\nNow we know why they defined it - but *why specifically cesium*? The reason for that is because saying \"radiation corresponding to transitions between two hyperfine levels\" is a really fancy way of saying \"counting microwaves emitted by cesium\" which is something that is pretty straightforward to set up an instrument to do in a way that is accurate and repeatable. This means that scientists around the world can easily accurate measure on their own exactly how long a second is. \n\nTo contrast this look at the kilogram! A kilogram is defined as \"something that has the same mass as this block of platinum in France\". If you are a scientist working in say, the US...you can't just start up a lab and start measuring kilograms^1. Instead, you have to get a reference, and find something else that is *already known* to weigh a kilogram because it has been compared to this block of platinum in France. The extreme case: Imagine we start communicating with aliens, what could we tell them? Come to France? Not terribly practical if you ask me. Also it is generally accepted that the mass of that block in France isn't constant! It has been slowly changing over the years. That means kilograms right *now* might actually be slightly heavier or lighter than they were 50 years ago...crazy! If we had a good definition from first principles (like we do for the second) we would have no worry about the definition changing, because we could always just remeasure it if needed.\n\n1: Actually, we have ways you can approximate the mass of a kilogram experimentally, so in practice you would be ok...but the official definition of a kilogram is still \"how much this block weighs\".",
"I find that the most useful way of thinking about this for a layperson is to look at the progress of clocks over the past 500 years.\n\nBefore the invention of the [pendulum clock](_URL_1_) in 1659, clocks were not very accurate; a clock typically lost or gained 15 to 30 minutes *each day*. The first pendulums immediately improved that to about *15 seconds a day*. Before pendulums were invented, most clocks did not have a seconds hand, and often not even a minutes hand, because it was hopeless to measure seconds accurately and too difficult to measure minutes.\n\nHow did pendulums manage to improve clocks so much? Pendulums have the property that, in theory, each swing always takes the same time, no matter how narrow or wide. This is because a pendulum is what is called a *harmonic oscillator*; it has a \"natural\" rate at which it \"wants\" to swing.\n\nBut pendulums in real life are not perfect, so pendulum clocks are affected by many factors:\n\n* The speed of the pendulum will change with changes in the Earth's gravity; this means that a pendulum in the North Pole will run slower than one in the equator (because the Earth is not a perfect circle, and gravity is stronger in the poles), and a pendulum on the top of a mountain will also be slower than one at the base. \n* The rod that holds the weight at the bottom will expand or contract with changes in temperature, and this changes the speed of the clock.\n* Changes in air pressure and humidity will change the air resistance, which will speed up the clock or slow it down.\n\nSo since 1659, the history of making better clocks has been to eliminate these factors, first by improving pendulum clocks, and finally in the 20th century by inventing new oscillators that aren't affected by them.\n\nThe first stages were to improve pendulum clocks. First people figured out how to make pendulums adjustable so that you can tune the speed of the clock to run correctly both on a mountain and at sea level. Then they figured out how to design pendulums that didn't change their length with the temperature. Then they started building clocks that put the pendulum in a vacuum jar with the air pumped out, to fix the weather problems.\n\nThen in the 1920s they invented the [quartz crystal oscillator](_URL_2_), which is the standard technology that ordinary clocks use today. Quartz is very little affected by temperature, gravity or weather, so it makes for a very good oscillator. It's also extremely cheap, so that a Happy Meal watch today can keep the time to half a second a day, which is more accurate than most of the old and expensive grandfather pendulum clock. (A specially made scientific pendulum clock from 1900 can beat the Happy Meal toy watch, but would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.)\n\nBut they didn't stop there, and in the 1950s they invented the [atomic clock](_URL_0_). This type of clock measures the vibrations of a cesium atom. The vibrations happen inside the atoms themselves. This means that atomic clocks are **completely unaffected** by temperature, gravity or weather, because those forces don't affect the insides of an atom. So atomic clocks are incredibly accurate—like, 1 second in 138 million years.\n\nSo why is the second defined the way it is? Because of atomic clocks, which use cesium vibrations to measure time. It just makes everything easier to use atomic clocks to define the second.\n\nNote that this definition of the second is a recent one, since about 1970 I think. Before that, seconds were defined in terms of the length of the day: there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute, so one day has 24 x 60 x 60 = 86,400 seconds. That definition of the second was abandoned because it depends on the rotation of the Earth—but atomic clocks *are more precise than the rotation of the Earth*."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_clock",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator"
]
] |
||
4a6uqe | how is it every commercial is so annoying it basically just makes me want to punch the manufacturer in the face and boycott the product completely, yet they still consider advertising advantageous? | Am I just abnormal and everyone else is singing the little Comercial jingles for the 50th time In a half hour broad cast? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a6uqe/eli5_how_is_it_every_commercial_is_so_annoying_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0xvk24",
"d0xwxpr",
"d0ye3f8"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Advertising generally targets a particular market. They don't try to appeal to everyone. You probably aren't the target, and you're certainly not the first person to dislike advertising.",
"Some commercials are interesting and creative enough to cause people to intentionally find them on youtube and rewatch them. If you think that every commercial you have ever seen is annoying and makes you want to punch someone, there is probably something wrong with you.",
"It's all about brand recognition. Studies have shown that even if a commercial is annoying it plants the memory of that product in our minds. That is what the advertisers want. They know that even if their ad annoys people, people will remember their brand when they go shopping. \n\nThe thing to do is turn off the TV so you don't have to watch the annoying ads. I haven't watched commercial TV in over 15 years. I refuse to sit and watch ads. \n\nOR if there is an ad that annoys you send an Email to that company telling them that you are boycotting their product because their ads offend you. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
g1e2iv | what is the little dent underneath your nose on your upper lip for? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1e2iv/eli5_what_is_the_little_dent_underneath_your_nose/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnfbujr",
"fnfjerf"
],
"score": [
12,
31
],
"text": [
"It's to help twin airstreams from your two nostrils form into a single air current, to prevent vortex formation and improve respiration efficiency.",
"In short- nothing. It is the leftover/imperfection when different parts of our developing face run into each other during fetal development. Our face doesn’t form from one side to the other, but in three pieces at the same time. When the pieces finally come together we get the philtrum (the scientific name of that dent). \n\nCurrently, scientists agree that it doesn’t serve any purpose but of course we don’t know everything so it’s possible it has something to do with breathing/smelling, but that is unlikely. Children born without the philtrum (such as those with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) don’t appears to have any deficits in breathing and smelling but who really knows."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4bfckr | why is it that the ps3/xb360 have barely functional emulators, yet the wii u within a year has an emulator that can run super mario 3d world at full speed? | cemu (wii u emulator) running 3d world at 60fps: _URL_0_
it doesn't make sense to me, the ps3/360 have been around for a very long time yet emulation on them is extremely limited -- is it just that way more people are interested in emulating nintendo games? something to do with nintendo's hardware being easier to hack? the people programming this are simply wizards? I'm genuinely curious, sorry if this seems like a really specific question | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bfckr/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_ps3xb360_have_barely/ | {
"a_id": [
"d18mg6u",
"d18mmtr"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Basically, because the X360 and PS3 have more demanding hardware than the Wii U.\n\nThe last and current generation of consoles have a gap in the way of power. The X360/PS3 were more powerful than the Wii, and similarly, the XBone and PS4 are more powerful than the Wii U.\n\nConsole games are developed and optimised for the level of hardware they'll be running on. As a result, PS/XB games are able to include higher resolution graphics, better effects, fancier visuals, because they have the hardware to power them.\n\nBy contrast, Wii U games are fairly basic in their styles. It works well within the context of the games, and the games are still a lot of fun, but Wii games aren't winning any awards for the most advanced graphical prowess.\n\nSo basically, its a lot easier to emulate Wii games because they're not as graphically demanding, and its easier to make them run on a wider range of hardware.",
"The Xbox 360 emulator I cannot explain, but I imagine the PS3 one is slow on progress due to the Cell Processor it has.\n\nThe Wii U basically uses the same processor from the Wii and Gamecube which is easier to code for when you have years of work around (dolphin)"
]
} | [] | [
"https://streamable.com/853r"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4b91ht | how do first-time senators, governors, or even presidents even know what to do. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b91ht/eli5_how_do_firsttime_senators_governors_or_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"d171eko"
],
"score": [
63
],
"text": [
" They hire numerous staff members, many of whom have been in similar positions before. Also, new members of the United States Congress are literally given a book telling them how to do the job. Also, members of their party will give them extensive advice on what to do, probably more advice than they want. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
28r5kk | why do some cultures consider being left-handed to be wrong? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28r5kk/eli5_why_do_some_cultures_consider_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"cidmoa4",
"cidmqus",
"cidmta2"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Think of wiping prior to the development of toilet paper and eating without utensils. Thus very, very strong norms of one hand is for clean activities and one hand for dirty activities. Left handedness would make hand shakes and other same hand body contact risky. ",
"Because left-handed people are the minority. 1/10 people are left handed (so I've heard). Being against the norm in society usually causes an image of \"evil\" or \"ungodliness\". Hope I could help.",
"Mainly because before the world had toilet paper, one hand would be used for wiping, and thus using your wiping hand for less dirty activities could be seen as rude, or wrong. It seems that this custom has continued into modern times."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3nk9km | why does it seem like we're all far better drivers than everyone around us? | Every person in the world will tell you how shitty all the other drivers in their cities are. But statistically, many of us have to be those shitty drivers ourselves. So why does it seem like every other person on the road is either a dangerous maniac or a moron who probably slept with their instructor just to get their drivers' license? Is it really just a matter of noticing when others screw up, but not ourselves? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nk9km/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_were_all_far_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvotxkw",
"cvoxoh2"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"It boils down to a few things.\n\n1. Being in control. You aren't going to notice if you do something stupid, but you are sure as hell going to notice the 3500 pound death machine next to you if it does something out of routine. This leads to your actions being predictable, but obviously only to you, while that old fart that has left his right-side blinker on for the last 18 blocks could do anything at any moment. Fuck you grandpa.\n\n2. You see everything you do as justified, whereas you only see the actions of others, not the justification. If you swerve on the road, you obviously see the cause (perhaps a squirrel ran into the road). If another driver swerves randomly, you don't see the cause most of the time and the natural assumption with the available evidence is, well, that they are just shitty drivers. This is further compounded when you realize most causes like this are inside the car in the form of some distraction (distractions that we all have, but are only okay for *us* to be distracted by, as is human nature).\n\n3. Confirmation bias. We perceive the world how we want to. As you drive down the road expecting to see assholes driving like lunatics, you are going to see a large amount of assholes driving like lunatics. Your brain will filter out anyone driving normal because that is just what is supposed to happen. Nothing catches your eye with a normal driver. So the good driver gets ignored while you honk at the douche-tit that merged into your lane cutting you off instead of following in line behind you.\n\nedit: as an additional note, this applies to all aspects of life, but is just highlighted with driving, due to the perceived danger, the degree of separation (being behind the wheel vs. face to face), and the limited methods of communication we have available to \"talk\" to the other drivers.",
"Other comments bring up great points, but another possible reason I haven't seen mentioned is that we have different ideas of what good driving is. \n\nPersonally, I drive about 7 mph over the speed limit and try to stay in the right lane when possible. When it's raining or a bumpy road, a lot of times I'll just drive the speed limit. I understand people think I'm a slowpoke or whatever, and that's fine. So sometimes people will come zooming up behind me, tailgate me for a minute, then whip around and pass me on the left going 20 mph over the speed limit. In that case, I'm thinking, \"Look at this maniac, just calm down, learn how to drive.\" And the guy who passed me is going, \"Look at this old geezer, hurry up and learn how to drive.\" And if me and that guy met at the bar later, we might both complain about the shitty drivers we encountered out on the road today, not knowing that we actually would consider each other to be shitty drivers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2tx3ef | why weren't certain films (fight club, dark knight, back to the future, empire strikes back, etc.) nominated for best picture, even though they have proven themselves to be some of the best films of all time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tx3ef/eli5why_werent_certain_films_fight_club_dark/ | {
"a_id": [
"co33vg1",
"co34jw3",
"co35v8u",
"co370uw"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This isn't an answer to your question but perhaps there should be an award for movies ten years after their release, you know...for films that were too brilliant at the time to be recognized.",
"There isn't a good answer, because the \"best picture category\" doesn't really have any solid criteria, and people have taken \"best picture\" to mean very different things, none of which are wrong.\n\nI'll just provide a few examples, but of course there can be a ton!\n\nBest overall movie - My favorite movie of the year - The movie I feel was the most beneficial to the industry - The movie with the most significant culture impact - The movie I think I should vote for because it was \"important\" - The movie I feel should be recognized because of its material, not that it was the best - The most revolutionary film - My agent/friend/wife/husband/lover told me to vote for it\n\nGet the picture?\n\n\n",
"The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) voters are basically all in the motion picture industry. They're not the typical moviegoer and probably see more movies than you do. That's why they're fairly likely to nominate several films you've never even heard of as best picture in any given year.",
"To keep it simple, it's because all of the elements of these films do not \"come together\" to make it a best picture. You have screenplay and story, acting, direction, cinematography - once you get all of those right, you get best picture (I hope). \n\nAs for your list - all of them had Oscar nominations, 3 of them actually won Oscars. They were technical Oscars and of course a acting Oscar for Dark Knight. They weren't best pictures though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
68wti2 | why is it common to see the flag of the confederate states of america in states which were never members of the confederacy? | As a lifelong resident of North Carolina, I realized long ago that living in a southern state comes with an inherent likelihood of encountering the flag of the Confederacy upon occasion. It's on bumper stickers, it's in people's yards, you can buy it on shot glasses and you can buy all sorts of less common merchandise if you're going to go looking for it.
As an adult, the more I travel to other states in America - specifically the Northern east coast and New England - the more baffled I am by how common the Confederate flag seems to be in these non-confederate states. Why is it that in rural areas of many Northern states, I can find the Confederate flag almost as frequently as I can find it in rural areas of the South?
EDIT: For clarity's sake, I do mean the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and not the first/original Flag of the Confederate States of America. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68wti2/eli5_why_is_it_common_to_see_the_flag_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh1wx6v",
"dh1xjkn",
"dh1zwx9"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Every state has Confederate apologists in it.\n\nIt's the modern way to fly the Nazi flag without flying the Nazi flag.\n\nThe Confederate flag, whatever it may have once represented, is now the flag of American White Supremacists, de facto Nazis, and other far right-wing extremists like the Bundy family, whose patron, Cliven \"Let me tell you another thing I know about the Negroes\" Bundy, doesn't \"recognize the Federal Government as even existin'.\"\n\nI don't think most people who fly Confederate flags would continue doing so if they were ever to realize what it tells the world about them. They'd certainly still do it in secret, though.\n",
"The [Flag of the Confederate States of America](_URL_1_)? \n\nOr the [Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia](_URL_0_) ?\n\n\nThough the Confederate Army did use this flag too, which is where the vast majority of the confusion arises from. \n\nI just wanted to add links, the other two responses here are correct. \n",
"People from the south move to other states, and often want people to know they are still southerners and haven't gone Yankee.\n\nAlso, it is sometimes used as a sign of rural vs. urban, no just north vs. south.\n\nFinally, white supremacist groups exists outside of the south, and often embrace the Confederacy and its symbolism."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Northern_Virginia#/media/File:Battle_flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#/media/File:Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_(1861-1863).svg"
],
[]
] |
|
4ryxtb | why is it that the night/absence of light tends to have a more "sad" atmosphere than during the day? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ryxtb/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_nightabsence_of_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"d559do8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Humans have always shared a primordial fear of darkness, due to the fact that human rely on sight more than any other sense. When we can't use our main sense, we're thrusted into an uncomfortable position, psychologically. So, we associate the dark with negative emotions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
31apb5 | if we start mining nearby moons/planets to build superstructures on earth could we transfer enough material to alter earths orbit and potentially destroy ourselves? | If we start mining nearby moons/planets to build superstructures on earth could we transfer enough material to alter Earths orbit and potentially destroy ourselves? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31apb5/eli5_if_we_start_mining_nearby_moonsplanets_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpzub4d",
"cpzupvt"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I really really doubt we could, if you consider how much it requires to just put small amounts of material into space ( cost of one pound space cargo is roughly 10,000$). Now imagine putting up some heavy machinery and start mining. It would require a lot of money initially and it would only be worth if you mine for rare metals/ elements such as platinum, which could significantly improve electronics and computing. \n\nIn the end even if we would mine tons and tons of that stuff it would be only a marginal change since the earth gains around 30 - 100 tons of mass per day due to meteorites and other stuff.\n\nSo no we couldnt.",
"No. Even if you had trillions of tonnes of material in orbit it would represent a tiny fraction of the Earth's mass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2l9zom | does my cat actually know what it's name is, or does it just know that every time it hears that sound, it's generally associated with something good happening, for example being fed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l9zom/eli5_does_my_cat_actually_know_what_its_name_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"clssaih",
"clssxdu"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"To \"know it's name\" in a way that is different from associating the sound with what happens when the sound is made would seem to require a notion of \"what a name is\". I'm pretty sure the concept of \"naming\" is entirely lost on your cat, and cats in general. Therefore, the idea that the cat can say \"that's my name\" is a bit beyond reach. \n\n",
"Own 2 cats and you would know the answer is yes a cat knows its own name. If they are both in the same room i can call out one by just saying his name."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
71vwr0 | how do huge transactions take place? | For instance, If I were to buy a sports team for $2billion how would I pay that sum. It would be foolish to think that one would write a check. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71vwr0/eli5how_do_huge_transactions_take_place/ | {
"a_id": [
"dndxgei"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Wire transfer, and its not a big deal\n\nYou have to understand that financial institutions transfer and mash around billions of dollars a day, and in far more complex methods and such, none of this is an issue. This is just one more transaction taking place between computers talking to each other."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
alun64 | why are only certain buildings burned in wildfires but not trees and other buildings? (ps sorry if this is the wrong flair, i wasn't sure which one to add!) | so i, like many others, have just finished watching the new shane dawson conspiracy theory video. while i do not believe in most conspiracies and find it pretty silly that people actually believe that "tHe GoVeRNmeNt" is out to get us or whatever, i do find it odd how buildings burn down but not the trees right next to them, and how certain homes will burn but the homes right next to them will not. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/alun64/elif_why_are_only_certain_buildings_burned_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"efh3x0w"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Those trees are a species that's evolved to have fire as part of it's life cycle. They are alive, and thus full of water. They also have thick bark that protects them from fire for a little while. A forest fire is hot, but fast moving. Even better, after it burns away all the small saplings, there is more light for the tree that remains. Some trees even have seeds that are like popcorn, they pop open after a fire so the seed can grow is the now open region where all the little stuff just burned.\n\nBuildings are very, very dry because they are dead and humans don't like it when they start growing (even if it's just mold). So, we select for a type of structure that will burn while nature is selecting for a big tree that can survive a short fire. \n\nWe're losers, it's as simple as that. No conspiracy needed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3lrukh | why do some pictures load quickly, and some take forever? (mobile) | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lrukh/eli5_why_do_some_pictures_load_quickly_and_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv8s70h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Can you give examples?\n\nThere could be a few reasons, most important is the size of the image and the compression. Another is the server hosting the image and how many are viewing it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5te2hq | what is black light and how do we artificially produce it? | I thought the colour black was absence of light, how can we produce a lamp which shines black light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5te2hq/eli5_what_is_black_light_and_how_do_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddm09cj",
"ddm44w3",
"ddm4acb",
"ddmacpw",
"ddmb42r"
],
"score": [
29,
26,
3,
5,
9
],
"text": [
"Black light is light of a color that is outside of our visible color range (usually ultraviolet). We produce it just like we produce any other color of light...either make white light and pass thru a filter..or find something that produces, only ultraviolet when excited.\n\nEven though we can't directly see the light, it performs like light energy in other ways (converts to heat when it hits and object). And there are other animals that can see an extended range of colors",
"To expand a bit on what /u/fryanimal12 has written, x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infra-red, micro-waves, and radio waves are really all the same thing. They're all really just forms of light (well, technically \"electro-magnetic radiation\", but I'm trying to keep it at least vaguely ELI5). When you see a rainbow, you are seeing the light from the sun separated out into the various colors. The thing is, our eyes only see some of the light that comes from the sun. A rainbow has light we can't see in the area outside the violet part and also light we can't see outside the red part. The light just outside the violet part of the rainbow is what we call ultraviolet (black light), and the part just outside the red is infra-red.\n\nThe main way that black light is produced these days is through those tube-based black light lamps you see that are violet colored. They are basically just fluorescent lamps. The way they work is that they have electrodes on either end of the tube, and the tube is filled with a gas (usually argon) and some mercury vapor. Electricity passes through the electrodes and through the gas and pumps energy into the gas, exciting it. The gas will release the energy, and when it does so, it releases it as light. The color of the light released is very specific and depends on the particular chemicals used. The reason that mercury is in these lamps is that when you excite it in this way, it will release a lot of its light in the ultraviolet band. Mercury produces light at some other colors (as does the argon), too... so the tube is colored to filter out some of that light and leave just the violet and ultraviolet light.\n\nBy the way, fluorescent lights you might have in the home or office work on the same principle, but with an addition. The white \"paint\" you see on the tube is a chemical coating (phosphors) which absorb ultraviolet light and then release that energy back as visible light. The coating works on the same principle as those glowing paints you see that react to black light.\n\nAnother way that black light can be produced now is through LEDs. That technology is fairly new, I believe. Frankly, I don't know enough about the physics of LEDs to explain how they work. I believe a black light LED works on the same basic principle as a visible light LED, however... the only differences being the materials used and the details of its construction.",
"Many kinds of light bulb produce a wide spectrum of wavelengths, including ultra violet light which is invisible to the human eye, but can have the effect of causing white items to fluoresce when UV light is shone onto them. I understand that there is a kind of glass which blocks the visible light spectrum, but not UV light. Light bulbs using this kind of glass will appear to emit no light, but in reality, the UV light is getting through and is observable when shone on objects which fluoresce.",
"You know how a rainbow goes red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet? Prisms have the same effect: a prism in a window will cast a rainbow-like splash of colors that are always in rainbow order. The splash of color is called a spectrum. In 1800, scientist William Herschel decided to measure the temperature of each color. What he discovered was amazing!\n\nThere are colors we can't see! There are colors \"lower\" than red and \"higher\" than violet. Below red is called infra-red and higher than violet is called ultra-violet.\n\nBlack light is just ultra-violet light. We can make it just like we make all kinds of lights -- Christmas lights come in all kinds of colors, and people have long ago figured out how to make infrared and ultraviolet.\n\nFun bonus facts: some animals (like bees) see some of the colors we can't, and they use infra-red lights for security cameras.",
"There are some thorough explanations in the post, but to be clear the term \"blacklight\" is used to refer to ultraviolet (UV) light, not the actual color black. You are correct that the color black comes from the absence (or complete absorption) of light. Blacklight lamps do not produce black colored light."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
54ok4e | why do we feel the urge to cover a body part when we see another person with that body part injured? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54ok4e/eli5_why_do_we_feel_the_urge_to_cover_a_body_part/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8d83on",
"d83tn1z"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"/u/RoiDeLimbourg did a pretty good job in explaining why this happens. I'll fill in on how this happens.\n\nYou have many types of neurons in your body. One type is found in your brain and they're known as mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are the ultimate \"empathy neuron\" if you will. When you see someone expressing emotional or physical reactions, the mirror neurons fire in your brain to try and understand what they're feeling. But they go a step further because they make YOU try and feel what they're feeling. So when you see someone is hurt your mirror neurons send a fake signal in your brain saying you're hurt, so you cover the spot they got hurt because your brain thinks you could get hurt.\n\nYeah, brains are weird.",
"I'm taking a guess here but I think it has something to do with our primal behaviour. As a social species we used to be very co-dependant. We had to watch eachothers back just to survive. So if one tribe member was injured or ill you made sure they got everything they needed because if you need the help, they'll do the same for you. This is the principle of reciprocity at work. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.\n\nWhat we feel and do when we see an injury, is probably an ancient trigger for this principle.\n\nFun fact: psychopaths don't have this trigger. If you yawn, the psycho won't automatically yawn either. It's their tell. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6jsdmn | why is classroom size considered such a big deal in grades 1-12 yet once you get to college you are thrown into huge 300 person lectures and it's considered normal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jsdmn/eli5_why_is_classroom_size_considered_such_a_big/ | {
"a_id": [
"djgli29",
"djglinh",
"djglmv5",
"djgnk4d",
"djgq0cd",
"djgqa37",
"djgsbck",
"djgw36k",
"djh4pz4"
],
"score": [
97,
2,
7,
88,
4,
8,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a big deal in college too. One of the reason small private schools are so expensive is because they offer much smaller classroom sizes. \n\nThe ability to actually get individual face time with professors is extremely helpful both to your education and your future career.",
"younger children need individual attention to learn to learn. \n\nby the time you are in college you should be able to handle all that on your own. ",
"It has to do with children and the attention that they need in order to learn best. \n\nBut teachers also have a lot of things that they have to do per student that is greatly hindered by large class sizes. Can you imagine doing 50 parent teacher conferences??\n\nLecture sizes are also more normalized in some places because college students are more in charge of their own learning. But I think it's kind of a stereotype. The largest class I had in uni was 80, and that class met twice per week for lecture and once per week for seminar. My sister had a class of 100 when she was in uni, but it was a biology gen ed, and they needed people to take it, so it had to be much larger than other classes, and once you got further into the biology classes, the sizes were much smaller. ",
"I work at a school and can definitely say that a classroom of 300 children would be total chaos. However this works for college students for a number of reasons: they want to learn, they have longer attention spans, they know how much they're paying to be there...etc. School children do not realise these things and are therefore much more disruptive than college kids, this means that they have to have a lot more individual attention to make sure that they are working to there full ability and so a much bigger deal is made about their class sizes as it can directly relate to children's performance at school.\n\nWorth noting that a lot of college also supplement lectures with smaller tutorial/seminar classes that allow for more one on one time. ",
"Most courses you have are 15-30 people in a class in college. Only performance ensembles, and low level intro courses are ones that get up to 300.",
"In your sophomore year, you'll be back to smaller class sizes, and in your senior year, you may find you're the only student in some classes.\n\nIn high school, where the material is easier, and the goal is to help the student learn how to learn, and there can be a wide variety of ability represented in class, size matters.\n\nIn university, you're on your own. ",
"Because:\n\n- Students are choosing to be there and want to learn/listen\n\n- As adults, students know how to behave appropriately in a classroom\n\n- Large class size are typically only for certain intro level courses that lend themselves to such format (and sometimes also include smaller breakout groups, ie. my art history had 2 200-person lectures a week + a 15 person discussion group w/ a TA once a week)\n\n- Students at a university should be relatively equal in intelligence and ability to comprehend, so there's less need to teach to a ton of different levels\n\n- It's students' responsibility as adults and college students to seek out help outside of class if they need it rather than during class -- they have the ability and time to do so, and professors offer office hours for such matters.\n\n- Classes that require high levels of interaction and feedback are often super small -- sometimes 5-10 students",
"A few reasons: \n\n- Children behave differently from adults. \n\n- There is a MASSIVE difference in a classroom of 25 kids vs one with 32.\n\n- Public school for children is compulsory whereas college isn't. \n\nBasically, a 12 year old that is legally required to be in a classroom lectured by a teacher will behave much differently than an 18 year old that wants to be in a lecture with a professor. \n\n",
"Simply put, because adults are supposed to know how to behave.\n\nAnd I will add another sentence so the dam auto mod doesn't delete this post.\n\nPurple monkey dishwasher "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6rmnui | why is it that we can hear people talking outside when we're inside a building, but not vice versa? | I used to think of this when I lived in a dorm in college. I was on the 6th floor, and with the windows closed, I could hear people talking, even if they weren't drunk and yelling, on the sidewalk outside. I've always wondered what the building must have been made of to allow me to hear conversations as if they were just outside my window. Obviously if I were standing on the sidewalk outside I couldn't hear people talking from inside, but why is that? What happens differently to sound waves when one is inside vs. outside? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rmnui/eli5_why_is_it_that_we_can_hear_people_talking/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl66rob",
"dl67etq"
],
"score": [
4,
9
],
"text": [
"The noise levels outside are going to be higher than inside if you are able to hear what people are saying outdoors, therefore. Ahh who am I kidding I dunno wtf I'm talking about",
"5 reasons come to my mind:\n\n* when you're in a room, indoors, you are surrounded by walls onto which sound reflect, so you may sense sounds in a higher volume.\n\n* if you're in an urban setting with buildings: noises in the streets reflect onto building walls, bump from wall to wall and into windows. it increases the sensed volume.\n\n* there's usually noise outside, even if it's background noise, it's still there and it can cover sounds that aren't high in volume, such as voices from inside a building.\n\n* when you speak you adjust your speaking volume according to the place you are in. If you're outside, as there's usually more noise outside, you may speak louder than when you're inside.\n\n* when you realize you're hearing a conversation from people who are outside, it's probably because you're in a calm setting, not speaking, trying to fall asleep, so you tend to focus on the only sounds you hear if your room is silent: those from outside.\n\nIf you go deep in the countryside and walk by (outside) a thin-walled house in the middle of nowhere without noises such as traffic, wind, birds, insects, electrical grid,.. you'll probably hear people speaking inside as loud as they can hear you speaking outside."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
279167 | why do oddsmakers use different ratios like 6/5, 12/1, and 5/2, instead of simply relating every ratio to 1 to make it easier to follow? ie. 1.2/1, 12/1, and 2.5/1 for the odds i listed above. | ^ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/279167/eli5_why_do_oddsmakers_use_different_ratios_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"chyitn4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Why would you use a decimal in a fraction? You realize the notations were invited to work against one another not with right?\n\nThis is my explanation. But also they do, it just depends on the betting hall."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
bf4yun | why does dead silence cause you to "go insane"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bf4yun/eli5_why_does_dead_silence_cause_you_to_go_insane/ | {
"a_id": [
"elaw8qq"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"We don't really know why, but the prevailing ideas from sensory deprivation experiments are that your brain is built around and assumption of inputs and the processing of these inputs is \"grounding\" in your reality. However, the brain is going to do \\_something\\_ and if you remove the inputs it finds them somewhere else - namely inside your brain. This creates a sort of feedback loop that you experience as going crazy.\n\nMy assumption here is that dead silence is a mild form of sensory deprivation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
aiai67 | how the perception of time and distance is relative based on varying properties of gravity and speed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aiai67/eli5_how_the_perception_of_time_and_distance_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"eem9w5a"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because space and time are the same thing. They are just different dimensions of spacetime.\n\nSo if I dump it down to make it easy to understand the relation. If you increase your speed in the dimensions of space, you decrease your speed in the dimension of time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9h51zr | how is it possible for free divers to dive to deep depths while holding their breath for so long and be able to decompress their lungs when they have to ascend back to the surface? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9h51zr/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_free_divers_to_dive/ | {
"a_id": [
"e694uh4",
"e6974g5",
"e697nqh",
"e698m0m"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"The most dangerous part of decompression is that nitrogen molecules can form nitrogen gas in the bloodstream if decompression occurs too quickly, and that can do things like cut off oxygen supply. The answer is \"slowly, carefully and with great training.\"",
"The dangers of diving happen when you acclimate your body to depth like you do in SCUBA. In SCUBA you dive, and more importantly you breath, so your body adapts to being at depth. Then when you surface, you need to do it in stages to reacclimate to the surface pressures.\n\nIn free diving, your whole dive happens with one breath of air. So, while your body does undergo some changes as you dive deeper, you never acclimate to those deeper depths. That means when you surface, you don't have to reacclimate to surface pressure.",
"Their lungs actually shrink under the pressure, if you were looking at an x-ray they'd look \"empty\" but there is air in there-- it's just compressed. \n\nWhen they come back up their lungs inflate again, but only to the size they were when the dive began-- because the same total amount of air is in the body/lung system.\n\nFor a SCUBA diver to be able to breathe in underwater, they're breathing pressurized air in order to fill their lungs against the water pressure. And this is exactly why they experience trouble when resurfacing, the total amount of gas (oxygen, nitrogen etc) in their system is larger. It takes up a normal amount of volume, filling their lungs to a (more or less) normal size, but at those pressures a lot more gas is needed to do that. ",
"In scuba, you are breathing compressed air, a special regulator adjusts the pressure to match your depth. The pressure at 10 m is about twice normal, so you need twice the pressure.\n\nIt is this pressure that leads to decompression sickness. Under pressure, your body, your blood in particular, can absorb more nitrogen and if you surface too quickly, it turns into harmful bubbles. Free divers don't breath compressed air, they don't breath at all, so they largely avoid the issue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
32btsa | how does paracetomol work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32btsa/eli5_how_does_paracetomol_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq9qy7s",
"cq9rk95"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"The mechanism of action for Paracetamol/acetomenophen is not entirely understood. It *probably* inhibits COX, which is an enzyme that is part of the chemical pathway for chemical pain signals in the body. Inhibit the enzyme, the body makes less pain-signalling chemicals.",
"When you have a fever or other inflammation going on (i.e. sinus pressure, achy joints due to flu) there is an abundance of prostanoids being produced at the site of inflammation. This group of chemicals is responsible for inflammation and vasoconstriction among other things. Now your brain typically interprets this signal as pain or soreness. Think how sore an inflamed sinus is! \n\nparacetomol, or acetominophen in the states, acts by inhibiting the enzyme that creates these protanoids. Therefore stopping the pain and inflammation response at the source."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1g07ts | a quick summary of the recent r/atheism drama? | So I've been away from the main subreddits for a while but I heard talk of it and found five new subreddits and dozens of cringeworthy posts and rants. What went down? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g07ts/eli5_a_quick_summary_of_the_recent_ratheism_drama/ | {
"a_id": [
"cafhzm1",
"cafi7l2",
"cafizd5",
"cafjm4p"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
28,
3
],
"text": [
"This may not be the best answer, but I believe links to memes were recently made against the rules. So, in \"retaliation\" people made many self posts about how they had their beloved subreddit stripped down. This made many cringepics submissions",
"I'm not completely up to date on it, but one of the mods changed the rules, so any posts that were solely images would be automatically deleted by a bot. He said images could be posted within self-posts. It was basically to stop the memes and karma-whoring using images that require little to no effort. Honestly I thought it was good for the sub, because it would have encouraged users to put thought into posts if they want karma in return, and could have restored a sub made for atheist discussion. However, many users are outraged and want their memes and images back with one click. A vote is being held I think, and so far the majority is in favour of returning to the old rules. ",
"/u/skeen created the /r/atheism sub about 5 years ago, and has \"been in charge\" so to speak since then, but he has moderated with a \"hands off\" approach, and in fact does as little moderation as humanly possible.\n\nSo, one of the other mods, /u/jij took advantage of a reddit rule that says if a moderator has been completely inactive for 60 days (not even making a single post anywhere on reddit), then you can petition the reddit admins to remove them as moderators. So, /u/jij did precisely that.\n\n/u/skeen was removed as mod, and /u/jij made some new policy changes, 4 of them, although its only the first one that seems to have gotten people in an uproar...image posts are not allowed to be directly linked to anymore, any image has to be submitted as a link within a self post. This has effectively eliminated meme and macro posts altogether.\n\nSo, /r/atheism basically is experiencing a schism, ironically one that parallels the Protestant/Catholicism schism of the Christian church: one side actually preferring the new rules, claiming that more \"high effort content\" is being posted, and it vastly reduces meme \"karma whoring.\" While the other side is outraged that skeen was ousted, calling it a \"coup\" and that atheist memes serve more purpose than just \"karma whoring.\"\n\nAnd on Friday, /u/jij posted a poll asking users if they agreed, rejected, compromise, or abstained for the new changes. 2/3rds of voters said they \"reject\" the new rules, thinking /u/jij would revert back to what the sub used to be like, which he has thus far not done, only adding fuel to this fire.\n\nphew. drama.",
"I don't think I can add to what /u/Neubourn has added but check out /r/subredditdrama, /r/circlejerk and /r/magicskyfairy for the latest updates"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2wm9xx | why are there background dancers in every hindi movie? | Hey, I'm not Caucasian or live in a first world country and neither do I live in India, but it's near to India and so there are many indian movies on TV and it's all very redundant o.o! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wm9xx/eli5why_are_there_background_dancers_in_every/ | {
"a_id": [
"cos5o1u",
"cos9ty7",
"cosah1k"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"As a Caucasian who does live in a first world country, I just assume that is what India is like and choose not to question it.",
"Because if they danced in the foreground it would be too distracting. ",
"Indian here. My guess is it's because India doesn't have a 'music only' industry, and most of the music talent work in the film industry. So a huge proportion of Indian people expect films to have songs, that's their version of \"omg my favorite band is releasing a new album!\". Most hit-songs in India are from movies.... actually all of them. \n\nObligatory: Bollywood is utter shit, except for some gems here and there, everything else is utter shit\".\n\nAnd not all songs in Bollywood have to be shit. These are two songs from a movie that are really good, and stuck in my head. [Song 1](_URL_0_), [Song 2](_URL_1_)(this one's in English, filled with funny innuendos lol). Although I guess the essence of the songs is lost outside of the context, these are songs from a Hindi-Indian-mafia-esque Tarantino type movie. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlfXDBu6AOg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePk0e6ulk_w"
]
] |
|
1924y8 | what is it like being a regular citizen of north korea? | Keep reading about people who escaped NK. How typical is their story? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1924y8/eli5_what_is_it_like_being_a_regular_citizen_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8koq3g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Here's a very interesting BBC documentary, following a typical North Korean family: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://youtu.be/QSrcLC6Zz54"
]
] |
|
c5z5nc | why do organisms that live in prolonged darkness slowly lose their vision? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c5z5nc/eli5_why_do_organisms_that_live_in_prolonged/ | {
"a_id": [
"es538qs",
"es53bbl"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"You mean as an individual or as a species?\n\nIndividually, an animal born into darkness can permanently lose their vision. Their brains never develop the ability to process their visual stimuli. There are some sad but interesting studies done on cats about this. If an animal learns to see correctly but then spends time in darkness, they may lose their vision temporarily but not permanently.\n\nAs a species, an animal that lives in darkness can lose their eyes because they are no longer selected for. In the above-ground world, an animal with good vision is likely to avoid predation and out-compete an animal with poor vision. A blind animal is likely to die. But inside a dark environment (eg lizards or fish inside a deep cave) it does not matter whether an animal is blind or not. An animal born blind or with an eyeless birth defect is just as good as a sighted animal, and therefore equally likely to pass on their non-sighted genes.",
"Deleterious mutations that hinder the complete formation/function of eyes and visual nerves/cortex aren't selected against in this situation. If you live in the daylight and have defective offspring with unusually poor vision, they're out-competed by peers and easier prey for predators. They're less likely to reproduce and the harmful mutations/\"defects\" are selected against by natural selection pressures, keeping their frequency relatively low. In a perpetually dark environment like deep within a cave, this makes no difference. The deleterious mutations are allowed to spread throughout the gene pool as neutral genes that have no impact on survival/procreation, and can reach a much higher frequency and become the new normal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
t9vgl | how a boxing match with no ko is 'decided' by the refs. | I know nothing about boxing, so try to make it painfully simple. Thanks ELI5! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/t9vgl/eli5_how_a_boxing_match_with_no_ko_is_decided_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4krwom",
"c4kt89m"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"There are different methods of judging, this is the way used in the olympics.\n\nThere are five judges. Each judge has two buttons in front of him, one for each boxer. When he thinks a boxer has hit the other with a clean punch on the head or body above the belt he presses that boxer's button.\n\nWhen 3 or more judges hit the button at the same time a point is given. At the end of the fight, if there is no knockout, the boxer with the most points win. \n\nIn Pro Boxing (olympics is amateur), there are three judges. After each round each judge awards the round 10-8, 10-9, or 10-10. Usually, 10-8 to the guy who knocked the other down, 10-9 if he was better but no knockdown, and 10-10 if it was level. Each judge's points are added up to see who they think should win. Whatever 2 judges agree on gives you the result. If the judges end with three different results then the match is a draw.",
"A TKO (Technical Knockout) is when an official decides that a fighter is not capable of finishing the match.\n\nBasically, its just a when the boxer is practically knocked out but is somehow still on his feet. If he continues his health and safety is in danger so the referre will call a TKO."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
36zozn | whats stopping billionaires from starting up there own micro-nations to act as tax havens? | Say something the size of Lichtenstein or San Marino and Monaco | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36zozn/eli5_whats_stopping_billionaires_from_starting_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"crifzga"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The fact that there is no land, anywhere on Earth, that isn't claimed by another country or reserved by international treaty.\n\nSo, really, the only way to start a country is by force of arms."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
21dd92 | if you had enough money and bought all the land in a country would you then own that country? | You can buy land and if you buy a house you get the land it's on and you own that land... So can you own ALL the land in a country? And would you own the country if you did? If you kindly let people live on it would you be in charge of them? Could you set your own laws? Would it sorta be like the situation in the Vatican? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21dd92/eli5_if_you_had_enough_money_and_bought_all_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgby5m6",
"cgbyr4y",
"cgbyyl9",
"cgbzanr",
"cgc2o7s",
"cgc3vmf",
"cgc602w",
"cgc7yjn",
"cgc9jb8"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
51,
3,
2,
6,
18,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"you wouldn't be able too buy all the land. most land just isnt for sale, and no amount of money could buy it. ",
"Firstly, it would be impossible! The land on which Government buildings are built would not be sold. Nor would a lot of public spaces like national parks (or whatever the equivalent is in each country). Also you would probably not have the authorisation necessary to make those purchases, even if you had the money. Unfortunately, the question doesn't really make sense.\n\nHowever, let's just say that, somehow, this has happened! You would kind of 'own' that country, but only according to the laws of the country that you have now destroyed by buying all the land. So first possibility - you get invaded by a real country. Second possibility - you try to set up your own country.\n\nUsually, the legal definition of a State is taken from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. A State must have:\n1) Permanent population.\n2) Permanent territory.\n3) Effective Government.\nIf you have all three, you are a State! It doesn't even matter what other Governments think.\n\nHowever, take a look at the example of 'Sealand'. A crazy guy bought an old military platform outside of British waters, and declared his own State - the Kingdom of Sealand. Because it is just him and his family, there have been 'wars' (literally a couple of guys shooting at each other with shotguns) 'coups', and all sorts of other nonsense. He isn't recognised as a State, and factually is not one. This would be the most likely scenario.",
"If you buy a house are you able to set your own laws on your own property? No. Ownership of land does not mean someone can make laws that trump the laws of the land. If it was some small island nation and you bought it with the agreement every citizen moved away MAYBE you could set your own laws. There are places called Micronations and their sovereignty is not always recognized by other nations. Here is a wikipedia list of them _URL_0_ ",
"Basically no. You've purchased the land, not the government. In fact you'll still have to pay taxes to the government *due to* your ownership of the land.\n\nIt should be noted that there are some places where there is a single person who, in law at least, is the ultimate owner of the entire land. England and Wales, for example; the Crown (well, technically \"the Crown\" is not a single person, but it's embodied in a single person) owns all of it. So this seems related to what you're asking, but not really at a deep level:\n\nNominal \"owners\" of individual pieces of England and Wales are, legally, \"holding\" the land for the Crown, not owning it themselves. So you could buy all the land in England and Wales, but legally you'd not be the (ultimate) owner; the owner is still the Crown.\n\nOf course, I suppose it's hypothetically possible that you could strike a deal with some nation and its government and citizens saying \"No, seriously, now I *own* this place, really, and I get to make all the rules from now on\", but this is even farther fetched than your actual question as posed, which itself is very far fetched.",
"Countries are not property, and therefore cannot be owned. They are just a collection of institutions that enable control of an area.\n\nIf you did somehow pull this off...You could have *de facto* control of the country and the domestic happenings by parceling out the land to people in return for your will being done. A person could never *de jure* own a country for the reasons above. The best you could hope for is a bunch of feudal titles like a medieval lord. ",
"In America we have a form of English common law that is adapted to a democracy. In England the king leased land to tennants, but could reclaim it under eminent domain. In America the same thing occurs, but the \"king\" is substituted for the \"common wealth\" meaning that everybody owns everything. So by cash alone, without force, you can still only merely rent the land. ",
"Israel did something of the kind. By 1943 Jewish people and groups had bought 6% of British controlled Palestine. The Brits left and then then UN declared Israel and separate states.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Forgive me for being obtuse/ignorant/wrong... but everyone here is saying that you would not be able to own the country....\n\nSo, first, if you bought ALL of the land, there is no public land - or you convert it somehow to private land.\n\n* If it's a king/queen based government, if you bought all of the land you would have to buy it from the king/queen, no?\n\n* If it's a democratic society, nobody owns land within the country. You could evict/kick everyone off your land, and thus out of the physical landmass, no? Do this for an amount of time, and you are the only resident, thus the only citizen, and you can overthrow the country with one vote - the only vote.\n\n* For a religon based government, I could see an argument - \"the government is not of man, but of God\" kind of situation. Still, can't you kick all of God's representatives off of your land? Then what if you \"overthrow\" the government?\n\nThere have been several instances where someone decided to \"drop out\" of the United States. But if I'm not mistaken, this would be more like you bought the entire United States, and had the only vote, no?",
"You need to buy the army too. Then you own the country."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
9k3b4h | what does vaseline or similar products mean by: “petroleum jelly”? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9k3b4h/eli5_what_does_vaseline_or_similar_products_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6w4i5u"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The product is a jelly made from petroleum. It’s literally in the name. It originally was a byproduct of oil drilling that built up on the rigs. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
12ttpb | canadian here. why was fdr president for three terms when the maximum you can serve is two terms? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12ttpb/eli5_canadian_here_why_was_fdr_president_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6y1ki4",
"c6y24ip",
"c6y5g88"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because that wasn't the law when he was in office.",
"I think he was elected 4 times.",
"When George Washington was first president back in 1776, he chose to only serve for two terms. There was no one that told him that he couldn't serve a third term, he just chose to only serve two, then retire from politics.\n\nBy doing this, he set a precedent for many future presidents who only chose to run for two terms as well. There was no law in place that said you cannot run for more than two terms in office - it was just what was accepted.\n\nFDR was the first to go beyond that, and most didn't have a problem with that. That is, until people began to fear the establishment of a \"monarchy\" - a government that is ruled by an individual at its head - which brought about the 22nd amendment.\n\nNow presidents can only serve a maximum of two terms in office, or eight years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
39lx5k | why don't we recognize a person who wants to identify with a different race (white, black etc) than their birth race, the same way we acknowledge those who identify with a different gender than their birth sex? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39lx5k/eli5_why_dont_we_recognize_a_person_who_wants_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs4fvqb",
"cs4g6mv"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"There is some evidence for biological differences between men and women's brains, but no evidence for race-based differences. \n\nHuman races are the result of a bunch of relatively low-impact (they don't affect very much else in the body) genes. Humanity as a whole is **very** genetically homogeneous compared to other species.\n\nIn addition, race categorization depends a lot on culture. Where exactly the line is drawn between one race and another does not necessarily reflect any genetic reality *at all*. This isn't to say humans have no variation, it's just that our visible variation is a poor indicator of how different we are from each other overall. ",
"There is a lot of discussion whether race should be considered genetic, or a matter of culture (social construct, if you want to be cliche).\n\nIf race is matter of genetics, you get it from your parents, end of story.\n\nIf race is a cultural phenomenon, you get it from the people and environment in which you were raised. \n\nNeither really leaves any room for someone to have the \"wrong\" race. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
41497q | if a black hole is formed from a supernova explosion, doesn't that mean the black hole is lighter than the original star? | If a black holes form as the result of stellar explosions, doesn't that mean the resulting black hole is lighter than the the original star? Some portion of the star's original mass gets blasted out faster than escape velocity, right?
If that's the case, doesn't that imply that there's already a black hole/event horizon inside these supermassive stars before they go supernova? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41497q/eli5_if_a_black_hole_is_formed_from_a_supernova/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyzg7oz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > If a black holes form as the result of stellar explosions, doesn't that mean the resulting black hole is lighter than the the original star? Some portion of the star's original mass gets blasted out faster than escape velocity, right?\n\nYep\n\n > If that's the case, doesn't that imply that there's already a black hole/event horizon inside these supermassive stars before they go supernova?\n\nNope. It's a question of density. The black hole's mass is condensed into an infinitely small point whereas the mass of the star is spread out over hundreds of thousands of kilometers. If you're at the surface of a star, much of the star's mass isn't pulling on you all that hard (relatively speaking) because it's thousands of kilometers away. Pack much of that mass down into a single point and you have much more gravitational force in the area immediately surrounding it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1fwhaz | why do bugs circle people's heads. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fwhaz/eli5_why_do_bugs_circle_peoples_heads/ | {
"a_id": [
"caf0kx3",
"cafuo11"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mosquitoes - because they can smell you and you're delicious.\n\nGnats - I've heard it's because they're attracted to the carbon dioxide that you exhale. Don't know how true that is.\n\nWasps - because they're dicks.",
"It's the most exposed part of you (normally) and as such releases the most chemicals - i.e., exhaled breath, oils, other junk insects are attracted."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3o95u3 | how does an expansion team in a sport get its players in its first year? | Do they sign free agents only for the first year? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o95u3/eli5_how_does_an_expansion_team_in_a_sport_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvv3oc5",
"cvv5c06"
],
"score": [
4,
9
],
"text": [
"So I know that Major League Soccer opens up an Expansion Draft in years that teams are starting and allows those teams to draft from existing MLS teams. Existing teams get to protect 11 of their players so they're off limits. New teams then draft from the remaining unprotected players. If an existing team has a player drafted, they can move a nonprotected player to the protected list. Once a team has 2 players drafted from their nonprotected list they're excluded from the draft for that year.",
"In the NBA and NFL (and I think the other 2 major leagues as well), every team is allowed to designate a certain amount of players (7 in the NBA I think and like 25 in the NFL) to not be taken. Of the players not designated, the new team gets to pick their team with them. They also get a certain pick in the upcoming draft. Usually they get the 1st pick, although sometimes they get a pick slightly worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3dlbld | have bugs always been attracted to light, even before lights were invented? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dlbld/eli5_have_bugs_always_been_attracted_to_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct691ex"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. That is a response 'meant' for the moon. It's similar to how new born sea turtles follow the moon to make it to the ocean, but can become misguided by man made light sources."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2j3x6q | why are no major drug companies producing medical cannabis. | From what I have seen most of the growers and producers of medical Cannabis have been home operations, rather that large scale industrial programs like those for morphine which is produced from opium. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j3x6q/eli5why_are_no_major_drug_companies_producing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl85ee9",
"cl85qdk",
"cl8ef6x",
"cl8w06y"
],
"score": [
42,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"the reason is because of how the Federal Government categorizes drugs into [schedules](_URL_0_). Under Federal law, Marijuana is considered a schedule I controlled substance, which means there is \"no current accepted medical use in the United States.\" Morphine is a schedule II controlled substance. Therefore, under federal law, drug companies cannot legally work with marijuana, while they can work with morphine and other opiate derivatives. \n\n**edit**-- do not argue with me as to whether marijuana has any accepted medical use in the United States. It doesn't matter until the FDA or whatever government agency moves Marijuana from Schedule I to a different schedule. ",
"Uni of Mississippi is currently the grower of all pot allowed for testing in the U.S. The Gov is actually looking for growers at the moment, but you need 20K and a secure facility to even apply for the contract. Honestly, they didn't see a profit in it til recently. Cannabis put into pill form doesn't have the same effect as the plant, so hasn't been very profitable for them to produce in large scale as it would only be competition for their existing medications. Now that they're identifying parts of the plant that might lead to treatments for cancer, I think everybody and their mother is going to jump into this pool. ",
"Marijuana is still illegal on a federal level, and while the federal gov't is for the moment letting states do their thing, it is entire possible a future administration will try to reverse that. What is permitted today could be prosecuted as a felony in 2017.\n\nThis makes it very risky for large companies to get involved, especially when marijuana would only represent a small amount of their profits. Banking regulations would make this particularly difficult, because right now, banks won't touch marijuana money.",
"You cannot patent a natural product. Drug companies will patent a delivery system, like a patch or tablet coating that allows for unique dissolution, and market that. (Estradiol patch is a natural, and most potent form of estrogen, but nearly every tablet oral contraceptive contains synthetic hormones).\n\nDrug companies will get leads from mass use of natural products to refine/study/test new ideas then find a way to call it their own. (Red Yeast Rice was 'Mevacor' the first ever statin, Lovaza is brand name fish oil with a patented capsule shell). Sometimes we dump on drug companies for this, but statins and aspirin have saved a lot of people who have had a heart attack, and it's good that the use was 'passed up the system'. \n\nI'm sure the truth though lies in the reality that this is a red hot social topic and carries a strong stigma, the revenue is limited by 'home brew', and medicinal vs recreational use is not nearly as close as we present it as (there is a lot of recreational use that is piggy backing on legal loops to break in).\n\nAlso, money makes the world go 'round. If Icould grow a metformin plant in my closet that was safe, and share it with all my candy loving friends, why would I use a RX only product?\n\nSource: Pharmacist who worked in bio-identical hormone replacement therapy pharmacy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/index.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1p1jez | why do tobacco users frequently offer tobacco to non users? | It seem friends, family , and coworkers are always offering me cigarettes and chew. Isn't that stuff expensive? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p1jez/why_do_tobacco_users_frequently_offer_tobacco_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccxrxnl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People who use tobacco genuinely enjoy using tobacco... otherwise they wouldn't use it. They're sharing something they enjoy with you, because you are a friend, and they want you to be happy.\n\nBefore you launch a tirade about how damaging to your health it is, and how if they really cared about you they would keep it away from you, ask yourself this: what if it was a beer? What if it was an e-cigarette?\n\nTobacco isn't \"good\" or \"bad\", it just leads to both pleasant experiences and other, extremely unpleasant experiences. \n\nStop being so judgemental, and maybe someday you'll be able to understand the behavior of others without someone talking to you like you're a five-year-old.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1pyvbs | is there a way to vaccinate via mosquitoes? |
I figure that if Mosquitoes can carry virus such as EEE, West Nile, and Malaria, then they should be able to carry a dormant version of the virus as well. If we breed Mosquitoes that can contract this virus, would there be a way to vaccinate Human populations via mosquitoes. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pyvbs/is_there_a_way_to_vaccinate_via_mosquitoes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd7g0ez",
"cd7kdix"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"mosquitos don't inhert diseases from birth. mosquitos get infected blood from one victim and it transfers to the next victim via residual on their proboscis.\n\nin order for your idea to work, mosquito's would have be bred in captivity and individually injected with the vaccine virus fragment, then released into the wild and hope they don't get eaten before they feed on a human. that's not a very good use of resources. bird, fish, bats, all eat thousands of mosquitos a day. if u released 1mil good mosquitos, a good portion of them would be eaten before they bite someone.",
"lol I read that as Is there a way to vaccinate the Mosquitoes?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2d5n7j | how does push starting a car work? | I was about to head home from work and my starter motor wouldn't even make a sound. So I called my dad over to help me figure out what's wrong. He suggested that we take it home and look at it there. He told me that since it has a manual transmission, we can just push it as fast as we can, jump in, put it in gear, pop the clutch, and it will start right up. We did it, and it blew my mind. How does that work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d5n7j/eli5_how_does_push_starting_a_car_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjmayiq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A car's engine has to spin at a certain speed in order to be self sustaining, any lower then internal friction will overcome the power output and momentum of the flywheel and it will stop. The starter is a small electric motor that will turn the engine in order to get it to spin fast enough so the engine will be self sustaining.\n\nWhen you push start a car, you either put the car in neutral or put it in high gear with the clutch in, that way you don't have to overcome the engine's resistance when you push the car. Once you have the car rolling you put the car in high gear with the clutch in, this makes the clutch plate spin, releasing the clutch allows the clutch plate to make contact with the flywheel turning the engine, which is exactly what the starter does."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3uo1ti | why do very old colored videos look more blurry/low resoloution than older black and white videos? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uo1ti/eli5_why_do_very_old_colored_videos_look_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxge5eo",
"cxgetz0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It may have something to do with the development process of old timey film. We only did black and white prints in the darkroom when I was taking photography class, but I've heard the process for developing color film the old way is a lot harder. Maybe something gets lost in translation so to speak. ",
"There could be many causes, but the first that comes to mind is the fact that the original film probably did look pretty sharp, but inadequate reproduction techniques made colors bleed more. For instance, vhs had a hard time accurately rendering the color red.\n\nTo add to that, contrast like black and white presents stronger apparent, but not real, sharpness. So that could be what you're noticing. The color is as sharp as the black and white, but the black and white looks sharper because you can discern the contrast more easily."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
aqj2hb | why does the body automatically make your eyes and nose leak when you are vomiting? | Title | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqj2hb/eli5_why_does_the_body_automatically_make_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"eggalp5"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Protection.\n\nVomit is full of stomache acid that can hurt your sinuses and throat/mouth. So before, and as, you are vomiting your body ramps up saliva and mucus production. The muscle contractions then force it out as you vomit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3x86wz | why do we have special medical facilities for veterans as opposed to giving them something akin to medicare for their health needs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x86wz/eli5_why_do_we_have_special_medical_facilities/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy2btm0",
"cy2buga"
],
"score": [
30,
8
],
"text": [
"You can read about the history of VA hospitals here: _URL_0_\n\nBasically its roots are back in the day before Medicare was invented.\n\nAs for why they don't abolish the VA and replace it with direct benefits.... you know that's not going to happen.",
"It's a combination of things: \n\nThe vet hospitals are government funded and run\n\nA part of their service contract states that they are to have some sort of care available to them\n\nJust as there are special facilities for certain medical needs, a lot of vets have very special needs and medical considerations that are military specific\n\nMedicare (at least in my state) is very age specific and doesn't cover any where near enough of the issues some bets have. \n\nSeveral of my older cousins and uncles served in Vietnam and the Gulf - Medicare isn't enough and the facilities and hospitals that are covered wouldn't be equipped or trained to deal with the things going on with their bodies and minds.\n\nThere are probably other reasons too, but that's what I've come to understand."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.va.gov/about_va/vahistory.asp"
],
[]
] |
||
8qy3ef | how do scientists know how many layers the earth has? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qy3ef/eli5_how_do_scientists_know_how_many_layers_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0mzfhn"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"“Today, by using seismological and magnetic field data as well as other theoretical calculations, it's possible to get a sense of the actual size and composition of our planet's nether regions. Because there's no way to get a sample of the Earth's core, Miaki Ishii, a professor in Harvard University's seismology group, says, \"We basically use methods that are similar to medical imaging.\"\n\nInstead of using CAT-scans and X-rays to see the center of the Earth, researchers use waves emitted by earthquakes to get a sense of the planet's innards. Just like an X-ray, seismic waves bounce around, changing direction and speed based on the material they pass through. If researchers can gauge how quickly a wave moves from one tracking station to another, they can get a pretty good sense of what the ground that wave is traveling through looks like” \n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a7749/how-do-we-know-whats-in-the-earths-core-pm-explains-9750875/"
]
] |
||
2rrefd | most if not all sexy looking cars (lambo, lotus, porsche, corvette) are extremely expensive. why don't they make a car with a sexy exterior like those listed above but with an engine/interior standard to that of a ford focus? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rrefd/eli5_most_if_not_all_sexy_looking_cars_lambo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnij50o",
"cnij57d",
"cnijhif",
"cnijlbj",
"cnik3pw",
"cnik6gy",
"cnik6tu",
"cnil60z",
"cnimuo5"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2,
12,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"for one, the \"sexy\" cars you mention typically are mid or rear engined, so the front can be shaped without worrying about leaving room for the engine. the fronts are typically low and sleek shaped in these cars.",
"[They tried that with the Pontiac Fiero. Horrible car, though.](_URL_0_)",
"Well, who would be creating the 'sexy' looking car in this scenario?\n\nThe builders of Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari, etc are not going to be interested in doing that. They like their products as a rare, luxury product. They target a particular niche in the market and they would actually be devaluating their core product by offering a line like this. Like, everybody knows a Ferrari is expensive inside and out. If you also offer a Ferrari that might look expensive but is nothing big under the hood, any time people see a Ferrari they will but wondering if this is the expensive one or the cheap one. It introduces an element of doubt into your branding you don't want. And the people who buy these cars because they are the ultimate status symbol of expensive won't buy them anymore because they no longer have that same status. \n\nNow for Ford, for example, to offer a car like this would also be tough. Remember, there goes a lot into the design of these expensive cars. Ford would not be able to afford those designers. And then there is the question if it would actually be a profitable product to begin with. How many people really care about the sexiness of their car? I'm willing to wager that most people that buy a ford, don't care about how they look. They wouldn't be interested in paying the extra design costs just to have it look like a Ferrari. So they'd be making these more expensive cars for a very small segment of their market, and it is still the question if these people would really buy these cars. I'm certain these people enjoy the look of those cars, but when they dream about buying one, how much of that is due to how the car looks and how much of that is due to the name attached to those looks?",
"Because those cars are usually very unpractical, close to no trunk space (you can't really use it to go shopping), low seats (old people will hate it) , no place for children (no no no families), and some don't even have the ground clearance to get over a road bump. Just not very practical for most people who'd like to buy a car. So your target audience would be sons of rather rich people, that have enough money to buy a own new car and just want a rather cheap car that looks cool, because they are to poor to buy the real thing. And even then you'd still have to compete with \"used\" cars of a better marketed company.\n\nThere's just not that many people that are rich enough to buy a car for the looks but poor enough to not want to spend the money for a Porsche. But there are some of those cars (usually convertibles or two seated coupès and people use them as \"summer cars\"). \n\nEdit:\nIn addition to that it is worth mentioning that many brands are owned by the same company. For example volkswagen owns VW, AUDI, SEAT, SKODA, BENTLEY, BUGATTI, LAMBORGHINI, PORSCHE, and DUCATI. They have cars in every price range and don't really want their own brands to compete. ",
"\"Sexy\" cars are almost always terribly impractical, and as a result, sell poorly. An exotic has two seats, mostly (a Porsche 911 has 2+2, but the rear seats are not great). The luggage capacity is nil to not much. Entry and exit require a flexible spine. A low ground clearance means a harsh ride. Sexy curves are expensive to design and produce. Visibility to sides and rear suffers from the design, too.\n\nIn short, most people who buy cars need one car that does everything they need it to do, and they don't have budget or space for a \"toy\" car. Therefore, cars that seat four to five, have a trunk big enough for a week's groceries, and are easy to drive get prioritized far above the sexy-looking car.",
"One thing that's not been mentioned yet is the stigma that would almost inevitably come with owning such a car. A lot of people would look at them like knock-off designer purses and the like. Not many people want to be laughed at because they have a champagne taste on a beer budget, or be considered vain to the point of not caring about what's under the hood. I think the market for cars like this would quickly dwindle as they became the butt of jokes. ",
"I, and a lot of other twenty-something internet types, would love to drive a simple but cool-looking car. But most of us aren't set to buy a new car right now, so we have to stick with used ones. You can't develop a used car, so there's no point marketing to us. Most of the people buying **new** cars- well-off people with families, mostly- don't want sexy. They want safe-looking cars that don't stick out. That's why the [Hyundai Veloster] (_URL_2_) or [Nissan Juke] (_URL_0_) are flops. \n\nThe [Honda CR-X Del Sol] (_URL_1_) and a few more like it- which is almost exactly what you descibed- did ok in the 90's, but tastes have changed. 2-seater \"toy\" cars went out of fashion when the economy went south.\n\nEDIT: Clarified a few things",
"Here are two old example: the VW Karman Ghia was a sporty body on a VW bug chassis. And the original Mustang was a inexpensive sporty-looking variant of the inexpensive Ford Falcon.\n\nAlso, plenty of people make replica cars: they make fiberglass to look like a (whatever) built on some other chassis.",
"Cheap cars are only cheap because companies can sell a lot of them and therefore spread all the one-off costs (development, tooling etc.)\n\nSports cars are impractical and therefore a low volume market. You can't reduce the price to be competitive with a supermini.\n\nThe Mazda MX-5 is probably the best attempt at this but it is still rather expensive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Fiero88.JPG/420px-Fiero88.JPG"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nissanusa.com/content/dam/nissan/vehicles/2013/juke/colors-photos/exterior-photos/007-13TDI_JUKb044-large.jpg",
"http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w162/ttOmadA/1994%20Honda%20Del%20Sol/1994HondaDelSol-DriverSideQuarte-1.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/2012_Hyundai_Veloster_--_01-20-2012_2.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1b8qhy | to avoid a hangover, why do we have to drink a lot of water after binge drinking beer? isn't beer mostly water? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b8qhy/eli5_to_avoid_a_hangover_why_do_we_have_to_drink/ | {
"a_id": [
"c94mnk8"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Alcohol is a diuretic, it makes you thirsty, so the alcohol will make you thirstier than the water will rehydrate you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8yzyjj | why do drills spin? | Also why does spinning anything seem to bore into another object more effectively? Nails are easier to remove you you twist and pull too, What's the physics behind that exactly | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8yzyjj/eli5why_do_drills_spin/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2f1448",
"e2f1as3"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"If you take a look at a drill bit, you'll notice it's not just a stick, it has grooves . When the bit spins, the groves shave off the material - they literally dig stuff out. If you just had a smooth spinning nail, it wouldn't be as effective. Still, even a smooth nail isn't perfectly smooth, but actually pretty rough on microscopic level. These rough 'mountainous' microscopic surfaces can also act as the grooves I described above. That's why, generally, spinning things helps push them forward... or backwards.",
"There are really two things that are going on with a drill bit.\n\nFirstly, if you look at the tip of the bit, you'll feel that at the end are two sharp cutting faces. It's the constant movement of these cutting faces that removes the material in the first place - each revolution results in those cutting faces taking a little bit more material off.\n\nThis material then lies at the bottom of the hole, and would quickly clog the bit if it wasn't removed, and that's the second thing - the spiral up the shaft of the bit serves to remove the sawdust/swarf and take it out of the hole.\n\nIf you hammer a nail in, the material has nowhere to go - what happens is that the material around the nail gets squashed a bit. This means that a nail hole will often close up once you've removed a nail, because the compressed material can relax a bit. With a drilled hole, because you've actually taken the material out, the hole won't close up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
zd5cf | train wheels. how exactly do they have traction? | I was at the trainstation today, when I looked at the wheels of a train. I noticed something which I couldn't explain, which was the wheels of the train. How exactly do they gain traction if the track is smooth metal, and the wheel is smooth metal? How do they stop without sliding? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zd5cf/eli5_train_wheels_how_exactly_do_they_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"c63jafr",
"c63jmba",
"c63jzw4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"very slow acceleration and deceleration. The weight of the train provides enough downward pressure for the wheels to not slip (much)",
"It's just friction from the weight of the train. The surface area of the wheels contacting the rails is so small, that the pressure is enormous. Also, you'll note that trains to not accelerate or decelerate very quickly.",
"How well two surfaces stick to each other is called their \"coefficient of friction\", the higher the coefficient, the more they grip. Steel on steel actually has a pretty high coefficient (0.8), even compared to say, rubber on asphalt (0.9), which we normally think of as the ideal case for grip [(Source)](_URL_0_). Steel on steel isn't as slippery as you might think. That combined with the enormous weight of the train pushing down on the wheels means that the train can grip the tracks just fine."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html"
]
] |
|
6m89sd | why is the uk going through a period of austerity with a debt to gdp ratio of 89% while the united states is consistently spending more with a debt to gdp ratio of over 100%? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6m89sd/eli5_why_is_the_uk_going_through_a_period_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"djzmq0y",
"djznux4"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"It really just comes down to each country's comfort level with debt. In the US, we have strong domestic pressure to cut taxes and our credit rating is top-notch, meaning that borrowing money is very cheap. If you want to see some eye-popping numbers, take a look at Japan's ratio.\n\nAlso, the EU requires member nations to maintain a 60% ratio IIRC, or be working to get there. A lot of countries ignore that requirement, but it does add some pressure.",
"Because austerity is a political choice, not some universal force of nature that you just have to \"go through\".\n\nIf you want to strengthen your economy you basically have two choices:\n\n1. you can create incentives for people and businesses to spend more money, through tax credits, subsidies or just more generous welfare benefits, give raises to people working in the public sector, and so on. All of this costs money, but it also ensures that the recipients have more money to spend, so they will hopefully boost the economy enough to make it work out in the end. But in the short term, it requires you to spend more money, possibly increasing your debt or growing your deficit.\n\n2. or you can trim the sails and try to save money. Cut down on welfare benefits, keep wages in the public sector low, try to avoid *spending* money. You spend less, but you also give people and businesses less to spend. Spending less is obviously good if you want to fix your deficit, but it also comes full circle: when you spend less, the rest of the economy has less money to spend as well, and so there is less economic activity overall, and ultimately, less is being paid back as taxes.\n\nWhat politicians go for is largely an ideological choice. In the UK, the conservative government *wants* austerity to be the correct solution. They believe that austerity and cost-saving measures are the best way to \"fix\" the country's economy.\n\nIt is also the approach chosen by the EU, and championed by Angela Merkel in particular, to the extent that many of the EU's financial rules effectively mandate some degree of austerity, forbidding countries from exceeding certain levels of debt, or from allowing their annual deficit to grow past a certain amount.\n\nAnd over the last years, the US has leaned more towards the first option, being more willing to spend money to boost the economy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2swlbd | in the us, is there a way to break up the two party system? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2swlbd/eli5_in_the_us_is_there_a_way_to_break_up_the_two/ | {
"a_id": [
"cntk1xi",
"cntke1m",
"cntkg17",
"cntkgit",
"cntkvuf"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4,
2,
39
],
"text": [
"The best way is to shake up the economic system. The two-party system isn't there for the benefit of the people, it's there for the benefit of themselves and the money that they can profit off of it. 100% split two ways is 50/50. 100% split 10 ways is 10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10, in other words, a lot less for any particular person. People are greedy, they want money, and will vote based on whoever paid them the most (because if they don't, they'll stop getting money). \n\nStart up a new currency, not controlled by the government, limited in amount but sufficient for the number of entities using it. Punish bribery harshly and don't legalize it in any fashion. Give everybody's opinion equal weight (not matter whether it truly deserves it). That's how you break up the two party system.\n\nTL;DR IANAL",
"There is a you tube video somewhere that breaks down why the two party system won't be gone. He does a whole bunch of them. Breaks down the difference between UK, Great Britain and England and lots more. OK mobile so I don't have the bookmarks. \n\nFound it CGP gray is the user. Two party system breakdown is the video. ",
"It is not impossible to form a viable third party. It would take money and grass roots organization. Third party candidates can get placed on ballots, usually requiring signatures on a petition. That is *how* it could be done. It would take a major issue or philosophy to draw people to support a third party. ",
"Yes and no. Yes because all it would really take is a new party to come into enough popularity to influence things, or a whole new voting system. \n\nBut no because the third party would likely be similar to one of the two existing ones. If that happens (say a1 and a2 are similar and b is the opposite) then people who generally vote for a would spit between a1 and a2, while b would still get their full share. This would give a 50-30-20 type split guaranteeing that b always wins. \n\nSo the only way to do it is to get a third+ party that would draw voters from both of the existing parties equally. If it leans towards one, then it will drag them both down. ",
"The two-party system is an inevitable consequence of Plurality Voting, aka \"one man one vote.\" Smaller parties always either die off or get absorbed into one of the two biggest ones. If we switched to, say, Approval Voting (you can \"like\" as many candidates as you want, most likes wins) or Instant Runoff Voting (rank the candidates in order, the guy closest to the top of most people's lists wins) or almost _anything_ else, then this \"vote splitting\" behavior goes away and you can have numerous parties again.\n\ntl;dr: We need more mathematicians writing voting laws."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
99rpj7 | why do modern day freight trains need more than engine in the front instead of making the single engine more powerful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99rpj7/eli5_why_do_modern_day_freight_trains_need_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4pxghp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not only would a single engine have to be so insanely powerful that its either super hard to make one or they are super expensive, but also, if the there is a problem with the engine in any way shape or form, it wouldnt be able to rely on other engines. If there were multiple engines and one were to break down for some reason, there would still be other engines you can rely on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8xpvm6 | with the monstrous amount of muscle power many animals of prey, like wildebeests or zebras have, why are they not aggressive and are almost always ready to flee? is the absence of claws and fangs that significant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xpvm6/eli5_with_the_monstrous_amount_of_muscle_power/ | {
"a_id": [
"e24ozi9",
"e24p5jv",
"e24p60p",
"e24p9be",
"e24ppo0",
"e24qzi5",
"e24r76s",
"e24tpz1",
"e252eva",
"e25ij4a"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the animal kingdom it's not enough to just win the fight, you have to win the fight without major injury. Fighting off a lion is great, but if you broke your leg in the fight or got a nasty gash you're as good as dead anyway. Generally the only fight you can win is the one you don't have.\n\nThis is also why lions will go after the weakest prey, they don't want to get a hoof to the leg and not be able to walk.",
"Prey animals with massive amounts of muscles like Wildebeests, Water Buffalo, American Buffalo, etc do often fight in self defence. A common tactic with these animals is to form a defensive circle with the weak of the herd in the middle and strong on the perimeter with horns out. \n\nZebra are not that powerful of an animal. Far less capable than a domesticated horse. Their protection is sheer numbers, confusion in movement created by their coats as they most past and alongside each other, and speed. They have a decent bite and sharp hooves, but that does not make them a fighting animal. \n\nBut as to the tendency to flee rather than fight, that is the safer choice. You can become injured if you fight and so avoiding that chance when possible is preferable, even for those capable of fighting well. ",
"Fleeing provides a better chance of long term survival, as another member of the herd is likely eaten instead, while combat will likely leave an individual wounded and more likely to die. Thus, among the prey species, those who can run fastest survive and that trait becomes more and more ingrained as the generations pass. There are many exceptions, though. Particularly with mothers attacking the predator when their young is threatened. Again, this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as those who ensure the next generation lives longer will have their genes survive better than those who have a lower survival rate.",
"Zebras are aggressive. They bite and kick a lot. That is why they were never domesticated like horses. Another example of an aggressive \"prey animal\" is the cape buffalo, nicknamed the Black Death because of how dangerous they are. ",
"Actually there are not many animals that actually fight predators or in general, other species, except if they want to eat them (they however often fight members of their own species for mating/territorial reasons. Zebras are quite aggressive at that). Some exceptions might be various insects (bees, wasps, ants) as well as some other animals, but the behavior is quite rare. Most defensive mechanisms are just that, defensive. Attacking predators probably isn't a good strategy. Imagine how it would turn out if the first instinct a baby antilope had was to attack the fucking lion instead of running away. Attacking is risky, even for predators (thus the various strategies of stealth), and costs a lot of energy. So animals only do it to survive - either to get food or as a matter of last resort, e.g. when flight fails. A zebra might try to bite a lion when it can't run away anymore, or try to trample it, but only if the plan A failed. ",
"It is not just the absence of claws and fangs, but also how their bodies are arranged. A zebra might be able to deliver a nasty kick, but they can pretty much only kick blindly behind them, they can't deliver a blow with the same sort of precision a leopard could claw. Same with biting, they can leave a mark, but their mouths are not large enough to do any serious damage, and their head, neck, and shoulders are as mobile as most predators are.",
"There area a few things here:\n\n1. Firstly, I'd suggest you're imagining that the animals is considering it's options and elects to flee. Even if - in a fair fight - the wildebeast (and a heard of them) could take on any predator, it simply _does not know how_. Just like the lion can't decide to not hunt, the wildebeast can't decide to not run. They are not aggressive because they are not aggressive!\n\n2. We can presume - that in the balance of evolutionary paths the animal followed that this one was optimal. It doesn't mean _all paths_ were followed, it just means that this one lead to survival. Maybe a wildebeast never evolved to fight and therefore could not survive preferentially, or maybe it did but....it didn't actually survive better then those who fled. \n\n3. We can be nearly _certain_ that in the context of the heard, a few newly evolved fighters would survive far less then heard of those who flee. It'd be _very_ hard to evolve from heard fleerers to fighter since the first examples of the fighters would be a vastly greater risk then those who flee en-masse.",
"It's pure logic based on group behaviour.\n\nAssume that fighting the predator is 80 & #37; successful, running is 50 & #37; successful. It's better to fight than to run. However, if there are multiple potential victims and any one of them decides to fight then all the ones that decided to run will have 100 & #37; success rate. After all, somebody is fighting for them while they are happily running away.\n\nIn reality fight is very unlikely to produce success compared to fleeing. After all, the predator is specialized in attacking.\n\nIt's similar to prisoner's dilemma. For example, if all buffalos in a herd decided to fight, the lions would have zero chance. It would be impossible for them to single out and kill any individual animal. However, the herd is composed of individuals who are happy to flee for zero risk, as long as it is somebody else being eaten. This means that any genetic change that makes an individual more likely to stand and fight is acting against its survival and eliminated from the gene pool, even if it increases the likelihood of a win when a fight is unavoidable.\n\nA cornered animal is on its own and fights as the above doesn't apply anymore.",
"There is a big difference between fighting a predator and fighting another of your species for mating rights. If fleeing works against a predator, it's a great plan. Since there isn't much downside, it's an easy thing to try first. Wildebeests attack humans from time to time, and often kill them. \n\nUsing those big muscles to push around your own species is classic \"survival of the fittest\".",
"If you flee, and the predator chases you and catches up, you can still fight as a last resort.\n\nIf, instead, you stand and fight, even if you “win”, you are likely to suffer some injury which, until it heals, will put you at a disadvantage next time, whether you decide to run or fight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1sa3gk | why aren't there 'home grown' diseases in america and europe? | we always hear about diseases like bird flu, sars,etc that originate in asia. sure, europe and america may have access to antibiotics but wouldnt more serious diseases come from america and europe then? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sa3gk/eli5_why_arent_there_home_grown_diseases_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdvfwfy",
"cdvg3b9"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"sanitary conditions and population density. \n\nwe do have some - Lyme disease.\n",
"We took a \"take no prisoners\" approach to eliminating disease vectors, like mosquitos, in the 20th century.\n\n(See, for example, how this bumped up against a different region during the construction of the Panama Canal [here](_URL_0_) )\n\nOf course, we used things, like DDT, that had lasting environmental effects. In a sense, those effects are \"home grown\" diseases we have instead."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_construction_of_the_Panama_Canal"
]
] |
|
226yhi | why do some people put slashes in their 7's & z's? | I've adopted this habit myself for the aesthetics, but is there a concrete explanation as to how and why this came about?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/226yhi/eli5_why_do_some_people_put_slashes_in_their_7s_zs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgjx3xw",
"cgjx4d2",
"cgjx6n7",
"cgjxh7m",
"cgjz357",
"cgk6811",
"cgk9piz"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Helps to distinguish the letter.\n\nFor some people their 7's can end up looking like 1's and their Z's like 2's.\n\nBy putting the slash in its clears up what the letter/number is.",
"You can tell them apart from 2s better.",
"They are both European variations. The slash through the 7 comes from copperplate calligraphy, and the slash through the z is found in a few European countries.\n\nThe slash through the 7 helps differentiate it from the numeral 1, although many writers are careful enough that the slash is not required and is just an aesthetic choice. I don't know why the z developed a slash other than aesthetics.",
"Similarly, some people (and some fonts) slash their zeroes to distinguish them from their O's.",
"To not confuse them with 1's and 2's. Some put slashes through their 0's to differentiate from O as well.",
"When you're doing higher math, writing small letters and numbers all over the place on a page, you really need to be able to differentiate 1 from 7 and 2 from z, and if your handwriting isn't particularly great (like mine), it can get hard. There have been several occasions in which I messed up a calculus problem because I mistook a z that I wrote for a 2. ",
"I work in an industry, where i have to deal with other people's handwriting. I deal with numbers and letters... The vast majority of the free world has really really shitty handwriting, according to my personal experience.\n\nI also come from a culture that use these marks in their everyday writing. My family has variations in their handwriting ability, I can tell you now, those little marks, no matter how crappy your handwriting, is a game changer.\n\nI wish the school system in the U.S. would adopt this and drop cursive.\n\nIve entered in socials incorrectly, and other sensitive information that has made little parts of my life complete nightmares... :("
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1vur0l | how can women in particular shed so much hair (in brushes, in the shower, etc.) everyday and still retain a full, thick head of hair? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vur0l/eli5_how_can_women_in_particular_shed_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"cevydax"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They simply have many, *many* hairs growing at the same time. A small handul of hairs is hundreds to thousands of hairs. Individual ones just look like a lot of hair on their own, they get lost in multitudes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
khavt | why are there immigration laws? | What would happen if every country in the world just allowed everyone to move there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/khavt/eli5_why_are_there_immigration_laws/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2k8v0z",
"c2k913w",
"c2k9bc3",
"c2k8v0z",
"c2k913w",
"c2k9bc3"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
14,
3,
2,
14
],
"text": [
"There is also a lot of 'nationalist' pressure in several countries around the world. A nationalist is someone who puts a ton of value in their country. Whether or not their concerns are valid and fair, some countries have a large body of these people and so their government may make laws accordingly with them in mind.\n\nAt the current rate, physical borders are being deconstructed at a rapid rate, with affordable air travel, instant connectivity and communication around the world, specialization of countries into different tasks, and so on. Most people think overall nationalism will decrease as time goes on.",
"mostly nationalism/racism, but also that most immigrants come from third world countries, and would have a huge impact on social programs, education systems, food supplies etc",
"In order to contribute to a nation's economy, you have to have certain skills, like being able to speak their language and being able to do a job that people need.\n\nMost people from poor countries, especially those who want to leave, don't have either. There aren't enough jobs that they can do, so any wind up either being another mouth to feed, or have to turn to crime to support themselves. And since so many are looking for jobs, the ones that find jobs are not paid very well.\n\nAlso, the people who have live in the country all their lives pay taxes to make that country a nice place. They aren't always happy to see someone who didn't contribute to that just show up and take advantage. \n\n",
"There is also a lot of 'nationalist' pressure in several countries around the world. A nationalist is someone who puts a ton of value in their country. Whether or not their concerns are valid and fair, some countries have a large body of these people and so their government may make laws accordingly with them in mind.\n\nAt the current rate, physical borders are being deconstructed at a rapid rate, with affordable air travel, instant connectivity and communication around the world, specialization of countries into different tasks, and so on. Most people think overall nationalism will decrease as time goes on.",
"mostly nationalism/racism, but also that most immigrants come from third world countries, and would have a huge impact on social programs, education systems, food supplies etc",
"In order to contribute to a nation's economy, you have to have certain skills, like being able to speak their language and being able to do a job that people need.\n\nMost people from poor countries, especially those who want to leave, don't have either. There aren't enough jobs that they can do, so any wind up either being another mouth to feed, or have to turn to crime to support themselves. And since so many are looking for jobs, the ones that find jobs are not paid very well.\n\nAlso, the people who have live in the country all their lives pay taxes to make that country a nice place. They aren't always happy to see someone who didn't contribute to that just show up and take advantage. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
zpd99 | why the new world trade center isn't built yet. | Why is it taking so.... damn..... long?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zpd99/eli5_why_the_new_world_trade_center_isnt_built_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"c66k6bo",
"c66lsvd",
"c66m1u8",
"c66obbd"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cleanup took a really long time, and the property where the former towers stood is private property. Negotiating and planning to rebuild a skyscraper takes a long time. Plus, there was lots of infighting about how to best pay tribute to the former towers and all the people that were inside them.\n\nNot so with the Pentagon, which was Government property. Once they agreed on a memorial it was just a matter of getting a construction company on contract.",
"Just 3 more years (at most) until the entire complex is finished, friend. Surely you can wait that long?\n\nIt's nice to see recent pictures of the NYC skyline with the construction project bursting out on top, though. Reminds me that something is finally being done. I will probably miss that when that particular building is finished next year.",
"Bureaucratic BS.\n\nPenn and Teller do a good job of explaining it:\npart 1:_URL_0_",
"Hugely emotionally charged. Also the property owner really fucked up the design process. They held a contest and the winning submission (while cool looking) had to be corrected because it wasn't structurally sound. The design process alone took some 5 years I think. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RF7yJkLHqw&feature=relmfu"
],
[]
] |
|
5lxo81 | our body is supposed to know what's good for it, why does it love (for most of us) chips and candies and hate broccolis and brussels sprouts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lxo81/eli5_our_body_is_supposed_to_know_whats_good_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbz9ckb",
"dbz9eko",
"dbzea5e"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"These readily available high calory foods are pretty new. For all of human existence getting calories (which make energy) was not easy. Fat and sugar are high calory foods. We are good at sensing them. ",
"Our bodies don't know what's good for us now, they know what was good for us back when we were hunter-gatherers. Technology has changed our diets much faster than evolution can keep up!\n\nMost poisonous animals and plants taste bitter. When your body encounters a bitter taste, it's conditioned to dislike it and spit it out, to keep you from ingesting poison. So when you eat vegetables like brussels sprouts, which contain bitter tasting chemicals called glucosinolates, your body thinks \"whoa, poison!\" and you dislike it.\n\nFat and sugar on the other hand were a valuable source of calories in a time when meals might have been few and far between. Your body is designed to gobble up as much of them as possible when they're available because it's assuming it's not going to get another meal any time soon, and will need a reserve of fat to burn through to keep you going. That's why we've evolved to think they taste so great!",
"Another take on why vegetables may not seem as appealing is our tastebuds. Our tastebuds are changing depending on what we're eating as a culture. \n\nPeople who are \"supertasters\" are very observant to flavours, such as in vegetables and other things which may seem bland, are more common in cultures where sugar intake is low. \n\nOn the opposite spectrum \"non-tasters\" require lots of sugar/flavouring to detect the same amount flavour, which may be why some healthy foods such as vegatables seem bland. These people are more likely to be found in cultures where sugar, oils and flavourings are found in most products. \n\nSo yeah maybe it's also to do with the anatomy of our tastebuds. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
76s4hf | why can't you scream loud enough to hurt your own ears? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76s4hf/eli5_why_cant_you_scream_loud_enough_to_hurt_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"dogbbjh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Generally, nobody can scream loud enough to hurt your ears. There simply isn't enough power generated by your lungs in a single scream to do it.\n\nSound is merely a type of pressure wave that your ear is able to sense, decode and turn it into something you understand. Sound is measured through a scale measured in something called Decibels. The decibel scale is logarithmic. This means that unlike a linear scale, 10 decibels is actually much more loud than 5 decibels rather than just being twice as loud. Because sound is a pressure wave, the stronger the sound, the stronger the pressure wave and vice versa. At some point the pressure wave becomes strong enough you feel it as an actual physical force in other parts of your body.\n\nHumans scream at about 80 decibels, the loudest scream recorded was 129 decibels. Whoever did that scream would have to be screaming for a good long time in your ear before gradual ear damage occurred through prolonged exposure.\n\nAnything over 140 decibels will cause immediate damage to your ears, particularly if sustained. It's also considered painful. The limit of true soundwaves is regarded to be around 200 decibels. Anything else above this would be actual physical force acting on you rather than a sound you could hear. It would likely also kill you as the pressure wave ripped you apart.\n\nTo give you an idea of what 140 decibels is like, standing next to a jet turbine running at full speed would be about comparable. It would hurt greatly and permanently. At 155 decibels, your eyeballs would be vibrating.\n\nThe nuclear bombs dropped on Japan had a force of around 245 decibels.\n\nBecause the decibel scale is logarithmic, the increase in power as you rise through the decibel scale is incredible. To the extent that while 140 decibels is enough to damage your hearing permanently, 700 decibels is enough to wipe out earth, and 1000 decibels will rip apart the observable universe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
34lo0v | why is it that sometimes a post will say "5 comments" but when i click on it, it will show no comments? | You've all seen it. A somewhat recent post is made, it says something like 3 comments, you click on the comment link and there's no comments. What gives? I thought it could be because they were deleted but I figured it would still show a [deleted] name thing. I've tried searching for the answer but searching "missing comment" comes up with a ton of irrelevant results. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34lo0v/eli5_why_is_it_that_sometimes_a_post_will_say_5/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqvuv4j"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If a comment is deleted before it has any replies, then it won't appear at all, instead of as [deleted]."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
foo418 | why is it that when we fall we don't feel the pain the entire day and then after we sleep it feels like we've been run over by a tractor? | Whenever I play rugby, nothing hurts after the game, but whenever I wake up the next day, I feel like everything hurts and it also feels like I'm frozen in certain parts where my limbs are attached to my body, they are just hard to move. I know that adrenalin plays a big part, but it isn't the only thing because it can't last for so long. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/foo418/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_we_fall_we_dont_feel_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"flg8ehr",
"flh0wf6"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Depending on the nature of the injury, the body's inflammatory response can take time to build up around affected areas. A bee sting might swell up quickly. Fatigued or injured muscles & tendons can take a day or two before there's noticeable flare-up & stiffening.",
"Movement helps delay the inflammatory and stiffening effects as well. During the day you're up and moving a lot more. When you sleep and you're stationary, you can wake up stiff and sore because you've been immobile for a while."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
54tvo9 | how does the brain know where to grow new nerves into a transplanted organ, such as hands, fingers, or heart? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54tvo9/eli5_how_does_the_brain_know_where_to_grow_new/ | {
"a_id": [
"d85awqw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's not a brain work to grow nerves. Surgeons manually connect main nerves in transplanted organs, and smaller one just grow themselves. Part of them won't connect to anything, but part will connect with nerves in new organ. \n\nBrain will just learn what reaction will be given if he send signal to this nerves and \"reprogram\" it's functions according to it. \n\nIt's like when you wear glasses that show everything upside down - first you will be confused, but in few days brain will learn how to interpret this and you will see normally once again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1z9dvo | how come i can sing along to a song almost perfectly in my head but if i try and sing it out loud i am half a second off and stutter some words? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z9dvo/eli5_how_come_i_can_sing_along_to_a_song_almost/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfro9ji",
"cfrosxv",
"cfrp8a2",
"cfrp98f"
],
"score": [
3,
31,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Or I can hear the melody in my head but if I try and vocalise it I can't!",
"Short explanation: humans are quite brilliant in lying to themself.",
"Most likely it's like -iFunny- says, when you are singing along \"in your head\" you are actually just listening to the song, one thing you can try figuring out is wether or not it's your own voice your hearing. If it is not, or it sounds a bit off you are probably just listening and concentrating on the lyrics. \nAs to why you can't sing along perfectly, you just don't know the song *well enough*! Any song you *really* know you will be able to sing along perfectly, you might stutter when you mix up a verse or two, but it's perfectly possible to sing along perfectly without being delayed. Try putting on that absolute favorite song of yours, see if you've got delay when singing it!",
"When you listen to a song your brain is receiving a certain signal from your ears. When you go over a song in your head your brain is just going back over what it remembers of that signal. Of course it sounds right to you because it is exactly as you remembered. All those parts you have trouble with stuttering etc when singing aloud you're having trouble with internally, it's just that your brain is glossing over it and you aren't realising. Internally, you have nothing to compare your imperfect recollection to except your imperfect recollection. When you sing aloud it becomes obvious. \n\nOne way of looking at it is that you are fantasizing about singing the song correctly. \n\n\n\nRemembering a sing internally doesn't translate into being able to sing the song because remembering the signal from your ears is completely different to sending a signal to your lungs and vocal cords to enable you to emit those sounds. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6fcjyx | why people say "boomers" ruined the housing market | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6fcjyx/eli5_why_people_say_boomers_ruined_the_housing/ | {
"a_id": [
"dih5q38",
"dih6nex",
"dih7dri",
"dih8140",
"dih8aih",
"dih8kja",
"dih8xn1",
"dih8zei",
"dih96jp",
"dih970o",
"dihak19",
"dihalrl",
"dihauae",
"dihaw5p",
"dihawp6",
"dihbahi",
"dihbdri",
"dihbg4c",
"dihbkpm",
"dihbpfd",
"dihc4et",
"dihc65q",
"dihc6em",
"dihcj3d",
"dihcml2",
"dihcmzd",
"dihcq1e",
"dihczyv",
"dihd0h3",
"dihd0ud",
"dihd31j",
"dihd7f1",
"dihd9ac",
"dihdedw",
"dihdl89",
"dihdlef",
"dihdni6",
"dihdo12",
"dihds5j",
"dihdsqi",
"dihdtq9",
"dihe7ow",
"diheejj",
"dihefff",
"dihehzv",
"diheirk",
"dihejh2",
"dihelvk",
"dihelz1",
"diheprv",
"diheq3c",
"dihey38",
"dihf1zk",
"dihf3cb",
"dihf7hc",
"dihf98b",
"dihfb3k",
"dihfbe0",
"dihfc0m",
"dihfd7k",
"dihfg6h",
"dihfquk",
"dihfwty",
"dihfyvg",
"dihg4mj",
"dihg51u",
"dihgd3l",
"dihgd3q",
"dihgk6k",
"dihgrk4",
"dihgv80",
"dihh2d1",
"dihh74y",
"dihhaqx",
"dihhm2p",
"dihhui3",
"dihi304",
"dihig4r",
"dihj1vu",
"dihjpz7",
"dihjx9b",
"dihk2jt",
"dihl065",
"dihlktm",
"dihmfzb",
"dihmzxp",
"dihoj4e",
"dihowik",
"dihpjb4",
"dihqanl",
"dihqx71",
"dihr203",
"dihr7d3",
"dihrdfd",
"dihrlpq",
"dihro5u",
"dihrp9s",
"dihsspq",
"dihsu2z",
"dihtiw1",
"dihtzbj"
],
"score": [
1526,
187,
22,
219,
77,
29,
81,
491,
10403,
3596,
2,
15,
772,
154,
7,
76,
386,
4,
7,
1801,
26,
61,
26,
16,
7,
14,
32,
18,
3,
2209,
44,
79,
6,
2,
6,
2,
3,
3,
5,
6,
4,
57,
12,
2,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
6,
3,
6,
6,
3,
6,
2,
9,
32,
3,
6,
2,
46,
3,
5,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
6,
5,
2,
10,
2,
3,
2,
5,
6,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Boomers were buying houses at a time when the income to house price ratio was very good for a buyer, combine this with many government incentives and they had great chances of buying a home. \n\nMy dad for example bought his first apartment in London at the age of 20, while working in a paid internship. \n\nToday house prices have risen incredibly fast compared to wage growth, so young people can't buy homes as easily. Comparatively boomers already own a home, and in some cases have made an awful lot of money off of the price rises.\n\nThis has bred a lot of contempt for older home owners, and at the same time there's been a kickback with some out of touch people saying that the youth today are just wasting all their money/not working hard enough/etc which just feeds the fire.\n\nIf boomers actually caused these price rises is a more complex matter. The general problem is that we're just not building enough homes to keep up with demand (this isn't true everywhere), although demand isn't actually that high (there's a reason we call that generation the \"boomers\"- it was one of the biggest explosions in population that the developed world has seen).\n\nIMO the current problem is regulation, in the mid 1900s cites started aggressively adopted new zoning codes. Every new code either raises the cost of compliance or limits the number of units in a area, often both. The end result is that eventually demand exceeds supply, and given the necessity nature of housing, prices go flying. ",
"The baby boomer generation is blamed for ruining the housing market because a lot have used their substantial political sway to try to prevent the prices of their homes from ever falling. When house prices are artificially high, it is harder for younger people to buy a property, and they are at the mercy of landlords that can charge high rent (because buying is not an option).\n\nI personally think it is more complex than that. While boomers did get the increased home mortgage interest deduction, and prop 13 here in CA, I think the blame really falls on the people at the controls that create property bubbles, and city policies that limit building additional housing. Property bubbles make housing unaffordable, create equity on paper (causing more reckless spending), and make a giant mess when the bubble bursts. Cities that limit building additional housing keep supply low, which makes prices high.",
"The real causes of the housing markets are several.\nLack of regulations and the banks way of working are the 2 most significant ones.\nRegulations were progressively relaxed starting from Clinton administration: on the one hand this helped many people have the right to obtain huge loans despite not being previously eligible (Example was in some cases optional or to a maximum of 5%); on the other the people were looking for homes they couldn't really afford.\nfurthermore, in case they couldn't pay the mortage and defaulted, people have the impression of a ever-growing market and that, therefore, they could easily resold the house, thus breaking-even in the worst case scenario.\nThis of course was not true and, if you think about the number of people simultaneously having this approach, you can guess why the housing market became a bubble.\nAbout banks, the issue is that they fueled this momentum by creating financial derivates to minimize their risks.\nshortly put, joe gets a loan for 200K from a bank. the bank split this amount into parts of 10k which go into different derivates, which are then offered to investors. their ideas was to minimize the risks but, when the defaults started increasing in number -starting the crisis-, banks with this slicing/cutting/atomizing/reallocating weren't de factor unable to tell good products from bad ones.\nThe general disbelief on banks financial products skyrocketed; so when AIG and others weren't able to cover defaults, they themselves defaulted, enabling the vicious circle of nobody trusting anybody.\nSo i don't think boomers are any wronger than others. Wrong was the *boomers-like*-idea that everybody with a job (whatever the salary) was entitled to an hollywood-like villa.\n ",
"Although all the other answers are right, I wanted to add a little example. I know of multiple married couples that, as a side job/hobby, flip houses for thousands of dollars. They buy usually alright-ish houses in lower/middle income neighborhoods, then they proceed to update all the fixtures and appliances, install new heating and AC systems, repaint and re carpet the house. This is a problem because, well, the prices of houses are going up. So if you take a house that a low income family could afford, then \"update\" it and sell it for tens of thousands of dollars more, it reduces the amount of people able to purchase that house.\n\nIt's like if McDonalds went from a dollar menu to a 2 dollar menu. Madness ensues because the amount of people that can afford 2 dollars is way different than those who can afford just 1. ",
"Mortgage interest rates is perhaps the biggest issue facing affordability. In the 1980's interest rates topped out over 18%. Interest rates were so high people used their credit cards for part of the down payment because their credit card rates were lower.\n\nContrast that with the last decade which has not only seen sub 4% rates on the same 30 year fixed, but a huge spike in shorter term mortgage rates (ARMs) - which lower the monthly payment even further on a smaller timeline (3,5,7 years). Compound that with post-2008 collapse and banks are also looking for a much more strict down payment to protect themselves against a future house market slide.\n\nThe result has been an inflation of home valuations because affordability is much higher on a monthly mortgage payment once buyers are \"in\" for at least 20% of the house price. While a 300K mortgage in the 1980s would top $4K/month, today, it doesn't even break $1500 on the same 30 year fixed payment, or as low as $1100 on an ARM. Or to put it another way, the same payment today could afford a house nearly 3 times as expensive (even after accounting for inflation).\n\nAs a result first-time home buyers are in a tough situation - the down payment is much higher to stick with the same responsible mortgage their parents had, or they enter riskier options with short-term interest rates and have to pay things like mortgage insurance as well. \n\nSo I wouldn't say the situation was caused by boomers, but the various economic changes over the last 3 decades that have lead to significant changes in home purchasing and monthly payments.\n\nEdit: Added inflation and house comparison",
"so whats gonna happen when all the old people with houses die? I heard there werent even be enough people in the US to buy the properties since the boomers were bigger than any subsequent generation. IS that true? Will the market collapse then?",
"It does depend somewhat on where you live. The ELI5 version for Australia is this: \n\nThere are very generous tax concessions, which, along with low interest rates for borrowers, make investing in real estate a very good investment compared to other types of investments. This means there are more buyers competing against each other. Increased demand means increased prices. It also means first home buyers, who are usually trying to buy a house to live in and not an investment, get beaten to properties by investors, all the while prices keep rising. The reason Boomers get blamed is because they are the most common group of people in the investor category.",
"I agree with everything here but would expand for Aus. The boomers turned the housing market into an investment market. They have used their voting control to maintain negative gearing, increase foreign investment, under tax their primary earning years, destroyed the unions/ local jobs, and then told us we just need to get better paying jobs. \n\nIts a kick in the teeth when we're going to be supporting a lot of them through their old age pension years because their multi million dollar home isnt counted in the welfare test.",
"EDIT: Since this comment has gotten so much attention, I want to start off by saying: There's no one group of Boomers to blame. Some came out successful, others are just as screwed as many young people today. It would be wrong to generalize a whole generation. So keep that in mind. \n\nIt depends a bit on the country, but there are usually some common factors that seem to correlate across the western world. Some of the points below will obviously only apply for Norway, or countries which followed similar policies, but other reasons have been pretty much universal. So YMMV. \n\nHere in Norway, the country was a mess after the war. Northern parts had been burnt down, as the Nazis were pulling out, and everything was pretty much in shambles. The gov. countered this with house ownership / building programs, and even started a bank, literally translated to \"house bank\". The goal was that everyone should be able to own a house. \n\nOne way to do that, was to build cheap and fast. As the Boomers became adults, in the mid 60's / early 70's, the could afford to buy either used homes, or build new ones. Sure, the interest rates were high, and people ended up paying for their homes a long time...but they COULD do so on a \"normal\" salary. They could get work straight out of Jr. HS at age 16, and be home owners by they were in their early 20's. \n\nBy the time the Boomers were in their 30's, most owned homes, and were midways on paying it down. We're now in the late 70's. \n\nFast forward to the 80's...Boomers are now in their 40's, mortgage free, and are looking into new ways of investing their money. Before that, everything was heavily regulated. The Financial markets, the real estate market (at least in Norway). Privatization also spurs up. \n\nWhat used to be subsidized, was now private. Private Banks could finally earn big bucks on handing out loans, and people could flip houses at whatever prices they wanted, people could take out loans/re-mortgaging against their homes. All this, mixed in with high consumption, led people to take out gigantic loans, a building housing bubble, and a subsequent crash. \n\nFrom then (early/mid 90's), real estate prices have gone up much faster than salaries have, with exception of a small speed-bump around 07-09. Boomers have been able to take out new loans on their first house, and then buy house number 2, 3. \n\nSome have been able to sell their old houses with huge profits, and buy stuff that they'd never been able to, with the respect to their incomes. Many will buy their kids their first home, or at least help them, by simply re-mortgaging their house. No unprivileged kid can compete against that. \n\nAnother important fact is that many boomers petitioned a lot to get various zoning laws and codes in place, that makes building new housing more difficult. You have codes that prohibits new housing, if it destroys view / sunlight / aesthetics / etc. the neighbors. In many places, this makes it practically impossible to build taller buildings. If housing developers send in applications for a modern block building, you can bet they'll get stonewalled by 20 neighbors, with zoning codes on their side. \n\nSo, if you ask a 20'something - 40'something around here, why Boomers ruined the housing market, they'll probably say: \n\n- They reap the benefits of a ~~solid social-program~~ re-building (economic) program as young, which they then discard/change as they get older \n\n- They vote for laws which benefit and encourage hoarding houses \n\n- They vote for laws and regulations which make it almost impossible to build new houses at a reasonable price, which in turn keeps their home prices high.\n\n- They take out huge loans for consumption, and try to earn back the money by jacking up rents on their house number 1,2,3, etc. \n\n- They drive up prices to artificially high levels, because their (then cheap) assets are now worth millions. \n\nIt's a long and complicated story. \n\nedit: spelling \n\nedit 2: \n\n**Slightly shorter TL;DR**\n\nBoomers here grew up in a time with good social programs, which would guarantee most homeownership, if they just worked hard and paid their bills. When they got old, they privatized and deregulated those programs, all while making it more expensive to build new homes. \n\nMany boomers saw huge profits in home ownership, and started hoarding homes. Buying home nr. 2,3,and so on, and renting them out. When private consumption caught up, they'd just jack up rents and such. When it came to the point that young people were REALLY struggling to buy homes, they stepped in and re-mortgaged their home, or became trustees, so that these privileged kids could put in MUCH higher bids than they could before. \n\nSuddenly every other 21-22 year old graduates are bidding 25%-50% higher than ask, because their parents home from 1974 is worth a million bucks. \n\nThen they have the nerve to call those left out for \"lazy\",\"entitled\", etc., and saying that homeownership is not some kind of human right, even though they themselves were helped some 40 years ago.\n\n**But with that said, it's a very, very complex topic. They are not the ONLY reason things are expensive...very many places, all around the world, bureaucracy has made it very expensive and time consuming to build anything new. You could of course ask yourself, who came up with that system? Why did they make it so incredibly difficult to build new houses, in the various areas?**\n\nAs for US vs EU difference: I think that in the late 80s / early 90s, US and the Western World got \"synchronized\" on real estate market. Global debt is more tied up together, so that one crash is not only contained to a single country anymore. \n\nThe US were (domestically) untouched by the war, and emerged as a world leader in production and manufacturing, which led way to great wealth among regular workers in the 50's and 60's. EU countries were heavily subsidized in that same period, to build up countries. \n\nWith Regan and Thatcher leading the way, many western countries seemed to agree on many economic policies during the 80's, which later led to lower interest rates, and thus more debt to the people. ",
"5 year-old Billy wants to buy a new Lego set, but because her mummy and daddy can't afford to buy it for her, she'll have to save up her pocket money from her job down the mines. But as much as she saves, why can she still not afford the Lego set she wants?\n\nSay hello to that arsehole 18 year-old Chad (the baby boomer). When he was 5, Lego was cheap as hell, and he was getting pocket money like nobody's business. He was even getting Lego given to him on, like, every single birthday and occasion, and even at his siblings' and friends' birthdays! This allowed him (and his friends) to stockpile *ALL* the Lego. \n\nSo because Billy and her friends can't afford the full Lego set, Chad lets her borrow a few bricks in exchange for her pocket money. He then saves up all the extra change he's getting to buy the new Lego sets, and on top of that mum and dad have all sorts of rules (and regulations) on the amount of Lego allowed in the house; so Lego prices go up more quickly than Billy's wages from working down the mines. Billy will *never* be able to afford her own full Lego set.\n\nBilly has become a permanent borrower, relying on her pocket money to rent Chad's Lego while he builds up his own collection. Chad says she's lazy, and if she just worked harder and longer down the mines she'd be able to afford her own Lego, just like he did when he was her age.\n\nChad - what a grade A cunt.",
"Use of a Boomshot in a densely-populated place like a city = destruction = lack of housing = prices rise = inability of the average person to afford said prices",
"Baby Boomers are typically considered 60+ (Maybe 70 at this point?) in the US. My parents are baby boomers.\n\nThey ruined the environment.\n\nOne argument is that they (and people slightly younger) devised a system to package and sell high-risk mortgages that eventually lost value when foreclosure rates got too high. I remember everyone was a mortgage broker around that time and they were writing mortgages for everyone under terrible terms. When we bought our first home some random mortgage broker offered us 90% LTV at 12% for 30 years. We declined and bought a cheaper house under traditional terms.\n\nAn argument can be made that the US housing market crashed because Gen X (and slightly older individuals) 30-40 year olds borrowed more money than they could afford under poor terms they didn't understand and tanked the market. \n\nIt's the classic question of who is to blame for obesity: McDonalds for selling unhealthy food* or the people who eat it....\n\n*The caveat being that people could have actually read their mortgage docs and understand them yet they chose not to. No one really knows what's in McDonalds food.",
"Zoning is the enemy of millennials, and they just don't realize it yet. \n \nIn Australia, there is an enormous housing bubble, because when demand started to outstrip supply (in the mid-90's), baby boomers who owned houses in the inner city blocked any higher density development. Australia has large Asian migration, who tend to like higher density walkable living, matched with an emerging millennial market who like the same. \n \nA decade of under development built up a runaway housing bubble. By the mid 2000's the government realized how much they had screwed up (or new development got so lucrative the developers were able to buy them off), and apartment building took off. \n \nBy this stage, it was too late. The average person believed that owning real estate makes you rich, and development has still not dampened demand a decade later (just created a lot of empty apartments for investment purposes). \n \nIn the US, cities have significantly higher taxes on multi-unit development (that millennials want), vs suburban sprawl. They label these taxes \"Affordable Housing Ordinances\", ie the money goes towards affordable housing. In some cities, a developer of new apartments must pay up to 20% towards affordable housing funds. Developers of suburban houses have no such tax. This is because boomers (often running local government) like houses on the fringe of cities, and millennials who don't have a lot of political power yet like walkable communities. \n \nThis led to only ultra luxury multi-unit developments being viable with the additional taxes. So wealthier millennials are doing fine, but middle class millennials get squeezed by housing. \n \nThen you have cities in the US like Chicago which is completely broken by zoning, in order to enrich local politicians. If a developer wants to build something outside the zoning, they need the alderman (local politician) to personally approve it. Aldermen down-zoned almost the entire city to single family homes, even complete neighborhoods currently full of 3 flat and 4 flat buildings. This means the current structure would be illegal to be built today, and developers cannot build new structures without the alderman personal approval (ie contributing to alderman funds / lobbying). This benefits baby boomers who already owned real estate, and disadvantages millennials yet to enter the market by restricting supply. \n \nTLDR: Avocadoes\n \n\n \n\n\n\n",
"US: Because banks started doing exactly the same practices that got us into the Great Depression: they allowed (and encouraged) banks to approve loans to people who were not likely to pay it back. A solid housing market is usually the first sign of a healthy economy and in the early 90's the government could see our economy was starting to falter. Work streamed out of the country making it harder for citizens to repay their debts- > less investing - > less profit for investors to loan investees- > downhill spiral. The American government decided to remove Deprrssion Era laws that restricted who could qualify for loans (one of which was the Glass-Steagall Act). The benefit was that there were more investees and investors could profit on loaning for mortgages once again, the bad part is that a higher percentage of people were likely to miss payments or simply not pay altogether which is an enormous loss for investors because it ties up money stopping them from re-investing. What didn't help was that many mortgage companies began to take advantage of variable interest rates that could offer low incentive rates to gain loan customers and then hire their interest rates to double digits. Fast forward to the early 2000's, the ability to make money on these investments spurred people to buy since credit funds were so available particularly for mortgages. With more \"money\" available, people could offer more money for houses which amplified the actual cost of the house and meant you could end up paying far more than the house was worth because someone else was likely willing and happy to pay whatever the seller wanted for that house. This created a bubble where the value of the property was not worth what was being paid for it however the profit off of good investments freed up more money to cover even for people who made bad investments; but this was a flawed and fragile system. The government decided not to raise the value of the dollar to match inflation which means the entire value of the dollar was less than expected returns. All high level investors realized their investment in American dollars was not as secure as they hoped so they started to sell US currency making it lose value. Translated to the US economy, the cost of everything started to hike because the currency meant less globally and in this scenario the big ticket items suddenly became more expensive while loans became less available. From here there was no turning back from our economy and the recession we should've felt in the 90's came full force and crushed our economy as people who could no longer get mortgage loans to support mortgages on properties which were being sold to fund a new mortgage loan began to collapse like dominoes. Almost overnight the fragile housing bubble burst and property became worthless. Brash investors had almost no claim on their investments as banks repossessed thousands of houses at a huge loss to investors which diminished the incentive for loan companies to give out loans to anyone with questionable credit. On a wider scale, the heavy losses in one part of the economy prompted investors in the stock market to pull their money out which in turn lowered the amount people were investing making more people pull out of the market... and thus the Great Recession happened. ",
"In NZ: \n\nBoomers Got extremely lenient loans (which played a part in the financial crisis) from the bank to buy excessive housing, causing a shortage for the next generation who they rent their property to.\n\n\nWhy doesn't somebody just build more houses? Because boomers have voting power over millennials and vote for polices to increase housing demand and thus the rent they can charge, I.e. student loans, high immigration and accommodation supplements as apposed to free education, low immigration and state sponsored housing/commie-blocks. ",
"I don't know if other country's Boomers followed the same trek, but American Baby Boomers were notorious in the 1970s/1980s (when they were in their 20s/30s) for proposing and passing anti-taxing legislation, deregulation of banking and other monetary industries, and laws softening the ability to use credit to finance. The low interest rates for a mortgage coupled with paying virtually no student loans made Boomers the prime generation for housing to begin with. California's Prop 13 is the best example of Boomer's \"tax revolt\" which pretty much saved their homes at the complete decimation of the state's education system.\n\nThen with all their assets acquired, Boomers sought to assault younger generations into preventing them from acquiring wealth they often got so cheaply. Baby Boomers pretty much bullied Gen X into toxic subprime mortgages (the trigger point of the 2008 economic meltdown) while bullying Millennials into taking student loan debts while trying to pay a 20% down payment on a minimum wage, non-union job.",
"The simple answer is that baby boomers have had majority control over much of the world for several decades, so poor political and economic decisions during that time are mostly their fault. \n\nIn more detail baby boomers benefited from a time of greater US and world prosperity as well as lower population density and higher resource availability and have accumulated more wealth as a result. \n\nOddly the boomers still don't seem to realize that, those 'good old days' from the 40s to the 70s, were dominated by Democrat policies. Their parents were much more responsible than the boomers, who've had pretty easy lives in comparison. \n\nGeneration Y and X have also had it pretty easy since they've lived on the boomers piles of cash, but it's important to realize it's really the Baby Boomers parents who set the foundation for prosperity. They were the ones in power during the 50s,60s and 70s. As well as the Silent Generation, but I kind of don't count them ;)\n\nIt's during the 80s that baby boomers all fully mature enough to start voting and by the 90s they've all well out of the 20s. \n\nBoomers are from 1940-1963, it's a series of baby booms. \n\nThey appear to create a significant increase in crime. I suspect this is being fueled partly by De-segregation/equal rights and Vietnam among other things. It could also be an increase use of all kinds of new drugs at higher levels, such as heroin and eventually including crack in the 80s.\n\nLater generations would prove to raise population levels, but lower crime rates and drug use rates, meaning they are more well behaved than the boomers were. \n\nBoomers lived in an easier time of greater prosperity where gas was 25 cents a gallon. Jobs were plentiful, even to people without an education. They are kind of all spoiled kids who never had to go through anything too serious. \n\nThey had no World War, until 2008 they had no major economic instability other than the 70s oil embargo and some minor 80s hiccups. They did have the draft and Vietnam, but all in all that only impacted a small fraction of people. More importantly they were able to get jobs, even to the point that woman start rapidly rising in the workforce. The basis of a good standard of living has to be job availability, work conditions and wage vs cost of living. The boomers inherited prosperity from their parents, but what they've left for the next generations is a TON of debt and infrastructure that's years out of maintenance. By the time generation X starts voting the US is spiral into debt and running record deficits almost every year. By the time the oldest of Generation X is getting out of their 20s you have 911 and then the 2008 crash, creating 16 years of poor economic and social conditions.\n\n**Generation X and Y never really had a chance at anything like the prosperity the Baby Boomer were handed. **\n\nI believe that's why boomers have a tendency to act over privileged and intolerant. As a generation they've never really been humbled or tested, they were born into an overall economic boom that lasted most of their lives. It wasn't until 2008 they saw their first glimpse of reality as the foundations their parent laid for them began to erode. \n\nMy theory is if you get things too easy in life and don't go though enough challenges, you generally wind up with poor decision making skills because you've been insulated or buffered by the success of your parents or generations before you. Even if you do work and you get paid too much for your skill set, you become lazy and out of touch with reality. Your views of the world become easily skewed, not entirely unlike the class divisions we saw with Europe's Aristocracy. Then one day, they realized they had lost power and there was no going back.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Another issue I think exacerbates the problem ( in the US atleast) is the unwillingness of so many people to move. The US is a huge country. There are some parts of it that are exceedingly expensive the majority of it is reasonable if not cheap. If people truly want to be a homeowner and are willing to move there is no reason why they could not but they must make some concessions. I am not talking out of my ass either since I actually moved half-way across the country because I realized that for the down payment of a home in California i'd be able to purchase a home outright in the majority of the country. ",
"Another dimension to this is when older people complain about millennials having few children, or having them late in late.\n\nIf you believe that- then go crusading to fix the housing market.\n\nOnly after the housing market is fixed, should you be allowed to rant on millennials over it.",
"The responses here are all very similar. No one has really raised the wages side of things. \n\nBack when boomers were contemplating a house, the typical house cost 4x gross salary (obviously depending on which country, city etc). So to get a responsible 20% deposit, you needed to save 25% of your income for just short of a year. \n\nInterest rates were high, but the servicing costs were relatively low - the loan amount was 80% of 4 years salary. \n\nAfter things like the 87 stock crash, when interest rates started to decrease, housing was touted as a great investment. It was bricks and mortar, the price didn't fluctuate daily and it certainly didn't show that it went down 8% one week and up 9% the next like the sharemarket can. \n\nBoomers drew equity from their homes which had steadily increased in value to buy investment properties, which in turn increased their prices and so forth. \n\nTo the point where it's a massive issue now - and in some places (Sydney Melbourne and Auckland in my corner of the world) the price to wage ratio is closer to 12x. Referring the the original premise that you need a comfortable 20% deposit, that's saving 25% of your income for just over 10 years. That's scary in itself, but property prices are increasing faster than inflation and wages. So you need to save faster than 25% to make any progress. And more than 40% of city dwellers in Australia are in rental stress - i.e. Paying more than 30% of their income on rent. So it begs the question - if you pay 25% average tax, 30% rent and are supposed to save more than 25% for 10+ years - how the hell is it supposed to happen?\n\nBoomers ruined the housing market - but they also fucked the job market. \n\nAnd don't even get me started on how 22 year old graduate from university with a mortgage already - they didn't have to pay for theirs.",
"There are a lot of very good and informative posts here already, honestly. I just wanted to add one factor that also played into it all, in the US. Sometime during the... I think Reagan administration, the formula used to calculate minimum wage, poverty, and cost of living was changed to discount the cost of housing. So whereas before minimum wage and all that was calculated in such a way as to include owning a home, which in turn is why minimum wage was considered a truly living wage, during the era of the boomers, the more modern generations don't have that rather important factor being calculated into things any more. ",
"Short and sweet. Boomers bought cheap homes. Homes increased in value. Boomers paid off their homes. Boomers took loans against their now more valuable homes to buy other cheap homes to rent. Homes started losing value. Boomers got pissed and passed regulation to maintain their homes value. Homes gained more value. Boomers took out more loans to buy more homes. More homes were built to keep up with demand. Boomers home values fell again. Boomers got pissed again and passed more protectionist laws to preserve their home values. Home prices went up. Boomers got older. The market crashed. Boomers emptied their 401k's into the housing market. Housing prices rose. Building came back. Boomers passed even more restrictive building laws to preserve their homes value.\n\nNow it costs a fortune to build a new home and only luxury homes can be built because no neighborhood will allow the cheap houses boomers had built to be built. Rental property is also impossible to build because boomers are now landlords and the competition would sink them. Nobody wants to harm grandma and grandpa so we chug along letting them drain income from newer generations.",
"Boomers have steady income and ample collateral to get loans with low decent rates. \n\nA go-to \"safe\" investment for the last fifty years has been real estate, so boomers are storing their savings in property generally, living in mortgaged properties or purchasing property with debt as an investment. When it works, the rental income pays off more than the mortgage rate, providing them a net profit. \n\nThe more money that can be generating from buying/renting/re-selling real estate, the higher the demand will be for real estate as an investment, driving the price up since people are more willing to pay higher prices. \n\nNon-boomers are left out many times, since job security, room for growth, and entry-level salaries don't offer the same buying power that boomers had at a comparable stage of life in a different economy. \n\nMillennials and such are also less trustworthy of real estate as an investment, leaving older, more well off individuals as the majority of buyers in the market. This is a good and bad thing, since a healthy distrust of financial institutions is generally good, but this also contributes to millennials renting at a higher rate than past generations, driving the cycle of credit worthy boomers buying property to rent at monthly rates higher than one would pay on a mortgage. \n\nSource: Am millennial working in Corporate Finance that is saving to buy a house. ",
"In Australia it boils down to two words, [\"Negative Gearing\".](_URL_0_)\n\nAnd if you read that wiki and think it sounds like a ponzi scheme, that's because it very nearly is. But it's 1000% legal, and most of our Political leaders own 2,3, 4, sometimes 7 or 8 real estate properties purely as investments / for tax benefits, along with many many Baby Boomers, so there's zero political will to do anything about it because \"Fuck you millenials\", and apparently the Millenials have an overblown \"sense of entitlement\". Horseshit. ",
"I disagree, creative mortgage types (interest only, jumbo, 7-10 arms, etc) paired with relaxed financial requirements, and the gov risk ratio is what caused the housing boom and then bust. Basically everyone can buy a house, the banks risk nothin, the Feds are stuck with the bailout. \n\nIt was a good intention to increase home ownership bc it promotes stability and can provide family wealth. But unfortunately when everyone is getting rich, it's hard for anyone to raise an alarm.",
"\"The housing market\"\n\nActually, it's a mortgage market. Even that sounds much too innocuous. Mortgages have morphed from a means to buy a house to an utter scam by banks to suck every last dollar out of the middle class. \n\n\"Boomers\" didn't ruin the \"housing market\". The corruption of banks and their influence on a corrupt Congress ruined the housing market.\n\n\n",
"British millennials are £2.7 trillion poorer because of deliberate decisions taken by their parents' generation\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"The United States at least, boomers are the first generation to enact all sorts of grossly short-sighted 'me first' economic policies into law without any regard for the well being of the generation that came after. They created an economic hellscape that all future generations will have to spend their time unraveling. The free market speculative nature of the housing stock- rather than viewing it as basic critical infrastructure- has a huge part of this. Boomers let this happen. \n\nMy theory? Their parents suffered through a depression (very brutal) and World War II. They worked so hard to create a stable and prosperous society- and utterly succeeded- that what came next was an entire generation of self-centered brats who, when it was their time to run the country, had no sense of attachment to the idea that the world didn't revolve around them so they started enacting policies that would enrich them at the expense of the next generation in line. \n\nIt's not a single-axis problem, though. Contributing to it is insane over-regulation. The price of certain commodities critical to homebuilding- and the prices of land- are going up-up-up (again, because of boomer economic policies, currency, debt, etc) but the cost of regulation associated with building a house is really burdensome and a lot of it is totally artificial. ",
"Yeah I know the possibilities but it's just depressing the thought of having to pay £800k for a house that our parents would have paid probably £120k for ",
"This little rant is Australia-centric, but... This is what happens when a generation's only economic plan is to borrow from the future. \n\nOur largest, oldest generation has enjoyed a political majority for decades. And with that majority they have enjoyed an unprecedented boom and a record period of prosperity. They have extended their prosperity and comfort by rigging policy in their sole favour, bolstering home investment and - wherever cutbacks have been required - relentlessly targeting families and youth, lest we engage in the travesty of upsetting anyone's comfortable retirement.\n\nSo zealous has been this generation's avoidance of shouldering absolutely any personal economic pain whatsoever, we have clung to many dangerous policies in spite of decades of warnings (you know how we've been hearing about the crash for years? Yeah, we've also been doing NOTHING to prevent it for years). We've fed the world's most obvious property bubble, baulking at the very suggestion of allowing house prices to ever fall - even a little. At our last election the suggestion prices might drop 2% was met with such a wave of collective Boomer hysteria we were forced to throw the country under the bus yet again. Won't somebody please think of the portfolios!\n\nAnd so, we continued building and building our idiotic debt pile. Our elders helpfully explained the problem wasn't them or their selfish, myopic, harmful policy deck-stacking, oh goodness no. It was young people - buying iphones and lattes and avocados. Apparently the young invented consumerism in this fantasy, and of course reality is not admitted into the delusion. We've ignored the fact spending on retail, entertainment and domestic tourism has ground to a halt in younger demographics - which are both spending and earning less than past generations. Lost to debate is the fact that without spending, economies also stall. These inconvenient truths aren't welcome as long as house prices keep rising.\n\nUnfortunately - and this is the issue eclipsing all others, there's a rather fucking important problem with debt: it is consumption brought forward. Without sufficient consumption, the debt pile our aging population sits on is going to drown us. And where does ongoing consumption come from? Taxpayers with fucking jobs. Taxpayers able to afford a basic home to live in. Taxpayers able to gain a semblance of financial stability.\n\nIf you want to end the property bubble and return this country to a fair playing field (and if we have any hope of restoring economic stability and surviving an aging population this must happen) here's what you need to do. Stop playing their fucking game. Stop telling yourself the Boomers ruined the housing market: yeah they kinda did, but economic reality will bite them right in the \"on paper millions\" sooner or later (houses, after all, are only worth what people will pay for them). Stop worrying house prices will remain in a never-ending upward spiral in the complete absence of wage growth. Stop fearing the horde of investors (primarily Boomers and foreign nationals) snapping up properties aren't going to hit the wall of reality. Stop engaging in the very fear of missing out that keeps you chained to a bandwagon careering towards a cliff. Sit back, make yourself a smashed avo sandwich, and call bullshit on the bubble. That is your best weapon. (Let's face it, your only weapon.)\n\nThis bubble is already on life support. Rates are rising, negative sentiment is rising (the media - which just a year or two ago denied a bubble even existed, has gone crash mad), income growth is at a record low and cities are entering oversupply. Yes some investors (mostly Boomer investors, by the way - and on the brink of retirement) are still buying, but who are they going to sell to? Other investors? And who are *they* going to sell to? A ponzi scheme cannot survive when only investors are buying, and when the median buyer is priced out. It is mathematically impossible for the sheer volume of investment properties in this country to be continually onsold for profit in a market now absolutely flooded with supply in which ordinary home buyers can't get a look in (and with the banks tightening lending, probably couldn't buy if they wanted to). \n\nSpeculators bet on the direction of prices, and prices (though they can rise irrationally) are still tethered to market fundamentals like incomes (not growing in Australia), physical housing supply (notice a few hundred fucking cranes and apartments in your city lately? Who's going to buy these now banks won't lend to foreign investors and values are falling?), rental yields (record lows), population growth rates (diving)... fundamentals and sentiment have de-coupled but fundamentals represent the true picture of market demand. Fundamentals are reality. We will be returning to that reality the second our positive feedback of manic sentiment turns into a self-feeding snowball of negativity (which, arguably, is already happening). Sentiment is the only pin that matters in a bubble we are waist deep in dead sentiment canaries here in Australia.\n\nSo keep calm and call bullshit. The trouble with bubbles is there is an inescapable point where everyone realises value is a mirage. A point where people realise tulips are just shitty fucking flowers. A point where our Boomers will come to understand houses are four walls and not million-dollar ATMs - that capital gains only happen for as long as our dwindling pool of buyers are both willing and able to pay more. A point where our Boomers will realise that if all owners become investors, you have nothing going on but one giant ridiculous circle-jerk. Due to oversupply, the investors in this country are basically borrowing millions to a play game of musical chairs in a room with more chairs than people. Oh, and the chairs are all negatively geared, so without capital gains are *making an annual loss*. Many on interest-only finance too, our very own impending little sub-prime crisis.\n\nWe will reach a point soon where our underemployed youth, starved of financial security, saddled with the debts and excess of our idiot forefathers, and living on a dying planet, will become the voting majority. \n\nThe youth will remember (especially when we're considering whether our insanely generous Boomer-drafted pension scheme is going to work...) \n\nYes this was adapted from by own previous post (that's how much I love ranting about this bubble...)",
"As far as the US goes, many responses thus far are right about rapid population growth affecting the supply of affordable housing, but there is also a political element. The boomers were born post WW2, in the 40's and 50's. They inherited a society that was thriving off of FDR's new deal. High income taxes paid for quality educations, infrastructure, arts job programs, a massive expansion in government jobs, and other socialized benefits that boosted the middle class (social security, Medicare etc). Boomers became politically aware/active in the 60s and 70's, sparking resistance to the Vietnam war, the civil rights movement, and the sexual revolution, which saw unprecedented civil liberties open up for them. This generation came to understand they held incredible political power as a voting bloc. In the 1980's, when the boomers were educated, working, owning homes and raising families they overwhelmingly elected Ronald Reagan for president. Reagan's platform sought to dismantle the social programs that had enriched the middle class, in exchange for across the board tax cuts. These tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy, but it was argued wealth would \"trickle down\" through society, as the wealthy opened more businesses and spent more.\n\nThe Reagan revolution has created a more stratified wealth profile for the United States, minimum wages haven't kept pace with inflation. Government jobs, and public education spending hasn't kept pace with population growth, there has been less infrastructure spending and etc. In this way, millennial generations have entered into adulthood and found a society with a reduced middle class, and are unable to afford housing. And in this way, many millennials feel the boomers have benefitted from the high taxes their parents paid for a social safety net, then turned around a voted for low taxes for themselves.\n\nThe Reagan platform of dismantle, deregulate and cut taxes was widely adopted by the Republican Party, even moderate Democrats such as Bill Clinton have been swept up in fiscal conservatism. Clinton oversaw the beginnings of deregulation in the banking and housing markets that led to the subprime lending bubble, and tanked the economy.\n\n\n\n",
"In the United States, at least, they got to buy into the housing market after WWII when it was dirt cheap, even adjusted for inflation, to homestead in any places one would want to. They also had the benefit of many American cities being left for dead due to various socio-economic factors that drove everyone to the suburbs, so they could hold properties there for peanuts as well. \n\nNow decades have gone past and that property that was bought for around 100K (adjusted) back in 1972 is now worth 800K and if a young person wants to homestead the math doesn't work. Set aside the fact that any middle income person is going to be subjecting an intolerable percentage of their income just to housing, they're not going to get 4 million dollars for that house in 30 years barring some sort of bizarro hyperinflation scenario that pushes the average salary for a middle class person to several hundred thousand dollars a year...while simultaneously keeping everyone employed.\n\nThis means, effectively, that most people raised in a working middle to full middle class household cannot reasonably follow the 'guidebook' on proper middle class living (e.g...get an education, buy a house and homestead, raise a family..) without lucking into a high paying position. Boomers straight didn't have to rely on that luck nearly as much to fulfill the American dream. Oh and the labor market is in a state of perpetual downward pricing pressure to boot due to the inherent operation of capitalism.\n\nNow, all of this would be what it is and just lamentable...but Boomers never shut the f*ck up about how young people 'just aren't working hard enough.' Which is complete garbage. They've basically deluded themselves into believing that the time they lived in, when there was enough inefficient slack in the system and prices were low enough so that they could get paid and didn't have to get lucky, is how things actually are..not just how they happened to be when they were in that time of their lives.",
"The baby boomers are the worst generation. They inherited so much from the greatest generation but they completely screwed over the next. Pensions, social security are dried up housing is higher then salaries. They actively downplayed global warming. They squandered their chance to make the next generation better. greedy folks they are. I look forward for them dieing off so my generation can right the ship. Assuming it isn't to late which it likely is. ",
"The boomers covered the housing market in boomer bile which then attracted the horde to attack it, and none of the other markets have a firstaid kit so now the housing markets on low hp.",
"Boomers ruined the entire economy with their selfishness. \n\nIf you have the time and interest in the topic, I would suggest reading: “A Generation of Sociopaths” by Bruce Cannon Gibney\n_URL_0_",
"Because they treat houses as retirement funds and piggy banks. It means houses are far too expensive for our generation to reap the benefits of home ownership that they have. ",
"At one time, the American Boomers complained that their parent's generation locked them out of the housing market. To combat inflation in the late 1970's and early 1980's, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to astronomical levels. At one point, a mortgage would cost 18+%. \n\nPersonally, I see Generation X (my generation) as a significant consumer driver of the problems Millenials currently face. We had/have a very small appetite for the housing vacated by the Greatest Generation (much of which was cheaply built, post-war, mass produced single family housing) and a significant appetite for luxury housing. We didn't want our grandparent's 1,200 square foot house in the suburbs. We wanted master bedroom suites, walk-in pantries, laundry rooms, and room for guests. So that's what was built for us. We could afford it thanks to an economy that we had a minor role in building and favorable rates and lending practices. \n",
"The housing market is ruined because 20% of my after tax income goes to paying student loan interest. ",
"Because they are ill informed. \n\nThe primary reason the housing market is so expensive is wages haven't moved in three decades. \n\nWages haven't moved in three decades because the 1% are greedy fucks. ",
"Some very verbose answers so here's a short one:\n\nProperty became more about speculation than habitation.",
"Mostly because they don't know what they are talking about and want to blame someone.\n\nHere is a part of the real reason house prices have moved out of the reach of single buyers. That's an important distinction. Although its different for every country.\n\nIn the 70's inflation started to take a grip on the western world, this caused household costs to increase. In turn putting pressure on the household income. At the time a decent if not small house was around 3 to 4 times the households income. Of course annual salaries ranged incredibly as they do now but in the main you attempted to buy a house in that range which generally worked out that repayments where about 30% of households income. \n\nBack then most households were single income households.\n\nSo housewives, because lets be honest that was the majority case. Started to look for part time and full time work to cover the shortfall. \n\nThis meant household income increased, but it didn't just increase by the inflation rate, it increased well beyond the inflation rate. by a whole new salary. This meant those households had more cash to splash. Demand started to outstrip supply and whenever that happens prices go up. So houses started going up at a rate that was different to the inflation rate some times outstripping it by a magnitude.\n\nThis put inflationary pressures on the remaining single income households. It was a case of both work or go under. As an example, In my case that was what my parents had to do.\n\nThus the spiral began.\n\nToday house prices are generally in the same region around 3-4 times HOUSEHOLD income, having repayments around 30% of the household income. The difference is most households now have two incomes.\n\nSo the people who say Boomers ruined the housing market are way off the mark. The difference is now its hard for a single person to own a house but for a household (two incomes) little has changed.\n\nEDIT: Experience varies by country and city.",
"Let's look at this another way. I'm in my mid 30s and trying to move houses right now, so I've been staring at the market all year. I live in Marietta, Georgia and want to move into Roswell (which is 'so hot right now') because it would be halfway between my job (in Alpharetta) and my wife's (in Marietta).\n\nFirst of all, in 1950 the population of the United States was 140M. Today it is 321M. In other words it has more than doubled during the lifetime of the Baby Boomers. A lot of the economic stress we are feeling in our years on this earth has to do with overpopulation.\n\nLet's look at a good historical example. In 1300, on the eve of the Black Death, England's population was 3M people. They were stuck in an agrarian model that had been left to them by the late Romans, when the money economy broke down and everyone moved onto a self sufficiency/barter economy, which directly undergirded feudalism. If you had 20 guys who did whatever you told them to and the police and local authorities all moved out, think about the kind of sweet little kingdom you could set up. That's what happened on a micro scale across Europe.\n\nThe average man working in 1300 was a peasant farmer who owed taxes to his feudal lord in the form of a good chunk of the grain or livestock he could grow in a given year. He ate pottage, which was a kind of always-bubbling cabbage/pease soup that was perpetually replenished over the fire. Luxuries included things like meat and salt. He did not have wi-fi. And worse, his father and his father's father and their fathers before them had all been legally captured in the same role for hundreds of years. This was because populations had slowly grown and land ownership had become increasingly divided. Feudal lords had no incentive to allow serfs to leave the land they worked to the lords' benefit. Wages were fixed, to the extent wages were paid at all. Everyone lived in the same family hovel they had owned for generations. Life sucked.\n\nThen in 1349 a nasty bacteria swept through that we call the Black Death. Yersinia pestis. And populations crashed. England in 1350 had 2.4M people and the plague was just getting started. Most estimates have total mortality at about 40% over a fifty year period. It wound up being the most important economic boon in Western Civilization.\n\nThe loss of population ultimately returned the West to a money economy. Feudal lords could no longer hold the serfs on the manor; they lacked the manpower themselves, and meanwhile the serfs had legitimate opportunities in the cities or on other manors. They suddenly had the freedom to negotiate; to innovate. Massive amounts of labor and intellectual capital which had been logjammed on the fiefs broke free, and Europe exploded in an intellectual Renaissance which we are still living through today. The \"Moore's Law\"-style reality of technology rapidly accelerating during one lifetime got its spark in the 14th century and has only sped up since. In classic sociological terms, Europe had hit a kind of Malthusian boundary and the loss of life broke everything loose. Through technological innovation (better planting methods required by the lack of labor) and intellectual innovation (the rise of modern fertilizer-based farming), the old Malthusian boundary was erased, and populations exploded.\n\nThe same thing happened during the Baby Boomers' lifetime. The [Green Revolution](_URL_0_) of the 1960s is credited with saving a billion people from starving. Laudable. But those billion people are still with us, and they also are reproducing. As modern medicine has cut mortality rates early in life to near nil, more and more people are being born and actually growing up to want houses. The United States did not double in population in 50 years based on same-citizen reproduction. Many of those 1B mouths came from other parts of the world and moved here. (I am not anti-immigration but this is a mathematical fact). Ultimately, all those people want houses.\n\nSo as we sit here today in 2017 we are entering a new Malthusian limit, although we are probably just on the leading edge of the crunch time that's coming. Moreover, demand is not evenly distributed. There are lots and lots of awesome lots available for cheap in Montana or Alberta, but people don't want to live there because there is no work there. We are experiencing the same crush to get into the cities that economic forces created when the serfs broke free of the farms in the 14th century. Some of our \"serfs\" are former wage slaves from inside the United States, children of factory workers or farmers now entering the middle class. Many of our \"serfs\" are people who broke off the farm in other parts of the world, like Central America or Asia. Everyone wants to be where the opportunities are, so they crowd the best places.\n\nAnd that is the primary reason why I can't find a one acre lot with a new home on it in Roswell, Georgia. There are no one acre lots any more. Most of those older spaces that used to have big lots are being cut into smaller and smaller pieces -- townhomes akin to those built on the northern fringes of London in the early modern period. \n\nWho owns those nice homes? Well, the Baby Boomers do, and those houses are starting at about $850,000 and going up to the mid seven figures right now. The Boomers are on the back end of their economic primes; they spent the last 30 years accumulating all the capital one needs to buy nice big houses the rest of us envy. But their presence there is more coincidental than causative. They are simply in the first places in line, due to their age and income, so they have first choice, for now. They will die and then Generation X will be the ones with the nice houses, and then the Millennials, but at the rate we are going the number of Gen-Xers or Millennials who wind up in those houses will proportionally diminish, because demand is ever-increasing.\n\nTl;dr: The problems we face in the housing market are fueled by demand. Demand exploded with population. Prices increased. The Boomers own the nice homes because they are old and have money, but they are not the problem. Reproduction rates above 2.1 are the problem.",
"The fact is, at least in the U.S., it was boomers plus the Reagan-era invention of 401k/403b retirement accounts that ruined all the markets. When those instruments were created, and boomers were enjoying the financial success that post-war programs had created, they dumped scads of cash into the stock market, creating \"growth\" in the stock markets that not only saw people invest in stocks more for share price increase over dividends but also saw people begin to expect share price growth of 15% or more year over year. \n\nThe former meant that companies were no longer managed for long-term profitability, which is what drives dividends, but for short-term growth that would lead to regular stock price increases. This began the rise in executive salaries, many of which were tied to stock increases with little regard to a company's overall health. Combine this with the invention, at first at Harvard but rapidly spreading across the U.S., of MBA programs and you have the development of professional managers who only care about the bottom line and its impact on stock prices and not of managers who came up through the ranks and firmly understood the business. (I was in management development at the time and I saw the conflict first-hand in one company.)\n\nThis loop of money chasing money and companies being managed to aid that chase led to some pretty amazing expansion -- anyone remember Wired's claim that it was the beginning of an endless boom? That also helped conservatives sell, and consume, the idea that private markets were always better, more efficient.\n\nOnly anyone awake knew that as soon as the boomers started retiring and wanting their money out of the markets that things would begin to shrivel, like a particular organ post-coitus. \n\nAnd here we are today.",
"Simplest answer; their generation were the ones in charge of the banks and the government when selling mortgage backed securities became a thing. \n\nIt created an incentive to sell more homes so we had more mortgages to bundle into securities and sell. This forced banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them and to do so they didn't vet you. Then the securities went from being filled with reliable people to being filled with shit loans that were at high risk of default. They weren't fixed rate and when the rates went up in like 2007 tons of ppl defaulted and by that time so much of our economy was tied to it that it caused a huge crisis. ",
"Why are there so many examples for Australia in here?",
"Any boomer here for a comment ??",
"Also, environmental rules and NIMBY's have made development much more expensive. \n\nEnvironmental rule while a great thing, and protect the consumer, require developers to do a lot of work now that they never had to do. So housing prices have to rise. \n\nAs far as NIMBY's (Not in my back yard) I have an example \nI live in a neighborhood that is actively fighting a rental and townhouse development that will contain 20% low income housing. Everyone is worried about the kinds of people living there. As well as extra traffic and potential for those new renters using our neighborhood as a cut through. \n\nThis development has been in the works over 10 years because of all of the fighting over it. They are just starting some site work now. \n\nThat extra time is all costing money which gets added to the developers need to charge more. Therefore higher cost of housing. \n",
"I bought my house for 10k under market value in a major city 10 years ago. It's worth less than half of what i paid for it now. My property value has gone down every single year",
"In the US, it all started with the Bush tax cut. George W. Bush, when he took office in 2000 after 8 years of Bill Clinton, slashed taxes in one of the largest tax cuts for the wealthy in history. Suddenly, there is this giant pool of money that rich people have, looking for investments. So it enters the stock market.\n\nLess than a year later, September 11th happened. The stock market crashes. When the stock market turns down, investors look for debt investments (bonds), because the returns on them are predictable. However, interest rates on bonds were effectively zero (negative even) because the Fed dropped the rates so low in attempt to stimulate the economy. Moreover, because of that tax cut, now there is much more demand than the bond market can satisfy. Investors, watching their money evaporate from the markets by the minute, turn to a new source of bonds - mortgage bonds. These are debt instruments banks created by taking a bunch of mortgages, sticking them in a pool, and selling shares of that debt. Now traditionally mortgage bonds were rock solid investments - the default rate on mortgages was quite low and predictable. However, because of that giant pool of money from the tax cut, demand for mortgage bonds skyrockets. This means that banks are screaming for more mortgages so they can sell more bonds. Mortgage brokers, knowing that the bank is going to buy the mortgage with no questions asked, begin giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse. I personally know a guy who had never made more than minimum wage who bought a house during that period, no down payment. He of course defaulted.\n\nThe rest of the story you know. Eventually the house of cards came tumbling down, and the economy crashed. As to the question as to why the Boomers get blamed...well it wasn't Millenials running things at the time.\n\nFor more information:\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's just a scare tactic used to deter people from trying psychedelics. There is no evidence that magic mushrooms have any connection to addiction. ",
"What is really interesting, and important, is that all millenials across the western world seem to be having the same problem with boomers (most likely their parents). I look forward to the day our parents retire and we become world leaders and decision makers. Perhaps then we'll be able to start turning our economies into those which help everyone, not just the older genetation, and start reversing climate change (again a problem with boomers). My parents (and their generation) have never held the same view as me on many important issues, so I don't know why they think they can represent me in parliament. Maybe thats why they don't even try...",
"In Canada, the biggest cities are totally unaffordable now, even with increasing wages. It's not unusual in Toronto or Vancouver to see new co do towers or housing developments open up with prices touted as STARTING at $1,000,000. It's not that we're short on space, it's that new developments are built with an eye to sell to foreign real estate investors who buy up loads of properties and flip them for even more than they paid for them, even before they're finished being built. The government has so far refused to regulate this. \n\nCanada didn't get hit as hard by the real estate crash of 2008 as, say, the US did, but it still took a toll. The major issue is that the last Conservative government did away with the mandatory retirement age, so now the job market is awful because it's overcrowded with senior citizens who just won't retire. So I guess here they didn't screw up the housing market as much as they totally boned the employment market. This is preventing young people from making enough money to be able to actually afford a home. \n\nMany millennials are now in their 30s and home ownership is still kind of a pipe dream for many. Even in Ottawa, where I live, prices are rising rapidly and if you want something affordable, you need to be prepared to live way, way out of the city. Seeing as the vast majority of professionals here work in the downtown core (it's a government town, after all) the commute is becoming an issue. It's not Toronto levels of bad, but it has the potential to get there. ",
"Well duh!\n\nAnd before that, they ruined the job market.\n\nNow they have moved on to ruining the Healthcare market.\n\nAnd before they're done they will ruin Social Security and Medicare.\n\nI know because I'm at the tail end of the boomer cohort (1959) and have felt it every step of the way.",
"Slightly off topic but I'd like to add something and ask if anyone has any ideas about what will happen. \nCurrently in the U.S. there's a lot of houses being built, optimism is pretty high for financials keeping the stock market high. I'm beginning to see and hear about these new houses sitting on the market recently. They aren't being sold.\nIn order for builders to make money those houses need to sell quickly. Since they aren't moving fast enough builders are buying them and renting them out so they continue to have income. Small banks are calling in loans before they are due because they are wanting to pull back from the construction loan business. Builders are starting to fail and go out of business because they aren't adjusting to the market being slow. There's a glut of brand new houses beginning to build up.\n\nIt's my opinion that there's a housing bubble that will burst relatively soon. \nThe reason banks are backing off is because unlike the last housing crisis they aren't able to hedge their bets like they could previously. Last time there was government incentive to give out loans, even bad ones, the trick was that they could hedge these bad loans against government security, meaning no matter how many bad loans they made they had nothing to worry about because bad loans were still going to get them paid one way or the other.\n\n\n\nThis is only my little view of the world but I think we have a problem that's going to show up, a market correction is needed and the longer we sit on it the worse it will be. I'd welcome anyone telling me that I'm wrong and pointing out why, this is all speculation that I'm seeing in my corner of the world so hopefully it's not the same everywhere. (Southern area of the U.S.) \n\nThe previous failure was due to government incentives meeting greed. With the repeal of the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall the barrier was removed that prevented banks from hedging against bad loans with securities. They simply couldn't fail, if they gave out a high risk loan it didn't matter because they could bet either way, no matter what happened they were going to get paid so why not make all these crap loans?? \n\nOr: Government says \"Houses for everybody! Whoo!\" Banks said: \"Hey, that doesn't make any sense, you can't just give everybody a house, lots of these people can't pay. We're going to go bankrupt!\"\n\nGov: \"No sweat, we're going to have your back fam, we'll change the rules so you can have some 'insurance' for that, you can't lose now go get some people in some houses!\" \n\nBanks: \"We're gonna be rich!!!!! Everybody get out there and make some loans! No, it doesn't matter if the applicants make $30k a year and can't pay back a loan on a $200k house, we're gonna make phat lewtz either way! Whoo!!\"\n\nCRASH\n\nGov: \"WTF?\"\nBanks: \"You told us it was all good! You said we could! Waaa! Bail us out or I'm gonna tell mom (public) what you did!\"\nGov: \"Seriously?\" \"Fine, we'll cover it and make the taxpayer bail you out. We won't be doing that anymore, you guys got crazy.\"\nBanks: \"Thanks for the free cash taxpayers!\" \"We'll think about doing what you said but now we know we can do anything we want.\"\nGov: \"Here's the new rules, you gotta follow all these rules and do your chores!\"\nBanks to other banks: \"We totally screwed them over and they paid for it! There's fewer of us now, those new regulations are going to kill the medium and small banks because all those regs take a lot of work, let's just bide our time and us big guys can take all of it over!\"\n \n",
"There's a lot of talk here about a lot of legitimate economic factors related to the housing market and fiscal policy. However the economics of post-secondary education and training is also a major factor.\n\nSince the 1970s (accelerating more recently), there's been a shift of manufacturing jobs away from developed countries. Along with this, came a drop in the relative price of many consumer goods. Cheap goods and high local wages kill repair and maintenance jobs.\n\nAs developed country manufacturing sought to control it's own labor costs, companies did what they generally do: they cut training programs. In doing this, blue collar work eliminated a valuable benefit, and made it a cost that works must incur themselves. This is part of what led to the 2-year college boom in the US.\n\nAlong with that came a shift toward knowledge workers. These jobs generally require a 4-year degree at a minimum. College became the ticket to the middle class, and prices escalated to reflect both that need, and the availability of resources from the first generation of college graduates sending their own kids to college.\n\nThe implication for the housing market is that whereas a generation ago, education and training were often either inexpensive, or they were part of paid work, people entering the workforce now do so with significant education debt. Instead of spending the first decade or so of earnings saving for a down payment and investing, they're spending a lot of money servicing debt. For the last several years they've been graduating into an economy with limited demand for their education, yielding high levels of under-employment and unemployment. ",
"If I had a dollar for everytime I heard a baby boomer complain about my generation I'd have enough money to buy a house in the market they ruined. ",
"In Australia: \n\n1) Tax incentives - you can lower the amount of tax you pay, by buying a house as an investment, and deducting the cost of the mortgage / interest and depreciation. So a first home buyer has to pay more than an investor to own a home. \n\n2) Foreign Buyers - using China as the prime example, there are concerns that the Chinese government can take a families inheritance, wealth etc. without recourse. So many Chinese nationals try to get their money out of the country, and what better place to put it than real estate (harder to liquidate / track). When Canada / Vancouver put restrictions in place, a lot of that money went to Sydney & Melbourne. Now that Australia has put restrictions in place, that money is going to Auckland (my Mum sold her run down house in a very blue collar / average suburb for $1m to a foreign investor. It sat vacant for 5 months in a supposed rental shortage). \n*Also - investment visas; some countries allow foreigners to migrate if they invest, say, $1m into a local business. The easiest 'business' for foreigners was often to just buy a house or two, and get fast tracked to permanent residency / citizenship. \n\n3) Self Managed Super Funds - Australia changes superannuation laws to allow people to manage their own compulsory super accounts. This resulted in a large number of baby-boomers to sell down stocks in their super funds, and use that money to buy investment properties. \n\n4) Bank profits - say you buy a house for $200k with $40k equity (80% loan to value ratio - $160k loan). Your house goes up in value and it's now worth $600k. You still owe the bank $180k, but you now have $440k in equity and an LVR of 30%. So the bank rings you, and lets you know you can use that extra equity as a deposit to buy another house as an investment. And you can lower the tax you pay to the government - woo hoo! The bank allows you to borrow a maximum 80% LVR, which means that $440k gives you $2.2 million dollars to borrow & spend (so long as the rent and your income can cover the interest) and you buy another 3 properties - so you have a tidy little portfolio of 4 houses. As house prices keep rising, you keep purchasing more or you care less and less about paying the property off (just pay off the interest), and one day you'll simply sell the property and take a huge cash windfall. Meanwhile, younger folk will struggle to save for a deposit as house price increases rise quicker than they can save for a deposit. ",
"A lot of people talking about deregulation as the root of all evils, but also keep in mind that women entering the workforce contributed to raising home prices because two-income bids quickly became the norm. Now, double income families are required. That's not an attack on female equality, but a result that can't be ignored. Read Elizabeth Warren's book on the subject in \"The Two Income Trap\".\nAlso, lenders are required by law (Community Reinvestment Act) to invest in poor communities that would otherwise not be considered sound investments. \n\nAnd another observation is that there is affordable housing all over our country, that young people simply don't want to move to. Millenials want \"affordable\" housing, but we also want to live in cities. The affordable housing is there, we just don't want to take advantage of it. We want to have our cake and eat it to.\n\nTLDR: I'm trying to speak from a centrist view here and point out that there are myriad factors not being discussed in this thread.",
"Reading so many comments here make me feel a bit better that I prefer to rent, don't want to own a home, and invest in other markets and assets. ",
"In America, the boomers reaped the benefits of the New Deal and Great Society while avoiding the hardships of the Depression and WWII. They had affordable university educations, then graduated to good paying jobs and affordable housing. \n\nAs they got older, the voted to dismantle the New Deal and pass the cost onto subsequent generations. Public schools declined. Universities increasingly relied on tuition payments and corporate financing, rather than taxpayer subsidies. Boomers grew wealthy as their houses increased in value, while subsequent generations had to accept higher housing costs.\n\nTwo caveats: 1) The Vietnam War was no picnic. 2) African Americans didn't prosper nearly as much as white baby boomers.",
"Little related anecdote. \n\nMy father was the sole wage earner when I was a kid, and he worked a blue collar job in a factory. He was able to buy a 3 bedroom semi-detached house and provide for the family of four.\n\nI'm a software consultant in the financial sector in London, and am stuck in the rental loop.Even on my relatively good income, I don't see how I'll be able to get together a deposit in the south east of England. Meanwhile my parents and grandparents that all benefitted from the better climate have remortgaged or sold off to retire in luxury. \n\nBecause fuck me, right?",
"Explained like you're five?\n\nBanks gave loans to people unlikely to pay it back. $200,000+ loan to one income individual, 5 kids, unemployed spouse? Sign here, please!\n\nThis created a bubble that crashed in 2008. Watch The Big Short.\n\nAs for blame, it's split between the banks and government regulations encouraging/forcing loans to high-risk applicants. Maybe a little to people being fiscally irresponsible and getting houses well above their income level.\n\nIt had very little to do with boomers building or buying houses and paying them off...",
"I (M, 35) was speaking with my boss (M, 71) recently about housing. He put it this was; when he purchased his first house, home prices were much lower in relation to income. Which means it is much more difficult for the current generation to purchase any home. However, the expectations of the current generation is much higher. His first home was a modest property 35-40 minutes away from the ideal suburban locations for a NYC commute. Every day he would drive well over an hour each day for work. He claims that the current generation does not want to make similar concessions. They want a nice home in the ideal location and are frustrated that this is impossible. \n\nAs far as why the nice home in the ideal locations are so expensive, it doesn't go much further than supply and demand. In the most desirable areas all of the open land was gobbled up years ago. There is no more housing. There is a limited number of properties. Now, factor in that people are living longer. Factor in that for many people who have their homes paid off and kids out of the schools there is no easy way to sell and lower their overhead and stay in the same location. (for example: why sell a $650k home to move into a $550 condo) There is no incentive to move. The only incentive to make a lot of money. So what you end up with is all of these older singles or couples in 3 & 4 bedroom homes in the towns everyone wants to get into. And you can get into easy mortgages and all that stuff but at the end of the day it just comes down to scarce housing in the best areas. ",
"It's mainly the result of people not understanding the relationship between house prices and interest rates. \n\nIn 1980, mortgage rates were 18-20%. Now they are only 4%. \n\nYou can service a lot more debt at 4% than 20%. That means consumers can afford to pay more for houses. ",
"I am a millennial who just hit 30 and has problems buying a house despite making 6 figures and saving close to 20%. \n\nA lot of you are on the right path and looking at supply and demand questions but as someone who studies financial/economic history, I believe the true nature of the baby boom is being misunderstood. I want to suggest an counterintuitive way to look at things. \n\nThere is a reason that housing prices kept going up over the past 3 decades above inflation, stock prices are trading at 30x PE, only lower than 1929 and 2000 and you have ZIRP in much of the world. At its heart, all financial assets are inevitably tied to the interest rate, as interest rates represent the real trade off between money in the present versus money in the future. To see how interest rate effect the price of a financial asset, one just needs to understand some simple math: say you have an annuity that generates $100/year, at a 10% interest rate, this annuity stream is worth $1000, but at a 2% interest rate, this annuity stream is worth $5,000. As you can see, a huge part of the increase in asset prices: in everything from stocks, bonds and real estate comes from the fact that interest rates have fallen to the lowest in perhaps thousands of years. \n\nNow when I say interest rate I don't necessarily mean the 10 year fixed income note but as the intersection of supply and demand for money. Quick economic background of the 1950s: The world economy was destroyed and the capital base was decimated, there was a lot of demand for capital and very little supply, so the real rate of interest was quite high (the opportunity cost of capital) despite government bond rates during this time being suppressed to help with war time debt servicing. This was the world the boomers were born in the 50s, very high return on investment (thus low asset prices, remember interest rates are the inverse of asset prices). There was just massive demand for capital to build everything from QSR restaurants, drive-in theaters, auto dealerships, department stores, etc, to service the baby boom generation. The world we have today is actually the exact opposite of when boomers were born, demand for capital is low (companies are buying back shares instead of investing), supply of capital is high (witness all the overseas buyers) as a result asset prices are high and getting higher because of this supply and demand dynamic for money. \n\nNow we can theorize the reason for the low real rates of interest. But my believe is that secular stagnation thesis (take a look at Japan) probably contributed to some extent. After all, you don't need to keep building out manufacturing or distribution if you suspect there are less people to sell to in the future. One other factor may be that innovation is slowing. Generally despite the massive increase in innovation in information technology, much of it is not showing up in the productivity numbers or in other industries. In the 1950s, we had the rise of auto, the airline industry, petrochemicals, electronics, computing, television and many more. Detroit was actually a hub of innovation for auto related technologies. Today we just have silicon valley and parts of Seattle and Boston, which only creates a couple of million jobs at most. The biotech revolution I believe is greatly exaggerated by the press (I studied Bioengineering).\n\nI suspect a lot of this is that old people are just extremely risk adverse, so they refuse to change and this has filtered in to all parts of government and industry. As a result, we don't have as much innovation and dynamism, this results in too much money chasing existing assets rather than being deployed on new innovation and entrepreneurial endeavors. The spirit of the young is in trying new things and envisioning new things that have no yet come to be, and that has been stifled at all levels. \n\nThe other things people talk about like greedy, corruption, political polarism have always existed in society and is a controlled factor.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"People say 'boomers' ruined the housing market and the world economy in general, such that younger people have had their prospects diminished. I think that the fact is simpler and more complex than that. There are 4 times as many people on the earth as when the boomers got started. There are so many people there is not enough space or resources for everyone, and our attempt to continue to live as if there is is killing the boomers, the millennials, and the whole planet. The millennials tend to think that the boomers did it to them somehow, and they did, but by having way too many millennial babies. Who are continuing their own exponential growth. I'm guessing a couple generations later, if any humans survive then and that is not a given, will be in much worse condition and will blame the millennials for it.",
"They took advantage of easy loans in the US. People who made 40K would get loans for fen times that. These days no way that would slide. Everyone did it, then people started defaulting on loans like crazy... Demand was through roof, supply wasn't, prices shot up and now we are here. \n\n\nMy grandpa got his first house for about 40k, a nice home worth 700K ish now. He made like 10k a year and grandma made like 4. They could easily lay it off in ten years. \n\nTo do that now you'd have to make 200k a year or so... For the same home... My Gparents weren't rich at all, middle class and early 20s. their jobs now (they were both entry level or first few years of career) would pay like 100-110K combined now.. See the 100% disparity? ....\n\nEdit: this is also difficult now because the job market for the most part of the last ten years has been far worse. Also getting in to and paying for college was far easier back then. My grandpa went to UCLA and came out debt free working part time... Try that now LOL. ",
"Effects on wages have been global pressures, effects on local resources have been power politics to assure a planned agenda. Zoning and building codes is local, and its a plan by the wealthy to carve up the pie in their favor. In every City or other political region where rules are enforced, they know who can pick up the phone and call the shots. They know who has lunch with the mayor and the bank president. Most working people have other priorities.\n\nSure the boomers were in a position to benefit themselves at the cost of others. But society agreed to let wages be globally influenced, and all generations capable of voting down through the decades that led to this were willing to slit their own throats and their children's throats by electing the wrong people. Not that there were always good alternatives.\n\nWealth and empire have corrupted a lot of things, its like a game of musical chairs, eventually there is a restart. In the meantime, more and more people are on the sidelines watching.",
"So many people here have such intricate and well thought out answers, it's intimidating to say the least.\n\nEssentially, the baby boomers in the US built cheap homes in (at the time) inexpensive areas, and jacked up the zoning process and prices such that my generation can't do jack shit without jumping through a million hoops. At this point, if I were going to afford a home in New England where I live now, I would need three full time, $16/hr jobs for the next year to even be approved for a mortgage, let alone afford one. It's daunting and depressing to know that I won't own a home in the foreseeable future.\n\nBut hey the memes are better, right?",
"Ah this triggers me so much. It makes zero logical sense. They hold positions of political, economic, societal, and educational power. Yet they want to blame all the issues that society has on younger generations. That have no say on policy. That we taught everything they know by baby boomers. In a world created by baby boomers. It's fucked up and i don't even understand how people side with that \"millennial are the worst and cause of all issues\" arguments they make. ",
"Simply put, the boomers were the first generation where the majority of women worked instead of being 'stay at home moms.'\n\nThat doubled the income of home buyers, and through supply and demand, raised the prices. Dual incomes buyers could always out bid single incomes buyers.",
"In the US, Baby Boomers grew up during a period of time where their parents, the Greatest Generation, invested into the social contract. That is, they recognized and accepted the communal benefits of investing into society, even if it didn't translate into immediate direct benefits to themselves. Pay in while you can right now while the country is at its strongest so that your children don't have to starve tomorrow when the wealth slows, dips, or drops entirely.\n\nThose Baby Boomers would grow up without realizing WHY they and their parents had such a good time because they were not the ones investing into the social contract. Their parents invested and 20 years later when the Boomers were moving out on their own, the investment paid out and the Boomers were able to do things like pay for a home, a car, and a college education all on an entry level income. The social contract had been fulfilled and they benefited from it.\n\nHowever, the Boomers didn't see the social contract as a benefit to them despite what it DID do for them. They just saw it as an unnecessary drain on their own resources. The social contract had helped them pay off their mortgages and debts and now they were flush with cash that was mysteriously going to something THEY didn't personally authorize. So they quit paying into that social contract going into the 80s. And then 20 years later again, the social contract's investment from the Greatest Generation had fully dried up after continually being drawn from by the Boomers despite their refusal to pay into it. And as things went along, we have the Recession hit because all of these Boomers had been deregulating and continually pulling out the supports propping them up. Their investments into real estate, enabled by the social contract they had reduced to a dried husk, finally gave out and crashed the market.\n\nWhen the bubble popped, the Boomers were suddenly left without a safety net for their years of bad behavior and lack of investing into the social contract. So their solution was to take money from the future to pay off their debts now and delay the social contract's void eating them by another 10 years. As a result, the bubble has been getting inflated yet again except now there's even less foundation to support it when it blows.\n\nAs a bonus, foreign investment from wealthy individuals less confident in their own country (AKA China) is putting tape on the weak parts of the bubble so that it can inflate bigger before bursting.\n\n---\n\nTL;DR: The Boomers' parents paid for the Boomers to have a future. The Boomers got their future and didn't want to pay for the next generation's future. Luckily, their parents had paid enough to support almost two generations, which was what carried us into the 2000s. Near the end of the 2000s however, that investment was expended and the sticks propping everything up had been snatched away. They are now taking money from the current and future generation in order to delay the penalties for their own failure to invest into the social contract. And the combination of stealing from current/future generations and foreign investment interference is preventing the bubble from collapsing naturally and allowing the market to adjust to where it should actually be.",
"It's a scapegoat so no one can criticize the mystical economics of the real estate and banking industries",
"They gave loans to people that couldn't afford it. Mostly minorities. My daughter, a Hispanic, got approved for a 200,000$ house, as a single woman, making 14$ an hour. \n\nI ended up talking her out of it and bought the house myself and I am now renting it to her for less. ",
"Rich bosses want workers to fight each other instead of fighting them. You have more in common with a working class Boomer than a rich millennial. ",
"For the U.S., I think it's a combination of a few things. Some are addressed in the top comments (Reagan, Boomers climbing the economic ladder and then kicking it out for others, etc.) but on top of that, you also have to look at the by product of WWII: the U.S. was THE dominant industrial power after WWII because we did not get as hobbled by it as some of the countries that were in the middle of that action (England, Japan, Germany, etc). On top of the New Deal policies, we were the only two legged participant amongst many one legged participants in an ass kicking contest. Salaries in some ways were artificially high since we didn't have the foreign competition. Further, there was a strong labor movement that had real bargaining power when it came to benefits and salaries. So that all came pretty easy compared to your bombed out foreign counterparts. But that changed by the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Aside from dismantling what the Greatest Generation put in, post war economies for our foreign counterparts recovered. And from there, globalization increased and trade expanded. Manufacturing went to countries where the workers had a lower standard of living and then the standard of living here became based on assets......no matter what the debt was compared to those assets. Inefficient suburban sprawl with McMansions that shouldn't have been bought or built in the first place.......Student loan debt for a degree you really should have worked at part time......and so on. \n\nTL;DR we coasted for way too long and took American exceptionalism a bit too literally. There are many things great about this country. I'm not against entrepreneurship, but we became far too much of an economy based on assets versus net worth. ",
"They didn't. Relaxing lending regulations for banks made it easier for them to take on sketchy lenders. This was brought to you by democrats and some republicans in the late 90s. It was worsened by some of Bush's actions. ",
"Here in socal..my parents bought a house back in 1992 for 210k. They just paid it off a few years ago and now it's worth nearly 700k...it's absurd. Of course I'm happy I will get it when my mom passes on...but then I will sell it and go to a place like Texas ..get twice the property and pay around 200k..pay it off so my kids will one day have something and put the rest In investments and my daughters college fund...",
"There's a variety of reasons, but primarily it boils down to this: people purchasing homes during the 80's and 90's were overwhelmingly Boomers and Gen-X'ers. Boomers had a much larger role in the contributing industries and thus put many of the policies and procedures in place that allowed this to happen. \n\nLet me be clear: there's no one specific group of people in the wrong here. Nobody is prescient, and during the 80's a lot of people were wrong about the long-term impacts of economic policy. ",
"One more comment from a boomer: the accumulation of wealth as one ages is a normal progression. A 30 yo engineer making $85k probably has a negative net worth what with car payments, student loans and credit cards while his dad, the 55 yo forklift driver making $40k with overtime probably is worth six figures if he fed his 401 k and has lived in the same for 20 years. If the young engineer saves his pennies though, he will get into the black before he's 40. ",
"NIMBY has become just as overused as \"privilege\" in my opinion.\nI guarantee all the anti-Boomer Millenials, if in their position, would have done the same thing. You get to look back and criticize, but you didn't live in the time. Things are not cut and dry. Technology, access to information, general perceptions, all these and more have changed over time. ",
"It wasn't as much boomers as Wall Street. When the banks were allowed to use your checking account to trade futures and stocks, there was no end to the amount of money they could make. Soooooo... they created a fake financial instrument called a credit swap. Sounds harmless, right? Well in 2012 I saw a number that chilled me. 60 TRILLION dollars in credit swaps were issued, and they were insurance policies against housing foreclosures. This is where most people get lost. Those policies are recognized by Fannie Mae and it enabled them to write mortgages on a house that were completely unstable. No doc loans, fancy refi's, and enormous pressure from sales people - allllll lead people's eyes to be bigger than their stomachs. So.. sure the average joe is to blame for sure. He signed up for a house that he knew he'd never be able to sustain. But his neighbor and his neighbors neighbor did it. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing. But the real culprit is the guys who sold those default credit swaps and just pocketed the cash. Think about it ---- 60 trillion dollars. That's a chunk of change. And this is not an easy answer for sure. ",
"The simplest answer is supply and demand. When supply is low and demand is high the prices inflate. When supply is high and demand is low the prices deflate.\n\nThe unspoken social contract of the last 50-70 years has been that you grow up, go to college, get a job, and buy a house. Thus as long as the population is growing and following that contract we have an artificial demand for housing.\n\nAfter world war II there were a number of social programs in place to make college and housing affordable for everyone. As time has passed those programs have gone away. Thus baby boomers had really cheap school and cheap houses. They were able to save up and buy a house. Demand was high so they could turn over that house for much more than they paid for it and upgrade to larger houses.\n\nEach subsequent generation has tried to follow in the baby boomer's footsteps but it's gotten harder because the cost of houses and school keeps going up every year. So now the we're at a point where schooling is so expensive that the millennial generation graduating college is in more debt just from school than most baby boomers have ever been in.\n\nThe erosion of social programs and most of the inflation that has occurred is a result of the actions of the boomer generation, who currently holds power, and thus it's been their actions, or failure to act, that have resulted in the meteoric rise of housing, education, and healthcare costs.",
"As many answered how they ruined it, and how they continue to ruin it and the real cherry on the pie is how they talk like their strategy should and could be done by anyone in sequential generations.\n\n They see themselves and apply their success as a false credential to impose themselves as everyone's financial advisor without an understanding of current costs to someone starting out.\n\n\nThey got lucky. Their idea of overtime is going home at 7pm after \"a long day of work\". They think all cities can run on a bumpkin town setup. They are also the last to understand (or refuse to see) what the downside of \"gentrification\" is - it's not fixing problems. It's just sloshing them around. \n\n\nThe epitome of classicism.",
"There's a lot of blame going around to the baby boomers. The fact of the matter is that Gen X and more-current are experiencing a wage depression combined with unprecedented increase in expenses. \n\nWage depression comes primarily from the rapid pace of technological advancement. Mental skill sets (And physical ones for that matter) are being replaced a pace unseen in our history. For example, when I worked at a law firm in NYC in the early 90s there were 15 paralegals. That same law firm now has like 4 para legals. Where did they all go? They aren't needed now. Remember when accounting firms had to calculate spreadsheets by hand? Takes 6 people to come up with an answer to a math problem? Not anymore.\n\nConsider that my mother went to Queens City College (NYC) for free. Health insurance was cheap and people lived shorter lives. Compare that to my situation (aged 44). My monthly health insurance for my family is $1350. University education is NOT free and my life expectancy could be as high as the mid-90s because of advances in medicine. That is just the major expenses. Food, gas, everything is higher.\n\nSo, while it's fun to blame the baby boomers, they're just taking advantage of having built their lives during a time when things were not as expensive.\n\nHow to solve the problem?\n\nThe way to solve the problem is by adjusting how the middle class is taxed. Start by taxing them a little less but taxing the 1 percenters higher. Use that tax money to fund public education and health coverage (single payer health care). This frees up an enormous amount of money for the middle class to consume with. That can be homes, electronics etc.\n\nUnfortunately, in the United States we have a broken political system. It's funded by wealthy donors and held hostage by a small group of people who would like to return to serfdom. \n\n",
"I am seeing a lot of mental gymnastics going on here trying to blame boomers for all of their problems. The problem here is very simple folks: there are too many damn people now. The boomers got everything cheaper because there weren't nearly as many people to compete with, not just for jobs but also buying real estate. Real estate is like anything else in the economy and is subject to supply and demand. Americans are living longer and longer these days and immigration just adds to that. And all of these people want homes and drive prices up. \n\nI blame the boomers for one thing and one thing only: giving birth to too many millennials.",
"All I'm getting from this is that the government should never subsidize anything. It only upsets the balance of affordability. They should have never given retuning veterans GI bills it only increased the amount of educated men who in turn only made life better for themselves. The government should have never made housing cheaper for returning veterans after war to start families and rebuild population. It only benefits them. Government should not have started Social Security because it only benefits them. Just think what your generation can get subsided. Healthcare, school, universal income. I'm sure you guys will get some benefit that will screw another generation over. ",
"Like most large problems, there are many more causes than are typically considered. The following have nothing to do with the boomers' choices nor wage stagnation:\n\n1. Couples are now waiting longer to marry. Dual income makes home purchase significantly more viable. \n\n2. Home appliances and building materials are much more expensive now than they used to be, partially because they are SO MUCH BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT than they used to be. \n\n3. Energy and transportation prices are higher than they used to be which makes saving for a down payment difficult.\n\n\nSave up and buy a very small house in a decent neighborhood. Demand for small houses will NEVER go down. Demand for large houses will crash eventually. Also, you should think of energy and maintenance costs (directly proportional to house size) as WORSE THAN PROPERTY TAX for financial reasons.\n\n",
"Let me counter everything here by saying that even if Baby Boomers have done many things that deserve blame for the current situation, the overall trend isn't their fault.\n\nLet's talk jobs. Post-WW2, all a person needed to get a good paying job in much of the Western world was a strong back and good work ethic. No education, no prior training, just show up and stick with it. To this day, many old people are trying to tell young people to just go get a job without understanding that wage growth for the low end stagnated in the 70s.\n\nWhy were good paying jobs so easy to get back then? Because WW1, the horrid world economy of the 20s and 30s, then WW2 ensured that the first half of the 20th century saw many of the worst economic decisions in the world's history. Post WW2, the exact opposite happened. The Western World opened up to Free Trade, governments sought stability over cultural pride, and Pax American and the Cold War created a stable world order that convinced people to work together. Economic equality in the Western World was at an all time high, America's economy in particular boomed as the old and bad were replaced with new and good (houses, businesses, local governance). Cities sprawled turning previously unused land into economic engines. And once again the rest of the world used the American juggernaut to rapidly follow suit.\n\nSo let's talk more about houses. Houses in the pre-WW2 era were bad. Really bad. You'll be hard pressed to find such houses still standing outside old money areas. Hard labor and huge amounts of natural resource extraction turned these bad houses into better houses. In many places, houses built in the 50s and 60s are still considered of great quality. Tearing them down and rebuilding today wouldn't have the same effect. But that takes us back to the economy.\n\nAmerica's economy has historically been about natural resource extraction and refinement. Cotton, grain, oil, steel, lumber, prior to the 70s this was our major economic driver. But all this economic activity created sprawling cities with booming new industries. Creative output became a higher driver of wages while fewer people were needed for the dwindling manual labor jobs. Low end manufacturing has either been automated or off-shored. Many who see a decline of America link it to this very shift, leaving behind \"honest work\" and abandoning America's majority rural, agrarian roots.\n\nToday, good wage earners need some combination of long term preparation (education, hard work without reasonable pay, building economically advantageous connections) and luck (location, family situation, interest in the right work). The boomers never had to deal with this situation and don't understand why it's such a problem for newer generations (Gen X was labeled cynical for their dealing with this transition).\n\nSo now we have a Western economy that is actively opposed to resource extraction (regulations, but also it's just vastly more expensive for free market reasons, different topic). New houses are built to magnificent levels of quality, but they do not support local economies like they used to. Much of the cost of new building is transferred to poor economies where much of the resource extraction and manufacturing happen. Further, new houses are not in general superior to older houses. We've adapted to new technologies and new techniques, but we can't compare with the transition from coal and oil heating to gas and electric, or the rise of the AC, or electrical regulation, or modern insulation, etc. The difference in quality between the 2 halves of the 20th century is stark. When was the last time your neighborhood gathered around to watch a house burn down? If your grandparents lived in an urban area, they almost certainly did. We live in an amazing time that this has become rare in the Western world.\n\nWith all these great houses around and a continually rising economy with ever growing barriers to entry, it is natural for prices to grow and grow and grow. Boomers who've never had to deal with systemic economic hardship seem to believe we've broken some barrier that prevents it happening. And there are plenty of millennials who are able to follow their same formula. It's yet to be seen if the Boomers won the historical roll of the dice or if right now is just another low point of equitable growth. If the Boomers can be blamed for anything in particular, it's the deemphasis of skilled labor jobs that much of the Western world is sorely lacking. These jobs pay well and Germany has shown that supporting the training of people into these positions creates a virtuous cycle of greater manufacturing and equitable economic activity.\n\ntl;dr It's history, not Boomers that are to blame. The 20th century went low, then high. The Boomers capitalized on that fluctuation, it was always unsustainable at those levels. Things can be improved on the margin, but we'll need a new technological revolution to experience the same rapid economic expansion that the Boomers grew up in.",
"It's not really their fault, but a perfect storm of decisions made during their lifetime. Firstly, after World War Two most countries were still on the gold standard, and the second Great War created so much debt in Europe that few countries would actually be able to pay it without setting up their economies to fail for the next few decades. So most abandoned the gold or silver standards in favor of fiat money. This let's much more money into circulation at one time, which was great for paying off war debts. \n\nAfter the switch to fiat money, there was an abundance of money. People could get loans easier for things like cars and houses. This was awesome for the people who owned homes. Their homes rose in value because more people could get loans and afford to buy homes. People loved being able to sell their houses for more than they paid. It was an easy investment that was sure to be a gain.\n\nPoliticians saw how people were buying homes, and in a way to ensure home values keep rising, they launched programs like FHA, were people who didn't, or couldn't save up for a down payment a traditional bank would require could still buy a house. This made more and more people able to buy homes and the values just kept rising. Politicians who voted in favor of these programs got massive amounts of praise because it helps less fortunate people buy homes, and the values of current homes to rise. \n\nAfter years of this, comes the lates 90's, early 2000's and the pool of people who can legitimately purchase homes is drying up. Banks that have seen homes as a safe investment for decades decide to give loans to high risk borrowers, because even if they default on the loan, the home will still be worth enough to were the investment is still safe in the banks eyes. \n\nNext comes 2008. The bubble that has been rising for decades finally pops and home values for the first time ever, drops. Yet homes are still worth more than inflation and people still are confident that their homes are worth what they paid. Most people who made it past the 2008 recession still want to get what they paid for their homes back when they sell. So enough people sitting on their properties waiting for prices to rise back to \"normal\" seems to have worked. ",
"Consider also that boomers went to work at a time when you walked into work with gumption and the boss said, \"Well son, I like the cut of your job, you're hired!\" \n\nAnd the kinds of jobs that they could do could pay the mortgage on inexpensive property.\n\nNow, the good ol' companies they worked for are all multi national and many of the old jobs are contract or outsourced which means the wages are comparatively lower for the same job. Something you could make 25 bucks an hour in the 70's is now maybe 13 an hour in modern times. Adjusted for inflation and cost of living you're making a pitiful fraction of what somebody used to 40 years ago.\n\nNow, because of housing speculation, artificial price spikes, etc. the regulations keep getting tighter, meaning Johnny contract worker at 13 an hour is going to have a difficult time getting a loan versus Bob the Boomer who started out making a shit ton more money with permanent full time work right off the gate.",
"China will fall and so will the housing markets of Australia, London and the east coast of the United States. Sit back and wait \n\n_URL_0_",
"Housing costs too much now. That's because we don't have enough houses in the right places. Places people want to live, where there are jobs and good infrastructure. \n\n\"Boomers\" are older and they believe that THEY are responsible for these places being good places. They also believe that they are especially entitled to live in them, because they've been there a while. And they believe they have the right to keep others out. \n\nSo they outlaw, ban, and otherwise resist any and all building projects in the place they live. They proudly oppose every new building as a threat to their neighborhood's \"unique feel\" and \"priceless culture.\" What they don't realize is that, in the long run, they have priced out an entire generation of Americans by being total obstructionists. \n\nThe inability to build enough housing the SF Bay Area has led to sprawl, which has led to traffic and the overloading of our regional transit system. You have to pay $2500 to rent a room in San Francisco now, all because some old people think that a new apartment building would spoil the charm of their block. \n\nThis kind of whimsical, selfish attitude has earned the older generation, and rightly so, a reputation as people who took advantage of good conditions when they were young, but who are not willing to extend the same chance to younger folks now that time has passed and the shoe is on the other foot. ",
"What I think happened was that women wanted to join the workforce. Supply and demand. Businesses halved the value of labour. end of story.",
"There are 2 reasons. The banking industry and their bought and paid for politicians aren't going to take the blame for what they have done. Making you hate boomers shifts the blame from them, and makes it easier to convince you to throw Granny under the bus when they come for her pension money.",
"People treated houses like a commodity to be bought and sold, rather than a home to raise a family.",
"Got to remember though, Boomers typically had an awfully poor childhood, especially in the UK. Although I agree with lots said here, particularly the NIMBYS, they traded their youth and cashed in at retirement / middle age. We did it the other way round. ",
"What I am hearing is that if we want good economic times we should wall off our countries and allow the rest of the world to kill each other off or starve.",
"I blame politics - implementing policies to get re-elected no matter how stupid they are long term is the failure of democracy. ",
"This is such a loaded question. You can't blame the housing market on one generation, and you can't generalize any generation as the cause of anything. \n\nThe most recent housing fiasco was caused by politics and poor regulation. The current crisis in Canada and the west coast is caused by foreign investment (Chinese). ",
"A lot of the answers here are dead on. I've been reading a good book that explains what the boomers did to the economy, housing, etc. The book is called \"A Generation of Sociopaths.\" It goes into the policies, programs, and demographics behind why things are the way they are now. It's based upon data and not just opinion."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://uk.businessinsider.com/british-millennials-poorer-interest-rates-pension-plans-2017-2"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://itun.es/us/vFcBdb.l"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://etherealvalue.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/secular-stagnation/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a6351f42be8a427b392d989132dabcd9?width=1024"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fzmo4g | phone calls. how is it possible that my voice is recorded and transferred directly to a given device which is kilometers away from me? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fzmo4g/eli5_phone_calls_how_is_it_possible_that_my_voice/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn4zoyv",
"fn4ztfy",
"fn50c6z"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine you are speaking to someone ten feet away. Your mouth moves, causing energy to be released in the form of air compression. This compression moves across the air in the form of a wave of energy, and then hits the ears of the other person, causing their ear drum to vibrate with the energy from your mouth. \n\nIn a cell phone, that same energy is converted into an electrical signal. This electric signal can be transmitted through the air from your phone to a tower. This signal is essentially the same; energy; but in a different form. This energy is transferred to the cell tower, to another cell tower, and back to a phone 40km away. The energy is then transferred back into a sound wave (pressure wave) and into the ear.",
"When you talk in a phone your voice causes the sensors in the microphone to vibrate out a pattern. Like morse code but waaaay more complicated. These are then converted to electrical signals (1s and 0s aka On and Off) and the phone transmits this electrical on off signal to the other end where the speaker translates it back out again.\n\n\nIt is the same process as morse code or flipping a light on and off to send a signal. There are just VERY sophisticated codes so it sounds like someone is talking. It isnt perfect which is why we sound different on a phone call than in real life. Well one reason.",
"[This is a microphone](_URL_0_). [This is a speaker](_URL_2_). As you can see, they are essentially THE SAME DEVICE. \n\nSound vibrations from the air vibrate a paper which vibrates a wire around a magnet. This causes electricity inside the wire (because of the magnetic field) to vibrate with the same frequencies as the sound.\n\nThe electricity is then amplified, transmitted, recorded / whatever, by the electronics in the device.\n\nAnd at the other end, the electrical vibrations passing through the wire coil of the speaker cause magnetic forces to vibrate the paper cone of the speaker and produce air vibrations (sound).\n\nSo the electronics between the microphone and the speaker doesn't have to \"understand\" the electricity vibrations, it just has to not add distortions / noises.\n\nNow as far as transmission and recording, we currently [digitize](_URL_1_) the electrical signal (give it values which are then stored or transmitted, and then the original sound wave is re-created from the values). And then there are many methods of transmission, from coaxial cable to radio/satellites (wireless) to lasers in a fiber-optic line, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.audio-technica.com/cms/resource_library/images/4287a8698751f4de/large/figure_1_dynamic_microphone_element.jpg",
"https://users.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave.Marshall/Multimedia/node149.html",
"https://www.lifewire.com/thmb/e9IkZ89ilvv5yuNA3DGTipHWzkc=/1000x667/filters:no_upscale\\(\\):max_bytes\\(150000\\):strip_icc\\(\\)/speaker-diagram-xxx-587fd4bb5f9b58bdb3b616b4.jpg"
]
] |
||
3b9jfb | why are most buildings and rooms rectangular? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b9jfb/eli5_why_are_most_buildings_and_rooms_rectangular/ | {
"a_id": [
"csk4nw1",
"csk4ob9",
"csk799c"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Sounds like you haven't tried to build anything.\n\nRight angles are not so hard. Round anything is very difficult. Right angles allow you to build in triangles, which are the strongest, simplest strong geometric form.",
"Carpentry based on right angles is especially easy, and rectangles of almost any size combine nicely when you're building something with more than one room.",
"To add to the other comments posted- One reason buildings are rectangular is because they are heavy. Very heavy. The bigger they are, the stronger of a foundation they need. In order to lay a foundation that will withstand all the pressure being put down on it builders lay down a grid of concrete and whatnot for the building to be built on. So think of a square or rectangle. A grid can easily be put down underneath in an even pattern. There are virtually no weak-points in this foundation. Now think of a building in a different shape. Such as an L or a T shape. By adding the corners, you weaken the foundation below it because the grid it's sitting on doesn't divide as nicely as it did with your rectangle. If you look at older homes, a lot will have foundation issues where the garage meets the house itself. The foundation below the garage is separating, partially due to the ground shifting and partially due to that weak point. This is also common with porches.\n\nMost rooms are a rectangular shape because the building is rectangular. In order to use the most space within a building, the rooms inside should reflect the shape of the walls. What happens when you put a circle into a slightly larger square? You have that extra room in the corners. If it was a circular room in a square building this would be wasted, unusable space. Now, with this analogy in mind, imagine a large city. In a perfect world, it would look like a checkerboard - with the separating lines being your roads. Why? Well, a square/rectangular area is easily split up into other squares and rectangles. If you have one big square, you can make four little squares very quickly. Or 16. Or 64. You're just evenly dividing the area for each building (or square in this case), with as little wasted space as possible. \n\nTLDR: [Huey Lewis and the News said it best.](_URL_0_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFtOcj6nyfg"
]
] |
||
6t7au5 | how does a person in the military move up ranks when not in a time of war? | Someone who isn't familiar with the way things work in a military as myself, assumes you need "prove" yourself via feat of some sort. (Battle, heroic act etc). When a country isn't at war for years, how does one go about getting promoted to higher ranks? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6t7au5/eli5_how_does_a_person_in_the_military_move_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"dligw4e",
"dlihh2d",
"dlihxz4"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Time, achievements, qualifications, oppurtunities and any outstanding work. The whole idea of getting promoted for heroic feats is rare even in wars.",
"You \"prove\" yourself by doing your job well and not getting into trouble. War and combat is not a requirement, nor are heroic acts. Heroism is rewarded by getting medals and commendations on your record. These can help you get ranks faster, particularly if you are shifting from a standard soldier to a command post. ",
"So if you do some heroic act or feat you get a \"brevet\" rank. So if you are a captain and you do something heroic you become a brevet major. But all the rank gives you is respect and honour, the army still treats you like a captain from the point of view of giving and receiving orders and pays you like a captain. Your brevet rank is basically just like another medal.\n\nActual, for reals, promotions happen the same way in war and in peace and have nothing to do with feats or heroism (in fact if you really are a hero the army's better off not promoting you, you'll do more good in the lower ranks and heroes often don't have the judgement to make good generals - that's why we find them heroic).\n\nWhat will happen is that if a major retires, is promoted, is demoted or dies, then the commanding officer of the unit will think \"right, I need a new major, now which of my captains who have served a long enough time to be eligible do I think would make the best major?\" Then they get the job. So it's actually a fair deal like job promotion in civilian life."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5ugbu2 | why the constellations and others parts of the galaxy are named with the zodiac or names of mythology gods? | Like the Gemini constellation or Perseus arm the spiral arm of the Milk Way. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ugbu2/eli5_why_the_constellations_and_others_parts_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddtqwm7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because back in the day most constellations and celestial bodies were believed to be the embodiment of God's. For example planets like Mars, Venus, and Jupiter were all named after Roman gods because they beleived they represented them. This tradition persisted to the modern day, mostly because the names are iconic and are easier to communicate with the general public."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
681qs8 | "we use cookies to deliver our service" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/681qs8/eli5_we_use_cookies_to_deliver_our_service/ | {
"a_id": [
"dguz5es",
"dguz8ab",
"dguz9w7",
"dgv07du"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It says nothing about whether they sell your information or not.\n\nIt says that they leave an identifying data file on your computer, so that when you visit their site again, they know you're the same person.\n\nThis is a feature provided by your web browser software. You can turn it off.",
"No, cookies are like your client card in that page.\n\nUsually when it shows that is because they have a facebook / amazon / twitter / youtube plug-in in their website.\n\nThere is the possibility that the websites, due to the presence of the plug-in, passes the information to the facebook/yt. etc cookies. Allowing facebook / yt to show you better ads in it. \n\nThat's not the website fault. It's on the terms and condition of the plug-ins anyway.\n\nSelling information does not requires cookies. ISP just copy the traffic that went to your router and sell that. They don't sell user information like emails, etc. They just sell \"He went to 49 websites related with keyboards\". ",
"Cookies are just little pieces of information that a website stores on your computer. Sometimes these are temporary (such as your shopping cart) or permanent (such as your preferences on how the site should be displayed).\n\nA few years ago the EU required every site that uses cookies to get the user's permission. These usually take the form of a banner or popup that you have to dismiss.",
"Cookies are a way to store information in your browser. This information can be anything: A temporary setting you made on that site, your login token or something completely different.\n\nWithout cookies this information would be gone once you reload the page but cookies will be stored in your browser for whatever time period the website hoster thinks is necessary.\n\nCookies can be disabled in most browsers and that would render many pages unusable. Because of that and because of legal reasons there are so many websites that inform you that they use cookies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3krlg0 | how will the upcoming human head transplant work? | _URL_0_
An italian surgeon is going to transplant a persons head to another body, stating that trials with animals have been successful in keeping the animals alive for a few days. However, how are the surgeons planning on keeping the person alive? It's hard enough for normal organ transplants with anti-rejection drugs but how will they manage to keep the whole body from rejecting the head? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3krlg0/eli5_how_will_the_upcoming_human_head_transplant/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuzw8ji",
"cuzwrzb"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"It'll work like magic....\n\nThat is to say: magic don't work, it won't either.\nConsider just reconnecting the _URL_0_ the spinal cord. There are millions of them, and each has a different set of endpoints. It's often referred to as a network, but it ain't the internet. Internet.points A and B can (almost) always be connected, for any two points. But with nerves, that may only be true in the brain. Once the neurons come out of the brain, each has a single endpoint elsewhere in the body.\n\nThis couldn't be done even if all they did was put the head back on the same body it came from; no way to reconnect and heal the nerves.\n\nThis is a complete hoax.",
"it's expected to go poorly, even if it goes well:\n\n\"\"From speaking to several medical experts, Hootan has pin-pointed a problem that even the most perfectly performed head transplant procedure cannot mitigate - we have literally no idea what this will do to Spiridonov’s mind. There’s no telling what the transplant - and all the new connections and foreign chemicals that his head and brain will have to suddenly deal with - will do to Spiridonov’s psyche, but as Hootan puts it rather chillingly, it \"*could result in a hitherto never experienced level and quality of insanity*\". \"\n\n**!!**\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/head-transplant-volunteer-might-face-fate-more-terrifying-death"
] | [
[
"neurons.in"
],
[]
] |
|
3fwlhh | what determines the melting point of an object? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fwlhh/eli5_what_determines_the_melting_point_of_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctsm858"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Melting points are mostly determined by the molecular structure of the object. The melting point actually changes under different pressure, but generally when you hear about melting points people are assuming it's under standard atmospheric pressure. The melting point is determined by the amount of thermal energy required to break bonds in the atoms. Higher temperatures means more thermal energy and higher melting points. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1wm66z | if every country were to ban cemeteries, and required cremation of all dead bodies ( > 50 million/year), what would the effect be on the global climate/environment? | I assuming that the heat production would have less impact than the emissions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wm66z/eli5_if_every_country_were_to_ban_cemeteries_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf3axda"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Quick calculation: the world [uses about 4 x 10^12 kg](_URL_0_) of pertroleum annually. The total mass of your humans, assuming a pretty generous weight, would be [about 4 x 10^9 kg](_URL_1_). So it'd be about a 0.1% increase in carbon emissions even assuming humans are as carbon-dense as petroleum. Since humans are mostly water, this is a vast overestimate."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28160+m^3%2Fs%29*%281+year%29*%28density+of+petroleum%29",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50+million+*+75+kg+in+kg"
]
] |
|
7ybg01 | why don’t you hear about the history of africa before colonialism? | Why don’t we learn about Africa’s history before slavery? Was it not documented enough or is it just another systematic racism? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ybg01/eli5_why_dont_you_hear_about_the_history_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"duf221z",
"duf23xr",
"duf2apr",
"duf2nb4",
"duf2p1s",
"duf2zis",
"duf88t5",
"duf8iif",
"dufc56i",
"dufcgut",
"dufd47y",
"dufdfrn",
"dufdmml",
"dufe1w9",
"dufe45s",
"dufihvq",
"dufmenl",
"dufnyje",
"dufroaj",
"duft2jl",
"dufx1sj",
"dufyl25",
"dug006w",
"dug6ya2",
"dug7ezq",
"dugov4r",
"dugtgbb",
"dugtwnn"
],
"score": [
501,
31,
116,
44,
2797,
8,
63,
3,
35,
6,
75,
4,
3,
66,
4,
3,
7,
5,
3,
3,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Prior to the arrival of Europeans in Africa the Caliphates dominated North Africa and sub-sarahan Africa was split into a hundred smaller kingdoms/empires. There was no large unification, it was just a bunch of kingdoms vying for power against their neighbors but no one really conquering the continent to simplify history\n\nI'm going to put this under \"its really messy and confusing\" rather than racist. Its the same reason you don't learn about pre-Roman Gaul, you won't be able to keep track of the 100 different tribes in the area and in the end it didn't shape the world today.",
"Primarily a lack of documentation. What documentation we have of ancient civilizations was passed down through a contiguous chain of civilizations (or the same civilization). Where there is a break in the chain - a regional 'collapse of civilization' - all of the records get lost and we're forced to guess based on permanent structures left behind.\n\nUnfortunately, most civilizations tend to develop in humid, fertile environments that also yield rapid of decay of anything that isn't made from stone - and most civilizations don't bother with ostentatious displays like the pyramids or carving their history into stone.\n\nNote that the same happened with the Americas. We have knowledge of native civilizations that existed when Westerners arrived... because Westerners recorded that history. However, virtually everything prior to that is a mystery.\n\nRacism did play some role - historians were traditionally reluctant to believe in early African civilizations because such civilizations made no lasting impact on the rest of the world. The only \"African\" civilizations they were familiar with - and had evidence of - were Mediterranean cultures rather than sub-Saharan black cultures and they didn't spend much time looking for the latter.\n\nOn the flip side, for the past few decades, there's been a degree of pushback the other way - the invention of an African mythology in service of Afrocentrism.",
"Before what slavery? Slavery is as old as civilization.\n\nMost cultures focus on history that pertains to their culture. We learn about Greeks and Celts and the Levant because those are the stories that shaped our own stories. The parts of ancient Africa we do focus on (Egypt, Carthage, Ethiopia) touched on our history. \n\nPlus, as you suggested, much of Africa didn’t form large civilizations for very long throughout history, and documentation is scarce. It’s no coincidence we know a lot about Egypt: they built big stone things, and they wrote a lot down. \n\nI didn’t learn much in school about ancient East Asia, the Americas much before colonialism, India, etc. It’s not a racist thing. It’s just not a part of my culture’s history. \n\nI’m sure children in Africa learn considerably more about themselves than we learn about them and vice versa. ",
"That is not quire true one part of African history before slavery is often taught in school. I would be surprised if ancient Egypt is not includes in history classes. \n\nBut I would agree that Sub-Saharan Africa history is not included. Part of it is they way history is taught is that it is the part that are important for the development of the country you live in is included.\n\n It is not that far from the truth that what happen in Sub-Saharan Africa before the Atlantic slave trade started have has a limited influence on the development of the west compared to other thing that is in history classes.\n\nBy the way slavery did not start in Africa with the Atlantic slave trade in the 16th century. There was for example Egyptian and Roman import of slaves in the ancient time.\n\nThe Arab slave trade with Africa existed before and after the Atlantic form medieval eta to the 20th century. Som estimation has it at 17 million slaves compared to 12 million that was transported over the Atlantic.\n\nSlavery did not start in Africa because of that and there was/is internal use of slaves in Africa. Slavery have likely occurred in most societies that started to farm. It was rare in hunter-gatherer societies but it existed in some places. ",
"Egypt is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet and we hear a lot about them and their history prior to European colonial era. We also hear a lot about the Caliphate eras of the middle ages and dark ages which controlled much of North and Central Africa, and of Carthage that was in North Africa during the Roman era. \n\nBut you are correct that there is not a lot on Central and Southern Africa. That would be because most of those tribal groups did not have written language so we do not have records of their history outside of oral traditions of the groups, or records of them made by other groups. \n\nAlso you talk as though slavery was something unique to Imperial Europe and the Americas. It was not. Slavery has existed as long as civilization has existed and virtually every ethnic group on the planet has owned slaves and been slaves at some point in their history. ",
"For the most part, the history you learn in a western nation is the history of western civilization & your own country. You don't hear much about Africa because you're busy learning about other things and Africa doesn't really intersect much with European history *until* colonialism starts.\n\nThe line between systemic racism & eurocentrism isn't particularly clear.",
"So, people have already given good answers to this. \n\nOn a related note, does anyone have some good resources to learn what we do know about sub-Saharan Africa's ancient history?",
"There is quite a bit of history in East Africa as it was a seafaring region and significant in trade with India. At its height, it was one of the most stable and secure regions on the planet. ",
"Africa is hard because it is an insanely big place with huge, disparate people groups. Egypt and North Africa gets covered fairly broadly by American (I guess this is the \"we\" you're talking about) history classes, but usually within the context of the really ancient Egyptians or later interactions with Europeans (Romans, Greeks, 'western civ', crusades, etc).\n\nWhy don't we talk a lot about other places? Because of a prejudice inherent in History. No, I don't mean racial prejudice (necessarily). History is concerned primarily with *written* sources. As another commenter said, many African tribes did not employ written systems of language. But that doesn't mean we should discount the story of Africa's diverse background! It just makes it harder to teach to high schoolers. There are advances every day in African studies ranging from better understandings of remote or extinct tribes to how communism affected African nations to how American foreign policy has affected African nations to the legacy of colonialism to the Diaspora.\n\nFurther, two things to note, partially so bad ideas don't abound:\n\n* \"Slavery\" is an ambiguous term, which is why you see a lot of \"slavery has always existed Africans are guilty too\" ideas thrown out by people trying to muddy the waters with poor definitions. The \"slavery\" we're talking about is \"African chattel slavery.\" That's inherently different than the slavery usually referenced by these people. African chattel slavery was the specific movement of property from Africa to the New World as a way to provide cheap labor to burgeoning colonial interests there. Africans were viewed as subhuman and stripped of the things that made them unique to one another. In 2018, someone from Jo-Burg is a totally different kind of African than an Egyptian or Eritrean or Libya. In 1600, they were just slaves. The cultural domination and debasement are part of what makes chattel slavery unique among other forms of military or economic slave systems.\n\n* Another commenter mentioned that Europeans bought slaves from Africans as if that equated the practice of European slave gathering and African slave gathering. It is important to note that Europeans were exchanging guns and wealth with coastal Africans in exchange for slaves. With the money and guns, Africans did exactly what the situation demanded; they raided inland. With European guns and money, coastal Africans could stand up even to more established kingdoms, and they largely succeeded. Were there other chattel slaves in Africa? Yes. But that system was not nearly as prolific as the Atlantic Slave Trade. The Europeans committed terrible crimes in the name of profit, and while Africans do share a fraction of that complicity for being slave-owning for so long, their endeavors don't stack up to the impact Europeans had on the world's dispersed peoples.\n\nAnd finally, it is important to note that asking questions like this is important! Since stories are so powerful, there are very influential people who work very hard to control those stories; either to minimize their side's sins or maximize the blemishes of the other. I imagine your question comes in the context of Black Panther's release, and I'm very pleased to see art provoking good discussions about history and race. You should seek out good information on the subject. Be careful who's telling you the info. I'm a white guy who studies history, but I could have said I was WEB DuBois's reincarnation and therefore an authority on the matter. You wouldn't have known because of Reddit's anonymity. So pay attention to the way people who live the story tell the story. The US education system is decentralized and slanted toward local homeowners who have the time and money to go to PTA meetings... So utilize resources outside of that influence as well. Crash Course and Khan Academy are great!",
"ELI5 answer: Local history is usually the only history requirement in schools so most people don't go beyond that. There are African history classes, people just have to choose to take them.\n\nMost people who know about it do so because they researched it outside of an academic setting.\n\nIt's documented in some places, and not documented in others. The level of documentation varies from place to place, North Africa has extensive documentation, and so do Ethiopia and Nigeria, but a lot of others don't.\n\nTyrants, both imported and domestic, are to blame for a lot of the holes. Censorship, book burning, forced silence, ect. by authoritarians all contribute to a lack of documentation.",
"Others have said, but I would like to put in my two cents as I took a history of South Africa class at my University (University of Delaware) under one of the most renowned historians in sub-saharan African history. If you're interested, his name is Wunyabari Maloba. To be honest, if you sent him an email and explained your interest I bet he would be willing to recommend some books/resources for reading. \n\nMostly because of a lack of written history to answer your question though. When I wrote my two essays for the class, most of the books I read to gather info were written by the first Dutch priests who were part of the colonization effort. Also definitely look up Shaka and the Xhosa as others have said. There is some history of earlier times or concurrent as these priests interacted with the natives in the area. In general though, the story of sub Saharan Africa is super interesting. Their societies were set up in a completely different way from basically anywhere else in the world.",
"basically , north africa was pretty much dominated by caliphs , Umayyads , etc, that's where the arab/muslim population of modern day north africa comes from and sub saharan africa was pretty much fractured , thousands of tribes , kingdoms and all that, to put it shortly , finding accurate history would be very hard and confusing",
"In terms of Sub-Saharan Africa? Hard to figure out the history of a people group when they don't write things down. Oral traditions fill some gaps, but don't really offer the nitty-gritty so much. Hell, Madagascar was only recently inhabited. By Austronesians, no less. They didn't write stuff down either till recently. Like, 1400's recently. \n\nNorth Africa, though? Ho boy, has that region been eventful, and recorded, for a long time. Thousands of years of history to read about there. ",
"Don't know where you're from, but in most places you only learn about civilisations that influenced the rest of the world in some way (culture, finance, science).\nAfrica (sub Saharan) was mostly isolated and had little influence on the rest of the world in historical terms. No need to force \"racism\" into everything.",
"One of the largest and most influential sub-Saharan civilizations was the Mali empire, but they didn't leave extensive written records, so there's a lot we don't know about them. ",
" > Africa’s history before slavery?\n\nI can tell you're a liberal :) Africans were enslaving other Africans long before any Europeans or Arabs showed up. The idea of downplaying/censoring this truth and only focusing on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is a socialist way of thinking used to portray Africans solely as victims and to demonize the West for something that Africans themselves were doing. Were you really so simple-minded as to think the Europeans and Arabs spent their time searching uncharted Africa to capture slaves? No, they bought their African slaves from AFRICAN slave masters.\n\nAs for the history you're talking about. Sub-Saharan Africa was extremely primitive so there's not much history. They didn't have written language or any significant technology. Some parts of Africa didn't even have the concept of a wheel at the time of European contact. They were in the stone age, hundreds of thousands of years behind the civilized world.\n\nEdit: Some corrections. Written language did exist in Sub-Saharan Africa but developed later than most other civilizations in North Africa, Asia and Europe and was not as widespread as written languages were in those civilizations. Iron Age civilizations also existed in Sub-Saharan Africa, but its applications were not as advanced as those in other Old World civilizations.",
"It depends on where you are from, in Ireland I learnt about the big civilizations like Carthage and Egypt but generally we learnt mostly about African interaction with Western Civilization, WW2 battles, British fighting the Zulu etc.\n\nIf I go over the other side of the world, people know only a little about Ireland(Some have never heard of it), Guinness, Northern Ireland troubles, St Patricks Day, Irish people are really white etc, no one will know anything about Ireland before 1950, but close to home in Europe people know more about Ireland.\n\nAfrica is a distant place, it has a lot of culture, some of it very, very different, so we tend only to learn about peoples that interacted with us.\n\n",
"What's with the twang at the end of this question jeez, like he's trying to make this comment section spicy.\n\nAs everyone else has already answered you obviously mean sub Saharan Africa as north Africa has some of the record oldest information in the world in fact the first recorded battle was between Egypt and the Cannanites? I think.\n\nSub Saharan people just didn't write anything down I don't even think they did it through poetry and word of mouth they just didn't have an interest in the past. Same goes for a lot of the planet do there is no need to be so agro and try to blame everyone else becuase there's no information on it.",
"Seriously? Africa was filled with slavery throughout its entire history. Europeans did not just come and enslave Africans for the first time. You gotta think, there are places in the Congo where upwards to 50% of children are product of rape. Imagine being a civilized European having tea time and seeing a culture like that. How human would they seem. ",
"This is late OP, but you can read Martin Meredith's book *Fortunes of Africa* for an economic perspective on Africa's history.",
" I am from South Africa and we do learn some of the tribal history. One thing that’s important to note is that with colonialism came big changes to the countries. Before that it was all tribes that had no impact on the rest of the world. When in another country other than an African one you would learn world history I.e. only history that had an impact on the world at large.",
"I did. But I went to school in Southern Africa and did African history as part of my O levels as well as modern European history which included Russian history and the second world war. When I moved back to the UK I realised I knew nothing about UK history from the middle ages etc. I think countries tend to focus more on their own history is all. Learning about Shaka's military tactics was kind of interesting even as a bored 15 year old though! ",
"I learned a little in 8th grade. I think they don't teach it because it's not part of the line of history that eventually led to the technological revolution that has changed the world. Then again neither is most of Ancient History other than Rome \n\nLook up Mansa Musa, kingdom of ghana, Zanzibar, Shaka Zulu, and there's others",
"Well it depends about what \"we\" you are talking about. I know a lot of professors at the University level who try to include some aspects of African history outside of colonialism and the European slave market in their \"world history\" courses. And of course, there are many large universities where you can take specific African history courses. Even places in subsaharan Africa with very few, if any, written sources, are discussed due to the various cities and other archaeological finds. For many older histories we rely on such archaeological finds, so although it is uncomfortable for historians, we can move beyond written sources. Unfortunately, non-European and non-U.S. history courses are pretty unpopular amongst the white students, at least at my large university. The history of China, India, (to a lesser extent) Latin America, and Africa tend to have extremely few students outside those with ancestry in those particular regions. The exception being the Middle East, because of current foreign policy, there are many students in other majors learning Arabic with the goal of getting some sort of U.S. military industrial complex job related to the ongoing interventions--those students take various Middle Eastern history courses even though they do not personally identify with the region. \n Now, there is certainly still \"systemic\" racism against African history. I think a lot of the comments in this ELI5 show the results of that inherent racism. The main reason for the Eurocentric approach in U.S. history, especially in high school but also even at university, is the conscious creation of a \"western civilization\" curriculum in the U.S. Although other countries in Europe have a similar bias, it was in the U.S. where a specific historical subject called the history of \"western civilization\" was created. This history of \"western civilization\" begins with the ancient Greeks and Romans, goes to medieval Europe, then the Renaissance, on to the Enlightenment, then the subsequent American Revolution and French Revolution (excluding the Haitian revolution and Latin American revolutions), nineteenth century U.S. history, and the world wars. Most high schools in the U.S. don't stray from this model because most of the textbooks follow it, the standardized tests follow it, and it would be extremely difficult to change it within a fairly rigid school system where teachers don't have a lot of freedom to change the curriculum. This \"western civilization\" approach to history in the U.S. cuts out tons of other important and influential history, and yes, even without meaning to it ends up building the idea that \"whiteness\" exists as handed down since the ancient Greeks and Romans. And of course, these \"white\" cultures are superior. Hence the term \"systemic\". It is not that there is a group of white men sitting in a room rubbing their hands together saying \"how do we trick everyone into thinking white cultures are superior?\" Basically powerful people's biases build school policies and curriculums at both the local and federal level (in the U.S., Texas is a big center of school textbook production). These policies and curriculums then replicate and reiterate these (often unacknowledged) biases. ",
"Education does not stop at the classroom, my friend. Seek knowledge and you will find it. PBS actually had a really good docuseries about this very topic called Africa's Greatest Civilizations. Here's the link: _URL_0_",
"Where there ever great kingdoms in southern Africa? Around the \"horn\" I believe.",
"Assuming you're from US, our history is taught very Euro-centrally. This is for a multitude of reasons.\n\n1. They look like us, us being the majority race in America (I myself am black but you know what I mean).\n\n2. European history shapes US history, let's face it, if not for European travel to the US, the America's wouldn't have had nearly the technological advancements it underwent. It's important to learn about what led to the European developments that led them to the America's.\n\n3. (On the point that we only learn about Africa come slavery) that's when the US directly affected/was affected by Africa. It's important to know our effect on the globe and the rest of the world's direct effect on us.\n\n4. It's simply more readily available. We're an English speaking country (overwhelmingly so), most of Europe speaks English as a second language, compare that to Africa, we're closer as a people.\n\n5. We're more developmentally similar to Europe than Africa. Seriously. Go to any European country, there are obvious differences, clearly, but much of the first world is, unsurprisingly, like the rest of the first world. Compare that to taking a trip to the more remote/underdeveloped areas of Africa, it's (literally and figuratively) stepping into a different world. \n\nWe're more apt to teach what we know, Europe is a relatively known entity, Africa is alien to us comparatively.\n\nSource: History-Education Double Major.",
"The simplest answer is keeping in mind how much of the history was destroyed. For what reasons, i am not sure. but there was TONS of documentation in the ancient Universities like Timbuktu, Alexandria,Kemet, and others. I am talking before the flood, old. Alot of what remains is in the Vatican,and that information is certainly kept secret for political reasons. If you want SERIOUS answers, that make sense, and are not white-splaining; check out:\nMichael Bradley - The Iceman Inheritance (single most important book to read if you are white)\nMaster. John Henrike Clarke\nMaster. Cheik Ant Diop\nQueen. Marimba Ani\nDr. Joy Leary.\nDr. Claud Anderson\nDr. Francis Cress-Welsing\nIn no specific order. Seriously, you will not fall short of an understanding after their information.\n\nNow try to imagine that USA gets invaded and every Ivy League School is burned to the ground along with the libraries. Every micro-Ivy League, and every public intellectual that is celebrated for their contributions as an American. Just as a result of war, and invasion. The African situation is a bit more nuanced than that, but those facts are what i keep in mind when i need to remind myself.\n\nLastly, there are exampled of Civilizations that encountered western( or other ) powers but RETAINED their cultural history and solidarity, while being reshaped forever by the influence of those other civilizations.\nChina, India."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/show/africas-great-civilizations/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5z2hod | how do florescent paints glow under a black light? | How do florescent paints glow under a black light?
I get the whole bit about light and absorbing/reflecting but what exactly causes the *glow* of florescent paints (or other phosphorescent materials) under UV/black lights? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z2hod/eli5how_do_florescent_paints_glow_under_a_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"deurrkr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Fluorescent materials absorb ultraviolet light, and emit visible light. When matter absorbs light, it does so by jumping an electron up one or several energy levels. Then, the electron falls back down to its original position, emitting a photon every time it descends. \n\nSo in a phosphorescent material, the electron jumps up several levels at once when exposed to UV light, then falls back down in several steps; emitting photons at lower, visible wavelengths."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2esjqi | how do companies come up with their nutrition facts? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2esjqi/eli5_how_do_companies_come_up_with_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck2lm9p",
"ck2nlhm",
"ck2ombv",
"ck2q5s3"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"Most ingredients have existing known amounts of nutritional information. For example: I know orange juice has this much vitamin C, on average, per 100mL. I know plain white flour has this amount of carbohydrate.\n \nThen they just do the maths to figure out how much of each ingredient they used, and find what that adds up to.",
"Product samples are sent to a lab for analysis. \n\n",
"Work at a bakery: The higher ups have a laptop and a program. The put in the overall ingredient list and the premixed - precooked nutritional facts get spitted out. Then they take some of the made bread and probe it. The program and machine then gives them an estimation. They then do several tests on site with various compounds and either confirm the product or rework.\n\nIt's seriously interesting to watch.",
"Typically nutritional analysis is done by software such as [genesis](_URL_0_) and rarely by lab analysis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.esha.com/product/genesis-nutrition-label-software"
]
] |
||
bau4et | how is it that on a salt container, 1 serving is 1.5g (1500mg), but the sodium content per serving is only 590mg? what am i missing? | It's regular salt with an anti caking agent. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bau4et/eli5_how_is_it_that_on_a_salt_container_1_serving/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekdyi00",
"ekdzc80"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"Sodium given as a part of sodium chloride.",
"Salt is made from two different parts. One part is sodium. The other part is chlorine.\n\nOne sodium weighs 23 and one chlorine weighs 35, so one salt weighs 58. The sodium part is 23/58 or 40% of the salt weight.\n\nIf I have 1000 mg of salt, I should have 400mg of sodium.\n\nIf I have 1500mg of salt, I should have 600 mg of sodium.\n\nYou have 590mg, which is pretty close. Most of the difference is because chlorine weighs 35.45 and not 35. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
21whgq | i didn't sign up for "obamacare" in time, and i am currently uninsured. am i totally screwed? what happens now? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21whgq/eli5_i_didnt_sign_up_for_obamacare_in_time_and_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgh5qub",
"cgh61p5",
"cgh66u7"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can't buy insurance from the exchanges till the next enrollment period starting in Nov and will have to pay a fine when you file taxes next year. I believe the amount is $95 or 1% if you make over a certain amount (think around $20,000). You can still by insurance directly from the insurance company.",
"When you pay your taxes you will have to pay a penalty of $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is higher. \n\nBut...\n\n* \"Income\" means amount over 10,000 for an individual or 20,000 for a family. So a family that makes 50,000 dollars would pay a $300 penalty per adult (50k-20k = 30k, x .01 = 300).\n\n* If you manage to get insurance later in the year, and so don't spend more than 3 months uninsured, you owe nothing. AND it's prorated. So, if you were totally uninsured so far this year, but then gone insurance on 1 June (because you got a new job, say), you'd only pay 50% of the fine. \n\n* Also, no matter how high your income is, the total fine can't exceed the average for a bronze plan. \n\nsource: _URL_0_",
"Summary:\n\nIf your exchange is ran by the federal government **and** you tried to sign up but couldn't (even though you don't have to prove that you tried) then you basically get an extension.\n\nIf your exchange is ran by your state government then the answer depends on your state.\n\n------------------------\n\n\n\nWorst scenario (other than being uninsured) is paying a fine of $95 or 1% of your income (whichever is higher). And there are \"hardship exceptions\" to avoid paying that.\n\n**Definitions**\n\n* Open-enrollment period. This is what it sounds like: anyone gets to enroll. You just have to sign up. This ended today/yesterday. The next one is in November.\n\n* Special-enrollment period. Again, what it sounds like: there has to be some special reason for you to be able to sign up during the special-enrollment period. Something like [losing your job, getting married, or having a kid](_URL_0_). **Or if you had problems with the website.** How long you get to use the \"problems with the website\" excuse hasn't been announced.\n\n* Health insurance marketplace (or \"exchange\"). This is where what it sounds like: a marketplace. You get to look at the details of different plans and pick the one that you want. Go to [_URL_2_](_URL_1_) and input some details and check out some plans and see for yourself.\n\n--------------------------\n\nSo, if:\n\n1. Your exchange is ran by the federal government\n2. You tried to sign up but you couldn't (and therefore you qualify for the special-enrollment period)\n\nThen you basically get an extension. Try again tomorrow or the next day. Get signed up before the special-enrollment period ends for you. And, like I said before, you don't have to prove that you had problems with the site. If you didn't and you want to lie about then that's between you and your conscience.\n\nHowever, if your exchange is ran by your state government then it depends."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/"
],
[
"http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/complex-cases-SEP-3-26-2014.pdf",
"http://www.healthcare.gov",
"healthcare.gov"
]
] |
||
5xoii0 | why do we have an emotional reaction to music? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xoii0/eli5_why_do_we_have_an_emotional_reaction_to_music/ | {
"a_id": [
"dejn337",
"dejn6pr",
"dejnrqs",
"dejo9gc",
"dejoa8g",
"dejohv1",
"dejolox",
"dejopwb",
"dejpmok",
"dejs5l7",
"dejsq5x",
"deju7ik",
"dejv1m1",
"dejxzjo",
"dejyrt9",
"dejza7m",
"dek1ohl",
"dek20zy",
"dek2zlz",
"dek3i40",
"dek3nkg",
"dek45ie",
"dek5qfn",
"dek74lw",
"dek7gcq",
"dek82ye",
"dek8p1o",
"deka36v",
"dekjfon",
"dekln48"
],
"score": [
17,
3697,
133,
115,
4,
20,
2,
1432,
2,
7,
2,
8,
10,
7,
6,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
63,
2,
10
],
"text": [
"music induces hormonal changes, neurosynaptic activity similar to drugs and other pleasurable activities, may be a coping mechanism, positive or maladaptive for some, has particular effect on those with high \"fantasy-proneness\" ",
"Jordan Peterson explained this pretty well in one of his lectures. Lemme see if I can summarize it. \n\nWe want meaning in our lives. Life is a balance between order and chaos and we don't take too well to chaos but it can be overcome and made into order, making us feel accomplished and life meaningful. Music mimics this process. It's highly ordered and miraculous. He claims even the most nihilistic of us like music because of this reason. It generates meaning. People on psychedelics often say they really understand and can see the structure of music way differently than the normal waking state. Haven't done them though so can't comment. ",
"My brother has never had much of a response to music. He focuses directly on what the singer is saying. Not singing, saying. Like straight up lyrical content. He says the instruments are just meaningless noise to him.\n\nWhat does this say about him?",
"I recently started reading [This is Your Brain on Music](_URL_0_), by Daniel Levitin, which talks a lot about what is going on in your brain regions while listening to music. \n\nI haven't finished the book yet, but he does touch on some of the research in this area.",
"It seems to stimulates a part of my brain that is involved with pleasure, time-perception, motivation and mood enhancement. It seems to facilitate emotional processing when necessary. ",
"Short answer: we are not sure. Some people in the field of music cognition claim it's a social phenomenon. We think of major scales as \"happy\" because that's what we learned from society. Another view is that over time we become familiarized with common musical patterns and develop some expectancy as to where the music is going. Based on this expectancy, we will have different reactions to music based on whether it resolves according to our expectations. Its probably a combination of the two. \n\nIt's a pretty new and complicated field of cognitive science. I have some research articles I can share with you if you want to go into more depth.",
"Again it probably has to do with this concept. If you're after a Darwinian perspective it probably has to do with communal bonding. What perspective are you looking for?",
"Here is the short neurobiological answer. Music is processed by the auditory system in the brain, just like verbal information (speaking). The auditory system is connected to the limbic system, the part of the brain responsible for emotion processing. Music can, just like verbal information, activate the entire limbic system and thus stimulate an emotional response if it's suitable for the situation (context processing is also important in stimulating an emotional response). \n\nThe same goes to other sensory perceptions - vision can also stimulate an emotional response, for example art paintings. Smell is unique in the sense (pun unintended) that smell information travels directly to its cortex in the brain, unlike the other sensory information that first passes through a relay station (the thalamus), and is tightly connected to the hippocampus (responsible for memory formation, context and emotion processing). Smell can thus trigger very profound memory recall to specific situations.",
"Or, better yet, why do some of us not have an emotional reaction to music?",
"It has to do with vibrations, harmonics (and the traveling of waves), the biological structure of the concych(sp?) bone in the inner ear and its similarity to the physical \"shape\" of the universe...basically the correlation of being a small interpretation of a grande arrangement is always moving parts...microcosms and macrocosms.",
"I like the ancient aliens theory and smoking a lot of weed. I had this dumb highdea once. \nThe reason humans can get so much meaning from music is because aliens communicate through tones and sounds and since they are the missing link between ancient neanderthaly folk and our modern man, we can interpret lot of meaning through music. ",
"I actually don't have any feeling toward music. I like very little music and have almost never in my life felt anything at all due to a song. I heard a thing on NPR a while back (radiolab I think) that like 20% of people don't have an emotional response to music. I kinda wish I did, but it just doesn't do it for me in the end. \n\nThe odd thing is, I'm not so bad at playing music, I can play a few instruments reasonably well, and while I get pleasure from learning songs and playing them, I essentially never feel anything when I hear music.",
"My understanding is that we really don't know why. And there are a lot of genuinely smart and informed theories out there. This will not be one of them.\n\nWhen I'm thinking about this question I always think of how fundamentally connected music is to humanity. We see evidence of music when studying prehistoric man. And the very first thing we experience in the womb is the beating of our mother's heart. Rhythm is obviously very important to us.\n\nSo, I speculate that music serves an evolutionary purpose. Socially, it binds communities together through worship and ritual. And physiologically, it soothes us as would our mother's steady un-worried rhythm. Perhaps humans who learned music outlived those that did not.\n\nSo, just as the spider produces a web for its own biological imperative, we produce music as our own. That doesn't help explain how our brains appreciate music but I suspect it's not far from the reason why we appreciate music.\n\nAgain, total conjecture. ",
"Humans associate certain sounds, frequencies, keys, and chords etc with things. We give meaning to the sounds, much like how we give RED the meaning of danger or war or violence or LOVE or heart. It all depends on context, Love and War are completely opposite but we assign it a similar colour. We assign meaning to these sounds or sequence of sounds and these meanings change very slowly, it will take a long time for the Major key to be interpreted as Sad, it might not even happen at all, that's why in music theory it's kind of like a \"rule\" but it isn't a scientific \"law\" per se because who knows? maybe in 1000 years society will decide Major keys are sad and Minor keys are happy. hopefully this helps you out, I know there's still some stuff i haven't mentioned yet like how our brains interpret certain things but the main idea is: Patterns = Colour and We give meaning to Colour based on societal context etc.",
"Music tells a story. Sometimes the story is so beautiful or so sad it tiggers your empathy feelings. Not just the words of a song but the instruments use to create story. Hallelujah, the song that brings tears to my eyes. Having moments of losing faith or constantly being on edge of praise.\n\nA new song for me would be: Spanish Sahara by Foals\n\nBecause the way it was introduced to me. By video game were i had to make a very tough choice. \n\nThe game is Life is Strange.\n\n",
"Leonard Bernstein gave a [great series of talks](_URL_0_) about how music works and why it is meaningful to us. Very long but worth every minute.",
"Not sure if [this video](_URL_0_) caused this inquiry or not, but nonetheless, it can be a good starting point for the connection between humans and musicality.",
"So I just finished reading a dissertation about this. There is so much that goes into our response to music. There's basic stuff like our hearts speeding up in response to a faster beat - those are the biological aspects. There's the cultural part of it, where we're taught that minor keys are sad and major keys are happy - it's completely arbitrary, but it doesn't feel that way because it's what we've learned. Then there's the sensory part of it. A certain set of notes may tinkle like falling water. When we hear something that sounds like water, our brains don't entirely separate out the sound from the feel or smell or other memories. So when I hear tinkling notes, it recalls (consciously or subconsciously) the time that I spent sitting beside a small waterfall, how peaceful it was, and all the sensory input of that time. \n\nWhen you put all that together, music has the capability of making entire worlds that we can enter into imaginatively, almost like good fiction, only even more a product of our imagination because we're putting our own experiences into it. That's the stuff that makes for strong emotional reactions! ",
"Harmonically, I'm not all that sure, but I do know that rhythmically, because you are able to follow the beat and understand rhythmic subdivisions, the brain essentially rewards itself for predicting what will happen in the future, so it releases endorphins.",
"I think it is because we are emotional, spiritual beings and music itself was designed to convey emotion. So it reminds us of things we are feeling or perhaps have tried to not feel. It connects to the deep longings that every human has for a full life. Sometimes we forget or lose the ability to feel emotions, or lose sight of our true desires in life. That's why music is so powerful. C'mon, how many of you have heard some music from an adventure game you played or a movie you saw and it fills you with a certain sadness. The sadness is there because during the movie/game you felt like a part of an adventure and now that feeling is gone. You wouldn't feel that nostalgic sadness if deep down you didn't long for a full life. A life that had meaning to it. The sadness shows you what you value and long for. So music is one of the tools that will help you discover what is truly meaningful in life.",
"The source of the primal, innate beat being sought in other comments is, I think, the mother's heart. In the womb, the heart of your mother would have beaten like a drum. ",
"Vsauce2 just uploaded [this](_URL_0_) great video today. It explains some of the stuff thats going on in the brain really well",
"ELI5 Why don't I have an emotional reaction to music? ",
"I haven't seen this mentioned yet and may have missed it, but you maybe want to check out the Oliver Sacks book Musicophelia. It's a great read and perfect if you want to learn more about how music interacts with our brains. He tends to cover some peculiar cases so it's less of a textbook explanation and more of a fringe situations / unique context explanation. Like losing your sense of music or suddenly knowing how to play piano like a professonal after a stroke. ",
"This article is a good read, but the point here that made me think of your question is this. Of all other artistic mediums, music is the only one that assaults you. You must give attention to anything visual, but music comes at you and then draws your attention into it.\n _URL_0_",
"The neuroscience pertaining to your question was fascinatingly discussed in this article - _URL_0_. The pleasure of music appears to be rooted in the fulfillment, delay, or violation of patterns we are anticipating.\n\n\"...the predictive patterns act directly on the emotional brain by way of different survival-related responses to anticipation, in particular, the prediction response rewarding correct predictions in order to reinforce correct predictions of the future. Brainstem reflexes, evaluative conditioning, emotional contagion, visual imagery, and episodic memory in relation to music are all dependent on the basic anticipatory structuring of music, described above, allowing for interpretation, memory, and learning of music.\"",
"I think it's because of the connections we make. Like with smells, music cam be linked to memories. So when we hear the song for the first time, we can link it to the events that were unfolding when we first heard the song. And then nostalgia blah blah.",
"Wow, I wasn't expecting this thread to be so popular. This is the first time one of my posts has reached the #1 spot on a subreddit. Thanks everyone!",
"I don't have a scientific answer, but I might have some insight. I'm autistic and I really love dynamic music, opera, classical, jazz, etc. And it took me a while but I realised that the reason I love them is because they take something I can't understand, i.e. emotions, and puts them into a format that is interpretable, into notes and chords that I can process. For example I know that if I play a D-minor it might connote despair or sadness and a G-major is often representative of elation or happiness (obviously it depends on the other notes being played, rhythm, etc). I imagine it's similar for other people, we associate certain sounds with certain feelings and that brings with it an emotional response. ",
"I've scrolled through the whole thread, and while many interesting points of view are represented, though many are subjective or pseudoscientifical inferences, not ONCE did I see the term \"psychoacoustics\" mentioned. That's a subfield of neuroscience, acoustics, psychology, and perhaps some musicology that deals with how humans subjectively experience music and the associated phenomena. In short, this question is precisely its purview, which makes this thread kind of like an ask thread on black holes where no one mentions astrophysics."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000PC0SDW"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE&list=PLKiz0UZowP2V0mwtNv1lc1_zUSB2O65d7"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/r4HOOfBUlE4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HOOfBUlE4"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/t-magazine/beck-tom-waits-kendrick-lamar.html"
],
[
"http://www.kringelbach.org/papers/ISR_VuustKringelbach2010.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
96bith | how do are camera shots where one person is in the shot multiple times done? | I was watching the music video for Childish Gambino - Sweatpants in which there are many "characters" but they're all Childish.
_URL_0_
How is this effect done? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96bith/eli5_how_do_are_camera_shots_where_one_person_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3z7uoi",
"e3znnqk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If it's digital, various ways from green/blue screen to add him over existing people or just digitally inserting him in the frames where there was nothing.. CGI is pretty impressive when done properly. Since it's all digital, the computer just goes frame by frame in memory and replaces all the all pixel data with what was there with what you want there. You can additionally just screen merge. like, he's actually him in all sequences and it's shot multiple times, then they just merge them together from the same perspective, so they're all him at different times, but put together in the same frame.\n \nOld ways, like I've seen/done, on pano cameras is when they're left or right starting, you stand still in the frame until the sweep passes you. Then, you quickly run around out of frame to the other side before the camera pans to it. Now you're in both sides of the picture. ",
"There is actually a fairly easy way to make pictures like this with any digital camera and windows paint.(video is a similar principle). \nAll you need to do is control the background. Use a tripod, and make sure the angle, lighting, and camera settings remain the same for each picture.\nWith the background identical in each picture, you can cut any section out of one picture(like square cut you don't need to be that accurate) and drop it onto another in the same place. As long as it's lined up it will blend seamlessly with the other background.\n It gets trickier if you want to have the subjects overlap. But otherwise very easy to make a multi me pic:)\n"
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExVtrghW5Y4"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
j4na6 | please explain major league baseball trades, waivers, free agency, arbitration, etc. li5 | It's hard to ignore all the trade talk this time of year, so one might as well understand what all the fuss is about. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j4na6/please_explain_major_league_baseball_trades/ | {
"a_id": [
"c294263",
"c29429m"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"**Trades**- Usually fairly simple, I give you Player X and you give me Player Y. However, there are cases where a really good player is traded for prospects, or young players who could potentially develop into superstar players (but can often times be hit or miss). Sometimes, salaries come into play. If Player X makes $5 million over the course of a season, Team 1 can agree to pay the rest of that salary, or ask Team 2 to pay the remainder. This is usually negotiated, depending on the amount.\n\n**Waivers**- (This is a bit complicated; I'll try my best) After July 31, all players whose teams want to trade them must do what is called \"clearing waivers.\" When players are \"put\" on waivers, it means that teams have a chance to \"claim\" them, or try and trade for them. But there's an order to this claiming process, determined by record, with the team with the worst record getting the first chance to put out a claim on a player. When a team \"claims\" a player, it means that they have a period of time in which to negotiate with the player's team about trading for him. A few things can happen: The player's team can \"withdraw\" the player from waivers if they don't wish to trade with the team that made the claim. If this happens, players can no longer be placed back on waivers at all, and thus must remain with their team for the remainder of the season. An alternative is that the player that is claimed is simply given to the other team, but that team will have to pay the rest of his salary. If a player manages to \"clear waivers,\" it means no team put out a claim for him to try and trade for him. His team is then free to trade him to whatever team they want. Players usually choose new teams to play for during the off-season.\n\nThe reason the July 31 non-waiver deadline is so big is because it can be difficult for players to clear waivers. If Team 1 wants to trade Player A to get a better player, Team 2 (a rival to Team 1) might put out a waiver claim that'll force Team 1 to withdraw the claim and hold onto the player, thus not be able to get a better player.\n\n**Free Agency**- Usually after a few years of playing baseball, you get the chance to play with any team you want, assuming they want you to play for them, for any amount of money. Before that, you have to go through **arbitration**, where your salary must fit within a predetermined scale, based on your performance. So players who play very well get the same X amount of money, while so-so players get the same Y amount. These are usually are one-year contracts, but don't allow players to sign with any team they want, only the team they played for last year.\n\nThe significance of free agency and trade talk has to do with whether players are in the final year of their contracts. If your team has a good player but the team is having a bad season, or can't pay a lot of money to players, then it's better to trade that player to another team with a better record in return for prospects in order to do better in the future.\n\nDoes that cover everything you wanted to know?",
"Trades: Imagine there's a really good player playing on Houston this season and his contract is up at the end of the year. Houston are nowhere near the playoffs, and want to make themselves a bit better in future. The Phillies really want this Houston player so they work out a deal which brings the Houston player to Philly, and some young players who will be good in a few years go back to Houston.\n\nWaivers: A team have a player under contract, but they don't want him anymore. They put him on waivers, any team can then \"claim\" him for the next 3 days. The worst team in the standings has first priority, with the best team last. Once a player is claimed the team that waived him can either: work out a trade with the team that claimed him, do nothing (the player then becomes property of the claiming team, with no trade) or rescind the waiver (the player is your player again. Each team can only do this once a season). After the trade deadline, teams can still do waiver transactions.\n\nFree Agency: Once a player has played 6 years and is out of contract (or has less than 6 years and has not been offered a contract by their current team) they can then sign with whatever team they want.\n\nArbitration: If a player and a team can't decide on a contract, then they can go to another guy who will look at their stats and how much guys with similar numbers than them are making and give them a number. This can happen for anyone without a contract, but it more often happens for players with less than 6 years service time. If the team doesn't like the number that the arbitrator gives, they can walk away and the player is now a free agent. If a player doesn't like the number they don't really have much they can do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
37ak1a | why can i whistle some days but not others? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37ak1a/eli5_why_can_i_whistle_some_days_but_not_others/ | {
"a_id": [
"crl2emt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe because your cheek and lip muscles get cramped, not allowing you to make the \"hole\" to whistle? I whistle daily and this has never happened to me."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.