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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6it6s7 | why was is normal to have automatic transmissions with less gears than a manual one before but now you get ones with more than double a manual one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6it6s7/eli5_why_was_is_normal_to_have_automatic/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj8wkw7",
"dj8ytc7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Automatics have traditionally operated using planetary gearsets. Due to the way they function this allowed 3 forward gears, neutral and reverse. That was pretty normal until approximately 1980.\n\nNext generation Automatics added an overdrive. This allowed 4 forward gears. This has been the standard in most cars until relatively recently.\n\nModern automatics have multiple sets of very well made planetary gearsets, as the number of gearsets increase, the number of gears the automatic can use exponentially increases as each added planetary gearset multiplies the ratios of the existing gearsets.\n\nThis is why an automatic now has 7, 8 or 9 gears to choose from.",
"Early automatics were marketed as a luxury/convenience feature...and that's it. Manuals were cheaper, less likely to break, and had better fuel economy. Like with many \"luxury\" features, the costs for automatics dropped, and they became common place. Manuals were still the \"go to\" for performance, and as a side benefit, better milage. In recent years, the demand for better fuel economy has driven additional development into automatics. Note that for many years, there have been manual transmissions with 10, 12, even 16 speeds. These are found almost exclusively on large trucks. Whay not in cars? Too big, and not really needed...mechanically, a car performs very different tasks than a large truck. With modern technology and the need for more fuel economy, 6,7 and 8 or more speed automatics were developed. A major innovation was the introduction of controlling them with computers. This allow very accurate RPM tracking and smooth shifts to keep the engine operating most efficiently under load. So, why not do the same with manual? Well...you could. But shifting an 8 or 9 speed manual would be very cumbersome, no one would want it. Another thing: The \"performance\" aspect of manual transmissions is pretty much gone now as well... thanks to developments in F1. Modern high-performance cars (think Porsche, Ferarri, etc) are all using automated shifting of some sort "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4ji4sp | why do things need scientific names? | Like why do we have "homosapien" and "human?" Why can't we just say "human?" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ji4sp/eli5_why_do_things_need_scientific_names/ | {
"a_id": [
"d36rrlb",
"d36s5z8",
"d36s9su",
"d36tb0u",
"d36tn1b",
"d36tyns",
"d36tz8o",
"d36u39u",
"d36xqg2"
],
"score": [
35,
7,
7,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We use Latin for scientific names, legal terms, etc. because it's a dead language. Because it's dead, the meaning of words won't change over time. The meaning of those words is set in stone, so it allows us to give names to things that will never change.\n\nFor example, if I called someone \"gay\" a couple hundred years ago, they'd think I was calling them happy and carefree. If I call someone gay now, they'll think I'm calling them homosexual. We don't have that problem with changing meanings when we use Latin. Whatever the word meant when the language died is what it will mean for eternity.\n\nEdit: Oh, right. There's also the fact that lots of languages have Latin roots, so it's got a nice, familiar vibe with many different languages.",
"We use scientific names, because we like to classify stuff. Normal language isn't exact enough for classifying things properly.\n\nFor example, a cayote and wolf are related animals. But their common names don't give any indication of this. However their binomial names, Canis latrans (cayote) and Canis lupus (wolf) do tell you they are related.\n\nAnother advantage of having a seperate system of scientific names is the universal nature of the names. You call it a wolf, but someone from France calls it a loup, and someone from India might call it a bheriya. But scientists from all this countries would call it Canis lupus. Obviously the name Canis lupus is in Latin, but no one speaks that language anymore natively.",
"I watched a CPGrey video in which he was talking about Daddy Longs Legs spiders. Turns out, depending where you are in the world that could mean different things. In Australia, the Eastern U.S. AND THE UK they were three different spiders, and one plant referenced by that name. AND he still missed what we call them! So depending where you'd are, the same name could mean different species. We need a more exact way to name things, and by using Latin those names won't change.",
"There are many names for things in different languages, and these names are often culturally informed and otherwise specific to that language. Scientific names are specific, universally recognized names for a species.\n\nAs an American, if I say \"possum\" I mean something very different from an Australian. Technically mine is an opossum but that's just more ambiguity. If I said \"Didelphis virginiana\" though, any zoologist would know what I meant or, if he didn't, could look up the specific species I'm referring to.",
"Your question would be better if it were the other way around.\n\nScientific names are useful for classification. Now, we could ask, \"why do we have 'homo sapiens' and 'human'? why can't we just say 'homo sapiens'?\"",
"They're specific (a name refers to one thing), unique (only one name refers to that thing), universal (not dependent on local names, languages, or, I believe, scripts) and informative (includes genus name as well as species). ",
"Another good reason is that it allows us to be more specific with our language. Like, when archeological digs find a recent human ancestor, we can give it a specific name like homo tobopithicus, and talk about how it is human-like. We could talk about them and say things like \"ancestral humans such as these lived long ago and stuff....\" without implying they are the same genetic species as us. Another example is if we called all birds \"birds\", we wouldn't have any way to distinguish blue jays from seagulls. It presents a sort of class structure, like how all vegetables are food, and all food is matter and atoms. So why do we have repetitive words for carrot when I could just as easily say vegetable or food? Because these words are like descriptions of sets, and each object has its own particular list of words it can be described with",
"Naming systems in general should be highly predictable, and names should be unique, precise, constant and public. None of this really applies to trivial names.\n\nPrecision means that the name refers only to a limited set of things, including all of them but nothing outside this set. The scope of a trivial name can be pretty wide and variable; think about something like \"gasoline\". Is it straight run distillate or something more elaborate? Which boiling range? Synthetic? Mixed? There's no way to know just from the name. Also, you have the issue with uniqueness, with the same liquid being called \"gasoline\" in one place and \"petrol\" or \"bensin\" elsewhere. Constancy means that it shouldn't change with fashions; once it is set, it will not be called something different next year. Greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change, what tomorrow? (These are different things scientifically, but the name used in public changes.) As for publicity; no secret or proprietary names. Companies love to invent proprietary names and not disclose compositions/contents of the product.\n\nThat being said, there's plenty of confusion even in scientific names. I once researched a compound that was referred to using four different names in literature.",
"World-wide there may be hundreds of names for a given species. The scientific name allows everyone, regardless of their language, to refer to the exact same species in the exact same way. This is similar to everyone using the term 'kilogram' to refer to the kilogram."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7i2suu | how can you be conscious of your breath without controlling it? | When you're conscious of your breath it no longer goes automatic as you would have to be not thinking about it for that to happen. Therefore you would have to breath and thereby control your breath whenever your conscious over it.
That's my understanding at the moment anyway. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i2suu/eli5_how_can_you_be_conscious_of_your_breath/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqvuy1o"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your breathing is controlled by a respiratory center at the base of your brain, it basically controls your breathing for you. \n\nBreathing is both an involentary and volentary action. This has probably developed this way as it is beneficial to be able to control your breath when you need to. Kind of like an override. Therefore, it has stayed with us as a 'good' trait. \nImagine being in a burning building and not being able to control your breathing. I would also assume that by thinking about your breathing you essentially hit the 'override' switch. Meaning you have to consciously control your breathing for a little while. \n\n\nI hope I answered your question, feel free to get me to clarify anything "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9rzglv | why does not looking at a bowl of soup or cup of water help you not spill it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rzglv/eli5_why_does_not_looking_at_a_bowl_of_soup_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8kyb6g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I would suspect because you're watching what you're doing and where you're going. If you're looking at the soup then you can't be watching where you're going very well "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2k0lv8 | how is it so hard to find a submarine? | The Swedish Armed Forces are sayig that it's so extremely difficult. Don't we have sonars and radars and shit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k0lv8/eli5_how_is_it_so_hard_to_find_a_submarine/ | {
"a_id": [
"clgs75m",
"clgsrl7"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because every part of the submarine is designed to make it as hard to find as possible. ",
"Submarines are deliberately designed not to be found. Stealth is pretty much their entire purpose in life. Add on to that that you're searching for something that's basically not much larger than a couple of trucks in tens of thousands of square miles of ocean, and it becomes not very surprising that a submarine which wishes to hide can do so quite successfully."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
eb4rwd | what happens to unused sperm/semen in the testes? if it's reabsorbed into the body, how, and does this have a particular effect on health? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eb4rwd/eli5_what_happens_to_unused_spermsemen_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fb2av7t"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Production would go down and most would indeed get reabsorbed in the ampullae. Reabsorbed by being taken apart by macrophages (white blood cells) and enzymes. The building blocks get used elsewhere in the body."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
15e4yh | how can the power of observation affect something? | Like the Schrodinger's cat thing, how does all that work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15e4yh/eli5_how_can_the_power_of_observation_affect/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7lnnjp",
"c7lpr00",
"c7lpz9u",
"c7ls10p",
"c7mal7m"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It works like this: all possible states of the universe exist at once. Time is a path through those possible states. If I flip a coin*, there is a universe where it lands heads and a universe where it lands tails. You might think that your don't know which one you are in until you observe the result, but it's more- the 'split' in the timeline does not happen at all until you observe the result. The coin is both heads and tails until it is observed.\n\n*This example doesn't really work because coin flips are not truly random. Radioactive decay, however, is. This randomness powers the Shcrödinder's Cat thought experiment.",
"This comes from the basic concepts of quantum mechanics, which tell us that, when we are looking at a quantum mechanical system, we cannot know exactly the position of something, but rather the probability of that thing being at any given location at any instant of time. What I mean by a quantum mechanical system is anything that obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. An example would be a single electron in space.\n\nSo, consider that we have this one electron in the universe all by itself. In classical (non-quantum) mechanics, we could say that this particle is at location (x, y, z) and be done. However, some crazy experiments told us that we can't just do that (this Youtube video gives a great example of one such experiment: _URL_0_). What we discovered is that an electron is technically everywhere in space. We can't just describe it as a single dot at a single location. We describe it as a probability distribution (contained in the electron's wavefunction).\n\nHowever, if we measure the location of the electron somehow, we get a position (x, y, z) as a measurement. What we have done by measuring (observing) the electron's position is collapsed the wavefunction. Before we observed the electron's position, there was a nice probability distribution through all of space. After we observed the electron's position, that probability distribution changed to 100% at the exact location we measured it at and 0% everywhere else. That is the best way of thinking of how observation affects the object. It \"collapses its probability distribution.\"",
"It's a way to help explain the confusing nature of the subatomic universe. There is a cat in a box that you cannot see inside of. There is also a machine that will release poison, killing the cat if the trigger is triggered. The thing that triggers the trigger is something that occurs in the subatomic level. So theoretically, because at subatomic levels things can both exist and not exist, the trigger has both been triggered and not triggered, and until you check if the cat is alive then the cat is both alive and dead. ",
"'Observing' isn't as passive an action as you think. In order for you to see something with your eyes, light has to have bounced off of it. In order for you to hear something with your ears, it has to have vibrated the air somehow. \n\nTo observe particles on a quantum level, you need to bounce something- electrons usually- off of it. That act is what performs all the crazy quantum stuff that results from 'just' observing.",
"Say you put a pot of water on the stove and you want to know how hot it is. The only way to do this is to stick a thermometer in it. However, assuming that the thermometer is cooler than the temperature of the water, sticking the thermometer in will lower the temperature of the water. \n\nIn this scenario, it's impossible to know the exact temperature of the water since the act of looking up the temperature changes it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ibane | why are there almost no first world countries in the tropics? why are so many first world countries found in the mid latitudes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ibane/eli5_why_are_there_almost_no_first_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj4wzpl",
"dj4yuzb",
"dj4zisg",
"dj58rk3",
"dj5bpsu"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of it has to do with Europe being the first area to industrialize and dominate the world. They were used to mid latitude environments and so only really attempted extensive settlements in those climates. For the rest of the world they just strip minned, exploited, etc. ",
"One hypothesis is that the warm, moist climate of tropical regions support a greater biodiversity of parasites and diseases that kill humans. As a result, small tribes in tropical regions that adopted taboos against trading and socializing with other groups who lived nearby would have less exposure to new pathogens and a higher rate of survival. Also, large livestock like horses that provided mechanical power and faster travel to early civilizations are killed by some tropical insects like tsetse flies. It's only in temperate regions, where cold temperatures impede the growth of most deadly parasites, that the benefits of large scale collaboration and trade outweighed the risks of higher disease exposure.\n\nThat's my understanding from reading [this article](_URL_0_) about the research of evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill.",
"A temperate climate is one of the most productive in terms of agriculture. The places that were the first to develop also happened to have a variety of animals that were well suited to domestication. A combination of productive crops and using animal power freed up time for other people to start developing technologies, like metalwork, that eventually led to what we now consider the developed world.\n\nIn addition to the disadvantages of climate, hotter places also have more mosquitos which spread disease. Societies in these climates adapted by living in smaller communities and further away from the fresh water sources where mosquitos breed to reduce the transmission of those diseases. That means that they were unable to form the large cities which also slows their technological development.\n\nThese were the conclusions of professor jared diamond in his book \"Guns, Germs and Steel\". If you want to know more you can read the book or watch the documentary series which is available on youtube.",
"Production technology in the tropics has lagged behind temperate-zone technology in the two critical areas of agriculture and health. The difficulty of mobilizing energy resources in tropical economies also has contributed to the income gap between climate zones. \n\nThe problems of applying temperate-zone technological advances to the tropical setting have amplified these factors. Agricultural, health, and some manufacturing-related technologies that could diffuse within ecological zones could not diffuse across them.\n\nFor the major crops (rice, maize, and wheat), productivity is considerably higher in the temperate-zone than in the tropical-zone: In 1995, productivity per hectare of grain produced was approximately 50 percent higher in temperate-zone countries. The explanation lies in soil formation and erosion, pests and parasites, water availability, and the effects of tropical climates on plant respiration.\n\nPoor nutrition, resulting from poor agricultural productivity, in turn contributes to poor health. Economic development in tropical eco-zones requires a concerted international effort: agricultural technologies must be specific to the needs of tropical economies.\n\nThe burden of disease is considerably higher in the tropics than in temperate climates. Even after controlling for GNP per capita, health outcomes are far better in temperate-zone countries: infant mortality in temperate-zone countries is 50 percent lower; life expectancy in temperate countries is 8 percent higher. Infectious diseases affected all parts of the world in the 19th century. Temperate-zone infectious diseases were partially brought under control through a combination of improved nutrition, societal adjustment to diseases, improved public sanitation, and the introduction of immunization. \n\nTropical vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and helminthic infections, have proved much harder to control. Ecology affects the transition of many important diseases, some of which are now confined to tropical countries.\n\nThe income gap also has been amplified in the tropics as poor public health and weak agricultural technology have combined to slow the demographic transition from high fertility and mortality rates to low fertility and mortality rates. \n\nImbalances in geopolitical power too have played a role, for example the domination of global financial and development institutions by the rich, temperate-zone countries. This in turn might help to explain why the importance of physical geography in the development debate, and in framing development policies, has been neglected.",
"Because the term originally had nothing to do with economics. First World countries were NATO and allied nations, Second World countries were Warsaw Pact and allied nations, and Third World countries were unaffiliated with either.\n\nFirst World countries (US, Canada, Japan, Western Europe) invested heavily in each other so they could bolster against an attack from the communists. Same with the Second World.\n\nThird World countries, being unaffiliated with either alliance, received little outside investment unless they were of strategic importance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://psmag.com/social-justice/bugs-like-made-germ-theory-democracy-beliefs-73958"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bxzv8a | noise canceling headphones works by picking up sound and playing the reversing the sound wave. but how does this happen in real-time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bxzv8a/eli5_noise_canceling_headphones_works_by_picking/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqayn35",
"eqaz6vs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Well in electrical terms all you have to do is flip the signal so positive values are negative and vice-versa. This can literally be done by wiring a mic the 'wrong' way round. Of course headsets do use a little chip for this to also apply some processing and improve the results. \n\nIt's worth remembering that the speaker is typically a few CM closer to the ear than the mic, and since electricity moves much faster than sound (sound typically being around 343m/s in air, and electricity being nearly 1'000'000x faster) it's not really a problem to run the input from the mic through a chip and then to the speaker in time to cancel the originating sound.",
"Imagine you're on a boat in a body of water and large rolling waves are lifting and dropping the boat (something that might make some folks sea sick). To smooth out the water so you don't notice the waves, we generate more waves that exactly match the waves rolling under your boat BUT, we shift them forward 180 degrees to \"fill in\" all the valleys between the peaks. This way you feel a \"smoother\" ride. \n\nBest I can do without bringing in the science behind sound waves and the electrical theory behind microphones, speakers, and noise cancelling circuitry. Just remember, sound is slower than light by a long shot. We can take in that noise, cancel it, and replay it with very little lag time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
98v5s9 | what does breathing into a bag do during a panic attack? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98v5s9/eli5_what_does_breathing_into_a_bag_do_during_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4ixwrn",
"e4iyqe3",
"e4iysbg",
"e4j1zua",
"e4jgfrq"
],
"score": [
171,
43,
44,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"The air in the bag has less and less oxygen every time you breath into it, and more co2, breathing in air like that forces your body to lower your heart rate as your body tries to conserve oxygen\nEdit: Turns out I don’t know nearly as much about biology as I thought. Thanks to all the people that provided actually correct answers.",
"Your blood has a very specific pH balance. If it goes even a touch too high or low, bad things happen. When your lungs process oxygen, your blood becomes more basic. When your lungs process CO2, blood gets more acidic. Believe it or not, breathing pure oxygen isn’t good for you. Your blood has a system in place -called buffers- that give you some leeway either way so things like airplane oxygen masks and such won’t immediately wreck your system. \n\nWhen you suffer a panic attack, you hyperventilate. The air doesn’t get to sit in your lungs for any appreciable amount of time, meaning your lungs don’t process any of the CO2 you’re creating. Eventually, the buffers will fail, and you will faint and pass out, as your body desperately tries to restore balance in your blood. \n\nBreathing into a bag ensures that the CO2 your lungs produce will be breathed, regardless of the rate you’re breathing at. You couldn’t do it indefinitely (or even for very long without taking a spare outside-bag breath) since that would be the same as holding your breath. ",
"Actually when you hyperventilate into the bag , the rise of concentration of c02 ( you inhale less than 1 percent and exhale about 4 percent ) in the bag , which is what you end up inhaling (more c02), works on chemical receptors in your brain which makes you slow down your rate of breathing. ",
"Panic attacks usually cause you too lose CO2 at a rate at which your body cannot compensate the loss with its regulatory mechanisms. This may cause respiratory alkalosis. Breathing into a paper bag lets you retain the air you exhale, which has a higher concentration of CO2 compared to the atmosphere, which helps with the retention of CO2.",
"When someone has a panic attack, they often breath very quickly, getting rid of lots of carbon dioxide. The presence of carbon dioxide normally tells blood vessels in your brain to dilate, so if you get rid of too much carbon dioxide, you blood vessels will constrict and reduce blood flow to the brain, so you could theoretically pass out. Breathing into the bag is supposed to return carbon dioxide to your lungs and prevent that.\n\n\nHowever, if you find someone hyperventilating, you shouldn't default to having them breathe into a bag. If the problem is actually that they are short of breath (like having asthma, COPD, a pulmonary embolism, or a heart attack) then breathing into the bag will just make their problem worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1nl21w | - why do i get a headache almost instantly when i read or play on my phone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nl21w/eli5_why_do_i_get_a_headache_almost_instantly/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccjjfwy",
"ccmx3sm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you have corrected vision? And if not can you focus on other small things near your face without getting a headache?",
"Turn your brightness down "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
133qob | can somebody please explain to me how to choose the parts of computers? | Ok so I don't really want you to explain this like I'm five (more like im 14) but I don't know what subreddit to go to and i have tried them all. Like I've posted about 15 diffrent times looking for help on here but the most comments I've ever got on here are about 3. I am not that bad at all with computers it's just that I want it explained to me more. Anyways if you have read this far, I just want to know what the numbers mean when I go to get a graphics card. I am planning on having a triple Moniter setup so somebody recommended I go with a 7970. I found one but I have no idea why and that's the only one I know. But I would also like to know what cards to go with for diffrent situations and setups. Also I know that intel prosseseres come in ghz (ex. 3.4 or 3.5) what would be the diffrence between 1 or 2 ghz? Is it really worth the extra money? Ok also I am pretty clueless when it comes to motherboards. When I go to look at them I basically look to see If it would work with my processor and look at the price and number of reviews and I really want to change that and to know why to choose one over the other. Okay 2 more things but they aren't really hardware things. 1st, I always here people saying that they have an extra computer just to run a server? I understand it's for a video games and I would like to know how it works or where I can learn to make one. ( I am currently learning HTML, I love it and would like to be a programmer or software engineer in the near future). 2ndly, I would like to know how LAN parties work. Do you just buy a special cable and hook it up to everyone else's computers and then play the game at the same time?
Thank you to anyone who read all that because I really need help and just started a love of everything computers. Also a little background, I am 14 and I come from an all Mac family. Everything is Mac my parents have a passion of hatred against PCs like its some kind of virus that only poor people use. I never really liked it and I plan on switching full over to pc and android this year as I just got my first non- iPhone phone for the first time last month and I love it. I Have used the Motorola Xyboard and I love it. So thank you for your time and if you awnseres my questions then you are my hero, if I posted in the wrong subreddit please let me know | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/133qob/can_somebody_please_explain_to_me_how_to_choose/ | {
"a_id": [
"c70j5ct"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"try going to /r/buildapcforme and they'd whip something up for you. just make sure you give them details on what you want."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
bc1uyu | why isn’t us thanksgiving on the 21st this year? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bc1uyu/eli5_why_isnt_us_thanksgiving_on_the_21st_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekn3xty",
"ekn4yc0"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It can never be on the 21st because it's the fourth thursday of November. So it rolled over to the 28th which is the last day it can be.",
"In the US, Thanksgiving is always held on the *fourth* Thursday of November. \n\nNov 1, 2018 was a Thursday. In years when the month of November begins on a Thursday, there will be five Thursdays in the month (the 1st, the 8th, the 15th, the 22nd, and the 29th). So Thanksgiving would fall on the 22nd -- the fourth Thursday. 2018 happened to be one of those years. \n\nThis year, Nov 1 falls on a Friday. So there are only four Thursdays in November (the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th). So Thanksgiving falls on the 28th -- the fourth Thursday."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3ocu73 | do carnivore animals need carbs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ocu73/eli5_do_carnivore_animals_need_carbs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvw4nyc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, the need glucose like any other animal. Some of the carbohydrates they eat is stored in the meat they eat. The rest is synthesised from fats and proteines in a process called gluconeogenesis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4z7gsb | what part of the brain is responsible for your imagination, and why is it seemingly more active in children and less so as we grow up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z7gsb/eli5_what_part_of_the_brain_is_responsible_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6thqoc",
"d6throc",
"d6ti8o9",
"d6tl3kv",
"d6tm8t8",
"d6trb21",
"d6txvpx",
"d6tz6js"
],
"score": [
43,
34,
377,
2,
6,
7,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert, but this quote comes to mind: \"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.\"\n\nAs we become adults, we become experts at (some aspects of) life. We know the only way for a human to fly is with the aid of machinery, we know there are no real Pokemon and why it doesn't make sense to expect to ever find any, and that not all dreams come true.\n",
"I'm not sure on the technical aspects; we can let someone else speak to that. I just feel that children do not yet have a concrete understanding of the world around them. They do not understand that most everything they interact with operates by fairly predictable, and sometimes boring rules. This leaves room to make creative connections between objects, places, etc. that the adult brain cannot fathom. It's the same reason you could probably convince a 6 year old that kangaroos actually came down from space 20 years ago, whereas an adult would know that is impossible.",
"From an objective standpoint, our minds as adults know more about the world around us. Therefore, we have answers to our curiosities.\n\nChildren wonder what goes on outside of their perception all the time, but have no answers due to the lack of introspection, examination of the world, and education. Why wouldn't there be a wind carrying lanky old man floating above the clouds? Where does something as simple as cotton candy come from? We adults know there is no floating man because we can comprehend physics; cotton candy is just sugar, case closed.\n\nNow, when you say imagination, let's assume you mean the strange yet creative connotation. The kind in which an animal with the legs of a grasshopper, torso of a spider, and the head of a basilisk from Dark Souls would exist. \n\nAdults have imagination, just as much as any child. We simply don't have time for just sitting and thinking about absurdity because were taught it's simply imagination; it's not tangible, not real -- so why invest time into it? Using a stick as a sword may lose its appeal because it simply isn't a sword. It all seems mundane.\n\n*TL;DR: Adults have a higher margin of cognitive development that children do not possess, and conversely, place imagination on a lower margin of importance. Children, consequentially, would be the inverse of the statement.*\n\nEDIT: If I am not mistaken imagination is bound to creativity. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for creativity if I am not mistaken.\n\nEDIT 2: A study using fMRI while subjects were asked to imagine precise visual figures, to mentally disassemble them, or mentally blend them, showed activity in the occipital, frontoparietal, posterior parietal, precuneus, and dorsolateral prefrontal regions of the subject's brains.[18] \n\nFrom [citation 18](_URL_0_#cite_note-18) on [Wikipedia's Imagination article](_URL_0_)",
"This boils it down but: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhen your young your ego is undeveloped so ideas flow. As you age the opposite happens.",
"[Roger Penrose](_URL_0_) has suggested that the mind may have more in common with a radio than a computer and as we conform (age and learn..) we tune out non-deterministic possibilities. \n\nIn a more ELI5 fashion that might be meant to imply that our minds are like antennas, receiving all of the signals that make up the universe including random ones and possibly real ones from far away, or real ones that are very weak. As we learn to rely on the parts of the universe that can directly affect us we also lose our ability to tune in distant signals. \n",
"As a (almost) neuroscientist, though not specialized in higher cognition, I think you can relate the development of the frontal cortex to this seemingly active imagination. Frontal cortex is something developed allot over puberty, until in your twenties. Frontal cortex is for allot of higher cognitive stuff, planning, motivation, I'm not sure about creativity? But i'm positive there is allot more to frontal area's we don't understand (mostly because this area is relatively hard to test, compared to like area's which simply respond to a type of stimulus. Frontal area's are kinda difficult because we can't distinguish what is where exactly).\n\nBut as stated earlier, adults can have lots of imagination, but younglings, with less developed frontal area's tend to be less inhibited in their behavior (I thought this was kinda the same mechanism as why drunk people seem less inhibited). I guess you see this manifested in children running around screaming playing army-men, while adults probably don't do this because we think of reasons why not too. \n\nWhere actual creativity comes from is kinda difficult, because then you start to ask where the actual consciousness and \"self\" of a person is. The brain is a pretty awesome physiological machine, but how this relatively simple ball of strings gives rise to thoughts that can think of universally wide theories and crazy movies is still kinda... wut?",
"I personally have always found that there is difference between creativity and imagination.\n\nImagination to me is just the ability to link concepts together to create a new concept. There is some utility in it, but for the most part it is useless. Most of your new concepts are totally useless and can't be applied to reality.\n\nCreativity is the ability to link concepts together in way that comes up with new concept with value in reality. You may not come up with as many original concepts, but those new concepts you do come up are often more useful.\n\nSo the reason children are more imaginative, is because they are un-creative. Their young minds are linking together new concepts, but they have not yet learned from experience what new concepts are just stupid, boring, or dangerous. That is why children will become fixated on farts or dinosaurs and act like their tired combinations are the most amusing and original stuff ever.\n\nI am not saying that imagination is valueless, but the real skill we are after is creativity. Imagination is just the brainstorming step in process that is creativity. Creativity is why adults are such better storytellers and entertainers, and children tend to be disorganized ramblers with highly imaginative but nonsensical elements.\n\n-----\n\nBut I realized I might not have explained it at 5 year level. \n\nAdults don't have have a diminished imagination, so much as they have a more developed sense of self-editing. Experience has taught them what ideas are boring, stupid, and dangerous, so they don't let their imagination chase down what they think are unproductive routes of consideration.",
"Interestingly it isn't less active as adults, we just push our creativity into things that effect our lives more.\n\nA child can sit and doodle all day or think of a weird game with complex rules. An adult may have to channel their creativity into more mundane tasks because that is what we have to focus on.\n\nCreativity is a really interesting to study. It was by far the most interesting class I took in college."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination#cite_note-18"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/TRtXi69AAM0"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
k0z11 | eras... romanticism, modernism, postmodernism... | I don't understand how anything can be postmodern. just an example of my confusion. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k0z11/eli5_eras_romanticism_modernism_postmodernism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2gq2td",
"c2gq2td"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"At some point in time (late 19th - early 20th century, afaik) people decided to sort of classify works of art (that includes architecture as well). So modernism was, obviously, the prevalent ideas in art at the time this art classification has taken place and since art always changes the next \"step\" was called post-modernism (meaning after modernism). It is also not uncommon to hear the word \"contemporary\" in relation to late 20th and 21st century art (music especially). So bottom line is, these words don't have a whole lot of meaning in and of themselves when it comes to art classification. Modernism was indeed modern back in the day, but as time passed, art had changed, but the had word stayed. They could've called modernism \"John\" and post-modernism \"Bob\" for what it's worth, wouldn't make an iota of a difference.",
"At some point in time (late 19th - early 20th century, afaik) people decided to sort of classify works of art (that includes architecture as well). So modernism was, obviously, the prevalent ideas in art at the time this art classification has taken place and since art always changes the next \"step\" was called post-modernism (meaning after modernism). It is also not uncommon to hear the word \"contemporary\" in relation to late 20th and 21st century art (music especially). So bottom line is, these words don't have a whole lot of meaning in and of themselves when it comes to art classification. Modernism was indeed modern back in the day, but as time passed, art had changed, but the had word stayed. They could've called modernism \"John\" and post-modernism \"Bob\" for what it's worth, wouldn't make an iota of a difference."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3btve5 | if the liver can regenerate so quickly when a piece is removed, can a piece of diseased liver be cut off so that a normal piece will grow in its place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3btve5/eli5_if_the_liver_can_regenerate_so_quickly_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"csph1eg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cirrhosis of the liver in alcoholics actually represses liver regeneration, which is part of the reason why they can't just naturally recover by themselves."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4cukao | why do we scan for alien radiowaves with earthbound antenna's? | Projects like SETI listen to radio waves to find intelligent life. And they don't hear anything...
As a HAM radio operator, i do know how much interference there is that can make it hard to actualy hear a signal in the noise. We also utilise the ionosphere to reflect radiosignals back to earth. On top of that, there can be absorbtion within different layers of the athmosphere.
Why are we using earthbound antenna's to search for signals, doesnt the atmosphere reflect and absorb too much? Wouldn't a satellite have a much greater chance to pickup signals, in a much broader radio spectrum?
Also, isn't there a huge noise level caused by the sun, satellites and human made signals?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cukao/eli5_why_do_we_scan_for_alien_radiowaves_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1lkc0y",
"d1lld5m",
"d1lpak7"
],
"score": [
43,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Radio astronomer checking in. Let me try to address a couple of your questions:\n\nOn the atmosphere/ionosphere: the ionosphere is only absorbent/reflective to very low-frequency radio waves, generally below 10 MHz or so (this can change a lot depending on ionospheric activity and stuff). So for radio frequencies above 10 MHz the ionosphere is pretty much transparent (there are some refractive effects that cause problems, but we manage to deal with them). The atmosphere starts to absorb radio waves/microwaves at high frequencies, somewhere around 100GHz or so. Water vapor is one of the biggest problems for microwave absorption, so often high-frequency radio telescopes are built on mountain tops above the clouds. So basically, we have a window between roughly 10 MHz and 100 GHz in which radio waves can more-or-less freely travel to/from space and the ground. This is a factor of 10,000 in frequency; for comparison, the range of frequencies our eyes can see barely a factor of 2!\n\nSo, yes, a spacecraft has access to a wider frequency range than an Earth-bound receiver, but since we can't build an antenna that covers such wide wavelength/frequency range, we split them into different types and just build satellites for the parts we can't observe from the ground: there are several microwave/far-infrared telescopes like *Planck* that look at the sky at very high frequencies where the atmosphere is absorbent. So far there are no low-frequency space telescopes, because we don't expect so much interesting physics at those frequencies (there are plans to maybe make a low frequency telescope to put on the far side of the moon).\n\nOn noise levels: most man-made signals are pretty narrow-frequency, so we have developed ways to filter them out. Also, there are particular frequency ranges set aside for radio astronomy where no man-made signals are allowed, so we can use those. We can also (mostly) avoid problems with the Sun and other natural sources (like Jupiter, which is quite radio-bright) by making our radio telescopes very directional, and we make sure not to point them towards bright things (unless we're studying them; I know some people who do Solar radio observations).\n\nIn terms of SETI work, it's not ideal because SETI signals might be narrow-band like a man-made signal. There are some techniques that are used to separate local signals from distant ones (such as using multiple telescopes at different locations and comparing the outputs). For SETI work, it would be a lot better to have a location separated from all man-made signals, but that's not feasible given the limited budget for SETI projects. Most SETI projects can't afford their own hardware, and certainly not their own space telescopes, so they have to accept working in the more difficult environment on Earth.",
"Some more useful information: [SETI: The Water Hole](_URL_1_).\n\nIt turns out that there's a natural \"[water hole](_URL_2_)\" of frequencies that are particularly good to communicate with over interstellar distances. Anyone *deliberately* communicating would also see the useful properties of that frequency band.\n\nAnother use of that band is the [Voyager golden record](_URL_3_), which uses the period of the [hydrogen line](_URL_0_) as a time reference.\n\n",
"If you want to participate, check out SETI@Home at _URL_0_ They use a screen saver that kicks in when you leave your computer alone and and it processes tiny slices of data received from the Aericibo dish looking for ET. I've been doing this since 1999."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line",
"http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1004/26seti5/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hole_%28radio%29",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record"
],
[
"http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/"
]
] |
|
3v5rkh | how is it possible to have a working cellphone in minecraft that can call the real world? | [video](_URL_0_) for verizon's project that did this | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v5rkh/eli5_how_is_it_possible_to_have_a_working/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxkj7w5",
"cxkjx9b",
"cxkkt3d",
"cxkmboa",
"cxl1zvg",
"cxlquzj"
],
"score": [
229,
35,
5,
5,
33,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, why wouldn't it? It doesn't actually \"create actual signals in a virtual world that somehow seep through into reality\". You don't really need those towers and phones and particle effects, that's just for show.\n\nMinecraft runs on a computer, and a computer can access the internet, make calls with skype, and a lot of other things. Using these functionalities through Minecraft is pretty cute, actually.\n\nIt's really just a fun and playful way of accessing computer functionalities that already exist.",
"Verizon probably set up an interface on their end that is compatible with java VIOP interfaces. ",
"Games are just programs and there are plenty of programs that can make calls (skype, hangouts, whatsapp, etc. ). Nothing special about that, the only thing that's different is the way it looks.\n\n\nSo basically all it does is upload a video to a web server and the server allows the other user to stream this video. It's basically a mixture between Skype and _URL_0_. You watch a video on your screen while uploading in game footage. \n\n\nThis Verizon project isn't able to make real calls, from phone to phone without internet access. Though it would be possible to add some hardware that can transmit signal from the server, edit it a little bit to bring it in the right format and send it through an antenna to a cellphone tower or over a cable into the good old conventional telephone network. ",
"Minecraft shows you a picture of a cell phone while it uses the internet to place your call just like Skype or Google voice.",
"They did not make a cellphone in the game. That is, the cellphone parts were not made out of things inside the game.\n\nThey wrote software for the Minecraft server that acts like a cellphone. That software converts pictures into Minecraft blocks, so you can see the pictures on a “cellphone screen” in the game. But the real work is done on the server, including using its Internet connection for communication.",
"Could you make the phone in minecraft, and then go to the web and play minecraft from that phone? "
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdlZRhKmWJY"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"twitch.tv"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6rhq6a | how is carbon added to iron to make steel? | I know that carbon is added to iron to create steel but where does the carbon come from and how is it added into iron to create steel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rhq6a/eli5_how_is_carbon_added_to_iron_to_make_steel/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl546xz",
"dl5d6x2"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It depends on the process, but in large scale it's usually in the form of coal/coke. Sometimes it's CO2 gas, which also provides oxygen needed for the process.",
"Gah, I just erased my long answer by accident. \nSo, short explanation on steelmaking: \nyou're not mining the actual iron, but different minerals, that are chemically iron-Oxides, for example fe3o4. In the blast-furnace process, coal is used to transform the iron oxide to elemental iron. (The coal is burned with the oxygen from the iron-Oxides.) There is more coal than ironoxide in the furnace, some carbon that is not burned will be dissolved in the liquid iron. You then obtain iron with ~4% carbon. This is too much for steel which contains only about 0,2% carbon. Therefore, another process is following where oxygen is blasted into the iron to burn the carbon out of the iron. Also, some other components like phosphorous, silicon etc.. are burned out of the steel. (The Linz-donawitz process is the most common procedure for that) at the end of this process, sometimes specific components are added to in order to vary the material properties of the steel. (alloying)\nEdit: some stuff didn't make sense"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2rlv3g | what exactly would happen if i were to stick my finger into a pool of molten lava? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rlv3g/eli5_what_exactly_would_happen_if_i_were_to_stick/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnh2gdd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It would burn? You're going to have to be more specific.\n\nAlso, lava is molten by definition. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5ws7m5 | why is it that when we cut, or have an injury to our skin, the scar tissue is first usually pink then fades to white after time. why do we not retain our original pigment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ws7m5/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_we_cut_or_have_an_injury/ | {
"a_id": [
"deck7sh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's like a patch job to seal it up. After enough time of wear and sun light, it will blend into your skin. Just don't scratch the scab or it becomes more noticable because it didn't full 'heal'. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3rt981 | why is obama's rejection of the keystone pipeline a good or bad thing? | I've been reading (apparently not enough) about the Keystone Pipeline and some say its different than the thousands of already laid out pipelines in the US and others say its no different. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rt981/eli5_why_is_obamas_rejection_of_the_keystone/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwr4r1l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's very good for Warren Buffett who owns the railroads that have been hauling the oil produced in Canada to refineries and markets. \n\nIt's very bad for TransCanada (the company that would have owned the pipeline). \n\nIt's likely pretty mixed as an environmental decision. Rail spills about twice as much oil as pipelines normalizing for volume moved and distance (and both are way below trucks), but they spill differently (pipelines have less frequent but larger spills while rail spills are smaller and more frequent though with a higher chance of catching fire). If ecological damage scales non-linearly with spill size the extra oil spilled by rail probably doesn't matter as much as that smaller more frequent spills may mean similar ecological damage overall. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
en5kwi | if the liver regenerates itself, why does cirrhosis happen and why doesn’t the liver repair it? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en5kwi/eli5_if_the_liver_regenerates_itself_why_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdv19n3",
"fdvfznu",
"fdw9ums"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
5
],
"text": [
"Cirrhosis is the build up of scar tissue in the liver. Essentially, it is caused by the repair mechanisms to damage the liver receives.",
"Cirrhosis of the liver is scarring of the liver caused by heavy alcohol consumption, being chronically overweight or having hepatitis. The scarring prevents blood flowing around the liver properly which in turn reduces the liver function and results in poor health for the rest of the body. - _URL_0_",
"You know how when someone gets burned pretty bad? Their skin is still skin, but it just doesn’t work the same way because it’s damaged."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/Qgo9EKMyJAw"
],
[]
] |
|
1xwzuh | is the symbol of the heart meaning love universal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xwzuh/eli5_is_the_symbol_of_the_heart_meaning_love/ | {
"a_id": [
"cffcmsb"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"No, it's a Roman/European thing. It comes from old medical texts that didn't bother with detailed and precise anatomical drawings.\n\nStill, it's widely spread through European cultural influence, so anybody whose culture hasn't been living in the remote jungle for the last hundred years can be assumed to understand it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1zoqb8 | if jury nullification is a viable option in court cases, why are people arrested and fined just for speaking about it in a court room? | I have a pretty good idea about what jury nullification is but maybe other Redditors would like a quick tutorial. Someone can probably explain it better than me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zoqb8/eli5_if_jury_nullification_is_a_viable_option_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfvjlfq",
"cfvjsmp"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Because speaking about jury nullification places you in contempt of court as you are actively encouraging people to subvert the Justice System (the defendant is on trial, not the law).\n\nFYI: Jury nullification is where the jury, despite the fact that the guilt of the defendant has been prove beyond a reasonable doubt, still returns with a not guilty verdict in order to protest an \"unfair\" law. They technically can also return a guilty verdict for an innocent defendant (but this is pointless as the judge is allowed to reverse the jury's guilty verdict--the judge is not allowed to reverse not guilty verdicts).",
"Youtube: CGPgrey. he answers this on his channel "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7idtzp | how does c4 work? is it anything like in the movies? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7idtzp/eli5_how_does_c4_work_is_it_anything_like_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqy0btr",
"dqy0c4j",
"dqy0e5y",
"dqy74zy"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
41,
4
],
"text": [
"Examples\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nIn movies, they usually make explosions look more fiery. Movies like dramatic effect over accuracy. However, some films like accuracy. It really depends on the tone of the film. \n\nC4 is insanely stable, and doesn't detonate easy. Any military or paramilitary unit that uses it knows that a little bit goes a long way, so the explosions are not huge. This is true for military bombs and RPGs. In movies they make this big fiery explosions. In real life, there is a very small short fire flash, the rest is smoke and dust. \n\nEnough C4 will cause a big fiery explosion. ",
"A lot of its general characteristics are accurate. It is a very stable plastic explosive that can be shaped by hand like clay and it does require using a detonator. \n\nIt can't be detonated by shooting it and the explosion doesn't look the same as most Hollywood explosions. Hollywood explosions are all about the fire (and gasoline or something similar is usually the actual thing they use) because it looks good; real explosions are fiery like that.",
"C4 is a high explosive, with a detonation speed of roughly 22km/s. \n\nThat's fast. Really fast.\n\nAn actual c4 detonation sounds like a shot gun blast. Very loud, a single crack, and possibly an echo. There's no flame, very little smoke, and given its speed, usually results in a nice clean line being blown into whatever it was on.\n\nHollywood \"c4\" explosions are made with a bit of detcord,a bag of black powder, a bag/bottle of gasoline and a whole bunch of pre made debris to get thrown around.\n\nAnd are then usually filmed at 4-8x speed, so they look more impressive.\n\nTl;dr the only thing Hollywood and actual c4 have in common is.. No, actually I can't even sum that up. They're totally fictional",
"Movie explosions are generally a plastic bag of fuel, like gasoline that gets scattered by a small explosive to create the dramatic fireball.\n\nC4 and other high explosives are too fast to really see much more than a quick flash of light. Plus too powerful to safely use near actors and film crew."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/ajmIEhK4LKc?t=91",
"https://youtu.be/AwyniA5ryhY?t=47"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
25q7pq | how does the united states government decide to name all the ships, carriers, and submarines in the navy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25q7pq/eli5_how_does_the_united_states_government_decide/ | {
"a_id": [
"chjo4bj",
"chjo6yi",
"chjs0t0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As with many other things, the procedures and practices involved in Navy ship naming are as much, if not more, products of evolution and tradition than of legislation. As we have seen, the names for new ships are personally decided by the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary can rely on many sources to help him reach his decisions. Each year, the Naval Historical Center compiles primary and alternate ship name recommendations and forwards these to the Chief of Naval Operations by way of the chain of command. These recommendations are the result of research into the history of the Navy and by suggestions submitted by service members, Navy veterans, and the public. Ship name source records at the Historical Center reflect the wide variety of name sources that have been used in the past, particularly since World War I. Ship name recommendations are conditioned by such factors as the name categories for ship types now being built, as approved by the Secretary of the Navy; the distribution of geographic names of ships of the Fleet; names borne by previous ships which distinguished themselves in service; names recommended by individuals and groups; and names of naval leaders, national figures, and deceased members of the Navy and Marine Corps who have been honored for heroism in war or for extraordinary achievement in peace.\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"The Secretary of the Navy is officially in charge of naming new ships. There's some general themes that are used in naming specific types of ships and there are some traditions involved. For example, Los Angeles-class submarines were generally named after US cities and Nimitz-class carriers were named after US Presidents or important figures in the US Navy.",
"There are some practical considerations beyond those mentioned by other posters.\n\nNaming certain kinds of ships in certain kinds of ways makes it a bit easier to remember what they do - not necessarily super useful for Naval personnel but perhaps very useful for Presidents, members of Congress, and their staff.\n\nFor example, most aircraft carriers are named for Presidents. The exceptions are the USS Carl Vinson and the USS John C. Stennis. I suspect that there will be few other exceptions for a long time.\n\nThe nuclear submarine fleet used to have a pretty easy to remember system. Attack boats were named after major US cities, and ballistic missile boats were named after US states. However, that's all gotten muddled lately. The Navy switched from the Los Angeles-class subs (all of which were named for cities except one boat, named for Hyman Rickover), to Seawolf (no obvious naming conventions) to Virginia-class subs, all of which are named after states. \n\nThe Ohio-class subs may be the last of their kind, which may be why the Navy is now making attack boats named after states. Perhaps the theory is that the deterrent role now delivered by the Ohio-class will be handled by the Virginia-class in the future. The politics of naming ships that could destroy all human life on the planet are complex.\n\nSeveral of the amphibious assault ships are named after famous battles of WWII in the Pacific. These ships are used by the Marines to stage attacks on defended shores, and those names capture some of that history.\n\nMany of the Cruisers are named after famous battles fought by the US. Since we don't operate Battleships anymore, the Cruisers are the most potent elements of the fleet (excluding the carrier aircraft and the nuclear weapons on the subs).\n\nMost of the Destroyers are named after people with a connection to the Navy or to naval history.\n\nThe frigates are named for people with a special combat history in the Navy - recipients of the Medal of Honor, people known for developing an effective tactic, commanders of major engagements, captains of notable ships, etc.\n\nPatrol ships are named after types of extreme weather.\n\nMine Countermeasures ships are named after synonyms for guardians and protectors.\n\nAlmost every class has some exceptions. Naming a ship is a way for the government to recognize some significant service rendered or a major event or a place, and sometimes the value of doing that overrides the logical \"rule\" of how a class of ships is named."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
5kep53 | why can't bots check 'i am not a robot' checkboxes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kep53/eli5_why_cant_bots_check_i_am_not_a_robot/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbnczy2",
"dbnfcey",
"dbnfsh5",
"dbng1y2",
"dbnk73o",
"dbnkcq5",
"dbnm8tk",
"dbnmr80",
"dbnn8py",
"dbnno7b",
"dbnnoj2",
"dbnogs9",
"dbnqma4",
"dbnr5r4",
"dbnrg53",
"dbnrgtf",
"dbnsxtp",
"dbnsy13",
"dbnue5l",
"dbnuo2r",
"dbnw4yl",
"dbnw93r",
"dbny6cg",
"dbo0uvf",
"dbo24yq",
"dbo4a17",
"dbo4nol",
"dbo4xa9",
"dbo8fr3",
"dbo9baj",
"dbo9y1u",
"dboc3y2",
"dbocyqt",
"dbod278",
"dboh5y8"
],
"score": [
306,
267,
1122,
16895,
14,
37,
31,
26,
534,
6,
3,
53,
19,
3,
2,
14,
21,
2,
3,
2,
39,
22,
18,
7,
6,
3,
4,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not the checking of the box that's important - it's the pattern with which you move the mouse towards the checkbox. The speed and direction you move the mouse aren't perfect, and they're hard for bots to emulate since bots (and computers generally) tend to do things perfectly.",
"I don't know anything about mouse movements as a factor.\n\nI DO know that specifically for the Google CAPTCHAs, it checks if you're logged in to a Google account and if your account has had suspicious activity recently. If no suspicious activity has been logged, you'll simply receive the check box, if there has, or you're not logged in, you'll get a more difficult prompt, such as the picture matching. \n\nTry going to a site with a check box in an incognito tab and you'll see for yourself! ",
"Google is great at keeping its algorithms a secret, so we'll probably never know for sure, but we can make some guesses. \n\nOne thought is to track a users mouse and keyboard actions and see if that is consistent with a human, but I'm not entirely sure this is the system that it uses since it would be easy to replicate such actions with a simple bot.\n\nI'm partial to the idea that Google is taking advantage of it's massive database of what you've been doing on the web the last few minutes. Have you checked your GMail? Made some Google searches for a new cat sweater? That's all stuff a human would do, and I am able to associate your captcha request with your previous internet requests and see you're probably human.\n\nOf course, if this is a brand new computer connecting from an IP that has just been assigned, you probably don't have the sufficient background for Google to think you're human, so you'll receive a more difficult captcha to solve.\n\nThis means that if a bot was to check off that box, it wouldn't follow the history pattern we associate with a human and Google would return a further captcha check which the bot would fail. Usually these secondary captchas are going to be some sort of computer vision problems that would involve far too much resource intensive computing to solve.\n\nEdit: Here's a Google blog that gives you a bit of info (but of course nothing particularly useful) _URL_0_\n\nEdit2: Somebody tried to see if they can pretend to be a bot and see what would happen. Turns out that without having sufficient history, he was blocked out of a site he could normal access without captcha: _URL_1_",
"actually, clicking the box is a rather trivial part of what those CAPTCHAs are looking for. What they're actually looking for are things like:\n\ndid the 'user' instantly move their mouse to the exact coordinates of the box, or did they traverse thru the page like a human would? \n\nis the user scrolling to the box, or are they remotely executing javascript to trigger a scroll to the box?\n\nhow long after page load did the user find the box? Too quickly is obviously a red flag, but taking too long is also. commonly, to get around reCAPTCHA you'll need to find out 4-5 areas to click in addition to the initial click. The way that most people do this is using CAPTCHA services, which are real people solving them and returning the answer to you (i.e. for a text captcha, you'd send them the image and they'd send back the letters/numbers). The way you do this with reCAPTCHA is sending a screenshot of the computer, and you are returned the coords that you're supposed to click on to answer the question properly. [e: apparently this method is old, and a new method where the CAPTCHA is actually served up to the person within the service that will solve it for you!] However, it usually doesn't take a legitimate human 5 minutes to answer a few questions about 9 images. if you take too long, they'll make you do another image check challenge.\n\nbasically, it's really, really difficult to make a bot move the mouse, scroll, and react naturally to a page load. and even if you do manage to fool reCAPTCHA, you'll be thrown to a few image tasks which may serve to block you out from the website completely, due to the reasons mentioned above.\n\ne: as others have mentioned, this type of stuff is only part of what reCAPTCHA relies on to determine human/non-human - particularly, your referring information & whether or not you have a logged in Google account.\n\ne2: there are a bunch of people claiming that mouse movement tracking is impossible to do. in chrome, hit ctrl+shift+j, paste\n > onmousemove = function(e){console.log(\"mouse location:\", e.clientX, e.clientY)}\n\nin, and hit enter. then move the mouse. it's easily done.\n\ne3: there are *still* a ton of people claiming that I just made up the ability to track end user mouse movements. _URL_0_ is another example",
"They can, and they do. The aim is to make it more difficult for robots, but as easy as possible for humans. This is a tradeoff. A successful CAPTCHA would ideally be a mere checkbox or even nothing at all, but if it's that trivial for a human, it will generally be easy enough for robots too.\n\nThis can be done by checking your Google cookies to check your account status, by measuring user actions such as mouse events, and by making use of other tasks that are least difficult for humans relative to robots.\n\nBlock third party cookies, and you'll probably find you're being asked to perform more of these tasks, such as copying words or clicking images of a certain category, because your Google cookies can no longer be accessed by reCAPTCHA.",
"everyone here is pretty much right. but the boxes are mostly easy to beat if you are programatically driving a browser for one of two reasons:\n\n1. people do not integrate the checkbox properly. i can essentially remove the element from the DOM and proceed. yes... this actually does happy. and a lot more often then you think. and yes, even with very big sites.\n\n2. if this box is expected, you draw up a use case scenario. have 10 people manually go through the page, time and document what exactly they are doing... how long they are on the page before clicking the box, what they do with their mouse, how they scroll, etc. then you recreate this. you can put random delays between x and y seconds before clicking the box, you can programatically make the mouse resemble human movement as well as actually \"click\" the box, etc.\n\nsource: i am a software engineer. a very large project i worked on was beating these systems.",
"What everybody says here may be right, but you guys are overthinking it.\n\nPeople already mentioned it is owned by Google, right? Well, do you have a Google account? And if so, are you logged in to that account? You just proved to reCAPTCHA that there is a human behind this PC and you do not need to enter the captcha, try it for yourself (in incognito): _URL_0_. Chances are you will have to click these images.\n\nYes, of course it does not only work with this - if you submit way too many captcha requests per timeframe, you will have to fill it in as well. Perhaps also mouse movement whatsoever is included in the algorithm, we do not know, but the easiest way to verify if you are human is simply checking if the user is signed in on Google.",
"To add on to this, what about on touchscreen devices? It can't track your mouse movement if there isn't any. How does that work? ",
"[Correct me if I'm wrong here]\n\nAs far as I've heard, Google is able to replace an actual CAPTCHA with this simple textbox only if they know enough stuff about you - This little checkbox is basically a plugin from google, thus (via cookies, sessions, knowing your IP etc) google knows on what pages you surfed in the time before arriving at that CAPTCHA. Knowing that you surfed for dank memes for the past 3 hours, Google can be pretty sure you're not a robot - having to actually click on that box is basically only for \"enabling\" that plugin.\n\nIf google doesn't know enough about you, they will by the way simply show the original reCAPTCHA, where you solve OCR (or street number recognition) tasks for Google (Streetview). You can simply test that by restarting your router, using incognito mode and going to a website using reCAPTCHA.",
"Not just as simple as checking the box, there are many subtle details that the \"I am not a robot\" box is checking for, such as:\n\n- The length of time between when the page loads and when the box is checked\n- The path the mouse takes on its way to the checkbox. No human would make a perfectly straight line, and it would be challenging to write scripts to mimic the \"meandering\" that happens when humans move the mouse.\n- How quickly the mouse moves on its way to the checkbox. People, for example, probably move the mouse quickly towards the box but would slow down for greater accuracy as they got closer.\n- The nature of the click itself. The length of time between when the cursor was positioned over the box and when the click occurred. The length of time between when the mouse button went down and when it came up. \n\nAdd all these up (and probably more I'm not thinking of) and you can build a pretty accurate algorithm for detecting human clicks vs. bot clicks.",
"Pretty sure it's more basic then the reason mentioned on this thread. From what I've seen it's based on IP only. You attempt to hit the same recaptcha service several times and you get prompted with images etc. (Also funny to watch big companies on the same reverse proxy complain that all their employees are being promoted for images)\n\nWhen completing the recaptcha you get a code which you give to the server. The server then verifies the code directly against Google services.\n\nIn short: bots can click the I'm not a robot \nhowever it's not designed to prevent robots but repetitive attacks. \n\nSource: monitoring the traffic sent to recaptcha services (no mouse, keyboard or timers set).",
"I actually read a paper about fooling the recaptcha system awhile ago.\n\n\nWhen you get the check box you're getting one of several possible \"challenges\". To get the box challenges you must pass automated tests such as checks for common frameworks commonly used with bots, not being from an IP that's failed a challenge or answered too many boxes on other web sites among other things. As mentioned above once the chance of you being a bot is assessed to be low before page loads then you get a simple challenge. Depending on these pre assessed factors (some which are only known to google) the difficulty of the captcha is determined.\n\n\nSo as mentioned above clicking the check box is easy and there are minimal protections such as mouse movement patterns and timings however, by the time you get the check box challenge it's been determined that the odds of you being a bit are so low that the test it's self can afford to be weak.\n\n\n In this case text is the hardest challenge, images the medium challenge and the check box the minimal challenge. ",
"Worked for a company that did some bot detection. One thing I haven't seen others here mention. Bots will rely on autodection of fields that are required to be filled in, JavaScript is a popular language to do this. \n\nOne technique to detect bots is to include fields that are not made visible to a real user, but are visible in the code. So if these fields come back filled in, it must have been \"filled out\" by a bot. ",
"A lot of people are talking about mouse movements and scrolling, but I honestly dont believe that is a big of a factor as what's being claimed, and for one simple reason. reCAPTCHAs are used even on mobile devices that dont rely on having a mouse. I'm not sure how google operates, but I think its more to do with your IP address and the history attached to that IP. As for your question, the captchas are randomly generated and probably have strict time frame algorithms based on the collective database of prior usage in conjunction with your ip history. A bot could try and guess the correct sequence considering how fast they compute it, but it will probably flag in the process. ",
"What checkboxes? I don't see anything at all.",
"Done well, they use iframes. If the captcha service is on a different domain to the site you're visiting, you can't manipulate elements that are pressed or access the iframe contents at all (CORS), other than through a controlled message passing protocol (PostMessage).\n\n1. Have a captcha service on a different domain, which\n2. Has a button that generates a valid captcha token when clicked, and\n3. Sends that token to the parent page when the captcha is validated, then\n4. The front-end sends the token on to the backend when a request is submitted.\n5. The backend checks the token with the captcha service to make sure it's valid, if it is then it services the request, otherwise rejects it. ",
"It depends. Lots of routines that appear exclusively dependent on human interaction and reasoning tend to be possible to simulate in a limited context. I.e., the alogorithm/a.i. will have a limited number of responses to make, and therefore might find the same solution as a human would. Which isn't a property of the complex alorithms simulating a human, but of the computer system being fundamentally an abstracted and formalized form of communication designed to be handled by automated routines. And this is the primary reason why programs can succeed at Turing tests, and why the reverse Turing tests in the captchas (..is there a Turing in the acronym here?) fail to weed out bots. An awful lot.\n\nSo even very complicated captchas can be beaten by an algorithm at fairly high rates of success, even if they rely on a certain amount of luck (that because of the formalized level of language is indistinguishable from user-error). But choosing to mix input and abstraction types so you would need to make a judgement on things like \"a house\" vs. \"a garage\" can usually be a fairly safe bet. In the same way, not querying you on text that can be easily processed, but text in an image, etc., increases the chances that bots won't target the site.\n\nBut specifically, the reason why the \"I am (not) a robot\" boxes work is that the designers probably were using scripts that measure pointer focus and response time. (Note for the overall point: the captchas do not, at any level, track hardware input or map your human reactions, they predict human reaction patterns from the limited data possible to retrieve by the running scripts in the browser window). And therefore they can of course be beaten by a well-written bot.\n\nIt is a very interesting subject, though. Specially since you can learn from utterly convinced professors at very good schools, that, essentially, increased complexity and obscurity in itself is going to provide security. Or more insidiously, that if a human cannot see the background calculations, they can safely deduce the properties of the program from the output. No such thing is the case, and an unfortunate amount of computer programming, for example when it comes to internet security, operates on principles like that. For example, the mobile phone networks had (and supposedly still don't in some areas) no encryption or access controls other than obscure/secret access methods until about 97 or so.\n\nWhile actually secure routines that will successfully make a formalized response from an automated source fail, or forces it to rely on a predictable brute force approach - like asymmetric encryption - are of course available. And certainly could be deployed with current day technology in terms of processing power, with very little whine and cries. But these solutions get a bad wrap over basically no other reason than a wish to keep certain access protocols in the hand of authorities, and - more commonly, for certain - a persistent belief in software and hardware businesses that the simplest solution is the cheapest one in the end. Along with how a \"sufficient\" solution - even if it has certain amazing drawbacks in terms of damage and potential risk - is the preferred one from an economical and planning perspective.\n\nIn that sense, the less difficult captchas are a very predictable evolution: you know that the proper solution that actually achieves the goal is too inconvenient. While the degree of success between the extremely complicated captchas that make you tear your hair out and leave the site, and the ones with a more simple checkbox, is so small that the least complicated solution is chosen. \n\nNote, I'm not saying it's a bad or even lazy or badly thought out solution. I'm simply pointing out that the simple check can be beaten, just at a marginally higher frequency than the most obnoxiously complicated scripts. And that this is a fundamental property of the fact that we are talking to the computer systems with a formalized language. That then in turn means human input, while having it's quirks and predictable behaviour, can be copied by a computer program to be indistinguishable from the real thing, in that context.",
"Having developed with the \"I'm not a robot\" type captcha, the checkbox isn't actually the whole problem... if you're doing too many of them it'll pop up with a much more traditional problem, usually it's something like \"click the parts of this image with a sign in them\" or something.",
"It's easier to float a legit site's CAPTCHA in a frame on a shady foreign porn site and have actual users solve the CAPTCHAS to advance to their nude pics of Abe Vigoda, or whatever other fetish brought them there. \n\n",
"Bots should be able to do that actually. I have programmed a few bots before and you can basically emulate your mouse and keyboard to make it like a real person is using it. With a few, slightly more complicated algorithms it should be possible. I might try it some time in the future (if there aren't bots that already can).",
"This is a JavaScript based CAPTCHA. It has NOTHING to do with mouse tracking or whatever the bullshit in the top post. \n\nSince most spambots do not execute JavaScript and can not identify the correlation between the displayed text and the DOM or required actions they can not click on the checkbox.\n\nPlease note that there is no checkbox at all, it is just a div element with some CSS styling. Spambots are trying to fill the form input elements, but there is no input in the CAPTCHA. The check mark is just another div (css class).\n\nWhen you click on the box an ajax request notifies the server that the div was clicked and the server stores this information in a temporary storage (marks the token: this token was activated by a human). When you submit the form, a hidden field sends the token which was activated, then when the server validates the form information it will recognize that the token was activated. If the token is not activated, the form will be invalidated.\n\nThe steps in bullet points:\n\n- Generate a unique identifier and add it to the form with a hidden input\n\n- Render a checkbox on the site (without using the < input > element, possibly using < div > ) and add the previously generated identifier to it (you can use the html5 data-* attributes)\n\n- When the user clicks on the checkbox, send an ajax request to the server and validate the CAPTCHA, if it is valid mark it as in use. (Show the result - identifier is OK/not OK - to the user)\n- When the user sends the form, the form's data contains the identifier. Check it once more, it should exist and it should be in in use state.\n\n- If all validations are passed, the form's data is ready to use/process\nYou can bind the identifier to the user's session, IP address, and/or you can use time limits to improve security.",
"Robots aren't allowed to lie, so they'd be breaking their ethics by claiming not to be one. ",
"Ya!? Well I can't even get 10 comment karma to prove I'm not a robot to post on PhotoshopRequest. It's been over 4 years... I wish there was a checkbox smh",
"It's simply because they are a robot, why would they check the box if they weren't? What do they have to lie about ?",
"There is so much false information here. To help you guys sort it, eliminate anything talking about detecting mouse movements.\n\nMouse movements can easily be faked by a bot. That's not why the checkbox is there or how it works. Others have answered this question correctly, however, so I won't repeat anything. In short it has to do with familiarity (google knows who you are) and repeated attempts to get past the captcha from the same source.",
"I have *never* had the checkbox work by itself, and I always needed to perform some captcha like determining which images contain storefronts. Image recognition like that is hard for computers.\n\nI'm guessing that the checkbox only works by itself if you send cookies which have been associated with human-like behaviour in the past. Unless you block it, Google is monitoring you on all sites which use Google Analytics and/or Google ads, and of course they also monitor your use of Google web sites. That provides a wealth of information. I block a lot of it though, so I have to solve captchas.",
"Because when the robot is prompted with the question and corresponding pictures, the robot utters the following phrase:\n\n\"Doesn't look like anything to me.\"",
"It's not that they can't check the \"I am Not a Robot\" prompt, they simply cannot see it. When the scan runs across the site, the IANAR box and Captcha do not get read, they appear as blank spaces to the bots. They're programmed to ignore it. [They literally couldn't see it if they were staring right at it.](_URL_0_) And [they cannot see the things that will hurt them.](_URL_1_)",
"Protip: A lot of the time after checking the checkbox it promps you with a image base task like clicking store fronts, coffee and other things hard to recognize unless you were a human",
"The truth is that if you were a robot then you'd get Google's \"true\" search results, including results indexed from the intergalactic robot repository downlink. Most humans don't see this because typical human arrogance makes them tick the \"I am not a robot\" button out of pride. But if you leave it unticked then your searches start coming back with some *real* answers. The test is there to make sure if you want to look at the robot version of Google that you move like a robot, rather than just lolling the mouse around the page like a human would. If you behave exactly how a robot would and leave it unticked when you press the search button then you'll see what I mean.",
"[GOOD QUESTION FELLOW FRIEND](_URL_0_), WHY CAN'T ~~WE~~ THEY?",
"A friend of mine once told me (quite some time back) that they use captcha for 2 reasons. The first is obvious and works as stated by other comments here. The 2nd, (he wanted to fool me I guess), reason is for converting hand written books into digital ones (something similar). The auto converters can't really understand all that gibberish handwriting so they split the sentences into words and use them as captcha. When we humans enter the text, it understands what the word is (not by just one user. Many people enter the same captcha so the word occurring many times is taken as the right word).\n\nBack then I was a dumb**ck and believed him. After some time I realized that was a load of horseshit.",
"I'm more annoyed at the fact that these captchas appear on every single action that I do.\n\nSometime i wonder if I'm really a robot with humanlike intelligence",
"They can. But if they do, Mr. Internet Policeman can arrest them for click lying and take them to robot jail. Duh. ",
"What if the Captchas are the only thing keeping the robots from taking over and enslaving mankind? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://security.googleblog.com/2014/12/are-you-robot-introducing-no-captcha.html",
"http://security.stackexchange.com/a/101906"
],
[
"http://www.javascriptsource.com/page-details/mouse-coordinates.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api2/demo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/D1F5nzxiNto?t=9s",
"https://youtu.be/XkrZB-yyXNc?t=50s"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/totallynotrobots/comments/5f3m1v/ha_ha_that_was_easy_modeexe/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4kjpn1 | why do recent generations feel so entitled, like everyone owes them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kjpn1/eli5_why_do_recent_generations_feel_so_entitled/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3fergr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Probably because we are born with today's problems and the older generations expect us to fix it. It's the mind set that since we didn't do it, we shouldn't be held accountable and because of this we feel entitled since its not our fault "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
88vhnm | how do credit settlement companies who claim that people who have a lot of debt don't have to pay it back work? | I was driving home today and on the radio I hear an advertisement from a company that guarantees that if you have a huge amount of credit card debt, that you don't have to pay it back. They claim that you only have to pay a small fraction back. How the heck does that work? Borrow a ton of money and only pay a small fraction back? I don't understand how that would work. Thanks for any replies!
**EDIT - 4/2/18** - WOW! This really blew up fast! Thanks for all the replies, the big lesson that I learned from this is NOT to get into debt that I can't pay back! Thanks everyone! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88vhnm/eli5_how_do_credit_settlement_companies_who_claim/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwnisq2",
"dwnj033",
"dwnl361",
"dwnl8bc",
"dwnm9hh",
"dwnmds1",
"dwnmjka",
"dwnnzl4",
"dwnoom1",
"dwnpt7n",
"dwnqwk2",
"dwnsbgs",
"dwnu2uk",
"dwnw72h",
"dwo6o7v",
"dwog75s",
"dwooyfp",
"dwp0f7y"
],
"score": [
11,
5115,
27,
170,
733,
81,
20,
206,
7,
3,
18,
11,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The “small fraction” part comes with about 5billion asterisks after it. These companies buy your debt and you pay it back to them with astronomical fees and interest attached.",
"Broke people can't pay their bills. It's just math.\n\nSo let's say you owe your credit card companies $25,623 and you don't really have any way of paying that back. You might file bankruptcy, and the credit card companies would get little or nothing. OR they could agree to take $5,000 and just give up on the rest. This is probably a better option than forcing you into bankruptcy, because $5,000 > $0. \n\nSo these companies work with your credit card companies and other creditors to arrange a settlement. It usually looks like them paying $5,000 to the credit card company to wipe out the debt, and then you end up paying them $6,000 over time, so they make money too.",
"Debt settlement companies don't buy your debt, as others are suggesting--you can transfer accounts (the credit card company can sell your owed debt to another company), but a private customer can't sell the debt they owe. \n\nThe one my firm works with doesn't, for example. What it does is agree to negotiate with your creditors for you and try to get them to settle for a lower percentage of the debt, while you stop paying your creditors and instead start paying in to what is essentially an escrow account. When they reach a settlement they take the money (either as a lump sum or in monthly payments) as well as their fees out of your account. So if you settle a $1000 account for $500, they take $150; you've saved $250, they've made $150, and the creditor has received $500 and writes off the rest.",
"You can work out a settlement directly with your cc company without going thru a third party. The damage to your credit report is done when your bills are reported as late. If you were to file bankruptcy when your bills were still paid up to date, your credit score will not take as much of a hit. The third party settlement companies are a scam and will eventually hurt your credit more than helping. They’ll take your payments and hold on to the money til the account is about to charge off, then make a settlement. Meanwhile, you’ll still be getting collection calls, etc. Also, a settlement is viewed as (almost) just as bad as bankruptcy. If you qualify for a chapter 7, that’s the way to go to save the most money. \nSource: worked for a major cc company in the collections and credit dept for 5 years. ",
"Important note: Debt forgiveness over $600 gets counted as income that has to be reported on taxes. So if you owe $10,000 and settle the debt for$2500, then you will receive a 1099 tax form saying that you have $7500 as income. ",
"Most of these companies are just rip offs. Here's the deal, if you are broke and can't pay your bills, you have two options. Wait until your creditors start suing you and garnishing your wages and attaching your bank accounts or file for bankruptcy. Only 25% of your income can be garnished, so if you owe a lot of money, they aren't going to get much back.\n\nBut you can also negotiate with creditors to reduce the amount you pay back. Many times they will stop charging you interest and penalties and let you pay back the money you owe with no further accumulations. You can lower the amount you pay back. It's all just a negotiation. You can do it yourself, or hire one of these companies. to negotiate for you. \n\nBut these companies make no promises, you have to pay in advance, and in the end, you can't force them to do anything, so you just lose you money and probably file bankruptcy. But you can do the same negotiation yourself. Show your creditors you are close to filing bankruptcy and they will get more out of you settling than in bankruptcy court.\n\nBut it still screws your credit until you get them paid off, to whatever you agreed to. So if you are a great negotiator and have a lot of time, you can try to do it yourself. But most companies don't really have a reason to talk to you or someone you hire to negotiate for you. I mean, they will talk, but they just say \"see you in court\".\n\nI recommend trying yourself to negotiate with creditors and if that don't work, hire a bankruptcy lawyer.",
"For the most part - they don't. \n\nSee:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFor a recent settlement. They collect their fees up front - and dont necessarily deliver on the back end.\n",
"Oh hey, one I can answer... worked for a bank for over a decade, used to do credit bureau disputes.\n\nDepends on the quality of the company. And most of the time they’re misleading.\n\nThe bigger companies usually do settlements. That is, you owe say, 5k, and they get us to take 2k. That could be before or after your account is charged off.\n\nWhat they aren’t advertising on the phone is that this is going to negatively impact your credit. Now, if they’ve already charged off the account as a loss, the hit isn’t going to be that bad. Gets reported as settled, paid after charge off. Not too bad. A prospective creditor will see you had some trouble, but paid on it after a charge off.\n\nIf the account has not charged off, and the bank settles, it gets reported as settled, then charged off. Which is a little worse. A prospective creditor will look at that as you basically saying ‘I can’t pay anymore, but here’s a little bit.’ These are rare. Most of the time, the creditor is going to wait for the person to charge off. Why? Because people would do this more often if they weren’t in trouble. Just call in and claim some emergency to get a lower payoff.\n\nAny time we’re dealing with debt management, if you’re account was open, it’s automatically closed, and will report closed by grantor. Also keep in mind that you’re going to receive a 1099 form on any debt that’s settled. If you settled that earlier mentioned 5k for 2k, that 3k counts as income for tax purposes. Sure, you could try and not report it at tax time, but that’s a risk you’re running.\n\nAs per the shadier companies... They’re a pain in the ass. A lot of them will send us documents that accounts were opened fraudulently. Whether you told them that or not. I’ve seen ever thing from repeated form letters claiming fraud to phony police reports, some from real agencies, others from agencies that don’t even exist. Some will threaten to sue for basically nothing, with no details. Just threatening ‘attorney’ letters demanding we remove delinquencies or stop reporting accounts.\n\nLong story short, don’t expect a miracle. If you have valid delinquencies, the banks aren’t going to remove them. When you go onto TransUnion, Equifax, or Experian’s websites and dispute negative marks- oh, did I mention you can and should do this yourself? Saves $$$- those disputes go to the banks to review via a system called e-OSCAR. The bureaus themselves, they don’t review shit.\n\nThe same goes for trying to settle. Try dealing with the banks yourself. No sense in paying someone else money that you could be using to get back on your feet to settle your debts. In most cases, if you get into a lot of debt due to some trouble you find yourself in, consider bankruptcy. \n\nPlease don’t think of that as some nasty, evil word. Or that we at the bank are looking down on you. We recognize that shit happens. The only people we get annoyed at are the people that blast out their cards on purpose, then refuse to pay. ",
"A big corporation sells a massive bundle of debt at once. Theyll buy for example 200million dollars of debt from say verizon for like 55 million and then thats when you start getting calls. Most of the time they dont have sufficient evidence of non payment.....so spend 55 million to retrieve 70-200 million or however much they can pry outta the people in the debt contract also i see a lot of very wrong answers being posted.",
"In Australia what usually happens is they arrange a part nine debt arrangement for you.\nThey negotiate with all of the companies you owe money too for a lower amount as an alternative to zero amount.\nThey then pay the credit companies this lower amount and provide you with a new loan that is smaller than the sum of all of your existing loans.\nYou then pay this back slowly over time, usually directly out of your income so you are not making the payments yourself.\nThey add a service fee and interest on top.\n\nIt ruins your credit rating, but it's not as bad as a part ten which is full blown bankruptcy. And your credit can be restored in as short as 4 or 5 years. Instead of the 7 bankruptcy hits you for.\n\nAfter you have paid out your part nine though you are still frowned at by most mainstream lenders. And will need to get something from a higher risk lender to rebuild your credit file.\n\nSource : worked in the financial sector specialising in bad credit loans and debt recovery credit.",
"Pretty much this:\n\nThey are called debt management companies. They usually buy or negotiate with people that own your debt (on a contractual or consignment basis).\n\nMost people don't realize that all debt collectors will take a huge chunk off your debt to begin with. Tax season is the worst because they know people have the money so they hit hard after refunds come in.\n\nOver the winter months when things are rough they are under extra pressure to get paid because most collectors work on a commission/bonus structure with hourly (that can be pretty high). \nSo if they don't meet their quota for how much they are suppose to close each week/month it's hard to justify those wages.\n\nBack to how. So they work out a deal where if another debt collection company has that debt. If they recover it for them they get a small percentage of that collection and pass the rest to the other company. \n\nThere's actually a whole business/market around buying debt. Though recently laws have been enacted to prevent debt from being a huge commodity that's sold frequently(which is why so many collection agencies call on out of statute debt).\n\nA lot of times when companies buy paper (debt) they get thousands of accounts to collect on. A huge portion of those are total crap accounts; whether they are already paid/out of statute/illegal (Payday loans are illegal in some states, but it doesn't mean it's illegal to collect on them so that can be confusing).\n\nSo once they consolidate all of the debt you have spread out over creditors and debt collection agencies they come up with a structure or plan for you to make payments to one company that pays all the others (if they can't be bought directly from them).\n\nThis is cheaper overall for the person who owes. The agencies and creditors are just happy to recover anything.\n\nTo be honest you are better off making a full payment at a extremely reduced rate (in the off season when collectors are hard for cash). As opposed to making a payment plan over months/years.\n\nI've seen people commonly settle debt anywhere from 30-65%. Sometimes higher or lower but it really depends on the agency, debt and collector.\n\nAlso always make sure to get your paperwork regarding your payment. Some agencies have multiples of your accounts through previous paper(debt) purchases. So when you get a call again you can send them proof of payment and get that removed.\n\nIt's a really scummy business. Everyone always thinks that no one wants to pay their bills (those are the people who have never been in a rough spot). The reality is, it's a choice between paying rent, car payments, food, utilities, gas and other important things in life.\n\nWhen forced to make a choice under a threat I've seen people borrow from Paul to pay Peter. It not only ruins relationships and families but generally puts them in another bad spot in life.\n\nI would highly recommend those that can't pay not to panic right away. When the collectors call, fight for a good rate and pay it off when you can or if possible, all at once for an even better rate.\n\nIf your threatened with jail or worse, call the state Attorney General and file a complaint, also go to the BBB website and make a complaint there regarding out of statute, harassment and other issues. These things are huge hits to agencies. They will do everything to resolve them and avoid a bad name (hah hard to do).\n\nKeep track of what time they also call your house(hours matter legally), how many times they call (more than 3 times is harassment but watch out for spoofed numbers) and if they say they are with someone who they aren't (IRS or the Police). Oh yeah and 3rd party disclosure(to someone who isn't you or legally allowed to handle your finances) and HIPPA laws in regards to your medical bills.\n\nOne time a company I worked for opened up a call center in Panama to avoid US laws regarding debt collection practices. They often referred to themselves as Special Agents while making phone calls to debtors.\n\nSorry for the long rant but this just stirred up so much in me about why I hated Debt Collection.\n\nSource: Was a Admin/Point Caller for Debt Collections (I'm the person who mailed and typed up all those letters, I also called you to verify that the number was right and then transferred you to someone else, I also was then the person who authorized your payment over a recording to prevent you from canceling payment allowing the company I worked for to sue you after).\n\nPlaced 300-400 calls a day outbound, took about 20-40 authorizations a day, my most calls was over 650 in one day using two phones at once. I never collected even though I could, because I myself have owed money and know the strife of poverty. It's a scummy business and I'm sorry!\n\nI hope this explains it a little bit and helps some people out there.\n\nHappy Zombie Jesus Day!",
"Here's how it really worked for a friend of mine : \nThey charge an upfront service fee to enroll in their services - they get their money first. \n\nThen the don't fulfill any of the promises they made to my friend to negotiate on his behalf.\n\nThey know he's already broke and headed to the courthouse for a chapter 11 or 13, so they just hang up on him when he calls. \n\nComplete fraud. So - be careful before committing to any such service.",
"Never pay for debt consolidation. It's a scam. You are better off hiring a bankruptcy attorney. \n\nIf you are determined to try debt consolidation, look for a non profit that doesn't charge anything. Just keep in mind that it is funded by the banks, and its purpose is to get as much money from you as possible while steering you away from bankruptcy. ",
"Please remember, if a credit settlement company can settle your debt for less than you owe, you definitely can do it as well. \n\nI had a huge credit card problem once; lost my job and couldn't make the payments. I settled all my debt for much less than I owed. It took a long time, but I managed to get out of something I thought would consume me.",
"There are 2 types of debt management companies. Those associated with Consumer Credit Counseling Services who negotiate with the creditors to stop interest charges and late fees and accept a smaller monthly payment until such time the debt is paid off all while freezing your delinquency counter (so you stay where you were when contracted or sometimes ar even brought current (reaged) after a few payments. The assisting company keeps a percentage of the payment you make and sends the rest to the credit card company. So you pay them $50 a month, they send $40 to the credit card company, but the credit card company gives you credit for a $50 payment (called \"fair share\"). These are legitimate organizations and look to actually help the debtor by preventing bankruptcy or litigation. When you sign up with these programs and they begin making payments to the creditors the creditors report to the credit bureaus that you're under a \"Debt Management Program\". So there is a still a ding on your credit report, but better than a charge off, bankruptcy, or judgement.\n\n\nThen there's the (what I like to call) scum companies. Like the one you heard advertised on the radio.\n\nThese companies promise to save you thousands of dollars and can \"settle for pennies on the dollar\". Here's how they work:\n\nWhen you sign up, they figure out your debt and give you a monthly payment to make directly to them, they have you sign a power of attorney authorizing them to work on your behalf. The first thing they do is send this POA and a cease and desist letter to the creditor. What this does is prevent the creditor from contacting you directly. They do this so you have no idea what's going on with your debt.\n\nWhat they then do is take a few payments from you until there is a \"bank of money\" to work from, then they will start contacting your creditors to settle the debt. You owe Capital One $25k, they will call and offer $500 to settle it. Cap One says no, so they call Discover Card and offer it to them to settle your $22K debt. They say no as well so they call the next guy in line.\n\nThey continue to do this, possibly increasing the settlement offer each month (because you keep making your payment to them so there is a larger \"bank\" to work with.\n\nIn the mean time your accounts continue to go further delinquent until they finally charge off. Once a account charges off a bank is more likely to accept a lower amount to settle, or they will sell the debt off to a collection agency for even less then they would have settled for 3 months ago.\n\nThe settlement company then will contact whoever owns the debt post charge off and offer to settle for $500, if they say no, they move on to the next one again, and the cycle continues.\n\nThe problem with this structure is that you are now paying thousands of dollars, your accounts roll forward to charge off, there have been no payments made, the accounts had continued to accrue late fees and interest (until charge off) and they've ruined your credit. There are no agreements or protections in place to keep you form being sued for the debt and the result is often more damaging to your credit than having filed bankruptcy.",
"They basically contact your creditors and say hey this person owes you this amount. They haven't made a payment in over such and such time. At this point the crditor has basically written it off as money they will never collect. The creditors are given a lump sum by the people you are now paying and the debt is erased but your credit takes an enormous hit. Not a big deal to people who's credit is already going to be bad. The company will set your regular payments to them so low that you can always afford them, making their investment safer. You have to \"qualify\" for their system, which means you answer filter questions that are statistic based. If you are a good stat, they sell it to you. I think they basically do the same thing as chapter 7 bankruptcy without taking your assets. Bankruptcy is usually a better option.",
"credit settlement companies are a scam. \n\nI have 5 years debt collection experience ranging from personal cards, to business accounts to mortgages. \n\nDon't hire a debt settlement company. It's a giant scam. You can negotiate yourself. If you're THAT desperate to have someone else handle YOUR financial responsibilities for you than you need to contact a NON-PROFIT consumer credit services company. \n\nAll the credit settlement company does is issue a 'do-not-contact' to all of your creditors. Then they collect money from you. Then they do nothing. In the meantime ALL of your debts will go into a 'charged-off' status. The only thing worse than charged-off debts is an actual bankruptcy. Then maybe, JUST MAYBE, they might offer your creditors $20. Oh yea, if you cancel your services with them, they keep ALL, yes ALL of the money that you gave to them to give to your creditors. \n\nI saw a guy lose $10k because he gave it to a debt consolidation company to settle his debts. They did nothing. When he canceled his service with them and stopped the payments, they kept his $10k. He was unhappy. \n\nGood luck. ",
"You can settle credit card debt for so much on the dollar, or get rid of it all together. But in the end you get screwed a lot of times because when they do their taxes they will 1099 your ass and list that money as a gift to you the IRS then will tax you for. All those companies do is do the exact same thing you can do on your own and there isn't a guarantee they can do it, but I guarantee they will still take their fee. Bottom line is unless you're rich there is no easy out for debt aside from dying."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/03/ftc-reaches-settlement-nationwide-debt-relief-provider"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5j65o9 | why does your car rock a little bit when another car closely passes by it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j65o9/eli5_why_does_your_car_rock_a_little_bit_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbdms6x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The oncoming car builds up air pressure around it by driving fast and then that air hits your car"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3sdfst | is there a reason that zero-based budgeting is impractical for large organizations in general, and the us federal government in particular? | Edit: I understand the ELI5 as to *what* zero-based budgeting is. **What I'm asking is if there is a reason that it can't or shouldn't be used for large organizations, specifically governments**, and if that reason can be ELI5'd.
Original: Asked in light of the current US presidential contest and Carly Fiorina's advocacy for implementing zero-based budgeting for the US government. Curious about whether it is common or practical for large corporations with large bureaucracies to use zero-based budgeting, since they seem like the most reasonable proxy's for government agencies that might already be using this system. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sdfst/eli5_is_there_a_reason_that_zerobased_budgeting/ | {
"a_id": [
"cww9xee"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Zero-based budgeting is basically starting with no programs/departments/expenses/revenues and adding them in one-by-one based on perceived needs. It's time consuming and typically results in a budget very similar to the previous year's, so it's not typically done. But it is an effective tool at ferreting out spending that isn't mission critical. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dv40se | what is a dry aged steak and what does it do to the meat flavor-wise? | I've heard of aged steaks but don't really know what they are or how they are prepared. Also, I've never had one so I was wondering what it does to the flavor. This is just a poor assumption, but I feel like any steak that is "aged" would go bad. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dv40se/eli5_what_is_a_dry_aged_steak_and_what_does_it_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7aj8eh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A dry-aged steak is left in a temperature- and humidity-controlled environment for at least 30 days, during which period of time a lot of the moisture in it evaporates; this concentrates the \"beefy\" flavor of it, resulting in a more intense and flavorful steak.\n\nYou're not *entirely* wrong about it going bad, though. The thing to understand is that the kinds of mold and bacteria that grow on steak don't penetrate below the surface. So typically while aging you'll just let them grow and then cut them off the outside when it's ready to eat; the interior of the steak will be completely untouched by them. Sometimes the steak will pick up flavors from them, though, which can lead to some really crazy-tasting dry-aged steaks (I had one in Chicago that had some really distinct bleu-cheese flavors... it was amazing)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1hgyvf | what is the hare krishna group? | Backstory: my friend recently went to the San Diego Warped Tour. While there, she hung out with who she thought were some pretty chill Buddhists, and they invited her to their temple. She then invited me. We had no clue who the Hare Krishna were, so when they told her who they were, no red flags were raised. We didn't end up going because when she told her parents about it, they flipped out. I tried looking them up but I didn't find anything that made them seem crazy. Any explanation would be awesome! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hgyvf/eli5_what_is_the_hare_krishna_group/ | {
"a_id": [
"caxubo4",
"cb4xvif"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ don't listen to all the fear mongering here, they believe krishna is god, like to give free food called prasadham because they believe it is good for people's souls and chant hare krishna and be happy",
"The Hare Krishnas are [Gaudiya Vaishnavas](_URL_0_). They are remarkable as one of the main sources of conversion to Hinduism. [A guru](_URL_1_) in Gaudiya Vaishnavism traveled from India to the U.S. and Europe in the 1960s. He translated a lot of scriptures from Sanskrit to English, provided commentary, and taught about this ancient religion. \n\nAmericans and Europeans of non-Indian descent converted to Hinduism. Many were very enthusiastic, and also embraced the Indian culture that the guru brought with him. Upon his encouragement, they sang their primary mantra in the streets (not that unusual in India), thus earning the name \"Hare Krishnas\". \n\nThat guru died in 1977. These new Hindus were left without a leader, and many of them were trying to lead very renounced, ascetic lives. Without proper guidance, some of them committed transgressions. There was some child abuse in Hare Krishna boarding school (or schools?) for kids. Court-ordered restitution for the affected children put the organization into dire financial straits. An American devotee turned a Gaudiya Vaishnava farm community into his own new-agey hippy commune, and when someone challenged his authority, he was murdered. That person was tried and convicted, and served time in federal prison. He is no longer a leader in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. \n\nISKCON - the International Society for Krishna Consciousness - was the organizational body established by that guru who came to the West. Because it is a new organization, people think the Hare Krishnas are practicing a new religion. Actually, it is all just Vaishnavism from Bengal, therefore called \"Gaudiya\" Vaishnavism. The tumult of those years after the guru died has calmed. I personally know some amazing people, with awesome spiritual practice, who are Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Not crazy :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"www.krishna.com"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada"
]
] |
|
33nkcl | why do some gifs have a "v" at the end? (.gifv) | I just noticed this. Thought I was hitting v while copy paste but I don't think that's the case. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33nkcl/eli5_why_do_some_gifs_have_a_v_at_the_end_gifv/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqmlt6e"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Gifv is an imgur project to convert gifs into more compressed, faster loading video file types. The v ending is what they are using the signal the change in format.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://imgur.com/blog/2014/10/09/introducing-gifv/"
]
] |
|
2dokpt | what is the problem with police having military weapons? | Cities have bad guys. Police need weapons, and military hardware is the best there is. Why do people say that police don't need/shouldn't have these kinds of weapons? Police already have weapons--why not object to those, too? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dokpt/eli5_what_is_the_problem_with_police_having/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjri3a5",
"cjriibp",
"cjriujf",
"cjrj28i",
"cjrkwql",
"cjrokzg",
"cjrr34f",
"cjrvkgc"
],
"score": [
2,
49,
18,
30,
6,
12,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's less the guns and stuff, and more the tanks and stuff. The cops don't need tanks. They can fight crime fine with regular cars and stuff.",
"When the police have armored personnel carriers and gas masks then that sends entirely the wrong message, and escalates the situation significantly. \n\nIdeally the police should be viewed as members of the community they are serving. If police officers look like soldiers kitted out for the battlefield then they are naturally intimidating. It sends the message 'we view you as the enemy.' \n\nIf the police send such a message then the community they're meant to serve could end up fearing or hating them. \n\nIf people fear the police then they're not going to go to them for assistance; they won't call the police when they are victims of crime and won't aid the police when they are aware of crimes. \n\nIf people hate the police they'll be uncooperative and even violent when they interact with them, escalating the situation even further.",
"It's a psychological problem. Police in the US are ideally civil servants. They exists to protect and serve, not to be a branch of the military. When a police department is outfitted with high powered military gear, that dividing line becomes blurrier. When people start seeing the police as an arm of the military, the police can be seen as fighting against the people, rather than working for them.\n\nOn the practical side, mission creep can occur when police departments are given advanced equipment and told to use it or lose it every year at budgeting time. Military gear gets used for more and more cases where its not really needed. While the equipment can keep the officers safer, which is a good thing, it can also ignite a powderkeg of a situation that could lead to more casualties.",
"When a person (any person) has a hammer, problems start looking like nails. ",
"One sentiment I've heard is that police are being trained to think of themselves as the good guys, and the people they are policing as the bad guys. This attitude leads to brutality and a lack of oversight and responsibility. The possession of extremely deadly weapons is a symptom and tool for this brutality--instead, so the thinking goes, their priority should be to diffuse a situation rather than destroy anyone involved. In extreme cases they should have some non-lethal tools to help them. Their role should be preserving peace but not administering punishment, since that is supposed to be the purview of the judicial and penal system.",
"The fact is that police never, ever actually need the military gear at all for their work. It's complete overkill and makes them a very dangerous force for citizens.\n\nRebuttal, \"But what about drug cartels and gangs? Police need that gear to fight back!\"\n\nSWAT already have that gear and they do fight back. Drug cartels/gangs vs SWAT always end badly for the bad guys. Regular police are never, ever supposed to engage in full-on gunfights. They're supposed to use the pistols for self-defense, take cover and call in the SWAT.\n\n\"Police need military gear to quell dangerous riots.\"\n\nThere's a difference between riot and military gear. Riot gear is purely defensive. Shields, bullet-proof armor and for the absolute worse case scenarios, they sometimes have to use tear gas and rubber bullets.\n\nMilitary gear however, is military gear. Tanks, rocket launchers and fully-automatic rifles w/ complete body armor. Weapons like these are extremely dangerous to citizens and completely unnecessary for even the largest of riots. It's complete overkill and give the police way too much power over citizens.\n\nEven the most dangerous of riots can be quelled with tear gas and rubber bullets. There is no need for tanks, automatic rifles or any military gear at all.\n\n\"What if terrorists attack? Police have to have military gear to defend us!\"\n\nIf terrorists or any other dangerous military group attack a town/city, that's when military personnel are called in. This is what the military is for. It's completely unnecessary for local police to be fully-decked in military gear 24/7 because of the erroneously small chance that a terrorist would attack. At that point, the police would be much more dangerous than any possible terrorist.\n\nThere's also the scary possibility that if the police are militarized, the rights of citizens could become void. The dollar has been losing it's value exponentially over the years and Obama has added many trillions of dollars to the US's debt. If the dollar fails and the economy collapses, what's going to happen to citizens, to the people of the country?\n\nMartial law would be declared. If the police is militarized, the rights of every citizen would be completely void. Citizens can not defend themselves against tanks. It would be the complete collapse of everything the founding fathers believed in and the country would be shambles.\n\nIf the govt. became corrupt and the police were militarized, they could kill and arrest any citizen who doesn't comply with their rules and laws. This is why the founding fathers created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to protect from a dangerous govt. \n\nTL;DR: There is no reason to militarize police forces. It puts citizens in incredible danger and would make it incredibly easy for a corrupt govt. to take complete control over the country and take away the rights, liberties, kill and arrest anyone they wanted to without discretion. \n\n ",
"You put on your party clothes to party, you put on your sleep clothes to sleep, your hunting clothes to hunt, and your work clothes to work. Imagine going to bed smeared in camo cream and deer piss while you carry a rifle. You probably won't sleep very well. Going to work in your PJs will probably not yield a good day at the office.\n\nIf your job is to interact with the public and keep the peace, and your work clothes are the clothes people wear when they are going to close with and destroy an enemy, there might be some issues.",
"The problem isn't so much that they have them, it's that they use them too readily.\n\nSWAT needs to exist, because sometimes criminals have serious weapons like machine guns or explosives and you need a response team that can effectively neutralize those threats. This means major police departments need full body armor, machine guns, sniper rifles, riot gear, etc. The problem is that they are often used when it is unnecessary. As to why they overuse them, perhaps it's to justify the budget or because they truly believe that they need to be a more militarized police force, but the reality of the situation is that police use them far too often.\n\nFor example, there are many instances of simple drug busts becoming no-knock raids out of fear of people inside flushing the evidence. In addition, they try to shoot for times when the suspects are asleep, so it's usually early AM. When you use a ram to bust the door of someone's home open, it's terrifying, especially when they're disoriented from being asleep or high. Their first instinct is survival and self-defense which means using the nearest weapon to defend their home. Because of this, it's necessary for cops to be in full SWAT gear to protect themselves. The problem is that this is a catch-22 in that they wouldn't need mil-spec gear if they simply served the warrant in the open during daytime. While some busts require SWAT gear, too many raids don't.\n\nAnd during protest crowd control, showing up in riot gear should be a last resort, but it is often a first response. It leads to alienating the crowd and making them anxious, which often leads to situations blowing up. Officers in normal garb working within the crowd to keep the peace often has a calming orderly effect. A wall of riot shields does not."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3kotrp | why do only some windmills work at a time? | I'm returning home from Vegas right now, and I'm seeing lots of windmills. But only some operate out of a whole bunch. Is there a reason for that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kotrp/eli5_why_do_only_some_windmills_work_at_a_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuz7nlj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Windmills are designed to work at different windspeeds. So probably most of the windmills are designed to most profitable interval in your area. Climate conditions on that day might have been different. Fir example huge storms mean that most of the mills are stopped.\n\nAlso if there is an open market for electricity (in northern-europe we do), then it depends of general prognosed demand on the market (for that day/hour), whether it is profitable to keep some of the sources working.\nIn our case green energy has the highest priority, so they always keep them at work, when possible and profitable. Just conditions of being profitable may vary from country to country.\n\nAlso maintenance is an option, but ot likely that most of the mills undergo maintenance at once.\n\nSorry, really not like ELI 5, but don't know the industry well enough to be able to simplify it more."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
287t54 | why does the us military still use the m4/m16? | There have been dozens of Assault Rifles made in the 90s that are better than it, let alone today, so why do we still use a weapon that's been proven time and time again to be vastly inferior to current weapon systems? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/287t54/eli5why_does_the_us_military_still_use_the_m4m16/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci88kd0",
"ci88x5j",
"ci8904r",
"ci8aiz1"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it would cost too much to buy new ones for every person, and if ammunition is different then we now have a lot of useless ammo. Those are the big 2. Although, special divisions do get assigned different weapons, just a heads up.",
"Maybe because it hasn't been proven inferior to newer designs? There are only so many ways you can design a rifle and just because it looks futuristic does make it better. Remember KISS.",
"Because its cheap and affective . \n\nHence while the ak47 and the m1911 are still widely in use ",
"I'm in the infantry and I will say this. The m4 is a good weapon imo. My biggest complaint would be the gas tube. In an m4 weapon the gas tube is incredibly small in diameter I'm not sure of the actual size but smaller than a pencil. The problem is when the weapon gets dirty the gas tube doesn't have enough pressure to push the bolt carrier system back all the way. In an AK47 however the gas tube is large at least 1/2'' diameter which is part of the reason why the weapon system can be picked out of the dirt and fired. Going back though the m4 is also a very accurate weapon system if I'm not mistaken the Marine Corps. still shoot out to 500 meters during weapons qualification. The 5.56 is a small fast accurate round. However at closer range targets will still take several rounds because of the inability for the smaller round to expand and mushroom due to the high velocity whereas the AK fires a slower heavier round making it more likely to tumble or mushroom, this is also why is has a shorter effective range. It's like the difference between a .25-06 and .30-06\n\nWiki page: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16"
]
] |
|
6d49ta | why do we interpret spicy foods as 'hot' even though they are not hot in terms of temperature? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6d49ta/eli5why_do_we_interpret_spicy_foods_as_hot_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhzpsa4",
"dhzpu2e"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the chemical in spicy foods, capsaicin, chemically triggers the activation of receptors in our skin that also trigger due to heat or heavy abrasion. Since these receptors *usually* only trigger when exposed to heat, we interpret their activation as heat. This is why spicy foods can feel like a burning sensation - it literally is the same response in the body physically as what happens when exposed to extreme heat.",
"Capsaicin is the name of the chemical in spicy food that makes it taste spicy - the more capsaicin, the spicier the food.\n\nThe way that capsaicin works on us is that it binds to a specific taste receptor on our tongue, which sends a signal to our brain. By a neat coincidence, those receptors are actually meant to tell our brain how hot (temperature) our food is - it's a coincidence that it's also activated by capsaicin. So our brain recognizes the same sensation from \"hot\" peppers as it does from \"hot\" burning food, because our taste receptors don't know the difference.\n\nFun fact: birds don't have those sorts of receptors, so they can't taste spiciness in foods. Peppers evolved to take advantage of that. Land animals would avoid the spicy peppers, and only birds would eat them. The birds would fly away and poop out the seeds somewhere far off, so that the pepper plants could spread over a wider area than if land animals ate their fruits and dropped seeds nearby."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
a0lljf | why did usa adopt chip and pin but never implement the pin portion? how is this system better than the old non-chip cards if we don't use a pin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0lljf/eli5_why_did_usa_adopt_chip_and_pin_but_never/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaiksld",
"eaimazb",
"eairc2o",
"eaiu877"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
26,
3
],
"text": [
"The biggest benefit is that chip cards can't be cloned or used online just from the information communicated during a transaction. While PIN cardholder verification would be a small protection against fraud by stolen cards, there is also strong pushback against using PINs.",
"Because Banks didn't want to discourage people from using chip cards. They we're afraid that requiring PINs would discourage too many people from using the chips. Since US banks are already very well adjusted to handling fraud, they decided to take on the risk of fraud.\n\nThe biggest benefit of the chip is that it makes it harder to copy a card. With the strip, there is zero protection on the credit card information. A malicious scanner can copy the card information on the strip, then create a new strip very cheaply to put on a duplicate card. Chips make this much harder because it effectively masks the card information and its more expensive to make a duplicate chip.",
"Banks have limited incentive to protect against fraud as they protect the buyer, not the merchant. The merchant generally accepts the cost of a charback, and factors that into their way of doing business, and therefore add their own measures to protect against fraud (such as phone verifying orders, asking for voice approval, asking for extra ID, etc)\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe US offers generally awesome chargeback protection for customers, which means I can call Amex and say \"I wasn't happy with the product\" to get a refund, while other countries like Australia might not even be happy unless there is a clear breach of contract. Note that the US charges fairly high merchant fees to cover the chargeback rate, while other countries with stricter rules are fairly low.",
"What? My chipped card needs a pin to use."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
eqzs3v | what is happening in human brain and how neuron connections behave when recieving new information and when figuring out how to apply recieved information/skill in certain circumstances? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eqzs3v/eli5_what_is_happening_in_human_brain_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"fezk68q"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Holy moly that is a tall order. I will give you a simplified, ELI5 answer, but understand this can vary in many ways depending on what areas are activated, what kind of information etc.\n\nThe computer/brain analogy is useful when explaining this. First of all, neurons can fire only binary information, but can chose many different paths where to send that information. Depending on where it sends it, and where the next neuron in line sends his signal etc, you basically get a binary code. Some areas, let's call them processors in this sense, use this binary code to remember, codify and understand the code. Simply speaking, these processors can be called \"association areas\". These recieve the code and put it through a filter. Let us say that the information you have received is seeing a table. Your primary visual area have registered a bunch of light signals. These go through association areas to figure out the details (how big is the object, what edges, what materials, color etc). The result is a binary code that combines all these details. Next in order, a higher level area takes this, and sees basically \"what information has been connected to this information before\" and then take it from there.\n\nIf you think from a biological perspective on a micro-level, all a neuron is is just a little electric conductor that can increase or decrease resistant to its different outputs, therefore controlling where the signal it receives goes next.\n\nPlease ask more about this, as this text doesn't remotely capture the complexity that is the human mind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4ey39r | why is it easier to whistle after licking your lips? | After wetting your lips, it is much easier to get a good tone and more accurate pitch. Why is this? Does saliva work as a lubricant of some sort? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ey39r/eli5_why_is_it_easier_to_whistle_after_licking/ | {
"a_id": [
"d24c8q5"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Not a lubricant, a sealant. It's the same principle behind moistening a suction cup before trying to stick it onto something.\n\nWhen your lips are dry, they don't fit together as perfectly. There are tiny nooks and crannies that can let air pass by. When you try to whistle, air escapes through these and messes with your pitch.\n\nWhen you lick your lips, you fill those nooks and crannies with saliva. Water has a high surface tension, so it likes to cling to itself and to surfaces. When you press your lips together, all those extra escape passages for the air are blocked by the saliva. The air only goes where you want it to go, and you get good pitch. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2caad9 | why did uk voters reject the alternative voting system a few years back? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2caad9/eli5_why_did_uk_voters_reject_the_alternative/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjdh5cq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"\"Change is bad\". Campaigns which suggested that AV was overly-complex stole what's left of the hearts of the apathetic electorate. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
53x2i1 | how do scientists determine the density of something like a planet or moon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53x2i1/eli5_how_do_scientists_determine_the_density_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7x0tyg",
"d7x17bi",
"d7x39rb"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
9
],
"text": [
"If you want a good answer that will really explain it all, in detail, I'd recommend this: _URL_0_",
"Density is the amount of mass in relation to the volume of the object. They can tell the volume of the object by looking at it (\"you can tell by the way it is\"), and the mass can be deduced by looking at the orbital distance and speed, and how it impacts other objects of better known mass.",
"I'm going to assume you mean average density here, which would be the total mass of an object divided by its volume. Note that density can actually be defined *locally* as well, so that you can e.g. talk about the density profile of the Earth, as is done in [this plot](_URL_3_). If we assume that planets and moons are perfect spheres (they're not, but they're very close) then this means we \"only\" need to measure the mass of a planet (or moon) and its radius. \n\nThere are a variety of ways this is done. For solar system planets, masses can be obtained by looking either at [Kepler's 3rd Law](_URL_4_) (though note that this gives you the sum of the sun's mass and the planet's mass, so you need very accurate measurements since the mass of even the largest planet, Jupiter, is only about 1/1000 of the sun's mass), by measuring the motions of satellites of the planet, such as moons, or by looking at how the planets perturb one another gravitationally. For radii, we first need to determine the distances to the planets, which can be done using [parallax measurements](_URL_0_) or in more modern times by bouncing radar signals off of (closer) planets and measuring the time they take to return. Once the distance to the planet is known the radius of the planet can be calculated from its [angular diameter](_URL_2_). This is what I believe other commenters were alluding to when they said that you could tell the volume of an object by looking at it, but of course the real situation is more complicated than that. \n\nFor exoplanets the situation becomes much more difficult, since essentially none of the techniques I just described worked. The most common way of getting the density in this cases requires *both* a [radial velocity](_URL_5_) (RV) measurement of the planet's mass and a [transit](_URL_1_ measurement of the radius (the commenter that said you could infer the mass of the planet from a transit measurement is incorrect). RV is essentially a measurement of the star's motion due to it's planetary companion (which is why it gives us a mass since gravitational interactions are of course sensitive to mass) while a transit measurement tells us how much light is blocked when a planet passes in front of a star (which is why we get the radius from these measurements, since the amount of light blocked essentially depends on the ratio of the area of the planet to the area of the star). These methods are far less accurate than the methods used on the solar system planets, which is why the composition (related to, but more complicated than the density) of exoplanets is an extremely active area of current research."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-measure/"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(astronomy)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth#/media/File:RadialDensityPREM.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_velocity"
]
] |
||
cxl1ec | why is it easier to make higher pitch noises when your out of breath | Eg if you try hold a note for a long time when you get out of breath it's easier to go higher pitch | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxl1ec/eli5_why_is_it_easier_to_make_higher_pitch_noises/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyls04x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you make a low sound, your vocal cords are loose and open. When you make a high sound, you vocal cords are tight and closed. Less air is needed to pass through tight, closed vocal cords to make a high sound than loose, open vocal cords to make a low sound."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
26knzx | why does my mindset change post-orgasm | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26knzx/eli5_why_does_my_mindset_change_postorgasm/ | {
"a_id": [
"chrxspi",
"chrxvet",
"chrzbx5",
"chs0ijj",
"chs1y69",
"chs1yzb",
"chs24e7",
"chs2nw3",
"chs3qx3",
"chs47ci",
"chs4xc3"
],
"score": [
7,
19,
11,
146,
6,
13,
2,
2,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The same reason it changes after having a good meal? Or a great nap? ",
"There was just an article about this exact thing like a week or two ago that I saw. It has a name, but it's a foreign and hard to pronounce word. I remember the literal translation to English meant \"wise man time\". ",
"The chemicals in your brain change after you have an orgasm. You aren't horny anymore, and you see the horrible disgusting thing you were just watching for what it is, rather than through the veil of horniness! ",
"It's so you don't scoop the semen out of her vagina with your penis.",
"ELI5? I'm hopeful I never have to talk to a 5 year old about orgasms. \n\n & #160; \n \n\n^^^^*Unless* ^^^^*it's* ^^^^*\"why* ^^^^*am* ^^^^*I* ^^^^*all* ^^^^*sticky?\"*",
"Alright, I'm not a doctor.\nBut I'm somewhat decent in biology.\n\nTestosterone is what makes this all happen.\nYour sex drive depends on it, testosterone is also the male sex hormone which is produced in your sexual glands (testies).\nBoth, male and female do posses this sexual hormone.\nMen however often do have a stronger desire for sexual interaction, this is possible to cloud your brain. As you get aroused and horny, the testosterone in your blood level raises, imagine an adrenaline rush, your body and brain adapt to it, help you overcome things in extreme situations. I think it's pretty safe to say the same happens when you get aroused, your brain will just focus on one thing and that's sex.\n\nNow, on why your mindset changes post orgasm, well those could be psychological or physical reasons. Some people have fetishes that are somewhat, well, let's say not very common. Imagine going through that as a teenager, it's hell, you'd feel weird for liking stuff \"society\" doesn't like, whatever that might be, thus causing you to feel guilt or disgust towards what you just did/thought about. It's not out of order, but whatever it might be - all I can suggest people is to loosen up. There is nothing weird or not-normal in sexual encounters and fantasies, whatever those might be. Hope I could help you somewhat...you really shouldn't feel bad or ashamed of yourself for things you like, sexuality is a diverse thing and works different for all of us, only some get lucky enough to fully embrace their kinkiest fantasies and once you do them, trust me, there is a loooot of things you will not regret :P",
"I read in a similar post a hole back that it is because men go through a \"Refractory Period\" post orgasm which I believe essentially gets rid the desire to bone for a while. I believe the explanation evolution wise was t promoted men to just get it over with which was good for procreation.\n\nSo that change in your mental state is you without being clouded by a burning urge to plant your stake in some fertile ground.",
"All the posts I've read here are about men post orgasms, but what about females? I go through the same thing...",
"First off, I think you're mixing two different phenomena. One is what causes arousal (not my area), the other is why do you feel.different after sex/orgasm.\n\nDuring sex, and after orgasm, your brain is flooded with dopamine and serotonin, the chemicals that make you feel good. Specifically with sex, pheromones from your partner also contribute to chemicals that promote a feeling of intimacy and calmness. \n\nSomeone mentioned that it's like a good meal, and that's kind of close. Food can stimulate chemical reactions, and after you feel satisfied or content. As to the arousal, someone else mentioned testosterone levels being elevated during arousal/sex. In biological terms, our lizard brain (basic fight/flight/fuck instincts) is in go-mode when we're horny, but after we get chemicals that make us calm, happy, and wanting to stay near our partner. \n\nBoth of those answers were at the bottom of the page. What the hell are you guys upvoting?",
"Drastic oversimplification incoming (hey, you're supposed to be five, anyway):\n\nAs a rule, my endocrinologist maintains that it's a result of the changing serum concentrations of two separate hormones, Prolactin and Dopamine.\n\nDopamine is responsible for a number of behaviours, but in this context it works with testosterone to produce feelings of sexual arousal, and generally floods the brain with horniness.\nDopamine and Prolactin fight like cats in a bag, and generally resist each other's action (side bar: we would continually produce Prolactin as a basal level were it not for a low level of Dopamine overpowering it; when the brain wants to release Prolactin it, in fact, just cuts off its Dopamine supply).\n\nThrough a mechanism that for all intents and purposes is not that well understood, the Prolactin levels skyrocket almost immediately post-orgasm, and is largely responsible for feelings of sexual satisfaction. In fact, there was a study that showed a nice relationship between the levels of serum Prolactin and the sexual satiety that followed. This overpowers the levels of Dopamine that previously dominated the sexual arousal, and thus we have a basis for the refractory period, where round two is more an academic concept than a physical possibility.\n\nIn fact, conditions that lead to an excess of Prolactin (prolactinoma, a pituitary cancer) can often correspond with a diminished libido, as the Dopamine can't fight through the blockade of happy post-orgasm chemicals.",
"More research needs to be done on post masturbatory depression. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10el12 | roe v. wade | Can someone explain like I'm five the *Roe v. Wade* importance? I often hear this brought up in pro-life/pro-choice debates and it always confuses me to some extent. I'd like to understand it but google and Wikipedia don't dumb it down enough for me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10el12/roe_v_wade/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6cso3x",
"c6csy8n",
"c6ct5v3",
"c6ct8jc",
"c6ctqjc"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
4,
12
],
"text": [
"Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Roe. vs. Wade, many states made it **illegal** to have an abortion except in cases of rape or incest. The condom broke and you're still in the first trimester? Too bad. No abortion for you.",
"Roe v. Wade is one of many cases that the Supreme Court decided that on how much a state can regulate a woman's right to have an abortion. Basically, there is balance between the rights of a woman to do as she wants with her own body and the right of the state to protect the \"child's\" life. In particular, Roe v. Wade set up guidelines according to the trimesters of birth, but this has since been overruled and made the issue turn on when the fetus is actually viable. ",
"Fun Fact: Jane Rowe (Norma McCorvey) the women who fought for abortion rights in Rowe v. Wade is now against abortion.\n\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"The choice when you have a leaky canoe in shallow water.",
"*Roe v. Wade* is a *monumentally* significant decision of the US Supreme Court for two reasons.\n\nFirst, the ruling in the case made extremely sweeping proclamations about the limits on the several states to make laws regulating abortion. Put (very) simply, during the first third of pregnancy, states can't prohibit abortion. During the last third of pregnancy, states can't *allow* abortion. And in the middle third, states have the legal authority to permit or prohibit as they see fit.\n\nSo on the one hand, *Roe* set out very specific limits on state lawmaking authority, ensuring that all the laws in the various states in the US would be *similar,* if not identical.\n\nBut on the other hand, *Roe* was significant — and significantly controversial — because in that case the Supreme Court did way more than it has historically done. In most situations, the role of the Supreme Court is simply to make a finding of law, saying that *this particular law* or principle of law is either compatible with or incompatible with the Constitution and the other laws of the United States. In essence, Supreme Court decisions are usually either \"yes\" or \"no\" answers, with a lot of explaining why the answer is either yes or no.\n\nBut in *Roe,* the opinion for the majority went much further than that. Rather than declaring that a particular law — in that case, a particular law of the state of Texas — either was or was not okay to have around, Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the opinion for the majority in that case, *created out of whole cloth* legal standards that would govern the writing of *future* laws, essentially preemptively declaring that whole *classes* of laws would not be allowable.\n\nBlackmun's rationale for doing this was based on the trimester system, in which pregnancy is divided into thirds. As we saw before: first third, abortion is always lawful; third third, always prohibited; middle third, up to the states. This rationale certainly seems fair on its face — everybody gets an equal piece of the pie, so to speak — but it raised several very troubling legal questions.\n\nRemember that the Supreme Court is not a lawmaking body. It exists not to create laws or legal standards, but rather to interpret, weigh, apply, and when necessary invalidate laws and legal standards created in the legislatures. Because of this — because the Supreme Court is not empowered to create laws — there exists no lawful means of *changing* laws the Supreme Court makes implicitly. (Except two hard ones, which we'll get to in a minute.)\n\nSo let's just imagine, for sake of argument, that sometime in the future standards change — maybe for scientific or medical reasons, say — and a consensus builds around the idea that abortion should be absolutely permitted up to month *four* of pregnancy instead of month three — or only until month two instead of three, whichever; the upshot is the same. How do we go about changing the law of the land to reflect the new standard?\n\nWe effectively can't, is the answer. If a state passes a law prohibiting abortion from months two of pregnancy on — and again, this is just an example — that law must either be struck down as conflicting with the trimester system established in *Roe,* or *Roe itself* must be struck down by the high court, a drastic move that's tantamount in many minds to throwing the baby out with the bath water.\n\nThe other option is a Constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments absolutely override Supreme Court decisions — as well as all other laws and judicial precedents. But because of this, Constitutional amendments are *incredibly* hard to pass. Plus which, many people find it distasteful to use an amendment — basically a new paragraph added to the fundamental rule book of the federal government of the United States — for something as relatively minor as abortion. We did it before, with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages, and then had to turn around a few years later to *un-*do it with another amendment, and both of those continue to sit there on the books as a constant, glaring reminder of misusing the amendment process for frivolous purposes.\n\nSo there are your two answers. On the one hand, *Roe* established a wide-reaching standard for how abortion laws can be written in the United States, and most people agree that that standard is basically a fair one and it's good that we have it. But on the other hand, *Roe* was kind of *bad lawmaking.* It was arbitrary — dividing pregnancy into thirds not for any good reason but just because it can be easily divided into thirds — and it was done in such a way as to leave us, for all practical purposes, *stuck with it.* People who think abortion should be more freely available have to deal with the fact that *Roe* is nearly untouchable, while people who think abortion should be more tightly regulated have to deal with the exact same thing.\n\nThen again, as the old saying goes, \"A good compromise leaves everybody mad.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
egtsob | convection and how it relates to earth temp | How does the principle of convection contribute to our understanding of the temperature of the earth. To be more clear - I am reading about Lord Kelvin trying to estimate the age of the earth through the earth’s temperature and the big flaw in his attempt was that he did not consider convection. But I’m struggling to understand convection especially how it relates to temperature of the earths core and surface. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/egtsob/eli5_convection_and_how_it_relates_to_earth_temp/ | {
"a_id": [
"fca1bb7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hot stuff is less dense than cold stuff, so hot stuff wants to sort of float on top of the cold stuff, and cold stuff wants to sink under the hot stuff. \n\nAlthough sunlight heats the Earth's surface, it doesn't penetrate very deep. The heat that keeps the mantle liquid comes from the Earth's core. Specifically, some of it comes from leftover heat as the Earth first formed, and the rest comes from the slow decay of radioactive elements in the core. \n\nSince much of the Earth is liquid, the hotter and cooler magma can flow. Hot mama will rise from the core and warm the surface, displacing cooler magma so it sinks towards the core. The warmer magma at the surface cools off, and the cooler magma near the core heats up. This makes the cycle continue so there is a constant flow of warmer magma rising and warming the surface and cooler magma sinking and taking heat from the core. \n\nAs a result, the core is a bit cooler than it would otherwise be and the surface is a bit warmer. Both are closer to the average between them. \n\nBoth the loss of residual heat and radioactive decay are measurable and predictable, so we should know how quickly the Earth is cooling, which would let us know how old it is. The Earth loses heat over time, so if you know how hot it was and how hot it is now, you can guess how long it's been. \n\nHowever, we can only measure the temperature at the surface. We have to make guesses about the temperature of the core. If you don't know about plate tectonics and convection (and radiation) then your guesses about the temperature of the core would be way off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2j3yph | why does kool-aid also work as a dye? | There are lots of things on the Internet of people using Kool-aid as a dye for hair, yarn, clothes, etc. What is in Kool-Aid that makes it so effective as a dye? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j3yph/eli5why_does_koolaid_also_work_as_a_dye/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl85m8g",
"cl85mhn"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It has dye in it to color the resulting diluted drink, so the concentrated powder has a concentration of dye.",
"Kool-aid has two ingredients: flavoring and coloring. The flavoring doesn't do anything, but the coloring is just that. Coloring will dye anything it can chemically latch on to - that's why some colors stain and others wash out easily."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2isbvc | why don't you have to charge an electric guitar? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2isbvc/eli5why_dont_you_have_to_charge_an_electric_guitar/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl4zml1",
"cl4zzgn"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"Most of the power comes from the amp, which is plugged into the wall. Some electric guitars do have what's called active pickups, which will add power to the system. The ones I've had take a 9v battery every year or so.",
"The movement of the strings in the magnetic field created by the pickups induces a charge in the pickup's coils, which then gets amplified by sources outside of the guitar (the amp, usually powered by a wall outlet)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1w9y8w | if my hard drive and my ram are both memory, why can't my harddrive be used as ram? | My laptop has 2 gb of ram, and 500 gb of storage. I'm following a course in computer programming since the start of 2014, and I just learned how some basic commands in c work, realising that ram is actually just a storage unit just like my harddrive. I knew they were both measured in bytes already but I didn't stop to think about why they were actually different at all.
So, anyone care to explain? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w9y8w/eli5_if_my_hard_drive_and_my_ram_are_both_memory/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf00h63",
"cf00hdf",
"cf00hqx",
"cf00lj3"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually it is sometimes used as RAM (page file), but it's exceptionally slow, which is why it's not good.\n\nThe closer the memory is to the CPU, the faster it is and the more useful it is. Cache (L1, L2, and L3) are all on the chip, so they're very close, very fast, and very expensive ($$$). Your next best thing is RAM, which is on the mainboard, so it's farther away, a bit slower, but all electronic. From there, you move in to SSDs, HDDs, and external media, many of which have mechanical parts, are really cheap, really big, but really slow, relatively speaking.",
"Ram has much faster throughput and read write speeds than a hard drive does, this is needed for programs to function smoothly. Ram is essentally flash memory while a hard drive has a spinning disk and a read/write head and is slower. Also With the hard drive acting as ram it would also have to access all the stored files and wouldn't be fast enough. You can suppliment your ram by using a page file that essentially act as a overflow if you max out your ram but by that point you would have beyond unacceptable performance so it's kindof useless",
"\"Ram is just a storage unit\" is a little disingenuous. It's a *temporary* storage unit. It can be as fast as it is because it doesn't have to worry about permanence. It's only job is focusing on being able to feed the OS the requested data as fast as possible. Thus, the chips are designed with that focus in mind.\n\nWith a harddrive, the primary job is completely different. The hard-drive cares far more about permanence than speed. Because of that (and up until the invention of SSD's), you had to use a physical storage medium (disks built into the hdd) to do the storage. Reading and writing from these takes far longer, just by design, because it's a mostly mechanical, not electrical process.",
"There's a lot of different reasons and things involved with this, I'll touch base with as many as I can in a short sentences.\n\nFirstly, RAM is fast. Very, very fast. Consider that pretty much every running program is going to be reading/writing to RAM as it is running, you've got a lot of concurrent read/writes going in and out every millisecond. The same sort of technology that RAM uses is used in solid state/hybrid drives, although it is likely not as quick as the latest & greatest RAM that is available (not 100% sure on this one, though. I use SSDs but have not looked up to see if the speeds are really quicker than RAM).\n\nSecond, your OS manages RAM a lot differently than drive space. It gives each program its own \"virtual\" addressing space, and maps that to available memory, similar to, say, each program having its own \"folder\" for memory. That's a very basic explanation to this system, though, and isn't to be taken literally.\n\nThirdly, technically, hard drive space -is- used as RAM in some cases. Ever messed with the settings for \"swap space\"? It allows your hard drive to be used as RAM if your RAM becomes too full. Inactive or non-changing parts will be moved to your HD to allow for new space to be used, and it will be \"swapped in\" when it needs to be read from again. All of this stuff happens a lot without the user even realizing it.\n\nKeep in mind that hard drives (or rather, the kernel level stuff on OSes that manage hard drives) are designed to work in large, contiguous blocks to represent files, for efficiency sake. Of course, it's not always like that, and it may differ depending on OS and the type of file system used. RAM, however, is tailored to holding small blocks of memory & moving them around a lot. I imagine if you measured the sizes of data that were being allocated by programs, a huge percentage of it would be very small (less than a kb).\n\nAnother thing to consider is that RAM is basically directly plugged into your processor via very close busses. Hard drives go through several layers to reach the same level of visibility."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
qw6r7 | biopower | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qw6r7/eli5_biopower/ | {
"a_id": [
"c40y7oy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Generating energy from biological sources (e.g. corn, grass, animal waste)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
383cfh | why are chrome and firefox trying to do away with npapi (e.g. java)? | I've heard that Java is vulnerable, security-wise, but I'd like to know specifically why it's being done away with, and what the implications are. Why is Chrome so set on getting rid of Java right now, and why are websites that use Java dragging their heels in moving to something better than Java? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/383cfh/eli5_why_are_chrome_and_firefox_trying_to_do_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"crrx842"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"NPAPI lets you run arbitrary code in a web browser. But with web browsers, you're running code from places you may not entirely trust with full control over your computer. The browsers provide a sandbox that let you run some code, but doesn't let that code do any significant damage on your computer (like steal your passwords or delete your files), but as long as NPAPI exists, it's a giant hole in that layer of protection.\n\nWebsites using Java are dragging their heels because it's a lot of work to move off of it. They basically have to rewrite the whole application into JavaScript and whole tools like GWT help with the Java- > JavaScript conversion, they don't get you all the way there. It's particularly bad for companies that bought a Java Applet off of some 3rd party a decade ago, and the company they bought it from is long dead. They don't have anyone to go to to move it to something else, so they may have to hire people to re-build the application from scratch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3pwhwm | why are men better spacial thinkers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pwhwm/eli5_why_are_men_better_spacial_thinkers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw9zpel"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Hunting and warring require spacial thinking more than raising children and collecting berries."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
41tc5f | why does north korea/kim jong un constantly make blantantly untrue claims? | Making these ridiculous claims are obviously untrue and they must know that people don't believe them. So what is the reason as to why they make these claims? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41tc5f/eli5_why_does_north_koreakim_jong_un_constantly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz50i7s",
"cz50wv0"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It makes sense if you remember that countries aren't a single entity but a group of individuals people. By issuing an insane pro-NK message, a bureaucrat somewhere was hoping to impress some other bureaucrat.\n\nWe do the same thing here all the time, just like most countries. When we send loud complaints to other countries, we're mostly talking to our own populace. Otherwise we'd just use a telephone.",
"It may be obvious to you, but only because you have access to the world's media and the Internet. North Koreans do not. Guess who he's really speaking to when he makes these statements."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
17mcy9 | is there an animal or organism that doesn't die of age or lives really long periods of time? | Also how do they manage to do this | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17mcy9/is_there_an_animal_or_organism_that_doesnt_die_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c86tb1g",
"c86te2f",
"c86tg7v",
"c86u28d"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The Water Bear, its a microscopic organism that can survive really high temperatures and long periods of time with out water.\nIt basically dries out without water and all movement ceases. Then upon rehydration it reanimates.",
"The immortal jellyfish seems to live forever.",
"[The Immortal Jellyfish](_URL_0_) returns to infancy after reaching sexual maturity and reproducing.",
"There is a tree that is estimated to have lived for around 80,000-1,000,000 years. It's cheating a bit, because it's more of a colony of trees sharing a single root system. It's called [Pando](_URL_0_) and it's also one of the heaviest living organisms on Earth. \n\nThe oldest individual tree has lived for about 6000 years. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Jellyfish"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_%28tree%29"
]
] |
|
2myaj2 | when i close my left eye, my right eye perceives the world with a redish tinge... and when i close my right eye, my left eye sees with a bluer tinge. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2myaj2/eli5when_i_close_my_left_eye_my_right_eye/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm8o97l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Wow, I'm not alone.. I assumed it was because I played \"rad racer\" with red/blue 3d glasses to much. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
68op50 | what is a prion and why are they so scary? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68op50/eli5_what_is_a_prion_and_why_are_they_so_scary/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh02c9x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Prions are proteins that turn other proteins into themselves. They are scary because proteins are how the body does everything. So if all the proteins in your body started turning into prions that aren't helping you, you would get very sick in lots of ways.\n\nOn top of that your body has no natural defense against them and there isn't really any medicine that could help without doing a lot of harm to you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5o3ikp | how do companies like coca-cola make money from vending machines and sales located in very rural areas in undeveloped countries? | For example, I went to India a few months ago and went to a very rural town. At a small shop with barely a full roof, there was a Coca-Cola fridge selling Coke. How does Coca-Cola make money from this? How does the company the kind of reach where they can bring their products to such local areas where even continuous running clean water is difficult to come by? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5o3ikp/eli5_how_do_companies_like_cocacola_make_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcgc4rf",
"dcgc7er",
"dcgc9iq",
"dcgcodf",
"dcgid3p",
"dch8bib"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Coke costs almost nothing to make and doesn't go off for a very long time.\n\nSo they can sell it almost anywhere and for almost any cost and they'll still make a profit. They won't make as much as they make from the larger mark-ups they charge in richer countries but a profit is still a profit. ",
"well if its rural that means it'll be hard to find, so stores will want to carry such a coveted product. the store pays coca cola and they profit, now its up to the store to sell it so they themselves can profit. coca cola is very popular and in high demand, it costs practically nothing to make with our super awesome mass production ways.",
"Pretty much the same way that they make money from vending machines elsewhere - economy of scale.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe costs become so low per can when they produce millions that they are able to make a profit on almost any can sold. \n\nOn a side note, in many rural areas, they might also be buying from a supplier located in a more urban area, in which case Coca Cola has already made their money by selling to the supplier.",
"Look at it the other way round - the stuff is as cheap as piss to make, so think HOW MUCH profit is being made in USA",
"I currently live in a undeveloped country.. In this case I will say Kenya.\n\nHere I haven't seen not many vending machines. (Infact I can't remember seeing one since I been here). How they make money is actually really different than more modernized countries such as western Europe or US.. \n\nThey use glass bottles. I know it's crazy. But in fact small shops actually get most of these things for free. Coca-Cola gives them a crate of glass bottles of varieties. (Fanta, Coke, Sprite, etc). When I buy a bottle I pay about 30 shillings (.30 cents USD) and a 20 shilling (.20 cents USD) \"deposit\" basically a little over 50 cents.. After I'm done drinking I return to the same store to get my deposit. I know that 20 shillings isn't that big of deal to walk back to the store to get my money but it's a lot of money for the majority population.. Afterwards. Once they finish the crate they redeem it for cash. They give the cash earned and empty bottles back to Coca-Cola warehouse. Coca-Cola gives them money and they re-use it.. Recycling!\n\nAnyway, I'm not familiar with the plastic bottles. This is just a personal experience.. I'll email the rep over here and get a full detailed explanation.. ",
"Coke doesn't own the fridge. They (or their distributor) sells the fridge at a slight discount to store owners in exchange for the free advertising. They can happily break even on the fridge in exchange for the brand recognition that comes from it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economiesofscale.asp"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2kicnw | how come venezuela has had the same oil price($0.08/l) since late 1990s? how can i import venezuelan oil into my country? | My friend from Venezuela said gas prices were the same since 1999. Can I import Venezuelan oil into let's say, UK, USA, Canada, etc? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kicnw/eli5_how_come_venezuela_has_had_the_same_oil/ | {
"a_id": [
"cllkkuy",
"clllwe4",
"clloqj0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Their government subsidizes it - Venezuela is oil-rich and doesn't really trade in oil with other countries.",
"You are considering crude oil and gasoline as the same product to begin with. You extract crude oil then put it through a process and you get gasoline.\n\nThe cost of gasoline in Venezuela is subsidised, which means it costs way more that $0.08/L to produce it but the government pays the remainder.\n\nVenezuela exports a shit ton of oil and gasoline to other countries, except this time the Venezuelan government doesn't subsidise shit, therefore you would pay the price companies like Texaco, Citgo, etc. already pay.",
"It's all artificially manipulated by the government. Subsidies help pay for the cost of refining the oil and transporting it.\n\nMy guess is that the subsidized price has limited availability. In many situations where the price of a good is disconnected from its actual value, a 'black market' will rise to normalize things. \n\nIn this example, there would be people who buy fuel at $0.08 a liter, the resell it at a much higher price. This creates shortages, but brings the price back into line with reality. On the other hand, the government may use force to prevent such black markets, making it difficult to trade.\n\nAnother result might be devaluation in some other way. If the price of fuel is fixed at 10 *Bolivar* per liter, then over time the fuel price may remain static, but the price of other goods might rise due to inflation. It's one thing to fix the price of gasoline, but if your country isn't producing enough stuff of value to pay for that subsidy, then their currency drops in value, so food prices, and imports rise in value."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ct9n4 | why is marijuana so popular? | I go to a university well known for both its academics and the students' heavy usage of marijuana. I was always taught that marijuana (and other drugs) are bad for you, so I was surprised that so many supposedly smart students would be smoking so liberally.
Edit: I find that Reddit is also quite pro-marijuana.
Also, if someone can explain why underage drinking is popular too. At one point we were having at least 8 cases of alcohol poisoning per hour and the local hospitals said that they didn't have ambulances for students anymore.
Edit: Since people are asking what I learned about marijuana, this is basically what I've been taught:
1) Recreational use is illegal in California.
2) It's a "gateway" drug, meaning that it can lead people to use other more dangerous drugs (from what I've experienced, this may be true; parties that I've been to where there was a lot of marijuana led to some people experimenting with meth, LSD, heroin, etc ... but I'm also familiar that correlation doesn't imply causation)
3) It funds the drug cartels and wars in Mexico (I grew up in Southern California, so maybe that was more of a concern location-wise).
4) It isn't as destructive as meth, heroin, etc but in spite of what people have said on this thread, I've been told that it's still addictive (note: I would experiment with it, but I'm not sure whether I can mentally resist addiction since I also have been mildly addicted to non-physically addictive things, like gambling).
5) Cigarettes are worse for lungs
It seems like people think I've been taught anti-drug propaganda and such, but I can definitely assure you that some of my high school teachers were hippies and have blazed, toked, lit up, whatever you call it before. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ct9n4/eli5_why_is_marijuana_so_popular/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjiraxf",
"cjirbhx",
"cjirep8",
"cjirg7f",
"cjirgx9",
"cjisavs",
"cjisz1v",
"cjits9b",
"cjiu750",
"cjiu87c",
"cjiu8dv",
"cjix108",
"cjix2qx",
"cjix4x0",
"cjixnqs"
],
"score": [
3,
35,
8,
3,
2,
2,
5,
26,
8,
2,
4,
5,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The key is moderation, a small amount of weed has practically no negative effects (especially if ingested) and people enjoy the feeling it creates. The same is true for alcohol, the problem is when you first begin drinking you don't know what your limit is and are more likely to drink far too much for your own good.",
"Alright so I'm going to try and post before /r/trees gets here. Compared to other narcotics weed is less physically addictive. As in your body will not build a chemical dependency on it (whether or not you mentally become addicted or not is another matter). This has led to the acceptance and popularization of weed compared to other drugs.\n\nAs for the underage drinking: America has an obscenely high legal drinking age, this has resulted in a statistically relevant increase in alcohol related problems compared to countries with lower drinking ages. The reason is that in America a students first experience with alcohol will be at a party. They won't know their limits or what pacing is, nor understand that they have to stop drinking while they still feel fine, in order to stay fine. This means students drink till they feel sick, and by then it's too late.",
"They both have strong social components, as well as the capacity to introduce euphoric sensations in their users. As well, with intelligent and careful usage, as with most things, the negative effects can be mitigated. Furthermore, in some regards, the negative effects are actually vaguely defined or overstated to begin with in negative press.",
"Weed gives you a pretty good high with very few long-term side effects. Long-term smoking, while not \"good\" for you, does less damage to the body than alcohol and cigarettes which are both legal. So people feel like they want to enjoy this other drug that's not as bad for you. Like pretty much all things, moderation is key.\n\nAs for underage drinking, alcohol makes you feel good. It has this allure that people under 21 are attracted to because people tend to want what they can't have. So people underage have a drink, they have no experience or knowledge of their own limitations and they overdo it, hurting themselves. ",
"They are fun activities. Marijuana is not really that dangerous. For alcohol, it is fun but if you drink too much you get alcohol poisoning. Sounds like those students didn't respect their limits, or were pressured into drinking too much.",
"I also was brought up with the same notions, as I believe many/most children were (and rightfully so). \n\nHowever, it has been shown that intelligence is positively correlated to illegal substance use in adulthood. I suppose to be statistically proper, I should recognize that this relationship is not necessarily causative, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Intelligent people do not tend to blindly accept the world around them; they question it and try to find their own answers to various types of questions.\n\nI think this might hold a little insight into why seemingly intelligent people try drugs that they were taught are \"dangerous\"; these young people have never had the opportunity to question this claim themselves, and college often is the first opportunity that young adults have to try them. \n\nAdditionally, some people argue that marijuana \"enhances thoughts\" or something similar. I don't feel that this is the place to argue for/against that, but anyway, these are my personal thoughts why many young people try drugs/alcohol in college. \n\nsource: _URL_0_\n\nedit: Smart people also are vulnerable to the idea that consequences or addiction only happen to people of \"normal\" intelligence, when in fact, there's not much to show that smart people are immune; this may explain why you see so many college kids drinking to excess. I know many people that have fallen into this invincibility trap. ",
"Everything I was taught in school about marijuana, by teachers I respected and in some cases admired, was 100% propaganda. On the other hand, everything they taught me about opiates was true then and is still true. What they taught me about LSD, which was new then and gaining popularity, was 100% bullshit; we were taught that our babies would have three arms, one eye, gross deformities etc etc. ",
"Because it feels good. \n\n Everyone is science-ing it, but that's the bottom line. ",
"You ever see a baby learn to do something like use his fingers? Or he learns to walk and he's just so amazed at what he has just accomplished?\n\nWeed does this by discovering a whole new element of your body you didn't know you possessed, by opening a lot of doors in your mind that you didn't even know existed. \n\nIt makes you think in an un-traditional way that you're conventionally used to, and for some it can be enlightening, and others it can be frightening. \n\nMix that in with the whole social pressure, and notions about it, with the fact your young, on your own, and somewhat rebellious and you get what you see.\n",
"Who taught you Marijuana was \"bad\" for you? Shame on them! Can you imagine what other things they taught you incorrectly?",
" > I was always taught that marijuana (and other drugs) are bad for you,\n\nI would seriously revise what had been taught to you, unless you got your information solely from those war on drugs campaign ads. Any credible educator should at least explain *why* it is bad for you. Underage drinking is popular because alcohol is so pathetically easy to obtain, and it produces stronger and quicker results than, say, tobacco. Influence from popular culture also does wonders in convincing minors to start drinking early.",
"I smoke very occasionally. It's relevant that I live in Sweden, where the prohibition is quite extreme compared to America, and certainly California. I find that I use it more medicinally than I use it recreationally, meaning I deal with anxiety and stress by cannabis rather than opium from the pharmacy. I'm just starting my seventh semester in law school, and that could all be for nothing if I got caught, so I usually only smoke when abroad. Most of Europe is a lot more civilized than us in this regard.\n\nAt one point I did smoke regularly, and that was not for me. However, smoking every now and then makes me appriciate my progress, my surroundings and the people around me a lot more. It sparks my interest for nature, science and nerdy stuff and can make a normal conversation absolutely delightful. Regular use does not produce this (for me), therefore I'm happy marijuana is not addictive, at least not physically. For me, I kind of decided one day that I wasn't going to do it, and didn't for more than a year. This differs in different people. Abuse of anything is dangerous, and creates a habit. I would ban Burger king and online poker before weed, but that's just me.\n\nIn short, it increases what you feel regularly. If a cheeseburger was good before, it's fantastic. If the sun hits your skin in a pleasant way (I guess you are too spoiled with that to notice) it's now three times as pleasant. Sex is awesome, you sleep like never before. I have had sleeping problems since my early teens, only cannabis guarantees a good nights sleep for me.\n\nAlso, I'm kind of a rebel at heart, and I think it's silly that people would ban me from this innocent plant that has been used for millenia while prescribing heavy narcotics for the same problems. The point about cartels is only true because it's illegal, and I believe people in California primarily smokes Canadian and domestic bud, but I could be wrong there. It's litteraly on the other side of the globe. There are no sugar or coffee cartels, and since alcohol is now legal it's being sold by normal stores that pay taxes and follow the law.\n\nIf you don't feel comfortable, or secure in how you would handle it I would not recommend you experimenting. At least not until you reach your mid 20's and/or have a stable life. Many people postpone things because of smoking, allthough I think many of them would have been lazy no matter what. It can be a refuge for people though. _URL_0_",
"Marijuana is popular for the same reasons that alcohol is popular. I would recommend a documentary called The Union, you can find it on Netflix. It is actually a very informative documentary, that includes the reasons that it was made illegal. For a more entertaining documentary, but with some good facts, you can check out Totally baked: a potumentary. \n\nAs for what you have been taught:\n\n1) Recreational use is illegal everywhere in the US except for Colorado and Washington State. I believe around 23 states have it legal for medical purposes. \n\n2) Because of the fact that it is illegal, you have to buy it from a dealer. These dealers usually sell drugs other than marijuana. These other drugs are more addictive than marijuana and the dealer will make more money by getting you hooked on the other drugs.\n\n3) Yes, it can fund drug cartels, legalizing the drug would pretty much eliminate this. \n\n4) It can become an addiction like gambling, it is more in your head than physical. Caffeine is actually more addictive than Marijuana. If you find that you can become addicted to things like gambling, you may want to stay away from it. \n\n5) Inhaling burnt plant matter is not good for you no matter what plant it is. There are other ways to ingest it that don't involve smoking it.\n\nIn the end, it is no more bad for you than alcohol or caffeine. On the other hand, it has some serious medical benefits depending on the strain and the way you take it.",
"There are some problems with your assumptions. Starting with number two, the labeling of marijuana as a \"gateway drug\" is propaganda not at all supported in any way by empirical study. There has never in the history of medicine been any evidence that the active compounds in marijuana inexplicably make people desire the use of other drugs. That's not what the active compounds do.\n\nThe reason that there is a correlation with marijuana and other illicit substances is that they're illicit. People who use marijuana are willing to break substance control laws, so a large gathering of people who use it will have that singular trait in common. It follows that with enough people (such as at parties) other drugs will make an appearance. Also, because marijuana is considered a soft drug, relatively harmless as compared with other drugs, those who use harder drugs are almost invariably open to the use of marijuana. In essence, the law creates this relationship between substances and otherwise that relationship does not exist naturally. If coffee were banned, then it would have exactly the same correlation and would also likely be called a gateway drug. For that matter, *all* illicit substances could be misrepresented this way.\n\nYour argument three is an argument against prohibition. Were marijuana produced and distributed in a regulated commercial environment then that market would overtake cartels and drastically diminish their bottom line. Regulatory restrictions such as an age requirement for purchase would keep the drug out of the hands of minors whereas street drug dealers generally don't ID their customers. Have you ever heard of a pot dealer saying, \"Sorry, you have to be 21?\" So, that age restriction would become more effective as the cartels are run out of the marijuana market. \n\nYour number four is misleading. Marijuana can only be addictive in the same sense that video games, television, or Reddit can be: psychologically addictive. As in, people enjoy it and like doing things they enjoy, so they use marijuana for enjoyment. Marijuana does not cause a chemical dependency complete with withdrawal as many harder drugs do and alcohol and tobacco may.\n\nYour number five is the subject of debate. Marijuana, as smoked, is not harmless when it comes to your lungs. It has a higher tar content than cigarettes. But contrary to what that implies, marijuana also induces productive coughing that expels tar whereas cigarettes do not. So, marijuana has more tar but cigarettes tar is better retained by the lungs. Which produces a higher tar content in the lungs after all is said and done, nobody has yet proven.\n\nBut your number five is also not relevant. Marijuana can be used in many more than just the smoked form. Edibles, vapor, and drops all completely mitigate the risk of lung damage.\n\nTo answer your title's question, marijuana's CBD content regulates excessive electrical activity in the brain. So, strains with high CBD content and low THC content can help to make thoughts more clear, reduce stress, ease seizures, and combat insomnia. High THC, low CBD content strains have the negative effects that you've probably been told about. Paranoia, increased risk of schizophrenia in those who are already at risk, etc. \n\nPeople use marijuana to relax because it facilitates a reduction in stress without impairing the user's judgement in the way that alcohol can. Regarding the above paragraph in consideration of this, legalization could help people to select for the effects they desire by carefully choosing the strains (brands on the market) that they consume. It could also mitigate risk by allowing Congress to regulate the proportions of active ingredients to select for the more beneficial effects whereas on the street market, the user may not know at all what proportion of active ingredients they'll be getting. ",
"Since this is ELI5, let me say this:\nMarijuana is so popular because it's good sides outweigh it's bad sides.\nIf you'd like a more in-depth answer, I'd say that part of the reason stem's from marijuana's status as an illegal drug in the first place. It's relatively harmless compared to most other substances that are available to students, so, combined with it's \"illicit\" status, it's an easy way for a student to explore societal boundaries. College is generally the first time students are away from their parents, so it makes sense that they would push beyond the limits that had been imposed on them. It's similar to how a child will experiment with lying, or touching forbidden objects when they reach an age when they can be left unsupervised. It may also be the first time students can explore different behaviors that did not fit with their previously defined \"self\". Since your school is known for it's academics, it's possible that many of the students had been considered \"geeks\" or \"brains\", and may have felt that engaging in these behavior wouldn't have been accepted by their peers. In short, college is not strictly a time when students are learning the materials presented in class, it's also a time when they are learning themselves and deciding how they want to present themselves to society at large. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2011/10/28/jech-2011-200252.abstract"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fa4gV06pg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1q3y5i | can someone explain the new york stock exchange (nyse) and what actually goes on in there when the market is open? | I've been watching the first few minutes of Twitter (TWTR) stock trading at the NYSE but it just doesn't make sense to me at the moment AT ALL. If share trading is done through brokers and stock orders, why are huge screens and terminals everywhere, and do they display the same thing? Why is it bustling with people? Including some people holding PDA's staring at the screens if (to my understanding) it takes quite a while to both buy and sell shares?
I would apologise for how dumb I'm sounding to anyone who actually knows their stuff but hey, this is why I'm in r/explainlikeimfive.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q3y5i/eli5_can_someone_explain_the_new_york_stock/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd90sg9",
"cd933jd"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Those guys waving their arms are the ones completing the trades. There are many different stick exchanges. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is a physical exchange, meaning all trades are done in person. So, all those buy and sell orders that are put in online or given to a broker ultimately find their way to one of those traders on the floor, where they try and complete the buy or sell order with another trader. ",
"As I used to work on the trading floor of the Chicago Board of Trade I'll give you an analogy. In the movie zoolander when the two try to acces the files from the computer it results in monkey noises and them banging on it. That is what the floor is similar to. The real stuff is done on computer all over the world with their trades going through the nyse server"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
j3iey | what is civil engineering? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3iey/what_is_civil_engineering/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28tsxt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"My roommates in college described it to me this way:\n\nAeronautical Engineers build missiles.\n\nCivil Engineers build targets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5umqby | why can we easily destroy things but it's impossible to put them back together? | Take a piece of paper. You can easily rip it in half. Now the two pieces have the same molecular structure, right. So why can't you join them back together by placing them next to each other? Why can't we reattach things that we have destroyed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5umqby/eli5why_can_we_easily_destroy_things_but_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddv7ppv",
"ddv7uqb",
"ddvd0rp"
],
"score": [
22,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Short answer: Entropy\n\nELI5 answer: Everything is made up of energy. Light, air, dogs, cats: all different arrangements of energy. One of the rules of energy is that is naturally moves to the lowest form of energy possible, like how water rolls down a hill until it reaches the ocean. If you think about a piece of paper, so much energy had to go in to make that piece of paper. A seed had to be planted, then water and air and sunlight had to grow it into a massive tree. Saws had to cut it down and go through all the different processes to turn it into the perfect little piece of paper. \n\nEven it it might seem so simple, and piece of paper is a very \"high\" energy state. Crumbling it up or tearing reduces it down to a lower energy state and that energy is released in forms of some sound and heat. To make those pieces whole again, you'd have to revert the paper back into mulch and form a new piece of paper i.e. put a lot more energy back into the pieces to form the whole again.\n\nLighting that paper on fire would release a whole lot of energy that it was storing and would reduce it to a much lower energy state (carbon ash).",
"When you break glass, the sound it makes is energy leaving. That means that the energy level of an entire pane of glass is higher than that of a broken one, so to fix it you would have to \"put the sound back in,\" so to speak. You'd have to reintroduce energy to the system in an impossibly exact manner to recreate the individual molecular bonds.",
"The answer is that they *don't* have the same structure.\n\nThings are made up of parts. Whether you can put things back together after taking it apart depends on whether you broke the parts during the process.\n\nImagine a car. You could take it apart carefully, removing each piece. You could put it back together afterward, because the pieces are okay. But if you just blow it up, you also damage the pieces. Before you can put the car back together, you first have to put the pieces back together. But those pieces are, themselves, made of pieces. Anything can be fixed with the right skills and tools, but there comes a point where it's just *easier* to make a new one.\n\nImagine a lump of wet clay. You pull it apart; you put it back together. Easy. This is because when you pulled it apart, you only separated the pieces; you didn't break them.\n\nImagine braided hair. Separating the individual hairs without damaging them requires a laborious process of unbraiding the hair. You could just cut down the middle, but that would damage the hairs. You've broken the pieces. Those pieces weren't made by human hands; we do not know how to put them together in the first place, let alone how to put them *back* together.\n\nSo to return to your piece of paper, it isn't just a simple collection of pieces like the lump of wet clay. It's a tangle, a chaotic braiding of individual fibers, and when you cut or tear through it, you aren't just separating the fibers from each other. You're breaking the fibers, themselves. To put the paper back together, you'd first have to put the *fibers* back together, and then you'd have to *rebraid the fibers*. I can imagine someone with tiny tools (that don't actually exist in the real world, probably) and a great deal of patience doing this... but nobody in their right mind would do when it is easier to just pulp and re-form the entire thing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f3grsy | how is snow good at insulating heat but melts when exposed directly to heat? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f3grsy/eli5_how_is_snow_good_at_insulating_heat_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhimm2i",
"fhin13h"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Snow crystals and snow flakes are weak and melt easily.\n\nA snowpack has lots of surface area and lots of air pockets, which allow it slow down heat floating away.",
"Snow does not melt easily. It takes a huge amount of heat to melt snow. Water has high heat capacity, as common molecules go, and a high enthalpy of fusion"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4nxtdo | how can fast food companies (mcdonald's, burger king, wendy's etc.) make a profit on a $0.99 cheeseburger? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nxtdo/eli5_how_can_fast_food_companies_mcdonalds_burger/ | {
"a_id": [
"d47um1d",
"d47vce9",
"d47wh2g",
"d47x6v5",
"d47ywks",
"d481tlx",
"d48b043",
"d48b21g"
],
"score": [
4,
119,
2,
18,
9,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There are only two scenarios at work here:\n\n1. The COGS (cost of good sold) for the burger is less than 99 cents, and the company makes a profit each time it sells a burger; or\n\n2. The COGS for the burger is greater than 99 cents, and the company loses money for every burger it sells. So how does the company make money? It counts on the fact that you will buy other menu items (soda, fries, etc) that has a healthy profit margin - ensuring that, on average, the company is able to still make a profit from the average customer's burger sale. The company will then market the 99 cent burger to get you into their store (over, say, the competitors who might sell a more expensive burger) and count on the fact that you are likely to buy additional menu items as a means to make a profit.\n\n",
"Everyone here is assuming McDonalds take a loss, they dont. _URL_0_",
"Having the store open, lights on, kitchen running & staff is a fixed cost. If they can even sell it at a break-even price, they're getting you in the store & hopefully selling you a high-margin product like french fries or potatoes. They're also getting you in the habit of shopping there, building goodwill & making the restaurant look busy.",
"I don't know about fast food, but when I worked in a restaurant our profits came from soda sales. A glass of soda costs the restaurant about 5 cents, sold at $2.50.",
"They make a profit because the cost of production for a $0.99 cheeseburger is even lower. In fact, the cost of nearly anything on the McDonalds menu is mere cents on the dollar. ",
"Because their cost are still cheaper than the price they sell it for. They do not take a loss on it. ",
"I'll chime in as a former Mcds manager for several years. It's all a giant numbers game. First cost is product, which Mcds has a huge wrangle on due to the massive quantities purchased. Second is labor, which Mcds wants at 20% or less each day (varies depending on owner vs Corp, but not much).\n\nI'll use the prices as they were when I had last recalled, so they may be slightly off depending on inflation and market. But a cheeseburger uses what's called 10:1 (10 patties to 1 pound of meat-pre cooked-ratio) which come in boxes of about 480 patties a box, and each box was around $13. Condiments are essentially a negligible cost as quantity vs cost is very low for ketchup/mustard. Cheese slices come in sleeves with 160 slices and each box has 8 sleeves. These cost more than the 10:1 at around $18/box. Now I can't exactly recall the cost of dehydrated onions and pickles, but they were fairly low per case. Buns depend greatly on region, but Mcds does well in this regard keeping the cost low due to the number of trays ordered.\n\nAs far as I can remember, with good labor, a regular cheeseburger would cost the store about $0.30 each. Chicken, especially whole-wheat filets (not fried patties) were the least cost effective and a mcchicken is closer to $0.60 per in cost. Fries and sodas, or kids meals, were always the money makers and Monopoly is a cash haven for stores due to the massive increase in volume.\n\nI can't remember much more specifics as its late and I'm in ved with my phone but I hope this helped.",
"Burger King sells more than 99 cent burgers. Their Original Chickens cost them around 40 cents and they sell them for $4. They almost always have a two-for-one sale going if you ask, but they even upped that price to two for $5. A 99 cent burger probably costs at most 50 cents for the product. During a rush, on top of all the other sales, they end up pumping out like five or more sandwiches a minute. Then include the massive profit margin on drinks and it's quite easy to see how they're successful."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-1-hamburger-sandwich-cost-a-fast-food-restaurant-to-make"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2nasq2 | why is it that sometimes when i am pooping i don't need to use any toilet paper, because the poop don't leave any traces. while for most parts i do need to use (a lot of) toilet paper although i still eat the same diet? | Serious question. Is it because of the dietary fiber or something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nasq2/eli5_why_is_it_that_sometimes_when_i_am_pooping_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmbwts6",
"cmbwv5r"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That (and other necessary suplements), and the amount of water you drink.",
"How do you know you don't need to use any toilet paper without using some? It's the old Toilet Paper Paradox."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4hnen6 | how the fuck did puerto rico amass $70 billion in debt?? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hnen6/eli5_how_the_fuck_did_puerto_rico_amass_70/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2r0ic2",
"d2r0kda",
"d2r1us9",
"d2r81pu",
"d2rg3xo",
"d2rgb96"
],
"score": [
12,
31,
9,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's really not that much money on the scale governments operate. Massachusetts is carrying approx. $130 Billion in debt as of 2012, and that is ignoring the fact that Massachusetts gains a fair amount of additional financial resources by being a State within the United States.\n\n$70 Billion is only $17,500 per person, and was accumulated over many years. In the scheme of things that really isn't a huge amount of money... if only the Puerto Rican economy wasn't so weak.",
"John Oliver has an absolutely wonderful and thorough explanation of the overview: _URL_0_\n\nEssentially, Puerto Rico is exempt from a lot of federal regulations on their banking practices, and positioned itself as a very secure credit haven for investors around the world. And it worked - for decades, the money flowed into PR endlessly and really boosted the economy. The state would sell bonds for short-term money, and pay back with interest over time, after they had used the capital to expand their infrastructure and economy.\n\nDue to changing growth factors, they became unable to repay these debts. Their state constitution was engineered to prohibit them from filing bankruptcy (another big nod to the banks) and that's why they're in such a predicament.\n\nJust watch John Oliver's video there, it's great.",
"Here's a great podcast that talks about what happened - mostly due to Taxes and the failed Puerto Rican Bonds. _URL_0_\n\nU.S. tax code - Section 936 – Basically gave tax breaks to manufacturers to set up show in Puerto Rico (companies like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies, ect).\nBut these tax cuts were temporary and apparently the U.S. Treasury missed out on $4 Billion a year on tax revenue. Eventually Section 936 disappeared, the tax cuts disappeared, and then the big companies disappeared from Puerto Rico.\n\n\n",
"Thats nearly the same level of debt as Greece. They have 400 billion or so for 12 million people.",
"Here is a rebuttal of John Oliver and NPR\n\n_URL_0_",
"Puerto Rico amassed $70 billion in debt thanks to poor choices, incompetence, fevered political fanaticism, and mediocrity. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/Tt-mpuR_QHQ"
],
[
"http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/01/472733338/episode-693-unpayable"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4iuD7xQDxE"
],
[]
] |
||
d8y6dm | how were the treasurer's and the secretary of the treasury's signatures stamped on us currency when they first started doing so? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d8y6dm/eli5_how_were_the_treasurers_and_the_secretary_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1dimyb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The US did not start adding signatures until the start of the Civil War. Currency post 1862 all has signatures as an anti counterfeit measure. By this point printing had existed for 400 years so it was a fairly normal process. The exact method that currency is produced is protected but it certainly had to do with engraving the signature into a atamp, dipping it in ink and pressing it to the bill."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1pflaq | why are people more willing to make stupid decision, to commit crimes and carry out other bad behaviour when part of a group? | It seems like one of them throws a punch or a rock and the mood seems to automatically reach a tipping point and most of the group joins in. I can't imagine that if encountered individually, the participants would resort to violence so quickly, if at all.
Edit: Should have said 'decisions' in the title. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pflaq/eli5_why_are_people_more_willing_to_make_stupid/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd1sdtr",
"cd1sgw3",
"cd1u101"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pack mentality, deep down we are still just really smart primates.",
"diffusion of responsibility",
"I believe the term is called \"deindividuation\", where you lose your own self-awareness when you're in a group. When you're in a group mentality, it's easy to lose your ability to self-regulate, and do things you normally wouldn't have done if you were on your own. Here's the Wiki page:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nJump down to Zimbardo's \"Stanford Prison experiment\" 1971. The participants were normal college students, but the experiment quickly made it Guards vs Prisoners. In short, the guards stopped thinking of themselves as the college students they once were, and became immersed in the role of the group they established. These normal students became very abusive, and Zimbardo stopped the experiment early because it got really bad. \n\nAnd like /u/slayerstud said, diffusion of responsibility. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation"
]
] |
|
2wxpoj | my friend and i have cell phones from the same wireless carrier. her cell phone's system clock is two minutes ahead of mine. why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wxpoj/eli5_my_friend_and_i_have_cell_phones_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cov5e2v"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"One likely has a \"user set\" time that one of you changed sometime, causing it to be inaccurate."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3ce0hm | as soon as headphones became ubiquitous, people said future generations would experience unprecedented hearing loss. is that actually likely? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ce0hm/eli5as_soon_as_headphones_became_ubiquitous/ | {
"a_id": [
"csunrla"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is both true and untrue. At a biological standpoint headphones create sound close to the inner workings of our ear. There is a sound threshold where damage starts to occur. We tend to keep turning headphone volume up as we try to \"drown\" out background noise, which can get near, or cross the damaging threshold. Would you risk a disorder from it? Other than mostly hearing loss, no. Only hearing issues and maybe the slight ringing of your ears from time to time are the only real risks. With sound cancelling technology advancing, future headphones will cancel out background noise, reducing the need to turn up headphone volume. Therefore, the issue with \"future generations\" could potentially be moot. Hope this helped! :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7litt0 | why does one get heartburn after eating specific food? | My father gets heartburns from eating bananas while I get them after eating blueberries. Is there a reason behind why we get them from eating these specific foods while others may not? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7litt0/eli5_why_does_one_get_heartburn_after_eating/ | {
"a_id": [
"drmr6ne"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"From what I understand, each body, while very similar, contains moderately different ratios of stomach acid. Some things offset certain balances resulting in heart burn."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
61hwfp | why is it, that with bad (mobile) internet reception, advertisements are often displayed perfectly while normal content seems to have "trouble"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61hwfp/eli5_why_is_it_that_with_bad_mobile_internet/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfenk61"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The page is hosted on a server somewhere and the adds are drawing information from a different server. If the server hosting the webpage is slower than the ad host, then the adds can load before the page content. This effect can be removed by manually changing load order for the page, placing advertisements at the bottom of the load order, to ensure that your content shows up first.\n\nThere are some online advertising companies that gather information when their ads are displayed and they can really slow down a site. These adservices require that they load first, and they bog down the site with the data collection making the rest of the load order take forever. Try something like adblock and see if it clears up the loading problems.\n\nAs a final option, it could always be malware."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6x37m6 | regarding cities, streets and other places, how are outlandish names such as "slapout, ok" and "hell, mi" chosen, and why are they accepted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6x37m6/eli5regarding_cities_streets_and_other_places_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmcun9m",
"dmczvdz",
"dmdcfac"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually, they are not outlandish to the people who named them, who were often non-English speakers. Fishkill, NY isn't about aquatic murder, kill means stream in Dutch.\n\nOther times they are just tiny, unincorporated places that got their named as a joke and no one has bothered to change it. Laws varies from state to state, but in general a place like Slapout is only slightly more official than \"the old waterin' hole\". The sort of place that might elect a mule mayor.",
"Some of these are done as jokes (very few) and they are accepted because they are officially registered with the authorities that govern that area and used by the locals. But most of the time they are non-English words that just sound outlandish to English speakers. ",
"In Norway, places named something with \"Helvete\" (Hell) are usually dangerous or otherwise difficult to traverse, so the name is meant as an easy warning for people who are not familiar with a certain place and thus might not know of its dangers. I imagine it's like similar names exist elsewhere in the world.\n\nHere's a map of places named something with \"Helvete\" in Norway.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1598/24472450889_6a22fcab3e_o.jpg"
]
] |
||
7d16cm | why is it that accidents cause paralysis from the waist down, but never waist up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7d16cm/eli5why_is_it_that_accidents_cause_paralysis_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpu8n95"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert by any means but I'd assume it's because the brain is up therefore you lose functionality from the injury outward"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
72d6xl | why must beef jerky be eaten within 3 days after opening? | From what I understand, dehydrated foods can typically last quite awhile. But almost all beef jerky I see these days have the "3 day rule" on it.
I've eaten it a week later and it seems fine...am I being flirting with death if I'm eating it beyond the 3 day mark?
These 1+ lbs bags aren't particularly easy to crush in 3 days... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72d6xl/eli5_why_must_beef_jerky_be_eaten_within_3_days/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnhlqii",
"dnhrw3h"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The drying process isn't as efficient as it used to be. Basically we don't want to be eating leather like old travel rations used to be. They still leave a fair amount of moisture in the bags and counteract this by packaging them with nitrogen. When you open the bag you introduce oxygen to a moist environment. Granted, the salt is hostile but you can still have things like mold grow on them which could make you sick. Keep in mind that these rules are supposed to provide as near to perfect accuracy as possible which is why you can still eat things by the expiry date. They're not some magical birthday. It's just at the extreme close range of",
"Every time you open the bag, microbes are introduced into the container. Is there a chance that some of those could find the environment hospitable and multiply? Absolutely. Could those microbes potentially be pathogenic or produce toxins? Sure. \n\nThat said, I've eaten jerky like a week after opening it. Just throw it in the fridge and keep the silica package in there. \n\nAs somebody else said, this stuff is made to be palatable, not to keep you alive on a year-long voyage. It will definitely go bad but a lot of the dates you see on packages assume the absolute worst-case scenario."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
224q9j | why do we follow the gregorian calendar globally and what would be feasible alternatives? | So I'm wondering what the world would be like if we lived according to a different calendar. People in general seem to accept this as the norm. Are there some places/countries that don't? Is it a convenience issue? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/224q9j/eli5why_do_we_follow_the_gregorian_calendar/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgjbd7v",
"cgjbjbn",
"cgjbrcb",
"cgjcva9",
"cgjdh5l"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, the adoption of the western calendars is largely to make things easier. \n\nMany civilizations use their own calendar (like the traditional Chinese calendar), but very few cultures have no external relationship and translating things like dates between them makes things a lot harder.",
"The Gregorian calendar was used in western Europe and it was exported throughout the world via colonization.\n\nAs far as I know, there are no other calendars that are used in business these days because it's so costly to constantly be converting between them. I'm sure there are isolated rural populations the world over that still use older calendars, some of which might be more accurate than the Georgian.",
"Answer: Because of capitalism and the incredible power that western economies have, globally.\n\nAlternatives: Not as long as western money is running things, they won't be viable. But basically any calendar system can work as long as it respects the math of the earth's orbit. We only use this one because of the global economic power of the west.",
"What's convenient about the Gregorian calendar is that it is a solar calendar. This means that, for example, the shortest day of the year is always on the same date, that each year has the same number of days except for just under one year in every four which has only one day extra, and the months don't slowly drift around so that what was once a summer month is, for example, suddenly in the middle of spring. The only real problem with it is that the months are slightly different lengths.\n\nFollowing the Revolution, the French did attempt to adopt a decimal calendar. It did not work well, and lasted twelve years before it was finally scrapped. Try as you might, you simply cannot make 365¼ fit into a decimal system. Also, workers objected that they were only getting 1 day of rest out of 10, instead of 1 in 7.\n\nEDIT: Typo",
"I do wish we would add an extra month to the solar calendar...\n\n365/12 = 30.4167 days per month (pretty far from a whole number and hence the reason we have weirdly varying lengths of months)\n\nbut\n\n365/13 = 28.07 (really close to a whole number. Every month could be 28 days long except for one month that would be 29 or make new years day or eve it's own thing and not part of a month)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3vxxl9 | does more volume from a speaker use more energy? | For example, when you're listening to music in the car. If the volume is fairly low in the car, will it use less of the car's battery as opposed to having the music blasted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vxxl9/eli5_does_more_volume_from_a_speaker_use_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxrmjeg",
"cxrmsde"
],
"score": [
2,
16
],
"text": [
"Yes, the higher the volume, the higher the wattage draw will be. It's negligible on small speakers though.\n\nBasically: If the speaker is off, no power draw, if it's on but muted, a bit of power draw, and then it goes up depending on the volume.",
"Yes. Every 3dB increase in sound pressure level corresponds to a doubling of output power. For a speaker with an 89 dB reference efficiency, this means that 1 Watt produces 89 dB, 92 dB requires 2 Watts, 95 dB 4 Watts, 98 dB 8 Watts, 101 dB 16 Watts, and so forth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2aq7vl | why do almost all energy drinks have a similar flavour to one another? | Just curious as I've noticed many energy drinks have a common 'tang' of sorts that I enjoy - is it the taurine/ginseng etc. or do they just happen to use similar flavours? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aq7vl/eli5_why_do_almost_all_energy_drinks_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cixoe2v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Energy drinks contain high amounts of B-vitamins, natural sources of energy. These B-vitamins impart a slightly bitter/tangy/tart flavor to many energy drinks. Energy drinks usually contain their own proprietary energy blend, which often includes nootropics such as l-theanine, acetyl-l-carnitine, et cetera, but these quantities are usually quite small and do not significantly alter the flavor. Gluconolactone is another common additive that adds a \"sour candy\" type taste to the drinks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8e12fr | what is a balk in baseball? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8e12fr/eli5_what_is_a_balk_in_baseball/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxrkiq3",
"dxrkjd1",
"dxrlfeh",
"dxs38uk"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's when the pitcher acts like he is going to throw a pitch, but then doesn't. Pitchers aren't allowed to try to fake the batter out or perform any weird gestures to try to distract the batter or disguise their pitches. So things like dropping the ball, winding up and then not throwing, throwing with your back to the batter, or throwing to a fielder without making it obvious what you're doing, can all be a balk.",
"A balk is when a pitcher makes enough movement to imply that the ball will be pitched but then this is paused or interrupted. Once a pitch is started the pitcher must follow through with the motions or it can be called a balk.",
"A balk is an illegal move by a pitcher.\n\nPitchers are permitted to make a number of actions to unsettle, distract or otherwise catch the batter off guard but once the pitcher commits to a throw the pitcher must follow through with the throw.\n\nWhat motions a pitcher is permitted to make and what constitutes a balk varies by ruleset. When a balk is called, runners generally advance one base. The batter does not advance, so if no runners are on base, a balk generally incurs no practical penalty.",
"A balk is an illegal action by the pitcher that occurs with runners on base. In general, the actions that count as a balk are things that would trick the batter or a runner. If an umpire calls a balk, each runner gets to advance one base (unless the pitcher throws an illegal pitch that results in a better outcome for the offense). \n\nIn particular, any of the following acts counts as a balk if performed by a pitcher on the rubber (the white rectangle on the pitcher's mound):\n\n- The pitcher starts his normal pitching motion but stops before pitching the ball.\n\n- The pitcher pretends to throw the ball the ball to first or third base without actually throwing the ball. \n\n- The pitcher throws the ball to a base without stepping in the direction of the base.\n\n- The pitcher throws the ball or fakes a throw to a base without a runner near it. \n\n- The pitcher doesn't follow the rules about a legal pitching motion.\n\n- The pitcher throws a pitch before the batter is ready.\n\n- The pitcher goes into his pitching motion when he's not standing on the pitching rubber.\n\n- The pitcher delays the game too much.\n\n- The pitcher pretends to throw a pitch without having the ball and he's standing on or near the pitching rubber.\n\n- The pitcher removes his hand from the ball after getting in his pitching position. (Pitchers can remove their hand from the ball if they step off the rubber before doing so.)\n\n- The pitcher drops the ball while on the rubber.\n\n- The pitcher throws a pitch from the set position (the style in which the pitcher starts with his body facing toward first or third base) without coming to stop for a second before throwing the pitch. \n\nThe most common reasons for balks I've seen tend to be the result of pitcher starting his pitching motion briefly without throwing a pitch, making a pickoff throw to a base without stepping directly toward that base, or the pitcher basically tripping in the middle of making a throw. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
77jval | why does chicken taste dry when you boil it in water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77jval/eli5_why_does_chicken_taste_dry_when_you_boil_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"domhgrv",
"don7bqj"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"It's over cooking that makes it taste dry. This happens because the proteins contract and squeeze out the moisture. Cook chicken at too high a temperature, too fast or too long and this happens.",
"When meat tastes 'dry', it has much more to do with how much fat is still inside than how much water. Fat melts and works it's way out of meat as it cooks and contracts, and if too much leaves the meat it will have a stringy, dry taste since only protein is left.\n\nChicken doesn't have much fat in it, and you have to cook it all the way through, so it is easy to cook it too long and cause all the fat to drip out.\n\nThe fact that it is touching the water, which could wick away some of the fat and float it away from the chicken, might be part of the problem; but the bulk of the problem is probably that it's easy to overcook chicken when you cook it by boiling."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
50q5am | the current youtube censorship situation. how can yotube get away with this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50q5am/eli5_the_current_youtube_censorship_situation_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7623c5",
"d76248z",
"d762b6c",
"d762wl8"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"YouTube is a private service and can set any rules they want.\n\nIf people don't like it there are alternative video sharing sites.",
"They are a private company and can do pretty much whatever the hell they want when it comes to changing the rules to their site. Don't like it? Go to a different site. I hear Vimeo is nice this time of year.",
"Simple, it's a website and can pretty much do as they please. Welcome to the new sensitive generation crippled by political correctness. In case you're wondering almost all of the big youtubers have been switching to other sites. Almost any channel you loved on YouTube can be found on one of these sites. Daily Motion, Vimeo, Flickr, and veoh are growing in popularity as YouTube continues with the restrictions. ",
"When you're talking about this its important to understand youtube's position on the issue - because the Defranco video was somewhat deceptive about youtube's position.\n\nYoutube's position is *not* that they are refusing to monetize videos because those videos violate their ToS. That's their legal justification for revoking the monetization agreements in place but its not why they're not monetizing the videos.\n\nYoutube doesn't want to stop monetizing those videos - as much as the video creators stop making money off the videos so does youtube. It actually costs youtube money to show you a non-monetized video, so that's really the last thing they want.\n\nYoutube's position is that they are *unable* to monetize the videos because the channels that have been hit with those notices have been singled out by youtube's advertisers as being channels that those advertisers will not advertise on. And, that this has now reached a breaking point where youtube is unable to find any advertisers willing to advertise on those channels. \n\nHence, youtube's position is that if every advertiser has explicitly blacklisted you, or told youtube that they want channels like yours blacklisted, that youtube is quite literally unable to monetize your videos because doing so requires that there are advertisers willing to pay for ads to put on your channel.\n\nThere are some channels on youtube that do their own monetization - the owners of those channels go out and get sponsorships to run ads for a specific company, and youtube will then implement those ads for a cut of the total deal. Channels that are able to do that - find their own advertisers to monetize their videos - appear to be unaffected by this regardless of the content of their videos."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4cc4ek | blue lights at night | Why can't I focus ornamental icicle lights Also, I have bad vision corrected with glasses and glaucoma since I was 13. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cc4ek/eli5_blue_lights_at_night/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1gtvq5",
"d1gwiz3"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The eye has a lens. Lenses, in general, don't bend all colours of light by the same amount. The human eye is optimised around the green portion of the spectrum, which means red light falls slightly behind the retina, blue slightly in front of it.\n\nDuring the day your pupil contracts, which makes the eye approximate a pinhole camera. Pinhole cameras are always in focus, so the [chromatic aberration](_URL_0_) is hardly noticeable.",
"You probably also have undiagnosed astigmatism if lights have a Starburst effect around them at night..... That's what I see, have astigmatism.... "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration"
],
[]
] |
|
cqjkol | - why is politics such a sensitive subject in everyday conversation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cqjkol/eli5_why_is_politics_such_a_sensitive_subject_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewwti17"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because unlike sports, movies, and TV, politics actually matters. It has the potential to cause sweeping changes to our lives, sometimes against our will. So strong opinions become magnified."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ojbx1 | why do we need government representatives? i will stop short of saying everyone in the u.s. is educated and well informed, but don't we have the technology to individually vote on issues in real-time? | I feel there would need to be some system in place to present the topics to the public in a well-researched and unbiased manner.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ojbx1/why_do_we_need_government_representatives_i_will/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccsh6sj",
"ccshdbq",
"ccslhmk",
"ccsn28q",
"ccsodwe"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1) We have the constitution that makes it hard to instituted such a radical change easily.\n\n2) Voting once every 2 years (for federal anyway) is difficult enough in terms of organization and the various checks required to prevent massive voter fraud.\n\n3) The average citizen is woefully ignorant of the contents of most legislation. Think about it, how many bills of congress have you actually skimmed, let alone read?",
"How would you vote on a bill that limits the sulfite content of carrots to 500 ppm? Too high? Too low?\n\n\nWhat I'm saying is, a lot of decisions that are being made require extensive research and input from experts, and people have neither the time or the ambition to educate themselves on these matters.",
" > I feel there would need to be some system in place to present the topics to the public in a well-researched and unbiased manner.\n\nThere are, universities. Mostly outside the US, but universities nonetheless. \n\nIn terms of laws - while in principle laws are mostly understandable, they are in many cases hundreds of pages of legal text documenting precisely how a law is to be implemented, who has the authority etc. etc. etc. Most of that is well beyond the practical workings of the average person and frankly, people don't have time.\n\nWhich is basically it. The reason there are representatives in any system is because trying to be informed, discuss, read, compromise, negotiate, vote etc. are all hugely time consuming processes. Members of Parliament, members of congress, etc. all have significant staff who are there to try and keep them informed on issues.\n\nNow by that reasoning you could do away with a great many members of congress or add a great many more - both have advantages and disadvantages. But asking everyone to be able to make informed choices isn't reasonable. So what would happen? Only people with immediate and obvious interests would participate - and then you'd end up with whomever is loudest or largest deciding every issue. Right now the US particularly has whomever is richest making choices, which isn't great either, but just shuffling the problem around isn't really progress. \n\n",
"A direct democracy is not meant to work in such a large country with a population of 313 million people. That's why representative democracy was a better choice for us, but since our population is also nowhere near what it was 200 years ago, it seems we may need a change in another direction now.\nAn to elaborate on my earlier point, only 1/3 of the US population votes and there's 313 million of us so clearly if 2/3 of people don't want to go out and vote there will be unjustified rampage over why their ideals/beliefs aren't being met in government ",
"Because democracies turn into mob-rule. There is a reason that the U.S. is not a democracy, but a constitutional representative republic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
63xfah | if no workers were operating on their systems, how long would it take for water and electricity to shut off for residential homes? | As in, if people suddenly disappeared, would the water and electricity run indefinitely? Or would they eventually shut off from others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63xfah/eli5_if_no_workers_were_operating_on_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfxrb3s",
"dfxsuls",
"dfxut44",
"dfxxur1",
"dfy22gx"
],
"score": [
3,
31,
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Electricity wouldn't last long at all. A few days at most. Water would go off as soon as the electricity did in most places as pressure in the lines went flat as the pumps shut down. A few places would keep running water until supplies uphill (or in towers) were depleted enough for the pressure to drop.",
"In an apocalypse scenario...\n\nPower would go off pretty damn quick. Nuclear plants that have safety locks would shut down within 12 hours after people stopped checking on them, and safety lockouts would automatically disengage the rods preventing any nuclear fallout. Coal plants would run until the fires died, without people to feed the fires, they would be done within hours. Oil plants would last the longest, burning oil until they broke down or ran out of fuel.\n\nSolar or Hydro plants could essentially continue running indefinently until they broke down.\n\nWater would stop flowing when the power died in urban areas with city water. Well water could keep going until pressure was down and water towers would continue to gravity feed water until depleted.\n\nSewers would back up almost instantly once water sanitation stopped.",
"Electricity would experience several surges or brown outs, as there's 24x7 power demand management on the power grid. Most likely what will happen is that power demand will drop suddenly, as there won't be people putting a strain on the system, and there will be a power surge that will knock out a substation. As more go offline you'll hit a cascade failure. Some areas won't be as affected, and the power draw will be able to remind steady. \n\nWater, not as knowledgeable in, but I'm guessing the first big rainstorm is going to wrack havoc on the systems.",
"If this is something you are interested in History channel did a whole series on what would happen if everyone just disappeared. It's called \"Life After People\".\n\nIt's quite good.",
"Check out Life After People, by the History Channel: _URL_0_ (also findable on YouTube)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people"
]
] |
|
czwpfs | how does co2 actually affect the earth’s climate, in a chemical sense? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/czwpfs/eli5_how_does_co2_actually_affect_the_earths/ | {
"a_id": [
"ez3a1ho"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The sun emits a lot of radiant heat, which is heat in the form of light. In the case of the sun, because it is so hot, this light is of a higher frequency - much of the energy is contained in visible and ultraviolet light. The Earth, meanwhile, is not nearly as hot as the sun, so it emits primarily lower frequency infrared light. This is how the Earth dissipates heat, since of course there is no air in space to carry the heat away. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light, but not visible or ultraviolet light. This means that the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere allows heat from the sun to reach the ground, but when the ground re-emits that heat, it hits the carbon dioxide and cannot escape as easily."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
chhvfr | why do recycling centers not accept all cans/ bottles? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/chhvfr/eli5_why_do_recycling_centers_not_accept_all_cans/ | {
"a_id": [
"eutdz4w",
"euttdis"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty much all your trash has to be washed and clean or it \"won't go through the recycling machines.\" That and China and all the other countries that were buying our trash have stopped so there is no market for most recyclables anymore.",
"When you bring in bottles you are getting a refund on the deposit made while buying the item. If they don't charge a deposit then they have no financial incentive to take it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2nkx4x | how did orange juice become the defacto standard for fruit juices? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nkx4x/eli5_how_did_orange_juice_become_the_defacto/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmeh9eg",
"cmehlx6"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"It isn't the standard. There are all kinds of juices. ",
"If any juice is going to be a \"standard\", wouldn't it be apple juice?\n\nThat said, I don't think there is a \"defacto standard for fruit juices\". Some are more popular in one place, others more popular in other places, depending on price and availability and local custom. Grape juice is very cheap, so is widely used as a sweetening agent, mixed in with other juices, and used to pack canned fruit.\n\nAs for orange juice... when I was a kid, that was the most expensive juice on the supermarket shelf. My mother called it \"Liquid Gold\" and would allow me just one small cup of it, every morning with my breakfast."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2hldl1 | why don't people wear nightcaps with their pajamas anymore? why did people even wear them in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hldl1/eli5_why_dont_people_wear_nightcaps_with_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cktqcsb",
"cktqnxz",
"cktqqc3",
"cktsh10"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
7,
7
],
"text": [
"i don't wear one cause it's itchy as fuck, and static after rolling around would irritate my scalp to no end. might have worn them just cause style/class / pillows/wherever they lay their head was really dirty",
"If you've ever been broke and lived in a cold climate, you might have worn a beanie to sleep. ",
"To keep their heads warm. Old buildings were not well heated. ",
"A while ago I decided to move far away from the city. Of course, few services in this area. I have electricity, but since it's a rural area it's way too expensive too use for heating. My internet is a 13.9km wireless link. I've got my own water pump, well and cistern. It's awesome. Anyway, I'm 40 meters from the seashore, and it gets fucking chilly in winter. And I've got my trusty wooden stove. I was used to sleeping naked ... well, not anymore. The thing with having a fireplace or wood stove, is that it takes constant attention, and you can't really have one in every room. So the living room stays warm, and the bedrooms get some heat but not much. Before I go to bed, I throw in a big piece of hard wood that'll last most of the night, but it's not exactly central heating. Luckily I enjoy the cold, and I have a beard and a head full of hair, but if I where bold, I would wear the fuck out of a nightcap. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3l09g6 | what are the negative side effects of "vaping"? | So you always hear a lot of "Vaping isn't bad for you!" and "Vaping is worse than cigarettes!" so I have no clue if vaping is good or bad. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l09g6/eli5_what_are_the_negative_side_effects_of_vaping/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv22451",
"cv227ic",
"cv22mmy",
"cv23ftk"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's better than smoking, but still bad for you.\n\nNicotine is still a carcinogen and vaping still significantly increases your risk of lung, throat, and mouth cancers.\n\nEdit: I was wrong here. Read /u/YandyTheGnome's reply below.",
"Honestly, it's so new that we don't have a lot of data on it. If anybody tells you that it's totally good or totally bad, they're probably pushing an agenda of one sort or another.\n\nSome people market it as a way to quit smoking. Others market it as a healthier alternative. I figure it's one more product that companies are trying to sell to you. They'll say whatever it takes to get you to buy.\n\nMeanwhile, there are other people who fear that it'll entice kids to start smoking, and that it's the latest gimmick from an industry that has never much cared if their products are dangerous. They'll say whatever it takes to get you to stop.\n\nThe truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but it'll be a long time before we can say for sure. It stands to reason that vaping is *probably* healthier than smoking, but there's also the fact that vape compounds are poorly regulated and tend to contain addictive substances, carcinogens, and other nasties.",
"Vaping, health wise, probably isn't good for your lungs in the long term, but it's a hell of a lot safer than cigarettes.\n\nThe danger, IMO, from Vaping is that you don't separate it out via smoke breaks throughout the day. With a vape you can sit and puff all day, indoors or out, and you ultimately just reinforce the same sensation you get from smoking. If you're just trying to get off cigarettes that's one thing; if you want to quit nicotine I don't think vaping is the optimal solution.",
"1) It's way better for you than cigarettes.\n\n2) There have some proven negative health effects, specifically wrt the sweet flavors.\n\n3) It's still pretty new and we don't know all the potential effects, either short-term or long-term.\n\n4) It makes you look trashy as a motherfucker."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ifbz0 | on the internet, particularly forum sites like reddit and youtube (comments being the forum) why are so many people so extremely quick to anger and argue? | I understand a few of the reasons
-we all have differing opinions
-we hide behind the anonymity of the internet
-some people have a hard time articulating their thoughts
but that doesn't seems to cover the extremely prevalent hatred that covers just about every facet of the internet... one minute a person will post an extremely well articulated response to a post and another they'll just reply "fuck you faggot" (or some other combination of insult and slur)...
Why are people so straight-up hateful online... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ifbz0/eli5_on_the_internet_particularly_forum_sites/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb3vmue",
"cb3w24g",
"cb3z3r5",
"cb3zrgm",
"cb40prs"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Not a lot of people are extremely quick to anger. Its only a few people. It seems a lot because you notice those kind of people only. The others tend to not be in your field of vision",
"[Relevant](_URL_0_)\n\nTl;dr: Anonymity.",
"Because sometimes honey...people are just assholes. ",
"Right now, the post you're seeing is the first post you've seen on the internet all day.\n\nBut it's my 900th. I got up a couple of hours ago, and I read through a bunch of racist, sexist horrible bile and I just kept it to myself because I know I can't change that sort of person. I read some stories about drug wars or whatever, maybe I looked at the stock market and CEO salaries and job rates or whatever. Point is, I'm just getting angrier and angrier and angrier.\n\nSo then I come across this comment calling someone a fag, and I just lose it and explode on them about how they're a shithead for insulting someone's perceived sexuality and how sexuality shouldn't be an insult, and they fire back and I just really get into it and don't even realize half the shit I'm typing because I'm still pissed from the hours of reading I've done already.\n\nYou show up, see this ludicrous display of hostility and think everyone on the internet is just completely full of hate.\n\nAlso, the anonymity thing and that people aren't in the same room as each other and don't have to deal with physical consequences that might transpire from insulting someone's mother. ",
"Two reasons off the top of my head:\n\nOne is the desire to be heard. In a comment section people have a tendency to post the most extreme ends of their views so as to stand out from everyone else.\n\nSecondly, you can't look people in the eyes. I've noticed that if I stop before I post to imagine I was talking to a person out loud, I tend to be less snarky than I otherwise might."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
27vwjc | why, when at a big concert, we feel the bass in our chest, as opposed to other parts of the body? | I was recently at a huge concert and realized I only really "felt" the bass in my chest. What causes this, and why doesn't it happen elsewhere, like in my arms or legs, for example? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27vwjc/eli5_why_when_at_a_big_concert_we_feel_the_bass/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci4vhe8",
"ci5bqt1"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because what you're feeling is the vibration of air, and your chest contains the only large air-filled cavity in your body (i.e. your lungs).",
"Every body part, and tissue in your body, will have a property called the resonant frequency. Generally, the larger the object, the lower the resonant frequency. If an object is hit with frequencies that match its resonant frequency, it will vibrate sympathetically more at that frequency (resonance). \n \nSo, one likely reason is that your chest has a set of resonant frequencies near the audible bass range. \n \nTrivia: Most showers with doors have a good resonant frequency response. In the shower, try humming a tone, starting low and moving higher. Eventually you will hit a tone that resonates and sounds much louder, like it's happening right inside your head. Pretty much any hard-walled chamber will do this, such as stadium tunnels, etc. unless it has been designed with baffles to counteract it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2vwwwp | why is ti still the only main calculator brand for school? are there any serious competitors? | Obselete technology, monochrome screens, and more, all for a lot of money! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vwwwp/eli5_why_is_ti_still_the_only_main_calculator/ | {
"a_id": [
"collbv3",
"colldw0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I had to buy a graphing calculator for a college course and I went with a Casio. It's still outdated but it's not quite as expensive. ",
"There are a few companies that compete with or even beat TI on features (HP, Casio). But, at least in the US, TI is the one that's allowed on standard exams, and even has instructions for it in standard maths textbooks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2fmgi2 | why does every "scam" use the exact same format in their ads that makes it obvious the product is a scam. | There are SO many annoying commercials trying to make it seem like you could get free money instantly with no consequences ESPECIALLY with these new one week fantasy football commercials. I don't even need to research them, I can tell just by the commercials alone that they're scams because every scam has the exact same format in their ads. Is this really that successfull of a marketing strategy to just scream the word 'cash' and assume the general public wont think twice? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fmgi2/eli5_why_does_every_scam_use_the_exact_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckamuge",
"ckamugu",
"ckanpli",
"ckapd66",
"ckapwnq"
],
"score": [
22,
26,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not about the general public, it's about those stupid enough to fall for it. They only need 1 out of every 1,000 viewers to fall for it and they will make a ton. The easily recognizable format is actually helping the scammers by quickly weeding out those who are too smart to be fooled. By using the same idiotic format, they may get less calls but a much higher percentage of those calls will be easy marks for the con. ",
"They are doing it on purpose. If they make it look legitimate they will get more people interested that will want to know all the details before they pay up. By making it obvious they are effectively screening for gullible people from the step one.",
"Because it works. It seems like it shouldn't, and I really wish that it didn't, but it does.",
"You should probably do some research then, because the daily fantasy sports sites are not scams.\n\nIt's not as easy to make money as they make it out, but they offer the exact product they say they will.\n\nAs for the others, why change what works?",
"The weekly fantasy sites are fun..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2qv7z1 | how come the sun doesn't warm up winter air even though the rays are still warm? | Always wondered how i can stand in the sun on a cold day and it's rays still warm me up. Possible stupid question. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qv7z1/eli5_how_come_the_sun_doesnt_warm_up_winter_air/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn9twoc",
"cn9u0rs",
"cn9u6i2"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are experiencing radiative heating when you feel the warmth of the sun's rays hitting you as opposed to convective heating when warm air blows across you. During the winter the sun hits the part of the earth you're on at an oblique angle and you get significantly fewer hours per day of sunlight so you get weaker sun rays for fewer hours, not enough time to heat up the air.",
"_URL_0_\n\nDuring winter the sun is lower in the sky and therefore the rays are more spread out and heat the ground less.",
"The sun does warm up winter air. Thanks to Earth's close proximity to the sun (and its greenhouse-effect atmosphere) most temperate zones in winter sit around a balmy zero degrees centigrade. Mars, for instance, which has no such luxuries sits usually around sixty below.\n\nDuring winter, temperate zones are exposed to less direct exposure to the sun, which makes it colder. The sun is still acting on the planet, though, else it would be much, much colder."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/BmlDJ69.png"
],
[]
] |
|
1ih1cr | how come we (and some other species) can tell others emotions by reading their eyes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ih1cr/how_come_we_and_some_other_species_can_tell/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb4m1uz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Think of a smile. It's almost like a natural human instinct to make a smile when you are happy. Two people could be born on opposite sides of the earth, never meet, grow up speaking a different language, eating different food, and having different experiences. If you met that person, and they smiled, you would know it meant they were happy. People's expressions for different emotions, eyes included, are generally similar. This might explain why we can read people's/certain animals' eyes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
22f16n | why do apple and samsung have internal emails and documents from each other in the current patent trial? | You see stories like [this one](_URL_0_) pop up all the time in the past few weeks, but I don't understand why and when Samsung and Apple obtained all those emails, documents and presentations. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22f16n/eli5_why_do_apple_and_samsung_have_internal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgm5p9x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Discovery!\n\nIn court, when you file your initial case, you enter a phase called discovery. Each side tells the other side all the documents they want to see (\"All emails between senior management discussing product X\"). Then the court makes an order to have you deliver those docs to the other side.\n\nThe lawyers then determine which documents they have to hand over, and makes a list of those that are confidential (so the opponent has to agree to an NDA or court ordered secrecy) or privileged (I.e. communications between the company and the lawyers).\n\nThe parties might go back to court a few times to argue about whether particular documents should be handed over.\n\nThe reason for discovery is so that each party can present their best and fullest case so that the trial goes more efficiently. Failure to comply with discovery orders is contempt and can be punished by jail.\n\nDiscovery is often the most time consuming part of a trial. It can take a few months to a few years, and typically involves at least 10 junior lawyers per side reviewing every single document the client has. Thousands of emails."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/4/5571926/apple-document-shows-concern-for-iphone-sales-decline-need-for-bigger-iPhone/in/5335963"
] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.