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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fabmzg | the german sonderweg thesis | Basically I’m doing an essay on the rise of the nazi party and I’m seeing the sonderweg thesis being thrown about and struggling to properly understand it | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fabmzg/eli5_the_german_sonderweg_thesis/ | {
"a_id": [
"fix21ql"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's been a while since I had it in school, but basically the Sonderweg thesis entails that Germany always had a different development from the rest of Europe towards democracy, whereas other European countries followed very similar structures.\n\nThe Sonderweg thesis is considered controversial among historians, because while there are similar patterns between European countries, all of them went through their own individual developments and the fact that a Sonderweg exists implies there's a \"normal, regular\" way for countries to develop towards democracy"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3q8drl | why is it that when i'm stressed i have to yawn multiple times before it "catches"? what is the feeling of it catching anyway? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q8drl/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_im_stressed_i_have_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwczq3t",
"cwd57qr"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Reading this made me yawn. Literally. So contagious that even seeing the word makes it happen.",
"Catching? Do you mean you feel like you aren't getting enough air when you yawn to make that feeling in your chest go away?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8s0agj | how my phone knows when im using the knuckles instead of fingers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8s0agj/eli5_how_my_phone_knows_when_im_using_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0vi6vs",
"e0vodkh",
"e0vsijx"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is speculation, since I can't find any 'how this works' detail from a bunch of googling:\n\nWhen you touch the screen with a fingertip, it's 'squishier' than touching it with a knuckle. There's more surface area in contact with it, and it doesn't bump the phone as suddenly. So the phone (probably) tells the difference between them by seeing how hard it's been bumped, and how quick the contact was.\n\nIt might be possible to 'fool' the detection by tapping quickly with a small part of your fingertip.\n\nIt's powered by [FingerSense](_URL_0_) - software by a company called Qeexo. They're pretty light on actual details, but since they insist it uses Machine Learning and it's software-only (no fancy stuff added to the phone to make it work), then that leads me to assume they're just taking information from the screen + gyro/accelerometer built into the phone already. ",
"Another possibility aside from u/Alix1723 and u/CrazedMagician is resistivity.\n\nPhone touch screens have a very fine mesh-like criss-cross of nearly microscopic wires [for lack of a better word] that constantly carry a low-voltage current. Touching the screen with your finger changes the amount of current flowing through both an up/down section, AND a left/right section. The software in the phone assumes this is a finger or stylus and responds accordingly.\n\nThe tip of your finger is usually softer and has a larger surface area than a knuckle, and this impacts the amount of change AND the number of 'wires' being changed. If the software is sensitive enough, it should be able to determine the difference.\n\nTangentially, this is why a fingernail only sometimes works, and the point of a pen or a rubber pencil eraser usually does not work. They either don't change the current at all, or they change it in the wrong way. A stylus or touch-screen specific pen-tip WILL work however, as they are made with materials that mimic the electrical properties of your finger. This is also why a calloused finger or a dehydrated finger may not work [too little impact on the current], and why rain drops on the screen [too much or too many changes] may make everything screwy on some phones.",
"Nearly all screens on newer devices are capacitive (instead of resistive). One of the major reasons for this is that capacitive screens are more sensitive to changes in the capacitance of the screen.\n\nDifferent parts of your skin have different conductivities and capacitance values because the different areas have different tissues that make it up. Your knuckle is basically outer skin, inner skin, bone, and your finger is outer skin, inner skin, muscle/fat, more muscle, then bone.\n\nThere is a lot more to this, but basically the screen is reading how much the capacitance of the screen local area changed in order to figure out where the user is pressing. Different parts of your body having different capacitance values change the screens local capacitance differently (knuckles change it less than fingers)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.qeexo.com/fingersense/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
24owin | what happens to sperm when it needs to go away but you're not sleeping & you don't jerk off / have sex? | A man, let's call him X, hasn't experience orgasm (he hasn't jerked off / hasn't had sex) for the last 2 months. The natural way for the sperm to go out is when he is sleeping, right? Aka wet dream. So, my question is, what if, the time when the wet dream should occur (the time when the testicle, or whenever the sperm is stored, is too full of sperm), X isn't sleeping and he doesn't plan to sleep anytime soon? Will the sperm come out uncontrollably, even when X is conscious? Just like it does when X is sleeping?
Sorry bad English... Thank you :) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24owin/eli5_what_happens_to_sperm_when_it_needs_to_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch97te8",
"ch97ydd",
"ch98qbg"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"X can't survive without sleep long enough. It takes about a week for your body to initiate the process you describe, nobody has ever survived a week with complete sleep deprivation",
"Your body just deconstrukt them.\n\nYour balls can never get *full*\n\nThe amount of sperm leaving your body has nothing to do how long you **saved** up.\n\nI for example only had a few wet dreams in my life.",
"Wet dreams aren't to do with the expulsions of excess semen. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1m6jlr | can someone explain all of the nsa and encryption situations simply? | I've googled it, yet I still have a bit of trouble understanding. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m6jlr/eli5can_someone_explain_all_of_the_nsa_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc68tlc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The NSA has influenced standards committees to make weak encryption standards. Weak encryption is easier to break. They got away with it because few people really understand the subject, and they employ crafty people who can hide weaknesses in the standards. The weakness is in the algorithms used for the encryption.\n\nThe NSA has used its clout to coerce companies who make proprietary products or sell proprietary services to build in backdoors or weaknesses. Every proprietary security program is questionable, Windows and Apple are well known to provide all sorts of NSA access to your computer. Every internet service provider and phone carrier allow the NSA nearly unfettered access to anything they want. Facebook is cofounded by former NSA executives.\n\nIn conclusion, the NSA probably has direct access to all your data that is \"in the cloud\"; Facebook, google accounts, yahoo email, drop box, any service you use online that you don't own and operate and control yourself. Your communications are also being watched because they probably have access through your endpoint. For example, if you have a secure connection to Amazon as you make a purchase, Amazon is cooperating with them.\n\nIf you run Windows, they probably have access to the contents of your computer if they want it. Same thing with OSX. Same thing with your iPhone. Same thing with everything you use your phone for, because you don't own the cell phone company.\n\nIf you use any encryption through a service not directly in their control, they may have subverted the technology you're using.\n\nThe NSA has continuously lied to judges about the scope and nature of these programs and how they are executed and used.\n\nAnd finally, the NSA programs were named after events and works of fiction where the main theme was that the people were the enemy. These are programs designed to spy on the people, not targeting the criminals.\n\nThe biggest thing to take away is while a little paranoia is healthy in security, now everything has to be questioned, because the worst case scenario the security experts had imagined is not nearly as bad as what the reality has turned out to be."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
25qbrb | why does arkansas, a very culturally southern state, elect so many democrats? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25qbrb/eli5_why_does_arkansas_a_very_culturally_southern/ | {
"a_id": [
"chjqaws",
"chjqr2i"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"They don't, anymore. Currently all 4 congressman from Arkansas are Republicans, and one senator is a democrat (who is projected to keep his seat in 2014, only because he is an incumbent)\n\n",
"There are a large amount of black people still in the south, and they tend to vote democrat on everything except abortion and gay rights. Rural latinos tend to vote republican on everything except immigration. White people in rural areas tend to vote republican on all issues."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
16af8j | why are acl, lcl, and other -cl type injuries so bad and can end careers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16af8j/eli5_why_are_acl_lcl_and_other_cl_type_injuries/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7u7a2s"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Those major knee ligaments, ACL, LCL, PCL stabilize and keep the knee in place. A minor injury to one, can weaken the knee and cause greater injury. Because of this, serious rehab is involved and it is a lengthy process. By the time to knee is repaired and ready for rehab, the leg usually has lost a lot of muscle. \n\nPeople recover from this, but for every amazing recovery (Adrian Peterson) there's someone who never got back to peak condition. And in pro sports, the talent level is so close together that that injury is enough to make a big difference. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5xqff9 | what's the difference between a pathological liar and a compulsive liar? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xqff9/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_pathological/ | {
"a_id": [
"dek2hmd",
"dek4kuv",
"dekc0b5",
"del6lzu"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"A pathological liar is unable to keep from lying.\nA compulsive liar is compelled to lie over telling the truth.\n\nWhile both are similar in expression, the pathological liar often hides behind his lies as a means of coping with his inability to accept reality, while the compulsive liar feels compelled to change the reality into a desired version by masking the truth.\nPathological also means the liar is often incurable, even if the outcome of the behaviour is negative, whereas compulsive liars can suppress their compulsion if truth serves them better.",
"There is no real diagnostic distinction between the two.\n\nCompulsive lying is generally the behavior, pathological lying is the disorder.",
"Pathological is sometimes associated as a disorder, but I find that to be bullshit. Either you are lying on purpose or not. ",
"A compulsive liar knows truth from lies but is just as comfortable telling a lie as telling a the truth. A pathological liar has no real understanding of what is a lie and what is the truth. You have probably never actually met a pathological liar.\n\nA compulsive liar tells you he is an admiral in the US Navy. A pathological liar tells you he is a battleship."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
x3y60 | the actual possible legal consequences of using torrents | There's a lot of misinformation out there from both directions. What can actually happen if you're caught downloading something you don't own via a torrent? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x3y60/eli5_the_actual_possible_legal_consequences_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5iyak5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's likely copyright infringement, you could definitely be sued for some amount of money that would depend on the suit, the court, and other factors.\n\nFrom what I understand it's not very *likely* but it has happened, it can happen, and it will happen in the future to some people for sure.\n\nNormally though you'll first receive notice from your ISP to stop doing it with some sort of threat of cutting service or something along those lines."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2dg2yg | how come videogame consoles like the ps vita or the nintendo wiiu are developed without planning the release of big games that support them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dg2yg/eli5_how_come_videogame_consoles_like_the_ps_vita/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjp50pa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They are, but plans can fall through. While /u/Lokiorin is essentially true that studios who don't show interest in a console won't make games, the console developer is going to commission games or make them themselves to pair with the release. Shit happens, though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
20eydl | why do some sodas (like coke or dr pepper) have caffeine, while others (like sprite or root beer) do not? is the bitter taste of caffeine really a major flavor enhancer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20eydl/eli5_why_do_some_sodas_like_coke_or_dr_pepper/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg2k7wy",
"cg2khrh"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"Many early sodas, like Coke and Dr. Pepper, were basically marketed as energy drinks. That's why they have caffeine in them - and why Coke used to have coca leaves.",
"It's not a flavor enhancer. It's a stimulant. The reason it is in the recipe is because it's a stimulant. Period. Coca-Cola's use of stimulants dates back to it's use of a raw form of cocaine (which was very popular in the later 1800s). Soda was sold in drugstores for a reason - it was a health elixir originally. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
lh0m7 | how an american president makes jobs | I'm trying to keep up with the current American election and more or less understanding what's going on. Where I'm having trouble is the seemingly constant argument over whether Obama is making jobs and/or whether one of the Republic candidates will be able to. I really don't understand how any President could make jobs. Please explain it to me like I'm five? Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lh0m7/eli5_how_an_american_president_makes_jobs/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2smt1s",
"c2sn8a3",
"c2sngmj",
"c2snlv7",
"c2so882",
"c2smt1s",
"c2sn8a3",
"c2sngmj",
"c2snlv7",
"c2so882"
],
"score": [
6,
46,
8,
17,
2,
6,
46,
8,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"That's the million dollar question isn't it? Politicians can't just make a bunch of jobs and give em out like candy. Naturally the president can't pass legislation unilaterally of course, so it's left to the President (or Governor) to introduce legislation and hopefully get it passes that way.\n\nBut I think what you're asking is how that legislation would create a job. Typically plans to create jobs call for tax breaks to employers who hire, or government stimulation through things like infrastructure giving people jobs. When politicians in the US talk about this, they usually talk about the former. But that's what is typically mean when a poltician says \"create jobs.\"",
"Nice try, Obama",
"The president, alone, cannot create jobs. Won't find a simpler answer than that.\n\nThere is a perpetual cycle of presidential promises facing off with a congress who wants nothing more than to make the president look bad.",
"Socialist way\n\n* new government projects and programs which employ more workers (build roads, heath care, education)\n* good in short run, bad in long run\n\nCapitalist way\n\n* lower taxes and interest rate to encourage individuals to invest in new projects and programs, which will eventually employ workers.\n* slow and unmeasurable in the short run, better in the long run",
"Here you go:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn rap format obviously.",
"That's the million dollar question isn't it? Politicians can't just make a bunch of jobs and give em out like candy. Naturally the president can't pass legislation unilaterally of course, so it's left to the President (or Governor) to introduce legislation and hopefully get it passes that way.\n\nBut I think what you're asking is how that legislation would create a job. Typically plans to create jobs call for tax breaks to employers who hire, or government stimulation through things like infrastructure giving people jobs. When politicians in the US talk about this, they usually talk about the former. But that's what is typically mean when a poltician says \"create jobs.\"",
"Nice try, Obama",
"The president, alone, cannot create jobs. Won't find a simpler answer than that.\n\nThere is a perpetual cycle of presidential promises facing off with a congress who wants nothing more than to make the president look bad.",
"Socialist way\n\n* new government projects and programs which employ more workers (build roads, heath care, education)\n* good in short run, bad in long run\n\nCapitalist way\n\n* lower taxes and interest rate to encourage individuals to invest in new projects and programs, which will eventually employ workers.\n* slow and unmeasurable in the short run, better in the long run",
"Here you go:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn rap format obviously."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk"
]
] |
|
42w3jf | why can stamps charge half a cent? | Where I live, it is $0.485 for a letter weighing under 1.0 oz. It jumps to $0.705 for a letter weighing between 1.0 oz and 2.0 oz. It jumps after each threshold. Not that I'm looking to save myself $0.005 each transaction, I'm just curious what the reasoning/legality behind it is. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42w3jf/eli5why_can_stamps_charge_half_a_cent/ | {
"a_id": [
"czdkqpo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Those rates are specifically for metered mail - that is, mail where the postage is printed onto the mailpiece and electronically withdrawn from an account instead of a physical stamp being purchased and applied.\n\nThe goal is to encourage the use of metered mail by small businesses, even though the savings are minimal.\n\nThere is no question of legality - fuel pumps regularly charge fractions of a cent.\n\nEdit: More info here: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://blog.stamps.com/2015/05/22/understanding-the-metered-mail-0-485-first-class-letter-rate/"
]
] |
|
afd9z4 | how does google calculate busy times (that bar chart) for businesses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/afd9z4/eli5_how_does_google_calculate_busy_times_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"edxma6k"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Google has access to location data for people using web browsers or apps that utilize a google service that permits them location data. So if you use google maps to look at a restaurant near you, and you’ve allowed them to access your location while not using the app, they can track how many people are at the business at given times. Obviously there’s a margin of error, but generally it’s pretty accurate. \n\nTL;DR- google sees where you and everyone else using one of their services is and judges how many people are there at a time"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ctn5f9 | how did people back in the day collect on gambling? there's many movie scenes where there are many people making bets on someone in a ring for example, and at the end, a person goes around collecting all the money. how did they keep track of who owed what? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ctn5f9/eli5_how_did_people_back_in_the_day_collect_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"exmer15",
"exmggoy",
"exmlnsy",
"exmnjcv",
"exmoznn",
"exmq74x",
"exms4p6",
"exmwfo6",
"exmwgm5",
"exmxkdw"
],
"score": [
97,
606,
14,
428,
153,
5,
12,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Apparently it's just based on trust. The bookies have pretty good memory knowing who bet what. Once the fight or event is over, people would have to pay or they would risk consequences.\n\nI listened to a podcast where one Filipino guy said in cock fights people would yell, the bookies would write down the bet, and at the end of the fight, the people would ball up the bill, and throw it to the stage. It sounds surreal, but apparently it works like that.\n\nThe patrons are probably regular gamblers, so they know each other. It's not like a solitary dude that comes out of town to put a bet and suddenly disappear. There is some method to the madness, and it's been like that for centuries, since gambling has existed.",
"They probably wrote it down. As we all know, movies don’t show EVERYTHING, they shoot for what best suits entertainment, etc, not realism.",
"I have a follow up question if anyone can answer. How do bookmakers make the money? Is whomever betting wins, does the bookmaker take out a certain percentage from them?",
"Often in the movies, you'll also see slips of paper. These presumably were used to record your bet. The losers usually throw them on the floor at the end.\n\nI seem to recall slips of paper still being used in horse race bets.",
"To add, many bookies would have 'runners' who were young lads who would be sent to collect or drop off winnings. Kids were better at avoiding the police (or even outrunning them) which allowed for backstreet bookies to operate as mini businesses with 'employees'. Neighbourhoods tended to be a lot more closely knit so people would pay up, because it wasn't worth the social repercussions of not doing so.\n\nWe live in a society where we pay up front and most of our interactions are relatively anonymous, but in the past communities really did know each other a lot better and had more social lives. For example, we have cars and go to the supermarket weekly now and put our food in the fridge, whereas in the past we would walk to the local shop daily to buy food for that evening. It wouldn't be uncommon to buy products at the shop 'on tick' and you would be trusted to do so - afterall, you would be reliant on this neighbourhood shop to survive. Bookies worked on this same neighbourhood system.\n\nEdit: Typo. Also, Source: Historian of Modern British History",
"I have always wondered this in mob movies or shows when they say a certain boss will get a 5 or 10% kickback. Like who the fuck is the mobs accountant running around auditing all of these payments",
"In venues where bets are simply called, there are bookies that you see, and bookies that you don't. The latter tend to only get involved if someone *forgets* the bet.\n\nAlso, in real situations, bets are only *on* if you would, if they are acknowledged. You don't really scream into the air, you look at the bookie, and he nods, or similar.\n\nBy the by, a ton of movies don't show it, but they are called bookies because they usually carry a notebook where they write things on.\n\nThat said, there are two currencies, and one of the ones being used is *reputation*. Noone will bet with a bookie that doesn't pay when losing, and someone who doesn't pay when he loses when gambling won't be gambling at that venue long, and might have other health issues.",
"My great grandma ran numbers for the Italian Mafia. Occasionally cops would show up to search the house and she'd have to hide the papers. She sewed a special hidden pocket in the drapes. Never got caught. \n\n\nI assume legal gambling worked much the same way, minus the drape pockets",
"Pretty sure this is just a trope\n\nWhat really happens is that you pay your money when you buy the ticket, if you lose it's worthless, if you win you find the vendor and get your payout. So really, if you are a book maker and owe out money they will find you, not the other way around having to chase up people who owe you money\n\nvery surprised nobody on here has gambled before??",
"They don’t collect on bets. You give them your money to make a bet and at the end of the event if you won your find them and show them your ticket so you can collect your winnings."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8qyv8k | if much of our excess vitamin intake is peed out, what's the point of packing multivitamins with hundreds of times our daily recommended values? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qyv8k/eli5_if_much_of_our_excess_vitamin_intake_is_peed/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0n6a8o",
"e0n6g1c",
"e0ne6nv",
"e0nixpt",
"e0nnpp8",
"e0no3qx"
],
"score": [
5,
39,
20,
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are several reasons for this.\n\nMultivitamins are supplements for a normal diet, and are not supposed to be used as a primary source of nutrition for the body. Multivitamins contain many things that in some situations may not be very plentiful.\n\nNo multivitamin has \"100s of times the daily value.\" as you state. More often, a Multivitamin will most often have 100 & #37; of a daily recommended dose of a particular vitamin or mineral, not 100 times the value.\n\nIt is also a mistake to say that most of this is just excreted without use. Daily recommended levels are different for every human being and the particular amount a human body needs of particular vitamins is different from person to person. Your body doesn't just toss out extra vitamins, but it will eventually excrete what isn't used or can't be stored for future use.\n\nTo that end, the point of a multivitamin again is to supplement a healthy diet and ensure the body is getting certain vitamins or minerals that may not be readily available from a diet or an unbalanced eating style. Especially in the case of people with dietary restrictiosn that prevent the ingestion of foods containing certain minerals and vitamins, Multivitamins provide a very necessary replacement to those.\n\nCould you imagine going through life with a citrus allergy, and getting scurvy from lack of vitamin C? ",
"Well the daily recommendation value I'm assuming you're referring to is a standardized number (think 2,000 calorie diet) and some people would need more or less based on other natural sources, e.g. vitamin C from citrus fruits or vitamin D from sunlight. So, if you're a person living at a high latitude, the extra vitamin D would compensate for less natural vitamin D made in your skin. There are upper limits that are set as well, which is why you won't see 900% for all of the supplements in a multivitamin.\n\nThat being said, I'm fairly sure the medical community's consensus is that multivitamins aren't really beneficial for most normal/healthy people.\n",
"Well that's the thing, there *isn't* any point in taking multivitamins. Various studies have proved that, like you say, you'll piss out *way* more of it than you'll actually use. It's bogus. \n\nPeople should only take the supplements they actually need. Like Vitamin D if they know they're deficient for example. The majority of the population however, don't really need to take anything extra if they have a well-rounded diet like they should have. \n\nA general multivitamin is a waste of your time and money. ",
"Take one and then drink your wee until you have extracted all the goodness. Take, drink, repeat.",
"So say for instance you don't eat the necessary amount of vegetables and fruits daily (like a lot of people we all know), can multivitamin help with that?",
"Please be aware that not all vitamins are excreted through the urine.\n\nThere are some vitamins that you can overdose on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a2k7n4 | how do mushroom farms work/how do they grow/how is it different from a traditional crop? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2k7n4/eli5_how_do_mushroom_farms_workhow_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb3bbs3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Like someone else pointed out, fungi don't need light to grow, since they don't do photosynthesis. All they need is moisture and some nutrients, and they're good to go.\n\nOther crops need different amounts of light, water, certain amounts of macro and microelements for nutrition, sanitary treatments etc. \nSee, mushrooms aren't actually made of the same components plants are made of. They're actually smaller things coexisting close enough to form a bigger thing, so to say.\n\nAlso, since most plant infections are caused by microscopic fungus(can also be bacteria or viruses but they occur rarer), mushroom have somewhat of an immunity to diseases. I think, it's been too long since I botanical studies, so correct me if I'm wrong. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1lyxcq | why does my brain refuse to do things that are obviously beneficial for me? | For example, I know that healthy eating, exercising or learning new skills is beneficial to me. Why does it feel so hard to do them then? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lyxcq/why_does_my_brain_refuse_to_do_things_that_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc44j27",
"cc44y3v"
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text": [
"Those things are only beneficial in the long term. The part of the brain that controls the \"snap decision center\" (not an official term, obviously), only cares about the very short term. ",
"(serious) Think of your brain as being a douchebag.\n\n\nIt doesn't give a shit about your body, its just think the rest of your tissues and your organs complaining to it is annoying and it hates the rest of the body etc...\n\nThe only thing you brain cares about is stimulation, caffeine, Alcohol, being lazy and not over stimulating, what ever *you* now like."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
64enfw | how is a light sensor or a single pixel in a camera able to 'observe' and measure light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64enfw/eli5_how_is_a_light_sensor_or_a_single_pixel_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg1jslh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Some materials become more electrically conductive when exposed to light. Day/night sensors often use cadmium sulphide (CdS). \n\nOther devices used in digital cameras convert photons to electric charge in semiconductors and accumulate it for some time before measuring the charge as a voltage/current.\n\nStill others use solar cells to measure light levels. They also convert photons to charge, but measure the current continuously. Old film cameras and light meters without batteries used these. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3tb0sl | why is islam the only religion that has to defend itself against allegations of it prompting believers to violence? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tb0sl/eli5_why_is_islam_the_only_religion_that_has_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx4lbyv",
"cx4mxaj",
"cx4nd2a",
"cx4x9cq"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Islam is a complex religion that was 'perfected', as it were, over a period of many years. After the initial revelation, the Prophet took years then relating the message of Allah into what became the Qur'an. I will not touch on the sociological aspects of your question though, as I feel there are people more competent that can do that, but what I will say, is that because of this long process, sometimes apparent contradictions arose within the texts.\n\nSince the lifetime of the Prophet, Islamic scholarship has contemplated the meaning of the different passages and debated the different interpretations.\n\nIn the 20th century, ideologies like Salafism and Qutbism emerged from scholarly writing, which began to emphasise the 'lesser' Jihad, known more commonly as the idea of the 'Holy War' waged against oppressive non-believers.\n\nThose who believe the Qur'an promotes violence and that this is the message one must take forward into the world, are selective in which passages they read and apply. If one sees the Qur'an as a whole, then one would realise the length of study it would take to draw any meaningful and long-lasting conclusions as to the meaning of the text.\n\nWhy, say, should we emphasise the lesser Jihad more than any other struggles that the Qu'ran talks of? Islamaphobes tend to be just as selective as the very extremist and militant Islamists that they condone the actions of.\n\nHope this helps.",
"The reason why we're only hearing that conversation aimed at Islam right now is just a function of current events. You can find the same allegations made against forms of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc too, but it's almost always going to be driven or prompted by events of major violence or oppression.\n\nFor example, there was a radical Jewish group called Kach that became popular a few decades ago led by a rabbi named Meir Kahane. They argued that Judaism promotes violence and encouraged their followers to commit acts of violence (and were deemed a terrorist organization by the US and Israel). For a while in the 80s, they were a very popular group and Kach members committed some very violent acts. This led some (both from within and from outside the Jewish community) to ask essentially the same question-is Kahane right? Does Judaism promote violence? Is this form of Judaism valid? etc\n\nLikewise, the Afrikaner reformed church's involvement and complicity in the creation of South Africa's apartheid system raised similar questions-does this version of Dutch Reformed theology promote racism and the subjugation of minorities? Is this a hijacking of the religion by a few bad apples or is this what the religion is really saying?\n\nRight now, the headlines are dominated by Islamic terrorists, and so the questions flow in that direction now, but they're hardly exclusive.\n\nI think part of the issue is that Westerners tend to have an easier time separating out different Christian groups (and Jewish groups to a lesser extent) and seeing them as parts of a whole while Islam tends to get viewed as a monolithic, uniform entity. After an outburst of anti-gay hate from the Westboro Baptist Church, aside from a few militant atheists, I don't think too many people are going to look at it and say 'wow, Christianity as a whole is a really hateful religion.' Islam, however, is so unfamiliar to most of us that when we see the attacks in Paris and the executions in Syria, etc, we instantly connect it to all of Islam in a way we might not if we were more familiar with the diversity and intricacies of the various sects of Islam.",
"Former muslim here. \nThe life of Muhammed is divided into 2 phases: Mecca, & Medina. \nBack when he was in Mecca he didn't have much support, hence the verses of Quran were tolerant & accepting, like \"Al-Nahl\" \"The Bees\" verse number 125 **Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.** \nThen, Muhammed left Mecca to Al-Madina \"The City\" A.K.A Yathreb. There, he gathered followers & formed a small army, so the verses of Quran began to get a little harsher & harsher. The verses gradually began to become \"different\" in a bad way, till the Quran ended by a sura called \"Al-Tawba\"/\"Repentance\" that was so violent, that Muslims don't say \"In the name of Allah the merciful\" before it. One verses of that sura is **O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.** & also **And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.** \nNow, which way should Muslims follow, is it the kind verses or the killing verses? \nA famous rule in Islam is *\"Abrogated verses\"/\"Copied verses\"* (that's the most approximate translation I could think of for the rule title). The rule states \"If 2 verses have 2 different judgments in the same topic, then follow the latter in order of date of revelation\" i,e. if you a verse telling you wine is alright, & another telling you it's forbidden. See which is newer (which is latter) & follow it. \nSo, in the case of violence, many imams state that violence replaced kindness, but most say that in secrecy because that looks bad. \nTL;DR, ELI5 Islam defends itself against allegations of violence because it contains violence. \nI'd like to apologize to any muslim who would feel offence, but I'm only answering the question above.\n\nEdit: Added the word \"Abrogated\"",
"Because *currently* a handful of Islamic fanatics are racking up large and noisy death and destruction counts, and an awful lot of people cannot distinguish between the 100,000-few million (nobody really knows for sure) Muslims who want to kill us and the ~1.4 BILLION who don't. Thus, all of Islam gets blamed for the actions of a teensy radical minority (which, oh yeah by the way, was one of Al Qaeda's long-term plans for igniting a war between Islam and the west).\n\nBy contrast, Christian and other terrorist groups hardly even make it into the news. You didn't even know there WERE Christian terrorist groups, did you? When a Christian terrorist group bombs a clinic or kills a doctor, the right-wing dismisses it as just the actions of a lone nut, who really wasn't a Christian at all. Meanwhile, all Muslims are expected to answer for or \"handle\" the actions of the radical fringe of their religion.\n\nSo, basically: double standards.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xg608 | how are household fire alarms so small yet so loud? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xg608/eli5_how_are_household_fire_alarms_so_small_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cozu61i"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If I'm not mistaken it's just that you don't need particularly good nor big speakers for high pitched noises which naturally sound louder than they actually are to us"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
flz8l8 | why do musicians mumble things to themselves while performing difficult pieces? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/flz8l8/eli5_why_do_musicians_mumble_things_to_themselves/ | {
"a_id": [
"fl1d5ro",
"fl1dazg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I know I do it sometimes to help keep me on pace and reminds of the next part, or I'm swearing haha like \"fuck me that change is coming up\"",
"If I’m doing something difficult or stressful I’ll often catch myself saying things like, “ah, come on, come on, come on” or “ooooh almost got it this time”, “just a little like this” under my breath. it’s almost like self-reassurance. Almost unconscious, I never really wondered why though"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
zsolk | 3d objects in games - howzat ? | When a game 'knows' what an object looks like from all possible viewing angles how is that done ? (Relevant keywords for subsequent searches when I'm older would be good).
So in a game you might be able to view an irregular object from : above; below; behind; in front etc what does a programmer have to do in order to achieve that effect ?
EDIT: **I've never done of these before so I'm not sure the best way to respond** Thanks to everyone who's answered so far (even dj00713 - that's a draft for your haiku on the subject - right ?). Great answers and they've given me enough material so I can research on my own - before I was really struggling to find a starting point. Thanks again | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zsolk/eli5_3d_objects_in_games_howzat/ | {
"a_id": [
"c67e0mo",
"c67e7yq",
"c67hl36",
"c67ij53"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Are you talking about how an irregular form gets displayed in 3D from different angles?\n\nIf so, I think I have an answer for you:\n\nA polygonal model (like a game object) is just a series of numbers which correspond to positions in space. Each vertex (point on an object) will have an X, Y and Z value associated with it. When the computer begins to draw the object, it draws it one vertex at a time in a local coordinate system called the ModelView Matrix in OpenGL. Each vertex is multiplied by this matrix so that it keeps the proper proportions and spacing that was specified in whichever program was used to create said model.\n\nNow, the model has been drawn in \"model space\", but this isn't very useful for games because there's no relation to the viewer. In order for the computer to figure out what the model will look from the viewer's perspective, it has to transform the model by what is called that \"Projection Matrix\". This matrix takes into account the current position of the camera, and is then multiplied by the X,Y,Z coordinates of each vertex to give it a final position. \n\nWhen each vertex has been multiplied out by the Project Matrix, this is how the model will look from the camera's current position. \n\n(sorry for the wordy response, but it's a bit difficult to explain without getting a little bit mathy)\n\nMore info:\n_URL_0_",
"The object is stored as a set of vertices (points) which are connected to each other. So a simple cube centered at 0,0,0 (known as \"the origin\") could be represented by several squares, which are made up of vertices like (1,1,1) (-1,1,1) (-1,-1,1) (1,-1,1) etc. \n\nSo that's how objects are made and stored. As for how they're rendered, that involves some fantastically complex math that there is no way to ely5. The shortest I can make it is: You create a transformation matrix based on the angle (some of the matrix values will be the sine or cosine of the angle), then use that to apply a transformation to every vertex of the shape to get its new position.\n\nFrom there comes the interesting task of converting that into 2D so that it can be rendered into an image for your monitor, which is even more fancy math.\n\ntl;dr A *lot* of math using all those things that people say \"Psh, I'll never need this\" about in school.",
"Hello! I am a 3D/CG artist and I thought I'd help by giving you a visual on how a CG model works. Everyones answers are great so far, just thought a visual might help too :D\n\n_URL_0_ This is a picture of a character I modeled last year, and next to it is your basic cube. What viewers would see would be something close to the first image(only rendered) but what we create is basically a 3 dimensional sculpture out of vertices. \n\nThe other images show (in wireframe mode(seethrough)) how a model is structured, just like the cube next to it only with a lot more vertices (which we take countless hours placing by hand in the right spots) So in a game when you are moving around something in space you are basically viewing a mathematical sculpture that an artist designed. \n\nHope that helps somewhat.",
"You ever do a connect-the-dots picture? It's actually kind of like that, except instead of a sheet of paper you're doing connect the dots IN SPACE! \n\nNow since you're in space, you can move in any direction instead of just up/down, left/right. Dots can also be connected to more than two other dots, and everything gets a lot more confusing so instead of numbering them it's easier to refer to dots by where they are. So we do that by saying how far up it is, how far right or left, and how far forward or back. And once all these dots are connected the right way, you basically have a 3d object! \n\n\"But it looks weird on my monitor?\" Well, that's because your monitor isn't space! It's actually more like the sheet of paper from the regular connect-the-dots. It turns out that our special new way of numbering our dots just so happens to make it really convenient to use a special math trick to make the dots that are far away *look* like they're far away by making them smaller and closer together! And a bonus is that the math is all the same whether you're above, in front, etc. The math just works as long as it knows where you are and what you're looking at."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_transform.html"
],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/S2vxn"
],
[]
] |
|
1sghpf | what happens in my brain/mind when i really don't want something to happen, and end up doing it? | e.g.
•When you really don't want to go red, you seem to go even redder.
•When you see SPOILER tags and you keep on reading, even when you didn't want to. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sghpf/what_happens_in_my_brainmind_when_i_really_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdxcvbr",
"cdxczru",
"cdxfyb0"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm going to watch this one with interest. Hope an expert will weigh in.\n\nCan't help you directly but here's the one I remember from 20+ years ago: we were playing cricket with a tennis ball in the school field and we'd stopped to rest a while. I picked up the ball and pretended that I was going to throw it at my friend who was sitting about 10 feet away. I had no intention of doing it, but I was sort of imagining it in my head, evil maniac-like. Ball was right back behind my head, arm as tensed up like a pitcher. Held the pose for a couple of seconds, watching his expression change from scared to jokey. Next moment I saw the ball hit him smack in the mouth, hurting him really bad and the whole group - including me - said \"WTF!\" as one. To this day I still don't know how I did that, and I can still remember the horrible wet sound it made as it hit.",
"I think this is called cognitive dissonance. Basically your mind makes up a reason or feeling to do it even though you dont want to. Then you stop thinking about it and do it whatever it is you want to, like continue smoking.\nCorrect me if I'm wrong!",
"I always keep picking up hookers and they end up headless in my trunk. I keep saying I will stop, but nope."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
33wi9h | how come you will start getting brain damage after 6 minutes with no oxygen, but the world record for holding your breath is 22 minutes? | Thanks for the replies! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33wi9h/eli5_how_come_you_will_start_getting_brain_damage/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqp0xsv",
"cqp12sy",
"cqp18ng",
"cqp4w1x",
"cqp5583",
"cqp9xpl",
"cqpa4lc",
"cqpb9fn",
"cqpcf23",
"cqpdzzm",
"cqpe0fg",
"cqpfc9g",
"cqpfm95",
"cqpg74h",
"cqpgirx",
"cqphbke",
"cqphoxw",
"cqpibvy",
"cqpo2x2",
"cqppcb2",
"cqpqzk0",
"cqpt5ja",
"cqptqtf",
"cqptxa7",
"cqpvbt9",
"cqpy47e",
"cqpy58o"
],
"score": [
58,
7,
2557,
167,
17,
2,
9,
8,
2,
11,
3,
58,
2,
2,
2,
5,
5,
3,
14,
4,
5,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"If the brain doesn't get oxygen then it gets damaged, but when holding your breath there is still oxygen in your body,",
"6 minutes is an average figure. Some people can probably survive longer without oxygen. Some people train so that they can survive longer without breathing, by increasing their lung capacity (allowing to breathe in more oxygen) and slowing down their heart rate (thus making better use of the oxygen they have).\n\nThe 22 minutes world record was achieved by breathing pure oxygen first, so the diver had a lot more oxygen in his system.",
"The air you inhale is ~21% Oxygen the air you exhale is 13-16% oxygen, Hold your breath for 60 seconds with a blood oxygen meter on and you find that there is zero change in the amount of oxygen your blood is carrying. Hold for another minute and your blood oxygen level will only drop a few percent. The urge to breath becomes intense very quickly because your body doesn't actually have anyway to sense the amount of oxygen in your blood but rather senses the build up of CO2, as your oxygen level drops your body will start to restrict blood flow to the extremities this (not the actual lack of oxygen) is what causes your fingers or lips to tingle when you are extremely out of breath. \n\nYour body can also power many systems anaerobically (without oxygen) your muscles can use more energy less efficiently and with more waste (lactic acid) for quite some time the only vital part of you that lacks this ability is your brain. Now all this adds up to the ability to hold your breath for about 7 or 8 minutes with proper training, the record you are referring too is a pure O2 record where the diver holds their breath after breathing pure medical grade oxygen which again doesn't reduce the feeling of needing to breath at all but does allow you to hold much longer. ",
"Competitive breath-hold divers (and synchronised swimmers!) are better at conserving oxygen than untrained people. All mammals have something called the mammalian dive response (MDR), which you can think of like fuel economy mode: when we hold our breath, especially in water, it triggers our bodies to go into a \"save oxygen\" mode. It does a lot of things like slow heart rate, change muscle metabolism to anaerobic and other superhuman-y stuff. The neat thing about MDR is that you can train it to be stronger, just like you would lift weights for muscles. This means the world's best apnea divers actually have no changes in the oxygen level in their body after a 5-6 minute breath-hold. \n\nThe 22 minute hold (actually the current Guinness oxygen world record is 23 minutes from Croatian Goran Colak) was done on pure oxygen. The person saturates their system with pure oxygen (normal air only has ~21%) beforehand which means that they have more oxygen stores in their blood. The best performances without pure oxygen are 10-12 minutes. \n\nPeople usually refer to brain damage from hypoxia in the context of hospital emergency, e.g. someone's heart stopping - it's not the same thing. Doing a maximum breath-hold you are starting with a normal, healthy body, and you have the MDR adaptations conserving oxygen use and protecting you from brain damage. One of the most important is increased blood flow in your brain, meaning that even as the oxygen levels in your body fall, your brain stays at near normal levels of oxygen, for almost the whole time. if you do hold too long, blacking out from breath-hold (in humans) is actually another protective mechanism. Our brains use > 20% of our body's oxygen stores, and shutting off the conscious part of the brain buys us extra time, at least 3-4 minutes (after blacking out), before we are placing our brain or vitals under threat from low oxygen. In competition diving you are disqualified if you are too hypoxic, and waaaay disqualified if you black out!\n\nPeople don't immediately go out and do these huge performances - it takes years of training, and the sport (which is AWESOME, by the way) has really strict safety protocols. The most important one is always do breath-hold with a buddy who watches you like a hawk. Loss of consciousness is a risk - as I said, it's not the end of the world if you have a buddy there, but fatal if you're alone in the water.",
"There are many many factors that go into this. \n\n1. Brain damage occurs quicker if there is no blood flow. Oxygen plays a big part in this but it's what supplies the brain with oxygen, that's more important. The blood flow also carries the waste or bad content (I.e. carbon dioxide) away, allowing the brain to continue using up oxygen to make energy and keep on living. So the function of the heart, as well as the patency (sp?) Of the blood vessels is of utmost importance here. \n\n2. The lung's capacity also plays into it. While most adults have an equal amount of lung volume, some will still have more capacity than others. We use different terminology in medicine to explain volumes and capacity in the lungs, however, that would take me forever to explain it here. The most important one to know in this case is FRC, which is functional residual capacity. Basically, this is the amount of air that remains in the lungs once someone exhales regularly. This may not sound important, but in reality, it could be the difference between life and death if someone were to pass out and stop breathing. Babies/children have less FRC, as well as patients with COPD for example. Then there's also TLC, or total lung capacity, which is the total volume of a person's lungs if they were to inhale using all their strength. That also varies from person to person dramatically depending on their physical conditioning and strength. \n\n3. Another factor is metabolic demand and metabolic activity. The brain receives a huge chunk of our body's blood supply, that's mainly due to the high metabolic activity. The brain needs constant oxygen and sugar because it doesn't carry much reserve, if any. So the neurons die quicker. However, there are ways to decrease metabolic activity. In medicine, cooling the body helps decrease oxygen requirements/demand, therefore helping us theoretically keep a patients brain alive be slowing it's metabolic demand. This also works by slowing metabolic activity of other organs, which leaves more oxygen available for the brain. This is how we keep patients alive during cardiac surgeries, by supplying cold blood flow. As a side note, babies use up oxygen twice as fast as adults. \n\nThose are the big points, but there are many other smaller things to consider such as physical condition of the person, genetic makeup that always one person to tolerate more carbon dioxide buildup, etc. I hope those helped. I could spend hours talking about this. I love answering medical questions. ",
"well there, start getting brain damage if the brain does not have oxygen, \n\nusualy they talk about stopped heart,\n\n\nbut to hold your breath, \n\nyou got all the oxygen in your blood,\n\nthen all the oxygen in you lungs. \n\nmost human lungs are 5-6 liters\n\nThe lung capacity of freediver and world record holder Herbert Nitsch is measured to be 10 Liters, which he can expand to 15 Liters with a special technique called “packing” or “buccal pumping”.\n\n_URL_0_",
"But, David Blaine set a world record:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n(TED talk. 17 minute breath hold)",
"I trained breath holding techniques in preparation for army diver school and had the techniques affirmed and improved by the cadre there. The best technique and most immediately usable is called lung packing. The idea is to rid CO2 and oxygenate the blood before the final breath. \n\nYou can do it right now in you chair. (Use good judgement, I'm not able to judge your cardiovascular fitness level.)\n\nTake 4 large breaths, inhaling down to your diaphragm (puffy belly versus puffy chest) and exhale each breath entirely. Do this slow and deliberately. \n\nOn the last breath in, once you can inhale no more, sip air in through puckered lips 4 times, packing your lungs. You may feel an ASMR sensation from your ears to your fingers and toes. You should be able to hold your breath up to twice as long now given confidence and trust in the physiology of it. When your lungs start convulsions trying to force your breathing response you are effectively at 1/2 of your breath hold. \nThis technique is paramount in completing crossovers in military water based selection programs. SEALS, Army Combat Divers, salvage divers and Air Force Special operators are all required to accomplish pool or double pool length swims at 10-14 feet of depth and this technique is critical for those with less lifetime breath holding practice to complete these evolutions. \nTry it at home, always with a spotter.",
"6 minutes? More like 2, 3 tops. But that's during circulatory collapse, *not* while holding your breath - of course, otherwise the world record holder would've been a vegetable by now.\n\nAlso, it's because the air in your lungs is still *relatively* oxygen rich when you otherwise would exhale. While you're not breathing, the lungs keep exchanging gases with your blood, the heart keeps pumping the newly oxygenated (although more poorly oxygenated) blood out into your body. You can keep going for a relatively long time.\n\nSince you're straining to hold your breath, your body picks up on the different state and this effects a couple other changes. For one thing, your body will focus on the vital organs. Muscle tissue can survive significantly longer without hypoxic damage, so the body makes sure oxygen goes to the places where it's the most needed. Sort of.",
"Better question is how long does it take to strangle someone ?? \n\n\nIn movies its like 20\nSeconds ",
"BUD/S requires a 50 meter underwater swim and the primary concern is hypercapnia . This is because your body doesn't really require that much oxygen, but it does need a way to dispose of waste which is done through exhalation. You can hold your breath for a very long if you can push through discomfort, but you have a build up of CO2 that will almost always cause a person to seek air before oxygen deprivation takes hold.\n\nGenerally hypercapnia occurs before cerebral hypoxia. You get tingles in your extremities when you suffer hypoxia because your body's defense is to redirect oxygenated blood to your brain (most important), however few people experience this because typically blackouts and drowning underwater occur from a build of excess CO2 (shallow water blackouts) from inexperienced people holding their breath and never exhaling. Somebody can survive holding their 22 minutes when their blood is depleted of CO2 and enriched by pure oxygen. ",
"Med student here. \nI'm surprised that no one has answered the time difference between the two. Everyone concetrated on the breath holding, no one actually answered why the times are different.\n\nThe fact that you start getting brain damage after 6 minutes is because there is no blood circulation. You actually have lots of oxygen stored in the blood inside your arms+legs etc. that, during a cardiac arrest, won't be used by anything other than your brain (i'm exaggerating a bit here) since the rest of your body is at a stand-still.\n\nThe blood in your brain won't get exchanged since the heart isn't beating (cardiac arrest). So there's very little blood + oxygen there. Meanwhile there's a ton of oxygen stored in the blood inside your arms + legs etc. \n\nThis is the reason you do CPR. You start up blood circulation so the oxygen that hasn't been used up from your arms + legs (since you're lying on the floor, not moving :P) can reach your brain and help it survive. \n\nMeanwhile the breath holding world record was done with a beating heart (i hope) so that is similar to what we try in CPR.\n\nIf you have any more questions, feel free to PM me :)\n",
"Because the heart of the guy holding his breadth is still pumping and delivering blood that has still plenty of oxygen in it.\n",
"David Blaine, love him or hate him, is a very dedicated guy. This [Ted Talks](_URL_0_) from him is one of the most interesting things I've seen and really makes me respect Blaine's determination and drive. He talks about how he held his breath for 17 minutes and addresses a lot of questions about the process. ",
"Well, the first guy to run the marathon died. Now people train to run a marathon. When they train to ru a marathon they get a better conditiong and with that a slower heart beat when they're \"in rest\".\n\nBeing able to hold your breath for 1 min+ takes alot of practice. \n\nMost of the time when the brain of a person doesn't get enough oxygen, it's either because the bloodflow to the brain is obstucted, or because the bloodflow can't carry enough oxygen ( Carbonmonoxide poisoning)\n\n\n",
"The difference is that your heart is still beating when you're holding your breath.\n\nYour blood carries oxygen to your brain. When you're holding your breath, your blood is still circulating in your brain because your heart is still beating. \n\nWhen your heart stops, then the blood flow with all its delicious oxygen to the brain stops too. That's when brain damage sets in after a few minutes.",
"_URL_0_\n\nSorry, I don't knkw how to make a link into a word like the cool kids of reddit. But this video should explain ALOT OP",
"Have you seen David Blane? He's obviously brain damaged as fuck",
"I'm a physician who deals with the extremes of pulmonary and cardiovascular physiology routinely in the operating room. A 70 kg man could breath pure oxygen long enough to de-nitrogenate his lungs and blood and then do a super-maximal inhalation to about 6500ml lung capacity. At that moment he would have about 5980 ml of oxygen in his alveoli, the remainder being water vapor and CO2. At rest his oxygen consumption would be about 250 ml/minute. He can't consume all 5980 ml of oxygen, but he can continue delivering oxygen saturated blood to his cells until his lungs reach the closing capacity, about 1000 ml, when alveoli begin to collapse and a pulmonary blood flow shunt developed which results in rapidly diminishing ability to deliver oxygenated blood. That means he could successfully extract about 5000 ml of oxygen. That could allow him to hold his breath for about 20 minutes which is very close to the observed record. It would take an incredible amount of will power to do this, or a lot of narcotics to make the apnea more tolerable. Under some circumstances in an operating room, under general anesthesia, I have kept a patient's lungs apneic for extended periods, even longer than 20 minutes to permit surgical procedures on proximal airway structures such as the larynx.",
"Not to sound gory.. but, as a medical student I participated in \"brain death\" tests in patients whose brains we believe to be nonfunctional and they would be good candidates for organ donation. As part of the test, we have to turn off the ventilator machine for a period of time and see if their brain is functional enough to trigger their own breath. But, at the same time, we want to preserve the organs and keep them fully supplied with oxygen. So, prior to turning off the ventilator, we fully saturate them with 100% oxygen (which is way more concentrated than the normal 21%) for a period of time before starting the test. This saturates the red blood cells with oxygen to a higher extent than normal, and so when we turn off the ventilator, even though they are not breathing at all for many minutes, their O2 saturation (which we measure the whole duration of the test that gives us a sense of how many RBCs are fully bound by oxygen) often remains at 100%, which would not be the case if we did not do the interval of high concentration of oxygen beforehand. So, I speculate that this record of \"22 minutes\" could have very well been prefaced with a similar period of time with 100% oxygen.",
"The 6 minutes of no oxygen is referring to cardiac arrest, where there is no distribution of the oxygen because circulation is stopped. Your body will shunt oxygen to where it is needed to keep you alive as it circulates.\n\nTake the same person who can hold for 22 minutes and stop his heart and he will get brain damage in under 10. ",
"What if you could train yourself to bring the air into your stomach, then regurgitate it into your lungs while underwater? That would be cool",
"Stop questioning the physics of the game, man. It's a \"known issue\" and the programmers are working on it.",
"Something interesting to note with this question is when someone is being choked. Many people believe that when you are being choked your throat is being closed off and so you cant breathe, while this is partially true if this were the extent of what choking did you would be able to easily sustain being choked for at least a minute. \n\nThe more lethal aspect of choking is that when you choke someone you cut off their blood supply to their brain via the two arteries that run on either side of your neck. This is why you can hold your breath for a minute or two and you can go unconscious in less than 5 seconds if you are being choked by someone who knows what they are doing.\n\nSource: I fight MMA and discovered this the less than pleasant way.\n\nAlso while talking about MMA this is why when someone is getting choked out in a fight the person doing the choking actually has very little if any pressure on their opponents throat, the choker has his/her forearm closing one artery and his/her bicep closing the other. Like [**THIS**](_URL_0_)\n",
"Because your heart is still pumping the oxygen that is already in your blood throughout your body when you are holding your breath, but the 6 minute rule is referring to when your heart is no longer pumping blood\n-EMT",
"How come I can't bench press 300 lbs but Dwayne Johnson exists?",
"No one seems to be mentioning that the world record breath hold was also done in very cold water. As body temperature drops the metabolic rates slow, and so does your rate of oxygen consumption. This is why people trapped under ice in a frozen lake for half an hour can often be revived with no permanent damage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_volumes"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KJTF2F6E1o"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ted.com/talks/david_blaine_how_i_held_my_breath_for_17_min?language=en"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/XFnGhrC_3Gs"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/300/167/89714023_crop_650x440.jpg?1279160979"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f993ik | why does being relaxed (i.e. in the case of drunk driving) help people survive blunt trauma? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f993ik/eli5_why_does_being_relaxed_ie_in_the_case_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiq17mp",
"fiq1uzu",
"fiq2u2m"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because when relaxed the body tends to ragdoll, or flop around loosely in other words. \n\nNormally if you tense up tight, you're making your limbs rigid so if you get thrown around your limbs won't just flop they'll be held rigid so when they hit stuff, your muscles will be resisting the motion they'd want to go in if everything was loose, so you're actually more likely to cause injury",
"it does not necessarily help. under certain circumstances, it helps avoid breaking bones and joints when the muscles are relaxed, because it lets the body absorb the shock more easily as opposed to tightened muscles, what you instinctively have in an accident if you are sober.\n\nwhen you experience more severe shock, larger forces take affect on your body, which would disrupt your inner organs and veins, then being relaxed may not help that much.\n\nwhen we are talking about avoiding head injuries, then relaxed muscles will cause much greater risk. If you want to avoid serious head injury, most of the time your only chance is tightening your muscles and work actively to protect your head.\n\nbecause head injuries have larger risk to be lethal, in all and all, your chances may not be better when drunk. it depends on the type of shock your body is facing.",
"Tension in your body. So when you tense up your muscles are more likely to be damaged. so anyone who learned to drive with a parent in the car knows that whole \"tense up and grab onto the door\" reaction. that is actually very bad and can cause more damage. When intoxicated people are more loose and relaxed and don't have the same reaction. This lets them flop around more and reduce the damage, lessening muscle strain. Its why everytime there is a drunk driving wreck, its always the helpless victim who gets hurt or dies and the drunk driver usually walks away fine."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ht77z | why does a paused youtube video not retain the same video quality as when its playing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ht77z/eli5_why_does_a_paused_youtube_video_not_retain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuad4dd",
"cuadzhk"
],
"score": [
7,
20
],
"text": [
"That's what the individual frames look like. When you see them at 30 frames per second they look sharp.",
"YouTube compresses video fairly aggressively. One of the ways this manifests itself is blocky artefacts. Normally these artefacts will blur across frames, meaning when frames are viewed at the normal speed you generally don't notice the artefacting as much, but paused only artefacts on that individual frame are seen, resulting in an apparent drop in quality."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
61ntrn | how do some animals know to avoid inbreeding, while other species don't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61ntrn/eli5_how_do_some_animals_know_to_avoid_inbreeding/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfgpy3a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They don't \"know\" like we do. Animals don't have an understanding of why inbreeding is bad, or even why a sibling and a mate would be different.\n\nWhat they do have is millions of years of evolution behind them. Species that avoid inbreeding- either by migration, or social behaviours, or any other reason- do so because this trait was selected for. Animals that bred with their siblings produced weak offspring, while animals that didn't produced stronger offspring. And there's a lot of ways that this can happen. Humans happen to have a few built in innately that we don't consciously know- for example, women are more physically attracted to men with different DNA, because they smell different to men with similar DNA. Ladies, if you like the smell of your man, it's because he's got good genetic variation. If you don't, you might be a little bit related (or he's just gross). And we've been selected for this trait.\n\nSpecies that don't avoid inbreeding do so for one of several reasons, none of them related to conscious thought:\n\n > they have a large enough population that inbreeding isn't likely to happen, meaning that behaviours that avoid it aren't worth the energy\n\n > they used to avoid it, but human expansion has restricted their habitat to the point that their avoidance techniques don't work anymore\n\n > they didn't need to avoid it because they had enough population, but human expansion has restricted them to the point where they are now interbreeding\n\n > they aren't really affected by inbreeding. Smaller organisms can tolerate a degree of inbreeding much easier than large ones can, and humans also don't have a lot of genetic diversity to begin with."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5xcq6g | how applications that crash in windows prevent you from accessing the task manager. | This happens every once in awhile, application crash, no way to get to task manager or the task manager combination doesn't respond.
Why does this happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xcq6g/eli5_how_applications_that_crash_in_windows/ | {
"a_id": [
"deh1aov"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If by task manager combination you mean control shift escape, is it Windows Explorer that's crashing? If Control Alt Delete isn't working then there's something larger that's screwed up.\n\nExtremely hard to answer this question without a ton of details from you and stuff that goes well beyond ELI5"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4buecg | why would paramedics actively try to resuscitate someone who's dead? | My stepmom died this morning. I got there before the ambulance because my mom called me and my gran first. When paramedics arrived, they worked on her for a good 45 minutes, maybe, before saying sorry and there was nothing they could do.
She was cold, not breathing, no signs of life at all when I got there. If there's a procedure can someone please explain it to me? I'm feeling like we wasted their time. And I'm a little lost. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4buecg/eli5_why_would_paramedics_actively_try_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1chvzi",
"d1chwft",
"d1chxlo",
"d1chykt",
"d1chzqm",
"d1ci2hp",
"d1con1k"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
6,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Resuscitating is the act of bringing a person back from death, it is possible if CPR or other procedures are implemented as soon as possible for the person to 'come back to life'. \nI'm not sure what you're stuck on. CPR and defibrillators are used to 'restart' the heart. Often, if the person has had no pulse for too long, even after being resuscitated, they suffer extensive brain damage due to the lack of oxygen their brain receives (Lack of oxygen as no blood is pumping to their brain).",
"Sorry for your loss. What a terrible experience. Internet hugs to you.\n\nThere have been cases where paramedics arrived and someone seemed plainly dead yet they were in fact revived. So if they're not sure, they try. They don't want to give up on someone who might eventually be ok! They just don't know for sure right away. Props to them for giving their best effort.",
"Sorry for your loss, mate.\n\nHollywood, as usual, has it wrong when they use a defibrillator on someone who has no pulse. A defibrillator actually resets a heart that is pulsing erratically. If there is no pulse, the defibrillator just damages the heart unnecessarily - it can't restart it.\n\nHowever, hearts can restart themselves. There are a number of reasons hearts stop, and often the signal can be sent from the brain stem and get it beating again. It really depends on why the heart stopped, though. In the mean time, your body still needs oxygen. Even if your heart stops, your cells and tissues and organs haven't immediately died. But without the oxygen from your blood, they soon will.\n\nCPR is a way to keep a minimal amount of blood flowing, and the hope is that enough oxygen will get carried to the organs to keep them alive. If the organs last long enough, maybe the heart will restart. It's a long shot, but it definitely happens.\n\nI hope that helps.",
"You never assume that someone is dead. You mom is not a doctor so her assessment of the patient is not valid and shouldn't be taken as fact. There are several states where a person can appear dead where they might be cold and unresponsive but are in fact still alive. It is the paramedics jobs to give every person every fighting chance to come back regardless of first appearances. ",
"Sorry for your loss, paramedics have certain procedures they're required to follow, including restrictions on when they are able to declare someone dead. \n\nThink about situations where someone is on the boarder line between dead and barely alive. How would you feel if the paramedics came and said \"a gonner\" and called out for the coroner? Who would be liable if the family sued in that situation?\n\nPolicies and laws vary by jurisdiction, but here's some guidelines. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It's very hard for emergency responders to know if a person can be revived. The only real test they have is to try to revive them. If they revive, then they weren't too far gone. If they don't revive, then there was nothing they could do. If they spend time trying to guess if revival will work two bad things happen: 1) time passes, which makes revival harder; 2) they could be wrong. Just trying to revive everyone they come across is a better solution most of the time.\n\nAlas, it doesn't always work. It never wastes their time. \n\nTry to talk to someone about being lost, that's something everybody would want you to take care of.",
"Paramedic here. Depending on the jurisdictions protocols, paramedics might decide not to work someone who is already cold and has already had the blood start to pool into the part of the body on the ground. Some others can call the hospital and stop CPR if it is not working after 20 minutes (depending on the heart rhythm). Your stepmom was certainly gone when you called for paramedics, but even if they declined to treat her, THIS WAS PROBABLY THE MOST LEGITIMATE CALL THEY RAN ALL DAY ! You would not believe the ridiculous call EMS gets everyday (toothache, hemorrhoid pain, a cold) a D.O.A. that we don't work on is still a very important call. The patient must be assessed by a professional for any out of hospital death. Official paperwork must be completed. The family also must be evaluated for any resulting physical or emotional issues. Believe me the paramedics did NOT mind that you called.\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_on_arrival"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
40i7d5 | why does the driver side wiper seem to work so much more effectively in so many vehicles ? | My guess is that it's because the passenger side wiper covers more surface area on the window as it comes across and back therefore it wears out faster | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40i7d5/eli5_why_does_the_driver_side_wiper_seem_to_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyubf3s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its probably more likely that a wiper causing problems on the driver side is immediately replaced, but a malfunctioning wiper on the passenger side is not as critical and doesn't get replaced right away. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9oaln3 | how does a song/album debut at #1? | Always wondered this because it seems logical it would start at the bottom and work its way up...
Edit: A nice quick answer. Definitely makes sense when you think of it week by week or day by day | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9oaln3/eli5_how_does_a_songalbum_debut_at_1/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7so1pc",
"e7so3il"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"“Debuts at #[n]” ignores the initial transient before it gets to #[n]. Obviously any major album starts with 0 copies sold, but if the album sells enough to be the #1 selling album in, say, a day, then you would say it debuted at #1 (I don’t know if it’s strictly a day, but you get the idea). ",
"It would be quite inconvenient to measure on a steady sales/hour and deliver constant reports like that. If you'd measure like that, yes, an album would start at the bottom, before the first album is sold, then make a small jump, then up from there. \n\nMost of these numbers and charts are calculated in weeks, as far as I know. And if you're going to release a new Metallica album, you better believe that people are going to be ridiculously hyped for it, ready to buy it at stores the very moment it's released. A week is plenty time for an album of a well-known band to sell enough to overtake the sales of other albums. \nEven with lesser known bands, it's enough time to get a decent amount of traction via word of mouth and radio if it's a really good song. But you'll typically see that these songs can at times take a small while to rise to the top of the charts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4ulpfd | if aspect ratios are simplified to lowest terms, why do we say 16:10 for wxga instead of 8:5? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ulpfd/eli5_if_aspect_ratios_are_simplified_to_lowest/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5qq6i5"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Normally, we would. But 16:10 makes it easier to compare to the more common 16:9, and the 10 factor makes it easy to extrapolate larger numbers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4z9n2y | could the amount of solar panels and small wind turbines you could reasonably fit on a car produce enough electricity to make a self-sustaining electric car? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z9n2y/eli5_could_the_amount_of_solar_panels_and_small/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6u0ar8",
"d6u0dim",
"d6u0jzu",
"d6u138u",
"d6u312p"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
12,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Wind turbines would *not* work on a car. They will create more air resistance than the power generated from them could offset. This is one of those common ideas for creating a perpetual motion machine.",
"Wind turbines are a net loss, you'll spend more energy moving them than you'll ever recover.\n\nSolar powered cars have been built, but they so far have had to sacrifice virtually all functionality to maximize solar panel surface area.",
"wind turbines are no go, they would produce more drag than the power they produce.\n\nLets assume your car is 6' wide and 20' long (thats about the size of a full size pickup truck.)\n\nand lets assume you can lay out panels completely covering a nice flat roof somehow... \n\nsolar panels can generate about 9watts/sq ft and we figure 120sqft.\n\nRoughly 1000watts in ideal conditions.\n\nA tesla can go 140miles on 40kwh. at 60mph thats 2.3hours, meaning it is consuming about 17,000 watts.\n\nThats some rough math but if you had a full size pickup worth of solar cells, you could provide about 1/17th of the power consumed by a tesla model S...",
"To give you some relativity, a solar powered, self sustaining airplane has now circumnavigated the globe. The thing runs off battery packs that are charged by solar panels on the wings which can gather enough electricity to last all night long. This means that the only limiting factor is the pilot's stamina. Anyway, in order to get enough solar panels on there the wingspan is as wide as a 747 and the interior of the cabin is tighter than a Honda Civic. Also it only goes 40mph if you're lucky.\n\n[Check it out!](_URL_0_)",
"There are solar car competitions, like the American Solar Challenge and the World Solar Challenge. Do a Google search of these events and you'll see these vehicles are purpose-built vehicles with little practical application - they are a far cry from your family sedan. These vehicles only get enough energy input to power a 2-3 horsepower engine. In a small, aerodynamic body with low rolling resistance tires, these vehicles are capable of achieving highway speeds, with patience."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.solarimpulse.com/"
],
[]
] |
||
1hlmmb | if uber brought gps to transportation, why haven't companies like ups automated a way to track your page in real time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hlmmb/eli5_if_uber_brought_gps_to_transportation_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cavigua",
"caviw87",
"cavoiza"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Questions about why companies don't have a product yet is usually one of three answers.\n\n1)They haven't thought of it yet. \n\n2)They don't know how to do it yet. \n\n3)They don't think it's worth the money.\n\nLet's answer your question through those. \n\n1) I am sure they thought of it.\n\n2) I am sure they know how. They would do it just like GPS and taxis.\n\n3) This is the only one left. \n\nIt must be that they don't think it would bring enough extra business to be worth installing all the GPS trackers, and website network. They might even be working on it but it's too expensive to do fast. \n\nBringing new business is the important thing. Sometimes I don't call a taxi because it might be too long before one gets to me. If I can see where it is though I am more likely to call one. For UPS though I might want to see where my package is but it doesn't actually make me want to buy more packages. It doesn't actually make them come any faster. \n\nIf I know roughly where the package is (stuck in Kansas, on the truck for delivery, etc.) Then I already know enough to know if I need to go buy that bikini for the holiday weekend or if I can just wait for it to be delivered this afternoon. ",
"GPS-accuracy tracking for packages would be very expensive, mostly because it would require a constant Internet connection (likely with a cellular link) to transmit the GPS information back to you. Conversely, it was easy for Uber to accomplish because you already provide the equipment (your phone) and the Internet connection (your cell phone data contract).",
"Parcel shipping is done almost exclusively by barcode. There might be some RFID somewhere, but not in itemized boxed that I'm aware of. The barcode holds the necessary identifying information and the distribution management systems hold and keep track of the data with regards to where the package has been.\n\nRemember while its nice that the consumer can track their shipment, at the end of the day they don't care if you can track it, they care if they can. All that matters is the product reaches certain checkpoints. (Picked up, arrives at distribution center, leaves distribution center, checked into truck, etc) If it doesn't make it from A to B there's usually a lot more internal tracking data they can look at that isn't normally relevant to the customer. \n\nSource: I design material handling equipment and have worked on parcel/postage projects."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2gsr70 | what's worse? eating a whole pint of ice-cream in one sitting, or eating it over the course of the day? | I just ate a whole pint. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gsr70/eli5_whats_worse_eating_a_whole_pint_of_icecream/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckm5nio",
"ckm5rd6",
"ckm5u6d",
"ckm60v0"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For calories that may translate to fat storage? Neither. For your gastro-distress? One sitting is worse, but you'll probably figure that out soon.",
"I'd say one sitting but I'm sensitive to brain freeze.",
"They're completely the same. There's a process called \"Thermic Effect of Food\" or TEF, which is the energy it takes to break down and absorb nutrients. Martin Berkhan does a really good job of explaining it on his website _URL_0_ in an example where a subject consumes 2700kcal throughout the course of a day with meal frequency varying from three meals to nine meals:\n\n > However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot \"trick\" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.\n\nIn other words it doesn't matter how long it takes to consume the ice cream, your body will handle the nutrients the same regardless. ",
"one sitting is more likely to cause problems with short term sugar regulation. but assuming you're a reasonably healthy adult and you're actually hungry enough to consume that volume of food, the long term effects should be the same."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"leangains.com"
],
[]
] |
|
9ibz0x | colorado offers 85 octane gasoline. are some cars specifically designed for 85 octane, or are there situations where a car designed for a higher rating would be better off using 85 instead of 87 octane? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ibz0x/eli5_colorado_offers_85_octane_gasoline_are_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6igmmg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The 85 octane is cause of the high altitude. The lower the octane the faster it burns. With the already thin air at that altitude, 85 octane pretty much acts like 87 octane would at sea level. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cclszl | how do you position and move your tongue when you roll your r's? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cclszl/eli5_how_do_you_position_and_move_your_tongue/ | {
"a_id": [
"etnqsyl",
"etntcrc",
"eto2rl6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I am kinda bad at it so take it with a grain of salt but it put the tip of my tongue on the roof of my mouth where the first bump is (is it called a bump?) then I blow out and it just kinda does it. I am sure someone else will be able to describe it better.",
"It's like an L sound but instead of pushing your tongue against your incisors with the muscle you use the air to push your tongue.",
"Place the tip of your tongue on the roof of your mouth and say the \"R\" in the word while exhaling"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3j0jnc | why do businesses (like coffeeshops) maintain an open wifi network that prompts a pop-up where you have to enter a password anyways? | Why not just lock the wifi network? Is there some sort of security advantage to do the code through the browser instead of the phone/laptops? Is it just a marketing ploy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j0jnc/eli5_why_do_businesses_like_coffeeshops_maintain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cul9u4s",
"cul9wc3"
],
"score": [
26,
5
],
"text": [
"What I've found with those login portals you have to go through, is that it's easy to generate short term passwords.\n\nThere are some local businesses here which will give you a password on your receipt which works for a few hours before locking you out. It makes more sense to do this than have a single password on the WiFi itself.",
"With a connection to the wifi with a password, it's quite difficult to keep a track of statistics and usage (having to monitor the router directly). With an unlocked router and authentication through a website, statistics, monitoring and payment become a lot more easier and doesn't require the staff to be trained to troubleshoot issues (the online software will be supported externally and used by many)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2k73d7 | at a large aquarium where the fish are mixed (zoos, science centers, etc) what keeps the sharks from not going to town on the various fish they're contained with? | You'd think there would be feeding frenzies on the daily! But they all just swim by each other without a wink or a nod! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k73d7/eli5_at_a_large_aquarium_where_the_fish_are_mixed/ | {
"a_id": [
"clii7ag",
"clinekh",
"clitqee",
"cliz3d1"
],
"score": [
36,
18,
2,
14
],
"text": [
"The sharks are kept well fed. That's really all it takes.",
"Wrong question. Sharks are fairly reasonable with tank mates. Its the freaking dolphins you need to worry about. They kill for fun every chance they get and sometimes go after people.",
"/u/mredding got the basics right, the sharks are indeed fed well. But let me add something to that.\n\nFeeding frenzies aren't a normal thing for sharks. It does occur, they can indeed go completely nuts and bite/eat everything that comes in front of their nose, including their own tail, but this is very, very rare behaviour. Sharks usually hunt very carefully and targeted. They'll even prefer the food that is offered by the aquarist, because that is already dead. Hunting costs energy and gives a chance of injuries if the prey fights back.\n\nDo note, this doesn't mean that sharks will never eat their tankmates. When a fish gets sick or otherwise weak, they become an easy meal. Do you say no to a tasty snack? Sharks agree.\n\nSource: worked with sharks among other (aquatic) animals. Every now and then a small fish will disappear overnight. Also, it's not a smart thing to add a new fish to an established tank with sharks, even big fishes. New fishes are stressed fishes, and stressed fishes are weak and therefore become food. Poor fish.. Nevertheless, sharks are awesome!",
"Marine Biologist here! Sharks and other ocean predators are nocturnal. When you visit an aquarium or zoo, you are essentially seeing them when they are \"sleeping\". While they can't cease movement, they become incredibly passive and only pseudo-conscious. \n \nAt night, activity increases and so does hunger. Depending on the species of shark and size of the tank, anywhere from 5 to 25% fish loss is normal. The eaten fish are simply replaced the following morning (and any remaining parts, particularly heads, are netted out). If you are part of the \"first wave\" at the aquarium, you might be lucky enough to see this. When I worked at Sea World San Diego, I would always encourage guests to arrive right when the park opens for this reason."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fqs9u8 | why there's a lower back pain when someone stands still for a while? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fqs9u8/eli5_why_theres_a_lower_back_pain_when_someone/ | {
"a_id": [
"fls08qg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Generally it is because people’s body alignment is off just enough that those muscles are constantly “flexing” to fight the force of gravity pulling the body down. \n\nThere is also a big difference between being on your feet all day standing in relatively the same place, and being on your feet all day but moving around, bending, reaching, squatting, etc. The former is actually harder on your body than the latter if you’re doing it right."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1jgksg | how to change how i drive to get better fuel efficiency | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jgksg/eli5_how_to_change_how_i_drive_to_get_better_fuel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbeg0ei",
"cbeg0rd"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Speed up slowly.\n\nDon't use the air conditioner unless it's necessary.\n\nKeep windows closed.\n\nKeep a large lead in front of your car to the car in front of you (a large buffer)\n\nDrive so that you don't have to use your brakes.\n\nDrive so that you drive slowly and steadily rather than start and stop.\n\nClean and/or replace your air filter, change your oil, inflate your tires, get your car tuned.\n\nEducate others on how to do so too.",
"This is called [Hypermiling](_URL_1_). \n\nRead that link for more details but the basics it outlines are:\n\n1. Drive like you don't have breaks\n\n2. Don't accelerate quickly\n\n3. Don't idle for more then a minute, turn the car off. \n\n4. Drive slow up hills, fast down hills.\n\n5. Minimize the work your engine is doing. \n\n6. Park quickly, don't hunt for a spot\n\n7. Check your tire pressure regularly \n\n8. Don't carry much weight in your car\n\n9. (If you own a hybrid) Pulse & Glide \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving",
"http://www.wikihow.com/Hypermile"
]
] |
||
6pocq2 | how come bodybuilders can consume raw eggs no problem, but it is dangerous for me to undercook eggs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pocq2/eli5_how_come_bodybuilders_can_consume_raw_eggs/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkquewx",
"dkqugi1",
"dkqutf9"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not dangerous to undercook eggs. People eat runny eggs all the time.\n\nRaw eggs have a small chance of containing salmonella. Unless you're part of an at-risk population (very young, very old, pregnant etc.) then having a salmonella infection will, in most cases, just give you 2-3 days of food poisoning (fever, diarrhea and such).",
"It isn't as dangerous as people think. I've eaten hundreds of raw eggs in my lifetime, the only precaution I took was washing the shells with soap and water. Never gotten sick",
"Both you and the bodybuilders have a risk of contracting salmonella from raw or undercooked eggs, but the risk is fairly low (a CDC study estimated the risk at about 1 in 20,000 eggs). \n\nThat said, salmonella is an unpleasant bug, causing diarrhea and vomiting in the best case, and hospitalization and death in the worst cases. Because the costs are fairly high, the recommendation exists even though the risk of something bad happening are fairly low. The bodybuilders and any other raw egg eaters are simply willing to accept the risk. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2j3b16 | why does a cat seemingly "turn off" when the back of their neck is pinched? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j3b16/eli5_why_does_a_cat_seemingly_turn_off_when_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl80hqp",
"cl86m8f"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"It's instinct. Mother cats will use the skin on the back of a kitten's neck to carry it (in her teeth) if she needs to move it. Cats instinctually go limp when this happens (which prevents it from potentially hurting one cat or the other), and you're triggering that same instinctual response when you grab a cat there.",
"This might sound silly, but could it work if you were being attacked by a big cat? A tiger, puma, lion, etc... If you managed the difficult task of pinching its neck, would you get the same reaction or would it simply be the last thing you'd do?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
eu59h0 | why do animals tend to lick their wounds? does their saliva contain molecules that actually help with healing? and if so.. do ours? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eu59h0/eli5_why_do_animals_tend_to_lick_their_wounds/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffl8iy1"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I was taught that our saliva is somewhat anti-septic and I've never questioned it, but I'd be interested in hearing from others. I know that our saliva contains a molecule to break down starches like bread into smaller molecules like sugars to give the stomach and intestines a head start. If there are other molecules present to start breaking down proteins such as meats then maybe they can smash up bacterial cell walls? I suspect it's more that your digestive system is better equipped to deal with dirt than your blood stream is, so licking the wound might just reduce the amount of bad stuff going into the wound, but it may be a good idea to spit afterwards!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2nlpap | why, if you travel north you'll eventually travel south, but if you travel east you'll never travel west. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nlpap/eli5_why_if_you_travel_north_youll_eventually/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmeoppf",
"cmeou3m",
"cmep86f"
],
"score": [
19,
14,
4
],
"text": [
"It's because of how we define directions. North and south are defined as being in the direction of the Earth's poles. Thus they must converge at the poles. Meanwhile, east and west are defined as circles that wrap around the globe and are parallel to each other. \n\nYou could conceivably make longitude lines parallel instead of having them intersect at the poles, but then you'd run into issues where the same longitude and latitude coordinates could apply to two different locations, as well as un-intuitive situations where going due north will end up eventually reaching the same spot as going due west, but along a different route.\n\nAnd all of this is because the geometry of the surface of a sphere is different than the geometry of a flat plane.",
"You won't eventually travel south if you actually always travel north.\n\nTraveling \"north\" means \"traveling towards the North Pole\". Once you reach it, you can't travel north anymore, anywhere you go is south.\n\nYou might be thinking \"what if I travel north from my current location but don't adjust my direction and keep going once I reach the North Pole?\" In this case, you will travel in a great arc around the Earth that loops around both the North and South poles, so overall, you'd be switching between traveling north and traveling south, in equal distances. The diameter of the great arc will be the same no matter where you started your travel.\n\nTraveling east or west is different because there is no East or West poles, and (unless you are exactly on the equator) you will not be traveling in a great arc, but rather traveling at a 90 degree angle to the poles so that you always keep the same distance to them. The closer you are to a pole, the smaller your travel arc will be. As there is no absolute reference point for you to reach (such as the North Pole in the previous example) you will always be going the same direction.",
"North and South are based found at the North and South Poles. East and West are based off of the Earth's rotation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2dw8lm | could eminent domain be used to seize internet cable networks from isps for a municipal broadband? | So we've seen eminent domain work for things like "Oh, this poor neighborhood is gonna get bought out so we can build a stadium" (I live in Texas). What I want to know is, could the sword be used to cut the other way? Specifically, I've been seeing all the posts about how terrible Comcast is. Couldn't cities or states (or the US as a whole) who are just sick of their shit go "Okay, turn over all your cable networks to us. Now peer with us at the rate we determine to be fair. If you don't like it, we'll nationalize any part of your infrastructure we want, and no one you aren't paying will cry"
Now I get that this will never happen because the ISP lobby would buy out politicians before it ever got here, but could it theoritically be done? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dw8lm/eli5could_eminent_domain_be_used_to_seize/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjtouck",
"cjtp26d",
"cjtrk5g"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It could be done, but the protections for \"fair market value\" when it comes to physical infrastructure are actually pretty good (especially if you, like Comcast, have a fuckton of money to spend on lawyers.) They don't just build the stadium in the poor part of town because poor people don't have as much political power, they also do it because it's cheaper. \n\nALthough this may vary place by place, I will assume for now that the stuff that is \"affixed to the ground\" like cables, actually can be seized the same way that the state can seize the land under your house to build a road. Even if they can seize the cables (and pay for them), that doesn't mean they can seize the equipment needed to run them, or the stuff the cables connect to. And, once they've seized them, the state would basically need to build it's own ISP, which may well be more expensive and shittier than comcast. \n\nSo, it's possible, potentially, but almost certainly an expensive idea, and probably not one that will solve the underlying problem. ",
"Yes, in theory it is *possible* for a government to acquire the cable infrastructure by eminent domain. But it may not be practical to do so, and in any event this is a complex legal question and so non ELI5 answer is going to be perfect. \n\nBear in mind that the government would have to pay the cable companies for the full value of their infrastructure (i.e. the amount another cable company would pay to acquire them), and that could wind up being extremely expensive for taxpayers even if it did happen. \n\nAs well, an argument could be made that the federal government lacks the constitutional power to acquire and run cable lines for commercial purposes (the federal government has the power to regulate commerce but not necessarily to merely engage in commerce). So the acquisition and operation might have to be done by state governments; many state governments, in turn, have laws or state constitutions that happen to prohibit the use of eminent domain for this kind of thing. \n\nSo in practice, it may be difficult to the point of infeasibility. But it's theoretically possible.",
"It would certainly be contested in court and the government would almost certainly lose.\n\nOne of the better arguments is, if the government *really* wants a cable network, they can build their own -- utility poles have plenty of room for more than one set of cables. This is quite the opposite of land, of which there is a finite supply."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7e72v2 | what happens to a nerve in your finger when it is cut and medical treatment is not performed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7e72v2/eli5_what_happens_to_a_nerve_in_your_finger_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq2zs6w"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They grow back most of the time. Peripheral nerves can take a lot of damage and keep coming back. So long as some part of the axon or connective tissue remains, it'll grow back. If those things are destroyed though, it cannot grow back. \n\nThis is much different from the central nervous system, which has a lot of trouble regenerating."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
28sai9 | why are all drugs "bad"? why can't there be a drug that gives intense pleasure/euphoria (heroine, coke etc) but has 0 adverse effects? | Why can't there be a drug that is as harmless as drinking a glass of water but activates the pleasure sensory part of the brain? I've never understood why, regardless if its addicting or not, there always has to be a negative to the positive with any drug.
And please don't flood this thread with "WEED!". I said 0 adverse effects. Marijuana's great and all, but it's far from completely harmless.
I guess in other words, why hasn't the "perfect drug" been developed?
EDIT: I fixed the "irregardless". Jesus. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28sai9/eli5_why_are_all_drugs_bad_why_cant_there_be_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cidyijt",
"cidykzy",
"cidymtu",
"cidypjo",
"cidys3w",
"cidyui6",
"cidz0sw",
"cidz2gh",
"cidz6e1",
"cidz6mg",
"cidzj9p",
"cidzkd9",
"cidznhs",
"cidzo57",
"cidzp0n",
"cidzrud",
"cidzwt0",
"cidzwvh",
"cie001c",
"cie007n",
"cie00i2",
"cie014m",
"cie03f7",
"cie03kd",
"cie03vn",
"cie04wf",
"cie04zl",
"cie04zw",
"cie04zx",
"cie05eb",
"cie05zg",
"cie08cl",
"cie0dy5",
"cie0ewy",
"cie0gfx",
"cie0opc",
"cie0oze",
"cie0qgk",
"cie0twp",
"cie0v9y",
"cie10nt",
"cie11nz",
"cie11o1",
"cie12zo",
"cie13t2",
"cie172n",
"cie1b4d",
"cie1cdz",
"cie1dpq",
"cie1fpa",
"cie1ooq",
"cie1u1v",
"cie1vcn",
"cie1wdu",
"cie22sq",
"cie233c",
"cie25wj",
"cie268e",
"cie27z8",
"cie2ald",
"cie2db1",
"cie2fcp",
"cie2l66",
"cie2peb",
"cie2xy7",
"cie2yuq",
"cie30s0",
"cie31hh",
"cie31jg",
"cie32c4",
"cie333l",
"cie35os",
"cie3d0a",
"cie3i6m",
"cie3mny",
"cie3onw",
"cie3ovx",
"cie3s4i",
"cie3t4h",
"cie3xdo",
"cie40a2",
"cie40tn",
"cie43fd",
"cie475y",
"cie4937",
"cie4ifh",
"cie4lil",
"cie4ljp",
"cie54db",
"cie56mc",
"cie57c0",
"cie5cra",
"cie5fkt",
"cie5nx1",
"cie67ai",
"cie6kdh",
"cie6lo7",
"cie6nbv",
"cie6rm2",
"cie72kw",
"cie73vl",
"cie78bz",
"cie7d06",
"cie7e79",
"cie7gyr",
"cie7k0d",
"cie7kxr",
"cie7nsl",
"cie7nwq",
"cie7nyc",
"cie7oja",
"cie7q0i",
"cie7qk4",
"cie7rdl",
"cie7w5a",
"cie7yzm",
"cie80b7",
"cie82os",
"cie84to",
"cie87bx",
"cie8b91",
"cie8njn",
"cie8q8j",
"cie8rum",
"cie8vr5",
"cie8y76",
"cie933m",
"cie9aly",
"cie9mbl",
"cie9t46",
"cie9vi0",
"cieakqy",
"cieam1b",
"cieam6l",
"cieb6fd",
"ciebl0q",
"ciebl28",
"ciebptr",
"ciec13d",
"ciec50b",
"ciecfkl",
"ciecp6t",
"ciecyji",
"cieczsg",
"cied0l6",
"ciedjlm",
"ciedsi0",
"ciedsn6",
"ciedsxw",
"ciedtci",
"ciedva7",
"cieed6e",
"cieeffl",
"cieegmm",
"cieeqgt",
"cieetfb",
"cieetuw",
"ciegczh",
"cieggk2",
"ciehcc1",
"ciehfuc",
"ciehuc7",
"cieia0j",
"cieipfk",
"cieiqws",
"ciejc70",
"ciejh9b",
"ciejnzs",
"ciejqdx",
"ciek7nz",
"ciel2mv",
"ciel3ci",
"cielpqy",
"ciem3tn",
"ciem5t6",
"ciemiyu",
"ciendpo",
"ciep0ma",
"ciepg3h",
"cietshz",
"ciez0re",
"ciffkwb",
"cifwd6g",
"cmnjfee"
],
"score": [
6,
17,
886,
5,
59,
1146,
7,
3856,
14,
3,
94,
451,
2,
41,
3,
5,
239,
8,
23,
2,
2,
41,
2,
7,
3,
11,
2,
2,
3,
3,
17,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
19,
2,
2,
2,
518,
3,
2,
2,
10,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
50,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
26,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
157,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
4,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because of how your body processes the drugs. They don't go directly to your brain, they have to pass through whatever you're inserting the drug from. It creates a chemical imbalance that your body isn't used to.",
"You could try exercise. Dopamine is good, and produced for free by your own body!\n",
"You can't have a 'perfect drug'.\n\nYou put a rat in a box with a button. They push that button to get cocaine. The rat will push that button forever, ignoring food.\n\nPeople aren't *that* much different. If there was a drug that was completely safe, legal & cheap, some people would still throw away their lives just making themselves artificially happy rather than doing anything productive with their lives.\n\n",
"In Huxley's Brave New World there is drug exactly like that. Existence of it lead to end of healthy society. When people get rewards without work, they degenerate. \n\nI know, this doesn't answer your question. But it's still neat to know. ",
"It's because the nature of drugs. When something feels good and makes you happy, your brain suggests you to get more of it. People can get addicted to sports for that reason. \n\nIf we talk about drugs, I think MDMA is very unaddictive. It shows the phenomenon that when you take it too often and regulary that your body gives you signals to stop it. There's almost no withdrawal at this time. \n\nEdit: It seems like I misunderstood OP. MDMA shows indeed side effects the days after and isn't harmless at all, it can be lethal if overdosed. My point was only based on the addictiveness. Sorry",
"Pure LSD is completely metabolised by your body in 6-12 hours (no traces left stored in fat etc), it is not chemically addictive, is not known to cause brain damage, and has extremely low toxicity relative to dose.\n\nThe mental side effects are up to the brain of the user though... Although there are no documented cases of overdose or long lasting physiological effects on the brain or other parts of the body.\n\nThat's probably the best you'll get for a while.\n\n[EDIT] Ok, first (much gold, riches, many thanks, wow)\n\nAlso, there are a few people saying that they have experienced prolonged effects from LSD use.\nMy knowledge is purely academic, so until I return to my home country, I can't make it practical (Japan is a little strict on these things...).\n\nWhen I said 'there are no documented cases of prolonged effects...' what I mean is that it is not something that is apparent in mainstream medicine etc. I realise there is anecdotal evidence, and depending on the user, certain underlying traits or problems can be amplified or triggered (hence my statement about the mental side effects being up to the individual user).\n\nIf you are having any long term problems, I implore you to seek the relevant help, there is no shame in it (not at all, and doctor/patient confidentiality is a real thing too), and the more we know about this stuff, the better off everyone will be.\n\nOh, and use a test kit if you do decide to use anything! Make sure what you are putting into yourself is as pure and clean as possible. My comments are based on pure LSD, maybe there is a chance that some of the bad effects could have come about from LSD cut with something else. It is a possibility...",
"ELI5 is the perfect sub for this. there is lots of information about psychoactive substances and their effect on the body. Marijuana is close but due to combustion of plant matter the extracts, specifically the eatables, are pretty close!",
"Drugs create highs by manipulating chemicals our bodies produce normally. Frequent drug use can change the way our bodies produce and utilize these chemicals, causing our bodies to produce too much or too little. There is no perfect drug because any substance usage takes our bodies out of chemical equilibrium, causing adverse effects.\n\nEdit: Wow! This blew up. Thanks for all the compliments and insightful responses, I know this is an oversimplification and you guys really helped flesh out my answer. Thanks for the gold!",
"It's like mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Assuming we define a drug as something that makes you feel happy (endorphines), there is nothing that doesn't have a side-effect. Let's say, eating sugar - > obesity and diabetes if eaten too much. Exercise - > exhaustion and injuries if done too much. Alcohol - > Hangover and poisoning if taken too much. So, there are many ways to get your kick/pleasure/euphoria, but you can't do it excessively. I would suggest to make a sophisticated drug-rotation system and have lots and lots of self-control if you really want to achieve something like the perfect drug. ",
"TL:DR Dopamine / Adrenaline Cocktail from Running.\n\nI was a big drug user for most of my teens and twenties: weed, coke, acid, smoking horse, prescription stuff, booze, E etc... It was the 90's what can I say. When I got into my thirties and had a kid I put down childish things (as they say) and decided to get fit. I ran a few metres each night, then after a week discovered I could run a mile until eventually I just got into the habit of having a 40 minute run each night. Then one night I'm just getting back to the house and decide I should keep going, forcing myself not to stop. My legs were like jelly but I found the strength from somewhere to just keep grinding through. Eventually I reached home and guaged the distance I'd covered to be around 15 miles. I sprinted the final 500 metres so I could finish the thing in under 2 hours.\nI reached the door and collapsed and began to cry and shake and have never felt anything like that high before or since. Honestly the greatest drug hit I had ever had. Lasted about 5 minutes but it was like an intense emotional orgasm, palsied like Di Caprio in that Wolf of Wall Street Scene. ",
"Wait, has no one mentioned caffeine? you know, the drug that vast percentages of the populace consume on a daily basis and, if not horrifically overused, at worst makes you use the restroom more often?",
"The reality is, it's not the drug itself that's so bad. It's the addiction and habitual use that causes problems. \n\nHabitual anything causes weird effects in the body, and habitual use of something that messes with your brain chemistry will cause some weird shit to happen with your brain chemistry. \n\nThe reason no \"perfect drug\" has been developed is because you can't get around the fact that people would want to use it all the time, and then it would cause them problems. ",
"Your body is a system that needs to be in balance at all times. If a particular system not functioning properly then any other system that relies on that will suffer as well. Drugs may give a temporary boost but in the end all they do is throw your bodies harmony out of wack. ",
"There are dozens of natural drugs that you enjoy every day; dopamine, oxytocin, adrenaline, etc. These don't hurt you and they feel better than anything - in fact they are the very definition of a *good feeling*",
"Life must be lived in moderation! You can't have good without bad, or hot without cold, or high without low - you see where I'm going here. \n\nAnything that feels good is only temporary, which is why most people who win the lottery are only happy for one year tops. Even look at someone who spent their entire life saving up for a house - they buy the house, and one year later all they can think of is a bigger house. \n\nFor this reason, anything which can make you truly euphoric will only be effective for a short period of time, and it will inevitably make the rest of your regular life feel like shit. ",
"it's called meditation",
"Nothing is with 0 adverse effects. You can even die from drinking [too much water](_URL_0_). It's all about the dose. People tend to consume unhealthy amounts of drugs because they get pleasure from them. If drinking water gave people the same pleasure, some people would most likely drink too much water and get side effects.",
"What goes up, must come down",
"Drugs are not bad, abusing them is.",
" Donnie Azoff: How's being sober?\n\nJordan Belfort: It fuckin' sucks.\n\nDonnie Azoff: Boring, right?\n\nJordan Belfort: So boring. I'm gonna kill myself. \n\n-Wolf of Wallstreet",
"LSD has zero adverse effects if used properly and in the right setting with the supervision.\n\nSame with MDMA and Psilocybin really.\n\nYou're asking loaded question and coming at it from a point of view ignorant on these substances frankly.\n\n",
"LSD, marijuana and psilocybin have an impossibly high OD threshold",
"Who said \"all drugs are bad\"? Apart from Mr. Mackey...",
"There are plenty of perfect drugs, what you're asking is why can't we do anything as many times as we want forever. Proper dosage and pace makes your question irrelevant. So I'll give you this dumb answer: \n\nWhy can't you just play with yourself all day long? Even with lotion eventually you'll get blisters, it'll bleed, your hands and your junk will fall off. Why do you think it's any different with neurons and chemical receptors? They get used to stuff, build up calluses (or your body stops producing the natural variant and so you have to supply it and more of it because they adapted to having so much, much like a callus forms on your hand from wanking too much) and then some other toxicity either from other chemicals in the drug or how you ingest it starts screwing with parts of your body that aren't your brain, like your liver, etc.\n\nBut most drugs are fine in proper dosage, properly paced ingestion, etc. Otherwise they wouldn't be called drugs. They'd be called poison. But people are idiots and one of the side effects of drugs is that they can make you do stupid things like take too many drugs too often.\n\nSo go have a smoke (nicotine), a toke (marijuana), a sip (caffeine). a snort (alcohol) and a bite (sugar, yes it's a drug) and have a great day.\n \n",
"I did peyote a few times. I had a great time and never experienced any bad side effects.",
"Marijuana only has adverse effects if you smoke it. Eating it eliminates any such problems. Nothing's *perfect* though. You could probably eat enough pot to make yourself really wish you hadn't, even if it didn't have a serious impact on your physical health. That's no different from anything else, though. If you drink too much water at once you'll make yourself sick, if you eat too much at once you'll make yourself sick. If you eat too much of the wrong things you'll do other nasty things to your body like make yourself fat or possibly even diabetic. \n \nDrugs, like everything else, are harmful when *abused*. You can drink in moderation and be fine, you can even snort coke or drop acid occasionally and turn out perfectly healthy. Sure, you can also snort coke once and have a heart attack, but that's rarely the case. \n \nEdible pot aside, drugs are not exactly what I'd call \"safe\". Even something with no negative physical side effects, like LSD, can have a psychological impact. That doesn't mean you can't do them *safely*. Moderation is the key. ",
"Some drugs are very \"bad\", others are not (very bad). EVERYTHING is bad on some level; alcohol, caffeine, ecstasy, sugar, chocolate, weed, legal highs, fatty foods, whatever. ",
"The affects of psychedelic mushrooms van be easily stopped at any point within a matter of minutes if you consume something sugary, or u know, sugar. No side affects as far as I know. ",
"*regardless \n\nAnything in excess of moderation is bad for you. Just as others have said water is only good to a limit before side effects kick in.",
"A drug created from a perfect balance of mountain dew and doritos cool ranch will provide everlasting euphoria.",
"I had written up a long response that revolved around your use of the word \"drug\" and how almost by definition the question was unanswerable.\n\nAfter thinking about it more I realized this is just a terrible ELI5 question. \"Why hasn't the 'perfect drug' been developed?\"\n\nYou are not going to get good answers here. You need to take this to /r/askscience . The real answer to this is almost certainly highly technical despite the concept seeming familiar. ELI5 is going to give you a fuckton of analogies based on false assumptions.\n\nProve me wrong, denizens! Give the OP an ELI5 based on actual science.",
"If I'm right in thinking what you're asking, it seems like you want a drug that just makes people happy without anything physiologically \"bad\" happening. \"Happy pills.\" There are *recreational* drugs like LSD and DMT that have no real long-lasting true negatives, but they don't do *quite* what you want. \n\nYou want a universal antidepressant with no unpredictable or undesirable side effects. Basically, your brain is complicated. We know a lot of the chemicals in it and what they do, but depending on where in your brain they originate and end up, the effects differ. What might make the emotional part of your brain happy or angry might make the sensory part of your brain deaf or the part that makes your arms work go haywire. Naturally, and when it's working \"right\", the chemicals in your brain go where they should. You don't get oil in your coolant, to use a car analogy. Different fluids, different systems. But when you take a drug, it goes into your stomach and then into your blood. Or your lungs or your nose or your ass, but they all get to your brain by your *blood.* And the blood goes to the *whole* brain, so we really have no way of targeting those chemicals, and that's where your side effects come from. And, unfortunately, the chemicals that are the most effective at doing what we want them to do, when put in the \"wrong\" area, also tend to be really effective at doing shit we *don't* want them to do.",
"Simple answer: The body is too physiologically complex for any sort of \"one thing\" drug. You would need a cocktail of substances that were far more advanced than our current understanding of how the body works.",
"Drugs are bad m'kay",
"All right, so imagine a young boy who loves to ring doorbells. He will ring any doorbell he sees. Drugs are like young boys, and parts of your body are like doorbells. If the boy rings the \"hunger\" doorbell, you will be hungry; if he rings the \"sleep\" doorbell, you will feel sleepy, and so forth.\n\nNow, you can teach the boy to ring only, say, the \"pleasure\" doorbell (which will make him pretty popular among girls). How do you do it? You show him what it looks like and tell him to only ring that doorbell. The issue is: many doorbells are identical and our little boy can't tell them apart. When he rings the \"pleasure\" doorbell, you fell pleasure, which was intended. However, he will also ring the \"hunger\" doorbell and you will feel hungry, which is a side effect. Roughly, the smarter our boy is, the less side effects you will experience.\n\nThere are other ways that drugs can cause unwanted effects. For example, certain drugs will cause your body to get used to them. The consequence is that the drug quantity that you used to take will not be sufficient to cause its pleasant effects anymore. You will need to use ever increasing quantities to feel the same way, which is called drug tolerance. Once you stop using it, your body will claim for more (because it was used to having it), which we call drug abstinence.",
"lsd, shrooms and cannabis are not particularly bad. Much better for you than alcohol and nicotine",
"You're holding drugs to a higher standard than everything; try naming a food with \"zero adverse effects!!\".\n\nWeed, shrooms, and lsd are about as safe for adults as eating a candy bar, how much fucking safer do you need?",
"If you talk to most people on here, they will assure you that pot has zero ill effects.",
"I work in drug development and here's an ELI5 version of my perspective...\n\nSay we have identified the specific pleasure mechanism of action in the brain. We know what signals need to be lit up. We know what receptors needs to be triggered (think key in lock). This gets reproduced in the lab (called assays). Large institutions (academia, gov't) and corporations (pharma, food) own extensive compound libraries. They run those compounds past these assays and identify hits (called high through-put screening). These hits then become fine-tuned to maximize effect while minimizing toxicity. Ok, this drug is designed. Now let's put it in humans and see what happens. Yes, we managed to trigger the correct mechanism of action in the brain, but oops, we also triggered something in the kidney. When the drug enters the body, it can go anywhere. It may find a receptor on a cell that looks very similar to the target we were aiming for. If something bad happens in the unintentional target, it is called an off-target toxicity. \n\nBillions of $ are poured into this process of identifying hits (drug discovery), maximizing effect while minimizing toxicity (lead optimization), demonstrating a effective yet safe level in humans (clinical development), and at what dose/frequency (dose-optimization), since too much of anything is bad but some lower levels can be effective with minimal side effects. This process also takes 10-15 years. \n\nAny organization that has the capability of carrying through this process will not allocate it's resources to developing the perfect recreational drug when there are bigger fires to put out (cancer, Alzheimer's, etc., diseases that have no major \"cures\"), not to mention demand and profits. EDIT: Also, obviously regulatory agencies may not allow it anyway for reasons others have mentioned.\n\nInstead of scientifically developing the \"perfect (recreational) drug\", the ones currently available (I think) arose by trial and error, so there are more things that can go \"wrong\" with them because they are not as rigorously studied. ",
"I hate to use a cliché, but nothing is free; you mess with your brain chemistry and there will be consequences. In other words, there is no action without consequence. \n\nI feel like I sound like my dad. ",
"I'm surprised someone with a good knowledge of neurochemistry hasn't stepped in and properly explained this. I'm only halfway through a Psych degree so I'm hardly the best candidate, but I'll do my best.\n\nThere are three things I want to outline here: 1) Why it isn't possible to take any currently available drug long-term and have it remain effective, 2) Why future forms of neural stimulation that may be developed also won't initially be effective long-term (but may become so), and 3) what is the closest drug available to what you described.\n\n1. Basically, drugs cause the release of neurotransmitters (namely Dopamine and Serotonin) that make you feel good. As other comments have pointed out though, as your body adjusts to the drug you will need an increased dose to achieve the same high. This is known as 'habituation' in Psychology. So, in order to achieve the same effect you would need a drug that was completely non-toxic or else it would be dangerous to continuously increase the dosage. And with every substance there's a limit as to how much you can put in your body. Even water (it's difficult but possible to drown your own body) and air (oxygen toxicity can lead to death) have their limits. So for any substance that must be consumed, we're going to reach an upper limit. Although we don't have to reach that upper limit for a drug to remain effective, any toxic effects that a drug has are going to worsen as we increase our dosage. Most drugs are going to have those toxic effects (save a few, which I'll address in the third section).\n\n2. Even if we develop the technology to directly stimulate the brain and cause it to release large amounts of Dopamine and Serotonin (and therefore avoiding the issue of toxic side-effects), the effect of habituation will remain an issue. Remember, these and other neurotransmitters exist for a reason; they are there to condition our behaviour, to make us perform advantageous behaviours more, and disadvantageous ones less. Constantly flooding our brains with these neurotransmitters would mean totally messing with our brain chemistry. We would lose the motivation to perform many behaviours that are crucial for our well-being or survival. I'm not against taking drugs at all (I strongly believe in a policy of total legalisation), but I think it's important for anyone who uses them even infrequently to remember that they are changing the way your brain's reward functions work. Now, it may be one day that we can so directly influence brain chemistry that we can flood our brains with Dopamine or Serotonin, enjoy the high, and then revert our brains to their status pre-high. But that level of bioengineering will come sometime after we have the ability to crudely influence our brain chemistry as in the example I gave above.\n\n3. Finally, for the moment there are multiple drugs now that have little to no toxic effect on your body or mind in the short-term (NOT long-term though, but I'll come back to this). LSD is the most prominent one, and as TERRAOperative pointed out: \"Pure LSD is completely metabolised by your body in 6-12 hours (no traces left stored in fat etc), it is not chemically addictive, is not known to cause brain damage, and has extremely low toxicity relative to dose.\" \n\nThe only potential downsides in the short-term are the extremely terrifying and overwhelming experiences that are possible on LSD. These are unlikely to cause long-term negative effects beyond the trip, but they are hellish to go through, especially as the increased subjectivity of time can make seconds seem like minutes, minutes seem like hours, etc. If you have a positive set and setting, and do it with the right people, you're less likely to experience this, but there are no guarantees.\n\nThat is literally the worst case scenario though. In the past it was thought that LSD could cause the initial episode of psychosis in people who were susceptible to it, but this theory seems to have been disproven through repeated studies.\n\nFinally, as I mentioned in the second section, even a drug that has no toxic effects on your body will still have toxic effects on your mind over time. LSD, if taken frequently over an extended period (let's say a few years) will alter your brain chemistry significantly. Long-term LSD users can affect their spatial awareness, perception of time, ability to concentrate, and much more. Ever met a (sober) spaced-out hippy who you felt you could barely get through to? That's the effect of LSD long-term; it changes your version of reality drastically.\n\nAnd in the end, that's the reason why, until bioengineering makes massive advances, we won't be able to create a drug that performs the function you are asking for. Our brains are constantly changing and adapting, and although they have the ability to balance out the effects of most experiences we put them through, continuously hitting the 'pleasure button' in our brain is going to lead to alterations in its chemistry that will irreversibly change our perception of reality. Maybe it's a more enjoyable reality to live in, but most people, including myself, aren't going to take the risk to find out.",
"There are two things at play here.\n\nThe first being, the simple fact that a drug feels good is what creates the problem. Here's something that most people don't realize: the most dangerous drugs are often less toxic.\n\nGasoline, for example, is easy to get, gets people pretty intoxicated, and yet we don't have to regulate it (at least not the way we do cocaine). Why? Well, it's so damaging that you can't really start a gas huffing habit without immediately flushing your life down the toilet.\n\nHeroin, on the other hand, is surprisingly safe, despite the way it's portrayed... or, at least surprisingly safer than you'd believe. If you had well measured doses, overdose would be rare. It does not damage any organs, and if you're administering it safely, you can use it your entire life with virtually no health problems. It is, however, extremely addictive. So unless you're able to maintain a clean, stable supply without disrupting the rest of your life... you're going to run into serious problems.\n\nNow, even if heroin (and other opiates, which for all intents and purposes all basically act the same to varying degrees) didn't have the physical addiction properties, people would still be tempted to take it regularly due to the pleasure it causes, so psychological addiction would still be an issue. Basically, if it's pleasurable, then people are going to develop habits.\n\nThe other aspect of things, however, is that as a society, we have an ingrained belief that there is something \"immoral\" about being a drug user. You can see this in the (especially early) reaction to methadone programs, and even more prominently in the reaction to heroin maintenance programs... despite strong evidence that these programs are highly effective in reforming the lives of addicts, there's a strong outrage at the idea that we could continue to allow drug users to \"get high\", as though feeling the euphoria of drugs is itself a crime. As a society we have a tendency to decide that drugs are \"bad\" based on the fact they're a drug used recreationally, without any other criteria. There's a perception that this is, in itself, immoral.",
"Caffeine, hallowed be thy name. ",
"Has nobody made a SOMA Reference yet?",
"**Nobody got it right.**\n\nWell it is too late so not many are going to read this, but I fear nobody answered what you wanted. The right answer is that every single drug of those you mention work by binding some chemical substance to neuroreceptors, which is the same to say that it binds keys to some locks in your brain. The problem is that those keys are not the actual keys that open those locks naturally, they are a little different. And, as they are different, they end up scratching and damaging those locks, so to say. So, in the end, after a lot of use, you compromise the correct functioning of your brain because you literally damaged those locks.\n\nYes it is simple as that. Binding drugs to neuroreceptors will always have side effects. If we find other ways of creating drugs that cause pleasure, then we might find one with no adverse biological effects.",
"Different amounts of different drugs do different things to different people. There is n universal perfect drug. Some people smoke weed all day and make six figures and keep a well run family. Some freak the fuck out after two hits. We can engineer some substance to mitigate risks across the board, but everyone is different, so everyone will tolerate different substances differently. \n\nAs to the bloke who claims the existence of a perfect drug would turn humans into mindless unproductive zombies (after all, educated humans are \"not that different than rats\"), let's just say I think that is a theory more suited to reefer madness or brave new world-type scenarios: overly dramatic and not exactly based in reality, where there are plenty of people who know how to handle their buzz ALONG with the plethora of folks who cannot (due to genetic addiction or lack of drug education/safety). ",
"Here's why. Our brains are naturally driven to pursue pleasure. It is a mechanism that helped us survive this far. We take/eat/experience something good and plessurable and we are biologically driven to do it again. In an addiction our brains make this an all consuming goal. Our brains weren't meant to go there under normal conditions, to exprience something quite like the high of a drug, yet we can. As a result the addicted brain, operating in the ancient more animalistic part, demands more and gets its way as it has more say than the newer part of our brain which can reason. What was once something that would push us to eat in less than ideal conditions (say your starving and the only food is a dead and fly ridden carcass for example), now forces us to use in the same manner. It is not the drug but rather a glitch in ourselves that gets exploited when using. Something that is there to protect us has now backfired! There will never be a drug that can be used like that safely as there will always be some people whose brains will push them to abuse it. Some people have a tougher time than others becoming addicted but we are all very susceptible.\n\nSource: I'm a drug counselor. An LCPC and CADC.",
"did anyone mention the movie Limitless???\n",
"You have to realize that when a drug activates a pleasure sensor, the drug will wear off and thus a drop in the pleasure that it created. You can't sustain that pleasure without using the drug continuously, which ends up causing the body to recognize the \"high\" of the drug as normal. Therefore, you can no longer reach the pleasure that you had previously reached.\n\nThink about the poor. If you consistently gave them food and shelter, they would start to become accustomed to that as the norm, so going back to being poor would be similar to suffering withdrawal. On the other side, rich people are so accustomed to having whatever they want, that it is more difficult to find pleasure since they can easily experience pleasure whenever they want.\n\nI have no clue if any of this made sense..",
"There's no such thing as a perfect *anything* when it comes to interacting with the brain. The neural circuits in the brain are extremely complex, but one thing that is pretty much the same in every one is that when you stimulate a certain type of receptor enough times, it stops responding the same way. Drugs may interact with a number of different types of receptors, but in the end they are predictable chemical compounds that eventually your brain will get \"bored\" of.\n\nUnfortunately, it's not as simple as all that. Not only will your brain stop responding the same way to the drug (called exogenous, because your body doesn't make it), but it will stop producing the neurotransmitters that normally activate pleasure/reward centers (these are called endogenous, since your body does make them--normally). Essentially, your body becomes reliant on increasing amounts of the drug.\n\nAs other posters have said, most drugs that interact with the brain have to go through other places first; in fact, the only way to get drugs directly to the brain without having to go through your veins, stomach, etc first is to have essentially an epidural, a risky and infection-prone business that are done in controlled conditions where resuscitation equipment is available. Any drug that you ingest or inject will have a set of systems it will interact with first before it can even get to the brain (it crosses a network of membranes called the blood-brain barrier, if you're interested).\n\nBasically, it boils down to a problem of getting the drug to the brain and keeping the brain from developing a tolerance and eventually failing to produce endogenous chemicals.\n\nTL;DR drugs have to pass through other systems and your brain gets used to them after a while anyway",
"There is one drug that truly and harmlessly brings happiness and euphoria. That drug is putting on your authentic fedora, outsmarting some offensive fundy in public and receiving applause from the entire bus, coffee shop or classroom. All the upsides of a drug but the only side effect is making m'lady swoon. So euphoric. ",
"A lot of drugs that make you feel great, think cocaine or mdma, tend to use your bodies natural processes to achieve their goal. \n\nImagine that pleasure is water flowing from a 1 gallon jug. Your body pours water out of that jug in moderation. Doing so gives it ample time to refill the jug. Drugs, again like cocaine and mdma, just turn the jug upside down and pour as fast as they can. This feels really, really, good. The downside is that your body isn't capable of refilling the jug fast enough so that you can continue to pour joy into your body. This means there will be a comedown period where there isn't any water to pour(i.e. you will feel sad.) Pouring out the entire jug will start to change your body. It goes into a safe mode and tries to refill the jug as fast as it can, taking away from other things that need to be done. In general, there isn't a way to avoid this sort of thing. \n\nI hope that was eli5 enough while still covering the core of the question. ",
"Coffee is pretty dam near perfect drug",
"Orgasms are free and harmless. Good as it gets.",
"From what I understand, those drugs' effect is more or less to replace your hormonal system in providing pleasure hormones to your brain (dopamine, serotonine and such).\nBy using those drugs, you basically send a signal to your hormonal system : \"Hey, you know those substances you produces that make me happy ? I can get them myself ! You don't need to produce them anymore.\" So your body stops producing these pleasure hormones. The result is that every time the effect of the drug wears out, you end up feeling less happy than you would normally be !\n\nBut why can't you just take the drugs again when the effect wears out ? Mostly because they put you in a state that makes you unfit for important activities like work, sex, or sleep. All of which are crucial for your health (both physical and mental !). And also because money.\n",
"Everything in moderation, including moderation. Without sadness, there is no happiness. The human condition of modern survival with our overloaded work and personal lives, does require some escape mechanisms in order for us to escape the realities of the hectic world we live in.\n\nDrugs are the same, without the withdrawal, there can be no euphoria. I will always remember the first time I took MDMA, shrooms, acid, etc. Everytime after that seemed almost fleeting, like you were always trying to match that first time of excitement and new experiences. \n\nIts all about friends and those you are with when you choose to take them, the reasons, you want to, the mental state you and those around you are in, and the next day. Make sure you have a clear schedule. Nothing worse than doing a 3mile run at 6am still coming down from an acid trip. Only thing that kept me going was that the idiot who suggested we do it on a sunday afternoon was running it too. \n\nOnly drug I was remotely scared of was blow. Done plenty of it but always with friends, then picked it up once and did it by myself for a couple days. Felt terrible. \n\nMy only opinion is that when you start to do anything by yourself, even drinking too much, you are starting down a path towards destruction.",
"The perfect drug will still have you sitting around doing nothing while ignoring your responsibilities. And when you're doing that, your body and mind begin to atrophe.\n\nIf something can artificially give you a really good feeling, you had better believe that it will always have some addiction potential. That's just how the human mind works.",
"Because our internal reward system, that is being \"short circuited\" by durg use, exists in it's current form for a reason: to regulate our behaviour.\n\n\nAnd even without physical side effects drugs mess up that system\n\n\nA very extreme variant of this is rats wo push the \"pleasure\" button so much they forget to press the \"food\" button",
"What about DMT (Dimethyltryptamine)? I heard that is the only drug that doesn't have any negative effects on our bodies. Or am I misunderstanding something?",
"For those who are saying that weed does not have any negative side effects, weed can be very dangerous if you have any type of heart condition. Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.\nBecause of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking.",
"Edit: Thanks a ton to whoever gave me gold. Addiction is extremely hard to understand for people who have never experienced it, so I'm glad I helped at least a few people wrap their heads around it.\n\nI have some experience with addiction, and have been straight for a very long time now. I spent a long time thinking about this very topic, like many recovering addicts, trying to find some miraculous drug which could get you high and not have any consequences. After talking to many people who work in addiction management, people who work in rehab facilities, researchers, doctors, and addicts themselves, i eventually found what I believe is the answer to the question: \n\nThere isn't one. It simply is not possible because the fact that a drug gives you a high is the same thing which makes it a problem. Any drug that gives that high is going to be inherently addictive in a way completely separate from physical addiction, which is what most people associate with abuse but is not exactly the entire story. For instance, Crack cocaine has very few physically addictive qualities, if any-- you experience no withdrawal symptoms besides an intense desire to use. On paper, crack would damn near fulfill the requirements of a \"perfect drug\", since it has a huge high and does not keep you hooked via any physical mechanism of the drug itself. Yet in practice obviously that is not the case. Why is that?\n\nThe reason is a good high is literally *such a good feeling* that your brain literally prioritizes it before everything else. Normally when you do something rewarding, such as earning a paycheck for example, you get a slight rush of a cocktail of hormones. This is the basic function which drives us to do things, literally everything we do has something to do with this function (i think it's called the limbic system? i forget). What most drugs do however is artificially trigger that effect in a much more intense way than the brain would ever experience naturally. There's literally nothing like it, even the most intense orgasm pales in comparison, and the brain does not simply forget that. So, using creates an imbalance where the process of finding and using them becomes much more important than other chemically rewarding, but much more important, functions. Suddenly instead of food or sex being the most important human desire the brain has, it becomes heroin or crack or whatever drug the person chooses. Your brain literally decides that there is nothing better, nothing more important than using and finding that high. Instead of college, work, exercise, which can all be very rewarding, the drug takes priority and suddenly everything else becomes a chore. Everything else becomes a waste of time that could be \"better\" used doing that drug (in the addict's mind), even though everything rational says the contrary. Even when you quit using, the brain still continues to maintain that priority. Everything becomes incredibly unimportant to you while your brain is literally telling you, all the time, *you know what you really want, man.*.\n\nNot every drug is as bad as crack and many can be considered fairly safe, but the truth is that every drug with a worthwhile high will have some level of a similar addictive property. It's not simply a function of the drug itself which creates a junkie, rather the brain's reaction to the drug. This is the reason why many recovering addicts become addicted to drugs they never previously tried: they figure that as long as it's not their \"drug of choice\", it will not contribute to their problem. In reality, they are still satisfying that same insatiable desire for that incredibly intense dopamine rush that only drugs can offer. Again, that's not including physical addiction--intense withdrawals like with heroin or heavy alcohol abuse-- which would compound this effect and is why heroin is usually considered the most addictive drug there is. \n\nIt wouldn't be inaccurate to say that most drug addicts are addicted to the same thing which extreme risk-takers who do things such as BASE jumping or excessive gambling are. Those people tend to always be trying to up the ante (trying to find 'the perfect high'), the only difference is their method of obtaining that high. They have much more in common with drug addicts that most people expect. \n\nNow, the dopamine rush and its consequences is not inherently the thing which makes drugs bad. What turns it into a problem is when people take advantage of those addictive qualities-- dealers have addicts in the palm of their hands, and eventually those users will have to resort to things they normally would not do to get their fix: pawning everything they own, robbing people, and pretty much everything else you ever heard about drugs. All of that a direct result of that one little hormone cocktail released when using, which over time conditions the brain into believing that the drug they use is more valuable to you than it actually is. More valuable than friends, family, law, possessions, and anything else a civilized person strives for.\n\nAgain, not every drug has the same severity in this way, but all of them rely on that same function for their positive effects and popularity. There are people who will likely claim that they have no problem not making it an issue in their lives, that they can use coke on weekends and they never have problems. Maybe they can, or maybe they just don't realize the problems, but the fact is that *most people* are susceptible to becoming an addict, regardless of what drug they use. Using any drug, even pot in some cases, opens a door to a world which makes the chance of becoming that hardcore addict a whole lot easier. Even people who you'd never expect to use crack fall into this trap, where they believe that it's a big leap to jump from weed to crack. People don't make that jump directly: *every* crackhead on the planet started with weed. Then one day they tried acid or shrooms. Then they experimented with pills, opiates and amphetamines. Very subtly they begin to desire a 'perfect high', and hey a lot of people say coke is it. So fuck it, they try it and love it. They love it so much that they do it once a week. After awhile they start using it more and more, but don't get the same high anymore thanks to tolerance and need to buy a bit more than they can afford to get high. But hey, how lucky, the dealer has something else which is much cheaper and far more potent. Boom, you just tried crack. Every addict i've ever talked to has a similar story. \n\nAnother common trait among addicts is using getting high as a method of coping with issues. Experiencing an issue large enough that you can't deal with using your normal ways is all it takes to make the decision to try something harder which you normally would refuse. This is really personal, but when I was younger my father died, and the only way I knew how to cope was with drugs. Pot didn't help like it normally did so I turned to morphine, and that was the start of my addiction. All it takes is one particularly shitty day for your resolve to fall, one critical event which will spark that downward spiral. That is the argument I have against drugs and is one of the things that keeps me from using-- the only way to be sure that you will not end up a junkie is by not using in the first place. Drugs trick you into believing they are worth doing, in reality they offer nothing but a way to escape.\n\nEvery single drug out there shares a role in society's addiction problem, making them legal would result in an epidemic where people could very easily enter a world that ends in them willingly ruining their own lives, and corporations would be directly profiting from it, which I don't think I have to explain why that is a bad idea.\n\ntl;dr: all drugs have the same effect on the brain's reward system, abuse causes an imbalance which results in addiction and its stereotypical consequences\n\nedit: Here's a poem from Shel Silverstein which the OP reminded me of. I had this taped to my wall when I was in rehab years ago: [The Perfect High](_URL_0_)",
"There are multiple ways of feeling euphoric. Such as wearing a neat fedora. ",
"Your body produces dopamine and what not (not a scientist). Most of the world gets \"normal levels\" of dopamine. If we took a drug that increased it. over time we would have to keep increasing it. say 100mg of Vicodin. Take it for a week. Its a great week! The next week at 100mg. Its horrible. Your body feels worse. Take higher dose, Its a great week again! \n\nBasically our bodies supply the \"perfect\" amount of dopamine that can bring happiness and whatnot. Drugs increase that but you would need to keep taking more and more until you get into dangerous doses like 2000mg of Vicodin just to feel that false \"normal\". Then your heart stops.",
"Saying that all drugs are bad is kind of misleading. Everything is bad in one way or another. Everything you eat. The air you breath. Simply being alive. Daily life is going to have positive and negative trade offs.\n\nDrugs are going to have trade offs as well. The reason why drugs are often though of as bad is because they have a strong impact on our brains. This means there is a high risk of addiction or adverse effects. So, it's not necessarily the use of the drug that is bad in itself, but rather the potential damage it can do over time that leads to it being dangerous.\n\nTherefore, the idea of a perfect drug is basically a contradiction in itself. There will never be a perfect drug that has no adverse effects because the simple act of a chemical compound being classified as a drug means it has the potential to be addictive and cause problems over time. At the same time, this doesn't mean that all drugs are always bad, it just means being responsible, having self control, knowing your limits, and having a balanced life is going to help you avoid a lot of the adverse effects that any addictive or potentially harmful activity could have to your body or mind.\n",
"Flashback about three years ago:\n\n*time warp noises and shit* \n\nI'm renting a room with a buddy of mine on cape cod, doing the normal work thing. We decided he's going to go on vacation to Nantucket and unmistakable around the house and make sure everything is good to go. Wiloma hold I decide that it's a great idea to actually throw a party. So I going to the bar probably around 10 11 o'clock at night to one of the local drink areas were a lot of people my age go. I was absolutely fucking hammered when I ended up there and decided to keep drinking more shots of something called Apple pie it's like Everclear and some other shit and it's really legal ever we come from but it was there so whatever.. I decided to good idea to tell everyone that the whole entire bar and have a party at my house when I'm actually supposed be pretty much taken care of the house that we were renting. I managed to invite someone who would change the course of my life forever.\n\nAbout 2 hours later probably 80 people show up at my house all with beer and shit and a bunch of drugs.\n\nWay too many drugs.\n\nI think maybe 10 people where not hippie flipping that night.\n\nThere's about twenty people in my room smoking cigarettes in it and three type writers my buddy \"garden\" brought and we are all incoherently typing manifestos on whatever are fucked up selves thought of. Whether it was lord of the rings characters or why the mustard on a mcdonalds hamburger is the only hamburger that usually comes with mustard.\n\nMusic is blasting, the whole nine yards, great fucking party I tell you I was having a blast. (5hits, .75 of Molly) you don't have a fucking choice but to be ecstatically happy. Pun intended.\n\nThis house was prepared, I duct taped mattresses against the windows, his all the expensive shit and locked everyone's doors, it was totally fool proof.\n\nIt's around 4 am and I'm kicking people out because I thought I was gunna fuck my gf at the time upstairs, penis wasn't having it because of the MDMA. So we laid down and talked about music, what we wanna do with our lives and how we could be better people in the world and I broke up with her the next day because I didn't want a perso. Like her hanging out with a guy like me.\n\nI play guitar, enjoy drugs, and party.\nYes I'm that guy.\n\nAnyways \nIt's about 7 am and there are these guys who where brushing their teeth with the Molly that was around.\n\nYes with my fucking toothbrush.\n\nAnd they where just sitting there laughing histerically and I asked them if they lived anywhere else and that the party was over and that they needed to go because I was tired.\n\n*this fucking guy* \n\nGuy on the end of the couch who hasn't said a fucking thing all night or moved more than 4 feet looks at me, pulls a fucking cigarette out, lights it, looks at his buddies and starts bumping sandstorm on his piece of shit phone and exhales and says\n\n*it never stops* \n\nI couldn't help by laugh at them and went upstairs to start talking to my girl about how I can't stop laughing at that.\n\nAbout 4 hours later I decided to dose again and my friends came over, they found me covered in clothes and a hand built backpack made of a chair and tarp with all my belongings and a Optimus prime mask on and I told them I was taking a bus to boston then to NYC to go beat box through this mask and play guitar for a career move and left with my buddy.\n\nNever made it to the his station we show up to my old friend \"folds\" house.\nIt's ten am and he's black out from benzodiazepines and fucking Francis, this guy is 6 4 and had gastric bypass surgery and was a flaming closet gay. One of the most halarious fat and sassy people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. \n\nMe and my friend start really blasting off in his living room watching judge Mathis on upn. It was fucked, tv just sucks in general when your tripping unless it's regular show or adventure time.\n\nFolds is so goddamn fucked up he managed to piss himself all over his couch and was in movable, he's just too big and I'm not one for physical activity when on drugs. So we start eating his food, these delicious bagel chips. I felt like I was in heaven man. \n\nMe and my buddy leave there and head to his house (original house from first story, kids my best friend) we put on some binaural beats and watch dota videos and start talking about how rts games have become everything we wanted them to be since age of empires and how we'd just make custom games with hero characters and that we deserved recognition for our brilliant ideas.\n\nGood thing we didn't act on it then because I found the sanic picture. And my god was it funny.\n\nTLdr; MDMA, acid, broke up with gf, thought I was gunna travel across country beat boxing, solidified my hate for day time tv, sanic is halarious ",
"Dopamine = neurotransmitter that makes you feel *good*. When you use street drugs the amount of dopamine swirling around increases giving you that nice high. You'd think it would be great to have extra dopamine floating around right? Sadly - no.\n\nToo much dopamine = psychosis - paranoia, delusions, hallucinations. (This is why bath salts are SO bad because they make your brain pump out high levels of dopamine *and* essentially clog the vacuum that would suck it back up). \n\nToo little dopamine = basically Parkinson's (dopamine producing cells are dying off so you have less swirling around). Movement and coordination are effected. You'll see shuffling gait, tremor, rigidity, \"pill-rolling\" movement with hands. These symptoms of Parkinson's are often side effects of antipsychotics.\n\nAntipsychotics = decrease dopamine. Can lead to \"Parkinson's like\" symptoms and lack of emotion/pleasure. Sadly this is often the lesser of two evils - tho some drugs can help *a bit* with side effects. It SUCKS that antipsychotics have such awful and visible side effects - these people are already stigmatized enough. I hope this changes soon.\n\nParkinson's medications = (eg: sinemet) increase the amount of dopamine produced for motor functioning. I frequently see patients who have psychosis induced by their Parkinson's meds and needing a readjustment. \n\nTl;dr: Street drugs throw off a very fine balance of chemicals. street drugs increase dopamine. Too much dopamine causes psychosis. ",
"What you're asking for is already here given a small adjustment. The bar you set is too high even for Tylenol.\n\n [statistically insignificant] adverse effects [when chemically \n pure and administered at the correct dose on an occasional \n (and not habitual) basis]\n\nSome examples:\n\nMDMA is currently in phase 2 clinical trials for treating PTSD. They have found no negative health effects during the trails (contrary to what the DEA tells you)\n_URL_1_\n\nPsilocybin has also been shown to have many benefits negligible problems (when controlled for purity and dosage) _URL_0_\n\nNot all drugs are \"bad\". If alcohol were discovered today (instead of 10,000 years ago) it would hit Schedule 1 overnight and the news would say \"like Heroin but worse!\".",
"Some drugs have no side effects. The problem is that when you expose your brain with a quick and effortless way to feel pleasure, you are giving it an incentive to take shortcuts and pospone whatever activities you naturally need to feel well.\n\nThe natural cycle lets you take pleasure in eating a healthy diet, doing exercize, helping other people, making friends, petting a dog, making love, reading a book, falling in love, kissing, listening to music, watching a sunset, smelling the earth after the rain.\n\nAll of that can be replaced with a pill, but the brain starts to build tolerance and you start to need more and more of that substance to attain the same sensation of well being you had at the beggining. Now, with harmful drugs the effect is evident and the growing dosage causes damage on the liver, kidneys, brain, lungs, teeth, etc, depending on the substance.\n\nWith harmless drugs there is little or no effect to the body, but your mind grows conditioned to take this shortcut you taught it instead of embracing the old stimuli - reward cycle. This artificial way is more intense, more inmediate, effortless, etc. So your brain craves for more and at the same time you might disregard whatever other activity you used to feel good. In the long term, even if this harmless drug built no physical addiction and no side effects on you, you'll have little or no desire of living a regular life. You'd replace it all with this pleasure trigger you have at hand.",
"\"most\" drugs, note, not all, but most replace the endorphin production in the brain...which is why people take these drugs because of the intense \"satisfaction\" they get from it. \n\nHowever, as the body regulates itself, it also will, based on frequency of usage of particular, or cocktail of drugs, reduce endorphin production. Over time, because the drug has replaced endorphin production the person must take the drug in order to maintain that level of satisfaction or...suffer intense fear/psychosis/anxiety/depression/anger/rage etc; And it is possible for a person to absolutely destroy their dopamine production to the point where they are absolutely and truly screwed beyond measure.\n\nPatients who are in this state are in a constant state of fear, and there is no way for them to be \"normal.\"\n\nAs for the perfect drug, see above...any drug, not matter how cleanly made, or perfect in it's clearance from the body, will replace the endorphin production line.\n\nedited: changed supplant to replace, and terror with fear, fucked to screwed.",
"Because the chemistry of the human body is complex, and 0 is an absolute. If you want *near* 0, then there are already many drugs that, when used appropriately, have very limited side effects. There are few recreational drugs because it hasn't been a focus of serious research the way that heart disease has, for example.",
"If there was an euphoric drug without side effects, no one would go to work.",
"FYI, just created an account to answer this question.\n\nI am a pharmacist, and my previous research and extracurriculars focused on neuropharmacology. In the simplest terms (which have been stated earlier, albeit more technically), ANY drug will have side effects, as drugs mimic chemicals which naturally occur in our bodies. These chemicals usually have more than one target or receptor (tissue upon which it acts). When you introduce a chemical, either natural or synthetic, you are adding something to a system, and there will be consequences, both positive and negative. \n\nMany drugs are what people in the know call \"dirty drugs\". This doesn't mean bad drugs, but drugs which hit several different receptors. Benadryl is a great example. In addition to blocking histamine receptors (its intended effect), it hits cholinergic receptors, which affect the bladder, secretory function, and sleep to name a few. Later antihistamines were developed to be more specific to histamine receptors, but other unintended targets are still likely to be hit.\n\nIn regards to matters of the brain, this becomes even easier to answer. I had an old neighbor in social work who asked why we haven't developed an antipsychotic with no side effects. If you think about the TRILLIONS of connections in the brain, it is obvious that there is no such thing as a \"turn off crazy\" switch, and that ANY drug meant to affect the brain is like hitting a finishing nail with a jackhammer. \n\nNow in regards to recreational drugs, you might be surprised to hear that I agree with many here suggesting marijuana and psychedelics as harmless, at least relatively speaking. Marijuana, LSD, and psilocybe mushrooms are safer than 99% of the drugs I have behind my counter, but there are still ways to abuse these drugs and mess yourself up good. Be safe, and research any drug before partaking.",
"Saffron in high doses has the same effect as anti-depressants, with zero side effects. Well, you might get bored of the taste since you need to eat about 45€ worth every day. And I'm not sure if it qualifies as a \"drug\". \n\nPsilocybin mushrooms have the same effects as LSD, with only side effect that you puke about 30 minutes after eating them. Even though the effect is similar to LSD, it doesn't have the same \"edge\", so you are less likely to jump out a window by mistake (thinking you can probably fly) etc.\n\nSmoking marijuana causes lung cancer, but eating it is perfectly safe. It's just that it takes 30+ minutes for the effect to kick in, instead of getting it immediately as with smoking.\n\nWell, this will get completely buried. But there are certainly risk free drugs. And, perhaps not coincidentally, all examples I can think of are 100 % organic and natural.",
"You might as well ask why hasn't the perfect food been developed; or the perfect car, for that matter. \n\nDrugs can be harmless if used in a certain way, in a certain context. They can help you to improve your self, they can make you more productive, they can make you achieve productive goals.\n\nAlso, framing such kind of debates in a \"elif5\" is part of the problem. You can't address the specificity of the use of certain substances if you're going to use such a generic term like \"drugs\". ",
"What about LSD? It has a lower toxicity rating the both nicotine and alcohol (if you want to OD, you're going to need a LOT) and there have been very few reported deaths associated with it's misuse (typically these are where people have had a bad 'trip' and have underestimated the reality of the situation). It isn't addictive, and has minimal side effects.",
" > irregardless\n\nO_O",
"There is. LSD",
"If you want a perfect drug... the closest you can get is L-theanine/caffeine combination. Most bad effects of caffeine get cancelled out by L-theanine (L-theanine calms you down, as opposed to the stimulant properties of caffeine) while both improve cognition, awareness and physical performance.\n\nOh, and the combination is already present naturally in green tea. That's how I get my daily fix, and what the Chinese have been doing for the last 4000 years.",
"I looked and was waiting to see caffeine. As it occurs naturally, the dosage from coffee and tea have very few side effects. Granted, not the best \"high\", but I like the stuff, the little kick or buzz - plus I like the delivery systems. Mmmmmm\nCaffeine is the perfect drug - subtle but providing just the right augmentation.",
"Huey Lewis and the News are working on it. ",
"I'll try to answer this the best I can, I hope this doesn't get buried:\n\nThe brain is a constant feedback look of chemicals being created, broken down and re-used. It is extremely chaotic, but there is a sort of cyclical order behind it. When you do a 'drug' which alters your consciousness you are changing the pattern in which these neurochemicals are either: 1) created, 2) absorbed or 3) recycled. \n\nWhen the drug you took wears off, the brain attempts to return to a state of 'normal functioning'. This transition because being high and being sober is usually an unpleasant experience because, in the case of heroin or Ecstasy, the brain has either depleted its supply of 'feel-good chemicals' or the parts of the brain that used those feel-good chemicals are a little worn out and need time to regenerate. \n\nThe reason why certain drugs can be so harmful is that sustained used creates a NEW state of neuro-chemical normality and REQUIRES continued dosage. \n\nTL:DR The brain is a neuro-chemical see-saw. If you bring one side up the other side is going to go down.",
"I'm surprised the grammar Nazis didn't jump all over \"irregardless\". Anywho, I think the most perfect drug, as is stated below, is already made by our body. Adrenaline, oxytocin, etc.\n\n",
"Because we were meant to suffer.",
"there is this drug, its the chemical that makes you feel in love in choclate. Thats a pretty awesume drug if you take to much you feel in love if you take to little you can concentrate really good. I took 2.5g (i am 90kg) and i could watch tv read something and listen to a conversation. And i think this stuff is legal in America. ",
"Pharmacist here. I've worked in addiction treatment for a while, and have concluded that there are no \"good\" or \"bad\" drugs really; it's how they are used that makes them good or bad. Heroin provides solace to people who are dying in intractable pain, and cocaine is a kick-ass local anaesthetic.\n\nRecently I've been reading up on the neurophysiology of addiction. Psychoactive drugs that can elicit a euphoric effect will increase the amount of dopamine in parts of the brain that mediate pleasure. But since we are all basically chimpanzees, albeit with over-developed prefrontal cortices, the reinforcing effects of drugs that cause pleasure will encourage us to use more of them. \n\nOur physiology is rooted in what we need to survive. Pain is the stick - it encourages us to avoid harmful things. Pleasure is the carrot - it encourages us to seek those things that help us survive, like tasty foods, and sex. If we take drugs, we are gaming our system to feel pleasure in the absence of a pleasurable stimulus. And our physiology seeks homeostasis, or an even keel. So if we do too much of something, our bodies will try and reduce its effects or adapt to its presence. \n\nTl;dr: the perfect drug is impossible because of the same physiological mechanisms that we evolved to survive as a species.",
"LSD and psilocybin have virtually no negative effects, contrary to what we've been told.",
"opponent process theory",
"Irregardless - ugh\n\nAnyway the body has it's own way of determining how intense and how frequently the pleasure center of the brain is activated without external stimulus like drugs. Once you take something that activates it, your body tries to balance itself out- giving you the negative side effects. ",
"They aren't all bad, they all have potential dangers.\n\nSimply put: I've tried most drugs out there. Some with better moderation than others, but all with fair moderation. No addictions, no substantial problems. Aside from mortality, physical damage, and legal dangers, the broader danger of drugs is that they simulate rewards without requiring achievement. That is, by throwing ten dollars at your brain, you can reward it in ways that make actual achievement of real goals pale by comparison.\n\nThis doesn't always happen, but it's the big danger. It can motivate people to focus on chemical rewards rather than actual achievement of tangibly real things.",
"Just curious OP, in your opinion what is dangerous about cannabis? It is used in non-intoxicant forms as a type of seizure medication for children and has been shown to have various other important medical benefits (mostly for those in pain or terminally ill). It is not without some side-effects but it seems fairly clear that it is not on par with other drugs you have mentioned. ",
"Drugs are bad, mm'kay?",
"In addition to chemical imbalances resulting in depression, etc., the adverse affects of hard drugs are not just physiological. People get addicted, then do crazy shit to get the drugs, like stealing. That puts other people in harm's way. After all, the purpose of laws are to protect people from one another. That is the real adverse affect of drugs. Who cares if Joe Blow does an 8-ball a day in the privacy of his own home? Nobody - until Joe Blow tries to rob you because he lost his job and can no longer support his drug habit. THAT is why drugs are bad, mmmkay?",
"Yes, there is, and its called marijuana. Which is why we want to legalize it. (Yes there is harm, but much less than that of caffeine, and nicotine, to say nothing of hard drugs)",
"Soma - Brave New World\n\nAll I can think....",
"I have no comment except that \"irregardless\" is not a word",
"Drugs which are positive and have almost no negative effects become ubiquitous and we forget that they are even drugs. IE coffee",
"I'd like to point out also that drugs are an artificial way to feel accomplished and happy, when those feelings are supposed to reward you when you did something right. If you can take a drug to feel that way, you might not do things that would naturally make you feel good, like keep clean or go to work or write a novel.",
"Drugs are \"bad\", mmkay?",
"The Law of Equivalent Exchange.",
"OP: **Cannabis does have zero adverse effects** especially when consumed orally or through vaporization. In fact, rather than having any harmful effects **cannabis is a life saving medicine and 30 years worth of research indicates that cannabinoids could be the cure for cancer.** In fact, cannabidiol (aka CBD), the most thoroughly studied cannabinoid, is better than any chemical known to man at killing cancer cells and *only* cancer cells. \n\nFurthermore, psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin are also harmless provided you use them *responsibly* and *never, ever, ever* consume high doses recreationally. They cause absolutely zero harm to the human body, brain or psyche when consumed *responsibly*. ",
"Because intensity has its cost. ",
"There is a drug that creates euphoria, its street name is \"Mountain Dew\" often coupled with the food \"Doritos\"",
"The real problem is not the drugs themselves but the fact that there is an intolerance to being toxicated. The only reason that alcohol is allowed is it is generally accepted that if you only take one or two drinks you will not become intoxicated. When you drink more and become intoxicated then they take you to jail. Drugs like caffeine tobacco or even sugar are okay because while they do impact you they don't actually alter your consciousness. While there are certainly problems with most drugs, all of this talk about drug dangers is really just a side show to the fact that people can't be allowed to be intoxicated. Think of it this way, there are a lot of very dangerous and harmful chemicals that you can buy off the shelf even as a minor with no problem. It's only when any kind of mental impact incurs that it becomes a legal problem. ",
"the drug giveth and the drug taketh away",
"Its called lsd. Trip away my friend. Also weed is as harmless as enjoying a campfire.\n\nThe eeal issue is if the drug is not addictive and cheap to make then its not worth to traffic in it. You make your own weed or lsd if you need too. Not cocain or h though. \n\nI would venture to guess there are hundreds of perfect drugs with no one seeing a good reason to tell us about it. Government and traffikrrs alike.",
"\"Why can't there be a drug that is as harmless as drinking a glass of water but activates the pleasure sensory part of the brain?\"\n\nWait till you are really thirsty. \n\nThen drink a glass of water. ",
"The main issue is that our understanding of neurology and neurochemistry is still in it's infancy. \n\n\nFor example, despite people using cannabis for literally thousands of years, the brain's chemical receptors for [anandamide](_URL_0_) have only been known about (i.e. they definitively do exist...not that they are well-understood) since 1992. 1992! (And while that is 4 5-year-old lifetimes ago, in terms of scientific understanding, it's still quite young).\n\n\nThe effects of existing drugs have been determined more by trial and error, than by deliberate design. That is, discovery via (careful) observation, not invention via planning.\n\n\nAnd though we are becoming much better at making drugs \"to order\", we don't really know what to order. The problem isn't making the molecules, the problem is knowing their exact workings and effects.\n\n\nThat is, while our knowledge of chemistry is up to the task of making better drugs, our knowledge of biology isn't. Our neurochemical knowledge is constantly improving with research, but we're still a long way from even partial (let alone complete) understanding of brain neurochemistry.\n\n\nAnd that's the current fundamental bottleneck in the design of better drugs. We don't know enough about how the brain works (chemically) to make precise adjustments. \n\n\nCurrent drugs work by making gross adjustments (often with many side effects)...and they're not fully understood, either! We just know that at certain dosages, we can expect certain outcomes. But we don't know *precisely* how those outcomes result.\n\n\nAnd without that knowledge, we can't design better alternatives.\n\n\n**tl;dr** We know how to make chemicals...but we don't know how brains work.",
"Everything we put in our bodies has an effect on the longterm health and metabolism of of our body. Diet as a child can have heavy impacts on your metabolism when you're older. What one needs to be mindful of is how it impacts your health longterm.\n\nWeed is relatively harmless, however it can begin to hardwire negative behaviors and thought patterns in people who don't have their shit together, that is people who don't have a grip on their mind and behavior. Heavy cannabis use has been shown to correlate with a region of the brain being smaller that deals with emotion regulation and motivation, but it is unknown whether it caused it to shrink, or that people who have a smaller, less developed form of this region are more likely to be impulsive and abuse drugs.\n\nPsychedelics are almost completely harmless, the only long-term effect being HPPD, which causes very mild visuals that are hardly noticeable, which has not been shown to have any negative consequences. LSD and mushrooms(the active chemical in mushrooms being 4-HO-DMT, or psilocin) have been shown to greatly reduce the chances of cluster headaches, a pain that is described as worse than childbirth without an anesthetic. They can also be therapeutic, especially in a therapeutic setting with a psychologist to help introspect one's behavior and emotions and be able to integrate changes into their day-to-day life.\n\nOn another note, MDMA and MDA can cause terrible neurological damage if abused frequently, especially in large doses and binging. It can cause serotonin syndrome which severely wrecks one's mind and emotions for a very long time(months) or even irreparably. However, in a therapeutic setting it has been shown to work marvelously to work out anxiety caused by PTSD, as well as work out irrational fears and inhibitions, in doses and with a regularity that does not cause such awful effects.\n\nNMDA antagonists like ketamine are shown to wondrously cure depression, and rebuild neurons damaged by anxiety, depression, and stress, in low doses. Long term abuse of ketamine has been shown to cause people to develop delirious ideas, especially ones causing narcissistic behavior. As well, prolonged exposure can cause problems with your kidneys.\n\nTo rephrase your question, I would ask why can't there be a chemical that doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the body and mind of someone who ingests it. The answer would be because the body and brain are incredibly complex systems of interrelation, and changing any part of it will clearly have some sort of impact, positive or negative. There is no \"perfect\" chemical, because each chemical has an impact. Eating too many simple carbs can lead to type 2 diabetes, and eating too many trans and saturated fats can cause heart disease. Complex proteins found in meat evidence of significantly changing gene expression, leading to much higher chances of cancer. Likewise, simple proteins found in plants don't lead to this, but a vegetarian not mindful of what they eat can end up deficient in crucial nutrients, this certainly is not saying a healthy vegetarian diet is not possible. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats in the right amounts don't cause heart disease, and the degradation of epithelial tissue that causes it. Getting most of your carbs from complex carbs is much healthier and prevents type 2 diabetes. There are no good chemicals, and there are no bad chemicals, there are bad behaviors caused by the lack of attention and ignorance of the materials one intakes, and there are good behaviors from knowledge and proper care of one's body and that which one puts in it that fosters a much healthier mind and body.\n\nSincerely, a responsible, intuitive eater and drug user.",
"Having too much of a good thing isn't good--as the saying goes. \nSo when you take a drug that gives pleasure and euphoria, even without adverse effects, there still are. \nDopamines/Endorphines, those are what give you that high feeling. \nIf you habitually use a drug, regardless of wether or not there are adverse effects, there will be effects. Simply because you are overstimulating those endo/dopamine receptors. In doing so, you cause yourself to chase that high feeling ever more, and if you where taking --for this example, we'll use weed-- if you where smoking a blunt a day, then a week later, you'll be smoking 2-4 blunts a day, in order to chase that first high you got. \nSo, essentially you feel that you need more of a drug in order to catch that initial high. \nI don't know the absolute biological specifics, but if i remember correctly, your overstimulating your endo/dopamine receptors, which cause them to become less \"Sensitive\" --I use the term loosely-- and this causes you to CHASE that initial high. \n\n\nTL;DR...The more you take drugs that give you intense pleasure, the less sensitive your receptors are, which then cause you to chase that initial high, a high you will never reach again, due to over use of your endorphins/dopamine receptors. \n\n",
"All drugs are not bad. That is a lie.",
"Because what goes up, must come down. ",
"You should listen to this episode of the Joe Rogan experience with Dr Carl Hart. _URL_0_\nIf you would like to actually learn about drugs, instead of listening to retarded propaganda and fear mongering.\n",
"In high school you'll hopefully read a book called Brave New World that will help explain",
"There are no free lunches in nature",
"The law of diminishing returns is hard wired into the universe.",
"I really hate when people confuse female heroes with opiates.",
"I think vaporizing weed would eliminate the physical harm of smoking. But, obviously, if you smoke way more than you need to get high, then other physical problems can occur. \n\n\nIf you're smart about it, and you stop when you're good, then you'll be able to vape and then complete whatever else needs done. I myself have been smoking for years and I haven't developed a crazy tolerance, because I only take one or two hits at a time. I keep my usage low, which keeps my tolerance low, which saves me money/keeps me from getting too high to where I don't want to get off the couch. \n\n\nIt's all about self control. ",
"While I am completely unqualified to answer this question, and if we exclude some of the harder drugs (Coke, Meth, Heroin ect.) we find that not all drugs from say a single use actually harms you, pretty much at all.\n\n > Why can't there be a drug that is as harmless as drinking a glass of water\n\nEffectively you are answering your own question in a way, as you can drink enough water for it to kill you, and have horrible side effects, if it doesn't. By taking drugs a lot, this is doing the same thing as over drinking water.\n\nIf we look exclusively at hallucinogens, we find that in reality a single use doesn't do to much after the effects wear off, and while it is true some people hurt themselves on hallucinogens (Such as Acid) it is advise-able to have someone baby sit you.",
"There are a lot of drugs that do what you want, the problem is over use. At least that what the they keep telling me.",
"Everything you ingest has adverse effects. It's just a matter of scale and intensity. I'm a coffee junkie but I'm aware that caffeine is also bad for me. In a sense, *everything* is both good for you and bad for you, including drinking water, which can potentially be far from harmless.\n\nIt's just that the known bad effects of heroin and similar \"hard\" drugs are extreme, and whatever good effects there may be are very small. Morphine, for instance, is a marvelous substance for those in intense pain, but its psychological effects are such that it's easy to lose control of it you self-administer it.\n\nAll of life is a balancing act.\n\nEDIT: words",
"If you consume in moderation you can eliminate most of the side effects of all drugs. ",
"Just FYI because I wish someone had told me years ago... It's \"Regardless\", irregardless\" is a bastardization of the word.",
"What could be addictive or habit forming about something that makes you feel good ALL the time?!\n",
"Every drug has adverse effects, and some of these adverse effects can vary from person to person. Personally, marijuana works best for me, with pretty much no adverse effects I can feel (small edibles). For you, it may be something else. Experiment.",
"Irregardless is not a word.",
"Seems like you already have a good ELI5 for your answer, but what about being in love? Or adrenaline highs? I was thinking about what you thought was harmful about weed, since vaporizers exist now. But even being in love would probably have the same \"equivalent lows\" when you break up, and I was wondering if you'd consider this an adverse effect. It's like the deeper the love the deeper the heartbreak, and this might be for similar chemical reasons as traditional drugs.\n\n",
"If it existed, you'd destroy yourself chasing as much of it as you can. \nWhy would you pursue other, more difficult routes to happiness?",
"Because if you don't get physically addicted, you get psychically addicted.",
"Not that its really considered a \"recreational\" drug, but it's still considered a drug here and is illegal in the U.S. Ibogaine is a really strong psychedelic that comes from the Iboga root in Africa, it is being used in Canada/South America to treat opiate addictions because of the way it resets the brains opiate receptors and alleviates withdrawal symptoms, also has a kick of anti-depressant qualities after use. A good friend of mine that had been battling heroin/methadone addiction came back from Ibogaine healing in mexico a few of weeks ago, is finally clean after so many years. I would consider this an incredibly beneficial \"drug\" although what my friend described of the trip is less \"haha I'm having fun\" but more of a deep self discovery/recovery. \n_URL_0_",
"The perfect drug is not the right question to ask. As all stimuli affect your neurotransmitters and can be considered to have drug like effects. Such as sex. Or eating. So the perfect drug would actually not be a drug per se but actually a mindset. A right configuration of your neurotransmitter for the most potential happiness. Have you ever met a person who so happy with life, so content, with no worries. That mindset is the perfect drug. People take drugs often hallucinogens because they seem to reach \"mystical states\" often eastern-esque. Really taking drugs is about being perfectly content and happy in the moment. This is also what Zen Buddhists Monks train to do without drugs. This is what Christians call filling yourself with holy spirit according to Eckhart in the least. I have eaten food in the moment that gave me intense pleasure without almost any adverse effects except for the cost perhaps. Or seeing a friend I haven't seen in a long time. The fact is without negative aspects there cannot be positive aspects of anything. You cannot have love without hate. Or cold without hot. Pleasure doesn't exist without the lack of or the want of pleasure. Sorry for the ELI intro to philosophy ",
"I was addicted to a legal drug combination so potent it overrode a severe painkiller addiction, as well this combination had no tolerance whatsoever. I was on it for 6 years of my adult life (24-30). I have since kicked that addiction. Here's a non-university-educated opinion (My drug knowledge is all self-learned; I'd assume most is heh):\n\nThis combo I was on (which I will not mention due to its EXTREME addictiveness and it's current ease of access), was so extreme, that it took over my life within a 6 month span. And the addiction was costing me 60 every 2 weeks. Yes, cheap as hell. \n\nI was living at home in a religious environment where everyone I interacted with was oblivious to drug addiction LET ALONE severe drug addiction. Plus I had access to a steady stream of money to purchase the drug and I was not working.\n\nTo keep this brief for now, I'll say this:\n\nThis combo has no tolerance. It hits like a ton of bricks and lasts for 15-30 mins with the residual seemingly unwanted effects lasting for 7 hours. \n\nI would stay up for DAYS on end. Very similar to meth. But the effects were so euphoric that it was chasing the dragon every 30 mins. The one benefit of not dosing but letting the residual effects reside was a borderline psychosis where I forgot who I was... for hours on end. No worries minus needing to pick the living hell out of your own skin. I was ignored for days or weeks on end from the people I lived with (family) \n\nI would use this drug combo, and each time it would be as equally hard hitting; it was overpowering. I dropped down to 120 lbs at one point (im 5'10\") and had severe marks all over my face and even body. I wouldn't shower for MONTHS on end. I couldn't speak to my family I was living with when I was high as a kite; words couldn't be formed from my mouth, it was the strangest thing. \n\nOkay so I'm rambling (my story is extensive):\n\nTLDR: I took a drug for 6 years that had no tolerance and was cheap as dirt and is subsequently caused my motivations to switch from taking care of myself and those around me, to making sure I had the drug on hand. Plain and simple. If anything it would have been personal hygiene that would have killed me.\n\nDrugs fuck with the equilibrium. They distort your real needs for survival. The reward system is a delicate beast.\n\nPS. Yes I have no scientific background (only self-learned). But I think real world experience are what drives science. Hence the reason I share this. ",
"Sorry, what makes weed bad for you? I'd genuinely like to know. Also, if you use the word irregardless again, I will find you and slap the shit out of you.",
"Apologies if my sentences run on, or I get too stream of consciousey. Bit tired.\n\nTo answer your question, we can't just inject the chemicals that make us happy, engaged or high because they'd either need to be delivered to inaccessible places (like the middle of your brain) directly, either because that's where they're produced and your brain has no way of getting them there from your blood, or your liver would metabolise them too quickly, or they'd be too difficult to synthesise or isolate.\n\nInstead, we trick our bodies into making more, or we stop the ones that we do make from being broken back down, or make the 'happy' nerves that fire when they interact with these chemicals keep firing after they've been exposed.\n\nIt's hard to make a body do only one thing with a drug. We're so complex that a given chemical likely affects different systems in different ways. This is one of the reasons that drugs have side effects.\n\nIn fact when anti-histamines are administered as allergy relief, side effects include drowsiness, and conversely wouldn't be prescribed for an insomniac with a poor immune system, because of the side effect of impairing the immune system (the job it's used for as an allergy relief medicine.)\n\nWhen you're taking something for pleasure, and not for a more utilitarian purpose like taming a thyroid gland, the target dose tends to be 'as much as I can get away with'. This is defined by 'a bit less than will start to cause me damage from a side effect. If you took a teeny tiny bit of opium )say from eating a poppy seed), the drug is not hurting you. Your body deals with it no bother. It's not enough opium though. Folk tend to like having so much that they have a lovely hazy afternoon wrapped in comfy warm cotton wool, sleep for a good long time and have some crazy dreams. The side effects from this much opium will slow your heart down considerably, make your skin so itchy that you'll scratch until you bleed, constipate you, dehydrate you by virtue of making you unconscious for so long and if you do it for three days your body builds a physical dependency. You become addicted. You adjust your chemistry to need the opium, or it hurts, you can't focus, walk straight, think straight, communicate effectively. (sounds a lot like sleep deprivation..)\n\n\nNow, MDMA is no more dangerous than horse riding. [Source](_URL_0_). Something being *completely* harmless is unrealistically strict. Why hold it to a stricter standard than other hobbies? A cheeseburger isn't *completely* harmless, but one a month? Unless you have a medical condition, you'll be fine, don't be silly. It's called ecstasy for a reason..\n\nSensibly taking MDMA once every six months is safe for most people. MDMA has been shown to work as autism medication, and amphetamines for ADHD. Heroin and all her whore-sisters are used medically for pain relief (though, in a hospital it's called 'diamorphine', not 'WMD' or 'Red Top'.)\n\nThese chemicals aren't *completely* harmless, but in sensible doses, they're demonstrably, prescribably fine.\n\n\n\n\nTL;DR\nIt's easier but more dangerous to ingest chemicals that make our bodies produce 'happy chemicals', rather than the 'happy chemicals themselves'.\n\nIf you're sensible, some drugs are ok in moderation. But no needles or glass pipes.\n\nEdit: Spellings.",
"Have you never heard of weed?",
"Since this is ELI5 question the simplest answer is anything in excess is harmful. Drinking water, eating food, exercising and in this case chemical reactions. \n\nOur bodies naturally release chemicals that make us feel good when it is functioning properly kind of like how a car accelerates off of regular. Synthetic drugs act like nitro in your gas tank where it forces a huge burst of energy (the chemical reaction).\n\nThat kind of huge burst takes a toll on the car / your body. At the end of the day you can't keep pushing your car into the red without consequences. \n\nIronically if we're relatively healthy the perfect drug is just a healthy life-style of good nutrition, exercise, and stress reduction. \n\n \n\n",
"What about magic mushrooms? As far as I've ever known the only negative side effects are possible stomach sickness but that's to be expected when ingesting fungi. As far as long term effects go, I have never heard of any. Am I just misinformed or uneducated on the subject? I've heard psilocybin poisons your liver in small amounts but no long term damage when used in moderation.",
"DMT is like that. Other than temporarily increasing your blood pressure, everything is freaking positive about it. Euphoria, reduced anxiety, brilliant visions, AND NO COMEDOWN. YOU DONT FEEL BAD ABOUT TAKING IT.\n\nAND ITS ALREADY INSIDE YOU. AHHHH",
"Psilocybin. No adverse side-effects at all. Just euphoria for a few hours, then it goes away.\n\nGo ahead and try to get addicted. It just stops working if you take it too often.",
"All of these comments are wrong. Alex Shulgin DID invent the perfect drug. Several of them. If you EVER hear someone offering 2C-B or 2C-I or anything 2c, well, you need 2-C what you're missing. Geddit!!!???!!!",
"There is definitly a way of getting an intense pleasure with zero side effects! You hook electrodes up to the pleasure center of your brain! Im suprised no ones opened up a business around this yet!",
"Drugs are not bad. People are bad. \nGuns are not bad. People are bad. \nCain killed Abel with a rock. ",
"just wanna pop in and say that \"irregardless\" is not a word, it's a double negative and a common misuse/mispronunciation of regardless\n",
"What goes up must come down. Get high, crash. Build tolerance. Repeat",
"Researchers might be able to develop safer drugs, but the political climate makes it a waste of money. Consider this: a drug is made that produces the effects of cocaine but it is less dangerous (let's say it has the same risks of alcohol). One the drug hits the market, people will die from it leading to news stories about a \"new killer drug threatening our children.\" This will quickly lead to making it illegal and the people who made it won't be able to make money.",
"There is, it's called exercise. ",
"I'll make this as simple as possible: Human brains are not \"meant\" to be filled with \"pleasure/euphoria\" all the time. The chemicals that create those effects can themselves cause terrible physical, chemical, psychological, or social impairment of the brain.\n\nOur brains exist in the exact way that they do become of evolutionary responses to environmental (as well as other) forces.\n\nWhat you think of as \"pleasure/euphoria\" is not \"meant\" to be how the brain feels all the time. There are [many](_URL_3_) negative [effects](_URL_0_) that [result](_URL_1_) from \"too much of a good thing.\"\n\nAgain, to over simplify, many of the \"natural\" drugs that exist, exist as a defensive mechanism or have those properties to help perpetuate themselves. E.g. If an animal eats a shitload of magic mushrooms and trips balls, they're less adept at defending themselves from predators, get eaten, and then no longer pose a threat to the mushrooms.\n\nAs for artificial drugs, even if you could produce a \"perfect drug\" that didn't produce any other \"direct\" negative consequences, then you'd still be \"over producing\" those chemicals in the brain, the serotonin, [oxytocin](_URL_2_), and dopamine. The end result is itself, damaging to the physical components of the human brain and often lead to terrible psychological or social problems.\n\nEven if the process to produce the effect is \"perfect,\" (without other direct drawbacks) prolonged exposure to or too much of (the pleasure hormones, neurotransmitters, and endorphins that those processes elicit to create) the effect itself is still bad for you.\n\nTL;DR: Too much of a good thing is bad for you.",
"Even if the drug doesn't have adverse effect, the body reaction will.",
"mushrooms, DMT, Ayahuasca, san pedro cactus, Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, peruvian Torch Cactus, all psychedelic plants that have virtually no downside. if you do drugs do natural drugs",
"Drugs are bad, mmkay",
"I'm not even close to qualified to answer this, but:\n\nIf something promotes pleasure/euphoria, it will be largely abused during times of stress which will result in psychological addiction. You can get psychologically addicted to literally anything: Drugs, alcohol, sex, food. You name it. ",
"Because even if there was, psychological addiction would still be inevitable. Using the drug all the time could cause psychosis and an altered view of reality. I know you said no side effects, but it's technically not the chemical effects of the drug that would be causing these problems.",
"I'm just saying, marijuana can be considered the \"perfect drug\" depending on how you consume it. Make some edibles, or vape it and you just got straight up thc in your system & nothing but good times ahead. \nI've been an avid pot user for the past 2 years of my life & have yet to find any side effect at all. Don't even get the munchies anymore. I feel it partly depends on the person using it too though. \nThe human body is a hell of a thing. ",
"Rats in Skinner boxes with metal electrodes implanted into their nucleus accumbens will repeatedly press a lever which activates this region, and will do so in preference over food and water, eventually dying from exhaustion. In rodent physiology, scientists reason that the medial forebrain bundle is the pleasure center of rats. If a rat is given the choice between stimulating the forebrain or eating, it will choose stimulation to the point of exhaustion.",
"Because anything that makes you feel good will create a psychological dependency. You will become addicted to it even if it's not bad for you per se. ",
"The problem is that while there might be a drug that could give intense pleasure/euphoria with no physical adverse effects or genuine addiction - but most people would have so little will power given the option to play with that drug, that they would do nothing productive to support themselves or get through life while taking it.\n\nWhile it might have no physical adverse effects, the social effects would be catastrophic. Even more so if it was cheap.\n\nSoma in Blake 7 was similar, one of the characters was always asking for a dose and the rest of the crew had to keep it out of his grasp.",
"Exercise and Sex. There are two! ",
"Because the biggest side affect of all is in the human experience. Once you've had something THAT good, why would you want anything else? You don't need a fancy scientific explanation to get that",
"Everything in moderation. Drugs go beyond that moderation of pleasure we're suppose to feel.",
"the question should be about negligible adverse effects, rather than 0",
"There is, it's called endorphin and your brain makes your body produce it.",
"I'm sure its been addressed but the bottom line is that the body has a sort of goal that it is trying to achieve, an equilibrium. Anything that interferes with this is going to cause negative effects on top of any effects the drug may have that are directly corrosive or degrading to tissue. When you withdraw the drug, it takes time for your body to readjust so you feel shitty.",
"Huey Lewis made this post 30 years ago.",
"Soma is coming dude. Don't worry. ",
"Because, like everything else in this world, everything has creative and destructive purposes.\n\nTake a knife for example: You can create a meal and make people happy & full , or you can kill someone and destroy someone's future. \n\n\n\n",
"Exercise does just that, actually.",
"When it comes to drugs, everything in moderation is fine, anything in excess is bad.",
"Even if you could get something with 100% no chemical side-effects (impossible) you are also creating BEHAVIORAL changes. Instead of dealing with stresses, issues, relationships, and general living situations by building up social skills/etc - you start handling them via escapism of the drug/video game/internet/reddit/alcohol/etc. \n\nTLDR: it's not just the chemical effects - drugs also change your emotional/social/mental viewpoint in how you deal with life.",
"Looking at it from a different perspective .. Sex is a drug (chemically in the brain) and is pretty awesome with no side effects really",
"Because there is a negative to the positive of anything. Literally everything has adverse effects so your question doesn't really make sense. You need water to survive but you can literally drown your body or kill yourself from drinking too much and not peeing, you need oxygen to live but oxygen is also a huge part of the reason your body ages and gets weaker. There is no \"perfect\" anything, it's the same thing as asking why there isn't a \"perfect food\" that gives you the right amount of every nutrient you could possibly need and nothing you don't, simply because the chances of having a genuine \"perfect\" of anything is very slim. ",
"That drug is called Orgasm.",
"The 'perfect drug' hasn't been developed because it hasn't been monetized yet and never will. Alcohol comes closest, and I am old enough to remember when being drunk was an excuse for killing/terrorizing/hurting people, not a crime. Really. People were let off for crimes BECAUSE they were drunk. Every day. 'Drugs' encompass everything from meth to aspirin. The ones we think of 'drugs' , bad ones, like meth, crack, heroin, tend to make the user feel great and everyone around him/her feel like shit. Ever been around a meth addict when he's tweaking or a heroin addict coming down? Ever seen the doper wear a dent in the couch? Not hurting anybody right? Now picture that guy's kid not being picked up from band practice because Daddy's busy being high, or that guy's kid having no birthday cake because Daddy's spent that money to buy dope. Real cool, huh? Altered states are great if you're single, no kids, plenty of money you don't have to work for. But if there's anyone else in your life, being drugged is not victimless crime. Hey, narcissist, I am definitely talking about you. ",
"Is coffee bad for you?",
"ummm...drugs are baaaaaad. mkaaaaay?",
"It's all about dosage. Any substance that you ingest changes you chemically. Water can be poisonous if you have too much of it, and you can take so little acid that you wouldn't even notice anything. There's no such thing as 'drugs' really, there's just matter, ingestion, and dosage. If you do your research and carefully measure out your dosage, you can minimize negative effects and heighten desired ones.\n\nThat being said, there's no perfect drug because human beings adapt to what is put into them and really can only detect changes to their consciousness relationally. What this means is how you feel the majority of the time is your baseline that you compare everything else to. If you only drink occasionally and then go to a party and get wasted, it's going to seem like a huge shift. If you drink constantly, sobriety is going to feel like the departure from normal.\n\nIf there ever were a 'perfect' drug invented, with an awesome long term high, no adverse side effects at all at extreme dosage variance, works on everybody, no tolerance buildup, etc, everybody would just do it all the time. It would become the new normal, and people would only notice when they ran out or did other drugs. You would also have to do more and more of it over time even if it didn't chemically build tolerance, just to continue to feel any difference at all.\n\nIn other words, it's not the really the 'high' that's the point, it's the perceived size of the shift between your 'normal' consciousness and the altered state. Or maybe: there are already many perfect drugs, and it is we who are flawed.",
"Because these drugs create the highs by simulating various chemicals like dopamine to be released in HUGE amounts. Amounts which the body doesn't normally produce or isn't used to\n\nWhich explains the intense high, also with continuous use the body starts producing less of these chemicals or the receptors gets used to these increased amount and require even MORE of the same chemical to get activated (Up regulations and Down regulation), which is why you need more and more of the same drug to get you the same level of high as you keep on using it for a long term\n\nAlso as this level of chemical release can ONLY be achieved by the use of drug and that the normal body do not release that level, ONLY by using the drug can the person experience it again, Which is why drugs are Highly addictive ",
"Almost all psychedelics when taken in proper quantity have pretty much 0 adverse effects",
"I had a high school science teacher explain it best. Drugs create a positive feeling in your brain that you are not naturally prepared to handle. This means you can not out weigh the negative consequences vs the positive feeling (or the anticipation of a positive feeling).\n\nFor example, a junkie spending their rent on heroin, you getting hammered the night before a big job interview, my old roommate getting high instead of being social, a crackhead having crackish ways instead of contributing to society, not being able to quit smoking, etc.\n\nSource: badass high school science teacher. And a degree in neurochem/neuropsych.",
"There is... its called masturbation. Thats even good for you actually.",
"Because there's no yin without yang. ",
"The very reason drugs are good is the same as why they're bad. Can't have the highs without the lows.",
"All chemical interactions have a give and take nature. Everything we ingest is risk and reward. Even the food we eat. Every substance will have some kind of unfavorable interaction to some degree.",
"TL;DR - You can't get something for nothing.",
"think of drugs as \"keys\" inserted into \"keyholes\" in your body to produce a response, but in this case the key almost always fits multiple locks at once, some of which lead to unwanted/perhaps harmful effects. also bear in mind that the main issue with drug use is the need of time, money and effort to continually procure the drug, go through its positive effects, and cope with your remaining life in its absence.",
"Because biologically there's no such thing as a free lunch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.subgenius.com/updates/5-99news/X0028_The_Perfect_High.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/23/magic-mushrooms-may-be-therapeutic/",
"http://mdmaptsd.org/research-category.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandamide"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5jMC8j7ElI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syztZcpj69U"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7876425.stm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=increased+serotonin+effects",
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=increased+oxytocin+effects&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1j7wt8/abused_girls_have_very_high_oxytocin_which_may/",
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=increased+dopamine+effects&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=XlmnU4WsNoqlyATRvYHIDQ&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2sa7gz | why do online videos stream flawlessly on my computer but why do gifs seem to load like a 1080p movie through a 56k modem? | ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sa7gz/eli5_why_do_online_videos_stream_flawlessly_on_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnlamn",
"cnnn3wa",
"cnnnkdf",
"cnnrt65",
"cnnt4d5",
"cnnthvs",
"cnntolw",
"cnnugzn",
"cnnuthj",
"cnnv4oz",
"cnnw0ad",
"cnnxzi9",
"cnny19d",
"cnnyrg2",
"cnnz994",
"cnnznrn",
"cno26wu",
"cno2v6b",
"cno31sd",
"cno3dva",
"cno88js",
"cno8cmj",
"cno8zje",
"cno9h9k",
"cnocmpm",
"cnocrmm",
"cnofbro",
"cnofh6a",
"cnohgnp",
"cnom0cl"
],
"score": [
34,
2094,
24,
45,
4,
3,
4,
3,
27,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
5,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm sitting here sad thinking \"56k... that wasn't slow!\"",
"tl;dr: GIF is an image compression format, which isn't really suited well to compressing video data. Basically the only advantage is that browsers support the format natively without loading plugins. Actual videos compressed with video encoders are way more efficient.\n\n---\n\nIn an animated GIF, each frame of the animation is encoded as a separate file, and then the files are more or less just stuck together in the final animation. You can do something similar with JPEG (Motion JPEG), although it's not supported by browsers in quite the same way as GIFs.\n\nAlso GIFs do a better job of compressing line art rather than photographs. Thus, making a video out of GIF images yields pretty poor compression anyhow.\n\nIn an encoded video file, the video compressor takes into account that successive frames are (probably) related to each other. The first frame is encoded completely, in a similar (but more advanced) method as a JPEG might be. However, the next frame is typically encoded as just the difference from the first frame to the second. This is way more efficient for most videos where motion happens slowly.\n\nSay the video is of a ball falling. \n\nIn an animated GIF, each frame is a standalone, complete picture of the ball and any surroundings. It's compressed rather poorly, and a lot of redundant information is sent, so each individual frame is very large.\n\nIn a video encoded with a video codec (MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4, h.264, h,265, etc), the first frame is compressed somewhat similarly to a JPEG. Then the second frame basically says \"see the region of the first frame where the ball is? Move that down a bit. Fill in the background with this information.\" - This frame is *way* smaller and easier to transmit than the first frame. It's also easier and faster to decode.\n\nThere are some drawbacks to the video compression approach, but in general it does a way better job of representing the video data with way fewer bits. \n\n---\n\nEDIT: Wow, this is getting a lot of attention :) I left out a lot of stuff to keep the answer simple, but I'm getting pinged about a lot of the same things over and over, so here's a few quick additions:\n\n- Yes, compression algorithm differences matter as well. I said something to this effect, but to extend: GIF uses a compression method that works well for color patterns, and video encoders use something that works better for photographs/live video. I didn't try to explain DCT/Quantization/entropy coding since that's a super technical topic for ELI5.\n- Yes, GIF can represent a simple delta between two frames. However, in the case of video data, it is rare that this is useful. Someone asked for a more detailed explanation of this, [my response is here](_URL_1_).\n- Yes, there may be other factors at work besides the bitrate/coding issues. I think it is safe to say that GIF is a terrible video compression format, and that's probably the root of many other issues. However, I haven't profiled browsers to see where they spend time decoding animated GIFs. I made a list of other places that could be inefficient [here](_URL_2_). \n- Yeah, your \"five year old didn't understand this\" el-oh-el :P If my 7-yr-old had the interest I'd try to explain it to him and get his feedback, but I think he'd rather play LEGO.\n\n---\n\nEDIT 2: A couple more things people are asking/mentioning:\n\n- Several people have mentioned HTML5 Video and WebM as alternatives to animated GIFs. There's a lot of back-and-forth, legal issues, competitors refusing to agree and so forth that is really hampering the HTML5 video tag. [Wikipedia has a long article on the subject.](_URL_0_) We've had better video technology than GIF for years and GIF is still going strong. I think we're stuck with it, despite it being a terrible technology for the problem. (See also: practically every other technology used on the web)\n- A common question is \"So does this mean that simpler videos with less movement will be encoded to smaller file sizes? Or that complex or really random videos make larger or less efficient video files?\" The answer to this somewhat depends on the encoder settings, but in general the answer is yes. If you encode a simple video with little motion it will take less data than a more complex video with a lot of motion and random stuff going on. Modern video encoders are tuned towards encoding video sequences from cameras. They make assumptions based on what the real world looks like most of the time, and use those assumptions to compress more efficiently. They also take into account what our eyes are good at seeing.",
"Video streams encode data more efficiently than GIF files. Video streams are designed to play right away. Therefore, the video starts playing even though it is still loading. Videos use lossy compression. This works by having the encoder strip out data and leaving the decoder to estimate the missing values. The GIF on the other hand strips out data without leaving the decoder to make up the missing values. This is considered wasteful by today's standards. The GIF is less optimized for immediate playback. You often have to load it entirely to play it.",
"Short answer: videos use better compression techniques than GIFs. GIF was originally designed as a still image format, with the animation capability kind of shoehorned in later. Video uses compression techniques that were designed specifically for video. This means the file size of a GIF is much bigger than an equivalent video (often 5x to 10x bigger), so it takes much longer to download.\n\nLong answer: Think of a GIF like a flipbook. It's a series of still pictures that when played quickly, look like a video. You need to download each one of those still pictures. Each frame is compressed, but little is done to take advantage of the fact that one frame is probably very similar to the next frame (there are some minor optimizations done though -- for instance if the background of a frame doesn't change at all from one frame to the next, that background won't be sent to you every time).\n\nVideo uses much better compression techniques. Each frame is compressed like in a GIF, but frames are also compared to the one before and the one after. Just like in a GIF, if the background doesn't change it won't be sent to you every time. But there are also more clever things that can be done -- say a car is moving from left to right in your video. Video compressors will basically say \"hey that car that was over there in the last frame, just move it to the right 5 pixels\". So you take the image of the car you already have, shift it to the right, and that's your next frame. GIF can't do this. Since a lot of video consists of smooth motion similar to this, videos compress very well. This is called [motion compensation](_URL_0_).\n\nThere are a number of other issues at play here too:\n\n* The compression technology used by GIF is far older than modern video compression, so that the compression achieved by each individual frame is better with modern videos. The LZW compression technique used in GIF is 30+ years old, for instance.\n\n* GIF uses lossless compression, whereas most videos use [lossy compression](_URL_1_) -- basically the video compressor throws away data that you're probably not going to notice anyway. And even if you do notice it, chances are it's still good enough to get the point across. (JPEG is another example of a lossy compression scheme that you're probably familiar with.)\n\n* Along with this, video compressors throw away some color information as well. This one is harder to explain easily, but basically your eye is better at noticing changes in brightness rather than changes in color. So the compressor looks at the brightness and color of every pixel. When it comes time to write out the video, it stores the brightness for every pixel, but only stores the color for every 4th pixel. The other 3 pixels share that same color. Hopefully that made some amount of sense. It's called [Chroma subsampling](_URL_2_) if you'd like to read more.\n\nAll that adds up to better compression for video, which means smaller file sizes, which means faster downloads.\n\nEdit: wording",
"Follow-up question: what would/should replace the way GIFs are used on reddit? Is it only the ubiquity of GIF renderers / creation software that makes them continue to triumph?",
"Gifs were designed to show animated, but simplistic, icons like dancing babies and jumping hamsters, not video clips.\n\nWe have better ways to show video (html5) but we're being held back by the lowest common denominator. Right now what's keeping us from just using html5 for video clips is basically the elderly on ancient computers and teenagers who browse the internet on their phones.\n",
"Better question... Why are we not using WebM?",
"GIFs are literally a series of images: \n\n[][][][][][][][][][]\n\nvideos are series of reference points that denote the changes between special frames, thus in the same amount of file size downloaded you can see more of a video, or higher quality.\n\n[]------------- > []\n\n\nby fiddling with these frames, you can bleed content while giving it different \"change instructions,\" the effect is seen here:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"GIF should've been dead a looooooong time ago. \n\nLong live the Webm.",
"Ok, you and 2 of your friends are making a pillow fort in a 10x10 room. The pillow fort is so amazing at the end of it all your other friends are jealous. They want you to explain how you made it. Luckily, the 2 friends you made it with each documented the build in their own way:\n\nYour first friend, let's call him Gif, has a notebook filled with pictures of how each pillow was placed. Since your fort has 500 pillows, the notebook is 500 pages long.\n\nNow, your friend Codec is one impressive guy. He quickly figured out that on each page you could only show which parts of the fort got taller by 1 pillow. So, his sheet of paper has 8 pictures, and shows you in perfect detail, how to make the same fort. \n\nTo further immasculate Gif, Codec showed his instructions for a 30,000 pillow fort, which were still smaller than Gif's 500 page notebook.\n ",
" > ...but why do GIFs seem to load like a 1080p movie through a 56k modem?\n\nLaughed way harder than I should have at this, perfect description",
"Gifs are shitty, people need to start using HTML5.\n\n",
"because GIFs are honestly inefficient and stupid. There are much better alternatives that we refuse to use...simply because they like the word GIF",
"I believe the best answer has more to do with the protocol used to transfer gif data.\nGifs are delivered to your pc using TCP which is a protocol that ensures that every piece from point A arrives at point B. TCP requires that every piece or packet of data arrives successfully. Video uses UDP which isn't mandatory to have all the pieces there as long as the stream is still active. ",
"Well like you said online videos are streams so the data is flowing in constantly but gifs don't work that way. They don't buffer and play while doing that. To display a gif you computer has to download it to 100% befor it can start playing it.",
"This question gets asked at least once a month.\n\nGIF files are not optimized for fast loading across an internet connection.\n\nVideo files playing in special flash players ARE optimized for fast loading across an internet connection.\n\nHell, GIFs were not even created with animation in mind. It's a really archaic format that just needs to die already, with much-superior alternatives of WebM and GifV available.",
"Take any of the really long explanations in this thread.\n\nVideo compression is like a tl:dr at the end of the entire explanation.\n\nAn gif is like someone adding a tl:dr at the end of each sentence.",
"Better compression is the answer.\n\nAn animated gif is a series of pictures that play in order, so it's like downloading hundreds of pics to watch a short clip. Streaming video on the other hand is highly optimized to give good video playback with high compression, so the filesize/bandwidth is much smaller.",
"For a 5 yo:\n\nA video is lots of pictures shown one after another. Each picture is slightly different. Your brain works this out as video.\n\nA stream only contains the differences between each picture. A gif contains the whole of each picture.\n\nA whole picture is much bigger in terms of data size than the differences between two pictures.\n\nBy the way, as a 5 yo how do you remember dialup?",
"ever wonder why a flipbook still looks shitty even though real life is the highest level of quality you can get?\n\nkinda like that.",
"Why can I stream a 30min show on my phone and a 1min video on youtube buffers every 3 seconds? I dont get it.. probably something stupid and money related",
"**To put it simply:** GIF is a very poor compression format for video.\n\nLike, 50 times poorer. A video of decent quality would take around 50 times the file size as an animated GIF as it would as a video (such as MP4/h.264 or WebM).\n\nSo when your GIFs are taking ages to load, it's because you're downloading literally 50 times the amount of data for roughly the same quality video.\n\nNote: 50 times is just a ballpark figure, and the true value depends on many, many factors. Proper video codecs make use of two types of compression: lossy block based DCT compression, like JPEG, plus motion estimation, which is the bit that finds similar image sections in previous frames, moves them, and uses that as the basis for the new frame. The amount you save by using a proper video compression format will vary according to the complexity of motion in your clip and how well it compresses with this type of block based DCT compression. There's also the problem that it's hard to compare quality between the two, because they distort in quite different ways: GIFs remain sharp but have dithering or banding, videos will blur but need no dithering. So the 50:1 estimate is a VERY VERY rough ballpark figure making a bunch of ass-umptions about individual circumstances.\n\nServices like GFYCAT tell you how much file size you spared compared to a GIF. Note that these services tend to degrade the quality (eg resolution) before compression and for various reasons the ratio will be usually less than 50:1.",
"What do you know about the moon? ",
"OK, so a few people here have absolutely got ONE of the key reasons for this - which is that GIF images are not really efficient. But some people have brought up \"Well, still, even if it's a hundred small images, why does it take so long if I have 20Mbps internet?\"\n\nAnd that is because the #2 reason that gifs load slow is that usually a gif is hosted at one big server location. All of the users have to hit that one server to get the content, which means the bandwidth is restricted and the download is slow.\n\nWhen people around the country are watching YouTube or Netflix or Hulu, they aren't streaming the content from one big server, they're streaming the content from a CDN - a Content Distribution Network. The biggest and most popular is called Akamai. And Akamai has installed servers in THOUSANDS of ISP locations!\n\nYou may now ask yourself \"why not host the gif on a CDN?\" - Some do! If I had to guess, I would say that imgur or maybe some other large image hosts probably do, but not with all of their content, and probably with far fewer servers. CDNs use a caching mechanism to kick off old content from each server to make room for the new stuff. This means that when a thousand people want to watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones, each server downloads it once, then hands it out to each nearby user, and then deletes it after a week to make room for the next episode to come out. Funny cat gifs aren't individually popular enough to make it worth the extra cost to host on a CDN.",
"All the explanations here are nice and all, but it doesn't explain why a 4 megabyte gif file loads slower than an entire Netflix movie which is gigabytes in size.\n\nEven if its being streamed the movie loads instantly I can watch 10 seconds of 1080p video faster than 10 seconds of some shit quality gif. Why?",
"Possibly slightly above ELI5 level, but [this video from Computerphile](_URL_0_) does a pretty good job explaining the advantages and disadvantages of using GIFs versus actual video formats.\n\ntl;dw version: GIFs were never designed for video; they were meant for simple animations. GIFs actually made a lot of sense back when CPUs were slow, but as a tradeoff for them being easy for your computer to process, they take up a lot of extra space. That extra space means you have to wait longer for the GIF to download than you'd have to wait for a properly-compressed video in a format designed for videos.",
"There's an waful lot of answers here unrelated to OP.\n\nThe simple answer is: modern browsers show animated gifs unbuffered when each \"frame\"arrives; videos are buffered, and often throu content delivery networks. Simple as that. The jerky rendering of gifs is because they are shown in real time.\n\n",
"I was planning on asking this myself tonight, before I'd seen that you posted it. \n\nI have no idea why .gifs became one of the dominant formats on reddit. I could accept the lack of sound and poorer quality of video if they didn't take literally twice as long (or longer) to load. As they stand however, for me at least, the .gif format is functionally useless.",
"[Word cloud out of all the comments.](_URL_0_)\n\nDon't like this? Message me!",
"Imagine that you are at school and its recess time. You and Pablito are having a conversation. Pablito has this annoying habit of knowing what you're going to say and having an answer ready for every single thing you say. Every. Single. Time. Annoying as heck, right? But it does make for very fast conversation, doesn't it? He never has to stop to think what to say because before you stop talking, he already has what he's going to say next ready for you to hear.\n\nWhat Pablito does is what computer people call buffering or pre-loading. He anticipates what's coming and has it ready for you to hear when you are ready.\n\nVideos on youtube also do this. Except that they don't wait for you to be ready for the next part. They just go on and on pre-loading what they know they're supposed to show you so that all of it is ready for you to see when you want.\n\nBut what if Pablito has to think what to say before saying it only after you finish saying your part? Well, the conversation would not be so smooth then, would it? You say something. There would be a pause while Pablito gathers his thoughts and makes a sentence in his head then he would speak. \n\nThis is how your computer shows you a .gif file. It doesn't pre-load the content. Instead, it shows you every single picture that makes up the video (this is what experts call a \"frame\") one by one as it gets it from the internet. Of course, once it finishes getting all the \"frames\", it starts to show you the whole video allover again because the program that you use to watch these \".gif\" files usually are made so that they play them again and again over and over forever and ever until you close the window.\n\nSo that's it. Tomorrow I will tell you how Pablito got DoS'd by the other kids last week."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sa7gz/eli5_why_do_online_videos_stream_flawlessly_on_my/cnnww5o",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sa7gz/eli5_why_do_online_videos_stream_flawlessly_on_my/cno3pp1"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_compensation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqakws0CeU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSzwPcL5Dw"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/UFpt8jC.png"
],
[]
] |
|
2b498y | how crude oil is refined into petrol. | Curious about the process in which crude, extracted oil is refined into gasoline and usable oils. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b498y/eli5how_crude_oil_is_refined_into_petrol/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj1nhc0",
"cj1nkwj",
"cj1np8b",
"cj1rqky"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"For sweet light crude, it is a process of factional distillation where the different compounds boil at different temperatures and are collected based on the temperature they boil at. ",
"Crude oil is often a dark, sticky liquid that cannot be used without changing it. The first part of refining crude oil is to heat it until it boils. The boiling liquid is separated into different liquids and gases in a distillation column. These liquids are used to make petrol, paraffin, diesel fuel etc.\n\nRefined gasoline (petrol) is produced from sweet, light crude oil through a process called fractional distillation. Lighter fractions of oil will boil off at lower temperatures; the idea is to feed the crude oil into a tower that allows the different components to be separated by boiling. This allows certain fractions to be collected independently. \n\nThese fractions are converted using catalysts to different, more useful forms. These components can be blended together to produce different products, such as gasoline. Gasoline is actually a very complex blend of compounds, ranging from propane gas (dissolved in the liquid) to benzene\n",
"Crude oil is a mixture of various substances such as petrol, diesel, kerosene etc. These substances have different boiling points. So for eg- if petrol has a bp of 95 degree C , crude is boiled at that temperature and petrol is refined out in the form of gas. This process is called fractional distillation!",
"Nothing beats a good 1940's educational [video](_URL_0_). Enjoy!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFUP1I6Ez8w"
]
] |
|
6bjqa4 | why is coughing sometimes associated with heart conditions? | A persistent or recurring cough is one of the indicators for potential heart problems.
How are they connected? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bjqa4/eli5_why_is_coughing_sometimes_associated_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhn6hn5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In congestive heart failure, fluids that the heart should be pumping and circulating through the body start building up in places they shouldn't, notably the lungs. Hence - coughing. That's also why swelling of the extremities is so common."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1o51a3 | when someone patents something, who gets that money and why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o51a3/when_someone_patents_something_who_gets_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccotrou",
"ccotsid"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"If you invent something and patent it, you can prevent other people from selling their own versions of your invention. You don't get money directly from the patent. You can however license other companies to produce your patented thing for some sort of fee paid to you, or whatever other details your contract might specify.\n\nOf course, you can also sell your patent rights, giving the buyer the same rights mentioned above. ",
"**You don't get money for patenting something**. Getting a patent is actually quite an expensive process.\n\nThere are a few different ways you could make money with patents though. \n\nFirst off, if you've invented something, you can use the period of the patent to make the product, sell it, and you **benefit from not having competition** doing the same thing. (this is extremely over-simplistic, but that's the general idea).\n\nAlternatively, you can **license your patent**. This means that, for a fee of some sort, you give someone else the right to use that idea you have protected in something they are doing.\n\nYou can also **sell patents** to others. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3j09dl | how does the mold find the food? | I've seen [this gif] (_URL_0_) on Reddit and I'm interested in how the mold actually finds the food. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j09dl/eli5_how_does_the_mold_find_the_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"culn70r"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"That's a [slime mold](_URL_0_), which is not really a mold but nowadays grouped under amoebas.\n\nAnyway, it probably went off at random (at first you even see it growing into both directions) and at some point sensed some chemicals given off by the food, then went towards wherever the concentration is higher. Note that it doesn't actually take the shortest way through the labyrinth."
]
} | [] | [
"http://x3.cdn03.imgwykop.pl/c3201142/comment_TrOuwOMC1IACU2JiytU0ROL2Sr1oefXS.gif"
] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold"
]
] |
|
j3pxy | can someone explain the metal gear solid plot in story order, not game order. | Also, if possible, denote which game a particular part of the story came from. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3pxy/eli5_can_someone_explain_the_metal_gear_solid/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28wu67",
"c28x18q"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You should just like, play those games. They're really good.",
"**An explanation as if you were 5:**\n\nA man with an eye patch is *really* good at hide and seek, so the government asks him to cross into other countries and go on adventures. One time, he takes down a secret company building really big guns. Another time he fights a ninja that can turn invisible, and a guy with one hand but who is really good at shooting guns. Then later, he fights his twin brother! His brother survives the fight and takes over the body of the guy with one hand and becomes *really* strong.\n\nSo they send in the man with the eye patch again, but he's a different man than the first man with the eye patch. In fact, the first man was the bad guy!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
62e5as | what exactly is vantablack? how does it work? | Have been seeing it more recently on posts and just wondering how it works and what it exactly is! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62e5as/eli5_what_exactly_is_vantablack_how_does_it_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dflrzes",
"dfm60kx"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"So it is built from carbon nano-tubes, in fact Vertically Aligned Nano Tube Arrays is the name and the acronym of Vanta. Which looks similar to a cylinder of chicken wire on a molecular level. Now things appear dark when light is absorbed rather than reflected back at us. So when the light enters the carbon nanotube it starts bouncing around in the tubes and gets absorbed. According to the Wiki page it absorbs 99.965% of visible light. ",
"So basically it's carbon nanotubes arranged like the bristles of a hairbrush. Light hits this stuff and practically none of it gets reflected back, because it all gets either absorbed initially or absorbed on the rebound. It's kind of like those sound-deadening rooms, but for light. It's not really up to speed for big commercial purposes yet; everything that gets coated with it goes through the lab that developed it originally. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2f22rv | why does it seem like there are way more stars than the six thousand-ish the naked eye can see? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f22rv/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_there_are_way_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck55xk6"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming that you mean to ask \"why does it seem like I see way more than six thousand stars when factually only about six thousand are visible\"\n\nBecause the human brain is really really terrible at understanding large numbers. No really. You can say the number \"six thousand\" but try to picture what 6 thousand stars would look like. You can't. You'll pull up a random image of clumps but you don't have a way to understand how many six thousand of something actually is. \n\nYour brain gives up instead."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3g121d | why do our bodies react uncomfortably and physically to things when we are over thinking bad situations? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g121d/eli5_why_do_our_bodies_react_uncomfortably_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctttbcx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The body takes all of its cues from the brain. It doesn't know the difference between a dream/imagination and reality. It just knows what the brain tells it.\n\nIn an actual bad situation, your body needs to be prepared for anything, whether that be fighting off or running away from a threat. The way it prepares itself is by giving the body everything it needs to physically perform. Oxygen (hyperventilation), cooling (cold sweat), and explosive muscle reaction (tensing/shaking). When you constantly think about bad situations, you tell your body that you're in trouble, and the body prepares for the worst."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1zcauh | how do people win lawsuits where they are so blatantly at fault? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zcauh/eli5_how_do_people_win_lawsuits_where_they_are_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfsdzd0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Do you have some sort of example in mind? \n\nYour question isn't really answerable as it is, except for something vague like \"the other party was more at fault\" or \"it wasn't really their fault\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8d7xz7 | if people are buying more electric and fuel efficient cars why are gas prices going up | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8d7xz7/eli5_if_people_are_buying_more_electric_and_fuel/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxkyy9c",
"dxkz0xv",
"dxkz10b",
"dxl0vvv",
"dxl26uj"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
6,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Excluding Norway and Iceland, every country's percentage use of electric vehicles is < = 5%. [Source](_URL_1_)\n\nLet's assume gas used to cost $3.00. If demand had a direct 5% impact on price, we'd expect it to cost $2.85, only a $0.15 change.\n\nToday, the price of gas in the US is ~$2.50, but in the last 10 years it's been between $1.75 and $4.00. [Source](_URL_0_)\n\nThere's too much market volatility to determine how much electric cars impact the price.",
"The price of gas fluctuates with the supply/demand of crude oil around the globe. Americans are switching over to electric cars, but China is just starting to have cars, along with many developing nations using petroleum powered cars, leading to an overall increase in demand for just gas.\n\nAlso electric cars aren't all that popular yet. While people *want* electric cars, there's still some problems with infrastructure. Looking at the parking lot of my office, where the culture is very pro-EV, I'd estimate that maybe 1/100 cars in the parking lot are electrics.\n\nFinally: people are driving more/planning road trips as the weather warms up, even within America, so the demand has gone up.",
"Gas demand has little to do with it. The price is influenced by the available supply, as well as things like taxes and marketing costs. The refining costs can vary from place to place and can change even within a year. Poor weather might delay oil tankers, which increase shipping costs. Changes in exchange rates can make gas more or less expensive, because even if the oil is valued the same the currency’s value can change. And sometimes it is just political. An air strike in Syria - for example - might make investors and speculators more conservative because they fear a wider Middle Eastern war might cause disruption in the global oil market.",
"You started with a false premise. The demand for gas isn't falling, it's actually increasing.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nHere is date from the EIA for the US. If you look at motor gasoline you can see the consumption per year in million of barrel per day.\n\nIn 1997 is was 8.02, is grew up to 9.29 in 2007. Then it dropped to 8.99 millions of barrel per day in 2008, stayed static for 3 year, then dropped in 2011 and 2012. Since 2012, the consumption kept growing, reaching all time new record 9.32 millions of barrel per day in 2016, higher than the last record of 2007. And it's projected to keep growing (but at a slower pace) in the next couple of year.\n\nNotice something that there is two drop in consumption. The first one is easy, it's in 2007/2008 and it's because of the Recession.\n\nThe second is harder to understand. Here is a big article on the subject. This was written in 2012 and some people were thinking that the drop in consumption were because a new recession was beginning and obviously, it didn't happen. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe guy list a couple of factor that boil down to ''gas efficiency is becoming more important for the population than it used to be''.\n- 2% rise in ridership on public buses and trains in 2011\n- between 5 and 9% increase in intercity bus service between 2008 and 2011\n- Online retail are on the rise (less people need to drive to a store)\n- More efficient automobile (including hybrids and small car) sell more than big trucks\n- Since 1998, there is a decline in teenagers getting licenses.\n\nAnd a bunch of other factors.\n\nSo yes people buying electric and fuel efficient cars have an effect, but it's small. And since 2012 the economic growth in the US is strong enough that the total consumption keep increasing.",
"A bunch of reasons:\n\n* Hybrid and electric cars still haven't widely caught on. \n* Global population is rising and many developing nations are getting access to cars that didn't have them before, so even as hybrids and electrics gain popularity there are still more and more people driving traditional vehicles.\n* We use oil for lots and lots of things other than gas for cars.\n* Global supply is diminishing. Every now and then a new method of extracting oil allows us to tap into a source we couldn't access previously, but old wells still run dry."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T09.04#/?f=M&start=200001",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country#Statistics"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-decline-in-gasoline-demand-doesnt-mean-a-recession-yet-2012-2",
"https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=9&f=A&s=&start=1997&end=2019&id=&maptype=0&ctype=linechart&linechart=COPRPUS~&map="
],
[]
] |
||
9nmnw2 | how are the characters below a definition supposed to tell you how to pronounce a word? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9nmnw2/eli5_how_are_the_characters_below_a_definition/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7nekfz",
"e7neoyf"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Usually dictionaries will have a pronunciation key with example words that show what those symbols mean.",
"I presume (prɪˈzum) that you're referring to these characters. They're in the International Phonetic Alphabet ([IPA](_URL_1_ )). IPA is an alphabetic system of phonetic notation based primarily on the Latin alphabet devised by the [International Phonetic Association](_URL_0_ ) as a standardized representation of the sounds of spoken language. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet"
]
] |
|
j3g9v | what's the difference between the tea partiers and the republican base? | What's the difference between the Tea Partiers and the Republican Base? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3g9v/whats_the_difference_between_the_tea_partiers_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28tj6z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Tea Party is known for more extreme conservatism - they're anti-tax, they want to cut spending, they do not believe in man-made global warming, anti same-sex marriage, etc. The Republican Base is a lot less extreme than they are. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
eiqqob | what promotes a better immune system, being sick and recovering (with or without medication) frequently or avoiding being sick as much as possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eiqqob/eli5_what_promotes_a_better_immune_system_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcsxc9i",
"fcszd6i",
"fct5zqx",
"fct7ih8"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
14,
5
],
"text": [
"To my knowledge, getting sick and recovering (from a pathogen mediated disease) confers stronger immune function than avoiding germs completely. The reason is not just due to building the memory cell reservoir (where cells remember and infective agent and make you immune to it), but also other changes like general base programing of the immune (like tolerance).\n\nNow taking medication for an infectious disease probably has no effect on immune function except in cases like antibiotics. Your native bacteria are protective and can kill foreign pathogens, if you take antibiotics against a bacterium you harm the good ones too. However this is transient and will recover (can be accelerated by taking probiotics).",
"Getting sick of course: if you never get sick, then your immune system will atrophy to save resources.\n\nBut if you want to minimize days sick/missed because sick, then I'd suggest to go about your day as you usually would and use mechanisms that boost your immunity without getting you sick (e.g. vaccines). Putting limits on what you do so that you are sick less so that you can do more of the things you limed seems inefficient.",
"One important note here is that being \"sick\" and preparing your immune system are not the same thing.\n\nSomeone working outdoors, getting occasional scrapes and breathing in pollen and detritus is giving his immune system a workout (to oversimplify) and someone trapping themselves in a sterile climate controlled room is not.\n\nThe adventurous person is more likely to encounter pathogens, and one or more of them might be of a dangerous enough variety that they get sick. The person hiding from germs isn't as likely to encounter pathogens, but could get very sick from pathogens that the adventurous person's body would fight off before they noticed any symptoms.\n\nTheir is no \"what is better\" because life is too dynamic and circumstantial.",
"If you never get sick and are not exposed to pathogens and dirt you are more likely to suffer autoimmune diseases.\npeople from third world countries are more likely not to have allergies when they come to the United States because they've been exposed to pathogens and dirt while growing up. certain autoimmune diseases are more common now than 150 years ago in the United States.\n\nTLDR give your immune system something to do or it will find work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21ek2h | computers:how do 0 and 1 change into music or video? | I can understand text. Like 0 and 1 represent something and the computer can display that representation into text. The display is done using pixels.
But I don't understand this about music and videos. There are 0 and 1's in the computer and then there is speaker and those 0's and 1's become music to our ears. How? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21ek2h/eli5computershow_do_0_and_1_change_into_music_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgc9m2m",
"cgcau9y",
"cgcb9mt"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's start with a picture: group those 1s & 0s together and you get binary code. We use 8 binary digits (bits) to make bytes. Each byte can represent a number from 0 to 255. Now you tell your program that each of those numbers represents a colour and bingo, you have a way to turn a simple image into those 1s & 0s. \nFor a video you just have a sequence of those pictures.\nFor sound, instead of colours, just tell your program that each number represents a particular sound, pitch, frequency or whatever. So when it reads that number, it plays that noise. \nI've really simplified this, but it's the basics of how it works. ",
"Sound is a vibration that travels through the air. We can measure and represent this vibration as a waveform. The waveform has two major components, the amplitude and the frequency. The amplitude roughly represents how strong the sound is (loudness) and the frequency represents the pitch (so if someone is singing a high note, it has a higher frequency). Multiple sounds can be added together to create complex waveforms.\n\n\"Analog\" recordings like vinyl are played by making a needle vibrate at the same amplitude and frequency of some music. This vibration is very small (the amplitude is low) but it reproduces the frequency of the recording, so all that's left is to make it the correct loudness. An amplifier takes care of this. \n\nDigital recording is a bit trickier. The waveform must be sampled, and then those samples stored. Generally we sample by choosing some frequency (usually something like 44,100 or 48,000 samples per second, also written as 44.1kHz or 48kHz) and then measuring the amplitude of the sound at that interval. The amplitude is given as some number, so the simplest digital audio recordings are just thousands and thousands of numbers representing amplitude, with a number at the top that represents the frequency they were sampled at. (This is the basic format of a \".wav\" file)\n\n(This method is called digitizing, or converting from analog to digital (A-to-D), the reverse being D-to-A)\n\nImages are very similar. Images in the real world must be sampled at some frequency. In image encoding, we call this \"resolution.\" Cameras measure this sampling frequency/resolution in \"megapixels.\" Instead of measuring the amplitude of the sound wave, we capture the intensity of the light and break it down into red, green, and blue values. These intensity values are then stored. A set of intensity values for a single sample of the image is called a pixel.\n\nNow, storing this audio and video data is really expensive. If you've ever had a wav file of a song or a bmp of an image, you know that it takes a *ton* of storage. However, through some really smart math and some \"tricks\" about how humans perceive images and audio, we can save a lot of that space. That's compression - stuff like .mp3 and so on. But that's a more advanced topic and I've already written enough for this question :)",
"if you can understand that the 1's and 0's can be text, just imagine now that the text is a set of instructions to make sound and pictures. The computer follows the instructions and the sound and pictures are produced."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2y6bfp | why do gaming consoles use a b x & y on their remote controls. | Consoles such as Xbox and Wii, use those particular letters on their remote controls, why is this? Is their any science behind it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y6bfp/eli5_why_do_gaming_consoles_use_a_b_x_y_on_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp6n8sj",
"cp6nhcm",
"cp73nzq"
],
"score": [
9,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"It is probably the precedent that Nintendo set. NES used A and B. SNES used X,Y,A,B. Nintendo just kept using AB out convenience and Microsoft adopted it. ",
"Very early consoles usually had a direction pad (D-Pad) or a joystick and two buttons, which they labeled A and B. Later, some added a third button (C). When they wanted to go to four buttons, it would have made sense to use ABCD, but D was already sort of taken (since everyone calls it a D-Pad), so they went to the opposite end of the alphabet.\n\n(Where did Z go? Judging from [this Sega controller](_URL_0_), it was there, but they dropped the far outside buttons.)",
"People tend to see letters in sequence as diminishing in importance, so B is less important than A, C is less important than B, etc. By chunking letters together in adjacent but separate patterns (i.e. A,B and X,Y) they are easy to remember and don't appear to have diminishing relationships to each other. Another way to solve this problem is to use shapes (like XBox controllers do), but it is easier for the brain to map thoughts to action using letters rather than numbers or shapes, since language is so closely tied to instinctive thought."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Sega-Genesis-6But-Cont.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
54ymf8 | what did hamilton do for us economically and what effects of that can we observe today? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54ymf8/eli5_what_did_hamilton_do_for_us_economically_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8646ki",
"d865bm9",
"d865rik"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" Someone hasn't watched/listened to Hamilton on Broadway (the album is free for Amazon Prime users and an audience cam of the play is on PirateBay). In an economic aspect, he founded the Bank of NY, and then setup the Bank of the US and initiated the fund for the national debt.",
"Not much. He helped build the first national bank which was quickly torn down by Andrew Jackson. Most of his other policies involved foreign affairs: trying to drag a newborn US into war with France, opposing any attempts made by Jefferson and the Republicans to have dealings with Revolutionary France, calling for the deportation of all French within US borders and pushing for the occupation of all lands east of the Mississippi (including Spanish Florida which, yes, would mean war with Spain as well). The only real of Hamilton in our current economy left is on the nickel.\n\nEdit: $10 bill, not nickel. Wow, I'm dumb.",
"_URL_0_\n\nHamilton set the precedent for always paying our debts and is 'a' reason why US credit is good."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_economic_program"
]
] |
||
4a1qa5 | how does the air pocket form in bell peppers, etc? | Just cut open a pepper and was at a loss for an explanation | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a1qa5/eli5how_does_the_air_pocket_form_in_bell_peppers/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0wo5y2"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"For peppers : the air in the void mostly has the same composition as the atmosphere and the air got there largely by diffusion through the fruit's tissues as the fruit (and the space) grew bigger.\nWith regards to peppers; wild peppers are often small and fairly packed with seeds, so there isn't a lot of space inside them at all. What space there is is present because, unlike their close relatives the potato and tomato they don't fill the cavity of their fruits with a liquid or gel. I'm not sure it is understood why chilli fruits don't also have a gel filling the fruit's interior but I would hazard a guess that it is likely to do with the fact that capsaicin (the spicy chemical) is not (very) water soluble.\nComing back to the larger sweet or bell peppers, these have large interior spaces because humans bred these peppers to have large fruits with lots of flesh and clearly the mutations which were cultivated for these traits did not also increase the size of the seeds by the same proportion.\n\n\n I would assume that the voids in other plants serve other purposes. At a guess the cavity in coconuts possibly helps buoyancy when the seed is dispersed via the ocean."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1pp4cw | how do inventors know if their idea is already patented | I always see these really simple inventions that I KNOW have already been done before, but they seem to make great sales and get away with it. How does someone invent something and get around a patent? Take a gas nozzle holder for example, a device that holds a gas nozzle so you dont have to. Plenty exist, but they all have different designs (I'm assuming so no one sues them for using a patented idea), but how does an inventor know that a patent is already in effect for the invention he came up with? Is there a special search tool for this or something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pp4cw/eli5_how_do_inventors_know_if_their_idea_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd4ixke",
"cd4ixnr",
"cd4izaz",
"cd4ktkd"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
12,
4
],
"text": [
" > Is there a special search tool for this or something?\n\nIt is called a \"patent office\", and it is a step they perform when deciding if they will grant a patent.",
"You can search for patents here:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis is a good start but if you get serious you'll want to see a patent lawyer. They are not cheap but they will do an exhaustive search for existing patents as well help you file the proper paperwork to get your patent submitted correctly.",
"A couple of things:\n\n1. When you make a patent claim, you have to perform a patent search to make sure that no one else has patented what you're proposing.\n\n2. You can infringe on someone else's patent. There's nothing stopping you from doing so. Patents only give the patent owner the right to defend their patent, but the onus is on the patent holder and not the patent office.\n\n3. Since the onus is on the patent holder to defend his patent, he must constantly search the market to make sure no one is infringing on his patent. If you're a one man shop or a small company, you may not have the legal resources to do this. Or, if you're small and a larger company infringes on your patent, they can drag out the lawsuit in court for years with their massive legal team, or the small company simply doesn't have enough money to hire the lawyers to fight it in court.",
"You can search in several ways:\n\n* Google Patent: _URL_1_\n* USPTO (US): _URL_0_\n* WIPO (World): _URL_2_\n\nor use a patent lawyer who will do that for you. < Best approach\n\nAlternatively (I don't recommend this) you can just try to patent it and see what the Patent Office says. They will check for you as part of the application process. I really, really don't recommend this - it's expensive, lazy and a waste of resources. They also make lots of mistakes. Did I mention I don't recommend this?\n\nTo answer your bigger question, you can patent new uses for old things, such as using a car tire as a swing, or re-purposing a drill as a toothbrush, or whatever. The original item still maintains it's patents (and you'd have to pay them any applicable fees for the item itself) but you can add your change on top as an improvement.\n\nIt's not uncommon to take something whose patent has expired (they are only good for about 20 years) and then make enough of a change to patent the change. You are now using something simple and old, but can still say you have a patent on it (the parts you changed). Since the original patent expired, the only fees that can be charged for the invention is the improvements - your invention.\n\nExample: salicylic acid (from willow bark, etc) has been known since the ancient greek times to reduce pain and inflammation. However, it's really hard on your digestive system. A chemist at Bayer figured out a way to add acetyl to the mixture that made it far easier to digest. This resulted in ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) and was marketed as Aspirin. Bayer could not patent salicylic acid because it had been around forever, but they were able to patent acetylsalicylic acid because it was new and useful.\n\nSource: I used to be a patent lawyer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/",
"https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts",
"http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf"
]
] |
|
65i5hl | what causes the noise water makes when poured into other water? | Splashing, etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65i5hl/eli5what_causes_the_noise_water_makes_when_poured/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgah41h"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Sound is vibration.\n\nThe act of water mixing with other water causes vibrations, and this makes a noise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
667oov | if we use salt to melt snow on roads, how do ice sheets stay frozen in the ocean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/667oov/eli5if_we_use_salt_to_melt_snow_on_roads_how_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dggbmf5"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Salt just lowers the freezing point of water, it doesn't negate the possibility of freezing. The ocean has an average salinity of 3.5%, which lowers the freezing point to -2°C / 28°F.\n\nAlso ice on roads has one side facing the elements, the other side on the ground, so it is only subject to 'wind chill factor' - removal of heat by a large enough, cold enough fluid flow - on one side. Ice on the oceans is literally floating on an ocean of cold, as well as being exposed to cold winds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3jq54u | where does all the earth come from that covers ancient cities which are found underground? e.g. the roman forums. | I was watching a programme about Rome and was curious as to how ancient cities are buried underground and where all the earth that covers these cities comes from. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jq54u/eli5_where_does_all_the_earth_come_from_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"curdm3b",
"curebgi",
"cureczv",
"curi3z8",
"curicwb",
"curkjh2",
"curl4zx",
"curlco1",
"curnvsk",
"cus4vj0"
],
"score": [
163,
75,
22,
8,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Dirt gets blown by wind, and washed by rain water to cover things. Stone will also sink when the ground gets wet if it is not sitting on bedrock. These three things will slowly bury things over hundreds and thousands of years. ",
"But what about in cities?\n\nIn modern day Bath (a Roman city in England) it took centuries to find the Roman baths as there were 4m below the modern day Street level. How does a building so grand and influential just suddenly dissappear 4m below the surface? ",
"In may cases in cities that have been occupied sine classical times, old buildings are used as foundation and building material for new ones. In centuries past, there was less respect for what are *now* ancient ruins, and they were often regarded as just old junk and built on top of, flattened, or used as rubble. \n\nIn other cases wind and water can bury structures, but inside a city it is typically human action that buries and forgets old structures.",
"It's not entirely clear where it all comes from, but here's a theory my Roman archaeology prof mentioned. \n\nAccording to our best estimates, there were tens of thousands of buildings in the ancient city of Rome. And hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. \n\nToday, how many of those structures are still standing? Not many. So where did they all go? Where did that material all go?\n\nSure, some of it was repurposed, especially the more valuable stuff like marble. But we have no account of the material used to make the vast majority of these \"lost\" structures. \n\nPerhaps at least a portion of the earth covering what remains of Rome's ancient buildings is made of the remains of its old buildings. ",
"In the specific case of the Old Forum, remember it sits in the defile between conjunctions of four of Rome's Seven Hills. Simple erosion plus time does much of the work. Several blocks away, on the Campus Martius [a classic flood plain] the major component is silt from overflow of Tiber River. Interestingly, there are estimates of 200 tons of meteorite dust per day being added to the surface. It's quite disorienting to think that the spot on which Julius Caesar was assassinated is four meters BELOW Rome's streets! ",
"What about garbage? \n\nWhen an old building isn't used any more that would be like the best place in the neighborhood to dump your garbage.",
"In Rome specifically there is a term used to speak about this. The word is \"Sirocco\". It is the name for a wind that blows across the Sahara, picking up dust, carrying it over the Mediterranean and eventually dumping it in rain when it makes landfall. Happens a few times a year. Over thousands on years it can accumulate and bury things. Once the forum was abandoned by people, no one was there to essentially clean it away. It's annoying as hell living there because everything gets turned a dusky red tint, and it does not come out of your clothes easily.\n\nSource: lived in Rome and it confused the hell out of me the first time it happened.\n\n_URL_0_",
"There's also an effect of stratification in many cases because new civilizations or new rulers often just build on top of old cities because of their excellent locations.",
"None of these answers are the main point. People bring food and firewood into cities. Until the invention of railroads and trucks, it was too expensive to haul garbage, poop and ashes out. So people dumped it in the back yard, or in the empty lot, or in the alley. Remember, roads were dirt; no one cleaned them. Sewers are rare until about the 1700s. The garbage, ashes and poop just get dumped out the window or into the back yard. So, over the years, the garbage, human poop, and horse poop, turns to dirt, and the city literally rises off its foundation. In the Middle East, the sites of old cities are hills called \"tells.\" Some are quite tall. Each generation builds on the garbage of the previous generation. ",
"My long gravel driveway is about 30 years old. Between the two wheel trails is a ridge/plateau of dirt over the gravel surface. That ridge is about half an inch thick already and easily supports weeds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirocco"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1epnzo | what does it mean to eat unhealthy/healthy? | I've taken nutrition courses but still don't fully grasp the meaning of everything.
What makes certain foods unhealthy? If I don't eat anything"bad" but don't eat any fruits and vegetables, would that make it unhealthy? If I cook all the ingredients from scratch and none of it is processed, how bad can it be?
If I do eat bad food (like chocolate or mcdonalds or something), how much of it do I need to eat for it to influence me.
What type of impact does good/bad food have on me. Does it just mean I will feel shittier, or will it make me 50% statistically more likely to die 10 years earlier.
Thanks for the help! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1epnzo/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_eat_unhealthyhealthy/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca2isgb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > What type of impact does good/bad food have on me. Does it just mean I will feel shittier, or will it make me 50% statistically more likely to die 10 years earlier.\n\nBoth of these. Eating certain foods will make you feel better or worse, more tired or energetic. It also directly impacts your life expectancy, the guy who eats \"healthy\" food will tend to live longer (and a more healthy life) then the guy who eats unhealthy food.\n\nThe specifics are impossible to say though, since each person handles things differently and there is a wide range of \"healthy\" and \"unhealthy\" foods. We can't possibly tell you how much it takes to influence you, but in general most foods that aren't poisoned aren't going to change your life if you have them uncommonly, like once a month, McDonalds included.\n\nIt seems pretty clear that eating a lot of sugary candy or really fatty food all the time is bad for you. On the other hand, eating a wide variety of fresh vegetables is almost certainly a good thing. Everything else is somewhere between these two, depending on current research, moderation, how you prepare it, and the actual amount of it you eat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9043mu | why do automatic transmission cars have so much trouble trying to shift gears uphill but seemlessly shifts gears downhill? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9043mu/eli5_why_do_automatic_transmission_cars_have_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2nklup",
"e2nkol0"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"gear changes happen easiet when there's less load on the drivetrain/gearbox. on the downhill the engine isn't working hard so the gears change real smooth and you don't notice so much, but on the uphill climbs when the engine is working real hard, the load on the gearbox has to be reduced to change a gear, so the throttle has to be cut on the uphill to allow the change before power is re-applied.. which makes for a much more abrupt and uncomfortable shift",
"because uphill the transmission expirience more stress wich hinder gear shifting. Also is it smarter to drive in higher revs uphill so the gears dont have to struggle that mutch, but automatic transmissions doesent do that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3ybg67 | why have the major american auto makers stopped offering consumer grade trucks with a manual transmission. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ybg67/eli5why_have_the_major_american_auto_makers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyc1kwy",
"cyc47cl"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"They haven't - smaller pickups can still be ordered with a manual, they may just not be in stock. Definite advantages to a manual transmission, especially in a truck.",
"Apparently the market has spoken and they weren't selling enough for it to be worthwhile.\n\nCompanies will produce anything that makes them money."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6qe0t6 | for electric trains, why does the friction from the part on top of the train that contacts the power cables not cause the cables to wear out and need frequent replacement? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qe0t6/eli5_for_electric_trains_why_does_the_friction/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkwjhvu",
"dkwqbzm"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"The friction does wear metal but contacts on the train's antennas are made of a softer metal and this is the one that wears out. The pads as easily replaceable.",
"The [pantograph](_URL_1_) contacts are made of graphite, which is very soft and doesn't significantly wear out the [caternaries](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_line#Overhead_catenary",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph_(transport\\)#Weaknesses"
]
] |
||
6ljz7l | how companies buy other companies | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ljz7l/eli5_how_companies_buy_other_companies/ | {
"a_id": [
"djuecct"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"1. A private business owner offer his business for sale. Another business determines they are interested and pay his asking price. \n2. A business makes an offer to the owner of another business and negotiates terms to buy them out. \n3. A business buys or amasses sufficient shares in a publicly traded company to gain controlling interest in the company. Once they have controlling interest they can perform a forced conversion, trading an equivalent share of the parent companies stock for any shares they do not own in the target company if any existing stockholders refuse to sell. \n4. a business makes an offer of purchase to a publicly traded company that is accepted by the board of directors of the company...this usually involves making an offer above the current stock value such that the stock holders will make a significant profit so the board cannot refuse. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
18bnpu | why the pope stepped down | This is no doubt extremely out of the ordinary and will be extremely scrutinized and questioned for centuries as the pope that stepped down. What could cause him to make such a rash, ever lasting decision, especially when it seemed to surprise everyone in his trust circle? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18bnpu/eli5_why_the_pope_stepped_down/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8ddyxc",
"c8dt3kh"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe his health was beginning to fail and he decided to live out his last years of his life in solitude. The responsibility and pressure on the pope is enormous and it's likely that he did not feel like he continue his duties to the best of his ability.",
"On the surface of it he said his health was not up to it. However for many hundreds of years every pope has died in the job and ill health has not been an allowed excuse to quit. Thus there has to be a deeper reason.\n\nClearly the deeper reason is that he just can't handle the size of two problems. The first problem: the child abuse scandals where priests have sexually molested children by their thousands. Many countries have been involved. There is a clear audit trail showing that the Pope's office not only turned a blind eye, but also helped to cover it up and to protect guilty priests from prosecution. The other problem: financial corruption involving money laundering where the Vatican has been connected to various dodgy organisations. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
13k7vl | why does adobe flash player use all my cpu resources? | I have a system with a Core 2 Duo, not the newest but it's not the oldest either. Every damn time I am viewing streaming video content, no matter the resolution or source, my CPU utilization hits up to 90%. This bothers the hell out of me because it slows down muh multi-tasking. I know, just upgrade to a quad-core. But not an option right now.
What exactly is damn Adobe doing with all that CPU power? I know it's not the Flash video codec. I've played Flash videos that are not streamed and they don't utilize the CPU anymore than other video types. And I can't image its something like calculating what video bit-rate to call from the server; that can't possibly take more than a 1,000 lines of code--just watch how many packets come in at any interval.
Do modern streaming video protocols just suck? It's 2012, delivering a video stream to a client should be a straightforward affair.
My own gut instinct is that Adobe Flash Player has the same issues that Adobe PDF Reader did (still has?) back in the 1990s. PDF Reader was a monster and caused lagging on Windows 95--even if you weren't using the program! So what's the deal with dat Flash Player? Is it just an overcomplicated, poorly managed, bloated piece of shit; or are there valid reasons for its apparent CPU cycle gluttony?
EDIT: I'm not sure if we have a complete answer. The mentions of:
* vector graphics processing
* running out of system memory
* ad services running other Flash content
are irrelevant to my case. I'm complaining about streaming video only--not Flash games or interactive content. I'm using Ad Block Plus to block ads. I don't see any ad content during the Flash Video play. And with Flash Video playing I still have plenty of system memory available so there's no disk caching going on.
Other than trademark Adobe bloat, I think those blaming poor use of GPU acceleration are probably on the money. The CPU utilization goes down immediately after I change focus away from Flash Video content so it appears to have something to do with just drawing the individual frames. I have a discrete graphics card but even with "Hardware Acceleration" enabled in Flash settings streaming video won't leave my CPU alone. It's sad that no matter how much money you put into a graphics card streaming video will still claw away your CPU threads. I don't see how Adobe updating Flash to use standards like HTML 5 will do any better. HTML, SVG, and vector graphics have nothing to do with rendering streaming video.
TL;DR Read title. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13k7vl/why_does_adobe_flash_player_use_all_my_cpu/ | {
"a_id": [
"c74ou1g",
"c74p61r",
"c74pqgr",
"c74qvtz",
"c74rj67",
"c74ru4i",
"c74s80d",
"c74syl6",
"c74ufhz",
"c74x65n"
],
"score": [
10,
346,
35,
2,
2,
5,
3,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Shitty coders most likely. //flashdeveloper",
"People saying it's because of bloat are partially wrong.\n\nThere are three major reasons why Flash chews resources:\n\n- It's mostly CPU rendered, which basically means it's only using part of your computers resources. It isn't making use of your GPU (although it's starting to use the GPU more). It's been designed to run on systems ranging from the cheapest netbook to mac's to gaming pc rigs, etc. As a result it doesn't make smart use of system specific features that could give it a boost. It just grinds your CPU.\n\n- A lot of Flash apps use a lot of vector graphics which have been be rendered into a raster buffer. This can be a computationally expensive operation. \n\n- Flash allocates itself a lot of memory and can easily use up your available RAM to the extent that it's running off of your harddrive. This is much slower than reading from RAM and causes your CPU to stall a lot, so even though it might not being doing anything (it's just waiting for the hard drive to read) then it is chewing cycles waiting to become active again\n\noh and I forgot point 4: they don't give a fuck",
"Prepare for a lot of misinformation in this thread... First things first:\n\n1) Flash itself is not always the issue, contrary to popular belief. It's important to understand that Flash started out as a tool for non-programmers (e.g. designers) to be able to add animation to the web. Because it drew in so many non-programmers, a lot of Flash content is written by people who should not be programming. There are positives and negatives to this, of course (a positive being that people don't have to be programmers to accomplish certain tasks on the web). The downside to this is that poor programmers often write sloppy code, which takes up way more resources than it should.\n\n2) Irresponsible websites often allow ad networks to run several Flash ads on the page at once - so while your CPU is working its butt off just to render the page, images, font smoothing, etc - it's also playing 2, 3, maybe even 5 or 10 animations at once on the worst offenders' sites.\n\n3) Yes, Flash can be bloated and slow, especially on platforms where it hasn't been optimized well. It has long suffered on the Mac and moreso on Linux (at least in the past year, it has drastically improved on the Mac).\n\n4) Finally, all the above being said: Flash has grown an incredible amount over the many years it has been out, and unfortunately, in order to make sure new versions of Flash don't break all the old content, LOTS of old code remains, and tearing it down and rewriting the whole thing from scratch is just something that's never happened. Over time, as more and more features get added to programs, those features/functions are often added in less efficient ways because doing so the most efficient way would often require rewriting a whole lot of the code.\n\nAs an analogy for #4: Imagine Flash started out as a hut, and they kept bolting stuff on to it over the years to the point that it's now a several-story condo building or skyscraper. They never knocked it down and started over, though - they just kept expanding and expanding.\n\nThere are definitely problems with Flash - I'm not going to defend them in certain areas, especially that of security. However, Flash also takes a lot of the blame for things that aren't its fault - most notably people writing really, really crappy code using it -- but all the end user knows is \"Flash is making my computer slow\". It doesn't occur to them that some foolish developer might have done an awful job creating his ad banner, etc.",
"Simple answer: flash was invented back in the the old internet days because there was no straightforward way of making interactive animated stuff. They wanted, like most companies try, to impose their standard, which never happens when it's not open.\n\nTheir approach ? Reinvent the wheel: most OS already have fast ways to draw stuff on screen, and Flash does this own way, which is a huge software design flaw obviously, because it will ALWAYS cause more CPU calls, even if flash is accelerated, and its not, so it's 100 times worse.\n\nWhen you draw stuff on screen, there are optimised functions used by the OS to do so, because graphics are never \"as fast as possible\", and flash basically doesn't use them, and generated animation its own way, and then force the OS to redraw each time.\n\nNow you wonder, \"but I'm not using flash, I'm only watching a video\", and I my answer \"I know, that's why it makes no sense at all !\".\n\nMany video streaming websites used flash to play video for AGES, of course there was also microsoft media player and apple quicktime in the browsers, but it's not cross platform, so HTML5 standardised the < video > tag, which dictate simple rules and also allow to tell what video encoding you use, because of course those morons at Apple or microsoft will not want to play other video format that their own in their own browser, which is contrary to the open spirit the internet was designed for, so that there are as few incompatibilities as possible.\n\n**TLDR: the reason it eats CPU cycles doesn't come from your hardware, it comes from flash which is the only lowest common denominator when it comes to playing video online, and is a prehistoric standard. Hopefully one day most browser running natively in computer (especially windows) will be able to use that < video > tag properly, so youtube and others will very happily make the switch. Until then, wait, or click on HTML video, which is still in beta on youtube I guess.\n\nAdobe is a company that should die or kill flash and pdf altogether. It's a plague for all non-computer-savant, it's so frustrating.**",
"Anything that must update everyday, sometimes more than once. Must have issues. ",
"This doesn't really seem like an ELI5 request, it sounds like you'd understand a regular explanation.",
"HTML5 would fix this quality-wise, but isn't compatible with enough Websites/Content-providers yet, correct? When do we expect a competitor to overtake Flash? 2 years, 4 years, 10 years, never?",
"There are a few things that are important to understand about flash:\n\n* Flash is a platform for programs, more than a program itself. Think of it like a language, where any game / website would be a novel. Flash happens to be a fairly basic language for many reasons, the biggest reason is that Adobe wants EVERY computer to be able to speak the same language with no accent. It's like a trade language, but because it's so simple it can take a lot longer to say something complex.\n\nassembly, c, and c++ are the languages most games are written in, and if you compared them to a spoken language they would use every sound the mouth could make, a lot of sounds that the body could make (clapping, snapping, etc), would have incredibly complex grammar patterns, and when used properly could say hundreds of different things at the same time. However, every different race of computers (phones, consoles, Windows, Mac, Linux, etc) speaks a different dialect of those languages, meaning that anything written in them would have to be translated for each computer type.\n\n* Up until recently, Flash was focused on displaying websites, ui, and ads. It's fairly well suited for that and doesn't take much CPU to do. Then people started writing games and movie players in it, and Adobe took way too long to start trying to bring in the optimizations common to normal game platforms. Many of those are starting to come in now and over the next few years, but most people who write flash programs don't really know how to use them yet. \n\n* Most programmers who are really interested in writing high performance games and programs don't like to work in flash, and don't have any trouble finding a job in other languages. It's really only the recent explosion of social games that has brought any money and developer interest into the high-end flash programming scene.\n\n* In the past few years, companies developing for flash haven't really seen performance as hugely important. Many games on Facebook made huge amounts of money with horrible performance, and making a game perform well is expensive. Hopefully we'll see that trend reverse soon, but I can't really say that much about why I think that will happen.\n\nSource: I worked at Zynga on flash games for three years, and about half of that time was spent finding ways to trick the flash player into performing better. Just to give you an idea, there wasn't even a decent tool for profiling flash performance until a year or so ago when Adobe started on [Monocle](_URL_0_)",
"While I don't know the technical reason, I can assure you this is one of the reasons that HTML5 is gaining traction.",
"Well, Timmy, to put it simply enough, Flash sucks.\n\nThere's little else to it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.flashrealtime.com/project-monocle/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
6j9teo | what would happen if a submarine started leaking? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6j9teo/eli5_what_would_happen_if_a_submarine_started/ | {
"a_id": [
"djcmyik"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"If you find a leak on a submarine, you do 2 things right away. You surface (blow ballast, steer up) and fix the leak. Unless it's a huge leak, the submarine should be okay. For minor leaks, you probably don't even have to surface if that would be undesirable for whatever reason.\n\nAs for features of a submarine, as on any boat, the doors are watertight, so you can compartmentalize flooding by closing doors all around the leaking part. And if you count the crew as a \"feature\", every navy ship has a damage control contingent trained specifically to fix leaks and pump out water as fast as possible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
20mg1i | why was uprising in kiev considered legitimate, but crimea's referendum for independence isn't? | Why is it when Ukraine's government was overthrown in Kiev, it is recognized as legitimate by the West, but when the Crimean population has a referendum for independence, that isn't? Aren't both populations equally expressing their desire for self-determination? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20mg1i/eli5_why_was_uprising_in_kiev_considered/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg4oa7l",
"cg4oakv",
"cg4oaub",
"cg4q73n",
"cg4q7de",
"cg4s6sk",
"cg4sg3b",
"cg4sjyp",
"cg554t5"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
30,
85,
6,
2,
5,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"To me it would seem to rest on the fact that the protests in Kiev are natural protests arguing for closer ties to Europe while the vote in the Crimea was organised by pro Russian groups supported by Russian troops with the goal of slowing the decline in Russian influence in the area. These are therefore two very different things. In my opinion only. ",
"Violent or sudden overthrows of governments by popular uprisings happen all the time, and the international community usually acts quickly to legitimise the de-facto situation on the ground to avoid further chaos and to assist in providing aid and support\n\nUnilateral declarations of independence are almost alway frowned upon internationally as they can be precursors to conflict and civil-war. New countries are widely accepted only if the split was amicable",
"Crimea has a referendum is taking place while there's an armed foreign army patrolling their streets, whereas Kiev's protests were organic. \n\nThe risk of intimidation and tampering is extremely high in Crimea. They're not exactly foreign strategies to Russia.\n\n",
"Crimea didn't hold a referendum on independence. There was no option on the ballot for it; they voted to join Russia. But aside from that; a few points on why there may be something fishy going on:\n\n**Background**\n\nThe Kiev Government's first major act was to call for a new election for the government, to take place in a couple of months' time when things have hopefully settled down. They may be unconstitutional, but they are taking steps to fix that.\n\nThe Crimean Government's first major act (while their Parliament building was occupied by suspected Russian special forces) was to call for a referendum on joining Russia within 10 days (although they had earlier called for a referendum on more powers to Crimea, within Ukraine, on the same day as the Kiev presidential election). A major policy shift.\n\n**Timing:**\n\n10 days is a really short time for a poll of this magnitude. Particularly given how much of a mess that part of the world is in right now. That means there is no time to assess the neutrality of the question, set up independent observers, or have any sort of solid campaigning or debate. This last part is key for me; with no time for a rational and public debate, the result will be based on emotion rather than reason.^*\n\n**The Poll:**\n\nNow have a look at the [question on the ballot](_URL_0_):\n\n > Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?\n\n > Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?\n\nFirst thing to note; there is no \"maintain the status quo\" option. Second thing; even Wikipedia is unclear what the \"1992 Constitution\" means in this context. I imagine an expert pollster would be able to tell you more about these questions, but not having a status quo (or even independence) option seems a little odd.\n\n**The Results:**\n\n96.8% voted in favour of joining Russia, 2.5% in favour of the 1992 Constitution, 0.72% had invalid or blank (not selecting either option) ballots.\n\nWith a turnout of 83.1%, that means 80.4% of registered votes voted to join Russia. So based on Crimea's demographics, assuming all the ethnic Russians and others (65%) voted for Russia, at least ~~16%~~ *44%* of ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars voted for Russia. Which seems a little odd to me. [*Edit: 16% of votes must have been from the Ukrainians and Tartars, which is 44% of them - I failed at maths the first time.*]\n\n**Other issues:**\n\nThen there's the fact that Russian troops are effectively occupying the region. They've shut down a lot of the independent Crimean media, replacing some of it with Russian. Russian news sources seem to have been pouring propaganda into the region for weeks if not months (not that the propaganda is necessarily untrue).\n\nThen there's the fact that under the law theoretically in force in Crimea, the referendum is illegal. That's the big sticking point as far as international support goes; Crimea had a constitutional way of leaving Ukraine, but it chose an unconstitutional one, so isn't going to be recognised by most other countries.\n\nSelf-determination is a tricky issue; people should be free to choose how they are governed (and free to do so based on emotion not reason). But the question with the Crimean referendum is whether they were actually *free* to make the choice they did, given the pressures in place.\n\n----------\n\n^* For comparison, this year [Scotland is holding a referendum](_URL_1_) on independence from the UK; the vote is taking place 9 months after it was formally announced, and several years after the current government was elected - whose main manifesto point is holding such a referendum. This means there has been time to establish opposing campaigns, complying with normal election laws, get the question approved by the independent electoral commission, and so on. There's a chance people will still vote based on emotion not reason, but at least they've had a fair chance.",
"Follow-up question: if local referendums (referendi?) are not allowed by the Ukrainian constitution and neither is the secession of a region, how could Crimea ever be able to secede from Ukraine in a way that would be recognized by the rest of the international community?",
"Politics mate.\n\nUS and EU doesn't want Russia bigger.\nAnd the uprising was made by people wanting to join EU.\n\nPolitics all the way. ",
"The fact that Crimea's referendum was held while under foreign military occupation renders the referendum completely invalid.",
"It gained legitimacy when the acting leader used deadly force to put down mostly peaceful protests. This was coupled with years of him funneling billions in public money into shell corporations that directly benefitted him and his family. Ultimately, it led to the Parliament officially ousting him from office, similar to the way a President might be impeached for crimes in the United States.\n\nThe Crimean referendum is different because it is part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Just because a high percentage of its population voted to become part of Russia, doesn't mean it can just happen. To be considered legitimate, it would have to pass through the full Ukrainian parliament as it affects all Ukrainians. Since it's an important military holding in the Black Sea, Ukraine is not going to let it go. It would be similar to the Little Havana section of Miami voting to become Cuban territory. Just because many in the area might align culturally with Cuba doesn't mean a simple vote can make it so.",
"because the us doesnt want to implant in the heads of the american populace that it supports secession"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014#Choices",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2w7z4n | how come an explosion in one part of a gas pipeline doesn't cause miles-long fires across the entire pipeline? | I was watching the news about Ukraine and saw one clip where a part of a gas pipeline exploded due to shelling, and was set on fire as a result. I'm sure this has happened in wars many times as well as just by accident other times in other places. Now, as we all know, there are huge gas pipelines that run across entire states, nations, continents, etc... my question is: how come people aren't worried that if an explosion happens in one remote part of the pipeline, that it wouldn't be carried throughout the entire system, causing fires everywhere? Wouldn't the gas help the flame travel through the entire system?
Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w7z4n/eli5_how_come_an_explosion_in_one_part_of_a_gas/ | {
"a_id": [
"cood6sg",
"cooe3p4"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Fire requires a source of oxygen, and there isn't any in the pipeline itself.",
"It's not entirely about a lack of oxygen. In these pipes, there are devices called [flame arrestors](_URL_0_), which stop a flame from propagating throughout a system. These are found pretty much everywhere (aircraft, vehicles, gas/oil pipes, etc.). The flame *may* extinguish itself via lack of oxidizer, however there is usually always some amount of air in these systems, so flame arrestors are necessary. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_arrester"
]
] |
|
3k0ore | ordinary people who are obsessed with celebrities | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k0ore/eli5_ordinary_people_who_are_obsessed_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cutvdrq",
"cutvgq0",
"cutyvt3"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I've always thought it was because people get bored with their lives and feel the need to \"live\" someone else's. Some people do celebrities, others do books.",
"Middle aged, rich, suburban, women. And their SO when their SO (the political correctness) is talking about it. ",
"When you watch someone a lot, you start to feel like you know them. They become, at least on an unconscious level, your friend. I think there's a part of the animal-brain in us that doesn't quite understand that television isn't our real life. You develop a relationship with this other person, despite them not knowing you back. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9997ef | what is the legal reason that a president might not be able to be prosecuted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9997ef/eli5_what_is_the_legal_reason_that_a_president/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4ly3cx",
"e4m5tkp"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, there is no legal precedent to indict a sitting president because it has never happened before and there is nothing in the constitution that provides for this. Ultimately it would be the Supreme Court that would have to decide. Oddly enough they are trying to fill an opening in said court and ultimately Trump (who has been implicated in a federal crime) has to appoint what would be a decision that can impact this decision. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nUltimately, we are in mysterious territory because outside of Nixon, we really haven't been in in the position to actually indict and prosecute in a federal crime. The only closest comparison is Clinton who committed perjury and was impeached in the House. I think that was a state crime and it resulted from a civil lawsuit. Trump and Cohen is a bit different.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nImpeachment is a totally separate process and happens under Congress.",
"There is precedent for a leader's immunity from legal prosecution in the same place that most of the Western world's legal basis comes from - Rome. In the Roman Republic, a person who held high office, either a consulship or governorship, was immune from legal prosecution while they were in power. This legal immunity was actually the entire crux of Julius Caesar declaring war on the Roman Senate and crossing the Rubicon - Caesar had done some extremely questionable things during his consulship, to say the least of it, and had avoided legal prosecution because, as governor of Cisalpine Gaul, he had maintained legal immunity for the decade (or so) after his consulship, after which he could run for consul again. Long story short, the Senate (who was very unwilling to empower Caesar with a second consulship) declared his second 5-year term as governor short due to a technicality, Caesar didn't agree, negotiations for Caesar's return to Rome broke down, and Caesar rebelled against Rome when it became clear that the Senate wouldn't give him a chance at a legal route to power, and would seek to prosecute him no matter what.\n\nBut I digress. The question is why such powerful people are immune from legal prosecution. The old-timey answer, the Roman one, has to do with a concept called *imperium*. A Roman official could possess some level of *imperium* - what this meant was that they were empowered to act on behalf of the state. A diplomat could expect to have *imperium*, for example - they could go to a tribe and negotiate on behalf of Rome itself, with no need to have a king or a consul confirm a deal. Roman diplomats were famously bad, since they expected people to treat them as if they were kings, since they had that authority. Thing is, it wasn't just diplomats, it was all manner of leaders, including consuls and governors. If you were to try and prosecute someone for crimes committed while in office, you were effectively trying to prosecute the Roman state. The modern reasoning is actually based pretty nicely off of this old-timey reason - a citizen or group of citizens cannot overrule a state, and they shouldn't cripple their nation by threatening to imprison, exile, or execute their leaders for crimes while they are serving. Otherwise, their leaders simply can't rule, and that does far more damage to everyone than any crime the leaders could have committed in the first place.\n\nImpeachment gets by this problem rather nicely, actually. Impeachment proceedings are not criminal trials - if a leader is convicted in an impeachment trial, they don't go to prison or anything. They're simply removed from office and replaced by the next person in the presidential line of succession. Theoretically, once a president has been impeached, there can be a direct criminal trial for the same offense that got them impeached in the first place. And if we're going by pure old-timeyness, once a president leaves office, they are very much open to legal prosecution.\n\nAs an addendum, this is why I find the current US debate regarding this issue interesting. On the one hand, the POTUS is very much an emblem or an icon for the US on the world scale, and could be said to personally represent the US. On the other hand, they do not possess the degree of power that Roman leaders had, and the idea of checks and balances would suggest that we do not want the President to have the level of power that would require them to be immune to legal prosecution. I would actually not be surprised if the current POTUS proves to be correct in that a sitting POTUS cannot be prosecuted for criminal offenses while in office. In his case, however, it also really doesn't matter whether this is correct - it won't help him if he's removed from office, either by impeachment or by voters."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7f2pzd | why can't the rest of the world cut the us off from the internet | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7f2pzd/eli5_why_cant_the_rest_of_the_world_cut_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq928ww",
"dq928xk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Why would the rest of the world *want* to cut the US, US businesses and such off from the internet? Them's fighting words right?\n\nAlso, most internet stuff, companies, and businesses, except China, are US based. You'd be surprised how much of the world's traffic at one point flows through the US or a US company owned asset.\n\nAlso -- we still don't know what the impact will be if net neutrality is removed. And it is not yet removed.\n\nDon't be hasty and weird. Relax",
"Because the US runs the internet.\n\nThe Internet was created by the US government. The agencies that regulate the internet, like ICANN, are American. The vast majority of internet service providers, like AWS, are American.\n\nCutting the connections between the US and the rest of the world on the internet would utterly destroy the global economy, and leave everyone outside of America with basically no access to the internet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5e8scr | what is 'journalism'? | I keep seeing various parties, from Gamergate to Social Justice Advocates to the Liberal Media, accusing their opponents of forsaking 'Journalism' in order to further their agendas. The part that confuses me, though, is what they mean when they say 'Journalism'. Is there an agreed upon definition of what 'Journalism' is? Is everybody on the same page when the discourse turns to 'Journalism'? Or is it just a catch-all term for 'I don't like what the other side is saying'? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5e8scr/eli5_what_is_journalism/ | {
"a_id": [
"daal1dq",
"dab0nsl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Journalism means you are in a profession that deals with reporting news and information. Journalists are expected to serve the public's interests, and so they are expected to be objective, factual, and impartial.\n\nThe 21st century has seen these values completely disintegrate. Outlets like Fox News actively and explicitly cater to specific audiences and freely mix facts with opinion and assessment. We've also seen the rise of people like Rush Limbaugh and Julian Assange who are not \"journalists\" because they exist specifically to argue a point.\n\nThe problem is that people make accusations of media bias whenever they want to discredit someone, whether that is objectively true or not. The fact that you talk about the \"Liberal media\" implies that you have been drinking this particular brand of Kool-Aid. ",
"Hello! I'm a journalism professor who specializes in teaching News Literacy, so here we go: \n\n > Is there an agreed upon definition of what 'Journalism' is? \n\nNope! That's why you see so many fights about it regarding in-groups and out-groups. Journalism has historically been regarded as the process of taking information not accessible to everyone because of the inherent limitations of time and space, and publishing that information in some manner that others can see it. At its very core, that is what it is -- the process of collecting information and publishing it. The product of that process is what we call \"news.\" \n\nI think it's important to be able to visualize the difference between the act and the product. \n\nI have a point of contention with a lot of my peers who spend a lot of time debating and talking about \"What is journalism,\" in the modern age of social media and new platforms for publishing. I think that's a worthless question. \"WHY is journalism,\" now that's the real question. Think about WHY you value knowing about the world beyond your limited capacity of sight and sound."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4y4aw4 | why are some youtube ads skippable and some aren't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y4aw4/eli5_why_are_some_youtube_ads_skippable_and_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6kv316"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The ads that can't be skipped are 15 seconds. The 30 second ones can usually be skipped after 5 seconds (you may have run into a rare one that can't be skipped). I suppose the 15 second one would be pricier because viewers have to sit through it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2zboif | if truffles are so rare why don't we just farm them? | Why do people hunt for them? We grow regular mushrooms, why not truffles? Seems a little barbaric, we don't hunt for fruit anymore we grow it | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zboif/eli5_if_truffles_are_so_rare_why_dont_we_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"cphfxbz",
"cphg297",
"cphg51m",
"cphgdqw",
"cphng41",
"cphoz3y",
"cphp2gr",
"cphplg1",
"cphqwxe",
"cphrto4",
"cphs247",
"cphs9gt",
"cphsrnk",
"cphtj48",
"cphvk0o",
"cphwsw0",
"cphya83",
"cphzp2l",
"cpi02lo",
"cpi23wd",
"cpi24oa",
"cpinrmw",
"cpjey5e",
"cpwyzx7"
],
"score": [
12,
21,
50,
1516,
11,
2,
4,
2,
4,
7,
3,
3,
2,
32,
11,
3,
2,
4,
2,
9,
2,
2,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"truffles need mature oak trees.\n\ntruffle hunter dont go out randomly and look for them, they go to the same areas each year and the dogs will smell them if theyre underground at the base of the trees.\n\nthink if it as a specific type of grape for wine that comes from a distinct region.",
"There are attempts to inoculate the soil and roots of oak seedlings with the type of fungus necessary to make truffles, it has a low success rate.\n\nIt can take about 10 years before the oak tree's root structure and fungus network is large enough to produce truffles. Assuming the inoculation was successful and the soil conditions are supportive of truffles. That's a long time to wait and see if you just grew a firewood farm, or truffles, and therefore expensive.",
"They are farmed, it's just not a huge return for your outlay, and they take many years to mature.\n\nThere are quite a few in Australia (_URL_0_)\n\nIt's very labour and time intensive to grow them, and there's no guaranteed return on the investment, so the ones that do work need to pay for all the ones that don't as well.\n\nYou can have a go at growing them yourself if you live in a region with the right conditions. Here are some farmers in Aus that have done just that. _URL_1_",
"**ELI5:** \n\nCertain Mushrooms form symbiotic relationships with trees in order to produce fruits (truffles). Without the tree the mushroom will never produce a truffle. In reality we do farm them but they must be farmed with their host trees, this is very expensive and time consuming. Because of their complex life cycle we have no known ways to mass cultivate them (like we do with portobellos).\n\n\nFor those interested in a little more (***not* ELI5**):\n\n\nA mushroom begins its life as a spore. In prime conditions it falls near a host trees roots (usually through excrement), with *Tuber magnatum* it would be hardwoods such as oaks but there are many species of truffles partnering with other tree species. When the spore germinates its forms a singular filamentous cellular structure called a hyphae, this hyphae grows outward branching, forming mycelium. Once it finds another strand of sexually compatible mycelium it exchanges genetic material forming diploid cells and searches for a compatible root structure.\n\nOnce this web of cells reaches a compatible root structure it grows around it forming a mantle then starts to penetrate the root hairs, this is called the hartig net. The hyphae of the mycelium grow in between the root hair cells (this separates endo from ectophytes).\n\nThe hartig net allows specific nutrients and chemical signals to be transferred back and forth between the mushroom's vegetative body and the host tree.\n\nOnce the mycelium is well established and all soil, moisture, humidity, temperature and other unknown factors are prime for the mushroom's vegetative body it will start producing a fruiting body (the truffle), analogous to an apple tree producing an apple.\n\nOnly certain areas where all of these conditions are just perfect will truffles grow naturally which is why they are fairly rare. The fact that they are hypogeous (grow underground) makes them even more difficult to find (which is why pigs and more recently dogs are used to sniff them out).\n\nArtificial truffle farms are becoming more and more popular. \n\nA little detail on how they work:\n\nCertain areas have similar soil, temperature, drainage and humidity to where truffles naturally grow (or with certain species they naturally grow there). Mycelium is artificially cultured on agar and then inoculated onto compatible tree roots then sold to prospective mushroom farmers who plant the trees on their land. Actually finding a mature truffle may take years or even decades as both the tree and the mushroom must mature and all ecological and meteorological externatilities must be perfect for the mushroom to fruit and grow. This has successfully been done many times (*Tuber borchii* was just successfully farmed in Australia on pines).\n\nThank you for the gold kind stranger!\n ",
"One factoid I'm not seeing here is the fact that France used to cultivate truffles, but most of the farms were destroyed by the world wars.",
"It's way harder than farming a regular mushroom or a cabbage or something. Truffle is in a complex symbiotic relationship with trees, so you also have to make the perfect condition for both the trees and the symbiotic relationship.",
"Now ELI5, as a person who isn't a fan of fungus (mushrooms) why are truffles considered to be so good?",
"backyard mycologist here, the conditions for certain mushrooms to grow still isn't fully understood, we apply all our knowledge and yet fail to have them produce in controlled conditions or see substantially poor results meaning there is a large piece of the puzzle still missing to the growth cycle. Most likely it due to the isolation of the mushroom which is a necessity by growers to avoid contamination when you're trying to produce mycelium. But if the introduction of some other plant or something is needed then you up the amount of variables and the risk of contamination.\n\nI know that a lot people are trying to figure out a reliable method to grow black morel's and AFAIK there are only a handful of people that can grow them reliably and even then they can't get them to grow like they are found in the wild.",
"\"If the middle class is so poor, why don't they just buy more money?\"\n\nI can't remember what that line is from, but the title instantly made me think of it.",
"My family has a truffle farm in East TN. They very well can be farmed, its just a large undertaking. It takes anywhere from 4-6 years to even find out if the trees were inoculated correctly to produce truffles. At $25 a seedling, with over 3000 trees, its a huge risk with maybe an enormous reward. I think that's the main reason they aren't farmed widely commercial. The soil requirements are also very minimal, no real work there. The soil in East TN is about as good as you can get for the trees to thrive. ",
"They were cultivated very successfully at the end of the 19th century, but there was a bit of a fracas in 1914 that interrupted production, and most of the men who knew how to grow them were thrown into a meat grinder at about this time. As a result, most of the techniques for trufficulture were lost, and even though we've started to produce them again, he numbers are still nowhere near what they used to be.",
"Let's be honest. If we can genetically cultivate meat I don't doubt it would be impossible to cultivate truffles for a mass consumer market. The reason I'm suspecting that's not the case is because truffles are rare is heck and quite expensive. There would be so much pressure to maintain that market as it is so that the people gathering them now remain wealthy. For a parallel, look at the diamond cartels. ",
"I'm not really all that knowledgeable about this exact subject, however in my state(Delaware) and the surrounding areas I have come across quite a few \"truffle farms\" I'm not 100% sure about the specifics of them but when I'm done work I shall research some of them intensely and get back to you. ",
"That truffles are not or cannot be cultivated is a myth. Truffles used to be grown in large numbers, and are still farmed to this day. Before WWI, they were farmed in numbers large enough that their price, compared to nowadays', was fairly low, and were regarded as a seasonal staple by the majority of the french population– the main farms were located in the Perigord region of France (nowadays Perigord still remains one of the biggest truffle producers). However, as someone has explained here, truffle crops are not your standard crop field.\n\nTruffles only grow by forming a symbiotic relationship with the roots of specific trees, particularly oaks or holm oaks that have reached adulthood. The way of cultivating them consists on inseminating the roots of already existing trees with spores of the truffle. If the process is successful (and it only is when the weather of the area is neither too dry nor too wet, and if the soil meets specific conditions, etc), then the truffle fungi will develop and, after a few years (around 10 years in general), the first crops will become available. \n\nNeedless to say, this process is painfully slow, uncertain and not very practical unless in regions with existing forests (oaks are not particularly fast growers either). Collecting the \"crop\" is also relatively awkward, as the truffle grows underground and can only be found using specifically trained hogs or dogs. Furthermore, eventually (25-50 years), truffle producing trees stop producing them as the truffle fungus dies off. \n\nStill, the late 19th century France saw an expansion of truffle cultivars. This was due to a number of factors, including the infamous phylloxera epidemic that destroyed many of the vineyards in south-west France (Bordeaux, Perigord, etc). This plague freed the farming workforce, which was then devoted to \"seeding\" the vast oak forests of the area with truffles. Soon, the production of these \"farmed\" truffles skyrocketed, and its price dropped as much as its availability increased.\n\nUnfortunately, WWI halted the production, and since about 20% of fighting men died in the conflict, the spare hands available to continue with truffle farming after the war ended decreased dramatically. In addition, many of the truffle farms, that had been seeded in the second half of the 19th century, reached their peak age and started to die off, significantly decreasing production. With no spare hands and the prospect of only recovering the production in the distant future, truffle production plummeted, and truffle-farming became somewhat of a lost art. \n\nNowadays, truffles are grown to some extent in many areas like Spain, South Africa or New Zealand. However, since keeping production to low numbers is a way of controlling the price of a crop, it seems it is in the interest of most farmers to limit the availability of truffles. We will certainly not see truffles back to their early 20th century prices any time soon. ",
"They were. \n\nPrior to ww1 truffles were produced on an industrial scale in France. The first world war destroyed this by major battles taking place in the region destroying the forests. The great depression lead the abandoning of plans to rebuild (truffle fungus takes 10 years to establish in the trees root system) and WW2 killed any chance for a revival due to a fear of instability which lasted until the collapse of the USSR. Why invest resources for a decade to build up something only to see it destroyed before it bore fruit? \n\nWhy hasn't anyone revived it? because not enough time has passed to risk investing the huge amount of resources and risk that go along with industrial scale truffle production that and Frances political climate is a fair bit different than it was in the 18th century.\n\n The USSR collapsed in 1991. It took a few years for geopolitics to stabilize and it costs a lot of resources. When the large scale truffle forests were established France was an absolute monarchy. The king commanded it and voila it happened as his word was absolute. The situation has changed no one will order a 10 year investment with no guarantee of success nowadays. They don't build grand palaces like Versailles anymore either =/\n\nNow there are calls to re-establish the grand truffle forests of Frances golden age. ",
"Because we've never thought of farming them before.\n\nJust kidding, it's because it's hard and for some species impossible. But we do farm them.",
"Diamond is just carbon, lets just breathe and make diamonds ",
"They are rare because we cannot farm them. \n\nThey require very specific conditions that are not easily replicated, and when they are replicated they are not able to produce a volume high enough to consider them farmable. People have tried to domesticate them for centuries and have failed until recently though they still do not have high volume and there are still some species that to not take well to domestication. ",
"Check out _URL_0_ for information and videos about techniques and technology for truffle farming. The company is a very atypical silicon valley startup.",
"TIL that truffles are mushrooms too. I only knew if the chocolate treat kind. \n\nEdit:I admit I got a little exciting at the idea of chocolate truffles growing out of the ground. ",
"Truffles do get [farmed](_URL_0_). My family has spent the last couple of years putting in a hazelnut orchard for this very purpose.",
"Or maybe they're just having us on like the diamond market did, and the very man typing the great explanation of the high price (see below) is knee deep in the game ",
"because I had no idea what a non-chocolate truffle was:\n_URL_1_\n\"Truffle\" on @Wikipedia: _URL_0_",
"You can't just walk into a truffle farm, you have to shuffle into a truffle farm.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://trufflegrowers.com.au/growing-truffles/",
"http://theveggielady.com/how-to-grow-truffles/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"www.americantruffle.com"
],
[],
[
"http://www.truffletree.com/"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle",
"http://ffaasstt.swide.com/wp-content/uploads/italian-food-excellence-truffles-black.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
31eg7h | can someone explain this quote to me? | "If you did something right, people won't be quite sure you did anything at all." | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31eg7h/eli5_can_someone_explain_this_quote_to_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0sl2u",
"cq0slp0",
"cq0slpt",
"cq0smg5",
"cq0wtzq",
"cq13c3q",
"cq14hb8",
"cq15qfk",
"cq17e2f",
"cq17e5o",
"cq1b3e2",
"cq7d6gx"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
36,
7,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it means that people who do the right things aren't usually recognised or their good deeds are recognised and that people only remember or see the bad things.",
"You ever see a movie where the protagonist has this theory or a solution that no one believes but is so absurd that how could it not make sense?\n\nOr how about when making a ground breaking discovery and no one knows whether to say \"good job\" or \"the hell is that?\"\n\nIt's just, we do things in the moment and, within that moment, how can we truly know the goodness in our actions?",
"So let's say that you're a hotel concierge. If everything goes perfectly, the guests will never talk to you.\n\nIt's like that. When everything goes perfectly, we never realize that it almost didn't. If we realize that it almost didn't, it's because someone messed up.",
"It's from futurama. God says it. Basically hes saying if you're trying to influence things, you want to do it so people dont know theyre being influenced.\n\nWorks for people you wanna influence, or upstart little creations you made that stole your apples and killed your son",
"I felt like giving a bit more of a technical response since the most basic ones have been given.\n\nThe quote also applies to programming in a way. In your favorite programs, games, etc you don't think about the coding or the programmers, you just do what needs doing and move on. You don't think \"wow these guys wrote such good code, this works perfectly as expected\".\n\nWhen a job is done right, most people won't notice because of their in-built assumptions of how something should work. It's just something that did as expected and a non-event in their day.",
"This quote is used in an episode of Futurama wherein Bender encounters the remnants of a space satellite that collided with God. God uses this quote (once during their dialog and later at the finale of the episode) to describe the \"light touch\" that God has to use in the universe; so as to not abandon organic life to its own devices while also allowing them to determine their lives for themselves.",
"Next time you go into a fancy pants restaurant, look at how the tables/bar are set. The chairs all turned to a perfect identical angle, all the silverware in straight lines. Everything in straight lines. I was always taught nobody notices when things are set straight and spaced evenly. Nobody notices straight lines. But if that one serviette is a few inches higher than the rest or that one stool is crooked. People notice, even if it is only in the back of their mind. \ntl;dr Nobody notices straight lines. Everybody notices when its crooked or out of place. ",
"This sounds like what Buddhists call \"right action.\" Usually when we act, it's based on the idea of a \"self\" - I see, I hear, I think, I dream, I remember etc. \n\nBut if you investigate, this \"self\" isn't really there in the way we understand it in everyday speech. So you start to feel like things are happening and no one is \"doing\" them. ",
"Story of my life working retail. I have an awesome shift, nobody bats an eye. I forget to do X, all hell breaks lose",
"I always think about the IT workers at companies when I see this quote. When they are doing their jobs, the computers and the network runs smoothly and you almost never hear from them; it's as if they're not even doing anything at all, but who do you think is making sure everything is running smoothly?",
"Mistakes cause drama and headaches and stress and stand out in people's minds. When things are done right, the system runs smoothly and those situatioms are not as memorable.",
"Do you get a reward for doing your job? No, you're expected to do your job. When you go above and beyond at your job, you get a reward. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3kl07f | why on reddit's 'rising' tab, there are often posts with zero points and zero comments? how are they possibly rising? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kl07f/eli5_why_on_reddits_rising_tab_there_are_often/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuyb2u2",
"cuyczci",
"cuyddr4",
"cuyempf"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know, but maybe they use the count of clicks in the thread?\n\nIt is in fact a measure of interest, although we users can't see it.",
"If you click on them, you'll notice that the majority don't actually have 0 points - I think the points just don't update on the rising page. ",
"they likely update the vote counter periodically, rather than in real time. youtube does a similar thing. it cuts down on server load.\n\n\"rising\" comments are those that are receiving a lot of up-votes in a short period, so they're going to draw attention to it. ",
"I know on older or slower subreddits that are almost inactive, newness becomes a factor in what displays on the front page of that sub, and therefore your front page of reddit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
35vrbe | how does the car's system move the wheels? | After the things that happens inside the combustion engine, how exactly does the car move its wheels? Animation provided will be appreciated. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35vrbe/eli5_how_does_the_cars_system_move_the_wheels/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr89tm9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The engine is connected to the clutch, which is used to separate the engine from the rest so the engine can still spin when the car is not moving. The clutch is connected to the gearbox, which can gear up or down depending on what you need. That is then connected to the drive shaft to the wheels.\n\n[Here is an image](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://sengerandu.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/drive-train.jpg"
]
] |
|
1c3nwy | what is perestroika? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c3nwy/eli5_what_is_perestroika/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9coxur"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Perestroika means restructuring. Glasnost means openness. \n\nThose two terms are generally used to refer to the policy of liberalization of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1xcpgn | why the coca cola commercial, america the beautiful (superbowl, 2014) is so controversial in the usa? | The "melting pot" is the catch phrase of the USA. I have a feeling that Americans pat themselves in the back for this openness and great diversity. If so, why does this commercial showing contemporary American diversity see so many backlashes and critics?
The commercial from the official channel of Coca Cola can be seen here:
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xcpgn/eli5_why_the_coca_cola_commercial_america_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfa545k",
"cfa55vs",
"cfa6n9i",
"cfa6uvi"
],
"score": [
18,
12,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because many Americans are racist, elitist pricks. I think you'll find that the vast majority like the add, or at least, have no problem with it. It's just a vocal minority that the media pushes forward as a controversial story (so they can get money).",
"It's more of a fabricated controversy. Coca Cola wants to milk it's image for all it's worth and people are too PC to not go along with it. The reality is that social media idiots on twitter + Coca Cola milking it made it controversial. \n\nYou can't be a melting pot without racists and idiots thrown in. Especially in the U.S. where media love to exaggerate and sensationalize those racists and idiots. ",
"Not all of us americans are elitist racist fucks. I for one welcome our coke commercial. Diversity is a wonderfully complex thing that is just awe inspiring. Some of us(right wing idiots and redneck fucks) believe whole heartedly that the US is for english speaking white folks... But what they dont understand is that unless you speak Navajo or Cherokee you, too, are foreign. Everyone not directly descended from the native tribes are decedents of foreigners. \n\nThis country was once a wonderful place, but because people are so closed minded, you get the stupid fucks that now populate a good amount of this place. ",
"You can say virtually anything publicly and have someone give a racist or stupid response. I think Coke publicized those responses so that they could double-down on the ad and get more attention for it. No legitimate portion of the populace is truly bothered by that type of ad. But America fucking loves racism and discussing it. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443Vy3I0gJs"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
335nxy | why is it that when someone with good vision puts on somebody's glasses their eyesight gets all messed up, but when you put your phone's camera up to them it doesn't make any difference | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/335nxy/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_someone_with_good_vision/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqhrqi0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The camera adjusts its own lenses to get the clearest picture for human sight it can, cameras are kind of good at focusing through a fixed lense"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
45jg67 | whats /r/thebutton? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45jg67/eli5_whats_rthebutton/ | {
"a_id": [
"czybckg",
"czybulg"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Never thought I'd see this brought up again.\n\nReddit mods/admins have developed a tradition of April fools jokes, among them \"team periwinkle (the color of downvotes) vs team orangered\"(upvotes) reddit mold(before my time, a play on reddit gold)\n\nThe button was a April fools joke like others. Depending on when you decided to click the button, you would be assigned a color. Groups evolved based on what color they did (or didn't) click. It was all a big inside joke and kind of a \"you had to be there\" thing.",
"As /u/letstrythisagain_ said, it was an April Fool's joke. On the /r/thebutton sub, there was a timer that ticked down from one minute. When the button was pushed, the timer would reset. Each user could only push the button once. When you pushed the button, you gained a flair in the form of a colour. The colour you received depended on how much time elapsed on the timer. All users on the sub were flared grey until they pushed the button.\n\nBesides the button, the /r/thebutton was filled with posts about the purpose of the button. A lot of users tried to organize people to continue pushing it for as long as possible, while other wanted the timer to run out. There was a lot of guessing as to what happened when the timer reached zero. Because of the flair, a lot of users had fun by critiquing those that pushed the button at a certain time or didn't push the button at all."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6evqrb | how has the concept of tax been around so long and what caused it to originate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6evqrb/eli5_how_has_the_concept_of_tax_been_around_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"dide57z",
"didebes",
"didejlw",
"didfcdn",
"didi53x"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Early humans found it beneficial to everyone's well being to live in groups. As groups grew, tribes formed then competition among tribes began.\n\nIt was not efficient to have every person doing there own hunting, gathering, chores etc. Specialization began to occur, bartering and trade originated. \n\nTribes found it more efficient to provide for a common defense mutually, but protectors still needed to eat/live so tribe members would pay a \"tax\" (goods and services at the outset, later currency) to them for the greater good of the group. ",
"When people started to aggregate, you had communities start to form. When these became too large you had to try to impose some sort of order upon the system in which rules could be established, people to enforce those rules, and a way to create things for the community's benefit. Now if they got too busy to create their own income, they needed money to live and create those projects. And since the whole community benefits from it, they should help pay for it. So now you have a system of payment for things that became known as taxes. ",
"Tax have been around for as long as civilization have been around. To prevent an invasion you need an army and to have an army you need food so you tax all farmers. To start with they literally had the armies march around from farm to farm getting fed by the farmers. And this practice continued some places until quite recently when better transportation and modern economics have made it better to send the food to the armies instead of having the army go to the food. But it was not only armies that were collecting taxes. Any community project expect that the public will help building and maintaining it. This is where tax started. When money became common it was used to make sure that everyone paid equally back to society.",
"Taxes go back to before recorded history, so we don't really know. The first cases of tax were probably tribute. \n\nMany warlike societies would attack other settlements and steal what they needed, with whatever bloodshed was needed. To prevent this, their victims would often pay a tribute. Instead of suffering bloodshed and theft they would simply pay to be left alone. \n\nThis seems so simplistic and obvious a case, requiring no fine command of economics or even currency. (Tribute could be paid in barter.) Because of this, it seems likely that this might be the first example of the practice. We cannot know for sure.\n",
"This date back to the early agriculture. \n\nIf you start to have farmer, they can produce more food than they need themselves. They also become vulnerable to attack. A hunter-gathered can't have their food stolen by others. But a farmer can lose the food for the year if attacked at the right moment. \n\nSo it began as a simple exchange of service. The farmer feed the warriors and the warriors protect the farm. That was the beginning of government."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2dxvz5 | no-communication theorem and why quantum entanglement cannot be used for superluminal communication. | Since the ELI5 part might be hard, I will also take an ELI30 for somebody with popular science level knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dxvz5/eli5_nocommunication_theorem_and_why_quantum/ | {
"a_id": [
"cju5dlm",
"cju7b91",
"cjufjf6",
"cjune2w"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"EDIT: Adding my **analogy** from below, Which I like\n\n > Imagine I have a magical deck of playing cards, where if you burn 50 of the cards in the deck without looking at any card, the remaining two are always a pair. No matter how it's shuffled, no matter how far apart the cards are, you know the remaining two are a pair. \n\n > So say that I take 51 of the cards, and leave you with the 52nd. I tell you that when I reach the distant planet Arbitrarily-Far-Away, I will burn the extra cards, leaving only the pair (which includes your remaining, unlooked at card). \n\n > So, we know that there will be a pair, and we know that it's weird, because somehow your card \"knows\" what card to be instantly, even though I am orbiting planet Arbitrarily-Far-Away, and so light speed should limit that. \n\n > But, I still can't use it for communication. Imagine, for instance, you look at your card. It's the 6 of clubs. And when I burn my cards, the card I have left will be the six of clubs. But that doesn't help you or me, because it's always been, and always will be the six of clubs. The cards know instantly, but no information is conveyed, since you can't even know *when* I burned my cards, nor can I know if you've checked yours. \n\n----- \n\nShort answer, which is the only one I know since I am not a smart man:\n\nThe issue is that even if you could separate the particles, you can't know *either* state until you've looked at them. \n\nIt's not that you have particle A with state 1 and Particle A1 with state ?. It's that you have Particle A with state ? and Particle A1 with state ?. When either party looks at either, then it is set. \n\nSo imagine you have your machine on earth, and I have my machine above the Bugger fleet. Both of our machines have paired off particles, and neither of us knows their states. Once you check your machine, all your particles are locked into a state, but you have no way of knowing whether I've checked their states or not, and you have no way of changing their states. The same is true for me. This is why you can't do something like - \"check particle in box A if we are attacking the buggers, and check particle in box B if we are now their friends\" - because the act of checking your side of the machine locks the particle's state, with no way for you to know if I'd already checked mine. \n\nBut again, that's just what i'd seen elsewhere here, so it may well be wrong. ",
"I need an ELI5 for the ELI5 *title*",
"It's sort of an odd question(not a bad one, mind you). Asking why you can't use entanglement for communication is sort of like asking why homeopathy doesn't cure cancer. I need to know why you think it's possible in the first place to really answer you. \n\nWhat I can say, and what the no communication theorem basically says, is that if you have one half of an entangled pair of particles, whatever happens to the other particle the state (ie. the mathematical description) of the particle you have is unchanged. It's mathematically exactly the same matrix. You can't tell the difference between exactly equal matrices, hence you don't know if anything happened to the other particle, hence you can't communicate.",
"You and I each have a particle from an entangled pair. We fly apart in our space ships for a few lightyears. You observe your particle and discover that it has spin -1/2. Your observation breaks the entanglement. You now know that when I observe my particle, it will have spin +1/2, although you can't tell whether I have observed it yet. The particles are no longer entangled.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing useful you can do with this \"information\". In fact, no information has been transmitted, you have just been able to infer my particle's state because you know the states are correlated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
881gt7 | why is it so common for teenagers to inherit depression? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/881gt7/eli5_why_is_it_so_common_for_teenagers_to_inherit/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwh3lqs",
"dwh46ty"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Hormones are going pretty crazy, and lots of society and self-inflicted pressure. E.g. to be smart, athletic, have a gf/bf, have the responsibilities of an adult (but none of the respect), etc. \n\nThink of a young tree subject to strong wind, it's going to bend a lot. An stronger older tree can remain upright regardless.",
"Its a difficult age. Some teenagers end up with the responsibilities of an adult but still get treated like a child. They are also \"forced\" to be with ALOT of people, in the school/family that they might not like.\n\nFor me it was fun times, thx to my parents, who would listen to me and let me grow up with more and more freedom! Also friends help alot. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
qk8sv | gun ammunition | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qk8sv/eli5_gun_ammunition/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3y90r4",
"c3y9nzq"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"What's the question? Size, powder, casings?\n\nA round is basically a casing, a tube of gunpowder with a primer at the base and a metal bullet sealed at the top like a cork in a bottle, the firing pin strikes the base, the gunpowder explodes and the pressure forces the bullet out of the top of the tube like a champagne cork, the barrel of the gun forces all the gas, along with the bullet in a certain direction.",
"There's 3 main parts - the casing, the bullet and the powder/primer mixture.\n\nPut them together, and you get a cartridge. When you put it into a gun and pull the trigger, the hammer snaps forward and hits a piece of metal, which then hits the casing, like a hammer hitting a nail. This makes the primer/powder mixture explode, and because of the explosion, the gasses push the bullet forward down the barrel. A lot of times, that explosion forces the slide of the gun back, so the gun can eject the spent casing and chamber another round."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
ecmc7p | how does “checks and balances” work in the usa if it seems that one side can simply ignore it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ecmc7p/eli5_how_does_checks_and_balances_work_in_the_usa/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbccv9v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, the US Constitution wasn't written with political parties in mind. The founders of the United States didn't like political parties, and assumed that they wouldn't arise here. A lot of the major problems that the US has been having is because the constitution was built on the idea that politicians wouldn't place political allegiances over their responsibilities. I"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
24ql88 | why does my cat bite my foot while she's rubbing her head on it? | She always lays down at my feet and enjoys getting scratched just in front of her ear, then bites me after a while, mainly when I'm not even moving my foot. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24ql88/eli5_why_does_my_cat_bite_my_foot_while_shes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch9p9ar"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of debate on this subject among feline behaviourists. What it boils down to is that many cats become \"overstimulated\" from petting, scratching, etc, and get a surge of adrenaline. They rapidly change from \"cuddle\" type behaviours into \"play\" behaviour, which, for cats involved biting and often kicking with hind legs. \n\nIt probably originates from the fact that adult cats in the wild do not often experience a lot of close physical contact for prolonged periods of time. For some reason this translates into them becoming briefly play aggressive. It may be similar to how people who are very happy suddenly start crying."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.