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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1qqthq | what caused the simpsons to be such a popular show, and why are people so disappointed with it currently? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qqthq/eli5what_caused_the_simpsons_to_be_such_a_popular/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdfiqx5",
"cdfir6x",
"cdfiwks"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the 1990s, The Simpsons was faster, funnier, and smarter than just about anything else on television. It was one of the first sitcoms to do away with a laugh track, which meant the writers had extra time to pile on joke after joke. (Something that 30 Rock would later perfect in live action.) Also, The Simpsons' animation allowed the writers to take the characters on stories that other shows couldn't do.\n\nEvery TV show has a limited number of stories it can tell. Usually around 5 seasons of an American sitcom, things start to get strained. Characters start to get repetitive, or weird new story lines are introduced just to shake things up. \n\nThe Simpsons has been on for a whopping 25 years. That's 533 episodes. At 22 minutes each, that's 195 hours of content. After creating 195 hours worth of stories, there's just nothing new, fresh, or original to say anymore. Everything has been said and done. Every joke is a pale retread of one that came years, sometimes decades before. \n\nIt's kind of sad.",
"Used to have amazing writers that all got pulled away by fox to try and make their other pet (shit) prohects work. Then they left Simpsons with shitty writers with no comedic talent.",
"Up until the 1980s impossibly perfect families ruled the airways, as typified by the immensely popular *The Cosby Show*. Dysfunctional families, like *The Simpsons*, *Married With Children* and *Rosanne* were a novelty, and fed a sort of backlash against phony familial bliss. And being a prime time animated show made *The Simpsons* a double novelty.\n\nWhile it might seem that every other show is about a dysfunctional family these days, when *The Simpsons* started, it was quite ground breaking."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6w8ikt | why do undercooked potatoes taste disgusting, even though other root vegetables like carrots and parsnips are fine to eat raw? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6w8ikt/eli5_why_do_undercooked_potatoes_taste_disgusting/ | {
"a_id": [
"dm65arz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because of the starch content; potatoes basically store their energy as starch, whereas carrots store energy as sugar."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
351by4 | [warning: potential spoilers to avengers 2] - why does the internet hate avengers 2 enough to scare joss whedon off twitter? | I saw the movie on Sunday. It was fantastic. What gives, fickle internet? What gives. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/351by4/eli5_warning_potential_spoilers_to_avengers_2_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr00wmq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The movie was fantastic, although my understanding is that the problem was due to perceived sexism in Black Widow's portrayal. And while there is a bit of a problem, it's pretty minor, and certainly not worth sending Joss Whedon death threats about."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ihfhv | how does an irregular heart beat negatively affect your body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ihfhv/eli5_how_does_an_irregular_heart_beat_negatively/ | {
"a_id": [
"db86f5s",
"db8fp0q"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"Irregular heart beats (arrhythmia) can harm people in a number of ways, but it's also important to note that not all irregular heart beats are harmful. Some are completely benign, others can lead to more harmful arrhythmias, and some are always bad. \n\nTo answer your question, though, you have to consider the purpose of the heart. On the most basic level, it is a large pump in the left side of your chest that propels blood (carrying oxygen) from your lungs to the rest of your body. If anything prevents its normal function, your organs will no longer be able to get the oxygen they need. In the case of some dangerous irregular heart beats, like [ventricular fibrillation](_URL_0_), the lower chambers of your heart that play the biggest role in pumping blood to your organs (including the heart itself) can't properly do so.\n\nThe other risk of irregular heart beats is blood clots. Your blood remains in liquid form in your vessels for a number of reasons, but one of the big ones is that it is constantly moving. When blood remains in one spot for too long, it tends to clot. Sometimes, when an arrhythmia occurs, the chambers of the heart can't propel blood adequately. In that case, the blood remains within the chambers and can clot. The problem occurs when the arrhythmia stops, and normal heart function returns. Now, the heart is pumping really well, and that clot can be pumped out of the heart to the rest of the body. Most dangerously, it can be propelled up the carotid artery [into the brain, causing a stroke](_URL_1_). This is actually one of the most common causes of stroke in the developed world.",
"My whole life I've had a heart beat that would spike to 300 beats a minute when I would work out, and I just had a surgery to correct it. Nothing bad really ever happened though from it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.org/~/media/kcms/gbs/patient%20consumer/images/2013/11/15/17/41/ds00290_%20ds01158_im02524_r7_ventricularfibrillationthu_jpg.jpg",
"https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/images_236"
],
[]
] |
||
214yip | what exactly happens in your body when you drink water? | I get solid food, but what specifically happens when water enters the stomach and then afterwards. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/214yip/eli5what_exactly_happens_in_your_body_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg9oge1",
"cg9opi1",
"cg9p7zs",
"cg9pk17",
"cg9ps0x",
"cg9u8wj"
],
"score": [
11,
45,
2,
100,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"it goes into your intestines where it is absorbed into the blood stream",
"Did you know your colon is very effective at absorbing water? The walls are quite thin. So when food passes through your intestines into your bowels and goes into your colon as waste, it is still really water rich. \n\nIt is supposed to sit in your colon for a bit before you pass it, so you can absorb the water. If you pass it quickly you'll get dehydrated (think diarrhea). ",
"If water is with food when it hits the stomach, it gets turned into mush as usual, and the water is squeezed out in the intestines, as usual. (Other animals are way better at this than we are, which is why many animal poops are so dry.)\n\nIf water is by itself, it gets passed on in small glugs by the stomach sphincter 'exit' (which is how it normally works too- your stomach empties slowly.) and passes through your intestines until it hits something you previously ate, or gets to the large intestine and is absorbed on its own. Some absorption happens all along, but mostly this is the large intestine's job.\n\nEDIT: remember, your intestines aren't a springy, open tube like a hose. They're a sausage casing. Liquid doesn't 'flow' down on it's own, muscles push it along, just like food.",
"Your body balances the water in the blood, the cells, and the spaces in between. A small amount stays in the intestines to help digestion while most is absorbed into the body across tiny pores. When the water crosses the pores it also helps transport vital electrolytes into your body. Then the water enters the blood stream and quickly reaches a balance with the other spaces: the insides of cells and in between the cells. The kidneys use the water in your blood to filter the waste products into urine. Some water even goes back into the lower intestines to help make stool.",
"Snopes did a great article on the \"8 glasses a day\" myth. Of course, it's not a bad idea to drink water steadily through out the day, but the average person doesn't need to.\n\nAnd caffeine as a diuretic? Yeah, it's true. However, if you're a regular coffee drinker, you're body adjusts, and dehydration becomes minimal.\n\nLink: _URL_0_\n",
"I once worked with an army veteran who told me about an experience where he had to hike through the jungle with no fresh water for DAYS...he and all of his buddies were severely dehydrated, to the point that it was endangering their lives. It was a very hot day, but none of them were sweating at all because their bodies just didn't have any moisture left. Finally his unit found a stream where they could refill their canteens, and they were all drinking water as fast as they could. He drank two or three canteens in a minute, and about thirty seconds after the fresh water first hit his lips, he saw sweat covering his arms again. That water reached his sweat glands in less than a minute...amazing what the human body can do in extreme situations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp"
],
[]
] |
|
2mxnfy | why/how is alcohol so popular in countries like japan or korea, even with a large percentage of the population having "asian glow"? | "Asian glow" is the red flush reaction that many people of East Asian descent (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) experience when drinking alcohol, maybe due to their inability to metabolize alcohol as well. Other side effects of "Asian glow" include increased heart rate, nausea, headaches, general discomfort and [maybe even cancer](_URL_0_).
Drinking alcohol is a big part of life in Japan and many times, people are expected to drink with their bosses and coworkers after work. Drinking is also a large part of life in Korea and in many parts of China.
This seems contradictory. So what are the reasons behind this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mxnfy/eli5_whyhow_is_alcohol_so_popular_in_countries/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm8jba9"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"As a guy with this particular genetic flaw, the answer is pretty straight forward. We enjoy alcohol for the same bloody reasons the rest of the world enjoys it. Those 'side effects' aren't too different from what other people get when they drink a lot of alcohol (nausea, headaches, general discomfort). The only difference is we just usually can't drink as much before these problems come up. Doesn't stop us from enjoying alcohol in general--we just have to drink a bit slower or we wind up drinking less overall.\n\nAnd you can build a tolerance just like the rest of the world. Before university, two pints would be enough to convince me to stop drinking for the night; end of second-year, two pints was just a starter for the night."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.nbcnews.com/health/body-odd/asian-flush-red-flag-risk-cancer-f1C6437432"
] | [
[]
] |
|
34g0nu | why did /do people call areas of asia the orient? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34g0nu/eli5why_did_do_people_call_areas_of_asia_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqua5jw",
"cquaih4"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Orient comes from the latin word oriens, which means rise. As in the sun rises from the east. Occident is the opposite term. It comes from the latin word occidens, which means west. \n\nIt originally was a pretty neutral word, but many Americans started to use it in a racist way so people have stopped using it.",
"Maps used to be made so that instead of North being at the top, East was.\n\nTherefore the East was the Orient, and the people of the East were Orientals."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1p2v5g | an overview of wwii | Basically al Eli5 post going over what happened during the war between what countries and why, thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p2v5g/eli5_an_overview_of_wwii/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccy6qux",
"ccy6rzd",
"ccy6zpe"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Germany was pissed off about losing the WWI and being saddled with some horrifying economic punishments courtesy of the Treaty of Versaille. A guy called Hitler rose to power by loudly bitching and moaning about how unfair it all was and how the German people deserved so much better. The German people loved having their ego stroked like that so they voted the guy into power.\n\nMeanwhile, Japan was pissed because of something called the ABCD encirclement (American, British, Chinese, and Dutch), which was basically starving them of oil and resources that they needed to build their country into a superpower. \n\nSo, Hitler got greedy and started taking over European countries, and Japan got greedy and started taking over the entire Pacific ocean, so a bunch of other countries got together to beat them up a bit, get them back under control, and put things more or less back to normal. The Americans used the war as political leverage to leapfrog England into the pre-eminent position of power in the western world, and Germany was once again saddled with heavy punishment and reparation payments (which they're still making to this day). Japan got nuked and suffered from permanent military occupation by the Americans (which still goes on to this day). \n\nRussia got their ass kicked in the first half of the war, but rebounded strongly enough to make them a superpower in their own right. The Americans absolutely hated that, which led to a long period of uneasy relations between the US and Russia which we now call the Cold War (which, in a way, is also still going on to this day).\n",
"Maybe I can get some help from others to fill in the blanks but here we go:\n\nPacific Theater of War: Japan had been modernizing very rapidly ever since the Meiji Restoration, which placed more power in the Emperor and led to his being influenced by an increasingly militant and nationalistic corps of advisors. This led to Japan invading many surrounding countries, including Korea and China, a main reason why relations are still strained between these countries. This all happened as early as **1937** mind you, two years before American text books will tell you WWII started. As the Japanese kept expanding, their propaganda stated that they would create an \"East-Asian Coprosperity Sphere\" so all Asians can rule themselves. In reality Japan would harshly rule the subjugated territories. This went on until Japan decided that it had to face the big elephant in the room facing their domination of the Pacific: the US. That led to Pearl Harbor and the US entry in the war. Following Pearl Harbor the US (with some help from Australia/NZ and other allies) utilized an \"Island Hopping\" strategy to wear down the Japanese. This entailed attacking stepstone islands on the way to the Japanese home islands. Since nobody knew which islands the US would attack, it forced the Japanese to spread their forces thin, and gave the US a huge tactical advantage. Once the US took Okinawa (a terrible, drawn out, and deadly affair for both sides - but especially the Japanese who saw honor in fighting to the death), Harry S Truman made the decision to use the Atom Bomb as an agent to end the war. US policy was to 1) scare Japan into surrendering and 2) Scare the USSR, because we already knew there would be a cold war abrewing once WWII finished. Japan capitulated on VJ Day, and we had free reign to remake their state, with the one exception that the Emperor stays in place.",
"In short a conflict of political systems, a clash of economic spheres, and a cataclysm of centuries old feuds and vendettas. Also featured genocide. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ce0owt | how do natural springs stay clean, and not get contaminated by outside sources? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ce0owt/eli5_how_do_natural_springs_stay_clean_and_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"etxjw3w",
"etxliy9"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"They do the further you get away from the source. Water is constantly flowing out of it like a garden hose, but the further you get away from the end of the hose the more likely the water picks up contaminants",
"Ground conditions often act as a natural filter for water. Generally speaking most surface water becomes somewhat contaminated pretty quickly between animals and bugs interacting with it.\n\nTo filter water safely you usually start with the big particles then work your way down to small particles. You can do this at home with a gravel bed, sand bed and a charcoal bed that the water filters through.\n\nSome areas will do this naturally giving you clean water. The positive pressure of the water coming out of the ground ensures that no backwash contaminates the spring. Once the water hits the surface though, the contamination process will start over again, so only the area directly around the spring is completely clean."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
15jtce | can somebody explain the relationship between the different sorts of computer programming? | I have been writing some simple code in Python for a couple months now, but I am still in the dark about the bigger picture of computer programming. What I want to know is how are the different types of programming related, as I read about so many different languages for different purposes (mysql for database programming, ruby on rails for web development, etc.). Sorry if my question isn't entirely clear, but feel free to ask me to clarify. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15jtce/can_somebody_explain_the_relationship_between_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7n2uej",
"c7n2zk5",
"c7n3mg9"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not quite sure what you mean by \"how are they related\".",
"It is all about the right tool for the right job. Just because you can pound in a nail with a screwdriver doesn't mean it is a good idea.\n\nThere are two things than make a language suitable to a particular task...the features a languages has, and the libraries around it.\n\nTake Python. It is a pretty generic, multiple purpose language. Because it has good text processing features (as compared with C++ or Java), it is good for web programming, where you manipulate a lot of HTML. But what makes it really powerful are all the libraries that already exist to let you do web stuff.\n\nBut the same things that make it easy to use make it slower than C, C++, or assembly language. It is fast enough for most jobs, but if you want to do real time 3D rendering, not your first choice.\n\nThat's basically it. Some languages are fast, some are easier to program with, some make it hard to make mistakes, some are designed to solve special problems. It is all a matter of picking the right tool for the job.",
"I think what your question comes down to is frameworks. Imagine if you were completely isolated and only knew basic Python. You could after a lot of effort create a graphical window and put a button on it. Then you could make something like a button but allow the user to type text in it and call it a textbox. Because this is a repeatable task, you can instead have frameworks that provide you with a lot of common UI based functionality and all you have to do is call a few methods in those frameworks. \n\nNow those frameworks don't have to be written in Python. One example is GTK+. GTK+ can be used in your Python application to create your UI. But it's written in C. It can also be used from Perl. \n\nSimilarly, you could have written your own data storage mechanism but why do that when someone's written a database for you? And a framework to talk to the databases which is usually part of the language itself.\n\nOn to web applications. Web applications are interesting because you are taking a 'back-end' language such as Python or C# and using it in a web environment. By web environment I just mean a set of libraries that let you work in that specific space. And you use those methods to return a string of text to the browser (HTML). But as you do that, you also need to be aware of the HTML itself, and any styles you want it to apply (CSS) and any browser-side functionality you want it to perform (JS). Oh and you may also want to split your 'back-end' code into easy to maintain patterns such as MVC and you can use existing frameworks for that (Django written in Python or _URL_0_ MVC written in C#). So in web development you're actually working with many different languages and technologies. But in a web application you wouldn't work normally work with something like GTK+. And in a desktop app you wouldn't work with Django. But you can work with CSS in GTK+ 3 to style your UI. \n\nI mentioned that a browser understand CSS and so does GTK+. CSS is more of a specification and it is up to the 'parsing party' (browser of GTK+ library) to interpret the CSS given. Similarly a browser knows how to parse and understand HTML and JS. \n\nIf that was confusing, just understand this - when you start working in a certain area of development (server side, daemons, web apps, desktop apps), there will be frameworks that you need to be aware of and usually tutorials and searches will bring them to your attention."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"ASP.NET"
]
] |
|
7w5dse | what is the math like behind pushing a door on the far edge of the hinge vs pushing as close to the hinge as possible? | Specially if the door has one of those hidraulic auto-closers?
I of course understand I have to apply much more force the closer I get to the hinge, but what I'd like ELI5'd is why is it so much easier to push it on the far end (1 finger), vs pushing it as close to the hinge as I can get (pushing with both hands and planting my feet didn't do it). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7w5dse/eli5_what_is_the_math_like_behind_pushing_a_door/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtxkzxd",
"dtxml4e",
"dtxuhjn"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A force applied at a right angle to a lever multiplied by its distance from the lever's fulcrum (the length of the lever arm) is its torque. A force of three newtons applied two metres from the fulcrum, for example, exerts the same torque as a force of one newton applied six metres from the fulcrum.",
"The really really simple answer is that the door is a lever where the fulcrum is the hinge; the closer you are to the fulcrum of a lever when applying force, the more force you need to get the same movement.\n\nThis particular lever only has its own weight that you're working against, so you aren't moving a huge amount of weight on the other side, but for hydraulic auto-closing doors there is a counter-force that is working against you, and thus the mechanical advantage of pushing against the outside of the door vs the inside edge is non-trivial.",
"Others already pointed out that (arm length)x(force) = (torque). Why is that? Another way to look at this is how much work is done. More force used means more work, but also the more distance you push means more work. It's (distance)x(force)=(work done). So I want to rotate a door 90 degrees. This means I have to do a certain amount of work. If I push close to the hing, my hand won't move very far, compared to pushing at the edge, it has to travel with the far end of the door. So at the hinge I must push harder to do the work over a shorter distance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
651slz | why are proper names all pronounced/spelled in english? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/651slz/eli5_why_are_proper_names_all_pronouncedspelled/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg6qqfv",
"dg6qyvi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sorry please explain question/ give example?\n",
"Because you're only reading things written in English, for English speakers, and thus contain the English spelling of proper names"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2w0mwt | how does the post office know the stamp i used on my envelope wasn't used before? | Why don't people just pull the stamps off letters they've received and reuse them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w0mwt/eli5_how_does_the_post_office_know_the_stamp_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"comimmq",
"comimwe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When the post office processes a letter they put some ink over the stamp. That way they can just scan for some extra ink on top of the stamp.\n\nGo ahead an look at a envelope you received with a stamp on it. There will be some words printed over the stamp about post mark. ",
"When they deliver the package or letter they put an ink stamp on it called a [postmark.](_URL_1_) They place it so that it overlaps the stamps you used with ink indicating that they have been used to send a package before and can't be used again.\n\nThe ink that is meant to cover the stamp and void it is called a [killer.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_\\(philately\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmark"
]
] |
|
2tydz1 | the redirection page for websites, which result in a need to press 'back' twice in your internet browser. | Some websites require you to quickly press 'Back' twice, due to a redirection page. I've noticed some of these pages are via Facebook, yet Facebook is blocked at my work.
What are these redirection pages for? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tydz1/eli5_the_redirection_page_for_websites_which/ | {
"a_id": [
"co3f08d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think it's because just pressing the back button once just take you to the redirect page, which redirects you to the page you were on before you clicked the back button. But clicking it twice in rapid succession, you are taken to the redirect page, then you click back another time before the redirect page redirects you, and you're taken back to a normal page instead of being caught in a mini redirect \"loop\".\n\nOr I'm wrong, idk. But I think I got it haha."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2947j7 | lossless audio files. what's the point of having a 1000 kbps flac file that's 40 mb vs. a 320 kbps mp3 that's less than 10 mb? | I'm trying to choose between buying a live album in MP3 or FLAC. FLAC is $2.00 more though, so I'm wondering what is better about it. I'm also wondering about the difference between how the files are made; such as FLAC is more kbps because the audio is layered or something. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2947j7/eli5_lossless_audio_files_whats_the_point_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cih9dkk",
"cih9h8a",
"cih9m0n",
"cih9xhb",
"cihaxfc"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"MP3 files compress the file so that there are pieces of the music that are missing. Lossy formats attempt to minimize the acoustic artifacts that you'll be least likely to notice, but there is always going to be a loss in fidelity.\n\nFLAC compresses the file size, but the algorithm does it in such a way that no data is lost. \n\nMost casual listeners would struggle to tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio files. ",
"FLAC is lossless. All of the information that the computer could capture and reproduce is stored in the FLAC file. \n\nMP3 is lossy. The MP3 format discards a lot of sound that is supposed to be mostly out of the range of human perception, but for people who are really in to their audio quality there are noticable compression losses and artifacts.",
"Some people think they can hear a difference. Maybe they can, I don't really know. Personally, I don't.",
"Here's probably going to be the only reason to get a FLAC.\n\nMP3s are lossy which means some of the audio data literally just gets thrown away when encoded. That's why they are smaller. However the algorithms are really good at keeping the parts you hear, but not perfect.\n\nHowever, you will probably never be able to tell the difference if the MP3 is encoded at a good quality. Unless you have a good ear and high quality audio equipment.\n\nA FLAC is not lossy. The algorithm compresses what it can, but when it can't compress anymore it just stops. Where the MP3 would start throwing samples away to make it even smaller. This is why FLACs are bigger.\n\nThe problem with MP3s is if you ever want to re-encode it again to something else. If you re-encode an MP3 to a newer format it will never sound better than the original MP3. The audio data that was thrown away in the original encoding can never be gotten back and you'll lose more by re-encoding it.\n \nSo, one reason you may want to get a FLAC is if you want sort of a master version of the audio. Take the FLAC and make an MP3 of it for your iPod for now. But if a newer better audio format comes out in a couple years then you could go back to the FLAC and have the original source to make a better quality encoding.\n\nIf you don't care about that I would just get the MP3.",
"In photography terms it's sort of like the difference between a JPG and a RAW file. Not sure if this helps, just how I see it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7jidph | how do you read a sports betting "spread" line? | I know how to read a moneyline, but I can't seem to figure out how to read a spread line. I have no actual interest in gambling but I just like to look at the odds for the upcoming games each week.
[This](_URL_0_) is a very common sports. For example, the Jets-Saints line has 4 numbers:
.|.|.
:--:|:--|:--
NY Jets|47u|-10
NO Saints|-15 1/2|+05
The Cardinals-Redskins line has 4 numbers:
.|.|.
:--:|:--|:--
Arizona|44u|-10
Washington|-3 1/2|-05
what do these numbers mean???? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jidph/eli5how_do_you_read_a_sports_betting_spread_line/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr6umzb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The \"u\" is for under. The number in front of the \"u\" indicates the total score between the two teams. So in the first example, you are betting that the end score will be under 47 points. You can bet the over as well. If you think the Jets will score 30 and the Saints will score 20, the total is 50. Since this is over the offered 47 points, you should bet the \"over\".\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe number under that is the spread. In the same example, the Saints are a much better team than the Jets. It wouldn't make sense for a bookie to offer that game straight up, as everyone would bet on the Saints and the bookie will most likely lose a lot of money. So instead, they offer a spread. The \"-\" indicates they are the favorite, because the way it's calculated is that you will take the Saints score at the end and \"-\" 15.5 points from it. If they still beat the Jets, you will win your bet. So take the example from my previous paragraph. If the Saints score 30 and the Jets score 20, you will lose the bet. You would take the Saints' score and subtract 15.5 (30-15.5=14.5). Since the Jets scored 20, they would beat the adjusted Saints score of 14.5. The opposite of this would be Jets +15.5. It means the same thing but money lines prefer to list the favorites.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nBeing a bookie, ideally is a guaranteed moneymaker. Their strategy is to get their clients to split the bets. They want 50% of their clients to bet on the Saints and 50% of their clients to bet on the Jets. That way, they're guaranteed to make money. The losers pay them the full amount of the bet but the winners don't receive the full amount because the bookie takes a commission (usually around 10%). This is why you'll see the line adjust throughout the week. This is to try and balance the bets. If the bookie made the line Saints -20, many people would bet the Jets. When the bookie realizes this, he will move the line down to Saints -19 to try and get people to bet on the Saints. The adjustment will continue until it's as close to a 50/50 split as possible."
]
} | [] | [
"https://i.imgur.com/gDxSuFR.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
2s94j7 | how can judaism be matrilineal, and yet orthodox jews be so anti-female? | How can modern Judaism place so much emphasis on equality between the sexes and indeed ostensibly be matrilineal; and yet Orthodox Jews won't sit next to women, and pull [this kind of shit?](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s94j7/eli5_how_can_judaism_be_matrilineal_and_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnbr1r",
"cnncinq",
"cnncvir",
"cnogfas"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Orthodox Jews wouldn't regard themselves and anti-women. Instead, they would say that men and women have a different role in the world.\n\nMen's role is to study the bible first and foremost, but also to provide for the family. Women's role is to have children and raise those children (and because of their central role in having children, a child is considered Jewish if the child's mother is Jewish). Those two roles both very important.\n",
"Orthodox Jewish Women don't sit next to men on the plane or shake their hands either. It's not misogyny, it goes both ways.",
"It's the same way with Islam. Apparently, Muhammad once said \"It is better for you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle than to touch the hand of a woman who is not permissible to you.\" (Not permissible to you means not your wife, sister, mother, etc... A woman that you can potentially marry, and that includes cousins).\n\nIt all goes back to the social norms of the time periods and the regions the religions started in. It's a sign of *humility* and *modesty* as well as chastity and loyalty, more or less.",
"Jews have gone through so much. They have been rediculed, enslaved, massacred. \n\nSo other then the time when Jews had Prophets amongst them, they have mostly been treated badly. I Don't know of the religious side of it. But I know originally Jews would marry within the 12 tribes, even better If the spouse was from your own tribe. Keeping the religion and the liniage was important. Because it was believed God had favored the Jewish people, which basically mean, the liniage of Abraham, through Isaac, his son Jacob(aka Israel) and then the 12 sons of Jacob(Israel). The 12 sons and their future generations are the 12 tribes of Israel. \n\nSo the favor was on the linage because of Abraham's covenant with God. Jews were in a position of subjugation a lot of times. This means, the ruling class could sometimes rape the slave women, or keep these slave women in their harems until they would get pregnant and were no good to the king.\n\nWell these children would grow up be Jewish by faith but the father being a non-Jew could make it pretty difficult for other Jewish men or women to marry them. If the jewish race is passed down from the mother these kids would be considered part of the tribe. They can go on to have full standing in the Jewish community. They can get married and have children within the Jewish community. They can be part of the blessing God gives to the chosen people. Being Jewish would also mean, with in a strictly Jewish society you get preference and rights over non Jews. \n\nApologies in advance to any Jews, if I'm wrong. These are just my thoughts. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultra-orthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-female-world-leaders-out-of-charlie-hebdo-march/"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7pa65r | why is there no longer a satellite delay on television interviews? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7pa65r/eli5_why_is_there_no_longer_a_satellite_delay_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsfnp4n",
"dsfs1qx"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Fiber optics have permitted these to be conducted via terrestrial lines instead of by satellite.",
"Satellite delays are about 1/4 second. The delays have gotten longer with digital. Analog video added almost no delay to the satellite delay. Adding the encoding and decoding time it is usually around 1/2 second. If you want to interview someone via satellite who is far away from you, it can take two or three satellite hops to relay the signal. Fiber is used when available, but Satellite News Gathering trucks are still widely used. They are starting to be replaced by products which bond several 3G/4G cellular modems into one wider data path. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1k9cpe | how do events in my dreams coincide with events that are happening in real life? | For example, I dream that I'm walking down the hall, going into the school bathroom for example, then taking a leak at the urinal. At the same time I start to pee, I actually pee my pants in real life. My dream seems to have spent a couple minutes setting up the urinal scene before I pee my pants in real life. How does this work? How does my dream foresee what is going to happen in the real world? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k9cpe/eli5_how_do_events_in_my_dreams_coincide_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbmnudw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, AFAIK dreams are rather spontaneous procedures. It's not like your brain says, \"Tonight I will dream about this specific chain of events, in which I shall end up urinating\" at the start. Somewhere along the \"peepee\" signal went off and your brain rationalized a situation that involves peeing in a familiar setting. Either that or you just happened to be dreaming about a familiar situation involving peeing and that caused your bladder to release the fluids.\n\nAlso your sense of time is not exactly accurate while you are dreaming.\n\nSource: I've slept before."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
c25afd | how are "mesh" wifi setups different than a single router with wifi extenders? | Doesn't it all come back and get congested at the same point? I understand that with a true mesh, the "sub-routers" or whatever can talk to each other but I don't see how that doesn't still result in weaker connection away from the main router and overall congestion at the main router. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c25afd/eli5_how_are_mesh_wifi_setups_different_than_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"erhscf0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"WiFi range extenders are basically just wireless routers without the 'Router part' (AKA: Wireless Access Points). They plug in to your router using a wired connection and create a separate wireless network. If it connects to your main WiFi wirelessly, then it becomes a Wireless repeater, which doesn't work as efficiently. - With range extenders, your device (Phone, laptop, etc.) must determine which access point to connect to, this usually isn't very reliable as most devices will want to stay connected to their current AP for as long as possible.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWiFi Mesh systems more closely resemble enterprise WiFi systems, in which a single device controls all of the wireless access points and it creates one single network. This controller will monitor all of the wirelessly connected devices (IE: Your phone, or laptop) and determine which access point they should connect to. This means you can walk around your house and your device will seamlessly connect between multiple access points to maintain the strongest possible signal. Some WiFi mesh systems will connect their access points through wireless signals, but these will still be vulnerable to interference just like range extenders. The best way is to connect them using wires.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n**TLDR:** WiFi mesh works better because the router will control which access point your device connects to in order to maintain the strongest possible signal. Both mesh and range extenders suffer from interference if you connect them using wireless instead of wires."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7jgjuk | what is ac grounding as opposed to dc grounding? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jgjuk/eli5_what_is_ac_grounding_as_opposed_to_dc/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr68abd",
"dr6d2cq",
"dr6d9d9",
"dr6fosx",
"dr6ir84"
],
"score": [
19,
4,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They aren't any different. In both cases you're just establishing a common point to reference voltages against\n\nFor AC your signal will vary between above and below ground regularly. For DC your signal will either be above or below ground and stay there",
"For AC, you are actually connecting to an earth ground through a cable or rod. For most low volt DC, you just connect to a reference ground. Think negative battery terminal in a car. In both cases you are just completing the circuit, so current can flow. ",
"Unlike a typical household protective earth ground (AC), in a DC circuit, the \"ground\" is often somewhat of a misapplied but extremely common term for what's a reference point in the circuit. You'll notice your multimeter usually says COM where plugging in one of the probes; that's what it's for.\n\nVoltage is measured as a *difference* in potential, so you need a 0 to base it from. This is that reference point, and everything else measured-from and returning-to there in the end.\n\nIt gets more complicated with AC/DC coupling setups where noise is an issue; in this case AC grounds refer to grounds with a capacitor which blocks the DC signals.",
"Electricity = angry pixies that want to go home. \n\nAC = angry pixies who want to get back in to the earth (home) we are using the neutral that is bonded, connected, to the earth to get them there. \n\nDC= angry pixies want to get back to the negative terminal (home). Some people say the pixies go from negative to positive but we will ignore them for now. Some times you will have a DC power supply that has the negative terminal bonded to the earth, this is for safety. \n\nIn both AC and DC you ground the system to provide a path home for the pixies and that path should be a Low resistance path so it is easier for the protection, fuse/breaker, to trip and stop the pixies. ",
"The confusion may be between actual ground for safety and the neutral wire, in AC, which should also be at 0 voltage. While DC is usually using calling the neutral as ground, I think this is mainly because DC is low voltage and doesn't really need the safety ground.\n\nWith DC you normally just have your positive voltage wire and then you have ground, which is have you define as 0 volt and measure potential differences against, and wherever your device uses power, it's doing so by connecting back to the ground to get the voltage difference, *so the consumed current is lead back in the ground wire*. This ground may not even be connected to the earth, DC is usually used low voltage devices which don't need grounding.\n\nWith AC, you have 3 wires, phase, neutral and ground. When you use power you use the potential difference between phase and neutral, *so neutral is what's leading back the current* (although it's AC, so it's not really going in any direction in this case. Ground is not supposed to lead any current at all! **except when something goes wrong**, then it should shortcut the phase so the current it down into the ground instead of into you, this also quickly blow a fuse (or activate the ground fault switch if you're more modern) to stop the phase altogether.\n\nSo basically, ground in DC rather corresponds to neutral in AC, while ground in AC is strictly an added safety wire that has no other functionality. This difference is not really because of AC vs. DC, but rather between high vs low voltage. (I immagine that a high voltage DC device would have a separate ground as well, and a separate neutral which, at the very end may still be connected to the ground)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1a7obo | the logical basis for feminism | What is the patriarchy, and how can you prove its existence?
Why does humanism not cut it, what makes feminism necessary?
I've been getting a lot of gibberish when I ask people about this, but hopefully someone here can clear this up. Anyone I ask tends to resort to making very general statements about society without actually backing up their claims.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1a7obo/eli5_the_logical_basis_for_feminism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8utqk2",
"c8utuan",
"c8uu844",
"c8uux8v",
"c8uw2bf"
],
"score": [
5,
15,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"So you're looking for...studies and empirical research that provide evidence on the gender wage gap?",
"Patriarchy is the idea that society is, by and large, centered around men.\n\nThere are tons of examples of this, but the one I pick this time is going to be the [Bechdel test](_URL_0_). The concept of the test is simple. Women are 50% of the population, and they have just as much to talk about as men do. So unless it's something like a period WW2 thing, a movie should probably have:\n\n* at least two women\n* who talk to each other\n* about something other than a man.\n\nThe problem is that most movies do not do this. Heck, you often don't even get past the second part. But this is not at all true in reverse; nearly *every* movie has at least two men who talk to each other about something other than a woman. \n\nThe fact that most people don't notice this is part of what makes feminism necessary. If you just say \"hey I'm gonna treat everyone equal!\", you'll miss a bunch of obvious problems like this one.",
"I'd call myself an egalitarian, so hopefully I can give an as neutral explanation as possible.\n\n\"Patriarchy\" basically means that society is ruled by men. For example, who is the head of your household? If you answer \"the dad\", you may be following a patriarchy system. In some cases, it may actually be that the dad is the head of the househould because he does all the work, but a number of families still call the man the head of the family regardless. This is largely a past issue and has been in decline recently, with less families claiming the man to be the head of the household. However, it is still a valid reasoning. You were looking for numbers, though. I'm having trouble finding the North American numbers that I've seen in the past, so will provide these Pacific Islands Countries and Territories statistics from the UN, which show the head of the household was male 74% of the time [[link in Google Docs](_URL_1_)].\n\nBut one of the main points of modern feminism is that the patriarchy is also seen in society in businesses and governments. This can't really be proven. While statistics show there are more males than females as CEOs of large businesses and politicians, that has been in a strong decline and there's no evidence that a woman has any more or less chance of becoming a CEO if she wants to be one. This level of equality is rather new, though, so the numbers are still emerging.\n\nNoting, however, I've only really been talking about industrialized countries. In the other hand, countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria have many other issues regarding gender equality. Basically, women are treated like crap there. That area of feminism is largely undisputed, but it's also an area where change has been very gradual. It's hard for western civilizations to think that gaining the right to drive a car is a step forward.\n\nThe pay gap argument is very, very controversial. While there are numerous studies that have found there to be a noticeable gap in mens and women's pay, there have been others yet that take in more factors and have found the gap almost non-existent. A number of countries also have laws that ensure women cannot be paid less than their male counterparts for the exact same job.\n\nAnyway, that's the primary points that are used to argue feminism as still necessary. However, few things are truly undisputed in society. Opponents of feminism tend to argue that feminism is no longer relevant. As pointed out, the \"patriarchy\" model is difficult to prove and largely eroding even by the proofs. Opponents argue it no longer exists, and the \"proofs\" are simply the reminiscent of such a model from times where the genders weren't so equal. For example, there is now nothing stopping women from becoming a CEO. In the past, that may have not been the case, but now there's no legal or *general* social limitations.\n\nAlso as mentioned, a number of people have looked closer at the pay gap issue and found that by accounting for other factors (the pay gap issue usually just looks at total income over their lifetime), the pay gap issue could be brought down from 23% to as low as 4.8% ([American statistics, as per Wikipedia](_URL_0_)). These factors include things like taking maternity leaves. The issue with things like maternity leaves is that the US is unpaid (although the majority of the world has paid maternity leaves) and too short. There's also findings that women who take maternity leaves are less likely to be promoted from a man who does not take a paternity leave. The solution would ideally be to have forced maternity and paternity leaves (as is the case in countries like Norway).\n\nAs a side note, bear in mind that each side has its sensible folk and its screamers. You'll usually hear a lot about those screamers. In the case of feminism, they've earned the unpleasant nickname \"feminazis\". Some of these people may follow the same ideas for feminism, but they also disregard all other ideas. The majority of feminists, however, simply want equality for their gender, and have no complaint with men also wanting equality in other areas. Myself, personally, I prefer the title egalitarianism, as neither feminism nor mens rights activitism is really about gender equality, but equality for just the one gender.\n\n**TL;DR: patriarchy is the idea that men are the authoritarian figure in society, and feminism is argued as necessary because it serves to dissolve the idea of patriarchy and the gender pay gap. Opponents against feminism argue that the patriarchy no longer exists and the gender pay gap is minimal.**",
"The patriarchy is ingrained into our culture. You just have to look at the leadership of our country. Almost entirely men. Look at the [gender pay gap](_URL_0_). Look at the laws restricting what women are allowed to do with their own bodies. ",
"Bear in mind that \"feminism\" is a *very* broad term. It encompasses an enormous field. There are feminists who reject the patriarchy/ gender privilege paradigm. There are feminists who are sex positive, and those who are sex negative. It includes very sensible people working for equality, and it includes maniacs like Gail Dines and Andrea Dworkin. \n\nPersonally, I've abandoned use of the term. It's entirely too broad and does not fully reflect my perspective. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States",
"https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:q_f6NhP9A1MJ:unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/Rome_Dec2007/docs/4.3_Robertson.ppt+&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShsYS4p2gOVH9n0aS7UxlUDZGn9wiYpFIh_FyIpo2vdcpflOwrRfRT3U2Pq7najF6_O4EMUY5z40u_l6xRfk3qfZyFqaQftvHTmLcxQEeOlkDxJ9x2dKMfKmzUKYzeFccsncIwW&sig=AHIEtbQT1ceqV_clUzgI-rQvkcc5irGNoQ"
],
[
"http://www.upworthy.com/this-is-why-women-have-the-right-to-complain-about-their-paychecks?c=ufb1"
],
[]
] |
|
bzwt4k | how do carbohydrates turn into glucose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bzwt4k/eli5_how_do_carbohydrates_turn_into_glucose/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqxutbz"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"So all carbs are chains that include carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Hence carb(on)o(xygen)hydr(ogen)ate. These are the basic blocks of glucose which is C6H12O6. So as carbs which are just complex chains of the base blocks of glucose get broken down and converted to glucose."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
e2b6t2 | how any police agency/city/state/etc has any money and can stay operational when they are sued repeatedly and have to pay out millions upon millions of dollars for each settlement? how is it sustainable? | ie... police wrongdoing cases... wrongfully jailed... corruption then sued etc... etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e2b6t2/eli5_how_any_police_agencycitystateetc_has_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8uks1e",
"f8ulhje",
"f8unb56",
"f8urg72"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Those payments don't come out of the police departments' budget. The city/county/state pay out settlements from their general funds, which can significantly impact the finances of smaller governments. The financial strain may help encourage the elected officials to put pressure on the police departments to reform themselves.",
"It's not supposed to be sustainable. They're supposed to not do things that cause them to have to pay out millions of dollars in damages.\n\nBut ultimately, the money comes from taxpayers, via whatever government (city, county, state, whatever) is levying the taxes that pay for the agency's operations. Ideally, there would be professional or political consequences for the management of an agency that repeatedly screwed people over badly enough that it cost taxpayers millions of dollars in liability. In practice, the kinds of wrongdoing that cost taxpayers millions in liability are often popular and widely supported.",
"You can be sued, doesn't mean you will win the lawsuit. There are a lot of protections in place for police agencies, if you're curious just do a google search for 'qualified immunity'. Also of note, when they do actually lose a lawsuit, the police doesn't pay it out, the state does.",
"Police have liability insurance. There's whole insurance sectors which cover specifically for issues like this. Malpractice is another one. \n\nAlso keep in mind that many many police departments can go decades without a serious complaint. Their timely insurance payments help cover the payouts.\n\nFurther, a 10 million award might be paid put over 20 or 30 years. It then just gets rolled into the budget."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
17243i | why do i need to sleep with something between my legs? | So my friend just said to me: "I can't sleep without like a sheet or something between my legs." I responded with, "Jesus me too!"
We can't really nail down why, I mean it only has to be the most pathetic of sheets I mean a couple mm thick and I just feel more comfortable.
So anyone care to elaborate? I figured it might be some sort of thing related to feeling safe or what not. Hope we're not the only ones lol! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17243i/eli5_why_do_i_need_to_sleep_with_something/ | {
"a_id": [
"c81ihia",
"c81jizk"
],
"score": [
19,
2
],
"text": [
"If you sleep on side without sheet of pillow between your leg, your spine and hip will rotate into an uncomfortable position, and contribute to muscle imbalance and pain. That's why.\n\n_URL_0_",
"That's what she said?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://my.clevelandclinic.org/be_well/sleeping__healthy_spine_bewell1008.aspx"
],
[]
] |
|
ec4ltm | if i'm in a 500sq ft enclosed room, and i light a bic lighter for 3 seconds -- have i increased the temperature of the room? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ec4ltm/eli5_if_im_in_a_500sq_ft_enclosed_room_and_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"fb93lrl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Temperature is a measure of heat energy (versus light, sound, mechanical vibration, etc). If you add energy to what already exists, then the answer is yes. Whether it is measurable is a different question."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
d7wbl1 | why does sun tea tastes so much better than regular brewed tea? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d7wbl1/eli5_why_does_sun_tea_tastes_so_much_better_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"f15gcpk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because it's brewed at a much lower temperature, some of the bitter chemicals in the leaves fail to dissolve into the water, leaving a milder drink."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1qfwd8 | the socioeconomics in a socialist country. | I generally know what socialism is but I would like to know a bit more details about life in a socialist environment. Every question I saw when I searched was the difference between communism and socialism.
How does the economy work? Who pays people, what is for sale and what is provided by the state? Is there a defined class system? What are the pros and cons of living in a socialist country? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qfwd8/eli5_the_socioeconomics_in_a_socialist_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdcescn",
"cdcesmn",
"cdcrcwq",
"cdertqg"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I'll explain a market socialist economy, I think it's the easiest to relate to.\n\nSocialism is about workers owning their workplaces, there are no classes like in Capitalism (owner and worker). \n\nFor a shoe factory: the workers take in revenue from selling the shoes that they make, they are paid for the value of their production (I produce 100$ of shoes per hour before markup, therefore I get paid 100$ per hour). They could make anything and sell anything they want, there are no de facto restrictions. The state provides what the workers want it to do, the state represents their interests. If they want say, more roads, they are taxed and they build more roads. Ideally, direct democracy.\n\nPros: No one is taking value of your labor from you (like a investor profiting because the workers are underpaid, in socialism there are no stockholders that aren't the workers). Greater productivity and happiness as a result; you can work less to provide for yourself, leaving more time for the enjoyment of life.\n\nCons: Hard to establish, the current system actively opposes its formation.\n\nTL;DR same as now, except workers own their factories, better standards of living, more time to enjoy life.\n\nNow this is dramatically simplified. If you want a more in depth explanation, head to [r/Anarchy101](_URL_1_), [r/Communism101](_URL_0_), or [r/socialism](_URL_2_)",
"Feel free to ask follow-ups and all that. To be honest, this is a rather contentious question within the Socialist community. The debate hinges on a few factors: \n\n1. Are we hoping to achieve Communism in the long or short term?\n\n2. What, if any, function does the state play in this transition from capitalism to socialism (and potentially communism) \n\n3. What, if any, ideal are we looking to achieve throughout this process. \n\nAs you can imagine, there are various answers to these questions. How you answer them will influence your thoughts regarding what socialism/communism looks like and should work towards. Naturally, this is problematic as Marx pointed out, you can't just imagine some abstract utopia and expect the world to conform to its rules. You need to understand the world as it is (21st century neoclassical economics) and identify how to change it either radically or via reform. To understand various schools of thought on this matter, check out this post by another user who does a great job summarizing the various schools of thought: [Link](_URL_0_)\n\nBasically, the debate is between Centrally planned economics, decentrally planned economics, market socialism, and Participatory economics. ",
"That depends on what type of socialism you are talking about, but, in general, they all share one key characteristic: Worker control of the means of production. There are two basic ideas as to how this will look.\n\nThe first is what people commonly associate with socialism, state control of the means of production and worker control of the state. If we take that to be worker control of the means of production, which, to be clear, I don't, then you get a command economy. Every business is owned by the state which sets prices and wages. This model has many problems. For one, rather than eliminating corporations and capitalism, it changes their form. The state becomes a corporation and the leaders of the state take the place of the capitalists. Despite socialists of this stripe claiming it eliminates classes, a new class system emerges with the bureaucrats and government officials having power over the workers, thus making the workers and the bureaucrats/government officials two classes. Now, there are pros to it. For example, if you want a job, you can get one, no matter what. Prices are generally set so that no one with a job is starving. There is less growth needed to sustain the economy, excepting for outside forces like the US was in the Cold War, so there is less of an impact on the environment. However there are many cons. There is less freedom. It doesn't eliminate the divide between classes that exists in capitalism. It does not allow the workers to have any direct say over the management of the means of production. The workers still are subjugated to a class of elites.\n\nHowever, that is not the only conception. The other conception is *direct* worker control of the means of production where the workers control the means of production democratically. Every workplace would be managed by the workers voting on how it should be run. Generally this is achieved through use and occupancy property rights. Basically, if you are the person who generally use or occupy something, you own it. If multiple people do that for something, they all own it collectively. Now, there is a far more diversity of how this would look like than with the other model, so I'll break things down by type.\n\nFirst, I'll start with mutualism as it was one of the first form of socialism to be put on paper. Under mutualism, all businesses are worker cooperatives run democratically by the workers. More importantly, though, there is a mutual bank that is democratically controlled. This mutual bank would give out interestless loans so that anyone could start a cooperative of their own. The economy itself would function as a market economy. The workers would decide how much they would sell their products for and would split any money made. That's just the technical details of it, though, rather than the foundation of it. Mutualism is, essentially, a logical extrapolation of the golden rule upon the political and economic spheres. People who control themselves make stuff then exchange it with other people who are their equals. These people, in turn, make stuff of their own then exchange it with others, usually including the first person. In this, what goes around truly comes around. Everyone needs to work to survive, but their work is what they want it to be and they do that how they want to do it. This would almost instantly lead to better working conditions since now the workers choose their conditions. In addition, in a community based upon mutuality, there are graver consequences for making crappy products as they can easily take their business elsewhere or take out a loan to start making what you are making themselves. This also means that there are no one with power over others, so there are no classes. Now, mutualism is anarchic, so they seek to do away with the state. In its place, they put industrial federations. Industrial federations are decentralized and directly democratic. They don't interfere with the market, really, but are used by the people to act collectively. They are also what runs the mutual bank and a defensive force for the community. Going off of that, there is individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is *very* similar to mutualism. So much so that some people consider it a form of mutualism or mutualism a form of it and it has mostly the same pros and cons to it, though I'm sure a mutualist or individualist anarchist could give some pros and cons that are specific. Individualist anarchism is mainly distinguished from mutualism in the mutual bank and the defensive force. In mutualism, both are run by the community through the industrial federations. In individualist anarchism, both are run by those who work them and have to compete with each other. Other than that, they aren't all that different, to my knowledge. The pros of it are that it is classless, so there are no groups with power over each other. It also has great level of personal autonomy. In addition, there are no \"freeloaders\" as you have to work to earn money. There is also far less need for growth than in capitalism and in the state socialism I described above, so far less of an impact on the environment. Also, since the workers don't need to split what the businesses make, the workers are far less poor and anyone who works at a successful cooperative will be able to live comfortably. That is not to say it is without cons. If you work at a cooperative that fails or does poorly enough, you might have trouble having a good life or good meals.\n\nThe next which I'll talk about that does this sort of socialism is Titoism. Titoism is an interesting case because it came from the tradition of the state socialists, but somehow went to direct worker control of the means of production. As such, it, unlike most other forms of this sort of socialism, still has the state. However, the state doesn't own any businesses. Instead, the businesses are run by the workers as worker cooperatives. The state does have influence in the economy, though, and is very authoritarian. Everything is centralized, but there is still actual direct worker control. This still has a class system with the government officials being a separate class from the workers, but it isn't quite as pronounced. Its pros and cons are a weird mishmash of mutualism's and state socialism's. For example, it has the lack of freeladers and less poor workers of mutualism with a split between the autonomy provided by mutualism in the workplace and the lack of autonomy provided by state socialism outside of the workplace. It requires more growth than mutualism, but less than state socialism. It has the con of mutualism (failed businesses lead to starving people) and the existence of an elite as is in state socialism. As I said, it is sort of an odd ball.\n\nThen there is council communism. Council communism is a strain of Marxism that developed in response to Leninism. The idea of council communism is to create parliamentarianism for the workers. To achieve this, they form worker councils for every workplace. These workers councils are made up of people elected by the workers themselves and who still work in the workplaces. In addition, they elect people form each workplace to serve in a representative body, of sorts. These come from the workforce and are supposed to serve the will of the people. The worker councils decide prices and pay, which are generally more fair to the workers as they have to win elections and stay a part of the workforce to be a part of the worker councils. This is very similar to Luxemburgism, with the main difference, from what I can tell, being methodological as Luxemburgists use electioneering as well as revolution to bring this about while council communists only advocate revolution. The pros of this are that the workers make very geed money in this. They also don't have to do as much with the managing of their workplaces, but still have a say in it. The level of growth needed to sustain it is comparable to Titoism. While the people do not have the autonomy of mutualism, they are certainly more autonomous than under Titoism as the government is more democratic and less authoritarian. As cons, it still doesn't give full control of the workplace to the workers, which restricts their autonomy at work. Workplaces that aren't all that successful, for whatever reason, produce people who might not have as enough to eat well, though there is a possibility that the worker's state would provide welfare.\n\nContinued in following post.",
"Just to quickly dispel a common misconception about socialism: The Nordic System is *not* socialist. Obama is *not* a socialist. Socialism is *not* a \"nanny state\".\n\nSocialism is one of those words that's been completely bastardized by contemporary political rhetoric. If it doesn't involve workers owning the means or production, then it's not Socialist."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Communism101",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/socialism"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/16czup/hello_umm_so_have_questions/c7v0t2n"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2jfd80 | how does a christian rationalize condemning an old testament sin such as homosexuality, but ignore other old testament sins like not wearing wool and linens? | It just seems like if you are gonna follow a particular scripture, you can't pick and choose which parts aren't logical and ones that are. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jfd80/eli5_how_does_a_christian_rationalize_condemning/ | {
"a_id": [
"clb6wgm",
"clb7gsb",
"clb7vpa",
"clb8o8u",
"clb975i",
"clb9ba4",
"clbeqa6",
"clbingb",
"clbk2sz",
"clblr2e",
"clblwkk",
"clbm86m",
"clbn0lu",
"clbokqt",
"clboxum",
"clbp9ly",
"clbqw72",
"clbskry",
"clbtqyu",
"clbuld9",
"clbvokt",
"clbvxfb",
"clbwt6o",
"clbxvb8",
"clbyv5x",
"clbz3mf",
"clbzhqg",
"clc0ax5",
"clc0zi9",
"clc1mk5"
],
"score": [
1100,
4,
14,
112,
11,
3,
2,
8,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
6,
2,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Paul.\n\nIn the Gospels Jesus is fairly clear that the old law has been abolished (see Mathew 15:11 as the standard proof text for this)- that is that those Old Testament sins are no longer sins. But, the Gospels are not the end of the New Testament. In the Epistles the Bible condemns homosexuality (and other Old Testament sins). To the mind of many that makes it clear that while many of the Old Testament laws have been abolished not all of them have been. (Roughly those break down into laws about purity which are abolished and laws about social and sexual behavior which are not).\n\nObviously, this explanation is less that convincing to many, but it is one of the standard explications given when this question arises.\n\n",
"Romans 1:27 and surrounding verses. \nThat's the New Testament, Don't worry it's in both sections.\nEDIT:\nbut I will agree with some of the other commenters.. Unfortunately there are quite a few 'Christians' who decide they don't like all the rules so they pick and choose what they deem easy to follow.. That I do not agree with and I don't hold that they are a true Christian, given that a lose definition is 'Follower of Christ' not 'Mostly following Christ...'",
"Remember, ancient Israel was effectively a theocracy. So Leviticus isn't so much a 'Holy book' as it is a law text. It contains detailed sentencing guidelines for crimes ranging from the severe to the ancient equivalent of traffic violations.\n\nTheologically speaking, Jesus formed a new covenant with God and swept away the law. This the concept of a separation between the law of man and the law of God that you might recognize as \"separation of Church and state\".\n\nIt did not, however, change the law of God. God still wanted you to respect your parents, avoid coveting your neighbor's donkey and the like. It's just that he didn't require human societies to clog up their court system with donkey-coveting trials. God had a fine and fiery place prepared for the donkey-coveters in the afterlife.\n\nNow, if homosexuality were strictly an Old Testament sin, it might be possible to hand-wave it away like dietary laws and rabbinical rituals for prayer that just no longer applied. However, homosexuality was commonly understood as a moral offense against God. More obviously, it was explicitly called out in the New Testament as a bad thing.\n\nSo you should actually ask how someone can call themselves a Christian and not condemn homosexuality. Arguably a Muslim or a Mormon is more in keeping with Christian faith than a Unitarian is. That being said, 'Christian' isn't trademarked and if a 'Jesus-flavored spirituality' wants to refer to itself as 'Christian', this is really no different than McDonald's touting it's \"healthy\" menu.",
"The top answer is good, but I'd like to add that the OT law is actually classified into 2 parts - the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law. The Mosaic Law is mostly made up of ceremonial things that were meant to set Israel apart as a chosen people of priests. Dietary restrictions, regulations on \"clean\" and \"unclean\", etc all fall into that category. The Moral Law, on the other hand, was God's expression of certain moral truths that, while Christians aren't bound by them in a legalistic sense persay, still hold today. Prohibitions against murder, theft, and sexual immorality fall into this category. \n\n\nSo it's not a matter of Christians just cherry picking certain scriptures and completely ignoring others, as is often said. There is a legitimate difference between the prohibitions against shellfish (for example) and the prohibition against homosexuality when the scriptures are read in their original cultural context. ",
"The way it was explained to me is that Old Testament law is commonly divided into 3 different categories, moral, civil, and ceremonial law. \n\nMoral laws are the easiest to spot since they typically are the kinds contemporary Christians follow today dealing with some sort of universal truth such as not killing, stealing, lying, etc.\n\nCivil laws were rules on how the Israelites were to live and govern their society at that time such as who to stone/put to death for what. A lot of these aren't applicable since we no longer live by Israelite laws.\n\nFinally ceremonial laws are all the ones people like to point out. No pork, clothing of two different cloth, and all matters of being ceremonially clean or unclean. Christians claim their purity from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which voids us from having to do other sacrifices or ceremonies since his death was the ultimate sacrifice.",
"Paul wrote letters; Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, etc. He was basically calling them out on their sins. I recall him saying that their orgies, what they were doing to honor Baal or other gods for fertility, was a sin as men were laying with other men and women were laying with men they were not married to. \n\nI do agree with your question though, Tithing is not mentioned much, nor directly as it was in the old, in the New Testament but churches harp on it a lot. \n\nWhen I get these questions the main thing I point out is that the Old testament stated a lot of promises, saying certain things were going to happen, the new basically answers them and shows that God met those promises. I feel that reading one helps one understand the others, making them both necessary.\n\nOn a side note, I am very interested in reading the books that were written for the bible but were not included.",
"First off, I was raised in a christian protestant home, and when to curch at least 4 times a week for 18 years. I fully support LGBTQ stuff in every way. That being said, I can give you references if you need, but homosexuality is condemned explicitly many many times in the old and new testament. I've actually noticed more verses condemning it in the new testament than old. If you are gay and christian you have to ignore the word of god which as it says in the bible must be believed as totally true or totally false.",
"Very short answer:\n\nThe distinction between different laws OP mentioned are different categories of the law. Homosexuality falls into \"moral law\" and clothing restriction falls into \"ceremonial law\".\n\nMoral law is based on God's nature, so we still follow this law because we are called to be like God.\n\nCeremonial law was law set specifically for the nation of Israel and their setting of 4000 years ago.\n\nAs a side note, because I see a lot of these posts: none of the OT law is \"abolished\". Jesus, who was the entire point and whole focus of the Bible, said \"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.\" -Matthew 5:17\n\n_URL_0_",
"Jesus came to fulfill the Law not abolish it. And as you said, you cant pick and choose what parts of the bible you choose. You are taking out of context what it means. I don't see you quoting that love is the greatest commandment... ",
"The issue of homosexuality is not confined to the old testament... Paul references it in letters he wrote to new testament believers\nThat said I agree that there are Christians who \"pick and choose\" what they take to heart and what they ignore based on their own culture and personal preference.",
"I'm sure there's an awful lot of \"I think homosexuality is gross but shrimp are delicious and I don't feel like thinking about it anymore.\"",
"Because every religion is basically a buffet table religion. People just pick and chose whatever parts they wish to follow and disregard the rest. ",
"If religious people followed logic, there would be no religious people.\n\nBlah blah quote form carl sagan blah blah",
"Because Christians apply modern morality to their religious texts to filter out undesirable elements, while simultaneously insisting that morality comes from religion.",
"Asking \"how does a Christian rationalize...\" is like asking \"how does a penguin fly...\".\n\nThey don't.",
"It's called \"subjective morality\", the thing christians do all the time as they cherry pick bible verses but complain about atheists using it. \n \nYou can hear the gears grinding to a halt when they get done telling you how Jesus makes all the old testement rules invalid, and you ask them why does the 10 commandments still need to be displayed everywhere if they aren't the law anymore. \n \nIf you want to do anything, you can use the bible/torah to support it, it just depends what verses you choose and which verses you ignore, and as with any religion, the more devout and faithful the believer, the more they see murder as negotiabe.",
"or overlook that the *new* deal no longer requires adherence to the Hebrew strictures anyway.",
"Firstly, not all Christians condemn homosexuality. I don't. Google why, but the short answer is that translation problems from Greek along with homophobia have created English translations that are misunderstood.\n\nSecondly, Jesus's coming fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. Jesus established a new covenant ( A covenant of love) with the World. He laid out new positions in some cases, such as for the \"eye for an eye\" doctrine (No longer applies for Christians) and he reaffirmed others (Don't cheat on your spouse). This new covenant is why Christians no longer have to keep the sabbath, among hundreds of other laws that were part of the Jewish faith as spelled out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and no longer apply.\n\nA big simplification but if Jesus did not reaffirm the old laws then they no longer apply. For me it comes down to this. Jesus let us know what the two most important commandments are, Love God and Love others. These are the genesis for all of God's law. \n\nCondemning homosexuals doesn't feel like an act of Love and feels out of sync with everything else Jesus said because it makes no sense given the rest of his ministry. Jesus spoke exactly zero times about homosexuality which also tells you how important he thought the topic was.",
" > you can't pick and choose which parts aren't logical and ones that are.\n\nBut of course you can, that's how pretty much all religions work, but especially the Abrahamic religions. \n\nYou start with an ambiguous and frequently self-contradictory book, you cherry-pick out the bits that conform to your particular set of prejudices, then you spread a thin, creamy layer of of rationalization over it, allowing you to claim with a straight face that your little subset is right and everyone else's is wrong.\n\nSee, that's how a book can contain a statement where Jesus says this:\n\nThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.\n--Matthew 5:17\n\nWhere he's pretty CLEARLY saying that all the OT stuff still holds, and yet a lot of Christians seem to have skipped that part and went ahead a bit, where we find:\n\nNot that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.\n--Matthew 15:11\n\nWhich they *claim* says precisely the opposite. See, because he's *implying* that, say, eating pork doesn't defile you, what you say defiles you, somehow, that means ALL of the OT stuff--except the parts they want to hang onto--has been whisked away.\n\nSee how that works?\n\nOK, now that we've swept all the OT stuff aside, let's put back in the parts we like. The Ten Commandments? Duh. Condemning various lowlifes? You bet. Jesus went on just a bit too much about forgiving your enemies for OUR taste.\n\nAll that stuff about gays being bad? Well, Jesus says precisely nothing on the topic, unless we choose to interpret that \"not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man...\" ummm...creatively...and then, he seems to be OK with it. \n\nSo we have to turn to the earliest Bible fan fiction, the letters of Paul, a cranky misogynist who never even met Jesus, yet somehow got his hateful, much-less-forgiving stuff stuck into the back of the Bible. He says stuff like:\n\nOr do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God\n--1 Corinthians 6:9–10\n\nSo much for all that \"forgiveness\" stuff that hippie freak Jesus was going on about, eh? However, it's not quite as clear as that. A lot of Biblical scholars dispute that the homosexuality stuff is translated correctly. Some say, for example that the *original* words he used made it clear he was talking about gay-for-pay, heteros who perform homosexual acts.\n\nBut hey, if they want to include Paul's ranting as part of the Official Word 'O God, who am I to gainsay?\n\nOf course, THEN they have to rationalize away stuff like this:\n\nBut I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.\n--1 Timothy 2:12\n\nOr to translate it into modern vernacular, \"STFU, bitch, and go make me a sammich.\"\n\nAnd this is just a TINY taste of this kind of thing. The main reason so many major and minor sects exist within all branches of Abrahamic religion is precisely BECAUSE there's so much wiggle room to create your very own personal subset of The Absolutely True and Inerrant Word of God.\n",
"ELI5: [loaded question]\n\nI personally agree with you, OP, and I think the question \"Why would a Christian think homosexuality is a sin if the Old Testament laws are abolished in the New Testament?\" would be really interesting to talk about that. But even as a religiously apathetic homosexual, the way you've approached this is pretty questionable. \n\nI'm disappointed by ELI5 posts that follow the format of \"Why does [group I disagree with] [do/think something controversial that I'm going to describe in biased and judgmental language]?\" It makes it hard to think people are just trying to understand conceptually and hard to know how to answer without arguing (\"Well, it's not that they're picking and choosing parts of scripture, it's that scripture elsewhere makes people think...\") ",
"What, /u/law-talkin-guy said, but also a lot of those laws were there for a specific purpose that didn't apply post-OT and definitely not now.\n\nWhen reading anything in the Bible you **MUST** understand the context: for who and why.\n\nI can't exactly quote the passage by word, but in one of the letters to one of the churches in the New Testament I think Paul said for women to not wear their hair a certain way and to not wear jewelry/tassels in the church. Does that mean modern women shouldn't do that? No, what he was trying to convey is that at the point in time where he was sending the letter to prostitutes would have their hair said way and would wear jewelry/tassels errr'where, so basically he said \"don't dress like a hooker while at church\".\n\nYou have to know the history before you can really try to understand scripture. It is way deeper than face value, which most anti-Christian people don't like Christianity and don't understand it. Also, a lot of denominations take scripture and use it to fit their ideology.\n\nTL;DR context, context, context",
"Well, you see wool and linens don't tend to gross those people out quite as much as the hot dick-on-dick nub-bumping that happens during gay sex. (That's my basic understanding of how it works....) \n\nThis seems perfectly rational to me.",
"Here's a video of Why are Christians Homophobic? You might not agree but it is a very good explanation.\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"Some faiths call it the living word.\n\nSeeing as they are reading what they pre-suppose to be the inerrant word of god, translated through men who may be imperfect. They pray for god to reveal himself through the the bible.\n\nMany pastors will teach these rationalizations their flocks by presenting a number of key verses or connections they have drawn, and then lead congregations in prayer.\n\nThe emotional power of these ritualized sermons can often be quite convincing for anyone who is already hooked on the community aspects.\n\nThus in a sense many creeds of faith cherry pick a specific set of claims about scripture of the basis of what feels right to them and fits a certain context they make of the text. \n\n",
"The more I read this thread, the more I realize that Paul is pretty much just the original Joseph Smith. ",
"Most Christians don't know what is written in the Bible ",
"[The Bible regularly contradicts itself](_URL_0_), thanks to it being a collection of hearsay written by many different authors [collected by an unrelated group of clergy while under duress more than a thousand years ago.](_URL_1_)\n\nIt really doesn't help that it's been translated through Hebrew, Latin, and German before ever getting to English. Latin's idea of what constitutes a virgin is not the same as English's, for example. Worse, they did not have the internet or google translate to help them, so the translations were likely far less accurate than anyone would have preferred. \n\nThere's also a weird ideology schism between the old and new testaments, which I think is related to the rise in popularity of Arthurian heroes. Like the older heroes of Greek/Roman stories, protagonists in the old testament are clever, selfish, and ruthless, admired for their ability to get ahead and provide for their own. New testament heroes are far more selfless and comparatively honorable... the book is as vulnerable to the shifting trends in human culture as anything else. \n\nHow do Christians actually rationalize it? Most likely through [cognitive dissonance](_URL_2_) and active hipocrisy. The truth isn't always pretty, but it's that we've got terribly tiny monkey brains and we want certain creature comforts... some people need that to include certainty about their post-death existence. We make compromises with ourselves and accept the ideals that an unjust god pushes onto us if the lie it provides keeps us sane enough to continue living. ",
"I think it's confirmation bias - they actively look for things that confirm what they want it to. The reality of the situation is that the Bible was written by men, and then translated dozens of times through different languages before arriving in English. Ever played telephone? Same basic principle - every time the Bible is translated, it loses a little something, some minor things shift meaning slightly. Not a big deal - ONCE - but that adds up.",
"I read law-talkin-guy and others, and they have it completely wrong.\n\nThis is how Christian theology (soteriology in particular) explains it.\n\nEveryone, without exception, is subject to all the law (ceremonial, social, sexual, moral). \n\nEveryone, without exception, is condemned by their own actions because no one can keep the whole law perfectly.\n\nHowever, **if** a person becomes a Christian (puts their faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ in what he did through his death, burial and resurrection), it is as if they have already been punished for breaking the law and so no more punishment can be applied. The idea is that Christ's death substitutes for that individual's own death so they are viewed as having being put to death as 'punishment' for breaking the law.\n\nThen that person is now \"alive\" again (Christ's resurrection applies to them just like his death did). Hence the expression evangelicals use \"born again\".\n\nSo Paul writes that to the person who has *already died and has risen again in Christ* **none** of the consequences of breaking the law applies any longer. Then Paul goes on to point out that the reason the 'moral' law is still in effect for Christians is that, unlike the ceremonial or social law, breaking the moral law hurts other people.\n\nThe Christian is subject to \"the law of Christ\" which is to live by love. In other words, Christians are meant to be moral as an extension of love (since love does no wrong to anyone). So mixing wool and linens harms no one else just like not having worship ceremonies on Saturday, or a woman going to church while she is on her period (yes, that one is the OT law too). None of these cause harm to others. They are acts that involve only one person (the actor) and cannot translate to hurting others.\n\nThis is why there was such a long discussion over 'meat offered to idols' in the New Testament. Some Christians believed it was wrong to do so because it was supporting the false god. Others said \"Meh, what difference does it make. The false gods aren't even real so who cares where the meat came from?\" \n\nThe result was that Paul said \"If someone has a weak conscience and believes that eating that meat is wrong, don't do it in front of them. It isn't wrong for you but why use your own freedom as a platform to cause someone else offence?\" \n\nIn a modern context, some Christians drink alcoholic beverages. Other Christians think that drinking booze is wrong. So this 'meat' argument teaches me that if I have a Christian over for a meal, I am not going to drink wine with my meal if they think it is sin. I am also not going to push them on that issue. My conscience is clean but why make trouble for others?\n\nBut murder, lying, stealing, etc., still cause harm to others so they 'break' the \"law of love\". Actions that cause harm to others are seen to have the effect of keeping others from right standing with God. So even though a Christian is free to commit murder, it would be wrong to do so because of the harm that it causes to others. The idea is that a Christian live their moral and social life to honour God and to be an ambassador for God's Kingdom so other will see and desire what the Christian has. Moral harm drives people away, dishonours God and makes people not want to be like the Christian.\n\nChristians that view homosexuality as sin (I would point out that not all Christians do) do so because they believe that two same sex people having sexual relations 'harm' each other in that way and teaching that this is normal 'harms' others by leading them into the same 'sin'.\n\nIn effect, any action(s) that cause moral harm to others is an action that could have the result in that person not knowing the love of God, therefore it must be avoided and condemned. \n\nTL:DR Christians are meant to live moral lives because of love; anything that is 'sin' is seen to be unloving and can result in someone dying spirituality. Many Christians view homosexuality as 'sin' and speak against it for that reason. ",
"\"How does a Christian rationalize...?\"\n\n\"How does a Christian rationalize...?\"\n\n(talking snakes, kangaroos on the ark, burning bushes)\n\n\"How does a Christian rationalize...?\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://vimeo.com/105454273"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/b1bpb6w.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a066ny | why are large batteries, like the type you would see in an electric car, made of small batteries? | Wouldn't it be less of a waste of space to just have one big battery instead of hundreds of small ones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a066ny/eli5_why_are_large_batteries_like_the_type_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaey01t",
"eaf1x2b"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"The smaller batteries in a battery bank are acting as cells for one whole large battery. And if you own an electric car and a cell goes out, you'll be very glad to have to replace only one cell instead of the whole stinking battery pack.\n\nAlso it's a thing about battery chemistry. No matter how big you made a AA battery, its chemistry will still only put out 1.5 volts (case in point, the D-cell, 1.5 volts with a lot more capacity). A lead-acid car battery could be the size of a car and still only put out 12 (they have 6 cells each making 2 volts, linked in series). So to get those high voltages needed in electric cars, you put a bunch in series. And as I said before, having them all separate instead of in one huge pack makes them a *ton* easier to install and replace, and another ton cheaper to fix.",
"First part is that a battery is made up of one of more electrochemical cells. So what you call a small batteries would be a cell in a larger battery.\n\n\nOne part is the voltage of the battery. To get a lot of power out of a electric motor you like high voltage. The problem is that the voltage of a cell depend on the chemistry of the cell. The range of voltages that exist is in cells is 1.2-3.8V Litium ion have a voltage of 3.6 V The voltage depend on fundamental properties of atoms so you do not get voltages that are a lot higher the that how hard you would try. a 9V battery is 6 1.5 V cells integrated in a metal case.\n\nThe way to solve the problem is to connect multiple cells end to end. A Tesla for example have 9 bricks with 11 cells in serial for total of 99 in series. The resulting voltage is 99*3.6=365.4V. It is the same in power tools and in laptop batteries with cells in series. If fact the 18650 cells in a Tesla are the same size as in most laptops and almost all power tools. It is 18mm in diameter and 65mm in length so that is how it got the name\n\nThe brisks are 69 cells wide so you have a lot of cells to provide higher energy. You could in theory manufacture a cell that contains all stuff that is contained in 69 18650 and have the same capacity. But that is complicated. First you need to keep all that thin coated plastic films in a container that have the correct shape. Cellphones batteries does that but for similar amount of stuff that is in a 18650. Doing one large cell could be possible but would be had to manufacture. \n\nThe the problem is heat. Batteries get hot when they are charged and discharges. The loosed capacity if the are hot and the can even self ignite so you need to keep the cool. So you either need it to be one thin but very large in other dimension or you would need som integrated thermal conductors. A more compact shape with thermal conductors start to look like a lot of smaller cells put together. So the result is that the 18650 that is the most common litium cells size is cheap to manufacture and when you take cooling into consideration a thin metal case and cylindrical shape can be quite volume efficient. There might be som better shape but it would be more expensive to manufacture.\n\nThe larger conductor that you would need for higher max current will also make it harder top create a larger cell that have higher capacity and current compare multiple smaller cells.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9dam09 | why do woman's pant sizes vary widely between stores? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9dam09/eli5_why_do_womans_pant_sizes_vary_widely_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5gf1s8",
"e5gf4pw",
"e5ggyif",
"e5givbs"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It’s not just women’s. I’m a guy. \n\nI have 4 pairs of Levi 511 slim fit jeans. One pair is legitimately almost too small for me to wear. Sits really tight around my waist, and skin tight on my legs. Another pair refuses to stay on my waist unless I wear a belt. They were all purchased from the same store at the same time. \n\nIt’s pretty annoying. ",
"The simple answer is because it's not something that's has been standardized and is not regulated by any agency. It's not just womens pant sizes, ever clothing manufacturer can make their \"small\" any size they want. I usually wear men's \"XL\" t-shirts but for some reason Timberland XL is more like an XXL. ",
"Women's clothes sizing is a bad situation. It starts with dresses. Somebody thought that a single number, like \"Size 6\" or \"Size 8\" could differentiate between all the shapes of 5' 4\" women. That's crazy, given the range of curviness available in women. Then, some women thought it was more flattering to be \"Size 8\" than \"Size 10\", so more expensive brands started making their clothes bigger, for a given \"Size\".\n\nThe addition of \"forget measurement\" sizes like \"Small\" and \"Medium\" boils down to simply giving up on making sizes you can use. Every garment has to be tried on, every time you go shopping. So, women learn to like it, or at least tolerate it.\n\nThe Washington Post did an [article about the absurdity](_URL_0_ ).",
"Vanity sizing plays a part of it.\n\nSociety expects women to be thin, and if they don't fit into a size 2, they are made to think they are too fat. So if a size 2 at Macy's is a size 4 at Nordstrom's, she will feel better about shopping at Macy's.\n\nIt works the other way, too. If you are thin, you want to feel like you earned it, and get a \"real\" size 2 at Nordstrom's rather than a fake one at Macy's."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/11/the-absurdity-of-womens-clothing-sizes-in-one-chart/?utm_term=.7d7a1a8c1718"
],
[]
] |
||
32hagm | how is a two-party electoral system functionally different from a multi-party system? | What I've never fully understood is how the *results* of a multi-party system are meaningfully different from those of a two-party system. In a multi-party system non-mainstream political beliefs get literal representation; 4th- and 5th- parties can win seats and influence the larger political scene via coalitions. I see two-party systems as similar -- in the United States, for example, Democrats and Republicans both have moderate wings and more extreme wings, and these groups get real input as their votes are needed to pass legislation.
I suppose I don't see how minority parties in multi-party systems get significantly more or less influence than, say, the Tea Party wing of the Republican party. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32hagm/eli5_how_is_a_twoparty_electoral_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqb7yzr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm young, live in the city, hunt, am gay, am anti abortion, pro small government, and believe in the social safety net.\n\nNothing there is mutually exclusive and yet both political parties have stances that I am strongly opposed to. Before I decide what sub-party to join, I need to pick a major party. Am I a democrat or a republication?\n\nThe answer is that neither party fits my ideals. A young, liberal homosexual who wants small government, low taxes and no gun control. \n\nNow, say there are thousands and thousands of people like me. Half pick democrat and half pick republican. None of us have enough mass to have control of the party. \n\nIf there was a third party, just for us. We would have enough mass to have some minor control over issues. Rather than 1/2 of us talking to the republicans and 1/2 of the democrats and being ignored by everyone. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4wyzwp | how does the whole "mail order bride" thing work? is it not human trafficking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wyzwp/eli5_how_does_the_whole_mail_order_bride_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6b1rc7",
"d6b1z4t"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You're not technically buying a person, and you don't own them when it's over. You meet a girl, you propose, and then you agree to pay all the fees and stuff to immigrate her to the U.S. \n\nShe can divorce you at any point in time, and is not obligated to obey you. She maintains free will, and thus it's not human trafficking. \n\nI'm sure that there are exceptions, and websites/arrangements that get much shadier than this. ",
"Ideally, the contract is an agreement between the bride and groom, with the agency simply acting as a mediator, ensuring both parties are operating openly and honestly. The man knows that he's getting a beautiful and kind woman who genuinely seeks a better life, while the woman knows she's getting a gentle and genuine husband who simply is lonely and has the means to provide for her. It's not exactly a romantic relationship (to start, at least), but it can be perfectly adult and consensual with neither party being taken advantage of. \n\nOf course, as with all things, there is the potential for abuse. Some \"mail-order bride\" services almost certainly fall into the realm of human trafficking, intimidating women into accepting what amounts to glorified sexual slavery. Nonetheless, the existence of the abusive criminals does not remove the legitimacy of the honest services. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
f5h0oy | what stops a bank from adding to their own accounts digitally? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f5h0oy/eli5_what_stops_a_bank_from_adding_to_their_own/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhymrv3",
"fhyn1hv",
"fhyn48y",
"fhyo38h"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's insanely illegal, and for any decent profit, it would have to be a huge amount of money that is always traceable. There is no such thing as money (online or on a database) that cannot be traced. The people in charge are millionaires, so it just isn't worth the risk. All banks are subject to larger ones, or National banks that are also subject to the EU bank (or Federal Bank reserves etc). An unexplainable jump in bank holdings is very suspicious, and would be noted almost immediately from the bank in charge, federal government etc.",
"Every transaction has to have two sides. If you add a zero then there has to be something else that accounts for that. If you are adding a zero to your cash value through deposits then you also have to subsequently increase a liability. So that mitigates much of it. But also, as others have said banks are routinely audited both internally and externally and these types of things are highly scrutinized. If you just added a zero with no support then it would be easily discovered.",
"First, I’d guess it’s illegal.\nSecond, there are some major economic implications of simply increasing the amount of currency in the system. For one, it lowers the monetary value of currency the more of it exists in an economic system. Also, if banks possess digital currency but no physical minted currency, it becomes a limiting factor for people trying to withdraw cash—they can’t say someone has a certain balance and be unable to supply cash of equivalent value. There are probably more big economic factors, but I can’t think of them.",
"The money you have in an account is money that the bank owes you. On your request the bank has to give you actual cash. Transferring money to another account instructs the bank to give the money to that person instead, if they ask.\n\nIf the bank just adds zeros to an account it simply owes more cash money which has to come from somewhere.\n\nOnly the central bank - in the US that's the Federal Reserve - can print cash."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
etexl6 | why does low res black text seem to split into different colors? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/etexl6/eli5_why_does_low_res_black_text_seem_to_split/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffg2nuk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This tecnhique is called [subpixel rendering](_URL_0_).\n\nNormally you just set the color for each pixel on the computer screen.\n\nSingle pixel on the display is made of three subpixels (red, green, blue).\n\nSubpixel rendering uses tricks to make text on screen appear higher resolution than it is by taking advantage of those subpixels.\n\nWhen this image is enlargened the effect is ruined and those colors are the result."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering"
]
] |
|
j8jdc | explain love to me li5 | This should be interesting. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j8jdc/explain_love_to_me_li5/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2a0t7p",
"c2a0t7p"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You'll understand when you're older.",
"You'll understand when you're older."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2mzf3q | new car "rebates" | In a car commercial I have heard some of the "fast talk" say "Buyer must qualify for all rebates, dealer keeps all rebates"
My question is what "rebates" must the buyer qualify for and why does the dealer keep them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mzf3q/eli5_new_car_rebates/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm90d72"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Traditionally, a rebate is money offered to the consumer by the manufacturer. The consumer can pocket the money (and pay more for the vehicle) or sign it over to the dealer, whereupon the rebate is applied toward the vehicle purchase price or down payment amount.\n\nNow, in the commercial you're talking about, the rebates are still coming from the manufacturer and being \"offered\" to the consumer, but it sounds like in order to use the rebates, you must sign them over to the dealer and apply them toward the down payment or purchase price. So you're essentially giving up the option to take the rebate for yourself, drive all night to Vegas in your new car, and lose your rebate monies at Caesar's Palace. ;_;\n\nIn that regard, these \"rebates\" in the commercial sound more like \"incentives\" (where the dealer, not the consumer, gets the money from the mfg.). But with incentives, the dealer has the option to keep the incentive amount for themselves or to apply all or part of the incentive toward the down payment or purchase price. However, while these \"rebates\" are not handled in the traditional sense, they're also not true incentives, because neither the consumer nor the dealer can keep the money--it must be rolled into the vehicle purchase."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ec9y4 | why have a european union and not just massive country? | In my understanding, the EU is similar to a country (shared currency, right to reside and work anywhere within). So why not just have a big EU 'country' with the current union members all becoming states?
Similarly, since everyone raves about the advantages of having a European Union, why are other countries (for example USA and Canada) not making similar unions to reap the benefits? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ec9y4/eli5_why_have_a_european_union_and_not_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"dabalsy",
"dabalvm",
"dabavfg",
"dabjm77",
"dabm5bx"
],
"score": [
14,
26,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > So why not just have a big EU 'country' with the current union members all becoming states?\n\nFunny thing about people living in countries with centuries of history: They don't really like giving them up. Existing countries don't want to give up sovereignty just like that.",
"Forming a big \"country\" comparable to the United States would mean the creation of something like the USA's federal government. This means that the individual states would have to give up some power and control over their own rules/people to this government. This is a tough sell.\n\nThe European Union grants them a lot of those country advantages (like you said shared currency and right to move/work wherever freely) without one country having to give up total power over their turf.",
"The current member states still have their sovereignty and sovereignty (i.e. the ability to make and abide by your own decisions no matter what) is the most precious thing to a nation-state. \n\nThe members of the EU will abide by the rules that are negotiated and beneficial to them but anything that appears to erode their sovereignty either won't pass in the EU parliament or the state in question might just ignore it. That's how you get a lot of exceptions to various EU features like shared currency or travel. ",
"There are a whole ton of reasons that are not really within the scope of ELI5. Here is a brief sample of the heavy hitters:\n\n1) Federalism - Each of these nation-states in the EU already have their own federal governments. Federal governments with their own law structure and their own political caste. People do not want to give up power over their own affairs. This is a problem with any political union, but doubly a problem when trying to combine fully independent (and fully mature) nation-states under one super state. \n\n2) Nationalism/racism/culturalism - A lot of 'isms here, but it basically comes down to the fact that almost every nation in Europe is OLD. Emphasis on OLD. France considers itself as the guardian of the French people (which is considered either a cultural or racial identity depending on what sociologist you speak to), Germany for the Germans, Italy for the Italians, Poland for the Polish - you get the idea. \n\nThe EU, however, is extremely young. There really is no pan-national EU identity - especially for the vast, VAST majority of EU citizens. They identify as French, English, Spanish, Italian, etc first, and as a EU member a very distant second. Trying to create a singular EU identity out of such a distinct and, once again, very old national identities would be an extremely difficult affair.\n\n3) Last but not least is economic concerns. The founding members of the EU are old, rich nation states. The new members are mostly former Soviet Union Warsaw Pact members that had their economies crushed under the command economy. As a single federal entity a large portion of the tax base of the original members will be sent to try to prop up crumbling economies. This is still being done to an extent even now in the EU, but not nearly on the scale that a single federal government would do. There are very strong economic reasons for the richer nations to avoid full integration as they believe it will impoverish their own citizens.\n\n** ) Bonus Round! \nIn addition, as we saw with the influx of Middle Eastern refugees in the wake of the Syrian conflict, a Federal EU would have complete control over immigration policy. A large number of EU states refused to take Muslim immigrants in any remotely reasonable number. They would lose all control over immigration policy and, going back to number 2, lose the ability to (in their mind) protect their culture/race/nation. Multiculturalism may be the buzzword, but in practice diluting the majority with a rapidly increasing minority brings social upheaval and a heavy lashing out from the class that is being diluted. This is a significant issue for any free nation with large immigration movements. ",
"Looks like there's a few solid answers to the primary question already so I'm just here to point something out in regards to the second part about \"North American Unions\"... That's exactly what the United States already is. Canada as well. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
310eqj | if abortion isn't murder, then what about an attack that results in a pregnant woman having a miscarriage? | Not trying to start a flame war here, but legitimately curious. It seems like most people on reddit are pro-choice (as am I, nominally), and many seem to believe that abortion carries no moral weight, that there should be no shame in it, etc... (which I'm a bit iffy on).
Anyways, to my ELI5. If one is pro choice, and feel that a fetus is not a life / alive, how can one reconcile that with the idea that if someone attacks a pregnant woman, and, say kills the fetus (causing a miscarriage), that this is a crime (possibly homicide in states that support fetal homicide laws)?
I mean, if the fetus isn't alive, this should be no more than a civil offense, perhaps destruction of property, right?
TL;DR : How can one believe both that a fetus is not alive in cases of abortion, but that someone attacking a pregnant woman and causing an abortion/miscarriage is far, far (far) worse than a simple destruction of property?
This doesn't really seem like an ELI5 type question, but I wasn't sure where to post. /r/askreddit? /r/askphilosophy? Let me know and I'd be happy to move it.
Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/310eqj/eli5_if_abortion_isnt_murder_then_what_about_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpxgn99",
"cpxgt2z",
"cpxgtj1",
"cpxgx3t",
"cpxgy7t"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
" > Anyways, to my ELI5. If one is pro choice, and feel that a fetus is not a life / alive, how can one reconcile that with the idea that if someone attacks a pregnant woman, and, say kills the fetus (causing a miscarriage), that this is a crime (possibly homicide in states that support fetal homicide laws)?\n\nIn an abortion, the woman makes the decision of what to do with her body. In the attack, she is robbed of her decision.\n",
"In an abortion, the woman is choosing that the foetus is just a collection of cells with no life of it's own.\n\nWhen a pregnant woman is attacked and the foetus dies, then the woman has (theoretically) decided that the child is going to be born and have a life of it's own, which is then taken away by the person who assaulted her.",
"\"Yeah, it's technically not murder but it's as shitty as murder so lets just treat it like one.\"",
"The intention of the woman who has the fetus in her does come into play here. If she is planning on letting that fetus become a baby then she is an expectant mother and her loss is that of one but if she was planning to abort the fetus before it became a baby then she pressing charges will not happen\n\nMy friend was pregnant and got hit by a drunk driver and lost the fetus she was carrying. Charges were only filed for harming her and that was her choice",
"It's called feticide and is a law in most if not all states in the United States, precisely to avoid the scenario that you're describing. It carries the same weight as homicide. It prevents things like abusive husbands hitting their pregnant wives in the stomach, so I'm OK with it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
63ndmo | in the quote "the best thing since sliced bread" what was so great about sliced bread? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63ndmo/eli5_in_the_quote_the_best_thing_since_sliced/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfvgnlu",
"dfvgqlb",
"dfvgxzp",
"dfvhiai"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
3,
13
],
"text": [
"sliced bread allows you to make sandwiches, think of how terrible life would be without sandwiches.",
"bake a loaf of bread and try to slice it yourself... it really kind of sucks.\n\ngetting thin consistent slices is trickier than you would think.\n\nits also tongue in cheek, a fairly trivial advancement used as a gauge for great progress.",
"I think it referred to the fact that bread could now be mass produced and it was then found in every household instead of traditionally baking bread from scratch. The statement is there to invoke that something is a great enough idea that everyone should be a part of it or that it could affect everyone (much like sliced bread making its way to almost every home). So it is to comment on some idea's innovative qualities while also commenting on the fact that it could be huge should it find its way to the market.\n\nNowadays I simply hear it sarcastically, but I figure that is some of the history behind someone saying that phrase. ",
"Pre-sliced bread saves you the time and hassle of trying to slice a loaf of bread yourself, and each piece is of identical thickness so sandwiches were more uniform. It was a hallmark of the modern age that housewives could spend less time preparing bread for sandwiches and could spend more time cleaning."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ah6paf | where do worm/slugs/snails come from in a controlled urban, concrete environment? | May not be saying this properly, so please, rock with me - but : I grew up in a place largely called "the country". There were fields, and dirt, and grass , so seeing snails/slugs and worms -especially after a rain- never made me think too much.
However, after living in major urban cities on the East and West coast, I've noticed the same thing in small areas of dirt at bars, surrounded by concrete on the East coast, and - most recently with the rains- on the west coast in small flower beds where the entire surrounding area is pavement , and it's literally only a small plot of dirt.
I don't think that people have put these worms and slugs there. Are they just living under the concrete/pavement until they reach something like a flower bed and appear? Do they spawn by themselves only if dirt is around? How do the exist in an island of dirt with nothing else green around? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ah6paf/eli5_where_do_wormslugssnails_come_from_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"eebwrai",
"eec04zc"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The cocrete is just a thin layer put overtop the normal ground. There are indeed worms and things living down there, moving from one plot of open soil to another.",
"the garden snail is pretty much everywhere humans have gone. in the summer they hide under leaf litter, or in the dirt. Worms are in all kinds of soil, again often a human introduced species, and again pretty much everywhere humans have gone. \n\nNeither is native to the Americas\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenia_fetida"
]
] |
|
61ctc1 | why do we readily label rich foreigners as oligarchs, when there are wealthy businessmen in the us that surely deserve that label as well? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61ctc1/eli5_why_do_we_readily_label_rich_foreigners_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfdklxx",
"dfdl5hb"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"One element is the degree to which the government protects the oligarchs, and the oligarchs support the politicians. Russia, for example, is far more fascist in that sense. ",
"If you got rid of the executive and judicial branches of our government, and left all power to the legislative branch without checks and balances, we would have an oligarchy. The rich can buy all the politicians they want, but our government is not an oligarchy. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
42kphv | how can large company ceo's kick the founders & creators from the company? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42kphv/eli5_how_can_large_company_ceos_kick_the_founders/ | {
"a_id": [
"czb39fn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In law, there is nothing special about being a \"founder\" or \"creator.\" If you sell most of your ownership in the company to other people, then those shareholders can fire you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4p8834 | what is the difference between a ct scan and an mri scan? is there a difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p8834/eli5what_is_the_difference_between_a_ct_scan_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4iuktn"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There is a major difference in the scanning technology that is used, but the practical utility and resulting output for each of the scanning technologies is similar. That is to say, they both accomplish something similar, but they go about it in a completely different way.\n\nBasically a CT (Computerized Tomography) imager is just a sophisticated X-Ray machine that takes X-Ray images from multiple angles and composites them together to form a three-dimensional or cross-sectional structural image of the body (or a particular part of the body).\n\nThe problem with CT imaging is that it exposes you to reasonably high levels of radiation from all the X-Rays which, in turn, slightly increases the probability that you will eventually develop cancer or another related medical disease.\n\nThe advantage of an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is that it's all based on magnets and doesn't involve any harmful (cell/DNA damaging) radiation. The disadvantage of an MRI is that medical/operational costs tend to be higher and MRIs may not be suitable if the patient has metal in their bodies (due to the powerful magnetic fields and sensitive instruments used to perform the scan).\n\nThere are also slight differences in terms of the visual detail and resolution that make CT scans better for certain applications and MRI better for others. For example, something that may show up very clearly in a CT scan may be more difficult to detect in an MRI or vice versa. This is also why sometimes a doctor may order both a CT and MRI scan of the same region.\n\nThere also exists fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) technology which allows medical professionals to see near-realtime brain activity in response to questions or other stimuli. The actual technology behind fMRIs is different to an MRI but basically it overlays the \"functional\" component (your brain activity) on top of a structural MRI scan of your brain so that physicians can identify exactly which parts of your brain are active at a given moment. fMRI imaging is very popular in psychology studies for analyzing how the brain responds to different stimuli (e.g. visual images, sounds, information, questions, etc.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3ov6hr | why aren't we zipping around in quadcopters? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ov6hr/eli5_why_arent_we_zipping_around_in_quadcopters/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw0pcz5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you scale up a quadcopter, you quickly run into issues with battery life, range, weight, and cost. If your car runs out of gas, you roll to a stop on a road. If your quadcopter runs out of battery, it plummets to the ground from however high it happens to be at that point.\n\nThis is to say nothing of the human drivers/pilots, who get into accidents when navigating in 2 dimensions. If you add traffic above/below, you'll get more collisions with an increased likelihood of fatality."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2zkhwv | why is netanyahu so disliked/hated as a leader | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zkhwv/eli5why_is_netanyahu_so_dislikedhated_as_a_leader/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpjqa6s",
"cpke7vz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert but I'd imagine his absolutely anti-Palestinian state ideology has something to do with it. \n\n(I feel like this post has to be qualified - I'm Jewish and lived in Israel for a year. Kabbutz Ketora represent!)",
"He's the Israeli version of a neocon thug, a dangerous, hawkish bigot who is doing everything in his power to ensure that the Mideast will continue to burn.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2qdg5l | how does a speech jammer actually work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qdg5l/eli5_how_does_a_speech_jammer_actually_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn5380q",
"cn55yjo"
],
"score": [
10,
9
],
"text": [
"By *speech jammer* I'm assuming you mean one of [these](_URL_0_). In which case it plays a slightly delayed version of the targets speech back to them through headphones etc, preventing them from making coherent utterances. \n\n\nThe reason why this makes it difficult to speak is because a vital component of speaking is hearing your voice in real-time, and with this device there is a very short lag (on the order of a few milliseconds). For this to work effectively your actual voice has to be at least somewhat overpowered by that of the jammer.",
"It plays your speech back at you, slightly delayed. It's really hard to talk when this happens. I'm a police officer, and have to turn off my personal radio when I'm talking on the car radio, for this exact reason.\n\nYou can replicate the effect by getting two phones, calling one with the other, then trying to talk with them to your ear."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://tx.english-ch.com/teacher/dai/speechjammer.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
3lylff | why does previously opened chocolate turn light colored and chalky? | Is this bad? Does it affect flavor? Is it preventable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lylff/eli5why_does_previously_opened_chocolate_turn/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvaeszq",
"cval1hp",
"cvat9pp"
],
"score": [
56,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's known as \"blooming\". A chocolate bar is an amalgam of coco butter, coco powder, milk/cream, sugar, some oils and an emulsifier. When the chocolate gets warm, some of the fats melt and separation occurs, the sugar and coco powder gets left behind and the fats come to the surface.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Some of it is sweating away of the oil and fat, leaving behind a dryer, chalkier product, and some of it is polymerization. Like most oils and fats, the ones in chocolate, mostly cocoa butter, can oxidise in air and they also react to light and heat and form polymer chains. IE they dry or get solidified. \n\nIf you've ever tried to scrub a grease hood out you know what a little oxygen, heat, and light, can do to something that used to be wet and easy to wipe up, but is now rock hard, discolored, and nasty. ",
"First off, it doesn't have to have been previously opened. This is how chocolate breaks down with time. As /u/Snewzie said, it's called blooming, and it is just a question of the components separating. It is still perfectly edible, though there will be some mild changes to the taste and texture, but I assure you that it will not taste bad, nor will it make you sick. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_bloom"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
5jnzj2 | canada just declared broadband as a basic service. what does this mean for the common household? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jnzj2/eli5_canada_just_declared_broadband_as_a_basic/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbhn0eb",
"dbho0gy",
"dbhogut"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Nothing atm. They will devise a national plan to make it easier for rural areas to get better speeds then satellite and dsl. And prolly subsidize it somehow for the poor (similar what they do with phone)",
"I live am hour north of Toronto and there are huge dead zones around my town that have no high speed Internet. With the exception of one of the worst satellite providers probably in North America. There are cell phone dead zones even. The hope is to get better rural service from what I've read. The Duopoly that owns the DSL and cable lines in Ontario couldn't care less about improving their infrastructure. ",
"Probably allows the big telecom companies like Rogers & Bell to expand in rural places (think Muskoka, Thunder Bay, etc) easiest because the government will pitch in to help with the costs. So the infrastructure will be there for you to get high speed internet at your cottage, at an additional charge of course."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
32p6sk | why does my stomach only seem to growl when i'm around other people? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32p6sk/eli5_why_does_my_stomach_only_seem_to_growl_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqd9mw5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Your stomach should be working 100% of the time regardless of where you are or who you are with. You may feel like it is only growling while around other people, but this is most likely you feeling self conscious about making a bodily noise that could be noticed by others. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3qywdn | graphics cards and how oems produce them. | So I know GTX 980s and Titans are top of the line and 750Ti is great value, but I don't understand how some are produced by ASUS or MSI but are still Nvidia chips. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qywdn/eli5_graphics_cards_and_how_oems_produce_them/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwjguzx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Nvidia makes the GPU (the core of the video card) and a reference design of the whole video card (VRAM, power regulation, etc., anything that isn't the core) as well as the cooling part.\n\n\n\nThe different OEMs receive the reference model and are allowed to sell it and make modifications to anything that isn't the core. They usually change the voltage limiter, power regulation and cooling to increase overclocking capability, and sometimes increase the amount of VRAM."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2efdiu | how did hackers target celebrity phones and obtain their photos? i don't use unsecured wifi. are most people easy targets for this type of hacking? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2efdiu/eli5_how_did_hackers_target_celebrity_phones_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjyykov"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"An Android vulnerability for example, is installing an app with a crazy amount of permissions which the app does not need. If one access is for sd storage and internet, they can send pictures to a server. Ensure the app only request permissions which are relevant to its purpose. If the app appears shady, don't install."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3bqg8r | why in most japanese adult movies women almost cry when they have sex? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bqg8r/eli5_why_in_most_japanese_adult_movies_women/ | {
"a_id": [
"csoj2nk",
"csoj3on",
"csoj4or",
"csoja97",
"csoocyo",
"csovp5b",
"csoxs8b",
"csoxtjq",
"csoy0wq",
"csoyly9",
"csozapi",
"csozv87",
"csp0w1i",
"csp3xhc"
],
"score": [
36,
12,
1046,
193,
200,
46,
33,
32,
29,
103,
4,
7,
13,
7
],
"text": [
"I don't know why do a lot of women in American porn seem so aggressive? I think its just the culture is different and Japanese people are into that. What's erotic to them is odd to us and vice versa. ",
"As far as I'm informed the male dominance is like a major turn on. That's why they want the girls to make the cry-like sounds, also that would explain these weird \"oh-I'm-in-a-public-transport-who-gets-raped\" scenarios. \n\nBut that's only what I heard so far.",
"I believe that the impression such scenes (those that aren't violent) are intended to convey is this: \n\nthe ideal Japanese woman is shy, delicate and graceful. And now this *manly man* (which the viewer is supposed to identify with) has made her *completely lose her composure*, which makes her cry with embarassment while at the same time she totally enjoys it!",
"It’s about resistance, which can be a few scenarios. Rape scenarios are done a lot in Japanese pornography and is becoming more and more frequent across the board. It’s important to note that this is consensual rape scenarios, it’s simply a fantasy…not reality. \n\nAlso, there is the fantasy of (to put it simply) your dick *destroying* that pussy. It can either be a “No no stop this is hurting now” or “This hurts so bad, but feels so good.” I think this is the same for really rough blowjob videos. \n\nBasically, it’s a Dom/sub thing.\n\nEDIT: To add, Japanese people are generally very conservative and the woman is expected to be (somewhat) submissive. This is then over exaggerated through porn, as per usual. ",
"I was recently watching a documentary on Japan that focused on noise related aspects. Essentially, think walls and a high percentage of Japanese citizens living with parents has created a somewhat silent bedroom. Love hotels are often a place couples shy away to and can finally be loud. These social circumstances have put a demand on the fantasy of being loud. Therefore, a large percentage of videos emphasize this.",
"It's just the way their actress act. Japanese people could ask why western actress scream like they're being stabbed or why they simulate chocking on dick.",
"Same reason american pornstars beg you to \"fuck me in my tight little ass\". Different cultures like different stuff. ",
"Innocence/virginity is highly valued. If she's clearly enjoying sex, she's a slut. So how do you work around wanting to watch a woman have sex... but if she has sex, your attraction to her diminishes? Set it up as if she is not enjoying it and didn't ask for it. Then she can both have sex and remain \"innocent.\" ",
"It comes from Japanese feudalism and the whole concubine culture. Back then, the Lords were manly and strong and women fragile and very restrained. When a man took a woman he wanted to feel very powerful and masculin, so much that the woman could barely hand it and in her embarrassment and exposed shame, she \"had\" to cry. Or else the man would not feel a proper one. ",
"Shouldn't this be an \"Explain Like I'm At Least 18 Years Old?",
"Reminds me of this one girl I was dating, except she would start crying after having an orgasm, which didn't take very long for her... I mean she balled her eyes out. I didn't date her for very long it freaked me out a lot, amongst other odd behavioural traits. ",
"Jesus fuck, why would you want me to explain this to you're five?\n\nEdit: to you like you're five? Thanks bud",
"I'm not Japanese. But I am a female. And I tear up during sex. Like I just can't handle all the good feelings and my eyes just tear up and I \"cry\" \n > ~ > is that normal.?",
"I'll give another reason for this as well. Asian women tend to be infantilized. From birth, childhood, and even womanhood a woman who still retains child like characteristics is seen as \"proper,\" and \"chaste.\" If she is a strong type, in charge of her sexuality, she's seen as a whore.\n\nThat's why Asian women act like that... And this is amplified in porn fantasies. Men want a child-like woman who has had no sexual or atleast minimal sexual experience and want them to behave that way. Especially in bed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
45hugc | why do we root for fictional anti-heroes and criminals but are horrified by real ones? | Why do we cheer on people like Dexter, when if he were real we would be appalled? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45hugc/eli5_why_do_we_root_for_fictional_antiheroes_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"czxziix",
"czxzjch",
"czxzo0u",
"czy604j",
"czyb3zl",
"czyc9ky"
],
"score": [
56,
10,
16,
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Well-written fiction puts us into the frame of mind of the protagonist. It shows us the world from their point of view, and draws us into it.\n\nFrom a neutral, third party standpoint, antiheroes and criminals are awful people who need to be stopped. But from their own perspective, they're just doing what they need to do. In good fiction, we see things their way, but an argument can be made for the reverse.\n\nHere's an example of what I mean. Suppose that there was a terrorist, someone who bombs government buildings, attacks security guards, and disappears without a trace. Imagine if suddenly, that person gained super powers, and pledged to transport the human race from this world into an apocalyptic hellscape of war and survival.\n\nThat person is Neo. From our perspective, the Matrix is like 1000 times better, but from his it has to end. The movies draw us into his perception, but a neutral third party would disagree. That's part of what makes the movie great - it forces us to imagine and identify with a truly alien proposition.",
"The real life monsters have fan clubs too, usually full of adoring women offering themselves up as brides. Honestly, it's creepy but [Hybristophilia](_URL_0_) is real.",
"That was, in fact, the entire point of what made the show Dexter interesting. They tried to make an incredibly sick and twisted serial killer relatable, and they did a good job. The people he actually murdered were even more sick and twisted than he was, so it caused conflict with people who knew what he was doing was wrong, but still wanted him to do it.",
"Dexter was specifically written to circumvent our moral objections by only killing characters who were written to make us want them dead. On top of that, he didn't even torture his victims, apart from a couple minutes of scaring them with \"You're about to die and here's why,\" serving to remind *us* that this was an evil person on the table. It's very carefully crafted to invite us to identify with him.",
"There's something called \"fictionalism\" - basically, authors can assert things about the worlds they are writing about that then become true facts about that fictional world, even though we would never believe any kind of assertion like that in the real world. He can assert that the characters do things that are biologically impossible for humans, or even violate the laws of nature; he can stipulate that some event occurs that requires ridiculously unlikely coincidences; he can declare that a man turns into a cockroach... there's just no limit to the things writers can create that aren't credible in the real world.\n\nPart of the power of fictions is that they allow authors to create unusual situations that are thus unusually interesting. The unusually interesting situations we encounter with anti-heroes are ones where, for example, the anti-hero is cruel and ruthless, but we know for sure that his enemies are even more evil than he is. Under what circumstances would you *ever* believe a serial killer who told you that all of his victims were, with 100% certainty, serial killers? Or a psychopath who told you that he was incredibly generous and caring towards anyone who hadn't hurt him first? Or a hardened criminal who has completely reformed and now only commits crimes to help others? (Sometimes this is taken to a pointless extreme, like vegetarian vampires.)\n\nThe key maneuver in Dexter-type \"dark\" fiction is that the author takes all the actual darkness and ambiguity out of the story by hitting you over the head with his claims to certainty about all of the morally relevant facts, when in fact the whole reason we *don't* encourage people to go on killing sprees against murderers is because we don't think that anything less than a jury trial with adequate legal representation is sufficient to establish certainty about someone's guilt. \n\nThis can be contrasted to stories like, say, The Threepenny Opera, where you have an \"alienation effect\" that attempts to show you that you *should* be appalled, stories like American Psycho where the author chooses to portray the narrator as unreliable rather than asserting all his claims with certainty, and a third category which is closer to horror where we don't *root* for the anti-hero, exactly, but we can feel a sort of sublime wonder as we appreciate just how horrifying the anti-hero is.",
"Two things, we don't all root for fictional criminals, and secondly, we're not all horrified by real ones. Many people out there do like criminals, including present day politicians, many of whom have committed crimes of one sort or another. But they're heroes to many. \n\nAnd that brings me to the idea that people are complex. No good person is all good and no bad person is pure evil. Nobody. \n\nPeople who write fiction, who write great fiction, know this. They know how to create a criminal who also has redeeming qualities, and are able to make people see and appreciate these qualities in that criminal. To let them see qualities that make people identify with him or her. That's the brilliance of great writing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8thlg5 | how do speed detectors work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8thlg5/eli5_how_do_speed_detectors_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"e17if0n",
"e17ila3",
"e17vhe2"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are multiple different types of speed detectors. The three common ones are Radar, LIDAR and cameras.\n\nRadar works by sending out radio waves at fixed intervals that hit a car, and the difference in time taken to get to the car and back can calculate the speed of the car. It also takes advantage of something called the Doppler Effect, which is what causes emergency vehicle sirens to switch pitch when driving towards you vs away from you.\n\nLIDAR works basically the same as radar, but using lasers instead of radio waves.\n\nTraffic enforcement cameras work by having sensors in the ground (usually) that tells you how long it takes for a car to go from one point to another.",
"The speed guns emit high frequency energy that bounce off the target and return to the gun. Since EM waves propagate through the air at a fixed rate, it's just a matter of computing the amount of time for a \"round trip\" to the target and back. This approach works great for determining distance to objects, but since vehicles are also moving the physics become a _little_ but more complicated. Notably, you have to consider something called the _Doppler Effect_ where the rate at which waves return to the gun also changes over time (because the vehicle is either getting closer or further away). ",
"Really common here are speed averaging licence plate readers. They photo and electronically record your plate. Then say 20km later they do the same.\n\nIf your average speed over that 20km was above the speed limit they mail you a fine.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
71676a | why are people allowed to be racist towards their own race? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71676a/eli5_why_are_people_allowed_to_be_racist_towards/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn8eg30"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Most people are not self-hating, so when you say something about your own race, it's much more likely to be construed either as a joke, or as a constructive criticism. Saying something about another race will sound much less like constructive criticism.\n\n\"We Chinese have a bad reputation for being boorish tourists, and we need to examine our own behavior in order to treat foreign destinations with the proper respect they deserve.\"\n\n\"Those Chinese have a bad reputation for being boorish tourists, and they need to examine their behavior in order to treat our tourist destinations with the proper respect they deserve.\"\n\nSee how each sentence sounds?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1qi37p | why do mlb draftees take 3-5 years to develop in the minor leagues when 1st round nfl and nba draftees often start day 1? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qi37p/eli5_why_do_mlb_draftees_take_35_years_to_develop/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdczzkp",
"cdd00gu",
"cdd1yuh",
"cdd510e"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"NFL and NBA players go through a training program. Their respective college sports. Basically the NFL and NBA have free minor leagues. Baseball however tends to draft people right out of highschool and thus they have a training league to get these players ready to play in the majors.",
"Different games, different development curves.\n\nBaseball players have MUCH longer professional lives than NFL and NBA players. The sport is just physically easier on the body (well except for Pitcher's arms). That's why a 40 year old NFL player is a big deal, but a 40 year old MLB player is not near as unusual. \n\nSo baseball players can be put into the Minor League for a few years to get trained up and ready for the MLB, they have plenty of years left. NFL and NBA players, with their short career expectancy, need to start right the hell now.",
"Not sure if this is \"the\" correct answer, but I think it's a possibility, at least. \n\nBaseball players don't typically play against pro-level competition the way basketball and football players do. Football players go to college and play against a lot of other pro-caliber players. Same with basketball players, who even in high school are often paired against top prospect in AAU games. \n\nBaseball, on the other hand, has a much thinner talent pool. Most high schoolers aren't consistently playing against other top-flight baseball players, and due to the pilfering of the talent pool by the MLB, a lot of college players are in a similar situation. Also, unlike basketball and football, the junior college circuit is extremely competitive. Players get drafted out of JC all the time. \n\nThis creates a chicken-egg scenario because since the farm system has been around for so long, it's turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since baseball can offer so many more entry-level opportunities to prospective players, players naturally gravitate toward the pros. \n\nAnother potential reason for this phenomenon is that the talent pool in baseball is so much larger. Top players don't just come from the US, they come from Japan, The Dominican Republic, Venezuala, Cuba, even some from Curaçao, South Korea and Canada. In the World Classic, the US is never the prohibitive favorite, several other nations are in the mix. Football is almost exclusively US players, and basketball has become more global, but the US is still the best nation by far. Look at Spain, the consensus No. 2 basketball nation. It has two All-Star-caliber players (the Gasols), about 3-5 borderline starters/6th men and a bunch of guys who wouldn't cut it in the NBA. By contrast the US team isn't full of All-Stars, it's full of NBA MVPs. \n\nA better comparison would be hockey. While it's minor league system isn't as extensive as baseball's, there are a lot of guys who spend 3-4 years in major junior and the AHL before getting to the NHL. Also, there are several, competitive nations involved: Canada, US, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czech Republic and Slovakia. ",
"As stated elsewhere in the thread, the most important baseball skills for long term success are not as athletic as they are specialized, and need time to develop. These include, on the batting side, pitch recognition and hitting for contact, and on the pitching side, control/command."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1txz7y | with gold at such a high value, why haven't we found an efficient way to seperate it from sea water? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1txz7y/eli5with_gold_at_such_a_high_value_why_havent_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceck32k"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"If you take a cubic *kilometer* of ocean, and extract every bit of gold in it, you'll get at most about a thousand dollars from it. A cubic kilometer is a million million liters, or about 1/4 of a million million gallons.\n\nThere's just not enough gold."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2cxv85 | if heat rises does that make the top surface of a cup of tea the hottest? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cxv85/eli5if_heat_rises_does_that_make_the_top_surface/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjk4lqo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Technically yes, but not noticeably hotter. Convection currents will cause the temperature of the tea to be a fairly constant temperature throughout the cup. Hot tea goes up, cools down,then falls down to the bottom forcing more hot tea up to the top again. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2qlpla | why do creatures that sit in the baking sun all day, like lizards, not get skin cancers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qlpla/eli5_why_do_creatures_that_sit_in_the_baking_sun/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn78h3t",
"cn78za6",
"cn7jx6m"
],
"score": [
11,
50,
6
],
"text": [
"Because they don't have skin, they have scales.",
"Skin cancer is caused by UV damage to skin cells. Specifically (and not really ELI5) UV light causes damage to the DNA of the skin cells, which, when un repaired, can cause the cells to replicate uncontrolled and result in cancer.\n\nSo, how do you prevent this? The easiest way is to shield the skin cells from the UV light. You can do this with sunscreen, a hat, etc. Or you can produce more pigments in the skin. Lizards do both. The scales shade the underlying skin from the UV light, and their skin is full of melanin, a dark pigment that acts to absorb the UV light before it can damage the DNA.",
"Lizard medicine is far beyond human medicine."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4bfyb3 | how come our bodies adapt so we only get the chicken pox once, but we always get the flu and other things? | Why can people's bodies adapt so we can only get the chicken pox once, but we can never adapt to the flu or the cold or other small sicknesses? [Answered] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bfyb3/eli5_how_come_our_bodies_adapt_so_we_only_get_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d18ryi2",
"d18s0io",
"d18sa3j",
"d18wnua"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It isn't our bodies. It is the illness. The cold and the flu are actually tons of different rapidly evolving viruses. You do actually become imune to a particular cold strain once you get it... but there are a few hundred more waiting to get you next. \n\nAs to why the flu and cold viruses adapt faster than the chicken pox virus, i don't know.",
"Chicken pox arrives from a specific, unchanging infection. \n\nThere are dozens of different kinds of the flu, all of which constantly mutate and change.\n\nSame with the cold, its a bunch of different viruses, beating one doesn't beat the literally hundreds of others. ",
"Only one virus causes chickenpox. The common cold can be caused by any one of 99 viruses in the same genus. The flu is caused by rapidly evolving viruses in 3 genera.\n\nSimply put...it's WAY easier for the immune system to learn chickenpox than it is the cold or the flu. Because there's only one virus to learn about and if it does mutate it mutates very slowly.\n\nInteresting note though, people can get chickenpox multiple times. If a strong immunity isn't built up as a child, adults can get re-infected with the virus when it causes Shingles.",
"Comparing chickenpox and the flu, you do gain immunity from both after you have caught them and your body has caught them off.\n\nThe big difference is that there is only one form of chickenpox you can catch, so you catch it once, gain immunity, and cannot catch it again. The flu on the other hand is constantly evolving and changing - you can catch one version, gain an immunity from it, but when version 2.0 appears the immunity you gained from the earlier strain is useless is stopping it, and you get the flu (albeit a slightly different version) again.\n\nThe way fly vaccines work is that they can choose to inoculate you against many different versions of it, and just choose the most common at that point. This is the reason who you need to get a new injection every year or so, as the new injection inoculates you against newer strains that are now more common than those of the year before."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
68mqav | president reagan's economic policy during the 1984 economic revival | How did it happen? I understand "Reaganomics" was a complete failure, but what did Reagan do differently that allowed for the economic revival that happened in the mid 1980s? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68mqav/eli5_president_reagans_economic_policy_during_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgzomy1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The economy got better because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates.\n\nThe [previous recession](_URL_0_) was actually caused in large part by the Federal Reserve *raising* interest rates. \n\nThe 70s was a period of very high inflation which was becoming self-sustaining (expectation of high inflation are actually one of the causes of high inflation). To finally put a stop to this, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a very large amount -- short term rates went up over 20%. This plunged the economy into a deep recession. Unemployment went up over 10%. But it bring inflation way down.\n\nOnce the Fed was convinced that inflation had been defeated, they could gradually bring interest rates down -- all the while keeping an eye that inflation did not return. Each year was better than the previous year for quite a long time because of this policy.\n\nReagan and Congress did not have to do a whole lot. Yes, there were tax cuts and there were spending increases that would further stimulate the economy but all of the above would have happened anyways."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession_in_the_United_States"
]
] |
|
84r6fb | what do companies that are closing down do with all their stock (like toys r us)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84r6fb/eli5_what_do_companies_that_are_closing_down_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvron4l",
"dvroy7t",
"dvrpokd",
"dvrstwt",
"dvrw6b8",
"dvry0lh",
"dvs2dfb"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sell it at insane discounts or scrap it at their own expense. Unless someone buys the company including its stock.",
"First they'll have a week or two of Going Out Of Business Sales.\nThen whatever is left over they often look for places to donate. Like toys to charity, food items to food banks. \nThere are also liquidators who specialize in getting rid of stock through all sorts of channels. There's a lot of independent retailers who buy overstock from these guys. Like haven't you ever wondered why at that one convenience store in town they have seven still in box Xbox Ones and four Microwave ovens on the back wall? Who goes to a convenience store to buy an Xbox? Means they got them for cheap, usually through someone else closing up shop. ",
"A few things. \n\n\"Discount\" it to sell a most of it. I put that in quotes because sometimes stores put clearance tags and prices on items but the price actually doesn't go down. Sometimes they will truly discount it to sell it for whatever they can get. \n\nOther wholesale companies often buy the remaining stock at greatly reduced prices and resell it either to other retailers or by doing their own retail sales.\n\nAnother thing that can happen is creditors, distributors, or manufacturers can get the stock to recoup their losses from the retailer's bankruptcy. I don't see this as a preferred method for a toy store but you never know.\n\n",
"NCIX recently bankrupt and auctioned their inventory. Useless items (like old versions of Windows, MS Office, Adobe Suite, old low capacity hard drives, etc..) were bundled with something that is worth a lot (like a brand new PC hardware). People bidding actually have no clue of the retail price of those items and the company ended selling junk for a lot more money. I guess some just do this for the fun. You can watch this video _URL_0_ (there is part 2 as well)",
"Well, the first four posts in here are talking about inventory and here I am thinking this was going to be talking about their stock as in what people buy on the stock market.",
"Their creditors will turn the stores over to liquidation companies, who come in and run the going out of business sale (ie. The big yellow and red signs). Whatever is raised, minus the liquidation company’s cut, is turned over to the creditors.",
"When you say stock, do you mean inventory or the shares?\n\nInventory and other physical assets are sold off in bankruptcy auctions or through liquidators. The money is used to pay off creditors.\n\nThe actual stock is around pretty much forever, companies in bankruptcy, even in chapter 7 are still around for years as various litigation issues are settled. After that, the company exists for years as a stack of paper in someone's filing cabinet. It might be worth some incredibly tiny fraction of a penny per share."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29LL3blOxds"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3rr92p | what's the use of giving high mp's to phone cameras when it doesn't even affect cam quality(or does it?) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rr92p/eli5_whats_the_use_of_giving_high_mps_to_phone/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwql1l8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Resolution does affect image quality, but its only one of the factors.\n\n\n\nCoincidentally (or not), its the easiest factor to understand and quantify in a single number. That means increasing resolution is a good tool to advertise a phone or camera - its easy to understand and it does technically improve quality until a certain point (regular consumers wouldn't really notice the difference past 12-18MP).\n\n\n\nThe other part of the story is that sensor quality, image sharpness, color reproduction, low light performance, lens quality and autofocus accuracy and speed are some of the also-important factors, but they are also harder to explain, and harder to advertise, because most people aren't aware or don't care about those."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8wpswd | how does discarded yard debris, such as a pile of grass clippings, get hot enough to combust? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wpswd/eli5_how_does_discarded_yard_debris_such_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1xhvms"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm confused as to what you mean, but here's what I think you mean: \"How can very green plants burn if there's so much water in them?\" \n\nWater interferes with combustion because it boils at a lower temperature (usually) than the thing that we're trying to burn. \n\nThis is important because water stays at the same temperature as it boils, so the material can't get above that boiling temperature until all the water has boiled. \n\nBoiling water takes a ton of energy. The energy released by the material burning has to be greater than the amount of energy needed to boil the water and ignite surrounding material. \n\nFor a damp log by itself, there's no way. But if we get a nice fire going, the energy released by the fire will be more than enough to drive off the water, allowing the wood to burn. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ahsg6m | why does the us food supply have so much sodium? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahsg6m/eli5_why_does_the_us_food_supply_have_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"eehmi29"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"because salt tastes good, and acts as a preservative. Also, the US food market tends to favor cheap, easily prepared food. Cheap ingredients often come with little natural flavor, or even unpleasant tastes which need to be masked (certain chemical additives have a slightly bitter aftertaste).\n\nOf the flavor types: sweet and sour usually aren't that popular for savory dishes (dishes like sweet and sour chicken are a rare exception), bitter usually detracts from enjoyment, and America doesn't have a lot of experience with adding umami (savory) with sauces like some Asian cuisines. This leaves just salt and spicy as the main flavor components. And you can't go too spicy before you start losing customers with sensitive tongues or stomachs*. So, salt and texture are a manufacturers two main tools. \n\n\\* Some people can enjoy a lot more spiciness than their digestive tract can handle. It tastes great going down, but you're going to have heartburn/acid reflux for the rest of the night. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3ae0ij | why don't we see a large investment of solar panels in the middle east? | The Middle East is filled with oil/natural gas dependent countries, and their economies mostly rely on their natural resources. So, why haven't we seen these same Middle Eastern countries purchasing a large number of solar panels, and creating a lot of electricity?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ae0ij/eli5_why_dont_we_see_a_large_investment_of_solar/ | {
"a_id": [
"csbpwp8",
"csbq3w9",
"csbqerv",
"csbqkbk",
"csbrvgi"
],
"score": [
16,
7,
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Currently solar panels are more expensive than natural gas for countries that produce large amounts of natural gas and they have an uncaring political class. ",
"In Israel, most residential hot water is solar heated. There are also quite a few solar farms, with more being built. Residential solar electricity is being held back a bit because of a lack of meaningful gov't incentives and cost/effectiveness.",
"As others have noted oil is extremely cheap in the desert regions of the Middle East so there's little incentive to tap solar power. Perhaps just as important though is the fact that sand is incredibly harsh on solar panels and requires quite expensive regular maintenance to keep the panels both in good condition and clean of the dust that will cause panels to take in less solar energy.",
"Middle East countries have a lot of sunshine and a lot of heat. Sunshine (light) is important for the [Photovoltaic Effect](_URL_2_), but heat is bad for the output of the solar panels ^1 ^2.\n\n1: _URL_1_\n\n2: _URL_0_",
"Middle Eastern countries are investing in solar power ([example 1](_URL_0_), [example 2](_URL_2_)) but despite the abundance of sunshine, solar is still not as cost-effective as conventional fossil-fuel power in most locations.\n\nIt is getting better though and [UAE recently announced that solar electricity can now be produced more cheaply in UAE than from gas-powered plants](_URL_1_).\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/solar-panel-temperature.html",
"http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2668",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shams_solar_power_station",
"http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/uae-beats-renewables-cost-hurdle-with-worlds-cheapest-price-for-solar-energy",
"http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/may/22/saudi-arabias-solar-for-oil-plan-is-a-ray-of-hope"
]
] |
|
6ynuah | why didn't i need underarm deodorant/antiperspirant until puberty? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ynuah/why_didnt_i_need_underarm_deodorantantiperspirant/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmorbvv"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"You've got more than one kind of sweat gland. Eccrine sweat glands are found on pretty much all of your skin. They are the prevalent kind, and they sweat mostly water.\n\nApocrine sweat glands are found in only some parts of the body, mainly the stinky parts. They produce a sweat higher in protein, and that is what bacteria go to town on, and what *they* excrete is what smells bad. Those glands ramp up at puberty."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
46iaq7 | why do schools spend so much time on theory, instead of application? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46iaq7/eli5_why_do_schools_spend_so_much_time_on_theory/ | {
"a_id": [
"d05cb96",
"d05cm7k",
"d05crk2",
"d05d4wn"
],
"score": [
4,
12,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Because you may not always have the tools accessible to you. Say you're having power issues, if you can divide by hand then you can still assist others. Just by doing it with the tools, you will be stuck if the tools get compromised. \n\nEdit: also, as /u/Hajaku said, if you know the concepts you can then develop tools to do the work for you. If you didn't know the concept, you can't create (or improve) the tools that will do it with minimal work. ",
"Sometimes learning theory can be more about giving your brain exercises, teaching you how to use it to think and solve problems. It's like going to the gym. Most of the weights don't exactly replicate real-life situations. But once you lift a few, you'll be able to tackle any real-life situation you want.\n\nSecondly, understanding where numbers come from will help you spot mistakes. If all you know is that \"profit = the number QuickBooks tells me\" then you've less chance of being able to tell whether that number is correct or not if you don't know how to arrive at that profit figure. \n\nAnd third, if nobody knew the theory then nobody could create or improve programs like QuickBooks. ",
"You need to have an understanding of how those tools work and what exactly they are doing. With out that understanding, how exactly is the next generation going to create Quickbooks 2? Every tool you listed still needs to be built by a person and with out an understanding of whats going on there will never be any advancement or innovation. ",
"The same reason why Lebron James lifts weights and does cardio instead of only shooting and dribbling drills."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
48cv38 | why does focusing require energy, can we train our brain like a muscle to make focusing easier? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48cv38/eli5_why_does_focusing_require_energy_can_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ios6m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain has something called \"executive function\". This is the capacity to decide, to make \"executive decisions\" if you like.\n\nThe act of focus is the act of filtering stimulus.\n\nAs long as you are awake you are deciding things. Cornflakes or Frosted Flakes. Coffee or tea. Large or Small.\n\nLots of decisions are simplified by habit. Do you wash your hair or your crotch first? Chances are you wash in the same order every day if there isn't \"something on you\" to prompt the washing.\n\nSo habit does a lot of the work of everyday decisions. It also explains why some tasks, like driving a car, start out hard but become something you barely remember doing eventually.\n\nThe ability to change the amount of executive function you have every day is probably a \"hard problem\", but it's fairly easy to leverage the habit and familiarity features to improve your overall concentration.\n\n- Do particular kinds of work in specific places and times. You will grow used to whatever the distractions in that place are, and soon those distractions will not be as distracting.\n\n- Work play-lists. If you are all about the noise, then having a play-list for a task will let your brain not have to care about the soundscape. For some the play-list is silence. For others its \"any type of radio\" or \"whatever's on daytime television\", for others still the exact same sequence of songs from the same player work really well.\n\n- Don't care as much. No really, the act of paying too much attention to every keystroke or brushstroke or whatever will burn you out. Part of being \"in the groove\" is that you _stop_ thinking about how you are doing the task at hand and it flows.\n\nTrickier and tricker, if you are obsessive by nature then maybe you _don't_ want a predictable playlist. Maybe you need to be distracted in the minute in order to perform overall.\n\nSo you can adapt to different places and modes of function. But You aren't going to \"Exercise\" to make focusing easier as it doesn't _seem_ to be a function that improves with over-stress.\n\nIndeed, most people who stress their executive function repeatedly tend to decline over time... Which is why, among other things, we take vacations.\n\nSo rest, and learning what _not_ to stress over, tend to increase focus. As does finding what distractions _help_ compared to which ones _harm_. I cannot work if a room is too quiet, for example.\n\nYou don't \"make your groove\", you can't _force_ focus for very long.\n\nYou _find_ your groove, you don't dig it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
33jsub | who do companies, such as gazelle, want your used iphones and other electronic devices? | What do they do with them? How much are they actually making with our old devices if they can afford to pay us for them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33jsub/eli5_who_do_companies_such_as_gazelle_want_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqlkkuj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"A lot of companies will buy phones and other electronics, refurbish them, and resell them, either in the US or in other countries. I did a project on it, as I recall with my phone model they were offering $20, it only costs them a few dollars to refurbish, and then they were selling for $100."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4z8025 | what would our experience be on earth as a massive asteroid approached and impacted us? | Since I am getting funny comments. What I meant was, what would we experience, as it approaches us? Would it be similar to what we saw in Deep Impact or even the meteor that blew up over Russia where you see it flying over head? Would we feel the heat of it as it approaches? Would people in another continent likely feel the impact from another continent? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z8025/eli5_what_would_our_experience_be_on_earth_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6tnlg3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This depends on multiple factors. The mass of the impactor, the velocity with which the impactor hits Earth, the location it hits, where you are relative to that location, and so on. \n\nYour results could vary between (assuming it's big enough) experiencing global cooling, to dying before you really notice anything is wrong at all. \n\nCertainly it will generate a lot of heat on entering the atmosphere, but how much time you'll have to 'feel' that before you are obliterated, or if you are obliterated at all, is going to depend on the above. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dy00yg | how is a t-rex linked with chickens and ostriches? | I came across this comic on a subreddit and it basically implied that chickens are closely related to dinosaurs. Did a quick Google search and found out that they had a set of collagens which closely matched those of chickens and ostriches. What and how did this happen? What are collagens in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dy00yg/eli5_how_is_a_trex_linked_with_chickens_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7xm3gq",
"f7xm4dt"
],
"score": [
7,
8
],
"text": [
"They're distant cousins very many times removed. \nMillions of years ago there were many kinds of dinosaurs. \nMost of them died out when the asteroid hit. \n \nBut some survived. \nOver the next many millions years, they accumulated mutations and adaptation. \nThe survivors with the mutation and adaptations are called \"birds\" \n \nToday it is acceptable to call birds: \"Avian Dinosaurs\", while calling what you think of dinosaurs: \"Non-Avian Dinosaurs\"",
"Birds are dinosaurs.\n\nBirds are dinosaurs that survived the mass extinction 66 million years ago.\n\nBirds are not a descendants of T-Rex, but close relatives. Both modern birds and T-rex were part of a dinosaur lineage called theropada. Those are mostly two legged and have many of features associated with birds like \"hollow\" bones and three toed legs, also feathers.\n\nT-Rex is much closer related to chickens and other birds than it is to other extinct dinosaurs like the stegosaurs and it also is much closer in the time it lived to modern birds than to stegosaurs.\n\nCollagen is the stuff that keeps your body together. Obviously as T-Rex and modern birds are closely related theirs is similar and since T-Rex and flightless birds presumably moved very similar their anatomy is even more similar than compared to flying birds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3snuke | the difference between civil rights and civil liberties | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3snuke/eli5_the_difference_between_civil_rights_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwyv9nx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[It seems the major difference is that \"civil rights\" are concerned when someone is *denied* something such as equal rights whereas \"civil liberties\" are those rights and freedoms all people are guaranteed (but may occasionally be deprived of, prompting concerns of civil rights).](_URL_0_)\n\nMy civil liberties include a right to vote, to be employed, to have a place to live. My civil rights might be violated if I were denied the right to vote, work or rent based on discriminatory criteria."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html"
]
] |
||
53xthx | why do we like grinding in videogames but we don't like grinding in real life ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53xthx/eli5_why_do_we_like_grinding_in_videogames_but_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7x72rr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In video games you see the rewards for your efforts much more quickly than in real life. You can take a video game character from a rookie to a master swordsman or marksman or fisherman in a few days. And all that time you're seeing yourself advance and seeing the results of your work happening, creating a positive feedback loop in your brain. \n\nIn real life it take years to master these skills, and your brain doesn't get the positive feedback as rapidly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
556twr | did we start out with black skin and then it changed to white/yellow et al.? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/556twr/eli5did_we_start_out_with_black_skin_and_then_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d882bn8",
"d888az2",
"d888fbo",
"d88bzt6"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"By the time we get to Homo Sapiens, yes. Definitely. Way earlier in the evolution of man, like several millions of years, when our distant ancestors first became bipedal, walking on two legs, they were in forests which limited sun exposure. Melanin, skin pigment, showed up only about one to two million years ago when they moved into open spaces. But this is long before humans still. Homo Sapiens, our species, is only about 200,000 years old. So again, by the time we came about all dark skinned. ",
"Yes, the earliest humans all would've had dark skin. Hominid species first evolved dark skin to protect from sunlight when they lost their body hair, long before humans came along.",
"Yes, we all started out with dark skin. \n\nThen, the homo erectus and homo sapien began migrating further out of Africa and into east Asia, North Asia, and Europe, their skin started adapting to their environment. Black skin is a HUGE asset in Africa because the sun is literally beating down on it. (I mean, have you seen how huge the sahara desert is? Yeah, that's the sun being an asshole) Dark skin fights UV rays very well, prevent sunburns (Your black friends will always tell you how great it is not ever having been sunburned), and generally, are pretty resistant to whatever tricks that hot ball of fire want to throw.\n\nEuropeans have evolved to be relatively light because it's not as sunny there. They didn't really need all that melanin to protect them. And because the sun does darken your skin over time, having less sun led to their skin slowly growing lighter.",
"Africa=lots of sun=more melanin needed to protect against by rays/burns/skin cancer\nEurope=not a lot of sun=less melanin needed to prevent vitamin D deficiency"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5t1mxc | will a coffin with a dead body inside of it weigh the same once the body is completely decomposed? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t1mxc/eli5_will_a_coffin_with_a_dead_body_inside_of_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddjf7mg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not unless it is air tight. The bacteria that decompose the body release waste gases that will escape into the air and ground which would reduce the weight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1k0sqk | the current terrorist threat that is causing the us to shut down embassies in the middle east | What prompted this? What is going on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k0sqk/eli5_the_current_terrorist_threat_that_is_causing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbk75px",
"cbkaowz",
"cbkcmkk"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"A conversation was allegedly intercepted between two top level members of AQAP (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) speaking in very general terms about a terrorist attack in the very near future. Given what happened at Bengazi last September, the Obama administation is using an abundance of caution because the last thing they need is more dead American ambassadors on their hands.",
"Two sides to this as I see it. Others did a good job to explain the official reason for the embassies to be shut down.\n\nThe other view is that this is an intentional overreaction to prove that the NSA is doing a good job and needs all their access (NSA, they saved us, they need their access to everything to keep us safe, etc).\n\nOf course it's very hard to prove you prevented a credible threat from happening. So there will always be people believing both sides until there is an actual attack. Which means the government failed at protecting its embassies. Not the best way to be proved right...",
"Nobody really knows as most of the info is confidential.\n\nThe very likely reasons are the following:\n\n1) The horrible political football that Benghazi became, has put the current administration in the position of having to 'over-react' so they can't be shown as incompetent or lax.\n\n2) The recent focus on the NSA's privacy intrusions may have caused an expedited effort to 'prove their value' which has resulted in these activites to raise the fear level of the populace and to justify prior questionable actions.\n\nBut there may be [nothing there](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.salon.com/2013/08/09/there_is_no_terrorist_threat_the_feds_want_you_to_think_there_is_compliant_media_goes_along/"
]
] |
|
3n45nc | if it is true that male humans have better sense of smell, how is this possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n45nc/eli5_if_it_is_true_that_male_humans_have_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvknxrd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Do you have a source? Every resource I have ever read says the opposite - that women have a much better sense of smell than men. It is even suggested that during ovulation that women's sense of smell increases significantly.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.google.com/?q=sense%20of%20smell%20male%20vs%20female"
]
] |
||
4d6308 | how come when a movie gets a new director mid-way through filming, they often change the script of the film? | I mean, I'm not familiar with the industry, but if I was a director brought to direct a movie that had already been partially filmed, I would sit down with the cast and crew and find out what the original vision for the film was, and try to direct it to be as faithful to that vision as possible. How come this doesn't seem to be the case? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d6308/eli5_how_come_when_a_movie_gets_a_new_director/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1o0zdp",
"d1o10h5",
"d1o10op",
"d1o153d",
"d1o7if0"
],
"score": [
4,
18,
3,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Every director is going to have their own unique vision of how they want the film to turn out. Sometimes it will mesh with the original plan for the movie, other times they'll want revisions. It all depends on whatever that director wants to do. ",
"It depends on the film and how involved the director is/was with the screenplay. If the screenplay comes from a recognised top screenwriter like Charlie Kaufman or Shane Black, then the director is probably not going to mess with it much. Note also that a screenplay and a shooting script are different things, with the latter containing more direction, so the director needs to be involved there. \n\nSo you can't generalise about this, and it might help if you provided examples. If I look at e.g. *WarGames* (1983), director Martin Brest was replaced with John Badman after a few weeks of shooting, because the results were boring. Badham didn't substantially change the script, but he did change how the actors interpreted it - got them to loosen up and have more fun with it. ",
"In Hollywood movies budget is rarely a problem, much like a professional athletic team....if they were to get a new coach mid-season he would begin implementing his own Playbook as well as his own beliefs and things that he can stand behind, push, motivate and direct with comfort, i.e. his vision",
"Directors seldom walk away from films without good reason. If the director walks away, it's very likely that something (if not *everything*) has gone to shit with the production of the movie & it's worth going back to the drawing board to rethink what they're trying to do with the film.",
"First off, it almost never happens that a new director is brought in \"mid-way through filming\" - things really have to have gone spectacularly badly for a director to get replaced once principal photography has started. What is much more common is that a director gets attached to a project (say, Edgar Wright with 'Ant Man'), which attracts investment from studios and distributors and interest from actors (although often the actor is attached first). By the time all these pieces move into place there might be a new lead actor, new studio executives, multiple drafts of the script - any number of factors that make the director feel that this project is not the one they originally signed on for and then late in pre-production they drop out (as with Wright) and a new director is brought in. Bringing in a new director midway through filming would be hugely disruptive and expensive, which is why it almost never happens. But replacing directors in pre-production is fairly common, since that phase can last years.\n\nAs for the scriptwriting, that's a slightly different issue. The specifics governing the writing and re-writing of scripts are handled by the Writers' Guild, not the Directors' Guild, since many directors do not contribute significantly (in terms of scenes and dialogue) to the films they direct. For directors or screenwriters who do want to have input on the script, the WGA mandates that you have to change a significant proportion of the script to be granted a screenwriting credit (and with it payment, royalties, etc), even if the stuff you're changing is perfectly good. The rules are intended to stop directors from waltzing in, changing three lines, and getting a co-writer credit that takes royalties away from the actual proper screenwriter (this is common practice in pop-music composition where major artists get credit on songs other people wrote for making tiny contributions - also known as 'write a word, get a third'). That said, directors will always have things they want to emphasise differently from their predecessors, but usually these changes are not significant enough to merit an actual screenwriting credit. Often depends on the director, whether they are a member of the WGA, etc.\n\nBasically, directors are almost never replaced during actual production. Either they get kicked off during pre-production, or they get the film taken away from them in post-production. New directors or screenwriters make significant changes to already excellent scripts because they have to if they want to get paid.\n\nedit: formatting"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
enckkh | how do anti-platelet coagulant drugs (nsaids) work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enckkh/eli5_how_do_antiplatelet_coagulant_drugs_nsaids/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdy1imu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"NSAIDs inhibit cyclooxygenase. It's an enzyme that converts arachidonic acid to prostaglandin G2, which after some other enzymatic steps becomes thromboxane A2. This bad boy can then binds the thromboxane receptor activating downstream pathways which results in the change of platelet shape (to facilitate their aggregation), activation of integrins (to make them biochemically sticky), and degranulation (releasing a bunch of proteins that can activate other pathways such as reinforcing clot formation). So inhibit cyclooxygenase and you inhibit the initiation of clot formation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9l78be | how do digital screens work? is there a unique wire/switch for each pixel on the screen? | The closest analogy I have is a simple light bulb and switch, but I can't imagine a million wires and physical switches inside your phone screen, for example. How is a unique signal transmitted to each and every pixel, or each and every single RGB component? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9l78be/eli5_how_do_digital_screens_work_is_there_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e74jsow"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[This video](_URL_0_) shows how they work pretty well. Basically, your screen is made up of tons of tiny pixels that get updated in a linear fashion. Each pixel is actually made up of three different colored lights: red, blue, and green. By adjusting which lights on each pixel is on, the illusion of color is created. Of course, it also depends on what kind of screen you have.\n\nSomething else to note is that all the pixels in an LED display are illuminated by a single LED backlight, whereas each individual pixel in an OLED display have their own backlighting. This is why some TVs don't display \"true\" black.\n\nEdit: Sorry, the colored components of pixels are more filters than actual lights, hence the need for backlighting. The wiring would be in place to control which ones are actually lit, and which ones would be blocked out (creating color)\n\nEdit 2: Sorry again, confused myself. The color components are controlled via an electric field, not actual wiring. This is how they're able to control the vast number of pixels in such a compact environment.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM"
]
] |
|
9bw3uo | why are more toilet flushes not like the water-conserving ones that they have on airlines? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9bw3uo/eli5_why_are_more_toilet_flushes_not_like_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e565myb",
"e565wwt",
"e5660f5"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Its expensive to replace a system that works, and most of the water if not all is cleaned and goes back into the water cycle as vapour. ",
"toilets on aircraft, trains, and rv’s, flush waste directly into a holding tank which then must be pumped out and then discharged into a sanitary waste system eventually ending up in a treatment plant. Residential and commercial toilets don’t have holding tanks, waste must be carried by water, thru underground sewers to be treated. Great improvements have been made to use less water, but the solids still have to be ‘floated along’ by use of other waste water.",
"Airlines don't mind spending a few thousand dollars on special vacuum toilets because they easily make it up in weight savings not having to bring tons of water with them. Most of the rest of us wouldn't do that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5l5d0w | when someone has lost a finger and they put it back on, how does it work with the nerves and stuff? | The nerves are all cut in half and there's millions of them. How do they all regenerate accurately? That's mad. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l5d0w/eli5_when_someone_has_lost_a_finger_and_they_put/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbt0zxr",
"dbtlp0d",
"dbtnjik",
"dbtvbnq"
],
"score": [
65,
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The nerves just find each other through the damaged tissue. I dont think its an issue of finding the right path because that path ends in one place and the brain can just change what that path is listed under. For example if I get my hand re attatched, there is Nerve A,B,C,D, and E (one for each finger). Beginning of nerve A can attach ti beginning of Nerve E and then the Brain can just rename that whole nerve path to Nerve E/Finger E. If you want the scientific explanation google it it will talk about all the different types of cells used to do this and what body chemicals. Also don't quote me on this I'm only assuming from prior knowledge.",
"When a finger is cut off and subsequently reattached initially the nerves do not work.\n\nTo reattach a finger you typically start by fixing the bone. If the amputation occurred through a bone (say the proximal phalanx) you line it up under fluoroscopy (instant XRay) and use pins to hold it in place. If the amputation happened to occur through a joint you also pin it in place; however, obviously you worry about joint alignment in that case. Next, you repair the tendons. In the part of the finger closest to the palm there are two tendons to fix (the tendon for bending your first finger joint and the tendon for bending your second finger joint). In the part of the finger far from the palm you only have to repair the tendon that bends the second joint (the other tendon is already at its end point).\n\nNext you work on repairing the vessels and nerves. In your finger there is a single major nerve and a single major artery (and vein) running along the length of the finger on either side of the finger. To achieve as normal sensation as possible your have to repair the nerve on either side of the finger. A nerve is typically a large tube with multiple small tubes inside it (fascicles). Think of it like a fiber optic cable. You really can't repair all the little \"fibers\" but you can repair the larger outer tube. If this heals, the small fascicles regrow essentially from your spinal cord all the way down to the reattached finger. This growth happens at about 1mm a day. Thus, it takes many months after reattachment to regain feeling. Even once regained, the sensation is never normal again. However, if that outer tube is repaired well it guides the new fascicles to where they are supposed to go allowing for some regained feeling. \n\nInterestingly, many times we can only repair one of the arteries and sometimes we can't repair either of the veins. In such a situation leeches may be used to drain the finger of \"old blood\" so it can continue to be perfused with oxygenated blood. \n\nWhile many centers are very aggressive about finger replantation, some literature indicates that replanted fingers are often stiff and less functional that having a hand with a missing finger. If you have to lose one finger, many hand surgeons will argue your index finger is the least useful. \n",
"I have no degrees or any expertise on this subject, HOWEVER, my husband had his hand sawed in half. He was rushed into emergency surgery and 10 hours later, his hand was back together. There was one surgeon working strictly on veins and nerve endings and one working on muscle tissue and bones. The nerves have been permanently damaged, however, he has still maintained some feeling. He says the feels equates to when you hand falls asleep. Any time he touches anything or if I hold his hand, it feels like the fuzzy tingling feeling that you get when your hand falls asleep. He knows something is touching him because he can feel the tingles, but that's it. It takes a long time for that hand to feel cold or hot. It's pretty neat once you get past the fact that it makes him upset. All the nerves are somewhat connected, but it's like they have a bad connection. I always thought it was interesting because it's like the nerves aren't fully connected. The body is so complex it's amazing. Just to add, he is so insanely thankful to his team of doctors, to have free health care in Canada and to have his hand back. Even though it's not 100% the same, it's amazing what they did for him. Plus... Cool scar! ",
"When I was 5 I had my middle and ring finger completely cut off in a door. It was iced and rush to the hospital with me. Was reattached by an awesome surgeon. Complete recovery. Have a weird line(scar?) that goes down the middle of my middle finger. Fingers work perfectly. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ngzee | why does a projectile's velocity matter more than mass in terms of kinetic energy. | I have a background in long range shooting and am trying to explain to a novice that the kinetic energy of a projectile is 1/2m(v^2) and because of this mass is it as important as velocity when it comes to calculating kinetic energy. No matter what I say to this person, they do not understand that heavier is not as important as the velocity in regards to this function.
Can someone please ELI5 so I can make this person understand that the faster a bullet projectile moves is more important than its weight. Bonus points if you can describe terminal ballistics of an object impacting and transferring energy. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ngzee/eli5_why_does_a_projectiles_velocity_matter_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk9dtde",
"dk9emjg",
"dk9i6s3"
],
"score": [
15,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Kinetic energy is *1/2* times *mass* times *velocity* **times velocity**. That's right, velocity is in there twice, multiplied together. That makes it twice as important.\n\nIf you double the mass, you double the energy.\nIf you double the velocity, you quadruple the energy.\n\nIf they don't get it after that, then you need to give up because they've decided that they're right on a political or religious level. This thought is now part of their personal belief system, and nothing you say will change their mind.",
"The velocity is very important for muzzle energy but the mass plays a big factor in retaining energy to deliver to the target\n\nKinetic energy goes up by the square of the velocity making it more important than mass, but air resistance also does. Air resistance generates a force, a heavier bullet is more resistant to this and decelerates slower.\n\nLets take an example!\n\nA 647 gr(42 g) Speer 0.50 BMG round is listed as having a muzzle velocity of 928 m/s and an energy of 18,050 joules. An 800 gr(52 g) Barnes has a muzzle velocity of 882 m/s and 20,195 Joules. Both have the same body and cross section so all components of the drag equation are the same except velocity.\n\nThe lighter, faster round will experience 1.107x the drag of the heavier slower round while having only 80.1% of the mass so the overall deceleration will be 37% higher than the heavier round. There will come a point somewhere downrange where the heavier round now has more energy than the lighter round, despite the lighter round leaving the barrel with more energy. Whether or not this is within your effective range depends on the round and the application, but there are times where a heavier slower round can deliver more energy to the target despite leaving the barrel with a lower muzzle energy",
"Physics studying motion has two fundamental approaches. One involves studying displacement and the other involves time. \n\nMomentum is (mass*velocity) an approach to analyze the time of motion. In this situation, mass and velocity both have an equal and proportional affect on the object in motion.\n\nKinetic Energy is an approach to analyze distances and that is why kinetic energy is an integral of momentum. Energy removes time from the equation.\n\nFor example suppose an object is traveling in a vacuum at a constant speed. Suddenly a constant force is applied to it in the opposite direction of its velocity. We want to know two things:\n\n1) How long (time) until the object comes to a stop?\n\n2) How much distance until the object comes to a stop?\n\nAs it turns, if we double the velocity or double mass then the time until it stops will double. Its simple.\n\nHowever if we double the objects velocity then the **distance** until it comes to a stop will not double. It will quadruple. \n\nYou can apply this in the real world to collisions. Suppose you have a car crashing into a barrier. We want to calculate the time until the car+barrier come to a stop after the collision and we want to know how far they both travel. One involves time (momentum) and the other involves displacement (kinetic energy). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4senb6 | how do apple music and spotify create a radio based on a song? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4senb6/eli5_how_do_apple_music_and_spotify_create_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d58pazt",
"d58qczf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it's mainly [cluster analysis](_URL_0_). The song you choose is evaluated as having neighbors based on other people's listening habits. ",
"I'm pretty sure it looks at the genre of the song and the related artists and takes similar songs like that to create that playlist. Sadly they don't think too far ahead so if you're listening for too long the genre can change completely*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis"
],
[]
] |
||
82fwpz | why are the people of reddit so completely angry about things that are reposted? do you truly believe that everyone has seen everything you have seen all the time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82fwpz/eli5_why_are_the_people_of_reddit_so_completely/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv9pr3n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Two reasons:\n\n1. It fills up the feeds of people who spend a lot of time on reddit. They want to see new things instead of old posts.\n\n2. The reposter is getting attention and karma for something that they did not create and many people have a moral problem with that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1pctic | statistics: the odds of winning the lottery are something like having seven holes in one in a round of golf. in the billions of rounds of golf that have been played since the game was invented, this has never happened. yet the lottery is won every week. why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pctic/eli5statistics_the_odds_of_winning_the_lottery/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd11uh6",
"cd123tu",
"cd12f7m"
],
"score": [
21,
10,
9
],
"text": [
"A lot more lottery tickets are bought than games of golf are played.",
"The two aren't really comparable for a variety of reasons. The main one being that the lottery has fixed number of possibilities. There are only so many combinations of number and millions of the combinations are picked each week. However, golf has an infinite number of variables that effect whether of not the ball goes in the hole.",
"Wiki puts the odds for an amateur hitting a hole in one in 12,500. [Link](_URL_0_)\n\nThat means that hitting 7 in a row is a one in 4.7 x 10^28 chance. (and hitting seven out of 18, would I think, still be 1.2 x 10^20) \nThe odds of winning the powerball, by contrast, are about 5x 10^9. \nAnd, for another contrast, the age of the universe in seconds is about 4x10^17. \n\nSo, it's not just that fewer people play, but it is also much, much, much, much less likely. And that's before taking into account the more sophisticated statistical analysis I imagine would be needed to figure the odds that one particular person would hit 7 in the same game (since their not really independent dice rolls, but depend on skill, mental state, and conditions.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_in_one"
]
] |
||
2jz86r | why is it that when i only have 2 or 3 drinks i have a hangover and headache etc, then sometimes when i drink much larger amounts, i usually don't have any hungover feelings. you'd think the opposite would be more common. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jz86r/eli5why_is_it_that_when_i_only_have_2_or_3_drinks/ | {
"a_id": [
"clgf0ri",
"clgf4rm",
"clgj9c9"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Hangovers come from dehydration.\n(The lack of water makes the body use all water available, including the liquid your brain is floating in. That's what hurts)\nAlcohol just helps dehydration, it makes you pee all the water you have. If you just have a few drinks and dance for two hours, you will get extremely dehydrated, even though you are not that drunk. \n\nTL;DR: Drink water, especially when drinking alcohol. ",
"You're probably waking up still drunk and hydrating before the pain of the hangover has a chance to kick in.\n\nWith a few beers, the intoxication wears off while you sleep and you wake at your most dehydrated, which causes the associated pain and lethargy",
"Admetting you have drink the same thing, first night 3 beers, the other 6 beers, and you got Hangover with the 3. This may come from what you ate before you started to drink, and how hydrated you were. You have to eat concistent food before, it helps!\n\nIf the drinks are not the same, this may be due to some additives in your drinks. For example, some kind of white wine, have more additives than others, and this may cause in certain persons to get easier hangover !\n \nProTips: have a good meal before to drink, and if you can, drink water between each alcohol drink :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4z65ac | why do some people never look big, no matter how strong they get | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z65ac/eli5_why_do_some_people_never_look_big_no_matter/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6t5ig0"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"* Fat hides muscle. Two identical twin bodybuilders that can lift the same weights would look very different if you put one of them on a Twinkie diet for a couple of months. The fat twin's physique won't be as defined and he'll look weaker than the shredded twin, even though they have the same amount of muscle. \n\n* Strength ≠ Size. With enough repetition, your brain gets really good at efficiently controlling your muscles. A young bodybuilder might look like he could cut a tree down faster than a skinny old lumberjack, but that lumberjack has been swinging an axe for a loooong time. The bodybuilder has more muscle but his brain isn't as good at telling his muscles what to do when it comes to cutting trees down. His brain doesn't know how many muscle fibers it needs to activate to get the swing just right. It also has to worry about gripping the axe properly and aiming it at the right spot. The lumberjack's brain and muscles have worked together so long they could finish eachother's sentences, he could probably cut the tree down with his eyes closed. He has less muscle but he'll be using every ounce of his energy efficiently. This is where 'old man strength' comes from. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
30sljy | why was not the bicycle invented, in any shape or form, earlier in history? | with its generally simple mechanism and easy design, why was not the wonderful bicycle invented at least hundreds of years ago? it would have changed the history of civilisation worldwide!
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30sljy/eli5_why_was_not_the_bicycle_invented_in_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpvedoe",
"cpvegwk",
"cpvehfo",
"cpvei0p",
"cpvek4b",
"cpvep3f",
"cpvewsl",
"cpvgef7",
"cpvipok",
"cpvpc0m"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
122,
3,
6,
12,
3,
20,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd like to know soon considering Chariots were in existence ~2000 years ago. The precursor to the bicycle the [Dandy Horse](_URL_0_) was invented in 1817.",
"Bycicles require durable materials. the chains and gears have to be made of metal. They also have to be relatively small, so that the friction is minimized.",
"What we consider a modern bicycle requires precision machine parts, durable rubber and (generally) flat roadways. None of that existed before the 19th century.",
"A guess would be the mass produce of gears would be very expensive without \"modern\" mashining.\n",
"Bicycle is useless, unless there is level ground or good roads. Gobblestones for example are total pain in de ass and impossible to bike on for any longer time. I actually remember ancient gobble-stoned highway in former Yugoslavia 50 years ago, and it was easier to walk and push the bike.\n\n- First cross-country bicycle trip across USA was along railway tracks, which while bumpy were obviously much better than roads. \n",
"If a bike was invented with 1400s technology to be driven on 1400s roads you would fall the fuck off constantly.",
"You could have invented an onroad bike 2000 years ago and have been fine, but since they didn't have good roads you'd have needed to invent an offroad bike and that actually takes good modern technology. ",
"A *practical* bike is actually quite complex, and needs the following technology:\n\n* Lightweight metal tubing\n* Pneumatic tyres\n* Precision gears and chain\n\nA simple bike without those technologies [is nothing more than a toy](_URL_0_), far less useful than a horse drawn vehicle.",
"The bicycle is a collective invention in that it's final form is made up of literally hundreds of tiny improvements on the basic design. When Karl von Drais first developed a two wheeled vehicle in 1815 he envisioned that it would be propelled by alternating foot strokes in the fashion of an ice skater. Everyone was amazed to find out that the hobby horse or velocipede could be balanced to go great distances down a slope by steering through the center of gravity and preventing any falls. John Dunlop rediscovered the pneumatic tire which made the ride so much smoother. The spoked wheel is another amazing development. Think about supporting a 300lb man with wheels made of steel wires as thin as spaghetti. The diamond (or double triangle) tube frame which most bikes still use today, was what spelled the end for the high wheeler bike that was popular before. Having two wheels of similar size made chains and gears possible. Before the pedals were directly attached to the front wheel. Standardized ball bearings were another major development that are used on almost any revolving point of a bicycle. Low friction and low maintenance means more speed for less effort. Gears combined with bearings made even more speed gains possible. The bicycle was a dream come true because for 10,000 years the top speed of humans was as fast as a horse could run. And only the very wealthy could afford to feed and house a horse. Initially bicycles were also only playthings for the wealthy. But the industrial revolution made it possible for the bike to give the thrill of speed and distance to anyone. I urge you to study a bit how the bicycle affected history. Good paved roads were first championed because of the needs of cyclists, not cars. And the emancipation of women and changes in ladies fashion are directly tied to the needs of the female cyclist. ",
"A lot of guesses in here. The simple answer is no one thought of it, or were unable to think of alternate solutions to 'a bicycle requires precision parts'. Which is totally possible, I guarantee if someone put up a prize for a million dollars for anyone who could build a bike with tech from any time period just about, it would be done."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy_horse"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.lookandlearn.com/history-images/LLB8006-050-02/Hobby-Horse?img=0"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
jedzd | evolution, not the theory, but what is going to happen now? | Before, if something was unfit to survive then it would die. Simple as that! But now, we do all sorts of things that interfere with the cycle. Killing large amounts of animals, saving animals that are by nature unfit to survive in the wild, and genetically modifying all kinds of things. Explain like I'm 5, what is going to happen?
Thank you for the replies! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jedzd/eli5evolution_not_the_theory_but_what_is_going_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2besi7",
"c2bmrji",
"c2besi7",
"c2bmrji"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Life will go on, as it has since it began; we're just a new selection pressure.",
"Many types of deer that are regularly hunted have shown signs of reverse evolution. We keep hunting all the big strong animals allowing only the sickly small ones to mate.",
"Life will go on, as it has since it began; we're just a new selection pressure.",
"Many types of deer that are regularly hunted have shown signs of reverse evolution. We keep hunting all the big strong animals allowing only the sickly small ones to mate."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cfc0ub | do trains take any special precautions when crossing roads that only have a yield sign and no arms to block the road? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cfc0ub/eli5_do_trains_take_any_special_precautions_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"eu8u8y7",
"eu8v407",
"eu94ful",
"ewo3hq5"
],
"score": [
23,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sound their horn and obey any speed limit signs. There's very little else they can do. It takes a long time and distance to stop, more than any visual sign of danger could give them.",
"It’s not up to the train to take precautions. It’s up to the car drivers to take precautions.",
" > On April 27, 2005, the [Federal Railroad Administration](_URL_0_) (FRA), which enforces rail safety regulations, published the final rule on the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings.[\\[4\\]](_URL_4_)[\\[5\\]](_URL_1_) Effective June 24, 2005, the rule requires that locomotive horns be sounded at all public grade crossings at least 15 seconds, but not more than 20 seconds before entering a crossing.[\\[6\\]](_URL_2_) This rule applies when the train speed is below 45 mph (70 km/h). At 45 mph or above, trains are still required to sound their horn at the designated location (usually denoted with a [whistle post](_URL_8_)). \n > \n > The pattern for blowing the horn remains two long, one short, and one long. This is to be repeated or prolonged as necessary until the lead locomotive fully occupies the crossing. Locomotive engineers retain the authority to vary this pattern as necessary for crossings in close proximity, and are allowed to sound the horn in emergency situations no matter where the location. \n > \n > A ban on sounding locomotive horns in Florida was ordered removed by the FRA after it was shown that the accident rate doubled during the ban.[\\[7\\]](_URL_6_) The new ruling [preempts any state or local laws](_URL_9_) regarding the use of the train horn at public crossings.[\\[8\\]](_URL_3_) This also provides public authorities the option to maintain and/or establish quiet zones provided certain supplemental or alternative safety measures are in place, *and the crossing accident rate meets government standards*. \n\n[_URL_5_](_URL_7_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThis makes trains a huge annoyance in my town. I work by the tracks and they have a crossing for almost every road (I can see three raid crossings from the front door of our office) here so I get so many train horns going off.",
"There is a sing on railway, in my country its yellow and red stripes on pole. It means = beware crossing, sound a horn. There may be a speed limit as well. But not really much more you can do tbh."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Railroad_Administration",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_horn#cite_note-5",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_horn#cite_note-6",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_horn#cite_note-8",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_horn#cite_note-4",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train\\_horn",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_horn#cite_note-7",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_horn",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_post",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption"
],
[]
] |
||
2no0sr | what is the difference between a 'one-tail' and 'two-tail' test with regards statistical significance? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2no0sr/eli5what_is_the_difference_between_a_onetail_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmf9soo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In a one tail test, you are looking at the probability, or likelihood, x is above or below a certain amount (depending on which tail you are testing, you will look at if x is greater than this, or x is less than this)\n\nIn a two tailed test, you are looking at the probability, or likelihood, that x equals or does not equal a certain amount. (you look at if x is different from this)\n\nIn terms of statistical significance, your two tail test splits the area of the alpha level in half (both tails will be colored in) so in order to detect the same change in one direction, your alpha level would need to be the twice that of using a one tailed test. A one tailed test puts all of the area in one end, or tail.\n\nSource: senior math major in American undergrad, long time math tutor."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1nvnai | why does drinking alcohol more often raise your tolerance? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nvnai/eli5_why_does_drinking_alcohol_more_often_raise/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccmjeco",
"ccmmzsx"
],
"score": [
28,
3
],
"text": [
"The answer to this is the same reason that using other psychoactive drugs regularly gives you a tolerance, and I find this whole area quite fascinating actually!\n\nTo simplify this for the purposes of our discussion, drugs cause their effect in your brain by binding to receptors, which for this question we can imagine as 'buttons'. Alcohol is absorbed into your brain, binds to the 'buttons' that it 'presses' and this causes the intoxicating effect. If you were to ingest morphine, than it would bind to it's own 'buttons' in your brain and 'press' or activate those receptors. \n\nYour brain is always trying to normalize itself. If you are ingesting alcohol regularly, your brain wants to try to 'cancel out' this effect and get back to it's normal state. It does this by downregulating the receptors that alcohol binds to, or to simplify you could imagine this as the brain somewhat depressing the 'button' so that it's activation by alcohol does not have as great an effect. \n\nA similar thing happens with other drugs, again I'll use morphine as an example; if you ingest it regularly, your brain will downregulate the receptors that it binds to and so that the effect that morphine has is not as great. \n\nThis is tolerance, and it is a lot more complicated than this but this is the basic idea. It takes more of the substance to get the same effect, as your brain is trying to get itself back to it's normal state of functioning. \n\nThis downregulating is also what leads to withdrawal symptoms when you are addicted to a substance. The receptors that these drugs bind to are there because there are natural chemicals in your brain, neurotransmitters, that bind to these receptors. When these receptors are downregulated so that the drugs have less of an effect, it also means that these neurotransmitters have less of an effect when they naturally bind to the receptors. \n\nOn top of this, your brain will decrease the amount of these neurotransmitters that are produced as you are ingesting a constant amount of a substance that binds to these receptors and that are activating them. \n\nWhen you stop constantly ingesting whatever the substance was that you were taking, you then have a situation on your hands where the receptors are not as active as they are supposed to be, and you have a decrease in the normal levels of the neurotransmitters that bind to these receptors. \n\nThis causes the withdrawal symptoms, which vary widely from one drug to another. Nicotine withdrawal has less of a physical effect, and is more psychological. Alcohol withdrawal is very dangerous, and can even lead to seizures as the receptors that it binds to in the brain are important for regulating neural activity. Morphine/opiate withdrawal causes intense flu-like symptoms and psychological symptoms. \n\nOnce exposure to the substance has ceased, than over time normal brain activity will resume and your receptors will no longer be downregulated. The tolerance goes down, and your brain functions normally again. However, as an anecdotal note I have heard from several former addicts that they never get back to having absolute 'zero tolerance' to their drug of choice, and there may be research into this that I am unaware of. \n\nTo complicate this further, if you are interested, alcohol also has effects that aren't related to receptors in the brain as it also affects various electrical paths. \n\nIf you want to read more into this, I'd recommend the Wiki pages to start with:\n\n[Downregulation and upregulation](_URL_2_)\n\n[Agonist, a chemical that binds to a receptor.](_URL_1_)\n\n[Ethanol - pharmacology](_URL_4_)\n\n[Alcohol withdrawal syndrome](_URL_0_)\n\n[Drug tolerance (short page, following links may be a good idea)](_URL_3_)\n\nI hope this helps you understand! I'm happy to clarify as well if needed. ",
"One reason why drinking more alcohol may raise your tolerance is that it speeds alcohol metabolism. While not exactly suitable for ELI5, [this is a good explanation of how the body breaks down ethanol](_URL_1_). The short version is that there are three enzymes which break down ethanol: alcohol dehydrogenase, catalase, and cytochrome P450 2E1.\n\n[Cytochrome P450 2E1](_URL_0_) (abbreviated to CYP2E1) is one of a family of enzymes that are found on the surface of the liver (other Cytochrome P450 enzymes are the reason why you shouldn't eat grapefruit while on some medications). Both drinking and smoking tobacco are know to cause more CYP2E1 to be produced, so the liver can then break down alcohol faster, which can appear to increase your tolerance. unfortunately CYP2E1 also produces toxic compounds so it does more damage to your liver than alcohol dehydrogenase does, so this greater tolerance comes at a price.\n\nSince CYP2E1 can also break down other molecules, this also means that heavy drinkers break down some anesthetics faster. CYP2E1 also breaks down acetaminophen, but if memory serves me right, it only does the first step which produces a toxic metabolite, so having more CYP2E1 enzymes not only shortens how long acetaminophen works for, but makes it to more damage to your liver."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome#Pathophysiology",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_agonist",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downregulation_and_upregulation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_tolerance",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Pharmacology"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP2E1",
"http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh294/245-255.pdf"
]
] |
||
6wbs33 | why do my eyebrow hairs start off white at the bottom but then become gradually more dark? | I've been trying to figure this out for ages. I'm not sure if I'm some sort of exception or whether everyone has this, but:
Why is it that when I look at my eyebrows up close, or pluck a hair out, that it looks like the single hairs are light in color at the root but get gradually darker towards the end (the bit that would have grown out first)? It's like a black-to-white gradient. I'm not talking about that little white or black end of the root that everyone has, I'm talking about the actual hair itself.
Wouldn't it get gradually bleached by the sun or so? Shouldn't it be the other way around, if anything? How can pigment be added at the end of a hair when the hair is already a couple millimeters in length?
I've compared my eyebrow hair to my beard- and head-hair, and the same effect does not seem to happen there. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wbs33/eli5_why_do_my_eyebrow_hairs_start_off_white_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"dm70khy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you scrape the hair between your fingernail, can you scrape the white part off?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3fzbw2 | if someone has an operation to remove a testicle, would the other testicle produce more sperm or would sperm production be halved. | I was under the impression the testicle just makes more to compensate. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fzbw2/eli5_if_someone_has_an_operation_to_remove_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cttd1n6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > **Semen and Sperm Production**\nIf a man is born with two testicles, he will produce sperm and semen in both. Tubes connect the testes to the penis where semen and sperm are moved out of the body during ejaculation. If one testicle is not present at birth or if one is removed at some point in life, the other testicle takes over semen and sperm production.\n\n > There could be reduced semen production as a result of having only one testicle, but fertility is not affected in most cases. Let’s take a look at this in numerical terms. Sperm production in excess of 20 million per sample is considered normal. If a man produces 100 million sperm with two testicles and that number is cut in half due to the loss of one testicle, sperm production is still within normal levels. However, the remaining testicle will pick up sperm production so the total number of sperm may not be halved in a real life situation, so more than 50 million sperm could be produced in reality."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2r095g | how can countries get better off without making others worse off? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r095g/eli5_how_can_countries_get_better_off_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnb6cey"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are countless examples of how a country can get better off without making others worse off.\n\nLet's say that your country feeds itself primarily with corn. If you figure out a way to grow corn better, your country has become better off and other countries are not harmed. In fact, if this allows you to now export more corn at a cheaper price, other countries benefit too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3nhkw8 | why aren't lawns a giant pile of cut grass? | After you mow the lawn, cut blades of grass are everywhere, but within a couple days it's all magically gone. Where does it all go, and why doesn't it pile up mow after mow after mow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nhkw8/eli5_why_arent_lawns_a_giant_pile_of_cut_grass/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvo4ppa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Mostly its ants and other small fellows who kindly tidy up after you. That, and gravity - the bits sink down until they're under the living stuff, which has grown up past them. They're mostly water anyway, and break down quite quickly, the results getting taken up again by the grass itself."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9b7e5u | why can colors be represented as a circle (red to orange to etc. back to red) but from a wavelength point of view, red and purple are extreme points? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9b7e5u/eli5_why_can_colors_be_represented_as_a_circle/ | {
"a_id": [
"e50wk4s",
"e516ak1"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"From a wavelength point of view, purple doesn't exist. It only occurs when blue and red waves get mixed by the brain. \n\nEdit: [here](_URL_0_)'s an illustration of what I mean. ",
"(Your question covers at least two parts of color, so it's going to be a little difficult to get them to meet.)\n\nThe idea of color comes a lot from human eyes. In the eye, there are generally three types of cone cells that respond with different amounts of signal different wavelengths. Simplified view here: _URL_2_ with more color here _URL_4_\n\n_URL_6_ shows that most colors do not match a wavelength. For instance, brown does not have a wavelength, nor does white. (Neither appears in the rainbow/spectrum.) It just so happens that light that is a single pure wavelength (or very close to it, as in a laser or a slice of a rainbow) excites the cones in the eye in a certain ratio that is then perceived as red, blue, green, or something in between. But the closest primary colors to the eye are red, green, and blue. Colors can be reproduced by adding lights together _URL_3_ (as in RGB displays or even shining three lights on the same thing. Computer and other electronic displays work on this principle. Each color is given a different amount. You can mix different colors to pick webpage colors here: _URL_7_\n\n([RGB](_URL_0_) isn't the only way to describe colors. For color printing, you have a different set of primary colors: cyan, magenta, yellow, black, or the CMYK model. RGB is additive, CMYK is subtractive.)\n\nRGB is the bridge to this type of color wheel (others like in art are talked about at _URL_5_) If you space the three equally, you can mix them in different values: _URL_1_ Equal parts red and green make yellow. Green and blue, cyan. Red and blue, magenta. So another way to describe colors is with hue, saturation (how 'pure' the color is) and lightness (how close to that or black it is). That's how pink comes from red, or sky blue and navy blue from blue.\n\n(Not all colors can be equally represented in these different ways. You can make RGB colors that can't be made in CMYK, and there are several different flavors of RGB.)\n\nSo, short answer is that pure wavelengths are spectral colors, but color wheels take the primary colors and mix them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/CIE1931xy_blank.svg/220px-CIE1931xy_blank.svg.png"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/RGB_color_wheel_10.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Cones_SMJ2_E.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/RGB_illumination.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Normalized_Cone_Sensitivities.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_color",
"https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.