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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
190ptz | can someone explain commodity options, future options, and just options in general? | I've been watching countless YouTube videos, as well as reading various articles about Options trading and it just doesn't sink in. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/190ptz/eli5_can_someone_explain_commodity_options_future/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8jpxja",
"c8js182"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"An option is just an agreement to buy or sell an asset on a certain day for a certain price. \n\nFutures is trading on certain assets where the price is locked in and the asset is delivered at a future date. The idea behind this is to allow farmers to have a guaranteed price so they can work their yearly budget off. For example a future contract may say that a farmer can get $10 per bushel of corn. So this means that the farmer knows for certain that even if the price on the market drops he can still get a good deal. It is used as a type of insurance policy against price drops.\n\nCommodity options are just options that deal only with commodities, the bushel example above would be covered in this.\n\nThis is my area of expertise and I can elaborate if you have more questions.",
"Seems like future option has not been explained? It is a complex derivative, meaning that the price of the option depends on the price of the future which depends on the price of the underlying. [this](_URL_0_) is a real life example. In principle you can have any higher-order complex derivative imaginable, such as future future, option option, option future option, I can go on and on but you get the idea. In reality, it is rarely seen (well, before the financial crisis we use to have CDO on CDO on CDO, which is basically that)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.m-x.ca/produits_taux_int_ogb_en.php"
]
] |
|
4bv1qf | how can 3d animated movies, such as pixar movies, cost just as much or even more than live action movies? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bv1qf/eli5_how_can_3d_animated_movies_such_as_pixar/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1co8ut",
"d1co99s"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I mean if it takes 200 animators 3 years, and it costs at least $100k/year to employ a better-than-average 3D animator (including all compensation, not just salary), that's $60 million right there. And obviously there are many other costs.\n\nThe appeal of animation has never really been that it's *cheaper* than live action, it just lets you do different things.",
"Simple answer would be a comparison with photography. You can go out and take a picture of a tree with a camera. Some minor editing and you have a quality image of a tree.\n\nNow, to get that same image animated, you would need to model digitally the tree, which sounds like a lot of work.\n\nIn other words, creating the digital animations takes a lot of skill, talent, and time by programmers and artists.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2qcz3u | why do companies continue to sell products that have a poor design? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qcz3u/eli5why_do_companies_continue_to_sell_products/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn4z0vu",
"cn4z23l",
"cn4z3w1"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I know right! You even need scissors to on open a pack of scissors. ",
"Same reason Nickelback keeps making music... people keep buying the shit.",
"Most products will be packaged by a seperate business from the manufacturer who specialises in packaging. Provided the packaging keeps the product safe from the rigors of worldwide travel and handling I assume they couldnt give a shit about how much of a hard time you had getting into it, so long as it reaches you in perfect condition."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
lis5p | the difference between dinosaurs, reptiles, and birds. | Can someone explain the morphological differences between dinosaurs, reptiles, and birds? Obviously regarding dinosaurs it's based on current scientific theory, but there are things that aren't quite clear to me: What is their skin like? Cold blooded or warm blooded? Evolutionary connections/branching?
Feel free to go beyond if you're up for it (i.e. mammals, fish, etc...), but I think the lines are more blurry for me between these three. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lis5p/eli5_the_difference_between_dinosaurs_reptiles/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2t1xyk",
"c2t1ybx",
"c2t1xyk",
"c2t1ybx"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, one of the great changes over the past 10 or 20 years is that now most scientists (but NOT ALL) think that there's really barely any difference between dinosaurs and birds. In fact, Jack Horner, one of the first paleontologists to realize that birds and dinosaurs had more in common than dinosaurs and reptiles, is sort of involved in [a project to turn birds back into dinosaurs](_URL_3_). \n\nThe main morphological difference is teeth and claws - and modern birds seem to have the genes to grow teeth and claws, but those genes usually aren't switched on. \n\nSome paleontologists think dinosaurs even had feathers. They've even [found some](_URL_2_), they think. \n\nWhat might be confusing is that there are lots of prehistoric creatures that people *think of* as dinosaurs that weren't. [Dimetrodon](_URL_1_) is the first that comes to mind - a big reptile (well, sort of) that was around at a time when most dinosaurs were, like, the size of songbirds or chickens. \n\nThe \"well, sort of\" means that Dimetrodon was almost certainly cold-blooded (used that big sail to absorb heat) and scaly, like a big crocodile... but had some bones in its skull in common with mammals like beavers and humans. \n\nEvolutionary connections and branching... well, that's a big can of worms. Those kinds of classifications are subject to lots of argument - from philosophical problems (see [cladistics](_URL_0_)) to trying to guess from a lump of bone-shaped rock whether a few million years later another bone was shaped the same way because it's a good shape for bones or because the later bone is the great-great-great-(etc.)-grandnephew of the original fossil.",
"Evolutionarily, dinosaurs developed out of reptiles (as did several other groups: snakes, turtles, lizards, etc.). They diversified and dominated the land and the sea for millions of years.\n\nTwo lines of dinosaurs developed flight. One was the pterosaurs and the other would become birds (e.g. archeopteryx). The latter evolved feathers and other bird characteristics.\n\nEventually, an asteroid hit Earth 65 million years ago, and birds were the only set of dinosaurs that survived.\n\nThis means that birds are dinosaurs. And reptiles. Weird, right?\n\nI don't know too much about the morphology, but one interesting difference is that most reptiles are cold-blooded (do not generate their own heat), but some dinosaurs and all birds are warm-blooded. The bird heart looks more similar to the mammal heart than it does to a reptile heart.\n\n > Feel free to go beyond if you're up for it\n\nI can help with evolutionary stuff, but I don't know much about physiology.\n\nBasically, all tetrapods (land animals with four legs) descended from a common ancestor which looked like a lungfish. This group split into amphibians and aminotes (the latter being tetrapods that could lay their eggs on land). This group split into several groups, but only mammals and reptiles remain out of those today.\n\nFish don't form one single evolutionary group, as tetrapods evolved from fish. There are several main groups of fish: ray-finned fish (which include most fish), bone-finned fish (which includes coelecanths and lungfish), and the tetrapods described above (they are diretly descended from fish).\n\nThe bone-finned fish are more closely related to the tetrapods than ray-finned fish are.\n\nMorphologically, fish have a single-chamber heart. In reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, the heart has one side for pumping deoxygenated blood, and the other side for oxygenated blood. In fish, the heart only pumps once per circuit of the blood. Fish are cold-blooded, if I recall correctly, though some may have measures for protecting against extreme cold.",
"Well, one of the great changes over the past 10 or 20 years is that now most scientists (but NOT ALL) think that there's really barely any difference between dinosaurs and birds. In fact, Jack Horner, one of the first paleontologists to realize that birds and dinosaurs had more in common than dinosaurs and reptiles, is sort of involved in [a project to turn birds back into dinosaurs](_URL_3_). \n\nThe main morphological difference is teeth and claws - and modern birds seem to have the genes to grow teeth and claws, but those genes usually aren't switched on. \n\nSome paleontologists think dinosaurs even had feathers. They've even [found some](_URL_2_), they think. \n\nWhat might be confusing is that there are lots of prehistoric creatures that people *think of* as dinosaurs that weren't. [Dimetrodon](_URL_1_) is the first that comes to mind - a big reptile (well, sort of) that was around at a time when most dinosaurs were, like, the size of songbirds or chickens. \n\nThe \"well, sort of\" means that Dimetrodon was almost certainly cold-blooded (used that big sail to absorb heat) and scaly, like a big crocodile... but had some bones in its skull in common with mammals like beavers and humans. \n\nEvolutionary connections and branching... well, that's a big can of worms. Those kinds of classifications are subject to lots of argument - from philosophical problems (see [cladistics](_URL_0_)) to trying to guess from a lump of bone-shaped rock whether a few million years later another bone was shaped the same way because it's a good shape for bones or because the later bone is the great-great-great-(etc.)-grandnephew of the original fossil.",
"Evolutionarily, dinosaurs developed out of reptiles (as did several other groups: snakes, turtles, lizards, etc.). They diversified and dominated the land and the sea for millions of years.\n\nTwo lines of dinosaurs developed flight. One was the pterosaurs and the other would become birds (e.g. archeopteryx). The latter evolved feathers and other bird characteristics.\n\nEventually, an asteroid hit Earth 65 million years ago, and birds were the only set of dinosaurs that survived.\n\nThis means that birds are dinosaurs. And reptiles. Weird, right?\n\nI don't know too much about the morphology, but one interesting difference is that most reptiles are cold-blooded (do not generate their own heat), but some dinosaurs and all birds are warm-blooded. The bird heart looks more similar to the mammal heart than it does to a reptile heart.\n\n > Feel free to go beyond if you're up for it\n\nI can help with evolutionary stuff, but I don't know much about physiology.\n\nBasically, all tetrapods (land animals with four legs) descended from a common ancestor which looked like a lungfish. This group split into amphibians and aminotes (the latter being tetrapods that could lay their eggs on land). This group split into several groups, but only mammals and reptiles remain out of those today.\n\nFish don't form one single evolutionary group, as tetrapods evolved from fish. There are several main groups of fish: ray-finned fish (which include most fish), bone-finned fish (which includes coelecanths and lungfish), and the tetrapods described above (they are diretly descended from fish).\n\nThe bone-finned fish are more closely related to the tetrapods than ray-finned fish are.\n\nMorphologically, fish have a single-chamber heart. In reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, the heart has one side for pumping deoxygenated blood, and the other side for oxygenated blood. In fish, the heart only pumps once per circuit of the blood. Fish are cold-blooded, if I recall correctly, though some may have measures for protecting against extreme cold."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon",
"http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/dinosaur-feathers-found-in-amber-reinforce-evolution-theories/245094/",
"http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/06/jack-horner-explains-how-to-build-a-dinosaur/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon",
"http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/dinosaur-feathers-found-in-amber-reinforce-evolution-theories/245094/",
"http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/06/jack-horner-explains-how-to-build-a-dinosaur/"
],
[]
] |
|
9is8xf | what is the difference between a work that’s considered fiction, and one that’s considered fantasy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9is8xf/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_work_thats/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6lya3w",
"e6lyiyj"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe fantasy is a subgenre of fiction. For example: You got your crime novels and your fantasy novels. \n\nOne's probably about fictional crimes in a real world. \n\nAnother's probably entirely made up, with made up events in a made up world.\n\nBoth are fiction just they're about different subjects.\n\n",
"A fictional story is not based on real events, but the things that are told could potentially happen in our world.\n\nA fantasy story contains elements, that are not compatible with our real world, like magic or is situated on a distinctly different world.\n\nSpace travel makes the border between the genres a bit muddy as habitable planets could harbour fantastical sights and sufficiently advanced science could have results comparable to magic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3dabf8 | what's going on with adobe flash and should i be worried? | I'm not the most computer literate person but I see some kind of big rigmarole is going down. Do I need to do anything? Am I at risk of something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dabf8/eli5_whats_going_on_with_adobe_flash_and_should_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct3ab8x",
"ct3al0x",
"ct3b5qg"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Flash is a technology made by Adobe for making interactive web sites. Youtube use Flash for its video player for example. A important security breach has been discovered in Flash, to prevent attacks using this flaw Mozilla decided to disable Flash by default in Firefox, at least until Adobe patch it. A load of stuff uses Flash but for most things it can be replaced by HTML 5 (Youtube video playback for example). Disabling Flash in Firefox might push users toward HTML and be the beginning of the end for Flash.",
"What happened:\n\nFirefox, one of the most popular browsers, released an update that intentionally does not support Flash. Flash was once the main browser tool for web video and interactive content, but it has always been glitchy and full of security holes. Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to Adobe back around 2010 or 2011 insisting that Adobe fix the holes or discontinue the product, and said Flash was the number-one cause of Mac crashes. He then discontinued Flash support on Apple devices, including the iPhone and iPad. Now, Mozilla, which makes the Firefox browser, has done the same.\n\nWhat it means:\n\nMost Flash content has migrated over to HTML5, which is integrated into all modern browsers, and is much more stable and secure than Flash. No mobile device - iOS, Android or Windows Phone - has supported Flash in years. If you can pull up content on your cellphone/tablet, it will be accessible on your PC.\n\nWhat will happen will be one of two things:\n\n* Adobe will discontinue Flash, and any sites still using it will need to migrate their content to HTML5 or face becoming inaccessible on Firefox\n\n* Adobe will finally fix Flash and it will continue, but with diminished impact on the Web. Unless it is radically revamped and introduces some fabulous new quality that HTML5 cannot match (which is how Flash got so popular in the first place), it will be obsolete in a year or so.",
"Adobe Flash has always been a pretty shitty piece of software with a lot of potential vulnerabilities. The latest news was the release of some vulnerabilities in the current version of flash. Firefox disabled flash because of these vulnerabilites until they are resolved. Currently, just make sure your flash is being updated as they patch the issues, and only use sites that are known to be secure. Also only allow flash on those sites.\n\nThere is a overall issue with Adobe Flash as well as other browser plug-ins that is coming to a crossroad around the web. Here is a breakdown of exactly what is happening.\n\nFlash and other plug-ins are bad because \n\n* they introduce attack vectors into browsers and aren't always secure \n* stability has always been an issue\n* they aren't sandboxed, meaning they have complete access to all your user account permissions\n\nThey are being phased out because new technologies are being built into web browsers that handle the things plug-ins once did more efficiently and securely. HTML5 is probably the driving force behind this. Basically anything that other plugins did is being done in HTML5 now\n\n* Youtube is transitioning and/or transitioned already to using HTML5 players over Flash \n* Netflix is moving from Microsofts Silverlight to HTML5 players\n* Java applets are being transitioned to HTML5. My company in particular rewrote part of our software that used a java applet in HTML5 and it includes almost all features of the applet and more.\n\nHopefully this sheds some light on what exactly is going on. Heres some additional reading if you are interested: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.howtogeek.com/179213/why-browser-plug-ins-are-going-away-and-whats-replacing-them/"
]
] |
|
1769u1 | why does my voice change when my nostrils are blocked? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1769u1/eli5_why_does_my_voice_change_when_my_nostrils/ | {
"a_id": [
"c82m2su",
"c82mlqy"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your entire head resonates when you speak. Your sinuses and mouth more than anything else of course. When your nostrils are plugged, that is one outlet for air and sound that is altered. Think of it like changing the pitch of a wind instrument by plugging various holes. ",
"Certain letters when spoken allow the air to escape or enter from your nose as apposed to by your mouth. When its clogged it doesn't allow the air to escape or enter as you speak, causing it to exit your mouth making a different noise than the one you intended to\nim surprised something ive learned in linguistics is actually paying off...\nthis [link](_URL_0_) may help you out. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test2materials/articulatory_phonetics.htm"
]
] |
||
5r4zh0 | why does is it impossible to find news that is accurate and can be trusted? | I am only 20 so I am new to this whole politics thing and really being involved. It doesn't help that this election has been insane and I am trying to learn about good news sources through this. I feel overwhelmed and I just want honest news. I feel like for every piece of news there is someone somewhere proving why they are wrong. SOMEONE HELP. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r4zh0/eli5why_does_is_it_impossible_to_find_news_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4hi1b",
"dd4iv48",
"dd4rrgy",
"dd4rzpy",
"dd4v526",
"dd4wv2y",
"dd4yu0z"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is overwhelming -- there are so many potential sources of news these days, and many of them spend time telling you that most of the others are untrustworthy and inaccurate. That doesn't help. \n\nSo start small, with things you know about or that people you know and trust know about. What sources are accurate about *that* stuff? That's good to know. They seem to represent truth as you understand it. \n\nThen note what sources *they* trust. That will expand your potential news universe a bit, let you extrapolate to things you don't know about personally. \n\nBut that's not enough. Seek out people that are different from you -- maybe a different race, maybe from a different part of the world, maybe of a different social class. Make friends with them, figure out which of them are smart and trustworthy, find out what sources seem accurate to *them*. How do those sources match with the ones that you've already been consuming and trusting? \n\nCritical thinking will be key. If you find someone obviously telling a lie, you should question why they did so and whether you can trust other things they say. It is plausible (but sad) for a person or a source to be trustworthy on some topics but utterly deranged on others. ",
"If you like podcasts, try listening to On The Media. They examine and explain news coverage of all kinds. The hosts don't report the news per se, but rather help listeners to understand the often confusing and contradictory relationship the press has with the truth. Their website even has a \"Breaking News Consumer's Handbook\" so \"you can glide through the murky waters of the media like a Navy seal.\" The show is produced once a week, with mini episodes in between sometimes. Comes out of WYNC, an NPR outlet. Very entertaining to me. In fact, it's where I get most of my news, so I don't have to weed through the rhetoric.",
"My son came home from school today where his teacher spent a lot of time bashing the president's immigration order. She gave the class an assignment to use Google to determine what was in the executive order and why it was in there. Needless to say the top posts were all editorials and opinion. So I taught my son (7th grader) the importance of going to original sources and forming his own opinion. I have always told him that more important than believing in something is understanding why you believe it. Original sources is the answer. Read it for yourself or watch the live footage on C-SPAN. I have not found a news organization I really trust.",
"Almost all news sources will be 'wrong' on somethings, but you should still listen to all of them and sort through the bullshit yourself.\n\nBias in news can manifest in different ways (whether intentional or not), so even sources you trust can skew your opinion on something. \n\nExposing yourself to conflicting sources will give you a much more well rounded and 'honest' understanding of any subject.",
"Critical Thinking is key in shaping one's politics.\nThere are several things one must keep in mind when reading a news article from a site. Here are a few guidelines.\n\n1. Is it reputable?\n\n* Have you ever heard of the site? Have you heard of USAToday? BBC? What about Vox? TheHill? CBC News? For someone just starting, you should try to focus your attention more on news organizations you've heard of because if you've heard of them, chances are they're a reputable source that wouldn't benefit from deceiving people.\n\n1B.\n\n* There's a caveat in this however because you should immediately determine the site's bias. Read a couple news articles that aren't labeled opinion and see if they use certain words. Sometimes if the site, or author is in favor of what they're reporting, they'll use more positive sounding words, while the opposite can be expected when they don't. Do their articles read like they're cheerleading a particular issue or person? Do they talk positively or negatively in regards to an issue or person you disagree or agree with?\n\n1C.\n\n* At age 20, I'm expecting you to more or less have an idea of what your politics are, what you deem right and wrong, fair and unfair, what you think government should or shouldn't do etc. If you do, it is highly suggested that once you've determined a site's bias, whether left or right to and have read a particular story then check what the other side is saying in regards to the same story. As the saying goes, the truth is more in the middle. Just use your critical thinking skills and check to see if the articles are written in a way that doesn't scream the writer's ideology or intentions and always check their sources.\n\n\n2. What type of news site are they?\n\n* Generally speaking one can find some bit of this information in their about page (if they don't have an about page, you should start questioning their reputability) that's usually found at the bottom of the page. Blogs are a bit iffy because on one hand they can be extremely biased to one side or another, but on the other, seeing how in this day and age more and more people are getting their news from blogs completely disregarding them may not be the wisest thing to do either because chances are at least one of them will give you balanced and unopinionated reporting.\n\n3. Check Their Sources.\n\n* Do they cite educational institutions like MIT as their source? Do they cite Internationally recognized news sites like Reuters or the BBC or do they cite a blog you've never heard of or a tabloid? Sometimes the sources could be think tanks or other organizations. You should be wary of these because they most certainly also have a political bias. If an article you read in regards to the economy for example sources only The Heritage Foundation (a right wing think tank), you should check other sites like The Wall Street Journal or sites that deal only in economic policy. If the article only sites The Sierra Club (a left wing environmentalist organization) in regards to an article about the environment, you should check scientific magazine sites like Scientific American or look for articles talking about that subject who's url ends in .edu.\n\n4. In Regard to Fake News\n\n*I think the easiest way to dispel this problem of fake news for someone like you is to use google and check to see if other sites talk about the same story. If you read an article and then google the headline or the main subject of the story and only get the same site as a hit or other sites that source that same site, that should be a definite red flag for you.\n\n5. Always Keep An Open Mind and Educate Yourself\n\n* I would really love to tell you which sites to stay away from, but I can't tell you that. You have to determine that on your own. However, if you do choose certain sites, I recommend you always keep an open mind on the issue they talk about (unless it's something that you just feel negatively or positively about because there's just no getting around that). If you're reading an article about the environment for example, unless you're absolutely sure you can trust the site, it's ok to be a little skeptical, check other reputable sites to see what they say about that particular issue or story. Read up on the issue in a textbook or use other educational tools to help you better understand the terms they use, what they're saying/talking about, how they're saying it and form an opinion based on more solid ground. Once you have a more solid grasp of what an issue is or at least what's being said, you'll have an easier chance of forming an opinion based on what you've learned. This can apply to other issues like economics, industry, hell even sports. \n\n",
"For politics, it's honestly probably better to visit pundit/analysis sites. These are things that focus more on facts (e.g. polling, voting) rather than the \"OMFG Trump is Satan/Trump is God\" stuff you'll find on many \"news\" sites. \n\nI'd suggest _URL_0_ and _URL_1_. 538 has been suggested to lean slightly left-of-centre, and RCP slightly right-of-centre. Both of them provide content submitted by different people, while RCP also provides links a wide variety of political articles (Left, Right, major news outlets, small blogs, etc). So between all of this, you should probably get something close to 'the truth'. \n\n\nTo take a simple example: the polling about Trump's approval rating varies quite significantly from pollster to pollster. Each side will basically cherry-pick the poll that looks 'best' for their side and spin the narrative accordingly (Trump's doing well!! Trump's cratering!!). But RealClearPolitics' collates all the different polls together and averages them, giving an overall neutral rating. So with one click, you've sifted through all the bullshit from both sides, and come up with something that's in the middle, and probably closer to the true situation.\n\n",
"IMO the BBC is as objective and professional as it gets. Thing about politics though is that there is no objective way to talk about politics. I'm in my first year political science and literally the first 150 pages of my politicology course explain how we cant really say what politics are without being subjective.\n\nThe best way to find an balanced is knowing who wrote an article, what their political background is and understanding the basic principels of that background. This way you can see the reasoning behind the article. Then, on the same topic, read another article from a different newspaper. Compare, reflect and see what you think about it. This will take time in the beginning, but with some training you'll be able to flash over an article, pick out the important sentences and move on. Newsstories are mostly written in the same way.\n\nAnother tip, this is especially important for new laws and decisions, get to the source. What is actually written in the new law?\n\nAlso, if you want free news, check if someone you know has a subsciption on any newspapers, you can just log in to their account on a mobile app and read full articles for free. Its almost always possible to log in on multiple devices at the same time. I now have 4 papers and a magazine for free every day, on mobile though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"fivethirtyeight.com",
"realclearpolitics.com"
],
[]
] |
|
3wmqsf | what's in the neck that kills you when snapped? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wmqsf/eli5_whats_in_the_neck_that_kills_you_when_snapped/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxxd922"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Spinal cord has all the nerves that allow communication from the brain. \n\nThis includes breathing, limiting oxygen to the brain. So essentially you will be paralyzed first, then fade away without oxygen to the brain. It looks instant because they can't move. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1wfxdz | why is it that when a propeller starts spinning fast enough it appears to change direction? | What I'm talking about: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wfxdz/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_a_propeller_starts/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf1ltkz",
"cf1lvi9",
"cf1lxyh"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There was a great explanation of this the other day that I can't find, but that I will steal, so credit to whoever came up with this (in the context of car tires):\n\nInstead of a propeller, imagine a clock that you are watching through a video monitor, with the minute hand spinning around the center. Because of the biology of your eye and the speed of the camera watching the clock, you don't really see it continuously moving, but instead you see it in flashes at a certain point on the face of the clock. \n\nNow, if the speed of the minute hand is such that it \"moves\" two hours every time you see it, it will look to you like it is going \"forward.\" First you will see it at 2, then at 4, then at 6, etc... \n\nBut, imagine we make it much higher, so instead of going 2 hours every time it goes 11. Now, the first time you see it, the minute hand is at 11, but the next time it is at **10**, because 11 \"hours\" after 11 o'clock is 10. And it continues like that, so now you see it at 11, 10, 9, 8, etc... like it is counting down instead of up. ",
"Any video or monitor has a set refresh rate, meaning it shows a still image X times per second. If the propeller is spinning at the same speed or any multiple of that speed, it will appear to stand still in the video (such as the 11 second mark). This is because by the time it takes another frame, the propeller has spun enough so that one blade matches the position of the blade in the previous frame. If it moves just a bit faster, it will appear to rotate forward. If it moves just a bit slower, it will appear to rotate backward.\n",
"This is just a camera effect. Most cameras take 30 pictures per second. A propeller that spins at 1800 rpm (or 30 revolutions per second) will appear to stand still, because it always happens to be in the same position when the camera takes a new picture.\n\nAt just over 1800 rpm, it will appear to rotate forwards very slowly, and at just under 1800 rpm it will appear to rotate backwards. So when the engine spins up, you get these effects whenever the camera's shutter and the propeller speed are in sync.\n\nWhen the engine speeds up, this is what you're going to see:\n\n\n1700 rpm - appears to spin forwards really fast\n\n\n1790 rpm - appears to spin backwards very slowly\n\n\n1800 rpm - appears to stand still\n\n\n1810 rpm - appears to spin forwards very slowly\n\n\n1900 rpm - appears to spin forwards really fast\n\n\nBy the way, I'm just using 1800 rpm as an example, for a 3-bladed prop and a 30 fps camera, this would also happen at 600, 1200, 1800, 2400 rpm and so on. For a 4-bladed prop it would be 450, 900, 1350, 1800, 2250 rpm etc."
]
} | [] | [
"http://youtu.be/2lms8je4dsA"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1lqf5o | why i have to press the "back page" arrow like 20 times to go back 1 page | I'll click back and it brings me back to the same page so I have to rapidly click it to go back 1 page. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lqf5o/eli5_why_i_have_to_press_the_back_page_arrow_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc1q6yk",
"cc1qb2w"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Page 1 - has a link to page 2\n\n\nPage 2 - has no content but an **automatic redirect** to page 3\n\n\nPage 3 - has some content\n\n\nIf you're on page 3 and click the back button, you end up on page 2, which redirects you to page 3 again. If you click the back button twice rapidly, you'll get to page 1.",
"That is because some websites don't directly link you to a new page. They use a \"middle-man\" and then redirect you to a new page.\n\nFor example, let's say your friend posts a link on Facebook. When you click it your browser won't directly open the website your friend posted, but instead it will open a \"middle-man\" script and then your browser will be redirected to the actual link. So when you click the Back button, you'll go back to the \"middle-man\" script, which will redirect again, to the link you clicked on Facebook, instead of going back to Facebook.\n\nI'm not 100% sure why they use this, but it could be to prevent malicious websites and obviously, to store some information about you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1mgn95 | what does it mean: "underwriting a security" in regards to banking and finance? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mgn95/eli5what_does_it_mean_underwriting_a_security_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc9797i",
"cc97vbe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a pretty [good explanation:](_URL_0_)\n\n\nSecurities underwriting refers to the process by which investment banks raise investment capital from investors on behalf of corporations and governments that are issuing securities (both equity and debt capital). The services of an underwriter are typically used during a public offering.\nThis is a way of a newly issued security, such as stocks or bonds, to investors. A syndicate of banks (the lead managers) underwrites the transaction, which means they have taken on the risk of distributing the securities. Should they not be able to find enough investors, they will have to hold some securities themselves. Underwriters make their income from the price difference (the \"underwriting spread\") between the price they pay the issuer and what they collect from investors or from broker-dealers who buy portions of the offering.\n\nELI5 - Like any type of lending, the bank is taking on risk but instead of the collateral being a house or boat the asset in this case is part of the company where they try to resale it for more than they bought it for. The risk is that they can succeed. If not, they hold the ownership themselves.\n\nSource - Work for a Top 5 U.S bank (in technology, not business)",
"When corporation wants to raise money from the financial markets they contact an investment bank to issue a security (e.g. a stock or a bond). For example, if ACME corp wants to raise $1B of capital through a bond offering they will call up an investment bank or a group of investment banks (called a syndicate) and hire them to \"underwrite that security\". Here's what the transaction looks like. \n\n1. ACME gets their $1B of cash up front directly from their Investment Bank\n2. The Investment Bank Receives the securities, in this case, bond certificates from ACME corporation agreeing to pay back the $1B over a set period of time with pre-determined interest payments (coupons)\n3. The bank uses its sales and trading network to re-sell the bonds to its network of institutional investors. They typically do this at a slight mark-up, but the bank also assumes the risk of the bonds not selling well and they will occasionally (read: very rarely, but still a very real possibility) lose money on the deal. \n4. The bank also typically agrees to support the price of the debt offering in the secondary market by providing liquidity for investors up to a certain point. \n\nThere are lots of nuances to this process, but that covers the basics. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting#Securities_underwriting"
],
[]
] |
||
1oj515 | why does tons of company's have a mobile website but a company like apple don't? | I was wondering this when I was browsing the Apple store on my phone and I found it weird because the majority of their products are mobile devices, and I couldn't find a logical explanation for it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oj515/eli5_why_does_tons_of_companys_have_a_mobile/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccsfaer"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As mobile browsers become more advanced, dedicated mobile websites are becoming less and less necessary. A tech company is much more likely to build a single website with a fluid layout that functions properly across platforms to maintain the user experience across devices. Before long, mobile websites will be a quaint little antiquity, like guestbooks and counters."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3luakp | why do shipping companies choose the most inefficient way to ship things? | I ordered a package from Seattle. I live around Los Angeles. when I was tracking my package, it was going all over the place, into Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and finally to my house. WTF WHY dont they just drive it straight to my house?? Saves gas also. Even if they had deliveries in those states, there are probably more efficient ways to do so. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3luakp/eli5why_do_shipping_companies_choose_the_most/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv9buqp",
"cv9bw8h",
"cv9bwux",
"cv9bwy7",
"cv9c0rg"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"driving directly to your house is the least efficient way to deliver packages from the shipping companies point of view. \n\nthey have preplanned routes from point a to point b that determine how a package gets routed. \n\nit looks like you must have used some small carrier and they were just following their most efficient route in order to make the most deliveries in the shortest amount of time.",
"What appears inefficient to you is actually extremely efficient for them. If they drove everyone's packages straight to their houses, they'd be making millions of trips, instead of just a few thousand. By sending it on the route they did, they were also able to ship many other packages at the same time, rather than having to make individual trips for every package they shipped.",
"Moving everything to a central location and then distributing it is MORE efficient. Yes at a glance it makes more sense to send your package directly to its destination but when you deal with huge volumes of items to ship their system is far more efficient, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it.",
" > WTF WHY dont they just drive it straight to my house?? Saves gas also\n\nNo it doesn't. For that method, they'd potentially have to send one truck for every single package. That would be a vastly less efficient use of time and resources.\n\nThey consolidate the packages at a hub, so that numerous packages aimed for a relatively close geographical region can all go together on a single truck. \n\nSure, any one package may take longer to get to its destination than it does with a direct route, but there is a far greater chance that any one truck will be loaded closer to capacity. \n\nBeyond that, it also allows them to centralize their operations, instead of having roving UPS offices or having to have every end point deal with every step of the process. ",
"Because, they are not just shipping your item.\n\nWhat happens in they shop items from Main distribution warehouses, to smaller distribution hubs, eventually to you.\n\nWhen your amazon item is purchased, amazon sends it via UPS.\n\nUps collects this item in a truck, with 100 other items. This UPS truck arrives at their warehouse and distribution center along with 100 other trucks with 100 other items.\n\nNow there are 10,000 items. Your 1 item is .01% of this large group.\n\nThese 10,000 items are put onto a semi, or plane, etc... and shipped to a main hub that has, 500,000 items. You 1 item is now insignificant and they could care less how your 1 item makes it to its destination.\n\nThese items are now sorted by end location and broken down into location of local distribution centers for delivery.\n\nThis is why your item tracker shows it going all over the US.\nThis is the most efficient way to ship these thousands, and millions of items a day."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
37phq5 | if someone is addicted to something without their knowledge, how does the brain react? does it experience an unknown craving? | Also, if the person is told that they've been addicted to marijuana but they've been being given meth over a period of time, does the brain make them crave marijuana thinking it's their 'fix'?
In general I'm just curious how addictions without conscious knowledge of the addictive substance works. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37phq5/eli5_if_someone_is_addicted_to_something_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"crops0q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Addictions work the same, whether a person correctly knows what they are addicted to or not. \n\nIt would just become harder, or impossible, for the person to find that substance if they didn't know what it was. They would have the same severe cravings, withdrawal symptoms, etc. of the actual drug, regardless of what they might incorrectly believe was happening to their body, or what they were addicted to. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2ua1lb | the hubble deep field shoes thousands of galaxies from soon after the big bang. how is it we see these galaxies in every direction of the sky if the universe has expanded so much? shouldn't they all be centred near one place in the sky? (i.e. near the big bang) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ua1lb/eli5_the_hubble_deep_field_shoes_thousands_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"co6ivpj",
"co6jfss",
"co6m9jp"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Big bang didn't happen \"over there\". Big bang created space itself and expanded to everything you see around you.",
"The Big Bang was not an event which happened in a particular location. It happened everywhere at once, and \"everywhere\" was a lot closer together at the time. The expansion is that everywhere is becoming more distant from everywhere else, not that things are hurtling away from some central point.",
"also, \"soon\" is a relative term. galaxies were formed after 450,000 years. which is only \"soon\" if you realize the universe is 15,000,000,000 years old."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3sxjur | what's the crystalline powdery stuff that they put on top of sour candy to make it sour, and where does it come from? | I am currently enjoying a bag of said sour candy covered in powdery stuff and the thought just came to mind. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sxjur/eli5_whats_the_crystalline_powdery_stuff_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx188y4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's malic and/or citric acid. Citric acid comes from certain species of fungi that are grown on an industrial scale. Malic acid is produced on an industrial scale through chemical processes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6em2us | why are free trade agreements so critisized? | For instance NAFTA, TTP, TTIP. For all I see they all have a good intention to boost trade between countries with less restrictions. Still, on a weekly basis I hear about the harm they cause. What went wrong and why do they exist? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6em2us/eli5_why_are_free_trade_agreements_so_critisized/ | {
"a_id": [
"dib9kwv",
"dibaxwc",
"dibbey4",
"dibbh7h",
"dibfvpp",
"dibhhuh",
"dibjv3u",
"dibkzel",
"dibl0tl",
"dibm6e7",
"dibnatg",
"dibnk3b",
"dibns0s",
"dibp92f",
"dibqiak",
"dibsd62",
"dibvki4",
"dicfdsj",
"dicio23"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
201,
7,
2,
40,
3,
3,
2,
11,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some countries can afford to produce at a much lower cost than others. For example, china makes much cheaper cars than the US. This is because of many reasons, chief among them that Chinese workers have much lower wages and generally less restrictions which leads to cheaper costs to manufacture. This phenomenon is called the global division of labour. See for example Bryson et. al. (2004) [here](_URL_0_) is a link to the book (sorry for an amazon link, couldn't find any better)\n\nIt basically means that some countries will be more adapted to manufacture certain goods than others. They propose that less developed countries such as china or India will have access to huge amounts of cheap labour, thus excelling in manufacturing en masse. Other countries such as Sweden will have a more service-based economy, where much of our gnp is made up of services (everything from plumbing to legal services) because we can just import whatever we need in terms of goods. That's the rough idea. \n\nTo your question: people who work in industries that are hit by the effects of this naturally want to protect their livelihoods. So for example the people who made cars in Detroit weren't too happy to see much of the automobile production move overseas. This is true at all levels - from the lowly worker to the owner of the factory. \n\nThis is one explanation to your question. There could be others. There are trends around the world where globalisation is seen as something bad (this is common in extremist groups on both ends of the political spectrum). I think that's just basically an expression of a general skepticism towards other cultures. Someone else feel free to elaborate if you know more about this! ",
"The idea of free trade is, basically, \"We're both better off when your country does what it's really good at, and my country does what it's really good at.\" The problem is that some people in your country were doing what my country is good at, and some people in my country were doing what your country is good at. And, all those people are going to lose their jobs.\n\nSo, while trade makes both sides better off, it doesn't make every individual better off.",
"It prevents countries from setting taxes and tariffs on imports that help protect the local economy. They allow other countries to undercut production and thus eliminate jobs. ",
"One issue is that free trade naturally means more competition. Say you've got a good little business making and selling gizmos in the US. No one in the US does it better and cheaper than you, so you're doing well.\n\nNow a free trade agreement is signed with China, which means they are suddenly allowed to export gizmos to the US and sell them there. Wages are lower there so their gizmos are 40% cheaper than yours. For all the people who buy gizmos, that's wonderful, and if you look at the economy as a whole it might even boost growth (because all the gizmo buyers now have more money let to spend on other things, plus whatever they build using gizmos can now be made cheaper and in greater numbers), but it *also* threatens your job. It may create new jobs, but it *also* costs existing jobs. \n\nFor your country as a whole, the free trade deal might be a net benefit, but for some individuals in that country, it means a loss of their job or their family business. If this process runs unchecked for a long period, you end up with large areas of the country where virtually no jobs and no industry exists, where unemployment and poverty is rampant, even while he country *as a whole* becomes wealthier. This has happened in both the US and the UK, for example. The cities are doing great, but in other areas, people have *nothing*, because their old coal or steel mines closed, as free trade agreements meant the same could be imported more cheaply, and while new jobs were created in the big cities, nothing happened in these desolate areas.\n\nAnother problem is that these \"modern\" trade agreements have tended to have some dubious provisions in them allowing huge corporations to sue countries if they introduce laws that make it harder for the corporation to sell their goods. For example, some countries have been sued by big tobacco corporations because they introduced laws to discourage smoking. Others have been sued for blocking mining companies from creating new, environmentally harmful, mines in populated areas. The EU has dropped bans of certain harmful pesticides in anticipation of TTIP, because such a ban would risk a lawsuit if the trade deal was ratified.\n\nThe especially problematic thing about these lawsuits is that (1) these corporations often have greater revenues than the GDP of many smaller countries, and the country might simply be unable to afford losing such a lawsuit and be forced to just do what the corporation wants them to.\nAdditionally, these cases are not taken to actual courts, but are run by special tribunals which are effectively above national law: they judge *solely* based on the text of the trade deal, not on what is actually legal in the country in question.\n\nSuch investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) have the potential to be devastating for democracy, as you end up with corporations effectively coercing governments into writing or lifting certain laws.",
"The main issue is that Free trade agreement means that companies might freely stretch into a lot of different countries, and all of these have specific taxes, and different ecological laws.\n\nWell if you make a free trade agreement, the companies, to be more competitive, will split there activities where it's the least expensive, so they will put their corporate seat in the country that has the lowest corporate tax, their heavy factories in the country that has the least social protections and lowest wages, their R & D pool in the country that has the lowest taxes on high wages, ...\n\nBefore the agreement, if your raise the taxes by five percents, you are risking a slowdown of your economy, more or less proportional to the raise in taxes. After the agreement, any law that make your country less competitive than any other country in any given sector will give all your industry of that kind an invective to leave.\n\nIt also means that ecological laws have a much amplified effect on industry : if it makes, say coal 10% more expensive to extract than in the neighboring country, and provided that they have enough supply to satisfy the demand, ALL of your coal industry is going to die overnight.\n\n\nAll in all it put a huge pressure to the governments to lower taxes on companies, and get rid of ecological laws far above what it was before the free trade agreement. ",
"1. Within a country, all businesses are competing under generally the same rules, and the taxes they pay go back into the country's economy. Foreign businesses are not obligated to follow the same rules (set by the people's elected representatives) and therefore can \"cheat\". Further, the taxes they pay go to support the foreign country with the lower living and labor standards. Allowing such businesses to compete freely in your country necessarily leads to the erosion of the laws the people saw fit to enact, and leads to a reduction in quality of life.\n\n2. Some aspects of these agreements have nothing to do with trade, and have to do instead with constraining the elected governments' ability to implement the public's wishes on matters relating to health care, internet, culture, film, immigration, etc. In my view, it is treason (and therefore void) for any government to constrain itself or future governments through trade agreements or joining things like the EU.\n",
"tl;dr: The benefits of free trade are massive, but divided into very small bits spread across entire populations, making them very hard to notice. The harm of free trade is smaller but extremely focused on small groups, who are therefore more vocal in their opposition. \n\nThere's 2 main issues (and a whole whole lot of smaller issues, but keeping it ELI5...)\n\n1. While the entire population benefits, that positive impact is not as noticeable to an individual as the negative impact of losing their job. (Though Free Trade does not destroy jobs, it does re-locate them.) So if 300 million people save $10/year from cheaper free-trade goods, that's $3B, which is way more than the $500M in wages lost by the people who lost their job as a result. However, you and I don't think 'wow, i saved 2 cents, thanks free trade!' when you're buying paper towels - but the company that shut down knows exactly why, and is vocal about it. \n\n2. Free Trade Deals are never Free Trade - more like Freer Trade. NAFTA, TPP, and others are all about loosening of restrictions, but there are still TONS of restrictions. And when you're negotiating these complex things, you have to give and take, when means you prioritize some industries over others and playing favorites. Again, less restrictions are overall better, but if you're not one of the groups with well connected lobbyists or a strong influence on voting, then you may end up seeing your market become freer while others still enjoy federally-protected monopolies.\n\n\n",
"One component of this is, as many people have said, free trade tends to favour whomever is most efficient at making each thing — so if I sell you my cars and you sell me your computers, my computer makers and your car makers are in trouble.\n\nSeveral people have also mentioned the issue with free trade pushing salaries down when factories in, say, China, produce things more cheaply than US or EU-based factories would.\n\nOne issue that hasn't been mentioned yet, however, is forced harmonisation of regulations. Free trade is kind of meaningless if you can't sell your products in my country because they fail to adhere to my regulations on that type of product, and vice versa. So one large component of these treaties is precisely to get everybody on the same page with regards to regulations. This sounds great — until you realise that \"harmonisation\" here almost always means \"companies fight for everybody to settle on the amount of regulation that suits them\". As an EU citizen, TTIP would force you to accept much lower food safety standards in the name of allowing US food companies to export to the EU. Inversely, London's bankers were pushing for TTIP to include provisions that would loosen the US's financial services regulations. In a similar vein, US-based film and music industries put a lot of lobbying efforts towards exporting the US's draconian intellectual property (especially copyright) laws through trade agreements.",
"Free Trade agreements tend to mean removing tariffs, etc to make it economically viable for companies from developed countries to begin manufacturing their products overseas in less developed countries with lower wages and no worker or environmental protections. This cuts their costs tremendously, which they are obviously in favor of.\n\nHowever, it also means that the people in the developed countries lose their manufacturing jobs, lost their union protections, lose their health insurance, etc. These types of jobs tend not to return, so the people are pushed into low-wage part time service sector jobs with no health coverage or contracts. This means the state (the taxpayers) end up footing the bill for things like food stamps, welfare, medical coverage, etc that were previously provided by the private companies these people worked for.\n\nIt does mean the people in the less developed countries all of a sudden have manufacturing jobs and probably a higher income than they had before. But these agreements also tend to mean that companies can now sell more consumer goods in these countries, displacing local production of goods like food and clothing, forcing the people who used to work in those fields to come to these companies for manufacturing work. Since these countries also frequently have few to no environmental regulations, their air, water, and food supplies suffer greatly. There are also no unions, no worker protections, no nothing. Sometimes these countries do have universal healthcare, but that means that once again the state/taxpayers are footing the bill in exchange for higher profits for the companies that push for these trade agreements.",
"Because for they are, for the most part, structured to benefit corporations, shareholders and CEOs. It's not that free trade agreements are inherently bad, it's that they specific agreements tend to benefit the incredibly wealthy, and not people with less than five million dollars. Being this wealthy makes it possible and practical to take advantage of these things. \n\nWe don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes. Leona Helmsley said that in 1989, and it's only gotten more true since then. Being wealthy means that accountants, investments, art purchases and transfer fees are a practical way to take advantage of the existence of an international market.",
"The reason free trade deals are criticized is that their benefits are largely invisible while their downsides are readily apparent. \n\nThe costs of a free trade deal are concrete; factories close, people lose their jobs, communities that rely on those jobs suffer. Its easy to understand and communicate these losses. You can publish photos of decaying empty factories and send a news crew out to interview unemployed men sitting in their kitchens and see it as you drive past a shuddered small town main street. The pain is real and immediate but it can also be misleading because relative to the size of the economy the losses are minuscule. Its like how people overestimate the risk posed by terrorism or shark attacks because it is so emotionally raw and reported on when it does happen. \n\nThe benefits are harder to visualize. While some industries are hurt others begin to expand thanks to increased demand from exports and go on to create new jobs and open new factories and generate new wealth. But unlike the losses which are centralized the new gains are diffuse and harder to pin down. On top of the growth, free trade deals drive down the cost of consumer goods improving the spending power of working class people. But once again the savings are small and spread out making the gains impossible to see day to day. \n\nFree trade also generates huge political gains but those are even more amorphous than the economic ones. Free trade deals bind countries together diplomatically, give them strong economic incentives for peace, and provides them with a legal framework to settle their differences. These things are incredibly important for world peace and stability but you can't put a value on them; you can take a picture of them to show next to the rotted out factory. \n\nLook at NAFTA. NAFTA affected an incredibly small portion of the economy. It cost the US roughly 700,000 jobs and closed some auto plants as we transitioned into the deal. But the best estimate is that the resulting growth and price saving generates roughly 100 dollars per US worker per year indefinitely. That is a huge value. It is fair to say that we didn't do right by those 700,00 people who were hurt --that we didn't do enough to retrain them and soften the pain-- but that is an extension of the failure on the part of US government to do right by the entire working class and not a failure of NAFTA.\n\nFree trade is a lot like global warming. The economic science is in and ninety-nine percent of economists agree that free trade is good for countries and beneficial to their citizens, but its a value that is hard to see while the immediate cost in jobs is apparent to everyone. ",
"free trade means businesses can go wherever the cost of labor is cheapest, but because of immigration laws the worker does not have the ability to go where the working conditions are best. this puts people out of work in richer countries while poorer countries get the choice between being paid pennies per hour or unemployment.\n\nbasically the \"free\"dom only works in the businesses favor.",
"As other have noted, free trade agreements are criticized because the benefits are usually defuse while the problems are acute. A thousand new jobs might be created that no one realizes are because of the agreement, but 10 jobs are lost that everyone thinks is because of the agreement. \n\nThere is another possible criticism, though, namely whose priorities do they reflect? Consider that for an agreement that takes years to negotiate with a couple thousand issues, it often goes something like this: \"If I let you have your way on issue 10, you have to let me have my way on issues 11 through 16. Done\" There is give and take, which if one of the reasons the negotiation is often done secretly and Congress is only allowed to ratify it or not, they can't change anything. Otherwise every Congress person would find something they dislike and want to change it. \n\nHowever, the people negotiating the agreements in the first place tend to be captains of industry, so the prioritization of those issues are going to reflect what they think are the important issues. Maybe our people who are consumers or laborers would disagree. \n\nAnother aspect about trade agreements that isn't often brought up is that they are often a means of coercion. Mexico was forced into NAFTA because of the US-Canada trade agreement and China would have been forced into the TPP if it had gone through. The TPP was ultimately the U.S.'s way to set the rules of trade in Asia, but now China gets to do it. ",
"Loss of control.\n\nImagine X Land and Y republic both make products and sell them. \n\nThey want to sell internationally. \n\nXLand could \"cheat\" by making all sorts of taxes and laws in order to artificially to make YR products more costly to buy in XLand, in order to help Xland companies (and the XLand economy) by making sure XLandians \"buy XLandian\". \n\nOf course, this is kind of unfair, and YR might retaliate by doing something similar, which just stifles trade and makes less products available at good prices for all the people. \n\nInstead, both countries agree to \"free trade\" they won't do anything to block each others' sales. They'll just allow open market competition. Best products win. \n\nProblem: \n\nWhat happens when YR starts cheating in another way?\n\nYR products are competing with Xlandian products. Obviously, its good for the YR economy is YR companies are doing better. \n\nSo, YR companies start intentionally targeting Xland companies, making their own versions of the same products, fighting for the exact same markets, knowing that they don't have to play by the same rules. Xland has strict rules about minimum wage, and safety regulations, and environmental protections. YR doesn't have any of that. Thus their companies can make competing products at a cost Xland can't match. \n\nThen, YR cheated the exchange rate. They intentionally under report the value of their own currency. 1XL dollars should be worth 2YR dollars, but YR lied. They claim things are going worse for them and that their dollars are weaker than they really are. The set it up so that 1XL dollar is valued at 4YR dollars. This phony exchange rate makes XL dollars twice as strong as they should be. (Read: YR products twice a cheap on the Xland market).\n\nTo make it worse, YR is outright copying Xland. Their companies are copying Xland companies designs. XLand company can't sue because the YR companies aren't in their country, so they can't take them to court. YR won't enforce Xland patents or copyrights. In fact, there is evidence to show that YR companies straight spied on XLand companies. It even seems like the YR government's official spy service helped private companies spy on their XLand rivals so they could get an edge.\n\nSo, YR is doing all these shady things to fix the market so that YR companies are beating Xland and Xlands businesses and economy are suffering for it. \n\nNormally, Xland would just say \"WTF? From now on, any product that isn't produced fairly, by a company following our rules, can't be sold here. It will be blocked, or at least taxed unless it plays by our rules\"\n\nBUT, the trade agreement says XLand isn't allowed to do that. They have given up their right to do that. ",
"Ok I'll stick to \"Why are they so critisized\" since many other people want to go into \"Why they're good.\"\n\nI'm using made up numbers to make math easy.\n\nImagine you're an auto worker. You make $10/hr. At a Mexican plant making the same car, they pay $7 an hour.\n\nSo the labor costs of making the car in Mexico are 30% cheaper. Meaning they can ship the car up to the U.S. and sell the car for cheaper than the competition. **OR** they can move the factories to Mexico and pocket the extra $ to their shareholders.\n\nIn \"Free trade\" there is no downside to doing this. So guess what? You lose your job so shareholders can have a higher profit margin. Or you can accept $7 an hour, but you can't keep your house on that salary...\n\nWhat a tariff does is say \"Ok, we're going to add a X% tax to any cars built in Mexico and shipped to the U.S.\" While true it may still be worth it, it incentivizes the company to build their factories, and hire their workers in the U.S.\n\nThe problem is if the U.S. does this, Mexico will put a retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods.\n\nSo while yes, free trade has benefits, there are also going to be casualties. And it is from these casualties that you see the biggest criticism. Hillary Clinton was a proponent of open borders & free trade, Donald J. Trump was the opposite. To quote Michael Moore:\n\n > Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said, \"if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them.\"\n\n > It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- the \"Brexit\" states.\n\n > You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump\n\nThose states were hit hard by NAFTA because their industries were the ones more easily outsourced. And you don't care that the cost of a car has stayed low thanks to the agreement, when you don't have a job anymore... Now read those state names again, [then take a look](_URL_0_).\n\n",
"Free Trade allows for more competition so prices go down. \n\nThe reason some people in the USA oppose them is because generally speaking they wont work for pennies like some people in these other countries like China. Since China can produce a plastic horse for next to nothing and import it here, the American plastic horse maker loses his job because its cheaper to have it made in China. \n\nGenerally speaking, open trade agreements benefit the world economy and hurt the US economy, at least in my opinion. Some say cheaper products allow you to have more discretionary spending money but if you don't have a job that discretionary spending money becomes a bit hard to find. That being said, they are almost a necessary evil at this point because we are all so used to paying next to nothing for products. Another thing that is a shame is that nothing is special anymore... thats a whole other story though but I remember when you used to buy furniture and things that lasted generations, now everything practically has a 5-7 year shelf life and if it is hand crafted it costs buko bucks. \n\nEver notice how almost everything you buy is made in China. That is a product of open trade/free trade agreements. Now wouldn't it be pretty cool if all of those manufacturing jobs were here in the USA? If that plastic horse you bought your kid was made in Pittsburgh instead of Hong Kong. \n",
"Low intelligence men are getting hurt by the modern economy.\n\nEvery economic action you can take is going to have winners and losers. If there are 100 winners for every loser we do it anyways and in fact, sometimes the loser can actually turn into a winner by virtue of the 100 people around him or her becoming richer. If the loser is married to a winner for example they don't really lose.\n\nNow a 100:1 ratio of winners to losers is a pretty great deal, and there was a time when a lot of the economic things happening were those kinds of deals. In the modern age things have gotten tighter, a lot tighter. NAFTA for example has a lot of economists arguing about whether the ratio of winners to losers in America is 60:40 or 50:50.\n\nAnd if it was just NAFTA that wouldn't really be a problem. But there have been a lot of economic decisions taken over the past 20 years where the margins have been pretty tight and what no one realized until more recently was that the losers - they tend to be the same in every one of these deals. John Smith, the low intelligence average man finds himself on the losing side of NAFTA, he finds himself on the losing side of trade with china, he finds himself on the losing side of every action the EPA takes. He is losing again, and again, and again, and it fucking sucks for him.\n\nA lot of what is happening now is the devaluation of physical, low intelligence, labor in America and that is all John Smith is good for. He can't retrain to be a computer programer - he isn't that smart. He works with his hands.\n\nWomen are a lot better off. There are a lot of low intelligence jobs like waitressing, teaching young children, customer service, etc. etc. that women are needed for that are not being hit by these changes. But with men its another story.\n\nAnd perhaps just as problematically, Donald McMoneybags wins: again, and again, and again under all of these deals. He is getting richer and richer. So what happens when social policy puts all the burden on the same group of people and awards all the benefits to another group of people? The downtrodden group gets pissed off and elects donald trump who promises to undo all these deals even though every economics in the world agrees they are either neutral or a net benefit: \"not to my voters\" says Trump.\n\nAnd you know what the worst part is? He is right. John Smith needs to win sometimes. ",
"Because it's good for the top of the economy (the part of the economy that has big balance sheets and budgets and the ability to move offshore) as opposed to the bottom end of the economy (The people)",
"Free trade works well between countries that have similar wage rates, like the US, UK and Germany. Exports are fairly equal.\n\nIt's much more difficult to make that case when countries have dissimilar rates, like the developed world vs China.\n\nEveryone thinks minimum wage laws are good and needed. But if you have American workers trying to get from $7/h to $10 or $15 competing with Chinese workers happy to get $2/day, what you get is unemployment and less chance of getting to $15/day."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Service-Worlds-People-Organisations-Technologies/dp/041524787X"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/583c8ee3ba6eb620008b6738-1200.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7iepd4 | why does quickly looking up and down at a smartboard projector light create a very brief display of rgb light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7iepd4/eli5_why_does_quickly_looking_up_and_down_at_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqy5yt6"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It uses a technology called Digital Light Processing or DLP. \n\nThe way it works, basically is that those projectors send out, in sequence, the red parts, green parts, and blue parts of the image in quick succession, and your brain blends them together to create a colour image. \n\nIf you swish your vision across a DLP projected image, you'll get that RGB effect because your eye has moved between the different colours being projected.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) is a video of a DLP projector image slowed down massively. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8S1kODkGE"
]
] |
||
8xzbnd | why, when yoga balls and beach balls are so light, can they knock over grown adults when kicked at them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xzbnd/eli5_why_when_yoga_balls_and_beach_balls_are_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"e26ta5r",
"e26tf2j",
"e276f36",
"e278nha"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"1/3 kinetic energy, 1/3 socialized reaction to being hit by a large ball and 1/3 poor balance. \n",
"I'm not enough of a mathematician to give you the specifics, but the farther the object hits away from your center of gravity (like a shot to the face would), the more likely the impact is to knock you off balance. If you're already off balance, you'll fall down. There's probably a name for this, but I don't know what it is.",
"The ball hits with the same energy it was kicked/thrown at minus that reduced due to air resistance or friction if it bounces off something. Given a large ball, the kicker can get quite a bit of energy into it. Note the mass of the ball as a projectile also includes the air inside which can add a little more momentum compared to a deflated ball.\n\nWhen it hits, it transfers energy to the target over a relatively large area compared to a smaller projectile. It's harder for the person to redistribute and absorb the energy in a way that doesn't push them off balance.",
"A ball filled with air at slightly higher than atmospheric pressure may not *weigh* much, but it has quite a lot of air inside it and that air adds a substantial amount of mass to it. A yoga ball 105 cm in diameter weighs about 2.2 kg. The recommended fill pressure is 0.6-0.9 PSI, so I'll use the average of 0.75 PSI. At this pressure, the air inside the ball only weighs 5% more than the air it displaces and is essentially neutrally buoyant, so it does not contribute much to the weight of the ball. However, it does have mass, about 5.4 kg. This means that the ball itself has a total mass of 7.6 kg, so getting it moving puts quite a lot more momentum into it than you might expect just based on its weight alone.\n\nI believe the springiness of the ball has a large part to play as well but I have not thought as much about it, if I think of something I will add it here."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a622qp | why does water temperature hurt/relieve a cut on my hand. | I cut my hand. It hurts. Hot water hurts a lot. Cold water feels great. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a622qp/eli5_why_does_water_temperature_hurtrelieve_a_cut/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebr33zt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Warm water draws blood to it thus increases nerve activity while cold water does the opposite. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5aqpv8 | why will private mail companies avoid shipping products to po boxes? also, why are po boxes considered sketchy when they are official government mailboxes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5aqpv8/eli5_why_will_private_mail_companies_avoid/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9ii24n",
"d9iibqr",
"d9ite4g"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
8
],
"text": [
"The only carrier that can deliver to a PO Box is the Post Office. The lower cost carriers: UPS, FedEx, DHL, ... aren't allowed. They avoid shipping to the PO because they can't get detailed tracking and it costs more.",
"Not all PO boxes are created equal. Many official post offices still provide boxes, but many PO boxes aren't in post offices at all, and are provided by private businesses who may not maintain proper records of who holds the box and may not be responsible custodians of important or valuable mail.\n\nThere is also decreasing value for legitimate users, as PO boxes are largely relics from a time when door to door mail service wasn't always available or reliable. These days receiving mail at your business or residence isn't a luxury, it's normal. ",
"First: it is illegal for anyone other than the United States Postal Service and the intended recipient to use a marked U.S. Mail box. When someone steals your mail or puts things in your mail box it is a federal crime. Private shipping companies have to hand the package over to the USPS if it is one of there official boxes. Though, this does get violated sometimes.\n\nSecond: P.O. boxes are not a physical address belonging to the recipient (residence/office). Really cunning criminals can get a P.O. box established fraudulently, much easier and more cheaply than renting an apartment with a stolen identity. Also cheaper than fake office space for an illegal shell company. (Note: some shell companies are legal)\n\nThird: A bit off topic but, the USPS only started delivering to the residence during the Civil War. This was to discourage family members from congregating around the Post Office in hopes of receiving word from loved ones. Home delivery can be terminated by the service without congressional approval at any time, I believe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ih3bu | why are reptile irises err not circular? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ih3bu/eli5why_are_reptile_irises_err_not_circular/ | {
"a_id": [
"db8lu7t"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not all of them are. I assume you are talking about slit pupils vs round ones. Slit pupils are good for nocturnal animals as it filters out more light, allowing them to not be blinded during day hours if they happen to be out and awake."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
11ykl1 | democratic socialism | Exactly like I'm five please. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11ykl1/eli5_democratic_socialism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6qna3z"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Socialism is the idea that workers should own the means of production; that is, all the tools used to make things should belong to the people who use them, rather than capitalist investors.\n\n*Democratic* socialism is the idea that socialism should be achieved through democracy. The term exists to differentiate them from *revolutionary* socialists, who think that some kind of political revolution should occur and force socialism to happen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6l5rft | what is a home loan repayment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6l5rft/eli5_what_is_a_home_loan_repayment/ | {
"a_id": [
"djrblqy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your home loan repayment is intially calculated on principal and interest.\n\nExample: So if you're home loan is 250,000 - over a 30 years period the repayment will be 1500 a month.\n\nOf the 1500, 500 will be interest and 1000 will be principal which is the amount you're reducing the loan by.\n\nMost banks calculate interest daily and charge it monthly which is why it's better to dump as much as you can into the loan so your monthly calculation will be less interest and more principal.\n\nThen... Check with your back again, some banks divide a weekly repayment by getting your monthly and dividing by 4 instead of 4.33.. this will mean that you'll actually get a couple extra payments a year. Confused?\n\nExample: Dividing by 4 means that your repayment will be every Tuesday, some months have 5 Tuesdays.\n\nDividing by 4.33 means that they are calculating the repayment to happen on certain dates of the month, not days.\n\nFor the curious - fortnightly payments also work to reduce the loan quicker if the bank divided by 2 instead of 2.16.\n\nHope this helps.\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
25thco | exercising my rights vs. being courteous and compliant and polite (police)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25thco/eli5_exercising_my_rights_vs_being_courteous_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"chkkorf",
"chkkx6j",
"chklayh",
"chklm2d",
"chklpvi",
"chkmgqu",
"chkmntd",
"chkms0k",
"chkmxbw",
"chknqi7",
"chkp9n6",
"chkpadh",
"chkq26v",
"chkqt7r",
"chkshpg",
"chktavg",
"chktw26",
"chkz6l3"
],
"score": [
5,
14,
105,
2,
79,
9,
2,
6,
2,
8,
39,
5,
2,
20,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"IANAL. You have to act based on the specific situation. In some cases, being too courteous can work against you. In other cases, being too stingy can work against you. For example, if you're pulled over while driving and you decide to be really nice, the officer may ask to search your vehicle, allowing him to find something to arrest you for (or in rare cases, plant contraband). If this happens, you'll be arrested or fined as a result of being too compliant. However, if you decide to be too resistant and refuse to lower the window all the way, you may just end up pissing off the cop, prompting him to give you a ticket instead of just a warning. \n\nThe simple answer is that there's no straightforward rule for dealing with all aspects of compliance with all police interactions. You have to assess the situation and do what's best for you. I generally wouldn't recommend consenting to searches or admitting to crimes, but at the same time, I also wouldn't advise saying \"I don't have to answer this\" to every single question. ",
"C. \n\nYou can be polite and still exercise your rights by POLITELY refusing searches and politely declining to answer questions. ",
"I always fell in the \"if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear\" category - until I was the subject of a joint investigation. They didnt care what proof of innocence I had. They had the story they wanted in order to close their case and go to trial. The prosecutors wanted a conviction and didnt care about my innocence. I ended up taking a plea deal that kept me out of jail. Because with the full force of the federal government they twisted things to look the way they wanted. Even when I gave them proof of my innocence. \n\nSo now I say keep our mouth shut and don't give them anything. Most cases are built on what people give the police. Not what police find on their own. And when they need evidence they are great at making things happen. You have to protect ourself and that means pleading the 5th on EVERYTHING. ",
"There is no \"should\" that you have to follow. Follow your own judgement. Police are people, but people with the ability to detain you and really cause you trouble. Exercising your rights is never a bad idea, it's the way in which you do it. If you are a dick, police can always claim later you gave them such probably cause to search you anyway. Do what you have to do, being mindful of the power police have so that you can walk away from the situation unscathed. ",
"I wrote up a big response to this and deleted it. There's no way to explain this to a 5 year old or like you're 5 because the reality is you need to be educated and mature to understand how to deal with police. There's no summary that can explain the many different situations to deal with the police differently. Traffic stops, TSA airport pat downs, interrogation, search warrants are all very different scenarios. \n\n\n\nHow should the police act? Well they're generally out looking for crimes, whether or not you're a criminal so remember that. During their day they may even think you are a dirty scumbag criminal and might even treat you that way. Maybe they shouldn't but that is an entirely different topic. This question is about how YOU should act. And you **should act dignified, respectful, maintain composure, and treating the officer with respect no matter how law enforcement acts**. That being said law enforcement is a common job filled with common people, even scumbags. We don't keep statistics on how many there are or how often you may be accused or assumed to have committed a crime. If you educate yourself you will realize civil rights lawyers *arent wrong* about their advice they give to people on dealing with cops. Hell, even cops will give the same advice.\n\n\n\nBecause you don't know what is going through the cops mind or can't see the future or know whether or not you're being courteous or just being walked into a trap on the worst day of your life, **You may as well exercise your rights to the fullest. That is why they exist**. I'm not saying be a jerk to the police. Im saying exercise your rights. If that means the police accuse you of being a jerk then so be it. \n\n\n\n- Consult a lawyer if you're ever being detained or arrested.\n\n\n\n- Learn when to say things like \"I do not consent to a search\" and \"I invoke my right to remain silent\".\n\n\n\nIf you think you have \"nothing to hide\"....omg please get educated. If you don't think innocent people don't get their rights violated because they had nothing to hide then you need to learn a little more. Probably most of the time you don't have to worry but it's that one time that you should be worried.",
"Here's the thing. Most posts here already point this out, but you can refuse a search etc. without being a fucking douchebag. \n\nSome cops are assholes, and looking to jam you up. The internet and headlines are filled with them. Just like the internet and headlines are filled with shootings. But shootings are WAY down, not WAY up. In fact, being shot is pretty fucking rare. \n\nI've been pulled over many times, due to a pretty bad habit of driving too fast. I've also been pulled over once by mistake because another driver had the same make, model and color as my car. \n\nI am ALWAYS courteous, even when I disagree. The bottom line is that I NEVER answer \"yeah, I was speeding,\" when they ask if I know why they pulled me over. I look dumb, and say, \"I'm not sure. Is everything OK officer?\" I ALWAYS address them as sir, or officer, and always do my best to comply, and explain what I'm doing as I do it. \n\nThe only time I've had a really negaitve experience was a CHP officer who was clearly toward the end of a long shift and was grouchy as fuck. \n\nHad I been a fucking dick, he'd have treated me like a fucking dick. Instead I was even more polite, and he gave me a ticket and told me to have a nice day. \n\nI've been asked to submit to two vehicle searches, one I refused and one I consented to. I refused when I had a trunk full of booze (I was 16), but I did it in a respectful way, and pleaded to just be allowed to go home, since I was pulled over for breaking curfew in the first place. He gave me a rash of shit for being out, but let me go. The other time I said sure, go ahead, let me pop the trunk. The officer said nevermind. In that case, being polite and consenting worked in my favor, though I wasn't holding anything at the time.\n\nWe all have jobs, and we all know how we react to dicks. Cops are, generally, no different. Yeah, there are bad cops, but most are just people. If you are a dick, don't be surprised when you get treated like one.",
"As others have said, it really depends very much on the circumstances, and on knowing your rights. There is also a difference between compliance and consent. When an officer orders you to do something, you almost always want to obey. When they ASK is when you need to make a decision.\n\nWhen it comes to a routine traffic stop, answering reasonable questions is probably a good idea not to antagonize the cop. Consent to search is trickier, but may be where you want to draw the line. If they are asking to search, its no longer a routine traffic stop, and you may want to shift gears.\n\nIf there is any chance what so ever that you may be a suspect, it is time to very seriously consider talking to an attorney prior to answering questions. If by some chance you talk to them and they don't decide your innocent, you have just given them lots of rope to hang you with.",
"99% of ones interaction with cops will be for minor traffic infractions.\nPull over as quickly as is safe and pull far to the right as possible (USA)\nput on your flashers and turn on your interior lights. Keep hands visible at the top of your steering wheel. Don't go rooting around in your console or glove compartment for paperwork yet.\nBe polite, yes sir, no sir and hand over license and registration when asked\nI've been stopped 20 times in 40 years of driving and this has always worked for me. 5 moving violations, 5 written warnings and 10 verbal warnings, approximately. No arguments or negative attitude from the cops either.\nNow, being detained for suspicion of a serious crime is a bit more extreme. Be polite and cooperative to a point, but never concede to vehicle or home search and sop talking and ask for your lawyer's presence as soon as it seems you are being viewed as a suspect and not a witness.",
"I find [this] (_URL_0_) really interesting.\n\ntl;dr\n\ndont talk to the police because nothing you say to the police can ever be used by your defense, even if it proves you are innocent, (until your trial), and you might make a mistake in your testimony and misremember something, it will cause further suspicion. ",
"The way I feel is this: people have died to give us, and to defefnd, certain rights. I love the 4th amendment. That doesn't mean it's OK to be a jerk or disrespect police officers, but it does mean you should stand up to them. In my personal experiences with traffic stops, I've had the feeling that the officer was trying to find something to \"bust\" me with. I didn't appreciate that. Trying to trick me into admitting to something or to consenting to a search. I may have crossed the yellow line while adjusting the radio, but that doesn't mean I have anything illegal in my car.\n\nAlso I believe that if you have nothing to hide iit's perfectly ok to refuse a search. Because if you haven't done anything wrong than its none of his business what you have in your backpack. It's only his business if he suspects that I've committed a crime. Then he has to get a warrant. To do that he needs to have his shit together. And I'm all about cops having their shit together. ",
"It would seem nobody wants to ELI5 this one. I saw an excellent post from a sheriff's deputy about this a while back, and I'll try to summarize it here from what I can remember.\n\nSo basically... it's like this. If you're being pulled over by the police, remember they're human beings too. They have a scary job... people have shot police officers at traffic stops. So reassure them you are not a threat. Turn on your dome light, turn off your engine, keep your hands visible. **You do not have to roll your window all the way down unless instructed to do so.** Especially if you feel uncomfortable for whatever reason.\n\nIf you got caught speeding, or your taillight is out, it's sort of up to you how to proceed. Honestly, that's pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things and my general view is just own up to it. You might get a reduced ticket or warning just because you weren't a shit about it.\n\nHOWEVER, if the officer asks to search your vehicle, *regardless of his rationale, if he provides one, for doing so*, you should say **\"I do not consent.\"** Importantly, at this point, he or she is seeing red flags that may not reach articulable suspicion (if the officer has this, they no longer need your permission). SUPER IMPORTANTLY, never give \"yes/no\" answers. Officers can use wordplay to confuse your statement. Be clear and use full sentences, primarily, \"I do not consent.\"\n\nNow, if you are taken into police custody or brought in for questioning, this is very fucking important: **you have one right, and that right is to shut the fuck up.** You need a lawyer. You should demand a lawyer. **Seriously, do not do or say anything until you speak with a lawyer.** Innocent people often confess to crimes they did not commit just because they can't take hours and hours of interrogation, and make no mistake, if you are in police custody or being questioned by police, **you are a suspect**. They don't want your side of the story, they just want you to confess.\n\nSo basically, if you get pulled over for speeding, and that's all that you're suspected of, and you start shouting about knowing your rights and blah blah blah, you're being a dick. But if the officer asks to search your vehicle, you repeat \"I do not consent\". If he does it anyway, he has to prove probable cause even if he does find something. If he does find something and you find yourself in an interrogation room, **do not say anything to the police and demand a lawyer.** Seriously, even the police will tell you this.",
"I can recommend [Flex your rights](_URL_0_) youtube page. They have various scenarios you can watch on how/how not to conduct yourself with the police.\n\n\n",
"For my Canadian fellow redditors:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI agree with exercising one's rights. They are rights for a lawful reason agreed upon under the constitution/charter of your nation. \n\nAn interesting thing to think about:\n\nWould you expect a police officer to take off his gun and vest when dealing with you?\n\nIf they have these items to protect themselves, why should you lay down your rights which protect you?",
"_URL_0_\nThis video gives a lot of good advice. It's long, but worth the watch.",
"Long story short, you're getting 2 types of answers here. Your best legal options, and your best practical options. This is probably not the best place to ask either question (/r/legaladvice or /r/askreddit come to mind). \n \nJust remember the biggest 2 points: Cops are people, if they ask you how fast you were going, and you invoke your 5th amendment rights, they're probably going to get annoyed and make your life harder. Conversely, cops DO NOT exist to protect and serve, their job is to enforce the law, period. They owe you nothing, and if your car matches the make and model of some random investigation, you are now the prime suspect, and should protect yourself as such.",
"\nSome general advise as a lawyer:\n\n1. Don't argue with the police. Think a charge is BS? Take it up in court, not the side of the road. \n\n2. Don't lie to the police (or lawyers). First, it makes you look 100x more suspicious when you get caught, and second, insulting a cop's intelligence is a good way for them to make your day miserable.\n\n3. Seems to be a lot of anti-police paranoia on here, but no, they don't try to railroad every suspect without regard to whether they're guilty. Real life isn't a 1970s B-movie. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and the police can't ignore that. The police can't look at it from the suspect's POV (otherwise no one would ever be convicted:) but rather objectively at the facts. \n\n4. Somewhat related to #3, but don't put yourself in situations where you'll attract the attention of the police. I can't even count the number of times I've had this conversation:\n\n\"Man, fuckin' cops pulled me over last night. Total bullshit\"\n\"What were you doing?\"\n\"I was just...\" \n\nAnd inevitably, that \"just\" can be summarized as \"doing something illegal\" (speeding, moving violation, etc...).",
"_URL_0_\n\nThis explains very well why you should never talk to the police. It's worth the watch even though it's very long. ",
"I think you should just use the rights that you want to use. If the police want to come into your house, but that makes you uncomfortable, refuse. If you actually don't mind, and you've got nothing to hide anyway, then there's nothing wrong with you letting them do what they want to do, and tell them what they want to know. \n\nBasically, rights are there as an option for you. You don't have to exercise them if you don't want to, and all this \"never talk to the police\" stuff kinda just seems like it's anti police. Sometimes they're just asking for your help, and it makes their job a lot harder if everyone just refuses to answer any and all questions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights/videos"
],
[
"http://svan.ca/police-rights/"
],
[
"http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[]
] |
||
3ah6ot | if ronald reagan left office with a huge deficit, and 7 out of the 8 years of clinton's presidency we had a surplus, what did bush sr do to decrease our deficit so dramatically? | This is of course assuming that Clinton didn't change a huge deficit into a surplus his first year in office | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ah6ot/eli5_if_ronald_reagan_left_office_with_a_huge/ | {
"a_id": [
"cscls21",
"cscma0h",
"cscqhxw"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure where you're getting that Clinton had 7 years of a surplus. He himself only claims [4 years of surpluses](_URL_1_), and it's the last four years. [There's no indication](_URL_0_) that Bush Sr. reined in the deficit that Reagan left that I've seen, although the booming economy at the time is certainly part of the equation for Clinton's success in balancing the budget. ",
"Little secret: Presidents don't have as much control over the economy as they lead us to believe. They didn't do anything to create the surplus, the tech bubble boomed and the economy grew. Then for W Bush the bubble burst and 9/11happened.",
"Friendly neighborhood libertarian here to say that Clinton didn't run a surplus. Any supposed surplus is just Washington accounting tricks, shuffling money around until we have a few million \"left over\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/5136824c18bb780002005ee9/attachments/Deficit_Chart_2__2-28-13.jpg",
"http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/jun/08/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-touts-fiscal-record-president-during-/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
ob6mh | can someone please explain the "magic/cartoon" bullet theory (jfk assassination) like i'm five? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ob6mh/eli5_can_someone_please_explain_the_magiccartoon/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3fug1h",
"c3fug7o"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas from the Texas School Book Depository which was behind him to his right. Lee Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor with a poorly made Italian rifle. The Magic Bullet theory was created during the recreation of the shooting in an attempt to explain Kennedy and Governor Connally's, who was riding in front of Kennedy, injuries which included JFK's shoulder, wrist and Connally's chest. In order for witnesses accounts to be correct, all of these injuries would have been caused by a single bullet, which was later found relatively undeformed (suggesting no ricochet). This seemed unbelievable at the time, fueling the conspiracy and leading to people calling the bullet \"magic\". It has since been recreated with results suggesting that it would be possible for the injuries to be from one bullet which would be relatively undeformed ([source](_URL_0_)).",
"Lee Harvey Oswald managed to fire three shots at JFK's motorcade. One shot missed, one hit Kennedy in the shoulder area I think and the other was a head shot to the back of JFK.\n\nThe shoulder shot to JFK went though him, into the back of the person sitting in front of JFK, I think it was the governor of Texas, Connely or something, though his chest, into his hand, and though that into his leg (as is hand was sitting on this thigh).\n\nAccording to conspiracy theorist and made famous in the Oliver Stone film was the theory of the \"Magic Bullet.\" It contends that when you consider the position the two men where siting in and try and line up the trajectory of the bullet as it makes all of these wounds, that they do not line up. In the Stone film it was said that inorder for one bullet to make all those wounds it would have to turn, by itself, in mid air, inorder to made all those wounds. Thus, there must have been a FOURTH shot from a second shooter.\n\nThe theory falls apart though when you take into account the car the president was using was modified, esp where the front passenger was sitting. Meaning the usual car specifications the conspiracy theorists used where wrong. The governor's seat was moved down and slightly to the left, and when taking this into account, the trajectory of the bullet matches the wounds it produced. \n\nEDIT: Grammar/spelling"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory#Discovery_Channel.27s_reenactment_of_bullet_CE_399.27s_path"
],
[]
] |
||
5m0rwt | why do porn stars usually appear in horror movies when they're in movies and not porn? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m0rwt/eli5_why_do_porn_stars_usually_appear_in_horror/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbzvk2t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A lot of horror movies have a small budget so they can't get mainstream stars but want a recognizable name. Also low budget horror movies usual don't care if the acting is stilted."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cdzclv | how can an insurance company deny a surgery/medication/etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cdzclv/eli5_how_can_an_insurance_company_deny_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"etxa4v3",
"etxazn1",
"etxbfi9"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it's a matter of \"Hey if you use X drug or have Dr Y see you instead, we would save a lot of money. If that doesn't work out, then we can discuss your first choice. \".\n\nSometimes its also a matter of the insurance company not seeing a reason as to why something is being done. For example, an ER visit without an ambulance ride might be denied because it isn't an emergency.",
"The healthcare contract doesn't say \"cover all medical expenses\". Some used to say things closer to that, but ObamaCare eliminated these \"Cadillac Policies\" as unfair and an obstacle to having minimal healthcare for all. \n\nYou need to read the fine print. One piece of fine print that varies quite a bit is the prescription formulary. This is the complete list of drugs that will be covered. Every company has one, and they don't cover any drug not on the list.",
"All insurance comes with specific terms and exclusions listing the situations where the coverage will or will not pay out. Most standard homeowners insurance forms won't pay for damage caused by earthquakes, for example - earthquake coverage can be purchased separately. And health insurance forms often list what drugs can and cannot be covered, or what drugs need to be replaced with an alternative treatment, or what care is \"needed\" for a certain injury or disorder and what care is \"optional.\" \n\nSigning a contract with an insurance company gives them a lot of power to determine what is and is not covered, but that's generally not fraud - it's sticking to the terms of a contract that's written by the insurance company, and therefore designed to benefit them whenever possible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bvdhbq | how do automatic blood pressure cuffs/machines know when to stop inflating the cuff for each individual person? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bvdhbq/eli5_how_do_automatic_blood_pressure/ | {
"a_id": [
"epoh2pl"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Basically, vibrations from blood pumping through the arteries are detected by the device, which let it know how far to inflate and when to deflate.\n\n\"The new models use “fuzzy logic” to decide how much the cuff should be inflated to reach a pressure about 20 mm Hg above systolic pressure for any individual. When the cuff is fully inflated to this pressure, no blood flow occurs through the artery. As the cuff is deflated below the systolic pressure, the reducing pressure exerted on the artery allows blood to flow through it and sets up a detectable vibration in the arterial wall. When the cuff pressure falls below the patient's diastolic pressure, blood flows smoothly through the artery in the usual pulses, without any vibration being set up in the wall. Vibrations occur at any point where the cuff pressure is sufficiently high that the blood has to push the arterial wall open in order to flow through the artery.\n\nThe vibrations are transferred from the arterial wall, through the air inside the cuff, into a transducer in the monitor that converts the measurements into electrical signals.\"\n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121444/"
]
] |
||
4pxiuh | why do we like to listen to bass? why is it pleasing when dj drops the bass? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pxiuh/eli5_why_do_we_like_to_listen_to_bass_why_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ojqyt",
"d4ok5i4",
"d4okbvz",
"d4okozw",
"d4okq3h",
"d4olhy2",
"d4olw3f",
"d4om4yo",
"d4om6a8",
"d4omoqx",
"d4on0v6",
"d4on2ar",
"d4on4l0",
"d4on5kh",
"d4onc53",
"d4onfan",
"d4onlql",
"d4onm8q",
"d4onnqo",
"d4onx16",
"d4ooaiw",
"d4oprm3"
],
"score": [
113,
2,
38,
234,
2,
105,
2,
364,
7,
4,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"A bass drop is where the bass line undergoes a significant change in rhythm, tempo or both (and more).\n\nIn most techno/dubstep, the point where the bass drops is directly analogous to the start of what is known as the chorus in other genres.\n\nChoruses in songs are usually designed with more care taken towards sounding good and (more importantly) sounding memorable. So in a dubstep song, the bass drop is better and more memorable for exactly the same reasons.\n\ntl,dr - bass drops are the choruses of EDM.",
"Not to mention there is a certain satisfaction when it happens because there is that build up before hand",
"Personally, actually being able to feel the bass inside you when the bass drops in clubs and such is pretty sweet. ",
"Science has proven that animals, humans included, have tendencies to show preference to certain sounds which they are exposed to early in life. For humans, this is the heartbeat of our mothers which is quite similar to the steady bass line of a song\n\nThere are business working on similar ideas for other animals. One on particular I saw was music for cats which featured many sounds that their mothers would make. Not sure if anyone can find a source for that as I'm not able to right this second.\n\ntl;dr: animals like sounds that they have been exposed to for the longest time. Bass sounds like mom's heartbeat.",
"Here's a question. Why is it that bass heavy music can lull me to sleep, even though it should technically be too loud/disruptive? And, am I the only one?",
"Squeeze your hands really tight. Now squeeze harder and include your forearms, now your biceps then your back and lastly your whole body. Hold this for 10 counts, squeeze a little more and release and relax.\n\nThis is tension and release, a common musical device that can be found in nearly all genres. ",
"Intense bass gives me panic attacks. Haha.\nSo I do not, in fact, enjoy it. It's almost a primal fear.\n\nHowever, others very much like the feeling of the bass rattling your bones. It makes you feel alive, and as though the music is actually running through your body, which it is.\n",
"A bass drop is at the end of a buildup and is usually within the chord structure a release of tension. ",
"It depends on when he does it. Mine usually kicks it just as we're pushing the payload through a particularly nasty chokepoint and the health boost helps. ",
"Dopamine is stimulated in expectation of payoffs that directly reward us or allow us to set further anticipations. This makes us feel spikes of feelgood. It's why layered rhythms with moments of coming together feelgood, it's why the last words in two lyrics rhyming feelsgood, it's why tension/release feelsgood, etc. It powers all entertainment.\n\nThe tricky part is that to spike right, it needs a combo of both ownership and uncertainty. Too much ownership and it's boring. Too much uncertainty and it feels chaotic or anxious. This is why the classic pop formulas all have very discernible moments of repetition and meeting expectations, but also moments of twists.",
"I like bass but not edm. Listen to any classical with a good sub. It's mind blowing:) for me it just has a better sound and you can feel it to. ",
"The real question is: Why is the bass so loud?",
"The DJ doesn't drop the base. The pre recorded drops it by itself. The DJ can sell it really well he's doing something amazing but no. When the time in the song comes for drops he/she can make the bass higher by turning that up a lot. But often doing that sounds bad and distorted. \n\nSource: Am a dj",
"It's not universal, and probably a learned thing - assosiations.\n\nIt would be like asking \"why do people like screamo music?\"",
"I've always wondered if the people who drive around in those cars that just put out huge, loud bass are actually enjoying it? Or is it more of a display of manliness, visible \"wealth,\" or just making themselves different? Basically human plumage?\n\nSometime it's actually painful to be in the car next to thiers, I can only imagine what it's like in the car. ",
"Why is the bass so loud?",
"*You* specifically like that sound. Many people do not. You are essentially asking why people like different kinds of music. Upbringing/exposure are parts of it and there's lots of writing on the subject. Check out the book 'Your Brain on Music' by Daniel Levitin. But yea, I hate bass drops.",
"There are 2 questions here. Not everyone likes bass in and of itself; I'd argue that most people don't. Those people driving around with subwoofers are annoying. Low frequency noise makes people feel anxious and can cause nausea and dizziness. It's a noise that's difficult to block. Low bass sounds are associated with danger: earthquakes, large animals running towards us, floods, etc. So we're sort of attuned to notice and dislike low frequency noises.\n\nHowever when it's part of a whole chorus of music, then it's a tension release just like others have mentioned. We can anticipate the bass drop, and we're waiting for it. ",
" > Why do we like to listen to bass? \n\nBecause we can't even imagine the 40 year old with 30% hearing loss that is future us.",
"Personal taste, I think. I can't stand that shit, especially when some douche drives by with his ghetto blaster set to max. Pretty common in my neighborhood...",
"Why is the bass so loud? I can't be the only one!",
"This topic was brought up in a podcast episode I listened to recently, worth a listen if you've got 30 minues.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.infiniteguest.org/reasonably-sound/2015/04/the-drop/"
]
] |
||
185mc6 | why do we have earlobes? | Evolutionarily speaking, why has the human race developed earlobes? Are earlobes present in other animals? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/185mc6/eli5_why_do_we_have_earlobes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8bu51s",
"c8buodl",
"c8bvcnl",
"c8bwmbd",
"c8bwr62",
"c8by4o8",
"c8byoy1",
"c8c14wt",
"c8c279j"
],
"score": [
357,
76,
65,
8,
17,
6,
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Wikipedia doesn't know what they're for, usually random traits like this are caused by either:\n\n1) The genes that cause it to grow also have other functions (maybe brain development?) that are selected for\n\n2) Sexual selection - earlobes (for some reason) make a person look better to the opposite sex so you have more mates, like a miniature version of a peacock tail.\n\n3) Random luck - a mutation caused them and it stuck because they don't do any harm.\n\nAlso apparently chimps have earlobes too so they must have developed before humans split from other great apes.",
"They're erogenous. Blow behind a woman's ears.",
"i feel like a lot more evolution related questions need to be answered like this\n\n\"evolution is not perfect, its random\"\n\nit make no sense, it does not need to, it just happens. some guy with goofy looking ears was taking a piss while the rest of the of his tribe was killed by bears or what have you. now he is the only male and everyone else has stupid ears.\n\nso next time asks some random question about why evolution happened a certain way, just say t was random chance.\n\nno hate on you OP but i see a lot of these questions and this is the only real answer most of the time.",
"I haven't really seen an answer so I'll give it a go. Throughout history we've had various mutations, some beneficial, some not. Typically those that are beneficial are those that are carried on. In some cases mutations are passed down along with other mutations. The mutation doesn't need to be helpful but if it got passed down with a mutation that was helpful, it can likely stay around. I think this is called the theory of neutral evolution but if it's not, sorry I'm not an expert on it.",
"When you do something bad as a 5 year old it's for your parent's to grab and twist to punish you.",
"Because people without earlobes gain no advantage to those with them.",
"They block sounds emitted behind your ear and help you to distinguish where a certain sound is coming from.",
"Believe it or not, our entire ear can be considered a vestigial organ (an organ that is there but we don't use. It is just *there*, like our appendix. It doesn't harm us to have it, so that us why it hasn't been selected against. Yet at the same time it doesn't do much for us).\n\n Sure, it *kinda* helps us direct sound, but our sense of hearing isn't good enough so that having it would give someone a clear advantage over someone else who doesn't. If we had awesome hearing, such as a deer or a bat, ears would help us a bunch by directing sound. However our hearing sucks, so we would be just as successful with holes in our head. Also, we lack the ability to actually *move* our ears like many other animals who rely on their ears so they don't give us much advantage anyways. It doesn't really give us any evolutionary *disadvantage*, so on our head it stays. ",
"i wish we had developed pointed ears, like elfs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ixeqy | why isn't dodgeball a popular professional sport? | Many sports are stagnant, yet have a large fanbase. Baseball has a lot of dead space; much of the game takes place between only the hitter and the pitcher, the fielders and benched/line up do nothing for this time. Golf is mostly commentary and preparation for swings. Dodgeball is turbulent and exciting with constant athleticism during the game. It is universally loved by students across America, so why hasn't it caught on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ixeqy/eli5why_isnt_dodgeball_a_popular_professional/ | {
"a_id": [
"cukhlox",
"cuki0mm"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I have no idea, but if you could get the GOP to use it to determine their Presidential candidate it might catch on.",
"There was an NES video game in the 80s that was an international tournament. Of course Russia was one of the final bosses, cause cold war.\n\nIt was amazing in the ways pro Dodge Ball could be.\n\nIt would need sponsers, eventually.\n\nStart up some local tournaments. Heck, check for a subreddit. There was a paper,rock,scissors world championship.\n\nYou might have to be the one to get the ball rolling OP.\nI don't see any reason except that it's not done yet.\n\nAnyone?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4lduh3 | why is jupiter a gas giant | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lduh3/eli5_why_is_jupiter_a_gas_giant/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3mj75s",
"d3mjcjx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Heavier elements spread less from a supernova, hence why they're concentrated to the nearer planets to the sun. Jupiter, due to asteroid etc. collisions, most likely does have a solid core, but probably not much, if any, from its original formation. At the pressures present inside Jupiter though, even light elements take on exotic sense forms. Its hypothesized the core is mostly metallic hydrogen.",
"Only the outer layer is gas. As you go deeper it turns into something called a supercritical fluid, where the line between gas and liquid goes away. Then it's a dense supercritical fluid that's practically a liquid for a while, then there's liquid metallic hydrogen, and finally a rocky core. [Here's a link describing the internal structure.](_URL_1_) The term \"gas\" is more a reference to the elements that make it up than the state of matter. The [ice giants](_URL_0_) have a similar structure, but since they formed largely from ices such as CO*_2_* and H*_2_*O, they're referred to as ice giants."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_giant",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure"
]
] |
||
2494v6 | if light goes from nothing to light speed instantly, is there a deceleration rate of light in a black hole? | So if light has that instant acceleration, but gravity in a black hole does not let light escape, mustn't it slow then stop at a certain point? Assuming it does, do we have a formula or any way to know the rate at which light decelerates? Is it correct to assume that if light doesn't slow, it goes at light speed in an orbit around said black hole this maintaining speed but not escaping? This is pretty hard to wrap my mind around, and I didn't find an answer in the search I did. :( | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2494v6/eli5_if_light_goes_from_nothing_to_light_speed/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch4txhk",
"ch4ulgs"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"No, time dilates to maintain the speed of light. The gravitational time dilation formula is the closest approximation to what you're looking for.\n\n > Is it correct to assume that if light doesn't slow, it goes at light speed in an orbit around said black hole this maintaining speed but not escaping?\n\nLight doesn't slow, but time does. Furthermore, light does cease to exist if it hits the appropriate object. The event horizon is the line where light can no longer travel away from the blackhole; light produced parallel to this surface would be effectively caught in orbit around the blackhole, but on either side it could escape or be doomed to fall into the blackhole. This might be where our sense of time breaks down, as well.",
"The black hole doesn't change the speed light travels at. It bends space around itself so that within the event horizon, every path the light can take leads it inwards."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
23938o | is the human "mind" distinct from the brain? | Is the "mind" AKA cognition/personal identity purely derived from neurochemical reactions in the brain, or is there more to it? Does mind=brain, or is the relationship more complex? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23938o/eli5_is_the_human_mind_distinct_from_the_brain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cguocc8",
"cguodnw",
"cguohj6",
"cguq798"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The brain is the engine. The mind is the movement.",
"The question is kind of a bad one, if you think of a \"mind\" as how you see and interact with the world and the brain as the thing that rests between your ears, then yes they are totally different. \nOne is a vague concept, your consciousness (perception, internal dialogue) , combined with your senses to create your reality. The other, a noun, is your brain is the ball of cells that acts like the computer processor making it all possible.\n\n(ELI like 10ish?)",
"Yes and no. Your mind is built in software for the hardware of your brain. as the hardware expands the software gains complexity but accidents (and manufacturing defects) that harm the brain will limit the scope and ability of the mind to function optimally.",
"You probably already know what the brain is: the mass of cells inside your skull.\n\nDefining what \"mind\" is is kinda tricky. First of all, the metaphor of Brain/Mind as Hardware/Software is a deceptive one. Most cognitive scientists will tell you to steer away from this type of thinking nowadays because it's way too simplistic and naive, and ultimately wrong. Moreover, thinking of the mind as software and the brain as hardware hinders further research in both computer science and neuroscience. I can tell you more about this if you want to know, but I'll hint at it below.\n\nSo what is the \"mind\"? Contemporary Cognitive Science, or the science that does study the mind and cognition, has quite a few followers who suggest that the mind is more than the brain. [Mind includes the body and how the person's body is](_URL_0_) and there are some who would say the \"mind\" is not just the brain in a body, but [also **a brain in a body in the world**](_URL_1_). \n\nSomeone who has Bipolar Disorder does not have a \"hardware malfunction\". There is no \"software\" that can make a \"hardware problem\" better or go away. But, unlike the computer metaphor, the mind *can* make even the synaptic structures of the brain to change. Today we don't speak of nature vs. nurture, but nature and nurture... our environment and how we interact with it does change our brain (albeit, to a certain extent). \n\nAs a Cognitive Scientist myself, I would say the mind is not the software of the brain-hardware; the mind is that interaction between the brain, which is in a body which perceives the world in a certain way, and which is situated in a particular historical-cultural-social context."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_Embedded_Cognition"
]
] |
|
80f17v | why does a puddle in room temperature feel cold? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80f17v/eli5_why_does_a_puddle_in_room_temperature_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"duv2707"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"When something \"feels cold\", you're not actually feeling its temperature directly. What you're feeling is heat *transfer* - how fast your body loses heat to it.\n\nWater has a higher heat conductivity that air does, so room-temp water sucks heat out of your body faster than room-temp air. This means that the water \"feels colder\" than the air, even though they're the same temp."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fu8ug8 | is there a reason we couldn't flash firmware on a cpap or apap to function more like a ventilator? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fu8ug8/eli5_is_there_a_reason_we_couldnt_flash_firmware/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmbc45n",
"fmbc96d"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A CPAP performs a flat pressure output whereas a ventilator (at the minimum) requires at least two more valves to function. It's not a question of missing firmware but rather missing hardware\n\nP. S. I'm not getting into the whole discussion of flow rates and oxygen percentages since this is ELI5",
"CPAPs only push air in. A ventilator needs to push air in and also pull air back our. I don't know about APAP functionality."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3rz1p4 | what hormone is associated with motivation? theoretically, could motivation be artificially (chemically) increased? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rz1p4/eli5_what_hormone_is_associated_with_motivation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwskvw7"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Motivation seems to be closely linked to dopamine and noradrenaline neurotransmitter activity in brain, particularly in the pre-frontal cortex (PFC).\n\nPeople with ADHD notoriously have reduced ability to keep motivated and focused on a given task. Doctors prescribe medications like Ritalin to compensate for this and after taking the drug ADHD patients will often become highly-focused and motivated.\n\nDrugs like Ritalin are stimulants and act to increase dopamine and noradrenaline activity in the brain, particularly in the PFC. The PFC is important for higher-level functions of the brain like self-control, discipline, filtering (what you say or do), focus, reason, planning, etc. so it's not surprising that motivation can be affected by manipulating PFC neurotransmitter activity.\n\nSo to answer your question - Yes... Not just theoretically, but indeed people take stimulants all the time to increase motivation and focus, particularly those with conditions like ADHD but also many people without ADHD resort to using stimulants, for example, to increase productivity for school work and studying."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f9bymq | how does topical anti-inflammatory painkillers ease the pain ? pills does this by blocking cox. but what about cream ? | You just apply cream to your body part and pain eases out. How ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f9bymq/eli5_how_does_topical_antiinflammatory/ | {
"a_id": [
"fir3y4f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The mechanism of action of a drug doesn't change based on how it's administered. What it does change is the pharmicokinetics. In other words, it changes how fast it is absorbed and then eliminated. In the case of topical painkillers, they take a little longer to get through the skin into the blood than if they are taken orally. But they still work the same way as far as how they reduce pain/inflammation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
30epfp | what happened to the "hairspray harms the ozone" outcry that happened back in the 80's, early 90's? we still have aerosol hairspray...so does that mean the ozone is okay? | I'm a hairstylist and we literally never hear anything about this anymore in any of our ongoing product education classes. While I was talking to a client about global warming she asked me why we no longer hear about the dangers of hairspray and the ozone layer. Is it fixed? Was the "hairspray-ozone" outcry an overreaction? Or is it not as big of a deal because greenhouse gasses are causing so much damage that it's not worth the time to single out hairspray?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30epfp/eli5_what_happened_to_the_hairspray_harms_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cprq0ve",
"cprq3pt",
"cprq7ks",
"cprqixn"
],
"score": [
22,
7,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"We use different kinds of propellents in hairsprays (and other aerosols) today than we did in the 80s. It's not a big deal any more because the chemicals used don't do as much harm.\n\nSpecifically, there was a voluntary treaty in 1987 that eliminated the use of CFCs as a propellant.",
"It was the *propellant* that was the problem, and most countries agreed to reduce cfc use. We still have aerosol hair spray, but not with cfc propellants any more. _URL_0_ if you're interested",
"It was the [CFC's](_URL_0_) in hairspray that was impacting the ozone layer. They started phasing CFC's out of most products in the mid-90's.",
" > Or is it not as big of a deal because greenhouse gasses are causing so much damage that it's not worth the time to single out hairspray?\n\nThere was actually a study last year that concluded that the Montreal Protocol, the treaty in the late 80s that phased out CFCs in response to ozone depletion, has done more to slow the rate of global warming than any other measure taken to date."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon"
],
[]
] |
|
1r3qsj | how does a single groove in a record depict all the different sounds of a band at the same time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r3qsj/how_does_a_single_groove_in_a_record_depict_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdjdqpr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Waves can be added to form a single wave. This includes sound waves. For example, if two waves of the same properties but different volumes...say...volumes 1 and 2, they add up to a single wave of volume 3. This is obviously more complex with many different sound waves, but the principle is the same: many waves add and subtract with each other to form a single wave. This wave is then recorded as grooves in a record.\n\nHere's a Wikipedia article on the matter\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)"
]
] |
||
2on6jd | would occasional steroid use be harmful? | As someone who has never done weight training I'm curious if occasionally using steroids would be overly harmful. Not talking about a competitive body builder however. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2on6jd/eli5_would_occasional_steroid_use_be_harmful/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmop3j7",
"cmop6c3",
"cmop9sw",
"cmopgld",
"cmosya8"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As a general statement, yes. A medical professional would probably be able to control proper use of steroids, but that isn't you. Instead you are just trying to justify behavior which is likely to lead to steroid abuse.",
"Any time you insert a hormone into your body, you are causing chemical changes. Just lift the normal way and rest.",
"Steroids exist because they're medically useful in some circumstances.\n\nIf you have a medical condition that requires them and/or are being monitored by a doctor that's watching over your health, you're generally safe. If you're just shooting shit you got from some shady Mexican pharmacy in Tijuana because you wanna get swole, you're probably going to run into issues somewhere along the line.\n\nCould you get away with \"responsible\" use? Maybe. The problem is that there's no clearly defined limits for what \"responsible\" non-medical use is.\n\n**edit**: ...and you can't tell what's a healthy/responsible level of use without medical supervision & regular checkups & bloodwork.",
"There are side effects to any drug you take. Especially ones that effect your hormones. \n\nPremature hair loss is one of those side effects and you could be susceptible to it. You don't really know until you do take them.\n\n",
"Taking steroids properly is not harmful. Notice the major actors like Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Brad Pitt, all generally appear healthy. Of course they have a team of doctors that help keep their hormones and body in line, most people cannot afford such and need to take greater risk."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4vagku | why do politicians in the u.s. make such a huge deal about manufacturing jobs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vagku/eli5why_do_politicians_in_the_us_make_such_a_huge/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5wt7z0",
"d5wtgwu"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"For many states in the US manufacturing is their primary source of income and what runs their economy. Much of the labor is unskilled and the industry/jobs in the area have been historically manufacturing. When the manufacturing jobs go away they are not being replaced with IT and more skilled labor positions, they just go on government assistance.\n\nA lot of the policies our government puts in place either shuts down manufacturing jobs due to environmental regulations or via offshoring the jobs by making it too expensive to manufacture in the US.\n\nWhen politicians talk about manufacturing jobs they are largely working to get the vote from these historically manufacturing states and people who work in manufacturing. Additionally, it is a good thing for America as a whole to keep manufacturing here and to keep the jobs local.",
"Many if not most States were primarily manufacturing jobs from the 1940s till the 1980s. When manufacturing started to to be outsourced to other countries and automated communities in those States started to die. That made manufacturing jobs, or more specifically their loss intrinsically tied to economic downturns and unemployment in the American mind. Talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs therefore equals lowering unemployment and returning to the golden era of employment here in the US. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4147gf | why my water bottle wants to explode when i shake up hot water? | I have a Nalgene water bottle that gets gross after a while and is difficult to clean. The way I clean it at work is I put a drop of dish soap in it, fill it 1/4 of the way up with super hot water, close the container, and shake it up. Immediately upon opening it hot soapy water sprays with tons of force.... why does this happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4147gf/eli5_why_my_water_bottle_wants_to_explode_when_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyzfqvx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"By shaking the hot water around the mostly empty bottle you've quite efficiently heated up the air in the remaining 75% of the bottle. When gases get hot they tend to try and expand, and since they can't expand in your sealed container the result is increased pressure.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8cc5d3 | how come when you release the car's brakes after coming to a full stop, your car still moves forward slightly? where does this momentum come from? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8cc5d3/eli5_how_come_when_you_release_the_cars_brakes/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxdrnxw",
"dxdyifs"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not momentum in this case. \n\nThe engine is connected to the transmission, and the clutch is transferring power from your engine to the drivetrain. \n\nAutomatic transmissions have valves and black magic to prevent your car from overpowering your brakes at a full stop, but as soon as you take your foot off the brake pedal, the magic goes away and your car will move forward.",
"In an automatic transmission car, you have a torque converter connecting the engine to the transmission. A torque converter is basically a pump pushing a paddlewheel. This allows some slip at low engine speeds. That allows your car to stop, without stalling the engine. But, there is still enough torque passed to the wheels that the car will creep forward."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1300gw | 48fps (the hobbit) vs the usual 24 fps movies | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1300gw/eli5_48fps_the_hobbit_vs_the_usual_24_fps_movies/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6zl70j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Movies are typically shot at 24 frames per second. This has worked fine for nearly a century, and makes efficient use of 35mm film (1.5 feet per second). But it does have its drawbacks; motion tends to blur and strobe, and 24 FPS is just barely fast enough to work with persistence of vision and avoid flicker. A little-known fact outside of projection booths is that projectors flash light through each frame of film *twice*, to reduce perceived flicker. 48 frames per second promises to provide a smoother, more natural-looking picture."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1f9chu | inverse-square law | My Dad is studying the inverse-square law for his PhD research, and he'd like my help with it, and whilst I'm doing maths as part of my degree, I have no idea what the inverse-square law is.
Any chance anyone could ELI5? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f9chu/eli5_inversesquare_law/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca88twr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The other answers do a good job of explaining the concept, but they don't actually *derive* it. To do so, it's important to understand the formula to find the surface area of a sphere.\n\n*SA = 4 Pi r^2*\n\nwhere, SA is the surface area, and r is the radius.\n\nThe Inverse-Square Law is useful for anything that radiates as a *point source*. Two examples are sound and electromagnetic radiation. There are a few qualifications necessary to have a source act as a point source, but we don't need to get into those just yet. A point source theoretically radiates in *all* directions *equally*; meaning there is no directionality. If you measure in the amount of energy coming off of it from one meter away, it theoretically doesn't matter which direction you measure in, you should always get the same reading. It might help to think of a perfectly round balloon. No matter how big it inflates, there is always the same amount of elastic composing the surface area as a whole, but as it inflates more the elastic becomes more spread out.\n\nSo I want you to picture a sphere with a point source at the exact center. The sphere has a fixed radius, so anywhere that you go on that sphere, you'll get the same energy reading. But the point source is putting out a fixed amount of energy at any given point in time. You can therefore conclude that this fixed amount of energy must be distributed *equally* across the surface area of our imaginary sphere.\n\nThe Inverse-Square Law is used to determine the ratio of the amount of energy measured from our point source at a known location (P1), to the amount of energy coming from our point source at a location that you would like to know (P2). Since each of these measurement points can be considered points on the surface of a sphere, we can determine the following:\n\nThe energy measured at Point 1, which we'll refer to as *E(P1)*, is equal to:\n\n*E(P1)* = *E(total)* / *SA(P1)*\n\nWhere, *E(total)* is the total energy being put out by the source at any point in time, and *SA(P1)* is the surface area at P1.\n\nOf course the same is true for the second location, P2:\n\n*E(P2)* = *E(total)* / *SA(P2)*\n\nSo the ratio of the energies at the two points is:\n\n*Ratio* = *E(P1)* / *E(P2)*\n\nNow, Reddit's formatting doesn't really lend itself to showing your work with algebra too well. So if you need more explanation here, feel free to ask. But you can see here that the two *E(total)* values will cancel out, so the starting energy coming from the point source isn't necessary to know the ratio of the energies at P1 and P2. So we're left with:\n\n*Ratio* = *SA(P1)* / *SA(P2)*\n\nAgain, it's tough to show all of the algebra here, but look back to the formula for the surface area of a sphere. The *4*'s would cancel. The *Pi*'s would cancel. You'd be left with:\n\n*Ratio* = [*r(P1)* / *r(P2)*]^2\n\nWhere, *r(P1)* is the radius at P1 (or the distance from the center to P1), and *r(P2)* is the radius at P2 (or the distance from the center to P2). So *all* you have to know to get the ratio of the energies at P1 and P2, is how far away each point is from the source.\n\nNow here's where the basic math ends, and the stuff that we do because it's convention/easier begins. Let's just say that P1 is 1 meter way from the source. Then the formula reduces to:\n\n*Ratio* = 1 / *r(P2)*^2\n\nWhich is probably the formula that you're used to. At this point, I've explained most of the important math, so I'm just going to post this response. I may supplement it with some more important information as replies to this comment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1jt2nv | banks electronically send money between each other, but who keeps track that the "money" they're sending is in their possession? | My employer uses Bank A and sends me money every two weeks to my bank, Bank B. Even if the money travels through the Federal Reserve bank (does it?), how does the Federal Reserve know that Bank A has the money? What prevents some rogue bank from sending money that they don't have? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jt2nv/eli5banks_electronically_send_money_between_each/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbi0ltz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In the U.S., there are two principle interbank payment systems, the [Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS)](_URL_0_), co-owned by its bank members, and [Fedwire](_URL_1_), operated by the U.S. Federal Reserve. The banks of course also keep internal records of money transfers.\n\nAs to what verification methods are in place, I don't know. In general, though, banks are closely watched by various regulators. A bank that doesn't have the funds to fulfill an electronic transfer it just ordered is pretty much dead. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_House_Interbank_Payments_System",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire"
]
] |
|
3mm4ie | i am not a citizen of the usa, so maybe i am missing something, but why would any gay person or woman vote for a member of your republican party? it seems they are against them? | Not being sarcastic, genuinely asking. I watched the President election debates and was wondering why. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mm4ie/eli5_i_am_not_a_citizen_of_the_usa_so_maybe_i_am/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvg55sl",
"cvg57if",
"cvg5f6l"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Honestly, people vote on their stomachs, so to speak. I live in the Bay Area and there are quite a few conservative gay couples. It comes down to just wanting lower taxes on their high incomes.",
"Even Obama was tacitly against gay marriage when he was elected. There are so many other issues that people consider when voting for President that there's no way find one candidate that agrees with everything you do. \n\nAlso now that gay marriage is essentially settled law across the country it would take a particularly passionate anti-gay president to cause significant trouble for gay people. ",
"First of all, not everyone votes with their party on every issue. There are Republicans who support same-sex marriage. This idea is especially relevant for the smaller scale elections, such as state elections, in which candidates of both parties may be skewed to the same side of an issue. For example, in a relatively liberal state, it's not too hard to find pro-same-sex marriage Republicans.\n\nAnother reason why a gay person would support a Republican is due to other political issues. Things like taxes, foreign policy, business regulations, etc. matter too.\n\nA third reason is the relevance of a politician's stance on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court (most powerful group of judges in US law) already ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This means that it's pretty much going to be impossible for same-sex marriage to be eliminated in the near future. It's also worth noting that even before the Supreme Court ruling, many politicians had roles that have nothing to do with marriage. A mayor (leader of a city), for instance, has no control over marriage law, so his/her stance on the issue can't possibly have any impact. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
35w3gw | why does my dog freak out when she hears a stranger's voice in the house or outside, but people's voices in music and on tv have no effect? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35w3gw/eli5_why_does_my_dog_freak_out_when_she_hears_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr8ddgm",
"cr8f0rv"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs (and cats) can hear frequencies well outside our range. Televisions and radios often don't bother reproducing those frequencies (why bother if we can't hear them, right?), but taking those high harmonics out makes a voice or any sound vastly different, and noticeably fake if you're used to hearing them. If you want to test this out, take a fairly low pitched voice and run it through a low-pass filter. Even though *most* of the signal strength is in the lower frequencies that are retained, there's enough energy in the high band to make a noticeable difference in quality and intelligibility, and dogs no doubt learn to recognise this as not a real voice.\n\nOh and also, dogs have very acute directionality in their hearing, and can probably tell that a sound isn't 'real' when it's coming from an artificial source. I'm sure younger dogs would be much more easily fooled, as their ears aren't as well trained yet.",
"For the same reasons you'd freak out if you heard a stranger's voice in your house but you don't freak out when you think it's the television.\n\nFirst, when it's the television, the frequencies are capped to specific ranges and mutilated with equalization and other types of audio filters in production. In other words, TV voices don't sound \"real\" - they lack the full frequency range of a naturally produced voice with all of its complexities and weird little things that we don't even notice, like breathing noises and so on.\n\nSecondly, the volume is usually unrealistic for the level of conversation (quiet screaming, loud whispers, etc. depending on the volume of your television), so you know it's the TV and not really a person.\n\nThird, you've gotten used to where the sounds originate and you know that sounds coming from \"there\" are the TV. So has your dog.\n\nFourth, your dog picks up on your own anxieties and has learned by now that those particular sounds can be ignored.\n\nProbably more reasons, but this is a good chunk of them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3mle4b | how do logic gates in microchips actually correspond to a specific function? | I have a basic understanding of how transistors work: binary and the and, or , and nand functions. My question is where does the actual info come for the function? Hope that isn't to confusing. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mle4b/eli5_how_do_logic_gates_in_microchips_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvfxrb7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Let's think about adding two binary numbers, each of which is only 1 digit long.\n\nIt turns out there are only 4 possibilities:\n\n0+0=00\n0+1=01\n1+0=01\n1+1=10\n\nNow, look at the result of the addition. If we call the first of the numbers we're adding A, and the second B, then you'll notice that the right hand column of the result is A XOR B. And you'll also notice that the left hand column is A AND B.\n\nSo with a couple of logic gates, we've started adding numbers already!\n\nIt's by creating tables like this, and then looking at the output and seeing how we can represent it with logic gates, that we can built logic gates to carry out whatever basic operation the computer needs to do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
547w8j | how do self driving cars deal with squirrels and people intentionally stopping traffic for fun? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/547w8j/eli5how_do_self_driving_cars_deal_with_squirrels/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7zluup"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If someone is intentionally jumping in front of cars, a self-driving car will stop. Real drivers should stop too. A self-driving car has near-instant reaction time and will likely stop considerably earlier than human drivers. Where in the hell do people jump in front of cars for fun?\n\nA self-driving car can detect small animals like cats and most likely squirrels. It will stop or avoid animals within reason, but never with risk to the passenger. A self-driving car can see in all directions, through fog and in pitch black darkness, and is never distracted, so it can stop for an animal much more quickly than a human driver. \n\nIt probably won't detect butterflies. But humans usually don't either, especially at high speeds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6u2bex | why do astronauts/objects tend to float upward in zero gravity? why do they not stay in the same place until a force is acted upon? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6u2bex/eli5_why_do_astronautsobjects_tend_to_float/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlpbquv",
"dlpbr0h"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > Why do astronauts/objects tend to float upward in zero gravity? \n\nThey don't unless they were pushed that way.\n\n > Why do they not stay in the same place until a force is acted upon?\n\nThey do.",
"There isn't really an \"upward\" in zero gravity. Things will continue to \"fall\" in the direction they are falling in. \n\nAstronauts usually push off of surfaces using their legs and feet, which propels them away from those surfaces."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2933le | why is it that people say animals have no concept of time if my dogs know exactly when in the day they are supposed to be fed? | Around 2:40/3pm my dogs get a little whiney and jump on me to go be fed. They lead me all the way to the food container in our kitchen closet and then wait at their bowls for their evening kibbles. I've heard over and over that time is a human concept- so how do my pets know to get me when they need food? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2933le/eli5_why_is_it_that_people_say_animals_have_no/ | {
"a_id": [
"cigy6zr",
"cigybnt",
"cigyig7",
"cigzn70"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They know they need food because they get hungry. They don't have a concept of time in the sense that they can recognize the past and future and distinct concepts... they mostly live in a series of \"nows\". \"I'm hungry now, so feed me\". They don't understand \"I'll be hungry again in two hours\"",
"They don't have a concept of time as in \"it's about 3 o'clock: time for dinner.\" But if you feed them every day at 3, their bodies get used to that and expect it, in the same way that if you set your alarm for 7am, after a while you start waking up without it.",
"Thanks for the comments! They both explain very well what I wasn't understanding. ",
"They don't have animal words for hours and minute and seconds, but the understand perfectly the concept of day and night and passing seasons. \n\nThey are also able to know particular times of day such when they're likely to get fed and when their owners come back from work. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6lun0e | why is the washington monument not a statue of george washington? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lun0e/eli5_why_is_the_washington_monument_not_a_statue/ | {
"a_id": [
"djwoa8o"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There was a competition to decide the design. The winning design was a hugely tall stone obelisk topped with a statue of Washington, oddly enough. However it was deemed too expensive ($1,000,000 in 1845!), and so the design was cut down to the obelisk only."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5ac1bh | why do molecules vibrate/move ? | Why do they move at all and why do they vibrate and on top of this why vibrating at a specific frequency ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ac1bh/eli5_why_do_molecules_vibratemove/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9f9as4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"At these small levels there is no air resistance or friction to slow down the movements. Once something starts moving the movement will not be slowed down, only transferred to other objects. You might think of it as an infinite Newton's cradle. Molecules are moving around and vibrating because a long time ago someone bumped into them and there is nothing stopping them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
39g641 | why does everyone seem to buy toblerones in duty free? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39g641/eli5_why_does_everyone_seem_to_buy_toblerones_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs34pns",
"cs34s54",
"cs34tmt",
"cs34whu"
],
"score": [
18,
6,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Heh you said duty\n\nIt's relatively cheap, it's got a unique shape, and people often get hungry before or after flights.",
"As gifts also. There's nothing like someone being away from home and coming back with a giant fucking Toblerone.\n\nThey're usually sold in packs of 3 or 6 also, so ideal to dole out as gifts.",
"Asking the questions that need to be asked. I have also wondered about this, but I do like Toblerones!",
"Why do people buy Toblerones period. They're just chocolate in the shape of a triangle- what's the appeal? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29r3ii | star light | I looked and I found no previous questions relating to this.
Basically, [this](_URL_1_) is how light waves travel, correct? And [this](_URL_0_) is what they look like in a flashlight. Now that we've established that, here's my further point.
The sun emits light in all directions exponentially, and the light will travel forever in space (If I understand space correctly). So then why is it that if all of the stars that light up our night sky are any type of celestial body, preferably a sun/star, the light doesn't expand outwards? What I'm saying is that why isn't it that our night sky is constantly lit up as well because of the fact that every visible star has expanding light. Why does it seem to focus on a cone/cylinder? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29r3ii/eli5_star_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"cinnlua",
"cinnqmg",
"cinntj5"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The light does expand outwards. But space is empty so it doesn't run into much of anything and reflect back to us to see.",
"The light from a star propagates in a sphere around that star. As you get further from the star, you eye intersects a smaller angle of that sphere, and absorbs fewer photons. That's why closer starts typically appear brighter.\n\nWhy the sky isn't white is a historical question known as [Obler's Paradox](_URL_0_). The answer is that there are a finite number of stars, and they are far enough away, that only the tiniest fraction of their light reaches the earth.",
" > What I'm saying is that why isn't it that our night sky is constantly lit up as well because of the fact that every visible star has expanding light. Why does it seem to focus on a cone/cylinder?\n\nYou don't see light 'flying around,'what you see is light that strikes your retina. \n\nThis happens in the atmosphere on earth (blue sky) because the light from the sun is running into things in the atmosphere, molecules of gas, motes of dust, and so on. Some of this light bounces off and is redirected into your retina.\n\nIn space, that light is mostly just traveling outwards. There's very little for it to hit, so very little of it is bounced towards your eyeball. If it does not strike your eyeball, it provokes no image.\n\nBy the time light from a distant star reaches our atmosphere, it is very dispersed, so there are relatively few photons to interact with the air, insufficient to make it appear 'lit' to your eyes.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content/69851main_LaserTech-fig1.gif",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Light-wave.svg/554px-Light-wave.svg.png"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox"
],
[]
] |
|
b382ei | what is the tiny painful bump that we sometimes get on our tongues and how is it caused? | Sometimes we get a tiny little swollen bump on our tongues that can be very painful and annoying to deal with. I have several friends who recall a sensation similar to this and have no idea what causes it. Please ELI5 what this this and how to avoid it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b382ei/eli5_what_is_the_tiny_painful_bump_that_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"eixthhz",
"eixtjxe"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"That is what we call a \"Filled Enzyme Catalyst\" it is usually caused by the way our body reacts to our food. Sometimes our food will have a reaction and cause swelling. They also dont just appear on our tounge, they can appear anywhere from the mouth to the stomach. The body just gets confused sometimes, it is like a false alarm. They are completely harmless, so don't worry about it!\n\nEdit: They may or may not have arms, results my vary.",
"Not everyone. But, most likely a small abrasion that's irritated or a little infection. Or something like a cold sore or other strain of herpes. But more information is necessary for anything other than possible ideas."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5x6vhp | what is so special about the first 100 days of a presidency and how did it become a "thing"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x6vhp/eli5what_is_so_special_about_the_first_100_days/ | {
"a_id": [
"defrlkn",
"defrn06"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"It's a Great Depression era thing. When FDR was elected in 1933, he used the term in his radio address to the nation. \n\nIn 1933, things were really bad, and FDR was elected president on a platform of making things better, and fast. During FDR's first 100 days in office he pushed through a lot of legislation and policy as part of his \"New Deal with the American people\" that he campaigned on. \n\nThe idea is that a President is at their height of power and influence in the first part of their presidency, right after the election, before any scandals could happen. ",
"In the first 100 days, it's sort of the honeymoon period, they just won the election. The public voted them in, so they probably support the president's ideas.\n\nOver time various people find different reasons to dislike the president, their policies, and party."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3pxtcd | why are asian/indian people left out of discussions about race? and how are they doing so well for themselves when all you hear is about how racist the us is? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pxtcd/eli5_why_are_asianindian_people_left_out_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwacezp",
"cwaclh2",
"cwacuht",
"cwacv04",
"cwacykk",
"cwae6qs",
"cwae73z",
"cwaj6xe",
"cwash6h",
"cwawcxs"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
15,
9,
15,
41,
4,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Couple of things here -\n\n1 - The US is not nearly as racist as you seem to think it is. \n\nWe've got racial issues for certain, but we're hardly a dystopian clusterfuck of lynchings..... anymore at least.\n\n2 - Asians already went through their massive cycle of hatred. \n\nSeriously there was a time when the \"yellow plague\" was the greatest fear in America... but then they stuck around and we realized that they are people... they have lives... and they like money and freedom as much as we do.",
"Asian-Americans make up about 4.7% of the U.S. population. \nIndian-Americans make up 1% of the total U.S. population, and make up a part of that 4.7%. That probably has a lot to do with it.\n\nAnd you'll find, though, that there are quite a few activists groups based around addressing how racism impacts both of those groups. There's especially concerns among Asian-Americans about being used as \"model minorities\" to discredit the struggles of others. \n\nI think the premise of this post is a bit flawed. ",
"Asian-Americans, along with Jewish Americans, are examples of minorities that actually do better (in terms of education level, income, life expectancy etc.) than white Americans, which results in a perception that they're not facing significant struggles as a result of racism. Hispanic and black Americans have, on average, a lower quality of life than white Americans, so there is more emphasis on addressing their issues.",
"The vast majority of Indians and Asians came to our country after we just or immigration laws in 1965. Since most of these immigrants came here legally it meat tat they had to have work visas and they also had to be relatively well off to be able to afford to immigrate here. They also did not have to deal with institutionalized racism that other minorities have. ",
"You mean the Asians that the US rounded up and put in concentration camps during WWII while they stole their property and gave it to white people?",
"Because when people discuss racism, 99% of the time, what they're really discussing is socio-economic issues. \n\nDiscrimination against African Americans and Latinos is so tightly integrated with the average socio-economic position of those groups that it's often impossible to separate the two concerns. \n\nGenerally, according to many studies, Asian and Indian populations in the United States are well educated, well trained, and consistently rank in middle-income or higher socio-economic groups. \n\nIn true ELI5 spirit, they have more money and fewer problems.\n\n",
"Because East Asians (and to perhaps a lesser extent, South Asians) are what you call ['model minorities'] (_URL_0_), whose members are most often perceived to achieve a higher degree of socioeconomic success than the population average. \n\nBasically, they're not lumped in with those 'lazy Mexicans' or 'welfare queens' because they have good jobs, or their own businesses, so 'no one's worried about them'.\n\nIt's also important to note that parts of China, India, and Africa were British colonies at one time, so certain 'model minorities' may have a leg up on the speaking English thing.",
"Now I'm no specialist nor do I have any background in this kind of stuff. However to me it seems like part of the reason racism against blacks and Hispanics is much more of a relevant topic than racism towards Asians is due to the historical elephant in the room of slavery.\n\nYes, people have mentioned that Asians have also gone through horrendous situations in North America such as during ww2. But there's a lot more leniency put towards overreaction such as imprisonment during times of turmoil.",
"Because to acknowledge that Asians are doing better than whites economically would be to throw away the claim that blacks and hispanics are being held down due to white supremacy. Culture has a lot to do with it. \n\nAs an example, I work in a blue collar job and most of my field co-workers are hispanic and white. The engineers, accountants, office people, admin, etc, however, are disproportionately asian. They're more likely to go to college and do well in school because their parents expect them to, whereas that's not the case for hispanics and whites. \n\nBlacks aren't encouraged by their culture to do well in school at all, it seems, and even middle class blue collar jobs aren't glorified the way sports and entertainment are. \n\n",
"Can somebody eli5 the races that there is in 2015? \n\nTo me, asia goes from egypt to japan\n\nArabic is from people born in the arabian peninsula\n\nHispanic for people from hispania (spain, portugal, gibraltar)\n\nLatino, anybody born in southern america\n\nIndiana are anybody born in india\n\nAfrican is anybody born in africa\n\nRaces thru times is a fucking weird thing and I dont get it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47chwu | why do we avoid raw meat when japan consumes it so often? | I used to think it was just sushi/sashimi, but now I realize they eat raw egg, chicken, and possibly more. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47chwu/eli5_why_do_we_avoid_raw_meat_when_japan_consumes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0bvxut",
"d0bvyfd",
"d0bxwug",
"d0byrrw",
"d0c15dt",
"d0c21zz",
"d0c2ads",
"d0c2ej1",
"d0c2sm3",
"d0c3hca",
"d0c4rlm",
"d0c5kqc",
"d0c6jap",
"d0c79hf",
"d0c7ba9",
"d0c7ftj",
"d0c8cpt",
"d0c94x9",
"d0ci1i6"
],
"score": [
2447,
611,
28,
100,
21,
9,
4,
92,
24,
14,
3,
2,
12,
13,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They take care to ensure that the chickens are raised and processed in a hygienic fashion to minimize contamination with harmful pathogens. They're not going to the local ~~Giant~~ grocery store and grabbing a pack of saran-wrapped Perdue chicken tenders and just slapping them on a plate.",
"Simply for hygienic reasons. We could eat raw meat, but you definitely wouldn't want to eat raw cow from the store, that meat has had a lot of travel time and isn't fresh anymore, there has been opportunity for germs to set in that could get you sick. If the cow was freshly killed it would likely be rather safe, but the meat in stores isn't that fresh. ",
"Also bear in mind that the French have a high rate of toxoplasmosis infections from all that steak tartare. ",
"I guess it depends where you live. In New England, most restaurants server tartare and/or carpaccio, not to mention crudo, ceviche, raw oysters, or raw clams... You only eat something raw when it is high quality, local, and you trust who's preparing it.\n\nThat being said, I believe the meats should be local as you're body needs to be used to the bacteria. I know when I went to Thailand, I couldn't eat the raw beef, as my body wasn't used to the bacteria out there.\n\nThat being said, I did have \"Chicken Sashimi\" in Japan, and I didn't get sick, but the chicken wasn't completely raw. It was more like tataki or just below rare.",
"Japan has way higher sanitation standards. Their meat is also much more expensive.\n\nI eat tons of raw meat, but I'm careful. I know where my meat comes from and who was handling it before it got to me.\n\nedit: capitulated to spelling nazis.",
"I had raw lunch meat in Germany. I was told they irradiate their meat to kill the germs, making it safe to eat raw. I wish we did that in America. It was delicious.",
"Not just Japan, all over Europe it is common to eat raw fish, and beef. Also you might order a pork chop and they will ask you \"How do you want that cooked\". I haven't seen any raw poultry consumed during my travels, but have received some chicken that was not cooked to what anyone in the US would consider done. Its getting to be harder to find in the US but you can still get decent raw beef in some restaurants, Tiger Meat (_URL_0_) was all the rage for a while, but you never see it anymore.",
"Belgium here. We have our steak tartare but we call it \"Filet Americain\". We have this for lunch often with salad and fries or on toast (we call this \"Toast Cannibal\") or in sandwiches. We have variants like Martino and other. Belgians will eat raw meat a least once a week. Personnally as a chef I eat it 3 to 4 times a week. \n\nWe have our steak very very rare we call it \"blue\" so the steak is just seared and warmish in the Inside. \n\nWe eat raw pork, not everyone though. It's mainly just sausage mix that we have on rolls.\n\nHave I had intestinal parasite worms? Yes twice in my life. No problem just pop some pills for this and 8 days later also just in case there's some eggs that got away the first time. \n\nOh! and we also eat raw eggs : )",
"Ignoring the disease aspect and focusing more on a *why* answer... \"Slimy\" textures are a common feature in Japanese cuisine, at least much more common than in Western foods (oysters being a particular notable \"Western\" example). They have a cultural outlook that slimy foods are considered healthier. Natto, a form of fermented soybeans, is a key popular example.",
"I'm German, and I'm loving my \"Mett\" (minced raw pork used as bread spread) in the morning. Also sushi and sometimes a medium rare steak. But that's about all the things I eat raw. ",
"They don't eat just any raw meat in japan. The fish in sushi and sashimi are sushi grade fish. Meaning the fish is flash-frozen literally right when it is butchered. This ensures minimal time for bacteria growth as well as kills any parasites. Every type of meat has different bacteria, and parasites so require different prep to eat. Hence why meats have different required internal cooking temperatures. Different bacteria require different temps to kill. Beef is most likely bacteria from after the animal is slaughtered so you have to cook any part of the meat that has come into contact with air. This is why steaks can be cooked rare and be ok to eat. If you killed the cow and ate it right away then you wouldn't even need to cook it technically. Chicken on the other hand that hasn't been immunized for salmonella is not safe to eat raw and requires a high cooking temperature to kill that bacteria. \nTLDR: Fresh meat and fresh flash-frozen meat of safely raised animals is usually safe to eat raw but it is always safer to cook your meat because or possible parasites.",
"I'd like to add that foodborne illness in all of Asia is much higher than that of Europe and North America, combined. Literal food for thought here. ",
"there are 4 main causes for meat to be harmful when raw.\npoison, bacteria, toxins, parasites(viruses)\n\n\npoisons: as long as its prepared properly, and the poison sac isnt damaged, this isnt a threat\n\n\nToxins: come from 2 places, pollution and as a byproduct of bacteria (think bacteria poop), toxins cant be cooked out of meat, so if its there its just harmful to eat no matter what. To stop this, they \na) get the meat from a clean source, or it is farm raised clean \nb) they keep bacteria from growing (and thus pooping) see below \n\nBacteria: bacteria sits on the outside of the meat, untill it is killed and cut. When the temperature is below 40 degrees F, the bacteria is dormant, so as long as you keep it properly cooled, theres very little bacteria growth (in the span of a day or 2). When you pull it out and put it on the counter, the bacteria starts to reproduce and penetrate the meat, Some meats like chicken are not dense, and the bacteria can penetrate deeper, quicker. This is why you usually have to cook chicken well done, to the deepest part to at least 165 degrees F and kill it. For denser meats like beef, it takes longer for the bacteria to penetrate the meat, so a quick sear on the outside is fine. So if you kill something, and eat it immediately, you are safe, or, if you kill it and immediately freeze it, or properly refrigerate it and eat it in a few days/weeks, safe.\n\nParasites/viruses:\nSeafood doesnt have parasites that harmful to humans, so its pretty much safe. For other animals, there are ways around this. for poultry, we mostly have to worry about salmonella, but there is a vaccine, so if you do like most other countries (except the US) and vaccinate your stock, then you can eat chicken raw with little worry, england/japan have pretty much wiped out salmonella. \n\nThe same goes for worms, from pork, things like mad cow disease from beef. It used to be dangerous to eat raw pork, but now thanks to USDA meat inspections, weve pretty much wiped Trichinella it out, theres something like 5 cases a year in the US, and those are almost always from wild game (not farm raised pigs). Same goes for mad cow, if a cow gets it they will wipe out any cow that could have been contaminated, and then find out where it got its feed and do the same for any others, weve picked the nuclear options.\n\n\ntl:dr, most meat is safe if its fresh, and vaccinated against parasites that hurt humans",
"A lot of it is cultural. To the Japanese, a delicacy is something that is fresh. To Westerners, a delicacy is something that has been skillfully cooked. Westerners see something raw as \"primitive\" and not \"real cooking,\" whereas the Japanese see something raw and assume that it must be made out of the freshest ingredients and therefore delicious. \nSource: Chapter 1 from トピックによる日本語総合演習上級",
"I'm not sure about Japan, but I know Europe irradiates their food which makes it a lot safer. Unfortunately here in the US, we have an aversion to anything that has to do with radiation and would rather risk sickness instead",
"More often than not the protein is deep frozen for a specific length of time to kill off some likely pathogens or worms.",
"They have to be fresh. You can eat basically any raw meat fresh (if the animal wasn't already infected). We like to store our meats for later preparation, this is easy grounds for pathogens. ",
"We have been conditioned to think it's dangerous. Well, it used to be dangerous, but salmonella and trichinosis are all but eliminated. The most dangerous food borne illness these days is e.coli from unsanitary processing practices. But it's beaten into us down to the disclaimer printed on every single menu warning you that eating a mid rare hamburger will make your baby stillborn.\n\nThat said, because of that conditioning it's just not a popular taste. I consider myself very open-minded food wise but the tooth squeaking chew of a mid rare chicken breast just grosses me out. The Japanese have a greater affinity for gummy or snotty textures.\n",
"It's all about freshness. Raw meat, fish, egg isn't *common* in the west but most cultures have speciality dishes containing these raw ingredients"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_meat"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ajf2f | when we eat take in a substantially low number of calories in a day, our bodies go into "starvation mode", which causes the body to burn far fewer calories over time, without necessarily decreasing activity and a person's energy. why isn't the body always in this mode to conserve energy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ajf2f/eli5_when_we_eat_take_in_a_substantially_low/ | {
"a_id": [
"civu8gu",
"ciw6rep"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"There isn't really a starvation mode. At most your drop 15% in metabolism alone. The remaining reductions come from weight loss, less energy expenditure from general activity, reduction of muscle mass.\n\nWhat you don't use you lose. The body does this regularly. Its pretty darn efficient day to day. You lose muscle pretty fast once you stop lifting weights and that is a direct result of efficiency in action.",
"During prolonged fast body enters a state called ketosis. When the body has no access to carbohydrates that can be converted to glucose, it has to produce glucose itself and substitute glucose with alternatives. \n\nThe changes in metabolism like the gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis that do not conserve energy but rather wastes it. The gluconeogenesis is a process where liver converts proteins and fats to glucose. Ketogenesis is a related process where fatty acids are converted to ketone bodies, iow. beta-hydroxybyturate, which can be used instead of glucose metabolites like lactate. \n\nThere are some changes in the way brain functions during ketosis. The deep ketosis caused by a ketogenic diet is used as a treatment to childhood epilepsy. Usually, the brain uses ketone bodies as a building block, not as fuel. Nerve cells gets most of their energy in form of lactate if there is enough carbohydrates available. During ketosis ketone bodies are used instead. \n\nThe ketogenic diets are also used to treat obesity. While there are many hypotheses explaining why they work, they are strong argument against the assumption that ketosis would conserve energy, on the contrary.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
55x26w | what is/are the difference(s) between national socialism (naziism) and fascism? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55x26w/eli5_what_isare_the_differences_between_national/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8ejrne",
"d8eqyww"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Fascism is a political philosophy that, to put it as neutrally as possible, places the highest importance on obedience to a strong centralized state ruled by an autocratic leader, and on the value of conformity to an idealized cultural/racial/social 'norm'. (As opposed to liberalism, where the highest importance is placed on individual expression and the value of diversity.) \n\nSocialism is an economic philosophy that, again as neutrally as possible, structures the economy around community ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of value. (As opposed to laissez-faire, which structures the economy around individual control of the means of production.)\n\nNazism is one possible combination of these two philosophies. Because the state controls the community (under fascism) and the community controls the means of production (under socialism), the idea behind Nazism can be summarized as centralized state control of all aspects of political and economic life. (Calling it \"socialism\" is both technically true and functionally misleading. A more accurate name would've been nationalist authoritarians - they ran a planned economy, not a socialist cooperative.)",
"National Socialism was just the name the Nazis picked to get votes from both right-wing nationalists and left-wing socialists. It really was a fascist movement/one interpretation of fascism; in Italy Mussolini was more direct in naming his party the National Fascist Party. Their cultural ideology differed quite a bit though.\n\nFascism is a political philosophy that basically sees one party under one leader lead a country with total power without elections to create order and national unity (essentially indoctrination through propaganda in education and controlled media). Political violence is a valid means towards the 'betterment of the nation' because an individual is only worth something with the state as a whole and nothing without it. Being in its core very nationalistic fascism emphasizes productivity to achieve the 'inherent superiority' over other nations. Because of this some aspects may seem very liberal or socialist and some very traditional or capitalist."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8tue34 | why does your face get red when you’re hot? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tue34/eli5_why_does_your_face_get_red_when_youre_hot/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1aalzw",
"e1aao12"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The human body has a few ways to deal with heat.\n\nBasically you have a ton of fine, tiny branching blood vessels called capillaries and there are a lot of them near the surface of your skin.\n\nOne of the ways the body deals with heat is to send blood into these capillaries where they can cool a bit, then the cooled blood returns through your body along the various blood vessels.\n\nSo there is nothing wrong with your face getting red when you are hot. Know the symptoms of heat exhaustion, heat stroke and dehydration and how to handle it and you'll be fine. Face getting red does not necessarily mean you are in any trouble.",
"Cause your vains opens up. \nMore blood is transported toward your skin to keep the internal temperature at 36.8oC. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4685o4 | what's going on in russia right now with politician mikhail kasyanov? | Can someone please give me some background on why he had cake thrown in his face? Is this a cultural insult? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4685o4/eli5_whats_going_on_in_russia_right_now_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0gp5le"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Per Reuters, it was just an act of hooliganism. The cake that is. Obviously politically motivated but that cake itself served no greater metaphor. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
58ns8j | why do the names of streets / roads seem to change arbitrarily ? | It seems some streets, at least in the US, will have its name changed seemingly at random. You could be driving down Example Ave and then 3 blocks later, without making a turn or changing direction, you are on WTF Street. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58ns8j/eli5_why_do_the_names_of_streets_roads_seem_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d91vq0f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There's no single reason for this. Sometimes a road will be built to connect two pre-existing roads that already have different names. For example, there is a street in Houston called Montrose that turns into Studemont and then Studewood. What happened there was that Montrose and Studewood both existed independently and the city connected them with a street it named Studemont (I guess Montwood wasn't as good a name). That also happened with Westheimer and Elgin in the city, though the connecting street just took on the name of Westheimer.\n\nSometimes a street will change names when it crosses into a new city or subdivision. This usually happens because different people developed the areas at different times and had different themes for their street names. \n\nThere can also be cases where a street runs through several different cities and some cities want to change the name to honor someone, but others don’t. That’s what happened with Bellaire Blvd./Holcombe in Houston. Bellaire Blvd. ran through Houston, then Bellaire, then West U, and then back into Houston (Bellaire and West U are small municipalities entirely surrounded by Houston). Houston renamed the part of it east of West U in order to honor former mayor Holcombe and West U joined a few years later, but Bellaire did not. So now Bellaire Blvd turns into Holcombe as you leave Bellaire and enter West U. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
by1pef | what is the relationship between employment rate and inflation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/by1pef/eli5_what_is_the_relationship_between_employment/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqbu133",
"eqele8a",
"eqhcvum"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"money becomes less valuable, this means that the price for an product increases.\n\nFor people who don't get a raise to compensate inflation, they spend less since everything is more expensive.\n\nDecrease in sales may lead to some companies to cut loses.\n\nThis includes in lowering employment rate since there is less money in reserve for salaries.\n\nMind you that i am generally speaking. Real world economy is more complex and corrupt when we are talking about inflation.",
"If you're looking for more details, this often goes under the name \"Phillips Curve\". \n\nThe simplest explanation is that when the unemployment rate is low, workers are in high demand. Workers realize this and know they can demand higher wages, because it's harder for their employers to replace them. However, wages are one of *the* major prices in the economy, so if everyone's wages go up at once, the price level will rise in general (i.e. inflation).\n\nThat said, it's important to note that workers will still generally end up better off than they were before - the inflation won't completely counteract the wage increases. You just want to avoid a situation where inflation is so high as to disrupt the economy by making prices inconsistent over short periods of time.",
"Unemployment rate and inflation are both indicators about the strength of the economy. \n\nIf unemployment rate is too high it means there is not enough jobs available.\n\nIf unemployment rate is too low it means there are not enough workers seeking jobs.\n\nIf inflation is too low it means there is not enough currency to support the population which prevents its use and prevents economic growth.\n\nIf inflation is too high it means there is too much currency to support the population and the currency no longer has value.\n\nEither will cause the economy to stagnate. If workers dont have jobs then they dont have money. They dont have money they cant spend it on goods and services. Without jobs, and therefore no money, then demand for goods and services goes down. This causes the need to keep producing these goods and services to go down which increases unemployment.\n\nIf unemployment rate is too low it means people aren't looking for jobs. If jobs are being created they cant be filled. This causes demand for goods and services to rise and supply to drop. This makes goods and service more valuable increasing their cost."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4060fc | what would the sky look like if our eyes couldn't see blue? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4060fc/eli5_what_would_the_sky_look_like_if_our_eyes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyrpkpl",
"cyrppui"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"White, I believe.\n\nSomeone actually did a case study on this. They raised their kid to the age of four without ever telling them about the colour blue, then asked the. What colour the sky was. IIRC that was the answer they gave.",
"It'd look faint orange. Primary colors are blue, yellow and red. Electrons of air molecules absorb light photons and are instantaneously excited into a higher energy level. They absorb light waves with the same frequency as the color blue poorer than other frequencies of light associated with other colors of the visible light spectrum. The sky now seems to be blue but has traces of other colors that aren't fully absorbed. If our eyes aren't able to visually absorb light frequencies associated with the color blue, we can still absorb light frequencies associated with the colors red and yellow. Thus we would see a faint orange. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1ndsnl | why is hitting a wall at 100mph worse than a head on crash with two cars at 50mph each? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ndsnl/eli5_why_is_hitting_a_wall_at_100mph_worse_than_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cchmw8n",
"cchmwfs",
"cchn1d5",
"cchta7a"
],
"score": [
3,
20,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Broadly speaking it's because when you hit a wall, pretty much all the energy goes into deforming your car. The wall does not significantly change. But when two cars collide, the energy is split roughly evenly between the two cars. They both crumple and bounce and stuff like that.\n\nThe result is that when two cars hit head on at 50 mph, they both end up pretty much the same as if they had each hit a solid wall at 50 mph. [They tested your exact numbers on mythbusters once](_URL_0_).",
"The damage to an occupant comes from sudden changes in speed. When two identical cars collide at 50 mph they should theoretically cancel out and come to a dead stop in the road. From each car's view it would be indistinguishable from hitting a wall at 50 mph; the other object pushed back with exactly enough force to bring them to a complete stop.\n\nThe force in a collision with a wall at 100 mph is much greater. Someone inside the car is going to need to counteract more momentum to come to a stop (hopefully not with their face). The situation is different from that of hitting the other car because despite the closing speed being the same (100 mph for each situation), the colliding car ends up moving at the same speed as the wall which is stationary. For that to have happened with the car-on-car collision one of the cars would have needed to end up matching the original speed of the other oncoming car; it would be driving 50 mph down the road and then suddenly be going 50 mph backwards, having been hit by some unstoppable monster vehicle.\n\nIn summary, it is more difficult to go from 100 mph to zero than from 50 mph to zero.",
"If the cars are identical, both cars will end up standing still.\n\nIn this case, the head-on collision is like hitting a brick wall at 50mph.\n\nAnd hitting a brick wall at 50mph is much ~~worse~~ less bad than hitting a brick wall at 100mph\n",
"Consider the total energy of the system. For a moving object, kinetic energy is given by E = 0.5*m*v^2 (m=mass, v=velocity). Taking simple numbers, our cars weigh 10kg and have velocities of 1 and 2 metres per second. \n\nSo in the case of one car going 2 metres per second: E=0.5*10*(2^2) = 20J.\n\nIn the case of one car going 1 metre per second: E = 0.5*10*(1^2) = 5J.\n\nSo you can see that when the same car travels half as fast it has only one quarter of the energy. However we are interested in two identical cars hitting each other. As they are identical they have the same kinetic energy, so the Total energy of the two cars is 10J.\n\nSo you can see that when a collision between two cars at the same speed has only half the energy to disperse of one car going twice as fast and hitting a stationary wall.\n\nEdit: the formatting seems to be weird in the equations I've written but I'm on my phone and don't know how to fix it"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5s1mgp | what places on earth is natural silicon found and why is it used in computer chips? | I know silicon is used as the common semiconductor in computer chips, but why silicon and not another semiconductor? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s1mgp/eli5_what_places_on_earth_is_natural_silicon/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddbqzg6",
"ddbr713",
"ddc959x"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Silicon is rather common and can be extracted from minerals fairly easily. The reason it's used so commonly in electronics is because it has the ability to be easily \"doped.\"\n\nDoping semiconductor material introduces imperfections that make it a better insulator or conductor. This allows silicon to be used to make NPN and PNP transistor gates and other complicated electronics to a very fine scale. \n\n(_URL_0_)",
"Because silicon is literaly everywhere! Its the second most abundant element in Earth's crust, only oxygen is more common. For example quartz is silicone dioxide and most sand is made up of silicates (silicon oxides).",
" > I know silicon is used as the common semiconductor in computer chips, but why silicon and not another semiconductor?\n\nThe silicon used in microprocessors quite literally starts off as beach sand.\n\nModern microprocessors include a variety of semi-conductor materials including Silicon, Gallium, Arsenic, and Germanium. Many other elements are either ion-implanted or reacted into the product including phosphorous, boron, and oxygen. Then there's the copper, aluminium, and gold metals used to create the interconnects."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/Silicon-Electronics-Casting-Applications"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4qxkb6 | how do plants regenerate after being cut. "many trees, for example, can be cut off at the ground and, in due course, sprouts appear at the margins of the stump. these go on to develop new stems, leaves, and flowers." how do they do that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qxkb6/eli5how_do_plants_regenerate_after_being_cut_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4wodjc"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The root system is still alive, and it holds a fair amount of food stored in the cells of the roots. Deciduous trees in temperate climates have to store enough energy to grow new leaves in the spring, every year, so even without leaves or stem, the tree is not dead.\n\nThe cells of a plant are much less picky about what part of the plant hey can grow into than cells of animals.\n\nTrunk/stem cells from the stump can continue to grow and turn into new shoots and eventually grow new leaves.\n\nMany plants can grow new roots from a healthy stem as well, or grow from a \"cutting\" of a branch. Some plants can be shredded into little bits and grow a whole new plant from each piece."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1lrrpf | why don't we have the $3, 60-year led lightbulb yet? why aren't led bulbs getting cheaper as promised? | [I was promised a cheap, long-lasting LED bulb 4 years ago.](_URL_0_)
Why are LED bulbs *still* no cheaper than $15 (if lucky)? **WHAT IS THE HOLD-UP?**
Is there a price-trend graph for LED bulbs? And will the trend slide downward again or has it hit a floor? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lrrpf/eli5_why_dont_we_have_the_3_60year_led_lightbulb/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc23xku",
"cc25tj7"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I think mostly with the longevity and power savings combined, they only need to beat the incandescent by so much before the accountant/actuary tells them they can get more money for the product.\n\nSo, until we get a good old fashion price war.",
"From what I understand, basic LED technology has been rather difficult to scale up to actual room-lighting. On a smaller, dimmer usages they're very efficient, but once you try to scale up to very bright outputs, you run into a few issues. As an LED bulb gets warmer, it will get dimmer, which is bad. Also, a bright LED generates a LOT of heat in a really small area, which can cause the systems to fail (they're using big heatsinks to try to solve this problem). In addition, the efficiency of the LED's decreases as things like current and output increase, making brighter LED's more prone to heat damage. Researchers have been making great advances in efficiency and output. As they push the technology PAST what is sufficient for practical use, the technology will start to become reliable and cost-effective to use on a mass scale.\n\ntldr; LED tech is great when it's small, but we run into a lot of problems when we try to make them big and bright. A lot of the cost goes into finding solutions to those problems."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.gizmag.com/3-led-light-bulb-lasts-60-years-and-could-end-battle-of-the-bulbs/10879/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1mrcfq | the ontological argument | In my university Philosophy class my professor said this was the only deductive (garanteed) proof that a God exists. He didn't want to get too far into the topic though. When looking online I couldn't fully grasp the argument, and I certainly couldn't see how it was deductive. Please... Explain like im five. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mrcfq/eli5_the_ontological_argument/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccbw9c6",
"ccbwga8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The Ontological Argument makes two claims:\n\nThat the deity is something, greater than which, cannot be conceived (that the deity is the greatest thing that can ever be conceived of);\n\nThat the greatest thing that can be conceived of, would exist not merely in the mind of man, but also in objective reality, for if a thing existed solely in the mind of man, then there would be something greater still than that;\n\nTherefore, the deity exists in objective reality.\n\n— this involves a *lot* of presumptions about what \"the greatest\" is, and presumes that humans are able to conceive of \"the greatest\". It also presumes an artificial distinction between the mind of man and objective reality.\n\nWhat it ends up doing is, defining the deity as the sum of everything - all the universe, man included - which is hardly a definition at all - or ends up defining the deity as the sum of all \"good\" or \"positive\" things, which terms are then nebulously defined or are subject to the values of humans - thereby turning it into \"God exists because I can imagine a God and God is what I imagine him to be\".\n\nIt does nothing more than demonstrate that something which is necessary, must necessarily exist, and that people are very good at claiming, without proof, that their deity is necessary, and then attaching a variety of qualities that they want to be necessary.\n\nIt is subject to an inverse argument that the lack of existence of a deity is the greatest good conceivable, therefore the deity doesn't exist.",
"I'll try, but I'm going to fail.\n\nBasically the argument says, Since we cannot conceive of a greater being than god, god must exist. And since real things are greater than imaginary things and we can't think of anything greater than god, god must exist. \nYour professor doesn't mean that it is proof of god, he means it's the only deductive argument for god that humans have come up with.\n\n[wiki](_URL_0_)\n-Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.\n-The idea of God exists in the mind.\n-A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.\n-If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.\n-We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.\n-Therefore, God exists.\n\nEdit: Just a side thought based on the body of your post: Deductive arguments only prove their conclusions not necessarily anything else."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm"
]
] |
|
2vx2rx | why is there so much competition between credit companies? | i.e. creditkarma, experian, _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vx2rx/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_competition_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"coln490",
"coln7qm"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Creditkarma I know (and probably the others) have partner companies they push on their site. Credit not so great? You should start rebuilding with this Capital One card. Your credit is awesome, check out this kick ass rate offer from Capital One!\n\nThey provide a service to you in exchange for providing you as a product to others. And like a union, strength in numbers. The more eyeballs on their site the higher the bill to Cap One.\n",
"Experian is on a whole 'nother level from CreditKarma. It does own _URL_1_ though, which competes against CreditKarma.\n\nExperian, Equifax, and TransUnion are the biggest credit reporting agencies, and basically the only ones that matter for most things. They're who your financial services person go to when trying to figure out if your credit is good enough for a loan, yada yada. These three also provide a free report (but not score) at _URL_0_, as required by law. There's also a couple companies out there that provide pseudo-credit scores for companies and organizations through similar methods.\n\nBut anyway, credit companies are competing because, well, there's money to be made. Everyone's worried about their credit score, since it has such a major impact on credit cards, loans, and even jobs (in some fields). So, just providing your score costs a bit of cash, information on how to improve your score nets them some more money, etc. CreditKarma is more of a advertising strategy for certain credit cards than anything else, for example.\n\nEdit: Added some stuff on what actually makes money"
]
} | [] | [
"freecreditscore.com"
] | [
[],
[
"annualcreditreport.com",
"freecreditscore.com"
]
] |
|
2v6s2j | why do digital cameras have trouble focussing sharply on close objects even when they do it right before they unfocus again? | Sorry for the long title, its my first post here and I hope it's alright.
What I really don't get is why the camera on my phone for example is clearly capable of focussing an object thats close sharply just doesn't stay focussed if I'm too close and then gets blurry all over again.
Is it due to how the software works? Its something I've always wondered.. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v6s2j/eli5_why_do_digital_cameras_have_trouble/ | {
"a_id": [
"coexpe6",
"coexvrp",
"coey7mh",
"coeytlu",
"cof0m6t",
"cof1ar2",
"cof1xoy",
"cof3ic6",
"cof62ls"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
57,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you mean it was in focus (for a couple of seconds) and then got out of focus, or that it seemed like it was in focus (for a split second) and then got unfocused?",
"Have the same problem, I thought it was cause my phone was dropped a couple of times.... I try to compensate by holding further away but zooming in. \n\nOnly works like 20% of the time. ",
"My bank's mobile app used to suck at this, for the \"deposit a check\" function. You have to take a picture of the front and back. And every time, it would focus perfectly, then I'd take the pic and it would \"re-focus\" and get blurry. A trick I used it to place a pen or pencil alongside the check, and include that in the photo. For some reason, it wouldn't refocus when I did that\n\n\nBut I'm happy to report that the latest update from the bank fixed it. Now you hold your camera over the check, and it takes the photo on its own at a perfect focus, without me having to mess with it",
"There's probably multiple things in the frame it's looking at to focus on, and once it looks focused to you, its noticed it isn't in focus with something else and hones in on that.\n\nRemember, your phone is actually rather 'dumb' and doesn't understand what makes a 'picture' (the human, philosophical definition of a picture), it just tries to focus on certain points in the frame.",
"Basically as soon as the camera loses focus on something, it tries to find focus again.\n\nThings that are very close lose focus very easily. As soon as you move the camera even a little bit, the camera detects that it is out of focus and searches for the focus again.\n\nAlso, based on the way autofocus works, changes in light can also make the camera think it is out of focus until it adjusts again.\n\nOnce you have the object focus, you can usually use the \"lock focus\" feature to prevent this.",
"When a digital camera with adjustable focus changes its focus, it is actually physically adjusting the focal length (distance between the lense and the sensor, for simplicity's sake).\n\nso to adjust it's focus, it has to take all of the options, measure each, and determine the optimal one. This means anytime you shift just enough that it decides a refocus is needed, it has to go through all of the options again.\n\nThis isn't a big deal at long distance, because the range of view is small, and the options are easier to hone in on. At close distance though, you have things very close and far away in the same view, and it makes it hard for your camera to decide. Also, small shifts make bigger differences.\n\nTLDR - Cameras get confused easily at short distances, and have to manually guess and test their decisions.",
"There are two kinds of autofocus.\n\nPhase detection is what a DSLR uses when you look through the viewfinder. Without going into the technical details, phase detection knows by how much you missed and in what direction. So the camera knows whether it needs to focus in or out. Due to this it has an easy time of getting it right. The downside is that phase detection can be out of tune with the sensor (it's a separate piece of equipment) and a mistuned camera can focus wrong, and think it got it right.\n\nContrast detection uses the sensor and looks at the contrast of the image. Eg, if you misfocus on some text, the borders of the characters get blurry. The camera tries to find the point where it's not blurry. Contrast detection doesn't know in which direction it erred, and also doesn't know whether it got it right. It needs to go past the perfect focus point to notice \"Oh, now it's getting worse again, so I need to backtrack a bit\". So contrast detection goes like this: focus in one direction, and see if things get sharper. If they get sharper then start going fuzzier again, backtrack. If going in a direction didn't work at all, try the opposite one. Contrast detection needs no tuning, but it's slow, prone to hunting for the above reasons, and it needs a contrasting image. For instance focusing on a pure white wall won't work, because it looks the same whether you're in focus or not.\n\nPhones use contrast detection and so they have all the pitfalls of the technique: needing to go back and forth, not knowing in what direction to go from the start, etc. And if you try to focus too close, optimal focus will never be achieved, so the camera will keep hunting back and forth in case it just missed on the first attempt.\n\nIf you try to focus a bit too close what can happen is that you're not seeing on the screen that the image is still a bit blurry, but the focusing algorithm does, and isn't happy with it, so it keeps trying.",
"Pretty much any camera that isn't a SLR uses contrast detection which basically the camera figures the image will be most in focus when contrast is higher. It needs to pass the highest point in order to know that it passed it. Kind of like how a human would manually focus.\n\nIt's a bit more technical than that, but it's a simple explanation.\n\nAnd if it can't focus because it's too close, it didn't actually get into focus, it just got as close to focus as possible so maybe it seemed like it was in focus. All lens have a minimum focal length depending on the lens.\n",
"the real question is \"why cant a phone's camera have a manual focus setting\" "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1j7pr8 | why is there so many news stories about what the pope is saying? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j7pr8/eli5_why_is_there_so_many_news_stories_about_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbbyp0q",
"cbc0bgh",
"cbc1laa"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Easy. 1 billion people care about what he says. The rest want to see if he's going to say something incredibly offensive to the other 5 billion.",
"A lot of what hes been saying is a departure from his most recent predecessor and others earlier ones. His opinion on physical wealth of the vatican has especially ruffled establishment feathers. ",
"The Pope first of all is the leader of a huge religion.\nSecond of all, this new pope isn't like the older one. He's speaking out much more on new/controversial ideas. Common practices back in the day are now being questioned. \nThird, reddit is majority atheists, so many people who don't believe in popes religion, like to see it going through change/being progressive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5qfrqp | why do they use the name "roger" for an alternative to affirmative? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qfrqp/eli5why_do_they_use_the_name_roger_for_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcywgr4",
"dcywh1i"
],
"score": [
5,
16
],
"text": [
"\"Roger\" was \"phonetic\" for \"R\" (received and understood).\n\nVarious words were used in place of letters since letters in English all sound very similar to other letters.\n\nHaving various responses coded as letters was for consistency.\n\nOf course, nowadays, \"R\" is \"Romeo\", but \"Roger\" was the old way so it's kind of stuck as \"yes\".",
"Ah, a question for an old person to explain.\n\nRadio transmission quality used to be very poor. There was a great deal of static, and the static sounded very similar to \"essssssss\". There was also wow and flutter effects, which means that the radio had a tendency to spontaneously make a sound that sounded a lot like \"yes\".\n\nThe same situation happened with \"acknowledge\", which sounds just like a microphone cutting on before the word \"knowledge\".\n\n\"Roger\" has the benefit of not sounding like any spontaneous AM radio static, and is discernible as \"Roger\", \"Oger\", and \"Ger\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5po97c | why do programmers start iterating a list at index zero instead of one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5po97c/eli5_why_do_programmers_start_iterating_a_list_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcsk0gr",
"dcskaiv",
"dcske80"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"In the old days you would have to manage your own memory. You would have to store an address to where your data is located in memory and then to arithmetic on that address to find the specific value you were after. So a list would be a pointer to the address of the first entry in the list. If you add one data size to the pointer you get a pointer to the second entry in the list. Add two and you get the third entry. Add 10 and you get the 11th entry. Low level programming languages like C still support using + to get a pointer to a specific entry in a list.",
"Because it lets you get one extra number per byte. \n\nIt's a stupid analogy but let's imagine that phones have just been invented, and we're giving out phone numbers, but the first model only lets you dial a single digit. So the inventor of the phone, naturally, his phone number is 1. He gives his girlfriend the phone number 2, dials her just by phoning 2. Someone else is 3, 4, 5, and so on. 9 people have phones now, and we say sorry, a phone system that lets you dial *two* digits is just crazy, only 9 phones allowed.\n\n\"But wait!\" you can say, \"Just give me the phone number 0. That's only one digit.\" It might seem weird to start counting from 0, but if we agree to use 0 as an index, we can have ten users instead of nine.\n\nIt's the same thing, basically. If you have 3 bits to represent a number, you can count 8 things if you call the first one zero, 7 things if you call the first one 1. A single byte can represent the numbers 0 through 255.\n\nNow you might wonder why we don't just have the computer subtract one from every number while programming, so that we can count from 1, and the computer will just turn that into 0 under the hood. It's totally possible to have a programming language do that. But then you have to decide in what situations it's going to do that and what situations it's not (because you obviously don't want to get 5 when a user has typed in 6), and remember those situations, and remember to deal with it when moving between them, and interact with stuff that doesn't do that -- and when bugs happen, you have to remember that the computer is tricking you by saying something is one number when it's actually another. It's just not worth the benefit, because counting starting at 0 is only weird for your first day in class, it's not hard to get used to.",
"It's to do with pointer arithmetic.\n\nA pointer just tells you where in memory a list starts, and each item in the list follows on from the first. To get the first item, you look at where the pointer points. You add one to get to the next item.\n\nImagine it with house numbers. The pointer, says the list is at house number 133. To get the first item in the list, you look in 133 + 0. To get the next item in the list, it's 133 + 1 .... +2 +3 and so on.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5506b9 | modern role of hand-to-hand combat | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5506b9/eli5_modern_role_of_handtohand_combat/ | {
"a_id": [
"d86fzxa",
"d86g5jl",
"d86gydb"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well I would imagine in a few scenarios, it could be useful. If you run out of ammo, need to be sneaky, or don't have a weapon, thats the way to go. Although this is very rare.",
" > Firearms dominate today's battlefield \n\nNo, they don't. Armour, artillery and aircraft dominate today's battlefields. And we're moving even more into stuff that happens remotely. \n\nFirearms may dominate small engagements, but not actual battles. \n\nThere may be specialised scenarios where hand-to-hand will happen - actual raids into small, enclosed spaces, for example. \n\n",
"As the world becomes more populated, conflict will increasingly occur in urban areas. Drones, and precision guided munitions might work in some urban situations, but not all. \n\nClose quarters combat is becoming increasingly common, and so are the weapons the militaries use in those situations. But as to how much of a role hand to hand combat plays in that future, is a discussion for a sub that focuses on the military. Try r/usmc or similar military focused subs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
25v3to | why is it that sometimes when i ejaculate it dribbles out, and other times it shoots out like a rope? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25v3to/eli5_why_is_it_that_sometimes_when_i_ejaculate_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"chl060s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because this is asking about a condition you suffer it qualifies as a personal problem according to the sidebar rules.\n\nI'm not sure what, if any, subreddit would be better for you, but if you find one that works for you, let me know and I'll edit it into this template so anyone in the future will know, too!\n\nAlternatively, *if* this really is a complex conceptual question about the human body and not a question about *you* specifically, you can rephrase and resubmit without reference to yourself and try again. (Body questions are pretty common though, so try a quick search!)\n\nGood luck! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8phm3w | during competitive eating, how can people swallow such large portions of food with out needing to chew it? | During competitive eating, how can people swallow such large portions of food with out needing to chew it? I choke when I try to swallow a tiny pill, and when watching _URL_0_ she is swallowing HUGE pieces of steak and every thing in gulps. Wouldnt that make you choke?
Edit: Explained by darkstormchaser in the comments. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8phm3w/eli5_during_competitive_eating_how_can_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0bcnkz"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The **Pharyngeal Reflex**, known colloquially as the **gag reflex** is a protective mechanism. \n\nWhen parts of the upper mouth, back of the tongue and throat, etc and stimulated - such as through an object touching them - the muscles involved in swallowing are involuntarily activated. \n\nThe body has this reflex to prevent any unwanted foreign objects from passing from the mouth, down into the airways or digestive system. \n\nTwo **cranial nerves**, meaning nerves which originate in the brain, are involved in this reflex. The amount of sensitivity these nerves have varies from person to person, which is why some people seem to gag on a small tablet, while others can dry swallow a handful at once. \n\nCompetitive eaters perform exercises that intentionally irritate the areas involved in the **Pharyngeal Reflex**, which over time teaches those nerves to pay less attention to any stimuli received in that area. "
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUU58hzPiXc"
] | [
[]
] |
|
2gwi8x | why do people still need to fight so hard for net neutrality if they already voted into office a president who promised to support it? why didn't the democratic voting process settle it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gwi8x/eli5_why_do_people_still_need_to_fight_so_hard/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckn5xbq",
"ckn6e0v",
"ckn9glr",
"ckn9rh5",
"ckna1x9",
"cknawfk",
"cknb0jd",
"cknbuoo",
"cknc1y5",
"cknddv1",
"ckndfmb",
"ckndy9b",
"cknedzf",
"cknee0o",
"cknef79",
"cknefh7",
"ckneg0o",
"cknehho",
"cknejsx",
"ckneylk",
"cknf0eg",
"cknf5rm",
"cknf9ep",
"cknfl0j",
"cknfned",
"cknifkx",
"ckniqjc",
"cknivcs",
"cknix0t",
"cknixue",
"ckniz3b",
"cknj1wn",
"cknj2fb",
"cknj6so",
"cknjc8s",
"cknjdoj",
"cknjgjh",
"cknjpb6",
"cknjpxy",
"cknjy1o",
"cknk05t",
"cknk06p",
"cknk2li",
"cknkaje",
"cknkesm",
"cknkewj",
"cknkg6z",
"cknkiyt",
"cknkksh",
"cknkmbo",
"cknl955"
],
"score": [
1056,
207,
38,
28,
11,
7,
8,
2,
11,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
13,
3,
2,
2,
2547,
2,
3,
21,
2,
3,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
10,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
8,
9,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Sadly, campaign promises are not enforceable. It's all too common for a politician to say one thing during the election then either ignore it or handwave it off later on when they don't follow through.\n\nInterestingly, this is illustrative of the real difference between a [\"real\" democracy](_URL_1_) where we'd vote on each topic, and a [representative republic](_URL_0_) where we elect folks to \"do what is best\" for us.\n\nEdit: The above is left intact, with nothing changed. Though I usually refrain from editing hours after the fact, especially on a popular or controversial post, I am adding this here. Many clearly felt I oversimplified things or was blaming one politician. I've responded throughout the thread to clarify somewhat. I am heading to bed, however, so I probably won't get back here until tomorrow evening sometime. Who knew a simple ELI5 reply would get so huge? :D",
"Because the president doesn't make laws, he just approves or vetoes them, and it hasn't landed on his desk yet. ",
"You do understand the separation of powers? ",
"Long story short: the President doesn't make the rules. Just like class President: they could run and promise to make lunch longer and class shorter, but that isn't up to him. Congress makes the rules.",
"He said he would support it but one of the biggest telecom lobbyists raised a lot of money for Obama so Obama assigned him to be FCC chairman. ",
"To everyone saying the president doesn't have that kind of power...\n\nHe appointed wheeler to the fcc. If he actually cared about net neutrality, he would fire him. Every speech he has made opposing wheeler is to save face. \n\n#marketing",
"Also because the general public probably doesn't understand net neutrality. And I'd also argue that the general public thinks that mandated net neutrality is de facto good--which there are very valid counter-arguments for (i.e., not wanting the internet to be regulated).\n\nWe would not need these mandates for net neutrality if these absurd regional monopolies for telecoms were recinded. Despite my thoughts of the internet being government-regulated, the idea of seizing the hardware infrastructure via eminent domain (as the few companies that spent the money for infrastructure rollout have made their money back in orders of magnitude beyond what it cost) is intriguing. Thereby leasing it back to any virtual ISP (similar to how MVNO's operate on cell networks). \n\nAs it sits right now, most residential locations in the US have 2 or fewer options for ISPs, so there is zero competition that would normally foster a free and open internet. With comcast and verizon being so large and having so many regional monopolies, they can play with the access to the internet--and the subscription fees--virtually endlessly, all the while providing horrible (nonexistent) customer support.",
"Wow, you really must be five. People lie. Even outside the internet.\n\nThe better question is what we can do to fight. The FCC has to vote again after the public comment, I believe. And even if it \"passes,\" congress could push back on it if the public has strong feelings about it.",
"Because political pressure has to be placed on the Legislature too. Presidents are not Temporary Dictator.",
"Republicans. The American public voted for the President, but Congress is there to make sure the President looks like an impotent sideshow freak and stays that way. Remember when the guy had to produce a birth certificate to sit at the lunch counter? Congress is still insisting he doesn't have the \"authority\" to govern them [one way or another](_URL_0_).",
"And this would be the same president who said, \"If you like your health insurance policy, you can keep your policy. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period. End of story\" ?\n",
"Politics 101: Say one thing; do another.\n\nSlightly more detailed version: Take bribes from lobbyists, tell public one thing, get elected, ignore the public, break all promises and do what the lobbyists wanted.",
"Replace \"net neutrality\" in your title question with:\n\n*Due process rights\n\n*Non-militaristic foreign policy\n\n*The end of torture and illegal/inhuman detention practices\n\n*4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches\n\n\nNow feel very sad. \n\n",
"or wars, or troop surge, or bailouts, or wiretapping, or torture, or Guantanamo Bay, or Patriot Act, or Military Commissions Act, etc..",
"because that president lied. he appointed a cable industry lobbyist head of the FCC. you don't do that if you support net neutrality. and that's why it's in serious limbo now. \n\nit's that simple, politicians lie. not just little white lies you tell in social situations to avoid being rude- i mean straight up deceit.",
"My opinion on this issue is that Obama is on his second term, he will not be re-elected. He can do whatever the fuck he wants without any consequences (his successor will have to deal with the implementation of his laws) and that is why he is pushing the agenda of the people who paid for his election. Representative democracy isn't perfect.",
"I think Trevor said it best. They all\nPretend to not be an asshole, when after they are elected they turn out to be giant assholes the entire time. NSA Wiretapping Public Service Announcement: _URL_0_",
"Because democratic voting doesn't work. Look at prop 8 in California. People spoke and voted. And the supreme court overturned what the majority people wanted. Whether it was right or wrong is not the point but that the majority voice spoke and was denied anyway. We could vote on it. Have a voice then have congress or the supreme court just yoink it away. Another reason why electoral college should be dismissed and the president should go off popular opinion. Or pistol dueling. 10 paces. High noon. ",
"Let's say your teacher wants to read you Horton Hears a Who!\nAnd the kids in your class, even little Dilly, they all want to read it too. They shout, \"We want Who! We want Who!\" And so do you. And so do you.\n\nBut the Librarian, Mrs. Pennysnatch, gives you Babar. The fucking elephant. \n\n\"That's French!\" you cry, \"And he marries his cousin! We don't want this neocolonial bull shit!\"\n\nSo you and Dilly and your teacher all go the Principal. The Principal agrees, Dr. Suess is creative and cool and Babar is ass pie. But when it comes to books, Mrs. Pennysnatch sets the rules. The Principal can fire Mrs. Pennysnatch, or he can try to convince the school board to make Dr. Suess required reading, but he can't actually purchase books himself. Mrs. Pennysnatch is the only one with an Amazon account. And she used to be French, just like Babar. In fact, Mrs. Pennysnatch used to work as a sales lady, and what did she sell? She sold Babar all day long. Until she became the librarian. \n\nAnd now she decides what to buy, and what you read. And when it comes to Who, that just won't do, that Who won't do, it's not for you. ",
"I literally lolled when I read this. Oh man that was rich. Woooh, boy. ",
"Because this president \"promised\" a lot of things.",
"you dont need an eli5 explanation you just want to have a politically charged post.",
"While you might have voted your president into office, those companies with stakes in squashing net neutrality are the ones who paid to put that candidate, where he could be voted into said office. Who does he owe his position more to? ",
"The Marxist answer to that is because state and capital (big business, effectively) naturally merge into one under capitalism. Lenin described this as \"State Monopoly Capitalism\", in the following steps:\n\n1. Capitalism naturally leads to (quasi) monopolies.\n\n2. As capital always seeks to expand its influence, it seeps into politics once the markets are saturated (i.e. once the companies have more money than they could reasonably invest). \n\n3. The border between big business and politics fades, as the two domains exchange money (campaign contributions, public procurement, subsidies), personell (\"revolving door effect\", growing influence of lobbyists), and even institutions (government-industry panels, privatisation).\n\n4. The government now rules in favour of big business, and big business has an interest in stabilising the government. It does so via popular media (TV, newspaper, radio) and its influence on its own employees.\n\nNote that \"big business\" at this stage includes the financial sector, as Marx predicted that the financial sector would eventually become more important than the real economy.\n\nSo, to come back to the original question: The democratic process does not work since it is subverted by business interest. Net neutrality has powerful opponents who have a lot of money. Removing net neutrality strengthens the net providers by radically increasing their power over the internet and their profit, and it strengthens the online presence of any big company, since the bigger a company is the easier it can afford a \"fast lane\".",
"Tell the people what they want to hear to become elected. Quietly do the opposite once elected. Rinse and repeat. This isn't a democrat or republican thing, it's blatant corporate bribery. I find it insane how this is legal today.",
"Because we all learned at an early age that the president has a limited set of influence on the government as a whole, and congress are the ones who actually decide issues like this. Incidentally congress are mostly old people who really don't give a shit about how the internet is used, and will line their pockets with money from whoever is lobbying them the hardest.\n\n\nPeople love to blame the president for *everything* these days, and it's obnoxious. \n\n\n",
"because politicians are liars and politicians know that with enough adversarial handwaving and money for ads they can likely still get elected, especially in a two-party system where our options are extremely limited. If more of the population actually held politicans accountable for the actions and voted them out or voted in other parties the people would stop being buttfucked but here in America we dont and we dont seem to care. Other than that you have big corporations which have the money that politicians listen to and thusly actually are more represented and influential then the people because of that. So they can push issues pretty much indefinitely and in how many different incarnations that they wish.\n\nTL;DR The people that the people choose to represent us made to fear or be accountable to us because we are nothing and are memories are ephemeral, are attention spans are fleeting, and marketeers/campaigns/media generally know how to play us like a fiddle. \n\nEdited for more specificity: To answer your question though specifically it's because the President doesnt actually have much legislative power in creating laws. The president is apart of the Executive branch. That being said what I said earlier still generally applies because the president does have a number of influential power in his party, position of appointments, and veto power of potential laws that come thru. ",
"Because all politicians are lying cocksuckers.",
"politicians promise stuff they have no control over. presidents are pretty faces with little to no power. most decisions are based on money. you don't know how money moves, if you would, you'd see the pattern and why things happen",
"There's lots of shit going on in this thread, but I like the question being asked. Also, I can't think of a country off the top of my head where things are truly different.\n\nTo start with, you're looking at two things. The first is policy \"I want net neutrality\", \"I want healthcare\" or \"I want less money spent on wars\". Then you've got the candidate, in this case Obama.\n\nWhat you want to vote on, is the policy. You want to tell the government what it is you want them to do.\n\nWhat you're allowed to vote on, is the candidate. Candidates tell you their policies, and you vote for the candidate who best aligns with you. So at this stage we're already obfuscated from voting for what we want, and are only allowed to vote on how we get there. \n\nNow, there is nothing forcing the candidate to honour their initially promised policies. The policies are little more than a gentlemans agreement. He said he'd do < x > for you if you voted him in, you voted and he did < y > . In my pub, we'd call him a lying scumbag and move on.\n\nSo the democratic process didn't settle it, because the democratic process has never asked you to vote on net neutrality.",
"Tom Wheeler made FCC chairman by Obama. \n\ndo a google search for Tom Wheeler. ",
"It's called Corruption. You know, that thing that permeates through all of politics?",
"He said he would protect whistle-blowers, but his administration as prosecuted more of them than *all previous administrations combined*. So when he says he supports net neutrality, you better take that with a grain of salt and keep pushing as if he didn't support it.",
"Because politicians are professional liars. They will literally tell you everything you want to hear before being elected and then do the complete opposite.",
"The president doesn't introduce bills or pass them into law. Congress is the real problem. How do we get a majority of 535 people to agree on anything except let's give ourselves a raise and go on vacation?",
"Because Obama promised things he won't deliver. When he made the promises, he was a candidate saying things people wanted to hear so they'd vote for him. That doesn't mean he ever planned to do them at all.\n\nSo far, he's delivered on less than 1/2 his promises, and he's broken about 1/4 of them. _URL_0_\n",
"It was at that moment OP realized Obama is a politician and therefore a liar.",
"Because governments are known for upholding their promises...... ",
"Sometimes grownups tell lies and make promises they can't keep. ",
"It's because gullible people vote for those that we see on TV the most, paid for by lobbyists of the corporations that will dictate to the politician what is in their (corp) best $$$ interest.",
"Part of it is that President Obama only represents 1/3 of the federal political power in the US. Congress and the Supreme Court make up the other 2/3. \n\nThe main powerhouse of law-creation is Congress. So if they want to make a law the President disagrees with, they can. While the President can veto a law, Congress can in theory overpower his veto with a 2/3 vote.\n\nThe problem with Congress is that since there are hundreds of members, none nearly in the public eye as much as the President, they can be easily swayed (by lobbyists *cough* Comcast *cough*).\n\nSo in theory, a company with disposable income can completely control laws in the US.",
"Because the promise of a politician is like a glass of milk on a hot day. You can not expect it to last very long. And the population does not matter, only corporations matter. People have always consistently voted for who ever has most campaign funds. Until people vote for the poorest candidate for the first time, then maybe politicians will care. Apart from that it is just an act. ",
"Oh my god! I couldn't stop laughing! 'Democratic'?! Between the special interest groups and corporations that essentially own most of our representatives and the uber-rich few that pump unlimited cash into the 'democratic' process, the US stopped being a democracy years ago. When you have a system in which elected federal level officials spend most of their time raising money for their next campaign and the rest of their time catering to the few wingnuts, you have a system that is something other than democracy. It's disheartening when year after year you vote for seemingly mainstream, reasonable people only to see them flip positions after they get into office.",
"You seem to think that what a politician SAYS they will do, correlates with what they ACTUALLY do when in office....",
"In true ELI5 tradition, President Obama lied/was lobbied by the telecom industry very effectively. I doubt it was malicious on his part, lobbying probably along the lines of \"put our guy in charge of the FCC and we'll make sure the Democrats win back the house\". Of course that didn't happen, but the damage is already done. ",
"Because Democracy in the US is like Two Wolves and a Sheep voting on whats for dinner.",
"Bluntly - because Obama just said that to get votes. ",
"TIL there is people who believe politicians' promises",
"My opinion is a little jaded and simplistic but I still think it's basically true. The President is a politician. They will say anything to get elected. I don't think they actually believe in anything other than their own self promotion. So statements made by politicians in the past are only as good as the money and influence that bought them..at the time. In short, politicians lie professionally and cannot be trusted. ",
"We elected a president who would end the War in Iraq. \n\nWe now have a new War in Iraq. ",
"Because an election isn't the end of a citizen's work, it's just the beginning. Voting in a president who makes a promise, esp. one that is opposed by powerful groups isn't going to get the job done by itself - there needs to be constant pressure on him/her, as well as publicity and active grassroots support."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/15/obamas-claim-that-the-gop-has-blocked-every-serious-idea/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/v4z09el30f8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1p4jfp | why are our brains in our head, not elsewhere, such as our abdomen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p4jfp/eli5_why_are_our_brains_in_our_head_not_elsewhere/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccyo77z"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Our most sophisticated senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, balance) are in our heads, so that's where it makes the most sense to have the processing center for all the signals. Evolutionarily, you could argue that a predator that can process visual stimulus faster because its brain is closer to its eyes will be able to react more quickly to prey that's trying to evade it, and so that predator will have better success hunting than some otherwise-equal predator with a brain farther from his eyes. (The same works in reverse: prey with brain near eyes will have better success evading predators by reacting quicker.)\n\nBut this only begs the question \"why are our most sophisticated senses in our heads as opposed to in/on our adbomens\". Well, upright humans notwithstanding, evolutionarily most creatures have their heads in the front (we just happen to have evolved to shift them to the top). If you want to see where you are going, it makes much more sense to have your eyes out in front rather than on your abdomen looking down or something. You get more information about the world this way, and so your chances of surviving and reproducing are increased. Ok, makes sense for sight. What about the other sense? Couldn't the ears do just as well at sensing the world from our abdomens? Perhaps, but then either the brain is close to the abdomen which is bad for processing sight quickly, or is close to the head which is bad for processing sound quickly, or you have to have some compromise (maybe brain in the middle, maybe two brains that have to communicate in order to combine visual and auditory cues), and in these cases you're going to have a harder time still than a creature with all its major senses in the head."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
82whcz | where does the cerebral fluid go when they cut your skull open for neurosurgery? | Not necessarily just for neurosurgery, I see a lot of beheading videos on r/watchpeopledie and I never see cerebral liquid leaking. What happens to it when our skull is cut open? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82whcz/eli5_where_does_the_cerebral_fluid_go_when_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvdba7j",
"dvdblpu",
"dvdd1u6",
"dvdhzq3"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It pours out like the rest of you. It isn't very thick and there isn't a lot of it so it's not going to really show up or overpower the blood. It also isn't going to squirt out like blood because it isn't pumping through your body.",
"When surgery is done and CSF is exposed the area being worked on isn’t positioned in a way to have the fluid leak out.\n\nImagine opening a can of soda, the opening and can is held in such a way that fluid doesn’t drain out. When you open a can you don’t tilt it onto its side and open it.\n\nIt’s the same for a surgery - the body part isn’t positioned in a way that allows for it to drain. If the top of the head is opened up then the patient is turned upside down for it to drain out.",
"To address your question, in neurosurgery once they open dura some CSF will be present. Once they start opening the arachnoid layer, more CSF will flow out. This isnt under extreme pressure and is managed with suction.\n\nUnder conditions of higher pressure, CSF can squirt out if a small nick in dura and arachnoid is done. I see this most commonly when surgery is done to release a tethered spinal cord.",
"A) You probably shouldn't be watching beheading videos, that's not a sign of good mental health in these days.\n\nB) The scalp is very thin and bleeds profusely, so anything that cuts your scalp and skull is going to make a huge mess because the blood is actively pumped by the heart. The cerebral fluid also leaks out, but there isn't a lot and without pressure it's not going to make a visible show.\n\nSee (A)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3z0kmn | aren't all games rpgs? | The definition of Role Playing Games is very unclear. Considering the Wikipedia definition, all game are RPGs. I really need an explanation for the genre. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z0kmn/eli5_arent_all_games_rpgs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyi9du3",
"cyickig"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The key is that in a true RPG you're *playing the role*, not just *playing the game*.\n\nIn a lot of games out there, you might HAVE a role but you're not truly PLAYING that role. Look at the old classics like Space Invaders where you're a laser cannon that can move back and forth. You can't have a conversation with your support crew, you can't pick up and move stuff around, you don't control anything at all about your existence except moving left, moving right, and firing. Your role as a laser cannon is completely restricted and rigid. So you play the game and completely ignore the role.\n\nSame applies to other games like golf simulators - you can't control much at all beyond swing and club selection. Your character has no personality, no relationships with others and no existence beyond the golf course. Sure, you have the role of a golfer, but you're just swinging clubs, not playing the role.\n\nEven big recent games like StarCraft II don't allow you to interact in a way of your choosing. You get lots of cut-scenes, sure, but they're entirely scripted. You can pick what research you want, but it doesn't affect your \"role\" at all. \n\nCompare this to a true RPG where you are immersed in the game and its associated story, and you can influence that story through your choices and your interactions with others. You have the ability to select how you want to approach various situations and not everything is scripted. You can be the evil guy out to slay every husband and boink every female you come across, or the good guy paladin type who does his best to support those around you. By selecting a role and then playing the game in a way that's compatible with it, you can make choices that directly affect how others perceive you. \n\nIn a true RPG, the role you select for yourself *matters*.",
"I think the core thing that defines an RPG is character progression. It's the main thing that RPGs have in common, and games of other genres with features like that are often described as having RPG elements.\n\nIt is quite far removed from the literal meaning of \"Role Playing Game\", but it makes sense if you trace its lineage. \n\nIt comes from Dungeons and Dragons and other tabletop games. They had a large element of playing a role and making up a story as you go along. But they also had the idea of your character having stats that would improve as you play, either through the use of spells and items or tracking experience points. These stats are used to determine what happens in various situations you encounter in the game (usually combat, but sometimes other things), together with the random factor of a dice roll.\n\nVideo game RPGs follow this concept. Some RPGs don't have that much of the story creating aspect (e.g. the Final Fantasy games where you have little ability to affect the story), but do have the stat building aspect, and the ability for the player to influence those stats."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
fwpd3s | is there a real way to "fight for your life" or "don't give up" when you are deathly ill (coma, life support etc.)? i never understood this concept and wonder if it is science based or just us trying to will our sick loved ones to health. how would i do it if i were sick? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fwpd3s/eli5_is_there_a_real_way_to_fight_for_your_life/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmqv9l2",
"fmpm3ne",
"fmpn45j",
"fmqeqns"
],
"score": [
2,
16,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Chris Cuomo recently said to fight the virus and he explained that he didn’t feel like doing his broadcast and he did anyway. He talked about staying active and not just laying down waiting to get better. He also mentioned doing deep breathing exercises even though it was painful. I think there are ways to prevent worsening symptoms and preventing pneumonia. I don’t know how much these activities or attitudes help but if the time comes, I’ll fight like hell to get better and have a positive outlook.",
"There are several glands in your brain and other organs that produce hormones. Hormones are control chemicals; when the cells in your body encounter these hormones in your blood, they change their operation. For example, adrenaline makes your heart beat faster and makes you more alert.\n\nBottom line, there's a direct influence from your \"mood\" (happy, sad, etc.) to several body functions (heart rate, blood flow to certain organs, appetite, etc.). Someone who is happy all their life has better health (as measured by actual medical procedures) than someone who is sad or stressed out all their life. The immune system is a component that responds quite strongly to various hormones.\n\nSo yes, there are medical effects if you keep a positive outlook. Your immune system is stronger, and in general you have a better chance to overcome a disease. It's not just a trick.",
"It's not completely clear yet, but scientist are sure that mentality matters in case of recoveries after injuries and stuff, there are some pretty impressive cases if people who could fight back with the help of mental practices.",
"It's a painful issue. There's not much you can do mentally to will yourself out of a coma, a cancer, a critical disease. \n\nYou often hear otherwise just because, when a loved one recovers, we are naturally inclined to ascribe it to some merit of the recovered person; \"he recovered because of his strong will\", for example, or \"he fought back\", or \"he wouldn't give up\". It's only human, but in doing so we forget that this implicitly means blaming the ones who didn't make it for their fate, as if that fate was due, at least partially, for lack of will to live. That's cruel, other than technically incorrect. \n\nIn reality, there is not much you can do to will your immunitary system to win a deadly battle against an infection, a cancer, or whatever. They are completely automatic mechanisms and any link with your will (or any conscious or semi conscious activity of your brain) is extremely tenuous at best."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5yqdat | how did man figure out wells? | Hm, I'm thirsty. I know, I'll start digging | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yqdat/eli5_how_did_man_figure_out_wells/ | {
"a_id": [
"des5bbj",
"det5a99"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"It was just something that was learned over time.\n\nSomeone found a spring. Then water stopped coming out of the spring. Someone then dug a little big to gind out where the water went and the spring started back up. After this happens a few times someone figured out to dig in the ground to find water.",
"We don't know, wells are at least 9500 years old, writing only comes about 3000 years later."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2wwcsz | why is newton's second law unecessary? | It is part of our physics course that we be able to explain how this law is unnecessary (as it is basically an extension of the first law). However, my maths teacher disagrees and I don't really understand either of their arguments. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wwcsz/eli5_why_is_newtons_second_law_unecessary/ | {
"a_id": [
"coup498"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You have it the wrong way round, the *first* law is unnecessary as it's just a special case of the second law - if you substitute in F=0 you can conclude that a=0 as well (since it doesn't make sense to have m 0). Therefore, if an object is not acted on by a force then there will be no acceleration, which is Newton's first law."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6pi8q6 | why do cars have ac buttons when you have the ability to change the temperature? | There shouldn't be a difference between a hot 69°F and an AC 69°F? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pi8q6/eli5_why_do_cars_have_ac_buttons_when_you_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkpi2v7",
"dkplr43"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The temperature you select is an aim - there's no guarantee the car can actually manage that temperature without the AC.\n\nAlso, the AC helps to dry the air, so if it's very humid out then it makes it more comfortable.",
"The temp knob controls the mix of cold air and hot air.\n\nHot air is generated by waste heat from the engine.\n\nWith the A/C off, cold air is from the outside. So the coldest it can get is the ambient outside temp.\n\nWith the A/C on, cold air is from the A/C system, which can be colder than the outside temp (in spring/summer, at least).\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3chmzr | don't do movies use blanks when firing weapons on set? how loud is it compared to the real thing? don't our actors get deaf by the constant gunfire? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3chmzr/eli5_dont_do_movies_use_blanks_when_firing/ | {
"a_id": [
"csvm88q",
"csvmm42"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"They usually use reduced-load special blanks that give you a flash and a pop. A loud pop, but nowhere NEAR the noise of a real gun.\nAlso, as sound isn't (always) recorded live, the loud bangs are added in post - the gun will still smoke/flash/eject casing, but the noise is added later.\nIn some cases, like with so-called suicide guns (where nothing, even a flash) can be ejected, they add muzzle flash and shit with CGI/Rotoscope.\nThat's for scenes where there's a gun to your head and trigger is pulled, and other close-encounter shots.\n\nAs an aside, I was working on a show called \"Threat Matrix\" and in the scene someone opened fire on us and all you saw was dust from the shots kicking up.\nWhen I asked how they did that safely and yet kept us safe, the prop guy showed me the gun - a paintball gun shooting small dust packets. Basically \"dust-balls\". When they hit, all you see is a puff of dust.\n\nI was pretty surprised over how simple that way. :D\n\n",
"Well, I can't say for certain what films are currently using with regards to gunfire though I would imagine they are not using blanks for a number of reasons:\n\n\n* Blanks do not sound, or have the same report, like regular rounds being fired. There are a number of reasons for this but the biggest one is that the amount of gunpowder in a blank is lower than that of a traditional round. \n\n\n* Safety. Blanks most commonly are a standard shell with gunpowder and then a was to keep it in, crimped at the end. When you fire a blank everything between the explosion and the end of the barrel has to go somewhere. Sometimes there can be tiny pieces of shrapnel that are expelled from the barrel. In the military there is commonly a [blank firing adapter](_URL_1_) attached to the [end of the barrel](_URL_2_). \n\n* Jams. The way a semi automatic (or fully automatic) weapon works is very interesting. In the bottom of the barrel there is a small port that \"gas\" can escape through. This feeds back to the bolt and forces it open allowing a second round to be chambered. In order for that to function properly there needs to be something to provide resistance to said gas and prevent it from escaping through the much larger opening at the end of the barrel. Say, a bullet. As there is no bullet in a blank the majority of the gas is free to leave from the end of the barrel. The blank firing adapter helps with this but the reduced gunpowder combined with the lack of a bullet often results in the bolt not driving all the way back. \n\nThose are just a few reasons why I doubt blanks are used anymore. But it really could just be as simple as [the death of Brandon Lee](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee",
"http://clydearmory.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/l/clyde_armory_utg_model_4_15_rifle_length_blank_firing_adaptor_mnt-16ad1-b.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/US_Navy_101013-N-3013W-430_Construction_Electrician_2nd_Class_Carl_Harms,_from_Lake_Odessa,_Mich.,_assigned_to_Naval_Mobile_Construction_Battalion.jpg"
]
] |
||
1c9bhl | how do drug dealers legitimize their high incomes? (in declarations of income, etc.) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c9bhl/eli5_how_do_drug_dealers_legitimize_their_high/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9eai91",
"c9eajcf",
"c9eajmo",
"c9ecx11",
"c9egxdi",
"c9egy1i"
],
"score": [
13,
14,
6,
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Buy a carwash.",
"Small time drug dealers don't. They just spend cash, and don't tell the government how much they make.\n\nBigger drug dealers need to launder their money. Usually this involves making it look like the money actually came from a legitimate business. So, for example, if you are a drug dealer, you could buy a laundromat, and every day you could put a little bit of your drug money in the register and say that it came from people coming in to wash clothes. ",
"The majority of drug dealers only handle cash. Nothing becomes an electronic record. No bank information, no deposits. No taxes.",
"I heard legalised gambling is one way they launder money. Basically in Nevada you're allowed to list yourself as a professional gambler in tax applications, so you just walk into a casino with your drug money, convert them into chips (I don't think casinos are required to ask where the money came from) play at the tables, lose a bit to the house so the casino doesn't feel inclined to sell you out, convert the chips back into cash and then fill in a tax application saying that you won X dollars at cards.",
"Buy those small upscale shops that no one buys shit from. Like anthropologie.",
"Look at what nerds we are, we're looking up money laundering in a dictionary!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8sbjoa | did cavemen have anxiety? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8sbjoa/eli5_did_cavemen_have_anxiety/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0y1z6h",
"e0y5ucp",
"e0ycna7",
"e0yew0o",
"e0yusfl"
],
"score": [
38,
4,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Aye, they did, it's not a recent invention. However, they had very different situations that would lead to it, such as noticing that a predator had been lurking around the cave, or that the head of the clan seemed to be upset with them.",
"Yes. \nWithout anxiety, they would have been complacent. Complacency = easier for a predator to kill. The cavemen with anxiety were much more likely to survive long enough to pass on their (anxiety) genes. \nIt is theorized that is why we still get stressed over non-stressful things. Our evolution hasn't caught up to living such \"comfortable\" lives.",
"Yes (most likely).\n\nHomo sapiens (humans... well, technically we're homo sapiens sapiens) and our ancestors were middle of the food-chain until relatively recently. We moved to arguably the very top of the food chain so rapidly that our prey instincts have not diminished (within the last 20,000 years or so?).\n\nAnxiety and fear were advantageous to our ancestors because they were hunted by other animals. Those emotions are useful to modern humans as well; they keep us from taking extreme risks, and help us prepare for the future.",
"They did, but it was the least of their worries.\n\nMental illness is a very serious thing, and it can make you miserable. But if your life is already pretty miserable, it is not going to make it much worse.\n\nAlso, most people with mild to moderate mental illness can overcome it for a while, especially when properly motivated. You might be too depressed to clean your house, but when company is coming, you go into a flurry of action tidying up before they arrive. With death, disease, and starvation around every corner, a primitive human would pretty much be in that flurry most of the time. What we would consider to be anxiety today back then would be legitimate worry you were about to die.",
"Anxiety and stress are basically the same thing except stress is worrying about things that are really affecting your life and anxiety is worrying about things that could possibly go wrong. So if a cave man is worrying about a bear actively lurking outside the cave that is stress but if he was laying awake worrying a bear might come to the cave that is anxiety. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
87swo6 | why does wearing in-ear headphone amplify sounds created via your head and face? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87swo6/eli5_why_does_wearing_inear_headphone_amplify/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwfd0ij"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sound is just vibrations hitting your ear drums.\n\nWhen you have earbuds in, there are now more points of contact to carry vibrations directly into your ears. If the cable rubs against something, for example, that's carrying vibrations directly to your ears. They also usually provide a seal in your ears, which means there's less ambient noise from whatever environment you're in to drown out all the little sounds you might normally miss."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7rfjz9 | why does mint smell better than garlic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rfjz9/eli5_why_does_mint_smell_better_than_garlic/ | {
"a_id": [
"dswjc7o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Garlic contains a sulfur related compound that mint does not contain. People have varying degrees of sensitivity to the compound, so, for some folks, garlic smells pretty awful. Here's a link:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.thespruce.com/why-does-garlic-smell-1807019"
]
] |
||
8m0fa9 | why does an empty glass bottle break when shaked with a cent inside? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8m0fa9/eli5_why_does_an_empty_glass_bottle_break_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzjxi11"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Because a penny has a little mass, it has a low amount of inertia, which is proportional to mass of an object. This allows penny to be accelerated really quickly when shaken in the bottle.( it gains velocity in a short amount of time). High achieved velocity causes it to have a decent amount of kinetic energy, that is the amount of energy of motion. When a moving penny contracts a wall of the bottle, it is being decelerated almost instantly. The stop from its velocity to zero happens extremly fast. This causes a transfer of a majority of the kinetic energy from the penny to the point on a wall of the bottle. Because the glass is a brittle material, it's resistance to impacts is low. The transfer of a big amount of energy, In a short time, on a small area is what initiates the brittle failure, that propagates thanks to internal stress in glass. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
a1pj7l | why do clothing brands mention where the products are manufactured, especially if it's coming out of a sweatshop? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1pj7l/eli5_why_do_clothing_brands_mention_where_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"earqfwr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are legal requirements in some places to at least identify imports if not countries of origin, including manufacture and materials.\n\nSome consumers want to be informed of sourcing so they can make a multitude of different and overlapping purchase decisions.\n\nThe sweatshop idea is one example. Perhaps you believe you’ll make a difference or feel better by not purchasing goods made in places you believe have or support sweatshops, or even by not supporting retailers who sell such goods.\n\nPerhaps you believe some places have better material sources or manufacturing practices than others. Maybe there are other social or economic reasons you do or don’t want to support manufacturers in some places. Maybe you’re mindful of import tariffs and taxes and want to support or avoid countries involved that way.\n\nIt could be you prefer to shop locally and need a way to identify and avoid imports. Maybe you want to spread money around the world, and want to choose imports over local businesses."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2eqd9x | in theory, how would hover board work? also, how far are we off from the technology? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eqd9x/eli5_in_theory_how_would_hover_board_work_also/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck1wo5l",
"ck2arzy"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"No way to make it work now. You would need some device that countered gravity, which doesn't exist (yet). There are some crackpots which claim to have made devices to affect gravity, but almost none have been reproduce able. So to do it now, you would have to have super powerful fans blowing air out the bottom which you floated on (like a hovercraft) and that wouldn't fit in a skateboard. \nIt sucks because it would be cool.\n",
"A friend and I built a hover-chair when I was a kid. Lawn mower motor with a vertical axis, homemade propeller, thin ply ducting, and a very lightweight steel chair. Worked like a charm. With a modern Rotax motor a skateboard-sized one would be perfectly practical. \n\nThere was no lateral control. It would go down the slightest slope like a rocket, so you needed to be certain of the fall line before starting it up.\n\nWe ran at an altitude of a couple of centimetres. For more than that you need real antigravity, still on my bucket list..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.