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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cn1itr | why do clouds make sunsets more colorful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cn1itr/eli5_why_do_clouds_make_sunsets_more_colorful/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew65tsv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When the sun sets the light is shining through the atmosphere are a square angle to where it would during the day, the because of this square angle the light bends differently causing different colours, like a prism or how diamonds shine with flashes of different colours in the light, the clouds make this better by acting like a projector screen and capturing those different colours and showing them on a white background."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2tmmxr | why do i never see cheese used in asian cuisine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tmmxr/eli5_why_do_i_never_see_cheese_used_in_asian/ | {
"a_id": [
"co0d44u",
"co0d4c8",
"co0d5mh",
"co0d77c",
"co0dvo8",
"co0e0mh",
"co0eico",
"co0f5m3",
"co0fcyb",
"co0fhbi",
"co0fnr6",
"co0fobz",
"co0fwkd",
"co0fxe7",
"co0g0me",
"co0g7u1",
"co0gbjw",
"co0gmi6",
"co0gmvn",
"co0gr2l",
"co0gut9",
"co0gzbo",
"co0h1nu",
"co0hbe0",
"co0he1p",
"co0hh1y",
"co0hoyv",
"co0i6h3",
"co0i6sv",
"co0iezy",
"co0if6j",
"co0imxf",
"co0je88",
"co0ju91",
"co0jzos",
"co0k74g",
"co0kt8c",
"co0l97r",
"co0ltwd",
"co0lz3c",
"co0m1ph",
"co0m74u",
"co0m9t1",
"co0mf0v",
"co0mh74",
"co0ms1v",
"co0n0sy",
"co0n64l",
"co0ncx3",
"co0nf5i",
"co0nifj",
"co0nj0m",
"co0np4o",
"co0o2fl",
"co0ofgz",
"co0ohre",
"co0okpk",
"co0oruw",
"co0ot93",
"co0p3o9",
"co0p9yo",
"co0plzv",
"co0pml6",
"co0pn91",
"co0q1bx",
"co0qtqq",
"co0rak0",
"co0rue2",
"co0rw3e",
"co0s5tm",
"co0se8u",
"co0t9ho",
"co0tdvs",
"co0tee2",
"co0tyny",
"co0tzfk",
"co0u05l",
"co0u7oc",
"co0uaba",
"co0ubrp",
"co0uruh",
"co0uvou",
"co0uyue",
"co0v5r5",
"co0vdux",
"co0vhti",
"co0vw3d",
"co0w13f",
"co0waze",
"co0wcnc",
"co0wdow",
"co0wjpc",
"co0x192",
"co0x7oc",
"co0xm8h",
"co0xme3",
"co0y8ty",
"co0yc7s",
"co0yu08",
"co0z3oh",
"co0zifp",
"co0zwit",
"co105l5",
"co10n8h",
"co115fw",
"co11g16",
"co11itl",
"co11w2j",
"co11wn3",
"co128c0",
"co12lax",
"co12y8f",
"co13sz5",
"co13tpg",
"co13y0l",
"co141ns",
"co14zzr",
"co15bff",
"co15caq",
"co15sti",
"co177ir",
"co183qo",
"co18am2",
"co18kik",
"co19gn2",
"co1a6hg"
],
"score": [
708,
450,
3,
2,
343,
4475,
53,
2,
2,
105,
5,
19,
2,
3,
70,
7,
16,
5,
2,
2,
3639,
3,
2,
8,
59,
8,
90,
87,
2,
44,
2,
8,
5,
7,
2,
2,
9,
12,
3,
3,
2,
9,
2,
20,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
7,
4,
12,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
10,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
6,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2,
3,
3,
5,
2,
2,
4,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most asian people are lactose intolerant, so there is less incentive for them to cook with something that'll make them feel ill. ",
"The majority of people in SE asia are lactose intolerant. So all dairy consumption is low, not just cheese.\n\nEdit : data < _URL_0_;",
"Probably a series of connected events. Primarily, 1) most Asians are lactose intolerant (as are most people in general outside of eastern Europe. If you think about other cultural foods...Indian, African, most traditional Mexican food, etc) there isn't a ton of cheese there either.) Likewise, and probably related 2) Raising dairy cows or other animals lie that doesn't seem to be a big part of the cultural tradition. Perhaps the land, or something about the society, made dairy farming not worth it. ",
"cheese is not part of the chinese diet.\n\nthere's very little beef and milk production. ",
"Dairy is used heavily in Indian diet. For example, ghee(clarified butter), yogurt and buttermilk etc are heavily used. ",
"Asian cultures did not historically raise cattle, and therefore few people are lactose tolerant. European culture has led to adult tolerance of lactose in a larger part of the western population. The normal human condition is to lose tolerance for lactose in adolescence. But we whiteys love us some titty juice. ",
"I just want to point out that India is a part of Asia and dairy, including cheese, is common in Indian cuisine.\n\nOP, I think you meant to write \"East Asian\"",
"Was always wondering that myself. Honestly I'm thankful for it cause I love all Oriental foods. Being Lactose Intolerant really puts a dent in your cravings for Mexican food.",
"I asked a similar question to a student in china, and while I don't believe it applies to all of chine, they explained that milk cows aren't really around so they don't have a history of that kinda milk in their diet. in short many are lactose intolerant to some extent. :/ but idk how much of that is true.",
"Lived in China for a few years\n\nThe traditional view of milk products in China is that \"milk is for babies\". Even today milk is something that's normally reserved for children. Cheese is seen a foreign delicacy, and most of that cheese is imported so you're not going to see much cheese in Chinese cuisine.\n\nMongolia on the other hand, does in fact have cheese. Mainly from yak, goat, and sometimes horse milk. It's got the consistency of a crumbly toffee and basically lasts forever. Not too bad tasting either. Will break your teeth if you aren't careful though.\n",
"Do you guys that have replied think its something to do with them being lactose intolerant?",
"I bed to differ from the others. I am Singaporean and I think that cheese, or other lactose-based food is quite prevalent here. \n\nHowever, why asian cuisines lack the use of cheese in their recipes are probably the same reason as why cheese isnt (usually) used in stew or stir-fried dishes. It just simply isnt meant to be there since most asian cuisines are of that nature. \n\nAdding to that, I have travelled to Australia and some parts of the UK and I think that most asian food there are a bad representation of what we actually have here. ",
"Have you been in Philippine Bakeries (preferably the ones in Philippines)? There's many cakes and other pastries with different selections of cheese \"toppings\". ",
"Vice recently put out a [great little video on an artisan cheese maker in China](_URL_0_) who's trying to change perceptions and cuisine in his homeland.",
"Mongolians and other nomadic Turkic peoples in Asia are all about the [cheese, curds](_URL_2_) and just [dairy](_URL_0_) in general. \n\nMongolian traditional diet consists of [meat](_URL_5_) and dairy. Even our alcoholic drink is made of [mare milk](_URL_3_)\n\nSpending time in the countryside for a month, this was my daily food log:\n\n**Morning:**\n\nMilk tea, [fried dough](_URL_1_), cheese(yes, whole cheese by itself), and beef/lamp soup.\n\n**Day:**\n\nMilk tea, airag, boiled meat, fried dough\n\n**Evening:**\n\nAirag, Mongolian dumpling, and cheese for dessert. \n\n\n\nIf you don't eat fatty, protein rich food, plenty of stomach warming alcoholic beverage, and dress in thick wool/fur, you will have a hard time surviving the extreme weather. \n\nDairy, and the generally protein rich diet is what keeps Mongolians physically fit for such conditions. Also partly what made the [Mongols](_URL_4_) so devastating in their conquests several hundred years ago. ",
"Interesting about India. North India's ~30% lactose intolerant while South India is ~70%. \n\n_URL_0_",
"As others have pointed out, East Asian diets have not historically included a lot of lactose so have people there have not generally developed the ability to tolerate it. As a separate issue, it is also possible for individuals to build up a tolerance for lactose through exposure, even if they're not genetically predisposed (in that case they're still not absorbing it as a nutrient, but they can be what's called a tolerant malabsorber). But again, people in East Asia don't usually get that kind of exposure because lactose isn't in their diets.\n\nOne thing that's helpful on this topic is to switch your lens a little and realize that most humans are lactose intolerant, so it's really lactose *tolerance* that we should be looking at as odd. Lactose tolerance is, largely, a Northern European genetic quirk.\n\nSo, to flip things around, why are Northern Europeans mostly lactose tolerant? As others have said, they had lactose in their diets historically, but it goes a little deeper than that. It turns out that lactose can play a similar nutritional role to vitamin D... it helps you absorb calcium from your food and prevents rickets. This means that people at high latitudes, who had less exposure to sunlight and therefore created less vitamin D in their bodies, had a genetic incentive to develop lactose tolerance.\n\nOther populations at high latitudes have found other ways of getting around this sunlight/vitamin D shortage; for example, Inuit diets traditionally include a lot of seal liver, which like dairy helps you compensate with your diet for what you're not getting from your environment. \n\nA lot of this info comes from a lecture by Bill Durham, a professor of human biology at Stanford. You can see him talk about this topic [here](_URL_0_).",
"[Here's](_URL_0_) an asian dish with cheese on it. I might as well also take a second to direct you to /r/KraftSingle for more questions.",
"Lactose tolerance is thought to have evolved parallel in Northern Europe and parts of Africa. ",
"Does cream cheese in Philadelphia rolls (sushi) count? ",
"As others have mentioned, most Asian people are lactose intolerant. From a western perspective this seems odd, but is actually the \"normal\" human condition. Everything that follows is from Marvin Harris's book *Our Kind*, which I'm trying to simplify into ELI5 style.\n\nLactose is the sugar in milk. Your body can't use lactose, and has to break it down into simpler sugars. This is done by the enzyme lactase. \"Naturally\" mammals produce lactase while they are nursing from their mothers, but then stop producing it as they grow older because \"naturally\" they won't ever consume milk again.\n\nI say \"naturally\" and \"normal\" because humans are different, we developed agriculture and domesticated other animals. This takes us out of the natural cycle a bit, allows us to do things our biology wasn't really intended for. However, natural selection still applies - if we do something that increases our survival rate and success at reproducing, that trait will be selected and pass on to the next generation, propagate and become \"normal\". These traits can be genetic (genes, like being strong or fast) or cultural (memes, like wearing makeup).\n\nWhen we started domesticating milk-producing animals such as goats or cows, we gained the option to consume milk as adults. Our natural state does not allow us to do that, but some individuals would be different and possess a mutation wherein they would continue producing lactase as adults, allowing them to consume milk. In some cultures that trait was very valuable, resulting in increased survival and reproduction, thus the trait became very common and eventually the \"normal\". In other cultures the trait had no net gain and therefore does not propagate, and so not the \"normal\".\n\nSo what's the difference in the cultures? What makes adult lactase production a big win for those of Northern European descent, but pretty worthless for East Asians? It has to do with geography and available sources of calcium and vitamin D.\n\nYou need calcium in your diet. You can get that calcium a few different ways - milk being one, leafy green vegetables being another. To make use of calcium your body also needs either vitamin D or lactose. You can get vitamin D from seafood, or your body can make it when exposed to sunlight. Without vitamin D, lactose assists with the use of calcium. So, cultures with easy access to leafy greens plus sunlight or fish, calcium is taken care of and milk has no advantage. Cultures without access to leafy greens - or without access to sunlight or seafood - need dairy either as a source of calcium, or a source of lactose to use the calcium, or both.\n\nThis leads to the difference between dairy that's fermented (yogurt or most cheese) or unfermented (straight up milk). Fermented dairy products still have the calcium, but the lactose is broken down into simpler sugars, so lactase is not necessary to digest it. Therefore a culture with access to fish or sunlight but not leafy greens would benefit greatly from keeping dairy animals, but don't benefit from still creating lactase as adults - they consume the milk as yogurt or cheese to get all the calcium they need and make use of that calcium thanks to vitamin D.\n\nSo now finally, enter the Northern Europeans - the people that would eventually become western society as we know it today - developed in a climate that required them to bundle up most of the time due to extreme cold, so no sunlight to make vitamin D. They also had very little seafood in their diets at the time (~12,000 years ago), and limited access to leafy green vegetables. Calcium and vitamin D are lacking. So, those individuals who possessed the ability to consume unfermented dairy as adults had an advantage. They survived and bred more frequently, thus passing the trait on and making it \"normal\". Within 5000 years after the domestication of dairy animals, 90% of northern Europeans possessed the ability to produce lactase into adulthood and dairy of all types was commonplace.\n\nMeanwhile let's consider China ~12,000 years ago. Leafy greens were a major part of the diet, so calcium is not an issue. Those in coastal areas developed fishing techniques much earlier than Europeans, as well as a trade infrastructure to transport that seafood pretty far into the mainland, so vitamin D is not an issue. Thus no advantage to unfermented dairy consumption among the bulk of Chinese. Only those far inland and to the north would have an issue - those peoples who became the Mongols, who did consume dairy. Furthermore even fermented dairy never took hold in Chinese culture because of their trade networks - the Chinese were able to obtain their labor animals from other cultures (tibetans, mongols, etc) - therefore did not breed their own cows or goats. Pigs were the primary meat animal raised. With no need for dairy, and without really having it around in the first place, they developed into a culture with virtually zero dairy of any type. And much like the Northern Europeans went on to culturally dominate western civilization, Chinese culture influenced many others in Asia.\n\nSo... in summary (TL;DR): Dairy consumption has 2 extremes produced by geography and available diets: Lots of dairy including raw milk driven by Northern Europeans, and virtually zero dairy of any kind driven by the Chinese. Between those extremes are everybody else, who for the most part made use of fermented dairy for its calcium, but remain lactose intolerant.\n\n~~And now I've taken so long to write this wall of text that no one will see it. Oh well.~~ Clearly I was wrong!\n\n*Edits for clarity and grammar.*\n\n**Edit 2:** I'm getting a lot of follow up questions on specific cultures - this isn't a complete history of the world, it doesn't cover everyone. I am not an anthropologist, as I said in the first paragraph this is an attempt to simplify the work of Marvin Harris, specifically his book [Our Kind](_URL_0_). I'd say that book is like the Cosmos of anthropology - it's an excellent read, very approachable, and great at chaining together complex history, geography, and biology to tell the story of modern human evolution. If you want more detail on what I wrote, I highly recommend starting there.\n",
"The Chinese have no cheese!\n\nBut what about crab Rangoon?\n\nStill miss ya Brockie.",
"Cottage cheese (paneer) is used in many recipes here in India and is one of the most favourite for vegetarians.",
"So you never had saag paneer? _URL_0_ (paneer is the cheese part). You have skipped my favorite indian dish !!!",
"Why do I never see soy sauce used in French Cuisine?",
"From [the bible:](_URL_0_) The one major region of the Old World not to embrace dairying was China, perhaps because Chinese agriculture began where the natural vegetation runs to often toxic relatives of wormwood and epazote rather than ruminant-friendly grasses. Even so, frequent contact with central Asian nomads introduced a variety of dairy products to China, whose elite long enjoyed yogurt, koumiss, butter, acid-set curds, and, around 1300 and thanks to the Mongols, even milk in their tea!\n\nI'm going to paraphrase another section, but most cheeses were not very interesting until they started being made further north because the cheese had to be more heavily salted and acidic to combat spoilage in the warmer climates of eastern European and Asia. Once it started to be made in the Roman territories, especially modem day Switzerland and France, you were able to allow the cheeses to ripen over a much longer time period with less salt and acid. This allowed for a MUCH greater diversity in cheese making, giving rise to the delicious cheeses of today. \n\nA word on lactose intolerance and cheese. There are two kinds of \"lactose intolerance\" that people talk about. The first is an allergy to casein and that actually is dangerous. It's a full blown allergic reaction similar to a peanut allergy with symptoms as bad as anaphylactic shock. Thankfully it is very rare and you DEFINITELY know if you have it. \n\nThe other kind is a lack of lactase in your gut to process the lactose. If you don't have enough lactase, the lactose passes into your small intenstine where it gets eaten by bacteria releasing lots of co2 and methane, which makes you bloated and fart and all the other happy fun times associated with a lactose intolerance. It is this lack of lactase that most of the non Scandinavian descendants of the world have. \n\nLuckily for everyone, in NON PROCESSED cheese, most of the lactose is suspended in the whey, which means that it doesn't end up in the cheese. This is even more pronounced in cheeses made from raw milk. As the cheese ages, the remaining lactose gets used up. \n\nThe upshot of all of this is that for lactose intolerant people the harder and older and less processed/pasteurized the cheese is, the more of it you can eat. Also, you can just disregard everything that I just said and take some aspergillus with your dairy product and be totally fine (it breaks down lactose for you so your body can process it).",
"I am really surprised no one has mentioned the reason why East Asians are lactose intolerant: the thistle found in Chinese grasslands are poisonous to cows, sheep, and goats. Since these animals primarily existed to convert otherwise-useless grassland into meat and dairy, then never went far East past India. Hence, there was never an evolutionary impulse for the human populations there to adjust to consuming Milk and cheese. ",
"Asian here, a lot of right answers, but it's worth considering the other side of the question: why is American food so heavy-handed with cheese? \n\nTurns out, when America went into a low-fat craze in the second quarter of the last century the massive dairy industry was left with a surplus of fat removed from de-creamed milk. With the government's help, they had to get this back into the market, and the answer was cheese. A huge rebranding of cheese happened and there was an explosion of cheap cheesestuffs. What used to be a healthy high-protein food became a major contributor to low-income obesity. ",
"i feel so bad that so many people have not had cheese wontons ",
"It may be only a recent fad, but a lot of South Korean foods have been incorporating mozzarella cheese/American with their food to create a fusion cuisine, such as instant ramen, ddukbokki(which are spicy rice cakes), spicy chicken, spicy noodles, galbi, and other sorts of food.\n\nWARNING: A LOT OF FOOD PORN. \n\n_URL_0_ < -- Fire Chicken(because it's reaallly spicy) with ricecakes and cheese. Sooo delicious! \n\n_URL_1_ < -- Sweet and savory Galbi(Korean Ribs) with mozzarella cheese with jalapeno flavoring.\n\n_URL_3_ < -- Kimbap with American cheese\n\n_URL_2_ < -- Ramen with a slice of American Cheese\n\nYou might be thinking, \"Ew, cheese with Asian food?\".. But, it actually tastes damn amazing because the cheese counteracts with the spiciness and creates a delicious taste. \n\n",
"Most Asians (at least up until recently) did not drink cow's milk and so most are lactose intolerant.\nPlease correct me if I'm wrong.",
"what do you mean? I put a slice of american cheese on top ramen all the time",
"Clearly reddit has not been introduced to the wonders of the cheese wonton. Aka \"Crab Rangoon\" it's fucking amazing. ",
"Now by asian, are referring only to Chinese food or Asian as a whole?!\n\nCheese or Paneer, is used extensively in Indian cuisine. Plenty of yummy dishes with Paneer. \n\n",
"because traditionally us asians don't use dairy products hence soy milk. This is why many older asians like my parents are lactose intolerant. They were not exposed to milk early on so their bodies can't really process it the way western ethnic groups can.The same is true about africans.",
"Well in southern asia they do have paneer and it is quite yummy. I can quite happily choose paneer curry over meat alternatives",
"This is like asking why French food doesn't use tofu.",
"Idk If people have said this but I'm Asian and actually Hong Kongese people use cheese in a lot of their baked dishes so I don't know why everyone is acting like it's amazingly foreign. My people the Indonesians use cheese on our breads traditionally or pastries. So cheese is used sometimes but you're right in that it's not often. I think the reason is more because cheese doesn't compliment the saltier or spicier tastes of most of our food. ",
"It's pretty common in Indian food, isn't it?",
"At least in Indian cuisines Cheese is used, in fact its the only dish which vegetarians can splurge on. Its a different type of cheese called Cottage Cheese, we Indians don't use normal cheese as being vegetarians we could not add the catalyst which in olden days was made up of calf stomach lining. Indian consider COW like god so no way they could make cheese that way.",
"It's estimated that around 90% of the world's population is, at least a little, lactose intolerant. \n\nIt's predominantly in europeans/caucasians where cattle has been raised for longer that we have evolved to retain our lactase enzymes after we have finished breast feeding and are thus not to some degree lactose intolerant. ",
"Professional Laotian here:\n\nWe use cheese sparingly mostly because it doesn't fit anywhere in the flavors we're looking for 50% > of the time. At least for Laos most flavors are spicy and sweet, things cheese isn't really a part of. We use a lot of plants and animals literally as fresh as possible as well to get the best flavor. Cheese takes a while and asians like to eat real quick.\n\nELI5: Cheese isn't spicy or sweet and it takes too long compared to butchery or uprooting plants. Also rice.",
"Does Hong Kong cuisine count? Love me some cheese baked rice. ",
"This is also factors into why Jewish people love Chinese food. It's kosher. No cheese and meat together.",
"It's used in Indian food, chicken vindaloo paneer",
"Because Chinese cows only produce soy milk, which is a bad way to make cheese. ",
"Cheese is pretty common in northern Indian cuisine. If you've ever had saag paneer, you've had Asian cheese.",
"I cant speak for Asia but I do know a lot about Korean food.\n\nKorean food has undergone 3 distinct changes in history. \n\nFirst, there was Traditional Korean food which consisted of some meat (species in Suidae, bovidae, and Avialae), seafood, eggs and rice with native vegetables/mushrooms and primitive seasonings.\n\nThen in the middle ages European traders introduced chile peppers, potatoes, and more advanced seasonings like garlic, sugarcane, sesame, and ginger.\n\nKoreans developed a strong liking to the chili pepper especially and it was at this time that the famous Korean staples of Kimchi and ko chu chang (chili pepper paste) were invented. \n\nAfter world war 2 and the Korean war there were shortages of the above items and they were supplemented with very cheap American food items such as canned spam, American sliced cheese, hot dogs, and ketchup. \nThese items were integrated into Korean food and now make up a big part of Korean cooking. \n\n",
"Because many Asians are lactose-intolerant. Ask me a hard one.",
"Seems this has been answered, but to expand I have more info.\n\nI have heard that the Chinese think it's really weird we eat what is essentially rotten milk. It's funny when you look at it, we look at things other cultures eat and think they sound disgusting or weird, but we are just as bad. Take century eggs as a grand example.",
"Koreans put melted cheese on their fried chicken. ",
"A good SciShow explanation:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n(Yes, at an ELI5 level.)\n\ntl;dw: Basically, most of the world is lactose intolerant. They could still make some low lactose cheeses, but milk products wouldn't have been very appealing, on the whole.",
"Majority of the food my mom makes has a lot of dairy products. I'm Indian. I grew up on a farm, actually. Water Buffalos, cattles, etc. ",
"Relevant (and quite funny) article on Slate explains all and has Chinese chefs appalled (APPALLED) at the thought of people eating cheese after tasting said cheese.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I used to live in Kunming. Our grocery stores have dairy aisles now. Mostly it's milk and yogurt. But kids definitely consume it, and they've gotten taller compared to previous generations.",
"TIL that my dislike for lactose might be \"normal human condition\", you're all the weird ones.",
"White boy checking in. Can confirm. Love cheese. ",
"Alex James (bassist, Blur) is obsessed with cheese and now owns his own cheese company. Japanese fans would throw cheese in tins at him and he got mad because it hurt and then he had to apologize.",
"My company produces cheese. Asians equate cheese with \"stinky feet\" or \"dirty underwear\". Source - I work with Chinese people.\n",
"Live in Japan, no Japanese dishes use cheese, but we have plenty of foreign options with cheese, and buying cheese is expensive as hell! Some Korean dishes have cheese though...",
"In Yunnan province in Southwestern China (on the border of Tibet, Thailand and Vietnam) there is a kind of goat cheese called 乳饼 rǔbǐng (roo-bing) that is used in some dishes. The cheese feels sort of like Mozzarella cheese and it's really good pan fried on it's own but it is also sometimes served with a bacon-like kind of ham (Yunnan ham). I used to live in this area of China and ate it a ton, like a Chinese version of a charcuterie board!! ",
"When you refer to Asian I assume you mean East Asian. Cheese is commonly consumed in the subcontinent. Sag paneer (spinach with cheese) is a yummy dish, in fact.\n\n",
"Because you have never eaten South Asian/Indian food?",
"Oddly, the oldest cheese in the world was found on a mummy in Asia, on the perimeter of the Taklamakan desert:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Related: why do Americans smother everything in cheese? I went to a Japanese restaurant over there and ordered a grilled scallop dish for an appetiser and it came smothered in some awful cheese sauce. ",
"1. Well, why do I never see sake wine in European cuisine? Or mochi? Because it's not historically something made and used in Europe. But as time goes by, cultures influence each other. Now days, rice is quite popular in European cuisine. It's even grown in Italy. Which brings us back to your question and its answer… \n\n2. Today, people in say Japan eat sandwiches with cheese on it. You can buy cheese in Asia, and asians do. Not very common in traditional asian cuisine, but when can we consider something being a part of a tradition? Oh, by the way…\n\n3. … you do find cheese in traditional asian cuisine. Rushan in China for example (乳扇).",
"I don't think all the armchair physical anthropologists here realize that the vast majority of Asians can digest small amounts of cheese fine. In Japan most people do eat and enjoy cheese, just not to the same extent as the West because its not a part of their food culture. Its like tofu in the US. Most people here maybe eat tofu incidentally a few times a year because its not a part of our traditional diet so you have to go our of your way to eat it, whereas its much more common in Asia. The reason cheese is less common probably has much less to do with human evolution and more to do with not having enough arable land to support cows grazing.",
"I just watched Alton Brown explain this on good eats!",
"Cuz they don't like to fart like the rest of the world. ",
"Cheese are often used in Philippine desserts. Usually as a topping on rice cakes. Edam cheese, more popularly known as queso de bola, is really popular during the holidays. Check out queso flavored ice cream whenever you get a chance :)",
"I can't say anything about other cultures, but Korean culture did not have cheese, or milk. In fact we didn't have any dairy product. Korea was very heavily focused on rice and other farming stuffs, not so much on grazing and what not.\n\nDifferent cultures had different things to eat. Koreans didn't have cheese. It's like this, how come french food never has any tofus in them?\n\nPS: Ofcourse, now it's all different. Cheese is regularly eaten in western style foods in Korea. There are some attempt at fusing the ingredient from wests with Korean food, but the progress is slow. But as with any new ingredient I'm sure it will be integrated in time. (Like how potato was a new food for almost everyone when it was brought from the new world to the old, but now it's an integral part of a lot of culture's foods)",
"Because you never come to dinner at my house OP. And I'm tired of being rejected. Consider the invitation canceled.",
"As others have mentioned, I think it is due to the lack of cattle and lactose tolerance in the Oriental population and the development of recipes without cheese. The one Chinese dish that I've seen with cheese is [Cheese Lobster and Noodles](_URL_0_) which is served in Hong Kong and may be due to the British influence there. \n\nAlso I know you meant Oriental Asians when you wrote your post, but Indians do have a lot of cheese in their cuisine. ",
"I'm surprised no one has mentioned it here previously but many Asians just don't like the smell of cheese. ",
"Why is everything deleted on this thread? ",
"Asia has dozens of cuisine. There is no such thing as \"Asian cuisine\".\n\nPlenty of countries throughout Asia make extensive use of dairy, including cheese (either aged cheese or fresh cheese like paneer). You'll find lots of dairy in S. Asia, Tibet and the Middle East, for instance.\n\nNow, traditionally, you won't find much dairy, including cheese, in East and Southeast Asia. The reasons for this have already been covered extensively in this thread. However, due to colonization and globalization, you see dairy/cheese in these areas, as well.\n\nSweetened condensed milk is very popular in many places in the region as a coffee additive or a topping for things like shaved ice.\n\nFor cheese, you also see it being adapted. Laughing Cow cheese is very popular in Vietnam, often spread on baguettes (both being a French legacy). In Korea, it's fairly common to ser processed cheese melted over food. It's more novelty/fusion/snack food; but it is still distinctly Korean.\n",
"yes! i was just wondering about this the other day",
"i live in china and the cheese section in their super markets is about the size of two a4 sheets of paper and all of it is that thin processed yellow american sheet cheese, and if you find any other kind it is well over a few months expired but they leave it on the shelf.",
"lactose tolerant asian here. any explanations? am i just an anomaly?",
"come on, you guys talk as if Russians, Indians, UAE, Israel, Yemen, etc are not Asians/part of Asia.",
"I don't know if you include India when you think \"Asian\" but Panneer, a form of Cottage Cheese is a big thing in Indian cuisine.\n\nThere are several dishes made with grilled, steamed and fried Panneer. Kadai Panneer, Palak Panneer and Panneer Tikka Masala are my personal favorites.",
"Most of the Asian cuisine that I've had, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc, I'm not sure that I'd want cheese in it. ",
"The hotter the climate, the less practical it is to store cheese (it goes bad very quickly). Asian cuisine is typically oriented in the hotter regions, with temperate ones tending to have simpler culinary cultures.",
"Indin people eat paneer which is a type of south asian cheese",
"Cattle/goat domestication took place, for the most part, in Northern Europe. Originally, all mankind was lactose intolerant (we stopped producing its enzyme, lactase, when we stopped breast feeding), but now that we had a steady supply of milk, those freakazoids who kept making lactase had a new and exciting food. The gene spread, obviously. Because it is surprisingly hard to walk a cow from Sweeden to China, white people were really the only people with access to this food. Of course, in this globalized society, this distinction has lessened, but it's legacy remains.\n\nTLDR: white people had all the cows.",
"Philippines has many snacks and desserts with cheese on top, they love cheese on top of things, but as a dessert ",
"Because you don't understand what Asian means?\n\nDairy products are in extensive use in India and all the way to Palestine and Israel there's presence of dairy products here and there \n\nAlso same reason several spices and spicy food doesn't exist here in the US.\nCultural diffs",
"Because cheese was and is made in Europe, it requires milk from livestock, something Asia didn't gather, they were lactose intolerant after all. Europe is where people first started to not get lactose intolerant, because of all that milk and cheese they were eating.",
"How can someone claim that most eastern Asians are lactose intolerant if it's not even in their diet to begin with?",
"Most Asian people are lactose intolerant. That being said, you do see cheeses like paneer being used in middle eastern and Indian cuisine.",
"Tofu is like the cheese in Asian Cuisine. They both have similar methods of production & preservation. Can I get an upvote?",
"The process to make cheese from milk is the exact same as making tofu from soy milk. They do have cheese, it just comes from a plant.\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"I really don't think lactose intolerance is a factor. When you culture milk, bacteria or mold convert the lactose into lactic acid. Your own body doesn't have to. \n\nI think some of the trade- and climate-related explanations others have put forth make the most sense. Also, Asian cuisine incorporates some fermented food that western cuisine does not, like so-called \"century eggs,\" or even soy sauce. Why aren't those foods part of the traditional western diet? They just aren't, there doesn't necessarily need to be a reason.\n\nThe natural reaction to rotted or fermented foods is to avoid it, so it's easy to see how, unless you grew up eating something like cheese, you would be repulsed by it, and it wouldn't find a place in your culture's diet.",
"Filipino cuisine uses some dairy products, probably from their time as a Spanish colony.",
"You've been eating in the wrong part of Asia.\n\nEurasia has wide open grassland spaces and Livestock cultivation is the nore, not raising gzrains/rice/vegetables.\n\nMongolia, Xinjiang/Tibet all use dairy products as well as meat consumption.\n\nIn Tibet, interestingly enough, although they are Buddhists and should not be eating meat products, they are allowed given the need to sustain their, for own lives w/ what's available. There is a staple called Tsampa contains tea & barley and also butter.",
"Greetings from China. Cheese is pretty much a white folks/Western country thing, it was probably invented there. The only cheese here is in Western food.",
"It's for barbarian pastoralists who raid the borders of civilization.",
"I wondered about this exact topic in 2004. A Chinese friend said \"There's no cheese in China\".\n\nAfter that I thought \"that would make a great band name: \"No Cheese In China\"",
"Why does everyone call Orientals 'Asian'? Asia is a large continent with a wide variety of ethnic groups.",
"Indian cooking uses paneer and that's cheese. And we raise cattle.",
"Its simply because Asian cuisine depend more on spices to bring the flavour to food than cheese/butter or other such products.\nAll Asian countries have distinctive cuisine with distinctive spice collection which give their cuisine a unique flavor. \nAlso traditionally, before Europeans came to Asia, we have been relying on spices rather than milk products. Even after Europeans came, our cuisines never really got influenced by European style of flavouring. Although some of the cuisine do use cottage cheese (north India) and tofu (eastern Asian).",
"Cows are better raised in plains areas. Sheep in hilly areas, goats in hot areas and mountainous areas, and pigs in areas with lots of foliage.\n\nEast Asia doesn't really have plains areas. So they eat more pork (and chicken).",
"Indian cuisine uses paneer, a type of cottage cheese. I don't know why cheese doesn't feature in traditional Far East (Chinese Japanese Korean) cuisine though.",
"TIL, Asians means excluding South & Western Asia as well as Eurasia. According to top comment...",
"Indians eat a crap ton of cheese and milk products",
"That's neat that you noticed because most non-standard don't. \nWhen someone mentioned that Asians (specifically east asians) are lactose intolerant, this is not true. We are mildly intolerant. There is a big difference.\nmy chinese ancestors specifically only used dairy for a few things. It was only known for children to drink milk. I remember my great uncle (100+ yrs old) use to complain to me when I would pour myself some milk. He always said it's for the little children but not me since I'm a teenager at the time. \n\nI cannot for the life of me taste most cheese. It's mostly bland for me. Only very very strong cheese I can taste the sweetness. But others just taste somewhat bitter. But I really enjoy cheese. I love eating pasta with all type of cheese or just Italian food in general. But I Require A LOL of cheese. American cheese is one of my favorite even though I can barely taste anything but some bitter And slight hint of sweet. Cheddar is my least favorite because it has no taste to me.\n\n My relatives/family that are 3rd generation like me say the same thing about cheese. \nMy mom makes the excuse that cheese is fattening.\nOnly sometimes the older adults us condensed milk that is sweet in some food but for deserts only If that counts.\n\nIn Chinese buffers you'll notice the sad attempt of placing cheese on some entrées. \nI notice cheese flavored noodles in stores. You won't see that in actual Asian countries often. \n",
"All these incredible, thoughtful, historically based answers, yet no one has touched on the fact that most Asian food would taste horrendous with cheese. Yes, India has paneer, and putting processed cheese on stuff is a growing trend in Japan and Korea (as well as Hawai'i, which, being from that state, I consider the Asia of America). Even as an Asian, I can't stomach any of that. Cheese and Asian rice together create a very unpleasant textural and taste sensation.",
"To an Asian, these comments are quite strange. We're not lactose intolerant at all, we may find cheese/milk to be fatty and unpleasant at times, but lactose intolerance has nothing to do with it. We can eat cheese if we wish, we often do, but it's generally just not part of our cuisine and culture.",
"I'm assuming you mean east Asian. Cheese is used quite often in south Asian cuisine and fermented milk is consumed often in central Asia. A special fermented milk is the national beverage of Kazakhstan.",
"Come to Korea and try some Dakgalbi, they smother that stuff in cheese and it is amazing.",
"South asian cuisine does use cheese. It's known as paneer. Used in many dishes.",
"Paneer, ghee, phirni, rabri, thandai, paneer, doodh peda are all dishes in Asian cuisine.\n\nTibetan yak herders practically survive off yaks milk which is made into tea, butter and cheeses. \n\nKazakhstan has a higher annual consumption per capita of milk than the US",
"I live in China.\n\nSome things DO have cheese in them here. There are popular cheese noodles, and a lot of Chinese people like cheese on their burger. \n\nHowever, traditional food doesn't use cheese for 2 big reasons. 1) Most Asian people are lactose intolerant. 2) A lot of people think Cheese is \"dirty\" because of it's bacteria content.",
"I believe that in East Asia traditionally the infrastructure to support dairy production has not existed and as a result most Asians have not built a tolerance for lactose and are lactose intolerant. The majority of the world's population is lactose intolerant if you can believe that.",
"Asians don't like cheese?",
"What about Paneer? It's used all the time in Asian cooking.",
"In India people are not lactose intolerant not by a long shot milk is used in nearly everything. Rather it is a cultural difference, fermentation of dairy products seems weird and unhygenic. The only real cheese in India is paneer which is curdled but not fermented much more like cottage cheese.\n",
"Is this why asians are shorter?",
"I have always thought most of Asia don't eat much dairy because they're lactose intolerant as most people should be, but the majority of Western Europeans, North Americans and Canadians aren't because we have a mutated enzyme that allows us to break down lactose after the age of 6, which is when it usually stops in nature after coming off breast milk. When we discovered we could make cheese, butter etc we kept eating it over hundreds of years and now most of us can process it where as most of Asia never farmed cows, especially for dairy so they never A. developed the ability to digest it properly and B. never really acquired the taste for it. \n Of course though, some do eat it now and it's made its way into some dishes but I'd say the majority of Asians dislike cheese, someone I used to speak to from China said (when referring to Britons like myself) that we stink of sour milk, which I found interesting. ",
"I'm sure lol never had an issue with dairy of any kind, and neither has anyone I've known. Chinese people are pretty open about that kinda dinner conversation too. ",
"_URL_0_ \n\nThis video belongs here. It is a VICE documentary on a man in China who has been making cheese recently. He only started making cheese after he moved back to China from France. Not many Chinese people are familiar with cheese so it's cool to see someone try to implement it into Chinese society.",
"Because, we don't have cheese here.\nEnd of story",
"Filipino cuisines incorporate cheese in most dishes, primarily desserts; although being colonized by Spaniards and Americans could be factored.",
"Here is a really nice video that discusses the cultural differences between eastern and western approaches to cuisine. If I remember correctly, the difference between eastern and western taste for cheese boils down to differences in food transport throughout history and proximity to the ocean.\n\n_URL_2_\n\nThis idea was also briefly touched upon in Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steele\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFinally, here is a wikipedia link for the history of cheese.\n\n_URL_1_\n",
"Most people outside of caucasians are lactose intolerant.",
"Because, as an American, you seem to have forgotten that India is a major part of Asia. And Indian cuisine uses paneer, a soft farmer's cheese, in a lot of dishes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.foodbeast.com/2012/11/21/map-of-milk-consumption-lactose-intolerance-around-the-world/>"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/iLfSOhSBXqY"
],
[
"http://www.bluepeak.net/mongolia/assets/photos/drying-snacks.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Boortsog.JPG",
"http://www.travelbuddies.info/images/dried-curds.jpg",
"http://www.hisitaly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/airag12.jpg",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=mongols&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1D3FVNrgEIKpNrq5gbAJ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=wdxakI62oEy0tM%253A%3B97SZFcKP5K1JgM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fbhoffert.faculty.noctrl.edu%252FHST261%252FMongols.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fbhoffert.faculty.noctrl.edu%252FHST261%252F19.YuanDynasty.html%3B442%3B320",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Khorkhog_2.JPG"
],
[
"http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661"
],
[
"https://www.udacity.com/course/viewer#!/c-bio110/l-299500948/m-302262164"
],
[
"https://40.media.tumblr.com/c727abc0b9abc755d736298ff39eb843/tumblr_n76t3lsofr1rvr5s8o1_500.png"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kind-Where-Came-Going/dp/0060919906"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saag"
],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/On-Food-Cooking-Science-Kitchen/dp/0684800012"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/WyNE5Je",
"http://imgur.com/YI3N853",
"http://imgur.com/dL9FEZt",
"http://imgur.com/0XlEWOU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecZbhf96W9k"
],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/05/kicking_up_a_stink.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/25/worlds-oldest-cheese/5776373/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lh6.ggpht.com/_auESeym5V0g/SyI6ajOlW7I/AAAAAAAAPj0/zbCqMxQNPJ0/IMG_39145_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu#Production"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLfSOhSBXqY"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cheese",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNvaL-ZKKI8"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
8lnp3x | concurrency vs multithreading? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8lnp3x/eli5_concurrency_vs_multithreading/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzh05p1",
"dzidajh"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Concurrency is the general idea of doing multiple things at the same time.\n\nMultithreading is one particular method of implementing concurrency. A thread is a \"lightweight process\" - they're able to execute independently but they lack the memory isolation of actual processes.",
"To add, concurrency doesn't need to occur in the same process. Multiple processes can be executing concurrently, or multiple instances of the same process. But if the machine does not have multiple processors or multiple cores, if the machine is single-core single-processor, then everything is executing sequentially.\n\nConcurrency can occur across multiple machines, and this is very common. An internet service will have multiple machines running instances of the same process to meet demand.\n\nThis is not the same thing as parallelism. Parallelism is when multiple computations occur simultaneously. For example, SSE on the Intel processor is an example of SIMD, Single Instruction Multiple Data. SSE is used to multiply sets of numbers all at once, since it's very common, like in video games, to do lots of multiplication. Another are superscalar processor architectures, which allow multiple instructions to occur at once in a given thread. Hyperthreading is another Intel technology that takes advantage of superscalar architecture and better utilizes unused parts of the CPU, making it available to other threads and processes. Parallelism means computation is lockstep, even if it's across compute nodes, like in a super computer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1t60h4 | why do people still like wrestling, even when they know it's fixed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t60h4/eli5_why_do_people_still_like_wrestling_even_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4o2ko"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Precisely what doc said, wrestling is essentially action-theater. It has plots, stories, characters, displays of physical ability. Think of it like high-octane lowbrow [Cirque du Soleil](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirque_du_Soleil"
]
] |
||
1nfa6m | how do plants reduce amounts of co2 in the atmosphere, since when they respire co2 is produced? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nfa6m/eli5_how_do_plants_reduce_amounts_of_co2_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cci4vzn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Here's what I remember from my grade school days (mind you, I went to public school):\n\nPlants (and some types of fungi, algae and bacteria) contain chloroplast in where photosynthesis takes place. To \"convert\" CO2 to O2 the plant needs *sunlight*. Photosynthesis can therefore not happen at night, though it has been suggested that certain types of fungi, algae and bacteria are able to use *moonlight* for photosynthesis (which is really fascinating IMO). When a plant isn't photosynthesis'ing, it's respiring like we do (O2 to CO2).\n\nAnyway, we really worry about the rainforests and many refer to them as \"the lungs of our planet\". But now that we've concluded that they also respire, how can they reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?\n\nMoving on to what I learned in high school (also public): when a tree dies and decomposes its O2-CO2 \"equation\" equals zero - so let's travel back to the creation and terraforming of our planet - it has dinosaurs and explosions!\n\n*Science* suggests that our atmosphere once contained up to 20% CO2, as opposed to the current 0.04%. How did that happen? Photosynthesis. But why haven't the trees from back then not released their CO2 since they aren't around anymore? Because they've been *fossilized* and turned into oil and coal, y'know *fossil fuels*. This process has put the release of CO2 \"on hold\". When we use fossil fuels, the CO2 that should have been released during normal decomposing process - hence the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.\n\nSo: picture the trees from all of time. They've taken a deep breath of CO2 millions of years ago, held their breath during being fossilized, and are now exhaling CO2 through our usage of fossil fuels.\n\nAs to the \"how\" in regard to the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'd put my money on those organisms that are able to photosynthesize all-day round (previously mentioned fungi, algae and bacteria). Then again, the issue is super-complex and we are currently seeing a rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.\n\n(Upon researching this answer, I came across the current concentration of CO2: 0.04% When I was a kid, the concentration was 0.027% - and when we keep in mind that we are continuously burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2, we are slowly on our way to bring back a CO2 concentration of 20% in the atmosphere. And then I could rant about global warming but that's neither here nor there.)\n\nHope my answer makes sense to you!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f4273k | why, if you haven't had enough salt, do your muscles cramp while playing sports? | I play a highly physical sport and last training I could barely run because my muscles were cramped. The only difference between that day and every other day was my salt content. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f4273k/eli5_why_if_you_havent_had_enough_salt_do_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhnp1nk",
"fhnpcqu"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"When muscle flex or relax, inside the cell there is a large exchange of salt (sodium and calcium) into and out of parts of the cell.\n\nIf there isn't enough salt to allow this exchange to occur, then your muscles can't relax and you get cramps.",
"Cells operate on a pump called the \"sodium potassium pump\". When your cells produce energy, they trade sodium for potassium. In and out. Without sodium, your cells stop producing ATP (energy) because the pump doesn't have the fuel to operate. This shut down basically turns off the cells within the muscle eventually leading to portions of muscle contracting or losing control - thus cramps."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1omq3l | how do we know 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct? | I hear on videos about science all the time that 99+% of all species that have existed on Earth have gone extinct, but how do Biologists actually know this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1omq3l/eli5_how_do_we_know_99_of_all_species_that_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccto4rb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"By looking at the fossil record, we can tell that most species only last 5 to 10 million years.\n\nThat's less than 1% of 4.5 billion. Math for the win."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dkxde4 | why is it that when running or exercising you are supposed to breathe in through the nose and out through the mouth? why does it hurt to breathe through the mouth only? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dkxde4/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_running_or_exercising/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4kd394",
"f4kd5m9",
"f4ke7qd",
"f4kj1c7",
"f4mg04k"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
16,
30,
2
],
"text": [
"You're generally not supposed to breathe through the nose when exercising. Check professional athlethes out for reference - they fully breath through the mouth.",
"From what I know it can't really hurt you if you breathe mouth only, but doing it in through your mouth and out your nose is probably to allow you to intake more air quickly but let it out more slowly. This would be to allow your blood and muscles to get more oxygen as well as allow you to focus more if you are trying to pay attention to how you are breathing.",
"Not sure where you heard this. No runners inhale through their nose. You simply can’t get enough oxygen through your little nostrils to fuel your muscles when exerting that much energy. Runners breathe through their mouths.",
"Former sprinter and long distance runner here.\n\nI was taught this as a breathing technique to help keep and/or get your breathing under control while you are exerting yourself. What can happen is you could be breathing too quickly that you aren't able to get enough oxygen to parts of your body due to shallow breathes you are taking in. This technique helps slow down your breathing so you can get back to a proper breathing pace.\n\nAlso focusing on this technique can help take your mind off of thinking about what you are doing, allowing you to last longer endurance wise.\n\nNow as others have noted it isn't something you typically should be doing all the time when exercising since it won't allow you get as much oxygen as you can and possibly need. Mainly it is a technique to teach breathing and how to take in more air with each breath.",
"I like to run long distance wearing a heart rate monitor. If I focus on breathing in through my nose and out through my mouth, my heart rate starts to fall, sometimes up to 10-ish beats per minute, without decreasing my speed or stride. What other people are saying is right though, you can't really get enough air, after a few minutes of it I have to go back to mouth breathing but it feels like my heart takes a little break without actually taking a break. It also helps take my mind off the running itself for a few minutes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ugqnj | why do blue led lights die faster than other colors? | I bought LED Christmas lights last year, and when I plugged them in this morning I noticed half of the blue lights were dead. Every other color (yellow, red, and green) is fine. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ugqnj/eli5_why_do_blue_led_lights_die_faster_than_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxer4yj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I found [this article](_URL_0_). I'll highlight the relevant part.\n\n > Unfortunately, blue and green LEDs lack such a good platform. They’re called nitride LEDs because their fundamental semiconductor is gallium nitride. The n -type gallium nitride is doped with silicon, the p -type with magnesium. The quantum wells in between are gallium indium nitride. To alter the light color emitted from green to violet, researchers vary the gallium-to-indium ratio in the quantum wells. A little indium produces a violet LED; a little more of it produces green.\n\n > Such LEDs would ideally be manufactured on gallium nitride substrates. But it has proved impossible to grow the large, perfect crystals of gallium nitride that would be necessary to make such wafers. Unipress, of Warsaw, the world leader in this field, cannot make crystals bigger than a few centimeters, and then only by keeping the growth chamber at a temperature of 2200 C and a pressure of almost 20 000 atmospheres.\n\n > So **the makers of blue LEDs instead typically build their devices on wafers of sapphire, whose crystalline structure does not quite match that of the nitrides. And that discrepancy gives rise to many defects—billions of them per square centimeter.**\n\nAppears blues are more fragile than other's due to how they are designed/manufactured. Interesting because I can't find any info that blue LEDs have shorter operational lifespans than other LEDs (which operate for tens of thousands of hours). It would appear the conditions in which they were stored for the year is the likely culprit. Were they kept in a shed or garage where they would be exposed to temperature/moisture variations and the like? I would hypothesize if they were stored in climate-control all year, they wouldn't have burned out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/optoelectronics/the-leds-dark-secret"
]
] |
|
3ycvqd | what's the evolutionary advantage of humans taking about 12 years before they start to sexual develop? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ycvqd/eli5_whats_the_evolutionary_advantage_of_humans/ | {
"a_id": [
"cycdxi0",
"cydceow"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The advantage is that we are able to be born. We are born severely under developed compared to most mammals so that we can pass through the birth canal of a bipedal animal and still have large brains. That means we have to spend more time developing outside of the womb. ",
"I'll try taking a different perspective. Generally speaking, some species take the \"live hard and fast\" approach, other species take the \"live slow and steady\" approach. Others try a happy medium between the two extremes. All approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, neither is better which is why so many species can be found in each approach.\n\n**Live hard and fast**\n\nThese species tend to grow quickly after birth and some are even sexually mature *at birth*. They tend to have many offspring over the course of their life...we talking hundreds to even thousands. The trade off is that a lot of the offspring tend to die, and they receive little in the way of parental care. When they are born, they are more or less on their own. Parents do not have to invest a lot of time or energy into their offspring and this might be the ideal approach in an environment with limited resources. Because these species receive little care they are born \"ready to go\" and thus these species tend to rely more heavily on instincts. \n\nBecause so many offspring are born the chances that a few make it to adulthood are pretty good. Its like throwing all your darts at once hoping a few will stick.\n\nMice and many fish take this approach. They can have hundreds or thousands of offspring over the course of a lifetime. \n\n**Live slow and steady**\n\nThese species tend to grow slowly after birth and some even take decades to reach sexually maturity. They tend to have very few offspring over the course of their life, were talking single digits to maybe a couple dozen if they are lucky. Offspring tend not to die, and each is more likely to make it into adulthood. They receive quite a but in the way of parental care. When they are born, they require a lot of care in the way of protection, feeding, housing, cleaning, or teaching. Thus parents do have to invest a lot of time or energy into their offspring and this might be the ideal approach in an environment with abundant resources. Because these species receive so much care they are born \"altricial\" and thus these species tend to rely more heavily on learned behaviours. \n\nBecause so few offspring are born, and these offspring as so well cared for, the chances are that most will make it to adulthood. Its like throwing your darts very carefully one by one and learning by experience each time you throw. \n\nHumans and primates take this approach. We have one offspring per litter. It takes anywhere between 1-7 years for mothers to get pregnant again and have another offspring. The learning period is extended and infants and juveniles take years to decades to learn how to survive in their social environments. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
13tvsp | if americans pay taxes on lotto and taxes in the states are very low why do people lose roughly half or more of their taxes on lotto winnings? | edit: lose roughly half or more of their lotto winnings on taxes rather. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13tvsp/eli5_if_americans_pay_taxes_on_lotto_and_taxes_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c774izt"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because there are different kinds of taxes. It depends where the money came from and how much there is. There's taxes for money you get from work, for money you inherit, and even for money that someone gives you from the kindness of their own heart. There's also a tax for the lottery, I think it's 38% for the US (which is higher than the tax you'd have to pay if you'd worked for the money).\n\nIt's a pretty good deal for the government by taxing this much: If you tax the rich or the poor too much then you've lost a LOT of votes, but if you tax the occasional lottery winner for a large amount of money (38% of money counted in the *millions* is big enough to count, even for the government) it's unlikely to upset enough people to swing an election."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4jhvhe | what exactly is a prenup? | I get the basic idea of it (to protect separate assets in case of a divorce) But, what does it cover, what are the advantages and disadvantages and why do some courts throw it out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jhvhe/eli5_what_exactly_is_a_prenup/ | {
"a_id": [
"d36pgfj",
"d36qv76"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"A prenup covers anything that could be covered in a divorce agreement, essentially it is a divorce agreement made in advance. It can be challenged if the agreement was not signed under \"fair\" circumstances, like all contracts, there must be a meeting of the minds, meaning both parties should be aware of the extent and consequences of the agreement. ",
"The main disadvantage of a prenuptual agreement is that it may give your future spouse the idea that you are expecting the marriage to fail and don't trust them to act fairly during the divorce.\n\nThe advantage is that I'm protected if my spouse and I decide that I should quit school and take a low paying job to support us while she goes to law school. When we split up, she has a law degree that I helped her get and I have a job at Subway. A prenup might stipulate that I'm entitled to some support for a few years because I paid the rent while furthering her career."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1yx1fq | how do the ears and brain distinguish between two or more different frequencies of sound? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yx1fq/eli5_how_do_the_ears_and_brain_distinguish/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfoikxd",
"cfoiux5"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A waveform can be made up of multiple frequencies. For example, outside of the ear we can perform a fourier analysis on a sound wave and break it down into multiple frequency \"buckets\". I think you're imagining that our ear vibrates with a \"frequency\", but it really vibrates to entire waveform and it can make sense of it in it's entirety, all at once (within the limitations of our hearing!)",
"As I understand it, the eardrum vibrates faster or slower based on the pitch and volume of the sound. This vibration is amplified by the three ossicles in the ear (hammer/malleus, anvil/incus, and stirrup/stapes). The stapes strikes a membrane covering the oval window in the inner wall of the middle ear. This stimulates in the cochlea (the snail like thing) and causes the fluid inside to vibrate. Hairs in the cochlear duct of the pick up these vibrations when they rub against the vibrating membrane and convert them into signals for the brain to interpret. Hairs near the center of the cochlea (tighter coils) pick up low frequency sound waves while hairs near the outer loops of the cochlea picks up higher frequency sound waves. The frequency of these stimulations determines the loudness of the sound."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
cmy9ps | does the ocean continually erode the beaches, reducing land sizes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cmy9ps/eli5_does_the_ocean_continually_erode_the_beaches/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew5gn2z",
"ew64lyr"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"No, sometimes the ocean washes sand up onto beaches.",
"Yes, the ocean continually erodes beaches. But, it can also add to the beaches, or move sand from one place to the other. Also, erosion on land deposits material on the coasts, and new land is made by volcanoes, mountain uplift etc. All this means that land sizes overall are not reduced over time. Otherwise, over 4.5 billion years of erosion, there would be no land left."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2352t7 | how in the hell do soldiers in combat not suffer major hearing loss from the constant firing of multiple weapons? | I've recently started shooting for fun. I got my license to carry a few years ago, have bought a few firearms, and joined gun club. I love it. It can be fun, cathartic, stress-relieving, competitive etc.
I've fired weapons at my friends farm using no ear protection, including .45 hand guns, 5.56 AR15's, even an old 7.62 Mosin Nagant (which was freaking awesome!)
However, firing weapons without hearing protection is just freaking brutal on my ears.
To anyone who has been on combat, or knows someone who has, etc, is hearing loss among soldiers a significant problem? I can only imagine what minutes or hours of sustained high caliber firing, not to mention grenades, artillery, rpgs, etc must do to a soldier's hearing.
What steps are taken to reduce this? Do soldiers wear ear protection during combat? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2352t7/eli5_how_in_the_hell_do_soldiers_in_combat_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgthqy5",
"cgtj4ta"
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text": [
"They do. During drills there is hearing protection, but not during combat. If you have your ears covered, you can't hear anybody talking to you. Hearing loss is a huge problem. ",
"Hearing loss is a huge issue for soldiers and veterans accounting for over 1 billion dollars in medical costs for the disability. A relatively large amount amount of research efforts are devoted towards hearing protection and regeneration in this population. The Department of Defense's Hearing Center for Excellence (_URL_0_) is a good resource for learning about the problem of hearing loss and the efforts towards helping out soldiers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://hearing.health.mil"
]
] |
|
bgs7l2 | why do streamers have a dedicated streaming pc? wouldn't it be simpler to game and stream on the same one, without all the capture cards etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bgs7l2/eli5_why_do_streamers_have_a_dedicated_streaming/ | {
"a_id": [
"eln4nye",
"eln4o9j",
"eln4uqf",
"eln5nvt",
"eln668s",
"eln9vqk",
"elndgbr"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
6,
3,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"the encoding process can be intensive as such would cause poor performance on the gaming PC so to get the best performance they use a separate PC",
"Because capturing and compressing the video is extremely CPU intensive to the point it would kill the game performance. Sure, if you’ve got a God In A Box computer with 10,000 cores you could do it, but its easier to have a dedicated streaming/capture machine.",
"Alongside the pure performance aspect, as the saying goes, the show must go on. If your gaming PC has any issues, crashes, locks or whatnot, if that's also your stream source, you're off the air. If you have a separate PC the is running the stream, there's a lot less variables so if the game bungles your PC, it's only the gaming PC that's affected whereas you can continue streaming while it reboots or whatever it needs.",
"This may now change with the latest version of OBS that contains all the stream rendering inside Nvidia's GPU video chip cutting the CPU usage down considerably. Available on series 9 and up.",
"Besides the game already using a lot of not most of your available power, streaming requires you to encode and compress the data in real time (1080p 60fps) and send it to the streaming service. So to get the best quality on both you usually need a second pc when streaming modern games.\n\nAlso i believe streaming uses the CPU so streaming PC is usually focused on a good CPU (i think) instead of a GPU, if any",
"Video encoding, especially if outputting a high resolution/framerate and/or want a decent encoding efficiency, is very resource intensive as it consumes large amounts of memory, processing power, and disk writes (if saving a copy). \n\nThe solutions are to either have a powerful enough system to handle the task, use a dedicated hardware subsystem for encoding like the ones on AMD/Nvidia graphics cards from the past few years, or use a secondary computer. \n\nThere are advantages and huge disadvantages of each method",
"Well, people has explained the technological reasons for this, but it's also different factors that comes in hand.\n\nExamples of this is when you want to have some privat time, and to make 100% sure you don't hit the streaming button (same reason why a lot of people have a laptop \\_only\\_ for work). It could also be that you want to make sure that everything you do on that streaming PC is related to exactly what you're streaming, and to make sure you doesn't accidentally show some information you have used while ordering food or clothes online etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6r6tno | how do humans and other animals get their color patterns and what is the difference between how they get them? | What I would like clarification on:
-How is skin and hair color determined in humans compared to other animals such as dogs, cats, etc, when breeding between two races/breeds?
Follow up question:
-Why do humans not have 'patches' of colors similar to certain breeds of other animals? Mostly in relation to how offspring get them from parents and no so much in reference to the 'merle' coating that some dogs have. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6r6tno/eli5_how_do_humans_and_other_animals_get_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl2rc2h",
"dl49blt"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a really great website I found when i was looking into this.\n\n[This page explains how breeding two dogs with different colors works](_URL_0_). If you mix a 'yellow' and a 'black' you don't get a dog with a mix of colors or a pattern. What you get is a dog with a chance to have one of a variety of solid colors based on which allele is dominant.\n",
"There are a number of genetic factors that can influence color patterns.\n\nSkin and hair color in humans are considered to be polygenic - there are multiple loci that influence these traits and the phenotype is the sum of these loci. \n\nAt the same time, there can be loci that are known as 'epistatic'. This means they supersede the other traits. For instance, a lab may have genetics for black hair, but also a gene for a non-functional 'pigment-deposition-protein'. This would result in a lab with the pigment to be black, but without that pigment deposited in its hairs - it would be a blonde lab . \n\nSometimes, other factors result in really interesting patterns. Siamese cats have their unique pigment because of a truncated protein that is only stable in colder temperatures - thus, the black pigment will only deposit in cold regions of the body (face, ears, paws). \n\nA calico cat can be generated via a process called X-inactivation - one chromosome in females is inhibited, but the process occurs randomly. If the chromosomes have different coloring genes, you can end up with a splotchy pattern based on X-inactivation.\n\nIn other words, there are many influences on coloring."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/breeding.htm"
],
[]
] |
|
314muy | when did "rick rolling" people on the internet become a thing and why that song in particular? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/314muy/eli5when_did_rick_rolling_people_on_the_internet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpyda8w",
"cpydski",
"cpydxet",
"cpye22m"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"It started a bit ago in 4chan [with this video of a cat.](_URL_0_) It was later adapted to fit this video",
"Not sure about the origins, but I think it reached critical mass during the months prior to the 2008 US Presidential election when someone edited the song with Barack Obama sound bytes for each lyric. [\"Barackrolled\"](_URL_0_)",
"The first known instance of a rickroll occurred in May 2007 on /v/, 4chan's video game board, where a link to the Rick Astley video was claimed to be a mirror of the first trailer for Grand Theft Auto IV (which was unavailable due to heavy traffic). The joke was confined to 4chan for a very brief period.\n\nBy May 2008, the practice had spread beyond 4chan and became an Internet phenomenon, eventually attracting coverage in the mainstream media.\n\nAn April 2008 poll by SurveyUSA estimated that at least 18 million American adults had been rickrolled.\n\n[Rickrolling WIKI.](_URL_0_)",
"Secretly everyone loves that song and prefers it to whatever they were actually going to see"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://media.giphy.com/media/Vuw9m5wXviFIQ/giphy.gif"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling"
],
[]
] |
||
p1vhy | why is a bullet wound more lethal than a knife stab. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p1vhy/eli5_why_is_a_bullet_wound_more_lethal_than_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3ltiya",
"c3ltu9a",
"c3ltzr3",
"c3lueik"
],
"score": [
11,
17,
14,
5
],
"text": [
"Way, way, way more energy is in a bullet than your arm can send through a knife. The bullet also distributes its energy as soon as it hits, damaging a wider area, whereas a knife concentrates its energy. ",
"Cavitation.\n\nAs the bullet passes though the energy wave it brings can rip a hole though your soft tissues up to x10 the size of the original bullet.\n\nA knife can only damage what it touches. \n\nAlso many bullets are designed to break apart into shards one inside the target, further increasing damage. ",
"Knives are designed to cut or stab.\n\n\nBullets are designed to do [this.](_URL_0_)",
"It isn't necessarily. \n\nEDIT: Copied from _URL_0_:\n\n > It depends (in the case of bullets) on how big the bullet is, how fast it's going, and where it hits you. Speed (muzzle velocity) is the most important factor; we learn from physics that kinetic energy, i.e., destructive power, increases arithmetically with mass, but geometrically with velocity. Thus you have more to fear from a rifle than from a handgun. Slow, small caliber bullets, and knives, too, for that matter, rarely kill anybody immediately, unless they sever a major artery or pierce the brain, and even then death often takes several minutes. In most such cases, death results from blood loss, brain damage, or (in long drawn-out cases) from infections such as gangrene resulting from contaminants borne into the body by the bullet or knife. An abdominal wound can result in mortal infection from fecal matter seeping out of the intestines.\n Large bullets, and small bullets that travel very fast, such as those from an M-16 rifle, can kill almost instantly, mainly by reducing the region of impact literally to hamburger. They also generate something known as \"hydrostatic shock.\" The body is composed largely of water and as such may be viewed as a hydraulic system. Liquid being noncompressible, the shock caused by the high-velocity entry of a large projectile (don't you love this technobabble?) is transmitted throughout the body, causing widespread organ damage and disruption of nervous functions. Even a wound to an arm or leg can be fatal in some instances.\n There are numerous variations on the above, most which are undoubtedly familiar to readers of detective stories. Hollow-nosed bullets, for instance, flatten on impact and bulldoze their way through the body, making death almost certain, since the massive damage they cause is virtually irreparable. I could go on, but you get the basic idea.\n\n\nLots of bullets (particularly small handgun rounds) will do less damage than a knife and will kill from bleed-out just like a knife rather than catastrophic trauma. It also depends on where you're stabbed. Knife in the heart > Bullet in the shoulder. In some cases, depending on the width of the blade or strength of the stabber or how the stab is executed, a knife may actually cause more damage than a small caliber round."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g"
],
[
"Straightdope.com"
]
] |
||
6i5d8t | how human brains grow (from age 0 to 18)? | Anyone might care to explain it to me including how neurons, cells, special areas, etc. form? You can use professional names and stuff, just be "dense". | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6i5d8t/eli5_how_human_brains_grow_from_age_0_to_18/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj3m7dd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Some parts of the brain grow to receive signals from the senses, eyes etc. these are then interpreted and coordinated with other inputs. Some parts of the Brain make calculations about risks of particular actions, others respond to changes within the body and others to chemical inputs. Basically the growth and development of the brain is almost as complex as the brain itself. \n\nBrain development from baby to adult - _URL_1_\n\nHow does the brain and memory work? - _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JUxf3a_dHE",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYTANen2n0I"
]
] |
|
43llet | why does gaming get a bad rep in the media, and how did it start? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43llet/eli5_why_does_gaming_get_a_bad_rep_in_the_media/ | {
"a_id": [
"czj4bl9",
"czj6q6y"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Gaming has developed a lot of negative stereotypes around it that are simply not associated with other forms of recreational media. The most obvious being that it glorifies violence, but there there are also societal/psychological criticism aimed around the idea that it harms social skills, makes kids lazy/fat, and is supposedly more sexist/male oriented than other forms of entertainment. Such a wide range of critique keeps the negative stereotypes alive, but all started with the sensational headlines about violence in the 90s.",
"CNN didn't exist until the early 1980s. Before then, there was no 24hr news. Most people didn't think it would work and it wasn't until the Baby Jessica in the Well story that people found it to be incredibly compelling and seen as not only a realistic venture, but a profitable one. Cue the creation of extended news programs and competing 24hr news stations.\n\nIn the late 80s and early 90s there was an [increase in crime](_URL_0_), both gang related with the rise of crack cocaine, and in violent crime in general. \n\nAdditionally, the increase seemed **even more profound** due to the constant 24 hour news reports which were brand new. Before, news broadcasts had to be very choosy what to include in the news and they only included the most \"important\" stuff. But now that they needed something to talk about all the time, they were thirsting for stories, anything to take up air time. So the small one person shooting where someone got injured but not killed in a bar was now news instead of something that you didn't really hear about.\n\nSo they are reporting more stories, but they *still* need more information to fill time.\n\nIn the 80s developmental psychology had a huge resurgence. This is the time when attitudes are changing about corporal punishment, parents are thinking that praising kids constantly and giving them participation trophies for everything is a great idea. Learning \"how to parent\" is particularly important to parents in the 80s because if you back up, these parents were the children of the 60s flowerchildren who, as a whole were more detached than involved with their kids. The 80s parents wanted to fix that and be the best parents they could be, especially now that being an \"involved mom\" was a choice now thanks to the option for women to get serious jobs. For the first time, you could *choose* to be an \"at-home mom\" instead of something that was just expected of you, giving the mothers a sense of pride, autonomy, and strong identification with their role which was pretty new.\n\nSo video games...\n\nVideo games started in the late 70s but really grew to popularity during the 80s. Many of the perpetrators of crime in the late 80s early 90s were young men, the same demographic that was most interested in gaming. No one ever talked about the fact that in **any decade** young men 17-25ish are *always* the ones that commit the most crime. The hasty connection that people made was that since this was the first generation to grow up with video games, some of which were violent, it was the violence in video games that was directly responsible for the increase in crime. This is a classic case of \"correlation does not equal causation.\"\n\nBut this was really good for the news networks because:\n\nThere was a strong interest in parenting/developmental psychology.\n\nIt was something that could be debated with \"experts\" on the news and debates can go on for weeks with different people and take up tons of airtime.\n\nThere were new studies being done all of the time on this topic because there was heightened interest. Even though most of them, if you really look at them closely didn't have a definitive answer and offered heavily qualified conclusions, it was something that was being cranked out enough that new studies could equal a new story on an old topic. It's the same reason why we have the \"Coffee. Is it good or bad for you?\" types of stories which switch back and forth with their conclusions every few years or so.\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg"
]
] |
||
1hk480 | do horses know they're racing? | I've been told that when they win they're spoiled with apples and treats and stuff, but how do you teach competition to an animal? how do you make it understand that it is supposed to go faster than the one in front of it? how do we know they're not all just running together and wondering why the little guy on top of them is hitting them so much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hk480/eli5do_horses_know_theyre_racing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cav5zo4",
"cav97lw",
"cavfpoy"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A racehorse usually doesn't need to be taught competition because they're born with it. Over hundreds of years people bred horses to be very fast, aggressive, and competitive. \n\nDoes this mean they understand when they've won a race? Not really. But they definitely want to show the other horses that they're the toughest and fastest. In fact, sometimes the jockey has to actually slow his horse down, because otherwise the horse will run too fast too early, and get exhausted and lose the race. ",
"I reckon they try to beat the others in a race for the same reason we do.\n\nCompetitive instinct.",
"They do, they know the routine of starting and finishing ahead of everyone. they say Secretariat (Michael Jordan of horse racing) would try to intimidate (by staring at them) the other houses if they passed him on the track during rages."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2r4wht | audio bit depth (16 bit, 24 bit, etc.) | I'm having trouble understanding the difference between recording in 16 bit or 24 bit and what that means for me and my music. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r4wht/eli5_audio_bit_depth_16_bit_24_bit_etc/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnchmqc",
"cnchuro",
"cnchw0v",
"cnci6vj"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The bit-depth says how many steps are between 'no sound' and 'full amp'. With 16 bit you have about 65000 steps and with 24 bits you have about 16 million. Or, the more bits, the closer the digital sound to the original. However, sampling frequency is also highly important to replicate the original sound.",
"Sound is represented as a wave. Digital sound files work by sampling the wave a bunch of times per second (usually about 44.1 thousand times per second, although some files sample up to 192 thousand times). Using 24 bits to represent each sample instead of 16 bits means each sample can be more precise, so the sound is a more accurate representation of the original song. For most people and most equipment, you'll never be able to hear the difference between a 16-bit and 24-bit song so the only difference is that the 24-bit version will be in a 50% larger file. There are people that claim to be able to tell the difference, but most studies show that even professional audio engineers and musicians can't really tell the distinguish between the two. ",
"The bit-ness of an audio sample is how many different settings for loudness can be in a recording. imaging a 1-bit recording. any given sound could either be earpeircingly loud or totally silent. you couldn't even make a sound wave with this, because the only up and down would be either full on or full off. \n\nnow imaging you're drawing a sound wave, and you have 16 steps (4-bit audio). how detailed could this sound wave be? not very. \n\nimagine if you had to draw a picture with only 16 shades of grey (4-bit brightness) you couldn't get a lot of details in, no matter how high the resolution. \n\nThis is how audio samples are recorded, the bit depth is the shades of grey or loudness or each sample, and the sampling frequency (typically 44,100 cycles per second, _URL_0_) is the number of resolution, or how frequently the samples are taken.\n\na high sample hit bit depth audio file will have more detail and nuance then a low sample low bit depth file. ",
"The sound in reality is represented by a wave.\n\nIn order to represent the wave in digital form, the sequence of numbers representing the wave amplitude measured periodically is used. The illustrations that probably will make it clear: [1](_URL_3_), [2](_URL_2_). When music is played back, the audio card converts this sequence of numbers back into the wave.\n\nObviously, this conversion loses some quality: the resulting wave is an approximation of the original one. And there are two parameters determining how closely it resembles the original wave: sampling rate and bit depth.\n\nSampling rate is how often the amplitude is measured. Most common values are 44100, 48000, and 96000.\n\nBit depth is how many data is written for each measurement. 16 bits means that there are 2^16 = 65536 possible different values of amplitude. 24 bits means 16777216 different values.\n\nIn short, the higher bit depth and sample rate you use, the more closely the approximated wave resembles the original wave (in other words, the better is quality of your sound). The downside is increasing storage space (or network bandwidth) requirements.\n\n**TL;DR.**. Higher bit depth = higher quality, but bigger files.\n\nSorry if I didn't express the idea clearly enough (English is not my native language).\n\nLinks for further reading:\n\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28signal_processing%29",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Signal_Sampling.png",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Pcm.svg"
]
] |
|
64spq0 | where do the squirrels go in the night? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64spq0/eli5_where_do_the_squirrels_go_in_the_night/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg4p654"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They go to sleep in trees. The trees act as portals to other relms where these creatures plan and scheme on how to conquer the current relms that they reside in and after they destroy everything in their path they move on to devistate more worlds and civilizations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5l8y7s | why is it that when having a very stressful period in life you don't get sick but the moment you get out of it the fever starts and the nose starts running? | The white bloodcells, the lymphatic system and all other stuff shouldn't relax, right? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l8y7s/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_having_a_very_stressful/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbujgx2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Like was stated by the other commenter it's states of arousal. Your immune system absolutely responds to hormones and becomes more or less active based on them. There are times that you would want a suppressed or hyper-active immune system so it makes sense to have it be variable.\n\nA heightened immune system during stress is your bodies way of prepping to prevent infection from an injury received in a struggle. Your body can't tell the difference between the type and nature of various stressors so it behaves the same to work stress as it would to someone trying to stab you to death, more or less.\n\nA suppressed immune system is particularly useful for women when they initially become pregnant, to prevent the body from killing the zygote before it has time to imbed itself in the wall of the uterus.\n\nAlso your body will selectively suppress your immune system for certain organs, like your eyes, because it would react negatively to the organ itself if it was at full strength."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8udn4t | why does mouthwash sometimes seem to shake loose stuff that a toothbrush doesn’t? | I get that oral hygiene is a thing best dealt with by multiple different forms of attack.
What I find is that I’ll brush away for a while and my teeth will feel reasonably clean. Then I’ll go for the mouthwash and as I swill it around, I come to notice just some small bit that somehow has come loose after the brushing. How is it that swilling a liquid around seems to get bits that a brush with its mechanical action has missed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8udn4t/eli5_why_does_mouthwash_sometimes_seem_to_shake/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1eqcjd"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's because the liquid will manage to get into more crevices, and smaller gaps, than bristles or brushes can."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1lhisf | why do i "lose" my perception of time when i'm doing something fun? | If someone could explain why it feels like everything is going slower when I'm bored that would be great also. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lhisf/eli5_why_do_i_lose_my_perception_of_time_when_im/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbza29f"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"because when you're focused on something you enjoy, the bits of your brain that deal with 'temporal processing' (keeping an eye on the time) receive less attention than they normally would. which can make time feel like it went faster or slower than it did in reality. and the opposite applies when you're bored. \n\nhere's a rather boring read on it:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.kon.org/urc/v12/donaldson.html"
]
] |
|
4fry19 | what makes a smart person smart? | Edit: follow up question, I've heard that smart people don't know they're smart. How can someone figure out how smart they are? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fry19/eli5_what_makes_a_smart_person_smart/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2bg8ve",
"d2bga2g",
"d2bhelf",
"d2bm34x"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"A smart person takes in information and use it.\n\nRemembering a lot doesn't make a person smart, that's only a person with a good memory. \n\nA smart person can utilize what he/she have learned and come up with new ways to use the information, even create new information for others to learn from.\n\nI use to say that the difference between intelligence and knowledge is that with knowledge you have learned a lot (aka memorized) but with intelligence you know how to USE that knowledge.\n\nThat IMHO is what makes a person smart.",
"It's been my experience that the really smart people I've met are the ones that don't broadcast it or try to look or sound smart.\n\nThere's also a distinct difference b/w intelligence and what I'd consider \"smartness\".\n\nIntelligence is your capacity to learn and understand new things. *But* just because someone has the capacity, doesn't mean they use it. There's plenty of \"intelligent\" people out there that do nothing with it, or waste it. Some it's booze or drugs, others it's just laziness or lack of ambition. In the end, it's the same outcome as if you were stupid.",
"I think 'smart', 'intelligence', 'clever' as with any concept describing an essentially unobservable rich mental phenomena cannot be completely defined in language. One person might be very smart because he has great skills of strategic planning (Napoleon). One other person might be very smart due to imagination and abstract thinking (Einstein). And so on, there are many different traits you can come to think of. If anything combines these traits it could possibly be the resistance to simply accept mainstream ideas and beliefs, but rather insist on understanding things on their own.",
"As people have already pointed it, its a very hard thing to define. But usually, I just sum it up with their ability to critically think (as /u/JoOngle pointed out)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bgz13v | how oleophobic coating prevent my oily fingers from smudging my screen? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bgz13v/eli5_how_oleophobic_coating_prevent_my_oily/ | {
"a_id": [
"elowvo6",
"eloxj38"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Oleophobic coatings repel oil, so the oil on you fingers sticks to your fingers instead of the screen.",
"Oleophobic can be understood as oleo-phobic: being afraid of oil. This is a somewhat made up word, but the understanding stays the same.\n\nIt is very similar to non-stick pans, which has a slippery surface that slightly repels liquid at a molecular level. It doesn't let oil and water stick, so you can wipe them off effortlessly. The fact that some oil still remains on the screen is due partly to friction, and partly due to the inefficiency of the oleophobic coating. \n\nImagine the oil from your finger is water. When you drop a drop of water onto any surface, it will fall flat and spread out, which mean it's sticking to a lot of the material. Oleophobic or hydrophobic materials doesn't let that it stick, so when that drop want to spread, it gets repelled backwards. With nowhere else to spread out to, the drop will curl up into a sphere, only touching the surface at one single point. A sphere can roll around (which means it can be wiped away easily), but a splash will just smudge and spread out even further when wiped."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1p6i7z | why do spacecraft need to travel to space using rockets instead of just using a jet engine to rise at a gradual incline like an airplane? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p6i7z/eli5_why_do_spacecraft_need_to_travel_to_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccz8o24",
"ccz8p9t",
"ccz8ru7"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Jet engines, by design, requires air from the atmosphere to work.\n\nRockets work by bringing oxygen in tanks, so it can burn in space.\n\n\nHaving two types of engines, would add lots of additional weight, requiring even more fuel to lift it off.",
"Airplanes fly using the Bernoulli principle, where the wind rushing over and under the wing creates lift. The airplane is essentially pushing down against the air which keeps it up. The problem is that as you go up, you run out of air to push against and eventually there comes a point where you can't go any higher. That's when you need to use rockets. ",
"Jet engines require a constant flow of oxygen from the atmosphere to be mixed, compressed, and combusted in combination with a fuel source, often a refined kind of kerosene, to produce thrust. Above a certain altitude oxygen becomes scarce, so the combustion cycle peters out. Rockets carry their own supply of oxygen, often liquified, or \"solid\" chemicals (often powdery substances) called oxidizers that produce oxygen; using one or both of these a rocket engine can combust its fuel far beyond the point at which a jet engine would fail."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20iwx0 | why are sports games such as madden and nba 2k still being released each year? | are graphics improving so much each year that they need to release new games? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20iwx0/eli5_why_are_sports_games_such_as_madden_and_nba/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg3o1a0",
"cg3o2f9",
"cg3o2xt"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because there is demand. There have been years when EA did not change anything major in FIFA other than a few minor tweaks but still managed to sell record copies.",
"I imagine that the main reason is because the teams keep changing. Every year, teams add and lose players. This is especially true with newly drafted players. Secondly, they do try to improve their games on each release by tweaking certain features such as game play, control options, graphics, and other features.",
"It's because the profit margin is much greater from delivering a \"new\" game every year than to release a roster update. Simply put, the game publishers create demand. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5cn2dj | why is the accepted age of sexual relation/marriage so vastly different today than it was in the middle ages? is it about life expectancy? what causes this societal shift? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cn2dj/eli5_why_is_the_accepted_age_of_sexual/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9xrtyy",
"d9xscqc",
"d9xsfyx",
"d9xsqe1",
"d9xv8eo",
"d9xxlk0",
"d9y1qrb",
"d9y1z4d",
"d9y2bww",
"d9y3az5",
"d9y3nvy",
"d9y3tls",
"d9y51a7",
"d9y65h0",
"d9y6e29",
"d9y6hms",
"d9y76ng",
"d9y79ip",
"d9y7ens",
"d9y7hy8",
"d9y7pqk",
"d9y7wlp",
"d9y83e2",
"d9y8e8m",
"d9y8wb1",
"d9y946b",
"d9yagz7",
"d9yaq5y",
"d9yavra",
"d9yb2j1",
"d9yc9kn",
"d9yd2hs",
"d9ydfv9",
"d9ydh2t",
"d9ydjpj",
"d9ydsos",
"d9yea32",
"d9yerw7",
"d9yfa1g",
"d9yffvs",
"d9yfux3",
"d9ygn9g",
"d9yh2xq",
"d9yhxxw",
"d9yi8lz",
"d9yicgo",
"d9yiirn",
"d9yiyd4",
"d9yklin",
"d9ylbn1",
"d9ymn8l",
"d9ymnfe",
"d9yn9cd",
"d9ynh8c",
"d9yq524",
"d9ytehc",
"d9ytni1",
"d9z0yoy"
],
"score": [
86,
7,
8,
2458,
3,
39,
57,
1512,
44,
50,
3,
148,
46,
2946,
5,
20,
8,
4,
30,
3,
14,
4,
5,
15,
8,
10,
2,
2,
21,
3,
3,
27,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
10,
7,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"This might actually be an interesting question for /r/askhistorians \n\nI'd be interested in their answer to this\n\nI'm not sure how to do a cross post though",
"Part of it is life expectancy, but the biggest part is the massive cultural shifts that have taken place.\n\nOne thing to remember about the middle ages in Europe is that morality and moral philosophy were the province of the church and what little of paganism remained in quiet corners. Authority came from God or with the mandate of various gods, and in the Bible especially women are regarded as a form of political currency. You give your daughter to another member of your community to solidify your bond with them, build connections. Wives are property, expected to provide comfort and housekeeping, essentially in servitude to husbands.\n\nOver the past 500 years a great deal has changed regarding the rights of women, the rights of children, and the relationship between men and women. A child is not a piece of property, a chip in a game of local politics. You might gain entry into certain quarters of society with your children, but they aren't slaves. Similarly, women are not expected to serve their husbands as they were in the middle ages, at least not by any large political authority. Of course, a lot of the current political climate is relatively recent (marital rape was not illegal in many places until ridiculously recently), and I'm not particularly well read on the shifts that were taking place in the 19th century vis a vis marital age (though there was probably a gap between cities and rural areas starting to appear at that time).",
"In any patrilineal society where title & property follow from the father, it becomes essential to know that one's offspring are in fact one's own. These cultures tend to focus on chastity (limiting other men from having intimate access to the woman) as a safeguard, so early marriage, even before puberty, puts a lockdown on her babies. ",
"Its not vastly different. Men were marrying in their mid to late twenties, women mid teens to early twenties. In a general sense. Adolescent or prepubescent marriage, while not unheard of, was not the norm.\n\nNorms varied by location, time, and economic situations. They differed in Northern Europe from Southern Europe(I'm excluding the rest of the world for simplicity's sake and I'm assuming OP is referring to the European Middle Ages as well), before and after the black death, before and after different economic and military upheavals.\n\nEconomics generally drove how early people got married. After the Black Death lowered the competition for jobs it spurred a lowering of the average marriage age going into the Renaissance as they could afford to earlier. People actually got married later in the middle ages than shortly after.\n\nAdolescent marriage was frowned upon by folk and church wisdom and economic necessity. Marriage for love is arguably a newer phenomenon linked to the modern era.\n\nIf you're curious:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis generally coincides with what was being taught for Middle Ages history in college about 10 years ago.",
"Do you mean in western society? Many countries still marry, particularly women, very young.",
"Marriage has been intrinsically related to two things until the last 200 years or so; religion and economics. \n\n\nThe most recent shift is due to women's rights. Women now work more, are educated more frequently and put career ahead of family in early life. These have led to a sharp increase in the age when people marry, to a lesser degree the onset of children and number of children. \n\nAnother influencing factor in marriage is the decline in church influence. In particular the reduced power of monolithic churches like the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. These were able to dictate the marriage/societal norms in a much more authoritative way being a single organisation. You still see the power of religion on marriage in some non Western countries with arranged marriages etc and whatnot. Religion was, for most of history, the law. The religion of the area dictated who could marry, when and how it would be done. \n\nIt's worth noting marriage for love is incredibly new in history and mostly confined to the West /wealthy countries. Aside from the religious aspect, people would marry for economics. Normally the woman was valued on beauty and home skills and married to the best suitor. Normally people would marry within their own class; not many Cinderella stories. \n\nTL,DR.\nMarriage has been stable until approx. 200 years (very approximate). Before that it was often arranged, based on religion and economics. Shifts happen due to reduced power of church and women's rights.\n\n----------------\nAnd right as I finish typing this I realise OP only cared about age. That difference is the most recent, see the 2nd paragraph for that. ",
"Part of it might have something to do with the changing notion of childhood starting around the 19th Century (at least in Europe and the U.S.). This is where you see the emergence of the middle class, the \"traditional\" nuclear family, and childhood as a specific stage of life. Children began to be considered much different from adults, as middle class children didn't have to work for a living. This differentiated them drastically from adults.",
"A lot of misunderstanding about life expectancy here. Having a low life expectancy value for a time period does not mean people didn't live a long time. In most cases it means a lot of people died young and in most cases very young. \n\nTake for example Korea in which the first birthday is a really big deal because many children didn't make it to one and if you did your odds of getting to old age went up dramatically. \n\nIf you have 10 people live to 70 and 10 die before 1 the life expectancy is 35. \n\nHaving and raising kids before you die wasn't a concern, getting to the age you could have kids was the concern. \n\nEdit: Since there's some interest in the comment I'll refer to some things cited on wikipedia for life expectancy. This all goes the point I was making, gotta get past the hard years, weakness to illness, fighting wars, being stupid (a side effect of being a kid) and you can expect to live a good life after that. But the actual life expectancy number is low.\n\n > Paleolithic- Life Expectancy 33 - Based on the data from recent hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total 54), with a 0.60 probability of reaching 15.\n\n > Classical Rome - Life Expectancy 20–30 - If a child survived to age 10, life expectancy was an additional 37.5 years, (total age 47.5 years).\n\n > Late medieval English peerage - Life Expectancy 30 - At age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years (total age 64).",
"You only hear about monarchs who married a lot younger mostly for political reasons. Normal people was about the same, at least post puberty for girls (often to older men) ",
"In the west it hasn't really changed that much between the middle ages and about the 1960s. After that, the age at which people got married slowly went up because women were expected to be \"established\" in a similar way to men to have a stable home life which took time. Otherwise, women usually got married late teens/early twenties and men a bit after that, because men had to establish careers and whatnot.\n\nWomen got married younger than that occasionally but there was usually a reason why. Marriages between powerful families would be arranged at a young age because marriages helped cement political alliances, so daughters would get married off ASAP if it would be politically advantageous. Other reasons would be extenuating circumstances, like a girl getting pregnant (even if she's 14, she can't have children out of wedlock). The first reason is probably why we think people got married much younger -- royalty and the like are written about much more than common people.",
"Because it's about love nowadays, not forwarding the bloodlines/reproduction as in the past. Love is about an emotional connection and it is really weird when a 40 year old man is emotionally connected to a 13 year old girl. ",
"Regarding the life-expectancy, frequently it wasn't the person who was marrying that was the issue, it was their parents.\n\nI have two direct ancestors where this was the case in the 1800's, and I'm sure it was in countless others...\n\nYoung woman is 14 or 15 and both her parents have died. She cannot work, as women \"didn't belong in the workplace\". There was no safety net of social security or such.\n\nThe only safety for women was to either be living with their parents or be married to a man who would provide for a home and food. Occasionally they would live with another relative, I've seen several \"old maids\" living with siblings, nieces, nephews, etc. But generally speaking, marriage was the best route to financial security.\n\nIf you were a young woman, unmarried, and without parents or some wealthy uncle who could take in another mouth to feed, you were likely to become homeless very shortly, and probably dead not long after.",
"These marriages were political and economic alliances. In cases where one or both of the spouses were too young for sexual relations it was common to delay consummation of the marriage until the couple reached a more appropriate age. \n\nThe consummation of the marriage between Duke Henry Fitzroy, illegitimate son of King Henry VIII of England, and Lady Mary Howard was delayed due to the fact that they were both in there early teens when married and it was deemed inappropriate for them fully live as husband and wife. \n",
"I actually saw a talk about this from a current, foremost researcher in the social psychology of relationships, Eli Finkel from Northwestern University. His argument, with some evidence, was essentially that since around 1850, the psychological motives behind marriage mimic a progression \"up\" Maslow's hierarchy of needs:\n\nAt first, people married because it helped secure food and shelter, because companionship was a commodity.\n\nThen people married because it secured social and group acceptance/support.\n\nThen, people married for love of individuals regardless of food, shelter, and social acceptance, because these resources were accessible regardless of marriage. If I recall, he said this was around 1920-1950 in the U.S.\n\nThen people started marrying to satisfy their self-esteem instead of achieve love. \"Even though I love Jim, I need to be with Greg because he increases my status, confidence, and feelings of self-worth.\"\n\nNow, he argues, people are just beginning to marry for the sake of self-actualization. More and more, we seek a partner that we believe can help us become our \"true\" selves, the person who can help us fulfill who we are \"meant\" to be. This is, of course, nearly impossible to find in a partner, by any practical standard.\n\nAll credit to u/idkwtfhell\n\n_URL_0_",
"There are very good answers here but i havent seen anyone mention complications of childbirth. Until modern times having a child was extremely dangerous and there are better odds of survival at young ages. \n\nA lot of the reasons also toe together the economic, medical, cultural etc. as an example older men would need to marry younger women in order to try to have kids. Women were not as productive economically so were often seen as a liability and were married off younger, etc. \n\nEdit: heres an excerpt from on article on the age of first time mothers:\n\nThe number of mothers having babies even later in life also drew the average up. From 2000 to 2014, the proportion of first births to women aged 30 to 34 increased 28 percent, and those among women over age 35 went up 23 percent. \n\n_URL_0_ ",
"Women go through puberty earlier when a male is not living in the house: _URL_0_\n\nSo in eras when a person's \"marriageable age\" depending on whether or not a person was past puberty, stable environments where a girl grew up with a father tended to be later-marrying eras. Instable environments where a girl didn't have a father tended to be earlier-marrying eras.\n\nSo, lots of war/disease/whatever and no father in the home? Early puberty, meaning early marriages. Stable easy living? Later puberty, meaning later marriages.\n\nThis is also true for chimpanzees.\n\nEdit: And we're seeing this today as well, although some studies are ignoring the primate evidence and earlier studies and instead blaming it on increasing exposure to phthalates: _URL_1_ And maybe they're correct about the phthalate connection -- I wouldn't know.",
"This doesn't seemed to be addressed here but if you look at hunter gatherer or primitive cultures today you can see people marrying and having kids earlier then we do. \n\nI read a book where the author compared our lives to their and he said (I'm paraphrasing hard core) - People think that a 16 year old girl being married with a kid is to young. But these women and men are much more mature at 16 than a person in the US is at 25. They have learned life skills and they can handle their own and they have responsibilities. \n\nBasically the gist I got was that people were much more capable and mature than we give them credit for. And if you hurl major responsibilities on a young person they can actually handle fine them quite often. \n\nI think that when society gets more refined and complex we assume that young people are more incapable than they actually are. \n\nThe funny think is that we start puberty earlier than they do our me our ancestors did. ",
"The age of consent has always had more to do with the ability to bear children without sustaining injury or incurring death more than anything else.\nModern medicine is just that---a *modern* innovation.\nWhile there are mentions of c-sections being done in ancient times, these were not the norm or even fully understood until relatively recently.\nAs unbelievable as it may seem, even episiotomies we're unknown to physicians until relatively recent times; while this was a standard practice among midwives for thousands of years.\n\nAnother reason for the age of consent has to do with the naïveté of bored young girls, especially back then.\nThink about it...\nNo internet, no movies, not even radio or newspapers.\nThe stranger comes to town and talks of adventure, then makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.\nAn unwanted pregnancy, the resultant social stigma, or perhaps even a sexually transmitted disease (incurable back then) resulting in insanity and blindness.\nPlayers were despised back then, because of these things.\nThere wasn't adequate contraception or protection against these walking syphilitic chancres.\nHaving an age of consent on the books was just another way to prosecute sociopaths and predators such as these.",
"With all the answers you've already gotten, it's fair to say this is a complicated issue, at least more than it might have originally seemed. Some points I haven't seen touched on though, are our changing understanding of sexual maturity.\n\nIt used to be that a girl was considered a woman at the onset of menstruation (when a girl started to get her period). I've read some research to support that this used to happen around 15-16, instead of 12-13. No one can really agree on why girls seem to be getting their periods earlier though. Regardless, nowadays we know that women don't really reach full sexual maturity until their 20s (men and women sort of peak around 24ish). This is from harder things to measure, like how well the body heals after injury, how developed the skeleton is, etc...",
"During France's Golden Age, wealthy and upper-middle class people didn't marry until their mid-to-late 20s. More money = more opportunities = less of a desire to settle down.\n\nPeople still wanna bone and it's always most culturally appropriate when you're married.",
"Accepted age of marriage in the middle ages did not significantly differ from modern accepted age of marriage. Most underage marriages were done for the sake of political alliances between nobility, and are not reflective of society in general.",
"Human rights preventing the normality of arranged marriage and trading your daughters for goats and such. ",
"having lived in SE asia a while where it seems that prostitution is the standard among the poor because presumably its the only way for women to make an income and also the only way men can afford sex. the marraige/ relationship deal is probably similar to the west but only for people that are lower middle class and above, so I would guess income has more effect then life expectancy. if you are looking at europe I would guess marriage was more a deal between families with money, victorian england also had large numbers of women that resorted to prostitution rather then marriage",
"They didn't see children as children back then. More as tiny adults. There was much more expectation on younger generations back the. There are some interesting reads from psychologists that wrote about the mindset of people back in that era. It's really intriguing. We coddle the fuck out of our kids these days. ",
"Even in rich, \"first-world\" countries, we still have a people around who married under the older system. One of the people I admire most in this world is a wonderful old lady on a tiny island in the far corner of Japan with a population under 2000 who married in 1935 at age 16 -- something that had been the norm until her parents' generation but was already becoming rare as the 20th century dawned. \n\nShe was very intelligent and her family had no problems with the 30-year-old doctor (freshly back from studying in the great outside world) that she had fallen in love with, understanding that their 14-year age gap was overshadowed by how happy they would be as intellectual equals.\n\nThey waited until she was 21 to have her first child, and she eventually had six of them, and dozens of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. \n\nShe's slowing down quite a bit now at age 96, and her memory is getting spotty, but there is a special look on her face when she talks about her husband, who has long since left us behind. They loved each other as completely as a couple possibly could. I envy what she got to experience; today such an early marriage would be unthinkable. If you know anyone who has had this kind of life -- and the odds are you don't, but you could probably find one if you tried -- listen and learn from them. They're a vanishing breed.",
"- Child mortality rates and natal mortality rates have gone down. (Edited. Mistyped it before).\n\n- Availability of sex before marriage has gone up.\n\n- Women's work rates have gone up. Building a career takes time, and women are less dependent on men for their livelihoods.",
"Basically young marriage happens when parents treat their kids like cash to buy property or friendship. They married them off young not because they thought they matured earlier but because they knew full well they were not mature and would therefore have to do what they were told.",
"A lot of posts I am not going to bother to read before throwing this out there, sorry if I'm just saying the same thing. Another disclaimer, I'm painting with a vague brush.\n\nHistorically, it was about lineage. With a wife wed early in her life, the husband stood a better chance of people believing the child was his(and indeed being his if she actually was a virgin). Even if they're not doing it, say if she's *really* young, he can monitor behavior and keep her in the house and away from other men, etc. No longer the responsibility of the family that way, but of the husband(often easier because women were often married up, a farmer with a beautiful daughter could more or less sell her a little higher up the foodchain to richer familes, for example, the richer husband having the means to monitor as noted.)\n\nToday, we have a variety of scientific tests to detect parentage, and little reason to maintain celibacy(eg for arranged marriages to make sure partners are virgins) except for contextual reasons like religion.\n\nFun fact: Liking females that young is somewhat hotly debated in psych fields.... whether or not it is a -phelia(can't recall which it is for people right at the cusp breeding age, and yes, there are a variety of them for several age ranges), or just a natural product of, if not evolution, only recently changed social norms.\n\nHard to classify it as a disease or disorder if there's precedent or reason for it to be a normal human drive. From the opposing view, an attachement or desire for only specific ranges, often excluding one's own range, is seen as deviant. Nevermind that a lot of very chronologically mature people really salivate over 20-somethings and not a lot else, a 40 year gap there is fine, but shift it back a few years.\n\nNot trying to invalidate or condone whichever, just saying, there's a lot of back and forth, or at least there was last time I was reading stuff like the DSM and related papers. Not quite as concrete as psychopathic murderers having a screw loose at any rate.",
"The nobility married much younger than the commoners.\n\nThe job of noble children (especially the female ones) was to make sure the line did not die out. As such it made sense to marry girls away no later than they were able to conceive (i.e. puberty). Boys younger than that. To form alliances children were sometimes married even younger. Since the nobility has had this need for millennia, religion and societal norms were designed to approve.\n\nFor commoners the picture was different. They had to worry about having a house and a farm (typically), so that they could feed a family. For this reason they married much later.",
"1. Marriage used to be more about politics and business than love. \n\n2. Our understanding of children has changed. We used to treat kids more like mini-adults.",
"It's important to keep in mind that it wasn't as though the entire world was Western Europe during the middle ages; there were a great many variances in customs, culture, and law with respect to age of marriage, whether married women could work, dowries, etc.",
"Many game-changing elements came from developments in psychology, human rights, and the organisation of family & community. \n\nFor one thing, the concept of children did not really exist until recently (and adolescence wasn't really a thing until the 1950s). Children were just tiny adults, who worked alongside their parents and were usually married off to help secure the family's workforce and finances (N.b.: This varied a lot among class and cultures; nobles were expected to be married off much faster than working classes and provide children for heritage purposes, whereas working classes expected many children because they were useful workforce). We've only noticed that children have various development stages a century ago, and have modified our behaviour towards them accordingly. We now know that 12-year-olds have not really mastered the formal operational stage and are unable to provide consent, but in medieval times they were seen as just as good as any other adult. \n\nSpeaking of consent, that wasn't a thing in most cultures. Concepts like trauma and well-being were not taken into consideration until we've understood the human brain a bit better, so now we realise that sexual abuse and sexual behaviour too early on has long-lasting consequences on the individual, but at the time there was no correlation between them (if you were crazy, it's because you were born crazy; if you could act normal, you were normal). You married who your parents wanted to, or you had a shotgun wedding your unlucky childhood sweetheart. Now that love and respect are considered elements of a marriage, they add a lot of time to the process. \n\nWe also go through the process of mandatory education, which has become a sort of landmark for maturity, and that delays the process as the landmark becomes further and further ahead in life. Then there is the matter of the *necessity* of marriage. Like I said a bit earlier, you *needed* to pop out as many kids as possible, either to preserve the family name or to bring out some helping hands around the farm. Only half of your children were expected to live, so making the best of your biological clock was crucial. Now that we don't have to rush to churn out 4+ kids by the time we're 30, we take our time with it. And since we expect our kids to live a long time and we're the ones who provide *for them*, we put off marriage until we feel comfortably to emotionally and financially support them. \n\nThere are multiple other factors, of course. The shift didn't happen overnight. \n",
"Once a girl is done with school she might as well start getting pregnant. It still happens today, it's not ancient history.",
"1. The [invention of adolescence](_URL_1_) in the mid-19th century. \"in centuries past, a sexually mature person was never treated as a 'growing child.'\" Part of this was due to \"child labor laws\" meant to reduce competition for limited factory jobs.\n\n2. The necessity of a college degree to secure a middle class lifestyle. A century ago, high school was \"secondary education\", meaning optional, meaning a lot of people were done with school after eighth grade.\n\n3. The dumbing down of education. Proficiency after college today is in some ways equivalent to proficiency after high school a century ago, especially in literacy. This combined with the above have made [bachelors degrees the new high school diploma](_URL_2_).\n\n4. The modern lifestyle treats children as costs (paying for college, paying for braces, they're not able to work until age 22, etc.) rather than as assets (helping hands during harvest), so families are smaller, and there is no rush to form families by getting married.\n\n5. The legalization and social acceptance of fornication, cohabitation, and birth control have reduced the incentive and eagerness to get married.\n\n6. Similarly, no-fault divorce (since 1970), which permits unilateral abandonment for any or no reason and court-ordered taking of half the assets and future salary, has discouraged marriage.\n\n7. Privacy is a [_URL_0_](modern invention) as is, of course, the nuclear family. The idea that you have to save up for a 3BR/2BA house (or, thankfully, just the down payment ever since the New Deal invention of the 30-year mortgage) before getting married is new, and doing so has pushed off the age of marriage.\n",
"Marriage is itself a societal construct, so it makes sense that it would evolve with society.",
"It relates to carrying capacity and endemic warfare.\n\nIn band or tribe level societies, populations are well below carrying capacity and genetic groups compete against each other through net population growth.\n\nIn industrialized societies, populations are much closer to carrying capacity and so there is not only less of a need for higher reproduction, it can actually be problematic. In such societies, the age of marriage is delayed as a means to decrease population growth and non-productive sexual behavior (homosexuality) becomes less and less taboo..or even encouraged.\n\nIt is not about individual choice, it is about a group attempting super-organically (see Kroeber) to maintain an optimal population level.\n",
"Well, It seems to me that since the dawn of literate society roughly 1000 years ago, and prior to that, since the dawn of civilization, education forms the bedrock of society.\n\nSo any kind of trades such as writing, crafts, woodworking, metalworking all take some degree of apprenticeship, far better to have your daughter marry and apprentice or someone closer to earning money than not.\n\nThe idea that your daughter should have a good provider as a husband goes back all the way, I'm sure. \n\nSo while kids fooling around and getting pregnant happens today as it did tens of thousands of years ago, but tribal societies have taboos on this kind of thing for a reason - who wants a bunch of underage moms having to work their asses off while the good looking football player/scout/foot-solider moves from town to town hooking up and leaving a trail of irresponsibility in his wake. \n\nNow with the modern age, say roughly 400 years ago forward, being more formally educated becomes increasingly necessary, to the point where you can find yourself in stiff competition with others for job opportunities well into your 20's. Training for harder, but less competitive jobs, (engineers, doctors/dentists, etc) have stringent educational requirements that require trainees to be educated even later into life).\n\nThis puts those groups at relative disadvantage up-front but with a potentially huge payout in terms of regular income later in life. \n\nSo in actuality, the situation hasn't really changed much in the last 10,000 years.\n\n- having kids before you are educated was probably always a bad idea - creating an uphill battle for all concerned.\n\n- having kids later was for many centuries a wiser idea.\n\nA sad post-script , is that in the modern age, unfortunately many professions now involve so much work and time-investment, such that those high-paying jobs have turned into a true disadvantage, family wise, because participants are so busy they can't date or have kids, so now the highest income levels are reserved for those without kids.",
"You can think of it via an evolutionary perspective to realise why this isn't true.\n\nPrior to the 1800s, the average age a women would experience their first period was 16 years old, much higher than today. Prime baby-making time would come several years after that, around 20 years old. Looking at hunter-gather societies, we can see that the average age a women would have their first child was around 19-20 years. This is probably why men are most attracted to 20 year old women and less their own age. Thus, people having children younger were more likely to die off, so marrying off younger was also more likely to die off.\n\nSince you are more likely to die from pregnancy at younger ages, it became the social norm to have a child, and thus get married, around peak fertility and production time. Most people married in the 20s.\n\nThe main reason some thing that younger marriages were common is because in some societies, marriage was often (especially among the rich) a political contract done to ensure wealth gained or kept wealth. Your parents would then arrange a contract so that the two being married would gain something out of it (land, money, an important name, ect), which often involved marrying them off young. Consummation still didn't happen until a few years after marriage, though. Well, usually, at least.",
"In the play, Juliet is 15 and her mother is 29, and her father needs a walking stick and uses a sword that's at least 75 years out of fashion.",
"Females become capable of pregnancy quite early, which lead medieval nobility that wanted heirs to marry their daughters off as soon as possible. Problem is, early pregnancy has a lot of terrible side effects, like hormonal disbalance, physiological changes, all that stuff. In modern world we understand those things a lot better, so we are more conscious about early sexual relationships. \n\nWell, that's what I think, at least.",
"Here is something I have always thought: Religion was the overwhelming psychological tool, law enforcement, ultimate authority and regulator of life hundreds of years ago. The daily struggle just to survive had to have been the main focus of every one except nobility. I don't think parents them were less concerned with the welfare of their children, but were seemingly more concerned with the social perception of \"goodness and virtue\". When you add in the financial burden of children and the lack of \"daycare\" in a world that demanded huge workloads of the women (cooking, gardening, household chores, care of elderly or infant family members, etc) it comes as no surprise to me that many a mother or father did not have time to make sure that 12 year old children were not beginning to experiment with their unfolding sexuality. People were much closer to the land and animal life, children were more exposed to bodily functions and natural life cycles. The great mysteries of life played out everyday in front of their eyes. I think parents encouraged early marriages as a way to lessen their parental responsibilities and to ensure that their children did not become sexually active outside the bounds of \"holy matrimony\". Done and done. They chose the best spouse they could aspire to by wealth or potential fertility and sent the children into the world. Just my own idea. ",
"Marriage ages weren't universally low throughout previous time periods. At least in Medieval England the average age of marriage was actually higher in Medieval England than it was throughout most of the 20th century in America. People get confused because, at least in regards to that period, the noble classes tended to marry young because of the potential political and financial benefits. The lower classes still needed a solid profession before they could start a family. ",
"It's a shift in how long we live and the different parts of life. Our economy also plays a role. People live longer so there is more time and many struggle to make it on their own before their mid-20's now, so that adds to it.",
"So... half your age +7 years?",
"In many cases the age of marriage did not change drastically at all. \n\nDistinguishing between classes is pretty important here. I think the myth comes from a lot of stories of noble and royal families, when marriages could be arranged by the time the child was just barely out of infancy. (The actual wedding didn't happen before puberty, however). At these social levels, stakes were high and families had a lot to gain by being strategic. Lower class people were more likely and able to marry for love, simply because people had little enough that trying to marry for wealth or power just didn't get you very far.\n\nThe average age of marriage for commoners was not far from where it is today. Average age for women was 22-24, and for men around 25-28. The idea of marrying young is very much tied to the arranged marriage customs associated with the rich and powerful (12-15 for girls, 17-26 for men). Conversely, modern numbers in developed countries are around 26 for women and 28 for men. Numbers were actually lower in the 1960s-70s, with 20-21 for women and 22-23 for men.",
"Yeah my parents were an odd ball couple, my mom was 15 and my dad was 26 when they got married, and this was only 26 years ago. At the time my mom was in Iraq and my dad in the US, but we are Christians and marrying young isn't our norm. ",
"3 things: infant mortality, death in childbirth, and lack of a safety net.\n\nBefore a safety net, your children were your Medicare and Social Security. If you didn't have kids, you weren't going to have someone to care for you when you got too old to work. That was a huge problem, so people tried to maximize their chances of children who would outlive them.\n\nThis brings us to the other two points. Infant and child mortality used to be really high. In Ancient Rome, there was about a 50/50 chance of a kid living past their 10th birthday. So, if you wanted to have kids who survived into adulthood, you'd need to have a lot of children to ensure that some would survive. As a result, women needed to start having children as soon as they were fertile to maximize the chances. But, lots of women died in childbirth, meaning it was even more important to have kids as early as possible, so that the man could remarry and have more kids who would be able to survive and care for him in his old age.",
"A big reason is education and economics. Because people became more educated and went to college to fulfill jobs, they had kids later in life. Additionally, people did not need to have kids to help with chores on farms like they did in the Middle Ages. Therefore, the accepted age of sex and marriage rose to meet the economy. ",
"Demands of economy. Need to impose longer period of discipline and education on young people to prepare them for modern capitalist economy. Before a few years ago, even literacy was unnecessary. You can join productive class as kids, and marry as soon as you become reproductive. ",
"People were usually dead by 34 and why would you wanna raise kid that isn't yours as the houses heir? ",
"The Victorian age still hasn't left us.\n\nI think it boils down to this. Many people are irresponsible. Irresponsible people should _never_ have sex. Since we can't kill them all, a compromise is, we teach them not to have sex until they are at least 18. Which doesn't work.\n\nMeanwhile, the responsible people were never the problem. They should be encouraged to have sex as often as they like... even as teenagers. And have kids in their 20s. (Revolutionary). That is how it used to be. \n\nYet... today's social teachings weigh heavily on the responsible youth. That males are only capable of rape. That females who have sex are destined to get pregnant, and an STD will ruin their life. So, a lot of these people grow up alone and maladjusted.\n\nWe still have a lot of problems, as a society, talking about the human body, and normal sexual interactions. And by the way, normal sex includes a lot of relations are, today, considered \"inappropriate.\" There are so many \"rules\" it is dizzying. And the only people who follow the rules are the responsible ones who weren't the problem. ",
"Humanism and a strengthening divide between \"children\" and \"adults\". As opposed to times where children worked to help support their families, children now are kept 'innocent' with child labor laws and are meant to focus on educAtion before joining the work force. \n\n\"Childhood\" is a relatively modern term.",
"In the middle ages, people's thoughts and actions were heavily influenced by the church. If you did not comply to the uniform standard of living, you were shunned in the social realm and possibly punished by death.\n\nToday, people have freedom of though and expression. There is no \"super power\" that dictates how you should live your life or when you should get married or have children. There are still social pressures, but this does not compare to the dictator-like authority that the church had throughout most the middle ages.",
"In England, traditional English common law put the age of consent between the age of 10 and 12. Sensational newspaper exposes of the 1870's and 1880's, focusing on child prostitution, forced change. This was first accomplished in 1875 when the age of consent was raised to 13 years old. \n\nHowever the newspaper stories didn't stop there. More and more media revelations exposed the seedy but 'legal' Victorian culture. The work done by investigative journalist William Thomas Stead forced the government to change the laws again. In 1885 he published a series of articles titled 'The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon' when he 'purchased' 13-year-old Eliza Armstrong for £5 and took her to a brothel. This shocked Victorian London with tales abduction, procurement, and sale of girls for child prostitution and caused numerous demonstrations demanding the age of consent to be raised.\n\nFearing riots on a national scale, the government was forced to raise the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution with the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.\n\nUS history is a little more vague, but most States had set the minimum age of consent at around 7–12 years by the 1880's. In response to the 'The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon' articles in the UK, US female right reformers fought to raise the minimum age to 16, and then 18 years. This was mainly accomplished by the 1920's.",
"Actually, the age of sex isn't much different unless you live in the US.\n\nThe US has a much higher age requirement for sex to be legal than most European countries. For instance, the age of consent for sex in Germany is 14 years old. There is a caveat about a person over 21 \"exploiting the 14 year old's sexual self-determination\" (whatever that means) but any complaint made against the adult must be made by the 14 year old. \n\nOther factors are nationalized education and also child labor laws. \n\nChildren who aren't working can't support themselves. Fortunately they are also required to go to school so they are on their parents' dime. They can't very well be getting married and starting families when they are still in school and unable to work. \n\nOf course, some do and even today that's very unpopular for them to do. ",
"Is this tied to social norms influenced by and reflected by statutory rape laws? It seems acceptable for an old guy to marry an 18 year old, but really fucked up if it's below that.",
"isnt it because of women's rights, affluence, and education? \nwomen have more rights now than they ever did before so they can attend school, this pushes back the date of their pregnancy/ marriage because they are focused on school, and they can also get a job so they don't need a man as much. ",
"I'm convinced it has to do with being an adult. An adult is someone who has learned enough to survive by their own. Tribes and simple people can hit that level as a teen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/4toxxb/slug/d5jaees"
],
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/cdc-the-median-age-of-first-time-motherhood-is-increasing%3Fcontext%3Damp?client=safari"
],
[
"http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/",
"http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/puberty-comes-earlier-and-earlier-girls-301920.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://techliberation.com/2009/05/27/privacy-as-a-modern-invention/",
"https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199501/the-invention-adolescence",
"http://blog.classesandcareers.com/education/2013/05/29/are-bachelors-degrees-the-new-high-school-diploma/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5kle5y | why isn't time constant? | Why is it that when you move faster through space, you move slower through time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kle5y/eli5_why_isnt_time_constant/ | {
"a_id": [
"dboqyf1",
"dbor255",
"dborc0e",
"dborfbm"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
5,
13
],
"text": [
"You live in a 4 dimensional universe. Three dimensions are distance (spacial) and one is time (temporal). The speed of light (C) is the ratio of the distance in the temporal one, the one we call time, to the distance in the spacial ones, which we call distance. Every object exists as a unit velocity segment in this 4-space. Since a 4-space is hard to think about, let's simplify (ELI5!) by considering the spacial dimensions in terms of our motion. Now we only have one spacial dimension, the direction we are moving. Turning (for the time being) doesn't count. Next we graph our 2-space universe, with time on the vertical and distance on the horizontal. Every object is one unit from the origin on this graph, a quarter-circle. If a segment is aligned with the time direction (it's vertical), the object's spacial dimensions must be 0, this gives 0 speed in space and 1 second per second in time. If the velocity segment is oriented along the spacial dimension (horizontal) the object is moving at C, and since all segments are one unit long, it must be 0 in the temporal dimension. Thus photons move at the speed of light but do not experience changes in time. Gravity and other forces use energy to change the orientation of an object's velocity segment, accelerating it in space and shortening the time element or decelerating it in space and lengthening the time segment. ",
"The cheap answer is that nothing forces it to be. If it did, then we'd simply have a new question, \"Why is time constant?\" We can observe, in fact, that it moves faster or slower in different reference frames relative to one another, and science describes what we are observing. However, the ultimate cause is external to science, and in that case you must rely upon philosophy. Obviously the answer \"that's the way the universe works\" is not great at satisfying, but...",
"Basically, that is pretty simple: \"Time\" does not exist. \n\nWe have \"space\" and \"stuff happening within it\". If you swing a pendulum, it moves through \"space\". Even if you suck out all the air from the room, you still have physical laws with mass, inertia and forces as gravity that determine how the pendulum swings.\n\nNow \"time\" is our ability to distinguish between two states: The pendulum is \"here\", and then it is \"there\" and then again \"there\". That difference between the states in space is basically what we call \"time\". \n\nWe can \"measure\" time by counting how often the pendulum has swung or \"feel\" time by telling that \"this state\" was either \"quickly\" after \"that other state\" (you drop a glass and it falls on your foot) or it is \"not quickly\" followed, for example you \"deciding to go out\" but have to search your keys before \"you leave the door\". \n\nNow we have established: Time is actually \"stuff that happens with objects in space\". Without going into details it should not be surprising anymore that fiddling with \"how objects behave in space\" can change the perception of \"time\". \n\nThink someone has a pendulum in a fast spaceship. That being \"fast\" changes how the space itself around the pendulum behaves, and due to this, it changes the time for that fast person (and as the body works due to physical \"stuff happening in the body\" all physical things that happen are changed the same). If that person compares their \"pendulum time\" with the one of someone who stayed at home, they notice that the \"physics of space\" has worked different for them, and as such \"time\" has worked different. \n\nWhat we call \"time\" is a mere concept we attribute to \"stuff has happened in space and we can tell the difference between *a moment ago* and *now* because something changed\"). ",
"Imagine that you are in a spaceship that has the capability of reaching speeds near the speed of light. Inside this spaceship, there is a beam of light that is bouncing between a mirror on the floor and a mirror on the ceiling such that the light beam is in a infinite loop of bouncing between the two mirrors. To an observer inside the ship, the light is (obviously) observed to be bouncing back and forth between the mirrors at the speed of light (C).\n\nNow, if you recall, according to relativity, there is no relative speed of light. That is, the speed of light (C) is always the same no matter the reference point. \n\nImagine now that we have an observer outside the ship who is stationary relative to the ship which is also moving at the speed of light (or nearly). According to conventional relativity, the observer would observe the light beam moving at C up and down as well as ~C in the forward direction with the ship.\n\nNow we have two observed speeds of light:\n\nInside the ship: |Cj|\nOutside the ship: Ci+|Cj|\n\nSince the speed as observed by the outside observer has both i and j components (up and down), the magnitude of velocity can be calculated via the Pythagorean theorem:\n\nC=sqrt(Ci^2 +Cj^2)\n\nThis result would be greater than C, which is impossible, so in order for a constant C to satisfied as well as the conservation of energy, time must change instead.\n\nTherefore, time would move more slowly inside the ship compared to outside the ship.\n\nHope that helps :) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
693kcy | why does kim jung un wear a western suit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/693kcy/eli5_why_does_kim_jung_un_wear_a_western_suit/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh3gdla"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They don't really see suits as \"innately western,\" they also use architecture designs from the west and even the Android operating system (though heavily modified). Because it works fine.\n\nThere's also evidence he himself isn't anti-west, seeing as how he went to school in Switzerland, loves US basketball to the point of inviting Dennis Rodman. It's an act put on for his peeps, and the messages largely target the leadership & political ideas of the west anyway, not really their products or stuff."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3kvmiq | how can people be wrongly convicted of a crime in the u.s and then held for no reason for a long time? | This question is sparked from the story of the woman who was arrested for driving her own car because the police thought it wasn't hers. She was held for 8 days. I have read similar stories and they always seemingly come from the US. Surely the police could have just done a check on her license plates and found the car registered in her name?
Edit: held and not convicted, typo. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kvmiq/eli5_how_can_people_be_wrongly_convicted_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv0x0l2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"She was not convicted of a crime, she was suspected of a crime arrested, and held during an investigation. She was also not held for a long time, she was held for 8 days. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3m9d86 | how are stem cells extracted from blood? what happens to the new stem cell-less blood when reintroduced to the body? [context in description] | My father recently underwent a blood transfusion, and my brother was selected to be the blood donor. So they hooked a tube to a vain in his leg and the machine the tube is attached to drew in his blood. This blood went into the machine and it literally separated and collected the stem cells from the blood. The separated blood is then fed back into my brother's body. I was blown the fuck away. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m9d86/eli5_how_are_stem_cells_extracted_from_blood_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvd52bh"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The process is called peripheral stem cell transplantation.\n\nNormally, the hematopoietic (a.k.a. blood-making) stem cells are located in the bone marrow, with very few in the blood. Your brother most likely took drugs before donating that cause the stem cells to rapidly make copies of themselves, more so than normal, and then to attract some of them into the blood rather than stay in the bone marrow.\n\nFrom there, getting the stem cells is done by a process called apheresis which usually involves centrifuging the blood to separate out the components, then taking off the parts (stem cells) that are needed. The new stem cell-less blood gets pumped back in the body.\n\nThere are still stem cells in the bone marrow, enough to regenerate whatever was lost so there isn't too much of a risk for the donor."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
aagv78 | why does anti-seizure medication sometimes cause seizures in people who otherwise wouldn't have them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aagv78/eli5_why_does_antiseizure_medication_sometimes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecryev2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What med are you talking about? Different medicines work through different mechanisms of action. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6wxbe3 | sometimes i feel that warm drinks help you easily concentrate on your task, is it true? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wxbe3/eli5_sometimes_i_feel_that_warm_drinks_help_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmbkhqq"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I'm sure there could be a much more complex mechanism behind 'warm drinks' leading to better brain function in the body (stimulants like caffeine, l-theanine, sugar). \n\nHowever, focusing strictly on the warmth aspect, the heat could simply be dilating your blood vessels, leading to more blood flow across your body, and hence a better supply of oxygen to your brain\n\nIn chinese medicine, we also say that a healthy kidney is key to a clear mind. From a modern-medicine perspective, this may be due to the correct functioning of adrenal glands (which are hormone-regulating glands that are part of the kidney). Adrenal glands produce cortisol, which is a type of hormone that among its many uses, helps to jolt you awake in the morning. Warm drinks may help kickstart your kidney's function in that sense"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2sw3l9 | bdsm [nsfw] | Yes, you read it correctly. I'm not trying to be provocative, rather I'm a very vanilla dude in the bedroom who is also dumb to the whole idea of bdsm and likes to be an "armchair psychologist" at times.
Now, I'd always heard of bdsm before but when *Fifty Shades of Grey* came out, it seemed to be way more out in the open. But even after skimming through it, I still didn't understand what bdsm was beside whips and handcuffs, and all I ever heard was people saying that FSoG was NOT bdsm and to not take it as such, despite how it was marketed as bdsm.
At the time being, bdsm is a very unknown and unfamiliar concept to me, but I want to at least understand why it exists and why it seems to be so prevalent to gain a better appreciation of other people's sexual interests. Thank you!
**Bonus questions** for those who are into bdsm: Is this something you "discover" about yourself, or do you know early on that it interests you?
Does it drive your sexuality to the point where you need to find other partners who are into it, or is a partner who is not interested in it, ok too?
And how many variables of bdsm are there; like, can you only be into hard spanking but nothing else, or is there a need to always take it to "another level" so to speak?
Thanks for taking the time to respond if you can. I'm still kind of new to reddit, so if there is a better place to ask this question, please let me know. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sw3l9/eli5_bdsm_nsfw/ | {
"a_id": [
"cntf8tv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"BDSM is a very very wide topic, but as a fan I can clear up a few things.\n\nFirst the FSoG issues. The big issue with the book is that a lot of the acts in the book are very unhealthy/dangerous. Safe words are ignored, characters are abusive outside of the bedroom, etc... When it comes to safe/ healthy BDSM, there are rules that everyone should follow:\n\n1) Talk about things before you do them. Find out what you're partner is comfortable with before you do it. No surprise tazering.\n\n2) Have safe words and use them. If the submissive partner says a safe word, you better fucking listen.\n\n3) When the fun is over, its over. Talk about what worked, and what didn't. Cuddle, relax, whatever, bit don't always be on unless everyone is comfortable with it.\n\nIn the world of BDSM, everyone is different. Some people know what they like, others find it through trial and error. Don't be afraid to experiment, and don't be afraid to say that you didn't like something. Everyone has their own thing, and their own reasons for liking what they do. It should always be enjoyable for everyone involved though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2mku31 | how does electricity get converted into an audio signal? (i.e. guitar or tone generation) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mku31/eli5_how_does_electricity_get_converted_into_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm55jtl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An audio signal is electricity. A guitar works rather simply, the pickups are basically really bad microphones. The vibration of the guitar moves the coil inside the pickup, which is in the presence of a magnet which causes an electric vibration that is analogous to the physical vibration of the strings to be induced. From there on it is amplified, where it eventually ends up at a speaker where the opposite occurs, where the electrical signal induces a magnetic field that pushes a magnet attached to a cone, which then vibrates the air. \n\nIf you mean how do we turn electricity into sound without any source, in the analog world an oscillator works using a positive feedback loop (like when you hold a guitar or microphone too close to a speaker and you hear a note), where turning it on forces the circuit to resonate in a controlled way. We can make a voltage controlled oscillator where an input voltage corresponds to a frequency the oscillator resonates at, so we can control the note the oscillator generates. \n\nDigitally there are a couple ways to do it. A common one to see now is where the waveform is stored in memory and called over and over again, the frequency at which it is called is the pitch of the note played. Think of that like hitting play on your phone over and over again really fast. Another simple digital oscillator has to do with making a certain kind of filter (like the tone control of a guitar, that's a kind of filter) that self oscillates, or becomes unstable after you excite it. Basically you send an impulse, or a single '1' value, and the digital filter will vibrate at whatever frequency it was designed to. The digital signal eventually ends up at a DAC, which converts it to analog, which then goes to your speakers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4awale | could a us president just decide to nuke a country without any oversight? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4awale/eli5_could_a_us_president_just_decide_to_nuke_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d141rcz",
"d141vmz",
"d144rxa",
"d147oku",
"d1499qh",
"d14bube",
"d14h31o",
"d14idr2"
],
"score": [
29,
93,
44,
822,
4,
31,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Members of the US military are not required to follow illegal orders. The unprovoked use of nuclear weapons against a friendly nation would be a war crime of the highest order and blatantly illegal.",
"Part of the security measures of most nuclear weapons programs, is the chain of command. President can order a nuclear attack, but he can't push the button to launch. \n\nPresident has to order someone in the pentagon to launch. If the staff at the pentagon think the president is not sane, they can just as easily ignore it. This multiple person chain goes all the way down to the person pushing the fire button. \n\nCaptain might be the captain of the ship, but he doesn't hold all the keys necessary to launch a nuclear weapon. Someone else will as well. At any point, if someone feels the command is invalid, they can easily ignore it. ",
"Fortunately, the U.S. military doesn't blindly follow orders. During the Watergate scandal the generals had meetings to figure out how they could legally disobey illegal orders if President Nixon lost it and tried to lash out with the military. It never came to that.\n\nThat's why I don't believe the military would follow the order to launch nuclear weapons without justification.",
"No. Ever since Nixon started wandering around the White House at night arguing with the portraits of the other presidents, we have had a two-man rule for ordering nuclear launches. The President orders it, but it has to be seconded by an appropriate person, like the Secretary of Defense.\n\nAnd even if both out of the blue ordered a strike on some country we weren't under any threat from, there would almost certainly be a serious questioning of the orders at the top level of the military, and a fair chance they would never get sent on to the operational people.\n\nAnd you don't have to worry about sudden, unilateral strikes from anybody else, like North Korea, either. No world leader has an *actual button* that launches nukes, it has to go through channels, and in those channels are some pretty powerful people who know perfectly well what would happen next if NK unloaded a couple nukes on SK or Japan: one US nuclear sub parked off the coast would turn Pyongyang into a glass parking lot. Ain't gonna happen. All we'd hear about it in the west would be a terse notice that Dear Leader had retired to a farm upstate to meditate, leaving General So Anh So in charge in the \"interim.\"\n\nThe closest we ever came to actual nuclear holocaust, the end of the world was halted by ONE guy standing up for sanity.\n\nDuring the most tense part of the Cuban Missile Crisis blockade, some cowboy commander in a US Navy ship thought it would be a good idea to drop practice depth charges on a Russian sub it had detected to force it to surface.\n\nDown in the Russian sub B-59, they had been out of contact with Moscow for several days, and had no way of knowing if war had already broken out. So the Captain gave the only logical order he could: sink the fucker. He ordered the launch of a nuclear-tipped torpedo. Make no mistake about this: if that torpedo had been launched, none of us would be here today, the world be be a radioactive wasteland. I was living two miles from a SAC nuclear bomber base at the time, so I at least would have had a quick death.\n\nFortunately for all of us, it took agreement of the boat's top three officers to use a nuke, and while the Captain and Political Officer were all for it, First Officer Vasili Arkhipov disagreed, and stood his ground even after being threatened with the loss of his career and/or shooting. Arkhipov literally saved the world single-handedly that day, and barely one person in a million knows his name.\n\n\n",
"No. There are too many layers between the President and the actual physical process of launching the missile. This is by design. The President could indeed endeavor to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike, but he would have to have secured the support of the SecDef and the JCOS. This would be unlikely except in the event of an imminent strike from another country. Technically, refusing the order of the Executive is treason; however, the UCMJ allows personnel to refuse to follow unlawful orders. Just because the President says \"I want to nuke Cuba\" doesn't mean it's legal. \n\nFrom a technical perspective (I'm not an expert on how these things are designed, so forgive me any mistakes), there are simply too many people between the order to launch and the initiation of launch to make that hypothetical, insane, unwarranted order possible except in case of a severe weakening of the chain of command. Orders are given, launch codes passed down, personnel put on alert, public service announcements made, etc., before the launch can even commence. And the structure of the launch process would seem to prevent insane, would-be genocidaires from passing down unlawful orders. Multi-stage permissions (launch codes, responses to launch codes, multi-key launch systems, etc) would act as a brake on a psychopath's ambition to salt the earth. \n\nOf course, I could be wrong. These sorts of things are all kept secret and the protocols change constantly. But it would stand to reason that interpersonal and constitutional obstacles exist to prevent the single-handed initiation of a nuclear launch, and that the design of launch systems (necessarily and intentionally) require multiple individuals in order to prevent instances of rogue operation. In order for a single individual to initiate and see through the launch of a nuclear weapon, a wholesale (and terrifying) restructuring of our government would have to take place that remove all legal, constitutional and interpersonal obstacles to initiating the launch. ",
"A former 5 star general and former head of NSA and CIA was on Bill Maher and talked about if Trump wanted to launch a nuke for whatever reason.... he said the military would literally just look him in the orange face and say no. ",
"As far as I know that is not technically possible, on the other hand the president of France is considered the most powerful man in the world because he personally and unilaterally can order a nuclear attack.",
"From the opposite point of view... If everyone in the government and military decided that someone needed to be nuked, but the President disagreed, could he prevent it? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2fzia2 | if apple watch only works with iphones, what is the point of it? | apparently the apple watch thing needs to be paired with an iphone 5+. I thought the purpose of the watch was that you dont need to carry big gadges around with you? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fzia2/eli5_if_apple_watch_only_works_with_iphones_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cke7b8n",
"cke7dot",
"cke7f9h"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's so you don't need to take it out of your handbag every time you want to do something.",
"Next year's release, Apple's dangling pocket watch, after that the \"I Abbacus\" for the low low price of $399.99 each",
"I think right now smart watches can be thought of just beginning to take the first step into a new generation of devices.\n\nThey're too small to get any kind of real hardware built into them, which is where the need to have it tethered to a phone comes from. In the future as SoCs become more efficient, and their power draw becomes low enough for the tiny battery in watches to support, we'll start seeing seeing stand alone watches that does most of what a phone can do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1uococ | when should i use recirculated air vs. fresh air in my car? | Its cold out and my heat is on... should it be set on recirculated? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uococ/eli5when_should_i_use_recirculated_air_vs_fresh/ | {
"a_id": [
"cek39p1",
"cek3w3m",
"cek4m3c",
"cek4m8x",
"cek51jv",
"cek5td3",
"cek96wy",
"cek9j9t",
"cek9zv6",
"cekafer",
"cekaiyf",
"cekb7dc",
"cekjznv",
"cekn4cb"
],
"score": [
77,
2,
29,
8,
10,
2,
6,
65,
3,
2,
2,
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Recirculating air will heat it faster, so yes. You should also recirculate your air when you are in a dirty area (lots of smoke, etc).",
"Recirc all the time unless the cabin gets stuffy. If you prefer outside air, turn on recirc when following a semi truck or an older diesel car.",
"In my experience recirculating will cause some problems with the windows fogging up in the cold weather. ",
"When it comes to warm or cold weather, recirculating, as you might expect, will help condition the air quicker. This can be a problem, though, if you're using the defogger on the windshield, since the air coming back through the system has more moisture in it than the treated air that originally comes in.\n\nBut it's also handy to recirculate when the air outside is not ideal to breathe (if you're driving through smoke or smog or things like that).",
"If you have seasonal allergies and it's pollen season",
"Also when you spot roadkill ahead and you can't avoid it, hit the recirculated air button quickly! You don't want the inside of your car to smell like a sun-bloated carcass.",
"Everything everyone has said is all partially true,If is extremely hot in your car, like its been parked in the sun all day whilst at work, if you try to recirculate immediately, it will take longer to cool your car as an A/C system does not cool the air, it removes the heat from it, yes i know it sounds the same but its not, therefor the efficiency is lower as its trying to remove more heat from the air so its best to open windows and try to equalize as much inside temperature to the outside temperature, as for cold days and you use the defrost, regardless of any lights on your dash or A/C control, it will not recirculate due to the process of defrosting it must remove the humidity from the air, hence it must expel the air in the cabin to work properly, as your compressor will also be on in defrost, again, regardless of any lights that may or may not be on, now the 'heat' setting without defrost works the same way as cool, except it blows the air by a heater core that uses the hot engine coolant to actually 'heat' up the air.",
"Always use recirculate when you are driving on [I-5 near Fresno/Coalinga RD (CA-145) in California](_URL_0_). ",
"Lots of correct answers. Just redirects air to make it more efficient under the right conditions, and personal preference.\n\nAlso as a side tip: if you have the system set to recirculate, you can run the AC to prevent the windows from fogging up in the winter. It will not make the air colder if the system is set to heat. In fact, this is exactly what the defroster does...it cycles the AC compressor to remove moisture from the air. Some cars force you to to turn the recirculate function off when the defroster is on (to defog faster & more efficiently) but you can get around this if needed by just turning on the AC.",
"When you're approaching a dead skunk on the road ahead.",
"Is it > 95 degrees outside? Put it on circulate. Your A/C will work better because it keeps re-cooling the already cooled air inside the car, rather than pulling hot air from outside and blowing it in your face. (I guess this would be true if you lived somewhere really cold and were running your heater, but I've never lived anywhere cold enough to bother re-circulating the heater's air.)\n\nDriving in a stinky area? Assuming that it's not just that you drove past a dead skunk (you will get fresher air again from outside if you wait ten seconds!) put it on circulate to try to keep the fresh-ish air inside the car rather than stinking the car up with whatever is outside. \n\nOther than that, use the fresh air. ",
"Here's one for the smokers.\n \nPut it on outside air, put the vent to the floor and crank the fan to 11. \n\nCrack the window about one inch. \n\nWith the outside air on max it increases air pressure in the car and forces the smoke out. ",
"I had a friend who used to rip a nasty fart, blast the heat, lock the doors and windows and recirculate the air. If you wanna torture your passengers that's a good time to use recirculate. ",
"Recirculate when you fart in your car, fresh air when someone else farts. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.invisible5.org/images/fresnocoalinga_banner.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3hn07y | why can't we move our eyes in one smooth motion unless we're focusing on something? (fx. car that's moving) | You can try this yourself, try moving your eyes to your left in one smooth motion, you can't, you'll move them jiggerylike, but when you have something to focus on, you can follow it to the left very smoothly.
Edit. Thanks for all the comments! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hn07y/eli5_why_cant_we_move_our_eyes_in_one_smooth/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu8svsq",
"cu8sw3u",
"cu8txlm",
"cu8uykd",
"cu8v6zy",
"cu8wj25",
"cu8ycm7",
"cu8ymfl",
"cu8zlhv",
"cu8zz62",
"cu90pcs",
"cu92rbq",
"cu93lz1",
"cu94big",
"cu963nb",
"cu964eq",
"cu97wq6",
"cu981us",
"cu9awx1",
"cu9brqi",
"cu9c9ia",
"cu9cw9c",
"cu9ehaa",
"cu9gb5t",
"cu9hlh1",
"cu9i02c",
"cu9kacc",
"cu9me27"
],
"score": [
1440,
2,
437,
4,
44,
6,
2,
241,
3,
48,
51,
6,
6,
6,
3,
7,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
5,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It has to do with fixation points. When you're following a moving object, your eyes are following one fixation point. When you're just trying to do this without an object to focus on, your eyes are really just jumping from one fixation point to another.\n\nCompare these wikis on [smooth pursuit eye movements](_URL_0_) and its converse, [saccadic eye movements](_URL_2_).\n\nEdit: \"focal point\" - > \"fixation point\"\n*probably* more accurate. as stated below, I am no expert.\n\nEdit2: For everyone either saying I'm not answering the question or \"but that doesn't explain why\" or some variation of that sentiment - the *why* is that *that just isn't how your eye works.* I can hypothesize a few benefits this might have afforded us from an evolutionary perspective, or at least, it didn't cause enough problems to be evolved out. Ultimately I think knowing the mechanism is a satisfactory explanation. It'd be like asking \"why can't I jump 30 feet\" and me saying \"humans can only jump about this high and also gravity\" and you lot being like \"*but that doesn't really answer the question does it*\"\n\nEdit3: I answered this when this thread had quite literally 0 comments, my answer was quick and dirty with some thrown in relevant wiki links. Keep scrolling for much better insights!! Like this one [here](_URL_1_). ",
"I'm commenting because I want to know the answer, and hoping this boosts your thread somehow.",
"I asked that a while ago and got some interesting answers.\n_URL_0_",
"Zefrank explains this quite well I always thought. Click the magical [hyperlink.](_URL_0_)",
"If you let your gaze fall out of focus it should be possible to pan smoothly. Even easier if you move your whole head instead of your eyes in their sockets.",
"I didn't notice this was a thing until right now and I can't stop looking around, trying to make it fluid. ",
"At the risk of sounding like a smart ass. You can move your eyes smoothly from left to right. You close your eyelids and move your eyes.",
"ELI5 version: You *can* move your eyes smoothly. Your eyes are incredibly fast. A normal eye movement is (relatively) smooth but fast. So if you look up across the room from the computer screen, you should have a fast, smooth movement. \n\nThe only problem is that when your eyes move this quickly, you are effectively blind. The likely intent of OP's question was why can't you move your eyes slowly in one smooth motion (and thus still see/process everything along the path)?\n\nThe answer: Efficiency. Our visual system defaults to the quick movements described above and our brains are great at piecing together info into a comprehensive whole (we're effectively blind ~20% of the time due to eye movements but don't feel like it). It uses an established system of jumping quickly from point to point. \n\nIn some ways smooth pursuit--smoothly tracking a moving object--is actually the less common mechanism. But from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense to have a specialization for tracking moving objects better (but it does require the moving object be present).\n\nSource: PhD in this stuff. Disclaimer: Keep in mind, this is an ELI5 version ;)",
"This happens because when your eyes are moving, you can't actually see anything. It's all blurry. But we have evolved so that we can move our eyeballs in our head to keep them still enough to get a good picture while we move our head around. \n\n\nYou can see the disadvantages of not being able to do this in other animals like chickens. The reason why some animals seem to 'bob' their head around when they look around is because they can't move their eye balls in their head, so they have to move their head from still position to still position in order to be able to see.\n\n\n**TL;DR When we move our head, our eyes are jumping from still position to still position so everything isn't blurry.**",
"Our eyes work really hard to try to focus on an object. So when we tell our minds to focus on something in particular, it just tries to jump to the conclusion and focuses on the area of interest based on previous perception (you map out everything in your brain even when you are not fully focused on it, hence why you can immediately locate a flashing light from the corner of your eyes). This jump is known as a catch up saccade where the muscles abruptly move the eye to focus on where you tell it to. This also extracts a lot more data (this is actually how you are reading this, by saccading from word to word) as opposed to pursuing an object. Think of this as part of the \"What\" system.\nSmooth pursuit on the other hand is a completely different system that requires a ~200 ms delay for your brain to calculate the exact velocity of a target and move your eyes accordingly. When this is done, it is often interrupted by \"catch-up saccades\" every 500 ms or so since we are not perfect. This is the \"Where\" system.\n\nIn short, you use your saccadic system much more to extract the most information about your environment by jumping around points of interest. When you trace something, you aren't able to extract as much data about what it is and in fact are just more concerned with where it is going. This is why your brain only uses the smooth pursuit to trace object to see where they are going (and make sure it isn't something dangerous coming straight at you). So if there is no target to trace, there is no reason to smooth pursue anything. \n\nHopefully this makes sense!",
"Am I defective for being able to do this?",
"I can do it, but it's really hard. I have to really blur my vision. It is easier in a darker room.",
"I'm not having a problem doing this. Did you by any chance just take some MDMA?",
"I can move my eyes in one fixed motion without tracking something. Both left and right. Just not up and down.",
"Wow, not one comment here about how the eyes actually work.\n\nThe eyes HAVE to keep moving, otherwise what were staring at will effectively disappear. The surface of your retina is constantly adjusting to the light and if one spot stays the same intensity, it will average out and change to grey.\n\nThey've done studies and if you have contact lenses with a spot that moves with your eye, it disappears - your retina and visual processing will make it disappear.\n\nYou can kind of see this if you look at a blank featureless stop on the floor for some time, then notice it becomes grey.\n\nMy the same token, moving your eyes keeps you seeing things. And things that move are detected even more.\n\nSo if you're panning, your eyes can move smoothly. If you stop moving your eyes, they will jump around a bit so you maintain vision.",
"Saccades versus pursuit. Two different types of eye movements that are controlled by two separate pathways in the brain and are triggered by different stimuli. Saccades are short, small, quick movements intended to put an image on your fovea, and can be volitional (you make it happen) or reflexive (something you are not looking directly at grabs your attention so you reflexively saccade to look at it). Saccades are triggered by the sudden appearance of an image on the retina somewhere outside of the fovea. A pursuit is a smooth movement intended to keep a moving image on your fovea, and is reflexive only. It is triggered by image slip off the fovea and onto adjacent retina, and your brain initiates the pursuit movement to follow it. If there is no moving object (no image slip), the pursuit pathway will not be initiated. ",
"Turn your right foot and move it slowly in a clockwise circle. So you're going round in a circle with your foot. Then writing a number 6 with the same hand that you're moving your foot on a piece of paper. But the better way to show this actually is to take your hand on the same side of your body as you're moving your foot. Now, try and make that move in a circle in the opposite direction to your foot.The foot follows the hand. ",
"Is fx a new version of eg?",
"Brain focus. \n\nThe human brain cannot focus fast enough to gather clear information while the visionary field is moving. Because the brain is having trouble focusing the adjustment of eye sight, mostly involuntary, does not happen.",
"Hello, biochemist and molecular neuroscientist here.\n\nThis post is actually an unrealistic scenario. The truth is, we can never keep our eyes perfectly still nor can we fixate them completely on a moving object. You may think you are moving your eyes smoothly when you focus on something, but you're not. The *real* reason we cannot do this has to do with light input to our eyes. Sparing the chemical breakdown, when light hits a single photoreceptor, a signal is produced. However the chemicals in that photoreceptor need to be \"reset\". Therefore, this evolutionary eye motor pattern (called saccads) has been incorporated to constantly change the light input to our eyes. If we were actually able to keep our eyes completely still or move them smoothly enough to follow a car exactly, our vision would go black until we changed focus. ",
"Probably has to do with the way our brains have evolved. Moving our eyes smoothly haven't been an evolutionary necessity, focusing on single objects like food and charging predators have. If being able to move our eyes smoothly had given us an advantage during our species existence, we would be able to. Kind of how we see colors well, but dogs see blue and yellow. ",
"FX: it's not a thing. Maybe it will be one day, when your spawn incorrectly think that FX is a valid substitute for \"e.g.,\" and convince other lazy/unintelligent people to do the same. 2015 is not, however, that time. Until then, the rest of us will continue speaking English and not making up bizarre, arbitrary abbreviations. (It doesn't even make sense as an abbreviation.)\n\n*Edit: phone killed a word",
"our brains have a built-in anti-dizziness filter if you wish\n\nbasically, while your eye moves, the brain blocks most signals and only allows certain key frames to be processed during eye-movement. we're technically blind between those times\n\nif the brain wouldn't do this, we might get dizzy just from looking around",
"If you watched everything in swift motion, you'd get dizzy. Instead you view things bit by bit and your brain fills in the rest. These bits your brain fills in (i think) are called secents",
"Our eyes' movements fall into two classes: slow and fast eye movements. This is somewhat deceptive, because the slow movements sometimes aren't all that slow. What matters is that there are two *control systems*: the slow movement control system, and the fast movement control system. They take control of the eye muscles alternatively and exclusively. So your eyes can be either moved by the *slow system*, or the *fast system*.\n\nThe *fast system* generates *only* the movements called saccades. They are the \"jiggerylike\", as you call them, movements whose sole purpose is to redirect the gaze. The saccadic eye movements aren't actually all that jiggery. Their velocity-over-time is a rather smooth curve that can be well approximated ( < 2% error) by a 3rd order polynomial.\n\nThe \"jiggeriness\" is the most efficient way of redirecting your gaze. When you wish to look somewhere, your goal is to see it ASAP. You *do* want your eye to move there as quickly as possible, and that's done by accelerating and decelerating it as fast as your muscles can. Using some smooth motion would be a horribly slow way of shifting our gaze, but that's not the only reason.\n\nThis is the basic explanation, but there's a whole lot of underlying \"you didn't know that for sure\" that I should include, too. The saccades are really special, it turns out, and the fast control system that generates them is critical to our visual perception.\n\nOur visual system consists really of *two* visual systems: the peripheral vision, that works continuously, and the central vision, that works in a snapshot-taking fashion. The central vision - the one that has high resolution and is the only one in demand by our conscious mind - can take at most about ten (10) snapshots per second, and most of the time it works at a much more leisurely pace of about 3-6 pics per second.\n\nThe central vision has two other important qualities that, taken together with its sampling (snapshot) property, make the behavior you describe emerge:\n\n1. It is the only visual system subject to our conscious control. When we wish to look somewhere, the central visual system fulfills the request by redirecting the gaze so that the central vision ends up looking where you wish to look.\n\n2. The central vision is blind most of the time. Specifically, it's like a camera that can't take snapshots until a saccade starts, and then can only take a snapshot when the image stops slipping on the retina (usually it happens when a saccade ends, but that's just a lucky coincidence).\n\nSo, \"smooth\" motion, called slow eye movements, wouldn't work because as long as the image is slipping on the retina, the central vision can't acquire a high resolution picture. The peripheral vision isn't good enough for even simple things like reading. So you must definitely stop the eye's motion relative to the motion of whatever you try to look at - so that the image becomes stable on the retina and a snapshot can be taken.\n\nIf you think that the snapshot behavior is a bunch of gobbledygook, there's a wonderful experiment that will convince you otherwise. Get moving in a car/bus/train such that you look down out the side window, in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the vehicle. Try to sort of stare down so that all you see is the blur of the side of the road/rail track. The image is slipping on your retina and there isn't much to see - just a blur. Now start and keep looking ahead and behind along the side of road/track - remember that you are to look close to the road/track ahead/behind you, not away. Suddenly you will notice that you start seeing perfectly clear images of the side of the track/road, as if they were frozen in time, in spite of you still moving along, clearly too fast to see the details. That happens because, as you redirect your gaze ahead and behind, at some point in time the absolute angular velocity of your eye matches the angular velocity of the road/track side as whizzes by on the retina, and the stable image is instantly acquired and ends the saccadic blanking.\n\nFor this to work, you need to be traveling too fast for the slow pursuit eye movement to catch up. The pursuit eye movements are the ones that let you read from a book someone is slowly waving in front of you. If you wave it, you're cheating - your slow eye movement system can generate a motion following your own arms because the information about your arm's motion already exists in your body and can be used for such purpose. You can follow your own waving hand even with your eyes closed :)",
"If you're able to slightly cross your eyes to where everything becomes blurry, you can move your eyes back and forth smoothly without a problem. Reason being... you're not automatically focusing on anything. ",
"You can focus on something and move your head. Isnt it the same? ",
"Definitely just spent 2 minutes in a public place flickering my eyes around the room seeing if I really couldn't do it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_pursuit",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hn07y/eli5_why_cant_we_move_our_eyes_in_one_smooth/cu8ymfl",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade"
],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20vdpu/eli5_why_do_my_eyes_move_smoothly_when_i_fixate/"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW_mkwFMKOs"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
544psf | why are some people (like artists who draw from imagination, comic/manga artists etc) capable of transcribing their imaginations into pictures so well and some others (like me) just cannot? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/544psf/eli5why_are_some_people_like_artists_who_draw/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7ytevo",
"d7yubri"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Desire and practice. They enjoy it, so have been drawing/painting for possibly hundreds of hours, if not thousands, and you haven't, more or less that simple. They might have a slight natural aptitude, but certainly weren't born with that level of skill/precision, they developed it.",
"Random anecdote:\n\nPicasso was famously known at the early age of 15 to produce near photorealistic representational painting, such as:\n\n[First Communion](_URL_0_) \n\nWhile at the same time, he had such severe dyslexia that reading and math was near impossible; instead of symbols representing interpretable language his brain scrambled the characters such that he saw letters and numbers as little drawings. \n\nHe most certainly had innate talent, but it was his determination that he attributed as the source of his success. \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-9.php"
]
] |
|
b969lb | why can we not see vy canis majoris (the largest star in the milky way)? | It is literally a bajillion times bigger than the sun.
Why can’t we see it?
I would assume its because its a trillion + lightyears away, but its sheer size is astonishing. VY Canis Majoris makes the sun look like earth when compared to the sun.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b969lb/eli5_why_can_we_not_see_vy_canis_majoris_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek30jb7"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I love /random. It gives such interesting results.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo I had never heard of VY Canis Majoris, but with a background in astrophysics, I figured I'd research this and figure it out.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFirst of all, apparently you *can* see VY CMa - sometimes. Its brightness from Earth fluctuates from 9.2 (definitely not gonna see) to around 6.5 (barely within sight on a clear night). The magnitude scale is logarithmic, like the Richter scale for earthquakes, so that difference is akin to the difference between a [magnitude 6.5 earthquake](_URL_1_) and a [magnitude 9 earthquake](_URL_0_).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBut for the most part, you're right: we can't really see it with our eyes on Earth. And while it's more like 4,000 lightyears away, not a trillion, that's still really far. That's 160 times farther away than Vega, three times as far as Betelgeuse, and a whopping 400 times as far as Sirius. And in the universe, farther away means **redder**.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThere's a whole list of reasons for that: dust in the universe, expansion, relativity, and more. But something to keep in mind is that VY CMa is *ALREADY EXTREMELY RED.*\n\nIf it were close enough that we could see it easily, it would look super red. In fact, VY CMa is brightest by a LONG shot in what's called the \"Mid-Infrared\" spectrum, which is the section past the section past red. Visible light is actually only a really small amount of all the light types in the universe (including microwaves, radio waves, and gamma waves). The important part is this: nearly all of the light VY CMa emits is so red that we can't see it with human eyes.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nNow keep in mind that all that light has 4,000 lightyears of distance to get *even more infrared*, which means even less of it is visible light.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIt's not that we can't see it because it's too far away, it's that the star has **literally turned invisible to the naked eye**. If you have infrared detectors, VY CMa is a [whopping bright red beacon in the sky](_URL_2_) when you look through them. But unfortunately, when you look with your eyes, you'd be lucky to see much at all."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/03/japan-earthquake-aftermath/100023/",
"https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/12/americas/costa-rica-earthquake/index.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris#/media/File:Wide-field_view_of_the_sky_around_VY_Canis_Majoris.jpg"
]
] |
|
120owx | -radiation and the process of how it interacts with other atoms. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/120owx/eli5radiation_and_the_process_of_how_it_interacts/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6r6hq1"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing about 20% of this stuff, so don't take what I say at face value.\n\nSome atoms are heavier/larger than others. Helium is a very light/small atom. Oxygen is quite a bit bigger. Plutonium is pretty freaking huge.\n\nAn interesting property of the larger atoms is that some of them are unstable (smaller atoms can also be unstable, but it's rare). When an atom is unstable, it means it may spontaneously break apart. The weird thing is that when you take the broken pieces of an atom, the size of all the bits does not match up with the size of the original atom.\n\nWhat happens to this missing *stuff*? It gets converted into energy and shoots out in a random direction. We call this energy radiation. Some examples of this type of radiation is x-rays and gamma rays. \n\nThese rays can be dangerous because they are like little bullets that fly around and knock stuff around. Maybe a ray will run into another atoms and knock off an electron. Maybe a ray will hit another atom atom and break it apart (releasing another ray). Or maybe the ray will hit some DNA inside one of your cells and damage it. Generally this damaged DNA isn't a problem... but sometimes it becomes a huge problem (called cancer). \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1n5rco | how can i weigh myself right before i go to sleep, and right after i wake up in the morning, and weigh more in the morning? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n5rco/eli5_how_can_i_weigh_myself_right_before_i_go_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccfmuoq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If it is a subtle difference, your scale might not be properly zeroed or is just slightly inaccurate. Or you are cooking yourself a nice breakfast while you sleepwalk. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2stgi6 | what is the scientific community's understanding of race, and how do they differentiate races? | Race is obviously a very divisive topic, so I see a lot of people arguing about what race is and isn't. After a quick search, however, it seems like many scientists agree on some concept of races as delineated by genetics (though they may use different words - people, ethnic group, etc.) I'd like to get a better understanding of how scientists look at race and how they decide on grouping races. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2stgi6/eli5_what_is_the_scientific_communitys/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnsoyen",
"cnspphd",
"cnst5wb",
"cnsyzce"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I can't speak directly to your question but one thing I can tell you is that if you ever hear anyone claim that there are separate species of humans, they're full of it, as the only extant subspecies is Homo Sapiens sapiens, ie all of currently living humanity. There is some evidence another subspecies of Homo Sapiens may have existed as well, around 150,000 years ago, but all humans are Homo Sapiens sapiens.",
"Race is a social construct much like wealth, love, and money. It's arbitrary. ",
"There are distinct physical and, yes, mental differences between people, those differences can be explained (partially) by genetics, and those genetic differences (and the associated characteristics) can be correlated to the region of the world in which you were born or are directly descended from.\n\n**However**, race is simply too broad a category to reflect this correctly. For example, a black person in the United States is likely to be considered a West African, and West Africans have distinct differences from Southern Africans, even though both would be considered to be \"black.\" For another example, a Greek man and a Norwegian man would also have very significant genetic differences, even though they are both classified as \"white.\"",
"It depends on what you mean by \"scientific community\". If you are referring to biologists, then \"race\" is a non-existing (or, rather, an outdated) term.\n\nBiologically speaking, the lowest taxonomical rank with a hard definition is the *species* (although *subspecies* is sometimes used to form groups within a species). In very simplified terms, members of a species can interbreed, while breeding across species is (generally) not possible. (There are exceptions, but I'm simplifying here). \n\nAll humans form a species (*Homo sapiens*), and hence, they can interbreed. The same is true for all dogs (*Canis lupus familiaris*). Yes - as different as a Great Dane or German Shepherd seem to be from a Chihuahua, they are all the same species, and can interbreed. The distinctive features that divide them into breeds (or \"races\") are the result of artificial selection by human breeders - following *pre-determined* features and parameters like tail length, fur shade, fur length, leg angle and whatnot, that are tried to be matched by selective breeding. Breeders basically \"make up\" categories, and then \"produce\" animals that fit that category.\n\nHowever, all this doesn't apply to humans, or other animals in the wild. All the different features we see in humans (skin tone, body height, eye color and shape, hair color and curlyness) are due to natural genetic variation. They are gradual, and they often appear in clusters, but not generally. Genetically, the differences between, say, a Zulu person from South Africa and a Wolof person from Senegal (which you would both classify as \"black\") might be greater than, say, the same Senegalese guy and an Irishman or Italian (which you might call \"white).\n\nThe concept of dividing humans into \"races\" stems from the dark ages of colonialism and slave trade, and arguably culminated in Nazi Germany and South Africa under the Apartheid regime. The idea here was always to find a \"scientific\" justification for dominating, enslaving or exterminating members of an \"inferior race\". Nazi scientists went to great lenths by meticulously measuring physical features of subjects like bone length, skull circumference, eye distance, nose curvature and whatnot in order to establish measurable parameters for dividing humans into \"superior races\" (Aryan) and \"inferior races\" (Semitic, Negroid, Mongolian etc.), basically applying principles that only make sense in artificial breeding.\n\nNowadays, \"race\" has become a very blurry and unspecific term, and its meaning varies greatly between cultures, nations, and level of education. In most of Europe, at least in educated company, using the term \"race\" alone will get you some raised eyebrows, and people might wonder if you subscribe to some Neo-Nazi ideology, or what century you are from. It would sound as weird and backwards as using the word \"negro\" in modern US. This is mostly due to the European colonial history, and the fact that (especially in former sea-faring countries like Britain or Netherlands) the population is now a happy, colorful mix of people from all around the world - all shades of skin color, hair color, eye color... It's so obviously gradual and continuous that the concept of \"race\" doesn't make any sense. And of course, recent European history (until 1945) makes Europeans extra wary of the \"race\" concept.\n\nConversely, in the US, the term \"race\" and rampant racism in general are still a thing (heck, there are even official government forms that ask for your \"race\"! This often baffles European visitors - they wouldn't even know what to specify there). Here, \"Race\" merely denotes social groups, and this can be understood, considering the fairly recent American history of slavery. In the US, the category \"black\" or \"African American\" doesn't really refer to your skin color - it effectively means \"of predominantly African slave descent\". Likewise, \"white\" or \"Caucasian\" actually means \"of predominantly European immigrant descent\", while \"Hispanic\" has nothing to do with Spain, but actually means \"unwelcome Mexican neighbor\". And then, of course, you always run into people who refer to \"Muslim\", \"Filipino\" or \"Mexican\" as races (the former is a religion, while the latter are nationalities).\n\nIt differs everywhere: In many African countries, \"black\" means \"descendants of the original inhabitants\", while \"white\" means \"descendants of the European colonialists\". French racists discriminate between \"whites\" and \"arabs\". \n\nIn short: Biologically speaking, \"race\" is a non-concept. But in history, social an political sciences, \"race\" is a term that carried (and still carries) different meanings, depending on your place and time.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5r1mbb | how did early u.s presidents behave compared with what is now considered 'presidential' behavior? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r1mbb/eli5_how_did_early_us_presidents_behave_compared/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd3onnz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For 1 there was basically a rager thrown after the inauguration at the Whitehouse. I believe Jackson's party was so crazy a bunch of stuff got looted and they had to put a bath tub of liquor out onto the lawn to get everyone out of the house.\n\nNowadays they have some elegant white-glove party."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
34xs1r | how are we able to use windmills now to generate electricity? what technology has changed. | When I was in school (90's), my physics teacher always told us that the concept of using windmills to collect energy was good on paper, but in real-world scenarios, it didn't really produce that much energy and was too costly. What has changed recently that has allowed us to start using them more?
I did a search and most of the posts explained the general process of converting wind to electricity. I am hoping that someone can explain if there have been recent technological advancements. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34xs1r/eli5_how_are_we_able_to_use_windmills_now_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqz1lk8",
"cqz1lzn",
"cqz1obw"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Im not sure if there has been any drastic advancement. Its more just we figured out how to build really really big windmills. I mean wind turbines are absolutely massive which helps them to generate more power. I think your 90s physics teacher was just misinformed back then though.\n\nAlthough to be fair wind energy does have a lot of problems. It takes quite a bit of wind turbines to produce a meaningful amount of energy. This makes them take up a lot of space. They cant be relied on consistantly etc. \n\nCompared to say a nuclear plant or a gas turbine plant, windmills still dont produce much power and have issues. They just have a niche now.",
"Upscaling.\n\nWind turbines these days are far bigger than they used to be in the past, and building them out in the Sea, where they catch more wind, helps as well.",
"Three things have changed:\n\n* advanced materials, such as as carbon composites, have become affordable, making wind turbine rotors light and strong enough to be more practical\n* the demand, and therefore the cost of electricity has increased \n* increased regulations and environmental concerns have made it more difficult to build coal fired power plants"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2xvxbz | nosebleeds, what is happening to cause them to come on suddenly | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xvxbz/eli5_nosebleeds_what_is_happening_to_cause_them/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp3y6qn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The nose is full of small capillaries that are close to the surface because they have to supply the tender tissue and the odor sensing organs inside. There capillaries might burst if theres suddenly a rise in blood pressure, or from a strike to the face, so that's how you get the nose bleed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9zekrp | how does credit/debit works in america? | Im from Portugal and here we don't have that "good credit" or wtv that I see lots of people talking here on Reddit. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zekrp/eli5_how_does_creditdebit_works_in_america/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea8i1xm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A credit rating is a score produced by three large lending agencies in the US which indicates how likely you are to repay a debt, and therefore how much you are worthy of being lent. If you have good credit you are able to borrow more money."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1fvar8 | how much is obama to blame for this latest domestic spying scandal. | I know Obama promised to get rid of the NSA's warantless spying as a candidate and clearly hasn't done that. He's also arresting any whistleblowers who bring forth evidence documenting the illegal activities of the government or his policies, but how much is Obama to blame for this and how much of it is due the pre-established laws such as the Patriot Act and other branches of government acting of their own discretion? If we had elected McCain would things have been different or was this just an unavoidable scenario that the president alone couldn't control? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fvar8/how_much_is_obama_to_blame_for_this_latest/ | {
"a_id": [
"cae4vh9",
"cae50ib",
"cae9lh5",
"caeaum2",
"caeotpf"
],
"score": [
5,
32,
19,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Obama is the executive, and has control over all aspects of the NSA's program. He bears responsibility.\n\nNow I doubt at all that things would have been different with McCain or Romney, and that's what sucks about our 2 party system.",
"Obama can be held quite clearly accountable for the NSA's activities, since it's a branch of the gov't that falls under his control.\n\nThat he hasn't curtailed the NSA's spying is different from how he hasn't closed down Gitmo: The latter required legislative approval (and approval was NOT granted).\n\nTo break down the rest of your questions:\n\nRepealing the PATRIOT Act would need legislative approval, so Obama's not entirely responsible for that. He could have asked for it, and not asking for it is points against him, but he probably would have gotten turned down anyway even if he did (as in closing Gitmo)\n\nThe IRS scandal, AFAIK, has not been directly linked to Obama. It's possible that the persons involved in this did not receive a directive from on-high, which clears Obama (although he's still involved in a very indirect way, as he's the head of the gov't)\n\nNo, the NSA thing is and was avoidable. However, it's unlikely that things would have been different under McCain or Romney, as Republican policy is also hawkish with regards to 'counter-terrorism', which all this surveillance would ostensibly fall under.",
" > If we had elected McCain would things have been different or was this just an unavoidable scenario that the president alone couldn't control?\n\nIf you remember the 2012 presidential debate on international affairs both the candidates pretty much agreed on everything from drone strikes to intelligence gathering. The same was with McCain, he was infact not only in favor of keeping all these tactics but also prolonging the war in Iraq & Afghanistan.\n\nYes, Obama is definitely to blame for this but you can blame him for not being staunch enough to repeal such laws. He must've been faced with options like 'You either repeal Patriot Act and risk another massive terrorist attack on American soil or renew it and pray that we catch the bad guys first'. For a politician that is a low hanging fruit which is too easy to avoid.\n\n**ELI5**\n\nYour parents went on a long vacation and left you & your siblings with your grandparents. Grandpa finds out your parents bugged your brother's car with a GPS and have camera and mics in your room and your sister's room. They later find out from the parents that before they installed the surveillance your brother used to go to titty bars every weekend and your sister furiously fisted herself and had bukkakes in her room and you always tried to burn the house down. They're left with a problematic situation to continue monitoring all of you or ethically stop and let bad things happen to the kids and be accountable to your parents. \n\nBoth grandpa and grandma are afraid to change the status quo regarding the surveillance but grandpa wants to focus on keeping you healthy, well fed and well educated whereas grandma wants to let you fend for yourself and forage your own food and books. Years later you're still in the same house and find out the house is actually a mental hospital, your grandparents and parents are guards at the asylum and you don't really have a brother. Boom, Good night motherfuckka!\n\n",
"I thought that all this spying was deemed legal under the Patriot Act that was signed in 2001. Am I completely wrong here?",
"Remember the saying \"the buck stops here?\" "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a6uccm | why trains nowadays have multiple engines in front. | I've seen trains that have up to 5 engine cars at the front. Are they doing anything? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6uccm/eli5_why_trains_nowadays_have_multiple_engines_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"eby15ij",
"eby8qbw"
],
"score": [
20,
6
],
"text": [
"Because those trains are too heavy to be pulled with one loco. Sometimes, one locomotive is also put in the middle or back of train because the weight pulled would break the couplers. Sometimes, extra locomotive is added when train is going through steep terrain or during snow or rain, when wheels can slip more easily. Sometimes, rail company just wants to transfer locomotive between two different stations, so they hook it up to some train that goes that direction.",
"*TL:DR: There are weight/height/width/length/economic limits that prevent us from using super powerful locomotives on long/heavy trains, so we have to use the combined pulling power of multiple, less powerful locomotives.*\n\nRailway tracks are only rated to carry a certain amount of weight at any given point. If you try to put a massive engine into a single locomotive, the amount of weight that the locomotive puts on the tracks at each axle becomes too much. So, we have locomotives that cram in as much power as is cost-effective to do so, while maintaining good weight distribution over the axles, and reasonable running/maintenance costs.\n\nLarger engines also add other complications, such as volume requirements (trains need to fit into a certain height and width as dictated by the lines they run on, and are also limited in length based on the curves on the line). Bigger, more powerful engines can also cause greater stresses on the chassis and components of the locomotive, increasing the weight even further by requiring a stronger chassis to support the engine, and in turn increasing running and maintenance costs.\n\nGiven these limitations, if the train being pulled is too heavy for one locomotive, you just add another locomotive (and these extra locomotives are controlled via the front locomotive either using cables or using wireless/radio communications). Some railways also include extra locomotives for trains that will be running high grades (hills), where the spare locomotive(s) will remain unpowered for most of the run, but will be turned on to provide extra power for the hilly portions.\n\n[_URL_2_](_URL_0_)\n\nOne curiosity in locomotive design (among many) is the [DDA40X](_URL_1_) which was built with 2 engines inside it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDA40X",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle\\_load"
]
] |
|
6nr6lg | why do drug cartels kill? | I know this seems like a dumb question, but why do drug cartel kill? From my perspective they are a business, granted an illegal business but a business nonetheless, so why do they feel the need to kill? You don't see legitimate businesses killing off their competitions, can't the cartels function normally without having to commit homicides? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nr6lg/eli5why_do_drug_cartels_kill/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkbm0z7",
"dkbm2du",
"dkbm5i6",
"dkbmabl",
"dkbmd2r",
"dkbqicv"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
28,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because their whole industry is seriously illegal, none of these organizations want to go to the police for help, or even accept help if the police show up.\n\nUnfortunately this means the police cannot effectively protect them. Therefore the temptation to commit crimes against them is much higher.",
"Legitimate businesses do not kill off their competitors because that is illegal and by definition makes them non-legitimate. If they could do so and not get into trouble they would because no competition is better than beating your competition. \n\nedit: Cartels also use killing to keep people under control. Threat of death prevents many from telling the cops on them, and keep them following orders. ",
"If Samsung infringes on Apple's patents, Apple has a mechanism to seek redress from the court by suing Samsung. They have done this in the past. Drug cartels have no such third party to regulate the industry, or settle disputes and grievances between competitors, because the industry is highly illegal. The only other mechanism to settle grievances is through negotiations between the two organizations, or by the barrel of a gun. They do both of these things.",
"It's used as a tool in many ways. Say someone inside your organization steals a lot of highly valuable drugs and you just fire them. It says anyone in your cartel can just steal your money or drugs and walk away. You kill the 1st guy who steals it's a deterrent to future theft. \n\nOutside your cartel your competing fpr highly lucrative smuggling routes and drug selling territory. A rival cartel comes in and starts using your territory and you just look the other way. You then lose money and the message is anyone can come in and use your territory without repercussions. You start killing people who try that and others think twice. \n\nThere is no regulation so you police yourself. And violence speaks loudly. Walmart can't just bring merchandise into target and start selling it. There's no one telling the cartels you can't do that so you need to tell the competition yourself. And nothing says get out like a dozen heads lining the street in juarez mexico or somewhere.",
"If legitimate businesses could kill off their competition in a legal way they absolutely would, and have (just not literally killing the employees, cause legal issues).",
"The difference between cartels and legal businesses is that they don't have any authority the can appeal to.\n\nIf you run a business and have a problem with a customer you can call the cops or call your lawyers.\n\nAs an ileal business you don't have that option. You can hope for honor among thieves (which doesn't really exist outside some strong unifying cultural authority taking the place of government authority) or you can take steps to protect yourself.\n\nWhen you run an illegal business of any kind you are immediately thrust from living in a society of law into a society of honor. that doesn't mean that you start behaving honorably, it means that you have to behave in a way that protects your reputation.\n\nYou protect yourself from being attacked and taken advantage of by acquiring a reputation for brutality against those who will cross you.\n\nWhen you are outside the law your reputation is everything.\n\nIf you appear weak people will attack you if you appear strong they will respect you.\n\nThis is the same everywhere and at any time. The sort of effect may result in gangs shooting each other in in American inner cities or Cartels killing lots of people in Mexico.\n\nIf it goes on long enough and these criminal societies become strong enough they start developing internal societies of law themselves. If you look at old criminal enterprises like the mafia or the yakuza, you will find a strong emphasis on honor and reputation. anyone going against the rules gets brutally punished as an example to others which allows a much more ordered and less violent operation of their criminal enterprise.\n\nThe Mexican cartels are too much in competition with each other and with outside forces to settle down into such a less violent state."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7wkzdm | why does some cars running on v8, v12 engines create a fluttering exhaust noise while others don't? | Some cars with powerful engines, e.g, Lamborgini, Mercedes etc use a V8, or V12 engine, and create a guttural noise, but then Ferrari, Aston Martin using engines of similar cylinder count do not create such a sharp noise. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wkzdm/eli5why_does_some_cars_running_on_v8_v12_engines/ | {
"a_id": [
"du18gin",
"du19pdt"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's to do with the overlapping power strokes.\n\nA 4 cylinder engine has 1 power stoke per rotation and none overlapping. So each one is a more distinct sound.\n\nA v12 will have 3 power stokes per rotation, and the eaach explosion merges to create a smoother sound.\n\nEg. A 4 cylinder @ 1000 rpm will create 250 power strokes per minute.\n\nA 12 cylinder engine running at 1000 rpm will create 750 power strokes in the same ammount of time.\n\nThis affects the smoothness of the sound. \nThe exhaust on the other hand does allot to control the volume and pitch.\n\n",
"We'll focus on v12s initially to keep it simple. The firing order of a v12 (that is, when each cylinder burns its fuel) is consistent across all v12s*, which gives them an easily identifiable tenor like note. They don't all sound the same though, as you've pointed out, and that mostly falls down to the exhaust.\n\nThe first part of the exhaust (which takes the fumes directly from the cylinders) is called the exhaust manifold, and there are different types. Some are crafted for extracting performance from the engine, whilst others are more concerned with refinement. In performance manifolds, the pipes are all carefully designed and shaped to be the same length (which is set by the desired characteristics of the engine), and merge with one another in a very particular manner to ensure optimal flow and pressure; this is heavy, expensive, and uses a fair bit more space - but creates a resonance in the exhaust which is responsible for the raspy bass rich sound. When refinement is the name of the game, the exhaust manifold is laid out in a more muted way, giving it a softer and more song like sound. In effect, though, you can kind of think of the exhaust manifold like a trumpet, different length pipes will produce a different notes, but the overall sound always remains distinct.\n\nThe manifold eventually merges into a set of pipes which feed into what most people know as an exhaust system, the catalytic converter (cat) and the muffler. The cat is designed to do it's job in a manner of least resistance, but does take the edge off of the sound somewhat; for the most part though, the cat can be considered broadly the same across engines. The muffler has far more impact on the final sound, and does what it says on the tin, it muffles (or mutes) the sound produced. In recent years a lot more effort has been devoted to \"tuning\" (as in the musical sense, not the performance sense) the final output. The output can be changed by various different valves that open under different operating conditions (be it RPM, throttle position etc.), to routing the exhaust fumes in certain ways (again, somewhat like a trumpet), and have a big impact on the final sound you hear.\n\nUltimately, in brands that use big engines, the exhaust note is seen as a signature. It's finely crafted so that it suites both the application and the brand itself, and has a big impact on the end drivers experience of the car.\n\nV8s are a little different though, in that there are 2 types of widely adopted types: - cross plane and flat plane. The plane refers to the layout of the crankshaft (the bit in the engine that takes the up/down motion of the pistons and transforms it into torque). The sound of a cross plane v8 is the sound most people think of when they imagine a v8 (AMG, corvette etc.), where as a flat plane v8 is the sound you hear from a Ferrari or a McLaren.\n\nA cross plane crank is arranged in 90 degree intervals (which is where it gets its name from, viewed down its longest axis it looks like a +). This gives it an uneven firing order, which is where the classic burble sound comes from. A flat plane crank is arranged in 180 degree intervals (which, you guessed it, make it look like a -). It's firing order is even, so in effect it sounds like two 4 cylinder engines working together, and gives it the higher pitch sound.\n\nBecause of the uneven firing order on a cross plane crank, it needs counterweights to balance it out (otherwise it would shake itself to pieces). This adds inertia to the engine, limiting both its engine speed and acceleration. A flat plane crank doesn't require counterweights, so it can rev more freely (which again gives it a higher pitch sound).\n\nSo while v12s have a broadly similar sounds, the sound of a v8 is very much dictated by the type of crankshaft it has. On top of that, you've then got all of the same exhaust considerations as outlined above, which enhance and change the final sound.\n\nWith all that said and done though, the flutter your referring to could in fact be one of many other things: -\n\n* Overrun fuelling, I think this is more likely what you're hearing. In older cars that don't use electronic fuel injection, sudden cuts in throttle would produce a sound in the exhaust (anywhere from a flutter to a loud banging). This would be caused by a sudden drop in oxygen entering the engine, without a corresponding drop in fuel intake, which would cause the additional unburnt fuel to burn in the exhaust. In recent years manufacturers of sports/super cars have started mimicking this by injecting fuel into the exhaust and retarding/cutting fuel ignition when the engine is on the overrun (when the engine has no throttle input but the inertia causes it to slowly wind down).\n* Ignition timing, similar to the above, ignition timing (and I suppose to a wider extend variable valve timing) can have a big impact on sound under different throttle conditions. Modern, performance, turbocharged engines will deliberately retard and advance ignition timing in different states to try and reduce turbo lag, creating different sounds.\n* Waste gate flutter (and related sounds), less likely to be what you're hearing, but turbocharged cars will make different fluttery noises as they build/manage/dump boost. This can sound like anything between chirping, whistling, whooshing, and gargling.\n\n\\* For the purpose of this answer, I suppose it is possible for a different firing order, but I don't know of any."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
cufplj | why are so many types of toothpaste advertised as “whitening” toothpastes? shouldn’t every type of toothpaste be cleaning and whitening your teeth regardless of the type? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cufplj/eli5_why_are_so_many_types_of_toothpaste/ | {
"a_id": [
"extw57j",
"extw5wd",
"extxu16",
"exuanf6",
"exus18f"
],
"score": [
36,
3,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Whitening' toothpastes typically contain stronger abrasives and substances with the specific aim of attacking hard-to-break-down stains and changing color through chemical action. This is in addition to the contents of usual tooth paste, which is mostly concerned with breaking down plaque, minimizing decay, and freshening breath. This can certainly lead to an improvement of appearance, but not necessarily to the same scale if you've got significant coloring.",
"Whitening and cleaning are not the same thing. Whitening is superficial; cleaning is health-important. Whitening is something of a marketing gimmick, as well, since if they put \"WHITENING\" on their toothpaste then consumers might be more interested. Anything that makes your product stand out helps.",
"Adding to what stuhulhu said most whitening toothpastes are referring to some kind of bleaching process that usually involves peroxide of some kind or another that uses an oxygen-based bleaching process to whiten up the teeth same process as bleaching hair or clothing - just in your mouth. Not as good as the whitening strips because it's not as concentrated and doesn't stay on as long.\n\nAlso too much bleaching can make your teeth extremely sensitive - so consider that when choosing your oral cosmetic products.",
"Cleaning yes, but the natural color of human teeth is slightly yellow (not dark yellow but a light yellow tinge). Whitening toothpastes have bleaching agents in them that remove that slight yellowish tinge, and whitening pastes/treatment trays have strong bleaching agents for more severe coloring from things like diet (coffee and tea) or smoking.",
"Teeth are somewhat translucent, the pulp in the core of them is pinkish in color. To make them look more white, you can rough them up, like you would rough up a plate with sandpaper.\n\nNote this isn't necessarily a good thing, since bacteria can burrow in the tiny scratches you make on your teeth. So unless you have a real good reason for it, better use a mild toothpaste."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9l2d1i | how do we know what tv shows get good and bad 'ratings'? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9l2d1i/eli5_how_do_we_know_what_tv_shows_get_good_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e73i5iy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The most famous company doing TV ratings is Nielsen. If you've ever heard the term \"Nielsen Ratings\", its just that, its the company Nielsen's determination of Ratings!\n\nNielsen makes a lot of this rating info public about what ratings shows get, which is why the general public, writers and such can see how well shows do! There is a lot of public info, however if you work in media, broadcasting, or advertising, you can buy some more advanced products from them that are much more detailed that they do not make public, but since Nielsen does make a lot public, its easy to see for even the average joe or writer to see.\n\nNielsen is considered the \"currency\" of TV ratings so, its the current industry standard. While its *very* not perfect in any way, everyone has agreed to use it as the base system... for now. [side note: There's a serious debate if the industry should be using Nielsen as its standard, but right now, it just is]\n\nThere are a lot of other companies out there doing TV ratings, particularly a company called comScore, but Nielsen is still the industry standard, and most of those other companies make little of their info public (if any) as its just used internally within the industry (i.e. you have to buy the info from them, they don't give it away).\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ct1p85 | how to tell non-planet time of day (if day is defined)? | ELI5: How does one tell time when a person no longer lives on a planet or among a multi-planetary society? (Rotation/orbit of a planet nor long/lat will not influence measurements) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ct1p85/eli5_how_to_tell_nonplanet_time_of_day_if_day_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"exi1ima",
"exi1z75",
"exjo7c1"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well if location and orbit are removed there's nothing left to alter a \"days time\" or a year seeing as they're both related to rotation and orbit. So theyd all be the same at that point.",
"At that point, there will need to be some standard to keep things coordinated. For example, one could still use the modern definition of a second which is based on the frequency of a cesium atom and thus could be implemented regardless of where you are in space.\n\nHowever, at this point you also need to figure out how to factor in time dilation due to relativity, as any kind of space travel outside our solar system would require speeds at which time progresses differently on the spacecraft than it does for an outside observer. Some sort of universal standard of how to keep track of and coordinate time would be needed, and it's up to that space-traveling society to determine that standard.",
"With a clock. It's not any more complicated than that. If you're in deep space (say during a 6 month trip to mars) and you want to keep Earth time, you simply take a clock. We don't define the length of a second (and thus a minute and hour) based on the rotation of planet, we define it based on a universal constant that holds true on Earth and Mars and Europa and deep space and the Andromeda Galaxy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
65vpmk | how have fossil fuel companies prevented/slowed down the adaptation of solar and wind energy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65vpmk/eli5_how_have_fossil_fuel_companies/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgdis3u"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I am unaware of any significant attempts by fossil fuel companies to prevent/slow down the adoption of solar and wind energy. Nor would I suspect they'd be much concerned about it.\n\nThe primary use for fossil fuels isn't fixed power generation - where they have long happily co-existed with nuclear and hydroelectric - but rather mobile uses. Since wind is useless for powered mobile applications and solar only slightly less useless, there is no reason for fossil fuel companies to impede their development.\n\nWhat you might be reacting to is the fact that *power companies* don't particularly like wind/solar because they're often forced to buy it at rates far in excess of its actual value to them. Because wind/solar is unpredictably intermittent power, it's value is far less than the value of the power from the power company's fixed assets. However, states often require their power companies to pay consumer rates for electricity buyback.\n\nWhen power companies do succeed in adjusting solar/wind purchase rates to a more reasonable level, they are often accused of attacking renewable energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4u3x7x | what does it mean when insurance companies like humana pull out the obamacare market? doesn't the aca require insurance companies to follow specific rules and accept anyone who applies for insurance? considering that, why does it matter if an insurance company is in the market or out of it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u3x7x/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_insurance_companies/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5mm75m",
"d5mnznk"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It means that they are not selling particular types of insurance while continuing to sell other types (such as the health insurance people get through their employer). It matters because fewer companies in a market means less competition and therefore higher premiums.",
"To add to what's already been mentioned, if an insurer pulls out of the market, they must wait many years to get back into it. So the companies who've left are focusing on other types of insurance and will likely monitor what happens in the marketplace between now and when they're allowed back in (if they'd even want to get back in). \n\nWhat it also means is that some of the companies who are staying in are only sticking around so they're not out of it. Many offer very limited options since there's less competition."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
29qr39 | why don't animated movies use voice actors that can impersonate a highly desired actors voice? | Wouldn't the movie makers save a ton of money by not paying the high priced actors for the same voice that an impersonator can produce? Or do they need the big actor "name" to promote the movie? Are there legal implications? Do actors have a trademark / copyright on the sound of their voice? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29qr39/eli5why_dont_animated_movies_use_voice_actors/ | {
"a_id": [
"cinjy0e",
"cinjzf1",
"cinpe5g"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe that it's simpler to just pay the actor, instead of paying for their likeness and then paying for a voice actor also. \n\nSome actors may not take kindly to having their personality and voice used without their consent. Like Ellen Paige's reaction to the character Ellie in the game The Last Of Us ",
" > Or do they need the big actor \"name\" to promote the movie?\n\nThat's pretty much it. You go to see a movie because it has Brad Pitt, not a guy that sounds like Brad Pitt.",
"Voice acting isn't simpler or easier than live acting. Try watching cheap TV cartoons, such as the Hanna Barbera shows, or a dubbed anime. The voices are not exactly convincing most of the time. For a movie, actors do more than just read their lines out loud. They actually have to sound as if they're angry, elated, surprised, running, dancing, hanging upside-down or sitting on horseback; that's tricky enough when you're talking to a tennis ball on a stick to represent the CGI werewolf they're going to add in during post production. It's even harder when you're standing in a soundproof booth with only a microphone for company."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4nyeoh | the cia's role in military operations | It seems like in movies and TV the CIA has special forces teams that carry out missions for them. What soldiers do they use? For instance, in the movie Sicairo, a special forces team runs a mission for the CIA soon after coming back from Iraq. I know this is just a movie but it seems like a common trope that the CIA runs special forces teams. How true is this? Where do they get the soldiers? Are they 'on loan' so to speak from the different branches of the military? How much overlaps is there? Does the director of the CIA work closely with the top generals? I always hear that the CIA director is the 2nd most powerful man in the world outside the president. How true is this? Could the CIA director delegate roles to military generals within Iraq or any other land war? Another example would be the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Those were Navy Seals but I'm sure the CIA was extremely involved in the operation. Who is giving who orders there? Does the CIA director just tell the top Admiral that he's taking some of his men? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nyeoh/eli5_the_cias_role_in_military_operations/ | {
"a_id": [
"d480d8n",
"d48bni7",
"d48ci2h"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"For obvious reasons, a lot of the details about stuff like this are not well known to the general public, but the broad strokes are known.\n\nThe CIA does have its own paramilitary unit called the [Special Activities Division](_URL_0_). The operators are either retired from the Special Forces or on loan for a period of time\n\nHowever, the military special forces groups also work closely with the CIA, since it's the source of a lot of their intelligence. It's not really accurate to say that the CIA \"uses\" the Navy Seals or Delta Force, rather, the CIA says that they have some intelligence and recommend an operation. Then, if the President agrees with it, he orders the admirals and generals in charge to cooperate with the Agency.",
"First of all, it must be pointed out - spies and CIA agents are _not_ the same as soldiers in real life. \n\nSpies are instead very often government officials (of various levels) who have chosen to work for another government by providing them information; usually in exchange for bribes. For instance John Walker, one of the most notorious spies for the KGB, worked in the US Navy as a communications specialist. He basically used the knowledge he gained during his day job to teach the Soviets how to decrypt US Navy codes.\n\nActual CIA agents - generally called case officers - meanwhile are just the people _managing_ these spies. Some may have field experience, but very many also just work behind a desk. And it pretty much _never_ involves any shooting because the point of the job is to find and _convince_ people to spy for the CIA. You don't bring a gun along to convince a Soviet nuclear scientist to share his secrets; cash is much more effective.\n\nWhen something has to be destroyed or some has to be killed however - as was the case of Osama Bin Laden - it is still the US military which provides the actual soldiers and plans the operations. The CIA does _not_ have any real experience in training soldiers or planning these kinds of operations. The CIA moreover does not give the green light for military operations - that's the job of the executive branch of the government - who simply considers the CIA's intelligence and gives the final \"go\" order to the military.\n\nSo in the case of Bin Laden, it went something like this: The CIA found Bin Laden. They told Obama and the executive branch. Obama decides to have Bin Laden killed or captured. This mission, and the CIA intel, is then given to the US military to execute.\n\nNow, there are exceptions and paramilitary organizations that the CIA sometimes taps. But by and large the actual (and certainly most effective) military tools remain in the hands of the actual US military; the CIA merely provides these forces with intel.",
"tl:dr\nPresident is the coach. CIA is the analysts staff. Your players are the military. You'll have analysts with the players as much as you can. However, the military is going to be the guys with the guns and calling the shots on the field.\n\n\n\nA great example of this is [Operation Eagle Claw](_URL_0_). CIA gathered information and formulated the plan. President okay'ed it. Military carried it out. The guys on the ground are officially sanctioned meaning they are uniformed combatants. Like in football, they are wearing uniforms making them okay to be on the field. Spies are players on the field without uniforms and are unprotected by a LOT of laws. The stuff in the movies doesn't do justice to the things done to spies.\n\nAs for command, it changes from operation to operation. It is most often held by the military for command reasons as well as the usual inter-agency distrust. Most military operations work like this. We learned our lesson in Vietnam (after forgetting Madison in 1812). You don't have the president ordering around individual soldiers any more. You plan, you organize and then you trust your command to carry out the orders.\n\nThe reason the CIA is so powerful is that a large portion of their operation is highly secretive. The above is what SHOULD happen. They have a lot of power, a lot of knowledge and I assume that is a big temptation for any one person. While they don't have a military, they do have guys with guns. They are called field agents and are where all the exaggerated stories come from. Contrary to the movies, when they do their job right nobody knows. \n\nI want to stress that. A job \"well done,\" nobody knows. That can be a scary thing if you think about it. They could commit any number of crimes and nobody would know providing they had the skill to pull it off. Not saying that they do and I have no clue either way, but the risk there is the same as when you give an 18 year old a gun and train him to use it. In some countries, that 18 year old uses the gun to take over. There are a numerous checks on the system. Whether they are enough or effective will always be debatable until the day we find an honest man.\n\nThe CIA are the watchmen. Many ask \"who watches the watchmen?\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw"
]
] |
|
a7q367 | does one experiences pain if he is shot on the head(brain) before he dies? similarly if one beheaded does he feel pain at all? could the severed head see body and the sorroundings? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7q367/eli5_does_one_experiences_pain_if_he_is_shot_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec4v779",
"ec51xae",
"ec5n98a",
"ec5oq6f"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Thay used to cut your head off and place your head on your feet so you could see your own headless body,aparently you can still see for up to 10 seconds?",
"Whether a person can stay conscious after being decapitated has been an open question for a long time. There was a scientist who was decapitated in France and arranged with a friend to blink his eyes as much as possible post guillotine to prove that a person was still conscious. That was Antoine Lavoisier. Allegedly he blinked a lot. But it’s somewhat dubious. Then there was Henri Languille’s case. He allegedly responded to his name and looked conscious. But this was just one guy’s observation. There’s no good data or proof. Any consciousness would likely be for only a couple of seconds because the sudden drop in blood pressure in the brain would render a person unconscious immediately or almost immediately.",
"Head exploding shot? Probably not. The structure of the brain is instantly disintegrated, and \"feeling\" isn't possible. There isn't any semblance of consciousness.\n\nCan a severed head see? Yes, but only briefly. Like, 1-2 seconds probably. The sudden drop in perfusing pressure will make you lose consciousness very quickly. After that, there would likely be erratic EEG activity for several minutes as the cells slowly die from hypoxia.",
"_URL_0_\n\ndecent youtube video by Joe Scott about this topic.I think he talks about one particular case extensively. in general its accepted that if your heart stops, your brain can be conscious for at least 10-12 seconds if you are laying down, less if you are standing up. so questions of wether or not a severed head remains conscious for more or less time than that is still up for debate honestly. no one survived this, so we dont really know for sure.\n\nThe question about someone being shot in the head , and if they experience pain, can be looked into because there are many survivors of such trauma. Phineas Gage for instance, im sure he experienced some pain when having a rod shot through his head. Or there are suicide survivors who shot themselves in the face and lived, one who got a face transplant and has been fairly \"famous\" because of it.\n\nMost people dont talk about the moment that they are shot/impacted. Because usually there is a loss of consciousness of some sort, and many other things happen as well as the pain. Sometimes the pain isnt felt until later because of adrenaline and loss of consciousness, or other factors. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/2Hm9jjAJnsE"
]
] |
||
a7get0 | why do our ears ‘ring’ after using power tools or listening to loud music? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7get0/eli5_why_do_our_ears_ring_after_using_power_tools/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec2rexv",
"ec2s3vs"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Correct me if I'm wrong. But I've always been told those are the frequencies you have overstressed and are now damaged in your hearing range.\n\nLonger/more frequent/heavier exposure can lead to these frequencies being unrepearable, thus loss of hearing and tinittus.",
"If I were to listen to some high frequency music would it work if it was loud enough?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
11qgja | ; "crony-capitalism" | When I hear bands like System of a Down or Rage Against the Machine talk badly about capitalism I can't believe that they sincerly hate it since it's how they make their living. I saw a youtube comment the other day simply stating that bands/people like these are mainly against "crony-capitalism". Sorry if this doesn't make any sense but could someone explain? preferably like I'm 5.
**EDIT:** You guys are AWESOME. Thanks so much! upvotes for you all!
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11qgja/eli5_cronycapitalism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6opegb",
"c6opgo5",
"c6os3uu",
"c6oumnj"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Capitalism, in its true form, finds efficient outcomes because it rewards the most efficient and effective operators, and punishes the worst by having them go bankrupt.\n\nCrony capitalism, also sometimes called lemon capitalism, refers to the practice of businesses forming personal relationships with politicians etc. to get them to give the business special treatments - they keep the profits when they do well, but the Government helps them when they fail.",
"Basically crony capitalism is a so-called \"revolving door\". It's where business people influence government to make laws that help them and where they often go into and out of the public service as their career moves forward.\n\nThe result is a system if insiders and outsiders. The business people lobby politicians to make rules to help themselves out then they go into politics and help make the rules because they are the \"experts\" on how the system works. Politicians who help the business people out tend to get really nice jobs once their political term is over and those jobs tend to basically involve speaking to all of the people they knew while they were in office.\n\nIt's unfair because the system continues to favour only a small number of people.",
"it pretty much turns our democratic system into a disguised oligarchy",
"It means when government people cheat to help their friends (\"cronies\") get ahead in business. But then when people ask why those people got ahead, they lie and say it was fair competition (\"capitalism\").\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
438rxt | why don't we build nuclear powered de-salinization plants for reliable access to fresh drinking water? | I know that China is running out of water but de-salinization requires enormous amounts of energy.
Something like 30% of power is lost in transit from the power station to the cities. An on-site nuclear generator could be dedicated to producing clean water. Is it too costly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/438rxt/eli5_why_dont_we_build_nuclear_powered/ | {
"a_id": [
"czgclm6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, it's too costly. \n\nDesalinization can work in areas where there are lots of people and money but little water. Dubai is a good example. \n\nBut most water use is agricultural, and most agriculture is inland. Desalinization only works at the sea because that's where the salt water is. And it's incredibly expensive to move water uphill.\n\nEven for city use, the economics can only work if you are confident that there won't be enough rain to meet the water needs. Nobody is doing to sink billions of dollars into a plan where your biggest competitor is \"free water from the sky\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2vy97m | how does the observer collapse the wave function in the double slit experiment? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vy97m/eli5_how_does_the_observer_collapse_the_wave/ | {
"a_id": [
"colz0jm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Let's say you're blind, alright? In order to figure out what's in front of you, you have to either touch it or hear it interact with something. What you're doing in this experiment is basically shooting weird pool balls at a wall. They exhibit a certain behavior under the circumstance of throwing all this shit at a wall.\n\nNow what you do, in your blind glory, is you want to know what the pool balls are doing before they go through the wall. So you chuck other pool balls at them so you can hear where they are and what they're doing. But, by hitting a pool ball with something else, you change how the pool ball acts. That's what you're going in this experiment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4hjw65 | why are natural killer cells unable to destroy cancer cells | I really don't get why natural killer cells just don't eliminate cancer cells if the immune system is strong enough. This should work against most cancer cells without MHC class but it doesn't. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hjw65/eli5why_are_natural_killer_cells_unable_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2q7dc8",
"d2qbukw",
"d2qmdl1",
"d2qon6z"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Cells have several mechanisms that prevent them from becoming cancerous.\n\nOne of the ways is signaling to the rest of the body that it is 'damaged'. Basically, it marks itself for destruction.\n\n[Here are the others](_URL_0_)\n\nSo each cell is responsible for alerting the body, or destroying itself. The immune system has no way of knowing otherwise.",
"To add to the previous reply, you have to remember that the cancer cells are still from the original person's body. Many of them still carry the markers (called antigens) that label them as such in the eyes of the immune system. Furthermore, many cancer cells lose the ability to signal that they are defective and in need of purging. Given time, a tumor can recruit its own blood supply becoming in essence another organ, albeit one that will kill you.",
"To my knowledge they can, and do in some cases where cancer cells produce abhorrent surface proteins which are recognised as foreign antigens. This likely explains some of the cases where people suddenly have unexplained remissions of Cancer - their immune system is suddenly able to recognise the new cells due to a new mutation in the cancer. However the issue is, as has already been mentioned, cancer cells are your own cells - they share all the same surface antigens as normal cells, and therefore are generally ignored. I havent heard of cancer cells having 'no MHC receptors' - as far as i know they still have them just as their predecessor 'normal' cells did. Please enlighten me if that is not the case!",
"Killer cells are like the security guard of your house. They have been ordered to shoot to kill anyone who's not your family member trying to enter your house.\n\nCancer is like when a witch have brainwashed your brother. He comes home and wrecks your shit but the security guard can't shoot your bro because he's still part of your family member."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2041919926/2055284016/gr2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1t0ys5 | why do athletes perform worse after they have sex or masturbate? | I mean, why do muscles get so tired after orgasms? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t0ys5/eli5_why_do_athletes_perform_worse_after_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce37udb",
"ce38gle",
"ce3a6gy",
"ce3d4k3",
"ce3eq61"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
13,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no physiological basis for the belief that having sex in the days leading up to a sporting event or contest is detrimental to performance. In fact it has been suggested that sex prior to sports activity can elevate the levels of testosterone in males, which could potentially enhance their performance.\n\n \"Sex before the big game?\". Nature. June 9, 2006. \n\n \"Sex and Sports: Should Athletes Abstain Before Big Events?\". National Geographic. February 22, 2006.",
"They don't. In the 2002 World Cup, the Brazil coach famously made arrangements to take along players' wives and girlfriends and they were advised to get freaky on the night before the games.",
"Relevant. Study shows abstinence (including from masturbation) increases levels of testosterone in males.\n_URL_0_",
"I read an article (no sources, you're five) that explained the issue more clearly.\n\nSex before performance may not be a bad thing. It has been shown to lower stress and increase relaxation.\n\nStaying out all night looking for sex is BAD.",
"I'm a Karate practitioner, which involves very heavy training beforehand bot physically and mentally.\n\nI', also twenty years old, which means a I trained all during my puberty, and lot of training sessions were just after... 'happy times', be it alone or with somebody else. \n\nWhat I've found out from personal experience is that having sex *right before*, as in an hour or two before the training really does make you groggier and more tired, I think because of the whole 'aftersex' thing which takes a while to dissipate.\n\n A lot of neurotransmitters are floating around in your brain at the time I think, and you are very groggy for a while. Engaging in a demanding task makes for generally worse performance. The reward centers are satiated by the sex and your determination/ambition/motivation are not at home for a while after, I find. For a while, at least.\n\nMore than three to four hours, however, never ever made a difference. Ever.\n\n\nIf this did decrease physical performance, several impressive, should I say, feats of endurance I've pulled off during sex would not be possible, like keeping going after a few times. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760788?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4e3vjk | why is it illegal to carry two ids? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4e3vjk/eli5_why_is_it_illegal_to_carry_two_ids/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1wrmvk",
"d1wrn3x",
"d1wtbwx",
"d1wv2wp"
],
"score": [
12,
28,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"As someone who regularly carries two IDs, I'm really not sure why you think it is illegal. \n\nPerhaps it's meant to restrict carrying fake ids as well as real ones? Or having 2 different forms of the same ID where one is misleading? Perhaps you could elaborate your question, because to the best of my knowledge there is nothing illegal about carrying 2 ids, like in my case, an ID for transporting hazardous materials, my passport and my license. So 3 IDs in my case. ",
"It isn't. It *is* illegal to have two valid IDs that are exactly the same type, i.e. two valid driver's licenses. But you can have, say, a passport and a driver's license on you at the same time and that's fine.",
"So this is a question that I've asked myself.\n\n\nI have two ID's. One in Kansas and one in Arizona.\n\nI mailed in my old Kansas ID to get it renewed via mail but it took too long so I went ahead and got an Arizona ID by turning in my old, expired Kansas ID on the reciprocal system. I got my Arizona ID that day.\n\nMy renewed Kansas ID came in the mail the next day.\n\nNow I have two ID's and I'm not sure what to do. Should I turn in one? ",
"She had two drivers licenses on her person. It is required by law to not have two identical pieces of ID. Meaning she had either a current and expired license. (You must dispose of expired licenses, at least not keep them in your wallet as they can be used as fake I.d) She may also have had Two licenses with different information (different addresses) which can be used to fool police and will be taken as fake identification. \n\nsources - I'm just a drunk guy from Canada\n\nEdit -added those sources\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7ofmoq | what legal loophole is keeping mlm’s alive after years of pyramid scheme accusations and borderline illegal business practices? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ofmoq/eli5_what_legal_loophole_is_keeping_mlms_alive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds957pz",
"ds993t0"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"There is an actual product/service that is being sold. That is what differentiates an MLM from a pyramid scheme. In a pyramid scheme, the only money that moves into the scheme comes from recruiting new people which is not sustainble. In an MLM, money also comes into the scheme via the product/service that gets sold (the water/knives/make-up/tupperware/whatever).\n\nOf course, an individual MLM can still be scammy and sell a useless product (just like stores can), but that is the difference. ",
"Pyramid schemes are legal so long as the pyramid part is just an incentive, not the primary way of making money. If it wasn't, and sort of referral bonus could be considered a pyramid scheme. Many schemes will have some token product or service to make it seem legitimate, kind of like paying a prostitute with an expensive gift that can be returned instead of cash. But if in the end more money is made through recruiting than sales, it is a pyramid scheme.\n\n > When my wife was 16, her father spent thousands of dollars on a “miracle” product\n\nWhile they often go hand in hand, fraudulent products and pyramid schemes are two separate things. There are pyramid schemes, like Amway, that sell ordinary products and all kinds of quackery that is sold without a pyramid scheme. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2qkwqc | why is it okay to print a picture of a dead baby on a cigarette carton and not a beer bottle? | My buddy showed me this the other day - I had no idea!
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qkwqc/eli5_why_is_it_okay_to_print_a_picture_of_a_dead/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn70ky5",
"cn71dku"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"idk it's fucked up and equally as common if not more so",
"These cigarettes come from Australia.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe cigarette companies have to put these on the packaging or risk being banned from sale in the country."
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/bjAjwIh"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging"
]
] |
|
5icdf8 | how is it that my mind wanders while reading a book to my kid, but my mouth doesn't skip anything in his story? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5icdf8/eli5_how_is_it_that_my_mind_wanders_while_reading/ | {
"a_id": [
"db71595"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you read faster than you speak and your mind has time to think between each bit you read.\n\nLet's say you read 10 words, you start saying them, you wander while you do it, and a couple words before you end saying the words you have read, you go back to read another bit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2gn7hr | when listening to music, why is it that we might find one note in a melody so satisfying and soothing but even a slight variation unsettling or displeasing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gn7hr/eli5_when_listening_to_music_why_is_it_that_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckkp53y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it's because the underlying chords when played with the right notes will harmonize together very well, and if the composer/writer knows his music theory they can build up to this note using offset/unpleasing notes and progressions to create an unsettling tension that's released when this magic note hits. \n\nEdit:..I only answered the first half. Music that is unsettling is due to unharmonized notes that don't mix well which create chaotic rigid noise. A major chord is as close to the natural harmonics of that note as can be, being harmonized well creates a happy sensation to the perceiver. The further you distance yourself from the natural harmonics the more chaotic and sad/unsettling the music becomes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
60hhqp | if we were to set out to terraform mars, what is the first process that would need to take place to begin and how would it function? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60hhqp/eli5_if_we_were_to_set_out_to_terraform_mars_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"df6e678"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It would be to research and invent a way to terraform a planet. Right not terrarforming is solidly in the realm of science fiction. We don't know how it could be done."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1kurh1 | does your main memory in your brain just suddenly turn on one day and that's when you start remembering things? | Hey,
As the title says, does your brain just suddenly turn on it's main memory or however it's said and that's when you start having memories that you can recall?
I ask this question because I distinctly remember the first few things that I ever remember thinking from when I was around three and I've never been able to remember anything from before that day even on that day. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kurh1/eli5_does_your_main_memory_in_your_brain_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbst1hw",
"cbsv8pw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This phenomenon is called [Infantile Amnesia](_URL_0_). The current theory as to why it happens is that your brain isn't developed enough to store, encode and retrieve long term memories until you're between 2 and 4. ",
"As far as i remember from psychology class, your brain is not developed for it. It has to do with linguistics, quite simply you lack the code to form complex memories. As you grow older speed increases, encoding gets better, code expands. And eventually forming memories happens, your first memories are in fact your first successfully encoded ones, not truly your first ones."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia"
],
[]
] |
|
bbz5mp | how does one take asylum in a foreign embassy like julian assange? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbz5mp/eli5_how_does_one_take_asylum_in_a_foreign/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekmkmt3",
"ekmuvg8",
"ekopcvm"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Walk into Embassy and claim asylum.\n\n > Do most embassy’s have living quarters for that type of thing?\n\nNo generally not. It only happened for Assange as there was no way for him to leave the UK and go to Ecuador without leaving the embassy.\n\n > Would he have to pay for living there?\n\nNot it was paid for by the Ecuadorian tax payer.\n\n > Is it purely out of cooperation that he could stay there or do they do it willingly?\n\nAssange claimed asylum which is an international legal process.\nThere will have been many reasons involved.",
"No the Ecuadorian embassy was not prepared for him to live there and apparently he was a bad roomate. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\n & #x200B;\n\nBut the Ecuadorian government did grant him permission to stay there until they rescinded it and invited the London Police inside to arrest him.",
"I'm sure he was invited in and the government allowed him to stay. Perhaps to spite America. \n\nA person could stay anywhere. It is up to the embassys discretion. It never closes. So he just might need a mattress. \n\nHe was thrown out for being a jerk essentially."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-robert-stone-ecuadorian-embassy-filth/"
],
[]
] |
||
1jetw3 | why does a song take you back to a moment in time? | I've been wondering about this recently, how can a song take you back to a specific time or place upon hearing it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jetw3/why_does_a_song_take_you_back_to_a_moment_in_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbdye06"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The same reason certain smells or even ambient sounds can. Your brain associated those sensations with a particular moment or series of moments. The sensation and the moment are inextricably linked i your memories, so experiencing one triggers a memory of the other."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8grvcp | how do copper iuds work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8grvcp/eli5_how_do_copper_iuds_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dye39lw",
"dyf2id9"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"It's my understanding that they change the ph of the environment making it hostile to sperm and equally unlikely that if a super sperm was able to fertilize, the embryo would be unable to implant and grow due to the changed environment.",
"we don't 100% know. it's well documented that copper is *profoundly* antimicrobial, and that includes sperm. the IUD kills the sperm on contact and laces the uteris with copper ions (because bodily fluids come in contact with it) that serve the same purpose\n\nunfortunately, the mechanism of action has yet to be explained. we don't really know *why* copper kills microbes, much less how it's *so* good at it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2tgikq | why is it still legal for parents to circumcise their baby boys without any regard to what that child wants for themselves, considering they cannot accept or decline the permanent procedure | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tgikq/eli5_why_is_it_still_legal_for_parents_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnyu49c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Parents have the control to do so, as these are infants we're talking about - they can't make decisions for themselves; they're not 18 basically. Other reasons for circumcision may also be due to religious views or crazy crackpot views similar to \"plis no vaccine for my baby\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1jcj1i | born-again christianity | This is a serious post, not a circlejerk. I am an agnostic 23 year old male curious about the ideals of born-again Christianity. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jcj1i/eli5_bornagain_christianity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbdbdar",
"cbddpxp"
],
"score": [
6,
11
],
"text": [
"The term \"born again\" refers to the biblical scripture, John 3:3 - \"Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” (NIV)\n\nThere have been two interpretations of the scripture. \n- Sects like Catholicism and The LDS (Mormon) Church believe that for a person to be \"born again\" they must go through the physical ordinance of baptism. They also must be converted in there hearts through the Holy Spirit (make the personal decision to live a \"Christ like life\" as outlined in the 10 Commandments and the Book of Matthew) They also have other ceremonies like sacrament and communion to renew covenants and \"stay the path.\"\nJohn 3:5. \"Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.\"\n\n- \"Born Again\" sects put more of an emphasis on the abstract ideology of being \"born again\". They believe that personal conversion and the power of the Holy Spirit are all that is necessary to be born again. Physical ordinances are usually absent. \n\nSOURCE: Lifetime practicing Christian and Missionary in training. ",
"The idealism behind Christianity is that we are all born sinners due to the fall of man in Genesis when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they were told not to by God. Being born sinners, none of us may enter the Kingdom of Heaven because only those who are perfect may do so. However, God, in his infinite grace and love sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect and blameless life as a human being, and then be offered up as propitiation for our sins. \n\nRomans 3:23-24 says \"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,\"\n\nBasically, when the Holy Spirit convicts your heart that you are a sinner, and you repent of your sins to Jesus, his crucifixion takes the place of the death that we as sinners deserve, and when God looks at you, He sees a blameless creature as long as you are living in Christ Jesus. The phrase \"born again\" refers to John chapter 3 where Jesus is describing to Nicodemus his purpose on Earth. I won't quote the full chapter, but it is one of the greatest areas of the Bible that describes the true ideology behind Christianity. \n\nSorry for the wall of text. I hope that I have helped you somewhat. If you have any further questions feel free to reply or private message me. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3c3p46 | why can't you sue hospitals for exuberant costs? | I am 19 so forgive me if I seem a bit too misinformed about the topic. I came across this article about this lady who had a flesh eating bacteria and it ends up that she has insurance at first, but she decided she never used it anyways and it was too expensive so she got rid of it. However, she ends up with a $100,000 bill that she couldn't pay and it continues that doctors wouldn't help her because she wouldn't pay. It sparked a little interest as to why it cost that much anyways and what would someone do in such a situation.
I did a little research and I understand that you can negotiate the cost like the insurance companies do to get the cost down but is there a law or anything that would require the hospitals to do so? From what I have gathered, the hospitals could end up suing you if you can't pay. It just seems unethical to hit someone with the bill only afterwards at a high cost for something that is obviously marked up because it's all and done with and you can't return anything. Considering that the patient would not be informed with the cost in the beginning, why is the hospital still allowed to sue the patient for not being able to pay? I understand the aspect of making money by marking up the prices but what I don't understand is why it is only at the end that you are informed that you would even need to pay for something like cotton swab. The definition of fraud is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" and can't you sue hospitals for that? I don't see price tags anywhere at the hospitals. Or is it that buyers beware sort of thing where it's the individual's responsibility to know the costs before going to the hospitals?
I also understand that the bills often contain errors and if you inform that, they would usually lowering the bill. The fact that it happens so often makes me think that it's not all accidents. Can't you sue them for even trying that in the first place.
I am also wondering if there are any laws that would protect such instances where the person is hit with high hospital bills but don't have insurance. I'm not actually intending to sue and I get that suing should not be the first thing I think of when accidents happen, but I am just wondering if you could. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c3p46/eli5_why_cant_you_sue_hospitals_for_exuberant/ | {
"a_id": [
"csryc9w"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > I did a little research and I understand that you can negotiate the cost like the insurance companies do to get the cost down but is there a law or anything that would require the hospitals to do so? \n\nNo, it's generally policy. They want to get paid for services. Ideally, they want the full amount. But getting part of that amount is better than getting nothing, which is why the negotiate. \n\n > From what I have gathered, the hospitals could end up suing you if you can't pay.\n\nThat's not true. Hospitals are reqired to give you treatment, regardless of your ability to pay. If you can't pay they do not generally sue you. They can give your information to a collection agency who will hound you forever, and you can get forced into bankruptcy, but that's not exactly the same thing.\n\n\n > Considering that the patient would not be informed with the cost in the beginning, why is the hospital still allowed to sue the patient for not being able to pay?\n\nAgain hospitals won't sue you, but you're expected to pay because things cost money. Healthcare isn't \"free\" anywhere, and not charging anyone for anything would result in us not having hospitals. \n\n > The definition of fraud is \"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain\" and can't you sue hospitals for that? \n\nNothing you've described falls under the category of fraud. There's no criminal deception going on. Hell, you can usually look up the exact price schedules hospitals use to bill patients. \n\n > I also understand that the bills often contain errors and if you inform that, they would usually lowering the bill. The fact that it happens so often makes me think that it's not all accidents. Can't you sue them for even trying that in the first place. \n\nYou can sue anyone, at any time, for any reason, but you're not going to win in most cases. Prove that the wrong aspects of the bill were intentional and not just mistakes. It's basically impossible.\n\n > I am also wondering if there are any laws that would protect such instances where the person is hit with high hospital bills but don't have insurance. I'm not actually intending to sue and I get that suing should not be the first thing I think of when accidents happen, but I am just wondering if you could. \n\nAgain, you can, but you'll probably lose. \"This service costs a lot of money and I'm angry about it\" isn't a very strong stance to take in court. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2b1jhh | how does facebook get information about the sites i've been to even if i never log into facebook on those sites? | You search for one thing for work and suddenly it's all over your news feed. Searches while I'm not at work could make for an awkward news feed. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b1jhh/eli5_how_does_facebook_get_information_about_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj0uz4r",
"cj0v022",
"cj0xpv6"
],
"score": [
16,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Cookies, my friend. They will track you across pages. ",
"Several sites have Facebook connections. Those \"Like\" icons you see? Many of them track back to Facebook. If you are logged in while you go to those sites, Facebook tracks you through the icon links, and adds it to your profile.\n\nIt doesn't matter that you didn't log into that site using Facebook. What matters is that you are logged into Facebook when you visit the site.",
"Cookies. Small plain text files a server (the one on which the site you're visiting is stored) leaves in a special folder in your browser. A cookie can only be accessed by the server that put it there, nobody else (except for you of course since it's your computer) _Even when you're NOT logged into Facebook_, if you were there earlier and let it leave a cookie in your browser, the next time your browser makes a request to a Facebook server it can get a hold of that cookie and identify you. You carry your own trail with you wherever you go as long as that cookie is sitting there. \n\nBut how does a Facebook server know when you're reading Buzzfeed, or Alternet or shopping somewhere or whatever? It doesn't, unless that site has a Facebook plugin on it. Such as a Like button or a comment section \"powered by Facebook\". Or even a tiny image that's invisible to you - but to load, it still needs to contact the server. So this thing will try to load in your browser and make a request to the Facebook server. The server responds, asks the browser \"do you have a cookie I left here earlier?\" and if the answer is yes, the server is free to grab that cookie, and update the tracking information it keeps about you, like a url address of the webpage you're currently reading. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1smqjn | can we pinpoint (or guess) our spot in the universe? | ELI5: Can we pinpoint (or guess) our spot in the universe?
There was an ELI5 about the big bang, and the edge of the obversable universe. So my question is if we put telescopes on the north and south poles, and say one in the USA and one in India/Asia coule we look through them and say something like;
1. The north pole telescope can see back 12 billion years
2. The south pole telescope can see back 11 billion years
3. The USA telescope can see back 14 billion years
4. The Asia telescope can see back 15 billion years.
So we "must be here" (on a map).
Also, can we find where the center of the universe actually is? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1smqjn/eli5_can_we_pinpoint_or_guess_our_spot_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdz3co3",
"cdz3d9f"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We are at the centre of the observable universe. The observable universe is what we can see from where we are. But that is all that the observable universe is. It is defined by maths - speed of light * age of universe * rate of expansion of the universe since then. The rate of expansion is a constant - Hubble's constant - and it is there because the things we see as being 13.8 billion light years away have become 46 billion light years away now.\n\nTelescopes can see back 13.8 billion years in all directions - unless there is something in the way, like the Milky Way Galaxy.\n\nSo we can't tell anything much about the size of the actual universe, let alone where we might be placed in it. We can make guesses, based on not much. The universe could very well be infinite, and the idea of a 'location' and a 'centre' doesn't make sense.",
"This video explains the nature and size of what we consist the universe\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NU2t5zlxQQ"
]
] |
|
7d4hoe | “micro-aggressions” | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7d4hoe/eli5_microaggressions/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpux7i3",
"dpvaeb1"
],
"score": [
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes people experience overt and obvious expressions of bigotry - being denied an apartment because you're gay, or getting pulled over by a police officer solely because you're black. But more often it's tiny stuff, repeated over and over, like water torture. Being asked, \"But where are you *really* from?\" every single fucking time you meet a new person isn't a big deal on its own, but it's a reminder of how society doesn't see you as really American. Being asked to take notes because you're a lady is fine once or twice: every time makes it clear that your coworkers think of you as a glorified secretary because you have a vagina.\n\nBasically, a buildup of tiny amounts of shit over time is as bad as one big shit all at once.",
"Microaggressions are basically phrases and actions that while not overtly racist or sexist, have racist undertones. They can be things like subtle implications or backhanded compliments. Telling a woman that she is surprisingly good at math can be a microaggression because it implies that women aren't good at math, and a woman being good at math is a surprise. If a shopkeeper watches black people in the store more intently, it could be a microaggression. The shopkeeper isn't engaging in overt racism, but treating a group with more suspicion.\n\nIn isolation, they aren't a big deal, but in aggregate they are problematic. People of ethnic minorities may be made to feel like they are inferior, or that they don't belong. People conform to expectations, so repeatedly pointing out how one isn't conforming to their sexual or ethnic stereotype may compel someone to try to conform.\n\nAn expert on the subject, professor Derald Wing Sue stresses that not all who commit microaggressions are racist or sexist. You can be a very progressive person and still commit microagressions on a subconscious level. You may know logically that women or minorities can be just as competent as anyone, but you may have a subconscious bias that seeps out in the form of microagressions.\n\nRecently its been misused as a way to dismiss the opinion of others, and it is likely just an overused buzzword at this point. The point behind it is valid though, there are little things that otherwise non-racist/sexist people do that demean and belittle other groups. This is harmful to those on the receiving end of the discrimination."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3sb8hy | what is the difference between a good or famous univsersity and an average university? | To me the only difference is that the famous university has a better name. So what's a significant difference between them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sb8hy/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_good_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwvnh15",
"cwvnhrf"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The profs will be better. There's more prestige in working at a famous school. But better is a hard thing to measure, often they will be better at research but worse at teaching. \n\nBut by a mile the biggest difference in the end result for the student is going to be in the network that you build.\n\nThe friends you meet and make during school are the most valuable thing you come away from University with. My classmates, professors, advisors and everyone I met at school is 5x more valuable than the actual degree that I have.\n\nIf you go to Harvard your school friends are the children of powerful people. Children of powerful people tend to grow up to become powerful people themselves. In any given Harvard graduating class you're going to see a lot more future CEOs, senators and presidents than the average graduating class of an average state school. ",
"It's simple and its not. It IS the name youre paying for, but the name is what attracts the top students who want that name on their resume. More rich desirable students means more money for the university to spend on things that become better tools for education. Theyll probably have more opportunities and services that other places cant afford to provide.\n\nBut knowledge wise, the requirements for knowledge for your degrees (if all else is equal) are pretty similar. Its not like a BA in business from Yale will automatically run the world, and it doesnt mean you cant land a lucrative job coming out of a state school. Youll essentially know the same principles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2f2spv | why does inbreeding cause issues? | I never understood why inbreeding is said to cause defects. In a pond of guppies, it's normal for them to be inbred for decades at a time, but this isn't the case for more complex animals? I understand how only having the same genes might make you more susceptible to some diseases, but wouldn't you be no more unhealthy than your parents? And if you had good genes that are immune to serious illnesses, wouldn't inbreeding keep those genes active?
Edit: I had a slight suspicion that it'd come to GoT. But thanks for answering my question :D | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f2spv/eli5_why_does_inbreeding_cause_issues/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck5vcc9",
"ck5wlpn",
"ck5xt4u",
"ck61jpt",
"ck5d07p",
"ck5dfby",
"ck5f2p7",
"ck5fh21",
"ck5fqhp",
"ck5fyzo",
"ck5ginh",
"ck5gvpk",
"ck5hxba",
"ck5i6zu",
"ck5iehr",
"ck5il9m",
"ck5j2rb",
"ck5juj0",
"ck5ll9r",
"ck5mm2c",
"ck5mt95",
"ck5nd02",
"ck5npog",
"ck5nycb",
"ck5oojk",
"ck5ow13",
"ck5p1rd",
"ck5pcur",
"ck5qwm1",
"ck5qzol",
"ck5r5t3",
"ck5r661",
"ck5r6jn",
"ck5r8dr",
"ck5tb6i"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
4,
2,
724,
12,
3692,
5,
5,
575,
3,
3,
3,
19,
20,
3,
2,
6,
7,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can have perfectly healthy inbred animals/people. In genetics you often receive a couple of copies of genes which code for the same thing. If one is no good, your body uses the other one. With inbreeding you get 2 of the same copy and so if one is bad, the backup gene is also bad. This increases the chance of one gaining mad banjo skills.",
"The people you know who are breeding dogs are doing it wrong, and their customers have thousand of dollars in vet bills due to their stupidity.",
"Imagine there's a football coach, Papa Bear, and he's got a pretty good playbook with lots of different plays, and theories on strength and conditioning, and how to throw a ball well, and how to kick, and how to feed the players, and so on. Thousands of opinions on how to create a good football team. Some of those opinions are strengths and some are weaknesses. \n\n\nWell, imagine that each of his players learns that \"system\" and when those players get older they go out and find a team of their own to coach. Often, they'll get a good assistant coaching staff, and those assistants will have their own opinions on how to run the team, and they might have strengths in areas the new coach has weaknesses in. \n\n\nBut what if the assistant coaching staff ALSO were all players for Papa Bear? They'd have a very similar system in mind, and the weaknesses would all \"overlap\" in certain areas and bring out a disastrous kicking game or a terrible way to block for a screen pass. No one would think differently, and no assistant coach's strengths could compensate for the weaknesses of the others.\n\n\nAnd so for genetics. Your DNA has a bunch of mistakes. But the sea of DNA is so vast that your set of mistakes is fairly unique, and when you mate you pair with someone whose set of mistakes is also fairly unique and therefore different from yours UNLESS you dip your pen in the family ink. In that case, you have sought out someone with a MORE similar \"set of mistakes\", which can then have recessive/rare diseases pop up with greater frequency. \n\nConsider cystic fibrosis. There are hundreds of different gene mutations that can affect the cystic fibrosis gene / Chloride channel. Even 2 parents with CF gene mutation may have different areas of that chromosome mutated, such that the end result is still CF, but on a much milder spectrum. Conversely, having the same exact CF gene mutation in both parents may lead to a greater degree of loss of function in the chloride channel and therefore more severe CF. Since there are hundreds of CF gene mutations, you're much more likely to share the mutation with a family member (and to have a CF gene mutation in the first place) than with a non-related mate. \n\nNow to answer your original question: presumably organisms that inbreed all the time, like the guppies, have basically exterminated all those recessive genes over time. All the truly unfit genes were brought to the fore, created offspring that could not reproduce, and died out. If we humans all inbred for a long time, some of those diseases would be brought out and would die out. \n\nAlso remember that some of the \"unfavorable\" results of inbreeding (e.g., looks, intelligence, whatever) may have a relatively small effect on fertility (compared to a disease that kills in infancy, for example). And yet in humans we might find that outcome very unfavorable, even if from an evolutionary perspective it's not as important as we make it out to be. Also remember cousins marry all the time (1/8 related) and generally human inbreeding's not an issue until its wider spread in a community and repeated over generations. ",
"Think of the phrase don't put all your eggs in one basket. Inbreeding doesn't introduce many new genes into a population, and if a new Disease comes through, and because the population doesn't have lots of new genes,the population will have very similar genetics and less of a chance of there being genes that can counter the disease and they may be wiped out. Being diverse is your best weapon. ",
"Inbreeding reduces gene diversity, meaning there is a greater chance of receiving some kind of recessive genetic defect.",
"If 2 people are related, they're more likely to have the same genetic defects. If they produce children together their genetic defects are more likely to be passed down to the kids. If the inbreeding continues over several generations the genetic defects become more and more common. But when people have children with unrelated people the defective genes are less likely to be passed down or expressed. That's how I think it works.",
"Not sure what your background with genetics is so I'll start at the basics. There are two types of genes: dominant and recessive. Dominant genes always actually affect your body. Recessive ones only show up if you receive them from both parents. \n\nThat being said you definitely have a ton of recessive genes that have no effect on your body because you only relieved them from one parent. Furthermore, your genes mutate, and those mutations either show up or they don't. As such, you likely have some weird mutated genes that would be really bad if they were dominant, but they aren't. \n\nYou will pass those genes to your kids, just like your parents passed their weird mutations to you. \n\nThe only people that will ever have those genes are people related to you. \n\nIf you have sex with a person not related to you, you'll pass on your dad's recessive gene that makes all your skin fall off and your partner will pass on her dominant gene that makes that not happen. If you have sex with your sister, you could both pass on the recessive skin fall of gene and now you've created a skinless baby ",
"Think of it in terms of mixing colors of paint.\n\nIf you mix red and blue, you get purple. However, if you continually mix red with red over and over again, you will just get red.\n\nNow, imagine that the red paint is also carrying hemophilia. If you mix it with blue, the odds of passing on the disease are diluted by the other paint. However, if you mix it with red paint, you're doubling the instances of the disease. That would be an example of immediate inbreeding (brother + sister, father + daughter).\n\nIf you were to mix that red paint with orange, or purple, (say, a closely related cousin), you still have the instance of the disease increased.\n\nFor the first few generations, it would not matter much, but eventually, weaknesses would begin to outweigh desirable traits. The more you mix red into the orange, the redder the color becomes, even though the yellow is what makes it so attractive.\n\nAnother example would be to look at dog breeds like Bulldogs and Pugs. We've interbred families to get the desirable traits, like small bodies and squishy faces, but in doing that, we've also given them the tools for hip dysplasia, eye problems, and breathing problems. Even though the \"good\" traits started out strong, they've become over powered by the introduction of too many \"bad\" traits.",
"The simplest way I can put it. You can have good or bad copies of genes. You get 2 copies of a gene. One from each parent. Good copies of gene \"cover up\" bad copies. If parents are related it is likely they share the same bad genes. They both pass on bad copies of the gene to offspring. Whereas if the parents are not related the chances of both having exact same bad genes is very low.",
"Suppose you take a pair of jeans and cut out a few holes on it. Take another pair and cut out a different set of holes on it. \n\nNow take one pair and put it inside the other. Together, they are now more 'whole' than they were with the holes cut out. This is what happens with diverse pairing. \n\nNow, what if the two aforementioned pairs have identical holes ? Putting them together would do nothing to eliminate their original flaws. This is what happens when you inbreed. ",
"Lots of good ELI5 answers here for a genetics question. However, OP asked how can interbreeding between a species lead to viable offspring. My first ELI5. I'll give it a whirl.\n\nHumans are genetically diverse (lots of great analogies given. I like the one with the color palette) which is why we generally look very different from one another. And there are bad consequences if you have a baby with your sister or brother. Mixing colors together can result in different colors than what you started with. What about lab mice, with their creepy red eyes and pure white fur? Each mouse looks identical to its mother, father, sister and brother. And unlike humans, these animals can have babies with any of their family members and those babies will be fine and grow up happy. The reason why this can happen is because these mice are genetic clones of one another and there are no consequences for mating. At this point, all of the bad or harmful DNA has been lost (think about mixing identical colors - the result is the same color). \n\nTo go from wild field mice to identical mouse clones takes many generations of offspring mating with their parents. Many of these babies will have problems and most will die. This means that there will be fewer and fewer baby mice surviving in each generation until at one point it changes and most of the harmful DNA (colors) has been lost. At this point, the mice can happily mate with each other because their babies will live. This is referred to as the \"bottleneck effect\" and can be likened to an hourglass. It is applied to the evolution of species within isolated habitats.",
"Because it's like Xeroxing a xerox, copying a copy again and again. No new information but you repeat the mistakes until your child is a grainy black and white mess. So, points for diversity, minus points for health and IQ...",
"You have 2 copies of every gene. The really nasty genetic problems will often kill you with one copy (so congrats, you likely dodged that bullet).\n\nMost genetic \"faults\" are recessive, i.e. it takes two to tango, and if you only have one copy you'll be perfectly fine.\n\nIf you have kids with that lovely foreign man/woman, they're much less likely to have the same \"fault\" to pass on to your kids. Have kids with your sibling and they're quite likely to have the same \"fault\", thus resulting in a doubly \"faulty\" kid that will actually show it. ",
"Your genes come in pairs. You get one from each parent. Only one of the pair is active; the other sits dormant. Officially, we call them dominant and recessive.\n\nTypically, the genes that give you weird diseases or defects are recessive (not all recessive genes are defective, in fact most are just fine). You can get a \"good\" gene from your mom and a \"defective\" one from your dad, but you won't get the disease because the \"good\" gene is the active one.\n\nNow, you go have sex. You have a 50/50 chance of passing on the \"defective\" gene to your kid. Not a big deal, because your wife is different from you, and has two good genes to match up with yours. No matter which of her genes pairs with your defective one, the kid will be healthy. The defective one that you gave him will sit dormant.\n\nNow, let's say you had sex with your sister. She has the defective, dormant gene too. Do the math, and you get a 1 in 4 chance of having a baby with that weird disease or defect. One of your kids will probably get that defective gene from both parents, meaning it WILL be expressed, i.e. it will be in charge and you will have the defect associated with it.\n\nIt's not so much about \"susceptibility\" to certain diseases, as it is about the gene actually giving you the disease.\n\nTypically, the process of inbreeding corrects itself, because the offspring fail to thrive and don't breed. So the behavior of inbreeding is selected against, we develop an incest taboo, and the population stays healthy.\n\nDon't let the guppies fool you. The ones that inbreed will produce inferior offspring that will likely not live long enough to reproduce. There is actually quite a lot of genetic diversity in a pond of guppies. The genetic diversity as a result of breeding with your sibling is only larger than if you bred with your identical twin. Which I guess technically can't happen? So yeah. Sibling sex is the quickest way to reduce your genetic diversity.\n\nCan you have normal babies through sibling sex? absolutely. But you are guaranteeing that the defective genes stay in your descendants, and 1 in 4 of your children will be seriously fucked up each with one or more diseases like these:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nImagine a world where 25% of our children die before they reach adulthood. That's probably the most optimistic outlook on inbreeding.",
"From my cache of good saved reddit comments:\n\n > I'm going off what I remember from 9th grade biology, so here goes. There's dominant genes, and recessive genes. Let's say I have a recessive gene for a disease I'll call herp. Now if I go fuck someone else, there's a very good chance they'll have a dominant gene that will overrule the recessive herp and say \"Nah brah, I'm handling shit. Go away.\" and the herp won't develop cause it's a little bitch. Now if I have the herp, there's also a good chance my sibilings will have the same recessive herp gene. Now, if I fuck my sister, those recessive genes can chill together and be like \"Hey, let's work together and fuck this babies shit up.\" and the other recessive, identical gene, will be like \"k lol.\" And then my baby has the herp. The point being that diseases and mental retardation are things that show up more often in incestuous babies, because as the generations go on, it's more likely that the recessive genes will get together, where on the other hand, a stranger is more likely to not have that same recessive gene.\nI think that's how it goes.\n\nComment by user: PatAunces saved on Tue Mar 08 2011 12:57:42 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)\n",
"Imagine you're playing pick-6-number-lottery games multiple times in a row - except in this lottery, you get sick or die if you don't pick enough right numbers with the right games. And let's just say that you happen to have a set percentage of winning each individual game.\n\nNow, let's say you have a sister that you'd like to, ah, play the lottery with. You two are very similar, and so have very similar patterns of winning games. But a random other person might have a different method of playing the lottery - they still won enough games to not die, but might have runner up prizes in other games.\n\nSo while you may have had a 50% chance of losing the game \"Do your blood cells self-destruct\", your sister also has a 50% chance of losing. If you tried to share lottery numbers with your sister, there's a decent chance you'd get the same runner up prize, but also small chance you'd get the grand prize of entirely not-exploding blood cells - and a small chance you'd lose entirely and have all your blood cells explode.\n\nIf you played with a stranger, who could play \"Do your blood cells self-destruct\" perfectly, you would have a lot better of an outcome.\n\n\nIt just so happens that in the world, most people play a nearly perfect game of genetic lottery - the price for messing up is basically dying. But one person might have a damaged gene that leads to blood cells exploding. Having kids with someone unrelated can buy you a little more time since it's unlikely that someone else will mess up in the exact same game as you (since there's literally thousands of games like \"Do you get four limbs\" and \"Is your brain full of water\"). Thankfully, when you play, you generally get two entries - if you lose one instance of \"do your blood cells explode\", you might be able to win with the other and make do.",
"The long and short of it is because humans are already quite inbred, and have lost the ability to reproduce with cousins and siblings without significantly increasing the risk of abnormalities. ",
"Inbreeding reduces genetic diversity. Overall the 'fitness' of the population is reduced when there is inbreeding, because nature 'likes' diversity.\n\nDiversity gives better reproduction and getter hardiness against diseases. This article gives a good layman explanation of this issue in relation to dog breeding: genetica on webarchive (copy whole link, cant get it to work with reddit formatting?): _URL_1_\n\nSigns of inbreeding in animal populations are: small(er) litters, less robust immune systems and various hereditary diseases getting 'fixed' in the breed.\n\nWhen genetic diversity is reduced - for example when pet breeders breed related individuals there will be problems - when inbreeding gets prevalent in a breed the result is typically inbreeding depression.\n\nInbreeding can be calculated - the so called 'inbreeding coefficient' (COI - or inbreeding %). This number gives you odds of how similar genes are.\nFor example if a dog breeder makes a father daughter mating - the inbreeding % is 25% (tho it can be higher if there are more common ancestors - some breeds have just a few 'foundation' animals, and thus high total inbreeding %).\n\nI also once heard a geneticist describe inbreeding % like this: inbreeding % can roughly be equated to a higher risk of various diseases - thus if your pet has a inbreeding % of 25% there is a 25 % higher higher risk of disease and health problems. Animal might might be perfectly fine and live to a high age...but also might not. But its odds of a long and healthy life are less.\n\nEven with quite 'low' inbreeding % (anything over 6,25% over 5-6 generations) there can start to emerge problems with reproduction and general health. Breeders might not notice tho - for example if you get 4 puppies instead of 5. Or if your dog or cat takes longer to heal or is more susceptible to various diseases.\n\nSo anybody getting a pure breed pet - make sure that you ask about the inbreeding both over 6 generations and total numbers. A responsible breeder will know.\n\nThe Birman cat is a breed with inbreeding issues. Take a look at almost any random cat in this database. [pawpeds](_URL_0_). Click on Inbreeding and you will see total inbreeding % - often quite high. I just found one randomly with total inbreeding of 40%...",
"How I explained it to my son when he was actually 5:\n\nBabies are made from part of their mom and part of their dad. So people who are closely related (like you and your sister) have a lot of the same details. Now if something is a little bit different in one person there's a good chance it's also a little bit different in their close relative. If those two had a baby those little differences could made a big difference.\n\nIt's sort of like a cake recipe. If you add a bit too much flour and not enough sugar the cake might be a little bland but would probably be ok. But if you both sides bring too much flour and not enough sugar then the cake wouldn't taste very good and the texture would be wrong. \n\nSo two parents who both need glasses would be more likely to have a child who really needs glasses or two parents who both sunburn easily would be more likely to have a child who would really sunburn easily.\n\n(note: not a geneticist so not sure if the examples were strictly correct but glasses and sunburn were things a 5 year old would understand)",
"We all have two sets of each of the genes that we need to build and operate our bodies; one set from our mother, one set from our father.\n\nThis system ensures that there is a 'backup' copy of each gene so that if there is anything wrong with one of your genes, the copy from the other parent can be used to 'patch-repair' the missing data (the more complete gene will be used and thus expressed in the \"building\" of the person, hence we call this gene a dominant gene.)\n\nOver time, genetic information gets corrupted, just like data on a computer does, by being mis-copied from generation to generation. It goes without saying that if your parents are closely related, they are more likely to share any underlying genetic errors. If their children inherit two copies of a damaged gene, one from each parent, then that gene will be unable to patch repair itself and the child will have a recessive condition. \n\nIt is very important to reduce the risk of two damaged genes meeting in one individual, so in most societies in the world, inbreeding is frowned on. Out-marriage is preferred as this introduces new base pairs of genes into any future children, diluting the risk of having two copies of any mutations or deletions of genetic material.\n\n",
"Recent biology undergrad and current grad student here. There are some good explanations here, but they are kind of wordy and not as concise as I feel an ELI5 should be. Allow me to attempt brevity.\n\nTypically, traits that come from recessive genes tend to be negative. When inbreeding is occurring, there is a (much) greater chance that those negative traits, which are usually masked by a dominate gene, will be expressed. On top of that, genetics often plays a role in providing defenses against all kinds of environmental stresses. During inbreeding, the genomes of organisms become more similar and it becomes more likely that any genetic immunity is lost. Consequentially, it is more likely that a single stressor can drive an entire population to extinction (or at the very least, significantly decrease the population).\n\ntl;dr: The Nazis got genetics wrong... Like really wrong.",
"No joke, my grandmas parents accidentally inbred. They were second cousins and never met before. They didn't really question the fact they had the same last name to begin with.\n\nI don't know if it could be related. But I guess you could call me a mutant of sorts. I had six wisdom teeth. Four of which are lodged in my upper jaw. I had two removed because of pain. I'm a heterocromatic redhead. My toes are actually the same length on one foot but not the other. \n\nMaybe these are all completely unrelated. But it makes me wonder. The closer two people share DNA, the more likely rare traits are to show up because the gene pool is so concentrated. ",
"If one person in a family has a certain genetic defect (this is usually recessive and thus not likely to cause problems for an individual), it's relatively likely that other family members have the gene that causes such a defect as well. The genetic defect will have a relatively high prevalence within that family. Thus if two family members produce offspring, it's much more likely that they'll both pass that specific defect. Two people from different families are much less likely to have the same genetic defects, thus their offspring is much less likely to suffer from a genetic defect, especially when you involve recessive ones.",
"2 points to make: \n \nYour immune system relies on around 240 genes we collectively refer to as your major histocompatibility complex. Simply put, these determine what antigens your body can recognize--ie, what tiny invaders your body will naturally fight against. Inbreeding reduces this diversity because instead of different genes from both parents (these don't overwrite each other), you will be getting the same genes from both parents (redundant). \n \nThe genes you get from your parents is not completely random. Certain genes and sequences of genes can increase their likelyhood of being transferred or being active. A recessive trait doesn't have to be something that is being dominated by another, it can be silenced by other genes interfering with it. If you get more copies of the gene, it may appear in parts of the chromosome it inhabits that are not silenced, or the interfering genes may not pass or function the same.",
"Inbreeding causes you to have problems like Prince Joffrey.",
"Many lines in the human genetic code are ignored because you have an overriding backup copy (this is the concept of recessive genes). You get one copy of your genetic code from each parent. If your parents come from the same line of grandparents the backup copy is useless because both copies are too similar, and as a result any of the minor flaws that naturally occur between each generation don't have a backup and also become much bigger issues.",
"Honey boo boo's sister who became pregnant (she's a teenager) had a kid with two thumbs",
"if you take a video and upload it to youtube, then rip that song and reupload it to youtube, you will slowly have the video degrade in quality every upload \n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nsame works with people, if you ahve the same genes repeating over and over only with itself, the bad genes will start to become more common the longer you go",
"my understanding is this:\n\nthere are a number of inherited mutations that can have deleterious effects, but luckily many of them are recessive - meaning that you would need to inherit this mutation from both parents in order for it to be expressed. Because each specific mutation is relatively rare in the population, the chance of this happening on its own is low. However, if your parents are related, then there is a much higher chance of inheriting this mutated allele from each parent (because they have similar DNA), meaning you would express the negative phenotype",
"Op is asking for a friend",
"ELI5: All the bad genes that are generally recessive will become active and kill you. This is bad for humans in general and at this point most humans have accepted that incest is against the laws of nature regardless of religion and beliefs. \n\nPro tip: Fap before you start thinking about your hot sister. Or anyone so you aren't too horny.",
"I don't have anything all smart and scientific to say like everyone else, but I do know that I got a pair of guppies and inbred the fuck out of them 'til their population was about 60 fish (no breeder basket so in theory there were at least double, if not triple that amount that got eaten at birth). The later generations had a LOT or irregularities (long/short fins in places they shouldn't be, coloration, etc.). I don't think they really seemed unhealthy, but them there was definitely some The Hills Have Eyes fish.",
" It's a defence method against extinction. A sort of last ditch effort at survival. Generally if a species is inbred it's under some sort of major stress and doesn't have the genetic diversity to survive in it's enviroment. Inbreeding causes massive mutations in the genetic code. The hope being one of those random mutations will offer a trait that will allow for propagation and survival. It has to at least be somewhat successful given its prevalence in nature. \n\nEdit - Fun fact, some old Austrian families have purposely inbred linage dating back a thousand years or more. The neanderthal has really started to come out in them. You can see it visibly in their features. It would be fun to sequence their genome and do stuff to it. ",
"Less genetic diversity = bad",
"Guppies have hundred of babies at a time. If inbreeding causes a percentage of the baby guppies to be deformed you probably won't even notice as they will get eaten by the adults fairly quickly. Humans with birth defects are a much bigger deal as the mother invests her resources for nine months into having one baby at a time and euthanizing the fucked up ones is frowned on.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://science.jrank.org/pages/2975/Genetic-Disorders-Recessive-genetic-disorders.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://pawpeds.com/db/?p=sbi&date=iso",
"web.archive.org/web/20070421214033/http://www.genetica.se/manuskript/natural%20protection.doc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icruGcSsPp0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2naoax | if bats are immune to ebola, why didnt we research that ability and make a cure off of it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2naoax/eli5_if_bats_are_immune_to_ebola_why_didnt_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmbvo8a",
"cmbvraj"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I think a lot of research is being done in an attempt to investigate that. Here's an [example](_URL_0_) from Google Scholar.",
"We are researching it. It's just not an easy feat to accomplish. Because something works in a bat doesn't mean we can just instantly translate that ability to humans."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=bats+ebola&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp="
],
[]
] |
||
1l2dmb | why do so many old/elderly people drive car brands like lincoln, mercury, or buick? | I work at a supermarket that a lot of older people come to and i noticed that most if not all of them drive these brands. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l2dmb/eli5_why_do_so_many_oldelderly_people_drive_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbv31u3",
"cbv3621"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The same reason that they still wear hair styles from 30-40- years ago. Same reason some kid will want to know why you still drive a Toyota 40 years from now.",
"They drive smooth as hell, they're spacious and safe. Why wouldn't an elderly drive those brands?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7zisc8 | why do ants seem unaffected by vibrations or sounds of me stomping my foot near them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zisc8/eli5_why_do_ants_seem_unaffected_by_vibrations_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"duoc29j"
],
"score": [
55
],
"text": [
"because its unimportant and common and they don't see very well.\n\npersonal doom means less to an individual ant than failing to do its work (which would spell doom for the colony.)\n\nthings go boom around them constantly.\n\nwe do the same thing when there are earthquakes; unless there's immediate action to be taken we just hold fast for a moment and then carry on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4cw5fa | in the us, how come jury nullification is not pleaded in cases where breaking a law was almost necessary? | I often read cases where a man can be charged with murder for killing an intruder in his house or such and most often it seems as if they have to plead guilty. Why does nobody plead to nullify? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cw5fa/eli5_in_the_us_how_come_jury_nullification_is_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1lv1os",
"d1lv8gk",
"d1lvbfz",
"d1lveqs",
"d1lz4bx",
"d1lzzv6",
"d1m2fw9"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
8,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Jury Nullification is a thing the internet is obsessed with but doesn't really work the way the internet pretends it does and also pretty much never happens in real life. ",
"You can't plead to nullify. You can only plead, \"guilty,\" \"not guilty,\" or \"no contest.\" The latter is treated by the criminal courts as a guilty plea, but is not an admission of guilt, so it cannot be used against the defendant in a civil suit.\n\nNullification is something that only the jury can decide to do. Nullification is when the jury says \"they are guilty of breaking the law, but it's a stupid law, so we acquit them.\"\n\nProsecutors and judges HATE jury nullification, and for the most part, will try to weed out jurors who know about it during jury selection. Occasionally, defense lawyers will try to get people who know it, but since it's not a commonly-known thing, the defense counsel won't really care most of the time.",
"You cannot plead to nullify. You can only plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.\n\nHere is the unpopular thing here on reddit about jury nullification, it is not really a thing. Jury nullification is when a jury decides to find someone not guilty because they disagree with the law the person is being accused of.\n\nWhile this can absolutely happen, the fact is a jury can make its decision base on anything it wants. A jury could decide to find someone not guilty because there was a banana involved in the case. Does that make banana nullification a real thing? Of course not.\n\nHaving said this no lawyer would ever advise a client that they should go to trail, admit they did the crime, and hope the jury would decide the crime should not be punished. That is a very very unlikely situation. \n",
"Jury nullification is something that only exists as an accident. It's a side effect of the fact that jurors cannot be punished because of the decision they reach. So a juror can just decide that someone who clearly broke the law is not guilty, even though they really are, and they can't be punished for doing so.\n\nBut it's not a valid legal tactic, because it's really not really supposed to exist, and it undermines the entire legal system if its invoked. For instance, jury nullification was how white supremacists in the '50s were found not guilty of lynching blacks.\n\nSo no one involved in the case is allowed to mention jury nullification, or to try to use it as a legal strategy.",
"Jury nullification isn't an option juries have, it is a loophole they can exploit.\n\nJuries make findings of fact, judges make rulings of law. The judge lays out how the law works in their instructions to jury, saying if you believe X to be true, you should decide this way, if you believe Y, that way. The jury's duty is to figure out what they believe about X and Y, and apply that to the judge's instructions.\n\nHowever, there is no practical way to punish a jury for overstepping their role. If they find someone not guilty because they are a woman, an Aquarius, or because they think the law is stupid, they are not required to explain themselves. And even if they do, the court cannot punish them without having an undue influence over the jury proceedings. The last thing we want is juries finding people guilty because they fear being punished.\n\nYou can quibble over whether nullification is legal or not, but if you can't punish people for it, it might as well be. And since they really can't do anything about it, court like to act as though it doesn't exist. If you want to get out of jury duty, mention nullification, and they won't want anything to do with you.",
"As others have said, you can't plead for nullification. You would attempt to use necessity as a defense. Necessity is where you claim that your actions weren't criminal because they prevented something worse from happening. Self defense is a type necessity. \n\nIn general, you cannot kill someone for only breaking into your house. They need to pose a danger to you or others. That's usually what has happened in the cases you're referring to. For example, there was a cases where a man set a trap, caught two teenagers that were breaking into his house and then killed them. That goes way beyond what is considered legally accepted and he was convicted of their murders.",
"You can't plead to nullify, as many others have pointed out here. But there is another point that is relevant to your question.\n\nThere is a legal defense called \"necessity.\" It is a affirmative defense, which means the defendant admits to committing the act that would be criminal, but he or she did so out of necessity and is therefore not culpable. An example would be a low-security inmate charged with escape for leaving the facility because it was on fire.\n\nThere is a similar defense called \"choice of evils,\" in which a defendant admits to committing a criminal act, but only because the other option(s) available were even worse. An example would be a driver who swerves off the road onto someone's property to avoid hitting a child, and consequently commits what could otherwise be trespassing and destruction of property.\n\nBoth are rare but I have seen them both asserted at trial, including a recent acquittal based on choice of evils."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
24qwgh | how come our feet tickle when people scratch them when we walk on all sorts of things that don't bother them. | I no understando. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24qwgh/eli5_how_come_our_feet_tickle_when_people_scratch/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch9wo6x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's called Habituation. Like when you put your socks on you feel it at first and then you can't feel your socks (unless I suppose you concentrate really hard on the fabric).\n\nYou need to be able to ignore those touch senses that are not considered a threat (wearing clothes and walking on the different surfaces you mention) or else you would not be able to concentrate on important touch senses (someone tapping you for attention or walking on burning lava).\n\nI supposed having your feet tickled ignites the flight or fight response and so you need to respond to this 'not normal' sensation.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
34v3wp | why would the passengers aboard the 9/11 flights not resist? how did they hijack the planes? | Was it fear? Did they try but failed?
I heard it was with a wood knife, but how sharp can wood be? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34v3wp/eli5_why_would_the_passengers_aboard_the_911/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqyc63l",
"cqyc6wd",
"cqycbb5",
"cqyg5iu"
],
"score": [
10,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Historically, hijackings went like this:\n\nWe're hijacking this plane! Everyone remain calm, and no one gets hurt!\n\n[everyone remains calm]\n\nFly this plane to Cuba (or wherever)!\n\n[they fly the plane to Cuba (or wherever)]\n\n[hostage negotiations ensue]\n\n[passengers are let off the plane, basically unhurt]\n\n[hijackers are arrested or killed]\n\n... so the passengers thought that staying calm and not resisting was their best chance of survival. It had always been that way before, after all.",
"Some did, however the short answer is this:\n\nevery US hijacking before then ended up just being an inconvenience to the passengers. ",
" On one plane that was headed towards the white house (I think) the passengers fought back and crashed the plane into a field where no one else would be hurt",
"I want to kind of sum up what everyone said, and add a little bit of insight.\n\nThe hijackers told them to remain calm, and that their demands had been met, and they were taking them back to the airport. We know this because those fucking idiots said it to ATC and not over the intercom. By the time they realized they were in NYC or the capitol, it was too late to formulate a plan and execute it. They did what anyone would do, since this is the only time in the history of aviation that commercial planes were used as weapons. Now, the reason the passengers on united 93 fought back and the others did not, is because that plane took off after the others. While they were in the air, they managed to use their cell phones and (correct me if I'm wrong), phones in first class to call their families. From what I have read, the family members told them about the WTC. They had enough time to try to take over the cockpit, knowing that even if they failed to regain control of the plane, they would at least save the lives of the people on the ground. It was their only chance at surviving, and they took it. Every single person that died in the attacks on 9/11/2001 is a hero in my eyes. If the other passengers on the other planes knew, I am 100% certain they would have done the same thing. They all just wanted to get home to their loved ones. May they rest in peace."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6e0mez | american classroom system? | I live in the Philippines and over here the students stay in their own respective classrooms and seats and the teachers themselves circulate throughout the day. From western media I see that this is not the case and that students have their own schedule to follow, but other than this I have no idea how the hell it works. Could someone just briefly explain it to me? Was always curious about this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e0mez/eli5_american_classroom_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"di6pzyc",
"di6q3fe",
"di6qk2d",
"di6trpi",
"di6zj3t"
],
"score": [
6,
29,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"To add a little variety, my experience was very similar to u/Joekrdlsk, except I had more time between classes, 5 minutes in 6-8th grade and 10 in High School. \n\nOP, do you guys get a break during the day, or do you remain in the classroom for the entire day? I have always felt there is value in getting little breaks, especially at the school age.",
"So usually from kindergarten to 5th or 6th grade (ages 5 to 11) students will stay in one class with a single teacher who covers all subjects. This is elementary school. \n\nThen in junior high and middle school (grades 6 through 8) students will usually be given a schedule of classes that they have to go to. By this time, the subject matter and workload has intensified enough that a single teacher can't cover all subjects. The kids go to math class for math, language arts for English and reading etc.\n\nNot all students have the same aptitude, so they're assigned classes that fall in line with their abilities. For example, when I was in middle school I was very good with language arts and music, but was average at math. So I was scheduled to go to an advanced language arts class and was in advanced band, but my math class was standard algebra. There were other kids who were better at math, so they were scheduled to take geometry or algebra 2.\n\nThe same goes for highschool.\n\nEach teacher has their own classroom full of the materials that are specific to them. Chemistry class will have a bunch of work areas with Bunson burners, sinks, and assorted beakers. It would be awfully difficult for an instructor to carry all that around with them from class to class.\n\nSo it just works out easier for the students to rotate as opposed to the teachers. \n",
"I went to fairly small schools growing up. For K-6, each grade just had one teacher, except things like gym and art, where there there was just one teacher for the whole school and each grade had an assigned time. For 7-8, the classes shared 2 teachers, switching rooms after lunch. One taught science and math, the other taught English and history. \n\nIn high school (9-12), it was more like what you see on TV. Each teacher has their own room and students move around after every class. This allows for the school to adjust the education for each student. One 9th grader may need remedial math, another pre-algebra, another algebra 1, and another in a more advanced class. The minimum graduation requirements may only require 2 years of science classes, but someone planning on studying science in university would probably need to take more.",
"Uh ok I'll try my best to explain. \nSo in high school, you get a schedule. The schedule tells you which class you go to during what time. We don't stay in one room. So for first period I go to Algebra 2, and I stay there for 45 minutes then I go to Geometry for 45 minutes and we do this all day until lunch. There's 3 lunches. You are assigned one lunch period at the beginning of the year :)",
"I know this isn't much help due to all the other answers you've gotten and it's kind of off topic, but there's two major different high school schedules. Some have a normal schedule with 7-8 classes per day, but some, like myself, have what's called a \"block schedule\".\n\nFor my schedule, we have two types of days that rotate throughout the week. We have W days and L days, with my school's initials being \"W-L\". We also have our lunches split up into A, B, and C lunch. Here's a picture of my schedule.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSo, for me, let's say I start my week with a W day. That means I'll go to period 1 for an hour an a half, then move onto period 3, which is the only class we have daily. That's why it's only 45 minutes. Afterwards, I'd move onto my study hall which we call \"GP\". This is also daily, so it's also 45 minutes. \n\nThis is where it can get a bit confusing. At the beginning of the year. We're assigned lunches to attend on W and L days. They can be the same or different. It depends on what classes you're already assigned and also random chance. \n\nA lunch means we go to lunch for 45 minutes directly after GP.\n\nC lunch means we go to lunch for 45 minutes directly after period 5, which is after GP. \n\nB lunch is weird. We go to the first half (45 minutes) of our period 5 class, go to B lunch for 45 minutes, and then go to the second half of our period 5 class for another 45. \n\nAfter C lunch finishes, everyone goes to period 7. That's just an hour and a half class that everybody has.\n\nAgain, I know this wasn't really your question but I just thought you'd be interested."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://imgur.com/a/S5DeA"
]
] |
|
c5sw4b | what is a tor browser, how does it work and what makes it different to a "standard" browser such as chrome? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c5sw4b/eli5_what_is_a_tor_browser_how_does_it_work_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"es3vat0",
"es3wvk9",
"es5hmkf"
],
"score": [
41,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"A Tor browser is used for truly anonymous browsing, typically on the dark web. It conceals the user's identity by routing everything through a long series of servers in foreign countries that can't be subpoenad so that nothing ever goes directly from a server to your computer or from your computer to the server, and preventing any data from being stored locally on your machine. \n\nTo keep it simple, I'll skip some of the technical aspects. Normal browsers, such as Chrome, when you type a website in, basically the target website would know this computer at this place whose owner can be tracked by a search warrant on the ISP is the one that wants this webpage, and then sends data to your computer. Your computer also sends data to the website, or stores data on your machine that says which websites you've been to. If you were doing something illegal, that's supremely easy to track. If you're not, it doesn't really matter. \n\nIf you're not doing anything illegal, you very probably don't need a Tor browser for anything, although some privacy advocates maintain that the anonymity can protect your data and privacy.\n\nSource: I'm a defense attorney and I'm acquainted with how police catch people.",
"Though people say it's safe, it's not impossible to trace you. Many dark web sellers have been caught before. Search \"Australian drug dealer mom\" She got caught.",
"Let's use a mail analogy. Let's say you want to send an anonymous love letter to someone named Alice. You don't want Alice to know it was you who sent it, and you'd prefer not to let anyone else know you have a crush on Alice either.\n\nUsing a standard browser is like handing your letter directly to Alice. Obviously not going to work.\n\nFortunately, there are thousands of strangers who volunteer to run a love letter anonymization network. Out of the thousands of strangers, you randomly select three of them. Let's call them stranger #1, #2, #3.\n\nSo here's what you do: Take your letter addressed to Alice. Place it in an envelope, addressed to stranger #3. And put that envelope into another one addressed to stranger #2, and finally another one addressed to stranger #1.\n\nNow deliver the envelope to stranger #1. Stranger #1 opens it and finds the envelope addressed to stranger #2, which he delivers accordingly. Stranger #2 opens the next envelope, finding and delivering the envelope addressed to stranger #3. Stranger #3 opens it, finding the letter addressed to Alice, and delivers it to Alice. Since it is illegal to open an envelope not addressed to you, each stranger can only open up one layer. (In Tor, this is cryptographically enforced with math, not postal law.)\n\nSo what's the final result? Stranger #1 knows who sent the letter, but not its contents nor its ultimate destination. Stranger #2 knows neither who sent it, nor the contents, nor the destination. Stranger #3 knows the contents, but not who sent it. Alice also knows the contents but not who sent it. Thus anonymity is achieved: nobody other than you knows both the contents and the sender.\n\nSo that's Tor in a nutshell. There's also a lot of confusion out there about the differences between Tor and VPN. In this analogy, a VPN is like handing your letter to a trusted friend who hands it to Alice. Your friend is in a position of being able to know both contents and sender, so you're putting a lot of faith in your friend (VPN) to not rat you out. But it has the advantage of not letting a stranger (stranger #3) read your letter, and it's simpler with less hops making a VPN more suitable for daily browsing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5dh7xi | if i am sitting at my computer and gaming with a 130 bpm heart rate, why is that not as good cardiovascular as running outside with 130 bpm hr? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dh7xi/eli5if_i_am_sitting_at_my_computer_and_gaming/ | {
"a_id": [
"da4jt4f"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You would have to be playing a pretty intense game for a long time to actually get your heart rate that high for long stretches.\n\nSimple story is that when you're gaming, you're not necessarily giving all your muscles a good work out and exercising them. With the exception of the Nintendo Wii, most games involve sitting in one place and remaining mostly immobile. In those cases, your heart is being stimulated due to heightened emotional activity, but your muscles themselves aren't really working that hard.\n\nIn contrast, running or engaging in cardio outside, involves increasing blood circulation to all parts of your body, as well as exercising and pushing your body to the limit. This allows more nutrients to be consumed and used, and also encourages further growth and repair, since the body thinks that this extra effort should be met by more efficient and better muscles and bones. Sitting around and playing a game indoors doesn't demand that much of your body physically, so you don't get most of the benefits of muscle and bone strength."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5r77bw | what gland(s) are obese people referring to when they say "i have a glandular problem" ? | And what does the gland(s) do that causes obesity. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r77bw/eli5_what_glands_are_obese_people_referring_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4ziud",
"dd54lih"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They talk about the Thyroid gland. This gland produces hormones that influence the metabolic rate and with it the feeling of hunger. If the Thyroid gland shuts down and you do not take enough of the hormones as pills you will get fat no matter what you do against it. And you will always be hungry.",
"Tumors that push on the pituitary gland cause increases in weight that is nigh impossible to work off. (Look up cushing disease). As someone with a \"glandular\" problem (hypothyroidism) I can tell you I eat 1000 calories a day, work out for at least 40 minutes as well and I can't lose weight very easily. (I also am a type 1 diabetic and insulin restricts weight loss). Obesity is a complex disorder, it can be caused by overeating, but if someone says they have a medical reason for it, don't assume they're lying."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2m1g24 | how rest helps us get over a cold | When you feel a cold coming on, does rest help? What form? Physical rest, mental rest from stress, or sleep itself. Does staying home help? When I'm sick just feel doubly lousy to know I need to cut out my regular activities. Is it worthwhile to rest? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m1g24/eli5_how_rest_helps_us_get_over_a_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm03irs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of questions here so I'll do my best to address them all. So if you feel a cold coming on, does rest help? The long story short is; yes! Rest is extremely helpful for you body. You have to understand the process by which your body is responding to the stress of being sick though to really appreciate it however so...\n\nWhen you finally start feeling sick, your body has already been investing tons of energy into trying to combat the illness; cold, flu, stuffy-nose, whatever! Because all that time leading up to when your yourself felt sick your body was already aware of a foreign entity floating around. And as a result your immune system has kicked into gear and is churning out tons of cells designed to fight these invaders. The bad news is... whether bacterial or viral the way these foreign bodies stay alive is pretty tough to crack. If its bacterial they are reproducing bacteria at an astounding rate! If it's viral it could be using your own cells against you making it difficult to destroy. In either case, your body is devoting a lot of energy into the production of these additional T-Cells (like your immune system foot soldiers). As a result reducing your energy expenditure by resting is good! It gives your body additional resources and saves it from stress you may have encountered during whatever you were doing, you're already not working off your normal levels, so you could be endangering yourself more if you're doing something that requires extreme physical exertion or is dangerous.\n\nAs for what kinds of stress to avoid... Well all of them! Physically rest your body, it needs to conserve energy! Mentally, don't drain yourself either! You should be trying to sleep because while sleeping your body can control most of your systems automatically which is really good because for the most part it's really good at taking care of you! Running a fever, provided it isn't acutely high, is a good thing! It actually inhibits bacteria reproduction because they only function in specific temperatures. Staying home is usually recommended because you really don't want to spread the illness unnecessarily and it gives you time to get the rest your body really needs! \n\nTL;DR: Yes, rest is good and always worth it when sick! Your body is really good at taking care of you, for the most part, but in doing so it uses a lot of energy when resting you give it a chance to breathe. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.