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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
f2ni3l | what is the reason for forming individual poles for two magnets when a bar magnet is cut into two pieces? | Like how does the bar magnet know when it’s cut? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f2ni3l/eli5_what_is_the_reason_for_forming_individual/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhdp1in"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You can think of a magnet like a crap ton of tiny magnets all stuck together into one big magnet. So, think of putting two magnets together. Now it acts as one big magnet. If you pull the two magnets apart, they revert back to two smaller magnets.\nThe same thing happens when you cut a magnet in half."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
27dp75 | will wearing someone else's glasses really change my vision? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27dp75/eli5_will_wearing_someone_elses_glasses_really/ | {
"a_id": [
"chzs9ru",
"chzxasb"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"That is a myth. Wearing another person's glasses will temporarily make you unable to see correctly so you could hurt yourself. It will likely give you a headache as your eyes will really try to compensate for the fuzzy vision. The degree to which you are temporarily confused and how fast you get a headache will depend on the strength of the other person's glasses though.",
"No. To understand why, you need to understand why people are nearsighted or farsighted.\n\nThink about a a camera. When you take a picture, the lens takes the light coming in, and focuses it onto a sensor (or film, if that's how you roll) at the back of the camera. The lens is designed for the camera, which means that the designers know exactly how far away the sensor (or film) is from the lens, the size of the sensor (or film), etc. So the lens focuses the light in the right place and in the right shape. You can mess with the lens settings a little bit to get different objects in focus, or obtain different effects, but that's the general idea: \"the lens focuses the light in the right place and in the right shape.\"\n\nYour eye is a *bit* like that camera. The lens that sits at the front of your eye is meant to focus the light at a particular distance behind it, so the light can hit the \"sensor\"-- your retina-- perfectly focused.\n\nNow imagine that the camera we were talking about got kind of messed up at the factory, and the sensor (or film) was installed in the wrong place. Maybe it's a few millimeters too close. Or a few millimeters too far away. Either way, that lens that was designed to focus everything at a specific distance is now focusing everything a few millimeters off of the actual sensor!\n\nIf the problem is small, you can probably get around it by messing around with the lens-- adjusting the settings slightly to account for the wonky focus length problem. You've still lost a little bit of range on the lens, compared to a perfectly-made camera, but it's not too bad.\n\nIf the screw-up in placement is bigger, however, the focus issue becomes more of a problem. The adjustments required to get a clear picture may be more than the lens is capable of handling. In that case, you have three options:\n\n * Deal with blurry pictures\n * Get a new lens (or modify the existing one to focus light at the new length)\n * Put another lens in front of your camera lens to try and compensate for the camera's screwed-up sensor/film placement\n\nIt's a similar situation for eyes. Nearsighted and farsighted people have eyes that are like that messed-up camera: the lens is (usually) just fine, it's just that it's focusing the light a short distance away from where the sensor actually *is*. So the pictures are focused either in front of the retina, or behind it. Either way, it screws up the picture.\n\nPeople who are nearsighted or farsighted have their sensors in the wrong place. And they're left with the same options as above: adjust if you can, deal with it if you can't, replace or modify the lens, or use another lens to compensate.\n\n * Lots of folks who have *slightly* misplaced sensors/film/retinas aren't even bothered by it-- they can adjust their lens well enough to get by for most purposes (like driving), and they don't have blurry vision in most cases.\n * Some people just deal with not having good vision. My grandmother can't wear contacts, and doesn't like to wear glasses because she thinks they make her look old (yes, it's stupid; no, she won't budge). We try to discourage her from driving.\n * Getting another lens is still a bit difficult (though medical science is doing some amazing stuff). However, there *are* plenty of people who modify their lenses to accommodate the new focal length-- that's the (very simplified) idea behind procedures like LASIK.\n\nThen we have the final option: putting a \"corrective\" lens in front of the normal lens. That's what glasses and contact lenses are. And they work pretty well.\n\nSo, if we put your question in terms of cameras, it looks sort of like this: \"will using somebody else's corrective lens move the sensor around inside my camera?\"\n\nNo, it won't. Using somebody else's corrective lens doesn't affect the sensor placement inside your camera. It might make it more difficult to get a good picture. It might give you a headache, trying to figure out how to adjust your camera's lens to compensate for the weird stuff the other guy's corrective lens is doing. But it won't change the placement of the sensor in your camera, which is the fundamental reason you're using a corrective lens in the first place.\n\nUnfortunately, a lot of people think that being nearsighted or farsighted is just a matter of people being too \"lazy\" or \"weak\" to focus properly. They think that the proper way to deal with the sensor-placement problem-- even when it's pretty badly misplaced-- is to just mess with the lens a whole bunch. And if the lens won't adjust as much as you need-- if it stops moving when you try to push it out further-- then the answer is to KEEP PUSHING HARDER UNTIL IT GIVES. These guys don't get that the issue isn't that the LENS isn't working, it's that the distance to the SENSOR is messed up.\n\nBesides that, you can only push a lens *so far*. Eventually, it just doesn't work. Plus, any photographer will tell you that trying to fix a messed-up camera by screwing around with the lens is a good recipe for a headache. Especially if you're pushing the lens past what it was designed to do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
42kprv | what exactly is the legal status of the "dealership method" of selling cars in the us, and why is it such a big deal that tesla wants to sell directly to the customer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42kprv/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_legal_status_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"czb3g8p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Traditionally automobile companies sell their cars to dealers. Dealers own lots and service departments in their own cities. They resell the cars to the public, service them, perform warranty work. and handle recalls by doing the repair work and billing the company. Dealers need to car company but hire their own salespeople, mechanics, parts people, etc. The car company needs the dealer to sell the cars. They need each other. Car companies will actually ship the cars to the dealers and wait to be paid. The dealers pay as the cars are sold.\n\nNow Tesla wants to own car lots all over the country hiring managers to run the lots. They will employ the sales people, the mechanics, everyone. There will still be a local manager doing the hiring. But ownership will stay with Tesla. It is a different style. This is the way retail stores are run. Sears, Target, Wal Mart, and others own stores everywhere selling merchandise. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1rg8y4 | why doesn't the us have no limit interstate highways? | Considering we have a much greater area than Germany, yet they have no limit autobahns. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rg8y4/eli5_why_doesnt_the_us_have_no_limit_interstate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdmxgxz",
"cdmxqr9",
"cdmxrh8"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Germany treats their population like adults who can be trusted, which they are in return. The States treat the population like children who can't be trusted, which they are in return. And American cars aren't safe enough to drive that way. Just saying...",
"While I'm no expert on this, I did see a documentary on the autobahn. It was fascinating all of the technology and money put into it. It costs a lot, and you have to pay to use it. I think the biggest reason we don't have one is because we can't afford to make one that would be safe. Parts of it anyway are very high technology. Someone from Europe could explain better. ",
"Germany's autobahns were first built by the National Socialists (Hitler) in the 30's and 40's. The standards were very high and included features like wide shoulders (for safely stopping), limited on-ramps with graded entry, and sloped curves for high speed cornering. The roads were designed to handle speeds safely at 150 km/h. These were expensive roads. German cars also grew up to have stronger brakes and other features to make high speed travel safer. Yes, the Autobahn's have no speed limits in some areas but have many restrictions when approaching a city, when encountering construction, when operating in bad weather, etc... Most Autobahns today have an advisory speed limit of 130 km/h. America's highway system which was created in a big way from the Eisenhower administration in the 50's were not designed to the same standards and are consequently much cheaper. Still good roads but not rated for very high speed travel. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
96wi09 | why does apple and android have a issue with co-compatibility of sending videos across platforms? it reduces to like 240p. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96wi09/eli5_why_does_apple_and_android_have_a_issue_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"e43qetu"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. The method you're using to send the video is causing degradation, whatever that may be. I have no issues viewing 1080p video on my android uploaded to YouTube on a mac or iOS device.\n\nIf you are sending the video file via a text message (MMS) the phone will usually reduce the filesize to less than 3 MB, which is the MMS limit. iOS will likely see this same issue to other iOS devices that do not use iMessage. If you do use a different delivery method such as iMessage, it usually has a much higher filesize limit (25 MB+)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f5x500 | how is deep fake so real, what makes it look like the actully thing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f5x500/eli5_how_is_deep_fake_so_real_what_makes_it_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"fi1bixx"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"They use AI to reduce a two different people's facial features to a simpler representations that can be mapped together in real time. Once the points of one \"simpler\" face are mapped to the matching points of another \"simpler\" face, then the AI decodes the information filling in all the details and rebuilding the face into the detailed version."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4yb9ki | why do women go through menopause? | The ability to reproduce in the animal kingdom ensures that the species are able to pass on their superior genes, but in humans, females decisively lose their ability to pass on their lineage at the age of about 45–50. Why is that so? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yb9ki/eli5_why_do_women_go_through_menopause/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6mehbh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There is also the [Grandmother hypothesis](_URL_0_) as mothers age there comes a point in time where devoting their energy and resources into raising their grandchildren instead of reproducing directly is a better strategy to ensure the survival of their genes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothesis"
]
] |
|
35fidm | how does the field of psychology view religion? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35fidm/eli5_how_does_the_field_of_psychology_view/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr3xbuv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It really depends, I am taking psychology courses right now, so let me give you a valid opinion based on facts. The psychologist Karl Jung viewed people as beings with a collective unconscious that was somewhat motivated by spiritual aspects. In the early 20th century, psychologists were modernists who believed that the Bible was actually just a story used to comfort people about death (to put it in simplest terms). Psychology really doesn't contradict religion. It focuses more on what happens in the mind and how it developed and what behaviors are present. Religion is based more on the history of man, his moral beliefs, and what he should do to achieve a high moral and religious standard. It's just like how science doesn't clearly contradict all religion; it just amplifies the belief that God created all of these wondrous things and how the vastness could not have come from nothing. Something had to have created the smallest parts of the smallest particles, but we can't know for sure. That's why there is faith and hope, not solely fact and logic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4m6ma0 | does a gravity wave speed up time? | Or slow it down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4m6ma0/eli5_does_a_gravity_wave_speed_up_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3szr8s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If you're referring to the stretching of the fabric of space, then the answer is yes - but only minutely (as in, you would never be able to detect it, ever). This is because not only is the effect of a gravity wave really, really, *really* small, but it's commonly accepted now that they move at the speed of light. Hence, although time would slow down for you when your \"space\" becomes stretched (relative to unstretched space), it would do so for only nanoseconds. Hence, the time-slowing effect would be billions of times smaller than a billionth of a second (and that's being generous)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
af8q3q | how come we have and crave different types of food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? | Please be scientific | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af8q3q/eli5_how_come_we_have_and_crave_different_types/ | {
"a_id": [
"edwhb3w",
"edwib1w"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Some of it is also societal conditioning depending on culture. Part of a Full English breakfast is beans, but that's not very common in the US. Pho is a breakfast food in Vietnam, but the US eats it for lunch and dinner. It really boils down to how you were raised and what was advertised to you as the proper time to eat a certain meal.",
"I'm curious as to whether there is any correlation between what we crave and what our bodies happen to be deficient in."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3dth5i | how exactly would you go about mining an asteroid? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dth5i/eli5how_exactly_would_you_go_about_mining_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct8hdtf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Send an analysis mission to it to work out exactly what it is made from. Design a large ion rocket engine that can use the surface material, and send it to the asteroid with a large solar array (or a nuclear reactor if you can get the bureaucrats to agree). Use that rocket to adjust the asteroid's orbit until it will pass through one of earth's' Lagrange points, to move it from a solar orbit to an earth orbit, then to circularize and finally lower the orbit.\n\nThen it is a matter of multiple missions to delver mining equipment to the asteroid. The equipment would form the material mined into things shaped like conical capsules, hopefully with heat-shields made from the asteroid's lighter elements. As the capsules are just solid raw materials, I wouldn't worry about slowing them down below terminal velocity. Let them smack into some uninhibited region, then go pull the bits from the hole in the ground."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2ngewc | why don't human/chimpanzee hybrids exist today? | If we all evolved from chimpanzees (or rather, we share a common ancestor), why don't we see animals "in between", for example, chimpanzees and humans?
*I'm not trying to debate evolution, I'm genuinely curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ngewc/eli5_why_dont_humanchimpanzee_hybrids_exist_today/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmddmjd",
"cmddr8k",
"cmdebe9",
"cmdepn0"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The chromosomes couldn't work. Chimps and other apes have 24 pairs; humans have 23 pairs. This means there's no way to make a viable fertilized ovum. The genes just don't line up.",
"No animal stops evolving, so even the chimps of 50,000 years ago were different than the chimps we know today. The in betweens either evolved further or died out because they couldn't compete with the other species that had evolved further. If you're interested Jared Diamond wrote a book called The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution & Future of the Human Animal, if you're interested in learning more.",
"The in betweens have gone extinct. Many species of humans walked the earth at some point and they all have gone extinct when they proved unfit for their environment or at a disadvantage to another group. \n\n[Australopithecus](_URL_0_) is a something you might consider an \"in between\". It was a genus that came about after the human-chimpanzee lineages split, and it was in the human path. It roamed about while the ancestors of the chimp also roamed about. Eventually it went extinct when it proved unfit for its environment and other species took its place.\n\n",
"I think you've misunderstood evolution. There never was such a thing, both species evolved along separate lines from a common ancestor. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus"
],
[]
] |
|
6ugygy | what would happen to our bodies if we were to just take one pill every day that had all the nutrients and calories we need for a 'healthy diet'? would we feel hungry? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ugygy/eli5_what_would_happen_to_our_bodies_if_we_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlsksxz"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"One of the main ways that the body recognises satiety (fullness), is by the activation of stretch receptors in the walls of the stomach. \n\nOur awareness of hunger/fullness and hydration/dehydration is largely down to physical factors such as having an empty stomach/gut and a dry mouth, for example. \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
80ptul | why are they so many american state flags that use a coat of arms displayed on a blue background | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80ptul/eli5_why_are_they_so_many_american_state_flags/ | {
"a_id": [
"duxakms",
"duxctn2"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"States developed seals early on because in the English and American legal tradition, governments need seals to authenticate their acts. (The same way the monarch of Great Britain has his seal for royal acts.) Often, but not necessarily, these seals had designs in the style of a traditional coat of arms, which is a legacy from the medieval period. Most states carried over their seal from the colonial period or adopted one after being admitted to the Union.\n\nThe desire to have a state flag is much more recent, starting in the late 19th century. The state governments did not inherently need flags like they needed seals, because flags are only necessary under international law and here the flag of the United States would always be used. Particular flags representing a state were used on many occasions, for example carried by a state militia unit, but few states had a consistent design as their official symbol. But the idea caught on eventually, and now states feel like they just can't do without a flag. When first adopting a flag, many state governments decided to take their existing symbol, the state seal, and place it on a blue field--blue being the color representing the Union. It's a practical if boring choice.",
"Ask r/vexillology what they think of most American state flags.\n\nAs u/TokyoJokeyo explained, most state flags just evolved out of the state seals being stamped onto a background. There are a few that were specially designed, such as Alaska, Colorado, and New Mexico, but those are much newer designs than the old seals."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
eocre6 | how are the orbits of distant objects in our solar system calculated from only observing their relative motion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eocre6/eli5_how_are_the_orbits_of_distant_objects_in_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"febnkw2",
"febs0m0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So we can figure out how close or far away it is by measuring its brightness. As it gets closer to us, more of its reflected sunlight hits our telescope (for the same reason a close lightbulb is blinding while the rest of the room is well-lit), and so it will get brighter, and vice versa for getting further away.\n\nDue to the way gravity works, figuring out even a tiny bit of the arc of its orbit is enough to figure out the whole orbit. We already know that nearly everything in the solar system orbits on one plane, so we don't need to orient the elipse in 3Dspace most of the time, just on a 2D model. As a result, knowing where the object was on just a few points in its orbit, and how quickly it moved between thoss points, is enough to do the math which gives us a rough estimate of the orbit.\n\nMost of the orbits you see on TV or in educational books use simpler Newtonian gravitation to model the orbits, however. This is fine on a huge, zoomed out model, but orbits don't really work that way once you get down to the nuts and bolts. This is most clearly seen in the orbit of Mercury. Rather than being a perfect ellipse as you might expect with simple Newtonian mechanics, Mercury's orbit looks more like a spirograph. The \"ends\" of the ellipse move around at a constant rate. This is because Mercury is close enough to the sun that a fact of general relativity starts to make a noticeable difference. It turns out very massive spinning things \"drag\" the fabric of space along with them, making things closer to them orbit just slightly faster because the space they are moving in is itself moving faster. Mercury is close enough that its elliptical orbit drops the planet into a region around the sun where space is dragged enough faster that Mercury's orbit speed increases just a bit. Then, when it leaves that area, it slows down just a little harder than you might expect because space is moving more slowly.",
" > How do we calculate an elliptical orbit from this 'apparent motion'?\n\nBecause we know the strength of the sun's gravity. Crudely, objects far from the sun will move more slowly than objects near the sun. Also, as we have observations over at least several weeks and months, we have observations from different points of view, because the earth is moving. This helps us work out an object's distance, though the calculations are complicated by the object's motion.\n\n > Are we not observing it as though it were on a 2D plane relative to us?\n\nThe apparent positions we observe in the sky have both north-south and east-west components, like latitude and longitude. All we're missing is the distance.\n\n > How did astronomers in the distant past also figure out orbits of the major planets\n\nThe impressive part is that they worked out the orbits and the theory of gravity in parallel. But the motions of the planets are repeating patterns so we forecast their movements in the sky quite accurately, even in ancient times, thousands of years before we knew what an orbit really was. It largely was done by trying to model the observed motions with planets attached to rotating circles attached to rotating circles ...\n\n > with primitive telescopes and naked-eye observations?\n\nThe planets are the brightest things in the sky after the sun and moon; you can't miss them with the naked eye. They did have various devices use to help measure the angles in the sky. Even today we can navigate with a sextant accurate to a sixtieth of a degree even though the sextant typically has only a tiny, three-times telescope. Older instruments without telescopes, like astrolabes and cross-staffs, could do nearly as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1r1yc1 | whats the point of a water jet cutter? arent there stronger cutters out there? | Just wondering! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r1yc1/eli5_whats_the_point_of_a_water_jet_cutter_arent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdiqlpj",
"cdisztw"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Cutting usually produce heat which can damage delicate material such as food, paper, rubber etc. With water jet cutters, such damage can be prevented.",
"From what i understand, water jet cutters offer a much more precise cutting edge opposed to let's say a plasma cutter which will leave you with a jagged edge.There are other advantages to using a watter jet cutter. Example here : _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTPXJgj3y4"
]
] |
|
20r6pf | why do people "naturally" stink at drawing? | Now, obviously some people are much better at this sort of thing than others, but our brains are fascinating things. We can easily picture and remember things in our head, but why is it much more difficult to put that down on a piece of paper? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20r6pf/eli5_why_do_people_naturally_stink_at_drawing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg5yrj5",
"cg5zn0f",
"cg64u0t"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Because what you put on a piece of paper is not the thing, it's a description of a thing...it's language and vocabulary that invokes the idea of the thing, but it's not the thing itself. What you lack is not memory, but the ability to conjure up in pen the idea of the thing. It's not like a flat piece of a paper with a picture of brad pitt on it resembles brad pitt AT ALL, it's a frickin piece of paper in 2 dimensions - it bears almost no resememblence to actual brad pitt other than that it magically conjurs up brad pittness in our brain. \n\nSo...memory are a real thing is different that being able to create something that conjures up someone else's memory of a thing.",
"1. Lack of good observational skills\n2. Lack of an understanding of how light and shadow works\n3. Lack of an understanding of how geometry and perspective works\n4. Lack of an understanding of how to translate 3D to 2D\n5. Lack of an understanding of how color works\n6. Lack of physical practice with the chosen medium\n\nYou can operate without the middle four in some contexts, but 1 and 6 are mandatory.",
"I'd like to think that nobody is ever naturally gifted or inept at anything, be it art, or science, music, or whatever else you can think of. Some people might have been fortunate enough to have gained proficiency in these areas before they needed to devote conscious thought to practicing. These are the people we typically consider \"Gifted\". In reality, these people have just developed an intuition for their craft through a lifetime of practice. If you stink at something, it is counterproductive to blame genetics. If you wan't to be good at art, don't expect to crank out masterpieces in the first few days, weeks, or even years. If you want to be good at math, don't start trying to learn graduate level calculus before you learn basic algebra. and so on for any other skill. Referring this back to the original question, and also **TL;DR**....\nYou don't have a natural disposition to \"stink\" at turning your thoughts into art. You just haven't practiced enough."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
22bq4d | why do i sometimes 'hear' my heart beat through my ear when i lay my ear on a pillow? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22bq4d/eli5_why_do_i_sometimes_hear_my_heart_beat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgl8va6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You are hearing your pulse as it travels through your ear.\n\nThe pillow blocks out most external sound, and you laying at rest causes you to focus on certain things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5jrbho | why does listening to people with certain types of accents sound pleasing (similar to an asmr effect)? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jrbho/eli5_why_does_listening_to_people_with_certain/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbic6lq"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Accents are produced by the vocal pallet being worked in different ways. Some accents fall onto deeper more bassey areas of the vocal pallet cresting a deeper resonant sound which can be quite nice and soothing. Other accents come up through the pallet and have a real tenor quality (think Canadians)\n\nYou can think of it like singing different vocal sounds will produce a response in you based on your vocal tastes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1t6zdw | why can i find a video from youtube on my computer but then not find it when i search for it on my phone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t6zdw/eli5_why_can_i_find_a_video_from_youtube_on_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4yjf1",
"ce4zuml"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a different search system used over the phone and I believe it has to do with licensing and royalties. ",
"irishman13 was right.\n\nCertain videos are not allowed to be played back on mobile devices due to YouTube's policies and also whatever the uploader decides is necessary. Generally, companies that own and upload copyrighted material (often times music videos) may decide they only want those videos playable on computers, and will choose to disable mobile playback."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3hva7z | how do tax lawyers advertise that they can reduce money owed to the irs from figures like $300,000 down to $3,000? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hva7z/eli5_how_do_tax_lawyers_advertise_that_they_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuauh1v",
"cub3fie"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"The IRS has a program called \"Offer in Compromise\" not being a tax lawyer, but someone who has had a lot of interaction with the IRS, this program is designed to allow people who will never in their life time pay back a large debt settle it for pennies on the dollar. There are folks who settle a $300,000 debt for $3,000 but that's because they have proven to the IRS that they never in their lifetime will ever receive the money otherwise. Here's a link to more details: _URL_0_",
"As someone who had to deal with this situation, I was considered an independent consultant but misunderstood how much I should have held aside for taxes, I can tell you one thing with 100% certainty. There is nothing a lawyer can do for you in this situation that you can't do on your own. Many people are so intimidated by the IRS they assume they must need legal help. Not true. Also, if I can't pay what I owe in taxes, neither can I afford an attorney's fee.\n\nIt is not that complicated. I was honest. I'd gone back to school for a more rewarding but less well paying job and had not kept up my prior job's licensure or educational requirements. Bearing that and my earning potential in mind, they settled on a sum I thought more than fair and let me pay it in installments. \n\nNot my proudest financial moment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Offer-in-Compromise-1"
],
[]
] |
||
bjl4x1 | how do cemetery plots (or mausoleums ) work? do you get the spot forever? do they recycle the plots? what happens when the cemetery is full? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjl4x1/eli5_how_do_cemetery_plots_or_mausoleums_work_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"em90rgd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"At the cemetery where my mom was laid to rest two years ago, we paid outright for the plot. Actually she and dad paid for it when she was diagnosed and bought a double. I think it was $6k each? Yes, its a one time payment. Think of it like this: obviously a hole in the ground isn't worth $6k. And the coffin and the concrete bunker it sits in, the labour to dig the hole and fill it back in are all paid separately (in our case to the funeral home). So that $6k goes into the cemetary's fund where it earns interest. The interest from your and everyone else's one time payments are used to pay for landscaping and upkeep. \n\nNo, you can't recycle the plots; there are crazy rules around exhuming people, getting permission from the kin etc., and really old bodies might not have any living kin left, so who do you ask?\n\nWhen the cemetery is full, its full. Time for a new cemetery."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4bc9bg | article says that more coin flips are required to get 'two in a row' than 'heads followed by tails'. why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bc9bg/eli5_article_says_that_more_coin_flips_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"d17t529",
"d17t6a9"
],
"score": [
11,
5
],
"text": [
"The chances of getting any combination on the first two flips is the same, and the chances are the same if you break the flips up into pairs from the start or flip two coins together (so getting TH HT wouldn't count as getting two heads in a row because they're in different pairs).\n\nHowever, if you're just looking for HH at any point, it becomes harder than getting HT. If you've got one head and want a second head, then failing puts you right back to square one - the best you can do is to get heads on the next two flips, which is a 1/4 chance. But if you've got one head and want a tail to complete your HT target, failing means you got a head. You're still \"halfway there\" with a head as your last flip, and there's a 1/2 chance that your next flip will be a tail and complete your HT.",
"The version in the article is different than what you say.\n\n > > If Alice tosses a coin until she sees a head followed by a tail, and Bob tosses a coin until he sees two heads in a row, then on average, Alice will require four tosses while Bob will require six tosses (try this at home!), even though head-tail and head-head have an equal chance of appearing after two coin tosses.\n\nSo, two **heads** in a row is harder than heads followed by tails.\n\nNow, I can explain why.\n\nInitially, both people have to throw until they throw heads. To that point, everything is fine and equal.\n\nAfter that however, things diverge. Because Alice now has to throw tails, while Bob has to throw heads. This chance too, is equal.\n\nBut let us assume now that they miss. Meaning that Alice throws Heads, and Bob throws tails. Alice now merely needs to throw tails again, while Bob first has to throw Heads, and then has to throw tails.\n\nTl'dr : Bob has to start over if he throws heads, Alice only needs to do the second throw again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4smqxd | why do non friction electronics such as phones get hot after prolonged use? where does the heat come from and how is it created? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4smqxd/eli5_why_do_non_friction_electronics_such_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5agkj7",
"d5ah02g",
"d5ai00g",
"d5aj47f"
],
"score": [
17,
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's basically down to the resistance of the circuit and its components. An electric heater is essentially a large resistor.\n\nAnd fundamentally, it is down to the interaction between moving electrons and static ions inside the conductor.\n\nAlso known as [Joule Heating](_URL_0_)",
"The circuits inside of mobile phones, computers, etc. basically only need the electric energy to flow through them to perform operations. Clever circruitry restricts the energy flow along a special path that will give the desired result in the end.\n\nNow if you look at current Intel processors, you will see that they need something from 3-65 Watt to run. That's quite a lot, considering that electricity only has to run through a channnel, without doing any \"real\" work like, for example, lighting a lamp. But since the channels are incredibly small, there is room for friction and heat buildup again.\n\nSince your phone has no fans, the only way for it to get rid of the heat is to dispers it along it's whole body. And that's why your phone gets hot.",
"There is no such thing as a lossless machine. Electronics and electricity included. The same thing happens in powerlines. The loss in transferring the energy is converted into heat",
"Non-friction electronics? What the hell would 'friction electronics' be?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3095y5 | why is 22lr still in such short supply? | It has been nearly a year since this was asked and I believe the previous answers are not valid due to the fact that 22lr is still in such short supply. If the manufacturers are running at full capacity and selling everything they have, how long will it take to normalize the market. It have been over 2 years since the scare and little to nothing has changed in terms of availability. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3095y5/eli5_why_is_22lr_still_in_such_short_supply/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpq7yqb",
"cpq8fw2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Are people not still scared? From the people I know who are really into guns, it seems that most people are still convinced that the government is going to... do... something. Soon.\n\nMy Uncle runs a sporting good's store, and has had standard orders from people who want to buy every round they can whenever a new shipment comes in.",
"The issue is that in many cases, once the ammo has been distributed to retailers, you have guys who come in and buy 80% of the stock in one go. \n\nThe \"shortage\" is simply due to demand exceeding supply, and it self perpetuates because people keep hoarding ammo. I know guys who buy stockpiles of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of cartridges and yet still keep buying more because there's a \"shortage\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2j3lfu | why are photons not slowed down or sped up by gravity? why is the speed of light constant? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j3lfu/eli5_why_are_photons_not_slowed_down_or_sped_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl82yxy",
"cl85w9k",
"cl863oi",
"cl87fkv",
"cl87h5o",
"cl8843v",
"cl888aw",
"cl88k92"
],
"score": [
47,
68,
3,
3,
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Constant speed of light is an axiom of relativity not a derived fact.\n\nEdit: Sorry, I guess this is not an ELI5 answer. To clarify:\n\nThere is no 'reason' that the speed of light is constant (that I know of). Basically it is assumed because the resulting theory makes many predictions which can be verified. IE. The constant speed of light is not a prediction of some theory; it is the theory.\n\nMaybe some clarification on the gravity point would be good here as well. Again, I don't think \"why\" is an appropriate question. The only answer I could give is 'because we assumed the speed of light is constant'. Some more information regarding the interaction of light and gravity might be helpful though. Gravity can change the direction that light is traveling. This leads to things like the gravitational lensing effect mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Also gravity can change the color (or wavelength) of light. This is how light loses energy to gravity (rather than us who lose it by trading kinetic energy. ie. speed). One effect here is gravitational redshift, whereby light escaping a gravity well becomes progressively 'redder'.",
"[A little while ago someone asked a very similar question in ELI5 and someone gave a very good answer.](_URL_0_)",
"There is a maximum speed, and nothing can ever go faster than that. All things that have no mass travel at this maximum speed all of the time. Light has no mass, so it always travels at maximum speed and that's why we call it the speed of light (actually, light *does* slow down when it is in a material, but in a vacuum it's always c).\n\nPhotons are slowed down by gravity, but they are effected by it. In general relativity, what we call gravity is really just a result of the fact that mass bends spacetime. So light always travels at c in straight lines, but through a curved spacetime.\n\nNow you could ask why there is a maximum speed, and why that maximum speed is constant. As other people here have stated, you kind of have to take that as a given. It's an experimental fact. We use that fact as a starting point in the theory. ",
"Short answer : because photon don't have mass, therefor aren't subject to any force.",
"On the second question, one of my best friends is a chaos mathematician; when he explains it, he would point to chaos math as an attempt at modeling things that are normally thought to be random, too complex to be conventionally mathed out with physics, or unrelated/without an obvious or conventional causal connection. For one example, modeling the relationships built when complex systems grow and develop (systems like people, the planet, the Internet) but with 'attractors', an idea that causes can exist in time after their own effects.\n\nHe openly says that understanding the speed of light to be constant is something scientific observers generally do becuase of the theoretical math of relativistic physics, their models of how it all works, demand it... in short, not becuase it is actually constant and has been observed to be constant, or that it couldn't be any other way. \n\nHe cites a supposition that if we were to seriously measure the speed of light we would find minor fluctuations in it over variables as simple as time and space... maybe even gravity, as per your first question. He often laments that light is presumed constant and accepted constant by most of workbench science, and in the same breathe often suggests chaos math will come to show light in a more complex and more useful way that better fits the world and it's physics when it is given the space to do so by the scientific orthodoxy. ",
"I'll preface by stating that their are others in this thread with more knowledge of physics theory, but I believe that your phrasing of this question makes it unanswerable. When we look at fundamental or (at least seemingly) constant aspects of our universe, the question \"why?\" either has no significance or cannot be approached from a scientific standpoint- hence religion. \n\nWe usually use why when considering the cause preceding an effect, but there is also the connotation of 'for what purpose or reason'. The former aspect of the question why relies on our linear experience of time and a past with which we can consider. Since the properties of reality have most likely existed forever or potentially came about outside of the existence of time, this aspect of \"why\" cannot apply to this consideration. The latter meaning of \"for what purpose\" is a very humanly biased question in that we expect a reason behind something. A justification of sorts. Again I don't believe this has any meaning when considering reality and its properties because regardless of any explanation that could be offered, from god to a meta universe theory, the question why could again be aplied and be seemingly meaningful. e.g. Why is there a god? \n\nTL:DR \n\"Why?\" has no meaning here. Meanwhle it encourages a lot of argument over facts and theories that pertain to \"what?\" and \"how?\".",
"Ultimately, the answer to \"Why is the speed of light constant?\" depends on the kind of answer you're looking for. Lots of people will provide a description of *how* light travels at a constant speed, giving you examples of different behaviors that light exhibits, all based on really nifty physics.\n\nBut ultimately, the answer is sort of \"we don't know, it just does.\" It's something that we discovered around 100 years ago, and it confused the hell out of us. Light just kind of *always* travels at the same speed no matter what, which doesn't make any sense to us.\n\nAnd then Einstein came along and proposed that it's because space and time don't operate the way we intuitively assume that they do. Even that explanation confused the hell out of us. A lot of people didn't believe him because, in spite of Einstein having a very strong argument, it didn't make any sense. We're still struggling to make sense of it.\n\nDon't let the physicists fool you, it is a weird, confusing fact that you should find a bit baffling, and we don't really have an explanation. We have a lot of evidence that it's true, and that Einstein was right about space and time. We have a lot of math equations that describe how it works, and we know a lot more about these things than we did 100 years ago. Still, we don't exactly \"have it figured out.\" It's just the baffling fact of how the universe works that we're still struggling to comprehend.\n\nAnd I think that might be an answer to your question as much as anything is. You're not really going to get an answer that falls back on other physical laws. Like \"why does a balloon float?\" has answers involving gravity and buoyancy that help you understand the mechanism better. But the constant speed of light might just be a fundamental feature of our universe, like the fact that matter/energy can't be destroyed, or that time has a direction. We're still trying to figure those things out, but we might never find a complete scientific answer.",
"This may be an oversimplification even for an ELI5 answer, but light speed is the point where all the available mass has converted to energy. F=MV^2 Force is Energy, in daily situations the energy you are working with is split between mass and velocity. When Force reaches its maximum energy you wind up with Fmax=E, leading to E=Mc^2. \n\nWe are in an unfortunate situation where we can only measure light via its path through space-time, but we can only really measure space-time using light as a yardstick, making it very difficult to completely verify the relationship. As we, or at least I, understand it, when all the available mass has been converted to energy there is no more \"fuel\" that can be used to add velocity.\n\nAs I said, that may be too much of a simplification, but it may help in thinking about it.\n\nDon't forget that matter is simply congealed energy. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22pi7o/eli5_why_does_light_travel/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2uwhlp | why don't we see tv ads that are totally silent and display nothing more than a company's logo for the 30 second spot? | With so many terrible commercials during this year's Super Bowl I started wondering what might actually have an impact on me personally. I really think a completely silent commercial with nothing but a logo centered on the screen would really stick with me. Would a network allow something like this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uwhlp/eli5_why_dont_we_see_tv_ads_that_are_totally/ | {
"a_id": [
"cocawwy",
"cocba16",
"cocg872",
"cocn8jj"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"If you got the money, yes. But people love to watch good commercials, so companies try to make good commercials. Having just your logo would be something a newish company would do, but then nobody would know what kind of company you are or what you do/sell.",
"It might stick with you, but I would wager a lot of people would see it as brain-washy. You want to increase customer trust and brand value. ",
"I believe Ford did that during the intermission of the first network showing of Schindler's List. The first showing was somewhat controversial... obviously painful and adult subject material, very somber and you don't want to slam to a commercial of dogs chasing Beggin'Strips. So the first showing was completely commercial-free except for an intermission that simply showed Ford's logo and played music, if I recall correctly.\n\nThere was also a car dealership commercial where the owner filmed himself playing the piano for 30 seconds, with a short note that there's enough noise on TV that he thought we'd like a break from it. I think it just had a logo down in the bottom corner and that was it.",
"The most effective marketing gets the audience to associate the product with positive emotions and social relationships. For just brand visibility, billboards etc are much more cost-effective."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a9odwu | - what do airplane boarding zones mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9odwu/eli5_what_do_airplane_boarding_zones_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecl0qdi",
"ecl5fp1",
"eclewvi"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Airlines have been struggling with how to get passengers boarded as quickly as possible. Different combinations have been tried in the industry over the years — window seats first, back of the plane first, front of the plane first, etc. On top of that, knowing how long the wait is, airlines use priority boarding as incentives for things like First Class, which complicates matters.\n\nSo, the zone system is a way to organize boarding to minimize total boarding time. If you’re always in the last zone, you may wish to either choose a better seat for boarding, or pay more for a more premium seat.",
" > I’m an engineer and I think it would work best if zone 1 was all window seats, zone 2 was all seats next closest to the windows , etc. so everyone boarding would be filling in order from window to the aisle.\n\nThat's because you're an engineer and inherently try to optimize for time. Optimize for $$$ instead\n\nNow you've got two early groups for first class to make them feel special. A zone for people who paid more for better seats, a zone for people who paid more to get on early to get overhead storage, and a zone for all the cheap people who you want to make suffer a bit so they'll pay you more next time\n\nAmerican Airlines is the worst offender of this with 9 boarding zones, basic economy which doesn't let you have a carry-on bag unless you pay extra, and trying to convince people in groups 6-8 to pay $25 to move up to group 5 so they can get some overhead bin space. Absolutely atrocious for boarding time efficiency, but extremely efficient at reallocating $$$ into their pockets\n\nJetBlue on the other hand loads premium seats first then loads from the back of the plane forward. Much more efficient but doesn't let them extract as much money.",
" > I’m an engineer and I think it would work best if zone 1 was all window seats, zone 2 was all seats next closest to the windows , etc. so everyone boarding would be filling in order from window to the aisle.\n\nI'm also an engineer but I'm focused on designing and managing systems for a living.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe issues with problems like loading zones is that you have to consider:\n\n1. What are the basic parts (the processes) of the system that are related to the step you're changing, and how will they have to change?\n2. What is the process's tolerance for failure? In other words, how likely is it that the step won't be completed correctly, and what do you do to still keep everything working?\n\nFor 1, consider families. They often book in multiple blocks, and they often have people who need supervision (e.g., a 5 year old). In order to make them most comfortable, they would probably like the option to choose grouped seating. The problem is that the airlines already use that feature in a different way (making people pay more so that they can get their preferred seat). You would probably have to make severe system changes to allow both the family grouping option and the \"pay more for your own seat\" option, and that costs money.\n\nFor 2, consider that people are late to their boarding. They may be in the bathroom, for example, when Zone 1 is called so they go with Zone 2. You still have to let them on the plane, so you have to plan for when that happens. When that does happen, the benefits of loading Windows first are gone, at least for that particular aisle. It might not happen very often, but it might be just often enough that the relative benefit is significantly lower than what you were expecting.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnd I guess the last thing is that companies are inherently change resistant. Unless it's either a really simple fix or has an amazing cost savings, most companies are fine doing things the way they do them unless some other force causes them to change (like example 1 above). So it might actually be better to do things the way you say, but unless it's a giant benefit, companies might still just do the slower way because they're used to it. \n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8ufnpn | how are atms connected globally? | I'm curious to know how ATMs are connected to overseas banks, say when I do a withdrawal from a foreign country.
Are they connected to the internet? How else are they able to connect to external banks then? Wouldn't connecting via the internet pose a security risk?
If they're connected through their own private networks, isn't it very complex? Do they really lay their own network connecting to all the different banks in the world? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ufnpn/eli5_how_are_atms_connected_globally/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1f2f4i",
"e1f5g6k"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Are they connected to the internet? \n\nYes, though probably not directly. How else are they going to access the database where your account information is stored?\n\n > How else are they able to connect to external banks then?\n\nIt's the internet.\n\n > Wouldn't connecting via the internet pose a security risk?\n\nIt's probably not directly connected (as in the ATM can't surf the web) but rather is hooked up to a server that can. As for a security risk, sure but good luck with that. The banks have literally all the money in the world to buy security.",
"the banking industry uses a proprietary network to communicate. it shares some of the same methodologies of public internet structure but it communicates in a different protocol and its own encrypted point to point lines. \n\nthey don't lay the network themselves. they contract it out to the same companies that lay out regular lines, like at & t, verizon, etc etc. but these lines aren't connected to at & t/verizon's public internet lines. they don't run thru the same routers or switches.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1rp0lb | why does black friday still happen every year if its shrouded in violence and chaos? | Thanks for the answers people! I was just reading through [This post](_URL_0_) and it perplexed me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rp0lb/why_does_black_friday_still_happen_every_year_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdpfgeb",
"cdpfkfi",
"cdpfktz",
"cdpflc4",
"cdpfott",
"cdphhvi",
"cdpiblq",
"cdpilc2",
"cdpimln",
"cdpippi",
"cdpjf7a",
"cdpjijk",
"cdpjkix",
"cdpjrk7",
"cdpjrn4",
"cdpjt0u",
"cdpk5nl",
"cdpk8jz",
"cdpkb1r",
"cdpke1u",
"cdpl9uf",
"cdplzwx",
"cdpm0c0",
"cdpm3t2",
"cdpmld8",
"cdpo41p",
"cdpqfaz",
"cdpqqt0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
235,
8,
24,
10,
2,
13,
73,
8,
4,
3,
2,
3,
6,
10,
10,
6,
2,
8,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Is the government supposed to make discounts on products on a certain day illegal? You can't really stop it within the confines of a free society.\n\nPeople like doing it clearly, stores like selling a lot of stuff and there's nothing reasonable you can do to stop that.",
"It's the free hand of the market.",
"News programs like to overhype this kind of thing. For the vast majority of places, it's not really shrouded in violence and chaos - it's just lots of people and long lines.\n\nThere's sometimes violence and chaos at football games, too, but they still happen every year. ",
"Black Friday is way less dangerous then many activities. Your more likely to die at a bar then on Black Friday. The media sensationalizes the day. ",
"I can guarantee you most stores do not have this \"violence and chaos\" on black friday sales. It only occurs on rare occasions and the media tends to overhype. Why cancel one of the most profitable times of the year just because a few people are injured. ",
"because it would be a funny year if it only had 364 days. ",
"Because this is America, and we're thankful for one thing. Capitalism. ",
"Because the violence and chaos is enormously exaggerated and a slight amount of violence and chaos is worth the money that is generated.",
"**Its all a game.**\n\n\nWe *want* to feel like we're fighting for better deals.\n\n\n\nWe *want* to feel like we're earning better access.\n\n\n\nWe *want* to feel like we're running out of time.\n\n\n\n\n***It's all a game.***\n\n\n\n**Source: I work at Best Buy. I'm working right now. FML**",
"i wouldnt go as far as calling it shrouded in violence i would say that lends more to media blowing it up than anything however dealing with asshole people who are overly entitled and will do anything to save 5$ yes hell yes and that goes for the whole holiday shopping period not just black friday.",
"It's to remind us not to rebel against the capitol.",
"It's not as violent as people make it out to be. The only place that is violent is walmart. Since they never close, people just crowd around pallets waiting to jump and grab the item when it's time. Everywhere else the crowd is controlled. They only let a certain amount of people in at a time so the store is a little more full than normal but you're not fighting through a crowd. Other shoppers have always been very helpful to me. We ask each other to hand stuff to us, how much something is or what it is exactly. The only issue is that it's a long line. It can be up to an hour wait to check out. ",
"Black Friday gets its name from going into the black. Meaning throughout the year most retailers are \"in the red\" when it comes to profits. They then sell so much merchandise over the period of the Black Friday Sale that the store literally goes \"into the black\" or out of the red. Again, for a number of retailers this is the first time during the year that they are out of the red, so Black Friday will continue as long as the throngs of people still swarm the sale.\n\nEdit: u/lechoen proved me wrong with [This](_URL_0_)",
"Black Friday in ND seems pretty tame. Comprised mostly of cold, half awake people stumbling around together in herds. Its still stupid, but its not nearly the violent craziness you see on YouTube.",
"Because it's not really shrouded in violence and chaos. Reddit just tries too hard to be mockingly anti-capitalist. ",
"As someone who just got off a 10 hour black friday shift at target 2 hours ago, the violence of black friday is far more rare than you might have been lead to believe, people generally get to where something they want is located, and if it's sold out, they go \"there aren't more in the back are there? No? Well crap. Thanks anyway\" I was working our dvd section and saw multiple instances of people overhearing someone else saying \"I need to find movie-x for so-and-so\", and a total stranger will turn around and hand it to them. Things get hectic sure, but violent and chaotic? Those aren't words I would use to describe my experiences on either side of black friday.",
"Media sensationalism carries some of the blame. My local station actually had a fancy graphics touch-screen with all the stores listed with hours, etc. This morning they were actually disappointed that the stores were rather tame and quiet. Then they commented on their disappointment.",
"There isn't more violence on black friday. It is reported more.",
"Another good question is - why do people think they're getting deals? I've worked Kohls, Best Buy, Hot Topic, and a few other places and it seems to be a common practice to raise the price of everything in the store, but only have a few good deals. No one is saving money and the shopping frenzy is strong.\n\nSTRONG.",
"It's starting to be a thing in Canada now, I'm at a mall right now and at least 3 people have pushed through the line up at the cash without saying excuse me, deplorable.",
"You are making the assumption based on sensationalistic stories. That stuff happens but what you don't hear about is the orderly but busy business conducted most places.\n\nDon't believe everything you read on the I-net and bring your common sense and experience to it when you read stuff.",
"Black Friday much like the Hunger Games is used to keep the masses pacified. Pit people against each other and they want be able to see the real enemy.",
"...I mean mostly its not violent. If you go out to walmart you're not going to get trampled or punched. Maybe yelled at once or twice. But really this whole black friday thing has gotten way overblown on reddit. You'd think retail workers need to carry bear mace to protect themselves. \n\nI worked at walmart 2 years ago for black friday and honestly it was not all that bad....",
"Well it's not really shrouded in violence or chaos. Really, go to a mall during Black Friday, it's not that bad. Sure there's a lot of people, but no one is killing each other over the last cabbage patch doll. In fact, there's barely any lines. Well unless the store is giving out free balloons, then a line forms. \n\n",
"The only violence and chaos I have seen were on YouTube videos. Never in person. ",
"Cause its not that bad most places",
"Why do people drive cars when there are fatal accidents every day of the year?",
"Because it isn't"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1re0rl/retail_employees_of_reddit_what_are_your_black/"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/11/25/the-little-known-philadelphia-origins-of-black-friday/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1h3wmb | why the us hasn't switched to plastic money, and in the process render north korea's "superdollars" useless. what are the downsides of changing the currency? | I keep seeing a lot of international coin has gone plastic which makes it seemingly harder to counterfeit, and gives it a longer lifespan. Wouldn't this be a good move to prevent all the counterfeiting being done currently tanking the economy?
I'd just like to see if there are any downsides or reasons why it shouldn't be done? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1h3wmb/eli5_why_the_us_hasnt_switched_to_plastic_money/ | {
"a_id": [
"caqkyp0",
"caqlp4s",
"caqm7wt"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know the answer to the question as to why the switch hasn't happened, but I would like to point out that producing a new currency format does not automatically invalidate existing currency. The govt and the banks will have to keep accepting the old currency for a long time to come, so the counterfeiters can keep producing the old currency for a while.",
"Modern currency is based on faith and wholesale changes to it make people leery of taking it since they can't be sure what you are handing them is new official currency or something you put together in the basement. \n\nNorth Koreas counterfeiting efforts aren't really effecting the U.S. dollar enough to warrant a wholesale change in what is the most recognized currency in the world. The U.S. government regularly makes changes to currency but that doesn't invalidate the old stuff. Invalidating the old currency is more likely to tank an economy that any amount of counterfeiting going on by \"unknown sources\". \n\nOur bills have changed in the last several years, [adding new features](_URL_0_) like color rather than all green, plastic strips, UV dyes but at the same time retaining the look and feel of traditional American dollars which is an important aspect of our currency. \n\nI'm not sure how plastic in it self makes currency harder to counterfeit. Its more likely that new features are added to the plastic coins that couldn't be added to metallic ones. ",
"\"all the counterfeiting being done currently tanking the economy? \"\n\nWhat?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.newmoney.gov/currency/20.htm"
],
[]
] |
|
1leydl | why is toilet paper generally indented? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1leydl/eli5_why_is_toilet_paper_generally_indented/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbyju1f"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It helps to hold the two plys together, kind of like spot welds, but not nearly as strong. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
20kcz2 | if a pure black object absorbs all light and doesn't reflect any, what would it look like? | Example : if I had a cube of a material that was absolutely black with no reflections or anything, would it just look like I was holding a cube of nothingness? Since no light would reflect to show texture or anything.
Edit: I've done Google image searches and can't find any thing so if you can find an absolutely black object, please link it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20kcz2/eli5_if_a_pure_black_object_absorbs_all_light_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg43czd",
"cg44sq2"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If it truly was purely black, you wouldn't be able to discern any of the object's features except its rough shape. It would literally look like a silhouette.",
" > if I had a cube of a material that was absolutely black with no reflections or anything, would it just look like I was holding a cube of nothingness?\n\nIt depends on its temperature. What you're describing is a perfect [black body](_URL_0_). It would emit black-body radiation (just like all other objects in the universe emit black-body radiation), dependent on its temperature.\n\nAt normal environmental temperatures, it would appear to be a completely featureless black area, but would emit some infrared light. If you heated it up enough, it would start glowing visibly (just like heated metal glows)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body"
]
] |
|
5mnvoc | how do you name ionic compounds, acids, and binary molecular compounds? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mnvoc/eli5_how_do_you_name_ionic_compounds_acids_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc4ypqj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[I don't have a lengthy explanation for you without basically quoting this page word for word.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://cbc-wb01x.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch2_naming.htm"
]
] |
|
3aoq8c | why is academics, especially school and university teachers, strongly lean democratic rather than republican? how does this affect the youth? | Do republican voters not like becoming teachers or something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aoq8c/eli5_why_is_academics_especially_school_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"csel7d0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Teachers, at the K-12 level and at the university level are usually all union workers, and union workers strongly lean Democratic over Republican, because Democratic politicians tend to be pro-union and Republican politicians tend to be anti-union. That's one reason.\n\nAnother reason is that the vast majority of teachers work in publicly-funded schools. Democrats like public schools and some want to increase their funding, which could mean pay raises for teachers and also more job security. Republicans tend to oppose government spending, and that might mean less money for public schools, and therefore pay cuts or layoffs for teachers.\n\nTeachers also almost all have post-graduate education (more than a bachelor's degree), and those with post-graduate educations in general tend towards the Democratic party."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dkutpu | when you turn the taps in a shower, what is happening? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dkutpu/eli5_when_you_turn_the_taps_in_a_shower_what_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4jzxgf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When shut off, the taps are stopping water in your water lines (cold and hot) which is constantly under pressure. Opening the taps allows that water to escape and come out the spout. When you pull the tub diverter it blocks off the spout and pushes that water up to and out your showerhead."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1psy0l | how is the human body able to expel bullets and shrapnel? | ex. _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1psy0l/eli5how_is_the_human_body_able_to_expel_bullets/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd5oi37",
"cd5pst5"
],
"score": [
24,
30
],
"text": [
"Cells divide and multiply. The cells behind multiply in the direction of the material, the cells in front multiply away from it, this slowly pushes it out through the skin until it breaches the surface, where it will come out. Fragments of the right size in the right place, ink for tattoo for example, won't trigger this reaction, but are too large for white blood cells to remove, which is why they stay there.",
"Normally something this large would not be expelled through the skin. Small objects like splinters and bits of dirt that get abraded into the skin can get pushed out, and that is due to the positive pressure of acute inflammation. Any time the skin is perforated or damage, your body reacts by creating a localized positive pressure system. Acute inflammation manifests as redness, heat, swelling, and pain. This local swelling is what can sometimes push out small objects. \n \nWhen you start talking about object as big as a bullet, the body responds differently. As long as the object isn't covered in recognizable foreign material, the body will likely just wall it off in a cyst. This happens to intentionally placed foreign objects like breast implants. Obviously, your body can't distinguish between the well intentioned and everything else, so things that don't get surgically removed can get walled off. \n \nIf something this large is getting pushed out, it's most likely not due to cells proliferating but rather new tissue getting laid down. The cells doing this are called fibroblasts, and they produce the dense, rugged material that gives skin its tough but pliable properties. A bullet would get pushed out by continual deposition of this scar-like tissue on the interior aspect of the bullet, slowly pushing it closer and closer to the surface. All that said, I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1psnxp/one_of_my_dishwashers_at_work_was_complaining/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3syyf5 | what is complementary alternative medicine, and why is it considered so controversial? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3syyf5/eli5_what_is_complementary_alternative_medicine/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx1mt2u",
"cx1nom8",
"cx1xyv5",
"cx25f0z"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"~~\"Alternative\" means it hasn't been vetted by science yet. There haven't been enough studies and trials done to confirm that they actually do what is claimed. But many have been determined to at least probably not be harmful, so doctors won't necessarily tell you not to take those.~~\n\n~~\"Complementary\" might be the more important word, though. Complementary medicines and treatments are ones that have been confirmed not to interfere with traditional treatment. If you are taking chemo for cancer, there are a lot of drugs you should NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TAKE. Those drugs or treatments will interfere with the chemo in possibly dangerous ways. Complementary treatments, however, are safe to take at the same time as traditional treatments.~~\n\nIgnore me. My explanation of \"alternative\" is wrong. Listen to /u/RickAstleyletmedown.",
"Complementary and alternative are two different things but the line between them is more about how they are used than what they are. \n\n\"Alternative\" means care used *instead of* mainstream/conventional/scientific medical treatment. That often includes things that are thoroughly rejected by science-based medicine, like homeopathy or reiki, but can also refer to more accepted practices when used in place of conventional treatments.\n\n\"Complementary\" means treatments that are not adopted by mainstream/conventional medicine, but which may be practiced *in conjunction with* (i.e. as a complement to) mainstream treatments. This often includes things like meditation, therapeutic massage, natural diets, herbal supplements, etc. which have ample evidence to support positive effects, but could also mean homeopathy or reiki or any of the many pseudoscience practices out there. Again, the main difference for these two words is whether those practices are used instead of or together with conventional medicine.",
"In the words of Tim Minchin, \"By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. You know what they call Alternative Medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.\"\n\nNaturally been written as such to argue, but the important thing is that some alternative medicines can work, but the majority are things such as Homeopathy.",
"You know what we call things that work and help make you get better? Medicine. You know what we call everything else? CAM.\n\nIt's controversial because it's entirely bullshit and magical thinking being tied on to actual medicine to make it look legitimate. You know what acupuncture does? Nothing. Not a single worthwhile study has shown it to have any effect outside of placebo. So let's say you're a cancer patient and you get acupuncture only. The grim reaper will be seeing you shortly. Now let's say the same person gets acupuncture, chemo, and radiation. Oh look, the cancer is in remission! The acupuncture helped! No it didn't, the actual medicine helped, they could have taken a juggling class instead of the acupuncture and the results would have been the same. Actually the results would have been better, because now they can juggle. \n\nSo that's why CAM is controversial, it's a blatant attempt by the modern snake oil salesmen of the world to add an air of legitimacy to their efforts. It's meaningless junk tacked on to actual medicine which allows them to brag about results that aren't theirs. If you have a doctor that recommends CAM, get a new doctor, preferably one that wants you to learn how to juggle. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5gcu1c | how being in front of a computer's screen for a long time can impact our health? | I've been wondering it for some time, using the computer for +6 hours per day can be bad? How? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gcu1c/eli5_how_being_in_front_of_a_computers_screen_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dar88jw",
"darlltu"
],
"score": [
31,
5
],
"text": [
"Several reasons, one you're seated for several hours, blood flow to the legs may be reduced, which may cause clots to form. Your posture may force the back in an unnatural position, and strain it. The way you use the keyboard and mouse can cause carpal tunnel injuries. \n\nYour eyes are focused at a fixed distance, and the eye muscles don't get the variety of different focal lengths they need to move around. When viewing a monitor for a long time, you tend not to blink as often which can cause the eyes to dry out.\n\nThat's why it's recommended to periodically get up, walk around the office and change your activity",
"Eye strain, back pain, blood clots (which can lead to a stroke or pulmonary edema), carpal tunnel syndrome. Oh, and old computer monitors radiate low level radiation. Plus, just sitting for extended periods of time means you aren't exercising at all for that time. Most of what you eat will be stored to fat as long as you're sedentary.\n\nAmber lenses are supposed to help with eye fatigue. Not sure if they've proven that though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
augc96 | why do scammers use itunes gift cards | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/augc96/eli5_why_do_scammers_use_itunes_gift_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh803zp",
"eh804of"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Gift cards, any gift cards, can be resold on the secondary market through exchanges like [CardPool](_URL_0_).\n\nEveryone knows what iTunes is, and it would seem that iTunes is a popular gift card on the secondary market where the scammers are based.",
"In most cases, iTunes gift cards can be resold for straight cash on the grey market. It's essentially money laundering - instead of getting straight up prepaid cards that they then use to make purchases, they trade gift cards for specific things into more general currency (usually bitcoins).\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.cardpool.com/"
],
[]
] |
||
3ccj2t | what do our votes in the presidential election actually do? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ccj2t/eli5what_do_our_votes_in_the_presidential/ | {
"a_id": [
"csu8ygf",
"csu91k6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Each state has a number of votes for the president (electoral college votes). Your vote helps decide how your state's votes will be cast. Usually all the votes go to the candidate who gets most votes in your state, but a few states will split their electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote.",
"Popular question! [Asked and answered.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=u.s.+presidential+elections&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all"
]
] |
||
6yb133 | why is capital gains income taxed at half the rate of other income? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yb133/eli5_why_is_capital_gains_income_taxed_at_half/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmlyiy2",
"dmlyqug",
"dmm0q4q"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it was discovered that taxing capital gains at a higher rate triggered changes in investment behavior (such as moving the money outside of the US) that resulted in less overall money from the capital gainst tax.",
"By taxing it differently, it encourages investment.\n\nLet's say you have an extra $100,000. So, what do you do with it? You can put it in the bank, or invest it.\n\nIf you put it in the bank, it's safe. If you invest it, there is a risk that you could lose some or all of your money.\n\nSo, they are taxed differently. If you put money in the bank for five years, your interest will be taxed normally. If you invest it for five years, you get taxed at a lower rate -- a reward for the risk, and creating new jobs.",
"The stated reason is to encourage investment.\n\nThe real reason is to create a very nice-sounding way for the rich to get even more rich. [This article](_URL_0_) explains in easy terms how that happens. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-anthony-capital-gains-reform-20141226-story.html"
]
] |
||
3ehj6a | reddit's obsession with simple puns in comment threads. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ehj6a/eli5_reddits_obsession_with_simple_puns_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctf0875",
"ctf09bz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Every group develops its own in-jokes, and the reddit format works great for simple, repeatable puns and gags.",
"Removed because this is not a request for a simplified explanation of a complex concept.\n\nThis post may do better in a different subreddit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4a21au | why super cars/sport cars usually use carbon fiber as material to their body ? | Are there any material choices better than carbon fiber that are cost effective ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a21au/eli5_why_super_carssport_cars_usually_use_carbon/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0wqume",
"d0wqv7a",
"d0wqvnq",
"d0wrmkm"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Can you explain why they should be carbon fiber? If it works, no need to upgrade.",
"Carbon fibre is light, strong, flexible and heat resistant, properties which make it ideal in many situations for racing cars.",
"Dude. Its not about cost. Its about competition. And carbon fiber is only half the story. The other half is the titanium metal that is lightweight, yet strong as steel. If you are not driving a race car, it is of no use to you.",
"Carbon fiber is one of the best for sports cars, aluminum is a good alternative due to the fact that it can be poured into moulds and machined, it's also light weight, heat resistant, cheaper, and quicker. \nCarbon fiber is lighter than aluminum but less heat resistant and takes a while to make a full car out of. Carbon fiber is made of layers that can include fiber glass or Kevlar depending on the effects you need or want. So a company like Ford or Toyota are not going to mass produce carbon fiber cars, but high end cars like lambo, and BMW will be able to sell the those cars, quantity vs quality"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3gt644 | what makes a computer better for a specific application? | I know that gaming computers have some suped up hardware, but someone told me that you wouldnt want to use a gaming computer for an office computer. Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gt644/eli5_what_makes_a_computer_better_for_a_specific/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu18keh",
"cu18u8v",
"cu18uhp",
"cu1aegl"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly because you'd be paying way too much for hardware you aren't going to use. The only possible issue I could think of is that a gaming computer might focus on the graphics card at the expense of other specs, but that isn't too likely, and again the specs would be overkill anyway. Oh, and [the case might look gauche](_URL_0_) in an office environment.",
"Most custom built gaming computers use i5 processors because they are cheaper. Current games don't utilize many processing cores, so paying more for an i7 would be unnecessary because games wouldn't utilize the hyperthreading \n\n\nAn office computer is kind of a generic term. If your job is mostly word processing, then you don't need a 700+ dollar gaming computer, just something bare bones. However, if your job involves rendering, encoding, or any other intensive processes that can utilize multiple threads, then an i7 processor might be worth it. \n\n\nFor a server, an Intel xeon would be optimal for multitasking, as one of the Xeon processors has something crazy like 16 processors and 32 threads. \n\n\nApologies for anything that might be incoherent. I'm on mobile. ",
"A gaming computer should suffice for office work, though it may cost a lot, use more power, generate more heat, take up more space, and attract some funny looks from co-workers.\n\nThese days, you can pretty much use high-end tablets as office PCs. Just set up a docking station with a few monitors and you're good to go.",
"It's not that the computer would be bad for office work, more that it's way, way too much overkill. Using a gaming computer for office work is like using a full size eighteen-wheeler to haul a basket of groceries. It gets the job done, but it's stupid and wasteful. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/killer-case-mod-for-gaming-system-custom-cases-for-high-end-power.jpeg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1q816z | why is it that when i get a cold, i feel cold. | Today I had a nasty cold, walked out into some 90 degree weather with a jacket, felt like I was freezing to death. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q816z/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_i_get_a_cold_i_feel_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"cda5w1j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your hypothalamus usually tells your body to be around 98.6 degrees (more or less). That's what your thermostat is set to. If your body is less than 98.6 degrees, you feel cold. Now when you get a fever, your hypothalamus tells your body to get hotter, so it sets the \"thermostat\" to 102 degrees or so. So now, if your body is lower than 102 degrees, it feels cold. When it gets to the temperature that the hypothalamus is trying to reach, you stop feeling cold. \n\nA different way to think about it, your body tells itself that it's cold so that it heats up, even if you weren't actually cold."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
54x4eb | why is heat dissipation such a problem for scientists and engineers? | One of the biggest limiting factors in various fields (computing, automobiles, aircrafts...etc) is heat management.
The thing I don't understand is, why is it so hard to re-capture / re-use thermal energy that is being generated as a byproduct of some work?
For example, can't the heat generated by a microprocessor be re-used and turned into electricity?
So far, the focus seems to be on finding ways to get rid of the heat, instead of "recycling" it somehow. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54x4eb/eli5_why_is_heat_dissipation_such_a_problem_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d85ng3s",
"d85num3",
"d85nvu0",
"d85nxv5"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The real problem isn't heat dissipation, it's the *cost* of heat dissipation. We know how to effectively dissipate heat. Liquid and cryo-cooling both work extremely well. But they are expensive.",
"most all energy production is, at its heart, converting heat to electricity. \n\nthe problem is, the mechanism of creating electricity from heat is not particularly efficient at actually removing heat from a system. they work on temp gradients, so you want the hot side to be HOT, which you cannot typically accommodate.\n\nThen theres the logistics of fitting the hardware to do it, the generator, of any variety, takes space, weight, cost, and it can be counterproductive to accommodate that equipment for what you could gain.",
"You can recycle heat, but that requires bulky, expensive, and heavy equipment. \n\nWith computers, the issue is the cost and bulk; it's not worth the space or money needed to recycle the heat. As well, whatever recycling the heat costs, it's *always* cheaper and easier to simply remove it (unless you're in outer space, since a vacuum can't conduct heat except via radiation). \n\nWith cars and planes, the bigger issue is weight. A heat recycling system is large and heavy, requiring a generator to recapture it. With that said, hybrid vehicles do actually use energy reclamation; they capture the energy from braking the car and use it to charge up the battery, improving fuel efficiency. ",
"Heat can not be turned into electricity. A heat difference can.\n\nThink about heat like water. You can build a dam to produce power, but that will only increase the waterlevel upstream."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
68idio | how come car companies use glass that shatters into a million peices as a windshield and not something like plastic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68idio/eli5_how_come_car_companies_use_glass_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgyoos9",
"dgyoqpc",
"dgypdad",
"dgypqsj",
"dgyu7ow"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
18,
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't shatter into a million pieces. It's designed specifically not to do that. It's layered with a laminate material in between layers which keeps the glass from shattering. ",
"It's so it doesn't make glass shards that can cut up or off pieces of you. Instead you'll just go through.",
"Because plastic would have to be replaced every couple of years, due to scratching and environmental stresses Whereas Glass can last for 20+ years if nothing untoward occurs.",
"Windshields behave the way they do for safety. It's a feature, not a problem. In the case of an accident, you get either a large cracked bendy piece of windshield, or you get lots of little round fragments that can't cut you and kill you as you experience the crash. Large shards (like you see in a normal window) would be super dangerous.\n\nPlastic is softer than glass, so it would scratch and wear easily, as well as fading and yellowing over time, and broken plastic edges are nearly as sharp as normal glass edges, so it would be worse for safety and longevity. ",
"Plastic scratches and discolors from the sun too easily to be used for window material. It would basically be useless. Glass shattering the way it does is a safety feature, not a risk. It is designed to specifically shatter in a way that does not produce sharp edges and those broken pieces are held in place by laminate material built into the glass. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
co6wxz | what does it mean when a business “writes off” an expense? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/co6wxz/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_a_business_writes_off/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewgamd5",
"ewgbbw0"
],
"score": [
18,
10
],
"text": [
"It means you can subtract the total cost of the item from your revenue so you dont have to pay income tax on that ammount",
"When you are doing accounting, you have income and expenses. You write down every type of income, line by line, and on the opposite side of the ledger you write down every type of expense, line by line. \n\nWhen you are all finished, the totals must match. That means the \"books are balanced\" and you've accounted for all your money coming in and all your money going out. \n\nWell, one of those money coming in items can be \"Accounts Receivable\" which basically means money that other people owe me. \n\nSo lets say someone owes you money, but then he gets thrown in jail. If it were a company that owes you money, lets say they go bankrupt. Either way you know you are NEVER gonna get paid. \n\nSo you move that money from \"Accounts Receivable\" line item, to the \"Uncollectable Debts\" line item to keep the books balanced. \nThat's considered \"writing off\" money, as you did work or sold a service or item to someone and you aren't gonna get squat for it. If that happens too much you may go bankrupt also, so it's a bad sign for companies if they have a large number in that column.\n\n[Here's a good example of how devastating that can be](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-30-fi-aol30-story.html"
]
] |
||
2x3a6e | why do people appear on the daily show with jon stewart (or similar shows) when it's almost certain that they will be mocked? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x3a6e/eli5_why_do_people_appear_on_the_daily_show_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cowi56i",
"cowib8n",
"cowjsji"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Often times, the interview subject is told they're being interviewed for a Viacom news and entertainment show (technically true).",
"To promote something.\n\nAlso, most mocking done on these shows is light at best and the people are often in on the joke. For example, when Colbert would ask ridiculous probing questions to his guests, the butt of the joke was always him. I can't imagine that most guests get too offended.",
"The mocking and subjects discussed are negotiated ahead of time. Any politician or major celeb has staff to negotiate the terms of the interview ahead of time. Everyone understands that the joking will be limited and the cost of appearing on the show in exchange for publicity for a new book, movie or whatever cause the guest wants to promote."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1kgiyk | psychosomatic pain | I suffer from anxiety and some of the symptoms for me are headaches and chest pain, i've had multiple tests for both and its psychosomatic pain according to doctors. So how can I feel pain that is non-existent? Does my brain recognise that i'm in distress and manifest that into physical pain to deal with it? And with that I also ask if that's true, then does positive thinking work in a scientific sense? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kgiyk/eli5_psychosomatic_pain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbooykg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What you think is true has a profound influence and yes, being a positive person and/or having a strong support system is proven to get you better outcomes as a patient generally."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ssy25 | who authorises drone strikes and ground missions on foreign ground? | *Please note, I don't want a political discussion here whether it's morally acceptable or not.*
Hey,
After seeing an article with the headline: [Yemen Withdraws Permission for U.S. Antiterror Ground Missions](_URL_0_) I asked myself, who authorises the attacks of the U.S. or other nations (like airstrikes from France or Russia) to foreign ground? Do they get a permission for every single drone strike they do, do they have a blank cheque from the government, or do they simply give themselves the permission for such operations?
*Please note, I don't want a political discussion here whether it's morally acceptable or not.* | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ssy25/eli5_who_authorises_drone_strikes_and_ground/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddhkolw",
"ddhmdmi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The person that authorizes it is different for each military. It is the person that is in charge of the military. For the US it is the POTUS. \n\nThere is no higher authority that a country has to seek permission from, there is no global government.\n\nEdit: The link you are talking about is about Yemen giving aid to the US for their actions on Yemen soil. But the US does not need permission to carry out those actions. Yemen can choose to help (as they have done in the past), Choose to ignore it, or choose to attack the US for being on their soil. ",
"In the US, it is ultimately the president.\n\nThey might authorize it personally, or they might issue an executive order stating the conditions needed to authorize a strike and leave it at the discretion of the military.\n\nNote this is essentially true for *all* military action. The president issues executive orders, which the military turns into policy and rules of engagement."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-special-operations-missions.html"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
8m6314 | why do rockets not use the advantage of aerodynamic lift until they reach a certain altitude? | When looking at rockets I always wonder why they immediately start straight upwards, instead of launching like a plane until they reach an altitude that doesn't allow aerodynamic lift anymore.
It always seemed more sensible to me to build the lower stage of a rocket with big wings and only the upper stage is a "classic" rocket.
Is it a weight issue? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8m6314/eli5why_do_rockets_not_use_the_advantage_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzl3bz4",
"dzl3e8i",
"dzl40cv"
],
"score": [
24,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Up isn't the problem, very little of the rocket's energy is wasted going up. Getting to space isn't the hard part, its staying in space that's the challenge and that requires going *FAST*.\n\nA typical rocket will climb out of the atmosphere(~100 km) in under 2 minutes, in that time it will have lost ~1.1 km/s due to gravity. In order to achieve orbit it needs to hit 8 km/s so only about 12% of the total delta V is lost to gravity and getting it out of the atmosphere, and if you gave it wings it may have to carry those beyond their useful limit which would significantly reduce performance due to their added weight\n\nRockets are actually really good at what they do. A space plane that can flip from a jet engine to a rocket engine and use wings to get it up high is the dream, but if you're stuck with just rocket engines then you want to get up and out of the atmosphere as fast as possible",
"Some rockets **are** made like that. Look up Virgin Galactic. Additionally, some (very small) satellites get to orbit on board a modified air-to-air missile fired from a fighter jet.",
"Wings add weight and drag. Both of these are bad when you're attempting to move so fast that air will literally disintegrate you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7qcwcp | why are crumbs/small particles or liquids dangerous in a space station/shuttle? shouldn't they be airtight and waterproofed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7qcwcp/eli5_why_are_crumbssmall_particles_or_liquids/ | {
"a_id": [
"dso529h",
"dso6mkz",
"dso8z0g",
"dsoi930"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Small particles (and liquids, of course) may conduct electricity, and because they don't fall to the floor, they may find their way into electronics more easily and cause them to short circuit or otherwise malfunction. The crew on ISS does use some regular commercial electronic equipment, such as laptops. Even if a piece of equipment isn't critical to survival, it's not like they can just go to a store and buy something new if it breaks.\n\nFires are very dangerous on space stations, and you also have limited oxygen.",
"It is not only the equipment and instruments that are partially very difficult and expensive to 'seal', but small particles also have an abbrasive effect, can hamper the air renewel systems, fly into peoples eyes, mix into noxic smelling things and due to being very hard to clean up can even end up breeding mold.\n\nAside that it is simply yucky and unhygienic to have pieces of food or other peoples facial hair end up in every nook and cranny on your space station.",
"every extra pound you take onboard costs $1000 in fuel. if you can save a few ounces and only allow the best and brightest staff not to be a slob, it's cheaper.",
"The entire station is already a waterproof, airtight enclosure. The environment on the ISS is about as \"indoor\" as it gets with almost no fluctuation in temperature or humidity so waterproofing provides less benefit that waterproofing your toaster at home.\n\nWaterproofing something makes it heavier and harder to repair. In the case of the ISS, it is critically important that everything be as light and as easy to repair as possible. \n\nTo provide a specific example, the rectifier/regulator in my outboard is sealed in epoxy (\"potted\"). This makes it impossible to repair it as well as making it at least twice as heavy as the unpotted part. If a diode pops, I have to replace the whole regulator. On the ISS, the engineers have the tools and training to replace that diode as long as they can get at it. Since that diode is tiny (well under a gram), is a common part that is used in many circuits and can be replaced with the resources available, it makes sense to have dozens of spares aboard. On the other hand, the complete regulator may only be used in one place and, even unpotted, weigh 50g so they will only keep one or two spares. By being able to service the part, they can function with fewer spares (less mass and volume spent on inventory) and are less likely to need an emergency delivery (because they ran out of spares of something important).\n\nAlso ISS is a research station so a lot of equipment is one-off experimental stuff. Environmental hardening is expensive and time consuming (it can take much longer to harden something than to develop it in the first place). A lab bench oscilloscope is a much different beast than one designed to be used outdoors in all conditions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ku7m6 | the difference between ripening, rotting, and fermenting. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ku7m6/eli5_the_difference_between_ripening_rotting_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv0japo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"ripening - the process of a fruit maturing.\n\nrotting - the process of dead material being broken down by microorganisms.\n\nFermenting - the process of breaking down sugars in the absence of oxygen. In the case of alcohol, it's what yeast produce when they munch on sugars in a deoxygenated environment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3y59ih | if a handheld gopro can record at 4k resolution, why do movie and television productions use such large cameras? | Whats the factor that isn't immediately apparent that makes a larger camera better? It seems that GoPro cameras film better quality than movies and TV so I must be missing something. Thanks!
Edit: Thanks for the answers guys ,I really appreciate the new-found knowledge!! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y59ih/eli5_if_a_handheld_gopro_can_record_at_4k/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyan3ca",
"cyan4op",
"cyan7x9",
"cyan8q8",
"cyanbzs",
"cyapxy6",
"cyaqocu",
"cyaqsl9",
"cyar225",
"cyas0lg",
"cyas1qz",
"cyasnas",
"cyasxnc",
"cyasxt5",
"cyat06k",
"cyat56b",
"cyatcoq",
"cyatgif",
"cyatifq",
"cyatzq4",
"cyau5iw",
"cyau5jx",
"cyaujz8",
"cyauokl",
"cyav4mk",
"cyavn7v",
"cyaw5tq",
"cyaxcls",
"cyaxgaz",
"cyaygns",
"cyayi91",
"cyayq0w",
"cyazeip",
"cyazzv3",
"cyb163x",
"cyb1oyc",
"cyb1sxx",
"cyb1vl6",
"cyb22qn",
"cyb2zgr",
"cyb3vt9",
"cyb48zm",
"cyb4jsg",
"cyb8j8z",
"cybfx76"
],
"score": [
35,
2,
4233,
327,
172,
6,
2,
6,
15,
2,
301,
12,
491,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
2,
4,
6,
24,
2,
4,
3,
2,
10,
6,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Expandability is a huge factor. How many zoom lenses can be added to a gopro versus a large scale camera?\n\nLikewise, depth of field is, I believe, a function of lense ratios and distances. So having a longer, large camera allows more careful focusing and zooming. I'm not sure about this one as much, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. \n\nFrom there, sensor size can matter too. A gopro has 4k pixel counts, but a smaller sensor, so less light sensitivity and a higher amount of noise. Pixel count isn't all. \n",
"Higher quality glass, manual controls, etc.\n\nSimply put, the technology in those industry cameras are superior in probably all ways except portability when compared to go pro.\n\nThere are many reasons why a Ferrari is a better car than a Honda civic. If you had the choice to drive either, which do you think would perform better? ",
"The bodies of cinema cameras are getting pretty small. But they still need to be big enough for a large sensor and a mount for high-end cine lenses, as well as inputs for sync and reference audio, and outputs for a external monitors and external recorders.\n\nAttached to them will be a follow-focus, possibly an external recorder, viewfinder, and a matte box.\n\nPlus, you want a bit of weight to it for steadier handheld shots. News stations still use big shoulder-mounted ENG cameras partly because the size and weight gives you steadier handheld shots than a small, light, handheld format.\n\n**EDIT:**\nA lot if people are commenting that my post doesn't really ELI5. \nSo I'm pasting one of my responses below that I think does a better job. THere are also a lot of other good responses if you scroll past the banter. \n\n \nThe answer can get a little complicated because Television cameras and movie cameras are different. One of the big differences is that movie cameras have a smaller body with lots of attachments, whereas TV cameras (called ENG cameras) are a little bigger with have more of the features built-in. For movie (cinema or 'cine' for short) cameras, most of the size you are seeing is from the attachments.\nBut I'll try to summarize a better answer in 3 areas. \n\n\n**1 - Image Quality: Go Pro cannot paint a picture as well as Bigger Cameras can**. \n\nThe image quality of a go pro is not particularly good compared to pro cameras because there is more to image quality than 4k resolution. \nCompression, bit depth, noise floor, and colour subsampling are all fancy terms you may not know, but they all contribute to making an image good or bad. A user does a good job of comparing it to painting [here.](_URL_0_). \n\nProfessional movie and tv cameras need to be heavier and bigger than a go pro because they need bigger 'eyes' (called a sensor) and a bigger 'brain' (processing) and to keep those big eyes and brain cooler. \n\n**2 - Lens - the viewpoint of the camera.**. \n\nGo pros have only one 'viewpoint' of the world: a very wide fish-eye view that only sees well in bright light. If you want to see something far away, you need eyes more like an eagle, or like a person with binoculars. If you want to see things in the dark, you need eyes that gather more light, like a raccoon's eyes or a person with night vision goggles. Movie cameras are made so that when you want one of those other views, you can swap the lens to a different one. TV cameras have the ability to zoom in and out very far, as well as to 'put on sunglasses' built right into them. \nThese abilities require some heavy glass and solid mounting for that glass. \n\n**3 - Practical concerns like inputs/outputs, controls, weight and balance, and professional appearance**. \n\nThere's a lot in this category. But professionals need to be able to record audio (another word for sound), and they might need to be able to show their boss (a director or producer) what is happening. So they need jacks for cables to go in and out. Professionals need a lot of controls to tell the camera what they want it to do in different conditions, and they need space on the camera for those controls. The camera also needs some wight to it and be well balanced for a pro to get a steady handheld shot. Sometimes crews even add weights to a camera 'rig' to get the balance right. TV news cameramen also find that they are seen as more professional and get more respect with a full sized camera than a smaller one. \n\nHope that helps.",
"GoPros have a fixed focal length. The are designed to show things close to the lens in focus but if you try to shoot something from far away you'll see things get blurry quickly. This doesn't mean the GoPro is poor quality, it's just designed to do a specific thing really well (and my GoPro certainly does it well.)\n\n\nMovie and TV cameras on the other hand need to be able to focus on things that are close or far or in between and this requires large lenses. They also have large covers called shrouds that only allow light coming from the thing the camera is pointed at to enter the lens. This is helpful for outdoor shots like sporting events. \n\nIn addition to that there are lots of other bulky add-ons that help the camera operators like built in monitors; large, easy to grip handles with zoom and focus controls. GoPros only have a few buttons to save space and it makes changing settings very time consuming. With large body cameras all the settings can have their own switches and dials and experience operators can make changes very quickly which can be crucial for live events. \n\nFor really large cameras there are even motion-assist devices built in that allow the operator to make really smooth camera movements. \n\nWhen you control the shooting environment there's no need to make things small. You make then the the size that is the easiest to use. ",
"Resolution does not necessarily mean quality. Professional cameras have far more in terms of customization (e.g. swapping out lenses or changing the filming modes) and quality (e.g. quality of footage shot in less-than-ideal locations and color balance/depth.) Microphone quality is also a major factor. \n\nGoPro cameras are very durable and can film during motion, but are otherwise more-or-less equivalent on what you'd find on a smartphone. ",
"Large cameras like a RED or an Alexa are hardly even cameras to be honest. What I mean is, they are basically computers attached to a sensor. This sensor is much larger than a GoPro, which allows it to perform far better than a GoPro sensor could. Shooting 4K isn't that difficult, what is difficult is capturing high bit-rate, RAW 4K. Higher bit-rate footage has more detail, meaning you can push it farther in post processing. Bit-rate is almost as important as resolution, because even the highest resolution won't look very good with a low bit-rate. The computer in large cameras is capable of processing this footage and getting it out to the SSD packs for storage, unlike a GoPro which can only output a low bit-rate video. These larger cameras also require lots of wiring to deal with multiple inputs such as multiple microphones and external monitors. There is also a cooling unit inside the camera to keep the processor cool and running correctly. \n\nThis is why they are much larger, because they have to house a small computer inside them to deal with the footage. Not to mention that they have mounts for lenses, so that adds to the size. ",
"No one has mentioned durability. Professional production cameras have to be able to take a lot abuse day after day after day and keep running.",
"Bigger cameras have larger imagers and multi-element, high resolution lenses.\n\nAssuming identical pixel resolution, a larger imager (sensor) has larger pixels, which take in more light faster. This is not an issue with still shots in sunlight, but low light and motion cause blurring and noise issues, to name a few. \n\nThere is a lot that can go wrong with an image due to lens distortion. Spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, pincushion effect, keystoning, etc. happen with all lenses to a certain extent, but the large, high quality lenses with multiple elements can minimize the effects. Try taking a picture with your smartphone camera of a tall building with a straight edge. Aim the shot so the edge is near the edge of the camera's field of view. Observe how straight the edge appears in the picture. Compare that with the images of buildings in tv and movies. \n\nLenses also have a resolution. There is a minimum feature size that a lens can resolve in an image. Images taken with low resolution lenses can appear to have all the necessary information, but the lens distorts the tiny details that give depth perception. An image taken with a really good lens can appear almost 3d because of the improved perspective information\n\nSource: I worked in high resolution industrial optics for 9 years. ",
"The answer beyond just expandability and sensor size is Bit rate and compression. While it is true GOPRO'S can record 4k it is at a relatively high compression and low bit rate which does not require a whole lot of computing power where in Prograde cameras can record at extremely high bit rates and near zero compression. This makes it easier to color correct and gives you a crisper image among other benefits. How ever it requires a lot of computing power to record like that; so it requires a camera body large enough to hold the computer capable of processing such an image at high bit rates.",
"Best I can explain it as a DP is that despite the \"4k resolution\" of the GoPro sensor, it is not nearly as large or advanced as the sensor on a Pro cam that Hollywood uses. \n\nA Red or Arri or whatever you choose records at an insane BITRATE, uncompressed RAW frames into fast SSD media; a GoPro records to microSD cards in compressed h264 at much lower bitrate (less data per frame IE: Blockiness in motion and shadows etc - think of a Red cam like BluRay and GoPro like youtube) \n\nIn addition the lens is fixed and only a semi fisheye which works for \"press record and go\" to capture wide areas, but which sucks in low light or in situations where you want longer focal lengths (zoom). In a Hollywood production, the Lenses are more expensive than the camera bodies in a lot of cases.",
"Resolution is not everything. Sensor size matters too. For each sensor pixel, the bigger it is, the better it can sense light. That means that there will likely be less noise than a smaller sized sensor, especially at night.\n\nThen there is something called latitude. Latitude is the ability of the sensor to still perceive detail even in bright lights or very dark shadows. The ARRI Alexa cinema camera has about 14 stops of latitude, making it much more useful than something like an entry level DSLR, which might have 5, or 7. It makes the job of lighting significantly easier, especially in post production.\n\nThen there is the ability to record in Log, Raw, etc. Raw requires a lot of processing power to shoot, especially in 4k. This requires power, and fast processors and drives to do.\n\nThen there is ease of use. Putting on something like a follow focus system, a matte box, a monitor, EVF, battery pack, etc. is very easy to do with an Alexa. The menu is fairly simple too. Lenses, which are of the utmost importance, are quick to change out, and are much easier to change than on something like a GoPro.\n\nCamera movements, whether they are on a Chapman Leonard dolly, or just sticks with a fluid drag head, will be significantly smoother than what a GoPro would be able to do. Pretty much every GoPro video you see that looks smooth, likely was shot in 4k, and then stabilized in After Effects. GoPro footage never looks that smooth directly off camera.\n\nBasically, there are a lot of reasons. But the best reason is, it's just easier to do, and it usually looks better in the end.",
"There are three reasons:\n\n1. The quality is still shite. Tiny little lens like that, no focal length, and a small CCD: it's gonna look like crap.\n\n2. It's compressed to fuck-all. We shoot in all-i-frame if we can. When we can't we shoot in minimally compressed archival quality so you can EDIT with it.\n\n3. 4K is irrelevant. Nobody can differentiate between 1080 and 4K. There might be a corner case where sports shoot in 4K and transmit in 1080 so they can zoom without losing quality, but that's about it.\n\nSource: I work at a TV network. I'm one of the guys who decides what format we're shooting. I've participated in the AB tests on 1080 vs. 4K.",
"My attempt to truly ELI5 (this took a lot time to trim down):\n\n1. GoPro **\"squishes\"** video to make it fit into small SD cards. Big cameras do not, so editors can greatly control color in the video to add style/convey emotion.\n\n2. GoPro can't see very **bright**, or very **dark** things. Big cameras can. Big cameras can also show darker/brighter parts of a single image, allowing for beautiful/detailed shots of sunsets for example. GoPros will show a sunset as a single, \"blown out\" spot, while Pro cameras show all the subtle detail our eyes can see.\n\n3. GoPro doesn't have interchangeable **lenses**. With control over a lens, you also have control over what is in focus in the video. Focus control is the first big thing audiences distinguish between \"pro\" and \"amateur\" video. A video with the actor in focus, but his background tastefully blurred (out of focus) creates **depth and separation**. GoPros are also stuck with a very **wide** view of the world. Lenses allow filmmakers to chose how wide, or narrow they'd like their shots to be. Lenses can also allow cameras to see very distant, or very tiny objects with stunning detail.\n\n4. GoPros can't connect to all the cool **accessories** that filmmakers need. Special accessories allow filmmakers to have much longer battery life, provide focus control to a separate operator, help stabilize the camera, record professional sound, provide bigger screens with built in tools to help set focus/exposure, etc.\n\n5. There are a **millionbillion** other reasons, but these are some of the basics.",
"Short answer: there's a lot more to capturing an image than resolution.\n\nThis has to do with lenses, viewfinders, other attachments, and functionality. It also has to do with sensor size (a larger sensor is more important than a high resolution, usually, and contributes to better dynamic range and color range), and often directors use film for these reasons as well, which requires a lot more room.",
"Better lenses, larger sensors, industry standard connections, modular construction, stability through solid construction, active cooling, and capturing video without compression. \n\nLenses: The number of elements in a lens affects the image quality more than the sensor does. Cheap and simple lens construction results in chromatic abberations, lack of detail and sharpness, and low contrast. They also have smaller light gathering ability. The larger the lens aperture the harder it is to keep everything in focus. \n\nSensor: The size of each pixel affects it's light gathering capability regardless of the resolution. Larger sensors result in more light, lower noise, and better color reproduction. They also require larger lenses as a larger sensor reduces the effective focal length of the lens. A zoom lens on a small sensor acts like a wide angle lens on a larger one. \n\nModular construction: Movie cameras can be upgraded or configured for different needs. The camera body, lens system, storage system, audio system, sensor system, are all interchangable. This means larger modules that connect together. \n\nSolid construction: Stiffer chassis and higher strength to support the weight of a massive lens means a larger camera body. The weight also helps stabilize the image due to it's mass. \n\nActive cooling: Camera sensors get noisy if they get hot. Active cooling of the sensor allows for a lower noise floor and better low light performance but the cooling system adds bulk. \n\nStorage medium: Small sports cameras and cellphones store video in efficient and small compressed video formats like mpeg 4 or AVC. This is fine for home videos but a movie camera must capture video in lossless format for the best video quality and to allow editing and later encoding into other formats without loss of quality. This means much more storage space and the need for a high bandwidth storage system. A minute of uncompressed movie quality video takes several terabytes of storage (terrabits lol. Less than a terrabyte a minute but thats still a lot). ",
"Because movies and TV shows want to produce better images than gopros. A better image requires bigger things. Gopros at 4k and all small action cameras take terrible video. It looks like crap compared to even a DSLR at 1080. ",
"Resolution isn't everything (though higher res final products are slowly becoming the norm).\n\nThe biggest thing that hasn't been mentioned is **dynamic range**. this is basically the range of light that a camera can be sensitive to. A GoPro not only auto-balances the ISO (or light sensitivity of the sensor), but it does not have a great dynamic range.\n\nFor example, imagine you're standing in front of two cameras in the mid afternoon, a GoPro and a Red Epic (gonna use RED cameras to compare for my own ease). Because of the harsh afternoon sunlight, one side of your face is completely lit up while the other remains in shadow. \n\n-The GoPro (or any camera with a small dynamic range) will either expose the 'lit' side of your face and thus the dark side will be too dark to see, OR it will expose the shadowed side of your face and the lit side will be blown out white.\n\n-The Red Epic (which is stated to have '15.6' *stops* in its range), will be able to look at your face and expose both sides without losing any part of the image to noise (black) or clipping (white).\n\nOther reasons that are a little tougher for me to explain are:\n\n-**RED Cameras shoot RAW**, meaning ISO and white balance can be changed in post (super useful for quick shoots). \n\n\n-RED Cameras **shoot far higher resolutions** at far **higher framerates** (meaning more crisp of an image/safe area to crop or stabilize, and slower slow motion if wanted).\n\n-RED Cameras shoot at **higher bit rates** meaning there is a lot more color data for the computer to look at in post. This is huge for color grading and correction at the end of a film, plus it just looks crisper.\n\n-**Interchangeable lenses**, for deep or flat space, playing with depth of field (GoPro Hero4 is locked at an f-stop of 2.8, and is also locked at a ~20mm wide lens), or putting characters closer or farther from the camera.\n\nThere are certainly many more reasons, such as the fact that they're designed to be used on a set, thus are very efficient in that environment.\n\nI think one thing to point out here is this: the best filmmakers are successful NOT because of the gear they tote, but because of execution of a good story. There are fantastic movies that were shot on Canon 7Ds, and fucking terrible films shot on Arri Alexas and Red Epics. \n\nThere isn't really any reason a filmmaker couldn't be successful shooting a movie with GoPros as long as he intimately understood his limitations.",
"I may be late but.... \n\nFilm cameras(Digital)\nA good example is a RED camera(epic for my example) but Alexa and Sony works as well for this example. If you look at the body it's actually fairly small. Inside you have a 5K sensor which is true 5K not like the smaller go pros/smart phones which only up convert to 5k. Also a fan and the brain that allows an image that big to process. You can't do anything with just a body. Now we add a lens mount, lens, ssd card reader, battery mount, battery, control/grip, monitor, then you add some \"rods\" mount a follow focus, mattbox, counter weight. This setup I would use for a run and gun shoot something small. Now for a larger production, if you want to send a feed to on set producers and the director and the AC (to pull focus) you need another attachment and run cables, if your follow focus is wireless(RF) then you might have a motor as well. \nAs you can see there is a lot of \"attachments\" that can be added making the cameras big and bulky.\n\nStudio/EFP\nThese cameras have most of this built in as well as a radio so you can talk to the director. And a few other things. The cameras you see at a football game are really big because of the lens the actual camera is a fraction of the size. Those lenses are huge because of all the glass in them to be able to zoom in longer distances without loosing the width of your image.\n\nSorry if I didn't make much sense or missed a few things.I'm at a Christmas party outdoor freezing. I'm sure some one else will chime in.\n\nSource: this puts bread on my table.\n",
"The same reason that a 21MP camera on your phone can't match the might of a 12MP SLR camera.\n\nReason : Bigger sensors, aperture and lenses allow for more light to get through and hence, better capture quality. True for both Photo and Video equipment.",
" > It seems that GoPro cameras film better quality than movies and TV so I must be missing something.\n\nYour TV might not be showing it/able to, but trust me the original files filmed on large TV/movie cameras are *much* better quality than what a GoPro can produce.\n\nIt's the reason why GoPro 4K cameras are hundreds of dollars, and RED 4K cameras are tens of thousands of dollars. Another comparison is point-and-shoot cameras that are a couple hundred dollars vs. DSLRs that are thousands.\n\nThe more expensive cameras can shoot uncompressed video, at massively higher bitrates, which is why they're more expensive in the first place, and just better in general. And there's a whole slew of other reasons why they're better other than just bitrates too.",
"High resolution sensor + shitty optics = Shitty 4k video. \n \nHigh resolution + shitty optics + hateful user interface = GoPro",
"Did you see that river scene in the hobbit? That's why...",
"GoPro cameras are not that good, really. Same as smartphones, they will only film well in perfect conditions. \n\nNumber of pixels isn't that important in a camera, quality of footage is. You need a large sensor for that. ",
"signal to noise ratio, smaller sensors have more of it then larger sensors with the pixels further apart from each other. physics.",
"Have you seen the second film in the hobbit series? They used a few go pro to film the river barrel scenes and compared to the rest of the footage? It looks terrible. ",
"Because glass matters.\n\nSo does the sensor being used.\n\nA tiny little CMOS sensor is total garbage really. Even a full frame CMOS one is garbage.\n\nFor quality on a sensor, that requires full frame (3 of them) in rgb CCD sensors. Nothing else can compare.\n\n",
"Resolution has very little to do with \"quality\" in a movie camera. Sensors that are larger (only 2x larger than GoPro) can produce various depths of field (out of focus background, foreground in focus), low light performance with minimal grain, and high Dynamic Range. Bitrates are also a factor. GoPro puts out a pretty small bitrate therefore doesn't need much cooling. Camera's with larger bitrates that produce cinema quality images need some room for heeatsink and dissipation. This is all ONLY the camera body which can still be fairly small (like half the size of a shoe box). The accessories are what make the pro cameras large. Long lenses, matte boxes, external monitors, external batteries, focus gears, focus wheel, viewfinders, and extra large tripods. ",
"Simply put, resolution (number of pixels recorded) is only one of the measures of quality of an image. The larger cameras can provide better quality images in a number of ways.\n\n- Sensor size - the larger the sensor, the more 'cinematic' the image looks because of the shallow depth of field (soft backgrounds whilst foregrounds are sharp).\n\n- Dynamic range - the dark shadows like the shade under a tree is clear, but so is the blinding sun. One of the biggest challenges in digital cinematography.\n\n- Quality of recording - resolution is not the only thing. Chroma subsampling (the amount of 1s and 0s dedicated to colour), colour range, bitrate (the mbps) all factor in too - bigger cameras can do more (smaller cameras can too but they need to be hooked in to high quality recording devices).\n\n- Base ISO - Bigger cameras with bigger sensors can do better in low light. They can shoot in near darkness, and the image will be clean - as a general rule, dark images without adequate light are grainy - but the graininess 'kicks in' later on high ISO cameras. That said, cameras don't have to be 'huge' to have a high base ISO - the highest ISO cameras like the Sony a7sII are quite small.\n\n- Ability to change lenses - big lenses mean brighter images, sharper images, and more even images 'edge to edge'. Bigger lenses need bigger cameras (most of the time).\n\n- Battery and power - all the above mean the cameras churn through batteries.\n\n- Accessories - All sorts of bits and pieces hanging off the camera allow the filmmakers to accurately measure things, and provide fine tune manual control. A lot of cinematography is done extremely manually - technicians are so highly trained that they can do things like focusing by hand with much more nuance than electronic equipment can.\n\n- Build quality - bigger cameras are battle ready for filming.\n\n- Integration into existing tripods/dollies/cranes - To be honest, big cinema digital cameras don't have to be as big as they are. But cameras like the Alexa (a common 'Hollywood camera') are matched in size to the old 35mm cameras (which had to be large because they had 400 feet of film attached to them) just so everyone can keep using their gear in the same way.\n\nWhen you work with higher end cameras, you start to see a lot that the cheaper cameras can't do. That said, cheaper and smaller cameras are optimised to give a very crunchy, saturated and 'flashy' image. They'll lack the subtlety of higher end cameras, but that said, they often will look great. Just because a higher end camera *can* look better doesn't mean it always does. There's plenty of people out there shooting better stuff on their phones than pros are with all the big toys.\n\nIf you're making a low budget film, your money is better spent going with the 'cheap' gear (because cheap gear nowadays is absolutely amazing) and putting your money towards every possible other element of the film.\n\nAt the end of the days quality of images goes up with camera size and price. But there are limits. I'm currently shooting a film on DSLR (bigger than GoPro, smaller than cinema) when we could have easily afforded pricier cinema equipment. We did it because that camera choice best suited our film.",
"1) Big cameras are more stable\n2) Big image sensors produce better quality.\n3) Professionals cameras have three image sensors instead of one, for red, green, and blue. \n\nHad some experience with professional ENG cameras back in the old days (early to mid 1990s) when cameras still used tubes. Nowadays the chips are cemented to a prism, but back then you had to allow expansion and contraction as tubes heated up, and had a complicated optical system of mirrors to direct light to the appropriate tube. Each time you did a shoot you had to allow the cameras to warm up, and then adjust a bunch of pots to electronically line up the images, compensating for the final position of the tubes. If one popped out of registration in the middle of a production, ideally you'd have a grip run out from the truck with a registration chart, but if that wasn't possible you'd have to point the camera at something with a large number of horizontal and vertical lines. If a camera got whacked to hard, it meant a trip to the shop to realign the mirrors. If they were pointed at lights it wrecked the tubes, which were expensive enough you'd think about replacing the camera. Oh, and with all the tubes and optical stuff and metal case these were as heavy as fuck, and you had a thick cable behind you (that you hopefully but not always had a grip to deal with). ",
"The real mystery is why they can't make the big cameras silent, like the GoPro. I'm a sound mixer. Couldn't resist. ;)",
"The main factor here is sensor size. Go Pros have a tiny sensor while digital cinematography is shot on a 35mm sensor. With a go pro / small sensor camera you have the following disadvantages:\n\n-can't save uncompressed/raw footage \n\n-no ability to control depth of field- telephoto shots with a sharp subject and blurry background require a decent sized sensor\n\n-no interchangeable lenses- massive issue obviously unless you want all the same shots all the time\n\n-poor dynamic range- smaller sensors are limited in terms of the difference between the brightest and darkest pixel values before washing out to all black or all white. Basically, on a 35mm camera, the shadows will have details while on a go pro they will just be black. This makes a big difference in terms of texture.\n\n-larger sensors have more surface area per pixel and therefore have less noise. This allows you to turn up the ISO way higher on a 35mm, break out an F1.8 lens and basically see in the dark\n\n\nOther differences stem from the playback frame rate. Go pro footage is usually played back with a very high framer rate which gives it this weird \"hyper-real\" look which makes it look sharp and impressive (but kind of like daytime TV) while footage off a more expensive camera is likely to be in 24p, which loses a bit of apparent sharpness in exchange for a familiar film feel. \n\n\nLast thing, the price difference isn't that huge. You can get a nice 4k video camera that will rek your go pro footage for under $1k, like the Panasonic GH4k\n\n\nTo:dr; go pros are sweet but if you can't see the difference between that and a Red Epic you seriously need your eyes checked.",
"OK... Look at the quality of movies, now go look at the quality of 4k the gopro records in, drastically different. Cinema cameras are thousands and thousands of dollars more to produce a crisp and clear image while go pro doesn't seem to worry about any of that. ",
"Resolution is probably the least important factor in an image looking nice so long as it's above a reasonable minimum. A movie playing at 720p still \"looks like a movie\" cause the cinematographer knows what he's doing. On a cinema camera, you need space for a PL mount, which is not exactly small, weight for stability, a large sensor, and space to rig things onto the camera such as monitors,follow focus, matte box, sound stuff etc. \n\nIn my humble opinion go pro footage looks somewhere between poor and mediocre and it's quite easy to differentiate between something clearly shot on a red or an Alexa vs a go pro. Dynamic range (latitude), color rendering, global shutter and high fps options make a good camera, not high res, but even a good camera doesn't mean an inherently good image, lighting and composition are still the two most important things as far as the aesthetic beauty of a shot is concerned ",
"There is a movie called Tangerine being released soon that was shot entirely on an iPhone 5. There are valid reasons listed in the other responses of why to use actual movie cameras but it is possible to shoot an entire movie with a consumer camera.",
"I know a lot about this but it will probably be buried.\n\nBasically, the main thing is that they take in exponentially more information.\n\n- \n\nSimply compare these two images taken at roughly the same conditions.\n\n[Image 1](_URL_0_)\n\n[Image 2](_URL_1_)\n\nIt's pretty clear which one is the professional movie camera and which is the gopro. High end movie cameras take in so much more light, at slight variations, and at much higher range. All at once. \n\nGopro takes one range at once. That's it. It is more tuned for daylight since it can't be perfect everywhere. These professional camera are capturing for bright light, darkness, and normal brightness all at once. It's really amazing seeing just how much information pro cameras take in.",
"GoPros are in no way shape or form better than cinema cameras.\n\nFind me a GoPro that can provide movie quality.",
"4K is just the resolution. It's kinda like the MP wars for cell phone cameras. The resolution by itself doesnt determine the quality of the picture. There are other variables. That's why a 12MP picture from a DSLR is way better than a 12MP from a cellphone. ",
"Resolution is far less of a factor in image quality than:\n\n- lens choice and quality\n- bit-depth and color science\n- sensor size\n\nadd in the fact that the ergonomics of the gopro is not suitable for high-quality filmmaking (inability to control focus, battery life, recording media, controls/buttons, audio inputs, etc)",
"One must understand that pixel resolution is not the REAL resolution. REAL resolution is how tiny is the smallest detail that can be captured at certain distance, and that's the so called angular resolution. And for good angular resolution you need physically large lens and sensor. There's no way around it.\n\nLet's say that you have smartphone with a physically tiny sensor behind a physically tiny lens, and that sensor has resolution of 3242154 terapixels. What does that mean? It will mean capturing shitty image in 3242154 terapixels. It means capturing many megabytes of chromatic aberation, noise, blur, vignetting and god-knows-what else.\n\nOn the other hand, you can have EOS1 mk1 with sensor resolution of \"only\" 4 megapixels, but with full-size sensor and with proper f/1.4 glass in front of it. \n\nDespite the huge \"megapixel\" difference, the latter will capture indescribably better photos, especially in less-than-perfect light conditions.\n\nRead more about angular resolution on wikipedia and don't allow marketing buzzwords confuse you. No, more megapixel do NOT always mean better picture. Sometimes, paradoxically, it means WORSE picture (more noise).\n\nWhat you need for really good, commercially competitive image is LARGE sensor and LARGE glass. That's it. No way around this.",
"GoPro cameras are used extensively in TV and feature film nowadays. It just takes a bit of work to get it to the same level.\n\nSource: I'm a VFX compositor and spend a LOT of time getting shitty GoPro footage to sit with 'high end' footage",
"Larger sensors capture cleaner images per pixel. The larger sensor when combined with professional lenses captures images in ways that are more equivalent to traditional film. If you take a 35MM film and the sensor is smaller than 35mm film, the sensor is only capturing a portion of the image from the lens, meaning the lens isnt performing in the way it was designed to. \n\nTake the Hateful Eight for example, if you shoot on 70mm film like they did... you need a bigger camera with lenses that match the area of the film surface to maximize the image exposed on the film and you want to be using the lens to its performance spec. Lenses ARE HEAVY. They require a sturdy body to mount them to and the camera needs to be balanced for the operator to use it without struggling if using it handheld. Thats another reason why film cameras are generally larger. Back to the lens vs film gate issue.... If you're using a lens designed for 70mm film and you're using a tiny sensor smaller than 70mm... you're going to be getting a very odd image that appears cropped. This is why in digital format we call them \"cropped sensors\" They usually dont cover the full 35mm frame or support 35mm lenses. To use a crop sensor, you require a lens designed to output the equivalent of what a 35mm full sensor lens would. Crop sensors typically arent common outside of consumer cameras in large offerings. Crop sensors or small sensors are generally muddier or less sharp, higher in noise. The same for film btw. Smaller film because of how you're exposing it, wont be as nice or as sharp as something like 70mm. Its a resolution issue. Smaller censors have come a long way but there is a reason why iphone photos dont look as good as 35mm, medium format pro gear. Tiny censors are a smaller area for photons to collect in an ideal manner for best image quality. \n\nNow really, today with cameras like Red, they're not that big. They look big because the lens and some of the rigging and the additional battery but compared to traditional film cameras or even some of the early HD stuff, they're pretty small by comparison.\n\nSo the additional size basically allows for larger film gate, larger censor that matches traditional film stock such as 35mm or more which means cleaner, sharper pixels, Larger lens support, battery and storage support, wireless or other additional output units on the device for real time monitoring on set, and additional rigging/mounting points on camera body to allow it to be used in various setups. Small cameras like Go Pros have a problem with being too light. A camera that is too light doesnt counter your body movement well and will shake more in handheld shots. A camera with a bit more weight that can be shoulder held can be smoother to use. A camera with more weight in a steady cam rig will also perform better. \n\nSo there are many factors that add up to the weight and size of pro cameras for film. There are also color reasons why you want pro gear. Color reproduction is a science in itself. Go Pros are ok but for serious color work you're going to need a better sensor designed to capture at higher bit depths, resolution, ",
"The lenses on movie cameras are far far far nicer in every way. Resolution is a way to ensure your maximum potential video quality, but to reach that potential, you need a lens that is far nicer than what a gopro has.",
"The actual quality of the picture. You can have a really grainy 4k image, and it'll look way worse than a good quality 1080p image. Bigger cameras have bigger sensors and better lenses, and they have much more manual control to get the perfect shot. GoPro is basically just \"push record, and you get what you get\". \n\nIt's the same reason DSLR's are better than phone cameras. Yes, there's a 40MP phone camera in one of the Lumia phones. But if you compare it to a 40MP shot from a DSLR, the DSLR will look a lot better. ",
"If a motorcycle can go 100mph, why do you need a Rolls Royce?",
"Here's the shortest way I can explain it: It all boils down to your ability to produce cinematic, film-like images, like the professional stuff you see. 4k resolution from your phone or go pro is only a very small part of the equation. Here are the two biggest parts of the equation. \n\n**1.) Interchangeable Lenses** \n\nWith a go pro you're stuck with the lens you got. With a higher end camera, you can use telephoto lenses, wide angles lenses, fast lenses for low light situations, shallow depth of field, etc... And the different lenses add a huge difference in the cinematic quality of your videos. \n\n**2.) The actual amount of image information being captured by your camera sensor, not just the resolution.** \n\nNot only does this determine your overall image quality, it also effects how much you're going to be able to manipulate your image during editing, which is huge. Say you shot a scene out of order at two different times of day. If you try to edit it together, it will look pretty damn weird. Well if your camera captures lots of color information, the way a go pro can't, then a skilled editor or color correctionist can match the two shots seamlessly, and it will all look much richer than a go pro. \n\nAside from the amount of color information your camera can capture, you also have to consider it's low light sensitivity. Go pros are not going to work in low light situations, it will produce an ugly, grainy, noisy image. A higher end camera will give you a much cleaner image in low light. Plus you have a lot more control over all these settings in a pro camera, with a go pro you're much more constrained. \n\nHope that helps! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y59ih/eli5_if_a_handheld_gopro_can_record_at_4k/cyax11t"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://red.cachefly.net/R3D/london2.jpg",
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-HLJvywMk-8/maxresdefault.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4ujqmt | why are bus steering wheels (nearly) parallel to the ground whereas car steering wheels are (nearly) perpendicular to the ground? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ujqmt/eli5_why_are_bus_steering_wheels_nearly_parallel/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5q9zxi",
"d5qded8",
"d5r4826"
],
"score": [
86,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Professional bus driver here. It has to do with the angle of the rod that connects the steering wheel to the tires. Since the bus driver is much more elevated and basically sits directly above the tires the steering wheel needs to point almost straight down in order to connect. The driver of a car sits behind his wheels and as a result, the steering wheel is at a different angle. Here are some diagrams to better explain it. The first one is a bus, the second is a car.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_ \n\n\nSide note: In most newer buses you can adjust the steering wheel to make it more like a car's.",
"I have a vehicle where the front wheels are directly under me, though the steering wheel is angled much like a car's, not flat, and the steering column goes to the front, not down. There is a gearbox that handles the transition of the steering column to steering the wheels. So I am not sure the angle argument makes sense. I suspect it's more about visibility, keeping the wheel low and out of view. \n\nSource: VW vanagon driver (same applies to the older hippie wagens). ",
"Because with a horizontal wheel, you have much more leverage to turn the wheel. This was necessary in a time before power steering was implemented, and is still done because power steering can/does fail sometimes. Another reason to keep it that way is the air ride \"bouncy\" seats would make it very uncomfortable to have your knees beneath a vertical steering wheel on a bumpy road. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.vwvintageparts.com/product_images/c/509/BusSteering__00764_zoom.jpg",
"http://repairpal.com/images/managed/content_images/encyclopedia/CM_Steering_Suspension/Steering_System_07.11.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
ahqjgd | why magnetic compass needle aligns itself with the earth's magnetic field but the same doesn't happen with metal ships? | I can't wrap my head around why would it differ. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahqjgd/eli5why_magnetic_compass_needle_aligns_itself/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeh1k8d",
"eeh20yi",
"eeh3gj0",
"eeh5zmn"
],
"score": [
14,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The needle is magnetized to some extent, meaning the poles of the atoms are more or less aligned.\n\nA ship is just a big lump of metallic atoms with unorganized poles, so as a whole doesn't have poles and doesn't interact with other field like Earth's in an organised way.",
"The compass needle is light, magnetized, small enough and suspended in a way where it can move with very little friction.\n\nThis means that it can be influenced by the earths magnetic field, but it will also be affected by nearby magnets etc.\n\nIf it helps, you are basically asking why you can blow a feather away with your breath but not a feather bed.",
"~~The compass on metal ships have corrector [rods and spheres](_URL_2_) that counteract the magnetic force of the ship's steal. One of the exams Chief Mates and Captains have to take is called Deviascope, where we have make these corrections on a [dummy setup](_URL_0_).~~\n\n~~Even with the correctors in place, there is usually a little bit of error that remains. This error is called deviation. To account for deviation, the ship does something called *spinning the compass*. Bascially, the ship will sail in circles and observe the error at multiple headings. These erros are recorded on [deviation card](_URL_1_) and are used to correct magnetic bearings.~~\n\n~~NB: I just noticed that the deviation card I linked has quite a large deviation at some heading, which means they should adjust their corrector rods and spheres. A compass should not have deviation great than 2°.~~\n\nEDIT: I answered the wrong question.\n\nA compass card has a thin sheet floating in liquid, balancing on a needle. It takes very little force to rotate that card. Ships weigh thousands of metric tones; the magnetic force of earth is nowhere near strong enough. For example, let's say you have a small handheld magnet. With it, you can attract a paperclip, but stand no chance to attract a full ship. ",
"Even if the ship was uniformly magnetized like a compass needle (which it is not), the actual force exerted on it by the earth's magnetic field would not be enough to turn it.\n\nThis is one of those things you could calculate, but the answer wouldn't be of any practical use. It's like an ant trying to lift a locomotive - you can calculate the force applied by the ant, but the locomotive is not going to move."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.capecompass.com/images/deviascope1.gif",
"https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2014/12/Deviation-Card-Curve-fillled-incmykweb.jpg",
"https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sTwgP2xwn04/Vtf4vsfr6HI/AAAAAAAABZ4/oH6YmXnVsag/s1600/images%2B%25285%2529.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
dclzbw | why are so many random objects unnecessarily dyed artificial colors? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dclzbw/eli5_why_are_so_many_random_objects_unnecessarily/ | {
"a_id": [
"f291xj1",
"f291xuz",
"f292b43"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"With plastics, it can be a range of things from marketing, to design. The hose for instance, if it were transparent in some climates the sun beating down on the clear water filled hose could have a slight chance of acting like a magnifying glass and start a fire. \n\nAn example of this is using a regular disposable water bottle with water, there are plenty of videos of people starting fires with the suns energy with just this.\n\nI'm sure there are also some manufacturing standards like with wiring the different coloured casings indicate which wire is which along with insulating. I'm sure certain plastics in some factories are one colour and some are another for easy identification ect..",
"Having purple gloves makes it easier to see a small hole/tear in the glove.\n\nOther items a brightly colored to attract attention and also so they are easier to spot when looking for them.\n\nI’m sure there’s some research behind coloration and marketing, but that’s not something I know much about.",
"Some of it is to make it appealing. Foods are typically dyed to make it look tasty. Take Pepsi as an example. Pepsi adds caramel coloring to its cola drink because people expect that color for cola. They tried a Pepsi crystal without the coloring and it flopped even though other than coloring it was the same product.\n\nNow let's talk marketing. People like color options. I have a co-worker who loves pink. If you have a product that is a pink and it is otherwise equal to a competitors product that is white, she's going to pick your pink product.\n\nNow let's talk functionality. You mentioned the gloves. In my lab we have 3 different colors of gloves. They are made of different materials and the color helps us easily grab the correct gloves. At my last job we had various colored gloves and the difference there was different color for different sizes. For twist ties, different colors can help organization. Funnels? Can help keep them separate (in my garage, I have a black funnel for oil and a red funnel for other liquids such as coolant).\n\nTL;DR - Sometimes there is no real need, but can help with sales. It gives people choices. Other times it helps with organization or to make other differences in product obvious at a glance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4vw43k | why do many large companies lease their office/retail space instead of owning it? | For example in my town there are a few chain stores opening up, and I did some research and found that all the stores are leasing their retail space. I am wondering why a company with a multi-billion dollar market cap would prefer to lease rather than own - there must be some advantage that I do not know about? Is there some law or accounting practice that makes this advantageous? Or is it to limit their risk in the real estate market? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vw43k/eli5why_do_many_large_companies_lease_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"d61x5d4",
"d61xcge"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It would be my guess that they want to limit their risk in the real estate market as well as leave themselves an opportunity to move elsewhere rather easily if the market or business needs change. For example, a building a company is renting could be in a high traffic area and attract a lot of customers/employees for the first several years of operation but what if competition opens up nearby and they see a BIG drop in their revenue; moving elsewhere could remedy the issue. Also, their businesses could expand and profits could increase so exponentially that they would need to move to a bigger building to accommodate more staff and updates. ",
"There are a couple of reasons I can think of.\n1. A lease is nearly a 100% write off as it is an expense. If a company gets a loan on the building only the interest would be a write off. \n2. Buying a building with cash locks in a lot of capital to a single asset. Capital that could be used for other ways of increasing productivity. \n3. Selling a building can be a long drawn out process depending on the market. So if a business decided to move they would have a difficult time scheduling that when compared to a lease where they know when the lease is up and can plan accordingly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4d2tkr | underwater explosion | An underwater explosion causes a compressed air bubble to form at the site of the explosion. What would happen if there was nowhere for this bubble to release the compression? Would it just stay a compression bubble forever? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d2tkr/eli5_underwater_explosion/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1n9euk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, if the air is somehow contained, like being kept in a steel box, it will stay as pressurised air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2zhkmh | how come when saying "woman" and "women", we change the sound of the o? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zhkmh/eli5_how_come_when_saying_woman_and_women_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpiyih8",
"cpiz6df",
"cpj3yzd",
"cpjcind"
],
"score": [
37,
3,
24,
2
],
"text": [
"Why English words are pronounced the way they are is an extremely complex topic that involves the study of the evolution of languages as well as cultural and societal influences on languages.\n\nYou won't get a simple answer here.",
"While I can't give the most in-depth answer, some words in German undergo a vowel change when they are pluralized, and that is reflected in present-day English, like man - > men. I'm not sure that applies to the initial \"o\" however.",
"Originally it was wifman (wife-man, though man in its original meaning was gender nuetral) the plural was wifmen. Over time the words became wiman and wimen. In the Middle English period vowels underwent a shift and wiman became woman under the rounding influence of the ''w,'' while the plural retained the original vowel. Wiman > > woman. Wimen > > wimen.\n\nSpelling was regularized much later, with the advent of the printing press. The spelling of the word is based off of the sigular, with the rounded vowel. Thus woman and women.\n\nMore complex answer for you. \n\n < (-'○'-) > \n\nEdit: mmk so as sacundim pointed out the vowel shift is a questionalble explaination for wiman to woman. I may have overstepped. I know there was a vowel shift around that time so I added it in to the other stuff I gleaned from the webernet. Wiman did shift to woman in that period, and etymology online says this is because of the initial w. But yeah. I was stretching on the vowel shift. Sorry. I'm a hobbyist not an expert. \n\n┐(‘～`；)┌ Soo sorry!!!",
"We don't. in NZ"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2r13x7 | what exactly is happening with my muscle when i get a charley horse, and why is it so painful? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r13x7/eli5_what_exactly_is_happening_with_my_muscle/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnbfl31"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is an involuntary contraction of a muscle. It occurs most commonly when you have low levels of potassium or calcium, are dehydrated, or when you've over-exerted or injured a muscle.\n\nIt hurts because it is *VERY* tense contraction of a muscle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
c8tt0p | how do pesticides work and why do some (such as bug sprays) only work on certain species? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c8tt0p/eli5_how_do_pesticides_work_and_why_do_some_such/ | {
"a_id": [
"espvt1l",
"esqayg2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s sort of like animals. Some things that are poisonous to humans can be eaten by other animals. Some things humans eat can’t be eaten by other animals.\n\nI’d assume that the bug sprays would be grouped into affecting insect species that are very close or related with one another. We can see this in things such as wasp and Hornet spray",
"Small correction: Bug sprays, namely DEET (the main ingredient in most bug sprays), often serve to repel bugs, as opposed to poisoning them. They just smell bad. Though, there are other effects, for instance DEET also makes it harder for some bugs to smell us. Essentially, it makes us smell less like food, and more like something they don't want to eat. Since bugs smell chemicals differently than we do, they dislike the smell of DEET, meanwhile humans usually don't notice it. The same is true for all sorts of oils and chemicals, such as cedar oil, which humans cannot smell but bugs consistently avoid."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2y1inc | except for preparations purposes, is there a reason why the host city for the olympics is selected seven years before the event? | I get that it takes time to build stadiums, roads, buildings to accommodate athletes and plan various stuff. But why SEVEN years? Would 5 years be enough? 6 years? 4 years? Is there a symbolic aspect to it? Is it for marketing purposes? To generate hype at a steady pace for years and woo other potential candidate cities? Is it to work out contracts for sponsors? Etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y1inc/eli5_except_for_preparations_purposes_is_there_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp5c6ba",
"cp5cg73"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Believe it or not, they really need all 7 years to prepare. Hell, they would probably prefer to have 10 or 15. \n\nSure, you could build it all in a year if cost is no object; the problem is, cost is a *huge* object. More and more countries are pulling out of the bidding war due to the exponentially increasing costs of hosting the Olympics. \n\nYou need to first figure out what all is needed; how many stadiums, sure, but also roads, hotels, lodging for the athletes and support staff, electricity to power it all, sanitation, plumbing, etc. Then you need to figure out where the hell you're going to *put* all of that, find contractors to design, build, and maintain it, etc. It's a colossal undertaking. ",
"Along with the city getting ready, everyone else has to get ready, making travel plans, spectators especially need time to plan ahead and save money if they decide to attend. Also with places like Russia and China in the past few Olympics, making travel arrangements can take a LONG time due to the nature of international relations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2v9zta | why do some people have a lopsided smile? | Is there a scientific explanation to this (i.e. linked to the more dominant side of the brain, etc) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v9zta/eli5why_do_some_people_have_a_lopsided_smile/ | {
"a_id": [
"coftv5z",
"coftz0i"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Is this some Sylvester Stallone-ish smile? Well he got a smile, lobbed to one side, because he was paralyzed at one side of his body at his birth for a short time, in which he got a slightly-off brain development (as you see more often by children who have complications at birth, stuttering is one of them. Birth and oxygen go hand in hand together, if one is off, strange things may happen to the baby and it can be various things!). It sometimes may be his/her genes, it can also be the complications he/she had at birth. ",
"It's because it's easier to voluntarily control the muscles on one side of the face. This is related to the [functional asymmetry](_URL_2_) of the human brain. Our nervous systems are built up in such a way that the right hemisphere of your brain, which deals more with body movement, controls the left side of your face; and conversely, the left hemisphere, which is not so good with body movement, controls the right side of your face. So it's very easy to smile like [this](_URL_4_) or [this](_URL_6_). \n\nThe thing is, our muscles work on the principle of \"use it or lose it\". The muscles you use more will work better and stronger. So since people are already more prone to use one side of their face more because it's easier to control voluntarily, that side of the face gets strong, while the other (typically the right side of your own face) atrophies, meaning that the muscles are smaller and weaker. This may lead to [facial asymmetry](_URL_5_). With naked eye this is difficult to observe, but when an image of a face is cut in half and set in oppositions, you'll notice it right away. Here's an example of [Angelina Jolie](_URL_3_). Her complete face is on the left. The \"atrophied\" (her right) side of the face set in opposition is in the center. And the side she can voluntarily control (her left) is on the right and clearly bigger and fuller. \n\nThere is also a nervous component to it. People may become \"lopsided\" due to [Bell's palsy](_URL_7_). It affects the main [facial nerve](_URL_0_) that controls the sides of the face and when it get's infected or otherwise damaged, the person is left unable to control the right side of his or her face. The lopsided smile is typical for people affected by Bell's palsy. \n\nAnd lastly, since our brains and faces do work like that - in an \"asymmetrical\" fashion - it also plays a role in how facial expressions are interpreted. When you look into a person's face, you are subconsciously focusing your gaze on the their right side of their face, because that's the side that's more difficult to control and thus shows a truer image of what the person is feeling. Research has found that dogs also look at that side of the face, and that autistic people don't, which may contribute to their lack of social skills. All this is so automatic that we barely notice it going on. But I'll bring a last example, [Scumbag Stacy](_URL_1_). I think part of why she's the icon of scumbaggery is because of her asymmetrical facial expression. You can do a simple experiment by holding out your finger to cover up half of her face. If you cover her right side (the left on the picture), you'll see a smiling, welcoming and somewhat naughty girl. But if you cover up the smiling side, you'll see what she's really feeling, which is probably nothing, or a bit of disdain. Our brains figure out that her smile is full of shit, despite not being consciously aware of it. \n\nIn conclusion: some people have a lopsided smile because one side of the face is easier to control, due to the makeup of our nervous system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_nerve",
"http://cdn.meme.am/images/300x/3174617.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function",
"http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/images/morphingangie_1.jpg",
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_38i6eh7IQVA/TLX3LrbskVI/AAAAAAAADP0/Rh9dANLLewo/s1600/Picture+1.png",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry",
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/29/article-2548414-1B1049A700000578-717_634x864.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_palsy"
]
] |
|
1lqlk5 | what's the difference between 4k and regular hdmi? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lqlk5/eli5whats_the_difference_between_4k_and_regular/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc1rumk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"4k isnt HDMI...4k is about the *resolution of the video* being 4k. which is almost 4 times as much as normal 1080p HD is at the moment. HDMI cables we have at the moment cant run that high a resolution, but HDMI 2 will."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7bdhvq | legally how are samsung allowed show apple products and logos in their new advert? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7bdhvq/eli5_legally_how_are_samsung_allowed_show_apple/ | {
"a_id": [
"dph2yso",
"dph3int",
"dph3lwa"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There's no law prohibiting it. The same thing is common in car commercials showing how one brand has better technology or towing capacity than the competitors. Look at the ad where chevy trashes ford for their aluminum by dropping a load of bricks in each",
"They're sometimes called attack ads. As long as the info you give about competitors is accurate there's nothing wrong with it. They're not very common in the UK though, I think it's just not good form.",
"So long as it is not misleading advertising and only represents facts, most jurisdictions allow direct advertisment. Its just not always good for PR obviously cause its a direct jab at your competitors. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29z8pv | what do politicians do when they lose election? | If they lose an election, how do they make money and live? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29z8pv/eli5what_do_politicians_do_when_they_lose_election/ | {
"a_id": [
"cipxobw"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Most higher level politicians are independently wealthy or own a business that someone else runs. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
21mo7o | why don't we put our life-sentenced prisoners on an uninhabited island and forget about them? | I wrote a "letter to the president" in 4th grade about this. Looking back, I'm debating with myself over this.
[I mean, wouldn't we save a crapload of money?](_URL_0_)
I don't think it's cruel and unusual punishment. Leaving them stranded on an island that has a source of food and water with no transportation seems reasonable. Chew me out for my logic, or high five me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21mo7o/eli5_why_dont_we_put_our_lifesentenced_prisoners/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgei81n",
"cgei83s",
"cgeiagy",
"cgek19v",
"cgen4ut"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You don't think it's cruel and unusual punishment. The courts disagree.",
"Just like Australia?",
"Why don't we forcefully remove the organs they do not require for survival and donate them to the needy?\n\nThe answer to this question, and your question, is because erroneous sentences are sometimes passed, and as a society we typically do not want to strip criminals of all their rights/humanity. (*For the record I'm an advocate of the forced organ donation of criminals, but only where guilt can be 100% proven and where the crime is serious enough. I also feel that after death their brain should be donated to science by default. But by and large society disagrees with my views, and yours.*)",
"Even Gilligan eventually got off of the Island.",
"Besides the difficulty of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person is guilty, our justice system makes a (half assed) effort to respect basic human dignity out of the belief that all people, even criminals, have some worth and should be treated with compassion."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/AGIxQTR.png"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1lht08 | how do bowling scores work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lht08/eli5_how_do_bowling_scores_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbzdlub",
"cbzdpgh"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"There are 10 frames. In each frame, you throw the ball. If you get all pins down on your first try, you get a strike. If you get some or none of the pins down on your first try, you get a second try. If you knock down the rest of the pins on your second try, you get a spare.\n\nIf you get a strike, your score is 10 + the number of pins you knock down with your next two balls.\n\nIf you get a spare, your score is 10 + the number of pins you knock down with your next ball.\n\nIf you don't knock down all pins in a frame in your two tries, your score for that frame is the number you did knock down, from 0 to 9.\n\nIf you get a strike or spare in the 10th frame, you get to throw 2 more balls (for a strike) or 1 more ball (for a spare) to finish your score for that frame.\n\nSo the best possible score for each frame is 30 - a strike in that frame, and a strike on each of your next two balls. A perfect game of bowling is 300, which means a strike in each of the 10 frames, and a strike on the two extra balls in the 10th frame.",
"There are ten rounds-- they're called \"frames.\" In each frame you get two throws to knock down all the pins. If you knock them all down on the first one, it's a strike. That's ten points, marked with an X, and you don't get a second throw. If you knock down less than ten, you get another throw to hit the remaining pins. The total number of pins you knocked down that frame is your score for the frame. If you knock down the remaining pins on your second throw, it's a spare and is marked with a \"/\".\n\nThe score at the bottom of the frame is your cumulative score. It's just the score of every previous frame plus the current one added up. But strikes and spares are special. If you get a strike, the score from that frame increases retroactively (after you've passed that frame). The score for the strike is ten (ten pins) plus the total score of your next two throws (NOT your next two frames). For a spare, you add the score of your next one throw. So basically, these throws are being scored twice.\n\nIn the tenth and last frame, if you get a strike or a spare, you get to throw a third time. Here's why. If you get a strike, you need to get those extra two throws to be counted--for a spare, it's that extra one throw. Otherwise, if you don't get 10, you just stick with two at the end.\n\nThe most points you can score in one round of bowling is 300 by throwing all strikes. It's twelve total-- nine for the first nine frames, and then three at the very end."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
auasz9 | why do people take more offence when someone they care about is insulted compared to if they themselves were insulted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/auasz9/eli5_why_do_people_take_more_offence_when_someone/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh6tasb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Many people have very low self esteem and care more about their loved ones than themselves. Also, we feel we can handle a lot, whereas we don’t want our loved ones to be forced to tolerate anything (circling back to “we care more about them than ourselves.”)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
425fjw | why do actors look so good and fresh despite regular cocaine and alcohol abuse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/425fjw/eli5_why_do_actors_look_so_good_and_fresh_despite/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz7p6lu",
"cz7q5d7",
"cz7rx3i",
"cz7usn3",
"cz7voph",
"cz7w99d",
"cz87myj"
],
"score": [
13,
41,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because of operations, professional make-up and (in case of movies, pictures...) professional lightning and editoring.",
"Because the lifestyle is worse than the drugs themselves. Pure heroin is practically harmless (but very addictive, stay away) , but spending all your money on drugs takes away your ability to eat healthy and regularly, showers, good night's sleep etc etc. \nRich people can afford the drugs, good food, AND a personal trainer/nutritionist so they can stay much more healthy. ",
"Makeup. Lighting. Good diet. Plenty of rest. Personal trainers & the time to work out.\n\nThey also don't go out in public when they're trashed or hungover.",
"Well, we only see them in movies and at award shows where they are wearing a shit ton of makeup",
"You'd be surprised how many actors are sober, as in don't even touch alcohol etc. You should hang out with some of them and find out.",
"Everybody is also missing out on the fact that the vast majority of celebrities have amazing genetics which leads to them being better looking than the average person, which is why they're celebrities in the first place.\n\nA handsome man who's hungover still has a great jaw and cheekbones; The average man doesn't look like Brad Pitt at his worst.",
"Proper lighting and makeup do freaking wonders. \n\nSeriously. \n\nSome of us tend to underestimate their powers but with enough research and personal experience you will realize this.\n\nBeen there, done that. You'll be mind-blown."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3p3x1n | why is it that the chernobyl exclusion zone won't be inhabitable for 20,000 years but fukushima won't be for another 20-30 years? | I looked into it and saw that the Chernobyl exclusion zone was 30km and Fukushima was 20 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p3x1n/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_chernobyl_exclusion_zone/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw2w54x",
"cw32onh"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text": [
"The Fukishima wasnt nearly as bad as Chernobyl,Chernobyl had almost no safety stuff in place, and the plant literally exploded. \n\nFukishima was operating with full safety protocol, and had ro be shutdown, it dodmt explode",
"Chernobyl will not be uninhabitable for 20,000 years. Actually, there is a significant effort being made to reduce the exclusion zone down from 30km to 10km. People live and work in the area with proper monitoring (mostly on decontamination projects), and it's not the apocalyptic wasteland that the media likes to present. That said, it does have much worse contamination issues than Fukushima. \n\nAt both Fukushima and Chernobyl, the main contaminant released was Cs-137 (gamma/beta emitter, half-life ~30y). In the case of Fukushima, this made up almost the entirety of the long-lived contamination released. However, at Chernobyl, a decent amount of actinides (like Pu-239) were released into the environment. These are difficult to clean up, biologically nasty and have long half-lives (thousands of years). These will be problematic in the food chain if farming is allowed on heavily contaminated land.\n\n At Fukushima, there is mostly just Cs-137 contamination, which has a short half-life and can be effectively removed from water/soil (via ion exchange, albeit at a great expense). Further, the land area contaminated was small because of the prevailing winds. In comparison to Ukraine, Japan/TEPCO have their shit together, and they are being very, very proactive with the cleanup efforts. Despite the much-publicized radioactive water leaks (which are next to harmless thanks to dilution), things at Fukushima are being fixed.\n\nTL:DR- Chernobyl is not an apocalyptic wasteland, it just has some issues with long-lived contamination that we haven't solved yet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
61us2p | how come nuclear radiation from the countless nuclear weapons tests in the past hasn't (for the most part) caused widespread damage? | I know there are some examples of coral reefs and stuff, but what about all the other tests? Do nuclear weapons only send their radiation a certain distance? How do we avoid radiation from tests in Nevada from reaching one of the cities? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61us2p/eli5_how_come_nuclear_radiation_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfhfit9",
"dfhfw4f",
"dfhg24i"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
10
],
"text": [
"no. some scientists estimates cancer death from fallout to be in the hundreds of thousands but its impossible to really know. Fallout from nuclear tests does spread globally.",
"Because in the end there wasn't all that much of it. There were only a few hundred atmospheric tests (underground tests obviously don't matter here) and their radiation spread very thin over the entire world. Most of the radioactive material released was very short-lived, lasting only hours or days, so it never built up. Other radioactive isotopes last longer, and their concentration in nature did increase, but atmospheric testing was banned long before it could reach dangerous levels.",
"Yeah for the most part Radiation only travels so far before it becomes negligible. For the most part nuclear test sites are in the middle of no where. Russia tested in the middle of siberia which is thousands of miles from civilization. The U.S tested in the Nevada desert fairly far from any civilization. After a while above ground nuclear testing was banned though and now nuclear tests are done underground, making it even harder for radiation reaching the outside world. The effects of nuclear tests can be seen globally if you look hard enough, but its severity is less than that of our own sun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
emhdpe | why do people buy gold in times of crisis????? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/emhdpe/eli5_why_do_people_buy_gold_in_times_of_crisis/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdopg1r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It’s something people always want. The degree to which human beings value gold is not as volatile as other things, like stocks in a certain company (a company whose success is invariably tied to the use of a certain resource, or the production of a certain good or service). \n\nSo if in a time of crisis you can transfer some of your wealth to a less risky form, it’s a pretty good idea"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cz5tdj | why do apples give me headaches? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cz5tdj/eli5_why_do_apples_give_me_headaches/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyw6bre"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Are you sitting under an apple tree?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5ylw6k | in the christian context, what is the "holy spirit?" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ylw6k/eli5_in_the_christian_context_what_is_the_holy/ | {
"a_id": [
"der1vyo",
"der2faz",
"der2yz2",
"der3eo1",
"der5coc",
"derasc5",
"derbmk3",
"derbswc",
"derbwmq",
"dercdo5",
"derdehs",
"derdf6f",
"derdvna",
"dergcd8",
"dergqev",
"dergsm8",
"derh2j0",
"derhn8z",
"derhryv",
"deritjn",
"derj47k",
"derjg4a",
"derksu8"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
13,
458,
2894,
21,
40,
2,
2,
24,
2,
2,
2,
23,
2,
16,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Yeah, this isn't exactly an easy thing to explain. \n\nBy theory, God is everything. He is within everything and greater than, or beyond, everything.\n\nAs the son of God, Jesus is both God and unique from God (yes, at the same time). And because God is both Jesus and a separate entity to Jesus (at the same time), then by logic there also has to be a spiritual entity that is both God and not God. That would be the Holy Spirit... the essence of God but at the same time, an essence that is beyond God. \n\nAnd God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit together make up the Holy Trinity.\n\nSource: Catholic education and much reading.",
"Let's cast church sectarian doctrine aside for a moment, because it's clutter. God created the world. Jesus was God's message (love God, love others) to the world in human form (his word is of him, which makes it a part of him). After Jesus departed the world, the Spirit was left on the earth to be God's word living within us.",
"It may be a bit oversimplistic, but it's similar to how we see humans. People are mind, body, and spirit. So is God. God the Father is the mind, Jesus is the body, and the Holy Spirit is.... the spirit. It's the direct essence of who God is, and the way by which He communicates with people, with the exception of 33 years in the timeline.",
"The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the least understood aspects of Christian theology, but by no means the least important. Theologians have wrestled for it for 2 millennia and it is still not fully understood, though many would argue there are aspects of God that we will never be able to understand, or wrap our minds around. Argument over the role of the Spirit is actually one of the leading causes for why the Eastern and Western churches split. The Western church believes the Father and Son (Jesus) breathe/send the Holy Spirit, while the Eastern church maintains that it is only the Father who breathes the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is often regarded as 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and 1 substance (God). The doctrine is clearly open to criticism for being illogical and out of line with human reason, though most theologians will argue that human language and thought can't do justice to the transcendent God. Two terms are worth understanding: Perichoresis and Appropriation. Perichoresis basically says that the 3 persons of the Trinity maintain their own individuality while sharing in the life of the other 2 persons. This is seen as \"a community of being.\" Appropriation suggests that every person of the Trinity is present in the outward action of God, but it is \"appropriate\" to speak of 1 of the persons being responsible for different revelations throughout history. (Example: all 3 persons were present and took part in the Creation, but it is \"appropriate\" to speak of creation as the work of the Father) These two ideas together also help to reject Modalism (this is a belief that the Trinity can only appear as one Person at a time, think of ice, water, and water vapor) \nThere are many analogies to how the Trinity works. Augustine suggested that it can be seen as a lover (the Father), the beloved (the Son), and the love (Holy Spirit) that unites the 2. This is a decent analogy but it tends to depersonalize the Holy Spirit and can cause us to view It as just that, an \"it\". \nThe actual functions of the Holy Spirit are generally agreed to focus on 3 areas: revelation, salvation, and the Christian life. Revelation: we need the Holy Spirit to discern truth about God. Salvation: the Spirit plays a role in establishing a relationship between Christ and the believer and uniting us to God (much in the same way it unites the Father and Son). The Christian Life: this takes place both in individuals and corporately (the Church as a whole) The Spirit brings unity to the Church, helps us to experience God in worship prayer, and devotion, and empowers/moves us to live a Christian life (think in terms of morality) \n \nThis is not even a scratch on the surface of the current understanding of the Holy Spirit and Trinity in theology. I'm about to finish my bachelors in Christian Ministry and plan to go on to get a Masters of Divinity and Masters of Theology. One of the biggest problems is defining the terms, and every time you bring up a new term, there are more terms to define lol Specifically, it is pretty impossible to speak about the Holy Spirit without some understanding of the Trinity Also the majority of these descriptions come from Alister McGrath's \"Christian Theology\" and I apologize for butchering them! \nedit: There is some irony to the ELI5 Holy Spirit/ Trinity because it is one of the most complex doctrines of Christian Theology, and any simple answer given (including mine) is really an injustice to the true Holy Spirit lol",
"To make a modern analogy:\n\nGod is the Developer of an MMO. He notices his players are misbehaving, and logs into the game as Jesus. He travels around as Jesus talking to people and preaching. He then gets lynched and killed by trolls. God resurrects Jesus and walks around talking a bit more, then ascends him out of the game.\n\nGod keeps sending messages and buffs to players using \"The Holy Spirit\" special account, which isn't his Jesus player account, but a fundamentally different sort of thing. This account doesn't have an Avatar in the game world, but acts more like a GM account.",
"Differs slightly between sects of christianity. \n\nBasically you have God, who made everything. Then you have Jesus, who is his son who came to earth to preach about God and die for everyones sins. Finally you have the Holy Spirit, which is kind of like an active force that God has floating around to do his will. Think \"the Force\" from Star Wars; it isn't a physical \"thing\" but it can manipulate the world to fulfill its purpose. \n\nSome sects believe that all three are the same being, known as \"The Trinity\", and others believe they are three separate entities.",
"Just a heads up - there are so many subsections of the Christian religion with slightly different ideas about who the Holy Spirit is and what he does (some even argue he's not a \"he\"). \n\nAlso making it complicated is the doctrine of the trinity (also not accepted by some professing Christians), which states God the Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are only one God in 3 unique persons. Literally 3=1 levels of confusing.\n\nDon't be surprised when you get 100 different answers to this question.",
"The Holy Spirit is just God in another form. Think of the Holy Trinity as water. Water can be a liquid, solid or gas: but it's the same water. ",
"God creates.\nJesus saves.\nHoly spirit connects.\nThe holy spirit is regarded to be a whole, spread in pieces. Where each piece is spread for all the living things. By resembling something to be a part of god, or to be connected to it one must respect it, embeace it and love it. \nLove brothers and sisters... Love is all.",
"Pastor here, teacher at a Bible college, academic writer and editor for 13 years, but still standing ankle deep in an ocean of knowing God. \n\nHaving said that: \n\nI will give you a link to a very solid description from Anglican, Reformed theologian J.I. Packer. \n\n_URL_3_\n\nThis is from his Concise Theology. \n\nIf you just want to watch a funny video about the Trinity that helps a little with the Holy Spirit, here's what you are looking for: _URL_2_\n\nTLDR: If you want to avoid reading the rest of this, I'm recounting my own experience with the HS as he is the second person of the Trinity and very real to Christians. \n\nFrom my own experience (a Christian for 45 years), the Holy Spirit immediately indwells believers from their conversion and stimulates our growth. Specifically, he comforts us in the miseries of this world and convicts us of sin (see Jesus' sermon in the New Testament book Gospel of John, Chapter 14). He also illuminates our minds to bring the Bible and preached Word to our minds to help us make wise, holy decisions. \n\nHere's another article from J.I. Packer, same book, on this topic of illumination. _URL_0_\n\nThe Spirit also (and this is controversial) brings gifts to believers for them to use in the church and the world. Which gifts still function today is debated. I'm a cessationist. \n\nMany people get confused at this point, thinking the illuminating work of the Spirit is the same as revelation, or giving you the ability to foresee the future, or something like that. Read Packer's article carefully. Many of my more mystical brothers and sisters get illumination and call it inspiration (no, that's Bible) or revelation (no, again that's Bible and all Creation in a general sense). \n\nI don't doubt that we have mystical/religious experiences, but the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily cause them, he just helps dreams, visions, whatever, to be compared to the Bible and then we act in obedience and faith towards the words of Scripture, as illumined by the Holy Spirit--not a dream. Not an impulse. The Bible guides us, not mystical experiences. \n\nFind out more at our church web site, _URL_1_. ",
"They are all the same thing in different states. Take water, it's still water as liquid, gas, or ice. ",
"At Pentecost revivals the \"Holy Spirit\" is something that \"possesses\" people and makes them roll their eyes into the backs of their heads, scream and holler gibberish, and even fall out and convulse, violently. \n\nThe \"Holy Spirit\" actually turned me way off as far as Christianity. Never have I been so scared. I remember the one time I went to one of these, the preacher was basically trying to shove me down to the floor via my forehead screaming in gibberish! I finally gave in and just laid on the floor with my eyes as tight as I could close them. Eventually, someone covered me up with a blanket and I covered my face until all the gibberish filled hollers and commotion ceased. \n\nThe \"Holy Spirit\" is scary as shit. Almost like brain damage. ",
"Imagine you're dreaming and in your dream you are sitting in a chair drinking a glass of water. Of course in reality you are lying in your bed unconscious. The unconscious you(the father) has created the you sitting in a chair(the son) who exists in the environment around him(the Holy Spirit). In this analogy the Holy Spirit is the imagined chair, water, air etc.\n\nOr it's a ghost that goes to each house and kills firstborns. I don't really know.",
"Yes the Holy Spirit is a person -- but not a person in the sense of a human being, but in the sense of an existing sentient being with a personality and (this is key) the ability to have discreet relationships with others.\nNo, it is not Jesus.\n\nIt's probably too late to help, but... there is just a lot of misinformation and bad understanding in this thread.\n\nAnd yes -- it is true that different Christian churches and traditions have said different things about the Holy Spirit and the Trinity... but a lot of what is being said in this thread isn't any of those things. It's like bad understandings of poorly understood vaguely reformed evangelical theology, through the lens of American pop culture, through the lens of trying to explain things by analogy.\n\nAnd to explain the differences in this thread as \"well, different Christians have understood it differently\" is just plain wrong.\n\nThe vast majority of Christians on the planet, and throughout history, have been Roman Catholic, Orthodox (of various flavors), or Anglican. This accounts for damn near everyone. If you include Lutheranism and Reformed traditions, that's REALLY damn near everybody. And there is a substantial amount of agreement here.\n\nAccording to all of these traditions, there is one God in Three Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Many people in the thread (And many people today) will pile on the \"God\" language into the First Person (the Father) - but this is simply not accurate. All Three Persons are One God. When Christian pray to God, they pray to the Trinity. Thomas Aquinas even said that the \"Our Father\" is prayed to the Trinity as a whole, not to the First Person.\n\nThat's because \"God the Father\" is not \"God OUR Father,\" but rather \"the Person of God who is the Father of the Son.\" The names of the Trinity are indicative of their relationships TO EACH OTHER, not to us. The Father of the Son, the Son of the Father, their Holy Spirit: one God.\n\nThis makes no sense. It is a mystery that cannot really be explained. Rather, it is a set of words that were chosen to best express (though not fully express) the lived experience of the early Church.\n\nSo, with that little bit of groundwork... WHO is the Holy Spirit?\n\nAt the Last Supper, Jesus says:\n > If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.\n\nThis sending of the Holy Spirit is understood to have happened 50 days after the Resurrection, on Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit is said to have descended on the Apostles \"like tongues of fire\". \n\nWe can also look back to the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament - OT) and see, for example, at the creation of the world in Genesis, \"the Spirit of God was upon the waters.\" There are many other OT references - for example, the \"Shekinah\" - the presence of God that hovered over the Tabernacle.\n\nBut what does any of that mean for who the Holy Spirit is?\n\nThere's two ways of thinking about this question: Who is the Holy Spirit within God, and who is the Holy Spirit to us?\n\nIt is commonly understood that all things which are true about God are true about all three persons. So (for example) even though we typically call God the Father the creator, all three create because all three are One God.\n \nHowever, we assign certain actions and aspects or qualities of God to particular persons of the Trinity because (as Aquinas might say) they are logically proper to that person. So, we say that the Second Person (the Son) \"saves us,\" even though - really - it is the whole Trinity, the One God, who saves us.\n\nWe speak, then, of the Holy Spirit as the active power of God in creation and, especially, in the lives of human beings. We say that inspiration (creativity) is the work of the Spirit (notice in+spirit=inspiration). We say that prophets receive the Spirit. That the Spirit guides the Church in Truth (that is, keeps the Church from proclaiming heresy as doctrine).\n\nThese things are difficult to talk about, so you shouldn't feel dumb for not understanding them. And most analogies are within a hair's breadth of heresy.\n\nHere are some analogies and ways of thinking about the Spirit. If taken too literally, and especially if taken individually in isolation, they can lead to error, but as many images, taken together held lightly, they might help:\n\n - The Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son\n - The Holy Spirit is the Begetting of the Begotten One (the Son) by the Begetter (the Father)\n - The Holy Spirit is the breath of God\n - The Holy Spirit is God at work in the World\n\n\nSome issues/notes...\n\nSecond Temple Judaism (the Judaism of the time of Jesus) had a concept of the Deuteros Theos -- the \"second God.\" This was the Wisdom of God (the Sophia) as well as the Presence of God (the Shekina), the Word of God (Logos), and the Spirit/Breath of God (the Ruah, or the Pneuma). After the Jesus event and the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbinical Judaism graphs all of the Deuteros Theos theology onto the Torah. So, Jews today might say things like \"God created the world through His Torah.\" \n\nThe Jewish and then Gentile followers of Jesus graphed most of that theology onto Christ. Christ became the Word (Logos) of God in John's Gospel, the Wisdom of God through whom God created the World. There was a time in early Christianity where there was no Trinitarian doctrine. And there was a time when the Holy Spirit was identified primarily with Jesus. Eventually some of the Deuteros Theos imagery became associated with the Holy Spirit. And when Protestants excised much of the late Wisdom literature from the Biblical Canon, some of the explicit connections between Wisdom and Christ were lost -- and so Wisdom often gets grafted onto the Holy Spirit in evangelicalism and Reformed traditions, even though Catholics and Oterthodox traditionally understand Wisdom to be Christ. (\"Since then she has appeared on earth, and moved among people. She is the book of the precepts of God, the law that endures forever; all who cling to her will live, but those will die who forsake her.\") So... there is some confusion.\n\n",
"I read the comments and what I learned is that even Christians don't seem to understand what their stuff is about.",
"It's an interesting question and you are going to hear a lot of different, contradicting answers since people have various beliefs and it's in our human nature to want to share these beliefs.\n\nAllow me to take a different approach and answer your question from the Scriptures. It is described after all as God's word, and 2 Peter 1:21 says \"For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.\" Plus by specifying \"Christian context\" in your question, it will be right in line with Christ's pattern, which was to use the scriptures extensively, hence you will see both the old and the new testaments herein.\n\nTo address the last item of your question, is the holy spirit Jesus? Matthew 12:32 says \"For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.\" The Son of man is a usual title employed for Jesus. Here the idea is clear: sinning against Jesus can be forgiven, sinning against the holy spirit cannot.\n\nIs it a person? The Bible compares the holy spirit to water. When promising future blessings for his people, God said: “I shall pour out water upon the thirsty one, and trickling streams upon the dry place. I shall pour out my spirit upon your seed, and my blessing upon your descendants.” (Isaiah 44:3). When God pours out his spirit upon his servants, they become “full of holy spirit,” or “filled with holy spirit.” Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the disciples who were gathered together on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E. are all described as being full of, or filled with, holy spirit (Luke 1:15; 4:1; Acts 4:8; 9:17; 11:22, 24; 13:9). So it's not a person either.\n\nNow check out Luke 11:9-13, Jesus says: \"So I say to you, keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking, it will be opened. Indeed, which father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will hand him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he also asks for an egg, will hand him a scorpion? Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”.\n\nHoly spirit is a thing that can be shared or given by God. Another aspect is found in Luke 1:35, when the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary and said \"In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son\". So there is a clear connection between holy spirit and power from the Most High. \n\nIndeed, Christ confirms the link in Acts 1:8 \"But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.\" \n\nIn other words and to make it ELI5-compatible, holy spirit is the *power of God*, in action. Thus, with his holy spirit, God causes actions to be done.\n\nNow, that being said, I am expecting people will disagree with this take of your ELI5. It's okay. I never claimed to be an expert in modern church theology. What I have done is using the Scriptures to answer your question. I will be happy to pursue this discussion as long as we focus on what the Scriptures teach, not what the doctrines churches teach.",
"I don't feel like you've gotten a real ELI5 yet, though some valid and quite good answers. \n\n**ELI5:**\n\nFirst off, not all christians believe in a trinity in the first place, so this isn't a purely christian belief but a subsect of christians only. \n\nSecondly, not all christians believe in it the same way, however the most common is likened to an Egg (many people take issue with the oversimplification of this analogy, but this is ELI5). An egg is made of a shell, a white, and a yolk, each of them distinct yet still together they make up a whole. One Egg. \nThat is how this particular subsect of christianity views it, God, Christ and the Holy spirit are distinct parts of a single whole.\n\nFinally, and to make this ELI5 proper I will almost certainly insult someone's belief, so again I apologise that this is a vast oversimplification and generalization that not all beliefs agree with -\n\nGod: The grand designer & creator over all things\n\nJesus: The physical being manifestation of god that came to earth as a singular person\n\nHoly Spirit: The proverbial *still, small voice* of god that sits inside of us individually guiding our lives\n\n ",
"The holy spirit described in the Bible isn't a conscious being of any kind. It has no personal name, only a title. There's no dialog anywhere that includes the holy spirit contributing anything. The title holy spirit was never even capitalized the way it would be for a person or being. \n\nThe holy spirit in the Bible is used by God to accomplish his will. It's basically the power by which he gets things done, it's only holy because it comes from God. It has no consciousness or will of its own. \n\nGenesis 1 talks about how God used it when creating the Heavens and the Earth. \n\nIsaiah 44 talks about how God will \"pour out\" his holy spirit on his servants. \n\nIn Acts when Stephen saw the vision of Heaven, he saw only \"Jesus standing at Gods right hand\".\nNo mention of the holy spirit. \n\nSo basically it's the personification of Gods power or presence. It, like a lot of other things, God had described in a way that humans can understand it. But that got screwed up when the false Trinity doctrine came about around the 4th century. \n\n\n\n\n",
"This thread is so full of misunderstanding...\n\nThe Godhead is three separate beings, God the Father (Elohim), the Son (Jehovah), and the Holy Ghost. The Father is the Supreme authority figure and transcends our existence. The Son is our Savior, and died for our sins. The Holy Ghost is how the Father and the Son communicate with us. Both the Father and the Son have physical bodies, however the Holy Ghost does not.\n\nWhat is confusing, is that throughout the Bible, God is used interchangeably with Lord and Jehovah. The \"God\" of the Old Testament is Jehovah, the Son, before he came to Earth. His actions are one with the Father, and in a sense are an extension of His mind, yet is still a separate being.\n\nThe Godhead is one in purpose, not the physical. This is where many churches get mixed up. If you break the Godhead down into 3 personages, it makes more sense.",
"God living inside of us, think of it as the Angel on your shoulder in a cartoon. It is also a Teddy Bear that never goes away and is there to comfort you.",
"If God the Father is a watermelon, God the Son is a cut slice, and God the Spirit is watermelon juice. All the same in person, distinct in function. The Father is the aspect of God that chooses and predestinates. The Son is the aspect of God that redeems and saves. And the Holy Spirit is the aspect of God that reaches mankind today, bringing all the aspects of God into the believers and perfecting them in God's life. ",
"I'd put it in really simple terms like this:\n\nGod is.\nJesus physically is. \nThe Holy Spirit actionably is.\n\nGod is pure existence. Jesus is the physical manifestation of pure existence (merged with man). Holy Spirit is the action taken by this pure existence. \n\nGod is a musician, the Holy Spirit is the sound coming from his instruments. ",
"Latter-day Saint (Mormon) here. For that reason, I will likely get down voted to oblivion since so many Christians get pissed about our beliefs, thereby labeling us as non-Christian. But the Nicean Creed was an attempt by a bunch of men who were not prophets to use reason to explain the Godhead (which is different than the Trinity). If you read it, it will make one statement followed by another statement to undo the previous one. It makes God look like a psychotic multiple personality sufferer. And because a group of men made this creed centuries ago, it must be tight, so it has been largely adopted as truth.\n\nBut God if you think of the word 'God' as a term for Deity, similar to how one thinks of the words 'General' , 'Admiral' , etc. (for example) you can realize that the idea that a rank, or title can be given to more than one person; albeit those people are on the same team working together in their respective roles. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) are three separate people, unified and one in purpose with different roles, and the first two have bodies of flesh and bone where the Spirit has not yet received a body of flesh and bone.\n\nThis knowledge comes from a modern day prophet (Joseph Smith Jr., spring of 1820) who saw and witnessed God the Father and Jesus Christian together as separate personages. So, from that unique perspective, they are all three God, but separate personages with defined responsibilities in God's Plan of Salvation. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer/Illumination.html",
"www.dayspringpca.org",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw",
"http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/paraclete.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
yd7hw | what's the point/advantage of paying for a web host for a wordpress blog? | I want to start a web comic using Word Press, wondering if I need to get a host for that. The site that brought this question up for me was this site: _URL_0_
At the bottom it mentions that it's powered by WordPress. I'm guessing it's hosted but I don't really know what it all means. Pleash explains to mii | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yd7hw/whats_the_pointadvantage_of_paying_for_a_web_host/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5ujs46"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You don't have to get a host. Wordpress will host your blog for free, and you can buy a domain name and have it point to the Wordpress hosting services. \n\nThe benefit of hosting elsewhere is control over your advertising, control over drastic changes to layout, and the ability to add hundreds of widgets and plugins that are already written and available as plug-and-play options around the Internet.\n\nAlso, you can buy pre-made Wordpress themes online, just shop around, and use those when you host outside of Wordpress."
]
} | [] | [
"http://grownupcomic.com/"
] | [
[]
] |
|
1075d9 | what causes the uneven distribution of fat in the body? | What causes the uneven distribution of fat in the body?
I notice that some people have lean legs, calves, and biceps/triceps, but have bulky and seems like more adipose tissues around their stomach.
I live in the Southwest and I've noticed that more people of the Latino and Native American descent, including my brother-in-law, have lean calves and arms, but bulky torso as opposed to my mom and I, with an East Asian background, who have even distribution of fat throughout our body and similarly with Caucasians here.
I am not trying to come off as racially categorizing individuals; I'm simply curious about this. The influence of where a person originated from on the way their bodies *treat* fat.
Am I just relating something that depends on an individual habit to their physical features, or **does the distribution of fat really depend on the unique genetics of an individual *from a region***?
TL;DR Wondering if the distribution of fat depend on the genetics of ethnicity from a specific region.
Edit: Put in our instead of my. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1075d9/eli5_what_causes_the_uneven_distribution_of_fat/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6b0yxp"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > does the distribution of fat really depend on the unique genetics of an individual \n\nSomewhat. The theory is that there are three defined \"[Somatotypes](_URL_0_)\" which are: \n\n- Ectomorphic: characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat storage; usually referred to as slim. Ectomorphs are not predisposed to store fat or build muscle.\n\n- Mesomorphic: characterized by medium bones, solid torso, low fat levels, wide shoulders with a narrow waist; usually referred to as muscular. Mesomorphs are predisposed to build muscle but not store fat.\n\n- Endomorphic: characterized by increased fat storage, a wide waist and a large bone structure, usually referred to as fat. Endomorphs are predisposed to storing fat.\n\n > *from a region*?\n\n[Geographic Somatytypography](_URL_1_) is a thing, but really has less to do with Somatotypes and more with selective breeding.\n\nThere are [different types of fat](_URL_2_) and different people are susceptible to them. Women are prone to subcutaneous fat storage around the pelvic region due to estrogen.\n\nThe legs tend to be muscular and those with insulin resistance / type 2 diabetes are prone to intramuscular fat. It's a vicious cycle: Get fat, become resistant (or have a genetic resistance) to insulin, get more fat. \n\nWhether or not there is geographic dispositions to those is a hot topic. Is 40k years enough evolutionary time to drastically change the somatotypes of husky europeans vs. thin africans?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_anthropology#Racial_mapping",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue#Abdominal_fat"
]
] |
|
1jyyfa | gene expression/regulation | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jyyfa/eli5_gene_expressionregulation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbjo9qp"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This is an extremely complex question but here are some basics.\n\nDNA Regulating regions/proteins: \nPromoters - These come right before a gene and act to recruit RNA polymerase and other molecules which promote transcription. Some promoters have a somewhat fixed sequence (such as TATA boxes: _URL_0_) while others vary in sequence. \nEnhancers - These are much further away from a gene and don't directly bind RNA polymerase but, rather, attract different proteins which have a role in increasing gene transcription/recruiting RNA pol.\nRepressors - These are proteins which bind near promoters and prevent RNA pol from attaching or continuing transcription. \nActivators - These are proteins which bind near enhancers/promoters and recruit RNA pol/increase its activity.\n\n\nHistones/epigenetic factors- \nHistones are large proteins which bind DNA for structural purposes. Amino acids within the histone can be modified (i.e. acetylated, methylated) which forces the histone to bing DNA more tightly or more loosely. The tighter the DNA region is bound, the less easily it is transcribed/less active it is.\n\nDNA itself can be methylated which leads to less active genes. \n\nRNA:\nRNA regulation can get fairly complex, but this explains the basics fairly well: _URL_1_\n\nSince RNA can hang around for a while, there is are complex methods which the cell uses to degrade RNA when necessary. An example of this is microRNA (_URL_3_), which binds small strands of RNA to mRNA which needs to be degraded as a sort of flag for degradation.\n\nHope this is helpful and let me know if you want more info/more in depth info. You should also look here for a good start on gene regulation: _URL_2_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TATA_box",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-transcriptional_regulation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroRNA"
]
] |
||
b66xwd | how does the body know that you're bleeding? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b66xwd/eli5_how_does_the_body_know_that_youre_bleeding/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejicqbx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"When epidermal tissue is damaged, it exposes collagen (kind of the \"scaffolding\"). Platelets, which are circulating in the blood stream, attach to this collagen and it activates them to start the process of blood clotting.\n\nIf you're bleeding a *lot*, there are \"sensor\" cells in a few key areas of your circulatory system that sense a drop in blood pressure. Your body then sends out hormonal and nervous signals that modify heart rhythm, the constriction of blood vessels, and kidney filtration to try and maintain sufficient blood pressure. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4fjef3 | what is going on with the primaries in new york? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fjef3/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_the_primaries_in_new/ | {
"a_id": [
"d29c6fb"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"New York has a closed primary, which means that you have to be registered with a party to vote in its primary, unlike an open primary where any registered voter can vote in one primary of their choice. Closed primaries are supposed to make sure people who will vote as a Democrat/Republican in the fall will be the ones choosing the Democratic/Republican candidate. New York’s closed primary is also very restrictive in that you have to have registered with a party by October of last year to be eligible to participate. This means that anyone who wasn’t a registered Democrat or Republican by October 2015 in New York can’t vote in the primaries.\n\nThe lawsuit was brought because voters complained that their party affiliations were switched without their knowledge or that they were removed entirely. That matters because if someone’s party affiliation is switched or removed, then they can’t vote in the primary for their party. Some people also complained about last minute changes in polling locations, but that happens a lot and I haven’t heard reports that the relocations were excessive or inconvenient.\n\nThe lawsuit seeks an injunction, which is a court order for somebody to do something. In this case the plaintiffs are asking the court to order New York to count the votes of voters who aren’t registered with a party.\n\nSince the court has not already granted the injunction and the primary is underway, it’s highly unlikely that the there will be any injunction issued that affects voting today. Voters who would otherwise not be allowed to vote can case “provisional ballots,” which is what NY voters are being urged to do, in case their votes will eventually count. The court is more likely to order the state to count provisional ballots than it is to make the state redo an entire primary. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1pw26r | why have the shorts worn in the nba gotten so long over the years? | Was this simply a fashion choice, or is there an athletic reason for the shift? Was the shift pushed by the players, the public, the uniform manufactures, or some combination? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pw26r/eli5_why_have_the_shorts_worn_in_the_nba_gotten/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd6mw9d"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It was a purposeful change to stay in accordance with the current fashions. Fashion/clothing sales are a huge thing in the NBA, so the league, since the 80s, has been very forward in changing their uniforms and uniform rules to make clothes people like and want to buy. \n\nThe NBA also made a direct and purposeful effort to align itself with \"the hip-hop culture\" so it tries to stay in touch with current trends in that culture. They were so successful in this, that now the NBA actually strongly influences the hip hop culture, not just the other way. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
b3ydej | why do people's scream, and laughs sound different depending on their language? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3ydej/eli5why_do_peoples_scream_and_laughs_sound/ | {
"a_id": [
"ej3t8wk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you surround yourself with different people you learn from them. A boy raised by a pack of wolves will have wolf like behaviors. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
bqe3ge | how is it that our brain can perform complex calculations sub consciously for an action, such as calculating the angle and force of a perfect long throw, but struggles to calculate the actual numbers in our head? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bqe3ge/eli5_how_is_it_that_our_brain_can_perform_complex/ | {
"a_id": [
"eo3ndwo",
"eo3npo1",
"eo3nqrp",
"eo3p5tu",
"eo3q75j",
"eo3qhe6",
"eo3qzds",
"eo3robq",
"eo3rxgj",
"eo3s1fz",
"eo3t0ib",
"eo3t3o0",
"eo3tism",
"eo3u0h4",
"eo3ubwi",
"eo3vnv8",
"eo3voa9",
"eo3w26u",
"eo3w7t8",
"eo3wecy",
"eo3xssj",
"eo3yc42",
"eo3zbua",
"eo3znid",
"eo3zx7j",
"eo409fj",
"eo40cxu",
"eo40kd3",
"eo411a5",
"eo41302",
"eo419iz",
"eo422l4",
"eo437um",
"eo43hct",
"eo43o8r",
"eo449x8",
"eo44j6o",
"eo45cxh",
"eo45mt3",
"eo46puz",
"eo477jz",
"eo498i9"
],
"score": [
7,
33,
1627,
4,
4174,
10,
26,
28,
2,
684,
181,
17,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
15,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Muscle memory? That’s a learned skill. Just like solving advanced equations in your head after enough practice. I’m shit at anything beyond basic algebra, so this is all speculation on my part.",
"Simple ballistics is an evolutionary skill when your ancestors were tree-dwelling apes. If you can't calculate a jump, you go splat. That fed into our later ground-dwelling hominid ancestors already having the mental tools they needed to aim a throw, and throwing was an important skill for them. So those things got backed right into our brains by biology.\n\nAlgebra, not so much.",
"Custom hardware.\n\nImagine that you had an old-timey gaming console that can only play one game, such as [this one](_URL_0_). It's technically a computer, but it's purpose-built to only run one game, there is no way to install a new app, even a calculator, in it.\n\nSuppose that the game that it has is Minecraft. Minecraft is a pretty resource-intensive game, taking up a lot of processor power to run some pretty complicated math. If you could actually install a calculator into it, it would have way more processing power that it would need.\n\nHowever, it can only play Minecraft. No problem! You can build a [calculator](_URL_1_) out of redstone and levers, and thus you can use the console as a calculator. But for all the processing power the hardware has, the calculator will still run on a few measly cycles per second, because that's how redstone works. And building a calculator is pretty hard to do in the first place. So your console *can* run a calculator, but a bad one.\n\nThis is basically our brain. It contains purpose-built hardware for estimating angles, distances, forces, speeds, movement, etc. But to calculate actual numbers using it, you have to learn and practice a lot (build a calculator out of neurons in it), and even when you do, it's still going to be pretty slow, because our brain never evolved to do things like this, because we never needed it before the advent of technology.",
"“Why can we do something all animals evolved to do to some extent, but can’t do as easily something abstract and complicated that we made up?” \n\nSometimes if you phrase your question correctly, you get your answer.",
"The brain isn't really that good at calculating, but what it's amazing at is pattern recognition. For actions like this, really your brain is remembering all the similar past events and matching them to the situation. Your brain can feedback the outcomes to conclude 'aim higher' or 'throw harder'. I'm sure that if you did enough similar calculations your brain would get a similar feel for if a number was too high or too low, but it would never do the calculation automatically.",
"Because when you perform an action, youre not calculating anything at all. Its all muscle memory, and your general sense of strength and explosive power you think you can muster with the object youre holding or moving. It all comes from practice and experience",
"I'd probably challenge you and ask you to consider just how \"perfect\" that long throw you can do instinctually is. It's probably not really perfect coming from someone who doesn't practice it.\n\nProfessional baseball players batting 40% are considered godlike. There are only 7 pitchers with 18 or more strikeouts in the history of the MLB. Perfect would by 27 and no one's ever done it.",
"It's like catching a high ball. You don't calculate the parabolic path of the ball, you keep it at the same angle to you as you run. Learning that angle is the result of experience.",
"Numbers are something we (relatively speaking) recently made up, but the ideas of force and balance are something we’ve evolved to be good at over a very very long time.",
"Your brain doesn’t do the actual calculations. It’s just trial and error from previous attempts at throwing the ball. It’s why you’re so bad at it as a child. Your brain learns and remembers how much energy it needs to put into your muscles for each throw for how far and where it wants to go. It records what happens after every throw and tries to learn from it, it’s also why you get better at it as you practice more.",
"because those calculations are not numbers based.\n\nwe invented numbers so that we can visualize and model nature, not the other way around.",
"If you play a sport long enough, your actions become intuitive, your reactions are reflex.\n\nIf you do long calculations long enough, you become intuitive, and calculate complex divisions and root calculations in your head.\n\nThere are plenty of videos on youtube where you see japanese kids doing large multiplications while also playing puzzle games, or an indian woman who can do calculations faster than one can press on their calculator. Ask them to throw a ball with precision, and they would not be good at it simply because they havent thrown balls as many times as they have done calculations.",
"It's because of evolution. Nerds don't get laid, athletes do. Sure you can be both, but showing off exact complex math answers isn't as impressive as being able to hit a wild boar with a spear. Completing the action is more beneficial than calculating it mathematically, so our brains prioritized what was most important and developed in that way. We know brains take shortcuts to work efficiently, so it skipped the math containing an innumerable amount of complex factors (constantly changing inputs) and decided to keep winging it until we eventually get the right result. Then we memorized what got us the right result and repeated the action, until we learned how to tweak it to different situations. Exact math was never needed. Maybe with the rise of science in the next millenia our brains will be able to calculate on the fly as it becomes more important, but with the rise of AI assistance it seems we'll never need to.",
"Short Answer: It us complicated and there are lots of theories. Some common theories: \n\nEmulation: our brain has to use more resources because it has to adapt to complete the task \n\nPrioritization: the brain has priorities that it follows based on rewards or stimuli, and this leads less stimulating tasks with low reward (simple math) to recieve a low priority, making it more difficult to complete. \n\nAbstraction: the brain has a difficult time working with abstract ideas without a framework to follow. An example of one of these frameworks is the use of languages. Math is considered a language in this idea, and the less \"fluent\" you are, the more difficulty you will have with math",
"Rote learning. As a kid throwing a ball with dad/mum/siblings/friends you'll amass a staggering amount of data.\n\nIf you watch kids learning to throw to each other they almost always wind up like they're throwing the full length of a field",
"I'd say that while your subconciousness is adapted to work with your body, math uses only the brainpower to do calculus. Math is an artifical thing, to which our brain has yet to adapt like it adapted to balancing on 2 legs.",
"I would say because numbers are a mental abstraction away from the physical things which they represent.\n\nFor example a gorilla can know there are two things in front of him but cannot grasp the concept of 2.",
"It doesn’t. A computer scientist might describe it like this:\n\nThe human brain almost invariably uses heuristics for almost everything. Heuristics are basically computational shortcuts which get very close to the right answer without much arithmetic. Heuristics suffer from a tradeoff between highly accurate performance in specific contexts, and good performance across a large range of contexts. In humans, we may have different sets of heuristics to get the best of both, that is, you don’t even have to think about not tripping over on a flat surface, but you don’t apply the same approach to a rough and difficult surface, where trying to walk as if it was flat would probably cause you to break an ankle. \n\nThese heuristic methods have gotten very powerful for specific things, but the limits of that tradeoff still apply. A baseball pitcher can throw a nearly perfectly consistent 90mph fastball but struggle to make free throws — both are generally actions of throwing right? well yes, but the baseball player will have developed a very specific heuristic which only handles the context of baseball, including every detail of it from the topography of the pitchers mound, and the handedness of the batter etc. That same heuristic doesn’t work at all in the context of basketball free throws.\n\nIn the same way, arithmetic is one of those things for which that tradeoff is the most true. Many school children are able to accurately and quickly answer basic multiplication questions like 6\\*7, but that won’t generalise. Knowing how to solve 6\\*7 won’t ever tell you how to solve 373958372\\*3882638420. But then knowing how to solve that won’t tell you how to solve an integral. \n\nThrough evolution, the human brain has developed an incredible capacity to develop new heuristics which can solve a particular problem with a very high accuracy, every time, but that heuristic is actually much more narrow than most people think. All of the basic stuff you expect to happen in physics doesn’t happen in a vacuum, when you get to completely alien scenarios, we’d be completely stuck (hence why quantum mechanics has been consistently quite impossible to understand. The only consistent way that even the best physicists had is mathematics, we couldn’t form ideas about how we’d expect “particles” or “waves” to behave at a quantum level, because even that simple delineation breaks down)",
"Very similar thing I realized after reading Calculating God by Robert J Sawyer. \n\nIn this book alien spiderlike comes to earth and begins scientific research with Earth scientist. \n\nAt some point there is a discussion about digits. As humans evolved with 5 digits on limbs we are really good at \"recognizing\" patterns in numbers, like, we do not really have to count objects if grouped together in 2, 3, 4, 5 until about 7-9 depending on personal conditions. ( Non authistic, savant etc)\n\nPast that numbers we have to concentrate on counting. \n\nThe alien being \"spider\" has ability to \"recognize\" other numbers without counting due to numbers and multiples of limbs evolved. \n\nAfter this book I tried many patterns and after 8 I am hopeless.",
" > Moravec's paradox is the discovery by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources.\n\nThe part of the brain that does the calculations intuitively evolved over hundreds of millions of years, while the part for numbers is very recent and not well developed.",
"I mean a throw maximised for distance is **always** 45° and maximum force. It’s really not hard to consistently replicate that with enough training.",
"It's fuzzy logic. The brain doesn't know the exact angle or force. It just knows range variables like 'Too much force', 'Too little force', 'Just right force'. Based on numerous past experiences, it decides that this range of angles and force should be enough to get the perfect long throw. More the experience, more the precision.",
"Because over the course of evolution, learning and education is pretty new affair. For most of the human history humans have been hunting and gathering. Due to which visual perception and pattern matching is highly developed.",
"Did you just read Name of the Wind?",
"Because it's not calculating.\n\n \nTo use an analogy which I will hate because it actually isn't true, it's like the difference between having Excel work out exactly how much you owe, or training an neural network on your expenses spreadsheets.\n\nOne will get you a definite answer from exact calculations, calculated and understood to be the right ones to use.\n\nThe other will take a best guess based on how close it's previous \"best guesses\" were, tuned over thousands of such trials until it's convincingly correct.\n\nThe result is good enough that must hunting trips will end up with some kind of food, but at no point involves any exact calculation, can be horribly wrong in unusual circumstances, and the outcome is entirely unpredictable. \n\n\n(P.S. Anything that says \"AI\" is a crock. It's either human-programmed rules (heuristics) like the Excel, or it's \"best guess\" by a primitive neural network that never \"learns\" and plateaus in its abilities REALLY quickly, and then becomes almost impossible to untrain/retrain/train further even if you throw a billion counter-examples at it).",
"We created the numbers to represent concepts, they are not intrinsic to the brain. The brain works on a more elementary level, directly with the concepts without going through \"numbers\".",
"Some evolutionary anthropologists hypothesize that throwing rocks was the evolutionary pressure that developed our big brains.\nInstead of math and music conferring any survival benefit, math and music were side effects of a brain that needed to calculate how to throw rocks.",
"It's not really making calculations in our brain, more than contrasting your particular situation to a new one. You use two brain functions that take over the manual functions of your brain when you're doing something that would be otherwise difficult for your brain to do manually, which is Procedural Learning(Muscle Memory, basically), and Implicit Memory(Muscle Memory but slightly different).\n\n \n**Procedural Learning** is when you repeat a difficult task over and over again, until the parts of your brain that do perform that activity can do it subconsciously and without thought. AKA, **Procedural Learning is \"practice makes perfect.\"** \n\n\n**Implicit Memory** is basically your brain automating functions, to keep it brief. You can actually do a \"force shutdown\" of implicit memory by thinking/saying things to yourself like this: \n**You are now manually blinking, breathing, and you can now feel your clothes.**\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI think a musician named [Sideways](_URL_0_) explains this really well: \n\n\n > When a quarterback is about to toss a football, he doesn't think to himself: \n\"Okay, I'm gonna flex my bicep to allow for my triceps to have as much potential motion as possible, and when I flex my tricep I'm also gonna slightly relax my thumb such that the friction between the laces on the ball and my fingers will transfer the linear force of my flexing triceps to a rotational force on the ball that will allow it to fly farther and faster.\" \nNo, he simply thinks \"I gotta throw the ball.\" If your brain had to think that way every time you had a throw a ball, football players might be looking a lot more like D.O.T.A players.\n\n \nMathematics and numbers were created as a means of communication so that we could share these types of complex thoughts. This is also why it's so hard to wrap your brain around Math: ***Even though math is LITERALLY EVERYWHERE, we don't perceive everything as angles and percentages.***",
"Human numerical systems have only been around for a relatively short while and only been known by the larger populace for an even shorter time. The brain doesn’t actually use our human numerical system to “calculate” anything besides numerical calculations. Your brain’s not literally making a graph of likely positions based on an equation or anything like that. Humans are great generalists, and your brain’s using its incredible ability to predict based on past experiences for these “calculations.” For example, if you lived your whole life on Mars somehow and came to Earth, your motor skills would be limited by the different gravity, but your brain would adjust relatively quickly after categorizing this as a “new” gravity.",
"Because they are different calculations. At the end of a calculation you reach a decision, that's about the entire similarity between calculations. But calculating which road you must walk, vs. calculating which fruit you should eat, are very different skills.\n\nOr is your question why different skills are different ? If so, let's keep to the road vs. fruit analogy. In order to pick your road, most likely you need to use your eyes, mainly, while to pick fruit you would use your nose as well. Already in this case you see how different calculations require different systems which, on your body, may not have the same quality, same processing speed, etc. Some people have better eyes, some people have better noses. So for some people it's easy to calculate which road to take, for other people it's easier to calculate which fruit to eat.",
"You brain is not really doing any calculating at all when it comes to a skill. \n\nOf the dozen, or hundreds or thousands of throws it made before the “perfect long throw” it just got a little better each time.\n\nthrow went off to the left a little last throw? It will now throw a little more to the right...dozen upon dozens of adjustments through years of experience makes it able to do that “perfect” long throw.\n\nAll you brain can “see” is what it did and the result. After enough attempts, and learning from those attempts, it learns what to do perfectly.\n\n\n\n\nA little outside the scope of “explain like I’m five” but this also VERY similar how Learning AI works for computers. A video looking at that might offer a better visual of this explanation.",
"Did you think of this question after reading The Name of the Wind? lol",
"Numbers are abstract concepts that humans aren't necessarily equipped to understand naturally in a 1-2-3-4 sort of way. It would seem that the brain thinks of values in a logarithmic form most naturally, like 1-2-4-16 and just scales that up or down as it needs to, so the concept of numbers is often much more conscious and deliberate the way its typically learned.\n\nThere are methods and ways to teach oneself to calculate number sums, differences, quotients, or whatever, but these techniques appeal to the mechanisms out brain already has in place to do the calculations it naturally does in unconscious figurings.",
"The humane brain is far more complicated than people think. Our brains don’t do calculations in the way that maths are perceived. The human brain actually has to make complex predictions based on given information and physical input. You also have to take in to account our CNS ( central nervous system ) lag. It takes a given amount of time for our brain to send a signal to a limb or our hand. Here’s a good example.\n\nThrowing a baseball is hard. Accurately throwing a strike requires that a pitcher release the ball at an extremely precise moment—doing so more than half a millisecond too early or too late causes it to miss the strike zone entirely. Because it takes far longer (a full five milliseconds) just for our nerve impulses to cover the distance of our arm, this feat requires the brain to send a signal to to the hand to release the ball well before the arm has reached its proper throwing position.\n\nThe one feat even more difficult than throwing a fastball, though, might be hitting one. There’s a 100 millisecond delay between the moment your eyes see an object and the moment your brain registers it. As a result, when a batter sees a fastball flying by at 100 mph, it’s already moved an additional 12.5 feet by the time his or her brain has actually registered its location. \n\nHow, then, do batters ever manage to make contact with 100 mph fastballs—or, for that matter, 75 mph change-ups?\n\nIn a study in the journal Neuron, UC Berkeley researchers used fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) to pinpoint the prediction mechanisms in the brain that enable hitters to track pitches (and enable all sorts of people to envision the paths of moving objects in general). They found that the brain is capable of effectively “pushing” forward objects along in their trajectory from the moment it first sees them, simulating their path based on their direction and speed and allowing us to unconsciously project where they’ll be a moment later.\n\nSo our brains are doing far more than just remembering what to do. Our brains are predicting the outcome of any given action. Our brains do a lot of work subconsciously to what we perceive. So it’s not just simple pattern recognition.",
"Think of it as plumbing. You connect the pipes in a certain way and collect the result. You adjust the pipes slightly and get a slightly different result. You don't need the numbers for the result, you need the plumbing (neural connections).\n\nComputers work the same way and as far as we can tell, so does the brain.",
"It's the difference between direct experience and the abstractions involved with languages.\n\nNumbers are a type of language, an abstraction that is a set of symbols used to represent concepts. 1, as in the written symbol whether or spoken word \"one\", is not actually oneness itself. It is an abstract placeholder humans can understand in a way that allows us to accomplish useful tasks. 1 does exist, but it's not some \"correct\" symbol, word, or idea for the concept. It just exists, in the universe. It's not called 1. When humanity has been wiped out of the universe, oneness will continue to exist, but the number 1 will not. The shapes, sounds, and written forms of human numbers are arbitrary. \n\nWhen a human body is moving in a coordinated way, the brain is not performing calculations in a manner similar to a computer. It is directly experiencing things like oneness, the specific distance to the goal, how much force and where will be required, how to move to generate that force, etc.\n\nThe difference between direct experience and abstract description of experience takes effort to translate, even when that abstraction is as fundamentally learned as numbers or our native spoken language. We're still abstracting, and this causes a delay.\n\nIt's a bit like people who try to use spoken or written language to describe things that can be more directly experienced. Someone using adjectives to describe a meal that could just be tasted, a song that could just be heard, an artwork that could just be seen.",
"Thinking, Fast and Slow by Dan Kahneman is an accessable book that goes into a good amount of detail how the brain works in this regard. I would highly recommend checking it out.",
"Saw an interesting hypothesis. Monkeys have better short term memory and problem solving than humans. Humans relied on long term memory to know what is dangerous. Monkeys required different things than us. We developed language as a way of communicating danger.",
"Too bad I'm (4 hours) late to this party but there seems to be many kinda goodish answers but not really any fundamentally good ones.\n\nThe main problem is that \"calculating the angle and force of a long throw\" is a so-called \"control's theory\" problem. The ELI5 of controls theory is that it's not a calculation but many many millions of calculations repeated in what is referred to as a \"Feedback loop\".\n\nFurthermore, you can *describe* this feedback loop using a series of differential equations which we can *sometimes* (and truly, in practice very very few times) solve in a so-called \"analytical fashion\", which is what you have in mind when you say \"complex calculations\". By analytical, what I mean is that you have a closed form formula that you plug in the values and you get the answers.\n\nIn reality, most closed-loop control problems are actually outright unsolvable, and their solutions are computed using numeric approximations. Similarly, the controllers doing most of the controlling out there are rudimentary devices but that's actually enough to get a lot done.\n\nWith all of the above said, 2 important things:\n\n- the thing you desire to control is oftentimes very simple to compute (e.g. turn on heater when house temperature is low, turn off when house temperature is high; press accelerator when car is too slow, stop pressing accelerator when car is fast enough). The computational requirements of running a control loop are low, while the computational requirements of solving *every* possible control loop are high.\n\n- running a control loop can be done entirely *without* any computations whatsoever: this was the basis of the first [diesel governors](_URL_0_) in which you simply utilize *two* closed loop systems and make them work against each other until there's an equilibrium. It is an entirely mechanical, devoid of any intelligence whatsoever.\n\n\nIn total: your brain doesn't actually compute anything at all. It creates an internal equilibrium by slowly \"homing\" in towards it. This is why you need to practice so much.",
"We learn to throw and catch by doing those actions, we repeatedly do the same thing and get better and remember for the next time what to do to get an angle right, our brains do those calculations instinctively eventually but if we learnt while we were throwing what angle we were throwing at and what the differences were between throws then we would be able to know the angles we were throwing with nothing but our mind eventually",
"People have much more experience with throwing a ball than doing complicated math without paper, pencil, calculator, etc...\n\nIt's a skill that can be learned, but just a much less commonly practiced skill.",
"It all boils down to the part of the brain we use for each of those things. We use the part that has to do with logic processing for complex calculations because we want an accurate result. This adds constant verification steps that cause a loss in time in calculations.\n\nThere's records of one man that had a mutation in the brain and his math calculus was processed at the motor part of the brain (the one responsible for stuff like body movements and strength of a longthrow). As a result, he could do math faster than a calculator due to that part of the brain not operating like the one we normally use.\n\nIn other words, since math problems are not a real time survival issue our brain delegates them to a slower but safer region of the brain\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"An fMRI scan while he was doing complex calculations revealed that activity in the Brodmann area 44 region of the frontal cortex was absent; instead, there was activity somewhat higher from area 44 and closer to the motor cortex.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_electronic_game",
"https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Tutorials/Calculator"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/eG1_Fcaq280?t=267"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device\\)"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Flansburg"
]
] |
||
aemebo | what is the “federal reserve balance sheet” and how does it effect the economy? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aemebo/eli5_what_is_the_federal_reserve_balance_sheet/ | {
"a_id": [
"edqlel9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"So in the US economy, there should be one dollar of currency (physical dollars or digital, doesn't matter) for every dollar's worth of goods and services being bought and sold. We'll even throw in a little bit extra dollars for \"liquidity\" to help everything flow smoothly.\n\nBut... The amount of goods and services being bought / sold is always changing! Populations are growing, technology is developed, trade is established. So we need to adjust the number of dollars in our economy. Normally we need more dollars, because the economy is growing.\n\nThat's where the Fed comes in. One of the things the Federal Reserve does is control the money supply (i.e. How many dollars are in the economy).\n\nThe Fed has a magic money machine. They can use it to create new money that flows into the economy. But how do they distribute these new dollars? They inject this new money into the economy by buying things.\n\nThe Fed normally purchases US government debt (i.e. Treasury bonds) from banks. After the 2008 financial crisis, they also started buying mortgage-backed securities to help stabilize things.\n\nNow these new dollars are happily flowing around in the economy, and the Fed is holding onto these Treasury bonds. That's the Fed's balance sheet. How many assets are owned by the Federal Reserve.\n\nWhen the Fed says they want to reduce their balance sheet, it means that they want to buy less bonds (or even sell them!) This means that less dollars will be flowing into the economy, since the Fed is purchasing less assets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4cxsd9 | how do tons and tons of emails get leaked? who is doing the leaking? (ex: oil companies) | I keep hearing about these leaked emails from the oil companies regarding bribery, etc. How do these emails get leaked? Is there one person who has access to the database and decides they need to go public? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cxsd9/eli5_how_do_tons_and_tons_of_emails_get_leaked/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1m8709"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It depends on a number of things.\n\nTo understand intraoffice emails, many companies use internal mailing servers that log all of the emails sent from computer to computer.\n\nSometimes the leak is caused by someone or someones in the technical support departments, who are people who have access to these servers and the emails in them.\n\nSometimes they are leaked by the people who receive them who feel that something shady or unacceptable is going on.\n\nSometimes hackers access these servers and release emails because they want to, or because they are blackmailing people, or for any other number of reasons."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4ih1jp | why do certain cultures consistently own in certain chains and establishments? | For example: Nail salons and dry cleaners often are staffed by asian individuals and Dunkin Donuts and 711 often have Indian staff. Not trying to be offensive when asking this question. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ih1jp/eli5why_do_certain_cultures_consistently_own_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2y0591",
"d2y0d3q",
"d2y0rx0",
"d2y9jot"
],
"score": [
2,
24,
9,
8
],
"text": [
"I think this is a fair question. I've always been curious if the reason cones from their culture of origin, or from the cultural pressures of the US. \n\nFollow up question: Is this only a USA thing, or does it happen like that in other countries as well.",
"The reasoning behind it is mostly that people's families and friends help them get established when they move to a new country. Say you have an uncle with a couple convenience stores, maybe he'll give you a job in one. After a while maybe you save some money and buy a store of your own because you have lots of experience running one now, and an uncle who can help you find a good one to buy. \n\nA few years later you have a few stores, and your wife's cousin emigrates, so you set him up with a job managing one of your stores, and the cycle repeats.",
"A lot of it has to do with familiarity with an industry... ie. most dry cleaners are specifically owned by Koreans, because at some point a Korean ran a cleaners and gave fellow countrymen jobs. They learned the business, and then opened up their own dry cleaners, and returned the favor by giving new Korean immigrants jobs. Who then opened up their own shops, gave more Koreans jobs, and the cycle continued... I believe most nail salons are Vietnamese, with the same cycle playing out. ",
"Some licenses are required for certain businesses, nail salon is one of them. Nail tech exams are offered in many Asian languages, because of this, becoming a nail salon owner is easier than becoming a plumber so you open nail salons rather than open plumbing companies. \n\nWhy nail salon for Asians in the first place? Vietnam War and a Hollywood actress. \n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.yahoo.com/news/hollywood-star-made-vietnamese-refugees-beauticians-223603963.html?ref=gs"
]
] |
|
2ka85k | why would melatonin give a person nightmares? | & leave them feeling like a complete train wreck in the morning... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ka85k/eli5_why_would_melatonin_give_a_person_nightmares/ | {
"a_id": [
"cljcccm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Melatonin is a chemical that your body naturally produces. It is essentially what creates our sleep/wake cycles, as light inhibits its production. This is a large reason why night shift workers have a hard time sleeping during the day.\n\nThe only way I could imagine melatonin being the cause of this is if you were taking a high dose and managed to somehow overdose slightly on it.\n\nI've taken as much as 6mg of it and not had any adverse effects, but everyone's tolerances are different and I've known of people that 1mg puts them right out.\n\nDepending on how much you're taking, if you're also pretty sensitive to it then I suppose it's possible you've just taken too much."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2fgx98 | why are syringe needles so long when they're only injected a couple of millimetres? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fgx98/eli5_why_are_syringe_needles_so_long_when_theyre/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck932e5",
"ck9717m"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text": [
"Because a shorter needle of constant thickness would be more prone to snapping.\n\nA hypodermic needle is cone-shapped, being thicker at the base and sharpest at the tip. The nice long, thin taper means that the tip comes to a sharp, fine point rather than a bulky one. But more importantly, it means that the needle is structurally quite strong because cones are a strong shape.\n\nMore importantly, however, that length means that the needle can flex under stress and not break if the patient flinches or something like that.\n\n",
"Some needles are for IM use (or suitable for both IM and IV use) and need to reach further underneath fat and deep into muscle tissue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1yge5e | why is it that the smell of asperagus is instantly transmitted to your pee after you eat it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yge5e/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_smell_of_asperagus_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfk9674",
"cfkciem"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a particular molecule in asparagus that your body breaks down into another stinky molecule. That molecule comes out in your pee.",
"I'd like to know this for coffee too"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7jglgg | why do stars twinkle while planets don't? | Also, why do some faint stars seem to disappear when we look directly at them, but can be noticed when we look at a nearby patch of sky? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jglgg/eli5_why_do_stars_twinkle_while_planets_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr67zi0",
"dr68zkg",
"dr6aob6",
"dr6dzfo",
"dr6gb95",
"dr6gv84",
"dr6hjpx",
"dr6kxk9",
"dr6ooq5",
"dr6r34s",
"dr6vs3j",
"dr6x26i",
"dr6yzh3",
"dr7pcrw"
],
"score": [
2412,
3,
374,
2953,
195,
8,
27,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"planets twinkle too. twinkle is caused by the Earth's atmosphere being inconsistent density which causes varying refraction angles. sometimes strong sometimes not. any light that goes thru the atmosphere twinkles. \n\nif you were on the ISS and look at the stars, they don't twinkle.",
"Stars twinkle because they’re distance is so far away from the Earth that when its light passes through the atmosphere, it is bent countless times due to refraction, making it look like as if they were twinkling. Planets on the other hand do not twinkle. They are relatively closer to the Earth than those distant stars, so planets may seem larger in comparison. Due to its closeness, the light coming from these celestial bodies does not bend much due to Earth's atmosphere.",
"The answer to the second half of your question has to do with the two different types of light detecting cells in our eyes. They are called “rods” and “cones”.\n\nRods are good at detecting dim objects (stars in this case) while cones are good at detecting bright objects. It just so happens that the center area of our vision is mostly handled by the cones, while our peripheral vision is handled more by the rods.\n\nSo when you look a little off to the side, you’re forcing your eye to use the more light-sensitive rods. This technique is called “Averted vision.” Most people need to look 5-20 degrees to one side or the other for the best effect.",
"Starlight is from so far away, it's essentially a single point of light with near zero diameter. When the atmosphere refracts that light, you can notice it more, because the amount of refraction is greater than the diameter of the source.\n\nLight from planets is refracted too, but since they're a lot closer the source isn't zero diameter, it's just slightly bigger. The refraction is more obscured by the diameter of the light source. \n\nSo, planet light is dimmer light, but coming from a larger diameter source. ",
"Stars = 1 pixel \nPlanets = 2 or 3 pixels \n \nEarth's atmosphere continuously warps the light enough for 1 pixel to momentarily disappear. But usually not enough for 2 pixels.",
"The center of our vision is less light sensitive than the sides, so if you look directly at something, you see it with less sensitivity, or it seems darker, if you look at it out of the side of your eye it becomes brighter. For things just on the line between bright enough to see and not (stars and meteors and things), sometimes they disappear when you look directly at them. \n",
"Imagine you're looking down on two lights at the bottom of a pool. One is a tiny little LED and the other is a big fat glowing orb. Disturb the surface a **tiny** bit and the LED will seem to move around dramatically, but the big fat orb will seem to stay relatively still.",
"Another question.\n\nWhy can't I see stars twinkle at all? Even with my glasses on far from the city I don't see any movement or fluctuations. \n\nI thought \"twinkling stars\" was an expression for the longest time. Not something real. ",
"Stars twinkle because their light is filtered through our atmosphere (which is inconsistent and can contain all kinds of obscuring things - dust, clouds, flying objects) and possibly through other things on the way here (other celestial bodies, gas clouds, things like that).\n\nAs for the 2nd point: Your peripheral vision is more sensitive to light. Looking at a nearby patch of sky moves the star in your peripheral vision, so while it might not have been bright enough for the center of your vision, it might now just be bright enough for the edges.",
"Stars look the same size as planets because they're about as bright as each other from where we are. But really, stars are much much further away and much much brighter. That means if you ignore brightness the area of light coming from a star is much smaller. \n\nIt's like a pixel on your screen compared to a small circle made of 100 pixels. If the pixel is brighter and you stand 30 feet back they may look about the same size.\n\nBut a pixel can be moved off its line more easily then 100 pixels. You know how heat on the road makes things look wavy? The atmosphere does that a little bit all the time, we just don't notice because the effect is small and what we generally look at is big. But small effects on one pixel seem more drastic then on 100 pixels. Like a building on a hot day doesn't look as wavy as the yellow stripe on the middle of a hot road.",
"They actually do twinkle.\n\nAll light travelling through the atmosphere is messed with.\n\nLook at the wiggling setting sun as it sinks into a big body of water.\n\nLook down a long stretch of highway on a hot summer day.\n\nThe stars that magically appear shows you have found your blind spot. There are two types of light sensitive cells in the retina at the back of the eye. The ones to the sides of your focal point are more light sensitive. For example, I cannot see the Pleiades unless I concentrate on it out of the corner of my eye, or use a telescope or binoculars.\n\nHave you ever wondered where the moon is at noon on the day of its New Moon phase?",
"Why you can't see the faintest of light while looking straight at them but you can see them in the corners of your eyes:\n\nIt's because of the rods and cones in your eyes, the thingies that capture light (photoreceptors). Rods are super sensitive and are the ones used in low light settings (which is also the reason you are unable to see colors when it's really dark). Cones are less sensitive but process color (there's more to it but this is a very short summary).\n\nThe rods are not evenly spread in your eyes, and their highest density is situated AROUND the center of your field of view. There is a higher concentration of cones in the center providing you with the ability to see colors better. And since the cones are less sensitive, you are not able to see the faintest of stars in front of you, but you can see them when you look away slightly. Image in link below.\n\n_URL_0_ \n\nEDIT: typo",
"Umm, I'm surprised nobody actually explained it like ELI5?! \n\n\nAstronomer here, the stars twinkle because there is dust and particles in the air in our atmosphere. The stars themselves don't actually twinkle, it's the dust and stuff in between your vision and the stars light coming through the atmosphere. \n\n\nAstronomer tip: if stars are twinkling its a bad night to view the sky through a telescope, on nights that the stars don't twinkle is the best nights cause you have a more clear sky",
"Scintillation. Thats the astronomical word for twinkling. Its because stars' light travel so far, the light has to pass through galactic dust and particles which cause some slight interference. Anything inside of our solar system, like a planet for example, will not twinkle because the light only had to travel within out solar system, not far enough to experience interference from the stuff floating around in space."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://goo.gl/images/ueYVsU"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3k7h7t | the concept of dancing | I understand that dancing is a skilled art that requires as much dedication and has as much expression as any other art, but I've never been able to appreciate or perceive any message or emotional feeling from a dance.
I can appreciate the talent fine, I can go "Wow damn that must have taken HEAPS of practice" the same way I would at a tightrope walker or any other talent, but I'm missing the feelings.
What am I missing here? I want to garner some real appreciation for dance because I'm missing out. I saw the Nutcracker ballet a few years ago and I was trying - REALLY trying to understand/be receptive to it's emotions, but I found myself bored because all I could see/sense was people twirling, and once you've seen twirling for 5 minutes you've seen it all (in that production at least).
So...What am I doing wrong? What can't I see?
(Dancing WITH someone I can definitely get, I'm talking about watching other people dancing) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k7h7t/eli5_the_concept_of_dancing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuvg3ms"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's nothing wrong with not enjoying watching dancing. People have different tastes when it comes to culture. I love movies but cannot stand theater, as to me it's just people yelling on stage and I cannot immerse myself into the suspension of disbelief in theater.\n\nI personally enjoy watching flamenco. The dance seems like a continuation of the music. I enjoy the synchronicity and patterns of the dance that seem kind of like the music was controlling the dancers, or the music comes from the movements of the dancers (to some degree this is true, as the steps and clapping the dancers made are integral to the whole). And also the dance seems to translate some emotions from the music into emotional body language, kind of like mimes turn concepts into body language. Especially how the hands move is amazing in flamenco.\n\n[Here's a particularly good flamenco I enjoy](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/plRZarZj6JE?t=1h14m22s"
]
] |
|
2cpoc7 | how is the president protected from aerial assaults? | I recently saw a post showing how the president is protected from ground threats such as people walking up to the president with handguns. But say the president's motorcade is coming through my town. What's stopping me from renting a private air plane and crashing it in the middle of the motorcade? Does the secret service set up some type of missile defense? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cpoc7/eli5_how_is_the_president_protected_from_aerial/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjhrquo",
"cjhrrpx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There will be a no-fly zone in the space around where the President will be. The Secret Service will coordinate with the FAA on the routes POTUS is taking. If an aircraft comes too close, it will likely be scuttled.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I remember seeing a presidential motorcade years ago, and noting the military helicopters in the area. I am pretty sure they'd be able to take on your Cessna."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/no-fly-zone-to-be-enforced-by-shoot-to-kill-order-during-nato-summit/"
],
[]
] |
|
kis3p | what is the difference between aa and aaa batteries? | They are both rated at 1.5V so whats the difference? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kis3p/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_aa_and_aaa/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2kkkhl",
"c2klezp",
"c2ko0jc",
"c2kkkhl",
"c2klezp",
"c2ko0jc"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2,
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"size and weight - bigger batteries have more capacity, so last longer given the same work to do, but are bigger and heavier, and sometimes that's a bad thing. C and D sized batteries are also 1.5V",
"Voltage is a measure of output, not capacity.\n\nYou might have two scooters, both rated to travel at 60 km/h, only one has a gas tank twice the size of the other. They both could go 60, but one will be able to do it twice as long.\n\nThat is the difference between 1.5V AAA and AA (and C and D) batteries.",
"One is smaller.",
"size and weight - bigger batteries have more capacity, so last longer given the same work to do, but are bigger and heavier, and sometimes that's a bad thing. C and D sized batteries are also 1.5V",
"Voltage is a measure of output, not capacity.\n\nYou might have two scooters, both rated to travel at 60 km/h, only one has a gas tank twice the size of the other. They both could go 60, but one will be able to do it twice as long.\n\nThat is the difference between 1.5V AAA and AA (and C and D) batteries.",
"One is smaller."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1u369r | why do heaters smell like burnt hair? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u369r/eli5_why_do_heaters_smell_like_burnt_hair/ | {
"a_id": [
"cee1g52"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"probably because dust and loose hair eventually land on the heaters and then get burnt up"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6xz14e | what has caused this sudden surge of non standard online mattress companies in recent years? (ex: ghost bed, purple, leesa) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6xz14e/eli5_what_has_caused_this_sudden_surge_of_non/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmk40ef"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because mattress sales are a very, very high margin business and you can produce a 'good enough' mattress for a much lower price and ship it compressed in a roll. In other words it's the perfect business for a tech company to 'disrupt' and undercut with online orders.\n\nYou ever wonder why sometimes there will be two Mattress Firms across the street from eachother? Or three different mattress stores in the same shopping center? It's because they only have to sell *ONE* mattress a week to stay in business. They'll sell a 3000$ mattress and make a 2500$ profit on it which pays for the salesman and the building. And people think they actually need these mattresses, partly because of the heavy advertising and/or fear of making an incorrect large purchase.\n\nNow you can make a cheap, 'good enough' mattress for maybe 25$ in a Chinese factory, and they've recently invented rolling machines that can super-compress these mattresses for shipping at a reasonable cost. So even if you only sell it for 200$ you're still making a lot of money.\n\nSoon we'll probably see some of these online retailers move into physical stores and undercutting the Mattress Firms of the world."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6dx7qn | what prompted the trend of denoting us currency amounts backwards (400$ instead of $400 for example)? | I see this on Reddit and elsewhere on the internet. At first I assumed the writers must be international users, used to formatting currency amounts differently, but have noted enough Americans do it there must be a reason beyond ignorance of how American currency amounts should be written. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dx7qn/eli5_what_prompted_the_trend_of_denoting_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"di62ryt",
"di66go6",
"di6g12l"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It varies by country. The English speaking world generally puts the sign first, the French-speaking world (including French-Canadian) tends to put the sign after. \n\n400$ matches how you say it (\"400 dollars\", not \"dollars 400\"). Writing it as $400.00 works better on a check because it prevents anyone from changing the amount ",
"It is from the French Canadians. In English the $ should always go in front of the number. This is distinguish monetary counting numbers from other counting numbers in an accounting book. But other languages have different standards and it is common for French to put their currency markers after monetary figures. So the issue we are seeing is French Canadians, Frenchmen speaking in English, and people of other language traditions putting it after. They are wrong as they are speaking in English, but it is a minor if annoying offense. \n\nFor the Americans that seem to be doing it at an increasing rate, well they seem to either be typing fast and it is a typo, or they are ignorant of the actual rules of English. ",
"I'm curious, OP, you say you've seen Americans doing this. In what context, and how are you so sure they are Americans?\n\nI ask because I've definitely seen a lot of people do this, including people whose spelling was very American. Whenever I asked them, though, they were always people for whom English was a second language (and predominantly European) - it's just that they learned American English instead of British/Queen's English, so they often came across as being American, especially in media-centric contexts (where they were likely to pick up a lot of American colloquial language as well).\n\nUnless you're explicitly getting it confirmed that the users you are seeing are Americans, you might actually just be seeing Europeans/non-Americans who have a really, really good grasp of English (but still let a few things slip through)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1u5b4p | why don't movie actors pour water on bombs to defuse it instead of cutting wires? | Is is practical to do so? Or is it dangerous? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u5b4p/eli5_why_dont_movie_actors_pour_water_on_bombs_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceen5nj",
"ceena6o",
"ceenktb",
"ceenm2u",
"ceenvya",
"ceeovfe"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're probably water proof, and most characters don't have bottles of water on them, and it would destroy the action ",
"It would depend on how waterproof the casing is, what the accelerant was, and what the electronics do.\n\nThe first needs no explanation.\n\nThe second: gunpowder won't explode when it's wet. Plastic explosives won't care. Edit: other propellants, I can't say. Although when you dump a container of brake fluid on HTH Pool stuff, you get a nice little chemical fire. Sometimes an explosion. \n\nThe third: what happens when you short out the electronics? Well, worst-case, it was that electrical charge holding things in a safe fashion. Your electrical short might have just pulled the pin/ allowed to explode that thing you didn't want exploding. \n\nSource: Dad blew shit up as a kid, and was also a Marine in the '60's\nThen reminisced with his brothers at the dining room table, when we were kids. My brother and I would listen and compare notes later. \nMonkey see, monkey do.\n\nThankfully, I still have all my fingers.",
"Because most bombs are either waterproof, or the water could actually trigger a detonation. The problem being, you don't know which!\n\nImprovised explosive device anatomy:\n\n* You have the explosive itself: Petrol, C4, TATP, whatever.\n\n* You have a detonator: This is a small explosive charge which normally uses an electrical current to detonate, and triggers detonation of the \"bulk\" of the bomb, the actual explosive.\n\n* you have a trigger circuit, on timer, switch or whatever, that passes the current to the detonator to trigger the explosion. This can be complex circuitry, or a very basic hacked together circuit.\n\nSo the LAST thing you want to do with an \"unknown\" device is chuck water at it. You could well cause the trigger mechnism to fail/engage, and detonate the explosion.\n\n\nIn real life, water can be used to destroy bombs, but it tends to be by way of a very powerful water jet that shreds all the parts away from one another and stops the bomb from being able to detonate, or even via a [shaped charge ](_URL_0_). So water can be helpful in bomb disposal, but it's not a case of \"dunk it and hope\".",
"It would depend on the explosives and the trigger, etc.\n\nFor example; the classic clock bomb, where you stick a nail through the glass of a clock, and wire it. This fires when the hand makes contact with the nail aand completes the electrical circuit. Water is liable just to short circuit it and set it off.\n\nTriggers could be electrical, mechanical, chemical, or anything. What water would do depends on the mechanisms used. Chemicals might react to the water, electronics might stop.\n\nAlso, the standard scenes with bomb disposal technicians are played with the assumption that the bomb is booby trapped in case somebody tries to disable it.",
"The reason it's not done in real like is that bombs would logically be set up to fail deadly (opposite of fail-safe).\n\nA fail-safe mechanism is one that, in case something goes wrong, will default to a configuration most likely to produce a safe outcome. For example, the brakes on an 18-wheeler are fail-safe: during normal operation, pneumatic or hydraulic systems are in place that hold them open. In case of a leak or other damage to the brake system, the air or fluid will leak out, applying the brakes and preventing the truck from running away.\n\nA bomb, on the other hand, would probably be set up to fail deadly. What that means is that the timer isn't going to start the detonator; it might actually be preventing the detonator from going off. If you short out the timer, the detonator loses the inhibiting external force and activates, and our hero gets awful explodey.",
"I would think the main reason is what would happen if you did pour water on electronic circuitry, it would create short circuits across the components and increase the chance of detonation. water damages circuits because of high currents across components that weren't designed for high current. if you take the power source off of most electronics and submerge them in water, when dry they will work just as they did before the submersion. you could dip your cell phone in oil and it would still work fine for the most part because it contains no water. oil is used as a coolant in high voltage transformers. water has minerals that act as conductors, the more minerals the better the conductor. you might get away with a quick submersion in distilled water as most of the minerals have been left behind from the boiling process. I make collodial silver from distilled water and it takes quite a long while ( days ) to get enough conductivity to transfer any significant current. tap water will cook my electrodes in less than 1 hour.\nEdit: also , I have a degree in electrical engineering, but that doesn't make me smart, just trained well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RclLCV9JUE"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.