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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
q44l3 | why are monitors wider, and not taller? | And TVs for that matter. Also, why don't they have the same height and width? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q44l3/eli5_why_are_monitors_wider_and_not_taller/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3ujxk4",
"c3uk7il",
"c3ulkn9",
"c3ulqlw",
"c3um3aw",
"c3umhjj",
"c3un4ct",
"c3uo17s",
"c3urpii"
],
"score": [
116,
2,
12,
3,
4,
44,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Human vision is much wider than it is tall. You can see things far off to the side without moving your eyes much. So TV and movie screens are wide. And computer screens are wide in case you want to watch a TV show or a movie on them. Some computer screens can rotate so they are tall and narrow.",
"Another reason to consider is that the first monitors (and computers) were designed for typing/reading text, and most countries write words horizontally, so it may be a reason for monitors to be wider than tall.",
"Weren't TV sizes switched [from square] to more closely match movie screen aspect ratios?",
"For programming I turn my monitor sideways so it's taller",
"I have dual monitors that are mounted vertically for work. Web pages are vertical, not horizontal, so it just makes sense. ",
"This has a very simple answer.\n\nOur vison is wider than it is taller.\n\nLook at your face. Notice how you have two eyes. Notice how the eyes are left/right of each other. They are not stacked above/below.\n\nLeft/right pair of eyes means our vision is wider than taller. Hence wider movies and monitors.",
"Our eyes are situated horizontally so that we can scan the horizon and have better peripheral vision relative to the Earth. Same goes for our ears.",
"After a quick glance, no one has said the golden ratio & phi. Op Google it, in the pub on smoke/reddit break ATM so can't elobrate",
"Because our eyes are side by side not one on top of the other"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
be49zm | why does healthcare is the usa differ from most western countries? i don't think any european country practice healthcare in the same manner. why is there such a big difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/be49zm/eli5_why_does_healthcare_is_the_usa_differ_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"el2zmk1",
"el2zmwi",
"el30sdw",
"el30wde",
"el31fjs",
"el31xal"
],
"score": [
4,
14,
3,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, the USA was very opposed to socialism and anything that even HINTED of Communism for decades, as part of our cold war with the USSR. As such, there's generations of Americans who believe that government run health care will be a terrible idea and kill people, and that even suggesting that we go that route is a violation of everything America stands for.",
"if anything ever seems weird about the US, the answer is that it's making a few people very rich. \n\nwe're at war because it's making a few companies rich. We fuck you over if you get sick or injured because it makes insurance companies rich. Our police are the way that they are because it puts healthy, younger men in prison for labor, and prison labor is making some companies rich.",
"Very much oversimplified, in Europe, the government sees it as one of their main tasks to ensure that businesses don't trample on the rights of the citizens. In the US, it's the other way around.",
"The two big reasons are:\n\nA) During WWII a law was passed controlling wages, to prevent inflation when labor markets tightened up. So companies used health care benefits to attract workers instead. This became standard practice to this day.\n\nB) After the war the Cold War made anything that smacked of communism difficult to accomplish. We managed to get single-payer for people over 65, but not the rest. It was FDRs goal, but we have never been able to do it. Now our health insurance companies spend millions to block every attempt.",
"You can combine the statements of both /u/mugenhunt and /u/sikkerhet into a more or less complete explanation.\n\nThe 'Red Scare' to this day continues to be exploited by the private sector to avoid regulation and maximize profits. Deregulation allows for both incredible corner-cutting and price-gouging, and that sort of profitability means the \"pennies\" you can throw at political campaigners in exchange for their backing once in office are quite huge.\n\n* You'll notice however that they're very quick to claim that unlike everything else, copyright needs incredibly powerful 'protections', lest you or I 'download a car'\n\nSo you've got politicians bought and paid for by unbelievably-profitable (AFTER those fabled R & D operating costs they always claim as the reason) companies whose interests are best served by the system we have now. This is why you get attack ads 'warning' that universal healthcare would be composed of \"death panels\" - partly because that sort of misinformation-disseminating is not prosecuted. Single-payer systems negotiate or even (gasp) regulate prices to ensure the government's treasury isn't being fleeced *too* badly every second. Because your money is \"the government's\" money, rather than merely *your* money.\n\nSimply put, ultra-rich corporations own our lawmakers, so the laws are written or unwritten to benefit them at every step.",
"This is because in USA a group of people found out that people will pay \\_anything\\_ for their health, and started exploiting it.\n\nThen they used those money, to buy poiticians to establish anti-competetive laws, and spread propaganda, that any effort to cut their profits, is a comunist plot to destroy America.\n\nSo now there's an entire country of people who think that their system is absolutely the best, even though it's worst, thanks to carefully crafted propaganda campaign financed by their own money."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1molcy | how do maggots grow in infections (ex. the mouth) if there aren't any to lay eggs in such places? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1molcy/eli5_how_do_maggots_grow_in_infections_ex_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccb5qzu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The maggots are the larvae of the flies that lay the eggs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
170v89 | why doesn't the nes zapper for duck hunt work on new tvs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/170v89/eli5_why_doesnt_the_nes_zapper_for_duck_hunt_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c817d7n",
"c81fjzl"
],
"score": [
13,
6
],
"text": [
"When you pulled the trigger, the screen flashes black with a white square around the object. A photodiode on the zapper detects what colour the aimed screen is, and if its white you get a hit.\n\nThat's all I know, as for why it doesn't work now I have no idea. Probably because the form of photodiode doesnt pick up the light from a LCD, LED or Plasma display.",
"The NES zapper is synchronised with the refresh rates and scan rates of old CRT TVs. New TVs use different methods of displaying frames and show full frames instead of scanning across the screen in lines. This causes the zapper to go out of sync with the TVs and not detect the white square when used."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5zas9s | how do bullets go out of the barrel without destroying the gun? | I Get that this place isn't R/nostupidquestions
But I seriously wonder how bullets go out of the barrel so fast without lets say touching the side of the barrel or the bottom of the chamber where they were fired from.
So yea I want to know how, Especially when there are videos of untrained people using guns, Who trip and fall and their hand remains on the trigger, While they are falling the bullets go straight out of the gun and never hit the gun itself from the inside. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zas9s/eli5_how_do_bullets_go_out_of_the_barrel_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"dewn9e1",
"dewna0m",
"dewnbbh",
"dewo1g9",
"dewohn1",
"dewukzz",
"dex161q",
"dex2whv"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
2,
20,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It does touch the barrel. The bullet is exactly the size of the inner bore of the barrel, that's how the barrel can project the bullet in a perfectly straight direction. (along with rifling which gives the bullet spin which also helps with accuracy)",
"The bullet is almost the exact same size as the barrel. In fact the bullet slides along the barrel just tightly enough that the grooves (rifling) in the barrel contact the bullet and cause it to spin in flight.",
"Bullets touch the inside of the gun's barrel during normal operation. There's *rifling* inside the barrel that's supposed to impart spin on the bullet. Part of the reason you need to frequently clean guns is to get rid of the metal that's rubbed off.\n\nAs for why the bullet doesn't hit the bottom of the chamber, most (all?) modern mechanisms make sure the round is firmly inside the barrel before you can fire. Sometimes a gun will jam, when a round doesn't feed properly but the gun shouldn't be able fire with it like that.\n\nFor reference, here's an animation of the AR-15/M-16 mechanism in action so you can see how everything feeds & lines up.",
"Something nobody has mentioned yet is that bullets are generally made of a much softer metal than the barrel. \n\nThe barrel is steel (very hard), and the bullet is lead, which is extremely soft. It may be jacketed with a copper alloy, but those are also much softer than steel.\n\nA soft metal has a lot of trouble damaging a much harder one.\n\n(Steel-jacketed bullets exist for special purposes, but they're rare exactly because they wear out the barrel quickly.)",
"A good example could be a tube of tennis balls (that's what they sell 'em in). The balls are almost exactly the size of the tube. If you have a single ball in an open-topped tube and swing it in a wide arc, the ball doesn't start bouncing around the tube since the tight space only allows the momentum of the ball only to move along the length of the tube. The ball should exit pretty straight from the tube at that point.",
" > So yea I want to know how, Especially when there are videos of untrained people using guns, Who trip and fall and their hand remains on the trigger, While they are falling the bullets go straight out of the gun and never hit the gun itself from the inside.\n\nIf you are wondering why the bullet doesn't arc into the barrel itself, when the gun is traveling in an arc while being fired, this is simple physics. It is the same reason the Earth spinning doesn't mean you have to run to keep up with it's rotation: you are rotating too. If you are moving the gun in an arc while firing it, the bullet is also moving in that arc, affected by the same force that is moving the gun in that arc. It will only be when the bullet is free of the gun, when the force being applied to the gun is no longer being applied to the bullet, that it will start traveling in a straight line.\n\nedit: Of course the key is what others have said, the reason the bullet isn't free of the force moving the gun in an arc the moment it is fired, is that the bullet is touching the gun for the entire time it is in the barrel.",
"The bullets do rub against the inside of the barrel. But the barrel is made of very hard steel, while most bullets are lined with a very soft metal like copper or brass. So the barrel rubs grooves in the bullet (this is how CSI can match a bullet to a gun) but the softer bullet does little damage to the gun.\n\nI did say little, though, not none. It leaves behind traces of metal that need to be cleaned out periodically (along with soot and such from the gunpowder), and will eventually wear down the grooves in the barrel (rifling) to the point it should be replaced. It's just that the amount of shots you need to fire to get noticeable damage is much much more than most guns are ever fired.",
"Using a regular semi-auto handgun like a Glock as an example here: \n\nThe bullet does touch the inside of the barrel, but just barely. When the trigger is pulled a thing called a firing pin hits the bottom of the shell casing (the brass thing on the bottom of the bullet which hold the bullet and gunpowder. The casing is designed to fit fairly snugly and create a bit of a seal. \n\nThe firing pin ignites a tiny explosion which *then* ignites the gunpowder right behind the bullet. That creates tremendous pressure in a very small space and both pops the bullet out of the shell casing *and* out of the barrel. Picture the way a space rocket launches in stages, it's sort of like that. The shell casing is like the first and second stage. The explosion of gunpowder builds up a bunch of pressure and gasses inside the barrel and the bullet, which just barely touches the inside of the barrel has nowhere to go but out the end. As was mentioned, rifling (like spiral grooves in the barrel) puts a spin on the bullet, kind of like when you throw a football. That helps the bullet stay on a more level path longer as it flies through the air.\n\nThe bullet is like the space capsule or satellite or warhead. The difference being that as the bullet is fired the shell casing is \"stuck\" so it can't follow it out of the barrel. The energy of the explosion is also used to cycle the guns action (moves some pieces in one direction and then they are forced back into place by strong springs.)\n\nThat cycling action pulls a little hook called an extractor back that grabs the rim of the shell casing and flings it out a hole in the slide (the boxy metal tube that surrounds the outside of the barrel on a semi-automatic pistol like a Glock). That makes room for the next shell (fresh casing with a bullet inside) which gets pushed into the chamber by springs in the magazine (a little box inside the grip of the gun that holds the ammunition).\n\nGun barrels are made from very strong steel that can contain all of that pressure and are much harder than the lead and/or copper that the bullet is made of. Once you fire a gun a bunch of times, say 2-300 bullets, the inside of the gun gets kind of dirty. Most of it is black soot and stuff left behind by the gunpowder burning, but a little bit is lead or copper that rubs off the bullet on its way out of the barrel. You clean all that out using special solvents and a brush and little cloths. \n\nThe bullet moves in a straight line and doesn't bang around in the gun even if someone doesn't hold the gun firmly because its all held in place by the shell casing and because the bullet is just the right size to loosely fill the barrel. It also helps that the bullet exits the barrel so quickly with so much force that there is no way anything can knock it around. Bullets move VERY fast. Like 800-1000 feet *per second* Many go faster than that, like 3000+ feet per second. 1000 feet is as tall as a skyscraper. So imagine of you fired a gun straight up from the bottom of One World Trade or the Sears Tower. The bullet would reach the top of the building in about a second! Or if you use a football field, a *slow* bullet can cross the length of 5 football fields in *one second*. A fast one can cross 10-15 football fields in a second! Most bullets go so fast they break the sound barrier and that's part of the \"bang\" that a gun makes when you fire it (along with the gunpowder exploding) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15bal1 | the nuremberg trials and how "following orders" isn't a valid defense. | This is going to be a long one.... td;dr at the bottom.
In the military, if you disobey an order (and I'm talking a big/important one) you'll get court martialed correct? And the results of such court martials are lengthy jail or prison time right?
Now let's say it's during a period of high tension or aggression, where the consequences of such a court martial would result in extremely long prison sentences, being sent to a labour camp or execution. What then? Are you still supposed to follow orders according to your own conscience? What if following or not following orders would result in lengthy prison sentences or eventual execution?
***
~~Here's a scenario, you're Hans Fritz in the Wehrmacht and you come across a bunch of jewish, homosexual, communist,Poles who really don't like the idea of getting into a train. Your CO orders you and your buddies to line them against a wall and execute them. You're a loyal member of the State but somehow you feel that this *isn't* right. What are you supposed to do? You don't know that the Allies are going to win.~~
~~####On one hand:~~
~~* You're a loyal member of the state, party and military. You *did* volunteer...~~
~~* It's expected of you and while your buddies are looking uneasy about it, a job is a job and you *were* ordered.~~
~~* If you don't follow through, you'll get court martialed, your family may suffer consequences at home and you might get sent to one of those prison camps you keep hearing about.~~
~~#### On the other hand:~~
~~* *If* the Allies win, you'll probably get sent to prison or executed. **But you don't know that.**~~
~~* What *can* you do about it? It's not the best situation but you can't just shoot your CO and the rest of your group.~~
~~* If you don't do it, someone else will.~~
My question is ~~**how valid are these statements?**~~ Lets say you refuse to do it and your CO points his Walther at your head. What then? **Are you "legally required" to let him kill you?**
My other question is according to the international courts, **what are you supposed to do when ordered to commit a war crime or do anything "unethical"?**
##I could come up with a more modern, less ambiguous scenario if necessary.
Lets say you're an American Soldier sent to an area that has been recently hit by a natural disaster. When you get there, you are told by the state to collect firearms from anybody you see. As in somebody is protecting their house with a shotgun, you're to go over to them and relieve them of it. Or (now this is hypothetical) you're supposed to detail citizens and leave them tied up in the streets. Or you're ordered to break into peoples homes and seize their property? Or (now super hypothetical) what if you're ordered to execute American citizens without a fair trial during a national emergency or martial law?
According to the American constitution that's supposed to be illegal. And don't soldiers say an oath when they enlist that they'll obey the constitution?
And god forbid, you as an American Soldier, disagree with your orders and are forced to shoot your CO and anybody not with you. What's going to happen to you? What if **you do agree** with your orders and violate the constitution and/or commit a war crime, what kind of defense can you put up?
TL;DR What if worst came to worst and [THIS GUY](_URL_0_) had to shoot his CO? What if he didn't and was tried? Is he allowed to say "I was just following orders?" What if he was forced to by either a gun to the head or by prison time?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15bal1/eli5_the_nuremberg_trials_and_how_following/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7kwg5b",
"c7kwh0f",
"c7kwnwo",
"c7kxn9x",
"c7kxvke",
"c7kyybp"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Just to point it out, no lowly guards as you described got killed. They got fines, and small ones. And there were many who were noted as sadistic that then hid behind the \"following orders\" defense. But few people who did not plan things got prison, and none got death.",
"To start with Nuremberg only dealt with the highest ranking Nazi Party officials & military leaders - people in positions of great power. People like Hans would have been picked up in one of the smaller post-war trials, if at all.\n\nIn the vast majority of cases, it was only people in leadership positions that were convicted. The 18yo kid that was conscripted and forced to load people onto a train was ignored - it would be the people that ran camps, performed medical experiments on prisoners & the handful of guards that actively & openly abused prisoners (rather than just keeping them in inhumane conditions).",
"It is and it isn't, its quite a grey area in a lot of cases. Basically the cases general go that if you did more then you were forced to (like getting promoted or volunteering for things like the SS) then you are guilty. Low level individuals who had to partake or be shot would not be prosecuted.",
"For the most part, \"following orders\" *is* a valid defense...soldiers are expected to carry the orders of their superiors. In most situations, their superiors will be held solely responsible for the consequences.\n\nWhat the post WWII trials established is that it is not a *universal* defense. There are certain crimes so horrible, like rape and torture, that a solider is considered complicit even if they were just following orders. Where exactly that line is is a matter of much debate.",
" > My other question is according to the international courts, what are you supposed to do when ordered to commit a war crime or do anything \"unethical\"?\n\nWhat your are generally 'supposed' to do (when serving in the military) is follow orders. What you are asked to do is make a simple determination if the orders are to do something against the law (murder, rape, etc.).\n\nI'm not sure what the confusion is but in your example, in the U.S. armed forces there is not a CO that has the authority to murder anyone in their company. If a CO is threatening an enlisted solider with a gun, then I would think we drift into the realm of self defense.",
"The Milgram experiment shows that it should be a valid defense... "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/159oc2/i_ama_soldier_who_was_asked_to_take_weapons_from/"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zyiey | why can't people in the us sue individual police officers like we can doctors? | If something happens to me in the OR, I'm able to sue both the hospital and the individual doctors involved (the reason they carry malpractice insurance). Why is it then that I'm only able to sue the police force as a whole and not the individual officers as well? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zyiey/eli5_why_cant_people_in_the_us_sue_individual/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpng7do",
"cpnhrby",
"cpno5f8"
],
"score": [
9,
22,
3
],
"text": [
" > Why is it then that I'm only able to sue the police force as a whole and not the individual officers as well?\n\nThe officers are expected to put themselves into difficult positions as part of their duty, and are not paid enough to afford the expensive malpractice insurance that doctors must carry. The assumption of the risk is taken on by the government agency itself as a necessity of having anyone be willing to take the job.",
"The state asserts \"sovereign immunity\". In other words, you can't sue the King (or the King's agents, etc.) unless the King agrees to let you. We don't have a King, but our government retains sovereign immunity.\n\nThere are many times you can sue the state even when it doesn't want to let you. Exceptions to sovereign immunity have been carved out of many laws and are commonplace, but one place it is not is in the exercise of police power. It makes good sense for this to be so, or everyone who was arrested would sue, and the police force would be unable to operate.\n\nTypically the redress for issues with police misbehavior is through the ballot box, not the court system. The police are accountable to elected authorities, who can, will and do force them to alter their behavior and in some cases waive immunity so a lawsuit against truly egregious behavior can go forward.",
"In many places you absolutely can. You can sue the officer for a particular incident. If the department stands behind the actions of the officer and says \"this guy/gal was acting within the legal scope of his/her duties and didn't act outside departmental policy\" then the department is required to cover any/all costs associated with the lawsuit. Honestly, this is what lawyers and plaintiffs are hoping for as the city/county/state has much deeper pockets than the officer. \nIf the department says the officer acted outside policy and/or law, the officer can be on their own. \nMany officers have started suing people who assault them and they're winning. Goes both ways. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bl701r | money laundering. i've seen all the tv shows and i still don't fully understand how you "clean" it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bl701r/eli5_money_laundering_ive_seen_all_the_tv_shows/ | {
"a_id": [
"emm5sl5",
"emm61xp",
"emm64rx",
"emmp2rh",
"emmrshi"
],
"score": [
14,
8,
81,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"You can’t just deposit large amounts of money into a bank without people taking notice and wondering where it came from, that just screams illegal income. If you have a business you can deposit that money and say it came from the business instead. Thus it has been “cleaned” and appears to be legitimately earned and taxed money.",
"Okay. So let's say that I earn a lot of illegal money from selling drugs. If all of a sudden, I start dropping thousands of dollars left and right when I don't have a job, the police and the IRS are going to investigate where all that money is coming from. I could get caught and sent to jail. BUT, I want to be able to spend all that illegal money I've gotten! \n\n\nThe trick is to have a business that isn't expected to have lots of records, which people are likely to use cash to pay for. Like, a laundry. I can then run a laundry, and while it may only earn a few hundred dollars a day, I can lie and pretend it made a lot more, by using that illegal money I made. So if I get someone with my illegal drug money to spend all of it at my laundry, it's now easy for me to spend all of that money because I \"earned\" it. \n\n\nSo the trick is to have a business where people use cash, and where it's hard for folks to examine and check how much you are actually selling, so that you can convert your illegal money, which if you use will get you arrested if the police figure it out, into money that you can explain where it came from and thus the police won't be able to arrest you.",
"You need a legit business that deals in cash, say a car wash.\n\nThen, let's say you cook the best meth in all of New Mexico and you need to be able to use the money you make selling it to pay for legitimate stuff, like cancer treatments. \n\nNow, you'll slowly bring some of the cash you made selling your meth to the car wash and give it to your accountant wife, who is in on the game.\n\nShe will create receipts for things that never happened and attach them to the illegally gained cash. She'll probably tell you to dump out some car carpet shampoo and such to support the fake receipt.\n\nNow, just bring all that cash to the bank and deposit it into the car wash's account.\n\nYou'll probably run into a problem with having to launder too much money to stand an audit. So you probably should have set up a chicken fast food restaurant with a lot of locations.",
"In the simplest explanation I can give - if you need your ill-gotten gains to be in your bank and not in a box under the bed you need some explanation for where that money came from otherwise it’ll raise some eyebrows.\n\nTo do this you need a business that you can falsify records in to “launder” the dirty money through, which you then pay tax on, and have the “clean” money more legitimately accessible.",
"Car wash, hotel, bar, restaurants... Lots of ways to do money laundry.\n\nRendezvous hotels are the best. You put your rooms as occupied, nobody pays with credit card there anyways while putting your own cash money in the cash register. Of course you lose money during the progress but at least now you can bring it to the bank."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3b9wx8 | i'm british. how could greece defaulting on its loan repayment and leaving the eurozone affect me, the rest of the eu and the global economy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b9wx8/eli5im_british_how_could_greece_defaulting_on_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"csk9gg6",
"cska49s"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"For one thing, some of that debt is owed to UK banks and institutions. They will have to take a loss, which could mean everything to high interest rates to outright bank failures.\n\nIt will heard the economies of the EU in general, and those are some of the UK biggest trading partners.\n\nOne the other hand, the weakened euro might make the pound more attractive, which could boost the UK economy.",
"If Greece defaults on its loan payments, the following might happen (in no particular order):\n\n1. It sets up a bad precedent. Perhaps it will encourage other countries to borrow too much money and do risky things in the future. If Greece doesn't have to repay its loans, why should other countries?\n\n2. It means Greece will have difficulty borrowing any money for a long time. If they decided not to pay back these loans, they might not pay back similar loans in the future.\n\n3. It means people will be more pessimistic in the state of the Greek economy and Greek's trading partners, and by extension in the global economy; such pessimism can hurt stock markets.\n\n4. It means Greece will not pay back the entities it owes money to, which may include your country.\n\n5. Other countries may be more likely to emulate Greece and default on their payments.\n\n5. Other countries may be more likely to leave the Eurozone for other reasons when times are bad, sticking Britain (and other countries) with the bill for their mistakes.\n\nThat's just off the top of my head..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1rx3g9 | is it possible to put a backdoor in linux? | And is it worth it? I ve seen an interview of Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) who is asked quite this way "did the n.s.a asked you to put backdoors in linux" and he answered "no" but made obviously a face that meant "yes". | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rx3g9/eli5_is_it_possible_to_put_a_backdoor_in_linux/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdrrv0p",
"cdrx944"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's certainly possible. The problem is that all of the source code of Linux is open source. That means everyone in the world can read the lines of code. So if someone wrote in a backdoor, it's there for anyone to find. \n\nIf such a backdoor was found it would seriously question the credibility of Linux and could very likely spawn forks of the code that had much stricter security requirements. ",
"Someone tried in 2003.\n\n_URL_0_ (the guy who runs that is a princeton prof)\n\nWe don't know if any efforts have since succeeded. There's some evidence that Linus was asked to put in a Linux backdoor, and since Linux itself rarely ships entirely by itself there could be a backdoor in say Ubuntu or Redhat or the like and you suddenly realize the scale of the problem. Thousands upon thousands of programmers writing hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of code, and a single 'mistake' and you've got a problem. \n\nThe 'it's open source' argument isn't so good. The scale and complexity of the system means even if you think it's been reviewed and checked lots of places, or if it gets discovered a problem could have been there for a while. \n\nWhich ultimately is what all linux kernel vulnerabilities could be, a deliberate vulnerability made to look like a coding mistake. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/the-linux-backdoor-attempt-of-2003/"
]
] |
|
fnn31c | how are any factories able to retool at all, let alone quickly? (like from cars to n95 masks) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fnn31c/eli5_how_are_any_factories_able_to_retool_at_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"flagppg",
"flahjfg"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"A car factory usually have a subsection of the assembly line making the textile for the interior of the car. They use common machines for cutting and sowing the material from the same model line as the factories which make face masks. The machines might be a different size so they would not be ideal for setting up a face mask factory but they operate just the same and you might just need to change out the tools in the machines, change the input material and reprogram them for the different pattern and they will now make a very different product. Another way to make face masks is to press fiber together. And a car factory is in no short supply of pressing machines. However again most of their presses are heavy duty presses for pressing big steel sheets into car parts but they can be adjusted for lower pressures in order to press together fiber into face masks. You are now using a big expensive machine for a job that can easily done by a much cheaper lighter duty machine but it is still fully possible. They just need to adjust the pressure and change the die from car parts to face masks. And instead of sending the work to the nearby drilling and wielding machines for finishing they need to send them across the entire plant to the sowing machines to be finished. It is also possible to use similar techniques to make face shields, gloves, etc.\n\nThe issue is that you are now using the wrong model of machines for the job. The work needs to be shipped back and forth across the factory to the different machines as your assembly line is set up wrong. A lot of machines will be without work. Even the machines with work will mostly wait for other machines or for the work to be transported. So yes, it would be inefficient to convert a factory but it is possible. Depending on how long they are going to do it for they might also move the machines around to make a more efficient assembly line and they might buy some new machines where there are bottlenecks.",
"Might just be a reason to keep doors open.. maybe while your “re-tooling” you are also running normal production or other activities."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6bt7s0 | what causes the supercontinent cycle? | Why do tectonic plates that are being forced together suddenly reverse direction and begin to move apart? Why do plates moving away from one another reverse direction and begin heading towards one another? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bt7s0/eli5_what_causes_the_supercontinent_cycle/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhprya6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As you can imagine, it's a slow process. Tectonic plates move at a rate of anywhere between mm to several cm a year. No plates coming together ever 'suddenly' reverse direction, they slow down and may stay joined together for millions of years before breaking apart. \n\n\nTo answer your question though, you need to understand the forces that are acting on tectonic plates. There are lots, but only a couple of important ones to mention here:\n\n\n• Slab pull, in which the [subducted](_URL_1_) slab of a tectonic plate is pulling on the rest of the plate and dragging it along the length of the ocean floor. \n\n\n• Ridge push, in which the mound of newly generated crust at a [mid-ocean ridge](_URL_2_) causes gravitational instability and so effectively pushes the crust down the slope and out across the ocean floor. \n\n\nThis ocean basins are like a conveyor belt of rock, gradually creeping across the Earth's interior and being recycled back into the mantle at subduction zones. The continents are made of more bouyant rock which doesn't subduct into the Earth, and so they are just shuffled around and slotted together, broken apart and deformed as they take a ride on the tectonic plate. (A plate can have oceanic crust on it, continental crust, or combination of the two). The motions are somewhat unpredictable partly due to the complex processes going on deep in the Earth, which have consequences for tectonic motion, but also because the Earth is (almost) a sphere. Make a bunch of separate sections in the outer layers of a sphere and for them to move around they will need to move at different rates, jostle about, have subduction arcs that curve across the Earth and create differential motion. \n\n\n[Check out this animation of tectonic motion, which illustrates nicely the migration of spreading ridges across ocean floors.](_URL_0_)\n\n\nWhere things get interesting is when one of the spreading ridges themselves, or perhaps a large area of seafloor material erupted in some ancient superplume event meets a subduction zone. This can change the rate of subduction, change the direction a bit, or even jam it up. When a continent meets a subduction zone it definitely jams it up, and the only way to go is over or up. If there is a continental crust on the other side of the subduction zone then they will get squished together and start to deform upwards. This is how the Himalayas formed, when the Indian plate rammed into the Eurasian plate some 50 million years ago. Initially there was plenty of oceanic crust to subduct, but when continental crust met continental crust the mountain range began to form. \n\n\nOne of the mechanisms thought to be able to break apart supercontinental landmasses is this: once the supercontinent has formed, it effectively forms a 'blanket' of thick crust on one side of the Earth. The heat flow from mantle convection currents will therefore build up under this continental blanket for millions of years until it's hot enough to affect the dynamics of the crust above, weakening parts enough to thin it and punch through. If this evolves into a spreading ridge then you have new directions of motion for plates to be pushed in and eventual breakup of the supercontinent. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www-udc.ig.utexas.edu/external/becker/visualizations/mullerage.mov1.gif",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge"
]
] |
|
5d2e7u | why are there so many different sim card sizes when the 'chip' is always the same size? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d2e7u/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_different_sim_card/ | {
"a_id": [
"da17e07",
"da1ovpm"
],
"score": [
16,
6
],
"text": [
"You can ask the same question about file formats or usb connector types..\n\nFor something that is made in big numbers with machines to be used by many people, it must be made in the same way each time. In order so that we don't have to make a special sim card for every phone model we just agree on a size. We call this standardization. It saves a lot of time and money. How a sim cards looks is the result of standardization. At first they were big like credit cards, because we also had calling cards, which people already knew. Then they realised they can make them even smaller, which would also save space in the casing of the phone. But each time they had to agree with other makers of phones what the exact sizes were. They did this many times, that is why we have so many different sizes.\n\nCould they have made them very small (like micro sim) to begin with? Probably, but I think they were trying to make them easy to use. (No tweezers or similar needed.) Also older phones were quite big so it didn't matter much. \n\n\n(heh writing for a 5 year old seems a little condescending when it's actually adults that read it.)\n",
"The \"standard\" in that picture is actually mini.\n\nA full sized SIM is the same as a credit card."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6rp4da | why is it easier to imitate someone who has a voice with a higher pitch than your own, rather than lower? | I've been trying to get better at doing impressions. Some people have requested that I try to do certain celebrities or characters, but when I imitate men, it's hard to make the voice sound natural. The lower register sounds breathy and weird. I also noticed men seem to be able to imitate women pretty easily. Is there a reason for this, and possibly a way to get better? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rp4da/eli5why_is_it_easier_to_imitate_someone_who_has_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl6qex5",
"dl6unwh"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Muscles in the larynx control the tension on your vocal chords, producing higher tones when they are taut and lower tones when relaxed. You can tighten them the way you would tighten any muscle, but you can only relax them so far. On their own, the chords produce a sound sort of like a trumpet's mouthpiece when air passes between them. Your throat, mouth, nose, and sinuses cause that sound to resonate in different ways to produce the sound we make when speaking. Everyone differs physically meaning everyone sounds a little different. As for improving your impersonations, try recording yourself and playing it back - you will hear what others hear and not your own voice in your own head. ",
"You are describing a falsetto voice technique.\n\nA falsetto uses harmonics (segments) of your vocal cords to produce higher pitches, while your normal speaking voice uses the entire length. Since you physically can't get lower than the entire length of your vocal cords there is a limit to the low. The harmonics however use whatever smaller segments you can learn to control."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
d0rd85 | what makes the brain go “wow this is delicious!” | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d0rd85/eli5_what_makes_the_brain_go_wow_this_is_delicious/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezd0bh6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Any food which are high in energy. Mostly, that means food that are high in sugar or fat, which is why junk food at sugary food taste so good.\n\nThe reason is because of evolution. For probably 180,000 years, humans were living as hunter gatherers, much like a lion. This means that food is hard to come by and people often starves. So, for that period of time, it make sense for our brain to crave high fat and high sugar food because food is rare and those food contains a lot of energy. Also, in those times, we move a lot so we can burn off the fat and it doesn't cause any issues. \n\nBut, now, food are abundant, but our brains do not have the time to re-adjust this evolutionary trait, so we still prefer high fat and high sugar food."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
a99zaw | why can't we see the moon's surface well enough to see lunar lander sites, but we're able to produce deeper space images with orbital telescopes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a99zaw/eli5_why_cant_we_see_the_moons_surface_well/ | {
"a_id": [
"echlw2x",
"echm3e1"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"The deep space images we get are of objects which are really, really big and usually emitting huge amounts of light on their own. It is like asking why you can't see an ant from 100 meters away but you can see a stadium from a mile away. A stadium which is on fire.",
"The atmosphere really clouds our vision (pun intended). It distorts what we see and how far we can see, orbital telescopes don't have that problem. Modern telescopes can see the moon's surface rather well though, but how well the details can be distinguished is limited by the atmosphere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3s3het | professional football | I don't understand anything except there are four quarters and a touchdown is worth 7points. I want to learn. I feel like there is a whole culture I am missing out on and want to learns about it | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s3het/eli5_professional_football/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwtsvm5",
"cwtt0pt"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well what do you want to learn about it? There's a whole lot going on. \nThe games are weekly, there is a 17 week schedule, and each team has a mid-season \"bye\" where they don't have a game and get to rest. After that, the best teams go to the playoffs and compete for the Super Bowl. \nA normal game has 4 quarters, divided into 2 halfs. In between, there is halftime, where the teams go to the locker rooms and take a break, get a new game plan, and tend to their sorenesses. \nTeams consist of lots of players with very specialized roles. Now I don't know what other sports backgrounds you come from, but there are offensive players, defensive players, and \"special teams\", the in-between for offense and defense. Quarters are 15 minutes, between the halfs play restarts, between the other quarters, you flip sides (so wind and other factors aren't unfair). While you are on offense, the other team is on defense, and you have 4 chances to get the ball 10 yards forwards. If you fail 4 times in a row, the other team gets the ball where they stopped you. On offense, you can run or pass. The coaches call plays for each team and if it's a run, the quarterback (fancy throwing dude) hands the ball to the running back (quick offense guy), and he gets to run with it until he is tackled or steps out of play. If he drops it, it's a \"fumble\" and either team can pick it up and run with it. If it's a pass, the quarterback has a chance to throw the ball to a wide receiver (pass catchy man) for much more yardage. If he drops it, the play is dead and nothing happens. If the other team catches it, they can run with it. \nTouchdowns are actually worth 6 points, and then the kicker has to come on and kick an \"extra point\". Field goals are just longer extra points, and are worth 3 points. If a team goes too far backwards, and gets tackled in their own end zone, it's worth 2 points to the defense.",
"The basic gist is that each team tries to advance the ball towards the other team's end-zone. To advance the ball, the team can either run with it or have the quarterback pass it forward from behind the line of scrimmage. Each attempt to advance the ball is called a \"play\", and the play is over when the ball is \"down\", either because the ball-carrier was taken to the ground by an opposing player (a \"tackle\") or the ball touches the ground without being caught (an \"incomplete pass\").\n\nWhen a team gets the ball, they will have four chances (\"downs\") to advance the ball 10 yards. If they make it, they get another four downs to advance 10 yards, and so on. If they cannot make 10 yards in four downs, the other team gets the ball. Because of this, on fourth down, teams will usually either punt (kick the ball far down the field so the other team has further to go to score) or if they are close enough, they'll kick a field goal for 3 points.\n\nIf a team advances the ball to the end-zone, they score a touchdown for 6 points. After the touchdown, the team will get a chance for one more play for \"bonus\" score. They can either kick a field goal from 33 yards away for 1 point (a \"PAT\" or Point After Try), or they can attempt to reach the end-zone from 2 yards away for 2 points (a \"2-point conversion\").\n\nThat's pretty much the minimum you need to watch and enjoy football."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
248spi | what is the cause of death when a person jumps off the george washington bridge? | _URL_0_
_URL_1_
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/248spi/eli5what_is_the_cause_of_death_when_a_person/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch4pn66"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The sudden stop at the end.\n\nWhen falling fast/far enough water has roughly the same consistency as concrete. The impact will break bones, crush organs and probably damage the brain. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-rescue-man-woman-jumped-george-washington-bridge-article-1.1771596",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bridge"
] | [
[]
] |
|
4v62c1 | alcohol in cosmetics | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4v62c1/eli5_alcohol_in_cosmetics/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5vqlke"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In my understanding, alcohol is still widely used due to it's anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory properties. Alcohol is mostly preferred compared to water as solvent in many cases as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7szfr9 | how do massive college campuses (especially ones in major cities) provide wifi accross such a large area | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7szfr9/eli5_how_do_massive_college_campuses_especially/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt8nxhe",
"dt92nct"
],
"score": [
40,
3
],
"text": [
"This is part of what I do and the short answer is a lot of access points.\n\nThe slightly longer answer is that we use special wireless access points that are meant for high density campus use. These access points have several differences to the one you probably have at home. They are only access points, for starters, and not routers. They are centrally managed, meaning that at our Network Operations Center, our technicians are able to see and monitor in real-time the status and performance of every access point at every location on every campus in our state-wide system. All the settings of the access points (channels, transmitter strength, etc.) can be remotely changed. There’s even software that dynamically monitors and adjusts those settings to try to optimize the performance. \n\nIt’s very complicated, as you can imagine, and very expensive, especially once you factor in the training and salaries of the on-site technicians and the initial set up, which usually includes outside specialist engineers. \n\nAnd that’s why your tuition is so high.",
"The antennas used in enterprise-scale wifi are sometimes a bit unusual. Indoors in large buildings they sometimes use a distributed antenna; essentially a long coax cable with slits cut into it’s shielding so that it leaks RF along it’s entire length. DISCLAIMER: I am not a network engineer, and this info is second hand from a friend who is an RF engineer for a major wireless carrier who designs large wifi installations professionally."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3m8m7a | is there a science to why giant things like godzilla move slowly or is that just hollywood? | Even in video games giant stuff moves slowly. What's the deal? Someone said it was air resistance, but I'm unsure that's true. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m8m7a/eli5_is_there_a_science_to_why_giant_things_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvcxh2j",
"cvcxmcm",
"cvcxwrx",
"cvd3r7w"
],
"score": [
2,
20,
34,
3
],
"text": [
"It looks unnatural when something large moves very fast. There was a commentary on Transformers (maybe it was Michael Bay?) and he said that the farther from the frame the robots got, the more slow their movements would need to become in order to seem \"heavy\" and give them the appearance that they were massive.",
"It's perspective. When you walk, you may swing your arms a couple of feet every second. When Godzilla walks (assuming human-proportioned arms/legs), the arms would have to swing maybe 20 feet every second to make it look like it's walking at the same \"speed.\"\n\nThat's also why sometimes it looks like large airliners, such as the 747 or A380, look like they are just hanging there in the air. They're not, it's just that they are so damn big, they are farther away than they look and so don't appear to be moving very fast.",
"The science behind it is the [square-cube law](_URL_0_). When something gets bigger, it's volume and mass increases more than the surface area. It takes more energy to move with the same relative speed as something smaller in size, so it moves more slowly.",
"fiction is fiction, so ignore that. \n\nthere's certain physical reasons like /u/hotdudgefries [pointed out](_URL_0_)\n\nevolutionarily speaking, large animals have their size as a defense mechanism, so they don't need to be as fast to survive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m8m7a/eli5_is_there_a_science_to_why_giant_things_like/cvcxwrx"
]
] |
|
3zwu3g | on extremely foggy days why doesn't the fog drift into homes or vehicles parked outside? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zwu3g/eli5_on_extremely_foggy_days_why_doesnt_the_fog/ | {
"a_id": [
"cypm3ne"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It does. But fog is mostly transparent. That's why you can still see your hand in front of your face in the midst of fog, but not the house down the block. When looking at the house, you're looking through more fog than when you're looking at your hand. If there's just a little bit of fog in your house, it is pretty much invisible and quickly dissipates. Fog is just moisture in the air, and while there's not as much of it, there's still plenty inside your house so it's not that out of place."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4wbjd8 | why is it hard to learn certain concepts? | It's very interesting that you can read something in your native language and still not quite understand what it means. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wbjd8/eli5_why_is_it_hard_to_learn_certain_concepts/ | {
"a_id": [
"d65patv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Concepts are formed by relating together other, simpler concepts. In turn, you can relate together the resulting concepts to form even more complex concepts. This can go on for many steps. It would not be possible to skip ahead and form \"Step 10\" concepts if you only had the \"Step 1\" concepts. A concrete example is college courses and their prerequisites. Generally you have to take the \"101\" course before the \"201\" course, and so on. A slightly different but very related idea is [Inferential Distance](_URL_0_), which explains why it can be hard for an expert to explain something to a non-expert.\n\nRegarding native language in particular, one problem is that words can have many different meanings depending on context. In specialized fields of knowledge, common words can take on meanings that are barely similar to their common meanings. Specialized fields also have their own vocabulary, called *jargon*, which might as well be a different language."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance"
]
] |
|
246wul | why can't we terraform mars and venus? | Why can't we terraform Mars and Venus by taking the greenhouse gasses from Venus and moving them toward Mars? That would raise the temperature or Mars and lower the one on Venus, right? Or do greenhouse gasses not work in that way? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/246wul/eli5_why_cant_we_terraform_mars_and_venus/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch467u8",
"ch46hhf",
"ch46jl9",
"ch4be63",
"ch4cb6n"
],
"score": [
22,
2,
47,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Theoretically it would would work. Logistically it would be almost impossible. Your talking about moving millions of tons of gases millions of miles across space. ",
"The biggest problem would be transport. It would take huge ships to carry cargo of compresses gases from a blazing hot, steel-melting world across the enormous void to the frozen, rusty iceball of Mars' semi-habitable zone.",
"There are different reasons for each of the planets, but the main reason for both is that, while theoretically possible, it isn't economical in either case.\n\nFor Venus, you have a surface temperature and atmospheric pressure so high that even the most resilient materials only last a few moments before disintegrating. Also, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect, where its thick atmosphere and surface temperature actually caused a further increase in levels of CO2, leading to even higher pressure and temperature. Terraforming Venus is likely impossible, but an interesting idea is to have platforms in Venus' atmosphere. The planet's atmosphere is so thick that it could possibly support massive dirigible-like platforms large enough for people to live and conduct research. Think of a much smaller scale verson of Cloud City from Star Wars.\n\nMars has pretty much the exact opposite thing going on. Mars has a runaway icehouse effect, where its thin atmosphere and cold temperatures have led to greater decreases in atmospheric gases and even colder surface temperatures. The exact reason for this is unknown, but it's likely that Mars at one time had a magnetic field which it has since lost. \n\nA planet's magnetic field protects its atmosphere from cosmic rays and the solar wind, both of which can excite atmospheric particles and cause them to escape the planet's gravity. So, even if you did introduce an atmosphere to Mars, you would have to have a magnetic field, otherwise the solar wind and cosmic rays would just cause all of the new gases to quickly escape.\n\nFinally, neither planet has plate tectonics the way Earth does. Plate tectonics are responsible for introducing and sequestering many of the greenhouse gases people need to survive, so you would have to devise some kind of work around to keep the same mixture of gases on either Mars or Venus.",
"As for Venus, I think that would be nearly impossible, although the higher layers of atmosphere might have some more potentional for colonization.\n\nFor the mars idea, I have seen a document, where they presented idea of sending automated robots to mars, which would pollute the atmosphere with CO2 and others on purpose, so it would get more suitable for simple plant life to be sent there and then create oxygen.",
"Because we don't have the technology to terraform anything yet, it's all theoretical at this point. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8w02k2 | why were most cities in the world founded over a century ago, except for a few planned exceptions? you don’t really see new cities appear anymore... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8w02k2/eli5_why_were_most_cities_in_the_world_founded/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1rorl6",
"e1rose2",
"e1rqm5z",
"e1sczut"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You have new cities appearing,but they aren’t famous now so you don’t know about them yet.\nLike China for example makes a lot of planned cities",
"Urban flight. People would rather move and live in an expanding city with all the conveniences than live in a tiny town of a couple dozen people and maybe a gas station.",
"Most cities are the result of somewhat natural growth and all the places where the circumstances are right to grow a city already have one.\n\nSome bridge or a place where a river is easily forded or some coastal bay or natural harbour or a place where trade routes meet or simply a nice hill on which you can some fortification and demand some money from everyone who crosses into range of your arms.\n\nNatural resources and the presence of other factors can help small old settlements grow into larger ones.\n\nSometimes, very rarely, such factors change and for example a new deposit of natural resources gets discovered drawing labour, industry and service catering to those. Usually that just leads to expansion of existing settlements and nowadays the manpower needed to exploit natural resources is much less than it used to be and travel is easier so cities formation is much less likely than it used to be.\n\n\nThe only real exception are planned cities where people deliberately set out to build a new city in the middle of nowhere, often because they want to create a new capital.\n\nA Number of countries have planned capitals. This works because putting your government somewhere means that you have all sorts of people working for the government and all sorts of business who want to be near the government and simply having a city be a capital is usually enough to make it viable.\n\nBuilding a completely new city just because, like for example Milton Keynes is rare.",
"Well in Europe there are numerous ancient cities, then all the recent ones were created due to the exponential growth mankind knew with industrialisation. \nAs of today, most people live in a city already, and for those who aren't yet, they'll eventually go to existing cities as they are already gathering everything. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4n58ha | what is a manic pixie dream girl? | I know it's a tv trope, but I have no clue what it really is. Does she have any characteristics, or is she just a shallow term? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4n58ha/eli5what_is_a_manic_pixie_dream_girl/ | {
"a_id": [
"d40vvkv",
"d40x5u9",
"d40x726",
"d40xm2d",
"d41ae7x",
"d437826"
],
"score": [
25,
30,
3,
14,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"She is the wacky, vivacious counterpart to a brooding, broken man. She 'completes' him and makes him realize life is good. It's bullshit.",
"Generally in the story, the man has a career oriented life, or if it isn't, at the very minimum, his life is stuck in a rut, going nowhere.\n\nEnter the manic pixie dream girl, She suddenly drops into the man's life. She's generally lively, random, quirky, ditzy, cares little for social norms, (not all required). The most important thing however, is that she starts to break the man out of his shell, and through her actions, the man realizes how to life a happier life. \n\nNotable is that a real manic pixie dream girl (as the term was originally intended) has no agenda beyond helping the man, she exists as a plot device to make the man happy. Not to achieve anything on her own.",
"It's basically a quirky, breaks-the-mold female character who, despite her apparent self assurance and confidence, doesn't actually have a story arc or any real autonomy. Her purpose in the story is to widen somebody else's look on life, usually a cynical or depressed man, and therefore advances his own character arc while usually not going through any character development on her own. She becomes a plot device instead of a person.",
"She is the female version of Prince Charming.\n\nThe average, uninteresting main female protagonist encounters Prince Charming who suddenly rides in and sweeps her off her feet and away from her initial circumstances. Then Prince Charming spends all his efforts to make life better for the female protagonist.\n\nLikewise, a manic pixie dream girl drops into an average, uninteresting main male protagonist's life and spends all her time making it much more lively and breaking him out of his initial circumstance to make his life better.\n\nIn both circumstances, it depicts an unhealthy relationship where one partner spends all their time devoted to the other and not doing anything for themselves.",
"So if you know its a trope, why not read the article?\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > Let's say you're a soulful, brooding male hero, living a sheltered, emotionless existence. If only someone could come along and open your heart to the great, wondrous adventure of life... Have no fear, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is here to give new meaning to the male hero's life! She's stunningly attractive, high on life, full of wacky quirks and idiosyncrasies (generally including childlike playfulness and a tendency towards petty crime), often with a touch of wild hair dye. She's inexplicably obsessed with our stuffed-shirt hero, on whom she will focus her kuh-razy antics until he learns to live freely and love madly. \n\n\n",
"The male version is Reese from The Terminator. His existence revolves completely around the heroine of the story, and he exists to serve and save her. She becomes the woman she is meant to be only after meeting him. After he declares his love for her, he sacrifices himself to give her a child and the remainder of her life."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGirl"
],
[]
] |
|
csclto | why can’t we solve the straw problem by just recycling them? | I read that the plastic commonly used in straws isn’t recyclable. Why don’t we use the kind of plastic that is recyclable, like water bottle plastic? I also read that because straws are so small, they skip through holes in conveyor belts and end up in landfills. If it’s such an issue, why can’t they develop a way to keep that from happening?
I hate paper straws but will use them instead of plastic. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/csclto/eli5_why_cant_we_solve_the_straw_problem_by_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"exdzmpr",
"exdznwk"
],
"score": [
11,
5
],
"text": [
"Recycling is expensive and production is faster that's why recycling can't keep up. On top of it all, not everyone cares enough to recycle to begin with.\n\nThere are already bamboo straws, they're less annoying than paper straws in my opinion",
"The problem with plastic is actually with the bits that aren't disposed of properly — people leave them on the ground or let them fall into a river, for example. Recycling would be fine if people wouldn't litter."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
50k7bo | why do transplanted organs need a much more specific match than blood does for transfusions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50k7bo/eli5_why_do_transplanted_organs_need_a_much_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"d74pvnr",
"d74pvnt"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of our tissues have what are called MHC proteins. MHC proteins are complex and are involved with a variety of immune functions, for example in the presentation of virus fragments to immune cells to trigger an immune response. Our blood cells do not have MHC proteins on their surface and our MHC proteins have a huge amount of variation, much more than the eight common blood types. Because of this high amount of variation, it's much more likely that an unrelated person does not have a MHC proteins that match your own, so when you get a transplant your body recognizes the MHC proteins as foreign and attacks the transplanted tissue. Since blood types vary much less, it's relatively easier to find a safe match.",
"It's comparable to fixing a car. Fuel is fuel, and unless you're doing something phenomenally stupid like pouring kerosene or diesel into a vehicle with a gas engine, you'll likely do fine. The fuel's main function is to explode, which isn't terribly sophisticated at the end of the day.\n\nThat's blood. Blood isn't an organ, it's just a medium which can absorb oxygen and transfer nutrients. Red cells don't even have DNA.\n\nNow, an organ transplant is like replacing a piece of the engine. If the replacement is not exactly identical, its not going to work at all. An organ is a massive amount of living cells, and your body will have hard time accepting them as nonhostile even with a great match."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
cyz93p | is there a common reason for popping things to be cathartic or is it learned behavior? e.g. bubble wrap, bubbles, zits | Edit: Biological or neurological might have been better word choice than common, but can't edit titles | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyz93p/eli5_is_there_a_common_reason_for_popping_things/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyvb59u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The basic idea behind it is twofold. \n\nFirst is the feeling of excitement we get physically when things pop. It's a sudden (literal) burst of stimuli that catches us off guard and excites us. Only we know where it is coming from and who caused it so while we are surprised and excited it is not out of fear but out of joy. Second is that popping or really doing any sort of manipulation of material makes us feel good because we like to be in control of things and feel like we have power. When we manipulate materials we feel powerful and righteous because we are in the middle of creation or destruction of something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ei3ahg | why is it that waterdrops can't be bigger? what's stoping water from forming like the size of a golfball or even bigger? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ei3ahg/eli5_why_is_it_that_waterdrops_cant_be_bigger/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcn335j",
"fcn37zq",
"fcndbl1"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Water drops are held together by surface tensions, and the hydrogen bridges that create it.\n\nWhichever force is applied to the drop will \"battle\" with surface tension. If the force is bigger than the tension, the water drop breaks. If not, the water drop stays together.\n\nHere on earth gravity is the most common force, when the drop is somewhere on the ground, or dripping off something.\n\nIn space, for example on the ISS drops of water can be huge because gravity doesn't apply anymore.",
"Raindrops are just moisture in the air that collects in a cloud until they become heavier than the air. Depending on the humidity in a region, the size of the raindrop is different. You can only reach a certain amount of humidity in the air, so the raindrop can only get so big.",
"The thing keeping the water drop together is surface tension. When something grows in size, the volume grows faster than the surface area, so there's a point where a droplet of liquid becomes too heavy to be held together by surface tension."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1u2wyy | what is the difference between yellow light (wavelength=580nm) and green and red light mixed together. | I know that we see the two as looking the same, but how do they differ when it comes to shining real yellow vs "manufactured" yellow on different color pigments? Also, is most of the yellow we see in street lamps and such 550 nm or mixed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u2wyy/eli5what_is_the_difference_between_yellow_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"cedz3tb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pure yellow light is fundamentally different from red and green mixed together. However, our eyes can't tell that difference.\n\nWe detect light using a part of our eyes called \"cones\". There are three different types of cones, which detect red, green and blue light. [This graph](_URL_0_) shows how each different type of cone responds to different types of light.\n\nYou can see from the graph that yellow light stimulates the red cone and the green cone, in *exactly* the same way that red and green mixed together do. That's why we can't tell the difference.\n\nIn fact, most colours work in the same way - there's no way to tell if a single frequency is causing more than one type of cone to respond, or if multiple frequencies are each affecting cones in different ways. The only exception is purple: there's no single frequency which causes the red and blue cones to activate (red cones respond slightly to blue light, but not enough to consider blue light to look purple). The only way of seeing purple is by mixing red and blue together.\n\nAs for yellow street lights, ~~I'd expect they emit light in the red, green *and* yellow frequencies.~~ Edit: this isn't true, see hilburn's post below."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.skybrary.aero/images/thumb/Vis_Fig4.jpg/500px-Vis_Fig4.jpg"
]
] |
|
46i6n4 | photons have no resting state. theoretically if a photon were held still at point (0,0,0) in a vacuum and suddenly released, what would happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46i6n4/eli5_photons_have_no_resting_state_theoretically/ | {
"a_id": [
"d05bjyf",
"d05cage",
"d05ccwk"
],
"score": [
3,
21,
80
],
"text": [
"Photons don't exist if they are \"stopped\". You can bounce one back and forth between two mirrors that are very close together, but that's just moving in a small area. If you do that and the move one mirror, the photon runs off at C.",
"Physicists managed to stop a photon a few years ago. It involved shooting a photon through some material that was being kept in a transparent state by a laser, then shutting that laser off while the photon was in the material, then turning the laser back on. The photon was briefly held in place and, if I remember the paper correctly (it's been years since I've read it) it was basically imprinted on the atoms around it, then once the material was turned transparent again the photon was restored to its previous state.\n\nA photon \"held at rest at a point in a vacuum\" doesn't exist, so it's meaningless to talk about what would happen if you had one.\n\nIf you want to look more into stopping photons in an object then you might start [here](_URL_0_). It's a more recent article than the one I remember but they seem to have stopped the photon for a much longer period of time. This article seems to make reference to the ~2001 article I recall. ",
" > Theoretically if a photon were held still at point (0,0,0) in a vacuum and suddenly released, what would happen?\n\nThat's not a valid question. Photons cannot exist in a \"still\" state. They're always moving relative to every other reference frame, and they do not posses a reference frame themselves. So they cannot be stopped, even theoretically. \n\nNot unless you start your question with, \"Assume that the laws of physics are different,\" in which case the answer to your question is, \"Whatever the new laws of physics that you just invented that allows photons to remain stationary says will happen is what will happen.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory"
],
[]
] |
||
67dehz | why is reading considered active and intellectually engaging, but watching television or film considered passive and lazy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67dehz/eli5why_is_reading_considered_active_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgpkbiy",
"dgpogfc"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Mostly because when you read, there are no visuals available. You imagination will breathe life into the characters, the scenery, different interactions, etc...\n\nThis use of your imagination is an active use of your brain. Watching tv leaves nothing for the brain to work on. There are certainly films that can stimulate you mind, but not in the same way using your imagination can.",
"It should be noted that the usual divide here is not between any reading and any TV watching. Walking into the weekly meeting of the pretentious smart ass club and saying you spent the weekend watching The Wire or The Shining is likely to win you a great deal more points than saying that you read, say, The Bourne Supremacy or [This](_URL_0_). \n\nThe real difference is that TV and film have been around for a much shorter period of time, and for a long time TV in particular was seen as something that was designed as mere \"entertainment,\" as opposed to challenging or classic works of art that helped improve one's understanding of the human experience. There were thousands of years of books to read, but only a few decades worth of movies, most of which (like most books) are basically just chewing gum for the brain. \n\nAnd, on top of that, until maybe, what, 15 years or so ago, watching great movies or TV shows was actually pretty hard to do. Watching TV meant watching whatever was on, and watching movies meant seeing whatever was in the theaters or---at best---what the local rental place or library happened to have in stock. \n\nThese days, the divide is less stark, but the bias lives on. (the other answers about the imagination are part of it too---reading is more of an imaginative activity---but my understanding is that the general perception has more to do with the existence of \"great literature\" as a concept with no parallel in film until recently.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=fabio+book+cover&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=Xx9NC9XvZ3ChiM%253A%253B-7WvCw_x2GCCLM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%25252F2013%25252F03%25252F15%25252Ffabio-birthday-best-book-covers_n_2868943.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Xx9NC9XvZ3ChiM%253A%252C-7WvCw_x2GCCLM%252C_&usg=__jp6LJdj_S78Iq95LY6KzkzvU2QA%3D&biw=1604&bih=1011&ved=0ahUKEwiN6PqGzL7TAhXDKCYKHWQgCXEQyjcITA&ei=5rj-WI3dLMPRmAHkwKSIBw"
]
] |
||
a78h5k | when making lab grown meat, how is the sample taken? | I've read a handful of articles on lab grown meat, and they all start with a person "taking a sample" from an animal, which is then subjected to all sorts of bio-wizardry. My question is about the sample. Specifically:
1 What are they taking? Muscle? Bone?
2 How much do they take? Just a few cells or something that can be seen with the naked eye?
3 How do they take it? It is as simple as drawing blood, or do they need to put the animal under anesthesia and do surgery? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a78h5k/eli5_when_making_lab_grown_meat_how_is_the_sample/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec1abpe"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"A simplified version of the process:\n\n1. Put the animal under anaesthesia, and perform surgery to extract a section of muscle. A small piece 1cm in diameter is more than sufficient.\n\n2. The muscle piece is placed into an enzyme mixture to dissolve the extra-cellular matrix. This matrix holds cells together, which we have to remove to get to the cells.\n\n3. The cells are separated from the mixture through a centrifuge. The solid cells accumulate at the bottom in a pellet and the liquid on top is removed.\n\n4. A growth mixture is added to the pellet of cells, then the cells are “resuspended”. This basically mixes the cells and growth mixture until evenly mixed.\n\n5a. The concentration of cells in the growth mixture are calculated, and the ideal number is “seeded” into a growth dish with the proper chemicals and nutrients to develop into muscle tissue.\n\n5b. The leftover cells are seeded, but not given the chemicals to develop into muscle tissue. They will become the “stock” for the future batch, so there is no need to perform surgery on the animal after the first time.\n\n6. When the muscle tissue is fully grown, it is rinsed with cleaning solutions to remove unwanted chemicals, and then the final product can be eaten."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2q7f2w | why is the holocaust considered to be an atrocity solely against the jews? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q7f2w/eli5_why_is_the_holocaust_considered_to_be_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn3jp75",
"cn3jquo",
"cn3jrsn",
"cn3jsnj",
"cn3jwxc",
"cn3kgog",
"cn3l73r"
],
"score": [
4,
9,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not. The Jews made up a plurality of victims though, and Europeans still have lots of prejudices against Roma (gypsies).\n\n",
"Nobody reasonable ever claims the Holocaust to be *solely* against the Jews. But the Jews were the largest and most recognizable group that was singled out. Roma, gays, political dissidents, and dozens of other groups were killed just the same... but there weren't 6 million of them. Wartime casualties and civilian deaths are horrible as well, but the horror that sticks in people's minds was how industrially and impersonally the groups killed in the camps were destroyed. It was an assembly line process.\n\nIncidentally, history shouldn't teach you that anyone fought the war to save Jews (or any other group). The extent of what was going on in the camps wasn't clear until the closing of the war effort; the Allies' stakes in the war were more territorial than humanitarian, at least at the outset.",
"I don't know anyone who believes that the Holocaust was an atrocity solely against the Jewish people. I think that anyone who knows about the Holocaust knows that a very large number other people were killed by the Nazi regime in Germany. In addition to people who practiced Judaism, there were Gypsies, Poles, folks of several other religions, political enemies of the Nazi party, homosexuals, and other groups.",
"If your history teacher taught you that Hitler hated the Jews and only the Jews, you had a shitty history teacher. Not really much else to be said, you seem to know the answer. People who know their history don't say that the Holocaust was targeting the Jews in particular.",
"The \"holocaust\" was a term used to describe what happened to what mainly were Jews after the war had ended *but as was mentioned, many others fell into it. For everyone else, it was just a war.",
"It looks like you're conflating World War II and the Holocaust.\n\nWorld War II was a terrible thing, as all wars are. Tens of millions of people died, both military and civilian. A majority of people worldwide was affected in some way by the events of the war.\n\nThe Holocaust, on the other hand, was a targeted and systematic genocide of certain groups of people by the Nazi regime. Many considered undesirable were rounded up, put to slave labor, and killed on an industrial scale. The largest group that was targeted by the Nazis were the Jewish people all over Europe, who Hitler blamed for much of the economic ills that afflicted Germany between the wars, but they were not the only ones. The Roma, homosexuals, political dissidents, and many others were also rounded up and put into the camps. Many other hideous crimes were also perpetrated on the people in the concentration camps, like medical experimentation.\n\nIt was this indifferent, inhuman, and systematic killing of people that sticks in peoples' minds and is what is referenced when people discuss the Holocaust. The scale and organization behind the Holocaust, the rigorous documentation, and the sheer brutality of it all were, and still is, hard to truly fathom.\n\nWorld War II stopped the Holocaust and they occurred at the same time, but it wasn't the original intent of World War II. The true extent of the Holocaust wasn't realized by the public until later in the war. The original motivations of World War II were like most other wars -- empire and resources.",
"We focus on the Jewish people during the holocaust because they were the primary target and it makes for a simpler narrative."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2h0a68 | how come you can never get crappy toys in cereal any more? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h0a68/eli5_how_come_you_can_never_get_crappy_toys_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cko594b",
"cko8zu6"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Boy, as a kid, shreddies always came with something inside. \n\nI think its to do with safety. The toy might end up being eaten by a child. They might choke and die, leaving a massive lawsuit against the cereal producer. \n\nI also think US government regulations affect this. There are prize-containing candies called Kinder Surprise that are made in Europe, but are banned in the US due to safety regulations. ",
"Anyone remember the Wacky Wall Walker?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
35kmd3 | what goes wrong in my brain when i write a different word than the one i want to write but that sounds similar? there/theirs for example? | I clearly know the difference but every now and then after proofreading my comments I find that I am still making this mistake, especially when typing fast. What is the reason of this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35kmd3/eli5_what_goes_wrong_in_my_brain_when_i_write_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr5b8ec",
"cr5e8im"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It might have something to do with freudian slip, basically what you are subconsciously thinking slips through into your concious actions accidently. \"Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious (\"dynamically repressed\") subdued wish\" (_URL_0_)\n\n Or tip of tounge phenomenon, where you are confident you know something but when you try to recall you can't retrieve it from your memory or you retrieve it incorrectly (may be because you stored similar things close together) \"Tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon is the subjective feeling that people have of being confident that they know the target word for which they are searching, yet they cannot recall this word. They are somewhat able to recall words of similar sounds and meaning, but never the actual word they are seeking.\" ( _URL_1_)\n\nYou're not alone though. Happens to me all the time. I'm no expert but these two things are pretty interesting all the same",
"I'm guessing it's because as you're typing something up, you're thinking in your head what it would sound like. You know, like that Professor Farnsworth meme \"Good news everyone, you're now reading this in your head, in my voice!\"\n\nEveryone does this as they read/write. So, what I'm guessing is that since you're thinking about what the word *sounds* like, you sometimes write down the wrong homophone if you're not careful. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip",
"http://mercercognitivepsychology.pbworks.com/w/page/32859313/Tip-of-the-Tongue%20Phenomenon"
],
[]
] |
|
3618np | how did we get to a point where two families (bush, clinton) are the only two real(?) candidates for president? | Are we reverting into some kind of oligarchy? Obama aside, we've had Bush/Clinton for many a year now. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3618np/eli5_how_did_we_get_to_a_point_where_two_families/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr9rw4i",
"cr9se9p",
"cra0uq2"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Prominent families making runs for President or actually winning the Presidency has been a thing in the US for most of our existence. So no we are not reverting to anything, this is how it has always been. ",
"It's still very early in the election. Bush hasn't even declared candidacy. At this point in the 2008 race we thought that it was going to be between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Look how that turned out.",
"Reverting how? We had two bushes quite recently.\n\nEquivocating the wife of a former president with two sons and a father, two of which have already been president, makes me laugh.\n\nThe Bush family is so much more influential and dynastic than the Clintons that comparing them is absurd. The Bush family comes from the time of railroad barons. The Clintons both come from middle class backgrounds.\n\nThis weird narrative that the Clintons are a dynasty just like the Bushes sure seems popular though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8of6t5 | why does hay fever leave you alone while you sleep, but attack like a bitch the second you open your eyes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8of6t5/eli5_why_does_hay_fever_leave_you_alone_while_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"e030t8x",
"e031hn7",
"e0343im",
"e03465e",
"e0353v7",
"e035xfp",
"e0360ao",
"e036j3w",
"e038d0d",
"e0399sw"
],
"score": [
2537,
38,
330,
68,
33,
5,
4,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"One reason is that the lymphatic system doesn't circulate by itself, but instead relies on the body moving around to push it's contents. That's the reason why you're not drowning in snot in your sleep, but also why you experience all that buildup as soon as you get up. ",
"A whole heap of reasons. People already mentioned your body itself shuts down the reaction to sleep, but also plants aren't putting as much energy into producing pollen at night, winds are generally calmer so it stays on the plant more, being inside rather than outside will filter some out, morning dew brings more down. ",
"Another reason is histamine release when you wake up. I can’t be specific; I’m no expert; but I am treated for morning nausea and morning sneezing/allergies - they get very severe when I wake up.. for almost 10 years. Anyway, one doc explained that there’s a cascade of chemical and hormones in the “wake up” process and sometimes your body can, as a byproduct, release a lot of histamine in the morning ",
"Hayfever, it allergies, can affect you while you sleep. Mine got to the point where I had one side of my sinuses that would completely clog at night. The pressure build up would get to the point that I would wake with the pain and have to roll over to relieve the pressure. I'd also frequently be woken with a period of.sneezing that could last up to 12 sneezes or so. If your Hayfever doesn't bother you at night maybe it just isn't severe enough. For clarity, I'm allergic to more than just pollen. I know this isn't an explanation so it will probably get deleted, but just letting you know the thought behind your original question is not completely correct.",
"Uh... It doesn't? My symptoms are far worse overnight than during the day.",
"I have seasonal allergies. One observation that I have made is : sometimes when I am mowing the lawn or doing some other focused physical work, my allergy symptoms will subside, when I am finished with the task the symptoms come raging back. It is like my body can choose when it wants to manifest sneeze attacks. \n\nOTC drugs work just fine for my allergies, but sometimes I forget to take them or run out, which is when I notice this. \n\nI’m just puzzled, like why does my body choose to be nice, with the same allergen exposure, then choose to incapacitate me with symptoms.?Thanks Body! Maybe could you be less of a drama queen. ? \n\nEdit: it must be hormonal, or some chemical that causes relief. Exertion related bio chemicals . ",
"Your hay fever leaves you alone at night?",
"I'm not sure if that's totally true. My son who has year round allergy induced asthma, scratches his throat in his sleep. Yea symptoms aren't as bad as during the day(after a lengthy amount of time spent outside),but my house isn't open to the elements either.. shower after coming in etc. ",
"Pollen levels change, pollen is produced in the morning then rise into the atmosphere with the suns heat, the pollen then falls as the temperature drops at night, this is why you get sniffly around 7/8pm. Pollens levels are low at night.",
"You know what is crazy? I recently learnt that you can be allergic to exercise. I always get a really runny nose when I walk fast or am running around at work. I'd always assumed that this happened to everyone and mentioned how annoying it was to my husband, he looked at me like I was a weirdo. Apparently it is not normal so I googled it and yep, you can get this reaction from having an allergy to exercise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9cradz | when a lawyer says "objection!" in a courtroom, what happens if he/she gives the wrong reason for it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9cradz/eli5_when_a_lawyer_says_objection_in_a_courtroom/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5cpkm1"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Court isn't a game. Attorneys are allowed to flub words, forget what they were going to say, etc. It isn't a race to finish questioning the witness or something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
di4nge | why is feeling cold linked to the flu/catching a cold | I don't know about your culture, but in mine (Morocco) sleeping under an open window will cause you to catch a cold. So will getting out wet of the shower and getting exposed to cold air. Is that just a myth? Or is there factual science involved? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/di4nge/eli5_why_is_feeling_cold_linked_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3tcf0s",
"f3tcgqk",
"f3tchl4",
"f3tcjgx"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I believe Cold and flu bugs need specific body temperatures to cultivate and can stay in your system for months dormant before you get that temp.",
"That is a widespread myth. It might be that if you get seriously cold, the energy taken to maintain you core temperature could weaken your immune system, and make you more vulnerable to viral attacks. People in Antarctic bases rarely catch colds because the viruses aren’t there.",
"Cold weather creates a challenge for your body and can weaken your immune system. In cold weather you are also more likely to sit together with people in a small room.",
"There have been some research done to show a possible link between exposure to the cold and a reduction in the capability of the immune system to fight off infections. \n\nAnd there’s also research done that showed a link between cooler, drier air allowing viruses such as the rhinovirus (which causes the common cold) as well as the influenza virus to survive and spread more easily.\n\nSo there may be some ground to that statement.\n\n(The more well-read members of the community should correct me if there’s any inaccurate information here tho)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7dctrg | how much do musicians actually earn from streaming services? | I am absolutely baffled by the amount of money some artists can rake in, and I need someone to explain this to me.
Let's take a song like Post Malone's "rockstar"
It's got around 400.000 million streams on spotify, does this mean that he makes (0.0055 * 400.000.000) = 2.200.000 $
Spotify and other services pay MILLIONS in royalty fees?
It doesn't make sense to me.
An artist like Drake, he must have made like 8-10 million $ off "One Dance" alone?
It's one damn song!
Is this accurate, or is it not this ridiculous?
Enlighten me! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dctrg/eli5_how_much_do_musicians_actually_earn_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpws299",
"dpwvzbx",
"dpwyjf4"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, they pay millions in royalty fees. It's easier to understand how when you see how much they charge for ads. They charge about $0.005-$0.03 per ad play, and best I can tell Spotify actually pays the artist about $0.004/stream. Thus they do make money if they do maybe one or two songs per ad, maybe a bit more if they play the more expensive ads.",
"There was an article about this: _URL_0_\n\nAdjusting for those numbers Post would've made $1.52 Million. Of course there's a bit more complexity in terms of how the payout are calculated Paying customer stream vs add supported streams, demographics of listeners etc.\nCGP grey does a pretty god job of breaking down some of this complexity.\n\n_URL_1_ ",
"Spotify pays out to the artist's label. Typically label contracts give less than 20% to the artist. In your example PM might have gotten a few hundred thousand dollars. Though this again isn't his cut as he has to pay the producers, mixers, for studio time, his crew out of his cut. While it may sound easy to earn a lot on Spotify, these large artists you mentioned are the exception. For those who can't get 400 million plays streaming payouts are miniscule."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/07/24/what-streaming-music-services-pay-updated-for-2017/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo"
],
[]
] |
|
4wsltu | how does a 17,000 tonne oil rig float? | Saw the "17,000 tonne oil rig blown ashore in Scotland" picture on r/pics and didn't know oil rigs could float. Doesn't look like there's much of a hull on it to keep it afloat...seems crazy that something so heavy and unshiplike can float.. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wsltu/eli5_how_does_a_17000_tonne_oil_rig_float/ | {
"a_id": [
"d69k956",
"d69kfja",
"d69l7y8"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Deep sea oil rigs aren't necessarily connected to the sea floor, at least not structurally. [here are some diagrams](_URL_1_) that show that oil platforms have a hull /flotation structure beneath the surface that provides buoyancy as well as stability. EDIT: here is it, they are called [semi submersibles](_URL_0_)",
"Ultimately it's not mass/weight which determines whether something will float or not - it's density (aka mass per volume). A very heavy object with a density lower than water will still float on water. \n\nNow I'm not an expert on oil rigs specifically, but if they have a huge concrete structure hollowed out and filled with air might reduce its overall density to be less than that of water, it'll still float on water even if it's very, very heavy. ",
"The reason why anything floats in water is because the vessel weighs less than the water that it displaced.\n\n\nWhy 17,000 ton oil rig floats is because it displaces > 17000 tons of water"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersible",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Types_of_offshore_oil_and_gas_structures.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ejece | how does a stethoscope work in amplifying soft noises like a heartbeat without requiring electricity? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ejece/eli5_how_does_a_stethoscope_work_in_amplifying/ | {
"a_id": [
"diar0c6",
"diar3gj",
"diat8bs"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It takes the amount of sound pressure that hits a large area (the surface of the sensor) and physically concentrates it down to a much smaller area (the output of the earpieces). It's like a funnel for sound pressure.",
"Stethoscopes don't really amplify as such, they just channel the sound directly into your ear. The ear pieces also help block out other sounds, making the heartbeat easier to hear.",
"It works like a drum. Have you ever goofed around with a base drum or some timpani? The softest tap on a large drum gets amplified a lot, except instead of a barrel or a kettle on the bottom there's hollow tubes that run directly to your ears."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
46i1up | why are there so many lgbt users on tumblr? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46i1up/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_lgbt_users_on_tumblr/ | {
"a_id": [
"d05a7fs",
"d05bqjs",
"d05h1qw"
],
"score": [
4,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Ease of access, mostly. It's also not as big a portion of the Tumblr community as you might think. They just tend to be more vocal or get shared more than other content.",
"Hey. I have a tumblr. (A couple actually, for different aesthetics. Fitness blog, anime blog, fashion blog… it’s an easy way to relax at the end of the day.) I'm also several times over a member of the LGBT community. Several reasons why you might be seeing a large amount of LGBT-related content:\n\n1. Tumblr's status as a microblogging site makes it easy for content to be shared and circulated, so members of the LGBT community use it to talk about issues related to them. A post about, say, homophobia bounces around a little, collects a couple thousand notes, people outside of the community (cis straight people) take notice and start reblogging it too. An important thing to note about this is that for a while, tumblr was a site where communication could be easily fostered through reblog chains. It was easy for people to strike up a conversation about LGBT issues and, for that reason, members of the LGBT community started to talk more online than they would, perhaps, in real life, about LGBT issues.\n\n2. LGBT people almost decidedly don’t make up the majority of tumblr users, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a decent percent of LGBT bloggers producing LGBT-oriented content (posts about being gay/bi/trans, confession blogs for LGBT teens to vent, articles about recent events). A lot of these people are either closeted in real life or not real-life big name activists, so it seems like there’s more of them online than IRL.\n\n3. Tumblr developed a reputation as a site with a lot of LGBT-related content, so members of the community went to it in larger numbers to talk about being LGBT.\n\n4. It is possible that your IRL friend groups don’t include a lot of gay/bi people, so seeing them online in large numbers means that you don’t “get” the overlap. I’m asexual, and a fair amount of my online friends are as well, but most of my IRL friends aren’t.\n\nNow to answer your other questions (to the best of my ability). Please take the following into account before I do so:\n\n- Tumblr is mostly female. Users are either born female and decide to transition away from it, or born male and decide to transition to it.\n\n- Tumblr has a strong social justice side, with many reblog chains about feminism, racism, and the LGBT community. Quite a few people have blogs devoted to discussion of the aforementioned topics.\n\nNow...\n\n* Things like Orange is the New Black and Steven Universe spread quickly on tumblr because they have casts that are mostly female, a fair amount of LGBT characters, and a fair amount of POC characters. I’ve watched some of both because I saw tumblr posts about them, and OITNB has an interesting premise with a really solid second season. SU isn’t my thing, but if you don’t mind kids’ shows I’d give it a watch.\n\n* Beyonce and Nicki Minaj get a lot of love because they’re good artists who produce music and speak publicly about being a woman and being successful as a woman, specifically as a black woman.\n\n* The majority of tumblr users who write gay fanfic are straight (or bi) and female, and they write gay fanfic because it gets them off. It’s like, the same reason straight guys watch lesbian porn.\n\n* Lesbian tumblr users complain about meeting other lesbians because lesbians make up a very small percent of the population.\n\nAs far as these last two go…\n\n > Do you think it has become a trend for girls to identify themselves with a non-binary gender, and why? \n\nPartially! A lot of people on tumblr, despite talking about it all day, don’t really understand gender. They dress however they want, which is great and I’m all for doing whatever makes you happy. You’re born male and want to wear makeup and a dress to work? Go ahead. You’re born female and you want to shop in the men’s section? You do you. But if you don’t have sex dysphoria (intense and uncontrollable discomfort with the physical sex of your body) you’re not trans.\n\nThat being said, I have sex dysphoria. The way it presents isn’t the way it would present with trans men and women—an expectation for my body to be of the other sex. If it weren’t for tumblr and the way they candidly talk about nonbinary people, I would still be confused and extremely upset and incapable of figuring out what’s wrong with me because it’s extremely uncommon. Thanks to tumblr and its fairly extensive LGBT community, I *do* know and that’ll make it easier for me to get the medical care I need to live my life as a healthy, happy, and productive member of society.\n\n > Do you think most the people who claimed to be LGBT on Tumblr are actually what they describe in real life?\n\nI can’t say yes or no. The majority of LGBT people on tumblr that I know (friends, friends of friends) talk about their personal life and their struggles of being LGBT and at least somewhat open about it. I suppose there are a few tumblr users who lie about being LGBT so they can “fit in” with this one particular group on the internet, but I’ve never met anybody like that.\n\nNote that I did say “this one particular group”. If you like a thing, there’s a group on tumblr for it. Tarantino movies? Miyazaki movies? Fursuits? Fitness? Girls with abs? Fancy cars? Food porn? **Actual** porn? There are a ton of blogs dedicated to just about every topic under the sun. Tumblr is a really diverse website in terms of content, and the best part about it is that if you find yourself coming across a bunch of idiots, it’s because you’re either following them or following somebody who reblogs them, so a couple of clicks can turn your dashboard from a screaming echo chamber into a lovely, peaceful selection of artistically-photographed scenery.\n\nHope this was helpful.",
"Wow, we've got some over-explaining here. The answer is really simple. Lesbian, gay, bi and transgender people are small minorities. 1% of women are lesbian and 1.5% are bi, 1.8% of men are gay and 0.4% are bi, 0.1% of men are trans and the number for women is yet lower. If you have a high school class of 500-1000 people, you're going to have an easier time organizing a game of Dungeons and Dragons than getting together a group of ten lesbians. So they flee to the internet, where all tiny minorities can find like-minded friends to commune with. A high school class of 500 people might have 2.5 lesbians, but the United States has 1,600,000 lesbians, and they all want to repost each other's complaints about how hard it is to find another lesbian in real life."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ibyg7 | how do wireless telecommunications companies benefit from having prepaid providers as subsidiaries? (i.e. at & t/cricket wireless) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ibyg7/eli5_how_do_wireless_telecommunications_companies/ | {
"a_id": [
"db6yjk6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Different business models to attract different classes of customers. Same reason that GM owns Chevy and Cadillac, same reason that hotel brands have chains at verious levels of price/amenities. Some people want high performance service, access to newest/best phones, etc. and are willing to pay for it. Others are more value driven, and want lower price even if it means lower end phones and lower data speeds, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2c6vg5 | how a country such as norway can sustain itself while offering health care, education up to university level, buying new published books, maternity packages etc. while the us offers none of that, but drowns in debt | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c6vg5/eli5_how_a_country_such_as_norway_can_sustain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjcigzb",
"cjcihkn",
"cjcii7j",
"cjciigh",
"cjcj56c",
"cjcjdl4",
"cjcl1qa",
"cjcmlz5",
"cjcn0bg",
"cjco7w1",
"cjcspa0",
"cjcstpo",
"cjcsxoo",
"cjcth3f",
"cjctlz0",
"cjctp8n",
"cjcu0mg",
"cjcu3yx",
"cjcu8pk",
"cjcuc2g",
"cjcuemn",
"cjcuohg",
"cjcusqv",
"cjcuun0",
"cjcuz1h",
"cjcv23o",
"cjcv2ym",
"cjcv311",
"cjcv539",
"cjcv54g",
"cjcv7bw",
"cjcv8mc",
"cjcva6h",
"cjcvc2e",
"cjcvd3s",
"cjcvf8z",
"cjcvgy6",
"cjcvgyt",
"cjcvh4q",
"cjcvi7w",
"cjcvk94",
"cjcvkw0",
"cjcvlwm",
"cjcvmqr",
"cjcvo75",
"cjcvs17",
"cjcvsd3",
"cjcvtlq",
"cjcw1lr",
"cjcw34a",
"cjcw4lc",
"cjcw90r",
"cjcwb2y",
"cjcwd41",
"cjcweah",
"cjcwexe",
"cje1iec"
],
"score": [
181,
5,
933,
822,
30,
68,
47,
4,
5,
8,
3,
127,
25,
2,
12,
55,
4,
4,
165,
9,
2,
4,
3,
26,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
12,
3,
2,
8,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A small, homogeneous population, lots of natural resources, no responsibility to do anything on the world stage, and security which is outsourced to other actors. Their government has managed the country very well, but they're also in a very advantageous position.",
"It's all defense spending. We make military tanks and planes we don't need because it's good for the companies that manufacture them.",
"In Norway (and other northern European countries), they have high taxes.\n\nIn the US people freak out about high taxes, however, in Norway, people don't mind because everyone gets health care, education up to university level, buying new published books, maternity packages etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. \n\nYou also have to keep in mind that people in Europe are not as materialistic so they don't have the same \"its mine, all mine\" attitude that some people (mainly the rich people who make all the laws) in the US have.\n\nA caring society is a more enjoyable society to live in. ",
"Let's see.Norway doesn't nose around in middle east. That saves about a trillion a year. ",
"Norway's government spends $40k per person per year. Of that, about 3% goes to the military.\n\nThe US government spends $11k per person per year. Of that, about 20% goes to the military.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nNorway can do this through higher taxes and well managed natural resources.\n\nThe US could certainly try higher taxes, though as other posters have pointed out, a much larger, much less homogenous population may make this harder.\n\nThe US could also try managing it's resource wealth for the future, instead of for, \"right now\", but a shift in cultural sentiments might have to happen first.\n\nThe US could also scale back it's military activities, though allies might complain, and enemies might fill up the vacuum.\n\nNo easy or quick answers.",
"The US is not \"drowning in debt\". That is a spin that TV pundits want you to believe. \n\nA country can fund itself through taxation. Our tax rates are really low compared to the rest of the western world. Scandanavia taxes their citizens at a very high rate. But these taxes pay for healthcare, education, and so on. You're essentially paying for the next generation's well being, just like the generation before you paid for yours. \n\nIn the US, it's almost heresy to suggest that we raise taxes at all, much less to pay for someone else's ANYTHING. \n\nIF the US raises taxes just a bit, our debt disappears. ",
"Lots of mostly correct answers here. In order: Norway has massive per capita oil reserves. This contributes immensely to their ability to offer services.\n\nNorway has fewer people as a whole living in a much smaller land area. Over 10% of their population lives in Oslo city limits. Almost a third are in the greater Oslo area. Having their population that condensed makes many services much cheaper.\n\nNorway has far fewer military commitments and thus spends far less on their military.",
"Its sorta like Saudis Arabia or Dubai....tons of oil, small population.\n\n",
"Because all those things are beneficial to the economy...something the US has yet to learn",
"the US would rather spend its money being ruler of the world and funding wars around the globe than actually taking care of its citizens. ",
"All those things help - not only people live better lives - but the country. It turns out living in fear of poverty is not a good motivator, despite certain crazed theories.\nFeeling secure, being educated and having a bit of \"bildung\", and good daycare, seems to motivate people better.\nLook up flexicurity, that is part of it.\nFull disclosure; Danish dad with a free master's degree on parental leave :-)",
"Just moved here from Indiana and this is what I have noticed. Super high taxes on everything, especially sin tax and they receive a lot of money from oil royalties. Take a gander at this _URL_0_. \n\nAlso they don't have the lawyers that we have in the states. They are not sue happy and hold accountability on the individual! This is perhaps the main reason I love Norway! Well maybe after the food and earth porn.",
"Higher taxes that don't all go to corporations and weapons. Saves a pretty penny if idiots aren't running your country ",
"The large social safety net also creates a far smaller underclass\n",
"Norway also doesn't fund other nations and gift them weapons, has an insanely smaller military, doesn't have a war on drugs (or terror) or a prison system the size of ours, and there isn't a conservative nanny state in Norway, among other factors.",
"America treat people like they are a problem and a burden to the society. Norway treat people like a valuable resource that contributes to the society. And that's the main reason. \n\nOff course it sounds great with \"free competition\", \"the American dream\", \"survival of the fittest\" and so on. In theory. But in the real world? How much resources are wasted in this competition? How many becomes a \"burden\" to the society because the very rich have to step on them to reach the their goals? And when the very rich reach their goal, why should their contribute to a society that have been fighting against them all the way? \n\nIn other words: Its better with a population where everyone are \"rich\" enough to pay taxes than a population with a few extremely rich that can hire lawyers to avoid paying taxes....",
"Norway hasn't designated itself as the global police force, so it gets to spend its tax revenue on its citizens and infrastructure. That being said, the tax rate in Norway is significantly higher than in the U.S.",
"the US cares about being a fascist, totalitarian, military state so we funnel as much money as we can into that and hundreds of government officials' pockets and then also their cronies' pockets. other countries have these things called morals and don't do shit like we do.",
"I've had this conversation with a Norwegian friend of mine. She agrees that part of the issue lies with the vast cultural differences across the USA. She claims that the people of Norway are similarly minded and rather conservative in their day to day lives. In the USA, we have a vast population in comparison, with a very broad spectrum of beliefs, lifestyles and ambitions. This makes it incredibly difficult to appease everyone with a one size fits all (or most) system that works for Norway. \n\nOn the topic of healthcare, from what I understand, Norway has a very high tax rate on sugar and \"junk\" foods to discourage it's consumption and overall negative effects on a healthy population. How many Americans are willing to give up or even reduce their consumption of these foods, how many corporations are willing to have that happen? Socially, overweight and unhealthy lifestyles are frowned upon in Norway, where as here they're just accepted. \n\nAnother part of equation is our general attitude as a nation towards freedom, rights and the \"American Dream.\" For example said friend was a sports journalist for almost a decade, the newspaper she worked for cut her column and she was laid off. She enrolled in government sponsored job finding program and was picked up, trained, almost a year part-time instruction, as a medical coder. She didn't pick the profession, it was chosen for her. \n\nOn my end of the spectrum, I have friends who've been unemployed for two, three or more years. I've offered them entry-level trades/technical positions at the company I work for. They would work, get on the job training and pick up some certification courses on the company's dime. A living wage, entry into a pretty good career, benefits and the ability to start paying off those English Literature, Film Studies and Economics major student loans. All of their responses have been, \"No I don't want to be a welder, machinist or sonic technician.\"\n\nIt's just one example, but when I see someone in another country willing to change their career into something they would never have chosen yet we're unwilling to do the same, makes me doubt their social programs would work here. I've come across way too many Americans who feel entitled to various government benefits and stuck in their \"instant gratification\", \"that's not my job\" or \"the man is trying to keep me down\" frame of mind. Doesn't exist in Norway.\n\n\n \n",
"Norway is a socialist country with a population of around 5 million people. We used to be a very poor country until we discovered a whole lot of oil in the late 50's, and all the major Norweigian oil companies are state owned. We also tend to not have any social class ideas, so by and large, everyone has a middle class lifestyle. The socialist ideals still allow for freedom of politics, etc, but also guarantees a certain standard of living. All of norways leaders have managed to keep saving and reinvesting state oil money, which keeps the country nice and happy :) \n\nTl;dr we love the oil investments and socialism\n\nEdit: also very high tax, lol",
"because it's a more balanced socialism.\n\nmore taxes, more government budget.\n\nbeing able to be independent in the US has a cost: if you're poor, you're independent all right, but the government won't be able to help you.\n\non the other hand, you won't be able to see great companies like google and microsoft. well maybe because you can't really dodge taxes in norway though.",
"Norway's energy system is highly efficient. Seriously. They're one of the only vountries with energy surpluses. Energy is so cheap they use it to warm up roads. They also passively sell their energy to other countries. This is an interesting thing actually. Because direct energy tranfer is useless and inefficient, they do things that require very much energy, for example, make aluminum out of bauxite. The process requires very much energy so countries that mine bauxite usually send it to Norway, who makes aluminum and sells it back away to other countries. \nOh, and why does Norway have this cheap electricity? Lots and lots of fast-running rivers and hydrogenerators on top of those. Yup, a lot of that energy is renewable.\nEdit: Bauxire is boksiit in Estonian.",
"I'm fairly certain that in America more cash goes to Healthcare but because the system is so ~~fucked up~~, and little of it actually goes to benefit the citizens but actually privatized corporations. ",
"Ok, gather around children and lets try to look at the big picture. Now keep in mind, this will not be a discussion about minimum wage or healthcare. No circle-jerking allowed either there in the back boys!\n\nThe short version of this is as follows:\nEconomic wealth is created by the middle class, sustained by the working class and consumed by the upper class. \n\nBefore I go on, I'm going to explain some words I'll be using.\nWealth: money and productivity that can be measured in monetary terms\nValue: The sum of all wealth generated. \nCaptured wealth: The wealth that one person can take for themselves out of the total value. \naccumulated wealth: the sum of captured wealth that one person can over time keep for themselves OR pass on to their heirs.\n\nWorking class people are more or less living at a sustenance level, so while they might be very productive (creates value), they can only \"capture\" a small fraction of that value for themselves. Out of the wealth they generate for themselves, most of this wealth goes to sustain their lives leaving little wealth to be accumulated. Wealth can of course be accumulated in many ways, cash reserves, assets that don't loose value over time and so forth. \n\nSo in short, working class people spend almost as much as they earn, leaving little to save up for emergencies or to pay upfront for expensive purchases. \n\nMiddle class people are more or less equally productive (value generating) as a working class family but they are better at taking a larger part of the pie (capture wealth) for themselves. The cost of staying alive is more or less the same as for an working class family, so middle class people accumulate more wealth over time. Again, this accumulated wealth can be stored in many forms. The key difference between a working class and middle class family is that the middle class are more resiilent when emergencies or upfront costs hit them they have an easier time to pay for these things without a reduction in living standard. Imagine that you have to pay $10.000 for a hospital bill. If you have substantial savings this can be paid from your savings, otherwise you need to sell your car, house or get a loan with interest.\n\nUpper class people are also about equally productive (generating value) as the previous two classes. Why do I make this claim? Because there is still only 24 hours in a day and upper class people spend about as much time in the bathroom and in bed as everybody else. \nHowever, upper class people are extremely efficient at capturing wealth for themselves. Remember what I said about the working and middle class only taking part of the value they generate for themselves? The remaining parts of are captured by the upper class. In a nutshell, the upper class captures more then 100% of the value they generate. Remember, the universe doesn't care about value, only humans do, so there is nowhere \"else\" value is added or subtracted.\n\nNow, some people will say this is unfair nor not. This is for the class to discuss after the lecture is over. What I will talk about is how these 3 different classes /spend/ their wealth and the consequences of said spending.\n\nWorking class people might buy some stuff, but they cannot buy _extra_ stuff, so they do not generate surplus demand. that is, demand for goods and services that does not directly contribute to their short term survival.\nRemember, the working class incapable of accumulating enough wealth to pass on to the next generation. Poor people are not poor because they are lazy, but because they spend all their time, health and resources on staying alive. Leaving little room for education, savings accounts and time to plan for the future.\nSo having a lot of working class people is in fact bad for business. They don't buy anything they don't desperately need. \n\nThe middle class has on the other hand quite a lot more money to spend after having taken care of their basic needs. They can buy a new car when they need one, they can go on a vacation trip etc. In overall, having a large middle class is good for business.\n\nUpper class people on the other hand have an enormous accumulated wealth taken mostly from the working and middle class. If they spent most that accumulated wealth they would be at least equally good for business as the middle class.. but the sad reality is that the day has only 24 hours and even posh people need to spend time in the bathroom and in bed. No matter how many people they employ, as long as they accumulate wealth faster than they can spend it, they are _not_ as good as the middle class for business because wealth will over time accumulate to gigantic proportions. \n\nNow I can finally answer the question posted by OP. Namely how countries like Norway sustain itself while offering health care, education, maternity packages etc.?\n\nBy policies that encourage as large as possible middle class and encouraging as large as possible accumulation of wealth in said middle class.\n\nThe fewer working class and upper class people there are, the faster the wealth can be recycled, meaning more business. The more business and the faster the wealth is recycled, the more wealth a tax system has at it's disposal. \n\nimagine a waterwheel powering a pump, and said pump feeding a waterfall that powers the waterwheel. If the waterfall is small , the wheel will turn slowly, meaning the pump will only feed the waterfall a trickle. If on the other hand, the waterfall is large, the wheel turns fast and the pump can feed the waterfall with a torrent of water.\n\nSurplus demand is how quickly such a system can change. With high surplus demand the trickling waterfall can quickly turn into a torrent of water. With a torrent of water to tap, tapping 20% (taxes) of said torrent will be a shitload compared to tapping 20% of the trickle.\n\nThis explains why the Nordic (not only Norway) can sustain a high expenditure government. \n\nHow it came to be like this is another aspect.. \nOffering free public education allows working class families to \"pass on\" more accumulated wealth to the next generation, not in the form of money but by allowing the next generation to enter the middle class.\n\nFree public health care reduces the negative economic impact of health related issues. For the working class families this means they don't need to save on life essentials commodities or take up loans (both would make it harder for them or their heirs to enter the middle class). For middle class families this means less of their accumulated wealth is spent on emergencies, leaving more of it to available to generate surplus demand.\n\nThere is a host of other activities mentioned, but what you have to keep in mind.. They are _all_ designed with the intent of increasing the wealth and size of the middle class. No Reagan-onomics bullshit that ignored 150+ years of accumulated macro-economic scientific knowledge.\n\n",
"I wouldn't even want to know the security/military and law enforcement budget of the USA. 'keeping people in line' is probably the USA's biggest industry.",
"* Tax the rich\n* No expensive overseas wars of bases\n* Small enough population to sustain it affordably\n* Corporations don't own Norway",
"Norway does an amazing job of managing its massive oil wealth, spending only the interest income on a trust fund that now amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. NPRs Planet Money did an excellent summary of this here: _URL_0_",
"I feel like the states playing the role of \"world police\" contributed to the debt.",
"Cause the US spends a shit load on defence.",
"One of the reasons is that the U.S. healthcare system is very expensive compared to those of other developed nations: [See the health expenditure graph](_URL_0_). The U.S. also spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on its military: about 4%, while Norway spends about 1.4%.\n\nI'm not sure about other systems like education costs and tax efficiency, but the gist is that the U.S. is not the most efficient economy in the world. It's certainly not bad compared to most other countries, but there are developed countries that are just a bit more efficient.\n\n\n\n\n",
"Added my comment already, not sure if helpful, but everyone else is not answering your question. They're just using blanket statements but it really comes down to Wall Street liquidity and credit risk cycle. Watch the economic machine by Ray Dalio (CEO of the largest hedge fund in the world) on YouTube. I promise you that you'll learn far more than what you'll find here",
"Cause the US gives away all it's money to corporations/ military spending/ the 1%",
"Norway's a democracy and the US is an oligarchy. ",
"Typically in extremely corrupt countries, public expenditures and taxes are extremely high, while public services are relatively insignificant and infrastructure is poorly maintained. This is an apt description of the United States. \n\nThe United States is, by and large, a cesspool of competing special interests - ethnic lobbies, ideological lobbies, multinational corporations - not a real nation. The core of its identity is the abuse of government and wealth to wage war on competing special interest groups.",
"Norwegian here I would like to point out a few things.\n\n1. We do have the oil money, but what I belive is different in Norway is that the oil is owned by the goverment. So when companies pump the oil up they have to pay huge taxes to the goverment. But we only spend a small amount of these money every year, the rest gets saved away for when we need it (baby boomers retire in a few years). I googled it fast and it looks like we use 2-4% now and expect 7-10% in 2020.\n\n2. The goverment is my insurance, so I pay high taxes (around 40% of my income and 12,5%VAT on food and 25% VAT on everything else plus extra on luxury goods.) But for these money I get: free school (including uni), a maximum of 320$ (10 hours of work for me) for healtcare a year (less if it is something cronic) roads +++. It makes me a happy taxpayer.\n\n3. Free schools stops people from dropping out of school and it secures jobs. So that people end up paying taxes.\n\n4. The goverment still owns and runs schools and healtcare. I belive around 7-800 000 (around 1/3 of all working norwegians) is employed in the public system. I belive this is cheaper and you get a higher quality then when outsourcing the services where someone wish to make money.\n\n5. A decent public service that helps people get back to job, if they get sick/looses their job.\n\n6. A strong union that pushes for more salary equality, more maternety (and for dads) leaves, how the system for getting back to work after an illness works. The biggest union has more then 800 000 members and founded the laborparty. The party with most time in power after WW2.\n\nTL:DR: We pay shitloads of tax and the goverment own oil so we have a safety net that pushes us into jobs which generates more taxmoney.\n",
"The first thing you need to understand is that Norway (and the other Scandinavian countries) is an oil state. Facing this fact dulls the initial \"ohh ahh\" reaction people have w/ Norway. Secondly, it has a Socialist state that doles out much of said oil revenue (along with insanely high taxes) on universal health care and all the other goodies you mentioned. So...now that we've demystified where all the revenue comes from to pay for these things, we face another simple truth. Norways population is ~5 million people. US has ~315 million people mixed into 50 states with different governments. Finally, think about the sheer diversity (regional, political, ethnic, relgious, racial, ad infinitum) of the US that continues through immigration....compared to the tiny fraction of diversity in Norway. Think about that and let that sit in before you want to try and figure a way to get everyone everything for free. It is not possible from this standpoint. Fiscally speaking we could certainly do a better job of distributing tax money (I believe the US is already an oligarchy that uses govt for its own benefit) but we are a global power that uses its resources in different ways (Military and otherwise). \n\nTL;DR Norway is a tiny and homogeneous socialist oil state ...US is a massive diverse free market system (albeit corrupt to some degree) with a strong national character that is anathema to \"socialism\" aka what most of us see as free hand outs. Not saying I agree.",
"The US government is really wasteful.\n\nYou give them $1 trillion dollars for a government program, and they'll find a way to spend every dime on overhead.\n\nLook at the \"war on poverty\". $17 trillion spent, and we're worse off for it.\n\nLook at the \" war on drugs\". Not exactly sure how much we spent off hand, but we're worse off than before.\n\nIf you gave the US government 5 times its budget, it would blow through it and need more. If you gave it to the Norwegian government, you'd get your money's worth. ",
"Higher rates of taxation, properly used and invested for the future of the country. Thjey have it so good in parts their high scholl graduation celebrations last 17 nights and can cost several hundred thousand dollars....",
"The idea is that if everyone understands the fact that regardless of who your parents are, or what abilities/disabilities you have, you have the right and possibility to:\n1. Have a home\n2. Get an education\n3. Get help if you're ill\n4. Get wealthy if you have money over\n\nRequirements:\n1. Pay taxes as much as you're capable of. Meaning, if you're not earning anything, you don't pay anything. If you're earning a lot, you pay more than the average guy.\n\nIn the U.S, you need somewhat sane and responsible parents, and/or luck. Dedication thereafter.\n",
"This is really interesting, I have a follow up question. Other than the crippling barrier that is large scale social change would it be possible for other 1st world countries to imitate what Norway does?\n\nHere in Melbourne our government spent literally billions creating a new ticketing system for the public transport system. The whole thing was a fucking disaster and the worst is that the system used in the UK and other countries can be brought off the self so to speak, for WAY cheaper. My point being if someone has a system that works, why can't we just do that?...",
"My guess is simple: The USA spends more on it's army than the next 15 nations combined. The other day on [AA](/r/adviceanimals) there was a freedom eagle stating this:\n\n > Biggest air force in the world? The US Air Force. \nSecond biggest air force in the world? The US Navy.\n\n Hell, if US military spendings were more on par with the rest of the world AND churches wouldn't be tax exempt, then the US would be out of debt within a ~~year~~ few decades.\n\n**EDIT**: The within a year clause has been withdrawn. The comment section has given a more accurate timeframe. thanks, /u/Izwe.",
"I see a lot of answers here along the lines of:\n\n-They don't play world police\n\n-They have high taxes\n\netc.\n\nUnfortunately these are all missing the mark, or at least incomplete. The big thing they leave out is that there are not just costs to offering people (for instance) free education, but also benefits, even in the strictly financial sense. tEffectively, by having a higher educated workforce, you will have a more highly qualified workforce, which can generate more revenue, and thus more taxes. \n\nThe norwegian state putting someone through university costs money for five years, but generates a gain for +/- 40 years of professional life. It's then also more acceptable to those people to pay more taxes, because they owe their higher income to the state in the first place. \n\nA similar argument can be made for free healthcare, which means people will go to the doctor earlier, disease will be detected and treated in an earlier stage, which is cheaper, and leads to less work days missed, which in turn generated more revenue again, which creates both acceptance for higher taxes, and the actual means to pay for them.\n\nTLDR: Most of the public services OP mentioned have direct financial benefits to the system, which mostly outweigh the apparent costs.",
"Funny story is that the US spends more money per capita than norway on health care and k-12 education.",
"Paying higher taxes for public amentities and services available would probably work out cheaper than paying lower taxes and having higher costs for health care, education etc.\n",
"Denmark here: Mostly same is true for Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. How these countries can afford all that you mentioned is a combination of things. Firstly, as mentioned, their population is much lower than US, so naturally it is a little easier for them. Second, high taxes contribute to a big budget, allowing those things. Third, the way society functions and how it sees itself - in northern Europe social capital is much higher than in US, which mean people care a lot about each other, there are practically no poor people and most people are in middle class, almost nobody minds paying high taxes, because they see it as a social investment that makes their social environment better. You pay not only for your kid's education, which is of course awesome, but also maybe your neighbour's, because if your neighbour's kid is poor and with no education, your kid's social environment, even with his/her education will not pay off. It costs less in long run to \"pay for your neighbour's kids education\" than to pay for million policeman to protect the society. Forth, these countries mostly don't like to get involved in other countries business (True Danes, Swedes and Norwegians all sent troops to Afghanistan, but they are not spending nowhere as much as Americans, not to mention Iraq). Fifth, these countries are very innovative in their economic policies and usually far ahead of the world. For example, Norway has a huge fund, where it saves most of the money it gets from the oil and it then invests this money in stocks, like an ordinary fund would do. Because this fund is huge, they can wait out small fluctuations in economy and even economic crisis and are very profitable, ensuring that even after the oil runs out the country will have money. Sixth, these countries are usually effective and very transparent in governance. They take care of every ora (cent) paid by taxpayer. You might think that this still does not make sense, but you have this thing in effect for like almost 200 years (more or less) and then you get an awesome society. \nThen there are minor and specific things, how prisoners are treated and rehabilitated, to keep society whole and crime low, Education system - in Finland very experimental and one of the best in the world. I am not gonna mention some of the ideologically debated things such as public ownership of most things, vs. privatisation, even though most people think that contributes to prosperity as well. Gender equality, environmental awareness, clean energy (even though one might argues all these post industrial values come after the society becomes rich enough, but I believe they contribute as the society advances and makes the process faster), economic freedom (despite stereotypes, all the nordic economies are very free and little bureaucracy, it's tax based - easy to start business and do all you want, just pay the taxes).\n\nOf course, not all nordic societies are the same and they have their individual problems - for example, Danes have the biggest private debt per capita. But because the society remains healthy in the long run, noone is afraid. Immigration is another problem, as the Danish welfare state is not ready to pay for everyone who moves to Denmark, especially from the EU. \n\nBut most important, in my opinion, is equality, because people do feel that their are part of a society that cares about them and they care about others as well. And equality does not mean that their is communism, Denmark, for example, has one of the highest social mobilities in the world, meaning that there is about 3 times bigger (if I remember the number correctly) chance that you will be earning more money than your dad, than it would be if you were born in US. \n\nSo you take all that and then maybe you get a society like that. I don't think just cutting US military budget will help it. (You have to also think that prosperity in Europe has been possible because US pays all that money on military and we don't have to do anything, basically we are \"free-riders\" as you call it. I think there is a article by Robert Kagan, Paradise Europe, that makes that point. But anyway, thanks for that. \n\nP.S. Actually it is very easy for US Americans to move to Nordic countries, everyone speaks English and generally are very friendly towards Americans. \n\n ",
"Norway nationalized its oil interests. So instead of being a for profit raping, all profits from oil go directly to the national budget. It's also a much smaller country. It is also a much more homogenous country. There aren't hundreds and thousands of special interests groups, minority groups, religious groups, corporate lobbyists, and so on that split the political spectrum so much in this country that nothing can get done. ",
"Small population, lots of oil and responsible economic policies.",
"Because Norway has a tiny population (i.e. less than New York City), immense oil wealth, relies on the United States to defend it militarily and lacks tens of millions of uneducated illegal Mexicans who use huge amounts of government services but pay no taxes and have six kids by the time they are 25.",
"Norway might actually be a bad example because of their oil money. But the Nordic countries all offer pretty much the same benefits. It boils down to a few main points:\n\n-Higher taxes, of course. They're somewhere around 30% in general. \n\n-No financial \"black holes\" where the money ends up and can't be seen from the outside. Some parts of the US military are good examples of this.\n\n-Staying out of wars. Sweden has been neutral for over 200 years and the other Nordic countries aren't exactly aggressive either. \n\n-Välfärd\n",
"My guess is that they don't spend half of their budget on the military, and things are taxed more.",
"US syphons money to other programs and steals money. Nothing to see here. Just vote every 4 years and complain about the results.",
"It's funny that everyone talks about how Norway has a ton of natural resources and that's why they do so good.\n\nSure its a big contributor, but, keep in mind:\n\nthe US is the BIGGEST oil producer in the world nowadays.\n_URL_0_",
"**Second largest natural gas reserves in the world, high taxes, and a population the size of Atlanta, Georgia. Also, corporations in America suck all the money out of the system with free from taxes rules.**\n\n Hope that explains it.",
"Countries like Norway, Finland, etc are also significantly smaller in population which adds to the difficulty of the US to apply such programs. ",
"I know the Norwegian government owns large oil reserves in the North Atlantic, and they use that money to pay for a lot of the social services you mention. ",
"* high taxes\n\n* high functioning government\n\n* a general public willingness to contribute to society\n\n* small population\n\n* huge riches in natural resources (oil in particular)",
"Some points:\n\n* United States is a socialized country in many respects despite the propaganda. **It's just a poorly ran one.** Socialized medicine, for example, has been available in United States since 1965. By the late 1990's probably over 75% of the money in the healthcare sector was from the Federal and State governments. The vast majority of education is completely socialized with massive government programs to finance it. Incendentally these government programs for medicine and education is why costs have risen so much... which is due to them just being ran poorly and with perverse incentive systems. \n\n* United State's debt is not the same a other country's debt becuase the United States banking system controls the money supply for the rest of the world. The Federal Bank, which is still technically a 'private' institution, will buy government bonds from the member national banks so that money gets injected back into Federal Government while at the same time creating a massive boost, economically, to the largest United States banks and biggest brokerages. The United States Federal Bank has performed similar functions for EU when the Euro was having issues a couple years back. Much of the 'debt' that the USA has will never be paid back as it just gets rolled up into more debt. The USA government has been doing this sort of thing successfully since WW1 and probably sees no intencentive to change. \n\nImagine what life would be like if you money tree in your backyard, and every time you pulled some leaves you had to write that down as 'debt'. But the tree is completely owned by you and is completely dependent on you for it's existance and has zero desire to ever be paid back. That is sort of what it is like for the USA to control the aupply for the world's standard currency. \n\nThis is why nobody, outside of the occasional semi-delusional pundent on TV or people trying to sell you gold/silver, really cares what the national debt for the USA is. The only thing that matters is inflation and credibility of the Federal banking system.\n\n* Norway is a significant exporter of petroleum. Also it enjoys a corporate tax rate almost half of what is in the USA. Petroleum exporting countries see continous income which can be used to finance all sorts of socialist programs quite easily. \n\nAs long as Norway doesn't do something stupid to drive away private enterprise, like what is happening in Venezuela, then it will be able to have sustainable socialist programs for as long as people want it's oil."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Per_capita"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Norway"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/06/140110346/how-to-avoid-the-oil-curse"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_systems_by_country"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4eg9j6 | how come dogs get so scared at the vet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4eg9j6/eli5_how_come_dogs_get_so_scared_at_the_vet/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1ztqpb",
"d1zu3u8",
"d20a0yy"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"For the same reason little kids are afraid of the dentist sometimes. They associate the vet with unpleasantness. ",
"Mine lost his balls the first time he went there, and was stabbed a lot with needles. The next time he went he had a thermometer stuck up his butt, and stabbed with more needles. So I guess he just knows bad things happen to him when he smells the antiseptic that the whole place reeks of. ",
"0% scientific, but my theory: pheromones!\n\nI find it a very plausible idea that dogs, with their super sensitive nose smell the fear/anxiety of the dogs that were there before them. Hence they get afraid/nervous and leave a fresh negative scent for the next dog."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4b8nkp | how does "strike it from the record" work in trials? you can't force a jury to forget what they just heard. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b8nkp/eli5_how_does_strike_it_from_the_record_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d16ya6e",
"d16ya7r",
"d16yegj",
"d171h6c",
"d175hwk",
"d176n5b",
"d17c90a",
"d17gy1a",
"d17jkwy",
"d17l990"
],
"score": [
331,
7,
20,
62,
13,
6,
4,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It is true they can't un-hear something but they can't use it in the deliberation and it it is found that it was part of the deliberation I believe a mistral can occur. Furthermore the jury is not always present every time something is struck from the record. ",
"I think it's more to keep it from being used in deliberations. When the jury goes to review testimony and evidence, they are not allowed to consider anything that was stricken from the record. Of course, they heard it and it can cloud judgment, but it can't be discussed or openly used to determine guilt / innocence. ",
"You can instruct them to act like they haven't heard it. If it's too damaging, though, the judge may declare a mistrial and start over with a new jury. Doing that on purpose with lawyery shenanigans will get you in a lot of trouble.\n\nMy answer isn't great but hopefully it will suffice until a law student shows up with a better explanation.",
"When a jury hears something they shouldn't have, the judge has two choices:\n\n* strike it from the record and instruct the jury to disregard\n* declare a mistrial and start over\n\nUnless it is particularly egregious, judges will usually choose the first option. The benefit a lawyer might get from \"accidentally\" sneaking something can be outweighed by the negative impression the jury gets when the judge tells them off.\n\nIf someone feels that made the trial unfair, it can be used as a grounds for an appeal.",
"It is purely an instruction to the jury not to consider the evidence in deliberations. It is a legal fiction - you can't \"unring the bell.\" If you have a trial court record full of things that the jury shouldn't have heard, you may have success getting a new trial or taking an appeal in the event of an adverse verdict. \n\nThe struck evidence is still in the record for appellate court review. Because of the aliunde rule, after a verdict the attorneys are not allowed to question jurors about whether the struck evidence was considered in deliberations. Instead, they must argue to the appellate court that the improper evidence was or was not \"harmless error.\" The standard for demonstrating whether improper evidence was harmless or prejudicial is notoriously vague, and the courts of appeals afford the trial court a number of presumptions that weigh toward supporting the jury verdict. As a result, appellants generally win a very small number of appeals, even when improper evidence is mentioned at trial. ",
"The members of the jury cannot be made to intentionally forget something they have heard, but in striking it off they have to disregard what they have heard in their decision - if they are undecided, that cannot be the piece of information that makes their decision.\n\nThis isn't something that can really be enforced, but can only be taken on honour that the jury will make their decision fairly as they agreed to - they agreed to listen to the case and make a fair decision, and it would be breaking their oath if they then considered information they shouldn't know in that decision - the same way they should be disregarding any public belief gathered from the media or a bloke down the pub who claims he knows something...",
"As I'm sure you've gathered by now, your initial suspicion has probably been confirmed. As another poster already mentioned, it's a \"legal fiction\" employed to maintain continuity between the rules and reality. \n\nWhile a jury may not use evidence struck from the record by a judge per the rule, it's not exactly enforceable to wipe away what you heard. I imagine many members of the jury won't exactly disregard some pretty damning material because per FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence) 403, exclusion of relevant evidence for reason of unfair prejudice. \n\nSo.. in short, your suspicion is probably right, and a sly and unethical attorney can easily \"sneak in\" unfairly prejudicial testimony in his favor. It's not like humans are computers and we can literally wipe away parts of our memory, or have some device like the one in the film, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. ",
"\"Counselor's entire opening statement... with the exception of \"thank you\"... will be stricken from the record\"\n",
"Did somebody watch Daredevil season 2 over the weekend...? 😏",
"I'm a court reporter/transcriber for Grand Juries, and oddly enough, we always transcribe this literally; whatever they were saying, \"strike that,\" followed by the next part. However, I think this is just because it has more of a bearing in actual trials (of which I have no knowledge of) and attorneys instinctively use the same procedures."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3hsmd5 | the use of "metagame" in competitive esports. | I se things like CS:GO's 'sub machine gun metagame' after the recent major update. Or Pokemon's 'putting rocks up/weather metagame'.
I understand the word meta but do not understand its use in gaming. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hsmd5/eli5_the_use_of_metagame_in_competitive_esports/ | {
"a_id": [
"cua7x2w",
"cua88tb"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It basically means the ongoing battle between finding the most foolproof tactics, most unbalanced weapons, the tricks and techniques that are hard to beat etc, and the challlenge of finding ways to counter them and come up with something even stronger.\n\nIt's like CS:GO is the game, but there's a game outside of the game called \"Find The Best Tactics vs Find The Best Counter To Those Tactics.\" That's the metagame.",
"Explanation via smash brothers: so. SB has many characters, and they aren't all meant to be balanced. Fox is widely consider to be THE BEST, along with Falco, and a few others. That top grouping of characters is considered required if you want to win. If you intend to play tournaments, you best be hella good with one of them. Thus, if you go to a tournament, everyone who's serious will be playing one of them. This is called a fox heavy mets game. \n\nHowever, occasionally someone will perfect or invent a a new technique for a different character. For instance, someone a while back took a yoshi to championship. This is taking advantage of the metagame. He played a new technique, the metagame had no yoshis in it, so no one could counter him. \n\nTl;dr the metagame is basically playing the other players and their choices of what's \"good\" "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2zpmto | why did isis blow up a mosque? | Aren't they fighting to turn everyone into muslims? Why would they blow up a mosque then? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zpmto/eli5_why_did_isis_blow_up_a_mosque/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpl3v62",
"cpl4560",
"cpl4ycr",
"cpl5l5v",
"cpl7lhu",
"cpl9msj",
"cple4id",
"cpleiim",
"cplpcnn",
"cplxc4i"
],
"score": [
97,
32,
13,
9,
3,
3,
7,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the mosque belonged to the wrong type of muslims ( in thier sick heads).",
"ISIS adheres to a very particular, very strict interpretation of Islam. They see other 'incorrect' interpretations of Islam as being even worse than being non-Muslim. To them, being the wrong kind of Muslim is pretty much the worst thing you can do.",
"Remember that ISIS are a specific group of muslims. They do not represent the entire muslim agenda and have their own agenda. ISIS members will happily kill a non-ISIS muslim if they feel it is appropriate to do so.",
" > Aren't they fighting to turn everyone into muslims?\n\nNo, they aren't. They are fighting to establish a religious theocracy. 'Peoples of the Book', meaning religions that follow the God of Abraham as the one and only god, are supposed to be allowed to live and worship freely as long as they pay a special tax and follow restrictive rules like not having their own religious buildings. And those people who do not already worship the God of Abraham, or who are said to worship idols or practice heresies (like not following the exact Wahhabist doctrine that ISIS does), are beyond redemption and executed en-masse. ",
"There are many sects of Islam, (compare to Christianity: Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans and so on) the two largest being Sunni and Shi'a (Shiites). When The Prophet, Mohammed died in 632 c.e. , those two sects had a falling out (schism) over who should become his successor. The Sunnis wanted his friend, Abu Bakr; the Shiites wanted his S-i-L/cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib.\nFast-forward to now, and to ELI5, the ISIS want everyone to be their sect, Sunni so convert or die.\n",
"The Sunni and the Shia are two different Islamic groups with two different interpretations of Islam. ISIS terrorists follow the Sunni while the mosque belongs to the Shia, causing ISIS to destroy it.\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"This is a really common among non-muslims and really hurting concept for Muslims but ISIS has no genda of converting or turning someone. They are an organization of dominance and terror. Some wrote wrong type of Muslims for the answer but this is not enough for explanation when it comes to justification actions of ISIS always finds a way just like burning someone alive. They will be willing to destroy anything threatening their dominance rather than being wrong type. \nWhen it comes to mosque bombing the mosque was used by a group called Houthies, Houthies are mostly an ethnic group in Yemen following Shiite Islam rules, they invaded capital of Yemen with heavy guns and fair amount of manpower and made a coup, changed all parliament, other groups mostly Ibadis again another sect of Islam which consists majority of Yemen didn't like it. Eventually isis saw this as a threat to their interest and made an action. \nELI5: Some group of people in Yemen who really not into ISIS made a coup, majority didn't like and isis also saw them as a threat and acted just it is as terrorist and didn't care if it is a mosque.",
"Four Lions (2010) seems more relevant than ever:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Okay so in Islam they're two main sections the sunnis and the Shias. Sunnis have four main schools of thought.These are hanafi,maliki, hanbali and shafi. And these schools of thought have sub sections.The hanafi branches are normal moderate Muslims and same goes for all of the schools of thought.Now the hanafi school of thought has branches.The main branches are Salafis, Wahabis and Deobandis.Now I'm a Muslim so I'll tell you this these three groups are terrorists.They might not all be terrorists as in carrying out actions but they all hold extreme views.When i was younger i visited a few of these madrassas and mosques and they really do preach terrorism.Alot of people will say this doesn't happen and I didn't think it was until I saw it for myself. \n\n\nNow barelvies are another group of the hanafi school of thought.This group is anything but violent.They don't hold any extremist views at all.I have visited alot of barelvi mosques and they don't preach about terrorism or anything like that. Barelvies have many different views to the other three Salafis,Wahabis,and Deobandis. Now these groups don't even consider barelvies Muslims.They are constantly criticising _URL_0_ I can kind of understand why they do all this stupid shit like blowing up a mosque. They probably do the same for the other three schools of thought hanbali,shafi and maliki.\n\nBearing in mind these four schools of thought are still sunni but they have differences in some of the interpretations.All these schools of thought recognise each other as Muslims and don't fight with each other.\n\nNow Shias have different beliefs to sunnis.Alot of there beliefs offend sunnis, they are considered Muslims but sunnis think they're on a slippery slope. Wahabis, Salafis and Deobandis don't see them as Muslims so I guess that's why they have no problem with blowing up a mosque. As we know isis really don't care for anyone else other than themselves and they'll probably kill anyone who isn't a follower or who doesn't hold the same view ",
"Because religious extremists think like 5 year olds"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations"
],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/"
],
[
"barelvies.so"
],
[]
] |
|
3362e9 | is there such thing as "free land" anywhere in the world? | Meaning could someone find unclaimed land and build a house on it and not have to pay anyone to use it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3362e9/eli5_is_there_such_thing_as_free_land_anywhere_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqhuyw6",
"cqhv1tu",
"cqhw3c7",
"cqhwtam",
"cqi477e"
],
"score": [
3,
14,
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, there is such a thing as squatters rights I guess. That is if you can manage to live on said land for a number of years without getting caugt.",
"There is Bir Tawil, between Egypt and Sudan, claimed by neither country because recognizing that it's theirs would mean for each country recognizing that a different, more important region isn't. ",
"You can take any territory you can hold. The taking part is probably the easy part.\n\nThere are rocks and reefs all across the Pacific that are uninhabited. Typically this is because they have no fresh water. You could claim one and attempt to live there. Various other countries might object and someone might send a navy to kick you off. Hard to tell.\n\nYou could build an island in international waters and assert your sovereignty. There is one such constructed island off the coast of Great Britain called Sealand that even has it's own postage and passports. (*)\n\nYou could buy land from an existing sovereign, agree on a treaty and declare that it was a new country. It's very hard to imagine any nation doing this now but it was done in the past and it could be done again.\n\nPractically speaking there is no \"Free land\" anywhere that is reasonably inhabitable, reasonably close to accessible, or likely to be made available without recourse to a military conflict.\n\n(*) Sealand is the model for several ideas for \"seasteading\", that is, creating new countries in the ocean. Until recently that's been a utopian pipe dream. But China is now aggressively pursuing claims in the South China Sea based on taking tiny bits of rock and turning them into larger islands and military bases. It is in China's interest to establish that this is a legitimate way to make new sovereign territory so if you played your cards right you might get China to recognize you, which is the hardest step towards making something an \"actual country\" under international law.",
"I'm sure various parts of uninhabited and ungoverned desert in places like Iraq and Afghanistan you could surely do this. You won't survive long, but you could do it.\n\nIn the US, homesteading in Alaska is completely legal and legitimate and there are people doing it right now, some even have a reality TV show.",
"Might makes right. If you have a military/firepower to defend your land and eventually get other countries to recognize your plot of land as your own, it will be \"free\".\n\n\"Cost\" or \"value\", are man made ideas. They do not exist naturally. The reason you can't have this piece of land is because somebody else has claimed it as his/her own, and if you try to take it, they will deal with you through economic, political, or military means."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1wef66 | why does every single call center rep ask for my phone number even though i just punched it into the automated system? | I mean the idea is for them to have my phone number and save everybody time, right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wef66/eli5_why_does_every_single_call_center_rep_ask/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf17aez"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Nope. entering the number in the automated system is for the automated system only. or if they have regional call centers that take calls from only certain regions it recognizes the number and routes to the correct call center...sometimes...in theory\n\nand also the few call centers that have the intergrated tool. that actually recognizes the data entered in the IVR, The reps have to verify they have received the correct customers info. and sometimes we come back from our hr lunch and the tool is minimized.. and when a call comes in, it pops up to the login screen since its been idle for longer that 30 minutes. so we have to log in and start from scratch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5r3o1k | what would happen if a tornado was split down the middle with a solid object (a wall for instance)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r3o1k/eli5_what_would_happen_if_a_tornado_was_split/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4li8i"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Do you mean something like taking a big wall, like one you found laying around on the the US/Mexico border or something, and dropping it right down the middle of a tornado?\n\nIf it was big enough, I'd imagine that it would cause the tornado to break apart. Tornadoes form in very particular wind conditions. If you disrupt those wind patterns, you like disrupt the tornado. That said, I believe tornados start due to the downward motion of rain dragging the air along with it. So if you dropped a wall, you might actually enhance that effect and cause a more substantial low pressure zone in the middle of the storm leading to a more powerful storm. So I guess my answer is I don't know. Better ask [_URL_0_](_URL_0_).\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://what-if.xkcd.com/"
]
] |
||
316l8c | (british politics) the general elections are coming up, what does each candidate stand for, and what policies are they enforcing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/316l8c/eli5_british_politics_the_general_elections_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpytqvl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You might have more luck asking over on /r/askUK or /r/BritishPolitics. It's not really a suitable question for ELI5 -- and some of it is an-answerable anywhere, e.g.\n\n > \"what does each candidate stand for\"\n\nThere are 650 constituencies each with probably 4 or more candidates. Nobody's going to be able to give you the details of all 2,500 people standing as MPs!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8l25o1 | why don’t airplane oxygen masks inflate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l25o1/eli5_why_dont_airplane_oxygen_masks_inflate/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzc8wkw",
"dzccnpb"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"They will inflate only if the pressure of the oxygen line flowing to the mask is greater than the cabin air pressure. This will happen if there if there is a decompression at cruising altitude. At lower altitudes, the outside air pressure is higher, and the bag on the mask won't inflate.\n\nIn the event of a loss in cabin pressure, there probably isn't time for a physics lesson and a math problem, so the flight attendants tell you that the mask may not inflate, so that you won't think that yours is broken.",
"They don't inflate because you're not making a hard seal around your face with the mask, so it doesn't generate enough pressure to inflate. The excess air in the mask continues flowing past the seal, though, ensuring that you're always getting what the mask is delivering."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
56fyhn | physical evidence of gender? | First off my apologies if this question offends or comes across as controversial, I have no intention to insult or disrespect anybody's lifestyle whatsoever. You do you :)
I have a friend (a guy) who says that inside he identifies as a girl and he is actually planning on gender reassignment surgery at some point, which, as painful as that sounds, I support completely.
A recent reddit post I read stated that there are observable physical differences in the brains of men and women.
Now, I get that there is a recognised distinction between sex and gender, so that got me thinking:
There are physical differences between sexes, but are there physical differences between 'genders'?
Perhaps, are there are any measurable biological characteristics 'proving' what gender somebody identifies with? In other words, is there any scientifically identifiable component to gender or, for lack of a better term, is it all in your head?
Curiously,
Exempt1993 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56fyhn/eli5_physical_evidence_of_gender/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8j07n8",
"d8j0tz1",
"d8j722t"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Not anything clear-cut, where you could say \"if you do this scan you can determine what gender someone identifies as\". Some studies have found some statistically significant differences in brain scans, but there's no hard dividing line between genders in those scans.",
"Gender = the idea that certain behaviors are ascribed to one of the sexes (girls like pink boys like blue that kinda thing). It is called a social construct because gender roles (the specific stereotypes that a certain culture holds the members of both sexes too). \n\nThere is no physical evidence of gender because it is a mindset.\n\n\n\nSex = Your biological sex determined by a number of physical characteristics (including your genitals yes). \n\nYour friend may be in their mind conflating the two which is a common mistake.\n\nIf the \"manliest man\" you know suddenly wears a skirt , are they now a woman?\nIf a \"girly girl\" decides to not shave her legs does that make her a man?\n",
"Well, everyones brain is different, and so more different people tend to have more different brains.\n\nPeople who are really smart have different brains. People with Alzheimers have different brains. Different brains isnt the important part, but the data of likelyhood of alleviation of suffering. However, unlike with this, its not possible to just tell if someone is experiencing mental issues or actually has a physiological reason for being this way (current)\n\n_URL_1_\n\none of the first hospitals to do this, (first in the usa) Johns Hopkins Uni, stopped doing it because of a 20x increased risk of suicide after the surgery.\n\nThats quite a lot, so much so they felt it to be unethical to do it anymore. \n\nIMO its a bit like allowing a suicidal teenager to be legally killed by a doctor; sure they want it now, but data shows most likely wont later.\n\n(of course, their are always outliers and so maybe your friend is one. data doubts it tho)\n_URL_0_\n\nIt now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120",
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/"
]
] |
|
3g6gnf | are there good reasons for using drug dogs, given that many have low accuracy? | After seeing [this post](_URL_0_) earlier today, it seems that nearly everyone agrees that drug dogs should not be able to provide probable cause, given how often they have false positives. Yet, time and time again their usage is upheld by the court system. Is there any good reason to continue using them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g6gnf/eli5_are_there_good_reasons_for_using_drug_dogs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctvavtx",
"ctvbh6h",
"ctvci7z"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are used to circumvent the 4th amendment. If a dog alerts to drugs they can drag you out of your car or kick in your door without a warrant. ",
"Based on the response you've already gotten, and the general attitude on reddit, I think you'd be better off asking in /r/askleo which is (partly) for asking law enforcement officials stuff like this",
"If you're a cop, you're going to use every tool at your disposal to bust a criminal. As long as the courts uphold drug dogs, you'll continue to use them.\n\nCops don't pull somebody over and say \"hey, maybe I should call a drug dog out, just in case there's some dope in the car. I don't really think there is but you can never be too sure\". They call the drug dog out *because* they want a reason to search a car. Maybe they feel something is weird & have a funny feeling. Maybe the driver is black. It doesn't really matter - they know they can summon a dog & get a 'reasonable' search out of the deal."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3g4k19/federal_appeals_court_drug_dog_thats_barely_more/"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
231l36 | what actually happens when your eyes are closed, yet a sudden loud noise creates white flashes? | Especially when your mind is relaxed and you're dropping off, I find that if I hear a sudden loud creaking my eyes will see white flashes for the duration of the creak.
As a kid I actually used to think the light was real and that the noise itself had suddenly made a light in the room | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/231l36/eli5_what_actually_happens_when_your_eyes_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgsmm0j",
"cgsmrp4",
"cgsot0c",
"cgspw2r",
"cgsr2gc",
"cgssmol"
],
"score": [
8,
12,
5,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's called [Exploding head syndrome](_URL_0_)\n",
"here you go\n\n_URL_0_",
"there is also the hearing a loud noise when a bright light suddenly enters the eyes. i have this. its a roaring sound. i read that the nerves are cross firing. same as how bright light makes some people sneeze...the nervous sytem confuses the light as a foreign object that must be removed with a sneeze. ",
"These people are all wrong. You're actually Daredevil",
"I love reading these questions and thinking \"What the hell are they talking about?\". 95% of this stuff doesn't happen to me.",
"This happens to me too. I don't think the sound is a hallucination, but the flash of light definitely coincides with the direction and intensity of the sound. I've just figured it was some sort of mild synesthesia. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_head_syndrome"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucination"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
23lnej | why is the boy scouts organization so homophobic? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23lnej/eli5_why_is_the_boy_scouts_organization_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgy74bt",
"cgy78im",
"cgy7u3f"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The Boy Scouts of America are a private organization with religious ties, so they are free to determine membership criteria on their own. As of January 1, 2014, they now allow openly gay Boy Scouts in the organization, but do not allow openly gay adult leaders.\n\nAs to why they are homophobic, it's impossible to say. Their organization tends to reflect general attitudes present in the U.S., and people are still largely uncomfortable about homosexuality. I think things are still improving, so they might eventually come to accept gay leaders.",
"As a recently \"graduated\" Scout, it's a matter of conflict between National and individual councils/troops. As a troop in a liberal town in a liberal state, we never had any problems with the multiple gay and/or atheist kids; no one ever complained or felt uncomfortable. \n\nProblems happen when National hears about stuff like this. Since Scouting has a much stronger presence in more conservative areas of the country, and the program as a whole is in decline, National has to make their decisions to keep the majority happy, which means adhering to conservative Republican ideals, on paper. \n\nThey *have* to make a big deal out of enforcing their \"homophobic\" rules when it's called to their attention to prevent the \"secession\" of the passionately backwards troops of the rural South.",
"Simply put it has religious affiations. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
40vlkr | if you were the size of an atom, would you be able to hear sounds? | I know it's impossible, but lets say you were to be able to be shrunk to the size of an atom without any scientific or mathematical problems, can you hear sounds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40vlkr/eli5if_you_were_the_size_of_an_atom_would_you_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyxh1mj",
"cyxh2p7",
"cyxm38u"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The question kind of breaks physics. Since sound is just the brain translating vibrations in the air, what you are asking is: is it possible for a human the size of an atom to detect the vibration of a single atom larger than the ear. That single atom would need to vibrate the inner ear relative to the human. Does the atom cause of the human to vibrate as well? Does it count as a vibration or is it more of a collision.\n\nOn top of this, the question becomes more difficult if you know anything about the wave-particle duality property of an atom. A basic understanding of an atom is that it appears like a ball, but in reality (in physics and when doing calculations that take single atoms into consideration) the ball analogy doesn't make sense since the atom is defined as a wave function.\n\n\nThis is a long winded way of saying that shrinking a human \"without any scientific or mathematical problems\" doesn't really make sense. (You are trying to detect a single atom using your body which is now made up of tiny atoms?)",
"Well you would just be part of the wave. To hear the sound atoms has to pass the wave to your ear, so no you wont.",
" > I know it's impossible, but lets say you were to be able to be shrunk to the size of an atom without any scientific or mathematical problems, can you hear sounds?\n\nYou're asking us to make a scientific prediction, but **without using actual science**. No can do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
22gmrj | is there a distance from the sun a naked person floating in space would be comfortable? | Lets assume we don't need to worry about radiation, micrometeors, oxygen, pressure ect, What is the distance from the sun the temperature in space would be comfortable and comparable to earth?
edit: Conversely think: Let's say I've invented a substance that sits around my body (think bubble boy or that water you can breathe in Final Fantasy 10) and protects me from the harmful effects of outer space but needs to use the suns thermal radiation to keep me comfy and warm (as it doesn't have a heater or amplify the intensity of the sunlight at all) and protects me from all those nasty gamma rays AND doesn't deflect any sunlight. At what distance should I choose to orbit the sun for optimal earth like conditions?
I know the moon gets up to 220f or so, so I'm guessing it would be beyond that, but I'm not sure if its that hot because of solar radiation or some property of the moon.
I figure the sun's heliosphere doesn't work quite the same our atmosphere and one side would get really hot while the other really cold, but it would be really cool if I were wrong.
edit: Thank you danpetman you've answered my question splendidly :)
For quick reference we got the figure 2.61 au or 242,614,657 miles or 390,450,443 kilometers. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22gmrj/eli5_is_there_a_distance_from_the_sun_a_naked/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgmm1gq",
"cgmmi5z",
"cgmmmfm",
"cgmmuup",
"cgmqy3s"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
13,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your issue would be pressure.you can't survive in a vacuum",
"Technically there should be a distance from the sun where you're getting just the right amount of sunlight to maintain a pretty normal body temperature. Since there's no air around you to conduct heat away from your body, you lose it purely by radiating it, so you cool off more slowly than you would in a cold environment on Earth.\n\n I have no idea what that distance from the sun would be though. Probably somewhere a little further than Earth, but not quite as far as Mars.\n\nEither way, you'd still have a problem with other stuff like UV rays and the solar wind, which here on Earth we're protected from by the atmosphere. That stuff would not be good for your skin. ",
"If you boil this question down to just \"at what distance from the sun is the level of light about right to keep a human comfortably warm\" and ignore the devastating effects of vacuum on the human body and on your ability to cool down once you have absorbed heat, then the answer is *still* \"nowhere\" since without the UV-absorbing protection of the earth's atmosphere, you'd get really horribly sunburned quite quickly.\n\nHowever, assuming a magical scenario where all the energy from the sun went just to warming and not to frying your cells with UV, you could work out a distance based on the fact that light intensity from a source is proportional to the inverse of the square of distance; that is, if you go twice as far away, the intensity is 1/4, three times as far, 1/9 etc.\n\nA human body generates between about 70 and 870 Watts of heat depending on how active they're being, so in order to maintain equilibrium, and assuming that this heat is all radiated away from the body, the sun would have to be providing an equal amount of power. Using [this](_URL_0_) table, and using a rough estimate that a human of average height and build (about 1.7 meters tall and 0.7 meters \"wide\") would have a surface area, viewed straight-on, of 1.19m^2 we can estimate that the intensity would match the average heat output of a human of 470W just outside of Mars' orbit, a little under 2AU (299 195 741 400 meters) from the sun.\n\nA pretty rough calculation, but there's an awful lot of \"if we ignore X\" going on with the question already :)\n\nEDIT: As someone correctly pointed out, the way I've calculated this isn't quite right. The amount of heating required to maintain a steady temperature would actually be equal to the the heat radiated away from the human minus the heat generated by the human, since humans do a fairly good job of heating themselves. However, I don't think any reliable data exists for how quickly (living) naked humans in vacuum radiate heat, so I can't really provide a more accurate answer besides saying \"a little bit further out than 2AU.\"",
"From _URL_0_ , we radiate about 100W because of our body heat, so would need to find the distance where the sunlight is 100W for 1 m^2.\n\nThis is at about 3.6 AU, or about halfway between Mars and Jupiter.",
"Even if you found a spot where you be between frying and freezing, only the side of you facing the sun would be warm. The thing keeping your entire body warm, not just the side facing the sun, on earth is the heated air. It would be much like sitting at a bonfire in freezing conditions. You have to turn to heat the side facing away from the bonfire."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Intensity_in_the_Solar_System"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Human_body_emission"
],
[]
] |
|
2qmg5d | in the future, would it be possible to insert nerves into an object, then connect said nerves to a person's body? would it enable control of said object? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qmg5d/eli5_in_the_future_would_it_be_possible_to_insert/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn7f8fh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The future may be sooner than you think. People at the Media lab at MIT are already trying to do these things for amputees. The hardest part is that nerves don't really travel like a tree (with trunks that hold branchs that hold leaves) but instead travel like long spaghetti all tied together at the beginning that separate at different points (to control or feel different parts of the body). This means figuring out which noodles do what and separating them is the most important first step in using these in-built wires for external control. So at this lab, they are trying to get nerves to grow *through* microstructures after injury. This will separate this trunk of spaghetti into separate strands, each travelling to a mapped portion of the hand. This would allow them to connect these individual strands to electronic prosthetic devices to either control them (with motor nerves) or \"feel\" through them (by connecting sensory nerves). So cool!\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.media.mit.edu/research/groups/biomechatronics"
]
] |
||
31f12v | why are some people naturally muscly without having to work out | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31f12v/eli5why_are_some_people_naturally_muscly_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0xq48"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In addition to what's been said, muscle can also be built by doing things like manual labor. Also, having low body fat, which is more dependent on diet, can increase muscular definition."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7jt769 | how did the ural mountains form? | I never did geography properly in school, something to do with tectonic plates but there are non there. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jt769/eli5_how_did_the_ural_mountains_form/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr90718",
"dr90ide"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"The mountains were formed by the collision of the European and Asian continental plate, [like this](_URL_0_), about 300 million years ago. That plate boundary isn't really active anymore. ",
"there absolutely is 2 tectonic plates that collide there.....300 million years ago. now those plates are together and are part of the bigger Eurasian tectonic plate"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/plate-borders/project_files/image012.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
qz3kq | why self posts don't get karma | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qz3kq/eli5_why_self_posts_dont_get_karma/ | {
"a_id": [
"c41lmzr"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It's a minor precaution against direct stroking of the hive-mind's collective cock in exchange for karma (figuratively jizz). Instead of posting \"Hey Reddit, those [members of a group] sure are [negative adjective for group]\" with no source they have to find an article from a semi-reputable source that may or may not back up their headline. Though this would seem like a useless precaution, it actually limits the instances of this to the number of unique webpages on the internet. A large number by all accounts, but still much smaller than the sum of the lust of the karma whores."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4twxjm | why does the gas feel like a fluid in the container? | When I buy gas for my grill it feels like it is a fluid inside. Is this the case, and if it is, how come? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4twxjm/eli5_why_does_the_gas_feel_like_a_fluid_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5kzcmo",
"d5l03ig"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Because it is liquid in the container. It's under pressure which forces its state to be liquid instead of gas. This applies to all substances; you can change its state of matter through temperature or pressure.",
"Inside the cylinder, it *is* a fluid, because it's highly compressed. You don't say what kind of gas it is, but it's probably propane or a mixture of propane and butane (LPG). Some of it vaporises in to gas as you open the valve and release the pressure. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6fufda | why is the opioid epidemic so much worse in ohio? | I know this is anecdotal, but nearly every news story I see about a terrible situation due to opioid use and overdosing seems to be out of Ohio. Is the problem really worse there? And if so, why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6fufda/eli5_why_is_the_opioid_epidemic_so_much_worse_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dil2a3w"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's bad where the economy is bad and particularly in towns that once relied on manufacturing and other skilled labor. In the financial crisis, many manufacturers closed and people were laid off without much hope of another job let alone another solidly middle class job. Many then fell into the social safety net to survive. The extended unemployment benefits ended but jobs didn't come back and some who couldn't adapt ended up on disability benefits. As part of that some saught out medication for pain including prescription opioids. Then when the prescription ends they're left with an addiction that can be filled cheaply with illicit opioids. Enough people in an area fall into that to create a culture around it "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1yzy5n | why can't i, an immigrant who has lived and studied in the usa, ever be eligible to run for president? | Obviously, some of you may make a remark saying that the fact I don't know why disqualifies me.
However, I am curious to know why just because I was not born in the USA, I am ineligible to run for President.
I can be a Representative for my state granted I've been a citizen for 7 years. But why not President?
My outlook on the USA is different, and quite possibly for the betterment of the nation.
As an immigrant who legally moved here with his family in pursuit of happiness and a better life, I can say for certain that our expectations were more than met. This nation offers so much opportunity it is almost unreal.
I have seen everything from the bottom of the barrel who scrape garbage cans for food to big shots who rely on huge law firms to fight to protect their corporate rights. I've volunteered my time helping those in need, and worked with some of the people in higher up positions to realize that with the right connections and my moral compass, I too could have the capacity to run this country.
In my mother country, there are people who go to sleep without food or water. Power cuts out every few hours and the over population is scary. There are microcosms of rich, middle-class, and the poor. You go to an Americanized mall and just 1/2 km from it you drive into a slum. You see children without clothes while in the mall you saw kids wearing Ralph Lauren outfits.
I do not want to see this ever happen in the USA.
Unregulated industry, corruption, and general disregard for others has made my motherland toxic. To be honest, it is a libertarian dream out there. There are NO rules. There are no regulations to halt pollution, and there are no regulations to stop corruption. You can choose to ignore red lights because there's no active police force either. It is a libertarian dream and a human nightmare. Unfortunately, I'm finding out that I disagree with left and right here so much on so many issues that if either party gets the way, they will make new changes and unravel progress. The right has a bit more terrible ideas than the left, but even the left makes some pretty big mistakes...
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yzy5n/why_cant_i_an_immigrant_who_has_lived_and_studied/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfp8l7s",
"cfp8smz",
"cfp93qe"
],
"score": [
28,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Post is Tl:Dr. This isn't a forum for political debate. The condition of the country is not relevant to why you are not allowed to be president.\n\nThe core reason is that its *written in the Constitution that you cannot*. The Founders had a pretty good reason for that too. They wanted to make sure that America could never be ruled by a foreign power again. So they wrote the law such that nobody who wasn't born in America (to American Parents) could be President. This included King George... who we just totally fought a war with to be free.\n\nIs it fair? Maybe not. Is it still a reasonable thing to have? Maybe not. But that is how the fundamental laws of this country are written and (until they are changed) we will abide by them.\n\nI'm sorry there isn't more to say, but \"dem's da roolz\".",
"In a nutshell, because the US Constitution SAYS so. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to become president.\n\nUnfortunately, there is some disagreement on *exactly* what constitutes \"natural born.\" John McCain, for example, was born in Panama to American parents, but Congress passed a special ruling stating that he qualified as natural born.\n\nNow, Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada (to an American mother and a Cuban father), is claiming HE is natural born as well, so he can run for president.\n\nThere *is* occasional talk of a Constitutional amendment to remove the natural-born requirement. \n\n > I do not want to see this ever happen in the USA. \n\nOooo. Sorry. Too late. Our poor are MUCH better off than the poor in a lot of the world, but we're on our way down.\n\n > Unregulated industry, corruption, and general disregard for others has made my motherland toxic. \n\nYeah, well, welcome to America. We don't have *ANY* of that here....\n",
"During the Revolutionary War, there were a lot of people who wanted to remain a British colony...in a lot of places it was a majority. There was a real fear that Britain would reestablish colonial control, perhaps by getting an agency elected president. To prevent that, the Constitution specifies the president has to be a natural born citizen.\n\nObviously, that no longer an issue today. But since it is in the Constitution, it is the law of the land, and would take a lot of effort to change. The issue of a non-natural born citizen becoming president hasn't come up enough to motive politicians to push for a change. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
s8l4e | [meta] i think people are forgetting what /r/explainlikeimfive is for. | It used to be just a minor annoyance but now it's getting to the point where about 75% of all ELI5 posts reaching the front page are better suited to be on [/r/askreddit](/r/askreddit) or /r/answers, or sometimes even [/r/askscience](/r/askscience). Seeing how [/r/explainlikeimfive](/r/explainlikeimfive) has recently reached 100k readers, I think it's time to address this issue.
It seems like people are taking advantage of ELI5 more laid-back attitude and small-yet-noticeable subscription count to post questions that would never see the light of day on other subreddit. This subreddit's purpose is to be, as the sidebar states:
> A friendly place to ask questions and get elementary school-level answers, without fear of judgement.
Take note of what kind of posts used to reach ELI5's front page during its early days:
* [Why is x^0 = 1?](_URL_8_)
* [How do Trust Funds actually work?](_URL_6_)
* [How does HTTP work?](_URL_4_)
* [What is fire and how does it work?](_URL_3_)
###Notice how each of these posts is a **complex subject or question**, and how many of the comment ***literally* make the answer simple enough for a five year old to understand**.
Now let's take a look at what has reached the ELI5 front page over the last week:
* [Why doesn't Reddit simply hire the guy who makes Reddit Enhancement Suite \(RES\) and make those features part of Reddit?](_URL_7_)
* [How is downloading movies/books online any different than going to your local library to check out movies/books for free?](_URL_5_)
* [Why some of my friends think Che Guevera is a hero, and others say he is a bad dude?](_URL_1_)
* [Why do British people sound American when they sing?](_URL_2_)
### None of these posts is complex nor addresses anything that requires explaining. Much of the posts are suggestive or simply provocative, and ALL of them would fit better in other subreddits. The answers to these posts are never fit for 5 year olds, and are no different from [/r/Askreddit](/r/Askreddit) answers.
The subreddit has lost its way.
I understand that the admins here want to make the community in charge of what reaches the front page and what gets filtered out, but sometimes forced, strict moderating is what you have to do.
No need to go all the way into the no-memes-or-any-kind-of-fun zone where [/r/askscience](/r/askscience) lies, but letting stagnation, new redditors and circlejerkers take over isn't the answer either (See [/r/atheism](/r/atheism), [/r/classicrage](/r/classicrage), /r/gaming or what [/r/circlejerk](/r/circlejerk) used to be a mere month ago).
So please admins, if this post tries to say anything is that you should have stricter rules about which submissions should and should not go on [/r/explainlikeimfive](/r/explainlikeimfive). Be a little bit more delete-happy, and try to make the subreddit more like [the great video found in the sidebar.](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s8l4e/meta_i_think_people_are_forgetting_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4bz5xq",
"c4bz66c",
"c4bztcw",
"c4bzw4j",
"c4c0idu",
"c4c0x0g",
"c4c0y93",
"c4c1br9",
"c4c1dfj",
"c4c1kac",
"c4c1khm",
"c4c1ntf",
"c4c1pmi",
"c4c1szq",
"c4c1vmf",
"c4c1xqt",
"c4c1y5v",
"c4c22zc",
"c4c27n7",
"c4c2fl6",
"c4c2hqd",
"c4c34e5",
"c4c3cpc",
"c4c3uyz",
"c4c53s6",
"c4c5cbr",
"c4c5yof",
"c4c682p",
"c4c6bgf",
"c4caj8h",
"c4casjy",
"c4kc8ia"
],
"score": [
7,
14,
433,
78,
67,
52,
20,
8,
8,
8,
3,
5,
15,
9,
11,
5,
2,
4,
20,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally like having more questions/submissions here, because a finite number of posts ultimately means I have to find discourse that is either too complicated for me to understand, or just not interesting to me. I AM interested in Che Guevera's status as a controversial icon, and I really don't care how complex it is or isn't. What matters to me is that I now understand what I previously did not. ",
"I disagree with your first point. The second set of questions is just as complex as the first. They happen to be more specific and less important questions, but still just as complex.\n\nYour second point is correct, though. Answers recently have not been written for a five year old. I also liked the way that early ELI5 answers integrated a bit of humour into the euphemisms, analogies, and descriptions used.\n\nedit: spaces?",
"Agreed. I used to enjoy this subreddit much more when the questions were simple questions about everyday things, which I'd never really thought about. I used to find it a fun challenge to come up with five-year old explanations to things I thought I understood well. I explained things like comparative advantage, why chillis taste hot, or how computer viruses or operating systems work, and I learnt a lot in the process.\n\nThere are still good posts here, but they are fewer and farther between than they were. A lot of the current questions just *don't have clear answers*. They're not everyday, complex but well understood things that need to be explained simply, they're vague, political, uncertain things, or matters of personal taste or preference. There is no clear five year old answer to 'What should be done in the middle east\"; There just isn't.",
"I am a recent subscriber to ELI5, probably only a week or so. I can say definitely none of the answers are given in a way a 5 year old could understand. There was one recently (the one about chicken pox) that most adults would not understand. It truly is just a less popular askreddit. The funny thing is though, to that point, it's less-popular nature means it generally is higher quality than askreddit. So it's not what it should be, but I still like it.",
"I agree that the RES and the piracy questions are probably best put elsewhere. The Che question is maybe borderline, but the British question seems perfectly reasonable for this sub.",
"I couldn't agree more. I see more and more posts upvoted to the frontpage these days which are either 1) easily answered by a five minute google search or 2) about something really banal that requires no simplification.\n\nI subscribed to this subreddit because I wanted to better understand really complicated stuff like quantum entanglement, not to hear someone explain why everbody hates Nickelback.\n\nThis subreddit needs stricter moderation if it wants to keep its unique identity. In my experience simply relying on users and the up/downvoting system to achieve this never actually works, sadly.",
"While we're being meta here, I want to address something as well that bugs me.\n\nPlease, if you look at a question and think you have a good answer, but the question has been answered, look at the answer and see if you would approach it the same way. A lot of the time the only answer provided for a question is a comparison, \"What does the president do?\" \"Well, think of him like the principal at a school...\", which I know is a really good way for some people to learn, but honestly it doesn't help me at all. I'd rather hear it in plain English, \"He helps control X and Y aspect of the government\". Some people are the opposite way, just consider the fact that just because a question has been answered doesn't mean it has been answered in such a way that anyone who is reading the thread could understand it. More is always better.",
"I actually love where this subreddit is at. Generally threads receive a simply worded explanation and a separate literal 5 year old explanation.",
"I'm confused as to how you can decide whether a question is complex enough to need explanation? You said in your post and in the sidebar \n > A friendly place to ask questions and get elementary school-level answers, without fear of judgement. Appropriate for questions about current events, history, politics, culture and more.\n\nIf this is a friendly place to ask questions without fear of judgment, how can you judge any of the questions posted? Just because you understand something and don't need an explanation, doesn't mean that others aren't searching for an explanation. \n\nI would however agree that many of the explanations are much too detailed and no 5 year old, let alone an adult, could understand them. Rather than being restrictive of the questions submitted, lets focus on making the answers easier to understand.",
"I think part of it is because [/r/askreddit](/r/askreddit) is not for getting actual information anymore. It's now r/heresmystorynowpostyoursimilarone. Not that I don't like those threads, but that's just what the sub is now.",
"Thank you for putting this into words. I've been thinking about making a similar post. ELI5 is for explaining complex things that already have more complicated answers in a simple way. That's about it.",
"I disagree. As someone with a good understanding of mathematics and computing, HTTP and exponents are simple topics to me. However, I didn't understand at all why British people sound American while they sing (which is arguably complex, going into what makes an accent sound different and how you change your voice to sing). It's all subjective, and if you think a topic is complex and you need it explained simply in a way you can understand, ELI5 is the place to come to ask.",
"The whole point of ELI5 - for me - is to explain something as simply as possible, and not judge someone for not knowing something that I think is really common knowledge. We're not catering to *actual* 5-year-olds here, and I know that. I think we've been doing just fine. \n\n/r/AskReddit [made a similar post](_URL_0_) not too long ago about the quality of questions on their subreddit; I think once you reach a certain amount of subscribers, the quality of posts start to go down just because of the sheer amount of people involved, not necessarily because people are forgetting how things work around here. I'm not particularly adverse to most questions posted here (aside from perhaps [the thinly-veiled opinions posing as questions](_URL_1_), which aren't questions IMO). If someone wants to spark a political or theological debate ([this question comes to mind](_URL_2_)), I'm all for it. I don't mind explaining the facts, my viewpoint, or the opposing viewpoint LY5, maybe that will help you understand the issue better.\n\nThat being said, if the mods have an idea of how they want this subreddit to work, I'm all for them removing questions or answers that don't fit our criteria, if that's how they'd like to address this issue (if it's even an issue in their eyes).\n\n(While we're being meta, there's some bold code broken in the sidebar under \"GUIDELINES.\" It's been bothering me for weeks. Please God someone fix that.)",
"I think the point of this subreddit was to provide a place where any question, no matter how simple or complicated, could be answered in layman's terms, with no need of an expert at hand or further explanation. The whole 'five year old' description thing is simply a metaphor. \n\nIn any case of discourse, I think it still fits that definition. Yes it has evolved from its beginnings, but isn't that what every subreddit does? You're completely overthinking this (ironically). It's still a very interesting place to read and learn about simple and complicated stuff, and is not overrun by stupid memes and other garbage we see elsewhere. I don't think anything needs to change here, contrary to your call to action.",
"I generally agree with you, but sidebar states ELI5 is: \n\n > A friendly place to ask questions and get elementary school-level answers, without fear of judgement. Appropriate for questions about current events, history, politics, culture and more.\n\nUndoubtedly some things are one word answers, or easily discerned from google, but just cause there's a wiki article on it or you think it's common sense, doesn't mean the question couldn't necessarily use better explaining.\n\nI'm personally of the opinion that the mods should do little to regulate the questions asked. Easily googled questions or poor questions tend to and often do get downvoted. I'm not really sure there's a problem with the system is what I'm trying to say. \n\nLast, there was a spate of posts a while ago about what ELI5 should be like (much like this one) and the general consensus seemed to be letting people submit what they want. \n",
"I feel as though I see more meta posts like this than quality ELI5 posts.",
"Please note that answers don't need to be literally fit for five year olds as per the sidebar (check the four bullet point under guidelines). \n\nThis subbreddit's goal is to provide simple answers and ELI5 is more of a catchy title than a literal rule.",
"I really don't understand why people ask questions here when you could ask the same thing in AskReddit and get the same exact answer. These really simple questions that require no explanation at all really are clogging up this subreddit : < ",
"My complaint is the fucking comments. I was recently downvoted answering the fucking question while meme comments went to the top. I don't mind being downvoted, but for actually answering the question correctly? No!",
"actually i think that some of those issues are appropriate for ELI5. Who are we to say that a subreddit has lost its way? communities change and people change. maybe some questions are in appropriate, but to directly sort every question asked is impossible because the only thing that you would have to go on is your own qualitative interpretation of it. this obviously will differentiate from most every single person who posts there. not only that, but you are also breaking one of the rules posted on the side of the subreddit \n\n\"A friendly place ti asj questions and get elementary school-level answers, without fear of jedgement\"\n\nalso i think that it is safe to assume that everybody benefits from having answers that are designed for elementary school kids, because none of us are. maybe it should be explain like im a junior in high school either way the heart of the title is that you can ask a question and have an easy to understand answer. \n\nif we were to literally explain the answer like you were 5 the answers would not nearly be educational enough for most questions and not be able to satisfy the general need of the people who frequent the subreddit. \n\nperhaps this is an issue that needs to be dealt with another way. nobody can claim to know the heart of the issue here, although i suspect that it is that people do not know where their question belongs. if you really want people to clear up ELI5 then i would suggest that reddit make a list of all the subreddits that are designed to answer questions (askscience, ELI5, askengineers, etc.). this way it is much easier for the users to decide for themselves where their question belongs, and who they want to answer it, since they would then have a complete list of every askX subreddit.",
"I have personally always hated people who literally try to explain the answer like I'm a five year old. The posts which just explain the answer in a simply fashion (but obviously at a level that no five year old could hope to understand) have always been the best.\n\nWhen you get someone saying like, lets say the rebel army is a chu chu train and the us government is the fat controller I get so confused, it just explains nothing. I take ELI5 to be simply a suggestion to explain something simply and clearly for a layman in that particular area, not LITERALLY to a five year old.",
"I agree on all points but the idea of \"Why some of my friends think Che Guevera is a hero, and others say he is a bad dude?\" being an inappropriate question for this subreddit. I think there could be a simplified historical/social explanation for this. \n\nAre you also suggesting that it best to remove questions that lack a refined, testable, answer that is supported only by measurable empirical evidence?",
"Actually some of the questions are quite difficult to understand. Like the RES one. I don't know what it takes to put features on a website. They explained that RES does it offline and that made it easy for me to understand. And what's the deal with Che Guevera?\n\nThose questions in my mind are similar to the math, science, and coding questions. I don't know how copyright works, so why do librarys blah blah blah? I don't understand the physics of the human voice and accents.\n\nIf you don't understand them, or don't care about the answer, don't knock people for asking them.",
"It seems like every thread on here is half filled with arguments about whether the question is suitable and whether or not the answers are simplified enough for a 5 year old, I think that's what's ruining this sub, not the questions. If you don't like a question just downvote and move on.",
"Bigger population equals more shit.",
"[Meta] I think you are forgetting that people have posted this same annoying drivel over and over again, and time and time again people have commented saying THEY DON'T CARE. \n\nIt's the posters who make the subreddit, and if they post different sorts of questions, WHO CARES? If you're so bothered, why don't you post lots of questions yourself? Make a new subreddit called Simplified Complexities or something. \n\nI for one enjoy reading all kinds of questions and answers in this subreddit. I don't want it to become some fascist utopia where certain questions are banned. Just let it be.",
"The best solution would be to have 5 year old Mods that delete everything they can't understand. ",
"Mods, you should moderate more. Look at [r/askscience](_URL_0_) for an example. ",
"I don't understand this post, could you please ELI5.",
"Sounds like there is room for r/explainitwithouttechnicaljargonbutdontdumbitdowntoomuch",
"Do any of this subreddit's mods want to weigh in on this? I'm interested in some input from those in control. I think the fact that the mods have yet to even comment speaks to their willingness to participate.",
"I'm sorry, I'm still not getting this. Explain like I'm five."
]
} | [] | [
"http://vimeo.com/27060669",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s2a2k/eli5_why_some_of_my_friends_think_che_guevera_is/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rxybc/eli5_why_do_british_people_sound_american_when/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j4xq2/what_is_fire_and_how_does_it_work/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j393m/can_someone_explain_http_like_im_five/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s0rih/eli5_how_is_downloading_moviesbooks_online_any/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j7nxt/explain_to_me_how_trust_funds_actually_work/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s4iun/eli5_why_doesnt_reddit_simply_hire_the_guy_who/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j8wmr/eli5_why_is_x01/"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/s4gja/changes_to_the_rules_in_the_sidebar/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s6dol/eli5_how_do_atheists_generally_feel_about_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s49hq/eli5_what_are_the_differences_if_any_between/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://reddit.com/r/askscience"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
z08if | how do records work exactly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z08if/eli5_how_do_records_work_exactly/ | {
"a_id": [
"c60efzh",
"c60elql"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"You mean vinyl records? The sound is encoded in a groove, which causes the needle to vibrate as the record turns. The vibrations are picked up by a sensor which then turn them into electrical signals. Those signals are in turn converted into sounds by the speakers.\n\nStereo is recorded by having one channel represented by the groove moving left/right, and the other channel encoded in the groove moving up/down (i.e. the height/depth of the groove).\n\n[Here](_URL_1_) are some pictures of a record groove under an electron microscope, and [here](_URL_0_) are some videos showing how to play a record with a sewing needle and a piece of paper wrapped into a cone.",
"Records, as in vinyl records? Let's first begin with sound: Did you ever build or use a can telephone? If you don't know what that is, here is an [image](_URL_0_). This things work because the sound of your voice vibrates the can bottom, this vibration travels along the string (you have to pull it lightly so its not loose) and then again vibrates the bottom of the receiving can. This generates sound waves in the ear which can be heard.\n\nYou see: Sound can generate a small movement in a mechanical part, and small movement in a mechanical part can generate sound. This is what happens in a record: There a device cuts a (spiral) groove in a disk made out of a soft material. The instrument which cuts the groove vibrates according to the sound you want to record, this is done by electromagnets. Then you have a disk with a groove, the groove contains tiny bumps which represent the recorded sound. You then want to have a lot of copies of your record, so have to do some steps I unfortunately don't know until you have a metal copy of your record, which you can use to mold copies out of molten plastic.\n\nWhen playing back a record a small tip travels in the groove of the records, and the tiny bumps move that tip around. On the back of the tip there is a magnet attached witch generates a small voltage in a coil around it (every moving magnet generates a voltage in nearby coils of wire, this is called induction). The voltage is not constant, but fluctuating according to the bumps in the groove. You could say that it \"vibrates\" just like the the cutting tool or the tip of your record player. But the voltage is not enough to drive a speaker, so it gets amplified by an amplifier (duh) in your stereo system.\n\nUnfortunately I have work to do now, so I will maybe come back later and explain how you manage to record stereo sound (basically two sounds at once) in one groove of the record."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=record+needle+cone&oq=record+n&gs_l=youtube.3.0.35i39j0l9.3680.4695.0.6629.8.8.0.0.0.0.142.505.7j1.8.0...0.0...1ac.qo-LzLSgNa0",
"http://www.synthgear.com/2010/audio-gear/record-grooves-electron-microscope/"
],
[
"http://herofit.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tin-can-phone1.jpg"
]
] |
||
20itse | how does torque work and why does it change at different engine rpm's | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20itse/eli5_how_does_torque_work_and_why_does_it_change/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg3ndmn",
"cg3ttou"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What you need to know first is that torque is essentially causing something to twist/rotate. Rotational motion is actually quite similar to linear motion, but everything (velocity and momentum for instance) is angular. Applying a force to a point on an object causes torque. The equation for torque involves the magnitude of the force, the angle at which it is applied, and the distance from the axis about which the object rotates. \n\nThe torque gets bigger then when distance and magnitude of force are greater. This is why it's easier to open a door while pushing near the handle instead of near the hinges. Now, much like force in the linear direction, torque causes acceleration, only it's angular this time. RPM stands for revolutions per minute, as you probably know. RPM is a unit for angular velocity. Angular acceleration causes a change in angular velocity. So you need different angular acceleration, and therefore different torque, to reach different magnitudes of angular velocity (RPM). Hope this made sense. Feel free to ask anything further. ",
"Torque is the twisting motion your wheels output. At lower engine rpm and on lower gears you have higher torque due to gear reduction. \n\nGear reduction is a small drive gear turning a bigger driven gear. \n\nTorque is still present at the higher end but less of if is found as the engine uses more and more of it's horsepower to keep that crankshaft turning and maintaining speed.\n\nSource: I am a student at a mechanical trade school. I just finished 4 stroke engines class. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5hmj78 | how does title ix legislation cover sexual assault, and why is a university supposed to investigate assault, as opposed to turning it over to the police? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hmj78/eli5_how_does_title_ix_legislation_cover_sexual/ | {
"a_id": [
"db19usi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Good question. It's not supposed to, but the Office of Civil Rights has been escalating its use to counter the supposed rape epidemic on American college campuses, based on the grossly fraudulent claim that one in four female college students get raped. And because the suspected sexual assault has been rendered a matter of university anti-discriminatory policy, the \"investigation\" seeks out not a crime but a violation of university policy. Unsurprisingly, the campus tribunal is usually completely unprofessional, and is as impartial as a [People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs *troika*](_URL_0_) looking to meet their monthly conviction quota. Technically they don't get to offer criminal sentences, but they are free to conduct witchhunts and kick people out, and have the campus police at their disposal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika"
]
] |
||
49b87i | why are crab legs so expensive? (as compared to other seafood) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49b87i/eli5_why_are_crab_legs_so_expensive_as_compared/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0qhj69"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because crab fishing is extremely dangerous. A lot of people are hurt or killed on crab boats, which means captains have to pay a ton of money to get people to crew their boats. The cost is passed down to the customer "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5rvohl | why are old people treated like children by their caretakers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rvohl/eli5_why_are_old_people_treated_like_children_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddah1p6",
"ddalg93"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a difference between being condescending (treating people like children) and being respectful (pronouncing everything carefully, using terms the other will understand, etc.).\n\n\nUnfortunately, that line gets crossed sometimes by caretakers who start mixing up the two, either intentionally or not. It may become easy for some people to see the elderly as large babies (which they are not) since the tasks associated with them are often related to young children, too, such as feeding and cleaning up after them.\n\n\nIt's important to always take a step back and remember that the elderly being taken care of are adults who need appropriate care and respect.\n\n\nRegarding children games, some of those games are often associated with brain development and other benefits, and may be a good tool to prevent an aged brain from \"deteriorating\" faster. \n",
"I've worked in an Alzheimer's/Dementia care facility for years and I can confirm that some CNA's and nurses lack the patience to interact with behavioral residents properly. You really have to play it by ear. Some people are early stage and somewhat aware of their predicament and surroundings. \n\n\nSome people are a drooling mess that only speak in gibberish. Then, there are those who are stubborn and easily become agitated. Many are hard of hearing so it is necessary to speak slowly and clearly. \n\nPersonally, I take the time to gauge whether a patient will respond to \"normal people\" talk, or if I must speak slower. NOT patronizing. It's very circumstantial. These people are confused almost constantly. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3cvufm | why is it important to light a cigar with a match? | I understand it's to preserve the flavor better because you're not burning butane from a lighter, but why does that make a difference after the initial burn? How does the taste of the butane ruin the entire cigar? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cvufm/eli5_why_is_it_important_to_light_a_cigar_with_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cszgcmc",
"cszgnue",
"cszi8t8"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Some of it is probably mythology. Because you suck on the cigar as it is being lit some of the unburnt fuel might get embedded in the cigar. More so i suppose with a zippo lighter, then a butane lighter or torch.",
"Honestly, matches don't really preserve the taste better than lighters for me. In fact, some matches can give my cigars a sulfur taste if I apply them to the cigar too soon after I've struck them. Gotta let the match burn a few seconds first.",
"Actually, a match isn't the recommended source of flame. The best is wood chips (cedar, maple, etc.) Using a lighter means you are potentially getting some of the fluid as well. This can change the flavor of a cigar. Matches with a sulfur tip have a similar issue, but it can be mitigated by waiting until the sulfur has burnt away. The optimal choice is lighting a wood chip from another source, then using the wood chip to light the cigar.\n\nRealistically, it isn't a huge difference unless you are drawing heavily while starting the cigar or it's a high-quality cigar."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2c3st8 | why do dogs "protect" babies? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c3st8/eli5_why_do_dogs_protect_babies/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjbndbu",
"cjbngpl"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Just like you can tell the difference between baby dogs and adult dogs, dogs can tell the difference between puppy humans and adult humans. And everyone knows puppies need protection.",
"Dogs are social pack animals.\n\nThey protect babies because they have an instinctual desire to protect the pack, which is the family taking care of them.\n\nThink of it like this. Wolves in the wild will work together to protect the pups. We have taken one of these wolves and put it into a family, where it recognizes that the people are it's pack. When the baby is born, it recognizes that this is a new addition to the pack.\n\nIn order for the pack to survive, the baby must be protected, so therefore, the dog must protect the baby as the baby cannot protect itself.\n\nAnd it's not just babies that it happens with. I used to wrestle with my brother (3 years difference) and there was a noticeable size difference. When it got passed the point of fun and one of us (normally me, the younger brother) indicated that I was in distress or danger, our family dog would growl and jump towards my brother. Because the dog recognized that there was a conflict that was going to far, like how wolves will stop two puppies from hurting each other while they are learning.\n\nAnd similarly, there are numerous cases of dogs protecting children and women who are being abused, because they recognize the difference between the abuser and the victim as a similar situation to something like a bear going after a pack mate.\n\nOf course, this is all only if the dog has been raised properly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
45lf6n | why do the optic nerves from each eye cross each other before entering the brain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45lf6n/eli5_why_do_the_optic_nerves_from_each_eye_cross/ | {
"a_id": [
"czylda1",
"czyncj7",
"czyo014",
"czz9cwb"
],
"score": [
18,
109,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"I asked my neuroscientist professor this question and he just shrugged and started talking about all the random inefficient systems in our bodies",
"That crossover is called the Optic Chiasm, and it serves to knit together visual field information.\n\nImagine separating your visual field (the total area you can see) into left and right halves. Those halves do not directly correspond with your left and right eyes. Your left eye has some information from both the left and the right halves of your visual field, and the same with the right eye.\n\nThe chiasm takes input directly from your eyes, and splits it so that your entire left visual field is together, and the same with your right. Then your brain can process information per visual field, instead of per eye (which makes more sense).\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's because your brain combines the images from both eyes; the left side of the brain perceived the right side of the world and the right perceives the left, but both of your eyes perceive both the left and right side of the world. Thus about half of the fibers in your optic nerve go to each side of the brain, and the place that the fibers split off is the optic chosen.",
"I think this was explained by Hank Green in Crash Course on YouTube (either Biology or A & P, not sure which.) It is because over the eons, evolution caused the spinal cord to move from the front of the torso to the back causing all of the nerves and things to get twisted around. This is also why the left brain controls the right half of the body and vice versa."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://medicine.academic.ru/pictures/medicine/297.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2otzyb | if salt causes water retention, why people get explosive diarrhea if they drink ocean water? | But if you are in the desert, survivalist recommend to eat sand because of the salt in it. What am I missing here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2otzyb/eli5_if_salt_causes_water_retention_why_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmqi713"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Ocean water has a MUCH higher content of Salt and the effects are much different.\n\nWith Ocean water, Salinity is anywhere between 35 and 37 parts per ~~trillion~~ thousand. As quoted:\n\n > The average ocean salinity is 35 ppt. This number varies between about 32 and 37 ppt. Rainfall, evaporation, river runoff, and ice formation cause the variations. For example, the Black Sea is so diluted by river runoff, its average salinity is only 16 ppt.\nFreshwater salinity is usually less than 0.5 ppt. Water between 0.5 ppt and 17 ppt is called brackish. Estuaries (where fresh river water meets salty ocean water) are examples of brackish waters.\nMost marine creatures keep the salinity inside their bodies at about the same concentration as the water outside their bodies because water likes a balance. If an animal that usually lives in salt water were placed in fresh water, the fresh water would flow into the animal through its skin. If a fresh water animal found itself in the salty ocean, the water inside of it would rush out. The process by which water flows through a semi-permeable membrane (a material that lets only some things pass through it) such as the animal's skin from an area of high concentration (lots of water, little salt) to an area of low concentration (little water, lots of salt) is called osmosis.\nThis is also why humans (and nearly all mammals) cannot drink salt water. When you take in those extra salts, your body will need to expel them as quickly as possible. Your kidneys will try to flush the salts out of your body in urine, and in the process pump out more water than you are taking in. Soon you'll be dehydrated and your cells and organs will not be able to function properly.\n\nThis is recorded from [The Office of Naval Research](_URL_0_) and a branch of the US Navy.\n\nSand however, contains small particles of salt, averaging in the parts per million, so the amount of sodium would be beneficial because you are introducing very small concentrations into the body, as not to upset your bodies very delicate balance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/water/salinity1.htm"
]
] |
|
1vys38 | what is the difference between cheap shampoo and expensive shampoo? | They're all mostly water, after all - but the expensive stuff really does seem better, even on my manly short hair and bristly beard. Here are the differences I can imagine:
• Profit margin
• Collusion between cosmetics manufacturers and salons/barber shops
• Consumer perception
• Essential oils instead of chemicals for scent
• Extra ingredients in general
Are different detergents used? Weird additives that are more expensive than the additives in the cheap stuff? Trade secrets? Things my puny brain can't even comprehend? The prices are often an order of magnitude apart!
EDIT: I'd really like to hear from somebody who works in this industry, specifically the part where they actually make the shampoo.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vys38/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_cheap_shampoo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cex5lly",
"cex8okn",
"cexcwhn",
"cexhqug",
"cexkmmv"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
5,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on which expensive shampoo.\n\nGenerally, if you are purchasing it in the supermarket there is negligible difference and price points are hogwash.\n\nWhen buying a particular \"salon\" or high end brand, for example, Kerastase, you are paying for patented technology not available in cheaper brands.\n\nBasically, you have to get above $30/500mL before you are getting in to quality variation in price.\n\nAnything at the supermarket is the same, be it $2 or $18 a bottle.\n\n",
"I was told this by hairstylist about ten years ago when I asked what's in expensive shampoo that makes it expensive. She said it's what it doesn't have: wax. ",
"Different detergents at different concentrations. Different additives. Aside from fragrances, there are often additives that give the shampoo its appearance, that will affect how the hair feels after, how well the shampoo rinses, and probably things that I cannot even conceive. Ultimately, the goal is to give the consumer the perception that the hair is cleaner, softer, silkier, etc, even if it is an illusion.\n\nShampoos and other consumer formulations are very highly formulated. There is a lot of lab testing and later focus group testing, to try to develop formulations that consumers will prefer over competitors. In some cases, the benefits are real, in other cases, it is just appearance.",
"Source: I used to be a chemist for a private label cosmetics manufacturer. \n\nThe more expensive brands have higher quality fragrances and a higher surfactant to water ratio (lower priced ones are essentially watered down). Also, many have silicones to make hair shiny and silicones are expensive relative to other shampoo ingredients. \n\nA lot does have to do with marketing and advertising too. We often made the same product and filled into two differently labeled bottles. The name brands are advertised more, thus cost more to market. ",
"No one seemed to answer this super well, but the lab guy got part of it when he said less watered down, more expensive, and unique (to shampoo formulation) ingredients that actually do affect the look and feel of your hair. \n\nExpensive \"salon\" quality shampoo is also often more of a specialty product, targeting (and being more effective for) the exact hair type of the user and how they treat their hair. Many products from professional shampoo companies are for a very specific user (fine, chemically treated, straight blond hair, for example). There really is a difference in most cases, but it's up to the user to see how much of a difference and if it's worth the price increase. I've been using \"professional\" shampoo literally my entire life and I can tell the difference in feel and styling when I use the lower quality stuff; I'm not sure if it's necessarily worse because I haven't done it often enough, but it's definitely different. \n\nGirls who colour their hair often and have significant experience using salon vs drug store shampoo can probably lend some insight as to the difference. \n\nPrice wise, a huge reason it's more expensive is because that is exactly where your stylist/salon makes their money. Manufacturers of Head & amp; Shoulders sell to Walmart and Walmart takes their (quite small) profit margin on the marked up price. Professional shampoo manufacturers sell to regional distributors who typically take a 30-45% profit margin when they sell it to the salon and the salons usually come close to doubling the price when they sell it to their customers. \n\nSource: family sold out of the shampoo business a few years back\n\nEdit/ps: oh, and unless it's baby shampoo the main ingredient is most likely one of the sodium laurel/laureth sulphate/sulphites, that's the part that cleans and it's pretty standard across most all shampoos that aren't organic/natural/etc., regardless of price or quality. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ovfs4 | what is the purpose of the district of columbia, why was it formed, and why is it under the exclusive jurisdiction of congress? | I understand a council and mayor have governed the district since 1973 but why did Congress have exclusive jurisdiction before that and why have they retained supreme authority to this day? And I understand it holds the centers for all three branches of government but did a district need to be formed for this? Instead of just having Washington, Maryland?
Thanks for any information! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ovfs4/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_the_district_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmqumji",
"cmqwz6t"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Previously Phily and NYC had served as the capitol. But since the states obviously didn't see eye to eye on everything it was decided that an federal district which would not be a part of state disputes would be best for the nation. It was also decided that it should be somewhere near the middle of the country to maintain balance. \n\nFor most of its history DC was relatively small and did not have a huge population, it was only post WW2 that the urbanization really took off (not that it has every really become completely urban, still no skyscrapers by law) and that is really when the home rule movement took off. ",
"We didn't want any one state to have the Capitol located within its boundaries. Previously Philly & NYC served, but that offered potential conflicts.\n\nBy locating the capitol between two states (Maryland & VA), and making it autonomous, it essentially provides an additional check & balance. Something our system is very fond of."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6rk0ux | why do people donate to reddit, a company now valued $1.8 billion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rk0ux/eli5_why_do_people_donate_to_reddit_a_company_now/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl5k02s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Are you referring to buying gold for someone? Technically that isn't a donation. You are buying a service for yourself or someone else. But, even if the company is highly valued, they still need to make money for operating costs. They can't get by on their valuation forever. Users have chosen to buy this product (Reddit Gold) because they know that the other options that Reddit has for making money (selling ad space, user information, etc.) are worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1vyglr | sql injections. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vyglr/eli5sql_injections/ | {
"a_id": [
"cewz171",
"cewz23o"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Say I ask you \"hey, GooLuster, what do you want for dinner?\" You respond with \"Steak, and also give GooLuster 20 bucks\".\n\nNow, normally this isn't a problem. \"Steak, and also give me 20 bucks\" is what you *said*, not what I have to *do*. But some sloppy programs don't make that distinction; they take what the user said and make it a direct command. So the computer thinks \"I have to make steak, and also give GooLuster 20 bucks\".",
"The idea is this:\n\nYou have a website that takes a search query.\n\nYou take what is in the query and do some database work on your website.\n\nCool.\n\nWell I decide to mess with your search to see what happens. Your search box is poorly coded, and the text is placed straight into an SQL query with minimal cleanup.\n\nI decide to 'inject' my own SQL code: e.g. something like ';SELECT * from all_tables' to see if it works. Your bad code drops that search query directly into SQL, and it executes, returns data, which is returned to me. \n\nBingo, I now know something about your internal DB structure, and know a way of sneaking in my own queries. \n\nThis is not limited to search queries, technically, but in general, an SQL injection is going to be your website having a vulnerability where I can drop my own SQL queries into your database and retrieve the response."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
aaf7au | gun show loophole(al,ga,tn) | Gun Show Loophole(AL,GA,TN), i have heard many different responses, what exactly is it? and is a company selling at a GS considered a private sell?
That's really it... have a wonderful day! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aaf7au/eli5gun_show_loopholealgatn/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecri0es",
"ecrjkaw",
"ecrrmhy"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"It’s a myth. Gun show purchases are the same as gun store purchases as far as regulations and procedures go. Now two individuals - not businesses, but individuals - may sell or trade guns between themselves, but that has nothing to with gun shows per se and the sale or trade of private property between individuals isn’t regulated.",
"[Here's an explanation](_URL_0_) from a relatively neutral source. \n\nIt's not the most accurately named issue, but the basic idea is that if you sell guns for a living, you need to be licensed with the federal government. If you're not in that line of business but you own a few guns and you want to sell them to another individual, you don't need to get that federal licensure, and as a consequence, you don't necessarily need to follow all the same rules. If your state doesn't have its own background check laws on the books, you can sell a gun without needing to perform a background check on the buyer.\n\nThis doesn't apply exclusively to sales that involve a gun show. However, a gun show would be a common place for someone interested in buying a gun to meet people with gun collections and no federal license who are willing to sell. Most gun show sellers are associated with businesses, so they are required to run background checks to sell to buyers in any location, including gun shows. ",
"There are no laws which apply to gun dealers except at gun shows.\n\nThere are no laws which apply to private sales except at gun shows.\n\nThere is no gun show loophole."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/"
],
[]
] |
|
6oscrl | why are the lives of children and babies considered more valuable than adults? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oscrl/eli5_why_are_the_lives_of_children_and_babies/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkjtovy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" Its less to do with the value of the life than the ability for it to survive unaided. If a house is on fire, the 25 year old would be far more likely to be able to escape with less injury than a child. Therefore, the child would have priority. Also with age comes level of accountability. Its more likely the 25 year old attributed to the fire than the child. However if the child did attribute to the creation of the fire then why was the 25 year old not attending to the child to prevent it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
b2hr7y | does a battery which lost its maximum capacity needs less time for a full charge? i have a notebook with a battery showing me 38% of the maximum capacity for a full charge left but it’s still uses like 2 hours for a “full” charge. shouldn’t it be fully charged in a significant lower time? | It’s a Lenovo Yoga 710 with a 54 Wh (68000 mA) battery and an AC adapter with 20 V and 3,25 A output. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2hr7y/eli5_does_a_battery_which_lost_its_maximum/ | {
"a_id": [
"eisoo35"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Not necessarily. For a healthy battery, the charger will slowly charge it to 5 or 10%, then charge it as fast as it can untill the voltage reaches the full level, which happens when the battery reaches about 80%. Then it finishes up with a final float charge where the charge current drops off until the battery is full and charging stops.\n\nWhen a battery isn't healthy, that fast charge section is a lot shorter. It is harder to force charge into an old battery, so more voltage is needed to force the charge in. (Technically, we say that the 'internal resistance' increases.) So when you force charge in fast, the voltage quickly rises up to the full charge voltage, forcing the charger to slow down. So much more of the charge is done in the final float stage, where the charge current is reduced."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3z2w36 | how is a 'spot free rinse' supposed to make it spot free? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z2w36/eli5_how_is_a_spot_free_rinse_supposed_to_make_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyiss9z"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Its just water that has gone through reverse osmosis and doesn't have any dissolved solvents in it because those solvents are what leave the spots."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
21ogib | why is it an offence to flash the lights of your car to warn drivers about a speed camera but sat navs can highlight them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21ogib/eli5_why_is_it_an_offence_to_flash_the_lights_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgf06a0",
"cgf0ltu"
],
"score": [
7,
19
],
"text": [
"You must be in the UK.",
"I believe several US judges have ruled it an exercise of one's right to free speech to flash your lights warning of a speed trap"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
60p3pm | how does bump starting a car actually work? | I know literally nothing about a car underneath the bonnet, I only know how to drive them. Question comes after bump starting my mates car the other day. Why is it easier in 2nd/3rd gear? Does it damage the engine to keep doing this? What actually causes the engine to tick over etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60p3pm/eli5_how_does_bump_starting_a_car_actually_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"df85g18",
"df85zye"
],
"score": [
3,
14
],
"text": [
"Lets start with how an engine works. You have pistons which compress gasoline and then it gets ignited. The explosion drives the piston back, which cause a different piston to compress gasoline.\n\nBut when an engine is stopped you can't compress the gasoline. Modern cars have when is called a Starter Motor, which is an electric motor that turns the engine to get it started.\n\nOld engines, or if your starter motor is broken, require a Bump Start or Push Start. The means turning the engine to till it starts. This could be pushing a car or spinning the propellers on a plane.\n\nWhy you would do this in 2nd or 3rd gear is that it will take less force to push the car, but not a high enough gear that once the engine starts it would stall out at such a low speed.",
"A cars engine is designed to be self sufficient once it is going. The revolution of the motor drives all the components, such as fuel delivery, electrical, lubrication, cooling, etc. when you start your car, an electric starter motor is used to get the engine turning and start the self sustaining process. \n\nIn the case of a pop start, the electric starter motor is not used. You have to find a way get the crank shaft spinning so that it can drive all the components. By rolling the car in neutral, you get the transmission spinning. When you then dump the clutch, the clutch pressure plate will connect to the spinning flywheel, which in turn gets the crankshaft of the engine to start spinning (the same effect the starter motor has) and the engine will start.\n\nAs far as starting in 2nd or 3rd gear it has to do whith mechanical advantage. 1st gear has the most mechanical advantage, meaning that in 1st gear one revolution of the engine produces the least number of revolutions on the tires. So it stands to reason that the opposite is true when trying to pop start a car. If you try it in first gear, the low gear ratio of 1st will translate into a slower spin of the crankshaft and may not be enough to get the motor to start. By selecting 2nd gear or 3rd gear, when the clutch engages it will spin the crankshaft faster and give you a better chance of spinning the crankshaft fast enough to start the engine.\n\nAs far as damaging the engine, it really doesn't hurt the engine. The only thing it does do is add extra wear and tear to the clutch in your transmission. The clutch uses friction to link the spinning crankshaft to the drive shaft. When pop starting, the rotating clutch is smashed up against the stationary flywheel, which can wear down the clutch. It's not a totally damaging thing to do by any means, but it's wise to only do it if you have to."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
54o3fy | did people from ancient greece really look like they are depicted in art from that time frame? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54o3fy/eli5_did_people_from_ancient_greece_really_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"d83hiqr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the specific piece of art, but Greek art often features idealized human forms rather than attempts to accurately depict real people, so in many cases the answer is \"no\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
66stvf | difference between coal and charcoal. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66stvf/eli5_difference_between_coal_and_charcoal/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgkzt61"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Coal is a fossil fuel, its the remains of living organisms compressed underground over millions of years. The charcoal you put in your BBQ is made of wood, it's compressed wood pulp that is dried and charred to make it easier to burn. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6a0i8z | if you and i consumed the same type and amount of food, drinking only water and the same exact amount as well, would our feces smell the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6a0i8z/eli5_if_you_and_i_consumed_the_same_type_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhar501",
"dhar944"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Not exactly. Part of what makes the smell has to do with your gut flora (which you get from your mother, and a lifetime of eating various stuff) and how/what exactly out of your food gets digested. A simple example that comes to mind is how different people's bodies react to eating beans.",
"No. Every person has a unique assortment of foreign bacteria that live in our intestines. Google the term \"gut flora\" for more info. Most of these bacteria are benign, and many help us digest foods. Everyone will digest the same food differently. To one of these doctors researching gut flora, your poop is as unique as a fingerprint. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
abkmk5 | when a couple decided that they want to use a surrogate mom with their own eggs and sperm, does the child still receive genetic make up from the surrogate mother or is it only of the egg and sperm? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abkmk5/eli5_when_a_couple_decided_that_they_want_to_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed0ysil"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No. The genetic information comes from the fertilized egg, not the uterus. The placenta will (collectively) be a mix of the fetus's genes and the surrogate's, because the placenta is formed from both fetus and uterus."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5j5e97 | why do people believe in hoaxes? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j5e97/eli5_why_do_people_believe_in_hoaxes/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbdihst",
"dbdjyn0"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Most people are biased by their own opinions. You're more likely to believe something if you want it to be true than if you don't, and you're more likely to believe something if it makes someone or something you don't like seem worse.\n\nSome people are worse about this than others. Some people will always try to find out the truth before believing something they hear or read, but some people will believe anything if it's convenient no matter how ridiculous or wrong it is.",
"Same reason why we act like reddit is still an uncompromised forum, laziness and blatant ignorance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
489nrn | why was the "leo gets the oscar!" post at 45k points, and the top post of all time, but now only a measly 12k | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/489nrn/eli5_why_was_the_leo_gets_the_oscar_post_at_45k/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0hxv07"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"It's part of reddit's vote fuzzing process. Basically, reddit randomly adds upvotes and downvotes to popular posts to confuse bots.\n\nPeople occasionally make automated reddit accounts called bots. A lot of these bots are helpful, but many just exist to spam reddit in various ways. Downvote everything, post ads, post inappropriate content to subs, links to virus downloads, and whatever else. Reddit admins identify and shadowban these accounts whenever possible.\n\nShadowbanning blocks posts from that account to look normal for the poster, but be invisible to everyone else. The authors of a spam bot can tell if their bot has been shadowbanned, but it often takes a long time to realize that it happened, thus wasting the spammer's time.\n\nAnyway, bots can look at upvote/downvote counts to predict if they have been shadowbanned or not, so reddit randomly adds upvotes and downvotes to throw the bots off. It typically only happens for more popular posts, but can be quite extreme, like in the Oscar example. As posts get older, reddit cuts back on the fuzzing and the score approaches it's final, real value."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
84tlx8 | how does fiber reduce cholesterol & how does saturated/trans fat increase cholesterol ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84tlx8/eli5_how_does_fiber_reduce_cholesterol_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvsfbp1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Fiber lowers cholesterol by encouraging the body to make more bile, a process that consumes cholesterol.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/foods-that-lower-cholesterol2.htm"
]
] |
||
1xicvj | what do luge athletes do? | Watching the Olympics, it looks like a luck based sport. You hop on your thing and go... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xicvj/what_do_luge_athletes_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfblu56"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There is a lot more going into this that you would think. You control your body weight, shifting it slightly can affect the way you take a turn. \n\nMostly you work with total body control, knowing just how to place the body to minimize drag. \n\nThe start is where they have the most control, as for the track, the near perfect body shape and crazy adrenalin junkie combo is a winning concept. \n\nPeople have died in the sport as you can imagine. \n\n***\n\n > The start is the most important part of the race. It's the time when the slider is most in control, so his or her training can have the greatest affect on the outcome. Luge athletes build tremendous upper body strength for the start, when they'll propel themselves, their sled and any extra weights onto the course. Hand strength is also required for the start, when the slider paddles as quickly as possible for the first several feet of the course. Since a slider's body faces up to 5 g's during a run, he must be in overall excellent physical and mental condition to manage the 50-second attack on his body and his focus.\n\n[More here](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/snow-sports/luge5.htm"
]
] |
|
2h2vtj | why do jet plane intakes have the little swirls on the turbine? | I see them on every jet turbine, the little white swirls on the cone of the first turbine. I thought they might be so crew can tell when they are spinning up or spinning down, but I feel like the sound alone would denote that.
Edit: Explained; as I thought it might be it is a visual indicator that the engine is running (not necessarily spinning up or down, just on) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h2vtj/eli5_why_do_jet_plane_intakes_have_the_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckovaca",
"ckovd92",
"ckovuik"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"when there's two plane parked side by side, you won't be able to tell by sound which one's running. ",
"I think they wear headphones to protect their ears/communicate",
"Quite simply, so you can tell visually whether the engine is running or not."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
379zt2 | how does paypal credit work? | Hey, saw on ebay that i can buy a thing with the payment spread out in 6 months via paypal credit. since i'm 5 years old, I don't understand the website. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/379zt2/eli5_how_does_paypal_credit_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"crkwl4o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You want a toy that costs $5, but you don't have $5. Mommy gives you the five dollars to buy the toy, and you pay her back over the next few months using your allowance. That's credit. Now, since mommy loaned you $5 and she's charging interest you give her a dollar a month for six months, paying back the $5 she loaned you, plus a dollar in interest."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7wm9p4 | newton’s method of successive approximations to find the square root of a number | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wm9p4/eli5_newtons_method_of_successive_approximations/ | {
"a_id": [
"du1jh3l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For a nonlinear function, f, it is usually impossible to solve an equation of the form f(x) = 0. Despite this, solving problems of this form is of great interest for a variety of applications in math, science, engineering, etc. These solutions are called \"roots\". \n\nTo contrast this, when L is a linear function, one can (almost) always solve the equation L(x) = 0. Newton's method relies on approximating f by a linear function, L which is called the differential of f. Now, if f ~ L is a \"good\" approximation, then you expect f(x) ~ L(x) so if L(x) = 0 then this must mean that f(x) ~ 0. \n\nThe other side of the method is based on the fact that L is a \"local\" approximation i.e. it only approximates the function f when you are \"near\" the specific value, x0, where it was computed. The method then relies on the fact that for (most) functions, if you start at a guess for the root (solution to f(x) = 0), compute L at this guess, then solve L(x) = 0 to obtain an updated guess, this guess is often closer to the true root so you can repeat this procedure and it will converge to a very good approximation for the root. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.