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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
39xzeb | in what sense have creditors been "pillaging" greece for the past five years? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39xzeb/eli5_in_what_sense_have_creditors_been_pillaging/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs7gdli",
"cs7h3gg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Greeks feel that the austerity measures imposed on Greece by it's creditors, which are enforced because the lenders feel they will make the greek economy more competitive and a more attractive target for investment, aren't actually helpful. They see austerity more as a punishment for the greek people, or at best a poorly thought out and ineffective policy. Syriza, the far left party elected on an anti-austerity platform, has a strong incentive to describe Greece's treatment by its creditors as unfair or evil by using words like \"pillaging\" to gain leverage in negotiating conditions for further loans.",
"To make a long, complicated story short: external investment (via debt) is necessary in order to maintain a functioning government in Greece. No investment, the government has no funds to operate, and falls apart completely. \n\nBecause capital (needed for investment) is globally mobile, investors are not in a situation where they have to accept terms from Greece, because they can just invest elsewhere for a better/safer deal. In order to compensate for the extreme risk they are taking by loaning money to Greece, they impose terms in the form of austerity measures (limit spending) which are meant to ensure that the Greek government does not overspend again and default again. This is meant to lower risk for investors so they don't end up getting shafted (which already happened multiple times). \n\nIf you don't understand how financial markets work, it just seems like the creditors have it out for Greece and are being \"mean\", but in reality their reasons for pushing austerity measures are valid and understandable. While austerity may seem bad, the alternative is no investment and a non-functional government, which would be significantly worse. The left/far left parties are preying on people's emotions and lack of understanding to make it seem like austerity measures are some type of \"punishment\", when in reality they are a necessary condition for securing investment. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
b3of9a | how does the human body tend to itself when you havent eaten for days? what about havent drank? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3of9a/eli5_how_does_the_human_body_tend_to_itself_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"ej0y7m9",
"ej0y7ux"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a general rule of threes for your body's survival. 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water and 3 mins without air.\n\nWithout food, your body starts to consume its reserves. First to be consumed is the sugar reserve kept in your liver (about 500 grams). Then the body will try to breakdown the body's fat and muscle for energy and proteins necessary for your metabolism. But it can't break it down as fast as it needs it, thus eventually, you'll die\n\nHowever your body doesn't have water reserves in the same amounts. Without regular intake, your body has only so much water and it will try to conserve it as much as possible, but without water your body can't get rid of toxic metabolic byproducts like ammonia. These toxins will build in the body and eventually cellular activity will cease without water in which to dilute nutrients and toxins for transport.\n\nEdit: Grammar",
"Eaten: your liver converts stored fat to ketone bodies (a collection of chemicals that the brain can use for energy in a similar manner to sugar) and, if necessary, your body breaks down skeletal muscle to provide the protein needed to maintain internal organs such as the heart. \n\nDrank: you die. As a rule of thumb you can survive three days without water. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5zkn4m | if my car is on a steep downward incline and i put it into reverse gear, why does it roll backward up the hill even if i don't press the accelerator? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zkn4m/eli5_if_my_car_is_on_a_steep_downward_incline_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"deyta7b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you put it in reverse gear. So long as the engine is producing enough power to move the car, and the clutch is capable of translating that much power without slipping, the car is going to move, otherwise the engine is just going to stall if it's not producing enough power."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
j7etv | please expain noam chomsky and his
views on the ideal type of governance li12 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j7etv/please_expain_noam_chomsky_and_his_views_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c29sp85",
"c29sp85"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't think Chomsky can be properly explained in the format of an ideal form of government (maybe he can, but it'd hurt the LI12-level of it all).\n\nAt the heart of Chomsky's political thought is the question of authority. Why does the government get to tell people what to do, and why should it be like this? He's said he'd place himself *in the tradition of* anarchists (the people who think there should be no government at all), that doesn't mean he's an anarchist himself, though. Mostly, what he believes is Libertarian Socialism. It basically means that the government should only be allowed to tell people what to do if there's a very good reason for it. These reasons, Chomsky thinks, should be questioned often. This puts limits on what, for example, cops should be allowed to do. Some people say that since cops try to fight crime, they should be allowed pretty much anything, but Chomsky would say that cops should only be allowed to do these things if they can give very good reasons that what they want to do will *actually* fight crime. So no arresting people for videotaping them, for example.\n\nWhat makes him a Libertarian *Socialist* is that unlike classical Libertarians, he believes that things like \"to make sure everybody gets as good an education as possible\" and \"to make sure we all get the best healthcare for as little money as possible\" are good reasons for the government to do things (like tax people). ",
"I don't think Chomsky can be properly explained in the format of an ideal form of government (maybe he can, but it'd hurt the LI12-level of it all).\n\nAt the heart of Chomsky's political thought is the question of authority. Why does the government get to tell people what to do, and why should it be like this? He's said he'd place himself *in the tradition of* anarchists (the people who think there should be no government at all), that doesn't mean he's an anarchist himself, though. Mostly, what he believes is Libertarian Socialism. It basically means that the government should only be allowed to tell people what to do if there's a very good reason for it. These reasons, Chomsky thinks, should be questioned often. This puts limits on what, for example, cops should be allowed to do. Some people say that since cops try to fight crime, they should be allowed pretty much anything, but Chomsky would say that cops should only be allowed to do these things if they can give very good reasons that what they want to do will *actually* fight crime. So no arresting people for videotaping them, for example.\n\nWhat makes him a Libertarian *Socialist* is that unlike classical Libertarians, he believes that things like \"to make sure everybody gets as good an education as possible\" and \"to make sure we all get the best healthcare for as little money as possible\" are good reasons for the government to do things (like tax people). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
27y49l | why do i get impulses to do things that i would never ever act on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27y49l/eli5_why_do_i_get_impulses_to_do_things_that_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci5ip2q",
"ci5jhek"
],
"score": [
17,
2
],
"text": [
"The latest scientific thinking on this is that it's an evolutionary adaptation which actually makes you less likely to do dangerous stuff.\n\nIf a person has a tendency to imagine things like jumping off cliffs or attacking people, he/she will naturally imagine the negative consequences of the action, during the course of the fantasy. \n\nThis essentially forms a \"negative plan\" for that action. You look at the cliff and actually have the thought \"I totally shouldn't jump off, because I'd die.\" This leads to even more survival-oriented thoughts, like \"come to think of it, I could also slip accidentally. I should really just stay away from the cliff, unless it's really necessary for me to be near it.\"\n\nIn comparison, a person who didn't have the initial tendency to imagine the dangerous behavior might just continue hanging out by the cliff. Less fear of the potential danger = more interaction with danger, which translates into greater risk of death.\n\nAlso, the French phrase for the phenomenon is \"L’appel du vide,\" which translates to \"the call of the void.\"\n\nAnd that is just awesome.",
"The term for these is [\"intrusive thoughts\"](_URL_0_) I believe"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thoughts"
]
] |
||
a5yxul | why is there a gust of air when you open a door to the subway station? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a5yxul/eli5_why_is_there_a_gust_of_air_when_you_open_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebqc9mm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"they keep the pressure higher in the station in order to help evacuate fumes etc from the platforms "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7sgukb | why are so many people with mental illnesses successful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sgukb/eli5_why_are_so_many_people_with_mental_illnesses/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt4m3j7",
"dt4mbek"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some forms of mental illness can be defeated with effort (such as dyslexia). Other such as certain kinds of bi-polar or OCD can actually be beneficial in certain kinds of job as the manic periods or obsessive traits make them more efficient at said jobs. ",
"There's different degrees of severity but generally speaking, these disorders are not completely crippling, especially when properly treated. In the example you cited I guess I'm a bit confused why ADHD would preclude someone from being a comedian or even make it more difficult, unless it was extremely severe.\n\nFurthermore - it's just something you need to live with. Imagine someone confined to a wheelchair or missing a finger or some other permanent physical ailment. There are countless successful people with physical ailments like this.\n\nYou compensate for it where you can with medical devices and treatment for related symptoms but at the end of the day, it's the body you're stuck in and you need to make the best of it and live with it. Same deal for mental illnesses. You get treatment and find out the best medication(s) for you, where applicable you utilize therapy, you learn coping mechanisms and how to minimize the downsides of your mental illness as it relates to everyday life."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2diiaz | how is it that light appears to travel at the speed of light relative to everything else if all of space-time is relative? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2diiaz/eli5_how_is_it_that_light_appears_to_travel_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjpt4l4",
"cjpt6ct"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Because \"all of space-time is relative\" is not the full concept. In full, the Special Theory states (roughly) \"all of space-time is relative except for the speed of light in a vacuum, which is always constant no matter what frame of reference you are using\".\n\nTo make that concept work in the real world, strange things have to start happening, including the idea that objects appear smaller and time passes at a different rate when you travel very quickly indeed. And although it sounds crazy, it's been experimentally observed -- time really does pass at different rates (from the perspective of an observer) for objects travelling at different speeds.",
"You sort of answered your own question. Everything is relative. For instance, if you fired a laser east, and one west, the tip of the laser running east would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the laser pointer. the west laser beam would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the laser pointer as well. You would think that 1 object going C meters per second would be going 2C relative to the object going C meters per second. But the law of relatively says that the max speed is the speed of light. So the east laser beam would still be traveling C miles per hour relative to the west laser beam, and vice versa, even though from the middle where you're firing the lasers from, they're both going C in opposite directions.\n\nIt's just physics screwing with you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4r3a11 | how is the design of the u.s. gov't "deliberately inefficient"? | I've heard from experts in political theory and gov't that the design of the US gov't was deliberately made to be inefficient, mainly for the purpose of guaranteeing that no one would ever have excess power, compromises would have to be made to make sure everyone would get what they wanted at some point, etc.
This feels true: things do seem inefficient. But I wonder what mechanism ensures that the gov't is inefficient. What evidence is there that the "founding fathers" sought to create an inefficient system of government? What factors of the design of the US gov't point to inefficiency, especially inefficiency that is purposely inherent in the design?
I'm not asking for specific examples of gov't failure that come from your personal beliefs like "uh fukn look at the healthacare system fagit lolol" or "y is aborshion if so mch conservtvs hah fuck u". I know gov't failure exists in the US.
I'm asking about the technical design of the US gov't. What about it indicates that its designers WANTED an inefficient system? Thanks for your answers | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r3a11/eli5_how_is_the_design_of_the_us_govt/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4xxosd",
"d4xy1cw",
"d4xzil4",
"d4y1jy9",
"d4y3gru"
],
"score": [
2,
86,
38,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Could you elaborate on what you mean by inefficient? Inefficient at what exactly? Do you just mean slow to change in general?",
"The checks and balances system ensures that one person or one branch of government can't make quick, unilateral changes. For a law to be passed and take effect, all three branches have to be (more or less) in agreement. The fact that legislation can be difficult to pass, even if one party has a majority, makes some people think of government as inefficient.\n\nAlso, the Constitution, which sets all of the rules, was made incredibly hard to amend (2/3 of Congress, 3/4 of the states) to again prevent large changes from being made easily.\n\nEDIT: If you want to read the Founding Fathers' opinions in their own words, read the [The Federalist Papers](_URL_1_). These were essays written by James Madison (primary writer of the Constitution), Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay that were meant to convince people to adopt the Constitution. In them, these three Founding Fathers laid out a lot of their ideas for how the country should be run.\n\nIn particular [Federalist #10](_URL_0_) by James Madison addresses your question almost exactly. In it, Madison talks about the need to prevent what he called factions from taking over the government and undermining democratic principles.",
"In order to better imagine this, think of a highly efficient government. One where laws pass overnight, one where rules don't have to go through many steps in order to be passed, one where you don't have to see if your laws are even conflicting in order to make them become the standard.\n\nThat efficient government is known as a dictatorship. In order to be efficient, you cannot do the arduous work of having to get your citizens to agree, getting other lawmakers to agree, or even seeing if your laws are even allowed.\n\nImagine in both governments you wanted to make it okay to kill malformed babies.\n\nIn an efficient government, the dictator says sure that's a great idea. Why waste resources on babies that aren't going to survive anyway?\n\nIn our inefficient government, the people would have to vote to make this okay. And if they did approve it, the courts could still overturn this decision citing that it is a cruel and unusual punishment (they checked this law to make sure it wouldn't conflict with other laws). The legislature could overturn that and make it into law citing their citizens agreed with it, but the executive branch (president) could veto it and say that it is violating the human rights laws of the UN. This is a very inefficient system that requires a lot of work from many different parties. You have different political groups not even agreeing within the political system. So yeah it's good then. But when you are trying to pass something that does benefit everyone, let's say universal healthcare, some people disagree with this because of reasons that are not good for the populace and that's because they're rich enough not to worry about healthcare and the people paying them are making a profit off people who do worry about healthcare.\n\nIt is inefficient, but it has to be. Efficient governments mean you have someone that doesn't answer to anyone but himself and makes laws without consulting other people in charge, or the population. When they have to ask for approval, it begins to veer into an inefficient system.\n\nEdit: forgot to mention the different levels of government where you can't override a law of a larger government entity (city vs state vs federal). In an efficient government, every citizen in your rule would answer to you the same and there would be no smaller governments making more rules because that would be a barrier in controlling your state.",
"The starting point is the threshold to amend the U.S. constitution is incredibly high(2/3 of both houses of congress, plus 3/4 of the State Govt's ratification(38)). It's only been Amended 27 times in the roughly 230 years since its been enacted, and 10 of those came immediately after it was enacted. It's typically much easier for other countries to change their national charter and make sweeping changes. From there for a law to be passed you need both houses of Congress to pass it, the President to sign it, and the U.S. courts to agree that it doesn't violate the Constitution for that law to remain standing. It's a system designed for cooperation. Unfortunately that's became a dirty word in American Politics the last quarter century.",
"Government agencies have to spend all of their budget every year or face a cut in their budgets the next year. This incentivizes them to go on a spending spree and buy works of art or make *Star Trek* parody commercials for internal use at the end of the fiscal year. This also means that nearly every government agency's budget will increase from year to year regardless of how much it needs it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ytk7z | why aren u.s isps only targeting netflix and not the likes of youtube or hulu? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ytk7z/why_aren_us_isps_only_targeting_netflix_and_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfnmcp5",
"cfno4nj",
"cfno9st",
"cfno9vv",
"cfnobzo",
"cfnognr",
"cfnomyr",
"cfnoo1f",
"cfnovye",
"cfnpchy",
"cfnpl3q",
"cfnpm0q",
"cfnpng1",
"cfnq1rs",
"cfnq7td",
"cfnqc1p",
"cfnqcjk",
"cfnqkms",
"cfnqmy5",
"cfnqp1e",
"cfnr6do",
"cfnr6g5",
"cfnrddi",
"cfnrgcu",
"cfnsh8n",
"cfnt060",
"cfnt8kb",
"cfntylg",
"cfntz2l",
"cfnu21s",
"cfnu7yu",
"cfnubxz",
"cfnukr7",
"cfnusw0",
"cfnv1m2",
"cfnvlpy",
"cfnw3fn",
"cfnw772",
"cfnwpj0",
"cfnxeyd",
"cfnykma",
"cfnyob2",
"cfnyr3k",
"cfnyxzu",
"cfnz0q2",
"cfnzb42",
"cfo0gzk",
"cfo0nif",
"cfo266u",
"cfo2bje",
"cfo3e6x",
"cfo5636",
"cfo5aoj",
"cfoaxri",
"cfobve3",
"cfoc1zb",
"cfoc5id",
"cfocueb",
"cfoe191",
"cfoeq1g"
],
"score": [
1563,
94,
229,
2,
384,
24,
25,
70,
5,
184,
10,
2,
15,
5,
3,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
636,
2,
19,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2,
10,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Netflix is 30%+ (?) of traffic, they are a big player.\n\nAlso, YouTube at least is run by Google... who with Fiber is already suggesting that they won't take the ISPs shit.",
"Too many people watching House of Cards.",
"Youtube has had plenty of run-ins with U.S. ISPs, and has gotten throttled a number of times. TWC especially is known for that one.",
"Google already pays ISPs for more direct connections.\n\n",
"This is not a fight between Comcast and Netflix, but the peering between Comcast and Cogent (Netflix's IPS).\n\nThis same thing happened in 2010 when Netflix was using Level 3 as their ISP.\n\nThink of it this way. 2 towns built a 4 lane road between each other. They split the cost initially. Everything works great. A mega corporation moves into Town A and begins to ship its product to Town B (or C,D,E, etc through Town B). This saturates the road between the two towns causing congestion. The congestion is only going towards town B.\n\nWho should pay to add more lanes going from town A to town B?\n\n* Town A?\n* Town B?\n* Mega Corp?\n\nIf town A pays for it, the taxes in Town A will go up.\nIf town B pays for it, the taxes (and tariffs) for Town B will go up.\nIf Mega Corp, they price of their product will go up.\nThe 4th option would be for the Federal Government to step in and take control of the road. This would cause all of the above.\n\nThe 5th option, and what has happened is that MegaCorp moved from Town A to Town B. (Or at least will build a private road into Town B)\n\nWelcome to the reality of net neutrality. Someone has to pay for the road.",
"Its just ridiculous mob tactics. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth, as do I. Why in the hell should Netflix be extorted into paying extra just because? If I were in charge of Netflix, I would have released a free, easy to use vpn tool to all customers instead of folding. ",
"They are. I live in Ohio and Time Warner is the only game in town. They throttle your connections to basically everywhere useful. Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, and I have heard social media sites load slower than lesser known sites. ",
"I work for an ISP. Netflix easily accounts for 25-30% of all of our traffic. Youtube takes up about 15% by itself. I dont side with comcast for what they are doing but the impact netflix has had on ISP's bandwidth is crazy due to the usage. We used to have 10Gb circuits that connected major areas together internally and I thought that was huge. Now we need to have multiple 100Gb redundant circuits just to carry the load. Some areas even have 300Gb circuits for customer traffic and were not even a top 10 ISP. On the plus side, we dont throttle anything or alter traffic in any way",
"sounds like small business owners paying protection money to me some mob shit",
"Because Hulu is run by Fox, Disney, and of course NBC Universal, which is a subsidiary of... you guessed it, Comcast.\n\nAs for YouTube... would you want to take on Google? Me neither. Maybe they will after they combine with Time Warner, but probably not because they're pretty good about taking down pirated content.\n\nI have no real proof, but I don't believe this to be an issue of bandwidth usage. It's a struggle to keep cable television viable. Young people don't want it anymore. Old people wouldn't either if they weren't afraid of change and knew how much better and simpler Netflix is. Solution? Make a better cable product? No. Eliminate the competition. ",
"They do fuck with youtube. Sometimes it takes me like 2 minutes to buffer a 30 second video. Forget about watching a longer HD video.\n\n\nI always call them, and they say something like \"Oh ok we will try resetting your connection\" and then it's magically better. ",
"I feel [this link](_URL_0_) might be helpful to some readers. \n\nTLDR; During peak usage, Netflix has approximately 59% high traffic than YouTube in North America, but together they make up half of peak Internet (still only in North America).\n\nEdit: approximately ",
"Because Google is big enough to defend itself against Comcast. Netflix is not at the moment.",
"A big reason why ISPs aren't happy with Netflix is that up until this point Netflix has not paid any ISPs extra money for more direct connections. Large Internet companies like Youtube, Facebook, Mircosoft, etc. have paid ISPs for more direct connections. Hulu is a special case since they are owned by the broadcasting companies, Comcast being one of them.\n\nNetflix did offer to set up cashing servers for free within ISPs networks so that most Netflix traffic would never leave ISPs networks, but they declined.",
"Hulu barely makes a profit and that's from the \"free\" version only. YouTube monetizes advertising. Netflix is undercutting the business model of the ISPs/Cable Carriers by tossing advertising and is successful.",
"Youtube and Hulu are throttled. When I had suddenlink, I had to keep fighting them to \"fix\" it, which of course entailed the stupid CSR to reboot the modem.\n\nTWC is the same, brother has it and its the same crap. Seriously, fuck the US government for turning a blind eye (and open wallet) to illegal monopolies.\n\nedit: NSA, if you cant figure this out, I am talking figuratively.\n",
"You're paying an ISP for a certain speed, it is their job to make sure the speed stays the same regardless of what it is used on.",
"Get a few private trackers and most of these problems are solved ... ",
"Verizon has targeted youtube in the past. I used to work at verizon for their FIOS (fiber) service. We had customers calling in all the time saying youtube videos would not play. Our official response was that the bandwidth on the peering point was maxed out, and it was the responsibility of the content provider (youtube/google) to upgrade this bandwidth. ",
"[One chart can probably explain this best](_URL_0_)",
"As for youtube, don't fuck with google.",
"ISP are most commonly cable providers as well, and what is Netflix to cable providers? That's right...a bitch",
"Netflix is big, but the company is to small to fight back. \n\nI imagine hulu isn't big enough to bother with at all. \n\nYouTube is owned by Google. Google would take every ISP, tie them up in fiber, and fuck them to death, all while coming up with cool new products. ",
"Netflix is 30% of traffic I don't understand why Netflix doesn't start threatening Comcast instead. Make streaming impossible for comcast users and tell their customers that they need to switch ISPs.",
"Look at who owns the companies.. .and you have your answer.",
"ELI5: What is op referring to?",
"Netflix shouldn't be paying anyone for having a good business going. The isps are clearly the problem",
"The beauty of it all is really quite stunning when you think about it. You pay your ISP for the bandwidth to watch Netflix. ISPs want more of your money but can't just jack your rates up if there is competition in the market. ISPs also know what percentage of their bandwidth which services occupy, Netflix is easily one of the most bandwidth hungry. Selectively target said external, bandwidth hungry, service and artificially limit it to force a lesser experience on that company's subscriber base on your network. It's likely that in order to placate their subscribers that service will appeal to the ISP in question. The ISP says \"ok, we'll restore QoS for X dollars\". Service provider agrees, on fear of losing a significant chunk of their own paying customers... Circle of life continues and your Netflix rates go up ever so slightly to balance out this and the future dealings of this nature they KNOW are coming.\n\nTerrorism, in business suits.",
"Follow the money. Hulu is owned, at least in part, by the Hollywood content companies. This means that Time-Warner owns part of it directly, and Comcast hopes to acquire some of those companies in the future. Hulu represents where cable wants to go, with ads even when you pay for the stream and the content provided still calling all the shots. Hulu is very careful about how it offers content to protect the incumbent interests.\n\nYouTube, on the other hand, is not a direct threat to the cable companies existing business. It is not easy to see how it evolves to be one in the short term either. Add to that the fact that it helps sell cable speed upgrades, and Google's deep pockets. Demand more money for YouTube, and Google will accelerate it's fiber plans. The cable companies can't win this fight.\n\nNetflix, on the other hand, is a direct threat to the existing profit model AND is a fight the cable companies might be able to win.",
"Google already pays ISPs. [_URL_0_]\n\nHoping to speed traffic through an increasingly congested Internet, several big Web companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Facebook Inc. are paying major broadband providers for connections to get faster and smoother access to their networks, say people familiar with the matter.",
"Not sure if this was mentioned already, if it was I'm sorry. But think about it this way, most of the major players in America are companies that offer internet AND cable, and it's a pain in the ass to get them to drop either service (it took us about an hour to get Verizon to drop cable from our service). Netflix offers a viable replacement for cable, sure you don't get all the new shows, but I usually wait for the end of a season so that I can just binge on a weekend when I've got nothing to do. Netflix is significantly cheaper than adding cable to your plan, but more importantly, the money you give to Netflix is money that you aren't giving to your provider. More and more people have left their cable plans to switch to a streaming alternative. This is a threat to the income that companies such as Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc. rely on, so if they aren't getting the money from you, they'll get it from somewhere. ",
"Who says they aren't? YouTube has *constantly* had quality and buffering issues, and I'm not convinced it's always YouTube's fault.",
"Netflix is basically a competitor to cable. If you can't afford the $65 basic cable (Plus box rental, HD access and other) from Comcast you probably have Netflix. Now you're using that $75 internet access Comcast is providing you to binge watch on Netflix instead of watching cable and it's commercials. YouTube has had problems for ages and they are mostly internal. Hulu just plain sucks. They're getting flack from the big guys, just not enough to make news. ",
"There are no commercials in Netflix, that's why we watch it more.",
"Hulu is owned partially by NBC who is owned by Comcast.",
"_URL_0_\n\n > Hulu is a joint venture of NBCUniversal Television Group (Comcast)\n\nHulu is owned, partially, by Comcast. They want people using it instead of things like Netflix. Why would they throttle their own product?",
"Youtube is owned by Google. Google owns a lot of fiber, which is used to carry internet's traffic for other, non google services. Through things called \"peering\", as long as the amount of data going one way is roughly equal to the amount going the other way (in other words, I dump into you as much as you give me), neither side pays.\n\nTherefore, youtube's actual bandwidth costs might be close to zero and google's peering relationships protect youtube from being throttled.",
"Surprised that nobody really tried to answer this, from what I can see.\n\nUltimately, most internet traffic is exchanged between networks in a process called *Peering* at places called *Internet Exchange Points(IXPs)*. ISPs and other networks sign *Peering Agreements* with each other to establish terms and conditions for sharing traffic between networks. \n\nThere are two types of peering: *public*, and *private*:\n\n* Public peering is where a large number of carriers can go to all connect to each other in a 'public forum' manner. Public peering is most often slower for a number of reasons. It can also be used as a backup when the preferred network is down or malfunctioning. \n* Private peering is where two carriers make a peering agreement to establish a connection directly between themselves. Naturally, this allows the parties to agree on acceptable latency and bandwidth. The vast majority of internet traffic is exchanged via private peering. Private peering agreements are normally secretive, and a lot of shady business goes down when negotiating them. For example, providers very frequently and intentionally neglect to upgrade their equipment at an IXP in order to gain the upper hand in peering agreements. They can now claim: \"Look, we'd love to agree to this, but we clearly need more bandwidth at this location, which will cost us money! 0:)\"\n\nSide note: A really cool site to check out if you're so inclined is _URL_0_. You can browse through public and private IXPs, and check out some peering info on a good deal of networks. (you can log in with guest/guest, you only need an account if you want to update the database)\n\nIn order to be able to transfer content quickly and efficiently to everyone everywhere, you're going to need to either peer directly with all the major networks, or partner with third party networks that can exchange traffic on your behalf. The latter is what most companies do-- Netflix, for example, uses Akamai, Limelight, and Level 3 (three very fast \"Content Delivery Networks\") to push its video to customers. Each of those CDNs have extensive peering agreements all over the globe.\n\nNetworks are constantly shifting, with internet routes being modified all the time, and problems arise frequently. Most peering agreements include the stipulation that if problems are found on a network, there will be techs around to investigate and fix it. A tech's ability to fix a problem, however, varies, depending on how well he knows the systems involved. Here's an example of Hulu trying to alleviate some of the pressure from their CDNs-- _URL_2_\n\nWith all that in mind, CDNs and other content providers that are categorized as \"Mostly Outbound\" tend to incur the largest fees for data transfer. In order to vastly reduce the amount of data needed to travel between networks, larger CDNs/content providers will strike agreements with major ISPs to host content caching hardware either inside or directly adjacent to the ISP's own network(both physically and logically). \n\nGoogle's version of this is called \"Google Global Cache\"-- _URL_1_ (very bottom of page)\n\nNetflix's version of this is called \"Open Connect\"-- _URL_4_\n\nYou can see these systems indirectly by watching a YouTube video and checking the address of the streaming server. Sometimes the address of the server may indicate your ISP, eg \"comcast-blah.blah\". If not, if you run a traceroute on the address, you'll find that it barely makes it out of your ISP's network(most of the time, check [here](_URL_5_) for a dry article on why not always).\n\nUp until a few days ago, Comcast refused, for whatever reason, to sign on to Netflix's Open Connect. They recently struck an agreement, though. I imagine that this is in part due to the recent ~~Supreme~~ Court ruling allowing ISPs to throttle any traffic they deem unworthy-- Netflix I'm sure had to pony up a few more coins to strike the agreement now. Another motivating factor was that Netflix, which was opposed to the ruling, would also be opposed to the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Now that they have an \"in\" with Comcast, however, they are likely to be far less vocal about it.\n\nEdit: Appeals court, not supreme court. Here's the info for anyone interested or incredibly bored: _URL_3_\n\nEdit: Oh, gold! Thanks random person! Alchemy lives after all.",
"1. Hulu isn't shit compared to the other two.\n2. Fucking with Google is like kicking a pit bull. No matter what happens, you're going to be a mess.",
"It is **NOT** because of **TRAFFIC**. Major Hollywood studios and major ISPS are the *same* companies. Time Warner owns Time Warner Cable and Warner Bros. NBC Universal is owned by Comcast. At the very least, most major studios and major ISPs are invested in each other.\n\nNetflix is independent, though. It's a **major** independent studio creating original content that requires **NO** middleman or distributor. Mass market distribution was how Hollywood basically monopolized entertainment and media in the entire 20th century.\n\nWith the internet and streaming and pirating, mass market distribution became inefficient, bloated, and useless. The parent companies of the major ISP/media/appliance/distribution/etc. conglomerates want to ensure that companies like Netflix don't threaten their monopolies.\n\nThe only way to do that is to strongarm them. \n\nThey can't strongarm Youtube (Google), because Google is too powerful and will strongarm them back. They won't strongarm Hulu, because they already own Hulu.\n\nEdit: In fact, it has **NOTHING** to do with any sort of traffic, ISP, or bandwidth issue. It is only about \"intellectual property\" control.",
"I'm pretty sure ISPs *are* targeting Youtube at least. I'm in Hawaii with Time Warner and Youtube videos at 1080p are hit or miss. If I go to a Youtube proxy website and watch the same video it's silky-buttery-smooth.",
"Oh man, if ISPs fuck with youtube; Google will unleash hell upon them. Google is a very dangerous company, and has the money as well as resources to take down any company in their way. In other words, tread carefully ISPs.",
"Because Google is the [Lizard King](_URL_0_)",
"Major Carriers(ISPs) have agreements to connect their Networks together. These agreements and their connections are what make up the internet.\n\nNetflix pays for their Internet Service to one Carrier (Cogent I think). Cogent has it's peering agreements with other major carriers. These agreements assume that traffic is going to be pretty close to even between the networks.\n\nWhen Congestion occurs between major carriers they sometimes can agree to upgrade or improve the bandwidth between their service. Netflix however has had a large impact thus creating situations where these agreements are not balanced. While Netflix's ISP might want to improve bandwidth (No idea if true); the other carriers might not want to spend the money to resolve a problem that is the result of an unbalanced peering agreement.\n\nNetflix's solution is to offer \"Free\" access to their CDN (Content Delivery Network?) to any ISP provided they connect to one of Netflix's connection points. The major ISPs however view this as giving Netflix a free Internet Connection for the purpose of improving the quality of service that Netflix provides to Netflix's customers (Who happen to be customers of the ISP as well).\n\nGoogle on the other hand probably uses a more robust infrastructure by paying for services to multiple carriers to insure the best quality connections possible. Thinking of it as a Web... Netflix probably has a few strands connecting its CDN to the internet to insure the lowest cost for all the bandwidth they consume. Google on the other hand probably has a massive number of strands to insure the robust infrastructure.",
"I'm probably late to the game, but it has a lot to do with CDNs. Netflix went with the cheapest vendor (Cogent) who tried to use free peering agreements to push huge amounts of asymetric traffic over congested link. Other video providers often use \"real\" CDNs to move their content or pay to host their content on ISP server racks (like Netflix just agreed to do with Comcast this weekend).",
"They are targeting YouTube, Hulu, Pirating services and many more. ISP's are evil.",
"[Netflix was the first company to openly challenge them](_URL_0_)",
"Because they want to sell you cable TV service too.",
"Can someone explain to me why there seems to be few ISP choices in the US? \n\nHere in Portugal, in late 90's, the communications market was pretty stagnant until the national company was made to allow the infrastructure to be used by other companies. After that competition created not only options, but a much more advanced infrastructure(fiber internet is common in households).\n\nIs it a problem with the infrastructures being privately owned by companies that then hold the monopoly?",
"Customers pay for upload speeds as well as download, the same goes for content providers on the web. Nothing new here, except Netflix made complaining about their internet bill a news story. ",
"Google(aka Youtube, since they were bought out) can crush ISPs, Netflix also seems more popular than Hulu. I saw a post somewhere that described exactly why ISPs were angry about Netflix.\n\nISPs share their ingoing and outgoing connections with other ISPs, instead of charging for access, to each other all the time, they agreed to share, allowing traffic to flow between with no charge. Both sides gain free access to the other ISPs 'internet highways' in return the other IPSs do the same. \n\nBut with major websites that require a ton of one-way bandwidth/traffic on these highways, only one party gets the all the benefits (like Netflix), while the other do not. The road gets damage, and cost more to maintain, and more lanes put in place to support the traffic, so they have to pay more, and get little in return. So ISPs are ending the agreement, and limiting/throttling traffic. \n\nBUT they also target Google, which you never hear about, maybe now you'll understand why youtube seems slow sometimes. But for some reason ISPs are targeting Netflix directly and more heavily, I believe the cause is that major ISPs are also cable/entertainment companies, and compete with Netflix more directly than youtube. No ISP would dare to fight against Google since they are so large, and since they do not directly compete with them in this repect. But Google is also being throttled and Google fighting back by rating ISPs performance on Youtube, to further prove it is infact the ISPs who are causing loading issues, and not Google/Youtube being the problems themselves.\n\nEdit: Google is also fighting back in other ways, such as Google Fiber, offering VERY VERY fast internet speeds, at a fraction of the price of 'traditional' ISPs. It is an on-going fight, that I'm sure will last a long time.",
"In addition to the other great responses already brought up in this thread, Netflix is drying up the amount of cable subscriptions like there's no tomorrow, and the vast percentage of ISPs are also cable providers. ",
"Because Netflix threatened to fight back",
"They aren't only targeting Netflix, it's just made headlines because of its market share on streaming. Before I switched to Uverse, my Time Warner Cable internet actually throttled Youtube so much that I often wouldn't have enough bandwidth to load videos, especially not high quality ones. ",
"Comcast owns Hulu, BTW.",
"Netflix is just the beginning folks. Things is gonna get ugly out there.",
"Hulu is for filthy sluts",
"Because you dont fuck with Google. If you fuck with google, Google Fiber just starts coming to all of your major profit areas. ",
"The Time Warner and Comcast Merger currently being examined by the justice department and FCC is scary. Comcast will have no reason to expand to fiber network over the coming years because it can reap the benefits of controlling such a large portion of the market. It stands to reason that Netflix, to stay competitive, will have to work with whatever Comcast is willing to offer. Netflix already takes up about 30% of internet traffic on a limited network.\n\n \"If the government approves this deal, Comcast will operate in 43 of the 50 largest metropolitan markets, and will have about 30 percent of the national pay television subscribers and about one-third of all broadband Internet subscribers.\"-New York Times",
"because youtube is google and nobody fucks with google."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57611722-93/netflix-youtube-gobble-up-half-of-internet-traffic/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://static.ongamers.com/uploads/scale_medium/0/3/5310-0868652966-MK-CJ.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu"
],
[],
[
"http://peeringdb.com",
"https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html",
"http://tech.hulu.com/blog/2012/02/21/the-search-for-the-perfect-stream-hulus-new-quality-of-service-portal/",
"http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf",
"https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect",
"http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=ecetr"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0m3lfCGgO0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/LCPeCNA.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wsctu | if losing weight is just about burning more calories than you eat, why would avoiding carbohydrates help? | Related: what happens if I basically tried starving myself to lose weight? EDIT - one of the few threads where I could walk out more confused than I walked in. I need someone biology-savvy for this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wsctu/eli5_if_losing_weight_is_just_about_burning_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf50sxq",
"cf51tii",
"cf56kdk"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Food isn't all used as energy. Fat has more calories than carbs, and protein has similar calories as carbs. But fat and protein are used by your body to build and repair tissues, fat is also used to build a lot of hormones. Carbs don't have much function other than energy, so if you don't use it as energy it is stored as glycogen or body fat. Carbs cause your body to produce insulin, a hormone that promotes energy storage (required to remove the excess carbs from your blood).",
"According to the research the safest and the most effective diets are ketogenic. A ketogenic diets tricks your body into the state where it exclusively burns fats (and some protein) and generates the glucose needed from them. \n\nThere are many reasons why such diets work better than others. There is so called metabolic advantage. Running body on fats is expensive in terms of energy, converting fat and proteins to glucose and ketone bodies is wasteful. But that is what you want, you want to burn more energy.\n\nThere are fewer cravings because your body has a constant supply of energy from the extra fat you bring around. No need for snacks.\n\nThere are less opportunities to snack and overeat. The carbs are cheap. Food industry loves to feed them to you. If you do not eat carbs, you have to pass all the cheap temptations designed to make you eat more.\n",
"Yes! Finally something I can answer. I am sad at the amount of misinformation and incorrect things written below. This may get a touch long, but I'll do my best.\n\nLosing weight is most certainly about calorie balance. If you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. Where the weight comes from depends on a few other factors that aren't really relevant to the question. \n\nLow-carbohydrate diets have been getting increasingly popular in the media and around the diet fringe. I think some reasons are good, and some are outright bullshit (I'm looking at you Gary Taubes, you fucking asshole). In my opinion, below is why low carbohydrate diets work well FOR SOME. I am using the caps qualifier because some people, no matter how \"correctly\" they follow the diet, never adapt to low carbohydrates. They feel mentally fuzzy, lethargic, etc. These side effects go away for most after your body makes an adaptation about 3 weeks into eating low carbs.\n\n1.) When you remove and entire section of people's diet, they tend to eat less automatically. Think about this for a moment: if I told you not to eat any bread, pasta, rice, oatmeal, cereal, etc, then you would automatically decrease your caloric intake because there simply is a lot less types of foods to eat. \n\n2.) Building on point 1, when people are given a lot less choices, they'll start adding in low calorie, high bulk vegetables. These people finally start getting necessary vitamins and minerals that they've long neglected. They feel full much sooner because of the bulk of the food and the fiber it contains. They start making better food choices regarding healthy fats (nuts, oils, etc). Fiber is extremely important and it makes you feel full by forming a \"clot\" in your stomach, slowing digestion.\n\n3.) Protein is the most hunger-blunting nutrient. It's been observed time and time again in various scientific studies, and it's pretty clear at this point. More specifically, you will feel full much sooner eating lots of lean protein than an eu-caloric amount of rice. Also, protein has a nice effect of stabilizing blood sugar, which prevents crashes and sugar cravings. It also has the highest TEF of the three macronutrients (see below) A concrete example is that rice and chicken would be far less satiating than steak and broccoli. This brings me to the next point...\n\n4.) On low-carbohydrate diets, fat content in the diet goes up. Starting at tag-along fats in the meat and cheese to explicit fat in oils, fat is a stable of a typical low-carbohydrate meal. Fat has this interesting thing in that it slows gastric emptying. At this point, most people are familiar with the GI scale, which is a measure of how fast carbohydrates are digested when eaten alone. The thing people leave out is that when you add fat to meals, the GI goes to the wayside because the fat keeps food in your stomach longer. Remember foods that stick to your ribs? That's where the expression comes from. \n\nSo in conclusion, a low(ered) carbohydrate diet works FOR SOME for the reasons above. The average (read:non-exercising) person doesn't burn many carbohydrates on a daily basis so there is less need for them. However, an athlete (think cyclist or weight trainer) is generally ill-advised to follow low carbohydrate diets because they need to replenish the carbs burned during training.\n\nAs a side note: If you search the national registry for weight loss, a few trends are common among people who have lost weight and kept it off: They exercise regularly, they keep some kind of tabs on their weight/fat, and they have some form of portion control. The majority of people have succeeded with low-fat, high carbohydrate diets in the long term but there have recently been a few who have succeeded with low carbs. Also, the majority of competitive bodybuilders, who are the leanest athletes of them all (at least for one day of the year), have gotten shredded on high-carb diets. So both low and high carb diets can and do work, as long as there is a deficit. \n\nAs a little bit of a bonus, this is how the energy balance equation goes:\nFood = RMR + TEA + TEF + NEAT or Energy In = Energy Out\n\nRMR = Resting Metabolic Rate. This is the amount of calories your body burns at rest, just maintaining itself. So if you were to lay in bed all day, you'd still burn this many calories. You can find fairly accurate estimate formulas online. \n\nTEA = Thermic Effect of Activity. This is the amount of calories you burn in formal exercise.\n\nTEF = Thermic Effect of Food. This is the amount of calories your body burns digesting food. Sort of paradoxically, it takes a portion of the calories you consume to digest food. Approximate values are: Protein: 25-30% of ingested calories. Carbohydrate: 10%. Fat: 3%. \n\nNEAT: Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. This is the amount of calories your body burns through any movement that isn't formal exercise. Think of this as brushing your teeth, tapping your foot, etc. It actually can add up to a lot at the end of the day, especially for naturally lean people. \n\nEDIT: To answer your follow up question regarding starving yourself; It really depends on starting body fat percentage. VERY Oobese individuals have been fasted up to a year (362 days, IIRC) with no ill effect. Very simplistically, if you have a lot of stored energy (fat), your body will use that before going for the reserve funds (protein, muscle). Another look into this is the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. [Wikipedia] (_URL_1_) it and read, it's very interesting. Basically, they took some war-objectors and (semi)starved them down to the lower limits of human body fat. Then, in the second phase, they refed them with different macronutrient profiles and calorie levels. The purpose of the experiment (conducted by Dr. Ancel Keys) was to learn how to refeed Jews in the concentration camps and warsaw ghettos. \n\nEDIT 2: I learned most of everything I know from Lyle Mcdonald's [website] (_URL_0_). Almost every single question you have about fat loss, nutrition, muscle growth, etc is found at his site. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"www.bodyrecomposition.com",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment"
]
] |
|
4q8lt9 | i saw two squirrels fighting in a tree, they fell off the branch and tumbled about 30 feet to the floor without seeming to break their fall when they landed. they then got up and ran off. how did they not sustain the kind of terrible injuries i would falling from that height? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4q8lt9/eli5_i_saw_two_squirrels_fighting_in_a_tree_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4r0qv8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An ant can survive a fall from any height. You could drop one out of an airplane, and it would survive the impact. The ant is fine because it is so light. It isn't the hitting the ground that kills you, it's your own mass that crushes you after hitting the ground.\n\nThe formula for force is: F = M * A . Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. Mass is proportional to force. Increasing your mass increases the force that you will experience when landing. Decreasing your mass will decrease the force you experience.\n\nWhen landing from a fall off of a tree, the squirrel is fine because he is experiencing a much smaller force than you would, because he has much less mass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3w93cb | how is a movie made for vhs and dvd converted to be a blu-ray? | So I use to watch this movie "Spirited Away". The movie was released in September 20, 2002 (Source: IMDB). The movie was released for VHS and DVD. I recently went to look on eBay to buy a copy, but during my search, I found several options for blu ray??
how is that possible? Can it really be "TRUE" Blu-Ray quality? how? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w93cb/eli5_how_is_a_movie_made_for_vhs_and_dvd/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxubgv0",
"cxubk7r",
"cxubwom"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Film - the original clear plastic stuff with thousands of pictures on it - is actually much higher resolution than DVD, BluRay or even 4K. Provided you have access to it, you can convert it to whatever digital resolution you want, by in effect taking a photo of each frame and running them together.\n\nIf you *don't* have access to the original, then you'll probably find you get a really poor quality disc. However - most films are archived and it's in the producer's interests to allow the best quality print.",
"Because the source material was of higher resolution than either VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray.\n\nIf you look at the IMDB page, it states, under technical specs:\n\nCinematographic Process\tDigital (source format) \nDigital Intermediate (2K) (master format)\n\nSo, to make a Blu-Ray, they just run it off of the master. It doesn't matter that previous releases were on VHS and DVD.",
"Possibly.\n\nDepending on what's being released on a \"newer\" format, they may have access to the original film and can release it easily at higher resolutions.\n\n35mm film (probably the most popular format, historically speaking) is about the equivalent of about 5-6000 horizontal lines digitally. When you see things like 720p, 1080i, or \"4k\" they're talking about horizontal lines. If the film is intact and well-preserved, they'd be able to release anything made in that format at full resolution.\n\nFor reference, VHS had 240 lines of resolution, DVD was 480, and Blu-ray is 1080. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2k4sv7 | what in the world is half life 3? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k4sv7/eli5_what_in_the_world_is_half_life_3/ | {
"a_id": [
"clhwdd0",
"clhwgiw",
"clhwhxt",
"clhwj03",
"clhwqmh",
"clhzfpy",
"clhzg74",
"cli2jll"
],
"score": [
20,
7,
4,
22,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Op's name is 6 letters\n\nQuestion is about HL3\n\n6 divided by 3 is 2\n\nHL2 comes before HL3\n\n**HL3 Confirmed**",
"It would be the third installment of the half life video game series if it ever gets released. Half life one and two were game changers so there's always been big hype around the third one since it's been idk like 10 years since 2 came out.\n\nEdit: they are supposedly working on it but they have not and probably will not set a release date. My guess is they are waiting on some revolutionary idea so that the game isn't disappointing. ",
"The Half-Life series is a popular series of shooter games on PC, and the last entry in the series was in 2007, and the story hasn't been resolved. Valve, the developer, hasn't given *any* word as to when the game will release, or even how far into development it is--if it is even being developed. It's one of the most anticipated games ever, and we don't even know *if* the game will come out.\n\n\"Half-Life 3 confirmed\" is just a joke now, because of all of this.",
"Half-Life is a series of video games by Valve.\n\nThe first game came out in 1998, and was a huge success. The second game came out in 2004 (after being delayed for over a year) and was also a huge success.\n\nAfter the seconds game, Valve decided to create new sequels as three \"episodes\" (which were more like expansion to the second game). The first episode, titled \"Half-Life 2: Episode 1\", came out in 2006, and the next episode came out in 2007. They were both also very successful. However, the third episode never saw the light of day, and fans are still expecting it or Half-Life 3. Since Valve are very hush-hush about this, fans try to look for anything that might hint on a new game being developed.\n\nYou can read more here: _URL_0_",
"Half Life 1 and 2 are first person shooters made by Valve. Both games were immensely popular, and Half Life 1 was so revolutionary it is credited with helping to define the entire first person shooter genre. On top of that, the plot of the games (and the mini games Half Life 2 episodes 1 and 2 in the same universe) leaves many unanswered questions.\n\nWith the massive success of the series and the unfinished plot, it would only make sense that Valve would release Half Life 3, which would make tens of millions of fans very happy, but 7 years now after the release of HL2 episode 2, and 10 years after the release of HL2, Valve has announced no official plans of developing Half Life 3. \n\nBecause of this, fans have frequently developed absurd conspiracy theories trying to confirm that Valve is working on Half Life 3, and it has pretty much become a running joke in certain circles of the internet.",
"Half life 3 = The Void.\n\nIt is full of things, yet it is so very empty, for it is nothingness.",
"A game so long in the making, 4chan died waiting for it.",
"Here's my true ELI5, because everyone else's seem a bit long:\n\nThere's a video game company called Valve. They made two first-person shooter (FPS) games, called Half-Life 1 & 2. The plot didn't resolve itself in HL2, so fans have been hoping for a third installment for a *very* long time. It's been so long that fans are always coming up with conspiracy theories...thus why it's always being \"confirmed\" to exist in ridiculous ways."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/half-life-3-confirmed"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7kb26s | why do all these food companies have non gmo-labels on their products? is it propaganda? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7kb26s/eli5eli5why_do_all_these_food_companies_have_non/ | {
"a_id": [
"drcwmgq"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If it's not a modified organism then they're not lying. I could poop in your salad and certify it as non gmo"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
20eoc8 | how is it that marijuana is legal in some places in the us, but there are many people in jail for possession? if weed becomes legal in more places, what happens to those in jail for possession? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20eoc8/eli5_how_is_it_that_marijuana_is_legal_in_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg2h8h7",
"cg2h9xm",
"cg2ha6f",
"cg2hd76",
"cg2hdqv",
"cg2iy0p"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
3,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They stay in jail",
"They will remain in jail, absent some executive clemency. Everyone is subject to the laws in place at the time; just because something becomes legal later doesn't mean you're innocent of committing a crime when it was criminal.",
"It was a crime when it was illegal so they would remain jail.",
"Marijuana has been legalized by certain states. Meaning that particular state will not arrest you for possession under a given amount, generally 2 oz . Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level. DEA ATF and FBI can arrest and charge people for marijuana possession regardless of the state's legal stance ",
" > How is it that marijuana is legal in some places in the US, but there are many people in jail for possession?\n\nIt is only legal at the state level in Washington and Colorado (for recreational use...and a few more states allow medicinal marijuana). If you are in Alabama and have marijuana on you, it is still illegal. Also note that it is illegal on a federal level. So if you get caught by the TSA or some other federal agency, they would abide by federal law. (Also, interesting tidbit I learned from the University of Colorado's HR: they have to abide by federal law in most cases! So while Colorado says possession is legal, it's legality on campus grounds is still murky.)\n\n > If weed becomes legal in more places, what happens to those in jail for possession?\n\nThey will still be in jail. Legally speaking, they still broke the law.",
"If you commit a crime, it doesn't matter if what you did becomes legal later, you still did it when it was illegal. In some cases you can go to a review board and have the sentence nulled."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1x10ej | why is backwards video understandable while backwards audio is incomprehensible? | When you're watching a video that you know is backwards the sequence of images makes sense, and you can even predict what will happen next. But if you listen to some backwards audio not only can you not predict what sound you will hear next, but it's very hard identify the sound at all. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x10ej/eli5_why_is_backwards_video_understandable_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf75s10"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is because in a video we can see the actions leading up and proceeding from that action, while audio, the sound is laid out in a very specific way. (English phonetics are very complicated) When a small thing is changed, it becomes nearly impossible to understand."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3s8fwt | what is going on in missouri and at yale with super liberal student protests? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s8fwt/eli5what_is_going_on_in_missouri_and_at_yale_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwv1fpm"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Yeah! So the faculty sent out an email telling the student body not to be super racist and wear offensive costumes on halloween. Then a professor responded to that email saying that it wasn't the school's responsibility to police students like that and they should make their own judgement and face the social consequences of wearing offensive costumes. The students took this response offensively as they thought freedom of speech should be regulated by the school. The professor did not agree. Basically the professor was trying to make a point about freedom of speech and it back-fired on him. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7mikn7 | why does driving the same speed feel much faster when it's dark than when it's light | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mikn7/eli5_why_does_driving_the_same_speed_feel_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"dru79f0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your field of vision is much shorter at night (the length of your headlights), so things appear to move by you quickly. During the day you see things further down the horizon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1iityj | how debt/credit card transactions work | Like, what happens after I swipe my BofA card at Target, what happens, where is the signal sent, and how. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iityj/eli5_how_debtcredit_card_transactions_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb4vax2",
"cb4yu6x"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It goes to a service called \"Fedwire\". Everyone has different banks, so the backbone is a service provided by the Fed that \"clears\" transactions. \nYou swipe your card and Target's bank infrastructure, say its Chase, needs your money from BoA. The data is sent about transaction to Fedwire over internet/phone lines when you swipe on the scanner since they need BoA to release your money. This is handled digitally through Fedwire, which is why it is known as an \"Automated Clearing House\". It simply allows the banks to interact digitally. \n\nThe idea of having this central structure, rather than each bank communicating each individual transaction to each other digitally is known as clearing. There are enormous amounts that cancel out. If Chase needs $150 from a BoA account, but other transactions are happening (other people swiping) that result in BoA needing $100 from Chase, BoA will only actually send $50 to Chase, the net amount. It is easier and cheaper to transfer the net amount rather than the total amounts twice (one transaction vs two).\nEDIT: this is for debit",
"Agreed /u/kilo21 for debit.\n \nCredit is virtually the same but I'll explain a bit about the process from a transaction stand point. Some of these steps are cancelled out depending on the company (Discover acts as its own bank and allows them to give higher rewards).\n\nYou go to Target to buy some socks and pay at the checkout with your credit card (let's say it's a Capital One Visa card). You swipe the card. Over the phone/lan line, that swipe information is sent to VISA with a dummy account number that Capital One can identify. VISA has it's own security checks to make sure the transaction looks safe. Pending your transaction meets that criteria, VISA contacts Capital One and sends over that dummy account id. \n\nCapital One references that number to pull up your actual account. They check their own security data to make sure the purchase isn't suspicious (different state, high dollar purchase, buying a lot recently), and also to make sure you have enough credit limit to make the purchase (they still may approve it depending on your card's terms, but you'll pay a fee for going over). Assuming you meet their criteria, Capital One approves the payment to Target. \n\nThere is a third player that comes in that actually pays Target for that purchase. VISA and Capital One aren't sending out checks every day to Targets across the country. Instead there's a Clearing House and other small/big banks that transfer digital cash to Target without VISA or Capital One having to micro manage things.\n\nAll of that happens in a matter of ~5 seconds.\n\n*Additional information* around transactions and fees associated. You may have noticed some businesses asking for cash only or credit/debit purchases allowed only if its greater than x dollars. All the work I described above isn't free, but it's at a stores benefit to allow credit card purchases so customers will come buy things (how many of us pay cash?). \n\nFor credit purchases, the business it's typically charged a flat % around the 2-3% range (some going to VISA, some going to Capital One, and some of that going back to you in the form of rewards). We call that interchange fees. (There are ways for businesses to lower that % too, like making you sign or the cashier asking for last 4 numbers of your card).\n\nFor Debit, it's usually a flat fee + some percent. I'm less knowledgeable here but lets say it's 10 cents plus 1%. Smaller % because there's less risk the money doesn't get paid.\n\nHowever, if I'm buying a stick of gum for $1 from a small business: Cash would give the business $1 (100% value). Credit would give ~98 cents (98%). Debit would give ~89 cents (86%). You can probably tell that payment methods are advantageous to different businesses for different reasons. \n\nSuper small companies, the neighborhood lemonade stand, would like cash because they don't mind the labor of counting, depositing, and overall managing money. Large businesses with lower prices would prefer credit because it simplifies money management and takes a smaller % away of their low value items (no flat fees). Businesses selling high value goods would love debit because it's less costly than credit at a certain cost threshold, and simpler money management than cash.\n\nSorry for the ramble. There's a lot more that goes into transactions but that's a good summary. Source: I work for a credit card company :D"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
drf4jf | how does a smartphone compass app works if a magnet (in the speakers) are so close to them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/drf4jf/eli5_how_does_a_smartphone_compass_app_works_if_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6hoah2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Because the magnets in the speakers don't need to be very strong and as such aren't going to impact the readings very much. For any impact they do have you can also calibrate the magnetic sensor to ignore it from the speakers as that will be constant and always on a single dimension where most smartphone compasses measure the magnetic field in all 3 spacial dimensions (meaning you will get an X, Y, and Z value)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
b7jv34 | why is it that when we get hit or injured pretty bad we faint? what is it that makes our brain kinda shut down in that moment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b7jv34/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_we_get_hit_or_injured/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejt6ix8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"One reason is that basically the brain is floating in water inside our skulls and if the the blow is strong enough to push the brain with enough momentum to bounce on part of the skull to another and the brain gets short circuited.\nAnother reason is that a certain amount of pain and/stress is too much to handle and our hearts are beating too fast because its in fight/flight mode and our brain shuts off to prevent us from dying via heart attack."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f39e3m | if modern computers are so extremely powerful, how can it take more than 30 hours to render one frame of cg in a movie? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f39e3m/eli5_if_modern_computers_are_so_extremely/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhh90l2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because 30 hours is the sweet spot. Frames took 30 hours to render 20 years ago, despite the lower computing power available at the time.\n\nIf it took more time it would be very annoying to work with, and if it took less time, we could do more in CG^[1], run a more accurate simulation, or build more complex shots without it becoming unworkable\n\n\nYour question might be why does it takes 30 hours to render a frame when video games can do it in a fraction of a second. The answer is that to get results good enough to be composited seamlessly with reality requires very very precise (and thus compute intensive) light and physic simulations. Video games also do make many concessions to run fast (typically there is a hard limit to the number of lights or objects you can get on screen, and if a scene needs more it simply get replaced by a scene that fit these criteria). \n\n\n\n**************************\n\n[1] Doing stuff in CG can often be cheaper, and more flexible than doing stuff practically."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
54v0fn | why are teslas super fast off the line and yet at a certain point a non-electric super car will catch up to it? | I always see videos of the fastest Teslas vs a super fast car like a lambo. The Tesla it kills it from the start but at a certain point the lambo will catch up and beat it. I understand Teslas have instant torque but does it die off at a certain point? Someone explain, please! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54v0fn/eli5_why_are_teslas_super_fast_off_the_line_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8578vh",
"d859ujr",
"d85k8t5"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"As you mentioned already, electric motors provide the full amount of torque instantaneously ,whereas conventional drives need time to build it up. So a powerful electric car will launch of the starting line much faster, but it might not be able to achieve the top speeds of gas powered vehicles, really high kW electric motors will be to big.",
"It's pretty simple, they have instant full torque at any RPM (where most automatic cars are at ~4000RPM or 1500RPM-3000RPM if turbo boosted), however, they are not powerful motors, at least not as powerful as a Lambo, meaning their horsepower isn't enough, plus, Tesla's are damn heavy, over 1000lb heavier.",
"Tesla's motors can in theory supply maximum torque at any RPM. The challenge is this. AC phased motors like the ones Tesla uses require an alternating electric current to be pumped into the motors. The exact frequency depends on exactly how fast you want the motors to spin at (with AC phased motors you are basically setting the position of the motor constantly to make constant rotation). \n\nThis AC current is generated by a device called a Variable Frequency Drive. The problem is that making a reliable AC waveform at high frequency and voltage is pretty difficult (especially due to things like inherent capacitance). The higher you make the frequency the sloppier the waveform gets and you lose torque. \n\nCars like the rimac concept one use a two speed transmission so that they don't have to rev the motors up into the point of inefficiency. The Tesla Model S didn't do this probably because they couldn't get the transmission worked out properly and it compromised reliability and other things, not to mention the extra weight. \n\nAlso at the end of the day Teslas are luxury cars, not Lambo fighters."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
38xcqx | if there is a bee in a car and the car is travelling at 50mph, does the bee have to fly faster than 50mph to move from the backseat to the front seat? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38xcqx/eli5_if_there_is_a_bee_in_a_car_and_the_car_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"crykggh",
"crykih3",
"crykjus",
"crykkni",
"crykmwr",
"crymhe2",
"crymkb7",
"cryn9ct",
"crz146j"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Why aren't there smashed insects on the inside of my back window?\n\nBecause of relativity. The car and everything contained within is traveling 50mph and let's say the bee is flying 10mph, then it only needs to travel 10mph relative to the moving car. From an onlooker on the side of the road, the bee would appear to be traveling 60mph relative to the onlooker but if you were sitting in the moving car, the bee is only traveling 10mph relative to you. I'm 90% sure that's how it works anyway! It's all about perspective.",
" > does the bee have to fly faster than 50mph to move from the backseat to the front seat?\n\nNo. The bee flies by pushing against the air around it, and all of the air in the car is moving along with the car.\n\nIt's much the same as the fact that, even though the earth is rotating from west to east at hundreds of miles per hour (actual speed depends on the latitude), you don't have to run faster than a speeding bullet to take a step from west to east, because the ground you're walking on is moving along with the earth.",
"The bee isn't smashed because its flying through the air in the car, and the air is also moving at 50 mph.\n\nAll speed is relative. The speed of the bee might be 10 miles per hour through air. So, relative to the car, that's 10 miles per hour. If it flies from the back to the front, it's still 10 miles per hour relative to the car, but 60 mph relative to the ground.",
"Relativity my friend. Ask yourself this question - \"Is it the vehicle moving? Or is it the world that's moving?\" This type of thinking is what Einstein is famous for.",
"Yes. From the perspective of someone watching from the side of the road, the bee must fly faster than 50 mph. \n\nFortunately for the bee, it is ALREADY moving at 50 MPH because it accelerated with the car, as did the air around it, and you in the front seat. So, to the bee, it's just basically flying regular. \n\nThis is why, even though there are no smashed bugs on your back window, there are probably plenty on your front window. When a bug that is just sort of flying around encounters the car already moving at 50 mph, it gets accelerated to 50 mph also, but too fast to survive the impact. ",
"Because the air in the car is moving at the same rate as the car is, and the bee is suspended in the air. It is moving at the same rate in the same direction as the car. The bee is pushing on the air around it.",
"Forget about speed, relativity, or distance.\n\nAir is a fluid. Animals fly by pushing against the air, much like you would push against the water in a swimming pool.\n\nIn an enclosed vehicle, all the **air** inside the vehicle is traveling too. It's going to move around a little bit, but the air is moving along inside the car, and the bee only has to fly through the air around it, the fact the air is being shoved along inside a car doesn't affect it's ability to push itself through the air inside the vehicle.",
"Same reason why jumping on a moving bus doesn't make you crash into the back of the bus. Everything inside is also moving at the same speed so based on relativity the inside of the bus is practically stationary except for the slight movements caused by the bus actually moving. It'll take you the same time to move from the front to the back of the bus with or without the bus moving.",
"I swear i have spent my whole life thinking about this mind f----. Never had the courage to post because i thought it would be difficult to explain"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
r2xsj | "the loudness war", and its effect on music | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r2xsj/eli5_the_loudness_war_and_its_effect_on_music/ | {
"a_id": [
"c42il25",
"c42jx57",
"c42jzl1",
"c42k244",
"c42kd94"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Record publishers think that LOL LOUDER = BETTER, when really, if taken to the extent shown [here](_URL_0_), it just makes the music shittier. Of course, if the artist wants it like that, then it isn't really an effect of the loudness war, just the artist being stupid/avant-garde.",
"Ever been watching television with normal volume, and then when an advert comes on, the sound seems deafening, even if you've not changed the volume? That's loudness. \n\nUsually a recording will have its quiet parts and its loud parts, and the difference between these parts can make the music more interesting. With our advert, what has happened is they've made the quiet parts just as loud as the loud parts. Background noises, people's footsteps etc are all at the same volume as the soundtrack and the voiceover.\n\nIn music recording, a producer often will make quiet bits louder just to make them stand out (for instance if the singer starts singing softly, we still need to be able to hear her). This is done using a device/program called a compressor, which ‘squashes’ the volume so it's more uniform. It boosts the quiet bits and ‘rounds off’ the loud bits.\n\nWith the loudness war, the industry seems to think music stands out better on the radio if they don't just use a compressor, but a limiter. A limiter is like a compressor, but instead of giving the quiet bits a little boost and rounding off the loud bits, it pushes the quiet bits to maximum volume and just plain ‘chops’ the top off the loud bits.\n\nThe music sounds less interesting as a result.\n\n[This image](_URL_0_) shows the waveform of a Nine Inch Nails recording, one from its original release in 1989, and the other from its ‘remastered’ release in 2010. Which one looks like it'll sound more interesting?",
"I think most of what's written here covers it but if you want a more \"ELI5\" answer:\n\nImagine that instead of a song you have a recording of a person talking, and that person is sometimes whispering, sometimes screaming. Now, obviously the scream will be louder than the whisper. Now imagine if someone who is controlling the recording, raised the volume of the whisper and lowered the volume of the scream so they would be at the same level. The whisper would still be whisper, but at the same volume of the scream (you can notice this effect in speech if you hear radio announcers closely).\n\nNow imagine this in music: you have a soft guitar part in quieter section of the song at the same level as the big drums in the chorus. Some people like this type of sound, others don't. In my opinion, while some genres of music benefit from this \"treatment\" (if not overdone), others just get ruined by it.",
"There are loud and quiet parts in music. Every media format (especially digital ones) has some limit of maximum sound level, so loudness of entire track is determined by it's loudest part. \n\nMost of music producers try to make music louder than their competitors to get the advantage on the radio, etc (people tend to prefer louder track to quieter, all else being equal). But once loudest part of the track achieves the maximum level, the only way to make track louder is dynamic compression. It makes quiet parts louder while loud parts remain the same.\n\nAs this competition progresses, mainstream music tracks become more and more compressed. It makes the music lose its dynamics. There are no more \"very quiet-quiet-medium-loud-very loud\" dynamics, music becomes just \"loud and very loud\".\n\nThis makes music sound tedious. Instead of nice \"tension and release\" we have just one continuos tension which is tiresome to listen to. Drums lose all the \"punch\" and sometimes even \"clipping\" occurs.",
"Compression is an effect you apply to audio to \"squash\" its volume into a narrower range, as people have said. Specifically, it \"listens\" to an audio track and \"turns down\" the volume whenever it exceeds a certain threshold, but then you can turn up the overall volume to push everything to a (high) equal level of loudness. Compression is really versatile and useful to a music producer or audio engineer (it can really \"glue\" parts together or adjust the way a sound hits) but can cause unpleasant distortion at extreme settings. People who are upset about the \"loudness war\" argue that commercial music tries to hard too sound as loud as possible to the detriment of sound quality."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson-Black_or_White_Loudness.png"
],
[
"http://www.christian-gleinser.de/stuff/nin-loudness-1.png"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
dzd61h | can some please explain what a information system architecture is? | Pretty much what the title said. I have to do a group project and everyone just keep throwing formal definitions at me. They're nice but non of that means anything in terms of what I need to research and what components I need to build or incorporate.
Thank you all in advance! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dzd61h/eli5_can_some_please_explain_what_a_information/ | {
"a_id": [
"f86uqxe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's basically a diagram of how they want a system or process or *whatever* to work. It's hard to define because it's a pretty vague thing to start with that you can take in many different directions. I bet if your teammates drew you a picture of what they're talking about it would work a lot better than trying to define it with words."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3c1jdr | why is it considered more professional to be clean shaven? | Additional question: Why are clean shaven men typically more powerful and successful? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c1jdr/eli5_why_is_it_considered_more_professional_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"csrfgc2",
"csrhvlt"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Primary answer: Beards are easier maintained shaven than left to grow. Not having it there in the first place is considered professional since it implies that the person in question takes hygiene seriously by being willing to groom themselves every day.\n\nAncillary answer: Western cultures prefer cleanly shaven men to rugged ones for the reason indicated above. However, in places such as West Asia and Scandanavia, having a very large or substantial beard shows maturity and how \"strong\" a man is (i.e. it shows strong hormonal growth in that person). They are also status symbols elsewhere, depending upon what culture you ask.",
"Beards, like any other fashion, come in and out of style. [This article](_URL_0_) has a brief history of beards.\n\nAndrew Carnegie was rich, powerful, and bearded. Every President from Lincoln to Taft, except for McKinley and Andrew Johnson, had facial hair. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.damninteresting.com/the-troubled-history-of-beards/"
]
] |
|
5kvvq3 | since there is a color that is all colors combined, is there a scent that is all scents combined, and what would it smell like? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kvvq3/eli5_since_there_is_a_color_that_is_all_colors/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbr0eyh",
"dbr1zwu"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
" > By color of all colors I'm referring to black since this is the color you see when all waves of color (visible light) are reflected back to your eye.\n\nYou mean white, not black. White light is all wavelengths of visible light (or, at least, equal levels of the three you do sense).\n\nScents are a bit different, since they're a combination of various chemical interactions, and there are far, far more different scent receptors in our noses.\n\nThere's also five taste receptors on the tongue, but flavour typically also includes things like temperature, roughness and texture, astringency, moistness, and so on, which all contribute to how something tastes. Just being a combination of all five tastes (sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami) isn't going to taste like a single thing the way white light is perceived as white. It's just going to taste like a sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami thing. Kind of like how lemonade is sour and sweet.",
"Well see, when you eat things that smell yummy on their own, your tummy puts them all together for you to push out later, and it smells like shit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1ttcsf | the process of photo restoration | How does one take a 100 year old photo that is cracked, folded, faded and even has some parts missing but they can perfectly make it look like it was just created. How do they do it?
Thanks for the responses guys. It does make understanding the process easier. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ttcsf/eli5_the_process_of_photo_restoration/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceb9eiu",
"ceb9pch",
"cebcwrp"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Cracks and folds are removed by carefully hiding them, either hand-painting over them, or simply copying nearby textures over them. Missing parts are painted.\n\nFaded parts of the foto are simply restored by taking the color that are present, and amplifying them (like turning up the volume).\n\nThere are tools in the popular photo editing software Photoshop that help with this (healing brush, clone stamp, and various adjustment layers)",
"Old photos tend to be black and white and that makes the process a lot easier. It requires a reasonable understanding of the tools available in Photoshop but doesn't take long to get decent results. The most important part is getting a high res scan of the original image. Tidying/cropping ripped edges, setting the white balance and removing noise/grain are the first simple things that make the most improvement.\n\nLines, creases and folds are quite easy to repair as you can usually select the correct grayscale shades from either side of the white crease line using the colour picker and then 'paint' in the missing parts. \n\nA lot of photo restoration is guesswork, trying to add in parts that blend and don't draw attention. \n\nWhen you repair a photo you're moving the focus back to the subject of the photo where as before the focus was on the damage to the image. \n\nStains & ink blots can be drawn around and then the colour de-saturaturated just from that small area i.e removing the blue hue. It takes trial and error to get it to match the sepia or black and white tone of the rest of the image.\n\nIntricate patterns (wallpaper, clothing, carpet) can be difficult however if you have a reference point elsewhere in a picture you can use that to copy and paste over the small damaged section small section.\n\nThe toughest bits are where damage/creases obscure features of a face and then the missing bits have to be re-imagined. \n\nHowever the Photoshop 'Content Aware Fill' tool can produce some amazing results. Highlight an area and it will try to automatically fill in what it thinks should be there based on the pixels around it! This is especially good for removing distracting elements, filling in textures like sky/grass within an image. \n\nThe art of restoration can go a lot deeper into colorisation (colouring black & white images) and painting in elements that were not there to begin with. These take a lot of time & patience and talent.\n\nTL DR; You can recreate a lot by copying similar tones/elements within the picture.",
"Zoom in to 400 - 800%. Rubber Stamp tool with a soft edge."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
77jb19 | how do bacteria think? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77jb19/eli5_how_do_bacteria_think/ | {
"a_id": [
"domc93x",
"domd2pj",
"domdon4"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a grievous, fundamental misunderstanding of biology here. I don't know what you think thoughts are, but they are really not at all related to the immune system, performing \"actions,\" or bacteria. \n\nLet's start with a really simple chemical reaction. When you mix baking soda and vinegar, it makes the classic science fair volcano. Mixing these two chemicals causes foam to form. There are no thoughts related to this process. It just happens, like how ice melts or things fall down when you let go of them. \n\nLiving things are like that too, only *way* more complicated. Lots of bacteria have genes that, when they enter a potential host, are turned on. The genes can produce molecules that do things like help the bacteria stick to your own cells to infect them, or physically form a shield around it so your immune system can't reach them. There's no thought involved. ",
"They don't think in the way we do because they don't have nervous systems.\n\nThey hide from our immune cells because they have evolved the ability to do that because it helps them survive. They have also evolved the ability to sense when a good time to hide is, because they survive better when they hide at a good time. Their actions seem intelligent because they help them survive and can be quite complex, but they are just evolved mechanical responses to stimuli.\n\n(Some people think the same about our actions! But that's another discussion.)",
"Short answer: they don't. \n\nLong answer: They do it by what you might consider a very basic instinct, (far from a thought as you know it) - think a slug avoiding salt, but even dumber. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1xu04i | does the weather/environment determine the development of our personality? | Just like Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), our behaviour is generally defined depending on the season. If my ancestors lived in an environment that was predominantly wet, cold with very short light hours, would the progression of evolution have an affect on my personality today? Would I be more pessimistic than those who come from very sunny and hot countries, with ancestors who lived in those environments as well? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xu04i/eli5_does_the_weatherenvironment_determine_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfelvh7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[From John Grohol, PSY.D](_URL_0_): I was browsing a blog the other day and saw an undated (recent?) entry suggesting that research shows that “weather has little effect on our mood.” The entry relied heavily on a recent study (Denissen et al., 2008) that shows that although a correlation between mood and weather does exist, it’s a small one (not nearly as large as conventional wisdom might suggest). The entry quotes almost exclusively and entirely from the one study.\n\nI’m familiar with this area of research, so I found the entry’s conclusions a little simplistic and not really doing justice to this topic. There’s a fair amount of research in this area (more than the 3 or 4 studies mentioned in the blog), and I think the overall preponderance of evidence suggests that weather can have more than just a “little effect” on your mood.\n\nSome previous research confirms the blog entry’s conclusion that weather may have little effect on our moods. For instance, Hardt & Gerbershagen (1999) looked at 3,000 chronic pain patients who came to a hospital over a 5-year period. The researchers had patients fill out a depression questionnaire, and then analyzed the results. They found no correlation between depression and the time of the year, nor the amount of daily hours of sunshine. But the researchers only examined depression, and didn’t measure how much time subjects spent outside (a factor that some have suggested might influence how much the weather impacts us).\n\nOther research paints a very different picture.\n\nHoward and Hoffman (1984) had 24 college students keep track of their mood (by filling out a mood questionnaire) over 11 consecutive days. They found a significant effect on mood correlated with the weather, especially with regards to humidity (a component of weather not always measured):\n\n Humidity, temperature, and hours of sunshine had the greatest effect on mood. High levels of humidity lowered scores on concentration while increasing reports of sleepiness. Rising temperatures lowered anxiety and skepticism mood scores. [...]\n\n The number of hours of sunshine was found to predict optimism scores significantly. As the number of hours of sunshine increased, optimism scores also increased. [...]\n\n Mood scores on the depression and anxiety scales were not predicted by any weather variable. \n\nAnother study by Sanders and Brizzolara (1982) on 30 college students also found similar findings — that high humidity was a predictor for lack of vigor, elation, and affection.\n\nBut you may dismiss these studies as small, or on unrepresentative samples (college students). You’d have a harder time making that argument against Faust et al.’s (1974) study on 16,000 students in Basle City, Switzerland. Although not the most robust study designed, the researchers nonetheless found that nearly one-third of the girls and one fifth of the boys responded negatively to certain weather conditions. Symptoms reported included poor sleep, irritability, and dysphoric (depressed) mood.\n\nIf you noticed that higher humidity is associated with certain mood states, you won’t be surprised to hear there is also a good body of research that has investigated the link between heat and different types of human behavior, especially aggression (see, for example, Rotton & Cohn, 2004; Cohn & Rotton, 2005; Anderson, 1987; etc.). While there’s some debate as to how strong a relationship exists between heat and violence, this is a relationship that been undergoing research since the 1970s. At this point, it’s not in question whether a link exists, just how strong and what the relationship exactly looks like (and whether it’s mediated by other factors, like time of day).\n\nThe Weather Can Affect You Negatively and Positively\n\nKeller and his colleagues (2005) examined 605 participants responses in three separate studies to examine the connection between mood states, a person’s thinking and the weather. They found that:\n\n [...P]leasant weather (higher temperature or barometric pressure) was related to higher mood, better memory, and ‘‘broadened’’ cognitive style during the spring as time spent outside increased. The same relationships between mood and weather were not observed during other times of year, and indeed hotter weather was associated with lower mood in the summer.\n\n These results are consistent with findings on seasonal affective disorder, and suggest that pleasant weather improves mood and broadens cognition in the spring because people have been deprived of such weather during the winter. \n\nSo while Denissen et al. (2008) found no general ability for the weather itself to lift us into a more positive mood (contrary to both Howard & Hoffman and Keller’s findings above), the researchers did find that the weather can impact our moods negatively. And while that effect in the present study was small, it confirms the same effect found in a multitude of other studies (some of which are mentioned above).\n\nAnother way to look at it is that Denissen and colleagues confirmed prior research that showed that people’s moods and emotions can definitely be affected by the weather. The strength of that relationship varies from person to person. But a study’s design has a lot to do with trying to find this relationship in the data. And while Denissen’s design was good, it wasn’t foolproof. Its problems include the over-representation of women in the sample (89%), suggesting a skewed and biased sample, and the response rate, with participants submitting on average half the number of surveys needed by the study’s design. In other words, the data may not be the most robust in the world either (despite the large sample size).\n\nSo, sorry, yes, weather does appear to impact our moods. And that effect may become serious. Look no further for evidence of this than the very real condition called Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). SAD is characterized by feelings of sadness and depression that occur in the winter months when the temperatures drop and the days grow short. This specific form of depression is often associated with excessive eating or sleeping and weight gain. Women are twice to three times more likely to suffer from the winter blues than men. If SAD is merely a “culturally transmitted idea” (as the blog quotes the researchers as suggesting), then so is every mental disorder to one extent or another.\n\nThe new research provides some contradictory data to previous findings. And when such discrepancies arise, the answer is not to conclude the matter settled, but to go and conduct more research. So what Denissen’s study really shows is that more research is needed to better determine the strength of the link, and whether it affects people in different geographical regions (and countries).\n\nSo no, you’re not crazy if you think your mood is affected by the weather. Nearly 40 years of research suggests there’s a strong link. And one that, in some people, can lead to significant seasonal problems."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/09/weather-can-change-your-mood/"
]
] |
|
8btc3j | why does the air from my table fan feel cold? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8btc3j/eli5_why_does_the_air_from_my_table_fan_feel_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx9giu0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sweat can be a factor (evaporation cools you, of course).\n\nHowever, more commonly, it's because the air is far below your body temperature, so the more air per minute you're exposed to, the more cooling effect there is. Your body doesn't perceive external temperature, per se, but the rate and direction of heat exchange with the environment. \n\nAir below body temperature then will always cool you. Air above body temperature will still cool you because of evaporation and sweat. However, air with a wet bulb temperature (that's basically the temperature you can reach with sweating) near body temperature is eventually fatal and the more it flows the faster you die. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2smsp6 | paying a copay instead of full deductible. | 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 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2smsp6/eli5paying_a_copay_instead_of_full_deductible/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnqxjkz",
"cnr07q8",
"cnr5og2",
"cnr83ll",
"cnrad6d",
"cnret1r"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your policy will tell you when the copay applies, and when the deductible applies. You need to check there, as almost every policy is different.\n\nWith that said, typically things like normal visits (annual physicals, OB/GYN visits, etc.) only require the copay, while unscheduled emergency count against your deductible.",
"Generally anything preventative is not applied to the deductable, removing a mole to prevent cancer. Reactive, however, applies to the deductable, like casting a broken arm. Furthermore, many doctors will call a lot more things preventative, so it does not apply. A very easy way to convince your GF her visit will be covered is to call the office, give them your insuance information and they can tell you right then and there! (or in a few minutes depending on how busy they are)",
"Your girlfriend's OB/GYN visit is covered 100% with no out of pocket costs. This is part of the new ACA law.\nsrc: i'm licensed and fully ACA certified with CMS. i sell health insurance.",
"It depends on the plan--your paperwork is more reliable than anything I could tell you-- but generally a copay works independently of the deductible. The trick is that the copy ONLY covers those things that the copay covers and everything else is subject to the deductible. So if it is $30/$50 and preventive care is 100% covered, your girlfriend will pay nothing for an annual checkup and routine screenings at the OB/GYN, but $30 or $50 for any other visits (depending on whether OB/GYN is considered specialist or primary care). Any lab tests or procedures that are not routine screenings are usually subject to the deductible separately of the office visit copay. Under the ACA birth control is supposed to be 100% covered, but other procedures/diagnostic tests may not be and will be subject to the deductible and coinsurance. \n\nEdited to add: Back when we had this sort of plan, we would pay the specialist office visit copay for my son's cardiologist, and later be billed (deductible + coinsurance) for the echocardiogram and EKG since these were not covered by the office visit copay.",
"Get out your packet of information or go to your plan's website. Generally your charges are going to fall into two categories: services with a copay and services with coinsurance. \r\rAny time you have a copay, this is the most you will pay for that service, and it almost never applies to a deductible. So your $15 (or whatever) primary care physician copay won't count against your deductible unless specified.\r\rAny time there is coinsurance, is when your deductible comes into play. So if you have a $500 deductible with 80/20 coinsurance and you get a $1000 bill, you will pay $600 [$500+(0.20*$500)] and your insurance will pay the remaining $400 (0.80*500). Any other coinsurance bills the rest of the year will just be you (0.20*X) and insurance (0.80*X).\r\rYour plan will generally cover preventative services such as mammograms, pap smears, colonoscopies, etc on a schedule i.e. 1-2x a year or every other year. Many preventative checkups are covered free or low copay if you follow the schedule. \r\rTwo other notes. \rIf you have a critical illness policy(cancer, heart disease, etc) they will usually pay you to get preventative checkups. It's usually capped (like one a year or $100) but if you're already getting the free checkup, may as well get the money. \r\rMost of the time, the bigger the building, the bigger the bill. Avoid hospitals if possible in favor of your primary care physician or even a specialist with an office not at a hospital. It's amazing the price difference sometimes (like $50 copay for a diagnostic test vs $250 copay).\r\rSource: Insurance license.\r\r",
"Hearing aid specialist here. \n\nAlways check for additional deductibles as well. Some insurances have put sneaky stuff for hearing aids like \"100% coverage after meeting the hearing aid deductible (of $6000). \n\nIt isn't the regular deductible that you can whittle down with other stuff. It's specific to hearing aids - and it's dishonest as fuck since most hearing aids are cheaper than that. \n\nAny time you see percentages thrown around, check for more solid dollar amounts. 100% coverage usually ain't. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ed443 | what exactly do the brackets mean when used in interviews like this: "[we want to] change social attitudes toward downloading." | I honestly just don't get it. Is it used to sum up some words or connect spots in between? It makes me feel like someone is just making shit up to make the article more appealing or convincing.
Is this how people use things "out of context" as well?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ed443/eli5_what_exactly_do_the_brackets_mean_when_used/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9z1s9s",
"c9z1tuf"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"It is a way to shorten a longer quote. For example, if the original quote was:\n\n\"We at the university, through partnership with both the intellectual property holders and the telecom providers, feel the best approach is to change social attitudes towards downloading.\"\n\nSo the stuff in brackets shows the gist of the first part of the sentence, but makes it clear it is not a direct quote.",
"I often see it used to add words the speaker left out. A sentence like \"They have a right to happiness\" doesn't confer the idea of the speaker without more context so it might be quoted in print as \"[Gays] have the right to happiness\". It's used to show added or substituted words for clarity. When used properly it will add understanding without changing the intent of the statement. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6gzxh8 | how does a plant 'know' how old it is? | I'm currently propagating some fig trees from cuttings. Figs stop producing well after 15-20 years, but if I cut off a branch and get it to root, then that new tree will be producing fruit again in a couple of years.
How does that branch 'know' that it's a new tree and can produce fruit, rather than still a part of the old tree that soon won't be able to? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gzxh8/eli5_how_does_a_plant_know_how_old_it_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"diud3v0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Plants don't age the way animals do. They show symptoms of aging as their structure becomes too large and woody to carry out its functions, but their growing cells are no older now than they were when it first sprouted. There are plants that have been cloning themselves for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, and other plants that could live forever unless something kills them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4kp12u | different types of alcohol. i just got a job at a duty free, and i need a crash course quick! | Gin, rum, rye, different types of wines, dry, single-malt, etc...I have no clue what *any* of this means.
I got a job at a Duty Free and people ask me questions about alcohol that I cannot answer. I need to know.
Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kp12u/eli5_different_types_of_alcohol_i_just_got_a_job/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3gmhy3",
"d3gml9i",
"d3gmvmd",
"d3gn78n"
],
"score": [
12,
28,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In a broad sense, **dry** is the opposite of **sweet**. Sweet alcohols are just that- sweeter. Dry is literally a lack of sweetness, not necessarily a taste on its own. Dry and sweet are often used to describe wine and gin, among other alcohols.\n\n**Wine** is made from fermented grapes. It can be red, white, or rose (pronounced \"ro-ZAY\") and there are numerous varieties within those groups, such as pinot noir, zinfandel, and chardonney. Wine is usually consumed straight (no additions). Red is drunk at room temperature, while white is usually chilled. \"Champagne\" is usually used as a shorthand for sparkling (carbonated) white wine. You can also get sparkling rose, or sparkling red, but the latter is uncommon.\n\n**Gin** is a clear liquor made from distilled juniper berries. It's very herby and floral, and can be dry or sweet. It's popular for cocktails, including the martini (gin+vermouth, and often olives), Tom Collins (basically gin+lemonade) and the gin & tonic (often with lime). People don't often drink gin straight.\n\n**Whiskey** is any number of fermented grain alcohols. They tend to be bitter and smoky, and often burn a little. **Rye** is a type of whiskey made with rye, and **bourbon** is made with corn. **Malt whiskey** is made from malted (partly germinated) barley. Whiskey can be consumed straight, either at plain room temperature (\"neat\") or over ice (\"on the rocks\"), and is also often used for cocktails, such as the whiskey sour (whiskey+lemon+sugar) and the Manhattan (whiskey+vermouth+bitters). \n\n**Rum** is a distilled alcohol made from molasses. It's sweet and spicy, and is very popular for cocktails, and sometimes cooking. It can be clear or dark.\n\n**Vodka** is a clear distilled alcohol that is made from cereal grains or potatoes. Good vodka ideally has very little taste, other than the taste of alcohol. This makes it a very popular tool for cocktails, because you can mix it with almost anything without the flavors fighting. Vodka is about as neutral as an alcohol gets. \n\n**Brandy** is alcohol made from... other alcohol, actually. You take wine (which is fermented) and then distill that to get brandy. Not very popular anymore, except as an accent or additive to cocktails.\n\n**Tequila** is a distilled alcohol made from the agave plant. Like rum it can be light or dark, and is sweet and spicy. Likewise to rum, it's popular for cocktails. It doesn't taste that much like rum, mind you. The most popular tequila cocktail by far, you'll likely know, is the margarita (tequila+triple sec+citrus juice, often with ice in a glass with a salted rim).\n\nEDIT: I'll edit to keep adding more.",
"You've got your main spirits:\n\nVodka - Clear colourless liquid, normally around 37% alcohol(in the UK at least). Made from fermented grains or potato. Smells like well alcohol. Normally mixed with various sodas or drunk straight(usually very cold). Can be flavoured with various sweet tastes like fruits or caramel. \n\nGin - Again clear and colourless, smells like flowers. Made from juniper berries. Normally mixed with soda. Again around 37%. \n\nRum - Made from fermented sugar cane. Can be white, spiced or dark. Bacardi is a common white rum. Captain Morgans is a common spiced rum but they also do a dark rum(and probably a white version too). Mixed with various sodas similar to vodka and again 37% \n\nWhisky/Whiskey - Ok things get tricky, it's easier to split these into 2 groups; Bourbon and Scotch(I hate to call it that as a Scottish person but its easier for explanation purposes). Bourbon is generally American whiskeys made from a corn mash; similar to Jack Daniels or Old Turkey. Its very sweet and normally drunk straight or with coke. \nScotch is more european, the most common types are Scottish Whisky or Irish Whiskey(but you get them from everywhere including America). This is made from malted barley, a single casket produces a single malt ie 1 type of barley grain used. If you blend a few different types together you get a blended malt. Either way it's normally drunk straight, with a bit of ice or a splash of water but never mixed with soda! A single malt tastes a lot more harsh where as a blend is normally less so. These are normally a lot higher percentage of alcohol. Colour wise they're all most commonly golden brown similar to a spiced rum. \n\nWine - 3 main types; Red, Rose and White. Made from fermented grapes, I think the colour comes from the grape type but I may be wrong. Drunk straight or as a spritzer, Normally around 12%. Red wine is a lot deeper and complex in taste whereas white wines are fruitier and lighter. Come from all over the world big areas though are Italy, France, South Africa, Australia and California. Champagne is a special type of white wine that is fizzy, as far as the EU goes this can only be made in the Champagne region of France to be called such otherwise it's fizzy wine, Cava is a similar wine from Spain. I don't think the same restrictions apply in the US though. \n\nMy suggestion to you would be to go to a bar and start trying things particularly rums, gins and vodkas.",
"There are two VERY basic differences between different types of alcoholic beverages. a) What they are primarily made from (fruit, grain, etc.) and b) How they are processed. What they all have in common is some sort of sugar (starch is a sugar) base that allows yeast to thrive and convert the sugar into alcohol (fermentation).\n\nSome basic examples: Wine is primarily produced from fruit. Fruits contain simple sugars. Beer, whiskey (there are tons of variations of whiskey) are produced from grain, which contain complex sugars. Gin is made from juniper berries. Tequila is made from agave, a type of cactus plant. Rum is made from molasses, which is essentially sugar cane.\n\nDifferent types of grain (read: starch) can be used as a base such as wheat, rye, barley, rice, corn, potato. Each will yield a different result. Whiskey, rye, beer, vodka, etc.\n\nDifferent processes yield different sub-types. For example, the type of vessel used for aging will affect the outcome. Bourbon is a type of whiskey that is aged in oak barrels that have been burned on the inside. The end result is a very distinct flavor compared to other whiskeys. \n\nSingle malt and double malt are just that, one type of malt is used or two. \n\nMost wines are either red or white. (The difference between the two depends on the type of grape or whether or not the grape skins are included in the process. The other basic description is sweet or dry (not sweet).\n\nPut all of these together in various combinations and the various possibilites are endless.\n\nThere are many exceptions to this but this is an ELI3 explanation.\n\n",
"Most people already have an idea what they want, so just expand on what they're asking for.\n\nBut here's a primer.\n\nWines:\n\nAnything red for big flavour foods (dark meat, game meat, old or stinky cheeses).\n\nWhite is for lighter flavours (white wine doesn't have a stong taste so it doesnt drown a meal). Seafood or fruits.\n\nRose (pronounce Rose- EH) is usually a blend of red and white. Best in summer served chilled. Women love it.\n\nChampagne vs sparkling wine: only fizzy wine made in Champagne can be called so. Hence 'sparkling wine' for everyone else.\n\n(Sparkling wine vs cider: wine is from grapes, cider is other fruits (usually apple) and also difference in alcohol percentage).\n\nHard Bars:\n\nVodka- potato base. Some cleaner taete than others. You get what you pay for, usually.\n\nGin- from Juniper berries. Very distinct flavour.\n\nWhiskeys: no way around it, read this _URL_0_\n\nSake: Japanese fermented rice alcoholic something\n\nPort / Sherry: sweeter, cant remember why or how. \n\nTequila: Mexican fermented Agave drink. Most women's clothing are allergic: watch for flying articles of clothing.\n\nBeers: \nThe lighter the beer, the lighter the taste, usually.\n\nI'm not getting any more indepth because it is as bad as wine making now.\n\n*This guide is meant to be a very bare-bones quick guide. OP asked for an \"Alcohol for dummies\" and I tried to give basic things shop employees can pass with, at least until they get more experience and exposure to the different nuances etc. I'm not about to explain California vs French vs Italian vs Chilean wines, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky"
]
] |
|
27v7ix | how does a park like disneyland know when everyone has left the park. | I just got back from a few days Disneyland Paris and walking out with probably 50.000 or more other people I started to wonder.
What if I just hide somewhere, who is ever going to find me?
I'm sure they count people going in and out, but people go in and out all day long. People get stamps and don't use their tickets.
Does that counter really evens out at 0 at the end of the day? What if it doesn't.
Or don't they care if someone is left behind (on purpose or not)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27v7ix/eli5_how_does_a_park_like_disneyland_know_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci4p3zj",
"ci4px13",
"ci4q09v"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They actually have an after hours crew of around 600 that maintain the park. If someone were left behind, they'd be caught. ",
"And they have video surveillance. ",
"On another note, how do they keep losing money year after year when they have a LOT of visitors, everything is very overpriced and they don't really add or renew things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
57u2i3 | why not everybody is capable of moving their ears and other body parts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57u2i3/eli5_why_not_everybody_is_capable_of_moving_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8v7ce0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some of it is due to lack of practice and realizing you can. Physical therapy for instance helps people locate weakened or atrophied muscles using electrical stimulation so you can find them and learn to use them again.\n\nSo for those that can raise a single eyebrow or whatnot, it comes with practice. \n\nFor something like wiggling your ears, not everyone can do that. The muscles responsible for that are vestigial in many people, from the time that we could move our ears in response to sound. They did experiments highlighting that sound does activate those muscles in everyone, but very few could actually move their ears with said muscles, because they usually just don't work. I'm sure there are a few other muscles that are similar as far as genetics go."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3kseu2 | why is ford's stock (~$30) significantly cheaper than nissan's stock (~$1,100)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kseu2/eli5_why_is_fords_stock_30_significantly_cheaper/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv01lj5",
"cv01nq1",
"cv061i1",
"cv0h72l"
],
"score": [
15,
5,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Prices of individual shares are not as relevant as the overall market cap of the company. Share prices can be driven downward by having stock splits, which most companies do when the per share price becomes high. ",
"Simple. Stock price is a function of total number of shares. More shares means less price per share. ",
"Stock is like slice a pizza.\n\nYou can cut a big pizza into a much of little slices, and a little pizza into big slices. The fact the smaller pizza has bigger slices doesn't mean there is more pizza.",
"The price of Nissan is ~$18.50. What you are looking at is the price of Nissan in Japanese yen. I think that might clear something up \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=NSANY"
]
] |
||
17xbjk | how a double-blind study works, and why it is considered so reliable | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17xbjk/eli5_how_a_doubleblind_study_works_and_why_it_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c89nvnc",
"c89nvr2",
"c89oqp9",
"c89q2cl",
"c89sjs9"
],
"score": [
2,
38,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
" A double blind study is when neither the scientist nor the participants know what the study is about. \n Say that we have researchers studying the effects of a new drug. group A will receive the drug, and group B will get a placebo. No one in the test groups know who has which.\n If the researchers know who has what drug, they may accidentally report false findings. Because they know that group A has the real drug, they report that group A did well in the study. The researchers do this subconsciously.\n If the researchers do not know which group has the placebo, they cannot make this mistake. This is why double blind studies are more reliable. ",
"Double-blind studies are usually used in medicine. They are to control for the placebo effect.\n\nLet's say you have a new drug and you want to test how well it treats a disease. So, you get a whole bunch of patients with that disease. You give half of them the new drug and half of them a sugar pill (you could also give them the old drug if you want to compare against that instead). The patient doesn't know which pill they got, so that's the first blind. The second blind is that the doctor that gave them the pill also doesn't know which pill they got.\n\nThe reason for the second blind is that the doctor's actions might influence the patient. So, if neither the patient nor the doctor know whether they got the new drug or not you can be sure that any effects are from the drug itself and not from the placebo effect.",
"if a test subject knows that they are getting a placebo, they will tend to report no changes in whatever areas the study is testing. if they know they have the real pill, they'll report that they were affected by what they got. if they don't know what they have, they won't be influenced by the knowledge of what they got and they will tell the truth. \nthat's the first blind. the second blind is where the person administering the pill doesn't know if they are giving the test subjects a placebo or the real thing either, so they won't skew the results that they get from the subjects. \n\nbasically, if nobody knows if they got the real thing or gave the real thing, you get results much closer to the truth. ",
"Let's say you and your best friend each bring in your moms' recipe of chocolate chip cookies to recess. You would like to see which recipe is better received. So you give a group of your mutual friends the cookies — half get your cookie, the other half get your best friend's. Then you see their reactions when they eat the cookies.\n\nIf you know who is getting what type of cookie, it may affect the results... as hard as you try not to be influenced, you may say the friends who ate your cookies reacted better than the others. Or, if the cookie eaters knew whose cookies they were eating, they may give a different result... maybe they like your best friend better, so they act more excited when they eat his cookies. But, if you have the recess monitor mix the cookies up, split them up amongst your friends and keep track of who got which cookie, you'd get a more natural result. Neither the testers (you and your best friend) or the test subjects (your group of mutual friends) know who got what, so both sides are considered \"blind\".\n\nThis is usually used to test medical drugs. One group of patients are given a new drug, the other group gets a placebo (or an old drug). Neither the patients nor the scientists testing the results know who got what. They just record the results. It creates results that are more \"pure\". Not perfect, but it tries to get opinions and preconceived notions out of the picture.",
"One of the hardest things to do in science is show that A, and only A, caused B. If I drink some herbal tea, and my headache goes away, it is very hard to say whether it was the tea that helped, something else I did, or if the headache just went away on its own.\n\nDouble blind studies help rule out the external factors. \n\nThe patients are blind, meaning they don't know if they are getting the treatment or not. This prevents them from changing their behavior and expectations based on whether they got the treatment or not.\n\nThe researchers are also blind. They don't know which patients are getting the real treatment, so they don't react to the patients differently, and aren't biased when they evaluate progress."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xijbz | why are there still "living fossils that have barely evolved in 100s of millions of years? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xijbz/eli5why_are_there_still_living_fossils_that_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp0e06d"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"If there's a species is still quite a good fit for their environment and no string of beneficial mutations come up to eventually mold a new species, the species just sort of stays the same."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1peopq | how was tim tebow so successful in college but not in the nfl? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1peopq/eli5how_was_tim_tebow_so_successful_in_college/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd1jddz",
"cd1jf7f",
"cd1jfyz",
"cd1jjt8",
"cd1jm74",
"cd1jrbc"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
9
],
"text": [
"The NFL is a much more competitive league. Just because he was great in College doesn't mean he will necessarily be able to compete at the NFL level",
"Because he doesn't have an accurate enough arm or a quick enough release for the nfl. You can get away with that in college as long as you are an athlete and in the right system but not in the \"league\". ",
"The NFL has a much higher skill level of players than college. This means that plays and strategies you can run in the college game simply do not work in the pros. Tim Tebow was a great quarterback in college because he could exploit these weaknesses in the opponents game. When he transitioned to the NFL he was unable to keep up with the pace, intensity, and skill set needed to be an NFL quarterback. ",
"College football teams favor running more than passing more often than not and a lot of quarterbacks can be starters based on their ability to run even if they struggle throwing the ball. Tebow was passable as a quarterback throwing the ball in college but he wasn't even close to many of the other NFL quarterback prospects, and since are better suited to stop quarterbacks who like to run in the NFL, a lot of what made him a really good college quarterback was useless. ",
"Tebow is a great athlete. His throwing mechanics and accuracy weren't good, but he was stronger and faster than most other players in college.\n\nThe problem was that the gap in ability at the NFL level is so small in general. Even the worst NFL team is made up of the best college players. Since he could no longer simply be the best athlete on the field and win, he had to rely on his mechanics to win and that was always the weakest part of his game.",
"While the rules are similar between NCAA and NFL football, there's a big difference in strategies. In college, there are lots of teams and not everyone is all that good. In the NFL, the players have more experience, have more physical strength and speed, and only made it to the NFL by being great in college. Combine that with the fact that players can stay on teams for more than 4 years and everyone's concentrated into 32 teams and the result is a lot of really good athletes. \n\nNow that that's established, how does the quality of the players relate to strategy? In college, there is a heavy emphasis on plays like the option. Without getting into too much detail, an option is a play where the running back is near the quarterback and the quarterback, based on what the defense does, either runs with the ball or gives it to the running back. In college, these plays work great because if a player is aiming for the wrong guy, he can't recover and reach the actual ballcarrier. In the NFL, everyone's fast enough where you may be able to do a few option plays throughout the game, but you can't use the college-style strategy of just doing it on every other play.\n\nSo where does Tebow fit into this? Tebow has good speed and strength for a quarterback. In college, when he needed to run with the ball, he could knock over potential tacklers. In the NFL, the defensive players are bigger, stronger, and faster. Tebow's no weakling, but he's not going to run over a 300lb defensive lineman or blow by a linebacker. In short, NFL quarterbacks need to rely on passing. Simply put, Tebow was never an exceptional passer. His accuracy was ok and his throwing motion takes much more time than a typical NFL quarterback. \n\nTL;DR: Tebow was a good running QB by college standards. He's not so impressive by NFL standards. Due to strategic differences between the leagues, NFL QBs need to rely on passing ability, which is Tebow's weakness. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9s35e7 | how are westerner's "chinese" name decided ans given? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9s35e7/eli5_how_are_westerners_chinese_name_decided_ans/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8loghz",
"e8lptll"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yep mostly phonetic. Generic names such as Mark is normally translated to 马克 (Mah-Ker) while Paul is translated to 保罗 (Bao-Luo). Same thing applies for names that aren't common as well...but im not sure who decides for the famous ppl oops",
"According to someone I know who does business in China, they make them up, but perhaps base it on something. Maybe they'll choose a name that sounds a little like part of their given name, maybe it'll be the name of their favorite western movie star, maybe it'll be just something that *sounds* good to them.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
332i1t | what's the 'clicky' noise when shaking some types of aerosol cans? | (on phone, wont let me post without text, silly baconit...) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/332i1t/eli5_whats_the_clicky_noise_when_shaking_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqgvw28",
"cqgvwt8"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Metal marble in the can to help stir the paint",
"It's a ball bearing, it's there to help stir up the product. Inside the can, there's a solvent, the product, and a propellant. When the can sits idle, the product separates out from the solvent. \n\nWhen you shake it, the ball bearing helps stir the product and the solvent together."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7v6gog | how do airlines get your checked luggage on the right plane when there is a short layover? | I know they scan the barcode and that tells them what plane and stuff, but what is the process that happens that gets the bag from one plane to another, accurately and on time?
And yes I know it’s not ALWAYS accurate. But it is very accurate. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7v6gog/eli5_how_do_airlines_get_your_checked_luggage_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtpur5w",
"dtpvpef",
"dtq1wnh",
"dtqkqgy",
"dtqnsu8",
"dtqq0gm",
"dtqqdb1"
],
"score": [
6,
27,
13,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you fly a lot you notice the flight to LA on Spirit airlines always leaves from gate A2 for example. Most connections you make are with the same airline. The guys handling the bags at a landing sort the bags. Most are headed to the local baggage pickup. Most of the remaining ones are headed to a gate close by. A carrier truck runs those over to the gate where a flight is headed to your destination. If you are changing carriers along your route you are usually told to wait for your checked bag at the gate where you arrive and gate check onto your next flight as baggage handlers can't go driving clear across the airport to find the gate and flight on another airline, but you can.",
"They usually sort it at the departing gate. They know which luggage needs to be taken out first. That information is sent to arrive airport. They also compartmentalize the bags. Ie, belt, terminal 1, terminal 2, etc. So this way, its easy to put the bags in correct cart and take it to correct place. ",
"the bag comes off the arriving plane and is bar code scanned. the arriving airport systems know what the gate the connecting flight is. so the handlers just have to put it on a truck giong to that gate. \n\nbags that are for transfers can also loaded in last into the airplane cargo hold so they're near the airplane cargo door. those containers or bags are the first ones off ",
"There's sometimes a physical component here too. Your short connection is you running across a network of concourses, maybe terminals. The bag carts can often use tunnels to physically travel less distance than passengers for the same gate to gate trips",
"Depending on the airport, it’s a complex conveyor belt system that helps gets the bags from one area to another. Here’s a cool video of it.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEdit: spelling of words.",
"Alright so here's my question, and I'm sure only someone in the industry will know.\n\nLet's say you have one of those hacker fares, where you're on one airline for the first flight, then another for the second. Since luggage is transported by the individual airlines, how does that work when the layover is short? Unlike flying with the same airline, the planes in the hacker's case could be on the other side of a space that's thousands of acres large.\n\nWould the connecting airline be waiting on the tarmac to transport the bag? The airline from the first flight? I doubt they could care less about one bag that won't be flying with them again.",
"As some one who works for a major airline this is something that I can answer, if you have a short layover our system is if it is less than an hour till departure the bag gets taken off the arriving plane it’s scanned and given to a runner who then takes it to the departure gate right from the plane. \nSorry about formatting am on mobile. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/I0XVxjtF4YU"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2f8c1r | why are deer extremely sensitive to even the quietest sounds (rustling leaves), but run out in front of cars like they don't hear them? | Please excuse me or let me know if this has been posted before. I did both a reddit search and a google search and found nothing. If this has already been addressed, let me know and I'll just delete this post.
So, deer are notoriously sensitive to even the slightest sounds, right. But cars are loud. Cars traveling at higher speeds on highways are loud. Still deer run out in front of them despite how much louder cars are than, you know, light footsteps on leaves, for example.
But why? Is their hearing more sensitive to a certain kind of sound than others or something?
**EDIT** I'm not asking about the deer in the headlights thing, or deer's vision, I'm asking about hearing. It has been established repeatedly that deer don't see well. Examine the title of this post and the text above this edit. Hearing. Not sight. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f8c1r/eli5_why_are_deer_extremely_sensitive_to_even_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck6uf3y",
"ck6uh9x",
"ck6veaq",
"ck6vo8d",
"ck6vt0x",
"ck6whvy",
"ck6wp8u",
"ck6x0pd",
"ck6y4nq",
"ck6zkrt",
"ck715km",
"ck72ihb",
"ck74opx",
"ck75t0q"
],
"score": [
75,
4,
31,
23,
4,
2,
19,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe they hear the car but think it's farther away so they don't care. Like they hear it, 100 feet away and think the car can't possibly travel at 70 mph to hit me in time, so I'll just run across this road.",
"Every creature's ears are sensitive to different frequency ranges. It's possible that deer don't hear the sound of a car because the pitch is outside their hearing range. This is the same reason you won't hear a dog whistle, no matter how loudly it's blown.",
"I think that they just don't know what cars are and don't know how to react to them. \n\nor they are just looking for an adrenaline rush. ",
"I think it's to do with their primitive nature. Rustling of leaves, food steps, to deer, means \"something is coming to eat me!\" while the sound of a engine, car honk means nothing to them, so it's ignored.",
"The deer will run away from cars and such in daylight as typically only the running lamps are on, however at night the deer become hypnotized by the headlights and instead just keep on staring at them instead of running away as would he expected due to their timid nature. ",
"when they're startled and run they don't always make good decisions about where they run. I've seen them run into fences and trees in daylight",
"Deer don't understand roads or vehicles. They eat the vegetation along the road and really aren't all that frightened by road noise. \n\nWhat probably happens is they get spooked by some of the rustling you mentioned and their instincts tell them to run from the predator, but not away from the road they have been grazing next to. \n\nAlso, their eyes are greatly dilated at night, which means when headlights shine on them they can't see SHIT. So if a deer is standing in the road at night and a car comes around the corner with its high beams on, it instinctively freezes \"like a deer in headlights\" while it's eyes try to adjust. \n\nThe best thing to do, is of course, try to avoid slamming into a deer. I don't mean swerving! I'm talking about slowing down at night, paying attention to those yellow animal x-ing signs and watching out for reflecting eyes.",
"I recently watched a documentary about deer. IIRC they don't have good vision but excellent hearing and smell. And when they headlights come on because of their small brains they cant comprehend what is the bright light because it stimulates their brains so much they sort of are in a trance. almost certain it was this one _URL_0_\n something interesting is older deer begin to understand the danger of roads and will be vvery cautious when crossing and even look both ways while younger deer following will just dart across without looking. I always wondered why deer dont learn that roads are dangerous.",
"Deers aren't \"used\" to cars. They run like hell if they hear a human or an other animal. ",
"Cars aren't very loud, especially when they're coming toward you. Go stand on the side of the road, close your eyes, and then open them when you hear a car coming. Even if you're specifically listening for cars, chances are you wont hear the car until it's quite close. Now imagine you're some dumb deer looking for food. The sound of an approaching car probably sounds like a gust of wind to it. What's that bright-ass light over there? I don't know. I can't make out shit, but I see that bright-ass light every morning when the sun comes up... guess it's time for be----BAM.",
"You ever notice how ambulances sound different if they're coming than going? It's called 'the doppler effect' - the car is catching up with it's own sound a bit, and it makes it sound different.\n\nNow, a car that's coming doesn't make a lot more noise than rushing wind until it's pretty close, and the noise builds up slowly. A deer is a tremendously high-strung beast, but it notices sudden noises like a twig snapping a lot more than constant noises like a stream or the wind. \n\nWhen the deer first heard the car, it sounded like the rustling of wind in the distance. It hardly noticed the changes to the ongoing noise until the car passed - it's after the car's passing that the engine's roar is heard.",
"From observation I am pretty sure that many animals, not just deer, feel an instincive urge to run across the path of anything going down a path. For example, when I walk down a sidewalk, some of the geckos hiding in the grass on either side of the path will run in front of me to get to the other side as I'm walking. They realize that I am dangerous to them, but they cross my path anyway. My guess is they are running to seek shelter, thinking I am hunting them or something, and trying to get better cover. For deer it is likely the same way, as deer tend to like to stay hidden. While they are already hiding, however, they will be on high alert trying to hear predators approaching.",
"Deer have instincts to tell them rustling leaves may mean a predator, but they haven't developed instincts for cars. Kind of like how lots of people are afraid of spiders, but aren't afraid of stuff like a bottle of medicine they could overdose on. (A person may be weary of taking too much medicine, but it wouldn't evoke the same primal fear by just looking at it)",
"They have sensitive hearing they cannot control. The loud noises from a highway confuse them and make them run where ever in fright. It's their \"flight mechanism\" taking over and going wild. Deer will usually just sit there and eat grass if it's a deserted highway and you're the only car. But to be sure, begin braking when you see one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1wo6lRmmuQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
51tzo1 | why are chip bags so loud? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51tzo1/eli5_why_are_chip_bags_so_loud/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7fatww"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its because of the type of plastic that they use to make the bags. Because chips go stale rather quickly when exposed to oxygen they use a a high density plastic and pack them with gas(not sure what kind nitrogen?) To keep them fresh until you open them. The type of plastic they use is stiff so it makes a krinkley noise when moved. Hope that helps"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ol505 | the difference between standard deviation, standard error and variance. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ol505/eli5_the_difference_between_standard_deviation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cct0g9y",
"cct0j09",
"cct0kbw",
"cct0kcu",
"cct0zbw",
"cct11rm",
"cct3h3j"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Standard deviation and standard error are both functions of the variance, so we can start by trying to understand the variance first.\n\nThe variance is something that, intuitively, measures the \"spread\" of a distribution. It is how far away on average points from your sample will be from the mean of your distribution, where we say \"how far away\" in this case means \"squared distance.\" Now there are a whole host of reasons for using the squared distance for this type of thing, an example being that it is *additive* (i.e., var(X+Y) = var(X)+var(Y) for uncorrelated X and Y). This is something we don't get with standard deviation.\n\nHowever, the variance is not a linear map in that for a constant c, \n\n var(c*X) = c^2 * var(X) \n\nand not \n\n var(c*X) = c*var(X). \n\nWe can get this with the standard deviation, which is the square root of the variance. This scale property can be useful because this statistic will then have the same units as your data, so we can say things like \"Z number of standard deviations away from the mean\" as the units are now consistent.\n\nFinally, the standard error is typically defined as the standard deviation of a given statistic defined from a sample. For example, the standard error of the sample mean is the population standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size, since the variance of the sample mean is the population variance divided by the sample size. Standard errors are also useful in that they have the same units as elements of your sample, and often statistical tests are based around how many standard errors a point is from a given statistic.",
"Standard deviation is the square root of the variance. It's there so the units make sense. The way it's calculated, you take the average of all the numbers, then for each number, you want to know how far away from the average that number is. Since some will be above and some will be below, and you want to add them, you need them all to be positive. Why not absolute value, you say? Because you want the numbers that are farther away to count more. You're trying to get a good description of the spread of the data. When you get to the end, your variance then will be the square of your original unit of measure. That's good, and it's descriptive, but not meaningful to a lot of people. You wouldn't say, \"I usually drive 50 miles a day, with a variance of 9 square miles.\" You could say \"I usually drive 50 miles a day with a standard deviation of 3 miles\" though, and that would make a lot more sense.\n\nThe thing about variances though, is that you can do math with them that you can't do with standard deviations. You can't add stdevs, but you *can* add variances, for example.\n\nAs to standard error, remember that everything follows a distribution, and you only typically have a sampling of that. Standard error takes that into account. It's got to do with the likelyhood that, based on your sample standard deviation and average, your sample is truly representative.\n\n(I do applied stats for a living)",
"Standard Deviation: on average, how far off you are from the average.\n\nVariance: How far apart your numbers are spread out from the average (square root of Standard Deviation).\n\nStandard Error: because standard deviation is never 100% accurate, you find the standard error to see how accurate your SD is.",
"Variance:\nI you measure the height of 100 men you will end up with 100 different numbers (e.g. between 170 cm and 210 cm). If you measure 100 animals that cross your path by chance you will also end up with 100 different numbers. These numbers will however most likely be spread over a larger range (e.g. from 2 mm (ant) to 30 meters (blue whale)). The difference between the two ranges is a difference in variance.\n\nstandard deviation:\nIs an other measure of variance.\n\nstandard error:\ntake these 100 men from above again and select only one individual. then go and measure this single individual 100 times. Most likely you will not get 100 identical numbers since you make errors in the measurement. The standard error is the number that gives you the precision with with you can measure. ",
"The standard deviation is a number derived from a series of measurements, (of the same thing, or different things, doesn't matter.) If you take 100 men and measure their height you first calculate the mean, and then you take the differences between each measured height and the mean, and square each number. Then you add them all up, divide by the number of measurements, and take the square root of that.\n\nThere's no hand-waving, back of the envelope explanation of what the standard deviation is, except the formula. The number is **defined** by the calculations made in deriving it. I'm sorry if that doesn't help you, but the standard deviation is the standard deviation is the standard deviation :(\n\nHere's a simple example: 100 men, 50 are 68 inches tall, 50 are 72 inches tall. The mean (average) is obviously 70 inches.\n\n\nThe standard deviation is:\n\nSD = ( (( 50 * 2^2 ) + ( 50 * 2^2 ))/100 )^1/2 = (400/100)^1/2 = 2\n\nNow let's say 25 are 68, 25 are 69, 25 are 71, and 25 are 72 inches each. Now you have:\n\nSD = ( (( 25 * 2^2 ) + ( 25 * 1^2 ) + ( 25 * 1^2 ) + ( 25 * 2^2 ))/100 )^1/2 = (250/100)^1/2 = 1.58\n\nAs you can see, when the group (as a whole) moves closer to the mean, the standard deviation gets smaller.\n\n\nNow, the two examples I've given are degenerate: They don't occur in the real world, for the most part. In the real world if you measure the heights of 100 random men, you'll end up with a bell curve centered around the mean. In that case, the standard deviation can be helpful. For a normal distribution around the mean, the standard deviation gives you the **width** of the bell curve. That is to say, ~68% of the results will end up within 1 SD of the mean, and ~95.5% within 2 SD's of the mean.\n\nThe *variance* is nothing but the square of standard deviation.\n\nThe standard *error* is the standard deviation you get when you measure the same thing multiple times. It tells you what the error margins should be for the tool you're using.",
"This is going to be a long answer, so please bear with me.\n\nLet's imagine you want to know the average height of a population. To do so, you take 10 people and measure each of them. Your values, in inches, are:\n\n > 60, 62, 62, 64, 65, 66, 66, 67, 70, 72\n\nYour mean is obviously 65.4\n\nCool. Now let's say you want to know how *different* each of your sample persons is. You would use Measures of Dispersion, which are standard deviation, standard error, and variance.\n\nStandard deviation describes the average difference of the data compared to the mean. It is simply the average amount each of the data points differs from the mean. So 60 is 5.4 inches from the mean. 62 is 3.4 inches from the mean. So on and so forth. You just add all these numbers up and take their average. You know now the average *difference* of each of the data points compared to the mean. \n\nNow you know the average difference, but let's pretend you just want to know how different all the data is from each other. This is the variance. Whatever text you're reading probably tells you how to calculate it, so I won't bore you with those details. Essentially, the variance tells you the \"spread\" of the data. A dart board in which the darts are very far apart has more variance than a board in which everything hit the bull's eye.\n\nFinally, imagine you weren't satisfied with this one sample. You decide to take a second sample. Obviously, you're going to get different people, so your mean might be a little different. This time it might be 67. If you took a bunch of different samples you would get a bunch of different means and you could plot them all on a graph. If you took the standard deviations of THESE values, you would have the standard error of the mean. It's a measure of the average error of your sample means.",
"Step 1 - find a ball and hold it in one hand.\n\nStep 2 - stand up and spread your arms as wide as you can.\n\nStep 3 - Without lowering or raising your arms, bring them together in front of you, now spread them wide. Do this a few times, passing the ball from hand to hand. Go as slow or as fast as you want.\n\nStep 4 - Now we know the full range of where the ball could be at any given time.\n\nStep 5 - repeat step 3, but have a friend point to the ball with his eyes open.\n\nStep 6 - repeat step 5, but have the same friend close his eyes.\n\nNow, in step 6, your friend had to guess where the ball was since he couldn't see it. Standard error is how much your guess can be wrong by and still be roughly correct.\n\nStep 7 - allow your friend to open his eyes three times then guess where the ball ends up. Standard error would take the number of positions the ball can be in and modify it by the 3 'observations' your friend made.\n\nThis helps your friends' single guess by making it a range of possible points. (let's say instead of a 1 ball wide guess your friend now gets a 7 ball wide guess due to standard error).\n\nVariance - let's make this a simple example and measure the distance between your two fists, that's the entire variance of where the ball can be placed.\n\nStandard Deviation - this is a bit trickier as it indicates the most likely area to spot the ball. In our simple example, standard deviation is the area between your chest and ONE of your elbows (right or left, not both). if we concentrate on looking at only the area between your chest and your elbow, we have a higher likelihood of spotting the ball as you pass it back and forth than we do focusing on the space your hand occupies when your arm is outstretched.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21satt | how rockets like the saturn 5, the soyuz, and the space x rocket stay pointed up and straight. eli5. | Ok, so in my mind, something as tall and heavy as a rocket would need a very stable base- wide and broad. Instead, they are straight up and down- like a baseball bat set on it's end.
When they take flight, especially- I don't see any thrusters or control surfaces being manipulated to steer them. I know that orbital path is pretty exacting- how do they end up aimed correctly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21satt/how_rockets_like_the_saturn_5_the_soyuz_and_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgg0tv5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Before they launch, they're held in place with scaffolding.\n\nAfter launch, the force is controlled and directed such that up is the direction they mostly go in, with very minor adjustments in the nozzles to change direction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1loxza | how can houses in detroit be on sale for a dollar? | I know that there are other costs involved in buying a home etc, but if it is only a dollar why not take the risk and rent it out? Wouldn't it be instant profit? Even if the tenants left after a few months?
Edit: Also aren't the materials of the house itself worth way more than a dollar?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1loxza/eli5_how_can_houses_in_detroit_be_on_sale_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc1cc6t",
"cc1djn8"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Rent it to who? Those houses sometimes don't have basics like running water. Which means you need to invest money into it. So it's really not a dollar. And investing money in those neighborhoods just may not be worth the possible but likely no sale.",
"my parents owned a house in detroit that they owed back taxes on to the amount of $7k or so. they let wayne county foreclose with no objection. the first time it is put up for auction the price is set at that $7. if it doesnt sell it goes back up for auction 6 months later starting at $50. i thought long and hard about buying it since i grew there but its just a bad investment. there's upkeep ,sure, but there's also property taxes, about $3500 a year. and you're living in detroit.\nthere are thousands of houses like this in detroit. its a city built for 2 million with only about 650,000 residents. no demand means no value. \nand as for renting, that house i grew up in? my uncle is living in it, after foreclosure. he pays the utilities and cuts the grass and NO ONE is coming to kick him out. you dont have to rent in detroit. you can just squat. noone cares.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1xxeb0 | math constants. | I understand constants (let's take the Planck constant for an example because I'm taking an astronomy class) so poorly that I don't even know how to ask proper questions about them. That is how little I comprehend what a constant is, how we came to understand or write them down and why. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xxeb0/eli5_math_constants/ | {
"a_id": [
"cffgokd",
"cffh0nn",
"cffl65q"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We just found them as we investigated things. \nTake Pi; when people were investigating circles & their proportions, someone noticed that every circle's circumference was always about 3 times it's diameter. 'That's interesting' (the words preceding 99% of all major discoveries ever!) and so more investigations led to the discovery that π is actually always exactly 3.14159265.... etc. for every possible circle. \nConstants are discovered when you experiment and increasing one thing ways leads to a predictable increase in something else. A spring, for example: if you Han weights off a spring, the spring stretches more the more weight you add. In fact, when you double the weight, you double the stretch. This means you can say that extension is proportional to load, and so extension = a constant x the load. In this case every spring has a different constant - but sometimes we discover that some constants are the same under all circumstances, and so we have Planck's constant, gravitational field constant etc.",
"Any number that is not variable is a constant. Most of the familiar numbers like -1, 0, 1, 2, 1000, a million, 1/2 or googol are constants.\n\nOccasionally, there are useful numbers that can't be written as quickly or easily as those numbers. For example, the square root of 2 is 1.414... or the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is 3.14159... neither can be written out exactly. So, we use placeholder symbols for them.\n\nIn the case of a physical constant (like Plank's Constant) there's usually a theoretical formula where the constant is a scaling factor. For example, Plank's constant shows up in the theory that the frequency and energy of a photon are linearly related.",
"The nature of constants is that they are immune to changing circumstances."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15nn84 | why wont my graphics card run certain games? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15nn84/eli5_why_wont_my_graphics_card_run_certain_games/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7o3et9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Newer graphics cards come with new features, which the old ones don't support. If a game requests a feature from the card which it doesn't have, it'll likely give up.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2sz1e7 | how bad does the situation have to be for a person to seek asylum from another country? and how demonstrable does the threat have to be? (proof) | I just wanted to know that if a person (say an atheist in a muslim country with strict blasphemy and apostasy laws) needs to seek asylum in another country how would they demonstrate that their life is under threat? Would they be relocated temporarily or permanently? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sz1e7/eli5how_bad_does_the_situation_have_to_be_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnu68pm",
"cnu6jvx",
"cnu7kkm"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Hop the border, turn yourself in, and apply for asylum. You'll be granted temporary stay during the trial. If you can demonstrate the need of jumping the border to save your life, you will be granted permenant residency.",
"It depends on the country you are trying to seek asylum in. I'll use Canada as an example because it's where I am.\n\nHere, when you seek asylum, you are filing for \"refugee status\", what that means is that you are in danger in your own country because of the current situation and you need a safe haven.\n\nRefugee Status requires a few things\n\n* Legitimate fear of persecution. You have to have some sort of evidence that you are in danger because of your religion/race/ethnicity/etc. This doesn't include stuff like not allowing you to wear a hijab and is reserved for stuff like \"They are trying to exterminate my *ethnic group*\"\n* You aren't a convention refugee of another country\n* You didn't try to enter Canada from the USA\n* You haven't been denied entry to Canada before on the basis of security hazards and/or denied refugee status\n\nPersecution is rather straightforward. You have to be part of a race/religion/ethnicity/political group/etc that faces torture/execution/cruel and unusual punishment because of the group you are in.\n\nA Convention Refugee is someone who already has a place to return to. For instance, let's say that you are gay, and were born in South Africa and have citizenship and can return there. But you live in Uganda, which has laws against homosexuality that might result in cruel/unusual punishment and a social stigma so bad that you might face death because of your sexuality. You wouldn't be able to go to Canada as a refugee, because you already can return home to South Africa.\n\nRefugee Status is reserved for people who have no where else to go.",
"I did some asylum work for a couple summers in law school. What /u/ACrusaderA said covers most of it, but I can give a little more detail from the a US perspective (except that I think the poster uses asylee and refugee interchangably. An asylee is basically a refugee that is already in the country where they want to stay. A refugee, on the other hand, gets status as a refugee *before* they come to the country where they are seeking protection. Maybe the distinction doesn't matter in Canada, but if you're in the US you can't apply for refugee status since you're already in the country).\n\nTo get asylum in the US you have to show that you have a well-founded fear of persecution if you are returned to your home country. If you can show that you have been persecuted in the past, then it is assumed your fear of persecution is well-founded and the government has to show that it's no longer well-founded to keep you from getting asylum. If you haven't been persecuted in the past the burden is on the applicant to prove their fear of persecution is well-founded.\n\nThere are some other caveats as well. If the persecuting group is not the government, you have to show that the government is unable or unwilling to control that group. So if you're a Jew and get beat up by skinheads in France, you were technically persecuted by a nongovernmental group, but couldn't get asylum because the French government can control skinheads. However, if the NGO is localized, the government can still deny you asylum if you can move within your country to a safer place. For example, there are places in Mexico where it is dangerous to be transgender. The government doesn't persecute you, but it can't control gangs who do. However, you may be able to move to Mexico City and be just fine. In that case, you wouldn't get asylum since you can relocate to safety within your own country. Of course if the government is doing the persecuting, there's no relocating.\n\nAs for proof, usually it's testimonial. We don't expect asylum seekers to be able to bring much with them. A government officer hears their story and decides if the person is credible or not. The credibility determination is huge and probably the biggest hurdle. It's also the most subjective, which is problematic, especially when dealing with other cultures (for example, avoiding eye contact is seen as shift in the US, but it might be a sign of respect in other countries). There is some objectivity to it, though. If the asylum seeker has documents, they can show those to the court. The court also considers human rights reports on the country in question, especially US State Department reports, and compares those to the story of the asylum seeker to see if they're consistent. Nonetheless, the rates at which asylum is granted vary greatly by judge, even when those judges are in the same building hearing the same cases (there are stats on this I can dig up if you're interested).\n\nAlso an interesting side note, Mexico, the US, and Canada have a treaty whereby if you seek asylum in one of those three countries, you can't seek it the other two (sometimes if you are rejected from one country, you can seek asylum from another country).\n\nThere's also something called the Convention Against Torture, which prevents the US from returning any person to a country where they will likely be tortured. Torture is a higher bar to show than persecution, but you don't have to deal with a lot of other stuff (like showing the persecution was based on race, religion, sex, etc.). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
eeum9m | why does the solar system get drawn like a glat plain? are all the planets on the same vertical level? if they are, what happens if we go up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eeum9m/eli5_why_does_the_solar_system_get_drawn_like_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbwmum4",
"fbwn1ki",
"fbwn327",
"fbwn51q",
"fbwn66b"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Are all the planets on the same vertical level?\n\nYes\n\n > what happens if we go up?\n\nNothing, you just go up. What do you expect? Hit a ceiling?",
"_URL_0_\n\nThe orbits aren't all perfectly aligned. Ceres has the most noticeable tilt, the others are less dramatic.",
"The solar system started as a big cloud, with all the little bits spinning around the center in different directions. Over may millions of years a big cloud of randomly spinning junk will tend to flatten out into a disk as all the pieces smack into each other until they're all going in pretty much the same direction.\n\nSo now our solar system is largely \"flat\". Going \"up\" or \"down\" is moving out of the plane of the ecliptic. It's certainly doable, but it requires a whole lot of thrust, and there just isn't very much of interest (that we know of) outside the plane so we don't send many probes out there.",
"The solar system does rotate on a relatively flat plane. It isn’t uniform, but close enough. Our planets formed from an accretion disk that collected around our Sun, the material in this disk was remnants of a larger star that went nova.. you would need to look at Astrophysics to understand why matter settled into a disk. If you were to go up relative to the disk, you’d find stuff but just not as common, whilst in our system.",
"The planets are on the same flat plane, a few degrees difference. This is because the dust hat formed the planets was a disc.\n\nIf by up you mean in the z axis, then we would see the solar system like all the diagrams show, except good luck trying to see the planets, they're so tiny it's almost impossible to find them without knowing where to look.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nVoyager 1 did exactly this, went \"up\" and took a snapshot, known famously as the family portrait."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.solarsystemscope.com/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Portrait_(Voyager)"
]
] |
||
3y2uh1 | biologically we have evolved to have carbohydrates as our main source of energy. why are they such a taboo in the health and dieting scene? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y2uh1/eli5_biologically_we_have_evolved_to_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy9zluw",
"cy9zulg",
"cya0ogl",
"cya12gc",
"cya1j9k",
"cya1n48"
],
"score": [
3,
30,
2,
3,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Carbohydrates are a very good source of energy which means that you don't have to eat much of them to get your daily calorie needs. Since your stomach is basically a flexible bag which you can stuff with food whilst it spends a few hours digesting, if you fill the bag with carbohydrates you will consume far more calories than you will generally be able to burn.",
"We actually work on sugar and we can break down carbohydrates to obtain that sugar. We store the excess in fat that we can use later. \n\nFor the vast majority of the history of life, obtaining food was a major activity that we had to do in order to get enough energy to live and it took energy to do that. For hundreds of millions of years, life walked that fine edge between getting enough energy to live while using less energy to get that food. One of the big survival factors was being able to take advantage of abundances of food by storing it so we could get through times where we couldn't get any (i.e. fat).\n\nWith civilization and cooperation, we've made is far less energy intensive to obtain food but it's still too new of a concept for evolution to have possibly caught up. So we have to consciously fight the instinct to consume the abundance of food that lots of people have access to because the mechanisms that used to help us survive (storing excess food as fat) eventually reaches a point where our bodies never evolved to handle the constant higher levels of fat for extended periods.\n\nFocusing on avoiding obvious carbohydrates is a fairly straightforward way for us to self-regulate.\n",
"Another major issue with carbs in \"modern\" diets (diets as in general nutrition habits, not some controlled diet like Atkins or paleo) is that it's much easier to get simple carbs, processed, high-glycemic index, etc than low-GI whole grain sources. When most people eat to the general nutrition macronutrient recommendations of ~60% of calories from carbs they end up eating tons of those simple carbs each day, which sends their insulin and blood sugar on a roller coaster. They just keep bouncing between high-insulin states, which inhibits fat burning, promotes fat storage, and over time can lead to insulin resistance (if levels stay high for months and months), and blood-sugar valleys which trigger hunger and more eating. \n\nInsulin on its own isn't bad, but the constant rise and fall of insulin and blood sugar caused by high-GI carbs can lead to a number of negative health outcomes. If we all got our 60% carbs from whole grains, fruits, and veggies then it wouldn't be that big of deal. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people that's not the case, so lower carb levels (and proper calorie intake) tends to produce better health results in most people. IMO, most people would be better off with 30-40% of all three macros, and obviously choosing better sources. \n\nTL/DR: too many people eat too many simple carbs, causing an insulin roller coaster, leading to negative health outcomes. Either eat fewer carbs or pick better sources and you'll be okay. Oh and exercise. ",
"Your premise is wrong. We have evolved to utilize whatever calories we can, no matter the source. Carbs are definitely not required. Fat and protein are required. (Please note: the following explanation may be oversimplified.)\n\nIf I lock you in a room and feed you carbs and fat with no protein, you'll get sick and eventually die of malnutrition. Your body starts breaking down proteins to get at amino acids it needs somewhere else. Eventually it runs out of non-essential things to break down.\n\nIf I feed you only protein and carbs, you'll get sick and die of malnutrition. This is called \"[rabbit starvation](_URL_0_)\".\n\nIf I take away your carbs and give you only protein and fat, you'll probably get skinny, but you will maintain normal health. Your body (in the liver mostly) will begin producing ketones in order to substitute for the carbs, as well as creating sugars from fat.\n\nPart of the reason that carbs are processed before fats and proteins is that blood sugar levels need to remain constant. If it gets too high, your body produces insulin to store it. If your body has no insulin, or is not responding to insulin, your blood sugar levels will continue to rise. A chronic state of high blood sugar causes all kinds of problems. Any \"excess\" carbs tend to get stored as fat.\n\nLow blood sugar is bad too, but your liver can compensate for that, at least to a certain extent, and a small amount of juice can bring it back up very quickly to normal levels.\n\nTo actually answer your question: Carbs are not required for health*, and offer an easy way to restrict calories without restricting nutrients significantly while maintaining overall health. A lack of carbs typically leads to easily burning fat, a major goal of dieters these days.\n\n*Edit: There are some exceptions to this, as people are different.",
"Carbs are very simple, most of the time, which is the way they are found in a lot of foods we eat today. Like sugar, it is a simple carbohydrate, our body doesn't need to do much work at all to convert that to energy. Usually into the form of glycogen that's stored for a short time in our liver. Our liver holds about 1400 calories of glycogen, any extras are converted to fat and stored away. \n\nProtein has the same calories per gram as carbs, but it is much harder for our body to use as energy. Fat has over twice the calories per gram of protein and carbs, but is also harder for our body to use as energy. Carbs are the easiest and if we are getting them regularly, that's what our body is going to use for energy. \n\nSo historically we were hunter gatherers, we didn't have refrigerators and freezers so we had an ala carte menu of whatever we could find/kill that day. Now some meat would have lasted a few days, and some foraged items maybe a few days longer. So we ate with the seasons. During the spring and summer we ate fruits and berries and supple plants, wild vegetables, etc... We also would have hunted some, but the dense summer vegetation would have made that more difficult. And there was an abundance of food that we could just pick up from the ground and eat. Though these fruits and vegetables would not have resembled what we know today and would have been smaller and less sweet generally, still they would have provided carbs. We would have gorged on this stuff all summer long. Our bodies would have used the carbs as energy and then stored the rest as fat. Just like wildlife does today. \n\nAs summer drew to a close and fall comes the fruits and veggies and plant life dies off. This makes it easier to hunt and harder to forage. But there would be nuts in abundance. Nuts are high in fat. Even game in the fall has a much higher fat content as they too have been fattening up on summer crops. So our bodies have to use this fat as energy, to do that the fat needs to be converted into ketones. Our body has made a dietary shift to run on fat for energy instead of carbs. At this time of year we should have an excess of fat as well and all of the available foods would be high fat. As winter comes it's cold, animals are hard to hunt, the days are so short it doesn't allow as much time to hunt, etc... Without food storage you would have had to rely on what you could get that day, and during many days of the winter, that meant nothing. \n\nBut you didn't die, well as long as you had enough fat reserves. While you are not getting any food, your body is powering itself off of your body fat by turning it into ketones. If it's a really tough winter, you'd burn up all of your fat reserves and have a nice loin cloth body come spring. \n\nModern civilization has taken us from this transitional diet and allowed us to eat fresh fruit every day. It allows us to have carbs a plenty year round. And because the carbs are easy for our body to use for energy, that's what it wants. But carbs are also less filling than protein and fat. They have a low satiety. Especially carb heavy foods that are low fat. Fat, specifically a few amino acids, make us feel full and satiated. We can easily overeat low fat high carb foods, especially processed foods or ones that are specifically high in sugar or other simple carbs. These excesses are stored as fat. \n\nHumans ate a fairly high fat diet until just a few decades ago. Then someone decided that foods high in cholesterol and saturated fat would give you a heart attack. So the food industry changed and followed suit and foods became low fat, high carb. And humans got fat, fat, fat. Sodas by the gallon, sweets as far as the eye can see, desserts galore, etc... Year round. Our bodies see this as a surplus year, every year. \n\nDiets like keto, or Paleo, essentially put our bodies back onto a hunter gatherer diet. Limiting carb intakes to vegetables and no simple sugars at all. As a result the diet tends to be higher fat, KETO especially. 80% of the calories eaten on a keto diet come from fat. So that gets out body running on ketones instead of carbohydrates. And let me tell you, our body runs much better on ketones. It is something you can definitely tell when it kicks in. Your brain works better, you have limitless energy and stamina, you feel better. You completely understand how people back in the day worked 16 hour shifts every day in a factory. You don't get hungry as often, because your body is already running on fat so instead of it telling you to eat again, it says \"nah, I'm good, I'll just use some fat from your ass\". As the diet goes, you eat your calories in a deficit and make your body burn its own fat for energy. \n\nPeople are now starting to realize that a high fat diet does no harm to your body and all along the diabetes, heart disease, and obesity epidemic is cause by carbs, the same carbs they told us to eat 60% of our diet every day. ",
"They are cheap and easy to produce therefore hard to make big profets on so no one pays to marked them as healthy"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
6xr9o2 | how to differentiate nuclear blasts from earthquakes | DPRK just had another suspected nuclear test, which leaves me wondering: how do earthquake detection agencies decide it's 'probably a bomb going off'? What is the difference in terms of detection? Thanks.
Sorry for format issues, it is sent from my mobile. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6xr9o2/eli5_how_to_differentiate_nuclear_blasts_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmhwh9m",
"dmhwobk"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Earthquakes are sinusoidal and logarythmic.. bombs make 1 wave and then small echoes are seen.",
"With different listening points they can place the epicenter in 3D. Earthquakes happen very deep in the earths crust. Bombs are detonated near the surface "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
eyx3o1 | how were prescription glasses made accurately before the invention of modern technology? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyx3o1/eli5_how_were_prescription_glasses_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgjskvk",
"fgjtmvr"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"What modern technology do you envision? Spherical lenses were entirely within the abilities of technology 500 years ago. Prior to that we didn't really bother with glasses.\n\nAlso prescriptions sure didn't exist. Such glasses were fairly limited to the wealthy.",
"We've been able to make relatively clear optical grade glass for a few hundred years (1400s I think). And the big/shrink factor of various curvatures has been well known and proven mathmatically for hundreds of years if not longer - the ancient greeks were describing the math around refraction of liquid in spheres. \nSo if you know the math of refraction and calculate some some sample rays of light you can easily make a test pattern that appears distorted without a correctly ground lens but appears undistorted with a correct lens. From there its a simple matter of grinding and polishing until the test pattern looks correct. \n\nAnd they didn't make lenses to order. Spectacle makers would make a bunch of lenses of perscription 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5 and so on. If your actual perscription fell in between one of these standard focal powers the optician would round up or down to the nearest. Thats essentially what your Optometrist is doing with that funky facemask thing called a photoroptor when he asks you \"Which is better, A...? or B? Here's B... and here's A\" - its a systemmatic way of rough and then fine stepping through differnt powered lenses until close enough you can't distinguish between them. In the olden days theyd' literally have a box of little lenses and they'd hold them up in front of your eyes and ask you to watch the test chart."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7ys5qf | is there any way jerking off can result in infertility at some point? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ys5qf/eli5_is_there_any_way_jerking_off_can_result_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"duirgoo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Infertility, no, not at all.\n\nBut it can result in a mild case of impotence, if you get used to a different kind of stimulation than actual sex provides."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
27puxs | why are there chechens fighting in the pro-russian side in eastern ukraine, when they originally were fighting against the russians in the chechen wars? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27puxs/eli5_why_are_there_chechens_fighting_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci37039"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They do what they are paid for by Russian (and Chechen) government.\n\nFor now Chechnya is governed by Russian puppet who gets loads of money and will do anything Putin asks him to do.\n\nWhy Chechens and not Russian from other regions? I guess they are cheaper and have better skills for purpose."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2gu28k | why do i see rusty looking spots on the sidewalk and road? | I remember always seeing them its like someone set a penny on the ground and it started to melt so they kicked it or something. Why are there these spots? Is it just rust? If there is that much metal in cement to cause rust why wouldn't they find some sort of way to get the metal out and use for scrap? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gu28k/eli5why_do_i_see_rusty_looking_spots_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckmisbb",
"ckml0w2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The reinforcing rebar or steel mesh encapsulated in the concrete is rusting.",
"It can be from some fertilizers or weed killers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
70px4n | from a business standpoint, what are the benefits and disadvantages of paying employees weekly, biweekly, twice a month, and monthly? | I am curious as to why certain business adopt different policies as to when people get paid and whether or not that benefits them at all doing it in a certain way. I've only ever gotten paid biweekly which is every 14 days but when i started getting paid twice a month on the 15th and last day of each month, it was a shock to me as I expected it every other Friday. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70px4n/eli5_from_a_business_standpoint_what_are_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn50o5y",
"dn5878x",
"dn5fgqn",
"dn7do3e"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A weekly or every-other week basis can simplify operations: everyone knows that pay periods close one day, and checks are written on another day of the week, regardless of the calendar date. \n\nA monthly or bi-monthly basis can screw with that, as pay periods and payroll processing may not concurrent with the same day of the week every time, but helps employees budget revolving expenses, which are typically also monthly.",
" From a business standpoint, every pay period carries a certain set work-load and the fewer they are, the less the total yearly cost to the business.\n\n Employees want to be paid yesterday.\n\n The situations you mention represent the best balance for the firms/employees involved.",
"From strictly a financial standpoint, business wants to pay you as infrequently as possible. It cuts down on processing overhead and lets them hold on to their money a little longer. The drawback is people are pretty unhappy to be paid less than bi-monthly, so it can hurt morale and the ability to hire and retain personnel.\n\nWeekly can have advantages when you have a lot of short-term, low pay people with highly variable hours, like a restaurant or a temp agency. Paying them as they work reduces the chance for errors and disagreements, and also can be a plus for people who live paycheck to paycheck.\n\nThe primary choice is between biweekly and twice monthly. Biweekly is nice, becasue you usually have the same number of hours on each paycheck. Twice monthly is nice, becasue you don't have to worry about paychecks spanning months or even years.\n\n\n\n",
"I've noticed that places that have a lot of hourly workers tend to pay biweekly, vs. places that only have salaried workers tend to pay semimonthly. This is just how I think of it, but it seems as if the salary places can simply schedule the same fixed payments twice a month, but you wouldn't want people filling out timesheets of variable days, so the 2 week-long cycles makes more sense in that context."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1urayr | if the universe is expanding so rapidly, why do we see no visible change locally? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1urayr/eli5if_the_universe_is_expanding_so_rapidly_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cekwpq5",
"cekwzl3"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the universe is so huge and we're so small.",
"Because on the local scale gravity effectively prevents the effect of the metric expansion of space on objects. Think of it like having having two treadmills facing back to back so that when they are turned on they move in opposite directions. If you place one book on one of the treadmills and one on the other, then both books will move away from each other, even though they aren't moving independent of the treadmill (that is, the expansion of space causes distant objects to have more space between them even if they aren't \"moving\"). Now what happens if you place a chair such that two legs are on one of the treadmill and the other two are on the other treadmill. The treadmill will still run (metric expansion of space is still occurring) but the forces that hold the chair together (the force of gravity that holds our galaxy together) causes it not to break apart. Everything within the local supercluster of galaxies of bound gravitationally so that we don't see the effects of the expansion of space, even though that expansion is still occurring."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
aiayrb | . why does room temperature coffee taste ‘cold’ but room temperature milk tastes ‘warm’? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aiayrb/eli5_why_does_room_temperature_coffee_taste_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"eemcil7",
"eemhlpt"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Because most coffee you drink is hotter than room temperature, so in comparison to what you expect the coffee to feel like, a coffee at room temperature would feel cold.\n\nBut we usually drink milk from the refrigerator so when it's a room temperature it's hotter than what you expect.\n\nAnd the reason why coffee is usually hot is because you need hot water to properly get the favour out of the grains and the reason why milk is usually cold is because you can keep it longer that way.",
"Similarly, if you get a 60 degree day in March, it’s god damn summer time. If you get a 60 degree day in September, it’s sweatshirts and hot chocolate(north east US)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9nfqv8 | how does viewing violence affect people's mental health? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9nfqv8/eli5_how_does_viewing_violence_affect_peoples/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7m0zir",
"e7m1tdw",
"e7m22u5"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I’m not sure there is really a correlation there. More likely people already predisposed to some kind of mental health problem can be affected by viewing violence.",
"It doesn't, slightly surprisingly. There is no correlation between the media you consume and mental health conditions.\n\nSome mental health conditions can change your interests so you watch more violent media (or sexual media, or indeed musical theatre - mental health is not exactly explicable). Media can't change your mental health. ",
"It doesn't. This is merely an adjunct myth to a bigger myth: \"Violent video games cause people to be violent.\"\n\nIt's total BS."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
52zhep | why haven't we come up with an easier way to get to the top of mount everest? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52zhep/eli5_why_havent_we_come_up_with_an_easier_way_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7omumu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The reason they want to go there is *because* it is dangerous and difficult and life threatening. They aren't going up there for the view and to get a tan. \n\nRegardless, standing at that altitude has seriously life threatening effects. Climbers need to acclimate for weeks to be able to survive it. Making it easier would mean people would be less prepared to go, and probably make it even more dangerous.\n\nAlso, the area is a nature preserve and of great cultural and religious importance to the people who live nearby. There are monasteries and shrines around it and many areas on Everest are considered some of the most important sites of Tibetan and Indian Buddhism. \n\nOn top of that there is the issue of just how *remote* Everest is. It is many, many miles away from running water, electricity, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
35jeiw | why does david cameron want to scrap the human rights act and replace it with "the british bill of rights"? | For anyone who has vast knowledge on UK politics... obviously as you know the Conservative Party are in power, and I've read in news articles that they are planning to bring in the British Bill of Rights in place of the current legislation. However, I'm not sure of what changes this will entail, will it make any improvements, why the Conservatives want to do this? If anyone can give me a brief overview of the who agenda that would be rly kewl | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35jeiw/eli5_why_does_david_cameron_want_to_scrap_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr4y1e0",
"cr4ybbs"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_1_\n\n > In a speech to the Strasbourg assembly, Mr Cameron said the whole concept of human rights laws was in danger of becoming \"distorted\" and \"discredited\" because of the court's decisions.\n\n > \"We do have a real problem when it comes to foreign national who threaten our security,\" he said.\n\n > **\"The problem today is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm. And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.\"**\n\n > \"So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that (human rights) rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them.\"\n\n > **Mr Cameron's comments come just a week after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada cannot be deported for fear he will not get a fair trial in Jordan.**\n\nHe believes the HRA goes too far and threatens the national security of the UK. So he wants to put in place human rights, but still keep the country safe.. in his eyes. You can have known terrorists in your country, but who have not violated any UK laws. And with that you cannot deport them because they cannot receive a \"fair\" trial in their wanted countries for their crimes. So you just keep terrorists on your soil, protected from the courts and deportation. This is just one example of the inconsistencies he sees with the HRA and protecting the UK. He wants to take control back from the EU and allow the UK to determine how to handle such situations.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > “This is the country that wrote Magna Carta, the country that time and again has stood up for human rights, whether liberating Europe from fascism or leading the charge today against sexual violence in war.\n\n > “Let me put it very clearly: We do not require instruction from judges in Strasbourg on this issue.\n\n > “So at long last, with a Conservative government after the next election, this country will have a new British Bill of Rights to be passed in our Parliament, rooted in our values.”",
"because the human rights act can stop the UK government from deporting foreign criminals/terrorists, or at least, will make it considerably more difficult than necessary. for example, \"the right to a family life\" has sometimes caused criminals from abroad to be allowed to stay in this country because they happened to have a wife in this country, or even a wife that they travelled to the UK with. basically, the human rights act (which is basically the codification of the ECHR rights) is very restrictive to what most people who call common sense justice. it has its ups and downs, but it can be resolved simply for having a british bill of rights which removes these kinds of flaws."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-cameron-announces-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act-9767435.html",
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9038869/David-Cameron-human-rights-laws-stop-Britain-protecting-against-terrorism.html"
],
[]
] |
|
4tkmne | does mutually assured destruction (ie. nuclear weapons) deter nations into waging war against each other? | Does mutually assured destruction (ie. Nuclear weapons) deter great nations into waging war against each other and would it continue to do so? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tkmne/eli5does_mutually_assured_destruction_ie_nuclear/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5i0trg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Lets see. Why would you start a fight?\n\nYou want something that other guy has.\n\nYou really hate that guy for whatever reason.\n\nA couple of other reasons exist, but the concept is the same.\n\nNow, if that guy has something that will instantly kill or severely hurt you if you attack him, even if you disable him quickly, you wouldn't start that fight.\n\nYou won't be able to use that thing you wanted to have and having acted on your hate is probably less valuable then your life.\n\nNo rational decisionmaker would decide to attack an opponent who can with near certainty annihilate him if he tried (unless he has a way to circumvent or disable whatever allows his opponent to do this).\n\nNuclear weapons make pretty sure that you can't win anything by launching an attack.\n\n#EDIT:\n\nAbout the second part of your question: It would continue to do so until someone develops a way to prevent his own destruction like a reliable defense system or a way to disable the opposing nation so quickly that it can't launch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1jg6fe | can someone explain the chandraskhar limit in simplistic terminology? | I believe I understand the workings of stars an the mass to gravity requirements to keep them in the form of a "ball." However, my inquiry is more along the lines how is that limiting mass defined and how were these conclusions drawn.
Thanks in advance | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jg6fe/eli5can_someone_explain_the_chandraskhar_limit_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbecdt1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" During a star's lifetime, the outward pressure exerted from all of the thermal energy being created by fusion in the core holds the volume of the star up against the force of gravity created by all of that mass. When a star uses up its nuclear fusion fuel supply, there's a number of end scenarios that can play out, and which one happens generally depends on the mass of the star.\n\nOne of the possible end results is something called a white dwarf. The fusion has shut down, and so that thermal pressure stops, and the star begins to contract due to gravity. This continues and the star gets increasingly dense until something called [electron degeneracy pressure](_URL_0_) stops it. Long story short, at a quantum level, mass resists getting smashed together even denser, and the force of this resistance is called Electron degeneracy pressure.\n\nSo in a white dwarf, electron degeneracy pressure holds the star at a particular volume, and assuming no other significant celestial bodies influence it, the white dwarf just sort of hangs out in the universe, slowly radiating away all its residual heat.\n\nBut that only happens to most stars. Some stars have so much mass, and create so much gravity, that that inward collapsing is stronger than electron degeneracy pressure. That amount of mass is called the Chandraskhar Limit. If a dying star has more mass than that limit, then it'll contract past the white dwarf stage, and proceed on to a neutron star, or maybe a quark star (we're not sure if those exist), or even a black hole if it's massive enough. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure"
]
] |
|
17ovps | how is it possible that we can have orgasms in our sleep, without any physical stimuli? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17ovps/eli5_how_is_it_possible_that_we_can_have_orgasms/ | {
"a_id": [
"c87kj1x",
"c87l3uw",
"c87prry",
"c87qywy",
"c87svo0"
],
"score": [
6,
135,
2,
16,
3
],
"text": [
"You can orgasm without physical stimuli while awake as well. ",
"All physical sensation is just impulses interpreted by the brain. No need for the actual stimuli, just need the part of the brain that responds to the stimuli to activate.\n\nSame idea as starting a car. The conventional way is to use a key to start the engine. You can bypass the key by hot wiring it (or so movies have led me to believe). Your brain is hot wiring your sexy time centers, bypassing the physical stimulation. ",
"Arousal, Erection (or lubrication), orgasm, and ejaculation are all distinct operations and EACH of them can happen independently of any others. Usually, experiencing orgasm in isolation or ejaculation in isolation is strange, but they CAN happen. ",
"I don't really feel comfortable explaining orgasms to a 5-year-old.",
"Reminds me of the Jackie Treehorn scene in The Big Lebowski:\n\n TREEHORN\n People forget that the brain is the \n biggest erogenous zone--\n\n DUDE\n On you, maybe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3p1b04 | how dubstep/rap artists can manipulate the computer/synthesizer to get the beat/sound the way they want it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p1b04/eli5_how_dubsteprap_artists_can_manipulate_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw2c2o9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well they use specific programs designed to augment sound waves. It started out with having the change the actual circuitry of the physical device to produce such sounds, now you can literally just layer loops and press play, if your a lazy fuck. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1v050e | when i shower and someone runs water, i freeze. hotels? 100's of showers, no such problem. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v050e/eli5_when_i_shower_and_someone_runs_water_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cendpt1",
"cendx1o"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Hotels have ridiculous tankless water heaters that flash heat water in-line, so they don't retain a huge tank of water like most household water heaters. If your house is older, it probably isn't plumbed very well and/or you have a small/inefficient water heater.",
"Your home probably has older shower controls without a pressure balancing valve."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1ohck4 | modern sociology claims that race is a social construct devoid of any biological foundation. if so, how does forensic science work, or anthropological dna-based migrational studies? | Is race a completely societal construct or is this just a sort of liberal well-wishing? If race is entirely socially constructed then how does the government get away with race-based financial aid? (affirmative action)
If race boils down to purely what one identifies as, then how is it deemed OK for the government to ask for your race in official forms? One would think that the ACLU or NAACP would challenge the government and abolish the notion of governmental distinctions based on race. Why doesn't this happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ohck4/eli5_modern_sociology_claims_that_race_is_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccrxyye",
"ccryc9q",
"ccs05xx",
"ccs0xt1",
"ccs18zg",
"ccs8bio"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > how does the government get away with race-based financial aid? (affirmative action)\n\nIt's a social construct, but the harm done to those communities was social, and still real. Let's say we make up a category \"ABCers\", and said you were a part of it, so you should be abused. Even if that category doesn't have any rational basis, you are still recognized as having faced the harm that came with being placed in that group.\n\nThe group might not have a completely scientific basis, but people treated it like it did, and affirmative action is an effort to help balance out some of those harms that still linger today. As long as racism exists, it's worth analyzing the impact race has.\n\nIn short, even though race is a social construct, it's still a social construct, which means it impacts society, and it's historical impact is still relevant.",
"There are no sociological characteristics that correspond 1:1 with skin color, which is how \"race\" is determined in the United States. That is not to say that skin color is not a biological trait that is passed from generation to generation. Rather, it simply means that behavioral traits we associate with certain races are not genetically linked to the phenotypical traits we use to define those races.\n\nIt may be true that the genes that facilitate becoming a violin virtuoso are disproportionately found among people whose ancestors come from Asia. But these genes are not linked in any way to something like epicanthic folds. Also, genes for dark skin are dominant over genes for fair skin, but other, invisible genes from a white parent may be dominant over those from a black parent. Thus, we see Barack Obama as the first black President because we key in on what we can see, but he's just as white as he is black. We call Tiger Woods a great black golfer, but investigate his racial heritage. I think he is actually 1/4 black. These are the kinds of things that sociologists mean when they say race is a social construction. \n\nMany sociology professors articulate this poorly, partly because it is a very abstract concept, and partly because they aren't in the business of explaining abstract concepts, but rather in political indoctrination. But I'm a sociologist and I don't want to indoctrinate anyone and I assure you that skin color is not a primary characteristic that geneticists use to identify haplogroups.\n\nNEVERTHELESS, lumping people together into a social group will cause them to behave in reaction to society as if they are a \"real\" group. Affirmative action is not an attempt to ameliorate problems caused by skin color. These policies are designed to ameliorate problems caused by people who think that skin color means something more than how far from the equator your ancestors were when they evolved.",
"The reason there is pro-minority legislation is because of segregation and minorities being excluded from admittance to college or hiring at many companies. Pro-minority legislation was a way to force companies to diversify their staff and college to accept minority students. Slavery had been abolished by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, but Racial Segregation in legislation in many states continued until 1965 under the Jim Crow laws.",
"Race is a well defined construct that can be scientifically measured.\n\nThe idea that race is a societal construct comes from a paper by Lewontin, where he showed no *single* genetic marker can determine a person's race. I.e., in any individual trait, the variation *within* a race is much larger than the variation *between* races, where \"race\" in this case is just a set of arbitrary tags. (I.e., samples were labelled \"black\", \"white\", etc, and then he ran statistical tests to see if any genetic marker was correlated with those labels.)\n\nIn mathematical terms, he showed that for a set of factors x1, x2, ..., xn, you cannot differentiate between races based on any individual factor. He concluded that race must not exist as a meaningful scientific quantity. This is a great story and fits popular narratives. \n\nUnfortunately, it is also a mathematical fallacy, now labelled \"Lewontin's Fallacy\". To illustrate the fallacy, lets do some (over)simple(ified) geometry. \n\nImagine people have 3 traits, and can be represented as vectors (x1,x2,x3). Suppose one group of people (say whites) are clustered around the point (0,0,0) in a sphere of radius 0.86. Suppose a second group of people (say blacks) are clustered around the point (1,1,1) in a sphere of radius 0.86. In any individual trait (say x1), whites are located in the region [-0.86, 0.86] while blacks are located in the region [.13, 1.86]. There is substantial overlap in these regions, i.e. variation within races is larger than variation between races.\n\nHowever, in 3 dimensions, these two spheres don't overlap at all. They are located a distance sqrt(3) apart from each other, and have radius slightly smaller than sqrt(3)/2. They are distinct subpopulations. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's also worth emphasizing that races defined this way are merely an empirical description of populations. If the populations change, races can split or vanish. I.e., if a third population existed near the point (0.5, 0.5, 0.5), then there would be no separation between (0,0,0) and (1,1,1). We would have 3 overlapping balls forming a single solid, not 2 solids with an air gap between them. \n\nAlso, it's worth noting that actual genetic racial subpopulations don't necessarily correlate with US census categories. If I remember right, there are something like 9 separate races in Africa, 3 in Europe (Caucasians, Gypsies, Ashkenazi Jews) and 2 in the Americas (Andean, non-Andean). Caucasians are one gigantic racial category which includes everyone from Britain to India. \n\n",
"This is one of those areas of human knowledge that clashes too much with our politics. Considering the progress that's been made over the last 50 odd years in regards to civil rights and racial politics re minorities, its very touchy and sensitive to talk about race scientifically. Because a lot of the attitudes towards race that are now outdated and taboo, were closely connected to the scientific study of race, or scientific racism. \n\nNevertheless, race is a biological reality, facts are facts no matter how we feel about them or how much trouble it causes humans to encounter them. ",
" > Is race a completely societal construct or is this just a sort of liberal well-wishing?\n\nA little bit of both.\n\nSociology and anthropology has a dark and uncomfortably recent history of trying to put various races and ethnic groups into to neat little boxes of varying characteristics and abilities. These social biases let to a lot of bad science.\n\nThese days, they have swung the other way with the who social construct thing. For some definitions of \"race\" and \"social construct\", this holds true, but it mask the reality that there are biological differences, and it is useful to understand them. Pretending that Asians aren't lactose intolerant and blacks don't have high incidences of heart disease doesn't help anyone.\n\nIt is also interesting to know the increasing tendancy to consider gender a social construct."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
fhhp61 | why do things we do on the internet begin with "e-" instead of "i" for internet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fhhp61/eli5_why_do_things_we_do_on_the_internet_begin/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkb3t90"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"\"e-\" stands for \"electronic\". \n\nRegular mail is sent on physical paper, but \"e-mail\" is sent *electronically*. It's \"e(lectronic) mail\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
357wnj | if i leave the milky way, am i immediately in another galaxy or in a big empty part of space with different galaxies to choose from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/357wnj/eli5_if_i_leave_the_milky_way_am_i_immediately_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr1u61p",
"cr1u6om",
"cr1ulkc",
"cr1xw06"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are large empty spaces between galaxies that have almost no matter in them at all. Except maybe dark matter, but we still don't understand that well",
"If you left the Milky Way, you'd be floating out in deep space. The galaxies are not all touching each other. There's staggeringly huge distances of empty space between them, usually. \n\nGranted, if you wait about 4 billion years and *then* leave, you could find yourself moving out of the Milky Way and into the Andromeda galaxy, since Andromeda and the Milky Way are currently on a collision course.",
"You're in a big lot of nothing.\n\nConsider how much it took to get to the Moon from Earth. If you scale up the Earth to the Milky Way (100 light years), there's about the same amount of relative space between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. It's mostly nothing out there.\n\nPut another way, you are more likely to be in sight of a boat from a random point in the ocean as you are to be in a galaxy in a random part of the universe. ",
"Space is called space for a reason. Even inside galaxies, there's more empty vacuum than you can shake a telescope at.\n\nFor an example- here's a graphic of the solar system to scale including empty space. The planets aren't as perfectly packed as one might assume looking at a textbook.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html"
]
] |
||
d1io73 | why can't doctors diagnose cte in a living person? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1io73/eli5_why_cant_doctors_diagnose_cte_in_a_living/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezm2ybm",
"ezm56m5"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the physical degeneration thought to be involved in CTE can only be observed in autopsies. It doesn't really show readily or conclusively is regular brain scans which look for neuron activity or chemical processes. Cracking open a living person's skull soley for research or diagnosis purposes in a very risky surgery is a rather tough sell for an ethical comittee.",
"It's not that it's impossible, it's just that doctors currently have no way to do it. There are apparently some promising leads towards testing for it non-invasively through blood tests or brain scans, but those are still in the trial phase.\n\nUntil then, the only way to definitively diagnose it is to dissect the person's brain. Obviously that can't be done to a living person."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
tkkr5 | if clouds are water in a gaseous state (aren't they?), why aren't they at a greater than boiling temperature, and is evaporating water boiling? | There is nothing better than explaining something you know well to an IRL 5 year old to realise you, in fact, know very little.
I was explaining the water cycle to my 5 year old, and he answered quite sensibly (I have recently been explaining to him the states of matter) 'so clouds are boiling hot?'
Whilst I am guessing that clouds are more water vapour than gaseous, what is the distinction? Also, is water evaporating to form clouds actually reaching boiling temperature to transform from a liquid state? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tkkr5/eli5_if_clouds_are_water_in_a_gaseous_state_arent/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4nfhq7",
"c4olwia"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Let me try to put this in a 5YO level of understanding. \n\nRemember when it was December and you went outside and you could see your breath? That was water vapor. The water inside you was not boiling. If it was, you would have been boiling, and we don't want that to happen. \n\nRemember in the summer when you felt that cold water pipe and there was water droplets on it? The pipe was cold, but there was cold water drops on it. \n\nThen in the fall when I took you camping and you saw the mist over the lake when I woke you up to go fishing. You saw the mist even though it was too cold for you to get out of your sleeping bag. \n\nClouds work the same way. The cold air can hold water vapor. For reasons that will have to wait until you get into a good college, warm air can hold more water vapor. The thing is that the water vapor wants to hang out together in colder areas. If the air gets full enough of this water vapor, you see clouds. The warmer the air is, the higher the clouds will have to be, usually. \n\nThere is still a lot of stuff about atmospheric pressure and transference of heat that you will have to ask your mother about, but why not, it's Mother's Day. Go wake her up while I make breakfast. ",
"water is always evaporating (except when its really cold, like close to freezing) evaporating just means that a water molecule had enough energy to escape from a glass of water. The reason why clouds exist has to do with air pressure and dirt. water evaporates into the sky, due to the fact that water is always evaporating (increasingly so when the air pressure is low and it's a hot day or the sun is shinning down), then as the water molecules rise (in a state known as water vapor, or water in a gas state) and condense (go from gas to liquid) into clouds. The clouds themselves are a mixture of liquid and gaseous water, sometimes even solid if it is hailing, and dirt. Dirt is very important in holding together water molecules in clouds.\n\nI took a lot of liberties in this to try to make it LI5 material, but this is the basic gist. \n\nThis has a nice visual and further 5 year old reading on the matter:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.kidzone.ws/water/"
]
] |
|
yzhh1 | is x86 software made for 32-bit os or 64-bit? | I know there is x86 and 64, but I don't know which to use. In the case of, say, a Java download, do I want to download the x86 version for my 64-bit Windows 7?
Solved: I thought x86 was 64-bit, thus the confusion. Thanks guys. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yzhh1/eli5_is_x86_software_made_for_32bit_os_or_64bit/ | {
"a_id": [
"c60677o",
"c606otq",
"c606ov4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If it just says x86 then it is probably 32-bit. It will still work just fine, but unless you have a reason otherwise, you should typically get the 64-bit version, which should be labeled x86_64.",
"BiPolah is right, x86 means 32 bit, a 64 bit OS can run 32 or 64 bit code, however a 32 bit can't run 64 bit code.\n\nIf you have a 64 bit OS then get the 64 version of what you download, it will be slightly faster than 32, although rarely it can be more buggy.",
"Microsoft's terms for 32-bit and 64-bit software are x86 and x64, respectively."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ep4rxl | what is the simplest way to explain gauss' law and how its used? (algebra based physics) thank you in advance | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ep4rxl/eli5_what_is_the_simplest_way_to_explain_gauss/ | {
"a_id": [
"feh5cq4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"You can tell how much charge is in an enclosed space by looking at the electric field along the boundary."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4ghjrd | i often hear how states around the country are hemorrhaging due to the lack of teachers, why isn't there a greater demand for teachers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ghjrd/eli5_i_often_hear_how_states_around_the_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2hmd7i",
"d2hmgko",
"d2hn916",
"d2i6ww3",
"d2in091",
"d2io5ar",
"d2j00qm"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
5,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a demand in terms of students who need teachers. But the lack is due to the budgets of the states, who tend to undervalue teachers, as is traditional.",
"There is a great demand for teachers, there is not a enough budget for them. Teachers in most places are extremely underpaid. ",
"In economics, \"demand\" does not just mean \"desire\". It means \"desire with ability and willingness to pay\".\n\nIf I sure like almonds, but am not willing and able to pay for them, then that is not a \"demand\".",
"Hard to get people to take a job where they are under paid, under respected, and over worked.",
"It seems to be a compounding problem, from a financial standpoint. \nEducation is funded from a fairly-localized tax base. \n\nIf unemployment goes up, people may try to move their families to where the jobs are, which leaves the schools with fewer students and therefore a need for fewer teachers. However, the funding available to the schools decreases significantly with fewer people paying taxes, but there are the same costs for facilities and maintenance, materials, busing, administration, and even perhaps increased costs for school programs to help the less-fortunate or struggling families (like before/after school programs, food programs, etc). Classes may be combined to save teacher salary costs, which both lowers achievement of the students and puts more teachers out of work. Teacher positions might sit vacant for years, in spite of a clear need, until the jobs come back in the community. That's one scenario.\n\nIf employment is high, and schools are filled with students from tax-paying families, they can be limited by the facilities themselves (not enough classroom space which makes overcrowding) and the expectation from parents and the public that the schools have the latest technology can overshadow the need for more teachers. It could be 10 years before another school is built and staffed, by which time the need for those teachers/schools may have graduated already. Current students often get lost in the shuffle and don't achieve to their potential, which basically results in the same scenario as the first one: overly-full classrooms, and the need for more teachers so students can get the attention and guidance they need to succeed.\n\nIn both cases, there is an educational need for more teachers, and a desire on the part of the students and parents for more teachers. However, school boards/tax-collecting bodies either may not want to put teacher positions high in their financial priorities even though they can afford it, or they want to pay for them but they can't.\n\n...plus what MOS95B said.",
"Because the governments of Mississippi or Idaho or whatever don't have the funds or the will to pay teachers and other professionals sufficiently to compensate them for the drain on their quality of life that comes with living in Mississippi or Idaho or whatever.\n\nUp here in Ontario the Province often gives huge incentives to doctors willing to practice in small towns. I'm not even talking remote communities 1000km inland from Hudson Bay. I'm talking places like Lindsay or Chatham, which have all the creature comforts of modernity. They'll give you a free house, a free car, all sorts of goodies for your kids, and a big bump in salary. Still no-one takes the offer up. A big house and some pretty scenery is not a worthwhile tradeoff to an educated professional for living amidst career stagnation surrounded by backwater hicks. Oh you're the best doctor in Penatanguishene? I hope the other guy doesn't mind you saying that, he'd get quite upset. Too bad about the neighbour kids calling you a towelhead and throwing rocks at your car. I'm sure they'll accept you as a human being one day. You're still stealing their jobs somehow though. Anyways, can't stick around to talk about the weather the head of the WHO is coming to meet the head of my department at Mt. Sinai.\n\nNow imagine instead of just some run-of-the-mill ignorants who don't know better you find a hundred million or so inbred methheads, all swarming across a vast swath of a continent, turning huge parts of it into a monotonous array of strip malls and parking lots and churches the size of stadiums, running you over with their roll-coal ballsack-adorned pickup trucks, shooting out the window at passing kids, voting and funding governments in 20 or 30 jurisdictions who cannot afford and are unwilling to pony up the huge incentives needed to make this sort of existence tolerable. Having to wear body armour to work because some religious fanatics are trying to kill you for prescribing birth control. Getting bricks through your window because Norma Jean and Billy Ray find your recommendation that their 17 kids eat food and drink water instead of a sack a' p'ttaytuh chups and 6 gallons of cacola \"uppity\".\n\nNow imagine that you work in education, which these people consider an existential threat, and on any given day some 4chan castoff can walk in and gun down your entire class and the whole town will turn on you and scream death threats at you for being a shill for the federal government, making up stories about kids being killed so Obama can take away their guns.\n\nNo thank you.",
"In Finland, teachers are well paid and highly respected. In contrast, in the US, teachers are frequently attacked politically, and are often low paid (some states or districts do pay decently, but those often have a higher cost of living in general, which does offset it). \n\nIn several states, there was a decision to underfund public schooling in general after segregation was declared illegal. Which adds to the crisis. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9am27c | how do we know that pet euthanasia is truly painless? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9am27c/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_pet_euthanasia_is_truly/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4wg5ef"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First, I'm sorry to hear you're going through this. It's the absolute worst part of owning a pet.\n\nTo answer your question, though, pet euthanasia is essentially done with a large dose of anesthesia. Have you ever had surgery? It's the same process, but with an alternative end. The feeling you felt while being put under is the same feeling your pet will feel. No pain at all. They'll slowly drift away peacefully."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
80i8b7 | how does the body store water? | After we drink water, where does it go?
Does it just sit in your stomach or does it get stored somewhere until we need to use it for something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80i8b7/eli5how_does_the_body_store_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"duvrtod"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It gets absorbed and distributed throughout all your cells within your body. It's not really stored anywhere, but when your cells are at a nice hydrated state, any access water that enters your body will go to your bladder, which is why the more water you drink, the clearer, or more like water, your urine gets. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1p03gl | dual citizenship | What are the benefits and negatives to it? Why would someone want two citizenships? Are you responsible for both nation's laws? Do you pay two taxes? Can you come and go as you please? Do you have to have two houses? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p03gl/eli5_dual_citizenship/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccxeunl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some countries allow dual citizenships but there are some countries which do not allow it. And then there are some countries which are very vague if they allow it or not. \n\n > Are you responsible for both nation's laws?\n\nAs a citizen or non-citizen, you are always responsible for any country's laws. And ignorance is never accepted as an excuse. \n\n > Do you pay two taxes?\n\nFor the most part, no. However, the one big exception to this rule is the USA. The USA demands that all USA citizens residing in the USA or abroad earning income, must file for their taxes. \n\nIt can get very complicated and expensive and for this reason many USA citizens living abroad have renounced their USA citizenship. \n\n > Can you come and go as you please?\n\nIf you have the money, yes. \n\n > Do you have to have two houses?\n\nThere is no requirement to own property. \n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
aikt5j | what is standard error and confidence interval? | I was reading up on biostatistics and these words came up. I have a basic understanding of statistical terms like standard deviation etc. So feel free to use them. I have also understood this by myself at some point but I keep forgetting, meaning I have never really understood it in the true sense. Any help is appreciated. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aikt5j/eli5_what_is_standard_error_and_confidence/ | {
"a_id": [
"eepagpr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Both answers so far have been laymen's guesses at what are specific terms.\n\nStandard Error is an estimate, normally of the standard deviation from the mean of a population based on a sample. It's estimated by dividing the standard deviation of the sample by the square root of the sample size.\n\nIf you have a population of 100, and you sample 5 from the population, and you find the sample mean to be 3, you can simplisticly estimate that the mean of the population is 3. However, without considering the deviation from the sample mean, you can't begin to guess at how accurate your estimate is.\n\nIt is logical that if the five numbers in your sample are -102,100,3,-950,964, and the mean happens to be 3, then there's a good chance that the whole population also exhibits significant variation, and as a result, it is relatively unlikely that your mean is accurate.\n\nHowever, if the five numbers are, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3 then it suggests that your estimate of 3 is probably fairly accurate.\n\nIn the first case, the Standard Deviation of our sample is very high (as an example 676.24). We can then calculate our Standard Error as 676.24/sqrt(5), which is about 302.42.\n\nIn the second case, our standard deviation is just 0.71, so we can calculate our standard error as 0.71/sqrt(5), which is about 0.32.\n\nNote that this **isn't** an estimate of the population mean, it's an estimate of the accuracy of our sampling, and in particular, the standard deviation of the numbers produced by repeated sampling (ie: if we continued to sample repeatedly, then 302.42 is a good estimate of the standard deviation of the sample means).\n\nIn order to estimate the population mean, this is where we turn to confidence intervals. If we take our sample with the highest variation, then our estimates for the mean should range wildly, because the sample is not highly consistent. So let's say, we need to know estimate with 95% confidence what the mean will be. In this case, we'll need to provide a range.\n\nNow, we know what the Standard Error of our sample is (676.24), and we know that our sample mean was 3. Now what we need to do is refer to a magic table of numbers to find a multiplier that gives 95% confidence. These numbers will vary based on the type of distribution, etc., but for a normal distribution, we can use a multiplier of 1.96. So now, we can work out the upper bound of our confidence, which will be our mean plus the standard error multiplied by our magic number 3 + 676.24 \\* 1.96 = 1 328.43. We can use the same idea except with subtractions to estimate a lower bound: 3 - 676.24 \\* 1.96 = -1 322.43. So we can say that we are 95% confident that the population mean is between -1 322.43 and 1 328.43. This is called a **confidence interval**.\n\nWith our less varied sample, we can be 95% confident that the mean falls between 2.46 and 3.54 (see below maths).\n\n3 - 0.19 \\* 1.96 = 2.46\n\n3 + 0.19 \\* 1.96 = 3.54\n\nIn short:\n\n* **Standard Error** is an estimate of the accuracy of a specific statistical measure (most commonly the mean) based on the variation within a sample compared to the overall size of the population.\n* A **Confidence Interval** is a range within which a mean can be expected to fall with a specific level of confidence, based on the estimated accuracy of a sample\n\nThe two things work very closely together to help statisticians estimate the mean of a population based on the mean and the variation within a sample."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
23uklv | physiologically speaking, how do falls from heights kill people? | I mean, what actually kills the person? I understand if the sudden deceleration is big enough they might bleed out, or suffer internal bleeding, but how are people killed instantly from falls from heights? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23uklv/eli5_physiologically_speaking_how_do_falls_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch0q54s",
"ch0qdxh",
"ch0r2f2",
"ch0t7ul",
"ch0xjcp"
],
"score": [
10,
19,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They can die from heart attacks, but mostly its the major organ failure caused by the sudden deceleration.",
"Its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden deceleration at the end.\n\nSo your body is tough, but its not unbreakable. Hitting concrete at 120 miles per hour (roughly terminal velocity for a human I believe) is a lot of force. \n\nSo your bones are breaking into pieces which is going to wreck, rip and tear all sorts of things in your body.\n\nMeanwhile your vital organs (which are being shredded by your now fragmented bones) are smashed into the ground or into the bones around them. This is not good for the organs and most of your insides would be pulp. This includes your brain which is not going to be in great shape having just smashed itself into your unyielding skull.\n\nThen the impact (and bones again) will probably break a lot of blood vessels so internal/external bleeding is a nasty option as well.\n\nEnd of the day, a whole lot of different stuff combines to just kill you. People have survived falls like this, but those are rare cases. ",
"Generally falls are mostly blunt force trauma.\n\nExtreme, full body blunt force trauma causes bones to break/shatter, organs to tear/rupture, broken bones can pierce and rip through soft tissue.\n\nDepending on how the person lands will determine what could kill them first. If the heart, brain, or lungs are preserved blood loss could do it (internal and external). \n\nSevere head trauma is a factor in near instant death otherwise the person is waiting to bleed out, have the heart stop from trauma or blood loss, or asphyxiation leading to cardiac arrest; really it's a bunch of stuff that are situation dependent. ",
"I hate to break it to you OP, but there's a good chance you won't be killed instantly. Luckily for you though, there is a good chance you'll be knocked unconscious... and, then die.",
"Hmm so what's the fastest a human can decelerate without dying??"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qexv5 | what processes or treatments are performed upon meat to classify it as a carcinogen according to the who study? what can i look for on the nutrition facts label to determine whether it's relatively safe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qexv5/eli5_what_processes_or_treatments_are_performed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwej6o6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The most recent one (about processed or red meat like bacon, sausage, and steak) is actually a report based on over 800 independent studies they've aggregated the information on.\n\nThe methods vary, but the results show that consumption of those products leads to an increased cancer risk, thus they are \"carcinogens\". They do not cause cancer, they've merely shown a link between consumption and raised risk.\n\nIt's important to note, almost everything is a carcinogen. So many things, in fact, it's not worth worrying about. There is no labeling to indicate carcinogen status.\n\nFor instance: anything that is browned or burned, from toast to roasted garlic to a marshmallow, is carcinogenic. Sunlight is carcinogenic. Birth control pills, alcohol, vinyl chloride (used to make the white PVC pipes in your house), diesel exhaust, ginger, salted fish, wood dust, mineral oil, various dyes, nickle, breathing non-filtered air, and many other things are all in the same \"Group 1\" of carcinogens, along with many other things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
595hir | is there really a difference between large tv screens and computer screens anymore? | So when it comes to large LCD screens, what the heck is the difference between say a 55" tv screen and a 55" lcd monitor. Assuming the tv screen has both hdmi and dvi input. Has it become a marketing ploy now because the technology should be there for both to coexist in the same package. If i'm looking for a 55" LCD monitor for a computer to display advertisement who's to say I can't use a TV screen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/595hir/eli5_is_there_really_a_difference_between_large/ | {
"a_id": [
"d95shad",
"d9694v0",
"d96rshj"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many TVs actually have post-processing in order to make their picture look better than similar competitors. This software causes slight input lag that may not be noticeable for some, but with PC gamers it can be noticeable. \n\n",
"I'm using a 40\" Vizio as a monitor for my computer right now. It's working great. \n\nThe most visually intensive thing I do is play is Kerbal Space Program, and it works great.\n\nUse a TV, it will be fine.",
"There is a usually huge difference that I'm surprised no one mentioned: [Input lag](_URL_0_). TVs tent to have much greater input lag, that is, it takes more time from receiving the frame to displaying it. That's not a big deal for watching TV, but it means that it takes more time from doing something with a controller, and an effect occurring in the game you're playing. [this gamer](_URL_1_) noticed a big difference when trying a low latency monitor for a first-person shooter."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFd3LW8Nxzk"
]
] |
|
425bqr | why is it hard to get a good picture of something that "glows in the dark?" | I have glassware that glows in the dark. Its really amazing and glows really bright. However, its difficult to capture a good picture of it. Why does that happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/425bqr/eli5_why_is_it_hard_to_get_a_good_picture_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz7ofq0",
"cz7qw2s",
"cz7r9f7"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Your eyes are magnificent sensors, and cameras are not as good. Your eye has adaptive gain control, which allows you to see better in the dark by trading \"frame rate\" for sensitivity. To get the same effect in a camera, you need a longer exposure. If you have a nice camera and a tripod, you should be able to get great images. The camera on your cell phone just has too small a lens. You eye also slightly blooms glowing objects in a dark space, which the camera would not.",
"The reason is that a camera is basically a array of small sensors elements that detects how many photons (light particles) that collides at each element during. Since the number of photons sent out per time unit is so low you would need to record for a long time to be able to distinguish the actual signal from the noise. However if you ''record'' too long the elements will ''overflow'' and ''leak into neighbouring elements'' (causing so called blloming artefacts which is what you see if you take a photo of the sun). Therefore it is easy to construct a camera that would capture great images of glow-in-the-dark products but it would require you to hold it stable for a long time and be useless in normal lighting since everything would become white due to blooming.",
"Are you using a cell phone camera? You need a DSLR, and the trick is to shoot the photo in manual mode with a super slow shutter speed. It greatly helps to have a tripod and a remote control, since slow shutter speeds can make the photo blurry if the camera moves slightly.\n\nIf using a normal point-and-shoot digital camera, you have little control over the functionality, and thus the camera automatically compensates for lack of light by making the shots grainy. And as a rule of thumb, never use flash.\n\n[Here's a photo I took of my glow-in-the-dark LEGO ghost minifigures under a blacklight against a black background in the dark, using a slow shutter speed.](_URL_0_) This was taken with my Nikon DSLR, and with a tripod, a camera remote control, and manual focus."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.flickr.com/photos/baronvonbrunk/15494101056/in/album-72157648281252560/"
]
] |
|
4wrfwu | the relationship between the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the us government. | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wrfwu/eli5_the_relationship_between_the_legislative/ | {
"a_id": [
"d69a3q7",
"d69a9a8",
"d69axds",
"d6biu80"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're mutually independent branches of government that have (many) various, different responsibilities and, generally, have the capacity to limit the actions of one another.",
"The legislative branch create laws\n\nThe executive branch approves laws (and are allowed to offer ideas for new ones)\n\nJudicial branch \"maintains neutrality\" by keeping laws within the vision of our Constitution and ruling over all legal issues",
"Power is divided among the three branches of the federal government as a check against corruption. Each branch has ways of balancing out the other two, the idea being that if they fight each other somewhat, we can avoid someone gaining absolute power.\n\nThe Legislature writes the laws but has no power to enforce them.\n\nThe Executive enforces the laws but has no power to modify them. (Note that the Executive does put out regulations interpreting the laws, but largely because the Legislature delegates that authority).\n\nThe Judiciary passes judgment on the legality of the laws but has no power to enforce them. \n\nAdditionally, they each have checks, such as impeachment, appointment, or veto powers that help balance them out. This division of power means that the branches are often at odds, but also that multiple people have to work together between the branches to get things done. ",
"The Legislative branch makes laws. They also have the power to impeach the president and confirm judicial appointments. It was also expected that few Presidential candidates would reach 50% of the electoral vote, in which case the legislative branch would also get to pick the winner. However, the rise of political parties and campaigning meant that rarely happened.\n\nThe Executive branch enforces laws. They can write and propose legislation, but it has to go through congress to be enacted. They nominate judges who are then confirmed by the legislative branch. They can veto a bill before it becomes law, but that can be overruled by a legislative supermajority. They have a degree of leeway in how they interpret the law and act within it, which has lead to greater executive power in recent decades. The Vice President also serves as head of the Senate and can break tied votes.\n\nThe Judicial branch passes judgement on legality, and in the case of the Supreme Court on the legality of laws themselves with respect to the constitution. They have the final say and can overrule the other two branches, but are appointed by those same other two branches.\n\nThere are various other little bits (like the congress having the power to declare war, but the president being in charge of commanding, but congress basically relinquishing that power because they don't want it for political reasons, etc.), but that's the basic gist."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8l4heg | what is a power over ethernet interface module | I saw one of these at work connected to a conference phone and was curious about what it’s for and how it works. Saw a patent on the tech but I didn’t really understand it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l4heg/eli5_what_is_a_power_over_ethernet_interface/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzcqx5u"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Some modern networking equipment can get power via the Ethernet cord along with network access. You see it in devices that may be hardwired with ethernet, but that would otherwise be difficult to get power to - like security cameras, access points and conference phones.\n\nHowever, in order for Power over Ethernet (PoE) to work, you need a router that can do PoE. If you don't have a router that supports it, you can get a PoE Interface module that connects after the router and supplies the power."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2ac9c0 | what happens to money lost due to depreciation? | Say i buy a car for 10,000 dollars and then sell it for 5,000 dollars. What happens to the 5,000 dollars that is lost? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ac9c0/eli5what_happens_to_money_lost_due_to_depreciation/ | {
"a_id": [
"citkkfe",
"citl18v",
"citldq2"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The $5000 wasn't lost. The guy you bought the car from has it.",
"It evaporated. The money didn't *vanish* it just left your hands and went back into the system. Like a bucket of water left in the sun. We all just collectively agree it's not as useful or interesting as it used to be and the extra $5,000 you paid for it is off being useful and interesting elsewhere.\n\nThe key to understanding economic systems is that it's a big circle that doesn't really exist. My car has value because everyone believes it does and it's worth less than your car.. because everyone believes that's the case.\n\nThere is no beginning or end, no big pot of money, no definable physical trait of '*value*'. It's not anchored in an observable physical universe, if you dig something out the ground without civilisation around you can't *measure* its value like you can measure it's weight. All you can say is it was *y* number of times harder to find than milk is but less useful (or whatever) and work from there. It's all relative.\n\nYour car is worth $5,000 because everyone says it is. Doesn't really matter what it used to be worth because it was a made up number then and it's a made up number now. However as long as you can sell it for those made up numbers and use them to buy other stuff for made up numbers.. it's useful.",
"You didn't lose money, you lost value. The car you originally purchased for $10k is only worth half of that now; the rest was lost over time, gradually, due to various factors (entropic effects on the body of the vehicle [rust, corrosion, breakdowns], the fact that newer vehicles have become available since that have better features). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
52kwis | why were old movies like "gone with the wind" and "wizard of oz" in color when movies were still in black in white until the late 50s/early 60s | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52kwis/eli5_why_were_old_movies_like_gone_with_the_wind/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7l1nx0",
"d7l1r8c",
"d7l1tkx",
"d7l2gvx",
"d7l2kxs",
"d7l2lmr",
"d7l33bj",
"d7l3elg",
"d7l3frp",
"d7l3ulp",
"d7l41no",
"d7l43k6",
"d7l4a50",
"d7l4kgl",
"d7l4mf3",
"d7l4mmj",
"d7l4qu2",
"d7l57p4",
"d7l5fsy",
"d7l5hi8",
"d7l5qp0",
"d7l5sqv",
"d7l5wn6",
"d7l5ydq",
"d7l62a0",
"d7l6ce2",
"d7l6w06",
"d7l73lq",
"d7l7gwh",
"d7l86ad",
"d7l8g7h",
"d7l8h0o",
"d7l8m73",
"d7l8sap",
"d7l8sxo",
"d7l8um9",
"d7l97w7",
"d7l9t0w",
"d7l9xki",
"d7la7c9",
"d7la8tw",
"d7ladbe",
"d7ladks",
"d7lagw9",
"d7lapom",
"d7lb8vb",
"d7lb9im",
"d7lbbe4",
"d7lbpd9",
"d7lbul7",
"d7lbv56",
"d7lcob1",
"d7ld12i",
"d7ld2lu",
"d7ldc12",
"d7ldo4l",
"d7le4f7",
"d7le8rp",
"d7lebyv",
"d7lerkx",
"d7lf4pj",
"d7lfezh",
"d7lfm3u",
"d7lg3o0",
"d7lgbve",
"d7lgdxi",
"d7lgphi",
"d7lh1e3",
"d7lhfon",
"d7lhkrb",
"d7li47c",
"d7lid6y",
"d7lj07z",
"d7ljmji",
"d7ljxfo",
"d7lko20",
"d7lkpzs",
"d7lku37",
"d7ll0k3",
"d7ll1pu",
"d7llmkx",
"d7llrsa",
"d7llyuu",
"d7lm29p",
"d7lm5zc",
"d7lm8cm",
"d7ln5pi",
"d7ln67v",
"d7ln8vx",
"d7lnccp",
"d7lnovb",
"d7lrdoo",
"d7ls865",
"d7lsl0v",
"d7luna1",
"d7lunsg",
"d7lvw05",
"d7lz5qd",
"d7lzpga",
"d7m2ap4",
"d7m3dc2",
"d7m450c",
"d7m4nbb",
"d7m6cco",
"d7m6o3e"
],
"score": [
71,
75,
4375,
39,
14,
233,
1330,
3,
2,
6,
2,
7,
5,
19,
22,
30,
3,
4,
2,
957,
12,
2,
9,
2,
8,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
5,
2,
4,
2,
2,
9,
2,
6,
53,
2,
3,
2,
2,
7,
8,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
3064,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
8,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
7,
5,
2,
4,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Color was expensive back then, but not impossible.\n\nMany studios would make black and white movies to keep the budget down until the technology would finally be cheap enough to be economical.",
"These are both Technicolor movies, a painstakingly expensive process Hollywood adopted for a long period. Once the great depression hit the number of full-color films dropped significantly. Hollywood had largely moved away from it due to the expense, but Disney played a role in bringing it back, utilizing it for Snow White in 1938 which became the top-grossing film. This attracted lots of big studios back to it to use it for live-action.",
"Technicolor was cumbersome and required expensive specialty cameras and lighting. It was at first only suitable for big-budget pictures, sort of like 3D today.\n\nAlso, many directors preferred black and white for stylistic reasons. This is even true today; look at Schindler's List.\n\nEdit: Jesus, I get it. Schindler's List is over twenty years old. You're all very clever for pointing that out.\n\nMy point was that it was made in black and white for stylistic purposes even though color film was cheap and had long become the norm.",
"Same reason there are electric cars today, but most drive gas still. The tech is there, but the cost and comfort level is not.",
"Night of the Living Dead was also in black and white to save money even though movies in color were becoming a lot more common simply because it was cheaper. He could use chocolate syrup for blood and nobody would've known the difference. ",
"Color was basically like what 3D is now. That is to say, it was something special and expensive which was only used for big-budget movies.\n\nIncidentally, you'll notice that old color films tend to have a lot of bright and primary colors. This was done to \"justify\" the film being in color, similar to how a 3D movie will include a lot of things coming at the camera to \"justify\" it being in 3D.",
"ELI5 version of why it was expensive:\n\nAll film was black and white. A Prism split the light to make: \n\na black-and-white film of the red things, \n\na black-and-white film of the blue things, and \n\na black-and-white film of the green things. \n\nEach film was dipped in a big vat to dye it the right color. \n\nWhen you stacked the dyed films on top of each other and glued them together, you could see all the colors at once!\n\nThat was a lot of work. ",
"Color was the 3D of that time period. Doable but expensive. Most films aren't in color for the same reason most films now aren't in 3D.",
"It was possible back then but expensive, as time goes on technology becomes cheaper and more advanced.\n\n\nThink of it like 3D or an AAA game, some companies wanna make it more fancy and spend more budget on it but in return you most consider that it makes an income for the company. \n",
"When Television started to gobble up a portion of the Film audience, Film repeatedly fired back with a new innovation to draw back audience members from Television. Each time, they used an innovation that Television couldn't do, color, then 3D, then cinemascope (2.85 aspect ratio). But, film studios quickly realized that color was too expensive and after a few years stopped doing it. ",
"I wonder if many people back then got sick of color movies as many are now of 3d movies and glasses and though it's not worth it",
"If colour is the equivalent of 3D today then what movies stopped using it as a gimmick? I ask because I can't be arsed with today's 3D (yesterday's on the other hand like in The Creature From the Black Lagoon...) unless it serves the story I guess.\n\nI'm also thinking there's probably something interesting to ask about the contrasts of black and white in film such as noir and how colour changes that approach (like what is neo-noir in colour? Is it acid-washed or something?).",
"Price was one thing. Quality was another - while contemporary black and white film had low sensitivity and required a lot if light, color was even worse. ",
"Back then shooting in color was very expensive. In the days of Wizard of Oz it was the \"the three strip technicolor process\". So for each shot it was three negatives, not just one. That right there triples you cost. Add to this the specialists needed to make it look right, triple the negative processing, and a more expensive and time intensive printing process. \n\nIt was expensive that none but the biggest productions could afford it\n\nOn the plus side nothing compares to it the old technicolor films were beautiful. ",
"Off topic just a bit. I just re-watched Gone with the Wind, the other weekend for the first time as an adult. I hadn't seen the movie since I was a kid. For the time it was made, it was a spectacular film and the music was amazing. Hard to believe it was filmed in 1939. Way better than some movies today.\n\nEdited to add in the movie title.",
"Related follow-up question: would it be fair to say that 'The Wizard of Oz' was the first color film many people would have seen? In other words, would the transition from black-and-white into the colorful Oz during the film have really blown people away at the time, moreso than it does when watching today?",
"Very similar to why only some cartoons were computer animated while majority were old style. Like Reboot, transformers, and Donkey Kong Country. Why only one movie every couple of years were CA (toy story), and almost all kid movies are. Why HD was a rare thing, later to be 3D, and now it's 4K.\n\nIt costs a ton of money, and very few companies can manage it. As time goes on, technology becomes more efficient and common, so the prices go down because more people can do it and the machines, programs, and equipment become more affordable as well.\n",
"Lot's of interesting answers. Most mundane answer is everyone had Black & White TV's not color. Well into the 1970's B & W was still common in peoples homes. When color TV's became common the B & W became the second TV for the kids or spare room.",
"Colored film was very expensive and toxic to developed, at the time color film came out in 1935 by Kodak. Wasn't totally worth the Hassel to develope it most the time ",
"Several reasons:\n\n* Early color processes (Technicolor) used three separate films to record red, green, and blue light components of the image. So, film costs were 3x higher for color films.\n* Technicolor used a mechanical (not optical) printing process to make the final distribution prints. This was much slower and more expensive than making distribution positives from a B & W negative.\n* Single-strip color film processes didn't become readily available until around 1950, and even then both film stock and processing were still more expensive than B & W. B & W film uses two chemicals - a developer and a \"fixer\". Color negative film processes require a more expensive color developer, a bleaching agent, and a fixer.\n\nThe result - the more expensive process got used on A-list titles and roadshow movies. As color got cheaper, more movies were shot in it. \"B\" movies and the rest were shot on cheaper B & W.",
"The camera equipment was also very large and very heavy (about 400 lbs after you include the sound dampening box the camera lived inside), which made them difficult to use and impractical for anything but the largest film shoots. This video gives you a good idea of the size of these things: \n\n_URL_0_",
"I read somewhere that it had to do with money and resources being used for WWII. GWTW and Wizard of OZ were pre-war. _URL_0_\n",
"For a while, color films were left for films that had \"fantasy.\" Black and white films were more \"realistic\" for filmmakers and filmgoers at the time. This is why Dorothy starts out in Kansas in black and white, and when she gets to the magical world of\nOz, everything turns to color. Ironic, but clearly that has changed by now!\n\nAlso, color film is more expensive.\n\nedit: magical world of Oz not Is lol",
"Those two movies were shot with expensive and complicated three strip technicolor process.\n\nB & W was cheaper, and considered for more mature for films by the 1960s.",
"Technicolor was a royal pain in the ass in the early days and only really expensive movies could do it. It's kind of like how Jurassic Park was able to do really good CGI Dinosaurs 1993, but it was quite a while after that until it became more common place.",
"In addition to the expense and complications of creating it like other have already said, the fact is also just that... people didn't have color TVs. They didn't exist, and once they did they were stupidly expensive. Even until the 1960s black and white TVs were pretty popular. I know my dad once said how dismayed he was to realize Mr. Spock wore blue.",
"To go off of this, when a black and white movie has color added to it, is this purely an additive process or is there any part of this that can be derived from the original version? ",
"As a regular movie goer, I would say that it was used to help enhance the magnitude, emotions, etc. of those movies. Big things happened in them.\n",
"Color was like what Imax or 3D was to us around the time that Avatar came out. Possible to film in, but expensive and highly technical. ",
"It was all an expensive process. When shooting a color film in their day, that would be capture the movie on three different rolls film instead of one. One film strip for red, green, and blue. One the film was finished, during post production they run the film reels through their proper color to stain them red, green, or blue. Once stained, they'd overlay all three reels of film on top of each other and bam! They had their colored film. Obviously this process was intricate and took a lot of time and man power to accomplish, which meant budget for a movie immediately skyrocketed if was okayed to be in color. \n\nIt should also be noted that while color film, well, was in color. Black and white film looked better. This sharper image was mainly due to the fact of how long people were perfecting the black and white image long before a commercially viable color film was produced and black and white film continued to be the dominant look until the late 50s for this reason, when color filmstocks became cheaper and widescreens became industry standard looks. ",
"Most of hitchcock's movies were in black and white even though he liked color, the problem was the difficulty in getting accurate color in the 50s and 60s made it much cheaper and safer to use black and white.",
"In the future people will ask the same thing regarding why some producers were still delivering in 2K in 2016",
"Why was Avatar in 3D but other movies are not that are made even more recent. Same answer applies to black and white.",
"Adding on to past answers, technicolor wasn't just expensive to produce in terms of cameras, but it was also extremely expensive because in order to absorb the red, green, and blue color you have to use three times the lighting normally used.",
"For the same reason movies today are in 3D: it's a new technology that gives the viewer a big new experience that can't reasonably be approximated anywhere else--and that sells tickets. The studios were willing to spend big money on the gamble that it would pay off for these \"epic\" new projects.\n\nExcept that with Wizard of Oz, it sadly didn't. (At the time of release.)",
"Because color was the equivalent of 3D technology today. Except for the fact that color was an improvement on the technology that customers actually wanted, whereas 3D is just bullshit designed to make them money.",
"My Theatre and Film appreciation class covered the Wizard of Oz bit in class last year. Back then color movies were still relatively new and seemed fake and were used for fantasy. The black and white Kansas is the real world while the color world of Oz is fantasy.",
"Why are movies still in 2D when 3D was invented years ago?",
"It was much more expensive and also regarded as kind of a gimmick. It was the 3D of its time.",
"For the same reason movies nowadays aren't all shot in 8K or 3D. Equipment availability/intrest/director preferences.",
"Also:\n\nCorrect me if I'm wrong, but, wasn't the image-quality for black & white film superior to that of color film, back then?\n\nLike, especially with still-photos, didn't a lot of photographers continue using black & white film pretty far into the color-era (of still photos) like deep into the 1970's, for this reason?\n\n(I know some of said people were doing it for artistic reasons (as in, just simply wanted to photos to be in black & white, and not color, because artistically they wanted to capture the thing in a monochromatic way, not for image-quality reasons, but just artistically-speaking or whatever. But, I was under the impression that in *addition* to this, there were also a lot of people who were doing it not for artistic-style reasons (or not purely for that reason alone) but rather, because it yielded blatantly, noticeably superior image-quality (in terms of resolution/clarity/etc type of aspects, I mean).\n\nI assume this factor would also be the case in regards to movie-film, in addition to still-photography film?\n\nAs for me personally, I've always felt that as far as my own eyeballs can tell, this does seem to be the case. Color movies in the black & white era seem to have noticeably lower image-quality than high-end black & white movies that were made in the same year, by comparison. (I think it's already noticeable at the 1080p/4k level on a tv screen, but I remember my father talking about it, since he had seen the actual optical-projection versions of the movies, in theaters, back at that time, and he said the difference in image quality in equivalency seemed to be pretty enormous).",
"The same reason we have 3D production technology, but hardly ever use it. It's crazy complicated and expensive, so it's reserved for the blockbusters which will guarantee a return on investment.",
"\"Why were old movies like Avatar and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs in 3D when movies were still in 2D until the late 2020s\"",
"One reason I don't see being mentioned very much was for aesthetic purposes. Film Noir, suspense, and mystery films were very popular in the 40's - 50's, and many of those films had high budgets which could have allowed for color (particularly in the 50's) but chose to forgo color to set a different mood.\n\n\nLook at films like Touch of Evil or Sunset Boulevard. They would be completely different in color.\n\nSome directors made those type of films but did decide to use color. Symbolism of the color Green in Hitchcock's Vertigo for example. \n\n\nFinally sometimes color wasn't used so the film could get a lighter rating or not be banned. Think if in 1960 Psycho had been color...\n\n\nFor the industry as a whole YES budget was the main constraint but for the best directors black and white was just another artistic device for their films.",
"Also, they redid some of the classics in color when the originals were still in black and white. I don't know if this applies to these. ",
"Many people thought colored moving pictures was a gimmick and detracted from the perpose of film making. To many the perpose was to convey meaning and emotion. This is why art films in history particularly, stayed with the traditional black and white. ",
"Color was added afterwards. Dorothy's shoes in The Wizard of Oz were originally blue, not red. ",
"No one seems to have mentioned Warner Bros, who decided to stick with black and white until the process became cheaper. \n\nAt the time they were known for darker, grittier films, so they pushed on with film noir and made some classics! I'd recommend Kubrick's 'The Killing'.",
"GWTW and Wizard of Oz were filmed at around the same time, when there were only 7 technicolor cameras ever made. The big fire scene in GWTW even required all 7 to be used at once. \nAnd I'm not sure where I saw this and I can't seem to find it anywhere... But I remember reading that during some overlap of the two films, The Wizard of Oz had a majority of the color cameras, and some parts of GWTW had to manually be colored in. ",
"Because songs like \"follow the yellow brick road\"' would have been completely baffling to the viewer in black and white",
"Same reason why some movies are 3D now and some are not. It's expensive to be at the cutting edge.",
"Because those films felt it was worth it to spend the extra money to film in color where other films chose black and white because they didn't believe much would be gained by shooting in color versus a much cheaper black and white option.\n\nWe've had the option to shoot in color for a good while before it became popular, it just wasn't cheap enough. We have similar technologies and options now that are dreams of technogeeks and the such, but it's just extremely expensive. ",
"Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, if so, I apologise.\n\n'The wizard of Oz' started filming with B & W when Technicolor became both affordable and widely available.\n\nSince it was one of THE big spend items for the year (think a Star Wars or Avatar 2) it would have been fucked if it didn't use colour.\n\nStroke of genius - Oz is in colour, Kansas isn't.\n\nSimple, but extraordinarily effective. And everyone lauded the Wachowski sisters for their green tinge in the matrix.",
"Color was expensive. One example from TV is Bewitched, which started out in black and white before becoming popular and profitable, which prompted the change to color. ",
"money and time. same reason movies can still be awesome or only worthy of a rental. sometimes good writing and acting can overcome the black and white factor, just like bad writing could be balanced by a little added color. ",
"Aside from it being expensive, many directors turned their nose up to colour for being too low brow and cheap entertainment. It was seen very much like Transformers 3...D in iMax is today.",
"B & W is easier and cheaper than color. In 1994, Kevin Smith shot *Clerks* in B & W, not because he wanted to, but because didn't have much money to make the movie.\n\nHere are some reasons why B & W is easier:\n\n**Color casts:** Every light source has a different color. Sunlight is \"white\", a regular lightbulb makes \"white\" light, and fluorescent lights make \"white\" light, but they're not actually the same white. Each light is a different color. If you take the same film everywhere, the pictures taken outside will look blue and the pictures taken inside will look yellow. The worst one is fluorescent lighting, which can show up as a hideous green color. With B & W film you don't really need to worry about it.\n\nOne of the hardest parts is that the color of sunlight changes during the day. If it takes all day to shoot a scene, then different parts of the scene will have different colors, and they won't look right together. So you have to be careful to monitor the weather and the time of day when you're shooting. Even a few clouds can change the color of a picture dramatically. This is even a problem in the studio, because when you turn on the lights in a movie studio, they change color as they warm up.\n\nYour eyes naturally adapt to color changes so you don't notice them very much, but color film doesn't adapt like your eyes do. For color film, you have to pay close attention, and use color filters to adjust the color of the light to be just right.\n\nWith B & W film, you can even get away with shooting \"nighttime\" scenes in broad daylight, and many studios did this. This is not really possible with color film.\n\n**Technicolor:** Technicolor is actually made using three different strips of B & W film. Instead of loading one piece of film into the camera, you load three. The camera is a monster, and it has prisms and filters inside so it can split the color light into three different B & W images. To make the final movie for projection, you have to combine the three film strips back into one, which is tedious and expensive.\n\nThe prisms and filters in a technicolor camera were also inefficient. It took a lot of light in order to make a technicolor film. It took so much light that you had to shoot outside or with bright studio lights. Bright lights are expensive, they make the studio hot, and they make the actors uncomfortable. You can forget about shooting technicolor at night, it just won't work.\n\n**Monopack film:** Later, in the 1950s, color \"monopack\" film became available, using processes like ECN-1. This made it possible to film color using ordinary cameras, the same cameras you use for B & W. However, this film was still more difficult and expensive to process. Color film is also more sensitive to temperature. With B & W film, if you process it at the wrong temperature, you can compensate by processing for a different amount of time, and the picture will mostly be the same. With color film, if you process it at the wrong temperature, you might get different colors.\n\nB & W film is still more sensitive to light than color film, even today. This is because each color film is made out of three B & W films stacked on top of each other, and each film only receives a part of the light.\n\n**Skills:** Even when color was available, not everyone knew how to use it. People had to learn how to use filters, how to measure color during the day, how to pay attention to the weather. New artistic decisions had to be made: \"nighttime\" in a color film might mean adding blue filters to the light, \"daytime\" indoors might mean putting dark orange filters over the windows. It took many years before people making movies learned these skills.\n\nThe same thing happened with digital cameras. Digital cameras respond differently to light than film does, and so you have to be very careful when you shoot digital, and you have to change the lighting a little bit. Some filmmakers have a lot of experience working with film, and for them it's easier to keep using film rather than learning how to use digital, even though digital may be easier once you know how to use it.",
"A few years ago they showed a new old dads army episode that was found in a barn and never aired. It was on black and white film. They discovered that it had all color markings still intact so it could be converted from the black and white to colour.because it was a barn find it was not in the best condition so they decided to restore it using modern day technology. Very interested to Learn a lot of old programs where actually recorded using a color camara but used black and white film. The camara saves the color code on the black and white film.\n\nImagen if we could convert all the non HD photos and film ever recorded to full HD.\n",
"Black and white looks better and ages better than old color films. In addition to the more technical and logistical reasons being listed here, a lot of film directors preferred to continue shooting their films in black and white because it was a hallmark of the artform. Its still true that most B & W films from the 50s and early 60s look better than their color counterparts. ",
"Why are movies like \"Avatar\" and \"The Hobbit\" in 3D when movies are still in 2D to this day?",
"Technicolor was a process that's been available since 1935. It was just incredibly expensive, so even the big budget movies opted not to use it - only huge ticket movies like the 2 you mentioned had the budget for it.\n\nEdit: guy below me had more research haha, thank you sir",
"My mom was young when The Wizard of Oz came out, and they went to see it in the theater. The movie starts in black and white, it only becomes color when Dorothy steps out of her house into Oz. That's the first time mom had ever seen any color in a movie, she still looks a little awed when she tells about it.",
"It was a HUGE deal when Gone with the Wind & Wizard of Oz came out, too, that they were in color. That's part of why those were so successful at the box office-they were novelties, basically. Black & white films were still going strong through the 60s, too, because it was significantly cheaper to film. I love a b-movie, but they're b-movies for a reason: they're cheap, in terms of casting, production, costumes, etc. ",
"For the same reason that many films today aren't shot in **IMAX 3D** even though the technology has been available since the 80s.\n\nThere are costs and complexities that come with shooting with advanced, proprietary film types that often wind up prohibitive given the budget/time constraints and the overall goals for a movie. \n\nAs an example think of how much the forced 3D popout scenes added into a lot of IMAX films actually adds to the movie experience other than to justify spending an extra $4 on the ticket.",
"Color film was largely associated with fantasy/musical setting or storylines (one of the first examples is Journey to the Moon even though it was hand colored) most films remained in black in white until later on. Color film was also not taken very seriously by many people similar to how we tend to view animated movies as childish. (Source: I'm a film student)",
"To better relate this to today - why aren't all movies shot in Imax quality 3D? Cost, difficulty, availability of equipment.",
"Colour was very expensive and used for spectacle/blockbuster films, historical epics, fantasy, musicals, and so on. Black-and-white remained popular with audiences for more serious subjects, contemporary dramas, and smaller-budget films.",
"Funny that you mention those two movies actually. The only reason that the scenes from Kansas are shot in Black and White is because the producers of Wizard of Oz had to relinquish their technicolor cameras for the production of Gone with the Wind. It wasn't originally supposed to be that way, they just happened to have been filming the Kansas scenes last and realized that black and white fit the setting better, which obviously worked out to their advantage. Unfortunately, Gone with the Wind beat them for best picture in the Oscars that year.",
"The world was in black & white until 1966. The Wizard of Oz heralded the invention of colour itself. The real world switched to colour many years later, and the early years of colour were celebrated with Psychedelia and 70s gaudiness.\nEarly reluctance to adopt colour was down to fears that too much colour would blind us all and we'd all become triffid food.",
"Not sure how old you are but, the answer would be the same as: why weren't all shows in High Definition when it first came out?\n\nCost",
"I can't find a definite source, but I have anecdotal information form my father that a very few commercially screened color films even existed in the Silent Era.",
"Occasionally there are directors who choose to do B & amp;W for stylistic reasons look at Psycho by Hitchcock, both the movie before and the movie after were in colour. \n\nBilly Wilder chose to do all of his films in B & amp;W, more recently I've seen a few movies, \"The Artist\" and \"Goodnight and Goodluck\" those where both B & amp;W to fit with the time period the movies take place in. ",
"_URL_0_ watched that video earlier this morning. Strange that this is on the front page now. (We live in the matrix)\n\nAnyways, check out that video. It's very interesting. And if you're interested in film concepts in general, check out the YouTube channel \"Every Frame A Painting\".",
"One reason is that the Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind were actually sharing a color camera. Which was part of the artistic decision of having Kansas in black and white and Oz in color in the Wizard of Oz.",
"Actual ELI5: It was very hard and expensive to do with the stuff they had back then. So only big companies could afford it!",
"I think Hollywood went to more color movies, especially in the 1950's, because that is when television became popular. Hollywood wanted to provide an experience in the theater that you couldn't get at home watching TV, so the widescreen format was introduced and color was used more.\n\nHere's an interesting bit a trivia regarding \"The Adventures of Robin Hood\" which was made in 1938 and starred Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland:\n\n\"The production used all 11 of the Technicolor cameras in existence in 1938 and they were all returned to Technicolor at the end of each day's filming.\"\n\n--IMDB",
"We had colour film capabilities in those times, but it was expensive. And with the rise of TV, which had a complete lack of colour capabilities, it was pointless to make tv programs in colour.\n\nTheres still plenty of movies from the 50s and early 60s in colour.",
"In 1905, people said movies were a fad, people prefer live theater\n\nIn 1929, people said talkies were a fad, people prefered silent film\n\nIn 1939, people said color was a fad, people prefer serious B & W\n\nIn 2009, people said 3D was a fad, people prefer flat images",
"The same is true of sound in films. The first sound synced film was in 1900, but it wasn't until the early 1930s that the \"talkies\" became mainstream.",
"The excellent \"Filmmaker IQ\" series explains the [whole history of color film](_URL_0_) and it is fascinating.\n\nThe TL;DR of your question is those movies were shot in technicolor, which used a [huge and expensive camera rig] (_URL_1_) to simultaneously shoot 3 rolls of film, separating the three primary light colors. Those were blockbuster films, and most smaller films wouldn't have had the budget for it. It is kind of like digital effects and 3-d is today; you don't spend that kind of money on a simple romantic comedy.",
"You're actually asking two questions: why did they make few color films in the thirties and why did they make b & w films in the 50s and 60s.\nMost of the answers given are good regarding expense. That is the primary reason. There are secondary stylistic reasons that are also interesting. Color was often reserved for fantasies and spectacle. You'll even find black and white films of the thirties with color sequences. A good example is The Women, released the same year as your two examples. There is a color fashion show in the middle of the film, signaling the fantastic allure for the characters. Even into the 1950s when color was becoming more frequent and studios were trying things like widescreen as well to keep viewers from staying home with TV, color became the choice for \"travel\" films. This was the age of travelogue romances set in faraway locales, and European vistas. Rich color cinematography of Venice or Rome in films like Three Coins in the Fountain were ways to give audiences a vicarious view of the outside world. \n\nEven into the early '60s as color became ubiquitous, black and white was employed as a stylistic choice. Hitchcock had been shooting in color since the late forties, but shot Psycho in black and white intentionally. Part of the reason was to lesson the gory impact of blood running down the shower.\n\nDisney made all of his features in color (except the docudrama The Reluctant Dragon, which \"becomes color\" after a visit to the paint factory). However, he made The Shaggy Dog and the two flubber movies in black and white because he hoped it would help disguise the special effects used. ",
"Same reason only some movies are made in 3D. First it's cost way more to make. Also at the time, most people didn't have color TV's just like many people today don't have 3D home setups.",
"There used to be two processes, Technicolor and Kineticolor. This process consisted of the very tedious task of going through each and every slide/frame that needed color and basically taking a crayon (well, dye) and then coloring the slides manually, tinting each section with the necessary color, or using a prism-camera hybrid to make the slides/frames the right color. it's why there is so little diversity between colors, and most colors are extremes. For instance, in the Wizard of Oz, how much of the movie is a color like, say, brown or grey, as opposed to bright vibrant blues, yellows, and reds? Primary colors were easier to use. It's also why the colors tend to be extremes or mesh together poorly compared to today's filming. ",
"Using color in movies was very expensive at that time. Some companies realized that they'll draw more people in to see thee movie if they use color. It was new and it made the movie, back then, pop. \n\nAlso, fun fact: Dorothy's slippers were actually silver in the book. Red was used in the movie to make them really pop. ",
"The technology was rare and kind of expensive. Audiences had been accepting Black and White and it was unclear how much (if any) of an advantage color would be. \n\nThe actual cameras were initially expensive to build and there were only a few of them. For instance, some scenes in Gone with the Wind used ALL 7 Technicolor cameras then in existence.",
"Today we convert black and white movies using a digital process. Once the b & w movies are digitized, the movie is gone over and a series of frames are programmed into the system. The computer then colors in the movie. Each frame is manually fine tuned until the desired effect is achieved. Before digital, each frame had to be colored manually. It was an expensive, highly tedious, time consuming process.",
"Part of the styling of Black and White had to do with clarity. Black and White film was much cleaner and sharper than color film of the time.",
"1. Color was very cumbersome and expensive at the time. It was reserved for \"A\" features with huge budgets, or for cartoons, which were easier to implement than live action. \n\n2. There were actually two separate cinematography Oscars awarded for color and black and white.\n\n3. Unlike 3D, audiences loved color. \"In glorious Technicolor\" was quite an effective marketing phrase. The only objections heard were from inside the industry. Actresses who didn't like the way they looked--there was no silvery glow to their complexion like there was in b/w. Directors and technicians didn't like the refrigerator-size camera, huge lighting requirements, and the finiky presence of Natalie Calmus, the mandatory \"color consultant\" on the set. \n\n4. Color prints were 100 percent compatible with black and white, so even the dump-iest neighborhood theater could show them with no modifications or special training.\n\nThere's tons more great (and technically correct) information here:\n\n_URL_0_",
"The technology was there to have color film. You can see color pics and films from the 20's. But the issue is it cost alot to film in color. The main issue is that theaters don't have color projectors because cost alot. So to make a film in color you need someone to pay for innovation to do it. Sony did it, they picked up the tab because of television was there. They had to innovate or die.",
"It was expensive to do color. That's like asking why doesn't everyone own a 4k TV, the tech exists, why don't people buy it?",
"Back then, movies were more commerce than art. You had a budget, and a system that delivered the talent on both ends cheaply with no thought to being able to watch it over again hundreds of times. Black and white was good enough for 80 % of everything.",
"One way to look at it is that it's sort of like 3D now, where it's a big spectacle for major Motion Pictures but generally isn't worth doing for all movies",
"A lot of people are saying that shooting in color was expensive (and it definitely was) but you can't fail to mention the business side of it. Like others have mentioned, there were a limited number of technicolor cameras and no other options to shoot and process color film. In other words, technicolor had a bit of a monopoly until single-strand color film was developed. They could raise the price all they pleased. \n\nThe trade off is that these first color films were phenomenally successful. So dealing the difficulties of color film was financially worth it.\n\nSo there's also this aspect of it: use technicolor, an expensive monopoly, or use black and white, which was cheaper and easier. ",
"Ask yourself this: Why aren't all movies in 3D?",
"Technicolor was invented in the 30's. Then WWII happened and it wasn't reasonable to spend the money and materiel on color. So they went back to black and white. After the war, when industry turned back to domestic production, and money was freed from waging war, they returned to color.\n\nThis is from a book about Fred & Ginger. They shot a color scene in 1938 for Carefree (\"I Used to Be Color Blind\"). The whole movie was supposed to be color but the cost was too high. They nixed the color scene and released the whole picture in B & W. I have seen the color dream sequence on TV, so at SOME point it was restored, but I don't know when.",
"If anyone is interested in why Hollywood quit making B & W movies ( except for rare occasions) is television. Selling broadcast rights to the major networks and a few indie station syndication packages. (this was before cable television) was a major revenue stream. By 1967 television decided to go 100% color broadcasts and Hollywood and indies switched to color only. By this time, there were several cheaper alternatives to technicolor...",
"Black and white was cheaper but also the norm, the color portion of the Wizard of Oz is the dream sequence for example, when Dorothy woke up the film was back to normal and in black and white again.",
"This is the way I like to think of it, at least in photography. Black and white at that time was along the same quality of some of the color images today (seriously, B & W stuff from that era is gorgeous) and color was just born, so we were yet to iron out the kinks. Of course it was also cheaper. But I know when I'm doing any type of photo work from that era (I did a basketball card series from around that time) I prefer black & white ten-to-one over color of the time. Why? The images are crisper, color gets real fuzzy at that time and it just seems better focused overall. So not only were there cost benefits, there were aesthetic benefits as well.",
"To help understand why these movies were in color and others were in black and white, think about Avatar. \n\nTo rephrase your question, \"Why do movies like Avatar have advanced visual effects and 3D presentation when other movies don't?\" \n\nThe answer, as others have pointed out, is money. The movies with advanced visual effects (color back in the day, crazy CGI today) are big ticket movies that the studio is gambling will make a lot of money. ",
"I would highly recommend looking up the cameras and detail about what cameras were used for those movies. They are way more complicated then what they had back then And today. Of course we have colored cameras that are higher quality and everything like that but the stuff they had to use back then was crazy. I remember reading about a Disney movie (i can't remember which one, but it had real people in a drawn world with like drawn animals and the people were walking on a path and animated animals would walk or skip by them using blue screen to put them in that world and it was like a 60s or 70s movie) but the camera they used was so fascinating to me. I can't explain it and I read it a few years ago. Sorry I'm not much help. But it was very cool and very hard to do what they did for that time.",
"This has already been answered but I need to put my two cents in. The first colored film my grandmother saw was The Wizard of Oz. It starts out black and white, and she had no idea that when Dorothy lands in Oz, it changes to technicolor. This was simply an awesome thing to behold if all you were used to was b & w. Her mouth dropped and she said it was one of the most beautiful things she saw. This is why they went with technicolor for that film. To give Oz this truly magical feeling to the viewers.",
"Pretty much the same reason not all films are shot in stereo today.\n\nIt cost more, required special techniques to get right, and a lot of moviegoers didn't care anyway.",
"Same reason that movies are still shot in 2D when they could be in 3D these days.\n\nTechnology and price isn't at a standard that warrants it.",
"Cuz the camera that captured color was almost the size of a small car. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn it, it used three different films to capture red, blue and green colors of the scene. \n\nThe price for the film itself was monumentally high, so any screw ups while filming cost them a lot of money. \n\nSo, it required a lot of work to film, a lot of time and a crap ton of money. A lot of companies avoided it instead and just filmed in b & w.",
"In *Wizard of Oz* the use of black and white for part of the film was obviously an artistic decision and I assume it was the same for other movies too. \n\nThink about it this way, some people even in this modern age choose to still take photos in black and white instead of color. It is an artist's choice and typically I think they'd come up with some sort of justification along those lines, for the effect they think it might provide their art. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/N-T8MVrw1L0?t=2m11s"
],
[
"http://www.filmsite.org/40sintro.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/aXgFcNUWqX0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRheZ_MUYiY",
"https://eastman.org/sites/default/files/technicolor/2c-12.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"www.widescreenmuseum.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://150597036.r.cdn77.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/cardiffpowell1.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
dvdzab | why does the weather say 39 but "feels like 30" wouldnt it just be 30 outside? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dvdzab/eli5_why_does_the_weather_say_39_but_feels_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7c3asn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Ambient temperature in a general area VS perceived temperature due to humidity and wind chill making it colder."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6bk8yj | why does beer make you crave salty/fatty food? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bk8yj/eli5why_does_beer_make_you_crave_saltyfatty_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhnb30q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Alcohol releases dopamine in your brain, when it starts to wear off you start looking for something else that will release dopamine. \nFat and salt are particular good for this (to do with evolution of humans.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
eag5bs | how do usb plugs built in to outlets work with phones and other devices that use usb? don’t you need to convert ac to dc? | Isn’t the reason we use those cube power plugs to plug phone chargers in because they change from the ac of the wall to dc that our devices use. So how do USB ports built in to the outlet and powered by ac work?
[Example](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eag5bs/eli5_how_do_usb_plugs_built_in_to_outlets_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"faqixdd",
"faqj3eq"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Yes you need a rectifier. They are so small these days, they are build in a small board the size of a dime.",
"There is either a converter built into the wall before the usb. So it goes wires > converter > USB. Or the cube is used because the normal outlet uses the two prongs and not USB."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K89J7Q4/ref=cm_sw_r_oth_api_i_ZTh9DbQT1ADA4"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
27gmaz | laser thermometers. | what is that trickery? how far can you read accurately? does it pick up temperatures between unit and surface, or just the surface it lands on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27gmaz/eli5_laser_thermometers/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci0m2ue",
"ci0m3hm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The laser part is just to visually indicate where you are measuring, the actual temperature is read by a calibrated infra red sensor. Similar to on a remote control.",
"The laser is just for aiming. It has an infra red sensor and displays the average of the temperature it sees. The further back you hold it the bigger the spot the sensor sees gets, so max range depends on the size of the object your trying to get a read from. Since it works like an ir camera, it sees the surface, not the air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
20rtqo | how does apple make more money than google / android? | After seeing the graphs published in [this post](_URL_0_). I have to admit I was shocked. How is it that Android / Google has a huge market share and not be able to make as much money as Apple?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20rtqo/eli5_how_does_apple_make_more_money_than_google/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg64u2a",
"cg6556u"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Android isn't a company. Google doesn't completely own the phones that have their operating system in it, so they only get a portion of the profit from them. Apple owns the entire process. I also wouldn't be surprised if the profit on an individual phone was more for an iPhone than an android phone for a lot of reasons.\n\nAndroid phones might be a bigger part of the phone market, but they share that profit with tons of people, apple doesn't have to really share their profit.",
"Because a large percentage of Android phones are low-end devices. There are no low-end Apple devices.\n\nThat makes a difference when it comes to their app stores.[ iOS customers outspend Android customers 5 to 1](_URL_0_). People who buy low-end devices are far less likely to purchase apps.\n\nApple, quite simply, has a superior business model. Yes, there are more Android devices out there, but the iOS devices are far, far more profitable."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/20q7dq/in_the_last_30_seconds_apple_made_162585_watch/"
] | [
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/ios-android-shopping-2013-12"
]
] |
|
9fru76 | why is there such a significant price gap between canadian crude oil prices and us crude oil prices? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9fru76/eli5_why_is_there_such_a_significant_price_gap/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5ypfvh",
"e5yplib"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"There isn't a price gap between the price of west texas crude this is what the stock market is looking at when saying the price of oil is xx per barrel.\n\n\nThe price gap is caused by a misnomer what you are calling canadian crude oil is not actual crude. It is bitumen. Now for Canada to ship it it needs to be diluted so that it flows better.\n\nBitumen is more costly to refine into petroleum products than crude oil. The current infrastructure in place for Canada to get this to market has minimal going to tide water (oceans) within Canada. This means that the only market that is purchasing the raw product from Canada is the u.s. and typically it's about 50 to 60 percent of the oil price. \n\nCanada would get a better price per barrel if more markets are available to sell to. This is why there is an importance to pipelines to tide water. Environmental concerns are the push back to this. But what is not looked at or ignored is oil is going to tide water by rail already. Just not in any capacity to affect market prices.",
"It's a function of both quality, cost to extract, and transportation cost. Not all crude oil is the same so you are not paying more for the same product.\n\nCheaper crudes tend to have more undesirable byproducts like sulfur or nitrogen compounds. Also when the crude oil is refined, different crudes have different conversion rates to final products like diesel and gasoline. So crudes that make more and higher quality final products are more expensive"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9c4ago | who are you genetically closer to? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9c4ago/eli5_who_are_you_genetically_closer_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"e57voa9",
"e57vzbx",
"e57wqhw"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your kids. As you said, kids are 50% \"you\". But your siblings are only 25% \"you\" in average. \n\nIt is true that they are made 50% your mum and 50% your dad as well. But consider that your dad's DNA is made of copy A and B of each chromosome, and your mum copy C and D. Then you could have got copy A from your dad and C from your mum, making you A-C for example. While your siblings could have got A-C (same as you), A-D, B-C, or B-D. Repeat this idea for all 23 pairs of chromosomes. So by probablity only in 25% of the cases you will have the same combination.",
"You share 50% of your DNA with both your children and your parents. So you are the exact same closeness to them.\n\nTechnically you can be genetically closer to your sibling. But also at the same time you might not be. It all depends on which genes you picked up.\n\nHumans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and pass down 1 of each pair to their children.\n\nTheoretically then there is a chance if your parents pass down one set of chromosomes to you (let's call it set a.) And pass down the other set to your sibling (set b.) Then technically you share 0% of your DNA with your siblings. \n\n(Well this is actually incorrect as other things happen when the gametes are being created but this is ELI5)\n\n The reverse is also true and you can share 100% of your DNA with you siblings. (Which also is very unlikely unless you are identical twins and thus split off the same fetilised egg)\n\nSo tldr to your question. Both. It depends on what genes were passed down to your siblings.",
"Theoretically you can be 0% similar with a sibling. Would be very statistically unlikely. \n\nYou can be no less than 50% similar with a child or parent."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1jdwsl | why does white meat chicken always taste dryer than dark meat chicken? | Whenever I eat both types of meat from the same exact chicken, the white is always dryer to me. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jdwsl/eli5_why_does_white_meat_chicken_always_taste/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbdq8yx",
"cbdqtv1"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's more fat in the dark meat. Fats and oils will keep the dark meat moist even when the water in the white meat has cooked off.\n\n > [Dark meat contains 2.64 times more saturated fat than white meat, per gram of protein.](_URL_0_)",
"The white meat is always dryer than dark because the dark meat has more fat in it. Fat is not as easily evaporated as water, so when you cook a whole chicken the dark meat holds more liquid and ends up being more moist. A way to remedy this is to stuff butter under the skin of the chicken. It creates a barrier that prevents water from evaporating as easily, making it moist and way more delicious. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_meat#Poultry"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.