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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
66xif0 | why does machine-made ice cubes have holes in them? | When I make ice cubes at home (in a tray) the cubes are perfectly square, but at restaurants the ice cubes have a hollow part on one of the sides... why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66xif0/eli5_why_does_machinemade_ice_cubes_have_holes_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgm070z",
"dgm0ltu"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Because that machine makes ice by taking a metal rod, chilling it to below freezing, and then spraying water onto it, where the water freezes. When the ice is thick enough, the machine briefly heats the rod- the inner layer of ice melts, and the rest of the cube slides off and falls into the hopper.",
"When you make them at home, you fill compartments in a tray with water and freeze the entire thing, so each compartment becomes an ice cube. \n\nIce makers work slightly differently. They have an array of fingers (or prongs or spikes, whatever) which are dipped into a container of water. These fingers are chilled, causing ice to form around them and build up into the shape you know. \n\nThe fingers are [lifted out of the water, each covered in ice](_URL_0_). They are warmed very slightly, allowing the ice to fall off, leaving the hole in the middle. \n\nFreezing around the fingers is faster than waiting for all the water to freeze. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://cdn.newair.com/kb/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ice-1-300x200.jpg"
]
] |
|
32kt5m | what is the difference, if any, between extra strength tylenol over the counter vs. prescription? | I have a whole bottle at home, why would I spend the money on the prescription version? Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32kt5m/eli5_what_is_the_difference_if_any_between_extra/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqc42em",
"cqc43a2",
"cqc6ovs",
"cqca9wn",
"cqcausf",
"cqkujo6"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Prescription gives you a higher dosage, so for example instead of two pills, you only have to take one. And, at least in the U.S., it's likely the prescription Tylenol will be covered by your health insurance. My mom is a nurse in a clinic, and a lot of people on Medical Assistance ask for prescription ibuprofen because MA will pay for it. ",
"Honestly, there's not a whole lot of reason to. Typically over the counter Tylenol will be a 200 mg dose, while prescription may be 1000 mg. You could take five over the counter pills and get *almost* the same result (with some minor variation in uptake time).\n\nThat said, always talk to your doctor and ask for clarification, they're much more reliable than some schmuck on the Internet. ",
"Not a pharmacist, but here in the US...\n\nOTC Tylenol is 200-500mg of acetaminophen.\n\nScrip Tylenol 3 is 300mg acetaminophen + 30mg codeine.\n\nScrip Tylenol 4 is 300mg acetaminophen + 60mg codeine.\n\n",
"Dosage\n\nBtw, you should generally avoid acetaminophen if it all possible. \n\nIt is a much more dangerous drug than most people realize.",
"Another reason not mentioned here is certain insurance programs will subsidize the cost of a prescription, but not OTC medications. I worked at an ED where the MDs would write a prescription for something like acetaminophen or naproxen because the patient was able to save money this way, over paying the full price OTC. ",
"In the US there is no Rx strength plain acetaminophen. It is all over the counter - 325 or 500 mg. There are many combinations with other meds with acetaminophen that require a Rx. Most are narcotics."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6zo38q | why does agitating (rotating/stirring) concrete prevent it from setting? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zo38q/eli5_why_does_agitating_rotatingstirring_concrete/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmwrbh5",
"dmwt8mp"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The process of concrete curing is essentially the binding of molecules/polymers chaining together. The higher the concentration of bound molecules the harder the concrete gets. Stirring a polymer or a solution that is in the process of curing breaks a percentage of the bonds that are slowly forming. Therefore the more you stir or mix the solution the more bonds you are breaking which in turn, sets back the curing process. Eventually the bonds will form but stirring it decreases the formation rate of the bonds between molecules. ",
"Agitating concrete will only delay the setting process by preventing some of the bonds in the material from forming and breaking some of formed ones but it will still begin to set eventually. \nThere are a lot of factors that go into to setting concrete.\n\nIMO, the most important place to start is knowing your aggregate. Our concrete stone and sand are tested in our lab every week to determine moisture content, gradation, density, wash pass etc.. Since most aggregate is stored outside it is likely the you will never know the exact moisture content of that stockpile at any given time. So most producers assume that the moisture content is the lowest tested value to make sure that there is not too much water in the mixture. After the product is in the truck it heads to the staging area where it is up to the driver to observe the mix and add water to the truck directly if needed. You can always add more water, its much trickier to lower moisture content than it is to raise it. \n\nNext is the type of plant you have, there are two main types of plants, Transit mix and drum mix. Transit mix is what you will see a lot, it is what fills the rotating drum type concrete trucks that constantly agitate the material. Drum mix when there is a larger version of that drum on the plant itself and the concrete is mixed before entering the truck which can be a dump truck. These two plants are used for different situations. It really depends on the job location and tonnes per day you wish to produce. A lot of portable plants are drum mix while stationary plants are generally transit mix and some can be both.\n\nFor transit mix like you are referring too the rotating drum on the truck is to ensure a proper mix of the concrete right up to the moment it is poured since it is not mixed in the plant and its keeps the gradation of the concrete consistent (No settling).\nGetting the right mix and setting time is as much an art as it is a science (Sort of).\n\nThere are other factors that may effect setting time such as contaminants. If recycled glass or ceramic is used in the mix for instance it must be free of all sugars as sugar is an inhibitor which will delay setting.\n\nKeeping these and other factors in mind (Job location, plant volume, what you're pouring, etc..) should all be considered when designing the mix to ensure that the concrete can be properly transported to the job site from the plant and it is still in a state where it can be properly poured. If you are pouring multiple trucks then you also want to make sure that there are a few trucks waiting on site so that the next truck can be poured before the previous load begins to set. This means that you also want to have an adequate staging area and process back at the plant so there is a continuous rotation of Filling, staging, transporting, and pouring trucks.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8xo7ko | this may be a dumb question but how does a car/truck tire handle the weight from the vehicle and not pop? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xo7ko/eli5_this_may_be_a_dumb_question_but_how_does_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e24duca",
"e259rxb"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"They're simply really big. The larger the area you have touching the ground, the more weight you can have.\n\nLet's say you put three tons balancing on a needle. You're taking all those three tons, and concentrating them on one single spot, and that needle is gonna pierce right down through the asphalt. However, say you put three tons on a sled. The sled's large surface area helps to spread out the three tons, and you put it on the ground with no problem. Tires may not have as much area as a sled, but they still have quite a large contact area, enough to allow trucks and cars to drive effortlessly.\n\nThis is also why tanks have tracks, by the way. America's main battle tank, the M1A2 Abrams, weighs 70 tons; the tracks are absolutely massive to help spread out those 70 tons.",
"In addition to what /u/SkyEyeMCCIX said, they're also thicker and made out of far stronger material than your average balloon. \n\nEngineers design things based on [stress](_URL_0_). Whatever material you're working with has a *strength*, which is the max amount of stress it can withstand before breaking, bending, popping, snapping, or whatever. The stronger the force you apply to your part, the higher the stress. But if you make your part bigger/thicker/bulkier, you lower the stress. So if you're designing a tire for a certain pressure and it keeps popping, it means the stress is too high. So you either make the tire walls thicker (reduce the stress), or you use a stronger material that can handle that stress level, and then the tire won't pop."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(mechanics\\)"
]
] |
||
62755n | as an overweight male, why it's better for me to gain muscle via weights to lose weight than to do just cardio & reducing calorie intake | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62755n/eli5_as_an_overweight_male_why_its_better_for_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfk7ea5",
"dfk7fys",
"dfk8q6x",
"dfk9zy0",
"dfk9zzs"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
6,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It isn't. You should do weights and cardio and reduce caloric intake. Better yet do some intermittent fasting, cut out all sugar, drop carbs to around 100-150 grams per day, and increase good fat intake. If you can restrict all consumption of anything but water to a 10 hour period every day you will be even more successful. \n\nIt's a synergistic effect. Larger muscles consume more energy which means less of your caloric intake gets stored as fat. ",
"because those muscles consume calories all the time, even when you sleep, so having more muscle mass is like having a furnace constantly burning away calories.",
"You should do them all.\n\nReducing caloric input is crucial to losing weight. However most people don't just want to lose weight but become more physically fit and healthy, which cardiovascular exercise helps with. This focuses on improving your ability to drive oxygen into your blood, carbon dioxide out of your blood, and circulate that blood to all of your body efficiently. Such exercise improves the supply side of your metabolism of calories.\n\nWhat building muscle does is increase the amount of tissue available to consume calories in volitional movement. It also is what most people think of when they imagine \"losing weight\" as if a muscled guy exists within every flabby guy. It isn't actually that way so building muscle is necessary, otherwise reduced caloric intake will turn a fat flabby guy into a thin flabby guy.\n\nThe order is this: Reduce caloric intake through adjustment to your diet. Cardio simply isn't going to burn enough energy to make up for poor eating habits so this change needs to happen first thing. Whatever change you make needs to be permanent so make it something you can cope with. No cutting out your favorite foods completely, just reduce what you eat now to a more reasonable total. Unless you have some dramatic nutrient deficiency you probably don't need to alter *what* you eat, just *how much of it* you consume.\n\nAlso at this stage you should work on cardio exercise. This will feel bad because your lungs and heart are lazy bastards and protest at being worked. However this is the stage where progress will make you start to feel much better and result in the most dramatic health benefits on a daily basis. Progress is made quickly though and weight loss benefits are marginal so after a couple weeks you will just be maintaining fitness levels, not gaining much.\n\nThe next step is to lift weights and build muscle because now you have the lungs and heart to support them. Don't start pounding protein shakes, you aren't some body builder who needs them. Normal protein intake for a western diet is plenty. High weight and low reps builds muscle while high reps and low weight refine the efficiency of that muscle. I suggest first trying to build muscle mass as this provides the best visual benefits and increases the baseline calories required to maintain, further increasing the impact of your reduced caloric intake. However building enough muscle to consume a candy bar through baseline metabolism is far, far more difficult than just not eating it.",
"tl;dr: Exercise is for health and fitness. Diet is for weight loss/gain. \n\nI think you're misguided. It is much, much harder to burn excess calories than to avoid them in the first place. If you want to lose weight, find out your [caloric needs](_URL_0_), then eat 500-1000 calories fewer than that. Also, be sure that you don't underestimate how many calories you're eating. In my experience, specific diets don't really matter; they're just different ways to \"trick\" you into eating less.\n\nAs far as exercise goes, some say that strength training is better for long-term weight loss. This is because muscle takes energy all day long to keep going, whereas cardio only burns energy during exercise. However, unless you're a professional bodybuilder, the effect is negligible. Even if you do burn calories during exercise, it isn't really worth taking into account.\n\nThat said, lifting weights and doing cardio a few times a week is still a good idea. If nothing else, it is easier to put on muscle if you're overweight because you have copious energy reserves. ",
"It isn't an either/or thing.\n\nStrength training will increase your muscle mass, which will increase your metabolism, causing you to burn more calories all the time. The other benefit is it makes it easier to move and be more active...some people get so out of shape they have to work to get fit enough just to exercise normally.\n\nBut strength training itself doesn't burn many calories, that's cardio does.\n\nLet's take a look at some completely made up numbers. If you weight 250 lbs., you are probably burning about 2500 calories a day just sitting still, which means if you eat that main, you at neither gaining or losing weight.\n\nIf you strength train, that might go up 5%, so now are burning 2625. If you do 30 minutes on the elliptical, that's about 500. And if you watch your diet, you could cut out another 500. So that is 1000 due to diet and exercise, vs. 125 from increases muscle mass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=caloric+need+calculator&*"
],
[]
] |
||
1rlnwj | when i charge a phone, unplug it, then turn the phone off, how is the energy being stored within the phone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rlnwj/eli5_when_i_charge_a_phone_unplug_it_then_turn/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdoh4xd",
"cdoh57o",
"cdoh7hd"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Chemically.\n\nWhen you charge your battery, the stuff inside it undergoes a chemical reaction. This reaction can be reversed, yielding a current from one pole of your battery to the other when you connect them by the electronic circuits in your phone when you switch your phone on.\n\nThere are several different chemical processes that can yield a difference in electrical potential across the poles of a battery (the difference in electrical potential causes a current to start flowing when you connect the poles with something that conducts electricity). Some of them are reversible. You car battery uses lead and acid, electronic appliances use a process involving Magnesium, Nickel and Hydrogen and there is an older process that uses Nickel and Cadmium. \n\nSome chemical processes only work one way, e.g. alkaline batteries can discharge but are not rechargeable.\n",
"In the form of chemical potential energy. The phone contains a battery which contains chemicals which can be put into a position where they can be made to react in such a way as to create electrical current. The most common form right now are lithium-ion batteries, where ions are stored in a graphite negative electrode and extracted into a positive electrode containing lithium. When charging the process is reversed.",
"Chemically! The exact chemistry depends on the battery within your phone. It gets beyond ELI5 pretty fast but you can imagine it like a water pump. When you're charging its moving water to a tank at the top of a hill. When its unplugged that water can run down the hill over a waterwheel and do work again. The only difference is that the energy is stored through chemical potential rather than gravitational."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3gs46l | how is tesla doing so well while losing $4,000 per car? is that loss misleading? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gs46l/eli5_how_is_tesla_doing_so_well_while_losing_4000/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu0y2il",
"cu0yp29",
"cu1zkpf"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"i would also like to know how they are selling cars, when they arent allowed to in most states because they arent a dealership, and apparently people cant buy cars straight from the wholesaler because then they have no recourse if its bad",
"They aren't losing $4,000 per car. They sell the cars above the marginal cost of making the car, so they do make a \"profit\" on each car. But they spend that \"profit\" (and money they borrow) on expanding their business, including designing the new models, machinery and space to build the new models, and expanding the SuperCharger network.",
"Tesla appears to be doing well in what it is trying to do, which is to create demand for electric vehicles. They have created a brand that people love and a car that people want. Although they are selling cars at a \"loss\", they are betting on developments that they are investing in.\n\nIf you look at the history of Tesla, they have expanded pretty rapidly in just a decade really. In the next few years they want to create a much more cost-effective model, expand their battery production to doubling current world-wide production, and eliminate all concerns people have with electric vehicles. \n\nWe tried to demonstrate that development in a [Watson Story](_URL_0_). Hopefully it helps you make more sense of Tesla. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://watson-ne.ws/#/f3840e2f118a25c34b4e49bbe51ffbb9"
]
] |
||
aupioy | if we can't get under 7nm with silicon why are intel/amd not building bigger dies with more transistor instead of always shrinking? | If a regular CPU consume 95W today in 14nm, why aren't they building HUGE cpu that consume 3-400 watts? all we would have to do is having a bigger PSU and more efficient cooling. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aupioy/eli5_if_we_cant_get_under_7nm_with_silicon_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh9n59h",
"eh9n6s2",
"eh9nb9p",
"eh9nnn2"
],
"score": [
3,
26,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Because heat is a never ending enemy, and you'd have to find a way to dissipate all that heat.\n\nPlus you only need a certain number of transistors to do each instruction. More transistors doesn't make your CPU faster. Smaller transistors do - because they generate less heat, meaning you can run them faster while keeping them cool enough.\n\nYour solution is only feasible in the sense of adding more cores - which doesn't make each one faster, but does allow more parallel computing - if the computations are paralellizeable.",
" > why aren't they building HUGE cpu that consume 3-400 watts? all we would have to do is having a bigger PSU and more efficient cooling.\n\nBecause it will generate a metric ton of heat. Like, a lot. Which means a big ol' heatsink and a noisy, high RPM fan. Your power user might use liquid cooling to make this more efficient (which would also mean using larger fans which mean lower RPMs for the same airflow which means more quiet) but this isn't practical for Joe Consumer or Joe Business User. Furthermore - did I mention it will generate a ton of heat? \n\nUsing a processor that was 125W stock and close to 200W overclocked in a ~10-14' bedroom that would normally be 68 degrees in winter, in a few hours it would heat the room up to about 78 degrees and I'd have to open my window in the dead of winter. Now try generating 2-3 times as much heat. Oof. \n\nAlso, energy isn't free. An extra 305 watts for 8 hours a day is 890.6kWh in a year. The average price americans pay per kWh is 12 cents, which means you're spending an extra $106.87 a year on energy.\n\nFinally.... Why NOT continue to reduce die size until we've hit practical limits? More efficient means you can get the same performance for less heat/power... Which means you can get even MORE performance if you overclock it a bit.",
"We're about at the limit for electricity traveling between two sides of the die in one clock cycle already. You can get around that by adding more independent cores, and localizing resources so electricity never has to go too far, but I think a few things would need redesigned for that.\n\nAdditionally, the current chip fabrication process has effectively randomly distributed flaws throughout the die. The larger the die, the higher chance of a ruining flaw to be present making the chip useless. This, however, is changing with something called \"chiplets\" where chips are made of individual parts \"glued\" together.",
"First, we can indeed get below 7nm. There are plans for 5nm and even 2nm in the future.\n\nThe real reason they don't want to produce larger CPUs is due to cost. The cost of manufacturing a single silicon wafer is pretty much fixed. The more CPU dies that they can get out of each wafer means that each CPU is cheaper."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3e4rzi | why do conservative supporters always say "the problem with socialism is you eventually run put of other people's money." when socialism is brought up | Especially when evidence shows that socialism works in various European countries
Run out* | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e4rzi/eli5_why_do_conservative_supporters_always_say/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctbhuji",
"ctbi9w8",
"ctbicpy",
"ctbk3f7",
"ctbk46l",
"ctbm7z3"
],
"score": [
8,
9,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Exactly which European countries does socialism work in? It's a matter of degree. No EU country is as socialist as Marx would have designed. Some countries have high taxes to provide high levels of service to small populations. None of those countries has open imigration. None of those countries have scaled socialism to the size of the US economy. For a small enough place, many things are possible that don't scale.",
"It's an easy statement to dismiss something without actually having to bring up any arguments.\n\nAn equivalent inverse statement would be : \"The problem with Capitalism is that eventually one person owns everything.\"",
"In many cases, it seems like these people don't pay any attention to anything happening outside their own country. The whole healthcare reform thing was a perfect example of this. You had people getting hysterical about \"government death panels\", without taking a second to look around and see if this was, you know, something that *actually happened anywhere* in places with different health insurance models. ",
"one element of it is a moral attack, because people advocating socialiims are often demanding the transfre of property from others to themselves.\n\nIt is prodding the common tendency of socialists to not adequately explain how they are paying for what htey want(or more likely, forcing someon else to pay for)",
"That was actually a Margaret Thatcher quote, saying that socialist governments generally nationalize industries one by one until there's nothing left. \n\nso why do people use it? Because it's a nice quote from a famous person and people like to use these. ",
"It's just a hackneyed cliché, and makes no sense if you think about it. Why would you run out of money? People have to pay tax. Why is it \"other people's\" money? It's our *shared* money. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
510xup | how to mathematicians make a living? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/510xup/eli5_how_to_mathematicians_make_a_living/ | {
"a_id": [
"d78fw5i",
"d78ggyi"
],
"score": [
5,
19
],
"text": [
"Most mathematics research is done by professors or graduate students at universities.\n\nProfessors get paid a salary in exchange for doing teaching and research. Solving famous mathematics problems gives their university prestige and attracts the best graduate students.\n\nGraduate students in mathematics, science, and engineering get paid a stipend, too. A typical stipend at a U.S. university might be $30,000/year - not a lot, but plenty to live on. Graduate students aren't suppose to take any jobs other than teaching, they're supposed to spend all of their time on research.\n\nThere are also private research labs, and researchers who work for big companies like IBM and Google. For the most part, those researchers tend to work on more practical problems that have real-world applications, not things like the Millennium problems that are interesting and potentially useful someday, but have no immediate practical application.\n",
"Mochizuki's proof/entire new theory is not the norm, at all. \n\nMathematicians (by which I will mean pure mathematicians - those who research mathematics itself), by and large, are paid to do research by either private companies or government funding. Governments have budgets for scientific and mathematical research for the advances they make which may benefit society in the long run - paying for this research is justified by thinking of long-term gains. Most finding I am aware of comes from the budget of the research councils. In the UK, mathematicians would apply to the EPSRC. Private companies on the other hand, have typically more focused views, yet happily pay for wider research. For instance, the NSA and GCHQ facilitate research into number theory, since it's vital for cryptography. \n\n\n\nNow what about Mochizuki? Well, he's a special case indeed. Mathematicians are generally very smart people, but there are some whose insight and creativity are simply outstanding. Mochizuki is one of those people. He's come up with a completely new approach with which he believes he has solved the ABC conjecture. He published this work in a series of 4 papers in 2012, and it's been reviewed by many mathematicians (in particular, my algebraic geometry lecturer! Who, by the way, believes Mochizuki's theory is indeed correct). I'm not sure when exactly \"they'll\" (the mathematical community) will accept it as true, since there already are a few mathematicians who've read and checked the hell out of it and haven't found any flaws and think it's fine... but anyway, these people who are doing the checking have their own research going, in more productive areas (i.e., more is getting published), which in turn makes you a better candidate to receive funding (hence the saying, \"publish or perish\").\n\nContrast this to Andrew Wiles, the guy who proved Fermat's Last Theorem back in 1994/5. He was a professional mathematician, but his work on FLT he did at home, by himself. Strictly speaking, that work wasn't \"his job\", but more his burning desire after seeing a vague method of approach he believed he could complete (which he did, but it took him 7 years!!). So as you might've thought, nobody paid him to sit around and try to solve some really really hard and old problem. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
29xla9 | what determines if someone is "hot-blooded" who loves the cold or "cold-blooded"who loves the heat? | If there is such a thing (which I believe there is), what determines this? My whole family is "hot - blooded"where we love the cold and despise the heat. While some of my friends are the exact opposite. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29xla9/eli5_what_determines_if_someone_is_hotblooded_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"cipioi3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It has to do with our ability to adapt. I currently live in Oklahoma and every year we go through the summers with unbearable heat and then winter rolls around and it's ridiculously cold. But by the time the seasons begin to change from one extreme to the other we have adapted and have to re-adapt. Some people are more inclined to adapt to temperatures better than others, and I think that does have something to do with genetics of the people in certain areas."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3gwriz | the missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't. | [For reference](_URL_0_). I saw this again today for the first time in several years, and if I understand correctly, it's not a gag. So: ELI5? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gwriz/eli5_the_missile_knows_where_it_is_because_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu26556",
"cu26de3",
"cu27v60",
"cu2dk03"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The principle of inertial navigation is to track relative motion and accumulate (or integrate) towards a goal value (the target). The video is the sort of explanation we try to avoid in ELI5, it's literally treating you like you are 5, and it comes across as pretty condescending. It's not a gag, just inept.",
"Its a very confusing way of saying \"if you know where you're going (where it isn't), and how to get there (the difference or deviation), you can figure out where you are\".\n\n\"The variation\" just means the missile got lost for a little bit, but it can fix that.",
"This is what happens when you let your geekiest programmer write the script. You get words that are technically correct, but don't mean anything to people who don't already understand them.\n\nWhat they're trying (failing) to describe is a system that notices when the missile deviates from its intended path, and then makes corrections until the deviation reaches zero.",
"Its an odd way of describing a PID controller. Basically the PID controller will use math to smoothly bring an input (where the missile thinks it is) towards another signal (where the missile wants to go). The size of the difference can be thought of as the missile knowing where it isn't (it is 'this' far away from where it wants to be).\n\nThe strange wording for the video is trying to convey that the values can be positive or negative (think left v right, or up v down)."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6qyhcn | how exactly does a us president "push legislation through congress?" | I always hear people say things like "Johnson was able to push the Medicare program through Congress," but what exactly does that mean? Is it just a matter of the President verbally pressuring representatives, or are there certain concessions that are made? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qyhcn/eli5_how_exactly_does_a_us_president_push/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl0xf5q",
"dl0y106",
"dl0y6ev"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Both. They can tell members of Congress that future favors are coming if they agree, and that if they don't agree the President will not support their own pet ideas.",
"The president has a lot of soft power, power that's not explicitly stated anywhere but that still exists. So for example, the president is the de facto leader of their political party and can do things like instruct the party not to support the candidate's reelection. He or she can also do some favor trading, such as offering his or her voice of support for a senator's pet project or promise not to veto some other bill that a senator from another party might be trying to pass. And he can also petition Congress directly by insisting that some legislation is good for the US people. This used to be a lot more effective 50 years ago or so, when the two parties were measurably less polarized. It can still sometimes be effective today, since the President can appeal directly to the people through the media.\n\nNowadays the bargaining version is a lot more common.",
"A few different methods. Some, like Johnson, were in the legislation and can apply personal or political pressure on representatives. They might also get people who work for them to help congress draft legislation that would satisfy various groups of people and had a higher chance of passing.\n\nThe president also is the de facto leader and very visible face of a political party. They get a lot of media attention, and can make a certain topic get a lot of coverage by giving speeches, having allies talk about it in the media, or (in the modern era) talking about it online. This puts public pressure on people in congress to do something about that topic.\n\nFor example (leaving aside whether or not you think it's a good or a bad thing!) Donald Trump spoke quite a bit about how terrible \"Obamacare\" was, and how congress should pass legislation to repeal or change it. Every time he would tweet about it, or speak at a rally, more people heard that message. People who like or agree with him as a politician are now likely to put pressure on their congresspeople to vote on something that fulfills that. In Trump's case, he arguably didn't do as much to push the legislation as other presidents have done--and he also isn't particularly popular relative to other presidents, both of which may have contributed to the health care bill failing.\n\nAnother thing presidents have, and their only constitutional power in this matter, is the power to veto a bill that has been passed. This doesn't tend to happen, but the president could state that he or she won't sign any other legislation until they vote on whatever legislation they are trying to push through. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
68anu4 | why can't we fly a plane as high as it can go and launch a rocket off the back of it, using less fuel and weight, plus using the momentum it already has with the plane? kinda like a giant missile to space. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68anu4/eli5_why_cant_we_fly_a_plane_as_high_as_it_can_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgwz0hi",
"dgwz13n",
"dgwzib4",
"dgx073j",
"dgx15w5",
"dgx17z0",
"dgx9jop",
"dgxbuxs",
"dgxc087",
"dgxc43l",
"dgxdlt3"
],
"score": [
8,
18,
3,
45,
2,
124,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You would still need so much fuel and such large rockets that there are no planes even close to big enough to do what you are suggesting. It would take a truly massive plane to make this work.",
"Because the plane adds almost nothing to the momentum of the rocket, and because the planes we have are too small to give a significant payload to the rocket once you factor in the need to load it up with close to the same amount of fuel as you would in a normal launch.\n\nThe hard part isn't getting to orbit, but getting a high enough speed to maintain that orbit. For example, the Space Shuttle had to hit 17,500 mph relative to Earth's surface; putting it on top of a plane would have only accounted for the first few 500 mph or so, and would have severely compromised the payload.\n\nGranted, you can try to get the plane moving faster, as what you're talking about has *some* merit, but the US hasn't tried anything like what you're suggesting since the [MD-21 incident](_URL_0_).",
"A transport plane might get to roughly 500 mph with a rocket strapped onto it. The velocity needed to exit Earth's orbit is around 17500 mph. That's less than 3% of what it would need. You'd also have to make the plane really powerful and the rocket very small and light-weight to even be able to lift it off the ground.",
"It is called Pegasus and run by Orbital ATK\n\nThey have been doing it for awhile\n_URL_1_\n\nHere is a recent launch\n_URL_0_",
"You actually just described Spaceship One - _URL_0_",
"We can but it is not terribly practical.\n\nIn very rough terms lowest possible orbital speed is about 25,000 km/hr. A rocket achieves that by throwing mass out the back and letting conservation of momentum do its thing. The difference between a rocket and an (airbreathing) jet engine is that all the propellant mass has to be aboard at the beginning of the flight to accelerate not just the payload but, at earlier stages of the flight, all the rest of the propellant too resulting in the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. As a result, the F9 requires about 500,000 kg of fuel to raise 20,000 kg to LEO. \n\nAn extremely fast aircraft (SR-71) might achieve 4000 km/hr with a few hundred kg of payload and mid-air refueling. A B-2 goes about 1000 km/hr with about 18,000kg payload (again with mid-air refueling).\n\nNow if you look at the numbers above you can see that, from a speed perspective, a jet aircraft is roughly stationary compared to an orbiting spacecraft. You can also see that a rocket small enough to be carried by a B-2 would only be able to lift a few hundred kg to orbit and that it doesn't make much difference (at least in terms of momentum) whether you launch that rocket from the surface, from a balloon or from a jet aircraft.",
"The most energy is used to get the necessary sideway speed for the satellite. \nWhen you launch an Object near the equator it'll already have around 1650km/h of sideway movement (40000km/24hr). \nmuch more than you could add with a plane and still only a fraction of the needes speed",
"You could push your car by hand to get it rolling, then use the motor.\n\nAnd, you could push a booster by using an airplane, then use the rocket motor.\n\nIt's about the same thing.",
"That's what we (Firefly Space Systems) were trying to do. The advantages of an air launch means there is a lot lower max Q during the launch so a lot less stress of the vehicle, the ability to launch anywhere and not be tied to a launch pad, and faster turn around between launches. The downside to launching any sizable vehicle is weight. Do you plan on launching something small like a Pegasus (do-able) or a Falcon 9 (impossible) from a plane? Our rocket was designed completely with carbon fiber to reduce weight, and even with that, we needed the largest plane to ever be build in order to do that (Stratolaunch). ",
"Why not just replace the plane with a rocket? And you've just invented the multi-stage rocket.",
"The answer is, we totally can, and have! But... it's only a good idea in a very few situations. \n\nThere are two reasons why air launch is even worth thinking about. First, it's an easily reusable first stage. No worries about parachutes bringing down parts of your rocket into the ocean (Like the space shuttle boosters), or the extra complexity of having your first stage land (Like the falcon 9, which wasn't reusable until very recently).\nAnd second, aircraft use air breathing engines, which have a higher isp (efficiency per weight) than rocket engines. Which theoretically means less fuel required for launch.\n\nNow for the downsides: as other people have said, the biggest part of getting to orbit is the velocity you need, not the altitude. In fact, the studies I've seen points to a \"best case\" air launch at 40-50 thousand feet altitude, 30° upwards, and as fast as possible. Going higher doesn't add any benefit, going faster does. Now you're talking about dropping a rocket off of an aircraft at speeds above mach one, which is not an easy feat.\n\nSecond, you're limited on payload size. An aircraft that could replace the first stage of a falcon 9 would be so absolutely massive it's no longer practical (which is what Elon Musk was referring to when he said air launch wasn't worth pursuing) \n\nEven then, unless your payload is small enough that an existing airframe can do the lifting, you're now designing a rocket AND and aircraft. Are the performance gains worth twice as much work? And using existing airplanes isn't an easy cookie cutter solution. Even bomber aircraft can't hang all of their possible payload from one location, and their strongest mounting points are on the fuselage: the part that's closest to the ground during takeoff. It just makes it hard to physically squeeze a vehicle on.\n\nIt's possible, but there are a lot of weird little things to figure out, and it has discouraged most of the people looking into designing a launch vehicle system. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMyC2urCl_4"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bla3RsVia9A",
"http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/feature-stories/Pegasus-25th/default.aspx"
],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne?wprov=sfla1"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
63kv0c | why have 'google' and 'photoshop' become verbs, but 'amazon' or 'wikipedia' haven't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63kv0c/eli5_why_have_google_and_photoshop_become_verbs/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfuvqfj",
"dfuw8lo",
"dfuwkrt"
],
"score": [
27,
2,
26
],
"text": [
"Not sure the reasoning, but I've definitely heard/used \"wiki\" as a verb. \"I'm gonna wiki that to see if it's true\"",
"Necessity of a symbol. Language folows the need to express ideas efficiently. If there is an idea that doesn't have easy expression, people will make new word for it. There was no verb that described \"searching on the internet\". So googling took that spot and became shorthand word for \"searching on the internet\". earching on the internet is significantly different than searching in real life so the new word is justifiable. Similar with Photoshop but there already is a word for buying stuff and buying stuff on the internet isn't different enough to justify making amazoning into a word.",
"Both google and photoshop created entire new categories of behavior that needed verbalizing. Amazon is a store and wikipedia is an encyclopedia."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b7fxlc | why do criticality accidents never result in a nuclear explosion? | Accidents like the Tokimura nuclear accident make sense because the fissile materials are in an aqueous solution, and the solution boils off when too much heat is introduced, creating void space and preventing it from remaining at supercriticality.
But the demon core was a plutonium core meant to be in an atomic bomb? There's nowhere for void space or neutron absorption, it was a solid core of plutonium (as far as I know). How did that not sustain supercriticality long enough to cause a nuclear explosion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b7fxlc/eli5_why_do_criticality_accidents_never_result_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejre2f5",
"ejrg3oy",
"ejrgp0d",
"ejss8sw"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Nuclear reactors keep the fuel too spread out, with too much neutron-absorbing material in between, to become an atomic bomb.",
"The criticality accidents with the Demon Core only pushed the core slightly into the super critical region. If left in that state it would have emitted tons of radiation and gotten really hot until it all melted and spewed apart.\n\nThe Demon core was basically identical to the core of [Fat Man](_URL_0_), both were 6.2 kg plutonium spheres, so why didn't the Demon Core go KABOOM like Fat Man? Because the core wasn't squeezed. While both cores reached the supercritical state, the core in Fat Man was squeezed by explosives which pushed it deep into the super critical region causing its chain reaction to propagate much much faster than the Demon Core's until it blew itself apart a few milliseconds later.\n\nGoing supercritical just means that a hunk of radioactive material is releasing more and more power over time. That could mean that the power output has increased from 2 W/kg to 3 W/kg in a second or that it has increased from 2 W/kg to 1x10^15 W/kg in 100 milliseconds, both would be deemed \"supercritical\" but only the second one vaporizes buildings",
"When nuclear material, such as the Demon Core, go supercritical, they generate a LOT of heat, which causes them to expand. The expansion is enough to end the supercritical state. \n\nTo achieve an explosion, the supercritical state has to be maintained as long as possible to permit a runaway reaction. This is not possible with mechanical means. The bomb core is compressed using the shockwave from a conventional explosion. This all happens in milliseconds, but that's long enough for the sustained runaway reaction to generate ungodly amounts of heat and radiation. ",
"It needs to go prompt supercritical with enough reactivity to result in an explosion. \n\nThe demon core needed a specific firing mechanism to raise reactivity fast enough and high enough. The reflector in the experiment merely made it delayed critical, the same as a power reactor startup. It was not designed to generate enough reactivity to go prompt critical under those conditions. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4thoih | what sense is most 'awake' when asleep? | I find that light wakes me up the most, but some people say they wake up to sounds/touch much faster. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4thoih/eli5_what_sense_is_most_awake_when_asleep/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5hgu4f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"with sound, I think it depends on if you have background noise on. Like I used to sleep with a radio on growing up, wasn't very loud but because of that, I wouldn't really wake up to other outside noises. Now I sleep with nothing on and I feel like I can wake up easier if a noise occurs"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3m4feh | how the time scale of minutes, hours, 12 hour half days, and 24 hours in a day were chosen. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m4feh/eli5how_the_time_scale_of_minutes_hours_12_hour/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvbw7hy",
"cvbxhe3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Our system of time is based on 12. 12 can be divided by 2,3,4,6, and 60 can be divided by 2,3,4,5,6,10,12, ect. For normal every day use its extremely useful to be able to break time into those segments, and there are lots of even cuts that can be made.\n\nThere are other systems, however. Submarines use 18 hour days (6 sub hours is 8 normal hours), but I'm not sure why.",
"Notice they are all base 6? Just like 360 degrees in a circle. This is because the first ones to write about it (Sumerians) had base six number system. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal"
]
] |
||
327k7f | what's the difference between simulator and emulator? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/327k7f/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_simulator_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq8n0o5",
"cq8q39s",
"cq8ytha"
],
"score": [
37,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A simulation is a system that behaves similar to something else, but is implemented in an entirely different way. It provides the basic behavior of a system but may not necessarily abide by all of the rules of the system being simulated. It is there to give you an idea about how something works.\n\nThink of a flight simulator as an example. It looks and feels like you are flying an airplane, but you are completely disconnected from the reality of flying the plane, and you can bend or break those rules as you see fit. E.g.; Fly an Airbus A380 upside down between London and Sydney without breaking it.\n\nAn emulation is a system that behaves exactly like something else, and abides by all of the rules of the system being emulated. It is effectively a complete replication of another system, right down to being binary compatible with the emulated system's inputs and outputs, but operating in a different environment to the environment of the original emulated system. The rules are fixed, and cannot be changed or the system fails.\n\nCredit: _URL_0_\n\n",
"A simulator makes the user feel like they're in a specific environment.\nAn emulator makes the game work like its in a specific environment.",
"As others have said, but simplified, \n\nSimulators simulate real world things. Example. I can have a driving simulator, rain fall simulator, etc. \n\nEmulators are things that pretend to be other things to get something to work. Example. I have a Pokemon game for my gameboy. I download an emulator on my phone, and can run the game file because my phones pretending to be a gameboy. (A simulation example of this would be I ran a simulation to see my chances of beating this Pokemon \"--\")"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/134746/whats-the-difference-between-simulation-and-emulation"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3xhedc | why do people say an atheist can't be a republican? | I'm a republican on most political issues, I lean to the right on almost everything. Except that I lean to the left on things like gay rights, religion, and social issues. When I tell people that I am an atheist and identify as a republican they tell me that I can't be both. Am I just using the wrong terminology? Should I say I'm a right leaning democrat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xhedc/eli5_why_do_people_say_an_atheist_cant_be_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy4m8mf",
"cy4mbwx",
"cy4mgs0",
"cy4ncyh",
"cy4nv7n",
"cy56d9n"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
3,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I like to call that a 'sensible republican'... \n\nMy girlfriend is like that... fiscally conservative and socially liberal.",
"They are incorrect, either as a joke or just being fairly misinformed.\n\nCurrently strong evangelical christians make up a very vocal part of the republican party. Also, republican talking heads will frequently bring up things like \"the war on christmas\" to get ratings. However, it is just ognorant to presume all christians are republican or all republicans are christians.\n\n\n\n",
"Virtually every republican candidate at the moment has used rhetoric which heavily favors Christian religions, going so far as to imply that they're basing their decision on religious values.\n\nYou may want free market capitalism but consider yourself a \"liberal\" on some issues--which is to say, you're probably a brogressive or lifestylist--but the Republican candidates at the moment are all heavily *not* \"left-leaning\" on a lot of issues, and given that they also seem to hold God as an actual, viable authority for governmental decision making, it's just *really really* strange that you're an atheist and somewhat socially progressive and still supporting the current Republican party.\n\nIt's probably meant as a joke, and I've never heard anyone say that, but it is really rather odd.",
"There are more than two political parties. If you identify with Republicans on fiscal issues and Democrats on social issues, then you more than likely are some type of Libertarian (or even independent).\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEdit: a word",
"I think that you have further misunderstandings. While there are likely more atheists on the left, Dem politicians have to pay the same sorry lip service to Yahweh that Repubs do. On the right, there is just more nonsense about other religions, Christmas, and abortion.",
"Polarization.\n\nOnce someone affiliates themselves with a party, we see this trend where they have a negative opinion of the other party. None of it has to be based in truth (much of it is not) but this division between people is reffered to as polarization.\n\nIf you are a polarized individial often instead of considering any argument presented, you are convinced the opinion is wrong. So, these people that are polarized democrats associate atheism with democrats and therefore it *cannot* be within the realm of the opposit party.\n\nWhich is alot like saying, Democrats love Cheerios, so obviously republicans can't also like Cheerios.\n\nTLDR: stupid people assume that a political division can easily sum up views when a political affiliation is much more akin to likeing a sports team. I can't assume that because you are a packers fan you love cheese ^but ^if ^you ^dont ^like ^^cheese ^^you ^^have ^^no ^^^soul. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://reason.com/poll/2014/07/10/53-of-millennials-would-vote-for-a-socia"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
yb635 | how do i choose a credit card? | Every advertisement I'm sent always make their information sound great, but I have no idea how to read the fine print, nor do I really know what they're bragging about.
How can I tell what's a good deal?
What do all the terms mean?
What are average numbers for those terms?
What benefits would I have from getting a credit card or not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yb635/eli5_how_do_i_choose_a_credit_card/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5u1lae"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It depends - the credit card issuers put different features on different cards so that they'll appeal to different people.\n\n - Some credit cards are low fee. Get one of these if you want to be frugal.\n\n - Some cards are low interest. Get one of these if you have lots of high interest debt that you want to consolidate and pay down.\n\n - Some cards have fancy rewards. Get one of these if you can use the rewards, or if you like trying to game the system.\n\n - Some are an unusual colour or design to indicate that you have lots of money, so you can impress your friends.\n\nBecause of these factors, it's not possible to objectively compare all credit cards and identify the \"best\" one. You need to figure out for yourself what is important to you and whether you want any specific features. If you're not sure, I'd suggest sticking to a low fee, low frills card for now.\n\nIn addition to the features above, having a credit card can help you build up a credit history, it can help with monthly budgeting, and you can avoid carrying cash."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1ethv8 | if the majority of the world's human and plant population was wiped out suddenly, how would the survivors access the seed banks? | In particular, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. It seems to be under a lot of physical protection that an average person would not be able to get through. How would the survivors get access to the important seeds in order to restore essential plant life? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ethv8/eli5_if_the_majority_of_the_worlds_human_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca3n11s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"You're assuming that the staff that tend to the seed bank are also wiped out suddenly, and the seed bank survive intact.\n\nI'd find it hard to imagine a scenario where that would be true.. I'd imagine that it's manned 24/7.. If the seed bank survives, the staff manning it will be ok too...\n\nNot to mention the Norwegian Government forseeing impending doom (e.g. we could have a few days forcast of a meteor strike that wold severly affect the worlds population), so they stick a few more experts in the safe zone to help the world get back up on its feet...\n\nI really wouldn't worry about this sort of thing!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4o1isu | why is our writing voice often so different from our way of speaking? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o1isu/eli5why_is_our_writing_voice_often_so_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"d48qkor",
"d48qwf4",
"d48tpdd"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Basically, it's much easier to go over your writing and make changes until you like the way it sounds than it is just think about your words and get them all out in one try.",
"Your observation is not true for everyone. I'm a writer, professionally and temperamentally, and one of the best pieces of advice I've ever read/heard for those in the profession is to write like you speak. It's stayed with me over the years.",
"You rely a lot more on understood meanings/contexts and gestures and tend to be more repetitive when you speak for one. When you write, you have to clarify the context because you don't know who will be reading your writing or where they will do it. Similarly, you can't use gestures for obvious reasons so your words have to make the meaning clear all on their own. And you don't repeat as much since the reader can always re-read.\n\nDepositions show this pretty well. In a deposition, a court reporter types down exactly what everyone says. It's really weird to read one and see how you talk written down exactly. Part of the weirdness comes from the fact that one person is interrogating another, but general speech patterns vs. writing patterns show through too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2sfk0e | how come my vitamin c tablets have 1250% of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin c? | Seems like overkill... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sfk0e/eli5_how_come_my_vitamin_c_tablets_have_1250_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnoz2h4",
"cnoz3gh",
"cnozril",
"cnp00yc",
"cnp17xw",
"cnp4l2g",
"cnp5r6z"
],
"score": [
5,
25,
3,
4,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Some people require more vitamin C than others because the have a condition or was previously deprived of it. \n\nNote: if you're taking those tablets for a flu or a cold, unless you're deprived of vit. C or have some sort of condition, extra vitamin C doesnt work. It gets flushed out of your system since it isn't needed.",
"A couple reasons. First, a lot is wasted and isn't actually utilized in the body. Acids or other microbes can use it up too, so you don't get the full about found in a pill. They overload your body with it so your body gets 100% (or at least close) of the vitamins suggested daily.\n\nSecond, your body can't utilize so much if it doesn't need it. So again they overload your system, so as the vitamins pass in your intestines and uses up those vitamins normally, there's an excess to refill what your body uses throughout the day.",
"Government recommendations around the world for daily Vitamin C intake range between 40-100 milligrams per day.\nThat is just the minimum of what is needed essentially so you don't suffer ill effects such as scurvy. However many supplement advocates suggest much higher doses have beneficial health effects, so if it has 1000 mg than obviously its gonna be a huge percentage higher than the official RDA/RDI.\n\n",
"Notwithstanding rare medical conditions that require high vitamin doses, it's because consumers generally have a very weak understanding of biology/nutrition and end up taking a simplistic \"if some is good, MOAR IS BETTER!\" view. Vitamin companies know this, and are happy to take advantage.",
"Vitamin C is incredibly water soluble and completely harmless in anything less than absurd (like 50-100+ grams) amounts, so any marginal health benefits from taking 10x+ the recommended daily value grams a day (especially when sick) are totally worth the risk. also that recommended daily value is pretty close to a minimum just to prevent scurvey, with vitamin C more is always better",
"What everyone is saying is true, there is also no regulation on vitamins. So companies that are making and selling them have no real rules to follow. Unless a doctor has told you that you are lacking a certain type of vitamin or mineral, it can actually be bad for you to take daily vitamins.",
"Jack and Bob don't know much about Vitamins other than that they're good for you. If some Vitamin is good for you, says Jack, then more must be better! Jack turns his nose up at Bob's vitamin which only has 100% of a day's supply.\n\nJack buys the product that he thinks is better, even though it has no more benefit than Bob's product. \n\nTL; DR consumers think it'll get them a benefit, so there is incentive for the company to target these consumers. There is not a benefit for most people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
92ajgz | why a lot of email scams actually look like scams? i have noticed many of the junk mails i receive, utilize random capital letters, bold writing, excessive exclamation marks and poor grammar. what do they hope to achieve from this any why do they not put more effort into their scam advertising? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92ajgz/eli5_why_a_lot_of_email_scams_actually_look_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"e349xa9",
"e34aixv"
],
"score": [
44,
17
],
"text": [
"Scammers will commonly use poor grammar, awkward phrasing and spelling on purpose as a sort of filter. Anyone responding to those emails must not be aware of the scam and or must not be smart enough to realize it is before it’s too late. It’s a fishing method that gets all the VERRY susceptible people.",
"Most scam mails involve some kind of interaction with the victim before any real money is exchanged. So you have to keep in mind that the scammers themselves are also making a time investment.\n\nSuppose you are a scammer and you craft a really good and legit looking opening email. You receive 10000 replies from people who think it's real. But almost no one just instantly transfers large amounts of cash to some random guy based on one email, so now you have to respond to 10000 mails with your fake credentials, more details on how they have to pay, etc. \n\nThen you suggest some of those really shady bank transfers, or something weird like paying by using \"STEAM cards\" (yes, that's a thing) because you can't use legitimate methods for the transfer, or else it could be used to track you, or maybe undo the transfer, etc. Or they could be asking friends or even lawyers for advice, who then tell them it's probably a scam. So before they end up paying, most rational people will realize it's a scam, and you wrote all those 10000 reply mails for nothing.\n\nBut now suppose you make a reaaaaally bad first mail. The kind of thing where almost anyone will laugh it off and go on about their day. Maybe this time, you only get 10 replies, but those 10 replies are orders of magnitude more likely to actually go through with the exchange, because if they hadn't noticed how bad the first email was, then they are also a lot less likely to notice other inconsistencies. So now you can devote your time to those 10 replies instead of having to manage 10000 contacts with people of which 99.99% won't send you their money anyway."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1z3ofw | why can i roll my eyes toward the top of my head but not the bottom? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z3ofw/eli5_why_can_i_roll_my_eyes_toward_the_top_of_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfq7var",
"cfq8x12"
],
"score": [
2,
16
],
"text": [
"I can't understand the question fully, care to elaborate OP?",
"Your optical nerve attaches to the back of your eyeball at an upward angle just below your eyes midpoint. As you look down, it causes more tension as it tries to straiten the optical nerve, as opposed to when you look up, the tension is released on the nerve by laying it flat against the bottom of your eye socket. \n\nThink of it like when you stretch a rope at an angle (like a slide), with a high point and a low point. Now take the high point and try to raise it whilst keeping the same point on a horizontal axis (looking down). You cant. Because the rope will want to try to reduce its angle on a vertical axis. Now take the rope's high point and lower it, whilst keeping the same point on a horizontal axis (looking up). Its much easier. Because as the high point lowers, it gives the rope more slack, just like the optical nerve when you look up. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9zng8p | how is it physically possible, across all species, for hummingbirds to flap their wings anywhere from 10-30 or in the extreme up to 70-80 times "per second", or is that unit misinterpreted? | I can't seem to find a specific answer for this in regards to *how*. It just seems so odd. My lack of understanding is taking this unit as basically saying time is slowed down for Hummingbirds. I cannot wrap my head around how this makes any sense. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zng8p/eli5_how_is_it_physically_possible_across_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaaktou",
"eaalkgf",
"eaax2ly",
"eab1boq"
],
"score": [
28,
18,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Hummingbirds have tiny little wings and relatively strong muscles to move those tiny little wings.",
"The balance between weight and power. Dragonflies and other insects also flap their wings incredibly fast. It's only possible with relatively small surfaces and a very specific shape/function of the wing.\n\nSo speaking of physics, it's not that special. The biology is much more interesting, in the crazy amount of energy they need. More info here: _URL_0_\n\nThree relevant ones:\n\n* They're the smallest bird.\n* They eat a lot\n* They go into torpor (an almost coma-like state)",
"The vast majority of people (barring some sort of pathology) don't have to think about all the tiny muscle movements that keep you upright while standing, walking, and running, I imagine a hummingbird isn't consciously flapping its wings like that either, it just knows it wants to fly to that flower and autonomic motor control takes care of the rest.",
"A human blink lasts about a tenth of a second. So, 10 a second. When your eyes jump around a page with a saccade, that can be as brief as 20ms. You probably couldn’t achieve a stretch of 50 of those in a second, but that’s the sort of speed we’re talking about. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.adirondackcouncil.org/page/blog-139/news/10-facts-about-hummingbirds--and-other-interesting-tidbits-1101.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
6o2f0h | why/how did venezuela develop a coin shortage a few years ago? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6o2f0h/eli5_whyhow_did_venezuela_develop_a_coin_shortage/ | {
"a_id": [
"dke9fea"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"At one point the value of the metal in the coins was worth more than the coins themselves due to inflation. When this happened any coins people had were melted down and paper money had to be used."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
65q3qi | how close can we get a bomb to be as strong as a nuclear bomb without having it being nuclear? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65q3qi/eli5_how_close_can_we_get_a_bomb_to_be_as_strong/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgca6n3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's an upper limit on the energy density of explosives, particularly on a mass basis. An airplane has to be able to lift, carry, and drop the thing.\n\nFor comparison, the Little Boy bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima in WW2 was well over 1000 times more powerful than the MOAB the US dropped in Afghanistan, while also being about half the weight (and at a time where nuclear weapons were very inefficient)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8iojov | why are there no underwater cities? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8iojov/eli5_why_are_there_no_underwater_cities/ | {
"a_id": [
"dytbnic",
"dytbs0l",
"dytbs9r",
"dytbvp2",
"dytdf0e",
"dythlmv",
"dyti55b",
"dytlq26",
"dytyr91"
],
"score": [
35,
14,
6,
5,
7,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it would be ridiculously expensive to build a city underwater... also it would be just nonsense. Why build a city where you need tunnels to get from A to B, it would be a nightmare on the topic of air circulation, some parts would need to be ankered to the ground to not float off Tides and algae would become an issue... its simply 10000x easier to build a city on land and until now we didnt need the extra room that would verify an underwater city",
"Almost all of the land surface is still available. Underwater construction presents a huge number of expensive and complex safety and logistical issues that are prohibitive when there's so much cheap land around.\n\nWhat happens when you break a window?",
"It would be massively cost prohibitive. It's hard and expensive enough to build stuff that is habitable and safe above water.\n\nHaving to make everything water tight, developing a system for pulling in air from the outside, or recycling the air would be complicated and costly.\n\nTransporting food and other goods underwater would also be more complicated.\n\nThere have definitely been some single structures that have been built to be underwater, but scaling it to a city is fraught with difficulty.",
"The cost and difficulty to build structure under water that survive the water pressure and can contain a atmosphere for humans to live in make it to expensive to build. \n\nYou will also have the limitation that you can leave the building as you are under water so you would have to be indoor all the time. There has to be be strict maintained as a failure is catastrophic.\n\nThere is no good reason to build a city underwater. We have enough unused areas on the land to build cities on. If we have limited area building sky scrapers are many time cheaper then a under water. Building a city down in the ground by digging out caves are a better alternative then under water.",
"Because ships might hit the skyscrapers (or landscrapers, as they would be called), and sink ",
"At the end of the day, most things get done because they provide a benefit without costing too much. Underwater cities would require a lot of work, a lot of engineering, and a lot of time and energy, and it wouldn't be any more beneficial than just making the city on land.\n\nThe only chance of seeing an underground city is if it was next to something so insanely valuable in the water that it was worth it to build a mining colony, and we haven't found anything like that.",
"Why would there be? There's no compelling reason to go through the trouble of building a city under the sea other than \"it's cool\". Cool don't make up for the massive inconvenience.",
"apart from it being unbelievably difficult and expensive to build, do you really want to live without sunlight?",
"There will be, once global warming raises the sea level enough.\n\nAlas, nobody will be living in them though.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3mf48h | why are perpetual magnetic generators not a viable source of power? | Example video of what I am talking about: _URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mf48h/eli5_why_are_perpetual_magnetic_generators_not_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cveh5na",
"cveitws",
"cvelv36",
"cvelw22",
"cvelzu5",
"cveme62"
],
"score": [
19,
8,
2,
4,
2,
11
],
"text": [
"short and sweet answer: because there is no such thing as a truly perpetual magnetic generator. It is a physically impossible thing. anyone who claims to have one is either crazy or a con artist.",
"You know you have quality science when their is an add for a slot machine website in it.\n\nIt is probably a fraud, there is something driving the magnet. People have been trying to make perpetual motion from spinning magnets for a long time, and have yet to succeed. Mostly because it is impossible.",
"By driving the wheel with a relay and a primitive electromagnet, this guy gets his wheel to \"do work\", which is not exactly what you are looking for, but close enough. He uses lead acid batteries to power his wheel, and the wheel powers reciprocating motors that do work around his yard. _URL_0_\n",
"Ok, every kid has thought of this, \n\nYou make a wheel with tilted magnets on spikes, the idea is that by pushing away the part of the magnet that is closer to the opposide charged core, you can make the wheel spin indefenetly...\n\nIt dosnt work since the magnets would reach a point of equilibrium where all the forces cancel out and the wheel will stop. it will find the point where the forces are balanced and the repulsion is equal on all sides and stop there. its that simple. ",
"Why couldn't this work in space?",
"The laws of thermodynamics make perpetual motion impossible.\n\nNo matter how close you come to perpetual motion, energy is lost through sound or heat (friction) or some other means I'm not sure of.\n\nYou can obviously minimize those factors to be as small as possible and come infinitely close to perpetual motion, but you can never remove them.\n\nWith that being said, magnets don't create energy. There's no energy to harness from a contraption like the one shown in the video you linked.\n\nThe contraption is only losing energy. You can hear the sound of it spinning. The sound of it spinning is expended energy. \n\nThrough some hidden means, energy is being added into the contraption. Most likely there's just a small electric motor hidden beneath it.\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTtq3ALAtDE"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/yMlp-8h4KZs"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3pvd8i | why is necrophilia so much more taboo than murder? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pvd8i/eli5_why_is_necrophilia_so_much_more_taboo_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw9rvzf",
"cw9sspp"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Victorian dogma about fear and revilement of death/respect for the dead that has lingered on. If we lived in a purely rational society, it would probably be possible to donate your body to necrophilia, because you are correct. Burying a dead body is throwing away a full set of valuable organs and tissues. It's a waste from a scientific and medical standpoint. And for a select few, a sexual one.",
"Because there can be good reasons to kill someone, but there is no good reason to fuck a corpse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2d784w | how do blind people determine their sexual preferences? | How would you know your attraction to a specific gender or feature if you were unable to see? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d784w/eli5_how_do_blind_people_determine_their_sexual/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjmrlz2",
"cjmrpss",
"cjms63h",
"cjmtj5f",
"cjmvj9h",
"cjmy9jp",
"cjmzx6p"
],
"score": [
32,
9,
5,
5,
2,
31,
4
],
"text": [
"There's the voice, gendered patterns of behaviour, and the possibly instinctive knowledge that you don't enjoy taking it up the backside.",
"Visual attraction is only part of the whole picture. It around be interesting to see if blindness, or deafness has any effect on sexual preference, but my gut feeling is that it wouldn't. I like my girlfriend with the lights off just as much as when they are on, don't know if that's really relevant. \n",
"sound of the voice, smell of the person, conversation with the person. ",
"Truth time kids, you can be taught or conditioned to like anything. Anything....",
"I saw somewhere that Ray Charles use to try and wrap his fingers around the wrist of a girl he's shaking hands with too feel if she was heavy/attractive or not. Then again he wasn't blind at birth.",
"...you do realize you can *touch* boobs in reality, right?",
"What Do Blind People Find Attractive?: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/RbYLRF022yQ"
]
] |
|
5eyass | how big would all excess co2 be if removed? how hard would it be to remove this stuff? | In terms of American football fields (squared?) or some other landmark, just how large is this carbon dioxide?
Also: how hard would it be to remove this with trees, plankton or... big machines? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5eyass/eli5how_big_would_all_excess_co2_be_if_removed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dag2t39",
"dag4xb9",
"dagb1xz"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We add about 33 gigatons of CO2 to the atmoshere a year. \nHistorically since the industrial revolution to 1999 we have added 1010 gigatons of CO2 total.",
"Since CO2 is normally a gas, which can occupy various volumes depending on what pressure and temperature it's at. Or even condensed into a solid such as dry ice. A football field is an example of surface area. \n\nAs another poster said, human release of CO2 into the atmosphere is 33 gigatons in terms of weight. It's a fairly easy series of calculations using dimensional analysis to figure out the volume at standard temp and pressure. Or ask in r/TheyDidTheMath \n\nThe carbon that was sequestered in the form of natural gas, coal and crude oil isn't easy to sequester the same way anymore. The conditions on earth are different. \n\nCoal is basically centuries worth of piles of dead trees that never rotted, because the bacteria and fungus that decompose trees hadn't yet evolved. Plus the trees back then contained more lignin. In modern times, dead trees generally rot within a decade. Part of that decay process releases the carbon that was sequestered back into the atmosphere. Very little of the carbon in organic matter turns into [humus](_URL_0_)\n\nEven if we could some how magically stop turning various fossil fuels into CO2, it would take a few centuries or more, for nature to restore the CO2 levels back to something similar to the pre-industrial revolution era.\n\n\n",
"Others are referring to the gas, but suppose you could take the carbon out and compress it into diamonds. Those are 3.52 g/cm^3 which works out to 287 cubic kilometres of diamond.\n\nIt's a bit hard to imagine how much that is, there are 100,000 Olympic swimming pools in a cubic kilometre. But it seems to about the size of Mount Logan. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus"
],
[]
] |
|
esyu6u | external validity vs internal validity in terms of scientific method | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/esyu6u/eli5_external_validity_vs_internal_validity_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffd45pv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you do a experiment, your experiment is usually encompassed but a much larger problem it seeks to address. In other words, you're hoping that your experiment can generalize to a bigger picture. An externally valid experiment does a good job generalizing to the bigger picture you claim it to.\n\nWithin an experiment, you wind up with a set of rather specific results. An internally valid experiment will offer strong evidence that the effect you see is a result of the cause you claim."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4u310y | if omega 3 dha is essential for brain function and i don't have it in diet, how come my brain is still working? | I've been reading lately about Omega 3 DHA and realized that my diet (like diet of most people) practically doesn't have any Omega 3 in it. In last year or two I may have upped my intake of Omega 3 ALA because of flaxseed - but that's it.
Considering research is showing how Omega 3 ALA - > Omega 3 DHA conversion is like 1% how come my brain is still working properly? Or is it working properly? ;)
Also, considering my diet is pretty much the same all my life - how come my brain developed at all since I had almost no Omega 3 of any kind in my diet after breastfeeding? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u310y/eli5_if_omega_3_dha_is_essential_for_brain/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5mefvx",
"d5mgxii"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There may be an undiscovered synthetic pathway which supplies enough. As nutritionist learned more about nutrition there has often been a discrepancy between what had recently been learned about necessary nutrition and the obvious health of populations who do not seem to be acquiring these essentials. Humans are capable of existing on a huge varieties of diets even though we need vitamin C which most species synthesized themselves. \n\nA years worth of some vitamins are store in the body. If the body conserves and recycles what it needs there may be no need for daily intake of things. The one a day vitamin ploy was an advertising gimmick.",
"From memory, my understanding isn't so much that we don't get *enough* Omega-3, but that the *balance* between Omega-3 and Omega-6.\n\nBoth are fairly common in many foods, so we generally tend to get enough of each for our body's needs, but most people's diet contains a far higher proportion of O6 than is healthy, meaning we don't have enough O3 to match it. Add to that that the term \"essential\" when it comes to micronutrients means specifically that it must be gained from diet and cannot be synthesised in the body. (e.g. we can't make zinc, but we can make vitamin D, though making enough to cope without it in the diet is difficult further north/south than about 50 degrees)\n\nI expect (though this is totally a guess, based on the above) that our body can probably dispense of the extra O6 or something, but it's costly.\n\nAnother angle to bear in mind is that a brain that's \"working\" isn't quite the same as a brain that's working as well as it could be! For example, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, ADHD, and \"cognitive decline\" are all neurological problems linked to shortfall of O3 (_URL_1_) and there are as many again of non-neurological problems.\n\nThe good news is that there are several good sources of O3 that are easy enough to add to your diet - most notably oily fish (mackerel on toast, YUM!) and eggs. I expect there are vegan friendly options too, though I don't happen to know of any - I'm not a vegan!\n\nEDIT: apparently there are a variety of nuts and seeds that help: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://veganhealth.org/articles/omega3#n6n3ratio",
"http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/omega3-fatty-acids"
]
] |
|
1ccbel | why can't you do a square root of a negative number? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ccbel/eli5_why_cant_you_do_a_square_root_of_a_negative/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9f4ekb",
"c9f4krd",
"c9f63z8",
"c9f8tci"
],
"score": [
18,
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, you can, but the concept is often too advanced to teach when you're first learning about square roots. It helps to have a knowledge of algebra under your belt first.\n\nThe square root of a negative number is something called an *imaginary number*. If you want to learn about the basics, [read *A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers*](_URL_0_).",
"The square root is the number you have to multiply by itself in order to get the number you first thought of. The trouble is, when you multiply negative numbers you end up with positive numbers.\n\nWhen you multiply, say, 2 x 2, you are taking a 2, then adding another 2, so you've got two lots of two. But when you do -2 x -2, you're not taking -2 and adding another -2. You don't have two -2s, you have *negative two* -2s. So your sum actually goes in the other direction, and you end up with positive four.\n\nThis means there's just no way of getting a negative number by multiplying two other negative numbers.\n\nEdit: I understand that, as the other respondents have said, with imaginary numbers you *can* have square roots of negative numbers. I've tried to directly answer OP's question by explaining how, algebra aside, it is impossible to come up with an actual numerical figure for a square root of a negative number. Please feel free to correct me however if anything here is wrong or not ELI5 enough.",
"You can do square roots of negative numbers if you think about multiplication in a way that lets you do that. \n\nWhen we first encounter numbers, square roots of things like 4, 9, 16, or 25 sort of make sense, but square roots of numbers like 15 or 19 are harder to understand, until we expand the way we think about multiplying, we have to learn about fractions, and decimals and irrational numbers... \n\nOnce we expand the way we think about multiplication we can do square roots of any positive number, but that leaves a big hole for negative numbers... unless you, again, expand the way you think about numbers and multiplying. \n\nIt turns out that you can think about numbers as having a twisting or turning component... for instance negative numbers are twisted 180 degrees while positive numbers are twisted by 0 degrees. And now multiplying includes \"adding the twist\" of the numbers, so a \"negative times a negative\" will add two twists of 180 degrees, or turn back around to 0.\n\nThe advantage of thinking about twisted numbers is that you can take a number with a 90 degree twist, and when you square it, adding that twist twice gives a negative number... in other words, there are \"imaginary\" numbers that are just numbers with a 90 degree twist. \n\nNow you can do square roots of negative numbers, all it took was expanding the way we thing about numbers and multiplication, just like we do when we needed fractions and decimals and irrational numbers.",
"Remember the geometric definition of a square/root: if you draw a square with 9cm^2 area, the sides of the square are 3cm. 1 m^2 area, 1m sides. So the square root function describes the relationship between the area and sides of a square. And a square can't have negative area, that doesn't make sense.\n\nNow, square roots are also useful in other mathemathics than geometry. So some clever algebra people decided that if they *imagined* a square with negative area, then they could also get an *imaginary* square root, which it turns out has quite a few useful purposes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4xfy3h | what is the difference between engineering and design? | I thought it was all engineering, but apparently technical problem solving is also design. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xfy3h/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_engineering/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6f6wsr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Engineering is about function, and as such is a subset of design. Aesthetics are also part of design, but don't constitute engineering."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dj169q | why is it so easy to see in windows at night but not during the day? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dj169q/eli5why_is_it_so_easy_to_see_in_windows_at_night/ | {
"a_id": [
"f405vqw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Light from inside makes it easier to see when its dark outside, this is because of our focus ability in our retnas."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9n5xwc | how do nuclear explosion tests affect the atmosphere? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9n5xwc/eli5_how_do_nuclear_explosion_tests_affect_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7jxd0q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When a Nuclear Explosion occurs on or near the ground, a massive amount of dust is thrown up into the sky, moreover, this is dust that recently underwent a nuclear explosion. The Dust itself blocks out sunlight, which can lead to a temporary Nuclear Winter if enough explosions happen at once, due to high-altitude dust circulating around the mid-atmosphere, blocking sunlight from reaching the ground. As the heavier dust falls on the ground, it (being irradiated) will cause radiation poisoning to anybody who eats food that's exposed to the debris, or is outside. (Hint: the best places to be safe in case of a nuclear attack are the same as if a Tornado is coming. Make sure you have food and water, hide for at least 24 hours after the flash) \n\nAnother effect is that of an ElectroMagnetic Pulse, aka an EMP. Electronics within a radius will shut down, but this will not affect humans particularly badly. If a nuke is coming, and you want to protect your phone, stick it in a nearby microwave. A microwave will keep Electromagnetic radiation out just as well as it keeps it in. \n\nThat's about it, as far as I know. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
dazlyx | what makes villain songs sound sinister and evil? why does certain music evoke specific emotions in our mind? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dazlyx/eli5_what_makes_villain_songs_sound_sinister_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1wl6e5",
"f1wn3xq",
"f1wnwt1",
"f1wt294",
"f1wyups",
"f1wz873",
"f1wzjwk",
"f1x0q9y",
"f1x1236",
"f1x50wx",
"f1x5fke",
"f1x6fjm",
"f1x91rj"
],
"score": [
18,
2776,
174,
2,
15,
14,
46,
356,
3,
2,
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I would say it is mainly cultural and based on codes followed from the beginning, in Western culture, happy songs are composed on major notes and sad songs on minor notes",
"To put it simply, western music typically falls into two categories, Major scale (happy) and Minor scale (sad or dark etc). The scale depends on what notes are used and vice versa. So \"villian\" music is typically written in minor. This combined with social norms and possibly some neurological or evolutionary reactions makes us think \"evil\". This \"evil\" sense is really driven home when a piece incorporates the flattened 5th (The 5th note in the scale is a semi tone lower). This is predominately done in metal music to evoke that feeling of \"evil\". If you listen to Black sabbath, by Black Sabbath, from the album Black sabbath, you will hear this flattened 5th used to great effect.",
"It's partially due to the key. Songs in the minor key sound far more sinister. Here's the Imperial March in the major key and its in no way sinister like the original _URL_0_",
"It is just an association, just like many of our villains are based on 1930s heroes until they lost.",
"I see a lot of “society” comments but no actual proof. There have been certain tones that we have associated with more serene/holy/mythical/whimsical for a millennia or more.",
"Outside of musical theory, a lot of those associations with villains are just happenstance that evolved into cultural norms. For instance, the sub-genre of Surrealist music, intended as a musical representation of Dali-esque moods, became popular in French and German cinema that was intentionally unnerving or abstract. It started to creep into American films for a while (*The Maltese Falcon*, fuckin' *Fantasia*) before fading in the McCarthy-era 50's, where villain themes were your standard John Ford grandstanders. It's been brought back several times since then, but generally, it's the music you hear when a character reveals that they're batshit crazy, often accompanied by breaking glass sounds.\n\nSo an utterly specific sub-genre intended to reproduce the feelings you get looking at a melted clock painting from 102 years ago is now the music you hear when Dennis Hopper starts talking.",
"In addition to what has been said, there are also some cultural clues. Rhythm for example (regular sounds more ordered, syncopated sounds more archaic) or instrument timbre.\n\nWarcraft 2 music (and a lot of video game music in general) is actually a great example for that. Human soundtrack is full of marches, that sound orderly, military, with horns and other brass instruments, to the same effect. Orc music is very syncopated, with irregular beats recalling barbaric nature of orcs, as well as a lot of harpsichord, which is perceived as an archaic instrument.\n\nThese clues are cultural, we associate them with those meanings because that's what popular culture has gotten us used to.",
"Nobody seems to understand the question. He's not asking about what notes are sinister, he's asking why they're sinister. What in evolution/society has made these notes invoke these emotions. Does some ancient predator sound like minor notes?",
"So far the answers are just about major vs minor but no explanation as to why they have that perception.",
"Two things: \n\n1) the use of minor keys almost exclusively. We don't know why, but generally people associate major keys with positive emotions and minor with negative emotions.\n\n2) The tritone. In music theory, the tritone/flatted fifth/ \"diabolis en musica\" is the effect of stacking three major thirds on top of each other which drops the perfect fifth (the second most stable note in a key next to the tonic or \"root\") down one half step. This puts the note right smack dab in the middle of of both octaves in the key and, for whatever reason, we find that interval especially jarring and unpleasant. Through hundreds of years if musical association, that interval has been associated with the Devil and, in general, all things evil (hence the Italian name for it listed above).\n\n(The minor second - or, as I like to refer to it, the \"Jaws Interval\" - is also quite dissonant and can deliver the same effect. Same with just moving chromatically - moving between all 12 notes in the Western scale - up or down the scale.)",
"I dont know if this was talked about but basically consonant and dissonant chords and the way we were raised. Consonant chords are chords with notes that are normally two or three notes (For example, A, C, E and G would make a consonant chord) and dissonant chords are when some notes are next to eachother and sometimes have flats (A,B,C, G would be dissonant). Another factor is the fact that dissonant chords are played during distressing times in movies, shows, plays, and etc. While consonant are played during happy times. I remember reading about a study done in third world countries where they dont have access to pop culture, and they recorded that people didnt find dissonant chords sad or consonant chords happy, most thought they gave similar \"emotions\". But yea, dont know if this was posted or not and I'm just an average guy so dont take this as fact. Dont trust everything you read on the internet lmao",
"To add to these comments, this science goes even deeper. Math plays a big part in how we experience music.\n\nA basic way to look at this is to imagine a guitar string. We shorten that guitar string by fretting the guitar, this causes the notes to get higher pitched. If we use the most basic fractions with the lowest denominators, we get the “easiest” tones to differentiate, and the easiest to combine into harmonies.\n\nIf you divide the string by 1/2 you get the same note an octave up, easy to understand. If you divide it by 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, you get some of the most basic notes of the major scale.\n\nThe higher the fraction’s denominator, the more “odd” and unharmonious the notes are likely to sound when combined.\n\nI am not an expert and this might be a faulty analysis, but the way I understand it is that a lot of this has a root in what sounds are easy to hear and distinguish, also over long distances, through walls, through our mothers’ tummies when our hearing develops in the womb.\n\nThis creates a somewhat universal concept of harmony and disharmony. In addition, sudden dynamic shifts, subverting cultural norms, and any other tool to create a sense of unpredictability can make music seem more “bad guy”. It’s important to realize that on a subconscious level we are all significantly more music savvy than on a conscious level, so we’re likely to feel something from music long before being able to pinpoint why.",
"Short answer is that villain music has lots of dissonant chords, as opposed to resonant chords. A good example of dissonance is a minor second chord, used in the shower scene from Psycho. It's not 100% understood why certain music evokes certain emotions, but from what I've seen, it's mostly a societal thing. What might be a sinister sound in one culture might not be in another"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/B9MShtCg4fk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
174rgx | what is a metabolic rate and how do i find out mine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/174rgx/eli5_what_is_a_metabolic_rate_and_how_do_i_find/ | {
"a_id": [
"c827g1a"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The Basal Metabolic Rate is an estimate of the amount of calories you burn in a day when doing 0 activity. It's an estimate based on a number of factors.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThis calculator helps you get a baseline. There are more accurate calculations that can be done with more data, but this suffices for most purposes.\n\nTo get an idea of the actual amount of calories you burn in a given real day (with all the days walking, activities, etc), you need to multiple your BMR by a factor based on your average activity level.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFor example, for a sedentary person, multiply your BMR by 1.2. The resulting number is the number of calories you need to eat in a day to maintain your **current** weight. Eat less than that every day and you'll gradually lose weight. Eat more, you'll gain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/",
"http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/"
]
] |
||
2s2ted | why are plug points made differently i.e plugs in the us are flat pins while in india they are round pins | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s2ted/eli5_why_are_plug_points_made_differently_ie/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnlms6v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because the first company to make the plugs made them that way. They sold the plugs and the outlets. If you wanted your device to plug into their outlet, you had to use the shape. If you wanted to market an outlet that can accept the plugs that devices are using, you had to use that shape.\n\n\nMore and more international hotels are adopting to use multi prong compatible outlets. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
bkeoo9 | when your sick with a cold why do symptoms like sneezing and runny nose seem to stop when you're sleeping but start again as soon as you wake up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkeoo9/eli5_when_your_sick_with_a_cold_why_do_symptoms/ | {
"a_id": [
"emg7gdm"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Being deeply asleep is a vulnerable time for your airway. It's best for the body not to pump pints of mucus into the throat and mouth as you auto breathe in deep sleep. It makes sense for the body to shut these mechanisms off as you sleep to protect your breathing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5vy702 | why does a car under a carport not accumulate dew in the morning? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vy702/eli5_why_does_a_car_under_a_carport_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"de5z0kg",
"de68ijl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the carport protects your car from cooling down quicker than objects around them. The dew or ice builds quicker on surrounding structures than on the car, partially protected under the car port.",
"Dew happens when objects become cooler than the air, enough that water condenses (hence the \"dew point\" often mentioned in weather reports). Obviously the air can't make them any cooler than the air itself. \nHeat can pass by conduction, convection, and radiation. The first two will tend to keep the car the same temperature as the air surrounding it, so it's the last. \nA clear night sky is at a temperature of about three degrees kelvin, plus whatever radiates from the thin cold atmosphere. Objects exposed to clear night sky radiate heat faster than the air around them can warm them up, getting cold enough to form dew. Objects not exposed to clear night sky are kept about air temperature, so nothing condenses until the air itself is cool enough to form fog. \nedit: missed a word. Couldn't stand to look at it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2p6s6m | what exactly is "irreparable" about what green peace did to the nazca lines? | As far as I can tell, there was no damage to the actual humming bird, they just rolled out some yellow tarps next to them. I'm not saying it was a good idea and it certainly had potential to damage the lines, but I don't see how repairing it isn't as easy as rolling up the tarps.
[If you missed the story](_URL_2_)
[before](_URL_0_)
[after](_URL_1_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p6s6m/eli5_what_exactly_is_irreparable_about_what_green/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmtux94",
"cmtv242",
"cmty4bk"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as i can see it's less about actual physical damage as much as it is about the integrity of the site as a whole. Stonehenge is the same way, can't walk anywhere near it. I think it is more a principle that they damaged than anything else.",
"The whole place is a restricted area, because there's a layer of bright sand beneath the darker rocks. That's how the pictures were made - remove the top layer, expose the brighter sand beneath.\n\nUnfortunately, they marched there in single file and made a deep path, and then shuffled some stones about, so it really might be quite challening to restore the place to a \"can't tell anybody was there\" state.\n\nFucking up a world heritage site of the host country of a climate summit to push for action on climate change, that's bad diplomacy level infinity.",
"The site is -very- strictly controlled to prevent damage to the very fragile images. Even Peru's president can't just go there...he'd need special permission and an escort. Scientists studying the area are allowed in in limited numbers, wearing special rubber 'snowshoes' that spread their weight out so they leave minimal traces of ever having been there. \nThe Greenpeace idiots stomped in, deliberately moved and disrupted some of the darker stones, and left very visible marks of disturbance in the area. It is pretty likely that this cannot be repaired in any way. \nSo they damaged a World Heritage site out of a self-absorbed desire for attention. I hope Peru cam recover damages with an appropriate lawsuit. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/44342373.jpg",
"http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/10/1418237232550/Greenpeaces-time-for-chan-010.jpg",
"http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/travel/greenpeace-nazca-lines-damage/"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4095fb | why is a good night's sleep better than last minute study the night before an exam? | I've read that getting the recommended sleep is much more important than cramming study which would result in few hours sleep the night before an exam. But how does little sleep affect memory during an exam? Is it better to just get the sleep? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4095fb/eli5_why_is_a_good_nights_sleep_better_than_last/ | {
"a_id": [
"cysesi9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Its hard to concentrate while tired. Sleeping also stores your short term memories into long term ones.\n\nYour brain needs sleep before it properly stores info from that day.\n\nIt also has an emotional effect. Being tired and moody means bad attitude for test."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
69pxfj | why do animals do the "zooming" thing where they run around a small area really quickly with seemingly no purpose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69pxfj/eli5_why_do_animals_do_the_zooming_thing_where/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh8jdcn",
"dh8jmdz",
"dh8xlvk"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Can someone link a video or explain what \"zooming\" is? I'm not following at all.",
"Some animals do this as an expression of happiness. I work a lot with rabbits and farm animals that run for joy. Like rabbits will zoom around and sometimes bounce in the air/\"binky\" (leap for joy) Cows, llamas and goats also run short areas for no reason. Rabbits run in patterns that seem to have no purpose but they mean something in rabbit behavior. Like circling often is affection or playing tag. I am unclear on the biological reason to tear around in a small space on a professional or technical level. I assume it's also just fun like running around the yard as a kid, just in animal form. Also in rabbits they run at another rabbits in fights and do crazy jumps so it could be something like play but to hone skills.",
"I see that toddler kids do this alot as play in almost like a tag like game. My dog also did this heavily as a puppy when he wanted played with and rough housing. So my bet is that its pent up energy and having fun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6x9h93 | if basically all planets are made from the same random flyby.. then why are they so diverse? | How can one planet be like "oh, I'm all that gas", and another "Mostly this metal here".
If I spray a wall with different droplets of paint over a day, the entire wall will be the same homogeneous messy grayish tint. So why are Planets apparently collections of individual stuff to such a degree? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6x9h93/eli5_if_basically_all_planets_are_made_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dme6h52"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Sun. You don't get gas giants close in because the stellar wind is too strong for much gas to stick around. It's also hotter, meaning the gas is more energetic and less likely to hang around forming protoplanets. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
f3o1uv | what is the scp foundation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f3o1uv/eli5_what_is_the_scp_foundation/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhjzufp",
"fhk0ea5"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"A collection of stories about weird paranormal stuff people have created, for fun.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It’s a fictional universe written by a bunch of random people on the internet working together. \nThe premise is there is the titular SCP foundation (Secure, Contain, Protect), that contains paranormal items and keeps them secret from the general public. \n \nThe origin was a “creepypasta” horror story on 4-chan. \nIt appeared to be a clinical description about containing a statue that moved if you didn’t look at it, and would break people’s necks. \n \n(Further trivia, this post appeared several weeks AFTER a Doctor Who episode featuring statues that moved when not being looked at. Just check the date stamps and air dates, that SCP was AFTER the weeping angels. \"Blink\" aired 9 June 2007, the original SCP-173 4-chan post first appeared on 22 June 2007 ) \n \nThe description implied:\n1) the existence of an organization that handled paranormal \n2) that this statue was just one of many such objects. \n \nSo naturally there were copy cat posts for other objects with similar formatting. \nEventually someone started a wiki to host these stories. And further material was made to flesh out the setting. \n \nYou can visit that wiki at:\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.scp-wiki.net/"
],
[
"http://www.scp-wiki.net/"
]
] |
||
cfpszg | in old crt's why does physical damage to the tv cause the picture to rise, disappear, and then reappear in that order constantly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cfpszg/eli5_in_old_crts_why_does_physical_damage_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"eubm5e0",
"eubpycz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The electron gun paints the picture line by line from bottom to top. It starts from scratch after every frame, 60 times every second. \n\nHitting it can cause the gun to jump around, causing refractions and making the process much more noticeable alternatively it makes the gaps large enough by physically forcing the gun to draw on a new part of the screen",
"The picture on a CRT is made by a beam of electrons from an electron gun hitting the screen and making tiny dots on the screen glow. The beam scans left to right for each row of the image, and then jumps down to the next row, until it reaches the bottom of the screen and starts over again. \n\nAt the same time, the beam constantly changes in strength: more electrons make a brighter spot on the screen. There is a short period of time between when the beam hits the bottom of the screen and when it hits the top again during which no electrons are shot out of the gun. \n\nIn order for the image to appear properly centered on the screen, the moving of the beam has to be synchronized with the strength of the beam. In older TVs, this is done entirely with analog circuits having adjustable components. Hitting a TV can knock one of these adjustable components a little, causing the TV to lose sync. On these old TVs, there is sometimes small screw adjustors on the back: V-sync and H-sync. turning the V-sync will fix the problem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1daory | why retrospective review is not used in soccer to aid accuracy of the decisions called | For example, when someone scores from receiving the ball in an offside position but the linesmen and referee do not call for offside and allow the goal to stand. Reviewing the footage, as is often done by commentators, is able to show decisions called incorrectly.
Could someone please ELI5 why the match officials do not embrace this facility as is the case in numerous other sports. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1daory/eli5_why_retrospective_review_is_not_used_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9oiqpl",
"c9oixi0",
"c9oj0y5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"- _URL_0_\n\n- _URL_1_",
"One of the appeals of soccer is that the game doesn't stop. When the first whistle blows, the clock starts and keeps going until half time, and then process repeats in the 2nd half. A lot of people prefer this continuous gameplay over the constant starting and stopping that is found in games such as football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. If the refs were allowed to review plays, then the continuity would be lost. ",
"I think it would be a good idea, but would never be implemented for at least 3 reasons:\n\n1. Part of soccer's appeal is the fluidity of the game. The timer never stops, and neither does play for very long, even after goals or injuries. Add instant replays and the action will come to a grinding halt.\n\n2. For better or for worse, the controversy that \"bad\" calls bring to the game actually increases its popularity. Would it be more sportsmanlike for fights to be banned from hockey? Sure, but that's part of the appeal of the sport. I'm not saying that people watch soccer to get pissed off at controversial calls, but you have to admit that they give people things to talk about during and after games.\n\n3. People don't want to see the most popular sport in the world brought any closer to American football."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/pd8r2/use_of_technology_in_football/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/13ccsc/what_is_rsoccers_thoughts_on_offside_technology/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4imfcd | why does whipping cream make it fluffy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4imfcd/eli5_why_does_whipping_cream_make_it_fluffy/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2z95sz",
"d2zdo2w"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The whipping action forces air into the cream, where it gets trapped. The trapped air is what makes the cream light and fluffy.",
"The protein molecules in cream have formed formed a gel matrix, or foam, by being repeatedly beaten and whipped, which allows it to denature slightly. This denaturation allows tiny pockets of gas or liquid to become trapped in the matrix, which gives it a fluffy, light texture.\n\nSource: Food Science Major"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5f9bju | what is rico law? | I've tried reading wikipedia and the many other sources out there, but I'm not quite 100% on understanding what it is, what it's used for, and when it's used. I understand that it's for prosecuting those in organized crime, but *when* is it used in these cases? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f9bju/eli5_what_is_rico_law/ | {
"a_id": [
"daiidbx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know all the details, but RICO stands for \"Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations\", and it allowed prosecutors to lay charges against you just for being a member of, or being corrupted by organized criminal organizations like the mafia, the triads, motorcycle gangs and Latin American drug cartels. This gave the law a really powerful club to use against organized crime, and it worked really well in many cases, especially against the mafia. In particular it gave the law the power to seize any assets that were probably purchased with money made from the proceeds of crime, so drug lords and mafia dons had their homes, cars, boats and golf courses sold for auction, which was very nice to watch.\n\nUnfortunately, many prosecutors also abused RICO and used it promiscuously in cases where it clearly didn't apply. They called groups of three 17 year olds selling pot \"corrupt organizations\" and sent the kids off to prison for 40 concurrent life sentences. They seized the homes of parents of minor drug offenders, and in one infamous case, seized most of the homes in a primarily African-American town in the South because a single drug dealer claimed that everyone in the town were his accomplices, even people who clearly never even met him!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
k7uo7 | md5 hashes | How are they generated, why are they always 32 characters in length and why are they not reversible? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k7uo7/md5_hashes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2i5pul",
"c2i608t",
"c2i7na7",
"c2i7nbv",
"c2i8xbl",
"c2i5pul",
"c2i608t",
"c2i7na7",
"c2i7nbv",
"c2i8xbl"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2,
4,
2,
11,
3,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I'll field \"why are they not reverseable\". \n\nConsider: They come from any length input to 32 characters long. \n\nSo, there are *more* inputs than outputs. This means that there are md5 hashes that have more than one input. Since an md5 hash could've been generated by any of those, the *best* you could hope for is to generate a list of all of those, of which there are infinitely many.\n\nAnother example is consider a 1 bit \"hash\" function: 1 if the number is odd, 0 if it is even. Now, if I give you the hash 1, what was the input? Well, it was even...but that's all we can know about it.\n\nThe usual analogy is a telephone book. If you were given a telephone book and asked to find the phone number of \"Lorenzo Von Matterhorn\", you could do it and fast. But, if I gave you the phone number 555-9871, and asked you to find it in the phonebook, it would be an extremely time consuming job for you.\n\n ",
"Hashing is when you want to create an unique ID number for any piece of text or data, like a fingerprint.\n\nThe simplest hashing recipe is convert each character of text into a number, then multiply all those numbers together to get a really big number. If the big number is too big, then divide it by the biggest number you'll allow and take the remainder: that's your \"unique\" hash code (think \"ID number\") for that text. \n\nThe MD5 recipe is a lot more complicated than this but the biggest number allowed is 32bit (around 4 billion) because it provides a reasonable amount of uniqueness for most applications without being too big to work with easily.\n",
"It is a mathematical formula. It is 32 bits because computers are 32 bit machines. It's convenient. There could also be 16 bit hashes. Checksum is another form of a hash. Basically, you take any number or binary data sequence of any size and you run it through a complex formula. It operates on the enter binary file and gives a 32 bit output. The formula must be complex enough to detect even small changes in the binary data.",
"A hash is like a fingerprint.\n\nIt doesn't contain much information. You can't tell from a fingerprint how tall someone is, their age, their gender. All you can do is try a bunch of people until you find a match.\n\nHashes are the same way. They tell you one thing and one thing only...that the data generated this string of characters.",
"The answer to why an MD5 is 32 characters long is, because. It's really that simple. Because. The guy that invented it decided that no matter what you put into the hash function, the answer that comes out the other end should always be the same length, and he chose 32 characters.\n\nTo calculate an MD5 hash, you take a bunch of data and pretend it's just a big long list of ones and zeros (bits). First, you take the first 512 bits. This is the first \"block\" of bits. You break that block of bits into four 128 bit pieces. You then do a bunch of math to take these four numbers and smoosh them together in a complicated way to get a single 128 bit number. This is the hash of the first block. You take the next block and do the same thing, then take those two numbers and smoosh them together to get the hash of the first two blocks. You smoosh the hash of the third block with the hash of the first two, and keep going. When you run out of blocks, you have the hash for the whole thing.\n\nThe reason it's not reversible is because different pieces of data will hash to the same value. For example, you can think of turning your full name into your initials as a hash function. If you are Bob Elizabeth Jones, your initials are BEJ. If you tell anyone to take the \"hash\" of your name, anyone will get the same answer, BEJ. But the think is, there are other names that have the same initials, like Beatrice Earnest Joplin. You can always figure out someone's initials from their name, but you can't tell their name from their initials.",
"I'll field \"why are they not reverseable\". \n\nConsider: They come from any length input to 32 characters long. \n\nSo, there are *more* inputs than outputs. This means that there are md5 hashes that have more than one input. Since an md5 hash could've been generated by any of those, the *best* you could hope for is to generate a list of all of those, of which there are infinitely many.\n\nAnother example is consider a 1 bit \"hash\" function: 1 if the number is odd, 0 if it is even. Now, if I give you the hash 1, what was the input? Well, it was even...but that's all we can know about it.\n\nThe usual analogy is a telephone book. If you were given a telephone book and asked to find the phone number of \"Lorenzo Von Matterhorn\", you could do it and fast. But, if I gave you the phone number 555-9871, and asked you to find it in the phonebook, it would be an extremely time consuming job for you.\n\n ",
"Hashing is when you want to create an unique ID number for any piece of text or data, like a fingerprint.\n\nThe simplest hashing recipe is convert each character of text into a number, then multiply all those numbers together to get a really big number. If the big number is too big, then divide it by the biggest number you'll allow and take the remainder: that's your \"unique\" hash code (think \"ID number\") for that text. \n\nThe MD5 recipe is a lot more complicated than this but the biggest number allowed is 32bit (around 4 billion) because it provides a reasonable amount of uniqueness for most applications without being too big to work with easily.\n",
"It is a mathematical formula. It is 32 bits because computers are 32 bit machines. It's convenient. There could also be 16 bit hashes. Checksum is another form of a hash. Basically, you take any number or binary data sequence of any size and you run it through a complex formula. It operates on the enter binary file and gives a 32 bit output. The formula must be complex enough to detect even small changes in the binary data.",
"A hash is like a fingerprint.\n\nIt doesn't contain much information. You can't tell from a fingerprint how tall someone is, their age, their gender. All you can do is try a bunch of people until you find a match.\n\nHashes are the same way. They tell you one thing and one thing only...that the data generated this string of characters.",
"The answer to why an MD5 is 32 characters long is, because. It's really that simple. Because. The guy that invented it decided that no matter what you put into the hash function, the answer that comes out the other end should always be the same length, and he chose 32 characters.\n\nTo calculate an MD5 hash, you take a bunch of data and pretend it's just a big long list of ones and zeros (bits). First, you take the first 512 bits. This is the first \"block\" of bits. You break that block of bits into four 128 bit pieces. You then do a bunch of math to take these four numbers and smoosh them together in a complicated way to get a single 128 bit number. This is the hash of the first block. You take the next block and do the same thing, then take those two numbers and smoosh them together to get the hash of the first two blocks. You smoosh the hash of the third block with the hash of the first two, and keep going. When you run out of blocks, you have the hash for the whole thing.\n\nThe reason it's not reversible is because different pieces of data will hash to the same value. For example, you can think of turning your full name into your initials as a hash function. If you are Bob Elizabeth Jones, your initials are BEJ. If you tell anyone to take the \"hash\" of your name, anyone will get the same answer, BEJ. But the think is, there are other names that have the same initials, like Beatrice Earnest Joplin. You can always figure out someone's initials from their name, but you can't tell their name from their initials."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ucj3i | how do 401ks work, and how can i understand how my account is doing? | I just graduated college and have only been working since July 2013. I have my 401K arbitrarily set up to put in 6% of my paycheck (supposed to auto-increase by 1% every year), but generally speaking I have no clue how the account works or how to know if it's doing well (I have it on an automatic portfolio manager).
Edit: wording | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ucj3i/eli5_how_do_401ks_work_and_how_can_i_understand/ | {
"a_id": [
"cego8xt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A 401k is basically a container for your money. What the container does is it allows you to not pay income tax on that money right now, and instead you pay tax on that money when you retire. The hope is that when you retire, you'll be in a significantly lower tax bracket (because you won't have a 'real' income), so you'll pay far less in tax on that money. Also, since you can initially put in more money to the account (because it's not taxed right away), over time that money can grow more than it would it if was taxed.\n\nSo you put this money in the container, now what? Well, the container is given to you as an option by your employer, and usually your employer gets a financial company to actually handle the money for you. From a list of investment choices provided by the company, you choose how you want your money invested. You can put it all into one type of investment, or split it between them.\n\nHow you actually go about doing that, is usually on a website somewhere now. Ask your HR department for specifics on how to access your 401k options."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
27pag1 | the notion of free will as physicists understand it. | First and foremost I have a very elementary understanding of physics, but I always understood free will to be the conscience ability to make decisions, but whenever I read physics articles, physicist often say something to the effect of free will does not exist. Reading an article right now in which Physicist Brian Green, is quoted as saying "free will is merely a human sensation." Green also states that Scientific equations describe the particles that make up all matter...While more complex structures arise that have no relevance to a single particle...everything still has a fundamental underpinning" While I understand this statement I find it hard to accept it.
Weather for example is composed of many particles, but give rise to a complex system that cannot be accurately modeled. I know that it is argued that if given enough information, weather could then be modeled accurately, but my question is couldn't there be some systems which are just too complex to ever be modeled (decision making).
I can't explain it but there is just something unnerving about the notion that if given all the variables/parameters, from the big bang, it could be extrapolated that I would post this question on this day at this time, and like it or not, my curiosity about the universe had no effect.
Here is a link to the above mentioned article:
_URL_0_
edit: whether to weather | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27pag1/eli5_the_notion_of_free_will_as_physicists/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci30kmk",
"ci30kz5",
"ci31odf",
"ci33661"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're making the statement that we live in a clockwork universe and that everything that happens happens because of a series of mathematical equations. Because of this freewill can't exist because the decisions we make are based off those predictable and calculable equations. Given enough information about your brain and environment I could (in theory) predict what decisions you would make.",
"The brain is where all our thoughts come from. There has been no evidence ever of a 'soul'. With that in mind it makes sense to assume every thought, idea and will that we have as purely a mechanical process. Physicists (not all of them) are assuming that if you knew the exact location and status of all chemicals in the body and introduced a stimulus (movement, sound, light, drugs) then you could calculate exactly how that brain would react and what thoughts would form.\n\nThis leads many (myself included) to believe that free will is an illusion. That we are just machines that react to our environment.",
"Physics really has no opinion on free will. Some physicists might have opinions, but they don't \"represent\" the view of Physics, if you see what I mean.\n\nAnyway, the problem with the way you're thinking about free will is it kind of assumes that you're outside the universe in some way.\n\nUnless I'm mistaken, the train of thought is like this: \"My decisions are caused by something. *Either* they're caused by physics, *or* they're caused by me/my free will/my curiosity about the universe. So if they're caused by physics, then that means they can't be being caused by me.\"\n\nIn this model, your mind and physics are two separate things, either of which could be responsible for your thoughts and decisions. But in fact, you exist physically. You're a physical object, your brain exists in the real world and works by physics - your mind, your free will, your curiosity about the universe... is all within physics, is part of it. **You are physics**. And you're not lessened by that at all, things can be completely real and still be made up of smaller parts. Your free will is made of physics. It's not \"Do I cause my decisions or does physics cause them?\". You cause your decisions, through physics, because you are physics. Physics is not a separate thing from you that competes with you to decide your actions, it's just the way in which you exist.\n\nSo free will isn't an illusion, really, it's more of a confusion. It's an idea that stops making much sense as a concept one you break it down clearly.",
"It's really a philosophical debate based on physics. \n\nAnother way they talk about it is to ask whether or not the universe is **[deterministic](_URL_0_)**. \n\nTraditionally, this has been an either-or debate. Either everything is already determined from the initial conditions of the universe, or you have free will. This ultimately reduces to \"either our personal decisions alter the future of the universe, or we are such a small and insignificant piece of the universe that our decisions have very little or no effect on its outcome\". Since it is a pillar of quantum mechanics that everything be based on probabilities because of the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics would seem to strongly indicate that you have to make a decision in order for there to be an outcome. \n\nThe other side is that your decision was going to happen, no matter what, since the beginning of the universe, and if we just knew what those initial conditions were and how the universe evolved, then we would know exactly what was going to happen. \n\nA more modern take on the debate is that at our scale of existence (a nice balance between quantum mechanics and the observable universe) we have free will, but the universe is ultimately deterministic. The universe is assumed to be deterministic, but due to our level of involvement as part of the universe (and a very small part), it is assumed to be impossible to gather the information necessary for human beings to utilize that underlying determinism. \n\nSo if we try to get involved and make the universe follow our free will, we are too incapable and too powerless to make any impact on the universe as a whole. Our sun will be created and destroyed, and the universe as a whole won't even notice in the long run. \n\nSo as far as our experience of nature is concerned, we have free will, but the laws of physics are deterministic, we're just missing those initial conditions, and those initial conditions would allow us to peek in on the universe's determinism. When I say initial conditions, I mean the singularity of the big bang. So it's extremely unlikely that we are going to ever be able to take advantage of determinism. It would take multiple, HUGE discoveries in physics that many speculate will never be known or understood. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.livescience.com/46040-do-we-live-in-a-multiverse.html"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism"
]
] |
|
kp5k2 | what is/would be the clock in my cpu? how does it work? | You know, the one that I overclock. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kp5k2/what_iswould_be_the_clock_in_my_cpu_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2m1e1r",
"c2m1f78",
"c2m3awf",
"c2m1e1r",
"c2m1f78",
"c2m3awf"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Like you're five: You know how a marching band has a guy with a little stick and whistle that marches in front? He decides how fast everybody else is marching. He usually keeps a pretty slow pace, on account of the kid with the tuba, but if he needed to he could make them march as fast as he wanted to. He could have them jogging around the field! Of course, if that happened, the music would get messed up, and some people would probably trip and fall.\n\nThe clock in your computer does the same thing. You can make it go faster by turning up the rate at which it tries to process instructions, but if you go too fast everything will crash.",
"The clock is just an electronic signal that alternates between off (low voltage) and on (high voltage) at a specified number of times per second (that's the clock speed - usually in the 1-3 GHz range). \n\nBased on the way computer chips are made, each individual circuit makes a change when it notices that the clock goes from 0 (off) to 1 (on). That's when it reads numbers from registers (circuits where numbers are stored); does arithmetic (using the arithmetic logic unit - the part of the chip that does math); and does all the other things that processors do. ",
"The CPU clock is like the \"metronome\" that sets the pace for all the other things in the CPU.\n\nIn practice, it's actually a vast network of relatively complicated circuitry spread all across the chip, that keeps all the parts from trying to send electrical signals to each other at the wrong times and screwing everything up.\n\nI'm not sure we actually know in detail how it works. I mean, in general I'm sure there are PLLs and differential transmission lines and all sorts of stuff. But making clocks that are both fast and accurate is actually a difficult electrical engineering problem - like how making the fastest car in the world is difficult and requires special tricks. The tricks to make the fastest clocks may be a trade secret that CPU manufacturers don't share, lest other people start making fast chips too.",
"Like you're five: You know how a marching band has a guy with a little stick and whistle that marches in front? He decides how fast everybody else is marching. He usually keeps a pretty slow pace, on account of the kid with the tuba, but if he needed to he could make them march as fast as he wanted to. He could have them jogging around the field! Of course, if that happened, the music would get messed up, and some people would probably trip and fall.\n\nThe clock in your computer does the same thing. You can make it go faster by turning up the rate at which it tries to process instructions, but if you go too fast everything will crash.",
"The clock is just an electronic signal that alternates between off (low voltage) and on (high voltage) at a specified number of times per second (that's the clock speed - usually in the 1-3 GHz range). \n\nBased on the way computer chips are made, each individual circuit makes a change when it notices that the clock goes from 0 (off) to 1 (on). That's when it reads numbers from registers (circuits where numbers are stored); does arithmetic (using the arithmetic logic unit - the part of the chip that does math); and does all the other things that processors do. ",
"The CPU clock is like the \"metronome\" that sets the pace for all the other things in the CPU.\n\nIn practice, it's actually a vast network of relatively complicated circuitry spread all across the chip, that keeps all the parts from trying to send electrical signals to each other at the wrong times and screwing everything up.\n\nI'm not sure we actually know in detail how it works. I mean, in general I'm sure there are PLLs and differential transmission lines and all sorts of stuff. But making clocks that are both fast and accurate is actually a difficult electrical engineering problem - like how making the fastest car in the world is difficult and requires special tricks. The tricks to make the fastest clocks may be a trade secret that CPU manufacturers don't share, lest other people start making fast chips too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6p58vy | what does the title executive producer really do? i see a lot of actors and actresses star in films and they are also executive producers for them. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6p58vy/eli5_what_does_the_title_executive_producer/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkmombj",
"dkmoolr"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"It really doesn't have a single meaning, but indicates someone contributed to the production in some way without being directly involved in the creation of th movie. In some cases, this is because they originally created characters that appear in later works. This is the case with Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Kaz and Fran Kuzui are given Executive Producer credits for the TV show even though they had no involvement in it, because they were involved in the movie that established the character.\n\nMost commonly, it's because of financial backing. I (along with many others) have an Executive Producer credit for contributing to a Kickstarter campaign, even though I was not involved in any other way.",
"They finance the film, directly and by selling others on investing. Producers are the ones that handle the business aspects of creating a film. So an actor who's listed as executive producer might get that title by investing some money (or doing so by the way they take their pay as a cut of profits rather than straight cash) and may have a part in lining up other investors or talent to join the production."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
axbf9y | how does a smartphone determine its gps position instantly, whilst a purpose-built car gps takes minutes to acquire satellites? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axbf9y/eli5_how_does_a_smartphone_determine_its_gps/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehseig2",
"ehsm0bq",
"ehsvf14",
"ehswv3a"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because (for most users) your phone is recieving and processing GPS signals 24/7. You car, however, needs to connect to the GPS sattelites each time you turn it on.",
"Your phone can self-locate using a variety of signals (GPS, mobile data and Wi-Fi in most cases) whereas a dedicated GPS unit typically only uses GPS satellites for location. ",
"It actually isn't done instantly, your phones location tracking system has a tracking filter in it that takes input from the GPS signal and other signals that your phone is receiving such as cell phone towers, wifi signals, etc. It uses all of this to create an area in which you are most likely to be. This takes time though, as it needs to reduce the error for your position, which is why when you first open your GPS app (like Google maps) you see a big blue circle because it doesn't know where you are in that circle",
"It's called A-GPS (either Assisted or Augmented, depending who you ask). A lone GPS receiver does a relatively slow search for the signals it expects, generally on several separate channels in your GPS unit. Once it manages to find one valid signal, that gives it a little bit of information about where you are. That lets it make some smarter guesses about how to find valid signals on other channels. Once it finds a second channel, that gives it an even better idea, and allows even quicker searches. The 3rd lock gives you a single point on the surface of the planet, and you'd golden. Often dedicated units will then lock on several more channels, which increases the accuracy of that point given from 3 satellite locks.\n\nPhones and similar devices have rather inferior GPS receivers (worse antenna, fewer channels). But they don't rely on satellites to narrow down a spot on the planet that you're near. Firstly, you're probably connected to a cell service. Ask your phone which cell tower it's connected to, ask a server on the internet where that cell tower is, and suddenly your phone's GPS can take a hugely better guess on how to find satellite signals, saving all the time a dedicated unit spends on getting it's first 3 locks. Similarly, it can look at the list of wifi networks your phone can see. Again, there are online services that will tell you where a particular wifi router is located, geographically, and that helps confirm your location to a few dozen metres.\n\nObviously A-GPS is handy, and if your handheld/car/ship-mounted unit had internet access, then they could have wifi and cellphone electronics added to them, and get lock much faster. Where it runs into trouble, and it's users run into trouble, is when you're somewhere with bad 3G/4G signal. Suddenly you have a system which is really bad at getting a satellite lock without this help, and either the phone or some apps will then give up, leaving you somewhere remote, without the ability to use google maps to help you get back."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2fnope | what exactly is fair use, and how does it apply to quote art? | I want to start making text art posters for quotes from popular films and tv shows and sell prints of them online in order to make a little bit of spending money. [This is an example of what I want to make (note: this is not my work; I am in no way affiliated with the artist and/or seller).](_URL_0_) I was looking at the terms and policies of the website I want to sell them through (Redbubble), and they mentioned that, before you post anything, you should make sure that it complies with Copyright and Fair Use Guidelines. Everything I've read on Google seemed to regard either written works or artwork, and the previous questions on here didn't seem to address what I'm concerned about. So, can someone please ELI5 what Fair Use is and how it works in regards to quote and text art? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fnope/eli5_what_exactly_is_fair_use_and_how_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckaypn7",
"ckayppg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Oh. That is definitely not fair use. Fair use is actually pretty clearly defined. Here is the full text of the Fair Use clause in the US:\n\n > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— \n > \n > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;\n > \n > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;\n > \n > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and\n > \n > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.\n > \n > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.\n\nAfter this there are other things that determine what's fair or not, but what you're asking to do is unquestionably not okay. You're making money because people like those quotes. There are much lesser things that are considered violations (like having your waitstaff sing \"Happy Birthday\" to a patron in your restaurant), so this for sure won't fly. ",
"This question is better suited for /r/legaladvice which is a subreddit visited by actual lawyers and exists specifically to have legal questions posted and answered."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.etsy.com/listing/198886997/doctor-who-quote-optimist-and-dreamer-of?ref=favs_view_4"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4bn9op | the deaths of tupac and notorious b.i.g. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bn9op/eli5the_deaths_of_tupac_and_notorious_big/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1aqyoz",
"d1avb35",
"d1bd2a9"
],
"score": [
23,
8,
4
],
"text": [
" > Is there a generally accepted theory regarding the deaths of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls (aka Notorious BIG)? \n\nGang related\n\n > Who and Why?\n\nCrips killed 2pac, Bloods killed Notorious, because gang related for 2pac, Notorious because retaliation for 2pac\n\n > Furthermore, did being a gangster rapper in the 90s carry inherent risk, or were there specific circumstances that were the catalyst for these particular deaths?\n\nA very high number of rappers were killed in the 90s, so yes, there was an inherent risk for the profession.\n\n > Was it a predominantly East/West issue, or did rappers from other cities (Houston, Cleveland, etc) face similar issues?\n\nCountry wide\n\n > Did some of these rappers serve as proxies for particular gangs?\n\nA very high number claimed and/or associated, be it by proxy, hiring known gang members as security, or they were their friends.",
"2Pac was killed by shug knight. There's a good documentary about his death. The police officers who worked for shug did it probably (one guy alludes to it in the documentary). This seems to be the pretty much accepted answer about 2Pacs death. \n\nShug didn't want 2Pac to leave his label (which he was doing). Pac put out so much shit so that he could finish his contract and move. \n\nBiggie was probably killed by bloods, since they thought the crips killed pac. \n\nDocumentary in question: _URL_0_",
"Huge rap fan here and so I'll try my best to explain.\n\nFirstly, there's no real consensus on who the killers of either person were, nor if either deaths were related.\n\nCorrupt police officers have been investigated into the murder of Biggie and a Crip gang member 'Orlando \"Baby Lane\" Anderson', who Tupac and associates beat down in Las Vegas the same night he died, was accused, but found innocent.\n\nBoth Tupac and Biggie had gang related friends and associates, but neither was part of a specific gang as far as I know. Biggie used to be a crack dealer in Bed Stuy' New York and Junior Mafia may have infact been a gang, but that's not guaranteed.\n\nBeing a rapper wasn't inherently dangerous, it was the \"gangster\" part that added the danger. The East/West issue was more to do with rappers associated with Biggie and Tupac, not as much actual gang warfare. Gangs tended to fight gangs in close proximity, as most people aren't going to fly to the opposite side of the country just to do a drive-by over a vague gang beef.\n\nBeing a gangster at any time carried a risk and if you were a real gangster who rapped, then that didn't change. If you were not a gangster, but still a \"gangster\" rapper, then that could become a problem if people found out you were fake and took issue with that. Some gangsters would be offended someone would pretend to be like them.\n\nThe Midwest and the South didn't have as mainstream of a rap scene as the East and West Coast did in the 90s, despite being arguably more mainstream now than the East and West are.\n\nThose areas did have local scenes though obviously and even mainstream stars (Bone Thugs from Cleveland etc.) but not really a mainstream scene until a bit later on. \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX_rM1Uwo9o"
],
[]
] |
||
20yp2n | are tardigrades from space? | Every animal species on earth appears to have evolved precisely to match environmental conditions.
However, the tardigrade can survive in conditions that could never occur naturally on earth (e.g temperatures just above absolute zero, the vacuum of space, pressures 6x as strong as the deepest portion of the ocean, etc).
How come the tardigrade didn't evolve to match its surroundings like every other life form on earth? Surely it could have evolved to get a less strong cocoon state that involves consumes less energy/resources and more efficiently adapt to its surroundings.
I see only two explanations. (1) a much stronger version of the tardigrade arrived from space (e.g via an asteroid) half a billion years ago and has been evolving since to become a weaker tardigrade better suited to earth's less hostile conditions or (2) there's some evolutionary advantage to having such a strong exterior that is keeping the tardigrade from evolving to match it's surroundings. Which is it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20yp2n/eli5_are_tardigrades_from_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg7yus8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > How come the tardigrade didn't evolve to match its surroundings\n\nIt did. The tardigrade is adapted to deal with drought, and all the rest is just bonus side effect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2ukk9f | where does the tradition of giving gold, silver and bronze medals to the top three competitors originate from? | Additionally, why those metals and that order? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ukk9f/eli5_where_does_the_tradition_of_giving_gold/ | {
"a_id": [
"co97kfh",
"co99y1s"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They are in descending order of value throughout the ages. \n\nThat said, it wasn't until 1904 that they were officially the medals for the Olympics (wikipedia). Why? Probably because they are pretty and make for a nice, permanent display of victory. ",
"Gold and silver had been the primary form of money at that time for millennia. Gold doesn't tarnish so it makes an excellent metallic representation of victory."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
46d9k8 | what is the ultimate goal of pro-lifers who want to repeal roe vs. wade? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46d9k8/eli5_what_is_the_ultimate_goal_of_prolifers_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"d047fnh",
"d04899g"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"At its core people who oppose abortion oppose abortion. They believe it is the killing of defenseless human life. So while they cheer abortion restrictions their ultimate goal is, as much as possible, to stop the administration of abortion. However they go about it that is their goal. Would they support restrictions if that's what they could get? Yes, like any other group they'll take what they can get. But ultimately their goal is straightforward and unambiguous. There are certainly those who feel that restrictions are all they can hope for, or that abortion should only be banned in certain instances, but by and large people who don't 'support' abortion 'oppose' it.",
"So far everyone here has been talking about this as an issue of whether abortion should be legal or not. Some who want to overturn Roe v. Wade think about the constitutional issue and not the content of the decision. \n\nRoe v Wade was decided because (based on some precedent from prior supreme court rulings) the supreme court judges believed there is a \"right to privacy\" embedded within the articles of the constitution. Basically they believed that based on the 4th amendment (freedom from unwanted search and seizure), the 14th amendment (state cannot deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process), and the 1st amendment (freedom of assembly), they could infer that we have a right to privacy. Some believe that the constitution should be interpreted more literally than others -- that is, that the supreme court should not infer anything from the constitution but rather only rule on what is explicitly written. \n\nTo these people, the Roe v Wade decision was an act of judicial overreach. If the ruling is overturned, then it would (and to these people, should) allow states to each make their own rules governing abortion because they believe there is nothing in the constitution that indicates the federal government has any standing to make these laws."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2stu3c | question about war and pow | What would happen if after the announcement of the end of a war if someone say japanese were to kill you or other citizens or military in the pow? would there be a war crime.
also what are laws of war if any? like what is a crime against humanity that you don't do in a war. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2stu3c/eli5_question_about_war_and_pow/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnss268"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Prisoners of war, as far as I know, continue to be prisoners of war in the official sense until they are repatriated, so even with the war officially over, if the POW's were killed, it would still be a war crime/violation of the Geneva Convention (assuming the country in question ratified it, if they didn't it gets a little murky). Even if it wasn't a war crime, it would almost certainly still be prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or simply mass murder. \n\nAs for laws of war, the biggest set is the Geneva Conventions, which put down some basic guidelines, such as fair treatment of POWs, banning the use of chemical and biological agents and banning the use of certain types of ammunition (mushrooming/expanding rounds). Not all countries ratified this convention though, so technically if they didn't, they aren't held to it. However, if that country loses, any mistreatment/violation will still probably be prosecuted. \n\nThere are various ways to get around this, the most famous recent one is that the U.S. didn't classify people they sent to Guantanamo as POW's, so they technically didn't have to abide by/didn't violate these conventions as they didn't apply. Second, Private Military Contractors aren't held to the same standards (Geneva Convention applies to armies) so there were reports of contractors in Iraq using hollowpoints/expanding bullets. As a result, various interests have pushed for closing these loopholes. \n\nSome basic war crimes: \n\n* Executing prisoners\n* Gross mistreatment of Prisoners (like Japan in WWII, I'm betting you are reading Unbroken)\n* Use of certain ammunition (can't find exact wording, but basically hollow points are not allowed due to the injuries they create) \n* No chemical/biological weapons\n* No unfair targeting of civilians (aka, you have to bomb factories, not cities, although this one gets sticky since factories are often in cities) \n* No massacring \n* No human experimentation\n\nnote, these could also be crimes against humanity if a war wasn't going on. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9v8gzc | how is it possible for a candidate to enter the american election while dead? | I read about this yesterday and am wondering how? _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v8gzc/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_a_candidate_to_enter/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9a67h9",
"e9b9bjc"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"The candidates register to run for office long before the election occurs, so that everyone knows who is running and there's time to print up voter information materials, absentee ballots, and that sort of thing. The candidate died less than a month before the election, which is after the set of candidates is fixed, so his name still appeared on the ballots. If a dead candidate wins (as he did in this case), they're treated the same as a person who dies in office.",
"They didn't die until after the ballots had been printed (or at least finalized). Voters were informed, but a lot of people vote for a party rather than a candidate, so at that point people are just voting for the deceased so they can be replaced by someone similar. The people voting for him likely didn't want to see a Democrat in office, so they voted for the dead guy to force a different replacement to be picked.\n\nA friend of mine told me his state (Missouri) once had something similar happen, where an elected official died after the ballots were printed and then won the election. I believe his wife or someone was appointed to fill the position instead, at least temporarily."
]
} | [] | [
"https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/dead-brothel-owner-wins-election-nevada-legislative-seat-59026167"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
oqcdt | what exactly is an ionizer/what does it do? | So I have this really cool [thing](_URL_0_) that is supposed to help w/ people who need lots of light/get bummed during winter darkness/rainy days/etc. It has a negative ionizer on it, and I have no idea why or what it actually does. This is all they say about it on the website: "SunTouch Plus simulates the actual healing effect of a natural waterfall or rainforest, which abound in negative ions. The feeling is said to be absolutely heavenly!" Helpful, right? So can someone tell me more about this mystical ionizing thingy?
EDIT: thanks for the responses. by the way, this thing isn't just an ionizer, it just has an ionizing feature. it's mostly just a really bright light. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/oqcdt/eli5_what_exactly_is_an_ionizerwhat_does_it_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3j6tqc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"ok ionized air will help dust cling and settle faster, by transferring their electrically charged particle to them. \n\nas far as health goes... pish. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://naturebright.com/?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=5"
] | [
[]
] |
|
74exe7 | how did e = mc² become a famous equation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74exe7/eli5_how_did_e_mc²_become_a_famous_equation/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnxq2hb",
"dnxq9gb",
"dnxqk5d",
"dnxr8t6",
"dnxttgn"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
11,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Aside from being elegant and simple it has a lot of application (nuclear bomb, nuclear fusion, ITER).",
"Einstein was ridiculously famous & Relativity was a huge discovery. E=mc^2 is short and sweet and easy to understand, even if you don't know what it means.\n\nPerfect recipe for a pop-culture phenomenon.",
"It stated that energy could be converted into matter and vice versa. That's a big shocker in physics to the layperson. We all know, or think we know, what matter is - stuff we can hold, or at least contain. But energy appears different. Light, heat, motion, they just feel like they're in a different class of stuff. But Einstein says they're the same, and he can prove it.",
"What's important to consider is that \"E = mc²\" is the culmination of decades of painstaking scientific research by many brilliant scientists. In the end it lead to the theories of Special and General Relativity: arguably the most profound development in our understanding of the universe of all time. \n\n\"E = mc²\" is one of the conclusions Einstein was able to draw, after years of hard work and number crunching for conclusive, airtight proof of all of their findings. It is, in fact, an extremely condensed equation and a mathematical explanation of why this equation is true and the mass–energy equivalence is indeed what it is, would require many, many pages to explain.\n\nSince us mere mortals couldn't begin to understand all the theories and mathematics behind it all, E = mc² became General Relativity's catchphrase as it were. Great marketing, really.",
"Einstein came up with the Theory of Special Relativity which describes how things behave when they are traveling very fast (i.e. close to the speed of light). One of the main equations in this theory is:\n\nE^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 \n(where E is the energy, p is the momentum, m is the mass, and c is the speed of light). If p=0, then you get E=mc^2 .\n\nThis is different from the Newtonian equation E = p^2 /2m which works well for large/slow things. The key difference being that an objects mass (multiplied by c^2) can be considered as an energy.\n\nNow energy can be converted from one form into another, e.g. from potential energy into kinetic energy. So people could see the possibility of getting energy from this rest energy mc^2 term. This is exactly what happens, for example, when we split a Uranium atom (fission) or combine two Hydrogen atoms (fusion). \n\nSo the E=mc^2 equation more-or-less leads to Nuclear power. This is why the equation is important in Physics, as to why it became famous in the general public is down to a mix of wanting something short and sweet and the awe people felt for the atomic bomb in the 40s & 50s.\n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
27gsfv | does evolution happen at random or does it aim for perfection? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27gsfv/eli5_does_evolution_happen_at_random_or_does_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci0n70p",
"ci0nm80",
"ci0obx8",
"ci0oldg",
"ci0p0z0"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Biological evolution is not aimed at anything. It has no goal.\nChanges in the hereditary material of organisms happen at random and cause variation in a population. Thus, the variation is random. Natural selection preserves those organisms that are fit to survive in the environment. ",
"Evolution isn't sentient. It's just a game of statistics. Given X conditions, Y mutation has more members get to reproductive age than Z. ",
"Mutation (changes in your DNA) is random but how well that mutation contributes to survival and is therefore passed on is based on external factors. \n\nE.G. being able to see slightly better at night for modern, might be useful but as we are pretty much a completely diurnal species who can create artificial light then it probably doesn't contribute that much to your survival so might not end up as a more \"permanent\" fixture in your DNA.\n\nHowever for an owl the ability to see better at night than other owls would probably contribute to your survival in situations where owls are under a large threat from predators or scarce food. It is more likely to get passed on as the owl with that gene is more likely to survive than the owl without that gene.",
"In a vacuum it is random. However, because organisms evolve in *not* in a vacuum but rather in an active ecosystem, there are environmental pressures upon them, such as predators, climate, and so on.\n\nRandom mutations that aid survival against these pressures are, essentially by definition, more likely to survive and pass on their genetics than random mutations that inhibit survival. \n\nThus, over time, you should expect to see a gradual refinement of fitness in an environment, because all the 'less fit' versions statistically tend to be killed off.\n\nHowever, perfection is a nebulous term. Everything else in the environment is also evolving, thus there is no static 'best fit' for an organism to achieve. ",
"The mutations are random. Evolution happens when those mutants survive, and thrive. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
aphxpb | how do drinks (sodas, canned coffee, etc.) stay mixed together and not separate into their ingredients? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aphxpb/eli5_how_do_drinks_sodas_canned_coffee_etc_stay/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg8jbvh",
"eg8k7pd",
"eg8kyi2",
"eg8lh4q",
"eg8mkfk",
"eg8prd7",
"eg8rmmx",
"eg8si49",
"eg8tm20",
"eg96kaa",
"eg9dkkh",
"eg9w9u8",
"ega9hn2"
],
"score": [
3,
38,
2530,
174,
3,
14,
2,
3,
9,
11,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They are mixed at the molecular level, instead of a mixture of chunks. More info: _URL_0_",
"So the seperation between oil and water is due to differing polarity of the molecules: water is very polar, oil is quite non-polar and thus they seek to minimize contact ergo seperation. Soda and coffee drinks usually contain stuff like sugar and caffeine and other small organic molecules contained lots of Oxygens and Nitrogens that will make them fairly polar as well, meaning they will stay in solution in water.",
"Some stuff does separate a bit, like Yoohoo. Things that don't separate are because the ingredients are either completely in solution (like sugar dissolved in milk or water) or because the ingredients make a stable suspension when you get them evenly mixed (homogenized milk is stable because they stir the crap out of it).\n\nDissolving works because it's energetically favorable. Things like sugar and salt have parts of their molecules that have a slight charge imbalance. Water does too, so they like to stick to each other, kind of like little bar magnets. They'd rather hang out with the water than clump together on their own.\n\nIn the case of suspensions (colloids) you have things that don't want to mix, but you get them to because the thorough mixing breaks clumps. For the fat in milk, you stir until the fat ends up in tiny little spheres with water around them. The little clumps of fat want to stay together, and the water wants to stay together. To get the clumps of fat near to each other and start combining back into bigger clumps is a higher energy state, and in general, things want to stay at the lowest energy. It basically takes more energy to get the water (like little sticky magnets) out of the way that's keeping the fat separate.\n\nEDIT: Someone mentioned emulsifiers, which I totally spaced on. That's another thing that may keep a mixture together. Emulsifiers are ingredients that allows mixtures of polar and non-polar ingredients to stay together. An example would be water (polar) and oil (non-polar). Emulsifiers have one end that sticks to polar molecules and another end that sticks to non-polar molecules, so they sort of play matchmaker. Common examples for foods and beverages are egg yolk, mustard, soy lecithin, and various esters.\n\nEDIT2: In my enthusiam for ELI5'ing it I described homogenization as just 'stirring'. While some stuff can remain pretty stable by stirring hard (with like a blender or something), in practice, it works better if you go super saiyan on breaking up the clumps you want to remain in suspension with a more specialized device. As other commentors pointed out, milk is homogenized by forcing it through a small opening under high pressure.",
"a lot of drinks will have binding agents in them. such as mountain dew. it has something called BVO (brominated vegetable oil). not exactly good for you...but they gotta make the drink..look like a drink right?💀",
"Sometimes the molecules stay within the liquid on their own, a suspension, and sometimes chemicals are added to keep everything mixed. A common example of this is an emulsifier. Soap is one of these and allows water and oils to mix when they normally dont. ",
"Most drinks are a mixture of things. Some things are really small, like a sugar molecule. Those things are usual \"dissolved\" or \"in solution\", meaning that sugar likes to hang out with water molecules more than other sugar molecules.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nOther things are bigger, like milk proteins, bits of chocolate, or tiny balls of fat. Then it'ss called a \"suspension\". These can settle over time, but you shake it up, it's usually a good mix. Suspensions are stable for different reasons than above, but the idea is the same. Somethings we need to add things that are called \"surfactants\" to make a suspension stable. Think of these as special molecules with one end suited to your suspended particle, and other end compatible with water.",
"Some things are just prone to stay mixed chemically, like sugar and salts which dissolve in water. Other processes exist for the things that don't dissolve normally. Things like fat have their larger (still tiny to us) bits broken into even tinier particles that do a much better job mixing in. In other cases an additional substance is added that helps them bind or mix in by changing their chemistry a little. ",
"Xanthan gum is a polysaccharide with many industrial uses, including as a common food additive. It is an effective thickening agent and stabilizer to prevent ingredients from separating. \n\nCheck the ingredients and i bet you see it towards the end!",
"If the mixture isn’t naturally stable (like sugar dissolved in water) then various additives (E-Numbers) are used.\n\nCommon stabilisers, which essentially hold everything in place, include agar, gelatin, guar gum, starch, pectin and xanthan gum. You’ll probably find one of more of these in a yogurt or milkshake drink.\n\nSometimes you also need emulsifiers in order to get water and oils to mix. These include lecithin, sodium phosphate and glycerides. Milk naturally contains lecithin, for example.\n\nFor fizzy drinks, the pressure of the container keeps the gas dissolved in the liquid.",
"If it's mountain dew in the US, brominated vegetable oil, I don't know how they do it in the rest of the world where bromine is banned for human consumption.",
"Oil and water don’t mix because their molecules are attracted to themselves and not to each other.\n\nIf you want oil and water to mix, then adding an emulsifier would help them mix together.\n\nBasically what the emulsifier does is it’s attracted to both molecules so it makes them attracted to each other.\n\nSo 2 reasons why drinks stay mixed together are for 1 of 2 reasons:\n\nThe molecules are attracted to each other,\n\nOr,\n\nThey added an emulsifier to force some molecules to be attracted to each other.\n\nTL;DR, it’s an emulsifier. It helps the unmixable mix together ",
"Thermodynamics. There's a million ways you can mix up your molecules and the most \"comfortable\" ways are where there are the most \"microstates\".\n\nSome things don't mix well because there are strong incentives not to, for example oil and water. Similarly to mixing a big bowl of magnets together, they have a preference for how to stack.\n\nMost things don't do this, however, and prefer to mix to maximize the number of microstates available to the mixture.\n\nIt's not just random chance. If you shuffle a deck of cards a hundred times, you will sometimes get patterns of cards forming straights and flushes. But you can mix a liquid mixture once a minute for an infinite number of years and you will never separate the components by chance. The liquid prefers to be that way.",
"Gum Arabic for the longest time was the main emolsifier used in the soft drink industry to keep everything suspended in the liquid. The largest exporter of gun arabic was sudan. The government of Sudan had ties to the one company in charge of exporting Gum arabic and funneled that money into genocides against first South Sudan and then Darfur. And the industries that purchased Gum arabic from Sudan remained silent. They even changed the name of the type of gum it was so as to not raise attention to the fact that they were doing business with Sudan. When the US publicly criticized Sudan back in '08 or so, the foreign minister held up a bottle of Coke at a press conference and threatened to cut off the world's main supply of gum Arabic. At one time, Sudan supplied 80% of the world's gum arabic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.ducksters.com/science/chemistry/chemical_mixtures.php"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2r789x | how do companies that buy & re-sell other people's debt make money? | Say, a call center is open specifically to buy and sell debt. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r789x/eli5_how_do_companies_that_buy_resell_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnd3cl0",
"cnd3h5g",
"cnd544b"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"You owe $7,000 to Bustass Bank, but quit paying for five months. Your debt is now worth substantially less since it is nonperforming, and may be sold for $2,000 at this point, and more like $500 after 270 days. They then harrass you to pay or sue you for the full debt. If they paid $500 and collect the full $7,000, they win.",
"They buy up debt for cents on the dollar. Take for instance some debt that has been recently charged off by a bank. It isn't fiscally profitable for the bank to try and collect on it because they don't have or want to maintain a huge collections center. But they could sell it for ten cents on the dollar for someone else to collect. In the case of $1,000,000 of debt, the bank gets back $100,000 and the debt buyer gets $1,000,000 to try and collect.\n\nAs long as they can keep their margins above 10% it is all profit, minus whatever overhead they are incurring.",
"I get that they are \"bottom feeders\" but to be fair if someone doesn't repay their debts (of at least the principle amount) they ultimately stole that money. Thanks in advance for the downvotes ;)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6cogf6 | why do people steal iphones if the fbi had such a difficult time unlocking the phone of the san bernardino shooter? | If the fbi struggled wouldn't it be even harder for the average mugger?
The iphone is pretty much useless if you cannot unlock it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cogf6/eli5_why_do_people_steal_iphones_if_the_fbi_had/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhw52dz",
"dhw54m1",
"dhw552t",
"dhw7miy"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
25,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on if you want the contents on it or not. I'm sure that the FBI wanted all of his information on that phone when they opened it. Someone who steals your phone can just erase everything and wipe it and use the hardware. ",
"I don't think that thiefs are in need of the data that is stored on the iphones (or any smartphone for that matter). While FBI needed the data that was already in the phone, all thiefs have to do is restart the smartphone and its back to its basic settings. And the only way FBI would be able to get access to the iphone is if Apple created a key made specifically to unblock owned iphones, which is susceptible to being leaked and thus give anyone access to all of the iphones. ",
"The mugger doesn't care about obtaining the data, and doesn't need to use tools that conform with US constitutional protections for the accused. The FBI needs both. \n\nThe mugger wants a phone that can be resold, so they're happy with a factory reset. That process can be done [without the passcode](_URL_0_). The FBI was much more interested in the data on the phone than the phone itself, so they couldn't just perform a factory reset (that would flush the data they were so interested in obtaining). ",
"I want to correct a few misconceptions people seem to have here. Yes, it is possible to factory reset an iPhone without the passcode to unlock it. HOWEVER, when the original owner sets up their iPhone (either from scratch or after a restore) they sign in with an iCloud account/Apple ID, and a feature known as Find My iPhone is generally enabled by default. Why is this important?\n\nIf the phone is erased while Find My iPhone is turned on (it can only be turned off with the Apple ID password), the next time it goes through initial setup and contacts Apple's servers to activate, it will enter a state of Activation Lock. In this state it will ask for the Apple ID and password that were originally signed in, and will not proceed without it. This will render the phone essentially useless except for parts, which is still not bad. Original Apple parts can be valuable in the third party repair market because Apple does not sell them to anyone else, and reserves the right to refuse service if third party components are found. Take an original battery at $79 or an original display at $129-149, for example.\n\nCriminals are slowly realizing this but iPhone users are still being robbed because, well, there are still some that haven't gotten the memo or want to take the risk in the hope that Find My iPhone is turned off by an oblivious user. And smart criminals generally don't go around purse snatching, but rather participate in more ambitious thefts, so the ones stealing iPhones are probably scraped from the bottom of the barrel anyway."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://smallbusiness.chron.com/reset-iphone-password-protected-70214.html"
],
[]
] |
|
26ycsl | why are stories about individual rape cases in india top stories in united states news media? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ycsl/eli5_why_are_stories_about_individual_rape_cases/ | {
"a_id": [
"chvojiu",
"chvpuo9",
"chvqcj1",
"chvqfp3",
"chvqg56",
"chvqxr0",
"chvx62k",
"chvxd0q",
"chvxifh",
"chvxsx8",
"chvyief",
"chvyv4k",
"chw0gnr"
],
"score": [
33,
25,
109,
5,
18,
11,
11,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Remember the media outlets are businesses, so it is all about ratings, and what ever gives the best results is what they talk about. So if India is the \"ticket\" that is what gets published, shown, ect.",
"Misogyny is a massive problem in India. So thats why its important. But if you're wondering why they use individual rape cases instead of talking about the big overarching issue, its because news will always get more attention when its about individuals. People are far more likely to tune into a story a specific person's sad, emotional and personal experience than they are to tune into a story about how \"women are raped a lot in India\". By focusing on personal, individual stories, they can draw the attention of more people, and then direct that attention towards the larger issue.",
"The heinous circumstances behind the [Delhi Gang Rape](_URL_0_) case brought it all to spotlight. Then the [Swiss tourist rape](_URL_1_) gave it an international angle. The recent rape/lynch cases reaffirms the \"image of rape in India\". Now its just \"the hot ticket\" so people will read it, and media will prosper. ",
"I said this before in another thread. \n\nRape and other crime happen a lot all over the world to POOR people, especially if they're homeless (vulnerable populations). \n\nIndia has a large income disparity (gap between rich and poor). Thus, there are many stories you can choose from (many many poor). \n\n**Why do we hear about it?** \n\nA: India is going through a phase where there are a lot of social movements because people know rape is wrong, so it's highly publicized now. You only hear about it because there is local outrage. \n\n**Why are Americans so interested?** \n\nA: There are a lot of social implications with the poor people who are being raped (by other poor people) in India, which make the background of rape stories more interesting. For example: [\"Untouchables\"](_URL_0_) are basically the unwanted people in Indian society (much like gypsies in Europe), in the strata of the caste system. Ironically, it's similar to how we treated black people no more than 50 years ago.\n\nHowever, like I said before, I believe that if we close the gap between rich and poor, we'll see a lot less poor people/homeless. With less poverty = less rape/other crimes. Poor people are being raped all around the world. ",
"Media outlets just want to create uproar and anger among the people while still trying to call America awesome. If media outlets reported rape in America, people would be crying out that this country is horrible and investors/citizens/businesses will lose their confidence in America. India is a perfect country to create sensational stories about because it is on the other side of the world. People in America already have a negative stereotype about India in their minds so it is easy for the media to take advantage of this.\n\nThe reason why they choose India over other countries is because India is almost to the point where it can count as a developed country. Countries in Africa and South America have a long way to go before they can reach that point. India has just enough of a voice in international affairs for people to care about them but they still have that ancient negative stereotype in the minds of Americans that gives media outlets enough content to take advantage of.",
"Why are isolated American shootings top stories in Australian news media?",
"reddit will tell you it's because they want to bash India while ignoring their [US's] own problems.\n\nIn reality, it's because there's a different mindset to it there. You don't hear about the cases where someone got raped and the police swooped in and arrested/jailed the guy. You hear about the case where nothing was done and/or it was done by public servicemen. You hear about the cases that are so absurd and foreign to someone used to the *relatively* functional justice system in the US.",
"\n > ELI5: Why are stories about individual **gang** rape cases in India top stories in United States news media?\n\nFtfy.\n\nIts not just India. There was a story about a gang rape occuring in Malaysia the other day on the front page of Reddit.\n\n",
"ITT Indian nationalism vs American nationalism.\n\nThe thread title is a loaded question anyways. Indian rape stories are NOT top stories in the US. I have never, ever seen an Indian rape story be the lead story on a US newcast. Not even close. If anything they would just get a brief mention towards the middle or end of the broadcast and that's it.\n\nReddit likes the play the 'India and Gang rape' angle a little bit though. ",
"It's not the rape in itself that is newsworthy, it's the reaction of the authorities and the local people to the rape that outrages people in the US.",
"I would argue that this is a big story in the international media primarily because it is local Indian media that are hyping these stories up!\n\nIndian media at the moment, after the bus rape especially, now highlight pretty much every horrific rape.\n\nThis then gets carried over to the BBC, and then heads to CNN and the rest of America because these news outlets have a major audience within India as well.\\\n\nThis is the main reason why! It's not to do with American media hating on India or not wanting to report anything else about India.\n\nIf the Indian media do not highlight it as much, you will not be hearing these stories in the international media either!",
"Because they are really bad with very little consequences ",
"Individual cases speak more to Americans. We respond to personal stories rather than abstract ideas.\n\nBlacks had been mistreated in the South for a long time, but it was the story of the murder of Emmitt Till that made that abuse tangible to other Americans.\n\nSimilarly you can talk about bad working conditions, human trafficking, widespread poverty, etc. And Americans will sympathize, but it just won't be real to us. These individual stories of unpunished rape strike a chord in our individualistic hearts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape",
"http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/21/world/asia/india-rape-conviction/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchability"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cbqw0f | why is there more visible smoke when people vape compared with regular cigarettes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cbqw0f/eli5_why_is_there_more_visible_smoke_when_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"ethm5ef",
"ethoa32"
],
"score": [
18,
5
],
"text": [
"Vape liquid has chemicals that hold on to water very well. It's the same chemicals used in fog machines. Cigarette smoke it's just small soot particles",
"Like the first guy said, cause it's not actually smoke. Plus, I dont think you could even rip on a cigarette like you can with a mod."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3uz2yh | why does the united states have a disproportionately high number of the top ranked colleges/universities compared to the rest of the world? | Most college/university rankings will be nearly 80% American. How did it come about that the US developed such a strong higher education system? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uz2yh/eli5_why_does_the_united_states_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxixump",
"cxizis0",
"cxj08g3",
"cxj0iix",
"cxj0kyy",
"cxj2q58",
"cxj3lq1",
"cxj3muo",
"cxj6vbk",
"cxjmgo9",
"cxjrmhh"
],
"score": [
81,
3,
24,
9,
5,
65,
5,
2,
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"University ranks are highly contested since ranks are quite subjective. One obvious bias is that a lot of ranks focus on how often scientific articles get quoted (purely quantitative). Since English is a universal language, English speaking universities tend to have a clear advantage over French or Italian. This is quite documented included other biases, so I would encourage you to google it.\n\nThat said, I would expect universities from the US or England to have a certain advantage based on how the west has had a lead on science over the past centuries and they have a strong educational system with significant funds invested going back to Carnegie and Rockerfeller's support of the libraries and educational system - and of course predating that with the old British Universities that were an inspiration for the US.\n\nIf you want more of a historical view I would encourage you to post in /r/askhistorians.",
"Where do you get the 80% from? I'm guessing this number is rather bigger than most lists I've seen. \n\nSubjectivity of ranking aside, I'm not quite sure how disproportionate the American dominance is. The US has a huge population and is incredibly rich compared to the rest of the world. It makes sense that country with the most leading universities is the US. \n\n",
"At least in terms of research, the US has the advantage of fascism and WWII destroying much of the research networks of Europe. It used to be that in much of science, you pretty much had to go to grad school in Europe (and especially Germany), and lots of American scientists did that. But the combination of the physical destruction of many European universities, combined with persecution of Jews causing many prominent scientists (Einstein, Fermi, etc) to flee to America, plus after the war the US picked up scientists like von Braun who worked for the US in exchange for not being charged with war crimes (\"Operation Paperclip\"), it has been hard for European research to come back after these blows.",
"I recently saw an interview with Michio Kaku where he talked about America having the best universities yet a terrible education system, and how the majority of students at the best universities are not American born anymore. Perhaps these institutions use their existing long term standing and notoriety to attract the best students from around the world and the students in turn keep the institutions alive. ",
"Although I've never seen a ranking 80% comprised of US unis (usually it's 50% tops), there are a number of factors that are likely to contribute to this:\n\n* Papers published in English get read far more than those in other languages, and paper citations are a huge factor in most ranking agencies. Already, therefore, English-speaking countries are at an advantage\n\n* Of the English-speaking countries, the nations that have been the most powerful, wealthy and influential for the longest time are the UK and US.\n\n* The US population is 5 times larger than the UK's, meaning that all else being equal, the US should have multiple times the number of top-ranked unis than the UK\n\n* Revenue - most countries fund their unis publicly and cap student fees (if there are even fees at all). US unis, especially prvate ones, can charge whatever they want, which gives them a massive stream of revenue that isn't available to UK, Canadian, Australian, European unis. This however has significant drawbacks for students who end up with ridiculous debts.",
"This occurs for several reasons already mentioned. One that is relevant in German speaking coutries is that the universities here often focus on few subjects rather than the plethora of subjects that Harvard or Stanford might focus on. For example, the Max-Plank Institute (_URL_0_), has seen more Nobel Laureates come through its doors than Harvard and has arguably done more for many aspects of sicence in the last few years. Yet, because it only focuses on a few areas of reasearch, it does not show up in rankings. The London School of Economics is another example of this. It is 71st on world rankings, but ranks head to head with Harvard considering Social Sciences only. \n\nAnother aspect is the language of instruction, as many universities outside of the US and England will teach in their native tounge and publish in that tounge as well. \n\nMoney was mentioned, but is not the issue in the way your might expect. European universities may have a lot of money to spend, but will not put as much of it into adverstising and marketing. It is due to thsi that they are not as prominent and do not attract as much attention from others. \n\n",
"Size is also a factor. A US university can have tens of thousands of students and researchers. In France, the ENS Ulm has done an incredible job in quantum physics and in mathematics with promotions of roughly 40 new undergraduates per year in each subject. They basically try to attract prodigies, offer them a 1300 euros monthly stipend, and have older students serve as tutors. It is one of the reason why France has the second biggest number of Fields medal (after the US, but with 20% of the population size)...\nThe result is that France is trying to merge many small elite universities and engineer schools into a much higher ranked entity.",
"Okay wow I can't believe that no one has mentioned this... But elite institutions are all private run, unlike most rest of the world that has state funding for all of it's schools, it makes it more competitive, and the alumni donation thing makes investment capabilities soar. T",
"After studying in the USA as well as in universities in South Korea, South Africa, and Australia (all within the top 100), I feel that this question has no easy answer. Part of it, I feel, is cultural.\n\nIn the USA and South Korea, academia is taken very seriously. It is hard to get into a position to research, let alone publish in a competitive journal. This competitive culture drives up their outcomes. US schools also get an incredible amount of interaction, networks, and funding from alumni (often through sports), which gives them an advantage. \n\nSouth Korean education is stupidly competitive, despite being a considerably smaller country. Similar to the USA, they have a strong \"old boy' alumni culture for funding and networking.\n\nSouth Africa is dealing with other issues that affect the rankings.\n\nAustralia lacks in some regards when compared to the US or ROK. Despite being a postgraduate student, I felt a complete lack of competition in research and academic rigour. It is comparatively easy to get into a research position -- with a poor research question -- when compared to the US and ROK. Most of the PhDs in Australia would probably rank as 1st year MA students in the USA/ROK. In my MA program, most of the Australia students barely showed up. Postgraduate studies are basically seen as a gap year. International students are basically cash cows.\n\nAdditionally, most Australian universities suffer from a lack of funding and interaction from alumni. The funding comes from international students and the government. Australian schools' rankings benefit greatly from factors like employability, inclusivity, and internationalisation (just hope you are Aussie when job searching...). These compensate for the lower quality of research and academic rigour.\n\nThese elements all feed into the ranking criteria. For example, ANU (#17) ranks so highly internationally because they get 'special funding' from the government and, being in tiny tiny Canberra, benefit from a more engaged alumni network. They also produce high quality research. Then there is a huge gap -- USyd, UMelb, and UQ rank closer to 50.",
"University rankings are rubbish, there is a clear example of this. Edinburgh university is consistently third or fourth in the world rankings for British universities, but 10th or so generally when ranked only against British universities. Clear contradiction. ",
"Endowments. \n\n1) Universities with huge endowments can (this is the perception anyway) do more research, and more interesting research.\n\n2) Interesting and plentiful research draws the best researchers.\n\n3) The best researchers do prominent research.\n\n4) Prominent research and reseachers increase the prestige of a University.\n\n5) Undergraduate students go to prestigious universities to be milked like dairy cows, both as students and later on as alumni which:\n\n6) loops back into point 1) by increasing the size of a University's endowment. \n\nI had to do some consulting work on this topic, so perspective may vary."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Society"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1j5ica | what does 42 mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j5ica/eli5_what_does_42_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbbavvv",
"cbbawrc",
"cbbawst",
"cbbbr81"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing on it's own.\n\nIt's a reference to a book called the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy. One of the worlds most famous science fiction novels.\n\nIn the book is a story about a computer that calculates the awnser to \"The ultimate question about life, the universe and everything.\" It does so, eventually after millions of years coming up with the awnser '42'.\n\nOf course the philosophers don't understand the awnser. But that's because they don't know the actual question.",
"There is a very popular media franchise (plays, then books, then movies and TV shows) called *The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy*. It's a comedy sci-fi story in which a human refugee from Earth explores the galaxy and gets involved in all kinds of silly situations.\n\nIn its most famous part, the universe's most advanced race builds the universe's most advanced computer, and sets it to the task of answering 'the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.' They believe that it will explain the function and meaning of all existence and bring everyone to enlightenment. It calculates at full load for over seven million years, and eventually gives the answer \"42.\" Everyone is confused, and then realises that now they have to figure out what 'the ultimate question' actually is, and how it could possibly generate the answer 42. It is said that if anyone actually figures out what the universe means, it will be instantly replaced by a new universe that makes even less sense. It is also said that this has probably already happened.\n\nBecause this is the most famous portion of a book very popular with geeky folks, it's referenced and parodied a lot online.",
"I can only assume you talk about 42 as a reference to \"the hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy\". In this novel, a computer was built to answer the ultimate question to life, the universe and everything. A few million years later, the computer was finished calculating that answer and it was 42. Nobody ever learned what the question actually was that this answer answers.",
"Its the answer to life, the universe, and everything. We just dont know the answer yet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4cewez | what prevents the caramel filling in chocolates from hardening? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cewez/eli5_what_prevents_the_caramel_filling_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1hildb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I am actually working in a freaking chocolate factory as a process engineer and the best answer I can give you is: Well, It doesn't harden at that temperature.\n\nIt's just different sorts of caramel.\n\nThere is solid caramel candy and there is this liquid/gooey caramel. Has to do with sugar/water rates, the types of sugar you use, cream or milk beeing added etc.\n\nSo it's a little like asking why water is liquid and jello is not. It's just what makes up the structure or rather, what prevents the structure to form."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4lu0ey | intel is comming with a 10core processor. what is a core? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lu0ey/eli5intel_is_comming_with_a_10core_processor_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3q50op",
"d3q8nd9"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"A CPU is made up of many parts (other parts include the L3, L2, and L1 caches, the memory controller, there are actually quite a bit of parts on the CPU), but probably the most important parts are the cores. The cores are the computational engines of the CPU, they are what do the calculations. Each core can do one calculation per clock cycle, the complexity of this calculation however depends on something called the architecture, which is just the design of the core, how all of the transistors that make it up are laid out. A clock cycle is how long it takes to load this information, execute it, and reset everything. CPU clocks are expressed in units called Hertz, which means per second. Modern CPUs have clock speeds of around 3 Gigahertz, or 3 billion Hertz, so each core can do the computations 3 billion times per second.\n\nMore cores on the CPU will help in some tasks, not all however, such as those that require knowledge of prior computations. Take the expression (3 + 4) * 7 for example, you should probably add 3 and 4 together before you multiply by 7, this is a multi step equation that requires you to know prior computations. Other tasks can use a lot of cores, for example video rendering uses a lot of cores since if a core finishes with one frame, it can move on to the next frame.\n\nThis is nothing new however, Intel released a 22 core CPU a few weeks ago and has a 90 core CPU as well in experimental labs. More cores does not necessarily mean better however.",
"Let's say the cpu is some kind of calculator, for simplicity sake. You put some numbers into the calculator, then you ask the calculator to do something with it (subtract, add etc). Then the calculator gives you a number back, the result.\n\nWhy more cores? Let's say you have 2 math problems. 1 core would mean 1 calculator. So the calculator needs to do a calculation and give a result, then do the next problem and give that result. With 2 cores you would have 2 calculators, 1 calculator does the first problem and the second one does the 2nd problem, they both give you a result at the same time.\n\nMore cores = more calculators.\nThe speed of the calculations = clock speed.\n\nWith more cores you would do more calculations at the same time, with more clock speed the calculators work faster. Some programs are programmed to use 1 calculator (old games), some programs can use 4 to 8 calculators to do math with (photoshop)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2o6d43 | why some states aren't eligible for participation in sweepstakes, promotions, etc.. | An example is Amazon Smile, while people from states can enter and participate, they are limited to what kind of activities that can take place, solely for residing in a state.
i.e.
3. Advertising AmazonSmile
You may promote or link to the AmazonSmile Site only so long as you comply with the following requirements:
You may only do so on your site and may only use such of our or our affiliates' trademarks or logos ("Amazon Marks"), links to the AmazonSmile Site ("Links"), or other content we may make available to you (collectively, "Content"), in all cases in accordance with Program Participation Requirements and the Program Trademark Guidelines;
You may not do so in a way that is misleading or confusing to customers or that does not accurately represent the AmazonSmile Site or the Program (e.g., by expressing or implying that we sponsor or endorse you or any other cause or that we support your position on any issue);
You may not engage in any promotional, marketing, or other advertising activities on behalf of us or our affiliates, or in connection with the AmazonSmile Site or the Program, in any offline manner, such as in any printed material, mailing, or other document, or any oral solicitation; and
Charitable organizations headquartered in one of the states listed below may not send emails that exclusively advertise AmazonSmile, although these organizations may include information about AmazonSmile in emails, such as email newsletters, that also contain other content unrelated to AmazonSmile. These states are: AL, AR, CO, DC, FL, HI, ID, IL, IA, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NM, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, and WY. Organizations headquartered in any other state may promote AmazonSmile to their supporters using email advertising dedicated to the promotion of AmazonSmile, or emails that contain AmazonSmile information along with other unrelated content. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o6d43/eli5why_some_states_arent_eligible_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmk4v4d"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some states have passed specific laws banning these types of promotions.\n\nThere was a time when there were a lot of scammy, fraudulent \"sweepstakes\" that harmed a lot of people. The states took action to restrict the ability of companies or individuals to run those kinds of promotions.\n\nSince Amazon is so big, it would face meaningful sanctions in those states if it ignored those laws."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
f7sfel | how does "auto generated subtitles" translate audio into text? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f7sfel/eli5_how_does_auto_generated_subtitles_translate/ | {
"a_id": [
"fieh6wr",
"fif9wk5"
],
"score": [
9,
16
],
"text": [
"Basically you take the software that turns speech into text - \"Okay Google, how is what I'm saying to you right now showing up on my phone's screen?\" - and point it at a youtube video's audio track. Take all the text it produces and make it into a subtitle feed.\n\nObviously it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.",
"It works almost exactly the same as digital assistants such as Siri, Alexa and Google Assistant do when they listen to your voice commands. Which is called \"Automatic Speech Recognition\" or ASR for short.\n\nFirst you need to teach a computer program to be able to recognize speech and match that to words. This is done by giving a machine learning program lots of examples to start with.\n\nLike *\" hello program* *here are hundreds if not thousands of hours of already correctly subtitled videos. Try to recreate it. \"*\n\nThe program then works really hard until it is able to recreate the subtitles at which point you start to give it new videos without any subtitles to compare with.\n\nThe program can now detect speech automatically but it is not perfect. It still makes a lot of mistakes. But the beauty of it is that it can learn from mistakes. All it need is feedback just like we do and hopefully get in school. If it hears \"Hello\" and thinks it's \"jello\" all you need to do is correct it and it will remember and expand from it.\n\nSo now when you go to YouTube and turn on auto generated subtitles the video is either feed into this program on demand or has already been processed and the result is speech to text which is synced. Example of output from the program would be: At 2 minutes 34 seconds the word \"**Malarkey**\" is uttered.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nnote: it is obviously more complex as machine learning is involved which is a whole other subject and is more complicated then i made it seem but the gist of it holds true.\n\n*Edit: Spelling.*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
jdyhd | difference between beer, whiskey, liquor, rum, etc. | And is it true that whiskey causes more fights? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jdyhd/eli5_difference_between_beer_whiskey_liquor_rum/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2bb8wx",
"c2bb8wx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The quick answer: how they're made and what they're made of.\n\nBeer:\n\nBeer is made from water, hops (a kind of flower), barley, yeast and other ingredients. The barley and any other \"mash\" ingredients are cooked together. Yeast consumes sugar taken from the barley and turns it into alcohol and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide makes it fizzy. Hops is added to add flavour.\n\nWhiskey (whisky, scotch, bourbon):\n\nWhiskey is made from water, barley, yeast and other ingredients. The barley and other grains are put in water, then allowed to dry, and then cooked over a kiln that burns a flammable moss called peat. The barley is then cooked in water with yeast added. Yeast process the sugars and turn them into alcohols, and the liquid is distilled until it is very strong (it has a high percentage of alcohol). After this, the contents are put into wooden barrels, and the alcohols and water in the mixture draw out chemicals in the wood which add different sorts of flavours to the end result.\n\nRum:\n\nRum is not as specific. Rums are made by taking molasses or sugar cane juice, fermenting them with yeast, distilling them, and aging and/or adding spices. There are several ways to make rum, which can result in fairly pure \"white\" rum to spiced rum which is darker and has interesting herb flavours, and aged rums, which are aged in wooden barrels and which (like scotch) draw out chemicals out of the wood, bringing in new flavours and darkening the liquid.\n\nLiquor and Spirits:\n\nLiquor is a general term for a wide variety of beverages which are made in a wide variety of ways.\n\nSpirits is another general term which includes beverages which are primarily distilled, such as scotch, whiskey, rum, and vodka.\n\nLiquor, depending on how the word is used, may include anything that has alcohol which isn't beer or beer-like. If it is spelled \"liqueur\", it is often flavoured with fruits, flowers, or herbs and is sweeter than \"spirits\".\n\nAlcohol and fighting:\n\nWhether people get in fights while they're drunk depends on the person, not what they're drinking. Alcohol affects different people in different ways, and sometimes it even depends on how much they drink. Some people might get more talkative and jokey, some people might get more giggly, some people get very tired, some people get depressed, and some people get annoying and angry.\n\nWhile the type of drink doesn't affect one's behaviour, it is true that certain drinks have an \"image\". If someone is an angry, mean drunk and is proud of it, he may prefer to drink an alcoholic beverage which has a \"working class\" and masculine image, such as mass produced beer, or an inexpensive whiskey or tequila. They would be just as annoying if they were drinking more \"sophisticated\" or \"feminine\" drinks such as a high quality scotch, \"craft\" beers, liqueurs that are pink or light blue, Amaretto and 7-Up, or wine coolers, but that would not project the \"manly\" and \"hard\" image they want to associate themselves with.\n\nMy *personal* experience is that you're a jerk when you're sober, you're a jerk when you're drunk.",
"The quick answer: how they're made and what they're made of.\n\nBeer:\n\nBeer is made from water, hops (a kind of flower), barley, yeast and other ingredients. The barley and any other \"mash\" ingredients are cooked together. Yeast consumes sugar taken from the barley and turns it into alcohol and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide makes it fizzy. Hops is added to add flavour.\n\nWhiskey (whisky, scotch, bourbon):\n\nWhiskey is made from water, barley, yeast and other ingredients. The barley and other grains are put in water, then allowed to dry, and then cooked over a kiln that burns a flammable moss called peat. The barley is then cooked in water with yeast added. Yeast process the sugars and turn them into alcohols, and the liquid is distilled until it is very strong (it has a high percentage of alcohol). After this, the contents are put into wooden barrels, and the alcohols and water in the mixture draw out chemicals in the wood which add different sorts of flavours to the end result.\n\nRum:\n\nRum is not as specific. Rums are made by taking molasses or sugar cane juice, fermenting them with yeast, distilling them, and aging and/or adding spices. There are several ways to make rum, which can result in fairly pure \"white\" rum to spiced rum which is darker and has interesting herb flavours, and aged rums, which are aged in wooden barrels and which (like scotch) draw out chemicals out of the wood, bringing in new flavours and darkening the liquid.\n\nLiquor and Spirits:\n\nLiquor is a general term for a wide variety of beverages which are made in a wide variety of ways.\n\nSpirits is another general term which includes beverages which are primarily distilled, such as scotch, whiskey, rum, and vodka.\n\nLiquor, depending on how the word is used, may include anything that has alcohol which isn't beer or beer-like. If it is spelled \"liqueur\", it is often flavoured with fruits, flowers, or herbs and is sweeter than \"spirits\".\n\nAlcohol and fighting:\n\nWhether people get in fights while they're drunk depends on the person, not what they're drinking. Alcohol affects different people in different ways, and sometimes it even depends on how much they drink. Some people might get more talkative and jokey, some people might get more giggly, some people get very tired, some people get depressed, and some people get annoying and angry.\n\nWhile the type of drink doesn't affect one's behaviour, it is true that certain drinks have an \"image\". If someone is an angry, mean drunk and is proud of it, he may prefer to drink an alcoholic beverage which has a \"working class\" and masculine image, such as mass produced beer, or an inexpensive whiskey or tequila. They would be just as annoying if they were drinking more \"sophisticated\" or \"feminine\" drinks such as a high quality scotch, \"craft\" beers, liqueurs that are pink or light blue, Amaretto and 7-Up, or wine coolers, but that would not project the \"manly\" and \"hard\" image they want to associate themselves with.\n\nMy *personal* experience is that you're a jerk when you're sober, you're a jerk when you're drunk."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
cuppj0 | if an object traveling at 50mph impacts another object at 50mph does the combined force equal a 100mph impact or is it still the same force of a 50mph impact? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cuppj0/eli5_if_an_object_traveling_at_50mph_impacts/ | {
"a_id": [
"exwz5pm"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Each object feels 50mph \n\n\nEach one will feel it as if it hit a stationary object going 50mph. \n\n\nMythbusters did a good segment on this with 2 cars hitting each other vs a car hitting a wall. \n\n\nIm assuming both objects are essentially equal in size, a baseball hitting a bowling ball wouldn't be the same"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
bhv7jl | what happens to the wind chill factor in the spring, summer and fall? | We still have wind but it's not talked about on the weather report in the non-winter months. Doesn't the wind still take things down a degree or two here and there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhv7jl/eli5_what_happens_to_the_wind_chill_factor_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"elw2t6i",
"elw3npg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"All that wind does is move air around. It does make us perceive the air temp to be colder though as long as the air temp is below our body temp. Our body releases energy, making us feel colder, to try and make the air around us the same temperature. The wind then blows that air away. The faster the wind, the quicker it removes that warm air. \n\nIt doesn’t matter too much in the non-winter months because people are not worried about the cold as much.",
"It still matters; but people don't care about it as much. If it's 90 degrees F, and there's a stiff breeze, it would be weird to say \"the wind chill is 75\". Instead, people say, \"it feels nice with the breeze\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
61va36 | why are people tried for hate crimes and not just the original crime like murder? | I understand what a hate crime is and I find it deplorable to target someone for their race, sexual identity, etc. Are there stricter punishments for a hate crime murder as opposed to a regular murder? I feel like most crimes are inherently hateful so I'm hoping someone can clarify. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61va36/eli5_why_are_people_tried_for_hate_crimes_and_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfhjpwe",
"dfhjw91",
"dfhnpap"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Hate Crime indictments add to the penalty imposed for the original crime. You are tried for murder, but a murder which is also a hate crime will get you a larger sentence.",
"It's the difference between Dylan Roof shooting up any church at random vs specifically targeting a historical and prominent black church with direct intention to hurt and kill black parishioners/people and with the seeming attempt to incite additional racial violence. \n\nAll crimes are hateful, but the large majority are \"blind\" crimes that intend to generally hurt, vandalize and otherwise cause loss and suffering; but, not hurt someone solely as retaliation for being a specific color, gender, religion, sexual identity, etc. \n\nAnd typically, hate crimes are seen more like domestic terrorism and generally do come with stricter sentences because the crimes tend to involve a deeper level of intention behind them.",
"The federal hate crime law does not add to the penalty for a crime. It merely makes federal resources available for the investigation of a hate crime. This is to empower local prosecutors who might have trouble getting their colleagues in local law enforcement to do their job if the community at large shares the prejudices that led to the victim's demise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2l1opc | why do some cds have a static sound like if it was scratched even though the condition is "new"? | I bought some cds that are new and haven't been opened but they are playing with a static sound. There's no scratches on the cd but it still plays with distorted quality. Any ideas of what might cause this and is there a way to fix it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l1opc/eli5_why_do_some_cds_have_a_static_sound_like_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"clqmquh",
"clqn907"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"A scratched CD causes it to skip, not sound like it has static. Static would be caused by problem during the recording - faulty recording equipment, background noise, etc.. This static noise will be present in all copies of the CD.",
"What are you using to play the CDs? A constant static sound is most likely a problem with the equipment being used to play the CD."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1gfxso | can somebody please give me a tl;dr on this whole nsa scandal? | First off, I understand *scandal* isn't the best word for it, but it's two in the morning and that's the word I decided to use. Now let me explain.
Ok, so I have a mild understanding about the issue at hand. Basically, we can all be "watched" by the government at any point in time, more or less, and because of that we can all get manipulated (including the government). I also understand that most(?) of the stuff they do is illegal. Everything else I read, however, I can't decide what to think of it.
It seems to me that the things that I've read have been a little biased (sorry /r/restorethefourth, I hope you understand!). Because of this perceived bias, I've devised that part of the speculation towards the NSA that I've read is conspiracy, and the other part legitimate. However, I can't decided which is which or if there is any kind of conspiracy at all! So please, if I could get the least opinionated/most factual, up-front answer, that's what I'm looking for!
Note: To clear things up, the (potential) conspiracy in question is not the NSA, but rather the calling of bullshit towards the NSA. Also, by no means am I trying to pin any of you guys as conspiracy theorists, please take no offense! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gfxso/eli5_can_somebody_please_give_me_a_tldr_on_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"cajxetc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"the NSA since 9/11 has been given a purpose to track terrrorists and some of the methods they have done were considered immoral and would of been considered unconstitutional but, It's Not at all illegal.\n\n Phone log database - They are constitutionally allowed if you consider the supreme court's interpretation in to collect data of call sender/receiver and log info without a warrant, wiretapping requires a warrant but call logs aren't.\n_URL_0_\n\n > the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a \"search\" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.\n\n_URL_4_\n > A pen register is an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line. The term has come to include any device or program that performs similar functions to an original pen register, including programs monitoring Internet communications.\n\n One of their other programs called PRISM collects data from foreign servers routing into american servers, say if a pakistani user submits data to a pakistani website that needs to use an American server first then it would be copied because it went through an american server, however if it was a pakistani user submitting data and didn't reroute into a american server by any chance then it won't get copied.\n\nAnd the other part within regards to American data is that since intelligence agencies aren't allowed to do this tactic, so they have to ask US companies for data (apple,microsoft,google,facebook...etc) Despite misconceptions they are Not hacking into computers but copying data from what people uploaded online and into the products of the following companies. If you take a pic of yourself but you don't upload it to facebook then it won't be copied, but if you do then maybe. It isnt however PRISM copying everything, it collects pieces here and there to get a bigger picture/web of the situation.\n\n\n_URL_3_\n\nHeres a map of data collected, PRISM collects far more data on india then US data.\n\nAny americans who read EULA's(hint: close to none) should of known that corporations can do what it wants with the data you given them. The NSA collected data from third party corporations whose data came from users who willingly user supplied content and data towards their products, The PRISM program wasn't hacking into private computers. But merely collecting what the private corporations already had.\nSo its a moral issue of whether a user willingly supplying content into a product of a third party corporation who was NOT forced to in the first place is considered a violation of privacy when the user for example did not read the EULA's terms.\nHere's facebook data policy\n > _URL_2_\nHow we use the information we receive We use the information we receive about you in connection with the services and features we provide to you and other users like your friends, our partners, the advertisers that purchase ads on the site, and the developers that build the games, applications, and websites you use. For example, in addition to helping people see and find things that you do and share, we may use the information we receive about you.\n > ....\n > We store data for as long as it is necessary to provide products and services to you and others, including those described above. Typically, information associated with your account will be kept until your account is deleted. For certain categories of data, we may also tell you about specific data retention practices.\n\n\nSo what does the NSA do with the data?? they use it to build a database which they then will use algorithms to search for patterns of terrorist activity. Since they can't search through every data, for example its more likely they search through arabic or somali or farsi words for terrorism, some previously used al-qaeda keywords were wedding which was a codeword for a bombing until they dropped it when they realized they were being busted and moved on to other keywords.\n\nThe NSA is legally barred from searching a US citizen's data without a warrant, but the data of foreign nationals do not require so because unless they are in the US, so if abdullah salam is suspected of plotting a attack on americans abroad and at the US, the NSA does not require a warrant, but if he is in the US then they have to get a warrant.\n\nAnd where do these warrants come from?? they come from the FISC court who are a 11 member panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who then approve a warrant to investigate only foreign nationals, and with the warrant then the NSA are allowed to look further into the data of the foreign national by using PRISM.\n\nWhat some consider unconstitutional is the NSA copying data with the folks on reddit consider a illegal search, but the supreme court would have to decide on it, since the internet is not protected under the fourth amendment and its going to be tough to convince them that copying data is a search and seizure.\n\nAnd the NSA has legal authority to do these programs, specifically under the Patriot Act, Protect America act of 2007 and the FISA amendments of 2007 under section 702.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n > SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.\n\n > ‘(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.\n‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--\n‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;\n‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;\n‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;\n‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and\n‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.\n‘(c) Conduct of Acquisition-\n‘(1) IN GENERAL- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall be conducted only in accordance with--\n‘(A) the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e); and\n‘(B) upon submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g), such certification.\n‘(2) DETERMINATION- A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.\n\nSo how the procedures goes is that\n\n1. PRISM finds pattern of terrorist activity and only allowed to use it to find terrorists under the laws of congress and under the supreme courts supervision.\n2. If PRISM finds a pattern among a foreign national, report back to both the attorney general and the director of national intelligence who both then ask for a warrant from the fisc.\n3. FISC (foreign intelligence surveillance court) approves\n4. PRISM then legally and constitutionally allowed to search data of that foreign person and only for that person.\n\nIf a US citizen is linked to a foreign plotter then it also requires a warrant before the person's data can be searched by PRISM. But PRISM cannot directly target US citizens with their algorithms, however if they are linked to a foreign national, then with a warrant they can be. But it also cannot if you read the 702 section, directly target foreign nationals within the US or US citizens abroad.\n\n Its confusing but basically they are searching for data for links to terrorists but they cannot search data of US citizens abroad and domestic or foreign nationals within the US unless they find a link with a foreign national abroad and then with a warrant. And even though foreign nationals abroad are not protected by the fourth amendment, the section 702 requires one anyway\n\n > (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland",
"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text",
"https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register"
]
] |
|
3sj3lk | why is it that when you lay down and lay as still as possible, you can hear a pillow compressing no matter how still you lay? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sj3lk/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_you_lay_down_and_lay_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwxovi1",
"cwy1m78"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm no scientist, but I would assume it's because there are hundreds of thousands of little fibers in a pillow and even though a human thinks they are laying perfectly still, they are still constantly moving (breathing, cardiovascular processes, etc.), which in return causes the fibers to constantly be moving in response i.e. making noise. \n\nTl;dr: In the big picture the human might be still, but in the small picture we are constantly moving and shifting. ",
"I've studied soil compaction which may or may not be relevant, but basically there are different stages of compaction. When you put your head down on the pillow it causes an initial flattening. As you lay still, your head is still on the pillow (applying a constant load) so there is secondary compaction. \n\nBasically think of jumping in thick mud, at first you drop in pretty deep. Then you'll slowly sink even though you haven't got any heavier. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1lapq7 | what's it like for astronauts who have been in space to be back on earth with gravity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lapq7/whats_it_like_for_astronauts_who_have_been_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbxdt9d",
"cbxfjw2",
"cbxg16u",
"cbxgi1g",
"cbxixx1"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
11,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Guess the astronauts are too occupied in space to answer this question",
"I know they lose bone mass of .5-1% per month they are there. But I want to know if they are like dropping things and such, forgetting they don't float on Earth. _URL_0_",
"In interviews I've heard and articles I've read concerning returning astronauts, not much if you just spent a few days on the space shuttle. But if you spend a few months on the Space Station, quite a bit happens. You begin to develop 'space reflexes'. You think nothing of letting go of your pen and then grabbing it back out of the air a few seconds later. It becomes normal to sit on the 'ceiling' while working on your laptop. \n \nBack on Earth, it may take awhile to adjust and strengthen the body to get it used to gravity again, but 'Earth reflexes' kick back in right away. After all, that is the true normal, something you never forget, like riding a bike. I remember an interview with an American who had spent a long time on MIR, that what he looked forward to most back on earth was a hot shower. When he finally got to take one, his initial reaction was, \"Oh god, I'm going to drown...\" because that is what would happen if there was a water leak on the space station. Once he got past the fear, the water from the showerhead felt like pin pricks, as though holding your hand out a car window when it's raining. He gave up and took a sponge bath. ",
"They'll feel restricted, as they can't do 1080 degree somersaults in the air anymore. ",
"I often wonder what its like when they lie in bed too. After you've been on a boat all day, you get in bed and can still feel the rocking of the waves. I wonder what they'd feel. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.wimp.com/astronautreadjusting/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5hg9id | how is momentum realated to mass and velocity?is momentum different than power? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hg9id/eli5how_is_momentum_realated_to_mass_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dazyk55",
"db00xos"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You know how an object in motion tends to stay in motion? Now let's forget friction altogether and assume zero resistance to motion, the law of conservation of energy alone says that if I push you, you will keep moving forever, but how hard do I need to push you to move you? Depends on how heavy you are, and how far will you go before you stop? Depends on how fast I make u go, right? Combine both, mass and speed, and you got momentum, the ability of your body to stay in motion due to its weight and acquired velocity, get it?",
"Momentum is mass * velocity. All that matters is the mass and how fast it's traveling.\n\nPower is work performed per time. AKA, how much energy being delivered/expended per second. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
dvgt9p | why is the zipper merge faster? | I watched this [video](_URL_0_) on why zipper merging when driving is better than merging early. I understand the first 3 reasons they lay out for why early merging is bad:
1. Early merging opens up space for a dbag to just fly through (ironically zipper merging is asking for everybody to be that dbag, hence nobody is a dbag).
2. Early merging can create a traffic gum up well before the merge for people who would be otherwise unaffected.
3. Early merging creates more traffic accidents.
What I don't understand is the 4th reason--that it is slower. In the video it says "when you force a bunch of cars to basically come to a stop in one lane, it gets everybody through the bottleneck slower." When I studied operations (only one class to be fair) in school, we were taught that the bottleneck is really the only thing that matters. Speeding things up before the bottleneck doesn't impact flow time. So why is the zipper merge faster? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dvgt9p/eli5_why_is_the_zipper_merge_faster/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7clgp9",
"f7cmdx0",
"f7d8nt3"
],
"score": [
2,
21,
2
],
"text": [
"You already stated the answer- not zipper merging forces everyone in one of the lanes to come to a complete stop. If everyone zipper merged properly, neither lane would ever have to fully stop.\n\nBy not fully stopping, everyone is able to continue through the obstruction at a constant speed safely.\n\n\nStopping right before the obstruction means there will be gaps where people have to accelerate and brake as they pass through it.",
"The fourth point relies on a little bit of knowledge about traffic jams.\n\nTraffic jams occur when one person slows down for some reason. We'll call him \"1\". When 1 slows down, the person behind him (2) has to slow down slightly more than 1, because 2 doesn't have psychic knowledge of exactly how slow 1 is going to go. The person behind 2 (3) now has to slow down even more than 2, for the same reason. This goes all the way back down the road until suddenly some unlucky fellow (A) has to come to a complete stop. This is a traffic jam.\n\nWhen A is able to move again, he does so slowly, because the person in front of him is moving slowly as well. This causes a whole bunch of starting, stopping, creeping, and stopping again, which translates to more backed up traffic far behind them. \n\nThe zipper method offers a solution that keeps cars moving, which is the ultimate method of preventing traffic jams. If everyone moves at a constant, albeit slow, pace, then there is no traffic jam. The method only has the one drawback; everyone has to be on board with the zipper. If even one person tries to skip ahead and jam in, he's gonna cause a lot of issues down the line.",
"On ramps in Arizona have stop lights to prevent lines of cars from streaming into the freeway. Seemed to work in a lot of spots."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivme-_PE1d8"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2klsp7 | why we care that companies track our web browsing to create targeted ads for us? | I understand that some people claim it's a violation of privacy, but I have to say that I've found several good things through targeted ads (related to sites I had recently viewed.)
Why all the outrage regarding privacy when in it helps us see ads that we might actually care about? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2klsp7/eli5_why_we_care_that_companies_track_our_web/ | {
"a_id": [
"clmhyv2"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It's because people find their privacy being protected more important than seeing ads they might care about. Think of it as a person coming into your house unwanted and looking at all your belongings, ignoring you when you tell them to go away.\n\nWhen he says \"hey, I see you like to collect nutcrackers, here's the address of a store that sells them!\" does that make the unwanted invasion of your home okay?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
b243uq | why does wearing heels appear to enhance female appearance and appeal? is it cultural or biological or psychological? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b243uq/eli5_why_does_wearing_heels_appear_to_enhance/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiq3exp",
"eiq4r2d",
"eiq4rmg",
"eiq4zn5",
"eiq56uv"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Guess: I'd say cultural because heels were used by men (I'm thinking of Louis XIV)",
"Makes the butt stick up and out",
"Makes their butt stick out more and tenses up the calves making their legs look nicer",
"It's cultural. They do change the way a woman looks but the response (\"that specific look is better than when she doesn't wear heels\") is cultural. That's why you hear stories about other cultures or time periods having different ideals of beauty (eg pale skin or extra weight are signs of prosperity and are therefore attractive). Heels and the cultural views of them and beauty are so widespread that it seems universal but its new and its not. ",
"Depends on when and where you live, actually.\n\nHigh heels as we know it - enhancing female appearance - only got popular after WWII with the rise of pin-up girls. Previously it's non-existent and it's not considered as sexy or whatever.\n\nIn fact, Louis XIV wore a pair of high heels. The shoes weren't considered to be sexy, it's even considered impractical. However it was expensive because it's difficult to made, as such it's considered high status.\n\nSo no, it's not biological. Far from it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7a9rqj | does getting hit on the head have to do with losing your taste buds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7a9rqj/eli5_does_getting_hit_on_the_head_have_to_do_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"dp89dyd"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Your tongue has many taste buds which send small signals to your brain whenever it tastes different things. When you hit your head just right, you can make it hard for those taste buds to communicate effectively. This can mean you lose one of your senses. Personally, I'd hate to never be able to taste chocolate again! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3llmzw | if color is the wavelength then what exactly is brightness? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3llmzw/eli5_if_color_is_the_wavelength_then_what_exactly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv78yu4",
"cv79s6m"
],
"score": [
15,
14
],
"text": [
"It's the wave intensity.\n\nWavelength is the distance between each wave's peak whereas the intensity is the \"height\" of each wave.",
"Two things are at play here. One is the actual physical properties of light. The other is the way we *perceive* those qualities.\n\nPhotons do have a wavelength. We perceive an individual wavelength as a particular color -- even though we don't actually sense each individual wavelength. Instead, we have three types of receptors in our eye that have [peak sensitivity](_URL_0_) at different wavelengths. Our brains use the information from each of the three types to figure out the wavelength (color) of the light we're seeing.\n\nHOWEVER... our eyes can't really tell us much of anything from a single photon. Instead, we're bombarded by a BUNCH (technical term) of photons. We use the information from a bunch of photons striking a bunch of receptors in a particular area of our retina to determine color.\n\nBrightness is NOT a fundamental property of a photon. A photon of a particular wavelength has a predictable energy. What creates \"brightness\" is the NUMBER OF PHOTONS entering our eye. Lots of photons = bright. Few photons = dim."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#/media/File:Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.svg"
]
] |
||
9hddud | why does the letter "s" always stand out slightly from other letters in conversation? | If I'm down the hall from people having a conversation, and I can just barely make it out, everything sounds hazy but I always hear the S's clearly. Turn on a TV or any media with dialogue and it has the same effect at this distance. During performances or speeches using mic's, S's echo longer and louder than the other letters. What causes the S to be so distinguished like this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9hddud/eli5_why_does_the_letter_s_always_stand_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6b2l4d"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"S is a sibilant, which means it is made up of high pitched noises. Since most other letters use lower pitches of sounds, the S stands out when it is spoken.\n\nTo compare, S is usually made of noise around 7,000 Hz high, but pretty much all other sounds don't use anything higher than 5,000 Hz. In fact, over the telephone, you won't hear anything over about 3,500 Hz because most sounds don't need that range to be heard. That's why sibilants are so unusual and stand out so much."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
sdsv0 | the arguments for 9/11 being an 'inside job' | Title.
EDIT: What I wanted was an (unbiased) account of some of the actual arguments used. Like evidence and such. I didn't want just people saying that arguments did exist and people's motives for having them.
EDIT 2: My inbox hates you guys. :D | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sdsv0/eli5_the_arguments_for_911_being_an_inside_job/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4d7h0h",
"c4d7l9k",
"c4d7p5l",
"c4d7q7e",
"c4d7rxf",
"c4d7uva",
"c4d7wjg",
"c4d84ir",
"c4d85th",
"c4d88o8",
"c4d89q1",
"c4d8hf8",
"c4d8ilr",
"c4d8l6z",
"c4d8xg2",
"c4d9he5",
"c4d9m00",
"c4d9r5q",
"c4d9wws",
"c4da07n",
"c4da4e8",
"c4da7r7",
"c4daasr",
"c4daced",
"c4dact7",
"c4dank8",
"c4dasb9",
"c4dasco",
"c4dbggv",
"c4dbhnw",
"c4dcppy",
"c4dcs85",
"c4dd36v",
"c4dnka3"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
44,
244,
4,
19,
116,
5,
5,
108,
6,
7,
3,
3,
194,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
6,
2,
5,
4,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"~~Check out the documentary [Loose Change](_URL_0_)~~.\n\nIts a 2 hour documentary about various conspiracy theories regarding 9/11\n\nI know this isn't an ELI5 answer, but just thought I'd share the video; if you're interested in conspiracies and stuff.\n\nEDIT: Ok, seems Loose Change isn't such a good documentary for this ELI5. (I don't know too much about this stuff)",
"Some demolition experts were claiming that the buildings fell too perfectly, like the whole building was wired with explosives. Sounds absurd to me.",
"Essentially they think it was staged to give us an exuse to go to a \"War on Terror\"",
"I don't think this is a very good topic for ELI5, but here's my quick attempt:\n\nA lot of things happened on 9/11 that have never happened in the history of America. Because of this, many people don't understand some of the more specific moments of that day. Everyone knows what the big picture is, but the argument is in the details.\n\nThink of it like a puzzle with some pieces missing. We can put most of the puzzle back together and it's starting to look like a barn. But there are people who believe that those missing puzzle pieces are important enough that if we found them, we'd realize that the barn is really a drug dealer's house.",
"There are hundreds of different arguments for it -- human nature to try to make things fit.\n\nBut to answer what I think is your actual question: Some people don't like/trust the government so they suspect they are behind 9/11. Arguments follow as soon as you can think of some.\n\nEdit: Every damn time. I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies or any crap like that, I'm attempting to answer the OP's question.",
"Some of the main points as I understand them (as well as my own criticisms of them):\n\n- The towers could not have fallen as perfectly as they did without it being a controlled demolition. The problem with this is that to set up a controlled demolition for any building takes a long time, even when workers have free reign of the abandoned structure. To successfully set up a controlled demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world while successfully keeping the process a secret from the thousands of people who visited every day would probably take longer than those buildings have even existed.\n\n- The jet fuel would not have burned hot enough to melt the steel support structures of the building. The problem with this is that it assumes steel would maintain 100% structural integrity until it reached its melting point.\n\n- The wings of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon left no holes in the walls, so clearly the pentagon must have been hit by something like a missile. Aside from the fact that this assumes the hijackers would be able to perfectly fly the planes into the building without ever hitting the ground at an angle (which would almost certainly shear the wings off), it basically assumes [something like this](_URL_1_) is scientifically accurate.\n\n- There are no photos of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. [This is just bullshit.](_URL_0_)",
"A few things:\n\n* The Pentagon. The crash at the Pentagon is deceptively small. It is thus suspected that a missile or smaller aircraft than we thought hit the Pentagon. Simply, this theory does not take into account the reinforcement of the Pentagon, for a start. [Link](_URL_3_)\n\n* WTC, Building 7: People hear of another building collapsing besides the twin towers and assume something must be rotten in the state of Denmark. Indeed, building 7, near the twin towers, was destroyed by a **mysterious** fire. [Also, debris, but no one mentions that.](_URL_1_)\n\n* The towers themselves: People suppose that planes could not hit the towers hard enough nor could their fuel burn hot enough to destroy the towers. Many theorists point confidently towards [free fall](_URL_2_) as proof that something is fishy. Simply, there was [nothing fishy](_URL_0_), as usual.\n\n* Bush: 9/11 made for an excellent call to arms. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. We wouldn't care the least about any of that if not for 9/11. ~~Some people may point to the fact that we technically armed al-Quaeda during the Vietnam war (AFAIK, we did)~~ see Bombardiers' comment. A few things to note about this: there is no actual evidence, merely conjecture based on flimsy cloak-and-dagger BS; the assertion that Bush is competent is not one I take quickly to, I am unconvinced; there is no shadow government, there is some cloak and dagger, but nothing of the scale that would be required to silently, successfully pull of 9/11.",
"Well, I guess the main argument is that people who got profit/beneficial positions due to 9/11 are inside USA.\n\n * It justified \"defense\" spending, wars and stuff. Defense contractors, private security firms and so on got huge payments from government, at expense of public.\n\n * 9/11 enabled Patriot Act which give government more control on citizens.\n\n * Republican think tanks called for 9/11-like event:\n\n > Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled \"Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force\", includes the sentence: \"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor\" (51).\n\nThis comes from _Project for the New American Century (PNAC)_. It was written in 2000, before attack. \"The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.\"\n\nSo here's what we got so far: neocons wanted war to push their agenda, pretty much openly. Then soon after neocon president got in power, there is a huge terrorist attack. Response to sttack itself is less than stellar (Bush ignored memos which mentioned potential attack, hid during attack and so on), but then there is a huge and expensive retaliation war. At the same time they create Patriot Act and grab control.\n\nThis could be a coincidence, of course, but some people don't think so. (Note that Osama and his buddies didn't get anything cool out of it, unlike neocons.)\n\nThere are also some theories that 9/11 attack happened in a different way, like it was controlled demolition or something. If it was, indeed, that would reinforce arguments above, but it's not strictly necessary.\n\nBuildings collapsed in a rather complex way during 9/11 and people think that there's something unusual which suggests it was controlled demolition. But it's not like people know for sure how such large buildings _should_ collapse when they were hit by planes.",
"You want a ELI5 answer?\n\nPeople will believe whatever they want to believe. They will make up evidence or make connections in certain random events as a greater conspiracy. The logic becomes circular that everything leads back to a conspiracy and or lack of evidence in certain things is being hidden by the same conspiracy.\n\nIf you want to know why it is to make themselves feel important. A lot people live boring lives and want to romanticize certain events in a Hollywood fashion to make them appear more important and devious. As a result people who believe in conspiracies become heroes holding beacons of truth in a world blinded by ignorance because of the government. The reality is they are crazy and people who run \"9/11 truth sites\" and other conspiracy sites turn a profit on people like them who want to believe with a sort of cult like indoctrination into the fold \n\n",
"I am not american and don't live in the US so I can have a more objective look at just the facts. Sorry if it sounds callous or arrogant to americans, I certainly don't mean to.\n\nSince you are asking for an explanation, is not a list of arguements but an arbitrary summary of events with emphasis on why some people think 9/11 was an inside job.\n\n- **Immediately** after 9/11 people sought to rationalize the terrible events. Most blamed terrorists. A few fringe groups and conspiracy nuts claimed it was an inside job because that's what these groups do. There was no evidence of anything, just an outburst of emotions. Most people were panicked, griefing, or just bewildered.\n\n- **During the following months** people have been analyzing every detail of the extremely complex event, and they couldn't explain everything perfectly. This gave rise to the layperson 'youtube reporters' (Loose Change etc) who popularized the conspiracy theory through sensationalist half-facts. \n\n Arguements supporting the theory were mostly technical. How the towers collapsed was the major issue (ELI5: they collapsed in a strange way never before seen in similar - but not identical - accidents and extremely similar to controlled demolitions) that eventually reached an incredible level of analysis, down to the physical properties of the materials used. A similar debate was going on for the Pentagon crash and even Flight 93.\n\nThen there were details of how the planes reached their targets, what the reactions were, who was on the towers on that day, leaked memos and warnings that were seemingly ignored, etc. Everything was taken apart and analyzed, but little was analyzed by experts or even unbiased researchers, so doubt kept spreading.\n\nIn short, people got loads of information that were nowhere near enough to confirm any theories but sufficient to generate doubt about the official explanation of the events.\n\n- **During the following years** people calmed down and went about their daily lives. The big picture however, was not any more reassuring. In the years following 9/11 the US government - and to some extent the UK and the rest of Europe - played out a series of events that in retrospect began to look like every single major power play of history: cause or allow a catastrophy to happen, then instead of helping your own people launch a witch hunt within your own country while waging the war you always wanted on the outside. This has happened literally thousands of times before, it is quite literally one of the oldest tricks in the book, so it isn't really a stretch to imagine.\n\n**tl;dr:** \n\n- People, especially laypersons, can't grasp all the extremely complicated facts so they make up their own.\n- The towers collapsed in an unusual way, the government behaved unusually before, during and after the events.\n- In hindsight, [the Duck test](_URL_0_).",
"Good luck having an unbiased answer (toward one side or the other).",
"Although the [5 min summary](_URL_0_) mentioned before is decent, none of the previous comments fairly describe the evidence being claimed by the truth movement. Short of reading a book like David Ray Griffin's definitive [Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory](_URL_7_), I offer the following.\n\nThe strongest 9/11 truth arguments are related to the complete demolition of both towers and the nearby 47 story building 7, by two airplanes. Although these arguments are best presented by the [videos at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth](_URL_1_), where over 1,600 professional architects and engineers have put their entire professional careers on the line for the sake of this evidence, I will try to summarize a few salient points.\n\nThe speed of the collapse of each tower approximated free fall, and in the case of building 7, was admitted as free fall by the NIST. In response, Truthers have asked the valid question: how is it possible for a steel structured building to fall through itself at that rate? What is the physical explanation for every connection in an undamaged section of a building failing at once? To this day the NIST and others such as Popular Mechanics have not provided a scientifically satisfactory explanation. Most people don't even know the pancake theory was abandoned. I would love to get into details, but to summarize, those reports work like a Hollywood set, they were written to give people a reason to believe, not to apply science and generate a hypotheses based on evidence. For example, did you know the NIST didn't even analyze the behavior of the building post collapse initiation, stating that [what happened next was clear from the video?](_URL_3_) \n\nThat ain't science folks. Really, watch that video. It truly angers me when people say our arguments have no evidentiary basis. The evidence is extremely strong and it's been their tact to distort and hide the evidence, not ours.\n\nTo continue, there's only one method for bringing a heavily fortified steel structured building down in it's footprint at free fall speed: demolition. So the Truthers have also asked the valid question: was there any evidence of demolition. And the answer is yes many times over. First, there was molten steel in the rubble lasting for days (jet fuel is basically kerosene, doesn't get hot enough and doesn't burn for days). But again this fact was brazenly denied in full by the NIST [despite tons of evidence to the contrary](_URL_3_). Further, independent labs studying steel and dust from the towers have found [unexploded red nanothermite chips](_URL_4_). And the list goes on, from explosions in the basement prior to airplane impact, to explosions seen below the damaged area of the building, to thermite that can be seen [pouring out of the building](_URL_6_). \n\nReally there's too much evidence to list here. And worse, the blatant lies proffered as explanations can be found in every strand of the fantastical official story. For example did you know that in order to accept NORADS current explanation for why scrambled jets never reached the hijacked planes you have to accept that they were lying for years previously? Or that the hijackers were staying with intelligence assets prior to the events? \n\nIt's also worth mentioning that all those claiming \"too many people had to be in on it\" are painfully naive about [how the world works](_URL_2_) in our era. Go ahead, try and yell the truth from the mountaintops. See what happens. \n\nTL;DR On 9/11 [both the upper building sections pictured here](_URL_5_) fell at the same speed. Based on physics that is impossible without explosives, evidence for which was everywhere. \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"[Loose change is bullshit.](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"I think this argument of why it's suspicious and worth investigating is unbiased: Due to the way that building 7 fell it's extremely hard to not call it suspicious and worthy of an serious investigation and there was not. This was very huge and very public structural failure and rather than investigate it thoroughly and have a bulletproof explanation of why there was failure that the engineering community as a whole could accept they scrapped the steel very quickly effectively destroying the \"crime scene\" as it were. \n\nIgnoring completely who orchestrated the whole debacle, the way building 7 fell IS consistent with demolition. Not to say it was for sure, but it would be worth a thorough investigation to find out why a building that was structurally over-designed (if I remember correctly) imploded because of a fire. \n\nThere are enough Engineers, Architects and other building professionals that are on both sides of the issue that I believe it shows that there should have been some kind of independent forensic inquiry, which I don't believe happened. \n\nNot the best analogy but the point is there: If 5 doctors were certain my headaches were caused by tumors and 10 were equally certain it was caused by excessive jell-o consumption, I'd let those boys and girls have another gander at the old noodle just to be so we could cross a few things off the list if nothing else.",
"Well, basically the main reason why so many people believe it was an \"inside job\" is that so many things from that day do not add up. Bear in mind, also, that there is a whole spectrum of folks who range from those who have some unanswered questions (which should be everyone, really), those that doubt key areas of the official account, those that believe the US Government was complicit, right through to fruitcake-ville, where some folks don't even think there were planes and that the whole thing was CGI. I've tried to look at all of the evidence available and to keep an open mind. This is an immensely complicated topic and I believe it's not possible to distill everything for ELI5, at least in one dose, but I will try to go over the basic arguments.\n\nFirstly, you need to go right back to basics. War, oil, money, and the military industrial complex. After the Cold War was waning, the MIC was languishing. You also had a group of people called the neoconservatives (neocons) rising to power in the White House. It was a [well-known and documented part of the neocon agenda](_URL_0_) to engage in theatre warfare in the middle-east. They didn't hide this fact, they wanted it. They also argued that it would be [difficult to achieve their agenda without garnering support of the American public](_URL_0_#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22). They stated in September 2000 that an *event* was needed like a new Pearl Harbor.\n\nWell, by lucky \"coincidence\" (for the neocons), they received their new Pearl Harbor one year later. 9/11 provided the public outrage necessary to justify invasion of the middle-east. By declaring a \"War on Terror\", a war which by it's very definition *can never be won or completed*, the neocons realised their agenda and achieved not only war in the middle-east, but a Cold War-esque state of \"perpetual war\" that continually siphons money to the military industrial complex, *with no clear end in sight*. Nowadays, war is a money-making racket for elites, no more, no less.\n\nLet's look at 9/11 itself a little closer. The term \"conspiracy theory\" is thrown around all too often these days in the same realm as bigfoot and UFOs: only kooks believe in them. But let's remind ourselves, that the official account of 9/11, is by definition, *a conspiracy theory*: the theory that a bunch of muslims conspired to hijack planes and crash them into key US targets. It's still a theory, because much of the evidence linking the hijackers, Bin Laden, and \"al Qaeda\" is tenuous at best. For example, the FBI never listed 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted page because they did not have enough evidence to link him to it.\n\nIt's a conspiracy theory, but if you follow the official account, it's also a \"coincidence theory\", because there are so many coincidences occurring on that day, so many things all simultaneously going wrong, or out of the ordinary, that it enters the realm of extreme coincidence:\n\n* you have not one but four jet airliners off-course with transponders disabled, with fighter intercepts occurring over 120 times the previous year for errant aircraft within minutes, yet no intercepts occurred this day;\n\n* there is a military exercise taking place on 9/11 with fake radar inputs and bogus targets, causing massive confusion on the ground, not to mention the relocation of many fighters to other parts of the US;\n\n* intact passports found on the ground close to crash sites for the alleged hijackers (2 in Penn, 1 in NY), surviving fireballs of intense heat and a crash site in Penn where the plane was obliterated, leaving virtually no wreckage (IIRC one foreign guy's passport was left in Atta's bag but he was allowed to board without it);\n\n* a $2.3 trillion dollar hole in the Pentagon's budget - that's right, $2,300,000,000,000 dollars - was missing, as announced by Rummy on 9/10, with the plane impact the next day obliterating the accounting office at the Pentagon where information was held pertaining to this;\n\n* unusual airline stock trading in the days leading up to 9/11 - put options used to \"bet\" that United and AA's stock would dramatically fall, up to almost 300 times the regular average amount - this appears to indicate prior knowledge;\n\n* PATRIOT Act released within days of 9/11; this document was lying in wait for an event to occur where it could be unleashed;\n\nIf you are interested in learning more and trying to avoid kook-ville, try reading some books by David Ray Griffin. He's probably one of the most scholarly and well-respected authors on the subject, and raises probably some of the most well-researched and documented arguments against the official account. Webster Griffin Tarpley also has some good books, but I found his works to be less credible.",
"The Pentagon was **massively damaged** by the impact of flight 77.\n\nThe problem, I think, that people have with it is imagining the aircraft approaching the building laterally, in the same way that the Twin Towers were hit. But striking the pentagon laterally, i.e horizontally, coming in over the carpark, is impossible.\n\nThat is not how Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The building is not a skyscraper. To hit the target, the a/c dived from above, maybe more than 45 degrees angle of attack, with it's port-side wingtip down (I like to imagine that the passengers were right in their fucking faces at that stage, the cunts). They nearly missed.\n\nIt is this trailing wingtip which sliced the gash into the outside of the building. The rest of the a/c plunged into the depths of the inner rings and caused massive damage. A lot of people survived intimate proximity with the impact due to the fact that the walls were massive constructs, designed to withstand a nuclear blast. that's why the pentagon death toll was so low. \n\nThe vast destruction is more obvious from aerial shots of the Pentagon.\n\nGo USA.\n\n**EDITED to correct the spelling of 'proximity'**",
"There are none since you ask for evidence. There are only wild suppositions and flights of fancy.",
"Please note: Many people asking questions about 9-11 are victims families, people in the services and expert engineers and demolishers in the industry. \n\nI can't answer this fairly because I am biased (haven researched it for a number of years). \n\n[This is a link](_URL_0_) to an expert scrutiny of the evidence around 9-11. It is objective, fact driven and highly detailed. It concludes that there are a great deal of discrepancies with the official report. A strong case is put forward suggesting the use of explosives. \n\n",
"*knock knock*\n\n\"Who's there?\"\n\n*9/11*\n\n\"9/11 who?\"\n\n*You said you'd never forget!*",
"The way i understand that theory is that the War on Terror was very unpopular to the general population. Upon 9/11, everyone was disgusted by the terrorist and the reaction towards the war changed, it changed particularly in the way that the government wanted so therefore we could continue both wars with the support of (in general) the american population",
"\"The great masses of the people . . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.\" -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf\n\n\"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.\" -- J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director\n\n\"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.\" -- Marshall McLuhan",
"I think it might be far fetched to say 9/11 was a complete inside job. There are so many holes in what happened, and to me it just seems like the current government at the time might have found a way to kind of let it happen. This is under the assumption it was a terrorist act, but we kind of let it happen.",
"So, we think a bunch of guys with box cutters got on some planes and killed the pilot and crew with kung fu, then flew the planes into buildings and stuff. Lots of people got killed and it was like a R rated movie. \n\nThey blamed this guy named Osama who lived in a cave in Afghanistan. \n\nBut I think it was like this time that I didn't want to eat my broccoli so I put in the vase next to the table. My Mom found it and she was like, who did this, and I didn't want to get in trouble so I was like, my brother Tom did it. Besides Tom punched me in the nuts the week before. My sister Marion didn't like Tom so she vouched for me. So Tom had to do dishes for a week. Only with Osama, they got lots of people to vouch, and instead of dishes for a week they just shot him.",
"I dont understand why it is so difficult to accept that terrorists hijacked a series of planes and used them to strike targets in the US?\n\nMeans, motive, opportunity. Its not a stretch at all. They had done similar attacks and even targetted the WTC earlier.",
"[Popular mechanic , an independent science based magazine did a great analysis of it ](_URL_0_)\n\ngo down they take all issues point by point.",
"[Operation Northwoods](_URL_0_):\n > Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.\n\nAnd especially this:\n > One of the most fascinating aspects of Operation Northwoods involved the proposed hijacking of an American passenger plane. The JCS proposed that a real plane containing American passengers would be hijacked by friendly forces disguised as Cuban agents. The plane would drop down off the radar screen and be replaced by a pilotless aircraft, which would crash, purportedly killing all the passengers. Under the plan, the real passenger plane would be secretly flown back to the United States.",
"The way that the 3 buildings fell appears like a demolition.\n\nThe Bush administration didn't act on warnings beforehand.\n\nThe Bush administration profited immensely from the war.\n\nOsama Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks initially and only a week or two later did an old grainy video surface that had him (or someone that looked like him) vaguely talking about attacking the west.\n\nThere is no video of a plane hitting the pentagon and there wasn't much debris at the scene. It looks like a missile hit it. It happened to hit an area of the pentagon that was closed for repairs.\n\nThe U.S. has considered staging attacks in the past to get support behind war. Germany did something similar during WWII. [1](_URL_1_), [2](_URL_0_)\n\nThat's all that comes off of the top of my head at the moment. The wikipedia articles have lots of info.\n\nI don't know what happened, but there is plenty that seems like it just doesn't fit. If Bush & Co. did orchestrate this, it certainly paid off. The war has been used to funnel billions of dollars into the hands of military contractors and weapons manufacturers. Israel can maintain it's victim status in the middle east so they can pretend that everyone is out to get them and continue to get billions of dollars in support from the U.S.",
"There are so many, I won't give you a proper explanation, I'll just put together a timeline.\n\n* Military Industrial Complex wasn't doing to well.\n* Neocons wrote a document called \"The Project for a New American Century\" which has quite accurately described what has happened over the last 10 years.\n* Document said they wouldn't be able to achieve their goals without some 'catalysmic or catalysing even, like a new Pearl Harbour'\n* One year later September 11th happened.\n* There were drills taking place that very same day, for the very same scenario, which clouded/prevented a proper response.\n* The towers fell at *near* free fall speed. Scientific investigation (not some armchair warriors) demonstrated that this was, to all intents and purposes, impossible.\n* The towers did not fall towards the path of least resistance and instead collapsed right through themselves. They should have toppled over, something which has been demonstrated in earthquakes all over. Failing buildings fall over, not through themselves. (think about a structure, if it is going to fall over, does it fall towards where there is failing support, or does it fall absolutely right through itself?)\n* The buildings were designed to be hit by MULTIPLE 737's.\n* WTC7 - a 47 story building - also fell down that day. It also fell 'through' itself, rather than falling over (assuming it was significantly damaged to justify it's fall) Building experts looking at footage of WTC7's collapse WITHOUT knowing the source of the video all agreed it was a controlled demoliton.\n* Because of the near impossibility of the way the towers fell, there seemed to be a hole in the data. A theory that explosives were inside the building was originally put forward by Professor Steven E. Jones in 2004.\n* The theory gathered momentum, and eventually, it was a very carefully crafted hypotheisis for \"why the towers fell\" and it proposed that Thermite/Thermate was used to \"cut\" vital structural components at the same time so that the building fell uniformly into its own footprint.\n* This hypothesis has been demonstrated very well through careful replication, thermite CAN be used to cut through steel without making an 'explosion' sound.\n* Many eyewitnesses and video accounts show images that are consistent with the high grade reaction of thermite. Just google them and you'll see.\n* There are countless witnesses (which were ignored by the official investigation) that heard/saw explosions in the building BEFORE the first plane even hit.\n* There were explosions on the base of WTC1 and WTC2 which destroyed HUGE areas of the building - this is consistent with the controlled demolition hypothesis. Demolition experts BLOW OUT the basement of the building prior to demolition so the debris can 'fall into it'\n* Tests on WTC dust have shown traces of thermite in them - consistent with the hypothesis that thermite was used to help bring the towers down.\n* The final rubble of the collapse got white hot, and it remained white hot for weeks. NIST has entirely ignored this data. Hydrocarbon fires (as in fire that burns from kerosene, or furniture, or other low grade fuels) CANNOT get anywhere near hot enough to melt steel, and yet molten steel was seen by EVERYONE on the site, there is NASA satelite imagery that shows there was molten steel, there are pictures of it, and there is physical evidence of it. How did it get molten? Thermite can burn hot enough to create molten steel.\n* Two weeks prior to the collapse of the towers, work was being conducted by a strange firm. This was witnessed by a british man who was head of IT of both buildings. He saw them laying what he assumed was network cables, but he thought it strange because he was not told and he was IT manager. There were entire floors of WTC which were empty for weeks at a time, and it was here that these men were seen conducting their work.\n\n\nThat's literally about 2-3% of the evidence. I've tried to stick to the key stuff which I learned about doing my dissertation. There are HUNDREDS of supporting documents for all of my assertions. I highly recommend David Ray Griffin, Steven E Jones, and the work of scholars and engineers for 9/11 truth.",
"I still say the most compelling argument is the pictures of debris directly after the attacks that show several main support columns cut at a perfect 45deg angle with slag showing that is identical to making a cut with an acetylene torch.",
"Other people have already said more than enough on the subject, but I'm going to point out if you want more of an explanation on why the government would want to attack it's own city, I recommend checking out the pilot episode of the X-Files spin-off series The Lone Gunman, which according to [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) \"...involves a US government conspiracy to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists, thereby gaining support for a new profit-making war.\"\n\n\nOh, and that episode aired six months *before* September 11th. I'm not much of a conspiracy nut, but that little coincidence always makes me contemplate making a tinfoil hat.",
"William Cooper on June 28, 2001 PREDICTED 9/11 WOULD HAPPEN! This broadcast alone should make everyone do 2 things: 1. Start to question 911 (if they havent already) 2. Start your education and start listening to the hour of the time (bill cooper's radio station).\n\nThe \"conspiracy\" happens when you read that bill cooper was shot and killed in Nov. 2001 (after 911). He was gunned down by a sherrifs office.\n\n[PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS IF YOU LISTEN TO ANYTHING!](_URL_0_)_",
"[The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory in under five minutes](_URL_0_).",
"Ever heard of the \"[Illuminati Card Game](_URL_0_)\"?\n\nOut in 1995...",
"**A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse by Michael Fullerton February 14, 2011**\n\nThe best alternative to NIST’s WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory states that additional sources of energy other than fire and gravity were used to bring down WTC 7. The strongest theories contend that these alternate energy sources included explosives and incendiaries. It is common knowledge that shaped charges can cut through steel support columns.\n\n_URL_5_\n\n**Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe**\n\nSources:\n\nDepartment of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark\n\nDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA\n\nS & J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA\n\n9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA\n\nLogical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia\n\nArchitects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA\n\nInternational Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA\n\n_URL_9_\n\n**Former Chief Economist under President Bush, Morgan Reynolds (Ph.D)**: “If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the WTC on 9/11, then the case of an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling.” -- _URL_2_\n\n**Assistant Secretary of Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Roberts**: “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” - _URL_0_\n\n**Robert M. Bowman, Head of Advanced Space Programs for the DOD **– “…Others go further. They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack. What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing. If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must come clean releasing information thus far withheld from the American people. - _URL_1_\n\n**Michael Meacher UK Minister of Environment (1997-2003)**: The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. - _URL_6_\n\n**U.S. Senator Mark Dayton**: said NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people. -\n_URL_3_\n\n**U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney**: led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday July 22n2005 on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. “What we are doing is asked the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families.” - _URL_8_\n\n**Professor David Ray Griffin Renowned Theologian in LA Times**: The fact that Building 7 collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane, and collapsed in seven or eight seconds, that’s a smoking gun. - _URL_4_\n\n**Catherine Austin Fitts, Ass. Sect. of Housing for President Bush**: _URL_7_\n\nTL:DR - **Nano-thermite was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan...**"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie0qr60NJiU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=plane+remains+at+pentagon&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=sBSNT5W_DoaiiQKEyv3ZCA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAQ&biw=1214&bih=629",
"http://cdn.videogum.com/files/2010/10/DVD-PlayerScreenSnapz022.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse",
"http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html",
"http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=youtu.be",
"http://ae911truth.org/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community",
"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501",
"http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html",
"http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6245466/same_speed.jpeg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE&feature=player_embedded",
"http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X"
],
[
"http://youtu.be/CoUAaWv1L0U"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=isTGuaaln9A&list=PL621A4B03C1169C78"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTjPGy2k_U"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfyiao80I9c"
],
[
"http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1753.cfm"
],
[
"http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts",
"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674",
"http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278",
"http://web.archive.org/web/20040811061345/http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/4904237.html",
"http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0801-911Press.html",
"http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/",
"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825",
"http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916",
"http://www.wanttoknow.info/050317wargames911",
"http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf"
]
] |
|
7a46e2 | how were integrals, derivatives, limits, and other calculus concepts originally discovered and applied? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7a46e2/eli5_how_were_integrals_derivatives_limits_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dp6zywn",
"dp73hhh",
"dp78fw5",
"dp7kscz"
],
"score": [
59,
11,
44,
3
],
"text": [
"They were discovered thousands of years ago, but the methods for that were super complex. Someone ssked Newton how he knew that earth had an elliptical orbit and not circular. So he went home and invented Calculus to explain his reasoning. ",
"An extremely brief summary would be like this:\n\nIf you look at the parabola y=x^2 +1 plotted on a graph, you'll notice that its not a straight line. \n\nAt first we looked at the average rate of change, e.g. if you look at the average rate of change between (0,1) and (10,101), we average a change of 10 units in y per unit change in x.\n\nthe formula for this was (f(x+h) - f(x))/((x+h)-x) where above, x = 0, h = 10. If we choose a smaller h, or a negative h, we can still determine this value. However, if we choose h = 0, we get 0/0, which does not equal zero, but we don't know what it is since we divide by zero. \n\nSo what if we choose something infinitely small for h, which is basically zero, what is that rate of change. What is the rate of change at that instant, or the instantaneous rate of change for x.\n\nSo if we plug that formula in with y= x^2 + 1, we find that it equals 2x. So the instantaneous rate of change at x is 2x for any point on that parabola. This is the basic premise for all derivatives is calculating the instantaneous rate of change for all points. \n\nSo there, we had to use limits to get around dividing by zero by dividing by almost zero, and we found derivatives. \n\nTo come up with integrals, we used process similar to the following. If we traveled with velocity of 5m/s for 10 seconds, how far did we travel. Well if we graph velocity, and look at the area under that constant line of 5, we find 50 m/s*s or 50m which we know is correct. But what if we were not travelling at a constant velocity. well the logic still holds that its the area under the curve of velocity.\n\nSo if we use rectangles, one unit wide, each at the height of the velocity at the start of the rectange, we can approximate the distance. By using smaller rectangles, we can get a better guess. But what if we use Infinity rectangles, our guess would be perfect. So an integral is shorthand for the limit as we take an inifinite number of rectangles up to the curve from one point to another point, which happens to yield antiderivatives.\n\n\n",
"Math is like a toolbox. Trying to describe parts of nature without math is like building a house with your bare hands. It can be done, but will take a very long time. \n\nFor both integrals and differentials it has historically been a matter of making calculations smarter, the same way tools have become smarter over time.\n\n**Integrals:**\n\nSay you're an ancient egyptian and want to build a house, and that particular house needs a curved gable. Naturally you want to know how much material you'll need for this gable. \n\nAn initial guess could be that you take the height of the gable, multiply by the width and divide by 2 to get the amount of material (similar to a triangular gable). But you quickly realize that this is not a very good approximation. \n\nYou then get the idea that you could divide each side of the triangle into very small parts, in the process getting closer to the shape of the gable by essentially \"rounding\" it. If you keep doing this you get to point where each part of your approximation of the gable is infinitely small. This is integration in a nut shell. \n\nSay your gable can be described by the formula: f(x) = -x^2 + 2x.\n\nThen the initial guess would give Area = (1*2)/2 = 1\n\nUsing integrals you get Area = ∫ (0 to 2) -x^2 + 2x = -8/3 + 4 ≈ 1,33\n\nThis is a simple example, but this could very well be how integrals first was applied in Ancient Egypt. No one knows for certain who first came up with the idea of trying to use infinitely small parts to calculate an area.\n\n**Differentials:**\n\nLike integrals, differentials are, simply put, a way of doing things smarter. \n\nDifferentials come from the idea that you want to measure the slope of something. \n\nAt first you might consider subtracting end and beginning to get the difference. But if you don't work with something that is a straight line, this will not tell you what the slope is at any point. To do this you have to divide that something into many parts, and now you can subtract two parts next to each other to get the slope there. The more parts you use the more precise it gets. \n\n**Limits:**\n\nLimits in the context of integrals and differentials are the concept of using smaller and smaller parts until you get to parts that infinitely close to each other. \n\nInfinitely here just means as small as is necessary. If you for instance have the triangular shaped gable mentioned in **Integrals** it wouldn't make any sense to make parts smaller than each upper side of the triangle. ",
"Interestingly, limits were used by Newton for calculus purposes without knowing for sure that what he was doing was valid. Mathematicians didn't fully understand them for 150ish years when Weierstrass and Bolzano (see _URL_0_) put them on solid footing. Newton got them right, but he was using them on \"easy\" functions so nothing strange came up.\n\nSame thing happened when Euler discovered e^{\\pi i} +1=0. Without justification, he used power series expansions of sine and cosine with complex numbers. The formula just popped out. Too good to not be true!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%CE%B4)-definition_of_limit"
]
] |
||
2edy3c | why are speed cameras always accompanied by big signs that let motorists know they're there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2edy3c/eli5why_are_speed_cameras_always_accompanied_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjyj8gb",
"cjyjb38",
"cjym550"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Because they are there to make you slow down, not to catch you speeding.",
"If there is a sign they slow down, if they don't know about the camera they just keep on driving too fast. It's about preventing an accident, not about punishing speeders",
"In most places it's a legal requirement to show that there is in fact photo radar in the area. The constant reminder that you're being watched slows people down to the exact speed. That is... those who would normally drive 5-10 kmph over the speed limit. The people who were driving 20-30 kmph over the speed limit still speed... and pay."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
33fyww | why does my laptop say i have an hour of battery left but then runs out within 15-20 minutes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33fyww/eli5_why_does_my_laptop_say_i_have_an_hour_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqkjtzl",
"cqkjv6f"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a rough estimate, the computer cannot tell which programs or websites or programs you will use in the future. All programs take up a certain amount of power for example, games and high resolution videos can take up more power than writing an essay, or reading a story. ",
"The time is only a rough estimate. It's a lot better if it's been on for a while. What happens is that the battery has a circuit that can tell how much charge it has (it needs to so it can prevent overcharging, as well as keep the charge even between the multiple cells), and the OS can see how long it has taken to drop X percent, and extrapolate that out to determine an approximation of how long it would take to drain completely.\n\nBasically, what's happening in your case is that your tank is X full, and the OS is anticipating Y drain, so it's saying X should last Za. The drain hasn't been fully calculated though and the OS doesn't see it moving faster than it was, so it doesn't tell you that Za is really closer to Zb."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits