q_id
stringlengths 6
6
| title
stringlengths 4
294
| selftext
stringlengths 0
2.48k
| category
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | answers
dict | title_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
| selftext_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6afaoi | How do people with different alphabets program? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhe2n88"
],
"text": [
"They learn and program in English. While there are a few non-English programming languages, most of the tech world works in English. You don't actually have to know a lot of English to program, since the basics of the programming language is just a few dozen keywords. However if you're planning on using any standard libraries or third party components, then you will need to know English in order to figure out their documentation and how to use them."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6agtgc | How does Wifi connect us to the internet? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhegxmb"
],
"text": [
"WiFi connects you to your router, which is what connects you to the rest of the Internet. Your WiFi connection is basically just a replacement for a cable. Or did you mean how does WiFi itself work?"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6agu7o | Why isn't there a display technology that uses the actual full color spectrum, instead of RGB lights? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dheg071",
"dheggb7"
],
"text": [
"There are receptors in your eyes called cones that process color. Theee are three kinds of cones that process three different wavelengths of light: red, green, and blue. Every color you have ever seen in your entire life has been a combination of those three colors. That's why an RGB display can generate every color.",
"Speaking specifically about displays, modern rgb diodes are formed of crystalline tubes suspended in a clear liquid filled box. Three of these boxes put together form a rgb diode, or the pixels you see. When an electric current is applied, the crystals flex and bend, and light passing through bends to follow the tubes, like a car moving though a tunnel. This bent light wave appear as red green or blue, depending on which section of the bulb has electricity moving through it. Each section (you can see when you look closely) has only one type of tube in it, and when electricity passes through, flexes in only one way, though the amount of flex is variable. This is why we only use rgb. We can mix nearly any color using them, as well as its simple to make. in order to do it with a single \"range\" diode, it would have to be able to flex in infinite directions to bend the light appropriately, which is literally impossible to engineer with current tech . The other reasons are the manufacturing process (lots of chemicals) as well as the convenience of hexadecimal references for colors in coding a display (rgb works great for this), both of which are far beyond the scope of an elif. Edit: spelling and clearer explanations"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6agwu2 | Why is "PC Gamer" Hardware so Flashy? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dheh1vz"
],
"text": [
"It's the same thing as people who love cars. You love it, so you give it the best parts and make it look cool. Personally, I went with a tower from Nanoxia that has no window. It's just this beautiful, sleek, solid black monolith purring next to me."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6aiiii | Why is it that downloading through Steam slows my internet, but watching YouTube doesn't? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhetl45"
],
"text": [
"When you watch a video it only needs to send the video as fast as it needs to in order to play it back. When you download a large file from Steam it attempts to get you the file as quickly as possible."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ajfcq | How do lithium ion batteries work? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhf0h2w"
],
"text": [
"A lithium ion battery uses charged lithium particles (ions) to move electricity from one end of the battery to another. As energy leaves the battery, these lithium ions move from the negative side of the battery to the positive side, forming a conductive lithium layer that releases electricity. When all the ions are on the positive side of the battery, the battery is spent and no longer releases electricity. When the battery is put in a charger, the sides flip temporarily, and the addition of electrical energy to the lithium causes the ions to move back to the negative side of the battery, making the battery ready for use again. Because of these properties, lithium ion batteries are among the more common rechargeable batteries for home electronic use."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6aknm4 | What's changed, if anything, since the Vault 7 leak? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhfm352",
"dhfjcwb"
],
"text": [
"The leaks were massively overhyped. Most of the exploits were old and already publicly-known. Most of the new ones were pretty minor. Clickbait articles proclaimed the leaks as \"the entire CIA toolkit!\" but really it seems to have just been a few low-value things.",
"Those opinion pieces were wrong. Most of the exploits had already been patched and the ones that weren't, were patched shortly thereafter. I think Cisco closed one of the holes in the past few days."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6aks74 | Why cant the internet version of youtube "minimize" the current video into the corner while I browse for another one, like it does on the app? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhfkt8c",
"dhfft6f",
"dhfdjwc",
"dhf9zre",
"dhfb7lp",
"dhfitax",
"dhfgz6t",
"dhflre3",
"dhfgr0o",
"dhfpzg8",
"dhfo5sf",
"dhfi1c6",
"dhflxkc"
],
"text": [
"People are suggesting tons of alternatives to your problem, but not actually answering the question. Here's why: Youtube has a bunch of different product and engineering teams. Some work on the mobile app, and some work on the desktop/mobile web product. YouTube, most likely, gets different usage on both of these platforms, so the amount of engineers assigned to each of these platforms (in order to make updates on each of these) vary based on said usage. Additionally, there are also \"endless\" amounts of fixes and feature improvements YouTube can make at any given time. As a result, these bug fixes and feature improvements need to be \"prioritized\" (i.e., ordered by priority) since YouTube doesn't have \"endless\" engineers to work on them. The feature of a \"minimized\" player on the web/mobile web platform of YouTube probably hasn't been prioritized for various reasons: 1) It's probably not that big of a use case, especially given all the alternatives people have mentioned in this thread 2) there are other important features/bugs the team needs to work on before implementing something like this. Source: I work in tech. Hopefully that helps!",
"I use the chrome extension [Seek n Play]( URL_2 ), which adds this feature. I also have [AlienTube]( URL_1 ), which replaces the YouTube comments with any reddit posts it finds that link to that video, and [Adblock For YouTube]( URL_0 ).",
"Potentially it can but the answer to your question is: 'because the developers haven't added that functionality to the website '.",
"Because you can open a new tab on the browser in order to search and just keep the video playing in the original tab, unlike on mobile.",
"Actually, you can. Firefox are pushing it as a new feature thats in Beta. I've had 0 problems so far.",
"Am I the only one that finds this feature incredibly annoying?",
"Did you actually differentiate between \"the internet\" and an \"app??",
"Tag along question: why can't you adjust playback speed in the mobile app like you can on the computer version?",
"you could open a new tab? or do split screen.",
"\"The internet version of Youtube?\" What version are you using?",
"They actually tested this feature with their experimental [Cosmic Panda] ( URL_0 ) layout for a short period back in 2011, it was nice. Not sure why they never implemented it permanently.",
"Because you can just add another page to it? Idk it feels like hitting backspace to get outa a video and having that pop up might be cool but we already have a good work around without a needless popup.",
"I'm using Chrome and it's working fine for me ? URL_0 Too, I am really bothered that they put suggestion videos on when I pause the video so many time I have misclicked on those suggested videos when I try to resume the current one. Edit: Maybe it's [the enhancer]( URL_1 ) I'm using ? So far I had for the dark theme and ads bs"
],
"score": [
263,
211,
98,
94,
34,
22,
21,
11,
8,
8,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-for-youtube/cmedhionkhpnakcndndgjdbohmhepckk?hl=en-US",
"https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/alientube-for-youtube/opgodjgjgojjkhlmmhdlojfehcemknnp?hl=en",
"https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/seek-n-play-for-youtube/aiaeaehoebdkelhnbomepbijjjeakkld?hl=en"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/07/07/youtube-unveils-slick-experimental-redesign-codenamed-cosmic-panda/amp/#ampshare=https://techcrunch.com/2011/07/07/youtube-unveils-slick-experimental-redesign-codenamed-cosmic-panda/"
],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/3Y2emTR.jpg",
"https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/enhancer-for-youtube/ponfpcnoihfmfllpaingbgckeeldkhle"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6al4h9 | What is preventing youtube from utilising adblock detector and disallowing users from watching videos until they disable the web extension? | I tried to watch a video on an on-demand video website and to my surprise it would not allow me to progress to my selected video until I disabled adblock. Of course I paused adblock instantly to view the video. Why do other websites not follow suit? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhfcfnf",
"dhfdzkw",
"dhfdso4"
],
"text": [
"Blocking the browser extension will encourage people like myself to block ads at the router level which takes my whole household of five people off their ad network",
"YouTube / Google absolutely does not want to touch the adblocker/adblockee fight with a 10ft pole. It's simply not worth the risk to stir that pot, cause it will explode, and they will lose lots of money.",
"Because it's a losing battle. Currently ad blockers work simply by not even requesting adverts from the server. This is fairly transparent. But if some sites start to battle against this, you could always just start requesting them adverts, and then not run them. Ultimately, it's your computer, so you have authority on what happens on your screen and what doesn't. If someone wanted to absolutely block all ads, there is really nothing that websites could do to fight that. Which is why ad blocks have white list for ads that \"behave nicely\" so that despite blocking aggressive and irritating ads, you can still support websites running non-hostile ads. But that's you and adblockers allowing these ads to run. The video-on-demand site you talk of either is too small to get attention of adblock devs, or will get blocked sooner or later."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6al5v6 | how do electric vehicles harness braking energy to charge batteries? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhfd0hb",
"dhfcwzo"
],
"text": [
"Electric motors. work the same as generators - and essentially they are the same thing. Think \"direction of power flow\" They can take electrical energy and convert to mechanical energy (the RATE or how fast they can do this is their power) and visa-versa. So when using Regenerative Braking, they use the motors as generators and convert the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle back into electricity...which then is actually converted to chemical (electro chemical) potential energy by charging the battery. E1- > A.D.D. sentence corrected",
"Spinning motion can be converted into electric energy using a spinning magnetic field to generate electric current in wire within the field. They basically use motors in reverse. This also resists the spinning motion, so by integrating it into the braking system, the vehicle both slows down and generates electricity when it is engaged."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6alueo | why do gifs seem faster the second time you watch them? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhfioi9"
],
"text": [
"In most cases, the first time you watch a gif, the data for the image is still being downloaded to your computer/phone. You may be watching frames of animation that are stuck on the screen while the next frame has not yet been downloaded; then, when it finishes downloading the next frame, the new frame plays and hangs again. The second time the gif loops, you already have all of its image frames downloaded, so the gif plays at full speed."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ar50h | What's the difference between AWD and 4WD? | I just can't get the hang of it. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhgr6hb",
"dhguyua",
"dhgtgyp",
"dhh87g3",
"dhhlg3w",
"dhgu6ho"
],
"text": [
"Manufacturers (or more accurately their marketing departments) sometimes use the terms interchangeably but in the most common usage, AWD is safe to use on dry pavement and 4wd is not. The reason for this is the [center differential]( URL_0 ), a set of gears that allows the front wheels and rear wheels to turn at different speeds when turning. You have a differential between the two drive wheels of a 2wd car or truck as well, if you didn't, your drivetrain would wear out extremely quickly as the inner wheel needs to turn slower than the outer wheel during any kind of turn. In a typical 4wd truck or jeep with a [transfer case]( URL_1 ) you have essentially a rear-wheel-drive vehicle with an extra gearbox that allows you to engage another driveshaft to power the front wheels. (and also typically a gear reduction so you can put both driveshafts in low range.) It's a better system for hardcore offroading and simpler to manufacture, but it has the limitation on dry pavement that both driveshafts are mechanically linked together, putting a similar strain on the drivetrain as a 2wd car with no differential.",
"There are technical differences between the 2, but the core is this. AWD is intended for use 100% of the time. Most AWD vehicles do not include the ability to turn it on or off. 4wd vehicles are normally RWD unless 4WD is engaged. It is not considered a good idea to engage 4wd on dry pavement or at normal driving speeds. 4wd is intended for use in off road type situations only, not in normal day to day driving. Normally 4wd is only offered on trucks or vehicles that are based on trucks. AWD is a much newer technology that's often available on smaller SUVs or cars.",
"Thank you for the answers! I'm not the one to judge which of them were technically \"right\" but i now understand the difference (i think so)",
"An ELI5 has been done before. I hope this helps! URL_0",
"When in lower than ideal traction situations with wheels slipping/stuck: 2WD: 1 of 2 drive wheels will spin 4WD: 1 front and 1 back wheel will spin AWD: 1 of the 4 drive wheels will spin This can be modified with things like locking differentials, limited slip differentials, and other fancy stuff like brake assisting",
"4WD is manually engaged/disengaged and equally powers all 4 wheels when engaged. AWD operates in 2WD normally and automatically sends power to the other wheels when lack of traction is detected to ones receiving power by default. For example, a BMW X3 is rear wheel powered. But you back into a snow bank and the rear wheels can't get traction... the vehicle would send power to the front wheels to propel you forward until the rear had traction again."
],
"score": [
84,
44,
10,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.cars.com/go/advice/vpedia/center_differential_popup.jsp",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_case"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/352wn8/eli5_awd_v_4wd/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6atf5w | How does special effects work in movies that were shot on film? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhkd00"
],
"text": [
"The go-to was called [rotoscoping]( URL_0 ). Essentially, artists would draw what they wanted on top of every frame. Take for example starwars. The actors would hold heavy sticks, then post filming they'd add glow and a colored lightsaber on 24 frames for every second of film. It's just as inefficient and time-intensive as you'd think. Second, in today's world you can turn film into digital and do all the fancy motion-tracking and adding of digital layers on a computer."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ats5d | Why can no two files have the same name while in the same folder on most computers? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhcmi6",
"dhhdgsc"
],
"text": [
"Imagine there's 2 guys in a room named Steve. Outside of how they look, sound, etc. how could you tell which Steve was which if all you had to go off of was their name? If you called out \"Steve\", both would answer and there'd be confusion. How do computers handle confusion? Crashing. It's the same with Folder. C:/Users/User1/Desktop/Steve can only reference one Steve. If there's more than one Steve the computer will throw an error, so instead of throwing an error it just doesn't let you have 2 files named Steve.",
"Software developer here, This is actually an old holdover from way back in the day of earlier file systems. Today, most file systems uniquely identify each file by it's inode, Windows NTFS has a similar concept. There's no technical reason files can't all have the same name, the rule is arbitrary for the user's sake, since people would have trouble differentiating N files of all the same name."
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6atsli | How the hell can an almost 20 year old game cartridge (Poke Gold) know the exact time of day? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhd86a",
"dhhkx0b",
"dhhihbb",
"dhhn5sh"
],
"text": [
"The cartridge has a built-in battery. This battery keeps the part of the catridge that has save file going when it is not being provided power (in the gameboy). So, just like a normal clock, it just keeps on going. Thus, if this battery runs out, your save file is gone and its time to re-buy the game.",
"TL;DR: there's a little clock and a little battery to run it built in to the cartridge. That game was released on the GBC 17 years ago. The game system itself was dumb, it just ran the cartridge. Game cartridges from that time period would have a small battery that keeps it and all its save information alive when the Gameboy is turned off if they were meant to keep a save intact between sessions. Some games, like the one you are asking about also included time based functions. In order to accomplish thes, the cartridge would also have a little digital clock built in to it that could track what time it was.",
"The cartridge has a [real-time clock]( URL_0 ) chip in it. It does exactly what it sounds like, tracking the current time and day. It's basically quartz watch without a display. It's powered off the same battery that powers the RAM that holds your save data, which others have mentioned.",
"It is because the cart has a RTC (Real Time Clock) chip on the board that is powered by a coin cell battery. The power draw is in the order of if I recall microvolts so a 2.7 or 3.5 volt battery will still have a adaquate charge for decades. I still have computers from 25ish years ago that still keep their time and have not dumped their primative BIOS yet."
],
"score": [
61,
9,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_clock"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6atuh6 | The 7 layers of the OSI Model | I'm an older guy who just changed departments at work and I'm now interacting with many IT professionals. Although my job doesn't require it, I'm trying to be more conversant in what seems like a new language to me. Unfortunately, even basic definitions and explanations I find online appear to cater to people who already know said language. I sure could use help! | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhdb1z",
"dhhg7y5"
],
"text": [
"In reality, the entirety of the OSI model isn't useful in day to day interaction with IT people or even in the day to day work of a lot of IT people. It basically just defines different layers of communication from the physical cable that carries signal in layer 1, to the end user application that's using the data. The biggies to understand as a layman without getting too technical are.. 1 - Physical, which I described above. The physical network. 3 - Network, IP communications which is a subject in and of itself. 7 - Application layer - the application that's actually using the data",
"The OSI model is not particularly useful in day-to-day work, but is meant to give you an idea of how the data transmission over a network is achieved. It goes from the most fundamental things you need to do to transmit data over a network to the more abstract ones: 1: I have a wire, how do I transmit a bunch of bits (0s and 1s) over that wire? 2: I know how to send my bits over a wire, how can I make sure that I can tell if something goes wrong and they don't receive exactly what I am sending? 3: I know how to send stuff over a wire and detect errors, but how do I send the data to a specific machine on the network and not just the one that is on the other end of this wire? 4: Ok, I can send a packet of data to somebody on the network, but what do I do if that packet gets lost or corrupted? I could try sending it again if I don't get a \"receipt\", or they could request me to re-send it, or I can assume that they don't really care. And 5 to 7 are basically \"I can reliably send a bunch of bits (a packet) to someone on the network, but how do I interpret these bits so they mean something useful, like text or images or sound\"."
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6avbxl | why are replays on sports so blurry? | We can capture a bullet in mid flight but when I watch baseball or football replays they are always blurry. Can't they use the same high frame rate that people doing high speed motion capture use? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhqls4"
],
"text": [
"> Can't they use the same high frame rate that people doing high speed motion capture use? No. Those special cameras require special high intensity lights that would blind any athlete on the field. Also, they can only record like 1 second of footage, so you can't have them going the entire time. I think the slow mo guys have behind the scenes stuff about getting their shots. Look at all of the crazy lights and equipment they need to record 1 second of something that is planned."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6avx11 | Why do companies use download assistants instead of direct downloads? | I just reinstalled my computer and I noticed, that almost every download I had to make was through a company specific download assistant. My HP-drivers was downloaded through the HP Support Assistant. My Adobe programs was through the Adobe Creative Cloud assistant. Unity was through the Unity Download Assistant. My games are downloaded through Steam and URL_0 , which I somewhat understand, but why do other programs need a download assistant? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhuxtk",
"dhhuuk5"
],
"text": [
"All of that software uses download managers for exactly the same reason that Steam does - so the software can be automatically updated. Drivers get frequent updates, Adobe products are frequently updated & Unity is also frequently updated.",
"It allows the program to be downloaded in pieces. If you for some reason have to stop the download process, it can pick up right where it left off rather than starting over"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6aw4sd | Why does charging a device take hours instead of the battery being restored instantly after being plugged in? [TECHNOLOGY] | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhhwp0p"
],
"text": [
"Batteries don't operate by storing electrons. They operate by having chemicals in them that can undergo a reversible chemical reaction. A voltage is produced as the reaction proceeds, and applying an external voltage can reverse the reaction so that it can happen again. But that reaction takes time, and produces heat. The time factor alone slows down battery recharging. But the heat produced during charging also has to be dissipated so that the battery doesn't explode, and the best way to do that is to limit the recharging speed."
],
"score": [
23
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6axtqz | How does "Login via Facebook/Google/etc" work? How can it be secure to give away my credentials to random sites? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhiabgs",
"dhi872g",
"dhicsf8"
],
"text": [
"Your credentials are never sent or known to the random site, but your user info is. This is how it goes: 1. You want to login to random site XYZ and that means you want to prove your identity to XYZ (this process is called authentication) 2. When you choose Login via Facebook/Google/etc you are choosing them to prove your identity for you (because they already know you, you are registered there). The way Facebook/Google manages to prove your identity to XYZ depends on the protocol implemented behind the scenes (OAuth, OpenID) 3. By choosing Facebook/Google to prove your identity, you are knocking on their doors and asking them to give you a letter stating who you are and possibly a few more details about you. Before giving you the letter, you must prove that you are who you claim to be, then, Facebook/Google asks you to prove your identity at their door -- > using your username and password. 4. If your username and password are correct, Facebook/Google will issue the letter for you with a security feature like a watermark, something that makes the letter unable to be forged. 5. Then, you go back to XYZ, knock on its door, show the letter. XYZ examines the letter and because of the security feature, XYZ can confirm that your letter is valid and they let you in. (how XYZ knows Facebook/Google's security features is another story).",
"The whole point of it is to make it more secure. You are not in fact giving your credentials to a random site, but instead, the random site is making an API call to google/facebook. and you then log in with a secure connection to your existing FB or google account. Then the google/fb API sends back the information that the site/application needs along with the successful login note and you are now allowed into the site/app. Typically it only should need your name and email address, but once you authenticate, it usually gives you another little screen saying what information will be sent to them from your profile/account.",
"It uses a protocol called OAuth. There are several different versions and *flows* of this protocol. The most common version used by sites works something like this. There are basically 3 different \"people\" in this transaction -- the User (i.e. you), the Authorizer (i.e. Facebook/Google/etc), and the Site. 1. You click the \"Login via Facebook/Google\" button for a particular site. It creates a URL that redirects you to Facebook/Google. That URL includes information about the Site and what type of information it wants from your Facebook/Google account (usually just your email, name, etc). It also includes another URL that will redirect you back to the Site *after* you login to Facebook/Google and authorize the Site. 2. You login to Facebook/Google and accept the authorization request. Notice that only Facebook/Google is getting your login credentials. You will be redirected back to the site with an *Authorization Code*. 3. Behind the scenes, the Site will use that *Authorization Code* to request an *Access Token* from the Authorizer that allows the Site to access your Facebook/Google account (but they will only have access to the information you authorized). The Site has to pass along a *Secret* (basically, the master password for the Site) to get the token. This ensures that no other Site can request authorization by pretending to be a different Site. Basically, you've just created a second set of login credentials to your account, but it only works for that Site and has limited access to your account. 4. That *Access Token* typically expires after a set amount of time. Usually, the Site is also given a *Refresh Token* that they can use to get new *Access Tokens*. At any time, you can go to your Facebook/Google account and *revoke* these tokens, denying the Site any further access to your account. So your actual login credentials are never known to the Site. They only get temporary authorization credentials via tokens."
],
"score": [
205,
26,
17
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ayao2 | 1x, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE; what do these designations mean and what do they do? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhibxhm",
"dhj2wfx"
],
"text": [
"They refer to mobile network transmission protocols. 1x will likely refer to all technologies prior to 3G - so GPRS, WAP, etc 3G is the 'Third Generation' of mobile network data transmission protocols. This covers HSPA, HSDPA, and HSDPA+ (High Speed Packet Access, High Speed Downlink Packet Access). HSPA has a maximum theoretical speed of ~14Mb, and HSDPA+ about 166Mb. 4G and 4G LTE are very similar. The full 4G standard expresses a speed when stationary of 1Gb, and a speed when moving as 100Mb. Any network that does not meet this standard cannot be called 4G, but networks that use the protocol at slower speeds are referred to as LTE - Long Term Evolution -- with the aim of reaching these speeds eventually.",
"A cellular network essentially comprises a grid (often represented hexagonally) with no two abutting sections on the same frequency, as to avoid any potential disruption of service. The G actually stands for 'Generation' and the number describes which generation the cellular technology is. You can actually read the full documentation from the IEEE (institute of electrical and electronics engineers), but if you don't want to go digging through thousands of pages of literature follow along below. ###1G This technology was the very first technology for cell phones. The 1G standard was purely analog and did not support any data or text messaging – only voice. ###2G 2G networks moved from analog radio technology to more advanced digital technology. This staryed with technology called GSM, which stands for Global System for Mobile Communications. This allowed for both higher voice/audio fidelity as well as small amounts of data transfer, such as SMS. GSM allowed a bunch of people to connect to the same network using technology called TDMA, or Time Devision Multiple Access. This essentially gave everybody's cell phone a small amount of time to send and receive digital information and this cycled, giving everybody a fair shot at utilizing the cellular network. ###2.5G 2.5G is a GSM service similar to 3G. 2.5G incorporated General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), which was a GSM upgrade that provided IP-based packet data transmission up to 114 kbps. This also allows users to simultaneously use data and make calls along with the use of rich text (special characters and formatting) in the messages along with sending images and video. ###3G The aim of 3G was to incorporate high-speed data into cellular networks. This was accomplished using technology known as CDMA. Similar to TDMA, CDMA stands for Code Division Multiple Access. Instead of sending different information to different phones at different times, numerous signals are sent out simultaneously over CDMA and the signals are encoded in a way such that only the correct receiver will decode the correct transmission. 3G is notable for the voice quality, which is comparable to landline phones. It also can support multimedia, data, and video in addition to voice. ###4G/LTE 4G was actually quite short-lived and LTE won out over standard 4G, so I'll just cover LTE, which stands for Long Term Evolution. unlike previous legacy systems, LTE utilizes IP-based packets for all communication, including voice. It also is optimized for networks that can go up to 1 gigabit per second and is built with lower latency in mind. ###5G 5G is still being decided upon by numerous institutions. Likely a number of standards will form until one proves to be the best and becomes the most widespread. This is the next evolution and should start to appear within the next few years."
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ayrov | How do malware like WannaCry infect new computers even if someone on those computers does not click a link or visit a website? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhifush",
"dhii02f",
"dhioev8"
],
"text": [
"The WannaCry virus is known as a *worm*. A worm equipped with the right exploits is able to infect other computers on the same LAN. The lan spreading has been patched by Microsoft, **so I would suggest everyone to force update all your computers running Windows!**",
"I tried to find information on the exploit used but I couldn't find much about it other than the fact that it allows for remote code execution. One way that this sort of thing can be achieved is by exploiting a buffer overflow. A buffer overflow occurs when the program writes more data into memory than it has allocated. For example, if the program allocates 20 bytes to store the user's input, the program ought to check the number of bytes that have been input to make sure there is enough space to store them. When the program writes past the end of the allocated buffer, it will be writing into memory that is being used to store other things. Most of the time, this will cause the program to crash. But a user who is aware of the buffer overflow can exploit it to modify data that they shouldn't be able to change For a buffer allocated on the stack, one important value that will always be stored shortly after it is the return address. This tells the program where to return control to when the current subroutine has finished executing. If an attacker is able to modify the return address, they can point it at their own code, thus causing the target computer to begin executing their own (usually malicious) code as soon as the subroutine returns. A buffer overflow isn't the only kind of vulnerability that may allow remote code execution (bit it is a very common one) - another example is a use-after-free exploit, where a program writes to a pointer that points to memory which has already been freed, and since reused for some other data that the attacker can then modify through the old pointer. If a vulnerability like this is present in networked software which receives input from the internet, an attacker can execute their code on the target computer by sending it a malicious request, without any action from the user at all.",
"The malware just uses operating system's network communication capabilities to send certain message to \"all computers on the same network\". Due to some unexpected properties the message confuses communication-handling system to mistake incoming data for executable code. And the executable code loads malware to that machine instead of its user manually clicking a normal executable file."
],
"score": [
25,
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6az6m7 | Why does Facebook prefer videos of a gif instead if an actual gif? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhijuil",
"dhiuaol"
],
"text": [
"Same reason Reddit prefers them (like imgur's \"gifv\"). The files are a much smaller size for a similar quality, which means they load faster and you use less data to transfer them (a bonus for anyone with a metered data connection).",
"The technical information offered regarding file type efficiency could also add benefit to the fact that Facebook, as a video provider competitor wants to boost their video views statistic in order to be more attractive to advertisers looking for ad placement. Hence rather prefer a vid over a gif"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b0v8o | Cameras: You used to replace the bulbs after a few shots, so what changed? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhixr0x",
"dhixl3w"
],
"text": [
"Camera flashes were originally a magnesium explosion in a handheld tray, so single use and dangerous. These were replaced by flash bulbs, which are magnesium plus oxygen contained in a bulb that looks like a light bulb. Still an explosion (that doesn't break the glass). Still single use, but safe, although prone to starting fires as the bulbs remain hot for a while after use. These were replaced by 4-in-1 cubes, which are 4 bulbs in a single unit (so obviously single use per bulb, but the unit gets 4 uses). Electric flashes are discharge tubes, which are an extremely high voltage (tens to hundreds of thousands of volts) through a low pressure gas, so kinda like a fluorescent tube starter but much brighter. These can be used until either the high voltage circuit fails, or the tube gets damaged. Usually the failure mode was a capacitor in the high voltage circuit blowing, although now capacitors have better electrolytes and ICs and wireless are added to control them. Modern ones are smarter and can break in more ways, but shouldn't break more often than any other electronic device",
"Cameras use xenon gas flashtubes, which can be used over and over. They have a 200-300 volt capacitor which discharges when a kilovolt pulse triggers the gas inside to ionize. Previous flashbulbs had magnesium wire or foil in 100% oxygen. They burned very quickly when ignited by a battery."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b2l44 | How do audio editors manage to dub movies without losing the rest of the sounds(i.e. ambient noises, background music, gunshot noises) | I'd imagine that music isn't so hard to add back, but what about other sounds, are they simply replaced with pre-recorded ones, or is the process more complicated than that? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjaku6",
"dhjbngi"
],
"text": [
"There are multiple soundtracks going on at the same time and each soundtrack can be adjusted individually. So they record the background noises, they record the voices and they record other things as well. When they replace the voices, they just switch out the voice track but keep others the same or adjust them.",
"You know how music has a left and right channel? Well, for a movie, you can record all the voices on one channel and all the background sounds on a different channel. It's actually far more complicated than that, but that's essentially how it is done. When you play it all back it all blends together, but when it's being recorded, everything is kept seperate. That way when they want to overdub into another language they just mute the channel that has all the english dialog on it and have a different set of actors record the same words in Hungarian or whatever on a different channel."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6b2q75 | How does whatsapp make money without ads and free services? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjc2f4",
"dhjbp24"
],
"text": [
"It's owned by Facebook. They get more than enough money from there. It most likely also collects and sells your data.",
"Messaging apps are often monetized in other countries where SMS messaging is more expensive. The app started out with a $1 subscription model. You can read more detail [here]( URL_0 )."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/how-whatsapp-makes-money.asp"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b2w9n | How did the iPod Shuffle charge from a 3.5mm headphone jack? | I never see any articles mentioning how they charge, everyone is just concerned for it to BE charged. I mean, it would be lit if I could charge my phone through a headphone jack... How does it work? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjdgc2",
"dhjdaf8"
],
"text": [
"For charging a battery you just need two connections. The headphone jack always has at least two (sometimes more for microphones) It is not common to charge via headphone jacks but nothing restricts you to do so. Apple has built a charger to transfer the electrical energy from 5 Volt DC to whatever the shuffle needs.",
"iPod Shuffle is still available. You can charge it using a 3.5mm headphone jack to USB cable. The iPod Shuffle headphone jack is actually just a modified USB connector adapter that uses the 4th pole to charge the Shuffle. (1+2 are left and right for headphones and 3 is ground). All the Shuffle does is add an extra pole for power. URL_0"
],
"score": [
15,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT201568"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6b38da | How do night vision goggles work? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjfnvd",
"dhjfduk"
],
"text": [
"There are several ways: * Infrared: There are electronics that can see \"color\" lower than red. As things and beings radiate those colors as heat, you can use it to see in the dark. Also, as infrared is invisible to the human eye those night vision devices can be enhanced with a \"infrared flashlight\". It works like with normal light, just in an invisible part of the spectrum that then is shown to you in a visible one. Heat vision and \"infrared just below the red\" are actually two different beasts, but for this scope here saying \"light below your visibility\" is sufficeient. * Enhancement of the existing light. For example electronics that are more sensible than your eyes and that light is then enhanced. But what you usually mean is expalined by mainman879, photons hit a place in a vacuum tube, those cause a shower of electrons which fall on a plate that gets flourescent in those places and that you can see.",
"Protons from light coming into the lens hit a plate that releases electrons, which hit a plate that releases more electrons for each electron that hits it, and each one has more power. These high power electrons then hit a plate that releases protons. The plate that releases protons releases more than came in, so your light seems stronger."
],
"score": [
16,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b3ja1 | If I become Invisible, how could I see? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjh782",
"dhjgvs1",
"dhjhrq0",
"dhjhgr4"
],
"text": [
"As becoming invisible would entail magical means at this point, magic would also provide you with sight.",
"Fair point, you could use a camera and VR goggles. A small HD camera being visible won't be noticeable I guess...",
"You could try to only be invisible in the (human) visible spectrum and absorb the IR/UV wavelengths for sight. Might want to add something like night vision googles to transform what comes through to a wavelength you can actually see.",
"In theory, could you create a lens that effectively created two copies of the light that came in? You would lose brightness, but if you split it 90/10 so that you saw things at 10% brightness, your \"shadow\" would only be 10% darker than your surroundings. I would think that would render you effectively invisible."
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b3ywg | Why performance of storage devices (hard disks) haven't increased significantly like other devices (e.g Ram, GPU). | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjlavr",
"dhjlhyo",
"dhjln5e",
"dhjlhcg"
],
"text": [
"CPU and RAM speeds are driven by the frequency of transmission of data. The high frequency make circuits behave like transmission lines where interference and other issues start to create so much noise data gets corrupted. New shielding and architectures allow for faster processing without all the drawbacks. With storage the problem is more complicated. Apart from the same transmission issues, you have to permanently change the state of the material that holds the data. SSDs have removed the issues present in hard drives where the with heads have to physically move thru the device. However, you still spend more time changing the state of the storage substrate than just transmitting the charge in the circuit. In addition you have a problem of data volume/size of channel. Storage has more space for data than RAM and RAM has more space than CPUs. So data flows from storage to RAM to CPU. So imagine a bathtub (storage) filling a bucket (RAM) and then filling a cup (CPU) from a bucket. But to move the water you have about the same size tube. It will always take longer to fill a bucket than a cup.",
"They have. The data density has increased drastically. With higher data density the read/write speed for single files also has increased. Power consumption has also improved and now you can get 15k RPM 2,5inch SAS drives that just 5 years ago still had to have a 3,5inch heatsink adapter permanently screwed in place. Almost all modern servers and SAN use 2,5inch drives, until recently most used 3,5inch since 2,5 had too little storage space and was too slow and pretty expensive.",
"Spinning disks were limited by physical characteristics, a disk of a certain size and strength is going to have a certain weight, spinning it at 7200rpm is going to use a certain amount of energy. You could make it spin faster, but that increases power usage, requires better quality motors and bearings, produces more heat, etc. As density improved you could keep the same capacity but make the disk physically smaller and therefore lighter, spin it faster and get better performance and to an extent that did happen, data centers got 15k rpm disks, but the demand wasn't there for consumer versions. Most home users are more interested in capacity than performance. SSD performance has been improving significantly, the biggest bottleneck has been the bus, no point making the flash 5 times faster if it's still connected over slow SATA. With m2 and PCIE connected flash, you can go as fast as you want to pay for.",
"Mostly because we've hit the limits on the technology we have available. For HDDs, physical platters can only rotate so fast before becoming unstable. For SSDs, the real limiting factor is the bus it's attached to. SATA was a *huge* step up from IDE, and its performance has been improving incrementally with each generation, but it'll really take another replacement bus (M.2, iSCSI, SAS 4) before we start seeing massive performance increases like we did in the past. Additionally, you have to take into account the other factors in play. Can the CPU send information to the storage bus fast enough? (Is the storage bridge the bottleneck?) Is data being generated fast enough to take advantage of the speed?"
],
"score": [
14,
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b4or8 | Why, in old black and white movies, does the picture brighten slightly a second before a fade transition takes place? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhjqswy"
],
"text": [
"You'll notice the same effect on older color movies as well. Many \"transitions\" between shots were accomplished optically, requiring an additional generation or copy of the portion of film involved. The bit of film beginning just prior to and the bit of film ending just after the transition were processed by an optical printer to accomplish the optical effect. The resulting new piece of film, a copy of the two shots but now including the effect, was cut back into the original. There was always a difference in generation, which could be noticeable, and if the exposure and color correction didn't match up exactly, very hard to do, there would also be a noticeable difference at the in and out points. I made films as a kid. I would include the entire shots on both sides of the effect in the optical printing so the discontinuity was somewhat hidden by the normal cut (in angle or whatever) at the beginning and end, respectively, of the shots preceeding and following the optical effect, but this was not normal practice in professional films."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b7qcd | Why are cyber attacks hard to defend against? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhkonfe",
"dhkh7tp"
],
"text": [
"The defenders dilemma. You can spend millions on defending yourself but all you need is for one person to find one gap in your defences one time and everything is compromised.",
"Most people are very bad at patching their systems. Some companies have poor processes to do it too. Microsoft systems are notorious for having bad pieces of code that, once you understand how it works, you can create other pieces of code to take over a computer. The security companies constantly look for those vulnerabilities, inform the manufacturers and they issues security patches. However, bad actors will also be aware of those vulnerabilities and exploit them. The latest attack targeted a vulnerability that has existing in Windows since Windows XP. Many companies stopped upgrading their system after XP because they can't (SW dependencies, old applications that won't run on newer systems, internal policies, etc.). MSFT had stopped patching XP a long time ago so those systems were very vulnerable to attacks. Given the severity of this latest ransomware, MSFT offered an emergency patch for XP users (but too late for those systems already infected)."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6b95ca | multiple antivirus | Is there any benefit to having more than one piece of antivirus software running on a Windows machine? If I have two installed, in the case of realtime scanning, what decides which one scans first? Example: it was recently found that Windows Defender had a [security hole]( URL_0 ) that allowed remote execution through the scanner itself (!) if I had a 'secondary' antivirus (Avira, AVG, etc) running, could that theoretically protect me against such an exploit by scanning and blocking access to the file before Windows Defender could scan it? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhkrs3w"
],
"text": [
"It's a very bad idea. An antivirus flags the files in a computer as \"safe\". A second antivirus might identify that flag as something that doesn't belong to the file (rightfully, because that's what it is looking for) and then it can consider said file a virus. Or a second antivirus mighf find the activity of the first one suspicious, consider it a virus and try to block it. They will also fight over quarantined viruses to treat them according to their own rules. In the end, you have a non-functioning anti-virus system that isn't good at finding the bad things. And, additionally, slowing down your machine."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6b9o51 | Why does raw RGB video need to be trans-coded into YCbCr | Trying to study digital video formats and really can't wrap my head around that one. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhkuskv"
],
"text": [
"Short answer: it doesn't need to be, but it really helps to keep final size down while keeping comparable amount of noticeable detail. Long answer: People really notice much more detail from contrast change than in color change (while keeping the same amount of light). Amount of light increment in RGB means that you add some value to each of the 3 channels. The same effect in YCbCr means adding some value just to one channel. So you can easily do a trick that you save Y channel in full resolution, but Cb and Cr only for multiple pixels (1/2 resolution or 1/4 resolution). By this, you lose some detail in sharp color changes, but these are the things people don't notice as much. So even before applying some advanced compressing, you just cut amount of data to be compressed to 50% (really depends...), while still capturing the important kind of detail (that people notice)."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6b9utj | Why is it that playing a PC game at 30 FPS looks so bad, yet playing a console game with a 30 FPS cap looks buttery smooth? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhkw09d"
],
"text": [
"There would be a lot of factors that could cause it to look less \"buttery smooth\": Typically console games will be optimised for 30fps on that platform. So when playing a game like GTA , there will be a standard graphics setting that will work the same for every console. Each console is practically identical at this point where performance differences are quite minor. Companies will also market and optimise for whatever console pays the most or which platform the game is going to sell the most on. This would explain why you may find choppy frames in PC. There are many why fps will begin to fluctuate. One being that the hardware is out of date and may not be powerful enough to keep the frame rate constant. The game may not be optimised for PC and have frame rates of 12 - 15 etc then suddenly surge to 30 when a cutscene is played (this is from pre rendered scenes). You may just be used to a 60 fps experience from PC gaming and a 30 fps experience from console gaming. Anti-aliasing may be disabled making frames less stable (what makes frames transition smoother)"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bahs1 | How do people hack into an intranet and why do we need anti-virus systems in an intranet? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhl098a"
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of ways someone might \"hack into an intranet\" but a simple way to understand why something might get through the barriers surrounding an intranet is to consider USB thumb drives. A virus on a thumb drive might easily be introduced within the network even with the strongest of barriers between the internet and intranet."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bc43h | What is the process of supplying more cellular data to a customer on the provider's side? To companies like AT & T and Verizon have an unlimited supply of data to give? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhlek2z",
"dhlk6ol"
],
"text": [
"it's not a matter of there being a finite data limit. that's not what caps are enabled. they are enabled for 2 reasons. $ and performance. with a cap, you can convince customers to pay for higher tier of data for basically the same service. verizon isn't doing anything more for you if you have 4 or 8 gb a month. but they can get you to pay for 8. also, capped data is more likely for people to get charged for overages. 1 million people go over and get charged $10 extra for it. do the math. also, data caps discourage people from using data as often as they would if its unlimited, therefore drastically reducing network congestion. so there's no finite data that verizon or at & t have to give out. it's a service they give out. imagine data is like a highway. you're allowed to use the highway 10x a week and you pay. if you want to use it 20x, you pay more. if you want to use it unlimited, you pay a lot more. imagine if everyone had unlimited, there'd be much more traffic at more times than if most had a 10x a week access.",
"There are a lot of good analogies in here, but all of them fail to mention that on the *wireless* side, there are limits. The wireless carriers buy wireless spectrum and the technology in use can only provide so much bandwidth to so many users on that spectrum. If more people want to use their cell phones than the spectrum can support, the slower it is for everyone. Remember, wireless is a *shared* medium so everyone talking to the tower has to take their turn, almost like a game of password. So the wireless companies want to incentivize you to pay more, if you want to use more data, with the justification being they'll use those profits to buy more spectrum or utilize their knowledge and expertise to increase the capacity via various engineering tricks. It's a subtle balance of making the most profit without degrading the network performance and simultaneously investing just enough to allow the network to have faster speeds and/or more customers on it."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bcpti | why cant windows uninstall 2 things at once at control panel ? | all the answers i found are pretty complicated . i dont know anything about being a programmer . | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhljvz3",
"dhlneao"
],
"text": [
"Programs add their configuration settings to the registry and the file system. Windows needs a way to track what those changes are. If you install or uninstall two programs simultaneously, Windows has no way to know which program made which changes in case something goes wrong. It is quite a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.",
"It's really just a safety measure. If you only allow one program at a time to alter the system, you *significantly* cut down on the chance that two separate tasks will have any sort of conflict & run into problems. Since uninstalling programs is a relatively uncommon thing, there's very little reason to put extra work into making it so you can safely remove multiple programs."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bcuig | Why does software have bugs? | I get that an OS like Windows has a lot of written code, but there are thousands of people working on it and I assume, that there are some basics that have been coded and reviewed several times. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhlk1z1",
"dhlk24n"
],
"text": [
"Because humans are not perfect. A bug is a condition where the executiin of code results in an error. While there are many ways to test code, the more complex it gets, the harder it is to find and prevent possible problems.",
"Writing perfect code is a very hard thing to do. When complexity increases, so many things depend on each other and expect certain things that bugs are going to be there."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bcum2 | The difference between AM and FM radio waves and why they sound different? | When I listen to AM radio, especially talk shows, whenever music plays in intermission in never sounds as clear as on FM stations. What's the difference? Why do both exist? Why do they sound different? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhlle55"
],
"text": [
"> What's the difference? AM stands for Amplitude Modulation, while FM stands for Frequency Modulation. As the name implies they are different ways of encoding audio data in radio waves. > Why do both exist? Because both work well enough for what they are used for and don't interfere with each other; if you are looking at the amplitude you don't care about the frequency and vice versa. > Why do they sound different? AM varies the amplitude or the strength of the signal in order to transmit information, and radio noise will tend to slightly vary the amplitude of the signal. This means AM radio is subject to static from interference, while FM being based on frequency doesn't really get interfered with (FM still is subject to amplitude variance but it is irrelevant to the audio output). The result is that FM is much better in quality and so is usually used for music, while AM is used for voice transmissions which don't suffer that much with some slight static."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bdezk | Why do E27 compact fluorescent lamps need time to warm up and reach full brightness, while old school T5 fluorescent tubes don't? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhltorq"
],
"text": [
"A fluorescent tube is kind of like a neon tube, except it uses mercury instead of neon. And the mercury vapor emits most of its light as UV, which is used to energize a fluorescent coating that re-emits white light. So when they're off, the tubes are cold and have mostly liquid-metal mercury in them and a small amount of vapor. When they fire up, the energy vaporizes the rest of the mercury. In a large, straight tube the insides are more evenly \"hot\" and the mercury vaporizes quickly. In a tightly-wound little tube, like a CFL, there are \"cool corners\" where the mercury takes more time to fully vaporize and bring the tube up to full pressure."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bdj72 | What does a computer's CPU do while usage is at 0%? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhlr1bt",
"dhlr2lz"
],
"text": [
"In a modern computer CPU usage almost never drops to literally zero operations per second, but it can get close. When not working, the CPU will enter a power-saving state, where it either (A) executes the same \"wait for a signal or timer\" loop over and over, or (B) for low-power chips, actually stops ticking for a while until an electrical signal wakes it.",
"2 things. 1 really low activity is rounded down. You may still see a couple processes sitting at 0.1 during the time your cpu is at 0%. The second thing is that processors work in bursts, sometimes it can handle everything for a second or two and wait for more information from other parts. The entire basic needs of a processor can be done with under a couple percent of a decent processor, but programs and files will take a lot."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bds9u | Why are Wi-Fi/Cellular signal strength expressed in negative numbers ? | Why we write the signal strength of Wifi as -60 dBm ? Where does this negative value come from? Why I haven't seen any positive signal strength value? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhlsso5"
],
"text": [
"The reason is that the signal strength is expressed in deciBels, which is a convenient way to represent very large and very small values. DeciBels are calculated using logarithms. When you take a logarithm of a number between 0 and 1, you get a negative value. Actual power is measured in Watts. Now suppose that the power is very low, say 0.000001 milliWatts. A milliWatt (mW) is 1/1000 Watts. You could express this with scientific notation as 10^-6 mW. Or you can express it in deciBels as: P = 10*log(0.000001 mW) = 10*(-6) dBm = -60 dBm Now suppose the number was very large, say 1 million Watts or 1 MegaWatt (MW). Then you could express it as 10^6 W, 1 MW, or 60 dBW."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6be2rd | Wanna Cry malware and how a system acquires it. | Everyone is doing a great explaining what the hell it does, but no one has explained how computers are being infected in the first place. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhlwaxq",
"dhluefa"
],
"text": [
"Long story short, the ransomware utilises two main exploits in Windows systems, known as EternalBlue and DoublePulsar. These were leaked by a Russian hacker group known as 'The Shadow Brokers' in April this year and most likely originated with the NSA. EternalBlue is a method of exploiting a legacy file transfer protocol in Windows known as 'Server Message Block' or SMB. EternalBlue can be used to install the DoublePulsar backdoor - which is a memory based payload that allows an attacker to execute virtually any malicious code they wish to. Microsoft patched the vulnerabilities in 7 and 8 earlier this year, however neglected to do so for XP. As it happens, a number of government agencies (including Britain's NHS) still utilise XP and are vulnerable to the aforementioned exploits. My understanding is that Wannacry utilises traditional phishing methods (e.g. fake emails) as an initial attack vector and then scans the local network for vulnerable machines to which it will remotely spread. Its progress has currently been halted because one security researcher accidentally found a kill switch but that's another story entirely.",
"It's self replicating, once it's on one computer either by user download or other means, it scans the network for other computers and tries to remote launch on them and continues from there. Atleast that's the last explanation I saw for it."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bfo2o | Why does a digital thermometer fluctuate in value when left alone in a room? | Assuming the room has a stable temperature (so no fans, open windows, open vents, A/C, heaters etc) | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhm99uc"
],
"text": [
"Because the temperature in a room seldom is really stable. For this to be it would need to be air tight and every surface would need to have the exact same temperature. Else there will be air currents with different temperatures. In a normal room with windows the light alone can make a difference of a few degrees."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bftrr | Where did the F1-12 keys on a keyboard come from? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhmczab",
"dhmgra5"
],
"text": [
"Function keys originate from the late 60's as a way for the user to quickly give commands to a program. Unlike other keyboard keys the function keys do not have a specific purpose, what they do will change between different programs. These keys were, and still are, very helpful when a user is in a text only environment. Instead of remembering specific commands those commands can be mapped to the function keys. Function keys are less useful when using a graphic user interface (GUI), but are still used along with keyboard shortcuts. In a program that could have dozens of possible functions there's no possible way to map everything to the keyboard. A GUI allows a user to access an unlimited number of functions without needing to know specific commands to access a function. Other keys on your keyboard also come from the 60's and 70's. Print screen would litterally print out any text on the screen. Scroll lock was used to change between moving a cursor with arrow keys and moving the text up and down with the arrow keys.",
"They were from back in the day when computers didn't have fancy buttons on the screen you could click everywhere. Now-a-days they aren't as useful, but we keep them because we're used to them."
],
"score": [
22,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bghrv | Why did support for .GIF end with windows Vista's photo viewer because of copyright(?) issues while IE could still view .gifs? | With windows XP you could view .gif files with Windows photo viewer but ever since windows vista (windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10) they are viewed as a single frame citing that the .gif format was "copyrighted" while at the same time being viewable in another product (i.e. IE). | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhmeq4l"
],
"text": [
"Microsoft would have paid the license for IE since not being able to play animated gifs in your browser helps the competition. The same doesn't really apply to a photo viewer, which is really about viewing still images"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bh8s0 | Why did wrapping the Xbox 360 in a towel and leaving it on temporary fix the Red ring of death? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhmjan5"
],
"text": [
"One common cause of the red ring of death was cracking and degradation of the solder joints on the CPU and GPU. By wrapping the Xbox it would cause it to heat to the point that those joints could be melted again and reformed."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bi3dq | Is there any visual difference when my PC runs a game beyond 60 FPS? As a follow up question, when does the FPS become too high to actually make a noticeable difference? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhn1ynu",
"dhn6udd"
],
"text": [
"A higher frame rate will reduce frame latency no matter the refresh rate. Frame latency is how old the frames are on refresh. If you have a refresh rate of 60Hz while rendering 60FPS, you will have a frame latency of 16.66ms, while at 120FPS it will instead be 8.33ms and so on. At 120FPS 60Hz, you will see an 8.33ms old frame every 16.66ms. The difference isn't simply in what you see but also how responsive the mouse feels that makes a tangible difference. You're effectively lowering your input delay by lowering your frame latency, allowing the player an increase in precision and consistency. This scenario assumes a perfect environment in which you get exactly 60 or 120FPS, while in the real world there are always fluctuations. At 60FPS 60Hz a single dropped frame will miss an entire refresh cycle, increasing the delay from 16.66ms to 33.33ms. See [3kliksphilip]( URL_1 ) and [Battle(non)sense]( URL_0 ) for further information.",
"The difference between 30 and 60 is **highly** noticeable. Run the same game at those two framerates on two monitors next to each other and I could point out the 60 fps version 100% of the time. 60 to 120 however, while there is a difference, is not as large. I can notice it, but I wouldn't say my rate of choice would be 100%. It would depend largely on the game too. In an FPS it can be very helpful, or a racing / fighting game."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/user/xFPxAUTh0r1ty/videos",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bisuk | Why do we need separate file compression software? | Why did we need Zip or Stuffit to further compress files after an application made a file? Shouldn't the application make the smallest file possible? Did the app makers do terrible jobs of saving good small files? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhmyi38",
"dhmygq7",
"dhmxyrl",
"dhmxppx",
"dhn0rr9",
"dhmx4lc"
],
"text": [
"A lot of common file-types are already compressed. Photos, videos, and audio are almost always in compressed formats. Apple's Pages word processing software saves files with a .pages extension, but they're actually are just straight up ZIP (you can change the extension and unzip them) that then contain the real Pages document inside.",
"Compression takes time and resources. If space is not a problem it is more convenient to simply store the data in an easy to access file format, especially if speed is important. Have you seen those space saver bags that that you put your clothes in and use a vacuum cleaner to suck the air out? They allow you to store much more stuff in your closet. Fine for storing your winter clothes during the summer, but you wouldn't want to use it for your everyday clothes. If you can appreciate why you wouldn't want to use one every day, you'll understand why data files aren't always compressed. Compression makes files smaller, you can store more in a limited space, but there is a cost involved, so you don't want to use it all the time.",
"> Shouldn't the application make the smallest file possible? Not really. In most applications storage space is dirt cheap compared to things like CPU and RAM. So if making the file smaller means that it's going to take significantly more time to access (e.g. require significant CPU time to decompress) or make it impossible to randomly access parts of the file (say because the compression algorithm requires you to decompress using the entire file) then the benefit of the smaller file can easily outweigh the cost.",
"> Shouldn't the application make the smallest file possible? File compression introduces space savings at the cost of processing power and access time. File storage formats are usually designed to be conveniently usable which isn't the absolutely smallest size possible.",
"Software developer here, > Shouldn't the application make the smallest file possible? No. Adding compression to my program adds unnecessary complexity and dependency to my program. It's that much more code that can contain bugs. It's that much more I'm responsible for. A dedicated compression program can do a better job than I ever could, and it could be transparent to my application (using built-in file system compression or the file system API providing transparent plug-in support, for example). Upgrades to different layers of abstraction, such as this stand alone program, will benefit the whole system, not just my program. Further, small file size isn't always or even often the end goal. Human readable files consequently are highly compressible by their nature. Binary files are efficient for bringing data into memory while minimizing intermediate processing. And disk space is cheap. Your disk is going to store data in blocks as it's smallest unit, typically 4 KB these days. So if I can get a 100 B file down to 70 B, it's still going to take 4 KB of disk space.",
"From an app development standpoint - there is no incentive for me to make my files smaller than they have to be. That is wasted time for my own application to compress or unpack the files every time I need them. From a user perspective, you might run out of storage, so you can compress files - enter file compression software."
],
"score": [
10,
10,
9,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bkxt0 | Why is SpaceX/Elon Musk able to make so many technological advances? I just recently saw how they underpay their employees too? What is the driving force behind all the advances? Is it funding, brain power, or a combination of the two? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhnirn1"
],
"text": [
"Because Elon Musk wants to. Most companies respond to current demand to make money. Elon Musk is more interested in technology in itself, and therefore responds to the demand of tomorrow, which is much less guaranteed to pay off. For example, Tesla loses an estimated $20,000 for every car they sell. There is far too few demand and research right now for these cars to be lucrative, but Musk (and investors who made Tesla the $50bn company it is today) believe that in the near future, this is what people will buy."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bky1z | Why does it take so long for results to come in from an election? | If it is all done electronically on a machine maintained by that county, why aren't votes tallied the moment you submit them and results posted 5 or 10 minutes after polls close? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhng6ak"
],
"text": [
"In a recent election I was involved in, all ballots were cast on paper, and counted by hand. This was in a single time zone, and polls closed at 8 PM. Results started coming in by 8:20 from more populous areas, where they had a full contingent of people counting the votes by hand and reporting the numbers. In outlying areas, which had fewer counters, this took longer. In some areas, the scrutineers called for an immediate recount, which took even longer. With machine voting (Diebold, etc), usually the machines themselves do immediate tallies, but then the results are printed for verification, and the anonymous registration numbers are cross-checked to ensure someone didn't vote twice. The printouts are still verified by hand. This all takes time. I don't think I'd trust an election that was done fully by machine without any human checks and balances. Someone who has worked at a polling station probably has more information."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6blotz | The difference between i5 and i7 processors. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhnmv3k"
],
"text": [
"The desktop version? Hyperthreading. I7 processors are able to run 2 distinct tasks per core, whereas an I5 can only do one. This is a bit of an oversimplification. You can read about the concept here: URL_0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bmrim | What does a Honey Pot do and how does it work? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhnwus8",
"dhnwley",
"dhnxgmq"
],
"text": [
"Its a fake server/website/address put out by people to collect data on hackers and how/what tatctics they use. I dont think they are ever used to track hackers down unless they are being really careless with their attack. ELI5: Basically a literal honey pot being put out in the woods to attract bears and catch their picture on a camera. You can find where they came from and how they got the honey out, But if the bear is wearing a mask you dont know who it is. Edit: sometimes fake files will be left on the server which can back fire on an attacker, but chances are if the attacker is any good at what he does he will just open stolen files on an offline system.",
"A honey pot hold honey. Insects like the sugar content of it and are attracted to it. In the context of Mr. Robot a honey trap is a website or part of a file system that is set up to be attractive to someone trying to get information but is actually a trap that either gives you access to their systems, feeds false information, wipes their system, or does something else nefarious.",
"So a simple honeypot is a bait system used to trick a hacker into a well logged set of systems so what they do can be analyzed and later countered. It can be used as evidence but honeypots are unlikely to stick inter the principle of due diligence as they are intentionally left exposed. A very advance honeypot can be an entire realistic network filed with junk data. A current effective one I read about recently is a system that is full of fake accounts, phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses. When compromised, a hacker gets a treasure trove of data they can sell but as it isn't real this contaminates global spam listings and drives up costs for spammers."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bmrve | Why are working mirrors so difficult to make in video games? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhnwwow",
"dhnwrhj"
],
"text": [
"To render a mirror correctly, one would have to essentially render a second frame, for the purposes of that mirror, with the vantage point of that frame being from a camera pointing \"back at you\" from the mirror (and then its image reversed left-right.). This means that in a frame with N mirrors, you would have to render at _least_ N frames -- even worse if some of the mirrors can \"see\" each other -- then you get loops of reflection that would require even more rendering. This would decrease performance in those cases, and if you had opposed mirrors, performance could absolutely crater. This is not so much of a problem in _non_-real-time graphics. A ray tracer will easily take care of mirrors (but is usually limited to a fixed number of \"bounces\" for the mirror-against-mirror case and as a result if you do that, it will generally give only a few \"iterations\" before going black, or some other color.) since it models light propagation. But ray tracing is too expensive to do in real time. Nonetheless, this way you can do CG mirrors in CG movies.",
"Games usually take shortcuts to fake shadows & reflections, a reflection in a puddle might only show an inverse of the skybox because showing one more texture isn't a big deal. A true reflective mirror would have to calculate and raytrace the entire game, even things not in line of sight of the player camera, effectively doubling the effort of rendering the scene. It's a huge drain on resources, and games generally are already pushing the limits of how much they can render and show on screen."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bmz00 | How can two games look so different on the same console? | I played Dark Souls I and II, and I couldn't help but notice how much more beautiful II looked on the exact same Xbox that I played the first one on. How does this kind of change happen despite me never upgrading my hardware? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhnzsrk",
"dhny9dp",
"dhnz574"
],
"text": [
"Here's an analogy: A pencil is a tool you can create pictures with. It is limited, for example you are not able to produce colours with it. (This would be what the console is just not capable to do). But within the things you are able to do, there is a huge spectrum. You can create simple stick-figures. But the more you master the tool, the more complex and detailed things you will be able to draw. A console is just another medium that has to be mastered. (Look at some PS1 or NES games. Compare Super Mario Bros. 1 to SMB3. Same console, one early and one late game. Developers just learned a lot in these years.",
"Because your console isn't the only thing that can be improved upon. The development team itself, over the years, gains experience, gets better at creating more complex art, they learn how to better utilize the console, They might have a bigger art budget than last time around, the industry as a whole improves their methods, They might be targeting higher-end machines than before, and so on and so forth.",
"They got better at programming simply. Your Xbox can do more than what the first game showed and the second proves that. The studio may have gotten a bigger budget and more experience thus they could cough out a more technologically advanced game. Good example is GTA SA and half life 2. Both came out same year. Yet half life has much better graphics"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bnk2c | Why / How Linux Is More Secure Than Windows | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dho20j5",
"dho3obg",
"dho1yk7"
],
"text": [
"The main reason is because fewer people use it. Put yourself in the shoes of a hacker. You can spend several weeks developing some malware for Linux, which will target 2% of all computers. Or you can spend the same amount of time developing some malware for Windows 7 and later, which will target around 70% of all computers. Which do you think would be a better use of your time? And which do you think most hackers are going to do??? [(Source for percentages)] ( URL_0 ) There are some technical reasons as well, but if the numbers made sense, those technical issues would very quickly be overcome by hackers and malware writers.",
"Two main reasons; 1. Linux and Windows differ massively architecturally. The format of their programs is different, the way their commands work is different, the frameworks that handle things like managing your mouse and keyboard or drawing stuff on the screen are all totally different. Because of this, it's incredibly difficult to write an exploit that targets both systems; as a result, most hackers are forced to choose, and Windows users are both far more numerous and have a much lower average level of security (Linux is primarily used among programmers, hackers, system administrators, and other people who make computers a career; Windows is used by everyone). 2. Linux in and of itself isn't a cohesive operating system like Windows is; rather, it's merely one part (the \"kernel\", or the program that manages your hardware and how it interacts with your software), and all the other parts are thrown in by different people. Think of it sort of like a car; Windows is a car built by Ford, from the ground up. The wheels are specifically designed to work with their engine, which in turn is custom tuned to their transmission. The Linux car is one guy's homemade engine stacked in another guy's frame, with a third person's transmission cables connecting a fourth man's wheels. Because every piece is designed and developed by different people, there's much less consistency, and this makes it hard for hackers because they can't rely on using one insecure portion of the OS to hack another part. Sorry if this explanation is rather long!",
"Most popular desktop OS is Windows. That means that virus creators mostly target Windows. Yes, there aare Linux viruses, but Linux has better support for sandboxing and restricting apps like SELinux or AppArmor. And open-source, according to Linus' law, has more potential bugs fixed, because source code is public."
],
"score": [
14,
14,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bopoh | What does paying my TV licence actually pay for these days? (UK) | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dho9srb"
],
"text": [
"The TV licence fee is a tax collected by the BBC and primarily used to fund the radio, television and online services of the BBC itself."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bppaz | Will two supercomputers playing chess against each other always have the same outcome? | If two supercomputers play chess against each other, will the outcome always be the same? Consider that they will always play the best possible move and that they do not learn from past matches. If not, which I believe is the case, why not? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhoi4gc",
"dhojzjn"
],
"text": [
"Computers playing chess often include the use of a random number generator to choose between moves of apparently equal value. Such generators often vary by time of day or some other input to ensure unpredictability.",
"Chess has a large game tree; estimated to contain around 10^40 legal positions. That's a 1 with 40 zeroes after it. You're not going to exhaustively search them all (called [\"solving\"]( URL_0 ) - this has been done for simpler games); there is neither the time to do so, nor the space to store the results. Therefore chess playing software searches just some of the possibilities, using whatever approach its designers came up with to select the more likely avenues to explore and to decide how good the resulting outcomes are. Historically, the usual approach was to have the software try the likely moves, the likely responses to those, the likely responses to those etc until it reached some limit - perhaps looking a fixed number of moves ahead, or spending only a limited amount of time or whatever - then score the resulting position according to some rules, and pick the move that gave the best total score. Another approach is to just simulate playing the rest of the game to completion by moving completely randomly and see who wins; this can be done very quickly, so you just keep doing this until you run out of time then pick the move that gives the largest proportion of wins of the resulting random games. You could maybe use some rules to scrap completely silly moves, but you don't want to do too much of that, because... ...it turns out that the second ([\"monte carlo\"]( URL_1 )) approach works rather better than the first; we've not been able to come up with ways to score a position that predict the eventual outcome as well as just playing a whole lot of games. It is unclear whether no such thing is possible in principle or whether we have not yet found it. Nonetheless, the best chess playing software right now uses the playing-random-games approach. So the moves it picks will depend on which random games it happens to play. If you set reproducibility as a goal when designing the software in question, you could definitely make this happen (by arranging to supply the same seed to the [PRNGs]( URL_2 ) driving the simulation for the same initial board position or game to date). There are reasons both for and against doing so. A reason for always making the \"random\" numbers driving the simulation always come out the same way for the same game is debugging: if, given the same initial conditions, the same outcome always results, then when the software breaks in some way, its developers can easily reproduce the problem behaviour, watch how it arises step by step and work out what went wrong and how to fix it. A reason against doing that is to prevent there existing a sequence of moves discoverable by an opponent more interested in software analysis than chess that would always guarantee a win: this is boring. In practice, in the real world, the people working on the chess-playing computers/software will probably have a debug mode they can put it in where things are reproducible, which they will use when they want to work on the design/implementation, and will turn off to make the software behave more randomly when what they want to do is play a nice game of chess."
],
"score": [
18,
15
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess",
"https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Monte-Carlo+Tree+Search",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6br0ke | Why has only the United States been to the moon? | Title says it all. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhoxk9c",
"dhotn5j",
"dhou2eo",
"dhouutw"
],
"text": [
"China, Japan, SpaceX, SpaceIL, and India all plan on going to the moon, with both probes as well as manned missions. The primary reason to go is the R & D required to get there has a huge economic return and provides a solid foundation for future missions. There is economic reason to go to the moon for resources and manufacturing, but I don't know what it would take to make that realizable. Things behave differently in low gravity, and that can be beneficial to chemical synthesis and pharmaceuticals. There's a thing called gravitational sheer, where as hot liquid things cool, gravity drags the cooler particles down, stirring the substance. This promotes the formation of aluminum crystals, which is why aluminum is opaque. If you can cool aluminum without that sheer force, it will cool as an amorphous solid - a glass. And it'll even be transparent. I'm not talking about ALON, which is an aluminum oxide ceramic that is transparent, that's got oxygen molecules in it and is formed under a different process to make a different lattice structure. True aluminum glass can be used to make bullet proof cockpits and fiber optic cables with unprecedented clarity. There's also an abundance of helium and thorium, if thorium energy were ever to take off. The moon, having no atmosphere, would be awesome for collecting solar energy, and some have proposed rovers that will drive over the surface, melting the silica based regolith into solar panels. You could beam the solar energy back to Earth in the form of radio waves, just don't miss.",
"We aren't the only ones. Russia/The Soviet Union and China have also been there. As for why we were the only ones who had people walk on the moon, at the time the space race was between us and the U.S.S.R. The Russians had a good first few missions, putting Sputnik in orbit and getting Yuri Gregarin to be the first man in space, but getting to the moon is hard. Really hard, also incredibly expensive. In todays money, the entire Apollo program would cost upwards of $150 Billion. The Soviet union had other issues with occupying countries, and constant failure of their missions kinda put the kybosh on them ever reaching the moon with a manned spaceship.",
"Because the moon *isn't all that interesting of a place* scientifically speaking. We don't really need more data that can only be collected by humans, and our robots and satellites are getting advanced enough that it reduces the need to send humans at all. Heck, the only reason we keep sending folks to the International Space Station is to do experiments in microgravity that can't be accomplished by robots just yet.",
"The original space race was a dick waving competition between the US and the USSR. The Apollo missions found no compelling reason to continue extremely expensive manned missions to the moon. The title of \"first country to put a man on the moon\" had already been claimed, so no other country saw fit to spend money on it. That said, the US isn't the only country that has sent things to the moon. The Soviets and Chinese have both sent unmanned missions to the moon. These carry lower risk and cost while offering similar if not greater return, since unmanned systems can last much longer than squishy humans who insist on breathing and being fed."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6brc2p | If AndroidO is trying to save battery life, why does the theme use so much white? | Especially with an oled screen on my pixel (and likely many new phones) why would you make it brighter than you need to? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhp98p7"
],
"text": [
"Take your phone it to the brightest room of your house, or into direct sunlight, and turn the brightness to its lowest setting. You will experience glare. The display is designed to simulate the ambient brightness so as to maintain visibility. Similarly, Google maps has a night time driving mode, which turns the screen dark. This matches the brightness of the roadway so that viewing your screen does not kill your night vision. All in all, it is designed to match the ambient lighting conditions such that your eyes need not adjust to different brightness conditions, reduce eye strain, and maximize visibility."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bs88g | Why do (controversial) reddit posts get 'reset' to zero? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhp42nd"
],
"text": [
"When someone supports a view they upvote, when they don't they downvote. If something is controversial it by definition is not going one way or the other and instead have a lot of people both upvoting and downvoting it. As such it will sit somewhere near zero which is the neutral point."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bt4i1 | Moore's Law - Does computing power really double every 18 months? Will this ever plateau out? | I started wondering why Hollywood is remaking so many movies from the 90s and even 2000s, and I self-concluded that I bet it's because there are much better CG effects, and they want to re-tell those popular stories with updated technology (even though we are only talking 10 to 20 years worth of time). Then I starting thinking, surely computing power must plateau out eventually, right? I mean, if computing power is always doubling extremely quickly, then won't this continue the trend of making hardware like cell phones, computers, TVs obsolete within a matter of weeks/months? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpbwlh",
"dhpe7jk",
"dhpl1j0"
],
"text": [
"\"Moore's Law\" is actually just an observation of a historical trend - the *density of transistors* tends to grow exponentially, doubling every 18 months. This tends to translate to more transistors and, when coupled with improvements in clock speeds, lead to exponential increases in CPU power throughout the 80s, 90s & 2000s. Clock speeds, however, have largely plateaued. Intel was shipping 3.8GHz Pentium 4 CPUs back in 2005 - their fastest chip today is only clocked at 4.2GHz. This means that the last few generations of CPUs have not made significant improvements in processing power from one release to the next. When Intel released their most recent \"Kaby Lake\" processors, many people were *really* disappointed that it showed a minimal performance improvement over the previous \"Sky Lake\" release. For things like rendering CG for movies, the performance of CPUs isn't really such a limiting factor. With larger & larger budgets for CG and special effects, we just keep building larger render farms & throwing GPUs at the problem.",
"Intel actually actively strove to keep up the pace of Moores law after the observation was made. However, as of a few years ago, due to rising costs and technological limitations of getting so small with the fabrication process, they are no longer trying to keep that pace.",
"I think it has already plateaued out - and it not likely to continue to increase at a ridiculous pace like it did in the 90/2000's a couple of reasons for this: 1. Size/Heat - In order to continue to make their products faster and more powerful, they had to make the products either smaller and/or figure out a better way to distribute/reduce heat. 2. Cost/benefit analysis - at some point - the cost associated with designing/manufacturing products that will show a smaller speed increase does not outweigh the additional cost associated with said product. 3. Feasibility vs need - Even though the industry would be able to continue to make products faster/more powerful, at this time what we have is working pretty well and there really aren't that many products that need that increased speed/computing power enough to justify the associated costs."
],
"score": [
18,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bt5wy | What causes .jpeg pictures to have grainy parts on the image? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpbwa8"
],
"text": [
"The JPEG compression algorithm breaks up the image into 8x8 squares and compares them to a set of 64 predefined patterns. In short, the way it compresses the image is in squares. Depending on the image this may cause blocky artifacts."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6btw08 | How do game developers develop games for consoles that are not yet released? Also is the source code for games the same on Xbox as it is on the PlayStation? Or does ever piece of the code need to be rewritten. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpilht",
"dhpi3c9"
],
"text": [
"Console manufacturers settle on the hardware at least a year in advance of actually releasing the console. Then they make machines called 'dev kits' to send to devs. Dev kits are computers with the same type of hardware as the console, usually a little stronger (so they can run debuggers and other developer tools on top, and so that developers can test their game before optimising for performance). They generally don't *look like* the console, since they probably haven't finalised the design and there's no reason to try and make it pretty and compact. [Here are dev kits for the Xbox, PS2, GameCube and Dreamcast]( URL_0 ) for example, the PS2's is a similar design just way chunkier while the others are in standard PC cases. As for the source code: these days, it's usually *mostly* the same. Back 20+ years ago it was more common for games to be written totally from scratch with a specific system in mind, and the NES and Master System versions of a game might have totally different source code, one of the reasons ports had a lot of differences. These days, games are all built on top of a system called an 'engine'. So imagine you're a programmer, you make an Xbox game, a shooter. First you program how to draw a 3D room, then how to move through that 3D room, then how to check whether two items in the room are touching each other, then how the room changes perspective if you're looking down from up high vs looking up from a crouch, then how objects fall down to the ground, then how the player moves their character, then how an NPC character moves from place to place on a schedule, then how certain objects emit light and how other objects create shadows based on their shape and distance from a light, and so on and so on. After years of work you finish your FPS game and release it, then you get started on another game, this one a third-person adventure game. And you sit down to write from scratch again and then realise hey, wait -- I'm just going to rewrite a ton of the same code, aren't I? Two different games but they both need to know how to fall back to the ground while moving through a 3D room with correct perspectives and lights as the player presses buttons... why don't I just re-use my code? If you take all that code that 90% of games will use and package it together in one lump to be re-used for all your projects, that's more or less what we call an engine. And if your engine is good, you can polish it up and sell it to other programmers. Now they don't have to write all their games from scratch, they just have to learn how your engine works, what functions to call to do this or that, what format you expect textures and skins to be in, how your engine handles NPCs moving around on schedules, etc. Well, today, there are a few teams who focus solely on writing and maintaining engines for other people to use. And they'll make sure the exact same engine works the same way (or as nearly as possible) on Xbox, on PlayStation, on Switch, on Windows. So you as a programmer can just buy a copy of the engine, write your own code and design your own art and do your own designs and scripts and routines on top of it, and release it on multiple platforms. It's not always totally reliable and perfect, but it's possible for 90%+ of your code to be the same on Xbox and PlayStation and Windows because you're leaning on the same engine. And it's the engine team's job to make sure things work on all platforms.",
"I'm not sure about the second part. But developers are given developer systems. They're more like a computer with the systems capabilities. I'm sure someone else can expand on it more but that's the base of it."
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/vgsales/images/e/ef/Sixth_gen_dev_kits.png/revision/latest?cb=20080620190913"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bu5tj | Why does facebook need two apps, one for messenger and one for general use? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpnc9g",
"dhpodbm",
"dhpl3j4",
"dhq6zvg"
],
"text": [
"Because messaging used to be a secondary product. The primary Facebook usage used to be the status updates, commenting and the stuff. People were active Facebook users who went to a website, entered their passwords and logged in, played games - and then, used the messaging function at the bottom right. The rise of IM services like WhatsApp made people realize that it was far easier to just message without jumping through all those hoops. Not to mention, Facebook isn't as exciting or popular as it was 5 years ago. It isn't an organic network of friends like it said on the cover. It is mostly an RSS feed of your favorite bands and shows and people. People don't post anymore. Nobody is going to all that trouble of logging into the entire Facebook (both the website and the app) just for messaging which is just text. The competition started including additional features like stickers, calls which was not possible to include inside the Facebook app. So they made the smart choice of making it a seperate app that allows them to use it as a distinct developement platform for making bots, turning into a money transfer service, and a formidable communications app in itself. One tap and you cut directly to the chats. No noise like status updates and comments here.",
"It doesn't need two apps, it's for convenience. We used to message people through one Facebook app which was very cluttered with status updates, all sorts of drop down options and a chat box at the bottom. Having a dedicated messenger application and a dedicated app for scrolling was all about convenience.",
"And one to track pages. One as their own photo messenger. One for selfies. One for one type of video. One for another. One for work chat. One for work. One for the list of all 17 Facebook, inc. apps in just the iOS app store, 16 not counting F8 which makes some sense. Back to 19 adding Instagram's 3 apps. They have a problem.",
"Also it allows you to deactivate your Facebook profile whilst maintaining access to Facebook messenger and all of the contacts that go with it."
],
"score": [
49,
48,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bucr6 | Where does deleted data go? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpnx6x",
"dhplspj",
"dhpo053"
],
"text": [
"Imagine the device you are saving your data to as a library with a special place for each book and an index list that tells you in which book you have to look for a specific information (piece of data). Now when you delete data, usually only the entry on the index list is removed, the book is still in place. If, in the future, a new book is brought into the library (new piece of data, e.g. installing a new game) a new book might be placed where the old book is, overwriting it. Then the old data is actually gone. Now you have to know that there are special librarians who can go into the library without an index list, look at all the books that are there and build a new index list, including books (pieces of data) that you thought to be deleted. (Which means if you accidentally delete something and empty your trash bin, you may still be able to recover it!) If on the other hand you want to make sure that it is unrecoverable, you will need to hire another special librarian (another program) to go into the library and explicitly place a new book full of nonsense where the old book used to be. (just search for true delete software or something similar to find something). Still, even the deletion librarian can leave traces that can be interpreted by special forces librarians. If you want to truely make sure that no data can be read ever again, you will have to go full library of alexandria on your harddrive and destroy it (strong magnets for HDDS, physical force and shredding for SSDs)",
"It ceases to exist. Actually, when you first delete something from a hard drive, it remains right where it was. The delete command is the computer telling the drive to disregard that information, and that it's okay to use that data's space for future writing. Then the next time you save something, it might go in that spot. At that point, the old data is gone forever. But until then, it's still there and can be recovered with special techniques.",
"Think of it like an Etch-a-Sketch. There's a fixed area where pictures can be drawn. It's finite in size; there's an upper limit to the size of the picture you can draw. When you twiddle the knob, some black parts appear on the screen (it's actually a needle wiping away some dust and letting you see the back of the Etch-a-Sketch, but that's irrelevant right now). When you shake the screen and erase it, where does the picture go? The picture is gone, but the screen is still there and all the dust inside the Etch-a-Sketch is still there. It's just that particular *arrangement* of dust is gone. Same thing in a computer. There's a hard drive (or whatever storage medium we're talking about) that is of fixed size, storing not black and white parts of a picture like in the Etch-a-Sketch, but numbers stored as tiny magnetic fields or electrical switches being on/off. So when you write a file to disk, certain places get their magnetic fields flipped, with the new state of the fields corresponding to the file's contents. In theory, when you delete a file, those places get flipped back to their default \"empty\" state. Most computer systems don't actually delete things right away, though. They just say that that part of the disk can be used for other things. Eventually as you write more files, the parts that are \"free for use\" get overwritten."
],
"score": [
26,
13,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6buzzb | What is a neuron in a neural network? | Help, please. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhprpeh"
],
"text": [
"It's more or less the same thing as a neuron in your brain. It takes input and have weight for each of those input. If the score reach a threshold, it fires (send a 1 to the next neuron). If not it sends a 0 to the next neuron. Now if you want to know how a neural network is able to learn, you should google it or go to wikipedia. It might not be ELI5 but a neural network is not easy to understand and explain in detail."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6bw1yl | How come hotel key cards get erased by being near cell phones, but credit cards don't? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpxdrg",
"dhq4nek",
"dhpxt0d",
"dhq2z47",
"dhq7jvb",
"dhq5stj",
"dhq7io6"
],
"text": [
"I actually asked something similar a while back and was given a fair answer. What it boils down to is the strength of the equipment used to magnetize the cards. A stronger device magnetizing the card means you'd need a stronger magnet to wipe it.",
"Magnetic strips are classified by their *coercivity* (their ability to withstand an external magnetic field demagnetizing the strip). There are two types of these strips in the card industry, often called HiCo and LoCo cards. High-coercivity cards are typically around 10-15 times stronger resisting the magnetic force than a low-coercivity card. Because they take less energy to produce and to encode data onto, they're a cheaper card overall, and for a high-turnover application like temporary access control (be it your Metrocard or a hotel keycard), cost savings is important.",
"What /u/wizer900 said. The strips are much weaker. To expand, they're weaker because they will change the codes often. My dorm in college was a remodeled hotel bought by the school so we dealt with these often. Any card could be rewritten to any door if you just used the machine. Doors and cards get their information changed frequently for security reasons.",
"Can't they make a better way? Not like everyone has a phone in the pocket, jeez.",
"Alright I just wrote a paper on the enhancement of magnetic fields using NORF (narrow oscillating radio frequency) so I can give you some insight. Your phone produces a magnetic field due to the flow of electricity through the device, now, it has been found that specific radio frequencies can actually enhance the magnetic field of your phone. Many devices produce electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves. These are things like phones, computers, soda machines, pretty much every electronic device. Since the hotel key card is programmed with a magnet, the magnetic field of your phone, which is now amplified by the radio waves given off by all the electronic devices in the hotel, can easily erase any data written on the key card. If you keep having this problem I recommend googling a Faraday cage sleeve for the keycard, they aren't that expensive, maybe 5-15 usd.",
"Hotel key cards are designed to be reused (and hence reprogrammed) every time a guest checks out and returns their card. Credit cards are designed to never be reprogrammed. Hence, a much stronger magnetic encoding is used on a credit card.",
"FYI the tap-ability of your credit/debit cards can be ruined by your cellphone too. I've had it happen multiple times."
],
"score": [
143,
16,
12,
6,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6bw50u | How does the White House prevent visitors or the press pool from planting a bug in the Oval Office? Do they sweep it after every visit? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhpzzbn",
"dhqx5yj",
"dhq9bac",
"dhpyhwv",
"dhq6f2b",
"dhqc65a",
"dhqaffj",
"dhpxds6",
"dhqbb4u",
"dhq4uip",
"dhqeq4w",
"dhqay9y",
"dhr4bb5",
"dhq6d8s",
"dhqde22",
"dhqx51k",
"dhqf3eh",
"dhr32i3",
"dhqhpz8",
"dhq57cs",
"dhr14ki",
"dhqxvxg",
"dhqiue2",
"dhq8mjz",
"dhrbiaq",
"dhqirdc",
"dhqkd26",
"dhra3v3",
"dhqhn9c",
"dhqb8vl",
"dhqstci",
"dhr5rz1",
"dhqcdae",
"dhr9zxp",
"dhrc8r4",
"dhqqhon",
"dhqc4yj",
"dhquysb",
"dhqej03",
"dhqmv9l",
"dhqchj4",
"dhqhv2m"
],
"text": [
"Specifically how is likely a state secret, as it's bad policy to show exactly how your security works. However, there are presumptions that can be made. Faraday cages and other high-science interference techniques can prevent all but particular frequencies working, and someone can listen for activity on those frequencies. If someone's sending data from the Oval, they can check to see if Trump is on his phone or not to deduce if there's a rogue sender in the room. If we assume all data via the White House wifi and cell signals is being heavily tracked and monitored, that means getting any recording data out has to be done via physical means like a spy pen with a Micro SD card. Logically, that means someone of with motive to record has to have access to plant the device, and access again to pick it up. All without looking suspicious, all while secret service and people who are genuinely good at their jobs are watching you the entire time. Further complicating this are the extremely professional and experienced White House maid staff that clean the most presidential bits you're probably wanting to record each day. They reset the rooms, dust everything, and make sure each item is in pristine condition. It's easy to presume that they know what each item looks and feels like and are trained enough to spot a new listening device or hole in the couch. I am willing to bet nothing stays in the Oval's couch cushions for very long so good luck getting your spy pen back. I'm not saying it's impossible, but to successfully record the president, and extract the information in a timely enough manner to actually use it is really tough. Especially when the risks far outweigh the rewards. Sure you may get some blackmail, or good intel, but if it comes out that Sweden's housewarming gift to Trump of Ikea's latest soap holder was secretly a recording device sending out presidential nudes, that's cause for war and dissolution of several treaties. Better to just tweet him publicly or submit an official request to the state department and see what happens. The real people you want to bug are those feeding the President information. They know everything before he does, and getting a heads up that Trump is about to find out you are the leak allows you to get ahead of the issue and skip town or spin the narrative before that report hits his twitter feed.",
"Little anecdote (or: cool story, bro!): in summer/fall of 1989 I worked as a messenger at the U.N. to help pay for my college expenses. At the beginning of the General Assembly, President George H.W. Bush came to deliver a speech as every American president has done since the U.N. was first formed. There were snipers and spotters on top of every building in the neighborhood. I went out at lunchtime to grab a slice of pizza to bring back with me. As I was walking back, just as i got to the driveway, two US Secret Service guys approached and asked me to follow them. I followed, downstairs, through the garage, and into the staircase that everyone in the place knows is a bomb \"tube\". Basically it is a vertical tube, solid reinforced concrete, that stretches the entire height of the Secretariat building, opened on top, and the staircase going around its perimeter. Anything explodes in there, and the shockwave will go straight up into the air, not affecting the rest of the building. Anyway, once there, they asked to see what I was carrying. I showed them the pizza, made a joke about how they may be overreacting about how bad the stuff is for my health, and they weren't even close to laughing. They told me an unusual amount of metal was detected on my person, and asked, always politely, if I was carrying anything they should know about. I was recovering from a serious accident, and had big, medieval-looking steel braces on both knees. Looked like something out of a torture museum, or S & M catalogue. I told them, and without hesitation, dropped my pants for them to see it. They apologized for the inconvenience, thanked me for my understanding, and let me go. I had not gone through any metal detectors, or even indoors in any way. 27 years ago they had the means to detect an unusual amount of metal on a person walking outdoors in a city where one is never far from a whole lot of metal. Edit: details & more better English.",
"Many good answers here, but there's one surveillance problem that continues to bug me: sound vibrations can be reproduced by bouncing a laser off a window. Basically, you send a non-visible, slightly divergent laser beam at a window, pick up the signal with a telescope somewhere in the fairly broad reflection cone, and hear everything behind the glass. The countermeasures are primarily injecting enough noise into the window to completely obscure conversations. Still, the information is still there... just obscured. Hopefully enough I assume that if you rested your head against a White House window, pretty much anywhere, you'd hear a white noise buzz....",
"They are sweeping the office and have passive listening devices to detect delayed listening bugs. They might also cover the room in a Faraday cage and only let though specific monitored frequencies. There are lots of different techniques used to prevent people listening inn that is used to make secure rooms. The details of how this is done at the White House is classified. It is highly probable that the Oval Office is not cleared for the most sensitive work and that the President have to move to more secure locations for certain discussions and briefings.",
"1. Journalists don't really get to go into the Oval Office on any kind of regular basis. Certainly not as part of their regular functions as members of the [White House Correspondents' Association]( URL_0 ), which subjects them to an extensive credentialing process before recommending them to the White House Press Secretary for admittance to regular briefings. So while journalists may, from time to time, make it into the Oval Office, they'd most likely be there with a standing similar to any other visitor. 2. *Everyone* that goes into the White House is subjected to a rigorous security screening. Once inside, non-employees are not permitted to just wander around unsupervised. Anti-surveillance sweeps aside, it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone would be able to get a bug into the White House, and even less likely that they'd have an opportunity to effectively plant it anywhere as sensitive as the Oval Office.",
"OP, you really want people to ELI5 how specific intricacies of US national security works? Nice try, Putin.",
"Don't forget the deterrent factor either. If you get caught even trying something like that you're in for a world of hurt. But sometimes the spies just hand the bug to the people their spying on and let them install it themselves. URL_0",
"Yes, there are regular sweeps conducted, even several times a day when there aren't any visitors to to offices. Sweeping after visitors have been there would of course occur.",
"I'm not from the US, but my grandpa owns a company that specializes in telecommunications security, so basically the company exists just to make sure there's no bugs on your phone, computers etc.. he's mostly hired by politicians and big companies. I imagine there's a similar company or internal security that does the same job working for the White House, with the single purpose to ensure there's no bugs anywhere, on phones, computers, physical walls, etc. Pretty cool stuff",
"I have heard that Elvis Presley visited Richard Nixon. Elvis arranged the meeting unprompted and showed up with a gift in a box for the president. He walked into the oval office with little to no inspection from secret service. Inside the box was a Colt 45 revolver. Elvis contacted the president, said he wanted to meet him, then walked right into the Oval office with a goddamn revolver. Luckily, it genuinely was a gift for the president. Even with increased security, I'm guessing that there are still ways to covertly get objects into the Oval office. Transmitting out would be more difficult. But if it's a recording device that could be recovered later... Or maybe it piggyback s transmissions from cell phones inside the office. It qeues up some recordings, then when a call is detected from within the office, some of the data is transmitted back out with it. The DJI drones use a similar technology called \"light bridge\". In encodes a video feed into the radio signal transmission so there doesn't need to be two separate connections. Even if the transfer rates are monitored, it could transmit trace amounts and gather the data over time. Why not?",
"One great strategy is to have a leader who just blurts everything out in multiple public forums, thus preventing the need to bug in the first place. This administration has been trying that one out.",
"Mostly through physical screening and controlling access, is the short answer. Regarding the Oval Office specifically, you have to be invited in by POTUS, though each has a list of exceptions (but these are his most trusted aides). Even during tours, the Oval is specifically roped off. What's important though is that the Oval isn't intended for discussing highly classified information. Of course, sensitive political information is discussed there all the time, but you could, if you were invited, bring your phone into the Oval without a blink from anyone. Yes, they likely sweep it regularly when POTUS isn't using it, as a good hygiene practice, but it's not the most sensitive space. That's not true with Situation Room, however, which is a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). The Sit Room likely has a host of countermeasures in place, many of which are listed in other explanations. You're not allowed to bring your phone in to a SCIF as well, and again, access is very tightly controlled. TL;DR: Tightly controlled access and occasional screening; but more importantly, good OPSEC practices mean the most sensitive info isn't being discussed in the Oval, but rather the Sit Room.",
"I'm 33 right now...when I was in 8th grade (maybe 12 or 13?) we took a trip to Washington DC. We stayed in a hotel across from the White House, in fact I could see the White House from the window of my room. I was sharing a room with 1 other guy from my class. He brought a small red laser pointer with him. I think you know where this is going. We had been using the laser pointer for several days...shining into our friends rooms to get their attention. One night he decides to shine it at the White House. I swear he only shined the light on the White House for about 3 seconds...seriously. Within 5 minutes 4 men were at our door...armed to the fucking teeth. They banged on the door once and said \"Open up or the door is coming down!\". We opened the door very timidly, to find 2 men in nice dark suits...and 2 men wearing jackets with CIA written on the back. After questioning us, and confiscating the laser pen, they politely left. No charges...nothing...just left us with these words \"we are always watching son\". The kid I shared the room with is one of my best friends and to this day we still talk about that shit. Our teacher was *pissed*...and once we got back to town we were both promptly suspended. I never understood why the 2 CIA guys showed up...maybe someone out there can give me an explanation. I'm just glad they came by the hotel instead of sniping us in the face. We were idiots...",
"It's been done before in the Embassy offices: URL_0",
"I wonder if they just never actually use the Oval Office for any actual secret activities. Maybe that have another secret office nobody knows about.",
"The president and his staff likely aren't conducting heavily crucial and pertinent information out and about in the White House willy nilly. They most likely only do so in special rooms that are designed to be of the highest levels of secrecy along with top anti-spying measures implemented. This probably doesn't mean some stuff occasionally gets discussed outside these areas. It's human nature to slip every now and then. But I highly doubt the president is going to casually tell his staff he's planning on a missile strike while smoking a joint on a White House terrace walk. When something big happens, or is about to happen, the White House and associated parties take every measure to make sure it's kept secret. Take a look at documentaries detailing the Osama Bin Laden operation. The White House took so many measures to prevent tipping people something big was evening happening. For example, they ordered a couple of pizzas from several pizza places as to not raise suspicion that the White House was having a large gathering of people. These people employ experts at covert ops and espionage; they know what the hell they're doing. Most times anyway.",
"Well, microwaves are pretty large devices, Kellyanne Conway just looks around to see if anyone left one there.",
"Ok, so I have no direct knowledge, no clearance, and the tour I took of the white house multiple presidents ago did not include the oval office. I have however dealt with some extremely high security environments. This is the basics of how I would do it. I would precisely document every electromagnetic emanation in the office in non visible frequencies to the greatest degree possible (most of these should be things like wires in walls). Each of these would be carefully examined in minute detail, triple checked. As this would likely take a week I would redo this every time the president would be out of the office for a week. Daily scans for new electromagnetic sources. Constant scanning of known espionage frequencies. Sonic scans of the office on the same schedule, anything with any moving part precisely identified. All of this is to make sure any bug can't get data out, we haven't dealt with scanning for bugs themselves yet. Every item entering the office gets a full medical scan, every single moving part identified and cleared. Anything that can't be cleared stays out. This leaves the people, also the most likely carrier. I'd have probably 50 cameras in that office, each of them watched. When the office is empty one person can watch all 50. When the room is occupied, with just the president 5 watchers is enough. When the room hosts hostile dignitaries, one person per camera. After a hostile dignitary leaves a quick electromagnetic and sonic scan. Also before the president enters a quick verification scan as well in case something was missed. That leaves the windows. Because you can aim a laser a window and using the moving dot as a microphone. This one we actually have strong indicators that they actually do this. First you put things you control in the way. Looking out the window should be bushes and trees, nothing else should be visible. This limits line of sight for the laser mic. Even with that precaution, I would use many layers of glass, some bullet resistant, some with high speed turbulent air flow between them, others with very low pressure between them, and still others with very high pressure between them. This will damp any signal, and the turbulent air provides phenomenal amounts of noise. The walls of the office would be reinforced with copper, forming rather strong Faraday cage, just to be sure. That should cover most of the bases, and would be why the white house has such a large staff (60 iirc). Most of these techniques are openly known to be used in the CIA and NSA head offices, it is reasonable to assume the same for the oval office.",
"Also, if a bug is found chances are very good that it would be traced back to the source. This would lead to criminal charges at most, and at the very least that reporter, and possibly his organization, would never be setting foot in the Whitehouse again. So I really don't think any reporter with at least a double digit IQ would try it. Edit: Auto-correct turned \"Whitehouse\" into \"Whorehouse\".",
"There is always several people with you observing what you do. They check you when you enter the building, and they do sweep the office regularly.",
"Traditionally, the President has avoided inviting actual spies from a foreign power into the White House. This is a non-traditional administration.",
"I wish I were making this up. You don't have to worry about electronic surveillance when the Presidents body guard displays phone numbers to anyone watching. URL_0 Trumps personal body guard (because he is too good for the Secret Service) was photographed with an arm full of papers. On top of those papers is a post-it note with the personal phone number for the Secretary of Defense.",
"The more physical unrestricted access you have to a location the better job you can do at planting and hiding a bug. The first thing that the White House has in its defense is its security to even get inside. I imagine that visitors are searched and supervised fairly well the entire time they are visiting. I'm not sure that they would do a sweep after every single visit, but it could be possible. I'm pretty sure they do frequent TSCM sweeps. It is likely they have increased security after visitors from certain nations. Devices used for sweeps include spectrum analyzers to examine the electromagnetic spectrum for rogue signals and non-linear junction detectors which are like a metal detector except that it can detect electronics, even when they aren't powered. Infrared heat and x-ray machines can also be used. Do not rule out physical inspections as a powerful tool to find bugs as well. Switch plates and covers may be marked to see if they've been tampered with, for example with UV pens. Source: I developed software for counter-surveillance products for 6 years.",
"Separate question: do heads of state get checked out before meeting with the President? Same metal detector and/or other security as other visitors?",
"I was part of the team that prepared the audio visual gear for one of Obama's visits to a bay area tech company. As part of the preparations everyone had to clear the building, and the President's security team had a device that was able to completely image the building and immediately tell the exact location of anyone still inside. Big black box, a monitor, and about 30 seconds of processing and they could see everything.",
"Good question /u/SwearIAmNotASpyAMA Same question, I'm asking for a friend, yea, a friend....",
"I'm fairly sure the Oval Office (and other places) are constantly monitored for Radio Frequency in real-time using dedicated frequency/spectrum analyzers. If someone was trying to transmit radio frequency it would be \"heard/seen\". These are dedicated devices that do nothing but report what radio frequencies are out there transmitting and at what strengths. You can set thresholds to report or alert on things like if a RF transmits on a specific channel or if it fits a particular pattern (baby monitor vs WiFi traffic vs wireless motion detector, etc.). Additionally, you can home in on the source to within inches. They also sell [portable ones similar to this]( URL_0 ) that are used in the field. These type of devices are used in the Olympics to ensure that the official wireless equipment they use won't be interrupted and so there are no pirate broadcasts.",
"I've covered events for news that had secret service several times...Obama twice, Romney twice, Paul Ryan once, Hillary once, Bill Clinton once, Jimmy Carter once, and Bernie Sanders once. The usual routine is this... Show up four hours early and leave all of your media equipment on the ground in the event and head to breakfast/lunch. The secret service then sweeps your vehicles and equipment with some devices and dogs. You can return about two hours before the event and start to set up. People are usually allowed in soon after (about an hour or so before the start. I get the security, but the logistics usually means two things for news crews: 1. You have no time to interview people before the event if you have only a little time to tune in your live feed, cable in (usually from far away for security reasons), set up camera/lights, and test audio. So, we usually assign one photog to inside AND an additional crew outside getting interviews and reactions. If you are the pool camera for several affiliates, you actually have even less freedom because your job is to focus on JUST the candidate/politician...those other stations just want the main man/woman and don't care if your station has to put together a minute-thirty story with other video. It's also done because once in a while attempts are made on the politicians' lives...so you better be rolling on JUST them. 2. The tight time schedule usually pushes the event to only a couple hours before the newscast airs, and ends even closer to air time. This gives the reporter/photographer only maybe 30 minutes to log their speeches/interviews, edit that along with b-roll of the event (non-interview shots), and feed it back in time. In most markets, an event like this is usually at the top of the show because of a large amount of local interest...so even less time. To save time, the photog will set their timecode to match the time of day. This allows the reporter to log the speech on the fly. So when they hand the photog a script, they already know where in the long speech the right sound bite exists without even looking at the video. They just have to look at their watch/phone and write down what they said. Kinda gave you way more than just the secret service aspect. TL;DR: Secret service actually takes a while before events and speeches to sweep every single time...two to four hours.",
"Nice try KGB agents. Someone wrote recently that they even disassembly the plugs etc. every now and then, deconstruct and reconstruct the whole room.",
"I have a feeling there's nothing that can work wirelessly (over Wi-Fi radio signals) in the Oval Office which is why [Presidents still use corded phones]( URL_0 ). I'm sure they also have monitors which detect any electrical energy. Bug sweepers have been around since the 60s (see any Sean Connery Bond movie).",
"I wonder how many spy's have been on the tour? Like deep cover spies.",
"How come you never see the bat phone in the Oval Office? I would feel much safer if I saw the bat phone during presidential speeches behind the desk.",
"I doubt that anybody who could answer this question would answer it. It's probably classified.",
"Every day after the press briefings the burn the room down, put the fire out with holy water and build a new room from materials that have been securely locked away for over 10 years.",
"i always thought oval office was for photos and actual office of the president was hidden somewhere else most likely underground",
"Everyone's discussing security and the difficulty of doing so, but I haven't seen anyone mention the obvious: discussions worth eavesdropping on probably don't happen in the oval office. They're likely held in more controlled locations. URL_0",
"I personally doubt the president actually does any work *in* the oval office. I tend to think of the oval office as a stage for the press and foreign heads of state, while his actual office is in a much safer location. But I mean who knows?",
"I have been a visitor to the white house two times in my life and both times the Oval Office was not on tour. So that is one way I suppose. In addition the security before getting into the building itself is very high. (Think an airport where everyone is chosen for the additional screening) several x-rays, Single file, metal detectors, empty pockets, the works.",
"Few months ago a man was able to jump the white house fence, cross the lawn, enter through front door and make it several meters into white house until he was tackled by an off duty secret agent. So obviously not every inch is perfectly secured. But the important places are. So even if someone plants a bug, they are not gonna get much. They can get much more information from Trumps tweets :) or from a white house staffs facebook page.",
"One thing I haven't seen (forgive me if I miss is in the depth of this thread) is that people keep focusing on whether you could *plant* a bug in the Oval Office, and far too little attention is paid to the camera and audio recording equipment *that's already being brought in*. Unless they're willing to tear down and have a very knowledgeable person inspect it prior to it being brought in, how possible would it be that say, a video camera, with some passive or active scanning features for SIGINT could just be grinding away while the camera crew from TASS was here walking around the White House, and while in the Oval Office?",
"No one without a clearance is allowed in there unescorted and those escorts are trained to keep a very close eye on visitors at all times. Yes, even dignitaries from other countries are closely supervised albeit in an inconspicuous manner. Those that have the credentials to move about have been through a very intense screening process. Everyone in the press pool has undergone close scrutiny and background investigations. Although they are considered low risk, their access is still restricted and they must submit to security screening upon entry to the facility. As someone else mentioned, there are processes in place for regular routine sweeps of all areas just in case someone convinces a cleared individual to plant something.",
"Well just to talk towards the transmission of data, there are many ways you can control different levels of transmission: If a bug actually is utilizing Wifi or the existing data networks, that's an easy thing to control or squash from existant network security practices. For cellular related connections, installation of a separate DAS system would provide preferred antennas within the White House. As traffic finds the signal strongest utilizing those DAS connections, you now captured the traffic via a man in the middle approach. This is usually mentioned with nefarious monitoring goals, but could also be used to prevent traffic. The most likely approach to be successful given the controlled environment would be local storage - an onboard micro sd or smaller. As this does not require transmission but instead records, there is no true method to prevent it's use - instead, this is likely to be picked up during a physical sweep of the room."
],
"score": [
8270,
3876,
1142,
438,
349,
211,
180,
145,
125,
123,
115,
113,
98,
49,
36,
33,
25,
21,
19,
17,
11,
11,
11,
10,
8,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents%27_Association"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/15/when-president-trumps-bodyguard-revealed-jim-mattiss-private-cellphone-number/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.aaronia.com/products/spectrum-analyzers/HF-6060-V4-RF-Spectrum-Analyzer/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/12/17/9640275502_7cd5456aef_o_c0-171-4096-2559_s885x516.jpg?6ba0481f9597b3267314c39b97123af746ee28ed"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/scif-inside-room-intelligence-briefings/story?id=44607588"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6by8wg | Why is Adobe Flash so hated? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhqfqht"
],
"text": [
"It's slow, repeatedly has been the target of severe security breaches affecting many users, it's buggy, it's constantly harassing the user to update, and it's mostly used for ads. Ever since iOS, HTML5 and broad support for h.264/5 and webm videos, nobody wants to bother with it."
],
"score": [
22
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6c23rp | How do companies know not to use the same barcode on different products from other companies? | I was at an enormous department store the other day and I got to thinking about how each item has a barcode, but they're all different. How do companies keep from using barcodes that are already assigned to other products? Are the company details coded in the barcode (brand, model, style, etc.)? Edit: Wow! Thank you to all of you! I've learned more about barcodes, GS1, EAN, ISBN's, and Stargates than I ever imagined! I mean, this whole process is just fascinating! Thank you all again! | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhrbron",
"dhrs6en",
"dhrgxzg",
"dhrkl4l",
"dhrobou",
"dhrm158",
"dhrki7o",
"dhs2rq9",
"dhro6im",
"dhrvbss",
"dhrykv1",
"dhrivc2"
],
"text": [
"There is an organisation in place called the GS1. It is a non-profit based in Belgium which, among other things, coordinates the use of bar-codes on whole industries and cross-industries scale. The most common standard in place is the International Article Number (or sometimes European Article Number). It has a number of fixed format that all go like this: -n digits for country code -n digits for a unique manufacturer code -n digits for a unique product code -n digits for checking purposes when scanning the code So every business goes through the GS1 to get a manufacturer code that is unique and not in use by another company. Then the manufacturer can decide on any product code itself (within the specifications of the standard). Edit:format Edit 2: Since this seems to get a bit of interest. I'll add a few things that have been mentioned in other comments and also address the last part of the original question. EAN is the most used standard in the world, but other exists as well, some codes are also made to no particular standards. I used this as an example fitting to give OP an answer. Registering with the GS1 does cost money. A bar code is just, well, a code, what is printed underneath a barcode is the entirety of the information. 12-13 digits long numbers are used in the most popular standards. Since the last digit is usually used as a check digit, it only leaves 11 or 12 digits to convey information. That is far too small a volume of information to carry things like brand,model etc. In the example of a cashier's terminal at a department store, the Point Of Sale software receives a code from the scanner and looks it up in its database where all the relevant info is stored under the bar code number.",
"I feel like I should dispell a few MYTHS about GS1 as someone who works in the industry. I realise I'm a little late to the party but whatever. Because GS1 aren't the non-profit do gooding angels some people seem to think they are 1. GS1 is NOT the only legal legitimate option for purchasing - there are a number of barcodes that can and are bought and sold for a one-off cost rather than people having to pay on going fees and joining fees. These Barcodes are part of the GS1 system - but due to a mistake GS1 made back in the 90's, they have now been proven outside of GS1's control in court and can legally be sold by third parties for one off fees. - GS1 would say they can't guarantee that these aren't used on multiple products. But they also can't guarantee this to any extent with the barcodes they supply directly 2. Not for profit? - technically yes, although it's hard to see how they manage to somehow, spend all of this, if they are not paying massive salaries out to everyone involved. Cause they are quite clearly a money making machine. They don't release their books, so it's hard to know where their expenses are exactly. We do know that at least some of their resources in some countries are spent on people going into individual stores, searching for products not carrying GS1 Barcodes and calling up the owner to tell them that their barcode is illegitimate and that they need to sign up to GS1 immediately, start paying exorbitant fees every year and reprint their product packaging or print labels and manually stick them onto their products. - This despite the fact that these Barcodes have been proven in court already to be legitimate 3. Companies like Walmart require GS1 Barcodes to guarantee non-duplication of barcodes on multiple products - again GS1 can't guarantee that a company doesn't accidentally assign one barcode to 2 barcodes any more than other companies can. The reason Walmart doesn't accept other sellers barcodes is because large companies like this will sometimes allow GS1 to manage their barcode policy entirely. GS1 then of course decides that they should only accept GS1 Barcodes in order to maintain their virtual monopoly. There are also interesting occurrences of Senior Vice Presidents of Walmart appearing on the Board of Governors for GS1-US - this might actually explain some of these other expenses of theirs... So GS1 are kind of the devil in a lot of ways",
"My first thought was that someone has a huge monopoly on barcodes. Shout out GS1 for keeping it real as a nonprofit",
"Others have posted about the GS1, but I wanted to address something else in your question! The barcode does encode one thing: the country it's marked for sale in. UPC-12, which is just EAN13, is mostly used in the US. That's because the number for the US is 0, so we ignore the first digit, giving us UPC-12. Other countries have different leading numbers, the first digit in an EAN tells you where the manufacturer/company getting the barcode is from. As another commenter pointed out, this doesn't tell you 100% where the company is selling their products, not does it tell you where it was made. When barcodes where first being given out, companies could buy a whole block of barcodes, so the first part of the barcode would seem to match up with a company. This isn't true anymore - there's too many people that need barcodes. The first three digits of a barcode do tell you a little bit about the company, and you can get a company prefix, it just might be longer. Another thing to remember is that you can print barcodes with whatever number you want - some of our suppliers don't purchase codes from GS1, and instead use a specially set aside internal use code, which are the prefixes 040-049. Edit: Corrected a mistake in wording about UPC-12 that was confusing",
"Source: \"GS1 Certified Bar-code Professional\" The only bar-codes that have any kind of intelligence built into them are those required by the FDA such as medical devices or some other deciding agency. Basically anything that falls under the medical device tax. Same goes for prescriptions and food. Things that are deemed not dangerous or not able to hurt you don't need to adhere to this standard. If you are selling pencils and rubber bands you can make your own internal barcode numbers that mean nothing to the outside world. Only you and your business know or care what they are. For example we make class III medical devices that fall under the FDA medical device tax. We need to create what is called a FDA UDI. UDI - Unique Device Identifier for each product falling under this tax, meaning it has to be unique for each and every scale that gets produced. For this we use a GTIN14 which is a longer barcode consisting of a (root)+xxx barcode number in which xxx always increments. There are certain applications identifiers that fall into the GTIN14 standard. (21) tells the scanner that the numbers that follow are batch or lot number. There are many many application identifiers and certain products require 1, 2, 3 or more identifiers based on which level the product falls under. The most dangerous products require the most identifiers such as expiration date, and among others. SO in our case we have our GS1 \"prefix\" we then add application identifier (gs1prefix(21)wo-1234xxx) so when any scanner that has the gs1 standard will read this correctly. The other side of the spectrum is the pencils and rubberbands, these products can use a simple EAN barcode that is the same.... 12345456671 for each and every pencil you sell. If you took that pencil and scanned it at a different store it may come up as a rubberband.",
"Many have noted about GS1, EAN, UPC, etc. (there's dozens more). These are all fine and dandy when they are used correctly by everyone. However, in many cases smaller companies will not entirely comply with these standards (tiny format differences). Think for example about butchers, bakeries, ... Often in these cases smaller barcodes are used and sometimes only contain a single number which identifies their internal product. The use of internal codes is perfectly fine, as this is also done within EAN codes (the last field), however, it often becomes an issue when these products are being sold to others. Different suppliers of a product (e.g. a 10kg bag of flour of a specific brand) sometimes provide a different barcode even though they are offering the exact same product. My point being, in theory, the standards are brilliant. In practice, not so much. Source: I've worked on barcode scanning software to identify import and export items. In Belgium, where these standards are supposedly founded...",
"Similar scheme for phone numbers, Mac addresses, medical imaging numbers (SOPInstanceUID) and possibly other items. Fun fact: every digital x-ray you take is assigned a number that is unique world wide. (simple X-rays and other digital medical images, so CAT images, MRI, ultrasound, mammography etc).",
"I worked at Home Depot years ago, and one day i was asked to take a bag of fertilizer back to the shelf after it had been returned.this was a brand we carried, but i did not recognize the bag, so i scanned the barcode, and it came up as a much larger bag of a different, much more expensive type of fertilizer. After plenty of research online and talking to the company rep, i found out that this particular company was selling this $4 bag of fertilizer at to Lowes with the same SKU as the larger $60 bag of specialty fertilizer that they sold at Home Depot. Apparently they used overlapping SKUs for stores that would not be selling both products. This did not effect the manufacturer, because they were producing product in multiple factories, and did not overlap the SKUs within any given factory. To my knowledge, they have since discontinued this practice at this particular company once the possibility for serious accounting errors arose (i.e. buying a $4 item at Lowes and returning it at Home Depot for $60).",
"Sorry to hijack with a stupid question but I'm wondering how does supermarket fruits with varying weights represent the price in the barcode?",
"There is an organisation in place called the SG1. It is a non-profit based somewhere in the use. They use the stargate to travel to other planets where people trade their barcode for oil. Since every planet has a unique barcode they get a unique one back after every trip.",
"For smaller businesses, its possible to just print your own codes. I used to work for a small place that sold homemade cakes and pastries. When they got a scanner none of their inventory was labeled with a bar code. So I go a program to make up some bar codes, made them and put them on the products, then scanned them in to the machines database. While it worked for us because we had a relatively small inventory; a store, in theory no mater how big the size, could just print up new bar codes for each item they get and not use the manufacturers bar codes. This only worked because the products they were selling were never going to be sold outside of this one location",
"Read top comment, just to add the store I work at have their own barcodes and article numbers even on our branded products (I work in sports retail)"
],
"score": [
3966,
266,
178,
116,
70,
35,
25,
11,
10,
9,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c2at2 | The problems with nuclear power | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhrm259"
],
"text": [
"Mostly exaggerated. Obviously the biggest problem with nuclear power is the possibility of a meltdown contaminating hundreds of square miles of land. However even including Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear is in fact the safest form of energy generation. People die every day from coal smoke, ash or mining but because a death or two doesn't attract attention the general public aren't aware. More people have died falling while working on solar panels than have died from nuclear power. Another big problem is storing the waste. The worst of it will last thousands or even millions of years. That does pose some challenges. How do we mark that waste such that some poor schlub in 10,000 years doesn't stumble across it and die with no idea what he has found? Can we make sure it stays put for those thousands of years? No solid answers on that, but more radioactive coal ash is produced every year than there is nuclear waste for all time. Fuel is finite. Same as fossil fuels. Now, those last two are made much better if we can switch to using Thorium to power our reactors rather than Uranium. Much, much less waste from Thorium, much more abundant supply. Originally reactors were made to generate plutonium for bombs, we don't really have that requirement any more so there is no real reason to keep chasing U235. Equally - many new reactors can use the waste from old reactors as fuel. All that radiation everyone is afraid of is energy we could be using. Nuclear really isn't that bad, it just has a bad name because of a few fuckups in reactors that we just wouldn't build today."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6c2vn4 | The process of 'remastering' music | There are many music albums from the past (often the 'classics') that are re-released, and carry the label 'remastered'. Obviously we have more advanced recording and editing techniques nowadays than we did in the past, but what changes can you still make to a digital recording once it's been released? And what do you need to pay attention to to hear a difference? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhritcx",
"dhrjz8e",
"dhrk3oq"
],
"text": [
"There are a multitude of ways to \"remaster\" music, but it's usually to improve the sound. Typically, when an engineer is creating the \"master tracks\", they will try to record each track (each instrument and voice) separately and as \"dry\" as possible (meaning no effects). The engineer will then mix and add effects to the \"master tracks\" using the technology available at that time. Very few engineers will record a band \"live\" (and very few bands can all play it perfectly at the same time). Remastering is typically using the \"master tracks\" to mix and add effects with more modern technology. Remastering doesn't necessarily mean better, although the engineers who are doing it typically think that. There are certain albums from the past that sound brilliant even though the technology was limited. My go-to album for perfect mixing will always be Supertramps \"Breakfast in America\" - a handful of great songs, but the mixing of the entire album is beyond compare, even compared to today's standards.",
"In general, first the multitrack is mixed down to a stereo mix, and then the mix is \"mastered\" to finalise it for release (EQ, compression etc.). Remastering is repeating the 2nd step only. The audio is *not* remixed - if it was, it would be called a remix. The main reason to remaster is because technology has moved on to allow that job to be done better, and in a way more suitable for digital release. An album can be made to sound punchier, noise can be removed, and the mix generally cleaned up. Led Zeppelin were the first major act to do this, and got some hassle for it, but the results were much better than their first CD releases, which were just straight transfers from the old masters.",
"I have spent some time in mastering studios, and I can try to shed some light on this to the best of my knowledge. As a precursor, master recordings usually exist on stereo analog tape whose mix has been bounced from the multitrack mix. That is, until you get somewhere into the 90's when elements started to be recorded either partially or fully in digital. That's why on eariler era CD's, you'll sometimes see \"A/A/D\" or \"D/D/D\" etc. on the back of CDs to signify whether it was recorded, mixed, or mastered via digital or analog means. * Mastering for the listening format: If an album was originally mastered for vinyl and/or cassette tape, then it would benefit from a remaster for digital formats, since the digital mastering process is very different from analog formats. Digital audio always has a very specific top threshold or \"clipping\" point (sometimes measured as 0dB full scale) and so it can give a mastering engineer the ability to push the compression and limiting (which can be a good or bad thing depending on the techniques used and your opinion on the digital \"loudness wars\"). I was fascinated to learn that an improper vinyl master can create a physical groove too big and cause the needle to skip. * A/D (Analog to Digital) conversion: The quality of conversion has come a long way over the past 20-30 years, and so it's not uncommon that an album may have been digitally transferred for CD replication back in the 90's, but could sound much better through more modern converters. The A/D conversion process has a huge effect on sound quality. * Overall sonic \"enhancement\": This usually comes down to EQ and compression techniques. Mastering engineers may utilize both analog equalizers (for broader tone shaping purposes), or more \"surgical\" digital equalizers to both enhance and/or clean up the sound more than earlier masters. This may also involve some form of noise reduction. More mix-specific qualities like reverb and other effects are usually not touched. Generally speaking, I have found that a remaster sounds cleaner and brighter, which I think is a combination of both the improved conversion, and processing to fit our modern sensibilities, since today's listeners are more used to a slightly \"louder\" (more compressed/ peak limited) sound, as well as added openness to the high end of mixes. Edit: For further reading, [this book by Bob Katz]( URL_0 ) is a bible on the process of mastering."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Audio-Science-Bob-Katz/dp/0240808371"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c439w | Why does ctrl+alt+del'ing into task manager sometimes unfreeze frozen applications in windows? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhrq5rb"
],
"text": [
"Most likely it doesn't. Unless freeze is somehow fixed by changing window focus, pressing ctrl+alt+del doesn't affect the program in anyway. Probably application just wasn't completely frozen or suck in forever loop. Windows shows application being frozen if it doesn't handle events in certain time. Some applications do potentially long taking tasks in main thread that handles the events. Eg. if you open a huge image, the application might appear frozen until it finishes the loading. Usually these kind of temporal freezes are caused by slow IO. Well made applications use separate thread for these tasks so the main thread handling events isn't blocked and application doesn't appear frozen. But not all IO tasks are moved to separate thread just because they are so small that they don't normally cause any meaningful pause and threading is hard and can cause other problems. Sometimes even small IO tasks take unexpectedly long: small file on network drive + physical drive on power saving mode + network problems and suddently loading a single 1kB file takes multiple seconds. Freeze can also be caused by bugs in program that in some conditions cause logic to go loop that doesn't end or takes seconds to complete. TL;DR: Application wasn't in unrecoverable state and something just took longer than it should have and Windows just though the program was frozen. Application starting to work after pressing ctrl+alt+del was just a coincidence"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6c47f4 | In the age of high definition audio why does the speaking portion of the Emergency Broadcast System sound so horrible? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhrqay5"
],
"text": [
"The emergency messaging systems aren't desgned to be slick and high tech, they're designed to be extremely robust and easily serviced. These setups date back to the cold war or even earlier and are supposed to continue providing emergency messaging capability even if there has been some natural or manmade catastrophe that has disabled all other channels of communication. So although the signal is now being displayed on your 4K television, the sound is still probably being relayed through an old AM radio system designed to survive an atomic bomb."
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6c4n5r | How can software not have mass? | How can software not have mass if it fills a space/hard drive and can get to the point where no more "bytes" can "fit" inside said drive? What is being filled and shouldn't there be an observable change in some type of measurement if not mass? So basically, how can software have no physical presence yet operate on physical hardware? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhru09g",
"dhru42n",
"dhrtraa",
"dhrtsjg"
],
"text": [
"Consider a table covered in coins. You can store information by turning coins to heads or tails, each coin representing one bit. We might say the table is \"full\" when you're using all the coins to represent some meaningful data, but the coins are always there and have the same mass as they do if you \"blank\" the table to all heads.",
"As I understand it, when you install software, you are not adding anything onto the storage media (at least for magnetic media such as HDD), you are merely rearranging what is there. Have you seen any of those [old-fashioned alarm clocks that have the numbers that flip]( URL_0 )? All the numbers are already in the clock, but they have to be rearranged to display the correct time. Magnetic media is like the clock itself, and the software is like the correct time. When you install the software, you aren't adding more numbers to the clock, you're just setting the correct time.",
"\"filling up the hard drive\" is just setting the bits of the hard drive from a random combination of 0s and 1s to a meaningful combination of 0s and 1s. When you turn on the light switch at your home, you don't change its mass. So turning on a million or a billion light switches won't change their mass either.",
"On a hard drive, data is stored as the flipping of magnetic bits in the hard drive. \"Empty\" space isn't empty: it technically has data in it, it is just junk data that acknowledge means nothing. When a hard drive gets full, it means there is no more junk data to overwrite"
],
"score": [
141,
11,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=old+alarm+clock+numbers+flip&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji8NftrvzTAhXH6iYKHfqWCtQQsAQILQ&biw=1048&bih=597"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c5e97 | How were ISP's able to "pocket" the $200 billion grant that was supposed to be dedicated toward fiber cable infrastructure? | I've seen this thread in multiple places across Reddit: URL_1 URL_0 I'm usually skeptical of such dramatic claims, but I've only found one contradictory source online, and it's a little dramatic itself: URL_2 So my question is: how were ISP's able to receive so much money with zero accountability? Did the government really set up a handshake agreement over $200 billion? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhsgcjz",
"dhsxq6k",
"dhs1gdf",
"dhsn3kg",
"dhsjn9n",
"dhse0h0",
"dhsis20",
"dhsjuig",
"dhsmh34",
"dhsgvef",
"dhsf81k",
"dhs6k92",
"dhsg3as",
"dhsz4ie",
"dhslbdt",
"dhstdu3",
"dhsihdm",
"dht4ivn",
"dht6645",
"dhskxkk",
"dht63tg",
"dhsnp79",
"dhszxxz"
],
"text": [
"It also helps to start in the 1980s with the history of how we got our current ISPs. The TLDR version is: [AT & T had a monopoly]( URL_0 ). They built a lot of their infrastructure via [eminent domain]( URL_1 ) law and taxpayer money, for the \"greater good.\" As a business, using other people's money to grow is a good move. The issue currently is ISPs don't want the government telling them what to do with the infrastructure. See, in the 1980s all these other people wanted to get into the same business AT & T had, but they didn't want to invest in building infrastructure when AT & T already did, using eminent domain and tax money. These other businesses argued that AT & T having sole control over the lines was unfair, since taxes paid for some of it. The government stepped in and said, \"sorry, Ma Bell, but you have to share.\" Because of this we got a lot of ISPs that sprang up in a short amount of time, and until a few years ago all those ISPs were fighting for their own chunks of business. Now we're stuck with a few large ISPs that control everything, just enough to the point of legally being able to say it's not a \"monopoly\" when for the most part people have no choice in their city for an ISP. America has been sick of having no choice, and poor internet speeds, so the government has once again tried to encourage growth by using tax money as an incentive to expand. The problem is the ISPs are deathly afraid of expanding while the Net Neutrality laws exist because they don't want other small ISP startups coming along and using the infrastructure they're making. What I mean to say is, the big ISPs don't want to expand with better fiber service anywhere unless they can control it, but they also won't pass up free tax money. They take any free tax money they get from the government and then exploit loopholes from shoddy contracts to avoid actually expanding. They invent excuses to avoid actually expanding. Basically the ISPs have been holding internet infrastructure expansion hostage until the FCC rebrands them, because they don't want to be held accountable to governmental oversight. They want to monopolize the new fiber system before they actually build it, and recently the FCC caved in to their demands. I'm not just regurgitating stuff I've read on the internet here. I used to work for MCI, a company that wouldn't have existed if the FCC didn't break up Ma Bell in the 80s. (*edit:* clarity) (*edit:* Thanks for the Gold! It's my very first one! I'm deeply Humbled!)",
"Maybe you should go to the source: I've written 3 books about this starting in 1998 -- and all of these appear to be related to the same threads -- over 2 decades. Here's a free copy of the latest book, \"The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal & Free the Net\", which we put up a few weeks ago because few, if anyone actually bothered to read how the calculations were done. They were based on the telco's annual reports, state filings, etc.-- and the data is based on 20 years of documentation-- Bruce Kushnick URL_0 I've been tracking the telco deployments of fiber optics since 1991 when they were announced as something called the Information Superhighway. The plan was to have America be the first fiber optic country -- and each phone company went to their state commissions and legislatures and got tax breaks and rate increases to fund these 'utility' network upgrades that were supposed to replace the existing copper wires with fiber optics -- starting in 1992. And it was all a con. As a former senior telecom analyst (and the telcos my clients) i realized that they had submitted fraudulent cost models, and fabricated the deployment plans. The first book, 1998, laid out some of the history \"The Unauthorized Bio\" with foreword by Dr. Bob Metcalfe (co-inventor of Ethernet networking). I then released \"$200 Billion Broadband Scandal\" in 2005, which gave the details as by then more than 1/2 of America should have been completed -- but wasn't. And the mergers to make the companies larger were also supposed to bring broadband-- but didn't. I updated the book in 2015 \"The Book of Broken Promises $400 Billion broadband Scandal and Free the Net\", but realized that there were other scams along side this -- like manipulating the accounting. We paid about 9 times for upgrades to fiber for home or schools and we got nothing to show for it -- about $4000-7000 per household (though it varies by state and telco). By 2017 it's over 1/2 trillion. Finally, I note. These are not \"ISPs\"; they are state utility telecommunications companies that were able to take over the other businesses (like ISPs) thanks to the FCC under Mike Powell, now the head of the cable association. They got away with it because they could create a fake history that reporters and politicians kept repeating. No state has ever done a full audit of the monies collected in the name of broadband; no state ever went back and reduced rates or held the companies accountable. And no company ever 'outed' the other companies-- i.e., Verizon NJ never said that AT & T California didn't do the upgrades. --that's because they all did it, more or less. I do note that Verizon at least rolled out some fiber. AT & T pulled a bait and switch and deployed U-Verse over the aging copper wires (with a 'fiber node' within 1/2 mile from the location). It's time to take them to court. period. We should go after the financial manipulations (cross-subsidies) where instead of doing the upgrades to fiber, they took the money and spent it everywhere else, like buying AOL or Time Warner (or overseas investments), etc. We should hold them accountable before this new FCC erases all of the laws and obligations.",
"Because the agreement had no teeth, probably because it didn't define the problem in actual terms that could be acted upon in the case of failure. Really, how would you want the contract written to require broadband for everyone? You can't require 100% coverage because my grandmother doesn't want it. You can't require everyone that wants it gets it because there is that guy in Alaska that lives 500 miles from his closest neighbor. You can try to say 80% of people who ask can get it, but what happens for those that can't get it? They can't get it because they are not in XYZ's coverage area. But they are asking because they are in nobody's coverage area, so what company puts them down as a no when none applies, who do you blame for not expanding? That metric doesn't work either. The problem is the only concrete stuff you can do is tell them where to spend it, if that's on ”installing fiber\" then that's what they'll spend it on. But ISPs are constantly installing fiber, in fact that may be spending billions a year just to replace existing fiber, if you tell them you'll pay for it they'll just stop paying for installing fiber and let you pay, the money saved can be given out to shareholders. That of course is equivalent to just giving the money away, but there wasn't anything that said they can't do that. So really it's a very hard problem to define, there can be some requirements on it, but they can't be tough, and that makes it just about equal to giving it away. If the government wanted their money spent on expanding access to specific markets they would of been required to tell the ISPs exactly what they want built and then maintained ownership of it, the way the power company where I live works. But that's government run ISPs, and everyone seems to hate that idea.",
"How does anybody pocket anything? You give me $200 billion to do something. 1. Well that something requires a plan. So I pay myself $500 million to explore and investigate that plan. 2. After I finish the investigation of that plan to do something, I pay myself another $500 million to work out the logistics of implementing the plan and creating the jobs necessary to complete the plan. 3. We start doing that something, but only a little, and way over budget. I pay myself the leftover $1 billion doing very little of that something. 4. We're way past deadline, way over budget, and I've moved all the money from the fund to my own pocket. So I stop doing that something and wait for you to give me more free money. 5. You're not getting your money back suckers. *What u gonna do about it? Cash me outside. How ba da?* The mistake was our politicians giving corporations large sums of money to do something without effective enforcement mechanisms. The politicians were either corrupt or egregiously naive to think a corporation would act in society's interest rather than shareholder's interest.",
"These figures seem to all be laid out by Bruce Kushnick, chairman of Teletruth and Director of the New Networks Institute, who also wrote the \"The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal and Free the Net\". In his previous 2006 book named \"$200 Billion Broadband Scandal\", which can be found at URL_0 as it seems to have been given in its entirety as a public comment, and as the ycombinator commenters point out, the author seems to arrive at the ~$200 billion figure based mainly on overcharging that the author figures should have been better regulated by the government. I think where the confusion stems is from the line in blog for the new book which says: \"*America will have been charged about $400 billion*\", which may have gotten confused as being entirely some form of subsidy or handout from the government while the author probably means the overcharging of each individual American customer plus the tax write-offs as per his 2006 book. Without seeing the book we can't be certain but given the author's very similar claims from his 2006 I would say it's a safe assumption. As for why all this overcharging happened: it was not just the ISPs which were doing it. Computer technology in the home and office seriously exploded from around the 1980s and on at a pace that made it ripe for exploit as it was all so very new without nearly as many expectations and understanding as we have today. Part of that exploitation was monopolies that probably shouldn't have happened, including Microsoft which lost an important anti-trust case in 1998. The main argument seems to be that Internet, which is even replacing phone service in some parts and will do so even more then true 4G is fully rolled out, should be a well-regulated utility like phone service currently is in the US. Based on this notion we have the idea of the US government \"letting\" the companies have all this money from the American people. Edit: Typos.",
"As with most things, there's no simple answer, and many factors in play. Google attempted to both push the ISP markets to rollout faster speeds, and possibly elbow into a few regions, but as others have mentioned, high costs are only one problem. One estimate put there are a lot of [costs]( URL_6 ) to build out fiber, and the [total]( URL_4 ) cost for fiber in the US has been pegged at $140 billion, but this estimate is a lowball. Google has run into its share of difficulties in the fiber rollout, from [legal]( URL_5 ) challenges, to other [headaches]( URL_2 ). There are two sides to everything, and although in many instances existing ISP's clearly are manipulating the system to their advantage, Google should not necessarily be given a pass for how it has [responded]( URL_3 ). Unsurprisingly, Google has [announced]( URL_0 ) that they are halting any future efforts. All of this is intended to point out that there are numerous problems, such as existing bureaucracy/infrastructure, logistics, and costs, and although some of these problems are self-perpetuating--[see ISP's using legal challenges to stifle competition]( URL_1 )--it does not change the fact that placing fiber for the US is not a simple matter, and as others have pointed out, even something as basic as \"Here is some money, go lay down fiber\" is surprisingly complicated.",
"This is the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the $200B number, the method used to get there is deeply flawed. URL_0 read page 222 it spells out the 200 billion number, spoiler alert, its a pretty dumb way to count dollars. edit: its mostly things like \"hey if they were regulated like a monopoly they would have collectively had about 100B less revenue between 1992 and today! lets count that as a government handout.\" Not to say that ISP's aren't doing shady shit, but calling it a \"grant\" is ridiculous.",
"I remember paying a lot of monthly 'nuisance' fees in the 1990s - both on my landline phone bill, and also on my ISP bill. I think these fees, along with government subsidies, went to pay for the high speed fiber network in the U.S. As usual, privatization of profits, socialization of costs, all the while big telcos whining about not being able to control every aspect of the network. They sue municipalities when they want to create a town or county-wide public internet option, citing \"government interference\" with the free market, while putting in regional monopolies wherever they can.",
"I live in a rural area (30 miles east of Sacramento, so not that rural) where only AT & T serves via the slowest posssible 768kb DSL known to human kind. AT & T has flat out stated that they will never upgrade the lines. There is no competition, so there is no need for investment on their part. Fuck #ATT",
"Honest answer, because we the people don't give enough pushback for them to get worried or scared. We are too comfortable so all we do is grumble and move on. The populace actually has the power to force this, government or no, but they don't care enough to put forth the collective commitment it would take. Without our pushback the Government and ISPs really have no good reason to do anything with that money other than abuse the wordings to pocket it. Government gave the money as a token gesture that appeased the people, likely knowing what would happen. The ISPs correctly guessed nobody would be pissed enough to punish them for their actions. The cycle of business continues as normal. They can just ignore the temporary uproar and go right back to taking the money we are giving them. Sometimes you'll even hear folks say that they have no choice. But we always have a choice, it's just a question of what you are willing to sacrifice.",
"A lot of them actually did lay the fiber lines, but also made it so that no one but them could use it, then went on to not use it at all.",
"Part of the problem that I've come to understand, is that they didn't quite 'pocket' the 200 billion like everyone loves to harp on about. Maybe they didn't quite spend it as effectively as they could have. It's that the 200 billion to lay that infrastructure, was a *drop in the bucket of the money needed to do more.* They'd need trillions to get every American wired up with fiber, fiber itself is not cheap, and very much not cheap to lay. I'm not trying to shill for our horrible oligopolistic cable overlords, there was a very, very detailed post a user made on this subject not too long ago. I'll try to dig up the link if I can, if anyone else can help that would be great. It detailed the absolute astronomical cost of laying fiber, and how much they did, starting with large businesses and moving down towards residential, we generally take a lower stake in priority when laying new infrastructure.",
"They did lots of feasibility studies. Great studies, the best. Unfortunately, all of them said we need to keep the $200M and not build out our infrastructure.",
"If it's anything like the bank bailouts that happened in the UK, the company lied and the government didn't care. Government: \"We'll give you millions of pounds so you can loan the money to people to get the economy going.\" Banks: \"OK. Thanks.\" Government gives money. Banks: \"Yeah, we're actually going to use that money to give our investment bankers millions of pounds in bonuses. Hope that's ok.\" Government: \"Well we did say it was for lending to people to rescue our economy... but ok.\"",
"At least part of the issue is that people misunderstand the $200 billion number constantly. The government *did not* pay out that much money. Most of that number is made up of cases where the government allowed ISPs to increase rates in exchange for building infrastructure meeting certain standards in certain areas (e.g.: at least 10Mb/s, in some rural area, or whatever), with the possibility of those rate increases making the ISPs an extra $200 billion. In a lot of cases, the ISPs didn't take the government up on the offer: they built no new infrastructure, and left rates the same, because they didn't think they could make money. In other cases, they exploited vague requirements to complete the bare minimum and then raise rates.",
"Mainly due to the fact we dont hold our elected officials responsible for things. Why should they care when we just keep reelecting them, oh why are they getting reelected so easily? payoffs and donations?. We as a people continually elect and reelect people who only work for you and I partially, who work for business moreso and work for themselves fully.",
"There should be public dark fiber that is rentable by whatever business wants to use it, deliverable to every home.",
"The new FCC director is a complete and total idiot and let a small company, spectrum buy Bright House, and Time Warner Cable. Meanwhile Verizon is focusing on their cellular network, not their cable network. If Fiber isn't in your area, odds are it never will be.",
"In short, the answer we are looking for is: America is broken, and this is another wonderful example of it.",
"There should really be a explain like I'm average, not a child subreddit. That way we don't sound silly asking complex questions with explain like I'm 5 tagged on there. ELIAv why no one has come up with this subreddit yet",
"Serious answer: corporate corruption. They'll do what they want, and if someone tries to call them out on it, they'll pay a fine much less then $200 billion. So if I give you $200 billion to specifically do a task, and you don't do it, the public calls for action. If that action is you get a 5 million dollar fine, that sounds like a lot to the general public. \"Yeah! They got what was coming to them!\" Meanwhile the task is still not done, and the company has pocketed 90% of that money.",
"Because ISP's are evil and the government is corrupt. Hopefully one day they'll get French revolution'd.",
"The basic problem is that it didn't exactly work that way. The government didn't just say telcos take 200 billion and fix it. Not least because it's not even close to enough money to do that. What happened is that the federal government took 200 billion and gave it as grants to the states for specific projects. This process ate up a chunk of that 200 billion. Then the states then went to tender for their projects. This ate up even more money. Then of course the projects ate up a lot of money in overages and scope changes and all the usual problems. Then some of the projects failed or were the wrong projects, so the results of what was left by this point were mixed."
],
"score": [
4393,
3006,
1329,
126,
107,
59,
37,
28,
25,
24,
22,
21,
11,
9,
8,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corporation#Monopoly",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain"
],
[
"http://irregulators.org/bookofbrokenpromises/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/comments/61BF.pdf"
],
[
"https://fiber.googleblog.com/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-bet.html",
"https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/",
"http://www.zdnet.com/article/at-t-to-google-fiber-suck-it-up-broadband-is-tough-and-get-ready-to-eat-our-dust/",
"http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/08/15/metro-councilman-seek-delay-google-fiber-vote/88758642/",
"http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-it-would-cost-google-to-build-a-cable-network-2012-12",
"http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/20/google-fiber-commits-attorneys-nashville-fight-possible-t-lawsuit/90732006/",
"http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cost-of-building-google-fiber-2013-4"
],
[
"https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/comments/61BF.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c5fbt | How do countries check the licence plates of foreign vehicles? | If a car with from Canada or Mexico passes is in the US how can police check their licence plate? Do all three countries share their license plate database? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhs4uzg"
],
"text": [
"in europe, if a foreign car goes too fast and is photographed, there are two possibilities: (a) it is not possible to sue the person, but they are stored in the system, and in case they are coming back and are controled, they will have to pay. (b) there are bilateral treaties for \"helping\" each other. thus, one country sends the information to the other country's police, and they will retrieve the fine for them. there is NO sharing of personal data across borders. after all, a state has to protect its citizens from outside forces. there are more problems, e.g.: in austria, the car is photographed from behind, and in germany, it must be photographed from in front (with the face of the driver on the photo; in austria they may first have to find out who drove the car). that's why nowadays there are sometimes two cameras, one from behind for austrian offenders, one from in front in case germans are passing by."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c5k1l | Why does the US govt still bother to fly spy planes over other countries when we have satellites? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhs74yl",
"dhs1f4e"
],
"text": [
"To elaborate a little on what others have already noted: 1) Airplanes fly *much* closer to the ground than satellites do, even when they're 70,000 feet up (or higher). This means the cameras can see smaller things. 2) In theory you can send an airplane anywhere in the world you want on fairly short notice, take multiple passes over your target, and fly away. Satellites generally can't maneuver (much) out of their orbits, the fuel cost is enormous compared with an airplane. 3) Since orbits are predictable, other nations can figure out when your spy satellite is going to be overhead and will \"cover up\" if needed. They can't do this so easily vs. aircraft surveillance. One advantage the SR-71 had was that it was pretty \"stealthy\" to radar. When a plane is flying that high and fast, radar is about the only way to know you're being watched, so a stealthy plane is useful. 4) Planes aren't cheap, but are less expensive than sats. All that said, satellites do have some advantage in that they are always looking and with wide area views. So if your sat coverage notes something interesting you can send a plane over for a more detailed look.",
"Satellites are much, much higher off the ground than planes are. Camera lenses are only so good. Obviously the closer you are to the ground, the better your photos will be."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6c7w1a | How are earphone/headphone manufacturers able to make "better" sounding headphones? Which variables are altered to get higher quality sound? | There are many different brands making headphones with different qualities and characteristics, but seemingly made out of fundamentally the same materials. How are manufacturers tweaking their headphones to the kind of sound and quality they want to produce? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhsnf26"
],
"text": [
"First thing to be aware of is the design cycle (how long it takes from product conception to you seeing it in the store) is much longer than other consumer electronics. For example, a cellphone has a turnaround of about 12-16 months, headphones are more like 3-5 years. That's mostly due to money and how small the market is. So when you see innovation, it takes a lot longer. Some companies pump out new models each year, but those are mostly cosmetic changes. Those changes are done to keep the headphones in Vogue, like a fashion item. In terms of performance, there are lots of smaller improvements. One I know of was a change to the cable material that made it last much longer when used by people exercising. Another cable change that's being adopted more is having a detachable cable, because the cable breaks well before the speakers so you can buy a replacement instead of new headphones. Plus cables are way cheaper to produce than headphones and have a higher markup, and keep people tethered to your product instead of buying your competitors' headphones. There are also major paradigm shifts. One becoming more common today is open-back headphones. They've been around a long time, but they've become mainstream as more audiophiles are listening to mobile devices instead of stereos. Open back headphones have a better frequency response but everyone around you hears it, and poor noise reduction. On the other hand, embedded DSP has become more and more viable in headphones. You may be most familiar with active noise cancellation, which is one application of DSP in headphones. Others include speaker correction (EQ the sound to compensate for the speakers non ideal characteristics), as well as the ability to process the voice when the headphones come with a mic. An up and coming DSP application for headphones is spacial correction. This allows the user to hear in three dimensions. It has a long way to go before being perfect, but it's popular for gamers and people watching films in surround on their headphones. Edit: a major driver of spacial audio processing is VR gaming. Currently, the computational costs of having audio that's on-par with graphics is light years beyond what is available on a PC (if you're curious, it's similar to the problem of making accurate shadows at long wavelengths of light, and current approximations don't work for audio) One of the prime goals of spacial audio processing is to solve the problem of \"sound externalization\" which is the phenomenon of you hearing the sound come from inside your head, as opposed to how it sounds when there's a real source in the room or on a stereo/surround system. There are DSP approaches that can attempt to solve this, which is only possible because of how small and cheap processors are and the fact that rechargable batteries are commonplace for users. Lastly, wireless technology is always growing. Apple's removal of the TRS jack on their iPhone is forcing companies to develop more wireless technology. However, the audio market is much smaller than other markets that have an interest in wireless bandwidth, meaning that radio frequencies come at a premium. As a result, the audio signals need to be compressed with high fidelity and low latency, which spurs development of audio codecs for wireless. That had already been happening in professional audio for live sound, but now it matters in the consumer market."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c8wco | How do computer parts (as in CPUs, RAM, Motherboard, etc) work physically | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhsvu9w"
],
"text": [
"At the most basic level, its just electrons moving down the wire. It is of course, much more complicated than that and there is an entire field of engineering for the physical design of various computer parts. So, I'll start with the simplest, RAM. RAM is made up of a series of electronic cells, these cells contain enough circuitry to store one bit of logical information, a 1 or a 0. typically, these cells are assigned in blocks of 8 as bytes, and modern memory 'sticks' contain billions of them. Next, I'll Cover the CPU. CPU's contain two major elements, Cache and Cores. Cache is very similar to RAM, except it is much faster, and is usually much smaller. Cache is used to reduce the amount of time the CPU has to spend waiting on the main memory. Cores are the computational units, and consist of billions of transistors. The CPU has a control unit that receives instructions from memory, directs the flow of information to the appropriate part of the CPU, and essentially ensures that the CPU works, and thus the rest of the computer. There are other parts, such as an Arithmetic Logic Unit, which is a subcomponent of the core that handles mathematical operations. Last of the items you specifically mention is the motherboard, the motherboard acts as a unifier for the CPU and memory, as well as offering access to other input/output systems, such as mouse and keyboard. The Motherboard contains a socket for the CPU which is connected to two 'bridge' chipsets, the 'Northbridge' chipset handles memory and enables the CPU and the RAM to interact with one another. The 'Southbridge' Chipset acts as an Input/Output hub, enabling other parts of the computer, such as Hard Drives, USB Ports, and Internet ports to talk to the CPU. The Southbridge also contains the CMOS Memory chip, another bit of RAM which has its own battery to maintain information, storing things like BIOS settings. Which brings us to the Flash ROM chip, which is what contains the BIOS itself."
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6c9lp8 | IPv6 Subnetting | ELI5 IPv6 Subnetting as we have not been able to find a decent online explanation so far. Please we are desperate at this point | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dht09zw"
],
"text": [
"IPv6 uses a term called prefix for subnetting. The general idea is the almost the same as IPv4. [Here's a short primer.]( URL_0 ) Taking an example from the primer: 2001:db8::/32 - means a /32 ipv6 network prefix - so the first 32 bits (2001:db8 in this case) will stay fixed and the other 96 bits will be the variable \"host\" range (though usually such a large network would be further divided - just like in IPv4)."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.ipv6now.com.au/primers/IPv6PrefixPrimer.pdf"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c9qdm | How does Minecraft procedurally generate random and unique structures and how can it make an identical one with the same speed? | Ignoring seeds (at first), how does Minecraft generate things like hills and natural terrain (even ignoring generated structures like dungeons)? After all Minecraft is indie and I don't expect the code to be extremely over the top as compared to triple A games. How does it generate unique terrain block by block? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dht1gfq",
"dht064y"
],
"text": [
"It's many, many simple elements stacked on top of each other. The base terrain uses 16 octaves of a form of [Perlin noise]( URL_0 ). Each octave is a basic noise generator, scaled to make large and coarse or small and fine features. It actually has two 16-octave ensembles and a third 8-octave ensemble to blend between the two, adding more irregularities to the terrain. Some altitude-dependent bias (that varies with biomes) is added to differentiate the ground and the sky/ocean. Where the value is positive, stone is used. Where it isn't, air or water is used. Later in the process, the top layers of stone are replaced by dirt/grass or sandstone/sand, or whatever a biome needs. The seed is used to initialize the [random number generator]( URL_2 ) (RNG) used to generate the permutations used by the noise generator and offset their results, giving different results for different seeds but the same result for the same seed. Caves are generated separately. For each chunk (16x16 blocks), an RNG is initialized to a value dependent on the world seed and the chunk's location. First, some numbers are extracted to determine how many cave elements to generate in that chunk. It uses a [probability distribution]( URL_1 ) that tends to generate few elements in any one chunk (usually none), but occasionally generates many (up to 14, a cave system). Then it tries to spawn that many \"worms\" starting from random locations in the chunk. There are some variations, like sometimes it creates a circular room with up to 4 worms and sometimes a worm is made much thicker than most. The worm shape is generated by moving a point in some direction and adjusting the direction randomly but smoothly. A roughly spherical shape with a flat bottom is carved out of the terrain around most such points. (Sometimes not, making caves look rougher.) This process is run for many chunks around the chunk that needs to be generated up to the range of the worms, ensuring a worm that starts in one chunk appears in every other chunk it encounters as well. There's a second population phase where features like trees and ores are added to the world. This phase is more free-form and can affect multiple chunks at a time. It again initializes an RNG to a value depending on the world seed and chunk location. Then it just tries to place things in random locations in or near the chunk, seeing if conditions for actually placing the thing are met. Even with the same seed, results may vary slightly depending on the order in which chunks are populated! This is just a tiny portion of everything. I hope it gives you a little taste. Source: I'm the one who reverse-engineered generation to the point that I could [resurrect the Far Lands](/r/Minecraft/comments/2su65c/i_resurrected_the_far_lands_in_181/).",
"The use what is called noise, the most well known example is perlin noise. URL_0"
],
"score": [
36,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6c9sp7 | What does it mean that mp3 is now "dead"? | With support being now dropped what does this mean for mp3? Will it still be used? Does this raise security concerns? What replaces mp3? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dht0wwc"
],
"text": [
"MP3 isn't dead from a consumer POV. It's actually better than ever. A patent is when you essentially say \"I have invented this method of doing *something* on this date, and anyone who creates something using that method has to get my permission.\" For example, you might patent the technique of printing photos by combining streams of different primary-coloured ink. If the patent office in your country approves that, you have exclusive rights to make any printers using that technique. There were people who claimed patents on parts of the MP3 format and the methods to use MP3 files. Depending on where you lived, if you wanted to make a device or a program that dealt with MP3s, you had to pay those people a fee. Software patents are a messy thing that varies a ton by region so it was a hassle and could be expensive. But patents don't last forever. They usually last 20 years, with some differences and grace periods and so on. Last month, the last of the MP3-related patents expired in the US. This means that now, any programmer who wants to can create their own MP3 playing or recording software without needing to seek permission or pay fees. And any company who wants to make a music player can do the same, can support MP3 files freely. MP3 will still be widely used. MP3 files won't break. There are no security concerns. Systems won't stop supporting it -- MP3 files are incredibly popular (and now implementing support is free and easy) so pretty much all consumer stuff is going to support them for decades. MP3 was 'replaced' long ago, in the sense that better, more efficient formats have been invented, which give you better quality at the same size, or the same quality at a lower size. These are pretty popular (iTunes prefers AAC files for example) already. But a 320k MP3 is already good enough quality to serve 99.99% of people out there, and small enough that on modern systems people can store loads of them no worries. So there hasn't been a huge shift towards other formats -- MP3 is 'good enough.' Unlike video formats, where we keep adopting new ones because video consumes a ton of data and we can still benefit from better and better quality, so every new improvement is appreciated."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6ca2a9 | How do DJs give live concerts if all of their sounds are digitally created and recorded? Seems to me they could just hit the play button, which would defeat the purpose of a live performance. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dht4ao9",
"dhtby8s",
"dhtavnt",
"dhta1wd",
"dhtis1n",
"dhtjrzk",
"dhtdoam",
"dhted0t",
"dhtdmsq",
"dhtkcfz",
"dhtcbmh",
"dhtccdn",
"dhtfgi2",
"dhtepqh",
"dhtz6bl",
"dhtkjbc",
"dhtg1lt",
"dhtbb96",
"dhtiwdd",
"dhtdg7l",
"dhu79c5",
"dhtegvd",
"dhtcsib",
"dhtbuy3",
"dhthxxw",
"dhtmdic",
"dhtr5tt",
"dhtvjx0",
"dhtjyzj",
"dhtbzli",
"dht5zfy"
],
"text": [
"Haven't seen a legit answer yet so I'll give it a shot. You are right in that many DJs perform by 'hitting the play button'. However, there are several other methods to perform live as a DJ as well. Using Ableton in [performance mode]( URL_3 ), is a popular choice for many DJs and allows you to manipulate which tracks play in real time. For example, the DJ might have isolated vocal mixes and isolated pre-made backing tracks (these isolated tracks are called *stems*) and might mix and match them to create music in real time. Another alternative is to play parts on a synthesizer and sampler/drum machine live and record them into a step sequencing machine, which loops the patterns, allowing you to manipulate the sounds on the synthesizer(s) and add layers to the song, a technique demonstrated [here]( URL_1 ). Another option is to use a DJ deck in order to mix and match backing tracks and vocals or other instruments, allowing you to create unique mash ups. [Here is an example of this method in action]( URL_2 ). **TLDR** There are different styles of performing electronic music live and it's entirely dependent on the DJ for whether they want to 'hit the play button' or not. [Here]( URL_0 ) is an interesting article about performing electronic music, with some comments from Deadmau5.",
"The vast majority of EDM DJ's use the Pioneer CDJs and mixer that are at the venue – they are essentially digital turntables. Before a gig, a DJ uses Pioneer's Rekordbox software to analyze all their tracks to get the tempo, key, and cue points they may have set, and then they typically export their set (playlist) onto a USB flash drive. When it's time for the show, they plug the USB into the CDJ/mixer setup, and then they can instantly access all of their music; the equipment allows them to do things like change tempo, sync tracks, apply turntables FX (vinyl stops, etc.), mixer FX (delays, reverbs, etc.), and even beat juggle and scratch if they want to/can. The advantage of this system is that you: don't need to bring your expensive computer into the booth where it's liable to get stomped on, have drinks spilled on it, or even stolen; there is very little chance of having a software issue – e.g. the computer operating system crashing; if you lose the USB, you can just create a new one; you can store an absurd amount of music – more than any vinyl-vased DJ ever could – on a single USB; and, lastly, when you don't have a computer screen in your face, you can connect with the audience a lot more easily – nothing is less appealing to a crowd than seeing someone up on stage with that glaring white light splashed across their face while they scroll through songs or their email or Twitter feed (yes, this happens 🙄). I have met DJs, famous and not famous, who use Ableton to DJ, or just push play; if that's how they want to do things, well, no one is going to stop them, but I, personally, love mixing tracks live without a pre-arranged set. It is just like playing an instrument, and it allows for all sorts of awesome, happy accidents to occur; also, if the crowd isn't feeling a track, it gives you the flexibility to mix out quickly and switch up the vibe. Lastly, it's just more fun; mixing live is challenging, and I would be bored to tears if I were just standing up there while the music played. I hope that helps! I started on piano when I was 4, and I dropped out of med school to pursue music. I have been Producing/DJing since 2012, and I have played at EDC Las Vegas, Life in Color, Beyond Wonderland, Trapfest, Freaknight, What the Festival?!, Foam Wonderland, and I have been direct support for people like Datsik, Flux Pavilion, Dillon Francis, Antiserum & Mayhem, Blasterjaxx, Herobust, Wuki, Loudpvck, Gladiator, Riff Raff, Lil Debbie, Brillz, Milo & Otis, TJR, 12th Planet, and a bunch of other folks. I'm happy to answer any other questions regarding behind-the-scenes DJ/Producer stuff; I've seen so much bullshit backstage and at after parties, and it's really obvious who makes their own music and who doesn't, and who knows how to DJ and who doesn't. The best DJ I have ever seen, still, to this day, is DJ Craze. He is unreal, and I am thankful I got to peek over his shoulder at a sold out show. Mind = blown.",
"DJ here. When it comes to DJs with ACTUAL talent (and there are a lot of hacks in the industry doing the above), it's about using technique (mixing, cutting, scratching) to create one large music piece out of many other music pieces, as well as creating entirely new pieces of music out of elements of others (mash ups). For example, for a show tonight, im doing a live mash up of an Odesza track with the vocals of \"black hole sun.\" I do it live, so i use the decks to manipulate the vocals (using cue points and controlling the speed) and layer it over the track in a coherent and believa ble fashion. this live mashup is then mixed in from another track, and mixed out into the other track seamlessly. Coupled with everything else, the point is to tell a story live to the listener that blends and moves seamlessly as if one piece.",
"The skill in DJing comes from making two already existing songs blend together so that you don't notice where one ends and the next begins. You need to match the tempo, phrases, and work the EQ so that it doesn't sound like a mess. You also pick songs based on crowd reaction and atmosphere. Most festival DJs don't do this though - they roll up with a predetermined playlist. Any DJ worth their salt should play with little preparation. Just arrive, feel out the vibe, and go from there.",
"I used to work in a mega club, so I feel like I should chime in something. The top comment right now, is right to a certain extent. There is a degree of deconstructing and reconstructing going on. Though a large majority of the time, it is not happening live. A lot of EDM and Dubstep dj's would love to have you believe they're manipulating all this wildness in real-time, but it just isn't happening. My job was L2, which basically means, I was the back-up lighting guy. I would fix a light if it started to wig out, swap a light out entirely if needed, refill foggers and gazers, operate lights when the main LD wants a break. Many times, I would find myself on stage teching a light next to the dj. Generally, after I would fix them, I would hang low and out of sight for a minute or two behind the dj to make sure it was working fine. Sometimes while doing this, I would look at what the dj was doing... if you saw two tracks playing at the same time in Serato or Traktor, you knew he was mixing. Although, most, if not all use Auto-Sync these days. Their reasoning is that it sets them up to do more \"performance\" oriented stuff like a filter sweep. Other times, if you only saw one track playing and the wave form barely moved at all, then you knew that they're just hitting play on a pre-mixed set at home and twiddling knobs to empty channels. I've seen amateurs do this, and I've seen the highest paid \"professionals\" do this.. My problem with this is, we (the club) are paying you 75,000$ for 3 hours, and you come in with a premixed set and fake everything. On the flip side to that, if you come in with a premixed set but have a video guy and lighting guy that know that set by heart and have content made for it, then that premixed set can be a REALLY awesome experience... Most notably, Paul Van Dyke and Excision. When I worked there, the idea of premixed sets pissed me off to no end. It jaded me a lot on dj culture and the entire idea of what djs do. But, now that I'm older, I've just learned to ignore and try to have a good time.",
"So I know I'm late to this post but I hope some people that have the same question as you, see this. There are plenty of \"press play\" DJs that are more about the spectacle than the music (think Steve Aoki with his cake throwing and crowd innertubing), but there are lots who either still use vinyl or do the equivalent of live mixing, just with digital files instead of records. But there's a new wave of DJs really trying to step things up and change the game. I'm biased but one of my favorites is Derek Vincent Smith, aka Pretty Lights. He started as a live mixing digital DJ but with a twist, he had a live drummer (Adam Deitsch) for the first few years. He went solo for a while but became bored and really stepped things up. Here's where the Analog Future band comes in. Derek mixing in the middle, occasionally playing some bass or other instruments. Keyboard. Horn sections. Guitar. All with a crazy light show and being mixed. URL_0 Now he's doing something even crazier... On recent tours he's doing an \"Episodic Festival\" thing and they have improvisational breaks thrown in, even the mixing. Beyond all that he started the Pretty Lights Music label that has brought us some of the best contemprary names in the game... Gramatik, Michal Menert, Break Science. Derek is a goddamned musical genius and I fucking hate that Pretty Lights never gets the credit he deserves. Check out some of the Analog Future and Episodic Festival gigs and tell me he isn't singlehandedly changing the game right now.",
"There's a pretty big difference between a DJ and what we (European underground electronic music scene) call a live performance. First off, a DJ plays records, cd's or any other music format on 2 or more cd players and / or turntables. He uses a mixer to mix the records together and to create fluent transitions from one track to the next. A live performance is an artist (who sometimes might also DJ on other occasions) who will use hardware (drumcomputer, synthesizers, sequencers and effects) to create a set. The tracks the artist plays are usually his / her own productions, remixes or edits and sometimes it's purely improv. As mentioned elsewhere; a laptop with Ableton or a simmilar software will do the same thing, but replaces most of the electronic instruments with samples (sounds) that are in the laptop instead of being produced by the hardware. What David Guetta / almost all other EDM 'dj's' do, is not real DJ-ing. They are popstars, they put on a show for massive crowds which take a lot of effort to put together (video, lights, pyro). Due to all these things, they don't have the freedom to really experiment or improvise. They hit play and jump around, clap their hands and drink champagne. They do not DJ!",
"I'll give this a try. So there are varying degrees of difficulty that a DJ or electronic music producer can put in front of them. Some are simply DJs, people who play tracks produced either by themselves or from other artists. DJs rely on crowd energy levels, type of gig, time of day, locale, and even mood. The idea is to mix various tracks together to create a single piece of constant music without losing the energy they've created. It takes time. You learn to cultivate your music selection. You listen to each track dozens of times and attempt to mix these tracks seamlessly from one to the other without making it obvious (some exceptions, but for the most part, acccurate). DJs will often only play for about an hour or hour and half. They typically play one DJ after another in a given night. Here's some examples of DJs: This is Andy C. He's using a hybrid of analog turntables with digital functionality to manipulate tracks in real time. In this video, he's using three turntables and a mixer. Notice he's constantly monitoring his levels, EQ, filter and pitch control on the decks. He's also got a small controller in front of his mixer that has macros/shortcuts to load tracks. He's not trying to play to a crowd here, he's just performing in a small window of time to show off his skills. [Andy C on Annie Mac's Radio Show, Mini Mix]( URL_0 ) Here's another video of a DJ performing with almost the same type of equipment. He's using CDJ turntables. These allow someone to plug in a USB memory stick with tracks loaded onto them. The equivalent or bringing a crate of records to a gig (without the added weight of course). He's playing to a small crowd of people in front of him. They're most likely dancing and he's feeding off the energy they give to play the tracks in a cohesive order based on feeling. It's hard to explain, but it's not exactly random. It's not exactly pre chosen either. He's playing first in a gig for three other DJs that will come on after him. [Lenzman, MixMag DJ Lab. With Jubei B2B Ulterior Motive]( URL_1 )",
"there's a difference between DJing and Live PAs. DJing, at its simplest, is the playing of a record. you're right, at its core, there's little performance involved. however most DJs mix- that's the non-stop transition of one song into the next. this takes some skill and expertise to do *well*, to make each track flow into the next appropriately. this involves \"mixing.\" mixing began back in the 40s or so when people throwing parties playing jazz records hooked up two record players and faded their volumes out from one record into the other for the sake of keeping the music continually playing. your typical media player can do that by default. a Live PA is the actual performance of samples and sometimes instruments- artists such as daft punk have their own music broken down into tiny elements- maybe as simple as separating the drum beat, the bassline, the main synths, the vocals, into separate tracks- of which they use software to mix and match different elements of the same or different songs together into a cohesive whole. this is why, again, from daft punk in their Alive 2007 album, for example, their tracks are a mish-mash of a bunch of different productions of theirs- in essence, they are remixing \"on-the-fly.\" for example, the vocals from \"technologic,\" the percussion line from \"harder better faster stronger,\" and the synth line from \"aerodynamik.\" these elements of different pieces are typically triggered via myriad types of hardware. other elements of a Live PA can include anything else related to live performance, such as the performer singing along to it, or playing the keyboard along with it, whatever. A Live PA blends the art of mixing and traditional performing, basically. A certain skill in the world of DJing- turntablism- ie \"wikka wikka WOW\" scratching and whatnot- can itself be a performance- see the yearly DMC turntablist competitions- but that's another subject entirely. so as you can see, DJing at its core nowadays is the mixing of two tracks together, but can incorporate many elements of performance into it such as turntablism, all of which has evolved into a complex amalgamation of performance, musicianship, sampling, and remixing in the broad term of \"Live PA\". as to your musings regarding the potential for \"fakery\"- it fuckin' happens and probably some of your favorite DJs are guilty of it. they're hacks. some of these guys record a set beforehand and just hit play and fake it on stage. there's been photos of DJ setups where the mixers aren't even plugged in- Peter Hook, the bassist of New Order, has been busted out doing it, for example. i knew a guy that went around to the local venues in the area handing out his \"demo\" to people, when in reality what he did was cut a section of Nic Fanciulli's Essential Mix and pass it off as his own work. fucking hacks. source- dj and producer edit- apparently can't self-promote here",
"DJ here, /u/thvid. I've been doing it both as a hobby or for work continuously for the last 9 years or so. I was a nightclub resident DJ for over a few years as part of my resume. I do it strictly as a hobby these days, not really interested in all the demand in time and networking it takes. ~~~ **1. A DJ set is about 'story telling' through sound.** I'm not talking about those annoying EDM festivals. Talking about people like Sasha (first that comes to mind). Their style is determined by what music they choose to play. That music can either be other people's work or their own productions. Leads into #2. A true DJ is someone that can take all of those pre-existing elements and seamlessly mix them into something you can spend hours getting lost in. They can bring up energy, bring it back down, calm things for a while, evoke emotions of fear, love, anxiety, rage, and whatever else you can think of. Also, a good DJ plays for people assuming they are **not** under any kind of influence; if you are so insulting to think that everyone is just fucked up somehow, then you're not playing to the sharp sober mind paying attention to every little thing you do as a DJ. **2. A DJ is not as easy to define as it once was.** Up until about 2004 when the Pioneer CDJ's were released, DJ'ing was as straightforward as mixing one actual vinyl record into another via beatmatching. After the CDJ-1000's were released it *started* to become more fragmented of a definition because of looping and effects which allowed for more creative approaches to performance. Skip forward to the Pioneer CDJ 2000's. These completely changed things in such a way that the industry was demanding since the 1000's were released: quantized looping, improved effects, and biggest of all - no need for CD's; play by USB thumb drives. Best part about this was once you're able to hook up about 4 CDJ's things became really fun for overlaying loops on tracks times 4. Anyway, prior to the 2k's Traktor or Serato were the go-to's for DJ's like myself that would play for hours on end and made burning CD's impractical and just really fucking annoying. Those applications allowed for (albeit complicated and unreliable) 'hacking' of the CDJ 1000's via timecode through an audio interface. Now with the 2k's it was as easy as prepping your library in Pioneer Rekordbox, uploading to a USB, and bringing that with you and your headphones. **3. DJ'ing isn't just playing other music.** One thing I alluded to in #2 is that a DJ isn't as easy to define anymore as it once was. Sure looping and effects came into play, but the real MVP is Ableton Live. My god this changed everything. In fact, when I first began performing I chose to use only Live. What is live? It's essentially a \"digital audio workstation\" or DAW that is pretty much an entire music production studio in your laptop - **that you can also perform live from**. This changed the game entirely for the creative aspect of performance because no longer is is about playing other peoples finalized productions, but it's now about constructing, deconstructing, or reconstructing, or all of the above on the fly making performances unique and vastly more complex than they could've been before. When I performed using Live at my residency, I did anything from mixing CDJ's into my Live (everything goes out through one main output from 2 separate inputs) or mixing tracks in Live underneath percussion loops, synth riff's I'd record previously at home, or depending on how I felt that night maybe looping about 5-10 elements of existing tracks over eachother simultaneously to make something never heard before that moment. As exciting as that was, it was also incredibly risky since crashes are always a worry, which is why you'd have a CDJ at the ready in case anything explodes. **4. If you're not producing then you're not DJ'ing. If you're DJ'ing and not producing, then you're promoting.** Pretty straight forward. Just says a lot about the industry as a whole. Great DJ's today are expected to do more (see all of the above) and if you're not producing, then don't expect to stand out from the noise (the whole \"everyone wants to be a DJ\" thing). Those that aren't producing but are working are promoting and are typically just very very connected people, in which it's only a matter of time before they start producing. ~~~ So with that lengthy description, here's some cool videos from a couple of the masters that really explain just how complex and technical DJ'ing can be. * [Sasha @ Dubspot - Full Live Streaming Workshop Rebroadcast! 'Involver 3′ w/ Ableton Live]( URL_0 ) * [How I PLAY: Richie Hawtin MODEL 1 DJ Setup]( URL_3 ) * [Roger Sanchez on: DJing, Creativity & Ableton Live]( URL_1 ) * [Laidback Luke - Seminar 'Real DJ-ing' @ Dancefair, The Netherlands \\(2015\\)]( URL_2 ) *(Not really a fan of his music, but the dude is one of the most genuine and professional in the industry and really goes out there to teach people how to treat DJ'ing as work and a craft and not just something you jump into)*",
"Many do just \"press play\" for reasons stated in other comments, but compare it to the movies. They release movies in a movie theatre at first that you have to go pay and see \"live\". It's a good time with a great video/audio viewing experience. Yet after a few weeks or months, they release to digital copies you can buy at home. Live electronic sets are the same way. You go experience them live because they are new music mixes that nobody has ever heard, and could potentially be awesome. Then, they are (sometimes) released on popular music streaming sites.",
"There's some decent answers here already. I think it boils down to a couple of different approaches. The most obvious is \"just press play\" and jump around acting like you're doing something. This isn't strictly done for reasons of laziness. The reality is that audiences have been demanding crazier and crazier visuals to go along with their music year after year for awhile now (we are becoming a more image based society, and lights look good on social media). It's very difficult to create a complicated light show to music that isn't pre planned. So to everyone ripping on \"just press play\" type acts, I agree with you but these artists are giving the people what they want for the most part. Another classic approach is to combine lots of pre recorded sound in interesting ways, layering songs over each other and creating exciting transitions. With the help of equalizers and filters you can sort of play just a part of one song (low, mid, high). If you do this at a small enough scale with enough material I think you have effectively created something \"new\" or at least new enough. This approach was a lot more impressive when people did it with turntables that naturally fall out of sync as it was much harder. DJ's probably have access to unreleased and obscure music that most of us don't so that can add interest as well, although this approach has waned with the rise of the internet.",
"Producer / DJ and performer here. The top answer is pretty spot on. There are many ways in which a DJ can perform a 'set'. There's the straight forward pre-recorded set which does happen with some of the big names in house music and such (David Guetta). This is pretty much as you say. Fire and forget but there would still have been many hours of preparation but it's just not done live. Some DJ's (more traditionally) mix songs together whilst cutting off specific frequencies at the right time so sounds don't clash, also the beat needs to match which can be done with sync (again some use sync and some don't ). Using sync makes beat matching a lot easier but also lends a lot of time for creativity for DJ's. Not using sync and actually beat matching yourself can take a lot of focus and time so the mixes might be more straight forward and predictable / linear but very smooth. The DJ who is using sync can forget about that and use his time to add vocal shouts / added samples from a button activated sample bank, do live record scratching, layer up a beat on top using a beat maker similar to an MPC, perform live vocals etc. Some DJ's don't know what they will be playing before they start and some DJ's will know exactly what part of a tune will be playing at 32 minutes into the set and what vocal samples they need to queue up or scratch at that precise time. It's really all down to the style of the DJ and how they prepare for a set. Personally I will arrange an hour of music with chord progressions between songs and musical keys that compliment each other and once I'm happy with the compilation I will then start making edits of certain tracks and extract parts of audio, e.g a horn loop and resample it so that you can queue it live over the next song, effectively creating a live instrument that can be played on a keyboard which also responds to pitch, so I could even create a new melody with the same guitar sample whilst playing live. The same is done with vocals, edit the familiar phrase from the last song into 4 or 5 samples, assign them to a beat machine and then when I've finished mixing into the next song I will grab my beat machine, select the vocal samples and then replay them live with the best machine and create new phrases with the syllables I have sampled. It really depends on the effort the DJ wants to put in. So if you get the chance to see a DJ perform, if they look incredibly busy then they have probably put it tonnes of effort and are performing live for you. If they are standing still like David Guetta then the effort was done at home. If they just look like they're having a great time but have been asked a really difficult question then they are picking songs as they go :P I hope that helps.",
"Um....they hit the play button. That's why DJs are universally hated by musicians. Wave your arms twiddle some knobs. Eat some Ecstacy. Maybe mix in a new song (which is the easiest thing in the world since there are algorythms that calculate BPM and really thats the only thibg you need to match...that is what MIDI was designed for). Its a racket.",
"My live sound teacher worked a festival at which Steve Aoki was headlining. Aoki was paid somewhere in the ballpark of $200k for the gig. While my teacher was setting up the LED dome he would be DJing in, he realized none of the decks were actually hooked up properly, but iTunes was open to a track called \"ULTRA 2015 set\" (Ultra being the name of the festival). Fun fact: Steve Aoki's father founded Benihana, the famous hibachi restaurant.",
"I saw Infected Mushroom a few years ago and was lucky enough that it was one of their Live Band shows. They sung the vocals live, the beat was played by a drummer on an electric kit, all the synth stuff was played and managed by a keyboardist, they had a guitarist. Obviously not all electronic music can be done this way and they seemingly built their music around this, but you would never know listening to their stuff that it could be played live like that. It was awesome.",
"Here's a pretty well known short video where Madeon, a very populer producer now, combines 39 songs all into a single 3 minute performance. This might help you visualize it URL_0",
"Guetta does just press the play button. Plenty of videos online showing him faking it live and just playing a pre made show off a memory stick while he pretends to do stuff with his decks. Loads of people do it, and personally it disgusts me that they're effectively cheating people out of their money. Same for any bands who's singer uses track rather than actually singing.",
"Okay, let me clarify all the bullshit here: most main stream DJs (e.g., most people at main stage festivals, or anyone who DJs edm \"top 40\", the Chainsmokers, Steve Aoki, etc) pre-record their mixes, then pretend to play them live. Yes, it's true. When you're a mainstage DJ, you're getting paid tens of thousands for a one hour set: wayyy too much to afford the risk of mixing live and possibly messing up. Good DJs (like deadmau5, Eric Prydz, almost all trance DJs, etc) actually play live though. If you don't believe me, there's a glorious clip on YouTube of Steve Aoki getting a concussion while doing stupid trampoline antics during his set, and his songs are transitioning on and off while he's being carried off on a stretcher... Or another one of David Guetta *absolutely* tripping balls (dude was seriously on a different plane of existence) while somehow playing a flawless set. There's another video of that. Shameful pre-recorded sets. Source: I've seen literally hundreds of DJs preform.",
"I was a DJ in the 90s / 00s, during the EDM vinyl period, CD turntables came out during that period, but were only so-so. Traktor & the vinyl-backed software DJing came out right at the end (mid-00s, IIRC?) The \"live performance\" value proposition for a DJ is predominantly in song selection (reading the crowd and adapting to what they're enjoying) as well as technical skill of beatmatching (making sure both songs are playing at the same tempo, in phase) & mixing/blending (if the audience can't easily tell when one song ends and the next begins, you're doing it right!). A good DJ plays songs the crowd likes and wants to dance to and is able to keep the energy (read: \"Desire to continue dancing and having fun\") going. I want to be clear that I do not consider \"DJs\" to be \"musicians\" (Turntablism being an exception), though I also don't think it's \"talentless\" -- it's tricky to do it right and it takes a lot of practice to do it well. The fetishism over DJs (cf. any Tiesto \"performance\") with them being on a massively lit center-stage with everyone watching them, just BOGGLES me. They're literally doing nothing other than playing other people's music (or pre-recordings of their own music) and there's really NOTHING interesting happening up on stage that you'd be able to see from the ground. It seems like our interaction pattern of \"seeing a music performance requires staring at the performer(s) on the stage\" has been exapted into DJ appearances, supplanting the pattern of \"listen to music, dance, and enjoy the visuals of flashing colored lights\". (There are also \"Live PA\" [\"Performance Artists\"] that bring their racks of gear and produce / perform the songs live via synths & sequencers, but those aren't strictly \"DJs\" -- I saw DJ Spooky in Indianapolis years ago and it was pretty incredible to watch him play a bunch of Instruments. I've heard BT was like that too.) I've been out of the game a long time, but it seems like modern DJs are almost all software-based, and not using Traktor or similar (ie. all mixing, if it happens at all, happens within the music app). The events I've gone to (mainly bar/nightclub) where there has been a \"DJ\" I only hear actual beatmatching about 1/4 of the time anymore, and most of them don't even bother mixing (either hardcut or playing songs end-to-end with talking in between) I've not seen people just playing a playlist (ie. \"hit play and stare at crowd, flailing arms\") but I could see that happening. If that's the case, the audience loses the value of the DJ reading the crowd and adapting to what the crowd likes, as well as keeping the music nonstop.",
"Oh you done done it now. DJs hate this question more and more because one jerk after another has tried to steal their job and wear their title because they have an iPod or cellphone and a playlist they made. Sorry, that ain't it. History time. DJs were originally just people who spun records for clubs and the radio. Their job was to make a set and gather a good collection of vinyls and maintain an energy for people to dance, party, or whatever the scene demanded. Eventually, hip hop became a thing and folks wanted to rap or sing over a beat. So, a new breed of DJ was born. These ones found drum breaks and instrumentals in vinyls and learned to loop them on two tables with the same record. Mastering the timing, they were able to keep a beat going as long as an MC needed to rhyme. It also let them really find the best parts of a song for parties. I like to think of it as music extract. None of the fluff and all the attitude. These guys also invented another dj technique, the scratch. They could work that cool, stylish sound into their breaks and samples. It became a mainstay for hip hop and, when the first hip hop albums got produced, it became a main function of the DJ. Obviously it would have cost a ton to license a song to loop and scratch for a whole new song. Now, people get away with it for various reasons today but back then it made more sense to hire a band than pay for the rights. So, hip hop DJs became a thing for live shows mostly. Eventually this changed, especially when DJs started producing with keyboards and mpcs and bands became less used for hip hop. Now they could be on an album and at a live show. Okay, here's where things get modern and funky... As DJs also became producers, hip hop took off big time. This meant you had a million different styles from LL to Wu Tang to EPMD to Tupac. This meant that the DJ role was going to change a lot too. Now, they were producers, really, or sometimes specialists in scratching samples from recordings. Today, you might hear a hip hop or rap DJ looping a beat, cueing up new songs, scratching a break, or freaking the digital end of things for crazy effects. All of it works the crowd. In the same way, genres like techno have grown from the manipulation of pre-recorded sounds. Whether they do that with turntables, mpcs, keyboards, or a computer program, they do the same basic thing. They use an arsenal of sounds, effects, and live elements all in one song, then for a whole set upwards of a few hours long. A good DJ has a ton of gear, a massive collection of sounds to play like digital instruments, and a very very carefully practiced composition. They get so good and so familiar that they can and do improvise with these elements so as to create music live for an audience. No play button DJ will ever bring down the house like a legit one will. They will throw a lame party full of odd gaps between songs that kill the energy. They will have no sense of the energy in a room. They are so transparently terrible that they won't get invited back. All their friends will talk smack behind their backs. Their s/o will leave them. They will end up on Youtube in an embarrassing video of them failing with awful graphics and captions made by a twelve year old. It's always tragic.",
"when I go see a DJ live it's not really to watch their performance, as much as it is to go to a huge party and dance with hundreds of people.",
"Disclosure actually pulls out guitars, drums , and piano keys and mixes live. Def raised the bar in what I want to see my DJs do in a live performance.",
"Only the really popular DJs press play because the mainstream audience doesn't know any better. Usually a DJ will do a live mix. It's different to mainstream genres and artists because usually you don't just go to see a DJ based on their production alone. Some people might but their performance is ultimately their ability to mix, track selection and getting the crowd moving. Some artists use MPCs like the Akai and the Maschine. They have pads on that you can assign sounds and samples to, so you can finger drum a live performance. Also beat juggling goes back to the vinyl turntable days, usually hip-hop. This is what you see at the DMC championships. The DJ spins the same record on both turntables, one slightly ahead of the other. Using specific parts of the track they create their own little break down. May come back and post some examples when I'm not on my phone.",
"The legitimacy or \"worth\" of a performance has nothing to do with what's happening on stage, it's all about how the audience or crowd reacts to what you're doing. It doesn't matter if you're a one man band playing five different instruments at once, if the audience isn't entertained and thinks you're doing a shit job, your performance is worthless. There are millions of amateur and semi-professional musicians that are very technically proficient, but either don't have the songwriting chops or don't know how to appropriately read a crowd, and they spend their entire careers playing bars and weddings. As others have pointed out in this thread, there are varying degrees of \"performance\" or \"effort\" happening on stage during an electronic music performance, but the end result is unrelated to the amount of physical effort or proficiency the DJ is displaying on stage - either the crowd is entertained or they aren't. Those that just \"hit play\" are taking a risk, because if their pre-programmed set doesn't light up the crowd, they're dead in the water. Good DJing is just as much about reading and reacting to the crowd as it is mixing songs. Here's another way to look at it: if you're a DJ who's super famous, with a cult of personality, fist pumping the crowd may be all you have to do to give your fans an entertaining show, and you've done your job and earned your paycheck. The guitar virtuoso who's attracted a crowd in the tens at a bar down the street can be as envious as he wants, the music fans have voted with their feet and their wallets. EDIT: typos, etc.",
"While there is some obvious talent required, it's certainly not the same as actually performing with an instrument. It's 'real', but it's really not. They're overrated and really not talented.",
"Nothing beats that legendary time when Aphex Twin did a show in Philly where he literally walked out on stage, sat down on a couch there, and pressed play on a CD on his tunes.",
"Don't make the mistake of turning on your tv and seeing Guetta and his ilk throwing up heart signs and pandering while doing nothing, and think that's what an entire industry does. You'd be wrong...",
"Getting a group of strangers to tacitly agree to dance and have a good time in stead of standing around is harder then you might URL_0 might be easy to play one song people like but try chaining 3 or 4 or 10 of them seamlessly together. Just because it looks easy doesn't mean it is easy 😂",
"I'll try to make up an example: You're playing Darude \"Sandstorm.\" When it kicks in, you mix in the instrumental from Katy Perry's \"Dark Horse\" over top of it. Meanwhile you have the acapella of \"Dark Horse\" cued up to the \"There's no going back\" sample. So while you're cutting between the two songs, you might be tapping the cue button so the sample is stuttered over that like *th th there's no th th th th th there* etc. Also, you can have individual elements of a song loaded as separate sounds that you're activating and deactivating to make a live remix.",
"A conductor/DJ's job is coordinating a performance and changing the atmosphere at a venue. At a large venue, this is done by a team helping out with the lights, pyrotechnics, speakers/amplifiers, and other control systems. Specifically DJs have to hone some skills like timing, pre-fade listening, reading the audience (especially if things go sideways), marketing (bringing in a crowd), and back in the day, turntablism. It's not a job everyone would be succesful at. In fact, a lot of low-key DJs are starving musicians and whether its at a house party or concert hall, they want to stand out and share their interpretation of the pre-recorded music through their set (of songs chosen). Music is like energy, it has changed into what we hear, and is still changing every minute. The shift from analog hardware to digital creation and recording was made possible by an interface with which sound can be manipulated, and anywhere people are pioneering new and interesting ways to express music, there is innovation. That to me is the purpose of a live performance... I want it to blow my mind."
],
"score": [
10108,
396,
318,
95,
47,
40,
31,
26,
20,
12,
11,
9,
9,
8,
8,
8,
7,
7,
7,
7,
7,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/deadmau5-clarifies-press-play-comments-about-fellow-djs-20120625",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE25XQpFW7M",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMRIOOABBg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6M_rpDOCk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/ZymzS8ntxZ0"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgHaP3BY-E0",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cd8DJnLdOQ&index=24&list=PLsf0oqzlpO9LvfucpFICmamwnyXFq7jNL&t=84s"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/hE722WuiMwU",
"https://youtu.be/ebLftV5Eclc",
"https://youtu.be/sQ86-ON5LBg",
"https://youtu.be/aan_g8G2k3s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lTx3G6h2xyA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"think.It"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6caba6 | why aren't oil dipsticks white | All oil dipsticks I've ever seen are black plastic or dark metal. Why not make an white to contrast against the black oil? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dht3yuh"
],
"text": [
"Because it's in the engine compartment, it's going to get covered in oil and grime. So they are either black or orange or yellow. Also you read them on the stick, not the cap, and the stick is metal because it goes into the engine and gets very hot. A plastic colored stick wouldn't stand up to the conditions."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6caoux | It is recommended to use random words over random characters so it will be easier to remember and still difficult to hack into. But can't hackers implement a keyboard-like autocorrect in their bruteforce script to guess words after some letters ? | Thanks everyone, I think I get it now. Sorry if I've been stubborn, it messed with my head for quite some time already. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dht77bm"
],
"text": [
"You can think of every word as its own unit, just like a character is a unit. The crux of using words instead of letters is that the number of different words available utterly dwarfs the amount of letters. If the password is two units long, if the units are just alphanumeric letters it takes less than 4000 attempts to try all combinations. However, if you use a random very common English words (quick google suggests that 5000 is a reasonable estimate) that number skyrockets to 25 _million_. With three units the amounts are 200k and 100 _billion_, respectively. Bots which comb through dictionaries to try different word combinations are common, but they can't overcome the basic fact that the amount of different combinations to go through becomes unimaginably large very quickly."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6cb7z4 | Why do most Americans not use a kettle while the rest of the world does? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhtcp94",
"dhtba2o",
"dhtdcwv",
"dhtcrq9",
"dhtbeml",
"dhtfeat",
"dhtc9ec",
"dhtsgy3",
"dhtxs98"
],
"text": [
"Simple ELI5 answer - Tea isn't as popular over here as coffee. You might find a coffee pot in as many American houses as kettles in British ones. As for electric kettles - Most homes in the US operate on 100-127 volts, whereas the UK and many other countries use between 220 and 240 volts. The lower voltage in the US means that electric kettles would not heat water as quickly as they do in the UK. As a result, they haven't caught on in the US. As /u/themaxviwe pointed out. I'm giving this example for further explanation To raise the temperature of one litre of water from 15°C to boiling at 100°C requires a little bit over 355 kilojoules of energy. An “average” kettle in the UK runs at about 2800 W and in the US at about 1500 W; if we assume that both kettles are 100% efficient† than a UK kettle supplying 2800 joules per second will take 127 seconds to boil and a US kettle supplying 1500 J/s will take 237 seconds, more than a minute and a half longer.",
"By and large, Americans don't drink a whole lot of tea. We tend to prefer other drinks, like coffee or soda. For occasional tea drinkers, microwaving a mug of water or boiling it in a saucepan suffices. That being said, those of us that do drink tea regularly enough will use a kettle. I have an electric one, myself, but a lot of people have a regular one shoved in a drawer somewhere even if they don't use it very often.",
"######**Sweet Southern Tea** * Bring 1qt water to boil in a 1.5qt pot * Remove from burner * Add 2 family sized tea bags and steep 15 minutes * Remove tea bags and add .5 cup of sugar; stir until sugar is dissolved * Pour in a 2 qt pitcher and fill will cold water * Refrigerate and serve with ice Why would I clutter up my kitchen with a kettle when I don't need it?",
"American here. I have an Irish friend. We hung out a lot. He always used an electric kettle and there was a very real process to making Tea. I came to feel like it was the right way to do it. I still do it a decade after we used to hang out daily. Microwaved water tastes different. Drip coffee is just burnt no matter how it's done. A stovetop pot is just going to howl too long. Kettle and chemex is the only civilized way to brew.",
"Real reason is our electricity runs on 110. Kettles take longer than the microwave here. It makes me sad.",
"Am from California. Use kettle on a regular basis. It's good for tea, but also heating up sealed packages, like the orange sauce from the Trader Joe's crack chicken.",
"The US uses 110-volt electricity for most small appliances, and most of the rest of the world uses 220. We don't use electric kettles because it takes too long and we're impatient.",
"1) Hot tea is less popular in the US. So there is less of a reason to have a kettle. Instead we all have a coffee pot, something I see many British people do not have, or they have a tiny one. But proper stove top kettles are common in the US at least as a part of a wedding kitchen package. 2) Electric Kettles are not as efficient here as they are in the UK because we have roughly half the voltage in our home power grid. So the Kettles cannot get to temp as quickly. This means that for those that do like to have a single cup of hot tea it is faster to heat the water in the microwave (only heathens put the tea bag in the microwave). 3) We american do however drink a lot of iced tea (sweet if you are in the south). But the volume of what is consumes is so high if you consume it that a kettle is not enough to make the tea. So instead you use a pot to boil the water and steep the tea to handle the volume.",
"Must be limited to America. In Canada everyone kettles. Tea sure but coffee in various French press or Aero press setups, hot chocolate, for the hot water bottle, yep pretty sure Canada is a kettle country."
],
"score": [
98,
55,
19,
15,
8,
7,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6cbrhu | How card chips are safer than mag stripes if you can just swipe your card anyways | My chip hasnt worked in months and I just swipe. Normally the machine takes 1-3 chip failures and says "try using mag stripe" so if it lets you use the stripe, then what is the point of the chip? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhtg01i",
"dhtg7vi",
"dhtfshf",
"dhtiv0o"
],
"text": [
"This is either a fault of the system in your home country, accepting swipes for chip cards when they shouldn't, or is a deliberate use of both during a transition period - the stripe only exists as a backup during the time your country is moving to chip & pin. After a certain date, the mag stripe should no longer be accepted. Temporarily, stores may choose to accept either type of card, and cards must have both, until both become completely widespread. In many countries the stripe is no longer accepted at all, including my own, and we only have the stripe for when we go abroad to countries that don't use chip cards yet. Yours should follow soon, at which point it's much more secure. Note also that in most countries, the bank carries more liability for swiped transactions, whereas for chip cards more of the burden of proof falls on the customer: so if someone clones your card and swipes it, you still shouldn't be liable",
"The dual system is meant to be temporary. Also, even if it allows mag stripe after 3 time that's already a security improvement. Remember the cashier probably does 100s of transactions a day. So if someone's card fails 3 times then he/she is likely to pay at least a little bit more attention & be on the look out.",
"If someone copies your mag stripe and they try to just swipe....the cashier gets an alert that says......chip detected.....insert chip. If there is no chip the cashier should know its a fake card and not accept it **assuming at this point 97% of hackers dont have the capability to make cards with fake chips......but alot of them have the ability to copy the stripe and make a duplicate card without a chip",
"The stripe is simply a magnetically encoded password. So if you swipe, I can place a device between the reader and the destination, copy your password and then proceed to use it myself. I can even get a blank card and encode it with that passcode to get an exact copy of your credit card. On the other hand, the chip uses a two-way transaction public key encryption method. As a result, intermediary devices cannot intercept the password. While there are still ways to defeat this, it's much harder."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6cbvxm | How can oil with the same viscosity be better for old cars? | Some oils advertise being better for older cars. How does it work? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhthd3q"
],
"text": [
"They contain seal swelling agents such as esters, pthalates or sufloanes. These are absorbed into plastic/rubber seals, and cause them to swell up. This reduces the oil leaking through worn seals."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6cd6ub | Why can you charge Nintendo Switch using a laptop but if you connect it to a MacBook you actually charge the MacBook instead of the console? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhtq7bo"
],
"text": [
"USB-C negotiates bi-directional power control and communication on a per device basis. If the MacBook USB-C controller determines that the Switch is a valid recipient for power, it will reverse the power direction and provide output power from the charging port. This was intentionally part of the design to lead to greater flexibility for systems."
],
"score": [
38
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6cdysm | How can some older video games run smoothly on PCs while some other old games cannot? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhtz61a",
"dhtwwvv"
],
"text": [
"without an example it's hard to answer as your question could have many answers depending on what you specifically have in mind. For instance a really old computer game may not be able to run properly because of differences in hardware and the OSs... i.e. a 16 bit DOS game from the 90s would not run on today's PCs (without an emulator like DOSBox) because they are 32 bit or 64bit and can't properly run 16 bit code natively. Another issue that is sometimes a problem is when the game is made for the hardware that was common at the time but not written with any kind of limits so when put on significantly better hardware it runs so fast it either gets errors or plays so fast it's impossible to play. Then there are different competing standards like OpenGL and Direct3D... a game may be made to make use of one but maybe your hardware is optimized for the other so can't run the game efficiently (or at all).",
"I can think of a couple of easy reasons: * The game relies heavily on hardware that hasn't actually gotten much better since release. If a game was built on technologies that assumed your computer would have a single processor, all of the multi-core processors and fancy video cards in the world won't change much if your single processor cores aren't fast enough. * You're actually emulating the original hardware or software. Maybe you're trying to play a Gamecube game. The emulator makes your computer do a *ton* of extra heavy lifting to pretend it's a console, even if that console wasn't very strong. By way of analogy, the open desert is a simple scene, but if you wanted to build the illusion that someone on the streets of New York had taken a wrong turn and ended up walking across the Mojave Desert, you'd have to pull off one hell of an art installation. Your computer has to sell that illusion close to perfectly, and hope the game it's running doesn't notice any flaws."
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6cf7nj | How do cameras take videos at 3000-4000 frames per second, while still having a shutter speed of 1/100? | Hi. So I just saw this gif on the front page: URL_0 . (It's the ladybug unfolding its wings) I've dabbled in some amateur videography and generally I've been told to maintain my shutter speed at 1/30 so that it lines up somewhat close to the standard frame rate of 24 fps. But how does a camera take these things? How can you get 3000 frames in a seconds when the shutter speed is set to only 1/100th of a second? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhu7leg"
],
"text": [
"That's not the shutter speed, it's the effective speed of the video. Since it was recorded at 3000fps and played back at 30fps, we're seeing events at 1/100 of the original speed."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6cfbh3 | How were movies edited, processed and beautified with effects and text before computers were common? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhu7v8w",
"dhu98zm"
],
"text": [
"Movies were edited by physically cutting and arranging film with blades and adhesive tape. The amount of \"processing\" and effects were very limited, but might include frame by frame airbrushing or practical effects. Text would be added by painting the words on a clear overlay on the film. The composite image would then be photographed to form the final product.",
"You might like [this video]( URL_0 ) (a little old, it's from 1984) that showed how [this]( URL_1 ) very famous HBO intro from the 80s was put together. TONS of models, miniatures, and carpentry."
],
"score": [
10,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agS6ZXBrcng",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1NKoMNy5bY&t=4s"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6cfi0u | Why can't we program AI/deep learning machines to tell us how they're identifying patterns? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhu9ajg"
],
"text": [
"We can absolutely take a look at the neural networks AIs use to fo their thing and try and analyse them. The problem is that complicated neural networks have thousands of nodes with millions of connections. And, since they are trained rather than designed, they don't follow any design patterns that a human might recognize. They are like a giant bowl of spaghetti and you are trying to figure out what happens when you pull on one."
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ck5cv | I Know it is cheaper to build your own desktop rather than buying one prebuilt, does this apply to laptops too? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhv8tta",
"dhv938g",
"dhv95bv"
],
"text": [
"In my experience, there is no way to build a laptop from scratch. About the only changes you can make is to upgrade the RAM. Processor, hard drive, and graphics processor are all built into the machine, and they are not changable. Sorry",
"It can be depending on what you want. A few companies make modular laptop parts where you can build from scratch, but they tend to be higher priced for higher end laptops (like a workstation).",
"You can't really build your own laptop. Desktops are far more modular, mostly because there are no limitations on space or power consumption (and as a result of those, more flexibility on heat management). You can mix and match the parts you want and it's easy to put them together. You don't have to pay for the labor of putting your PC together, and you can find good deals on parts if you're willing to be patient and look for them. You don't have to buy all your parts from the same manufacturer, either, since you can get an ASUS motherboard, NVIDIA graphics card, Kingston RAM, and a Western Digital HDD, etc. Flip side: no one is making sure all of the parts function well together, and no one is making sure you install them correctly. Laptops are built with a *lot* of limitations and most of the time have custom parts built to fit within the form factor of the case. A **few** laptops have things like full-sized desktop-style graphics cards, but those are custom built *around* the graphics card, and the card is still modified to fit, usually with a custom cooling solution. There are a *few* modular parts that more or less fit any laptop, but that's limited to HDDs/SSDs, RAM, and *sometimes* an expandable bay slot for an optical disk drive or swappable HDD/SSD. **That said**: there are plenty of manufacturers that allow you to \"custom build\" a laptop by giving you a plethora of options to choose from and build the laptop to those specifications: X GBs of RAM, X sized HDD or SSD, etc. You can absolutely save money by going for the smaller, cheaper drives and RAM and forgoing extraneous options like optical drives, but you will be paying slightly more for getting the choice. Pre-fab laptops with no real options are generally cheaper because the manufacturer can crank them out without having to worry about which models they're making; and also because usually those companies are making low-end workstation-type laptops (like your average Dell or Inspiron)."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6cmt8c | Whats the difference in the manufacturing process of 30$ and 300$ headphones | They both are headphones, they both make sound. why the price difference? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhvu1aj",
"dhvv0wq"
],
"text": [
"Assuming we are talking cost to make rather than cost to buy as /u/GotPerl points out - there's all sorts of stuff that can be different. Quality of the magnet and coil in the cones is probably most important. That's what gives them their frequency response range - the range of sounds that the thing can actually produce. 20Hz-20kHz is generally accepted as human hearing, so something that does 18-22kHz will more than cover you. The other aspect is how the headphones change the sound. Ideally you want headphones that play exactly what is put into them. Cheaper ones can have a bias towards certain frequencies. Then there's the quality of the construction. For example solid core wires are cheaper than stranded core, but if you flex the wire eventually there will be breaks. Stranded core can cope with this solid core can't. Quality of the padding and plastic used for the housing can be different too. Some headphones leave your ears a sweaty mess. Alternatively, you take a cheap ass pair of headphones and replace the plastic with solid gold. Suddenly they cost way more, weigh a ton and you don't really get any benefit. For any given pair of headphones it could be any combination of reasons for a price difference to the consumer.",
"What you're paying for is the quality of the design, the quality of materials that would make the headphones more rugged and less likely to break under stress, the testing to make sure the headphones perform as designed, and the speed and efficiency of the manufacturing process (mass produced = less cost). For a quality comparison, look at the difference between a pair of Grado [eGrado headphones]( URL_2 ) and a pair of Grado's handmade [Heritage Series GH2 headphones]( URL_1 ). From the design you can tell that one is made to be lightweight & portable, while the other is made of high quality materials like exotic rainforest wood designed to give the headphones a more warmer tonal quality. The lower end headphone drivers are matched a 1db while the GH2s are matched at .5 db, so this shows more work was done to [ensure the drivers match,]( URL_3 ) so at higher volumes the headphones deliver a more balanced sound. While the [frequency response]( URL_0 ) of the low-end headphones is standard 20-20k Hz, the GH2s show to perform at a lower bass frequency and a higher treble frequency (14-28K Hz), which is debatable as to whether you can actually hear frequencies in those ranges. So are the $650 headphones \"better\" than the $50 ones? In terms of materials used in construction,design & durability, yes. More testing done to ensure a quality product out of the box seems evident, one is far more stylish while the other is more functional... overall they're going to perform about the same for the average listener."
],
"score": [
15,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.turntablelab.com/pages/headphone-buying-guide-frequency-response-for-headphones",
"http://www.4ourears.net/gh2_p/4e-gh2.htm",
"http://www.4ourears.net/egrado_p/4e-egrado.htm?fromgrado=yes",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/3epnci/what_are_the_symptoms_of_mismatched_drivers/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6cnlpb | Why do we still need to bring our license and registration to drive? Considering it's 2017 and we have enough technology to have all this information in the cloud / in our phones and match with the cops information. | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhvyc5c",
"dhwj1a3",
"dhwd9p6",
"dhw2dc6",
"dhwd21e",
"dhw5r81",
"dhwhprw",
"dhwb6hv",
"dhwh6es",
"dhweyd0",
"dhwqydj",
"dhvzjvg",
"dhwj6qz",
"dhwcylv",
"dhvyfct",
"dhwr3ew",
"dhwj0ic",
"dhvyrbt",
"dhwfvsn",
"dhw1igy",
"dhwlins",
"dhwxki6",
"dhwga9k",
"dhwhpub",
"dhwz30u",
"dhwkmj4",
"dhwk2fx",
"dhwy3pv",
"dhwgol6",
"dhx11xl",
"dhwjafj",
"dhwg80n",
"dhx3yow",
"dhwisgs"
],
"text": [
"The thing about government is that it has to be slow to adopt these technologies to function well as they have to be able to server literally everyone, not just most. There are plenty of people that don't have smart phones but still drive, or don't have internet and drive. We know the current license and registration system works, why change it? Additionally something like a driver's license has to be somewhat immune to fakes, I'm not sure there's a good solution that would work on a phone. Additionally many people would have reservations about giving their phones to police, notice the uproar over customs agents asking for people to unlock their phones so they can poke around?",
"Actual cop here when I ask for license and registration ti'm really asking for each for a different purpose. I ask for your license because a lot of times the driver isn't the registered owner of the car. Sure I can look it up by name/dob, but the card lets me compare faces right there. You can give me someone's name/dob that looks super similar to you, and get away with it. Most fake IDs are easy as hell to spot. Once I get someone's license I don't even bother to look at the dates on it, I just run their license number through NCIC to make sure it is valid. I ask for registration for the sole purpose of showing people their shit is actually expired. I know it is expired because I already ran it before I pulled you, but 99% of the time I'll get a \"it can't be expired\" or \"there is no way it has been expired that long\". If they've already dug out the registration is can literally point to it and end that line of argument. Another good thing about asking for documents is that it is great for getting people who are drunk/high. Most can get their IDs just fine, but I've yet to see a drunk get their registration right on the first try.",
"I never realised it was law to carry your license & registration in the U.S. Here in the UK if you get pulled over & asked for your licence, if you don't have it you get something like a week to drop by your local station to produce it. Also the records of registered keepers of all vehicles are stored on a database so you don't need to show that at all.",
"1) Not everyone has a phone and they cannot legally require you to purchase one. 2) Even if you have a phone they cannot legally require you to have an app or connect your data to it. 3) There are large stretches of the country without cell service. This would render your system useless in those areas. 4) Many would not be willing to hand their phone over to a police officer. The potential for data being stolen is too high. You also have to hand it over when purchasing alcohol, going to bars, going to R rated movies, etc. There is just too much risk to have ID being digital. 5) Having it be digital means it is more vulnerable to attack, and corruption.",
"Technology isn't perfect, and databases aren't always up to date. I was once pulled over by a cop. He told me that he ran my plates, and I was flagged as having an expired registration. When he came up to my car he saw my registration sticker on the windshield, saw that it was current and correct, explained the mix up, and then let me leave. With that said, I've pulled up my insurance on my phone and cops have taken it. I just have to hope my phone is always charged when I'm pulled over.",
"I see a lot of really wrong answers her, the real reason is money. I was a patrolman back in the early nineties and all license and registration info was available through dispatch. We know before we ever approached the driver whether or not your registration is up and who owns the vehicle. Your failure to bring an extremely thin piece of paper with you everywhere you drive results in a ticket and court fees. In some places it also leads to impoundment and applicable fees. I could go on and on but I hate making comments using my phone.",
"In the US if you don't have your drivers license on you, a police officer can indeed just run your name and birthday and find out if your valid. Although you will get a citation for not having it if you and/or the officer are jerks at the encounter. It's just easier if you have it and they can just take it and scan it. Also, I'm not sure if their computers can pull your picture to verify you're not giving them someone else's name and DOB. Many rural areas probably still do radio dispatching. Also, in the US there's no requirement to carry a passport or national ID card, so a driver's license is a de-facto ID card for drinking, cashing a check, renting a hotel room, whatever (If you don't drive you can get a non-drivers-license state ID card). Generally children don't have a need to carry an ID until they're old enough to drive. And believe it or not, everyone does not have a smartphone. My mother and sister do not, just \"old fashioned\" flip phones.",
"Love how everyone is downplaying the biggest reason - at this point phone app technology is still nowhere near as secure as piece of laminated plastic with a hologram watermark & magnetic strip on it. Not to mention it would make it so very likely that someone would hack that data base to steal the personal information for one of the biggest credit fraud schemes in history...",
"As a prior cop really... Honestly if you didn't have your license but k ew your SSN that was okay. Or if the car was registered to you I could just run the plates and then get your drivers customer number off that. Having a license makes it easier since all your info is right there on a little card. Really as long as you were licensed I didn't give a shit if you had it or not. I can pull the DMV picture up to ensure its you regardless...unless it's down which it does go down from time to time.",
"It shouldn't be in our phones, it should be in their phones. You tell them \"I'm gsasquatch born on 5/22/17\" and they punch that into their device, get your picture to verify, and it's as good as having handed them a license. If you're getting pulled over in a car, they probably already have run the plate through SCMODS. They could easily carry all the drivers license data of everyone in the state off line in their car, and download any other state as long as they have connectivity. In areas of no cell signal there aren't many people around nor crime happening.",
"I haven't seen it mentioned yet so I'll add this. You're required to carry your driver's license, registration, and insurance because if you are in an accident, people need to be able to identify who you are whether you're alive or dead. If it's \"in your phone\" then people can't get access to it. If you hit someone with your car then you are required to exchange information and having your phone not work isn't an acceptable excuse to not provide your information.",
"You don't? Least you don't in the UK.",
"I'd rather have a license on a card. Why are you all so eager to have every bit of discoverable personal information out there on the internet?",
"Also, let's not forget how useful driver licenses are for general identification. Good luck trying to buy alcohol without a physical ID.",
"cloud/digital documents and data it's still a very young concept. every officer would have to be trained on verifying the information, local jurisdictions would have to figure out a safe and practical way for an officer to look at the data. if you get pulled over, do you hand your $800 phone to the cop so he can go in his car and do his duties? do you want to hand your phone to a cop? some may not want that. i wouldn't. what if your phone is dead? or has no signal? how will you prove your identity? what if the cloud is down? some states do have an official dmv app which has your license, but each state would have to develop their own system.",
"Driver's licenses need to work in under all conditions: - Places with no connectivity. - After being exposed to rough conditions (underwater, extreme heat/cold). - Be time convenient (imagine the line at an event if everyone had to unlock their phone to show ID). - When the device may be otherwise incapacitated (battery's dead, etc). - When the owner may be otherwise incapacitated (you're dead, etc). It's a source of revenue. If you get stopped without your DL that's an opportunity to charge you a fee. If you lose it, you got it... fee. Finally, it's hard for the government to standardize something like a DL that may be valid for much longer than you would typically hold on to a phone. So, you end up with a little plastic card whose workings are tightly controlled, only requires enough light to be read, and is pretty much indestructible from any event that would not require dental records to make a positive use identification.",
"In Australia we will have digital licences soon. We already have ditched registration stickers on vehicles. Our Police cars have special cameras that can scan multiple lanes of traffic that check the registration of up to 1 million vehicles per hour.",
"In addition to the slowness of governments to adopt and adapt to new technologies, frankly, I don't want to hand my phone over to a cop. That's a good way for them to just happen to find incriminating evidence or a way to never see that phone again.",
"Why the heck would you want to rely on a phone for something that important? technology is incredibly unreliable. your phone could run out of battery, break, lose connection with the internet or simply decide to not co-operate at that moment. Having a physical card is safer, faster and easier.",
"Some states have already done away with it. Officers will still request it just because it's a quick verification step, but they can look everything up by your name on their computers in their squad cars. I know in my state at least you are not required to have your license or registration on you while driving.",
"Just like your phone and wifi at home, sometimes law enforcement technology is not working. Databases go under regular maintenance and are down at times. Sometimes things straight up aren't working statewide (California) and it may take a few days to fix it. It's times like these that hard copies of your documents are needed. Also not having documents prolongs the stop by requiring the officers to search databases to make sure everything matches, i.e. your picture. Traffic stops are dangerous, especially when it comes to passing motorists trying to see what is going on. Every minute faster the stop can be greatly enhances the safety of the officer and driver.",
"In India, the government has launched an app called digilocker which allows you to download your license and registration directly from the government servers. It is considered equivalent to carrying a physical copy. Times sure are changing.",
"URL_0 There are already states that allow you to have your ID on your smartphone. AL and MS are the ones that I can think of. I support the software.",
"If the records were accessible to the police on their computers inside if their cars, I don't see why the driver would need to have a smartphone. That being said, the aforementioned problem of Internet availability still comes into play",
"Having the technology doesn't mean it works. I had an ordeal this year Texas where I was denied renewal of my license due to \"failure to appear\" court charges. The problem was these \"court charges\" magically appeared on my record and were dated 1999. I was born in 1987, so these \"failure to appear\" charges were from when I was 12 years old. Oh and they were in a city I had never been to. Apparently the issue was that Texas reuses suspended drivers license #'s and I got someone else's # when I turned 16. Fast forward 15 years and that person tried to renew at the same time as me causing their criminal record added to my account. I had even called Omnibase who runs the software for Texas DL #'s and they told me that I had warrants for my arrest and that I would have to talk to the police/court. Turns out they were either lying or incompetent. In a separate instance I was almost arrested at my apartment by a warrant officer who mistakenly came after me instead of someone with the same first and last name. I don't really have much faith in these systems.",
"You can use your phone for insurance, which is a cool feature in life, right? OK, now think about this: The cop asks for insurance; you provide insurance via your phone; the cop takes your phone to verify insurance....the cop now has your phone. Now what? What's to stop the cop from trying to access personal information, such as contacts or pictures? When's the last time you were pulled over where you had the *privilege* to walk back to the police vehicle and monitor the cop? > But if they use a hand scanner..... OK, what if the hand scanner isn't working? You think they're going to write down your info or take a photo of your phone? Nope! This is why a physical copy of your insurance is valuable. You hand it to 'em/they do whatever with it/they hand it back. Their squad car *hopefully* captures the motions of it. Digital licenses? Imagine the pain when you're in nowhere, USA trying to buy a beer and \"the database is down\". From discrimination to corruption: this is a HORRIBLE idea. I can easily picture, just like folks still do today, cases where you don't wanna serve someone so you just make up an excuse about \"the database\". \"Hey, the database is down right now for running your license. We'll just need to wait here for a bit....\"",
"Drivers licenses will be digital in Iowa next year. [Des Moines Register]( URL_0 )",
"I think it should be tied to your licence plate. Also, ive read that in some states, you dont actually need to carry the card. Ill try to find a source",
"$$$. All police cars have on board computers that could easily link to Secretary of State databases of vehicle registration. Driver license could be similar if facial recognition tools were more advanced. However, insurance companies have no mandate to share customer data. Only politicians without ties to the insurance industry could pass regulations to share. Of course local police forces would be giving up ticket revenues, so don't wait for change.",
"Dispatch here. If the name isn't given to us exactly as listed, often the return won't show. That leaves you on the side of the road trying to prove you're valid without any documentation that you are if we can't find your return with what's given. Complicating matters even more, a driver's license isn't federal. If I run Michigan here in Georgia, I may not be able to get a return on name & DOB because Michigan requires your number. Not that my example is Michigan-specific, it varies from state to state what the requirements are. As also mentioned already, it's money, money, money. In-car computers require money for installation, purchase, upkeep, individual NCIC/state terminal numbers for each terminal or user, same as access points that are inside dispatch offices, courthouses, law enforcement offices, etc. Each user has to be trained and certified. They have to be paid for training time. Also, same as cell phones and Internet elsewhere doesn't always work, it's the same for car computers and air cards. The considerations from beat officers seems to have been discussed here. Believe me when I say that I think most law enforcement from all levels would enjoy that convenience. We have to have money to make it happen, and taxpayers are usually already mad that their money is misused or misallocated elsewhere, so getting them on board to provide more becomes a political pissing contest. Another mention: if someone in the vehicle is being squirrely, I'd rather run it for my officer so he/she can protect himself/herself by keeping eyes on the vehicle's occupants.",
"Why would you hand your phone to a cop?",
"I just wanted to point out, that [is a thing]( URL_0 ) that is starting to happen.",
"I scrolled halfway through the comments and am shocked no one mentioned this. This will never happen because not having your license/registration etc *generates revenue.* Making you register your car, renew your license is one revenue stream Failing to have those documents when you get pulled over is another (tickets are revenue generating) Spending *million of dollars* to make this easier hits States and municipalities twice because they are literally spending money to lose money. All the privacy comments being posted, while valid, are not the types of things people think about at the local government level. Local governments look to cut costs or raise revenue. Conversion to digital documents for drivers does neither.",
"Well the most obvious reason is to make sure you have a drivers license to begin with. Since it is against the law in all 50 states to operate a vehicle without a license. It is also government form of issued identification. So, when the cop pulls you over and ask for your state ID there is no question as to who you are. By having everything ready in hand, it just moves the process faster. Having to rely on a phone or technical device is not always faithful. You need internet connection to access the cloud. You get pulled over. No 4G around now what? Take a picture and have saved on your phone. But shit happens to phones. People lose them, they break, stolen, hacked into. You may not want photos of your license, and registration out there ready for the public to grab. You may seem an honest and trustworthy person. The person next to you may not be."
],
"score": [
6118,
1230,
608,
270,
144,
104,
98,
63,
51,
33,
29,
22,
17,
16,
13,
13,
11,
10,
9,
7,
7,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.morphotrust.com/eID.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/21/iowa-smartphone-drivers-licenses-expected-launch-2018/332325001/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/21/iowa-smartphone-drivers-licenses-expected-launch-2018/332325001/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6cnvin | What does our (user) data actually look like when it is tracked, collected, analyzed and sold? | I guess this is a multi part question. First kind of things do Google, Facebook, Reddit track and collect? Is it on a per IP address basis, name basis? Next, what does the data that look like when Facebook for example sells it to a third party? What kind of information is is available through Google Analytics? Google doesn't sell its own data right, it just uses it to place ads for others right? And then third parties who do research and analysis of this data, where do they obtain this data from and how do they analyze it and what can this data look like when it gets sold to their clients? And how does one obtain such data freely and/or from these third parties? | Technology | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhw4u1d",
"dhwdtxh",
"dhwfjyx",
"dhwdqfs"
],
"text": [
"Former ad tech guy here. Your data (cookie or otherwise) is stored and parsed into segments (male, twenties, white) which are used by ad campaign managers to appropriately target you based off of needs and wants for each ad campaign. Campaigns have a target sheet which tells each campaign manager (or computer, now) which segments to associate with that campaign. Your data is sold to numerous vendors, and in the case of ads, typically to an RTB backend who can do something with it.",
"It doesn't look very dramatic. The actual data itself is really is mainly a series of numbers strung together. These are various IDs that identify you and the things you're interested in along with other information passed in on URL headers or by data collection code on the page. For example, here's a really long string made to Adobe Analytics (yes, they do a lot more than Photoshop or Illustrator). You can see any of these calls with built in tools in your browser that track all the calls it makes as a page loads. This isn't secret sauce stuff. This shows a call from Autotrader to Adobe Analytics. There's an ID in here that identifies the user, data in passed in as key-value pairs, other data associated with the page load and calls made from the page. URL_0 15:27:47 1 240 & D=D= & mid=13372794621928303901338986866382534793 & aamlh=7 & ce=UTF-8 & pageName=atc_h & g= URL_4 Search: Google & v96=Natural Search: Google & v97=Natural Search: Google & v98=Natural Search: Google & s=1440x900 & c=24 & j=1.6 & v=N & k=Y & bw=1326 & bh=703 & AQE=1 You can monitor these calls from the browser itself. For example, right click on a Chrome page and select Inspect. Reload the page and watch all the network calls. Or, click on Application to see all the cookies that a page loads. You'll see the data is mostly strings of numbers. Google's Doubleclick code does this too. For example, here's an ID value captured from the URL_3 cookie: 22c3c72ab3250030 For most of us, this looks like gibberish. For advertisers, it's how they identify visitors and associate interests to that visitor. There's nothing really that top secret about it. Edit: As a PS, to learn more about these services, just check their documentation. * [Doubleclick]( URL_2 ) * [Adobe Marketing Cloud]( URL_1 )",
"Ugh, none of the large tech companies directly sell user data. On FB and Google you can indirectly use that data to purchase ads: \"I want my ad to be seen by males, aged 30-50, with high discretionary income, in the US\" -- Ad for a nice car",
"How does such data look: There is an example from a database leak from GeekedIn in 2016, Troy Hunt has an [example on his blog]( URL_0 ). This specific data is not from Facebook, but you will get the idea. You can see it is an aggregation of information from different sources. The more reliable sources such a record contains, the more valuable it is, because it allows for more precise marketing."
],
"score": [
36,
9,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://autotrader.d2.sc.omtrdc.net/b/ss/autatcglobal/1/JS-2.0.0-D7QN/s08180495823164?AQB=1&ndh=1&pf=1&t=22/4/2017",
"http://www.adobe.com/marketing-cloud.html",
"https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/en-gb/",
"doubleclick.net",
"http://www.autotrader.com/&r=https://www.google.com/&cc=USD&events=event95,event96,event97,event98&aamb=NRX38WO0n5BH8Th-nqAG_A&h1=::&c2=:homepage&c3=:homepage&c4=:homepage&c5=:homepage&c6=http://www.autotrader.com/&c10=D=v1&c11=atc_h&c21=atc_h&c23=chrome&v35=desktop&v36=atc_h&v95=Natural"
],
[],
[
"https://www.troyhunt.com/8-million-github-profiles-were-leaked-from-geekedins-mongodb-heres-how-to-see-yours/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.