title
stringlengths 3
300
| subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| score
int64 0
47.9k
| link_flair_text
stringlengths 0
63
| is_self
bool 1
class | over_18
bool 2
classes | upvote_ratio
float64 0
1
| post_content
stringlengths 0
29.7k
| C1
dict | C2
dict | C3
dict | C4
dict | C5
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ELI5: Why doesnt the SNP stand in other parts of the uk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
662kyx
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf1ot3",
"comment_text": [
"What reason would someone in, say, SE England have to vote for a Scottish nationalist party?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf1yec",
"comment_text": [
"Ultimately their end game is to leave the UK which makes it a difficult sell to the wider population of the UK. While some people would vote for them they're unlikely to win any seats and certainly not enough to form a majority government. The cost of running campaigns in the other 3 countries to get no gains isn't worth it. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf22n2",
"comment_text": [
"But if a second refurendum is not possible is it not a means to reform within?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf2bx3",
"comment_text": [
"There is no \"within\" if you can't gain a seat. You have to remember that the SNP currently have a quarter of the number of seats of Labour so even if you count the Scottish seats as \"safe\" which isn't all that true you are still a long way away from being an opposition never mind the main party. It's far easier to pressure the UK government from Holyrood. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf2det",
"comment_text": [
"You've gotta start from somewhere though!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Is it possible to lose weight by chewing and then spitting it out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
6624yu
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeyqrz",
"comment_text": [
"You wouldn't be consuming calories, so yes.",
"But please don't. This is eating disorder category stuff.",
"I don't think this is the appropriate sub for this question. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgez8xn",
"comment_text": [
"What about bacon? Would you consume any calories from chewing it but not swallowing not? Not an eating disorder thing, just an idea for bacon gum."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeyt57",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, but if you're not going to digest the food then there's no reason to chew it in the first place. You lose weight by spending more energy than you consume through food, forcing your body to take it from your fat reserves. The process of adding to those reserves comes from the whole digestion process and not the chewing, you chew the food to grind it down and make it easier for your body to process it.",
"If you want to lose weight, eat less, avoid soda and snacks. It's okay to feel hungry now and then."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf0916",
"comment_text": [
"See ",
"u/Marshlord",
" 's response in this thread."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgezuu7",
"comment_text": [
"Do your body a favor and chew some green stuff AND swallow it. The micronutrients present in vegetables will make you feel better, the fiber will keep you full longer, and reduce all cause disease rate by a substantial amount(source, some Dr Rhonda Patrick podcasts)"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How is Settling court cases out of court, by paying someone to drop charges, not considered Bribery?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65zir4
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeebbq",
"comment_text": [
"You are confusing civil cases (lawsuits, which you can settle out of court) with criminal cases (which you cannot).",
"It's fine to settle a lawsuit out of court, because you are just saying \"we two parties no longer need a court's help to decide who pays what, we have worked it out.\" In other words, the person who filed the lawsuit (a voluntary action that no one made them do) just says \"never mind.\""
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeej7k",
"comment_text": [
"You can only settle lawsuits out of court. This is not a criminal charge. The person bringing the lawsuit can drop the suit at any time for any reason. ",
"If you are being prosecuted for criminal charges there is no settling."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgefp7t",
"comment_text": [
"Yes but isnt stealing itself a criminal charge? I guess what I meant is, \"why is it that the stealing is forgiven because the person who was stolen from decided to say it was actually just an agreement made after the fact?\". I understand that the settlement payment is a form of punishment, but what about cases where the settlement is undisclosed and therefore probably a kick in the bucket for the person paying? This also allows the criminal to go free whereas, had the victim of the crime prelosecuted they may have built up a case to press criminal charges and I guess....try to stop crime... but even as I type that I realized thats not what the Judicial system is about its about punishments, big or small, not results. ",
"Damn Im baked. Lol"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgefp7t",
"comment_text": [
"Yes but isnt stealing itself a criminal charge? I guess what I meant is, \"why is it that the stealing is forgiven because the person who was stolen from decided to say it was actually just an agreement made after the fact?\". I understand that the settlement payment is a form of punishment, but what about cases where the settlement is undisclosed and therefore probably a kick in the bucket for the person paying? This also allows the criminal to go free whereas, had the victim of the crime prelosecuted they may have built up a case to press criminal charges and I guess....try to stop crime... but even as I type that I realized thats not what the Judicial system is about its about punishments, big or small, not results. ",
"Damn Im baked. Lol"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgejljb",
"comment_text": [
"Settling a civil case does not mean prosecutors can't bring criminal charges on the same conduct. There may be non-legal considerations, like the victim is less motivated to testify once he's received a settlement, or the public is less likely to support prosecution if they perceive that the perpetrator has already \"paid his due.\" But a settlement does not legally prevent criminal charges.",
"Now, criminal cases can also be settled, by plea bargains. In plea bargains, the accused is accepting some degree of punishment (could be supervised release or paying a fine, not necessarily jail time). Still not bribery because any money paid in fines or restitution would not be going to the prosecutor. It's not paying the prosecutor off to drop charges but rather reaching an arrangement that both sides decide is better than going to trial."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are some foods GMO/Hybrids? What's the point?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
661fct
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeuw15",
"comment_text": [
"Hybrids and GMOs are doing what selective breeding was already doing, but doing it ",
".",
"Adding new, beneficial traits to a plant or animal, such as disease resistance, drought resistance, higher vitamin content, etc. Often a wild relative plant will have better disease resistance so those genes are useful to hybridize in to your crop.. for genes from an unrelated organism you need to science the gene in, making it a GMO. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeuury",
"comment_text": [
"Basically every food we eat has been genetically altered to be more beneficial to us. This isn't just done by scientists in a lab but farmers simply replanting the seeds from their best crops which we have been doing since the dawn of civilization. ",
"It is done for many purposes: to make food faster growing, better tasting, larger, more nutritious, to make the crop more resistant to inclement weather, more hardy against drought and cold, less appealing to insects and pests, resistant to pesticides, and many many more purposes. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgeyaj3",
"comment_text": [
"For one example golden rice ",
"http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-golden-rice-2014-6?r=US&IR=T&IR=T",
" is a form of rice engineered to produce more Vit A with the aim being to introduce it to countries where Vit A deficiency is common."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgf2e0s",
"comment_text": [
"The implementation of certain genes into organisms, especially crops, but increasingly animals, allows the addition of traits that benefit it in some way. They can put genes into crops that make them grow faster, have natural insect defenses, be immune to certain plant diseases, taste better, grow bigger, need less water or nutrients, and many more things. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgfequ9",
"comment_text": [
"These are very different processes but are often used used together.",
"Almost everything we eat is from hybridization. This is a more advanced type of selective breeding. These are used for lots of different reasons, including yields, flavor, appearance, disease resistance. ",
"Genetic engineering, is a more precise form of genetic modification. It is used when it is difficult or impossible to get the desired changes to the plant genome. Most GE plants start with hybrids."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How were tickets for air transit purchased pre 'online' days?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65yj66
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
Randomly thought about it today, was it all done over the phone? Did you have to go out to the airport to buy a ticket for 2-3 months time etc.?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge5xct",
"comment_text": [
"You could order on the phone. Often, people would also walk up to the ticket stand and buy a ticket with cash on the spot. At that time, fewer people travelled by plane, so there wasn't usually a big line in front of the ticket stand.",
"Edit: You could buy a ticket for a plane leaving in an hour."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge6ke9",
"comment_text": [
"Back in the day, when you wanted to go somewhere some people went through a travel agent. You would call them up and ask then to find you the best price, according to how many transfers you were willing to make; whether or not you wanted an early flight, as opposed to a late one, or vice/versa. ",
"If you were a frequent traveler then your agent might have your credit card number. What I would do is go and get a postal money order to pay for my ticket. I could pick up my ticket at any time after I paid for it, but I would normally pick up my ticket just before my flight at the airport. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge75zr",
"comment_text": [
"Travel agents! There were physical retail storefronts where you'd go, and a travel expert would help you plan and book your travel arrangements. You could also call an airline or travel agent and have them book the ticket. They would then mail you a physical ticket... I think some travel agencies had the ability to print them in their agencies, too."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge635a",
"comment_text": [
"Air transit was a novelty in the late 80's/early 90's...?"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge66t7",
"comment_text": [
"Oh, you gotta explain your time period. I assumed you were talking about like the 50s.",
"Yeah, you could do that by phone for economy at that time. I think you'd end up picking up your ticket at the desk, proof of ID required. For business, you might have been able to buy at the desk still."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: Why do teachers need a background check, yet people who work with children in religious institutions don't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65xdhf
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
Or maybe they do? I don't know, hence the question, but I know that as a teacher (in the US at least) fortunately you need a background check. ELI5 religious institution: churches, synagogues, mosques, bible camps, etc...
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgdwo67",
"comment_text": [
"In the USA, teachers are government employees, while religious institutions are ",
" a lot of government interference."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgdwmbh",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah I was a group leader and went on a mission trip considered to be a student at 18 and required what amounted to be don't harass kids and be safe when adult-ing (aka being over 18). It required a background check. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge1tiy",
"comment_text": [
"In the US, there is some level of separation between church and state, where the government is supposed to limit its interference with the free exercise of religion. Preventing religious institutions from choosing who they permit to fill various roles within their organizations could very easily be interpreted as excessive interference with the religious group. ",
"It is worth noting that it is very common for religious institutions to have policies requiring that all employees, or at least all employees working with vulnerable groups of people, get a background check. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgdy51r",
"comment_text": [
"Hmmm I've needed a background check for working at my kids preschools (one was catholic) also needed background check to coach soccer, t-ball and basketball."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge2ptf",
"comment_text": [
"I work in a Catholic church. I had to get a background check and do safe environment training because there was a possibility that I might be around the altar servers."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: How were airports different pre-9/11?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65ymro
| 10
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge7npp",
"comment_text": [
"The biggest difference is security. Now you need a ticket and ID to get through security. Before 9/11, anyone could just walk through the metal detectors to meet someone as they deboarded. ",
"Security was also more relaxed. I remember one time my mom had bought kitchen knives for a family member that we were visiting. Security stopped her and explained that she couldn't carry them on the plane. \"Why not? What are you saying? I'm a good person.\" She was outraged by their implication. She put up a fuss. A security person walked us to the gate and explained the situation to the gate agent. They examined the knives. They compromised that they'd wrap them up and put them in an overhead bin for the flight. That'd never happen today."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge745k",
"comment_text": [
"That you don't make a bomb on board. And also that you buy expensive bottles of water on the other side."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge75j7",
"comment_text": [
"Most of the readily apparent differences have to do with airport security. Pre-9/11 the only thing you had to do at airport security was have your bag x-rayed and walk through a metal detector (removing anything that might set it off beforehand). You weren't required to remove shoes and there were no restrictions on carrying liquids (you could even carry things like pocket knives as long as they weren't too big). Furthermore, anybody could get through security, even if you didn't have a ticket. Thus, it was possible to walk someone you were dropping off to their gate, or wait for someone you were expecting at their gate instead of baggage claim (no necessarily a great thing since it could significant increase crowds at certain airports).",
"There are also lots of things differents that aren't due directly to 9/11, such as the fact that few people travelled with a bunch of electronics like laptops pre-2001, so there were no special rules for them either."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge6wrn",
"comment_text": [
"I don't understand the no liquids rule. What purpose does it serve?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dge6wrn",
"comment_text": [
"I don't understand the no liquids rule. What purpose does it serve?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do all planets have moons?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65tu9i
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgd6d5p",
"comment_text": [
"They do not. For example, Mercury has no moons and it is a planet. As such, your question contains an incorrect assumption.",
"If you are wondering why many planets do have moons, it is usually a matter of the larger planet capturing the smaller moons. For example, Jupiter is incredibly massive, so any asteroid that gets a bit close to it can get captured by its gravity and thus be pulled into an orbit around Jupiter as a result, or hurled to another position in the solar system where it can be captured by some other planet it passes nearby instead."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgd6cgh",
"comment_text": [
"Not all planets have moons. But our moon for example was formed when a planetoid crashed into a sort of proto-Earth, exchanged most of its mass, including it's molten iron core to the proto-Earth, and then when it was reduced in size, started to orbit the Earth."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgd6dom",
"comment_text": [
"Large items in space have their own gravitational pull. As smaller items float past them, they can get caught in that pull. Usually, they'll burn up in that planet's atmosphere or escape. Moons are the smaller objects that have come to rest in orbit around the planet. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgd6ena",
"comment_text": [
"both Mercury and Venus has no moons. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgd6fs5",
"comment_text": [
"And there are many extrasolar planets that also do not have moons. I was merely giving an example, not being exhaustive."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Is it possible to blow 0 on a Breathalyzer test even though you consumed alcohol?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65rgz6
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.44
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcmk1c",
"comment_text": [
"The breathalyzer is not accurate and can not give false readings",
"me thinks you have an extra \"not\" in there."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcmgzd",
"comment_text": [
"Breathalyzers generally work by measuring how much flammable gas is in your breath. Alcohol is flammable and will therefore trigger in a breathalyzer. If you have alcohol in your blood some of it will get exchanged with the air in the thin walls of the lungs. So anything else you take can only increase the amount of flammable gas in your lungs and not decrease it. In the clip he admitted to having two glasses and half a bottle of a mixed drink over several hours. Depending on the strength of the drink he may not have had that much alcohol. And he genuinely though that he was under the limit himself. And breathalyzers are quite inaccurate to start with so it is possible that the amount of alcohol he had would not have registered. The legal limit is already close to the accuracy you would expect. His bad driving and slurred speak could be down to being tired after a long day of driving (which is just as bad as driving under the influence), or being influenced by another drug. It is also hard to tell from the editing but it may also appear like he was given the breathalyzer test after a short time and had problems giving the test properly. He may have had some water before talking to the police or even while talking to them which would flush away some of his alcohol in the saliva and given a slightly lower reading. If he also had problems blowing enough air over the sensor that would also give inaccurate readings.",
"The breathalyzer is not accurate and can not give false readings even if used properly (which can be hard outside of lab situations). This is why they are generally not relied on in courts but rather gives police a reason to investigate further. The only reliable way we have to measure someones alcohol intoxication is to do a blood sample. In this case the breathalyzer test was probably just given as a curiosity for the officers and maybe a way to find out if he was lying about the amount of alcohol he had. As he had already admitted to drinking while driving he could already be charged even if he is under the limit. The law against drinking and driving is likely also from not having a reliable way to test alcohol levels as there is no difference between having a drink as you are driving or just before you are driving."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcn5ay",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks for the explanation, but don't you think that blowing 0 after drinking alcohol is a bit weird? He admitted to dirnking 15 minutes prior to being pulled over meaning, there should be alcohol in his blood, even a 0.01 reading would be done by this. I did soem research, the drink he was drinking was woodstock, bourban - an aussie alcoholic beverage, which has a 4.8% alcohol presence. So that would atleast bring in some sort of reading, no?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcnkzr",
"comment_text": [
"0.01 is within the error margins. And I thaught he drank burbon and coke so the mix would be lower. And he only had a sip 15 minutes ago. He started drinking at 5 am and it was pitch black when he was caught with half a bottle. His motabolism would be able to keep up with the intake."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcntcy",
"comment_text": [
"Ok, thank you."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Mediating with Clear Quartz and Ametrine
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65qtlm
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.99
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcqx8u",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for requests for explanations to complex conceptual questions. This subreddit cannot answer personal questions (for example, if someone asked \"why are my ears ringing\" no one would be able to say without a medical examination, but if someone asked \"what causes ears to ring,\" that would be ok). ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcgxrw",
"comment_text": [
"More likely the two day old account is trolling you. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcgxrw",
"comment_text": [
"More likely the two day old account is trolling you. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgchapj",
"comment_text": [
"What's wrong with kale?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcj8qu",
"comment_text": [
"Not sure I'd want a kale shake, but kale works pretty well in soups."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What will a nuclear war with N Korea be like from a civilian's perspective?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65qjr0
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.62
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcdjlm",
"comment_text": [
"If they launch a single nuclear weapon we cover their entire country with them wiping it off the map. that is the nature of MAD doctrine. Unless China chooses to retaliate against the US very few people will notice anything outside of North Korea. North Korea is small enough that the fallout of the bombs will not be a major issue, but it will cause some problems for neighboring countries. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgce8a8",
"comment_text": [
"MAD doesn't apply to North Korea. It means ",
" assured destruction — but North Korea isn't the USSR; it's not certain that they could in practice hit the US with any missiles at all.",
"Because of this, a strike by North Korea does not necessarily require full nuclear retaliation. In fact, firing a bunch of nukes at a target right next to China would be a risky proposition on that ground alone. The US's conventional military is more than sufficient to quickly eliminate NK's offensive capability without having to resort to nuclear weapons.",
"The point of MAD is that even if the US could totally destroy the USSR with a nuclear attack, it could not prevent the USSR from inflicting catastrophic damage to the US in retaliation. But mutual destruction is ",
" assured if the USSR launches a full nuclear strike ASAP, because if they wait they will lose the capability to retaliate. This is not the case in the US–NK dynamic, because NK does not have the firepower to destroy the US's ability to retaliate. The US is not forced to retaliate immediately and with full force because waiting would not mean giving up that capability."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcj0kz",
"comment_text": [
"The threat of one nuke hitting one city is enough to invoke the doctrine of MAD. Which is what North Korea is counting on. They know that even though the USA could destroy North Korea if it chose, just one American city, maybe even one American ally's city such as Tokyo or Seoul, is a price higher than America wants to pay."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgces92",
"comment_text": [
"At the risk of stating a tautology, MAD applies when mutual destruction is assured. But in a US/NK nuclear war, the destruction of the US is not assured. Therefore, mutual destruction is not assured."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgcdgod",
"comment_text": [
"It highly depends on how close you are to major bombing targets. In all likelihood, you may never be affected by blasts.",
"Nuclear weapons are expensive to produce, and North Korea can't afford to carpet bomb the United States or even South Korea. Instead, they would choose to bomb military bases, government buildings, and possibly landmarks or urban centers.",
"Nuclear fallout, however, may be a risk. The winds in the US would primarily blow fallout west to east, so if you live east of any potential targets, you might have an increased risk of radiation poisoning.",
"But I highly doubt there will be nuclear war. North Korea's enemies have enough nuclear weaponry to completely obliterate Pyongyang, the only city with the infrastructure necessary to carry out a large-scale war."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Carbines VS Rifles... what's the difference?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65p9az
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
i don't get the difference between a carbine and a rifle. they can both be semi automatic and automatic, or ... is it like that the carbine is more like a pistol grip kind of thing and a rifle can be more oldfashioned with the wooden stock (i phrased that horribly but i hope my thought comes across)? i know that latter isn't the case literally as i described it because the M1 is a carbine apparently but... someone also dropped something about rifles having gas function and carbines don't but i'm not sure if that's correct either.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgc2rpl",
"comment_text": [
"A rifle, strictly speaking, is any long shoulder-fired gun that has a rifled barrel. That is, not a musket, shotgun, or pistol.",
"A carbine is normally a lighter and shorter variant of a standard-pattern rifle. For example the M4 carbine is a shorter variant of the M16 assault rifle. Because technology has made rifles shorter over the years, some relatively short rifles are called \"carbines\" even if there isn't a corresponding longer variant, e.g. the M1."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgc30j7",
"comment_text": [
"I don't think there is a strict definition, but a carbine tends to be smaller and lighter that a full size rifle. On a modern carbine a collapsible stock is common, although not required. ",
"I don't think gas function has anything to do with it. M1 carbine, M4 carbine are both gas operated. ",
"If you were designing a pistol caliber carbine, you would possibly have it operate and blowback, and not use a gas system, you certainly could use a gas system if you wanted to."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgc34t0",
"comment_text": [
"Rifles are long weapons fired from the shoulder in a pose such as ",
"this",
" that is not a shotgun. Carbines are generally shorter, lighter variants of rifles. The use of a carbine means a shorter barrel which allows for better manoeuvrability in closed spaces, such as buildings. As ",
"u/StupidLemonEater",
" pointed out, there may be short weapons called carbines, even if there is no long variant.",
"Weapons are usually classed as carbines when the barrel length is less than 20 inches, although this sometimes may not be the case. ",
"Here is an M4 Carbine versus is longer brother, the M16",
"\nIn general, a carbine is usually designed for close quarters, often more so than just the shorter barrel. For instance many modern carbines will have a collapsible stock (see the M4 in last image) which helps to shorten the length of the weapon further. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgckhel",
"comment_text": [
"The original carbines were intended for cavalry use, both because they were easier to carry mounted and because they could theoretically be reloaded on horseback."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgc4cxl",
"comment_text": [
"These terms aren't fully defined and the manufacturer can call them whatever they want. Historically the term carbine started to describe a weapon that was a shorter version of an existing rifle.",
"Today, carbines tend to be more compact than standard rifles, but they don't always have a longer variant. There's a market for carbines now and some manufacturers design weapons to fit this niche without creating a full length rifle variant.",
"Long rifles are better for long range accuracy. Shorter rifles are better for mobility and closer range combat. From my experience at the range anything over the distance of 10-15 yards a pistol is no longer accurate enough for the average shooter and they'd need to step into a carbine/rifle. Carbines are generally lighter in weight, easier to maneuver and still give an extended site radius that helps with medium to long range accuracy."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: why does the Easter bunny lay eggs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65oggq
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbwjwv",
"comment_text": [
"The easter bunny is actually a chicken inside a rabbit costume, you parents have been lieing to you "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbwkrr",
"comment_text": [
"So have yours because lieing isn't a word :("
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbwlyi",
"comment_text": [
"It is now... English allows neologisms. So if you want to get snarky with him about a typo he can just declare it a word and move on."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbwmew",
"comment_text": [
"Are you lieing"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbwokb",
"comment_text": [
"No, I'm engaged in rampant pedantry... which is very much in keeping with the season of dogma. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why can we hear/predict when a song you listening to is going to change in some way? Like new instrument is coming in or singer will start to sing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65me5x
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbg2wj",
"comment_text": [
"In a lot of cases it's because most of the music we listen to follows a generally accepted pattern. You'll hear certain Instruments or vocal styles or whatever that kind of let you know which style you're hearing, which lets you assume the pattern. ",
"It can also have to do with the way the parts of the song that are already present either swell up or drop out to create tension, or the expectation that something else is going to happen. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbgmar",
"comment_text": [
"Often after 4 beats or 8 beats, something happens, like a little drum thingy. ",
"Sometimes that little thing is bigger, like a singer starting or a big change in how the song sounds.",
"Without actual counting beats, we can often just ",
" when the next change is about to hit."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbir2r",
"comment_text": [
"A lot of music outside of top 40 & pop/dance isn't as predictable. Typically songs just repeat a scheme (verse, verse, chorus, repeat) so if you get through one section the next sections follows the same formula. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dijpo7i",
"comment_text": [
"Pop music follows the same basic format, with occasional deviances from the standard structure. First of all, 4, 8 and 16 bar phrases are standard. After each phrase, it's likely that a change of some sort will occur in the music (a change in section, texture, instrumentation, etc.)",
"But pop/country/rock etc will likely fall somewhere close to this template. Perhaps there may be short instrumental interludes between sections. Maybe they fade out rather than have an outro. You get the idea.",
"Intro - 8 bars",
"Verse - 8 bars",
"Optional interlude - 4 bars",
"Verse - 8 bars",
"Chorus - 4 bars, maybe repeated",
"Optional interlude - 4 bars",
"Verse - 8 bars",
"Chorus - 4 or 8 bars",
"Bridge - 8 or 16 bars",
"Chorus, chorus, chorus",
"Outro ",
"This kind of pattern is programmed into us from an early age."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dimnal0",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you for your answer!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How common is it to have the same name, birthday, and social as someone else?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65kr1l
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgb2cjp",
"comment_text": [
"We've got three components here. The odds on your name depend on what your name is. There are a lot of John Smiths and Mary Johnsons with Social Security numbers, but I think there's only one Benedict Cumberbatch, and he's part of a different social safety net.",
"Your birthday, on the other hand, probably won't change the odds dramatically. Births peak in July to September, but we're talking 21,000 per day instead of 18,000 in slower months. Major holidays like Christmas, New Year's, or July 4th are a bit less common owing to induced labor. ( ",
"http://chmullig.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/birthdays.png",
") Still, the only birthday that will really throw off our math is February 29th, present only one year out of four.",
"Finally, the Social Security Number. It's nine digits, but not nine random digits. Before 2011 (I'm assuming you're over the age of six if you're filling out a FAFSA) the three components were a three-digit area number assigned geographically, a group number assigned in a weird order over time, and then a four-digit serial number.",
"This is where the odds stop being independent. If someone has a Social Security number close to yours, it means they were born close to the same time and place as you. This even slightly affects the odds of your names being the same; French names are more likely in Louisiana, Spanish names in the Southwest, Italian names in the Northeast, Chinese names on the West Coast."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbn06k",
"comment_text": [
"I've never met someone with the same name as me. Close variations, but the spelling is always different. I would definitely say I have a pretty unique name. Last name isn't too unique, but combined with my first name it is. And my birth month is in October, so it would be considered a slower month, but I doubt the difference to the peak months is very significant. And I always assumed that Social Security Numbers were randomly generated, so now I can see that having the relatively same SSN as someone else can be quite common. Born in the Northeast (New Jersey), but I don't think my name is at all correlated with location because my family with my last name is primarily from Virginia. Thanks for detailing it so clearly, though!!!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgb167g",
"comment_text": [
"The first three digits of the social security number is the state or territory where issued. The next two is a group number, with the final four simply issued sequentially. So someone born ib the same hospital on the same day is likely to have a very similar number.",
"The same name is another matter."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgb25j0",
"comment_text": [
"/u/Xalteox",
" and ",
"/u/tampabankruptcy",
" are correct about the SSNs and birtdays. When you filled out the student information to log in the computer system it probably only checked to see if there was an application for that SSN or that SSN/birthday combo. It probably didn't check the name associated with the one that had already been submitted.",
"\nA fun way to check would be to try it again. But this time use some random name but your correct SSN and bday to see if it still comes back as saying it was submitted. That would confirm whether it actually checks the name."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgbmew1",
"comment_text": [
"So, I tried what you said (but used my SSN because I felt like using hers is a too invasive) and it asked me to verify the info. It didn't do that to me when I logged in using the other SSN. Then, I clicked next, and the website had me start a new application, as if I had never done one (and mine is finished). So, she definitely had the same name as me."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Would a single nuke of today's technology destroy man kind?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65fao6
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9s0wr",
"comment_text": [
"No. The largest nuke ever built, the tsar bomba, was a 57 megaton hydrogen bomb. By comparison, the bomb used on hiroshima was 20-odd kilotons.",
"\nThe soviets tested the tsar bomba back in the 60's. We're all still here."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9s2pn",
"comment_text": [
"The largest bomb doesn't even come close. What would the point of a nuke that destructive be? If it destroys mankind, then it'd also destroy the nation who sent it, no? Nukes level a city and make the surrounding area hazardous, as the very most. They're a threat because there's tens of thousands of them, and it's impossible to intercept and defend against all of them."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgai0gu",
"comment_text": [
"No it wouldn't. Krakatoa was rated at 200mt and it didn't set of anything."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dgai0gu",
"comment_text": [
"No it wouldn't. Krakatoa was rated at 200mt and it didn't set of anything."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9s1ew",
"comment_text": [
"Not really much to explain here. The answer is no. The largest nuke currently is called the \"Tsar Bomba\" which would at least take over 20 to end humanity but possibly more than 30."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How come you hear so much about babies getting "switched" in the USA?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65fa1j
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
My wife just asked me this, and I actually have no clue and thought I'd take to reddit! You hear "a lot" about families being handed the wrong baby at the hospital after birth? It seems to be a major thing in Hollywood and the movies, but sometimes you hear of actual real cases of it too. Knowing how the process works here in Sweden, there's no possibility it could ever happen since the baby never leaves the parents' sight. How come this happens? Is it like in the movies where you sometimes see parents looking through a window into a room with like 10 newborns lying in little beds next to eachother, with a nurse walking in and picking (the wrong) baby up for them? Thanks!
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9ua5b",
"comment_text": [
"It is still very rare. Babies have IDs on both their wrist and ankle and parents are given matching bracelets with the same ID number that they have to read aloud when the baby comes from the nursery. The bassinets are also labeled with the baby's gender, weight and ID number to prevent any mix ups in the nursery. It used to happen more in the past because the procedures weren't in place but not much. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9rxgj",
"comment_text": [
"it depends on the procedures at the hospital and the attending doctor and nurses. once the baby is out of the mother, it's taken to get basic vitals checked. that happens in the delivery room. at this point, the baby is supposed to have a nearly non removable tag put onto its ankle. about an hour afterwards, the mother goes to the recovery room to sleep. the baby goes to the nursery to be attended while the mother sleeps. ",
"and if the mother undergoes a C section, the baby goes to the nursey cause the mother's unconcious for another couple of hours while they sew her up. ",
"also if the baby is in need of special attention, it's taken to the NICU ward.",
"if the baby's tags accidentally slips off, then you're going to have a hard time knowing which baby is which"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9s006",
"comment_text": [
"My wife had a c-section and due to some other health problems, she wasn't able to really do much with our son for a couple days , so the nursery kept him when I wasn't there. ",
"Of course the babies were effectively Lojack'd too with tracking anklets so I don't see it happening like it used to. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dga3tgd",
"comment_text": [
"You hear \"a lot\" about families being handed the wrong baby at the hospital after birth? ",
"No, I actually don't hear much about this. I think I read about it once on a work of fiction written by a person who died over a hundred years ago."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9t8n1",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you for the explanation!\nThe C-section procedure I can understand, but I had no idea mother and child were separated after a normal delivery. Here in Sweden the child sleeps with the parents in the recovery ward. I'm not sure how it works during a C-section, but I'm pretty sure the baby stays with the father until the mother wakes up."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Why is a Solar Eclipse so infrequent?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65c92k
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
I would expect them be a common occurrence.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg92ro2",
"comment_text": [
"Because the moon is on a different inclination, or orbital plane, than the earth is. In other words, its path is tilted. If it was on the same plane, we'd have one solar and one lunar eclipse, both total, every month. But most times, all three bodies are not in line; the moon is either above or below the sun when it would otherwise be in position. This makes eclipses a lot rarer than twice a month."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg93gh9",
"comment_text": [
"I'm not an astronomer, but I don't think so. It's really just the moon blocking some sunlight from us. Not sure if there's anything more to it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg92wvu",
"comment_text": [
"The moon's orbital plane isn't parallel to the Earth's orbital plane.",
"When the moon passes between the Earth and the sun (which it does every month) it's usually above or below the Earth's orbit, not right in line.",
"On the rare occasions where it is on that line, the Moon's shadow is pretty tiny so only a small portion of the Earth sees a total eclipse, and even then only briefly.",
"The Earth's shadow is much larger, so it's a lot easier to generate a lunar eclipse than a solar eclipse since you don't need perfect alignment."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg93700",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you. Is a solar eclipse a learning opportunity at a high level?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg93jrg",
"comment_text": [
"It used to be a good time for scienists to observe the sun's atmosphere since the overpowering light from the surface is blocked, but more modern satellite observation methods have made this pretty antiquated."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Is there any way to test a Nuclear weapon without without being detected?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65dq28
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9f72o",
"comment_text": [
"Not that is publicly known of. Underground explosions create seismic waves, explosions in air create light flashes and blast waves and release radioactivity, explosions in space create light flashes. All those can be detected.",
"If any state has a way to do an undetectable nuclear test, which is very unlikely, they've kept it secret."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9eut1",
"comment_text": [
"You can detect a nuclear explosion with a seismograph, even if you had a magic nuke that didn't release incredible amounts of light and heat visible to every satellite in the area."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9fya3",
"comment_text": [
"There are \"Deep Nuclear Explosions\" which are very deep underwater (<2,000 ft underwater). At that depth there's nothing visible on the surface. The huge gas cloud from the explosion dissipates at that depth, so there's nothing visible on the surface. It leaves no trace at the surface but hot, radioactive water rising from below. This leaves a small patch of evidence in a massive ocean. Can be very hard to detect."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9lp02",
"comment_text": [
"Nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs produce neutrinos. These pass through basically anything such as water, lead plates, hundreds of miles of solid rock, the whole fucking moon, the core of the sun etc. You'd need about a lightyear of lead to stop half the neutrinos and they basically cannot be stopped. They interact so little with matter that they're basically harmless and hard to detect.",
"Neutrino observatories can spot a nuclear reactor from many miles away, ",
"and could pretty easily spot nukes.",
" It's not talked about but if the U.S. doesn't have a network of top-secret neutrino observatories so classified there aren't even rumors for following Chinese submarines and keeping tabs on North Korea then they're incompetent. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9f4u5",
"comment_text": [
"Not anywhere on Earth. A nuclear detonation above ground is detectable via satellite. A nuclear detonation underground is detectable by seismograph, and a ground-level detonation is detectable both ways.",
"It is impossible to secretly test a nuclear weapon unless you can do it on another planet."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Secrecy of Area 51
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65bgmg
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
Why is it such a big deal to America that the projects in Area 51 need to be completely private? I understand why current projects are private but I'm talking about the 60/70s projects which probably explain every single UFO sighting. What security risk would there be to showing what they were working on and what failed miserably?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8xy34",
"comment_text": [
"Area 51 was a testing site for spy-planes in the 60s and 70s, so naturally intelligence that the Americans wouldn't want to get into the hands of their enemies."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8yra1",
"comment_text": [
"Are you asking why they didn't let the public view their top secret spy planes at the height of the cold war?",
"Spy planes which would be used against nations that no doubt had spies within the continental USA?",
"It is the same reason that a company doesn't release their patents, they would lose any technological superiority rather quickly."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8yxir",
"comment_text": [
"Because that work is still relevant, military vehicles remain in service for a long time, take the U2 spyplane, its been in use since 1957 and is still used today"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg94lsx",
"comment_text": [
"Why does the government give a crap about UFO rumors?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg94lsx",
"comment_text": [
"Why does the government give a crap about UFO rumors?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How come the city of Los Angeles doesn't have a underground rail system similar to other major metropolitan cities?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
658kyx
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
I'm aware that Los Angeles has subways but it does not stretch to most of Los Angeles like certain major cities do in the world like NYC subway, London's tube , Paris metro etc.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8awfs",
"comment_text": [
"Cities tend to be optimized to whatever transportation is widely used at the time. Philadelphia and New York were built in a time when horses were popular and thus has closely built cities which happened to transfer well to public transportation, which requires a large population needing to travel a small number of short routes.",
"LA on the other hand was largely built after the popularity of cars so is built to optimize car travel, meaning a decentralized sprawl and a large network of highways. LA does have above ground trains (Metrolink) which travel mostly east-west in a long straight line, but as a metropolitan area is so spread out that it would be prohibitively expensive to build a subway to connect all areas within a single subway system."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8c2o6",
"comment_text": [
"Because it is too spread out and decentralized. LA is less of a city, and more of a case of city cancer, a bunch of cities that happened to grow together.",
"NYC, London, and Paris all have well-defined city centers, that serve has economic and cultural hubs. Everyone wants to go there, so it makes sense to build a big rail station in the center and run lines from outlying areas. LA doesn't have anything like that, there is no one place everyone wants to go to.",
"LA is also a lot bigger, in terms of distance. For a completely arbitrary comparison, in NYC, Dyre Avenue to Coney Island is about 20 miles. Upminster to Chesham in London is about 40. San Bernadino to Thousand Oaks is about 100."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8dwgi",
"comment_text": [
"There's also the fact that LA is built in a very seismically active area and subway tunnels don't react too well to earthquakes or fault lines creeping."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8gf3l",
"comment_text": [
"I have traveled sixty miles more or less northwesterly while in the City of Los Angeles! The county is larger than that."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8j846",
"comment_text": [
"To be fair neither San Bernadino or Thousand Oaks are even in LA county."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:Why do we put our hand over our hearts when something is sad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
65b3qz
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
Just now, during a sad episode of Better Call Saul (no spoilers) I grabbed my heart when I had an overwhelming feeling of sadness. I do this often. Why? Is it learned social behavior or something biological?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8xpqx",
"comment_text": [
"There is no proof for the existence of chakras.",
"5. ELI5 is for factual information, not opinions."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8vovj",
"comment_text": [
"Because when we are shocked, we gasp, but hold our breath too, simultaneously which (try it) puts an odd pressure in the middle of your chest."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg940di",
"comment_text": [
"And yet everyone clutches the chest right above where the supposed heart chakra is. We can speculate that there is something called dark matter and/or dark energy from indirect sources, and yet we seem hard wired to not speculate that there is something called chakras, why? because they are subjective? or transcendental? Sounds like a failure of imagination or a reliance on materialism to me."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg9dzj6",
"comment_text": [
"And yet everyone clutches the chest right above where the supposed heart chakra is",
"everyone? even people with no arms? I guess you do not have a failing of imagination.",
"on a less lighter note - i do not ever recall clutching my chest when something is sad - and i've lost several close family members over the last year. i tend to hold the bridge of my nose (i know, there is probably something there too, right?)",
"on the subject of speculation - ",
" people speculate about dark matter. ",
" speculate about chakras. neither are universally recognized, regardless of materialism or expanse of imagination."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg90f64",
"comment_text": [
"This isn't ",
"r/fantasy"
],
"score": -1
}
|
ELI5:Does marijuana actually make you hungry or is it all in your head?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
656141
| 16
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.7
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg85ope",
"comment_text": [
"Cannabis interferes with the signal that tells your brain you have been fed. So if you eat before smoking you will not get the munchies. If you smoke before eating the signal never gets received that you have been fed even if you eat, even if you eat lots. "
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg895mo",
"comment_text": [
"I strongly disagree. I can eat smoke and then eat the entire contents of a grocery store "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg89g06",
"comment_text": [
"That's interesting, do you have a source for this information?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8cwb2",
"comment_text": [
"It blocks the effects of leptin which signals that you have eaten. The increases experience of smells and tastes which also increases the release of ghrelin which basically has the opposite effects and makes you hungry. Don't have any specific references mostly it comes from a bio degree and an interest in pot. If you wanted to look into it more though I'd look up those two and the endocannabinoid system. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8d5l8",
"comment_text": [
"Cool, thank you!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: If WW3 were to happen...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
6558t6
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg7humo",
"comment_text": [
"WWIII as a concept is generally considered to be a total nuclear war, and therefore your timeline would be as follows:",
"region",
"So yeah... no draft."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg7ikpl",
"comment_text": [
"Within 45-90 minutes human civilization ends.",
"If your close enough and lucky enough to die in the initials blasts. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg7jt8a",
"comment_text": [
"Have you ever played Fallout?",
"Like Fallout, but without the quirky 50s scifi vibe and more tumors"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg7jgzx",
"comment_text": [
"If it worked like any of thr last drafts they send you a letter informing you're name has been picked. You get sent to basic training and then work like pretty much any basic soldier"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg7iqir",
"comment_text": [
"Yea... would we all die or?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do eagles don't prey on human (just monkeys) ? Are they being picky or what?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
653hvv
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg76sc2",
"comment_text": [
"Species that live in close proximity to humans, that make it a habit of hunting humans tend to find themselves at the very least endangered if not extinct. If they routinely tried to eat humans, humans would have wiped them from the Earth thousands of years ago."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg76dg6",
"comment_text": [
"The same reason they don't normally prey on gorillas or chimps or orangutans, we are too large.",
"Monkeys tend to be small and not adept at fighting back, whereas apes are quite large and capable.",
"This is shown by the fact that eagles will at times to after human children, but rarely adults."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg77s5d",
"comment_text": [
"Precisely.",
"Even if some adult humans are comparable weight to a deer or large goat, we are too well coordinated to make easy prey."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg78epc",
"comment_text": [
"1) Size. Humans are far too large for modern Eagles to prey on us past the age of 5 or so. Even that is starting to stretch things and limit it to only the largest Eagle species. ",
"2) We are communal species. Humans live in groups. This means that we have large adults tending and protecting young children. Thus the only ones that are vulnerable to Eagles are protected and hard to get at. ",
"But that said there are cases in some remote areas of extremely small children being attacked by Eagles. But this is very rare and the accounts may be more legend than truth. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg7786w",
"comment_text": [
"The biggest eagles weigh 15 lbs. They don't have any chance against a full grown human."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What types of charges could and should the doctor who was mishandled on the Delta flight press?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
650a32
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.46
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6drzz",
"comment_text": [
"It was a United Flight, not a Delta flight. There was no duration of the flight, because he was kicked off before takeoff. Individuals don't press charges, the State does. He could personally decide to sue in civil court but that's it."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6dwxz",
"comment_text": [
"His claim against United would be for breach of contract. He had a contract with United to fly to Louisville and they breached that. United's contract does allow them to boot customers in certain circumstances, but I'm not sure those were present here. The real argument will be over whether he was considered to have boarded or not (he was on the plane, but I don't think the door was shut yet) and whether the flight was oversold or not (he was booted to make room for airline employees who didn't purchase tickets, so technically there weren't more tickets sold than there were seats available).",
"His claim against the Chicago airport police would be for violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him.",
"I don't think he'd have a claim against anyone for having his image published since it wasn't United or the police who did that. He would also have to have evidence that it hurt his ability to practice as a doctor, which he won't know yet since I doubt he's returned to practice yet.",
"Edit: The passenger wouldn't be pressing charges. He would be suing."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6s7gz",
"comment_text": [
"Follow up Question: would the doctor have had more of a case if he would have complied with law enforcement. ",
"In his favor it seems we have:",
"-The sheer public outrage. \n-He had boarded the plane already. \n-Removal was to accommodate crew members, not paid passengers. \n-Excessive force seems to be have used against him. ",
"Against him:\n-It is federal law to comply with all instructions from the plane's crew. \n-Failed to obey a police officer. \n-Using his profession as an excuse to not follow passenger bumping guidelines that he agreed to when purchasing a ticket. ",
"What happened to him was terrible but if someone told me to get off a plane I would. I would especially get off the plane if police told me to disembark. To me it seems before he broke the law by not following directions he had a good case for the legal grey area of: Should a paid, ticked passenger be made to disembark a plane to accommodate airline employees?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg8uhju",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is not for:",
"Subjective or speculative replies - Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6dw83",
"comment_text": [
"Doubtful. He was breaking the law and the officers appeared to use what force was necessary to enforce his compliance. The fact that he's a doctor isn't important (from a legal standpoint).",
"People often get uncomfortable watching law enforcement perform their duties because they're unaccustomed to violence and don't really want to know 'how the sausage is made' in that respect. However, law enforcement officers are required to use violence in the performance of their jobs and the courts have long recognized that fact."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How is Russia allowed to veto a resolution that they are involved in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
650ocl
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6hbmx",
"comment_text": [
"Are there limitations to this veto power and are there ways to overrule a veto in situations like this?",
"No. The SC is made up specifically so the most powerful countries can always have their way (or at least doesn't get resolutions set against them).",
"Of course, the US could just say \"fuck the resolution\" and do shit anyway, like they do a lot of times."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6hmge",
"comment_text": [
"Being a permanent member of the SC gives you veto power. Since the UN is just diplomacy, any country is free to act unilaterally outside of the SC discussions. They do risk possible sanctions from the other countries but a lot of the time that doesn't mean much."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6iclq",
"comment_text": [
"There is no way to override the veto, and countries routinely vote against or veto situations that they are involved in. And that's how it should work.",
"The reason that those five countries get a veto is that anything the Security Council does is useless and toothless unless those five countries are in agreement. So, to reflect that very practical reality, any Security Council resolution requires that none of the five permanent members vote against it."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6ibsm",
"comment_text": [
"The United Nations was set up by a handful of large powerful nations. They had no intention of letting their own creation harm their interests in the future. That is why countries like the US and Russia can veto resolutions they are involved in. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg6lm55",
"comment_text": [
"The UN Security Council is basically the winners of WW2. It's not meant to be a completely fair democracy, it's a way for the major world powers to have influence without needing to go to war."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What is the FBI/CIA's survelliance policy in terms of individual citizen's rights?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64w3ey
| 126
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.86
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5hwvb",
"comment_text": [
"This is a very old incident, it happened back in 2011. ",
"The guy didn't sell the device and the FBI didn't sue him. Rather, the FBI asked for him to return the device and he did. He then sued the FBI alleging that his civil rights had been violated because the FBI did not have a warrant to place the device.",
"At the time there was no constitutional warrant requirement to attach a GPS device so your car so he lost. Since then the Supreme Court issued a ruling in United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) where it held that the 4th Amendment required law enforcement to get a warrant before installing a GPS device tracking device on your car."
],
"score": 52
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5mrgq",
"comment_text": [
"5 years is very old?"
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5nfv8",
"comment_text": [
"6 years"
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5i6bo",
"comment_text": [
"In the U.S. it is your constitutional right to privacy (4th amendment). This right may be suspended, without your knowledge or consent, by the judicial branch on behalf of any number of government agencies, the FBI included (CIA is slightly different regarding the hurdles involved). ",
"Now once the judicial branch has suspended your right to privacy the agents that requested the warrant whether it be to electronically monitor your movements, tap your phone, even search your house without your knowledge, have decent latitude to employ whatever techniques they feel necessary to carry out the \"searches\" specified in the warrant. ",
"Now in the case you are referring to, anything used in accordance with the \"search\" is legally allowed to be there. Any intentional disruption of this \"search\" by an outside party could technically be considered obstruction and the action of selling property that is not yours can certainly be considered theft. ",
"Now, based on your description, it seems as if the FBI in this case chose not to pursue any criminal charges instead opting for civil proceedings where they were much more likely to win a 'destruction of property' type case. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5v58d",
"comment_text": [
"To me it's around 9."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5:Who did, and who did not, hitler gas exactly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64tncz
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.71
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4wuxd",
"comment_text": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany",
"\"In accordance with the Nazi cross-European policy of genocide against the Jews, the SS \"processed\" thousands of Romani people, (male) homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, intellectuals and the clergy from all occupied territories.[4]\"",
"The Nazi's murdered many millions of people, not all of whom were Jewish."
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg51k8e",
"comment_text": [
"In battle, no.",
"In camps, it depends on what you mean.",
"The Nazis were primarily focused on killing Jews, Gypsies, ethnic Poles and Slavs (including Soviet POWs), homosexuals, atheists, the disabled, some clergy, Jehova's Witnesses, criminals, and those who they accused of being \"asocial\" (which included intellectuals, communists, anarchists, leftists, or other political enemies), among other groups. Of the total deaths within the camps (which is generally pegged to about 11-12 million), half or so were Jews, and the remaining half is largely dominated by Soviets, Poles, and Serbs.",
"Granted, gassing wasn't the only way that the Nazis killed people, and both the methods and prisoner demographics varied from camp to camp, but you get the gist of it."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4x8v2",
"comment_text": [
"The Holocaust victims were poisoned with a pesticide (Zyklon B), which required a confined space to kill people. It's not the kind of thing that makes a battlefield weapon they could have used on Russian Troops without catching them first."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg50zxh",
"comment_text": [
"The Allies did have plenty of phosgene and mustard gas stockpiled though - the US even preempively sent shiploads of it over. It would have been ugly on both sides if someone had used poison first."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg516dj",
"comment_text": [
"A great deal of Holocaust victims across several of the biggest camps were also poisoned by carbon monoxide in a procedure that was basically just piping the exhaust of a big truck engine into the gas chamber. But you don't hear so much about those camps because they were extermination camps with basically no survivors, unlike the Zyklon B-using Auschwitz, which doubled as a work camp."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5:What are squatter's rights?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64thf4
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.7
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4wdjl",
"comment_text": [
"\"Squatter's rights\" is used loosely in conversations, but it generally falls into two scenarios:",
"1) Adverse possession - The state does not want unused property, so if the owner ignores it so thoroughly that a squatter can come in and openly use it for a long period of time (like a decade+), then the squatter can claim the title to it.",
"2) Tenant law - Also sometimes used to mean the rights of tenants vs their landlord. If a person is legally living in a property but the landlord wants them out, the tenants have the right to have their claims heard before they get booted to the street."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4vess",
"comment_text": [
"The idea is if a property is left abandoned, and you use the property for a period of time without anyone trying to remove you, then you effectively have the right to continue to use that property. Your use of the property usually has to be in the open, and continuous. Like, you're not hiding away in a corner of a shed in a remote corner of the property, you're walking in and out the front door."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4wdv2",
"comment_text": [
"There's two ways the term is commonly used which are often confused.",
"The first is the legal concept of ",
". Basically, if there's a piece of property & ",
" use it as your own for a number of years, you can eventually claim it as your own. This could be something as simple as having a fence built 2 feet over a property line or something as blatant as moving into an abandoned house. If the legal owner can't be bothered to figure out what's going on over 5-7 years, they eventually lose their claim to the property.",
"The second is when people move into a property without permission (\"squatting\") and can't immediately be removed for trespassing. This is an extension of tenant law. Renters have a number of protections against being immediately removed by an asshole landlord. If the landlord wants people out, they need to go before a judge & get a proper eviction set up. If you're illegally on a property, the cops can kick you out for trespassing ",
" if you have even a halfway believable claim to being there legally, the property owner now has to treated it like an eviction."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4zfbb",
"comment_text": [
"So what's usually happening n those \"horror classes\" where some random person supposedly just walked into a home and refuses to leave"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg51hvl",
"comment_text": [
"It could be a number of things. An off the books tenant who doesn't want to leave, an aggrieved significant other, or a fraudster with a falsified lease.. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: the Emoluments clause
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64t1xt
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4ryhr",
"comment_text": [
"It's a part of the US Constitution that states that no official of the US can accept payments or salary from foreign governments.",
"The text:",
"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4wghy",
"comment_text": [
"And OP if you're into more detail, just last month ",
"Planet Money did a good episode explaining it and its history",
" (and why Trump might be in violation). It's a worthwhile 21 minutes."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5bxdy",
"comment_text": [
"I assume you somehow confused Bill Gates with George H.W. Bush, but both him and Reagan were knighted after their presidencies."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5bxdy",
"comment_text": [
"I assume you somehow confused Bill Gates with George H.W. Bush, but both him and Reagan were knighted after their presidencies."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5xysn",
"comment_text": [
"Bill Gates has never held an office in the US government. The Emoluments Clause does not apply to private citizens."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5:If you work in a state without income tax, and live in a state with income tax, do you pay?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64r5t6
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
Recently I was offered a job in a border state that does not have income tax(Washington). The state that I currently live in taxes income at 9%(oregon), but doesn't have sales tax. If I take this job, will I effectively pay zero income tax? Or will Uncle Sam get my wallet out somehow? It seems to me like an awesome way to keep more pay.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4c3vg",
"comment_text": [
"Most states tax their citizens, on income earned both within and outside their state, so you would likely ",
"owe Oregon income taxes",
" (your employer may not withhold Oregon taxes, which may mean you would be required to file quarterly estimated income taxes). ",
"The scam to avoid taxes along the Washington and Oregon border is to live and work in Washington (no income taxes) but cross the border to do all your shopping (no sales taxes). ",
"If you do enough of this, you may be investigated for not paying use tax (technically Washington residents are supposed to pay taxes on certain goods and services they purchase without sales taxes, but in practice it tends to be difficult to enforce). "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4m7ji",
"comment_text": [
"The general rule is that the state where you earn the income gets first dibs, while the state where you live still taxes that income but credits you for taxes paid to the other state. Some states have reciprocity agreements with other states that changes this slightly. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4c8u0",
"comment_text": [
"I've got in backwards then. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4m3xv",
"comment_text": [
"People who live in WA but shop in OR are legally obligated to pay use tax on their OR purchases that would be subject to sales tax in WA. (\"Use tax\" is just a legal term meaning \"the same as sales tax except it wasn't collected by the seller\".)",
"No comment on how many WA residents actually pay all the use tax they owe. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4cc0a",
"comment_text": [
"You'll still pay federal income tax. You won't get out of that.",
"As for whether you'll pay Oregon income tax on income from a job in Washington, while your residence is in Oregon...that's going to depend on the nature of the Oregon tax code. It could say that it taxes worldwide income rather than tieing it to a geographical income (US income taxation is worldwide). At which point, you're going to be better off consulting a tax lawyer who knows Oregon tax law rather than asking reddit. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Why there's no more (or very little) talk about the revelations Snowden made about the govt's snooping activities? What has been done since to keep the govt from tapping into people's online activities?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64lsvs
| 115
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.88
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg36ked",
"comment_text": [
"People decided that they'd rather enjoy the lives they have now, than risk them on an uncertain future for privacy they think they'll never really miss. ",
"It's the apocrypha of the boiling frog; you turn up the heat gradually and any shocks to the system are too minor to cause a flight reaction. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg39keh",
"comment_text": [
"They just labelled him a traitor and accused him of selling secrets to Russia, even though he gave all his stolen information to Mother Jones.",
"They smeared his name, and enough of America bought it, because, you know, Russia is bad..... Except in the context of our current president that is."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg37u3j",
"comment_text": [
"The key to your analogy is that the scientist who did the boiling frog had to remove its brain first. Leave the brain in the frog and it will happily try to escape the boiling pot. Think about it. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg38py7",
"comment_text": [
"I'd consider your counterargument but I'm too busy watching TV and buying stuff."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg37bjv",
"comment_text": [
"Well man in 25 years when the government wants to put chips in everyone and your daughter is part of a big group of protesters the government wants to put down it might become a bit of an issue when they have your life's worth of internet history, everything you ever texted, idk. Even the most boring folks have something that can be used against them.",
"(I don't think the chip thing will ever happen but just an example)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: Two Constitutional rights. The right to vote and bare arms. Why is requiring an ID to vote discrimination but same rules don't apply to guns?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64qm9t
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg47q08",
"comment_text": [
"The second amendment has been treated as the red-headed step child of the Bill of Rights to many gun control advocates who do not give it the same respect as our other rights. The argument is that guns are dangerous and therefore require additional levels of regulation than is required for other rights in the Bill of Rights.",
"To answer your question as to why you can require an ID to buy a gun, but not vote, the answer is largely hypocrisy. Forcing someone to present ID prior to using their right to vote is considered by many to be an undue hardship to exercise a basic right. The common argument is that minorities are less likely to have an ID and therefore it is discriminatory, that same argument is not made to exercise their 2nd amendment rights because quite frankly it's kinda hypocritical. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg481pe",
"comment_text": [
"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1886)\nthe right of the people to keep and bear arms \"is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government . . . .\" ",
"The Supreme court is consistent over that.",
"The second amendment shall not be infringed by congress. For the right to vote, the congress need to protect that right, so they can and are obligated to pass law that protect the right to vote and the state, city, etc need to follow the federal law and protect that right too. But in the constitution, it doesn't say that the congress shall protect the right to bear arms, only that it can't infringed on it. State law can limit the right to bear arms according to the US supreme courts. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the constitutional basis for the legality of ID for weapons, but not for voting."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4bfoq",
"comment_text": [
"Every sale through a licensed dealer has to go through NICS."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg486zl",
"comment_text": [
"voter ID laws are discriminatory. they are meant to keep poor people from voting. lots of poor/shelter living type people don't have state issued ID. they either don't drive or don't have the $35 to get the ID version.",
"yes, people like this exist. they also face challenges getting services to stop being poor, because they don't have ID.",
"but if you left your abusive husband or parents, you were kicked out of your apartment but a scummy landlord, or left an otherwise dangerous situation you probably didn't take a lot with you, including your ID."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg48nxw",
"comment_text": [
"no, its exactly what I am saying. ",
"they also face challenges getting services to stop being poor, because they don't have ID",
"I volunteer with the United Way and I spent a whole day at a \"resource fair\" for homeless/at risk/low income people. I was supposed to help them get in a shelter, on SNAP, on Medicaid, etc. except MOST of them don't have ID and that made the process impossible. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: With the plan of Japan to drill the earth's crust to reach the mantle, what is the process of getting permissions and from whom (since no one "owns" the earth)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64wkyg
| 2,286
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.91
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5m4gk",
"comment_text": [
"The short version is their proposed drill sites are in the territorial waters of the US, Costa Rica, and Mexico. So they need to get permission from whichever government controls the drill site they settle on.",
"The long is:",
"The earth is \"owned.\" Every government owns (or controls who owns) all of the land directly underneath it. Obviously this isn't infinite, the nature of the Earth being a sphere means that if you went down deep enough there would be overlapping claims, but present technology doesn't let us drill anywhere close to where that would become an issue. ",
"Governments also own the ocean up to 200 miles off their shore, as well as the land underneath that ocean. Once you get outside of that 200 mile zone you are in international waters. Here things start to get unclear. ",
"Most of the world has agreed to a treaty known as the Law of the Sea Convention. That convention sets up how things are to function within the 200 mile limit, and created a commission known as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) that is supposed to determine when entities are allowed to conduct undersea drilling in international waters.",
"The problem here is that the US has agreed to everything in the Law of the Sea Convention ",
" the provisions creating the ISA. Since the US doesn't recognize the ISA and the US effectively controls most of the Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans the ISA has very little authority.",
"As of right now this isn't a problem, because the technology does not exist to drill in international waters and so far the ISA's activities have been limited to authorizing a handful of deep sea surveys that went nowhere.",
"As to the Japanese company in question - they have 3 proposed drill sites, all of which are within the territorial waters of the US, Costa Rica, or Mexico. So the answer is simple. They have to secure permission to drill from the government that controls whatever site they eventually decide to drill at. ",
"If they were drilling on the land, they would need to comply with whatever regulations were applicable to such drilling in the country where it was being carried out."
],
"score": 985
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5omwn",
"comment_text": [
"Oh crap we totally forgot about that, pack it up guys we're going home"
],
"score": 79
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5ooqm",
"comment_text": [
"In Malaysia you own the land under you. Underground transport tunnels aren't straight because people did not give permission to tunnel under their land."
],
"score": 72
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5p0jf",
"comment_text": [
"This type of thinking would only really matter if the mantle had resources we actually wanted to extract. In the crust layer the distance at the bottom is almost identical to the distance at the top (around 0.5% difference). It's better to think of a country's land as being a curved sheet of paper than a wedge."
],
"score": 61
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg5p0jf",
"comment_text": [
"This type of thinking would only really matter if the mantle had resources we actually wanted to extract. In the crust layer the distance at the bottom is almost identical to the distance at the top (around 0.5% difference). It's better to think of a country's land as being a curved sheet of paper than a wedge."
],
"score": 61
}
|
|
ELI5: What happens to old churches?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64lfhg
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.61
|
My so and I looked at a church for sale with the possibility of converting it to an office building for a growing small business. 2 bathrooms, full kitchen, small office, board room, coat room and sanctuary: with great natural light, high ceilings and could be renovated into 6-8 spacious individual offices. We didn't end up purchasing it but it's currently under Renovation to become a live in treatment centre. Question: Do churches have to be "un consecrated" to be used as non-religious buildings? Not as in zoning bylaws but from a religious standpoint?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg329b7",
"comment_text": [
"It's really going to vary widely between different denominations or religions. ",
"Many evangelical churches don't meet in a specially-designated church: I lived in rural areas for a while and you'll find churches in shopping centers, in houses, etc. A local church in my hometown would rent out the auditorium at our high school on the weekends for their services. ",
"Episcopals do. The Episcopal church in my town burned down and they held a ceremony a few weeks after the fire but before the clearing and rebuilding to de-consecrate what was left of the old building. Then they consecrated the new building. The deconsecration was held in the lawn because firefighters wouldn't let them into the building given that it was basically a shell. It's down the street from me so I went to watch out of curiosity. I'm not sure if this means that the Anglicans in general do. Catholics consecrate churches, but Googling out of curiosity suggests that there isn't a de-consecration ceremony - the church is considered de-consecrated when secular activities happen there. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg31ma2",
"comment_text": [
"No, not unless you'll feel bad about it. Many churches meet in decidedly \"unholy\" locations. My current church used to meet in a movie theatre, currently in a repurposed warehouse. My old church meets in a nightclub. ",
"Now, I suppose the sellers of the building may want certain assurances before selling to you, but it's unlikely. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg32mmg",
"comment_text": [
"https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur201.htm",
"Catholic churches are quite different than protestant churches. Do you know the denomination?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg32h2j",
"comment_text": [
"It was a cool building but since we're from an extremely mixed religion family we were all a little confused as to the \"status\" of the building.\n(Atheist {former catholic}, Buddhist, Jewish and Lutheran parents between my spouse and I)\nIt seemed rude (?) to turn into offices without acknowledging somehow that it wasn't a religious site anymore"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg32asx",
"comment_text": [
"https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur201.htm",
"This kind of answered my question but I don't think it was a Catholic Church. When we viewed the property it still had pews, the altar and a cross on the wall."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5 Why do some armed forces wear Mechanix gloves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64lgbf
| 19
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg339k3",
"comment_text": [
"Availability, durability, price, etc. I wore them because they were cheap enough that I didn't care if I lost them, but versatile enough to protect my hands when I needed them. ",
"Also, my unit purchased a shit load, so I got a bunch of pairs for free. "
],
"score": 30
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg34vm2",
"comment_text": [
"Some name brand shit is just that: shit. I don't know anything about Nike gloves, but ",
"these motherfuckers right here",
" are pretty much the best bang for your buck. ",
"Oakley boots are garbage on anything other than paved surfaces. Take them shits OTW and you'll need new ones within a few weeks. The standard Bates and Bellevilles are better. I wore Lowas and eventually Merrells when I got to a unit with more lax interpretation of the CENTCOM dress and appearance manual. ",
"Anything that advertises itself as \"milspec\" just means \"coated in rubber and priced three times what it's worth.\""
],
"score": 25
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg342ed",
"comment_text": [
"Think about what makes a good glove for a mechanic. You want some protection, mostly for scrapes minor burns (hot engine parts), but you also need to be able to handle small parts like screws and nuts.",
"Those same qualities make them great for armed forces. They have enough protection to keep you from tearing your hands up when crawling around or touching a hot gun barrel, but also have enough dexterity to handle all the little parts on a gun. "
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg37f1c",
"comment_text": [
"Girls are allowed to wear gloves."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg359sk",
"comment_text": [
"The company also makes custom \"made to order gloves\" for the military. When I was in the Marine Corps we were able to put in special requests to the company who would make runs of 100-500 pairs for us at a time. The government paid the company directly. We had special requirements like extra reinforcement in key areas, non-melt requirements (no plastics in the glove that would melt and stick to skin in a fire, including stitching, logos, etc.) and a number of other special requirements that you just can't find in an off the shelf glove. ",
"They put in lots of effort to reach out to active duty military and give them exactly what they want and need. As a result, lots of us kept using them out of familiarity even in instances where they were not paid for. You are allowed to use personal gear on deployment in certain instances, especially when issued gear is lacking in quality, fit, and durability. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
|
ELI5: Before photos and videos became evidences for history, how are the contents of written documents (or other literature) determined for being factual?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64jqgn
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2mxkl",
"comment_text": [
"Multiple sources usually help confirm or question historical accounts.",
"If both sides in a war recorded similar estimates for troop strength and made notes of the same battles at the same places, those accounts are probably true.",
"If the two accounts are wildy different then you have to go a little deeper to determine who's lying. Are the claims even feasible? What does the physical evidence suggest? Are there any third party accounts? Was the author writing propaganda or is it a more serious internal document?",
"If there is only a single source for an event and there is no archaeological evidence then we can't just assume it's true. People have been spinning some tall tales and lying about that fish they caught once since before they even were people."
],
"score": 16
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2n99z",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks. Pretty much sums up everything I want to know. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2py6u",
"comment_text": [
"You could also ask this in ",
"/r/askhistorians",
" if you want even more."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2wolk",
"comment_text": [
"Well that's the problem, we don't know for sure",
"The best we can do is cross examine the accounts with known archeological facts or other written sources. But the further we go back the harder and harder this gets."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg4gmso",
"comment_text": [
"So were the Belgians the bravest of all Gauls, or was Julius Caesar just making a political point as to why he lost a Legion? ",
"I think that one is then pretty clear. After all, we all know Asterix and Obelix are the bravest of all Gauls.."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why did the police side with United Airlines?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64jz0k
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.85
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2okgz",
"comment_text": [
"It's a violation of federal law to not comply with crew instructions for one. Yes, United screwed up and the guy got screwed, but being stubborn and refusing to get off the plane doesn't help anybody."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2ov7m",
"comment_text": [
"You never have a right to service from a private company.",
"They can refuse service at any time, for almost any reason. If they do not offer you just compensation (Which UA clearly did in this case) your recourse is to sue."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2ouvl",
"comment_text": [
"https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25",
"When you're buying the ticket you're agreeing to these terms which include granting the airline the right to deny you boarding.",
"Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority: "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2p54h",
"comment_text": [
"The police have to side with the law, not with whom they think is correct.",
"The ",
"UK law states",
" (rule 244):",
"Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the pilot in command of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.",
"(I'm not familiar enough with the American aviation laws, called the FARs, to be able to provide a quote, but I'd imagine they have very similar wording).",
"In this case, the pilot was giving instructions for the efficiency and regularity of air navigation. So the passenger legally had to comply, whether it makes sense or not. And the police legally had to back him up."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2omry",
"comment_text": [
"United is allowed to cancel their service to a passenger for basically any reason. It sucks, but it's in the fine print when you buy your ticket. If a passenger refuses to leave a plane they can be removed. Legally, United is protected if they have told a passenger they need to leave. The passenger's refusal could be escalated to a trespass. Physically removing someone by law enforcement is common when they refuse to get off your property after being asked. This doesn't mean United has the moral/ethical high ground.. just legally things shook out in a way that United is protected."
],
"score": 4
}
|
|
ELI5: What would happen to your body during a prolonged use of an NSAID?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64h104
| 49
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.78
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg24zbn",
"comment_text": [
"PA here. The main side effects of NSAIDs: ",
"Stomach trouble. NSAIDs (except Celebrex) reduce your stomach's ability to build its mucosal protection, allowing stomach acid to first irritate and then damage the stomach lining. NSAID-induced gastritis and ulcers are a thing.",
"Kidney trouble. NSAIDs are excreted through the kidneys, and long-term use, especially by someone who already has sick kidneys (like diabetics) can cause failure. Change your NSAID periodically to mitigate this effect, and get blood labs to check in with them. ",
"Blood thinning. NSAIDs interfere with platelets and reduce your ability to clot. This is why people at risk of cardiac disease take baby aspirin. But heavy NSAID use can cause bruising and definitely shouldn't be done if you're on a blood thinner already.",
"And of course, people can be allergic. People who already have asthma seem to be particularly susceptible to airway reactions from NSAIDs.",
"There's a long list of other, less common side effects, but these are the major problems often encountered when we give NSAIDs to a patient on a long-term basis."
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg24bb3",
"comment_text": [
"Since it is excreted via the kidneys, prolonged use can result in a condition known as chronic interstitial nephritis. Its a type of kidney disease. ",
"Please consult a doctor regarding long term medication useage to prevent possible complications."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg25ptw",
"comment_text": [
"Tylenol has its own issues. Instead being toxic to your kidney/stomach, it's toxic to your liver. It can cause serious issues in terms of your ability to process alcohol and other drugs"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg269ut",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, listen to the eggplant. Tylenol is very hard on the liver. ",
"If you're using any of these occasionally, and you don't have any other health issues, it's probably ok. ",
"OTOH, if you're taking them consistently as you describe above, it's probably not a bad idea to get a blood check for liver and kidney function, just as a baseline, and then to keep checking every three to six months while you're taking them."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg25l7t",
"comment_text": [
"So if I switch with different pain relief medications like Tylenol would that be fine? Since that isn't an NSAID would that be less damaging to my kidneys/stomach etc..?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How do roundabouts work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64dwh4
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1no0c",
"comment_text": [
"Sorry for the confusion, where I live we only have 2 lane roundabouts. I should have been more clear about the traffic in the roundabout."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1dxxu",
"comment_text": [
"Think of it like an intersection onto a one-way road. The traffic will only be coming from one direction (your right if you drive on the left, your left if you drive on the right). You have to give way to cars already on the roundabout, just like you have to give way to cars already on a road you're turning on to.",
"In theory it's more efficient than a four way intersection because you never have to sit and wait for traffic to be clear both ways, you only have to worry about traffic coming from one direction."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1fy04",
"comment_text": [
"Go round the circle in one direction. Give way (yield) to traffic already on the roundabout. Simple. In theory.",
"In more detail, writing from a British perspective, which means I drive on the left side of the road:",
"When I'm coming up to the roundabout if I'm on a road with more than one lane I'm looking for any markings showing what lane to use for what exit. If there's none I get in the left lane for first exit, right lane for last exit, and use my judgement for other exits. If it's a route I often drive I probably got in the correct lane a while ago.",
"I signal left for first exit, right for last exit or U-turn, use my judgement for intermediate exits. ",
" of drivers don't know how you're supposed to signal at roundabouts!",
"I'm looking at the area on the roundabout just to the right of where I'll enter. That's where the drivers I'll have to give way to will be. I'll probably slow down a bit, enough so I can easily stop if the roundabout is not clear.",
"If it's clear I just carry on. If it's not I stop and wait. I'm still looking mainly to my right, watching what other drivers are doing. Loads of people don't signal, so I have to look at their speed and direction, I can tell they're about to exit. When there's a suitable gap, I move again.",
"Now there's a few different situations with lanes on roundabouts. Easiest is when it's clearly just one lane, no problem.",
"Then sometimes there's multiple marked lanes. I go into the lane on the roundabout that corresponds with the lane I was in on the road before. I need to be aware of people in the other lanes, especially if I'm in a lane towards the inside of the circle. I'd rather not have somebody else immediately besides me, so I might slow down or speed up so we're offset.",
"Sometimes there's no marked lanes, but the roundabout is clearly wide enough for more than one car side-by-side. I just sort of have to imagine where the lanes would be. It's often not really clear - should I treat it as two lanes or three?",
"Some newer roundabouts have 'spiral' lane markings. These are easy! I get in the correct lane on approach and I stay in it and follow it, it will go however far round the roundabout and straight to my exit. I wish all the multi lane roundabouts were like this. I still have to be aware of drivers to my left and right who might be stupid though.",
"When I pass the exit just before the one I'm going to take, I signal left. (Loads of people forget this.) I need to check my left mirror to make sure there's nobody to my left who I'd cut up; if there is I might have to slow down and let them go. Even if I'm in the left or only lane I still need to check for cyclists.",
"Then if the road I'm exiting to has more than one lane, I need to pick one. Unless it's a spiral roundabout and the road markings pick for me. Maybe I know which one I want because of the next turn. Maybe there's parked cars further along blocking the left lane so I've got to take the right one. Maybe I'm side-by-side with a driver so we each have to take a certain lane or we'll hit each other.",
"If it all sounds very complicated, well it can be a bit. I haven't even mentioned mini roundabouts, or ones with traffic lights, or what I do when the traffic's jammed up and the normal rules don't work. That's why I had loads of driving lessons before I was allowed to drive by myself. And I get lots of practice, there's eight roundabouts on my drive to work. (Which takes 20 or 30 minutes usually).",
"Big crashes are rare on roundabouts. People do crash but it's usually like a sideswipe. Unless someone's really stupid you can't really have a head-on crash or a full-speed 'T-bone' on a roundabout."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1h70a",
"comment_text": [
"Here in Ottawa, Canada, I think they've recently made it so that in addition to crosswalks on the outsides of roundabouts, you also have to yield to pedestrians walking ",
" the roundabout."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1hpae",
"comment_text": [
"Oh god..."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: What is the point of inflation? Wouldn't it be simpler merely to pay people less and make things cheaper than the converse? [other]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64b6a8
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.77
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0t6xk",
"comment_text": [
"In general, both high inflation and high deflation (the opposite of inflation) are bad, but deflation is worse, and low steady inflation can be nice. (Keeping prices and wages the same forever just doesn't happen, so let's forget about it.)",
"Deflation has a couple of nasty effects. For anyone with debt, it's bad news. If things are getting cheaper and wages are falling, your student loans or mortgage are going to get harder to pay off. Businesses won't want to borrow even at low interest rates, because the rate of deflation essentially gets tacked on top (e.g. a loan at 3% annual interest with 5% annual deflation is really a loan at 8% annual interest.) Moreover, it discourages investment. If I thought my money was going to buy 5% more stuff next year, I'd sell my stocks and stick the money in a safe. When people stop investing and start hoarding cash, there's less money to start and grow businesses, and the economy suffers; money that doesn't move around doesn't help anyone. The worst possibility with deflation is that falling prices and wages lead to less production and development, which leads to more falling prices and wages, which leads to even less production and development. This is called a deflationary spiral, and there's not an easy way out of it.",
"A little steady inflation can have some advantages. If I suspect my money is going to buy 2% less next year, I'll try to invest it and make more. If I suspect that the trend will continue, I might buy a house with a 30-year mortgage. Inflation also has a peculiar effect that can be handy in recessions--it allows wages to fall without anyone being told they get a pay cut. This sounds silly, but people really hate seeing a lower number on their paycheck, yet businesses in a recession often need to either cut pay or fire people. If wages can't fall even a little, you tend to get high unemployment."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0tdir",
"comment_text": [
"Great response. That makes a lot a sense. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0s8w2",
"comment_text": [
"Deflation (where prices get lower) is generally bad for an economy. It encourages people and companies to hoard cash because it will be worth more in the future. With inflation, people are more incentivized to spend or invest their cash. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0s915",
"comment_text": [
"Inflation devalues debt and savings over time.",
"That means that it's in your best interest to invest your money and occasionally use credit.",
"If inflation was zero debt becomes more expensive.",
"If inflation is ",
" then it becomes profitable to just hoard cash and the economy really sputters.",
"The federal reserve tries to maintain an inflation rate around 2%, low enough that your year-over-year prices don't move much, but high enough that people keep borrowing and spending instead of burying money in their backyard."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0samu",
"comment_text": [
"The government controls the money supply as they produce the money. They don't control the wages of every worker and the price of every product on the market. So what you propose makes no sense.",
"Also, the aim isn't to adjust how much people are paid or the price of goods. It is to offset the growing wealth in the market to prevent deflation, and in so doing make it not attractive to just hoard money and have it increase in value. Instead a low, steady inflation encourages money to be invested or spent."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Besides cannabis, are there any objects that naturally contain THC?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64e3sz
| 46
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.77
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1hk4j",
"comment_text": [
"Not true. Humans and other animals have endocannabanoid receptors and produce two different cannabanoids anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG). These both act on different receptors in the brain regulating things like pain response etc. THC and CBD are phytocannabanoids and will act on the endocannabanoid receptors. THC binds to the same receptor as AEA and CBD binds to the same receptor as 2-AG. "
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1h2hx",
"comment_text": [
"Almost all living multicellular organisms produce THC as a part of the regulation of the metabolism. THC receptors are also present in all of these organisms. Species as different as the simple nematode and the mighty redwood tree all have THC receptors, and produce THC as part of their normal metabolic cycle. This is why organisms can benefit from THC therapy. Because they already have THC receptors, and the THC provided in addition to their existing levels can have thereputic effects. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1hvt0",
"comment_text": [
"Saying we have THC receptors built into ourselves is very misleading. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1jh7b",
"comment_text": [
"Just wanted to clarify here. While you are correct that the human body produces two distinct cannabinoids (AEA and 2-AG), known as endogenous cannabinoids or endocannabinoids, they both bind to the same receptor, the cannabinoid receptor subtype 1 (CB1R). ",
"THC also binds this receptor. CBD, however, is a bit more mysterious. Evidence indicates that it can bind both CB1Rs and cannabinoid receptor subtype 2 (CB2R) but it actually blocks the activity of the former rather than activates it. CBD can also act on a number of other non-cannabinoid receptors (e.g. serotnonin receptors, vanilloid receptors)."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1hnfd",
"comment_text": [
"I figured the difference between THC and other cannabinoids was too much for an ELI5. I explained like they were five, instead of twenty."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: Pleading not guilty and then being found guilty.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64ekbv
| 34
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.74
|
If someone's pleads not guilty to a crime (trial-worthy) and then through the court proceedings they're found guilty (no plea deal), shouldn't they also then be convicted of obstruction of justice or Perjury, or some other serious offense....? Assuredly this can then be overturned if the ruling is repealed... Let's assume this is a clear-cut, non-circumstantial case. e.g. They're caught on tape + DNA evidence + credible eye witness.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1iei2",
"comment_text": [
"A guilty plea is not under oath and is not testimony. It's also not a factual claim; in the context of a trial, it's really a statement that you're going to require the government to meet its obligation to convict you. So it's not perjury, which is false testimony."
],
"score": 39
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1loao",
"comment_text": [
"The government has an obligation to prove crimes it charges. It's not wasting the court's time to make them do so; that is why the courts exist. "
],
"score": 22
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1rufg",
"comment_text": [
"Christ on a cracker. ",
"At least you're not plagiarizing your paper. "
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1k36d",
"comment_text": [
"I didn't realize that the plea was not under oath. Clearly not perjury, but what about obstruction of justice? Or even contempt (wasting the court's time)?"
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg1tj8p",
"comment_text": [
"If you read the first 10 amendments to the US constitution it is in there. They are not long."
],
"score": 6
}
|
ELI5: How does someone with Panophobia live?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
649esp
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
So i was investigating phobias because my friend wanted to know what the fear of wasps was called, and i came across a website called "phobialist.com" which listed every phobia in alphabetical order. And it said about Panophobia, which is the fear of everything. So how does someone with this fear lead a normal life? Like, wouldn't they be afraid of being afraid at shit? Wouldn't they be afraid of even going outside, but be afraid of staying inside? How does it work?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0dr3a",
"comment_text": [
"So how does someone with this fear lead a normal life?",
"They don't. That is the very definition of a phobia. It's a unreasonable fear that disrupts your life. You cannot be diagnosed with a phobia unless it interferes / limits your life. Someone with this phobia would not be living a normal life, period.",
"Though, one thing has to be noted, and that is that those phobia list websites are not exactly medically supported. Phobias exist. Extremely weird and unusual phobias exist, but not all the phobias you are going to find on a list like that are necessarily going to be true. Sometimes they will be made up. Sometimes they will have been self-diagnosed by people who don't necessarily know the actual diagnostic characteristics of a phobia. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0ddzy",
"comment_text": [
"there are 2 types of phobias IIRC, there are major phobias that impact peoples life like arachnophobia, and they will scream and not want to be near them at all. then there are minor phobias like panophobia which do not impact peoples lives greatly."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0dvmw",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah, was a bit sceptical but read around a bit more and it's referenced elsewhere so i guess its legit. And i imagine that their life would be much less normal than, say, an arachnophobe's life haha. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0djz5",
"comment_text": [
"Ah ok, just imagined that it would be completely debilitating"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0rlis",
"comment_text": [
"Sounds like ",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do worms always congregate on the sidewalk after it rains?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
649ly3
| 18
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.76
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0exp7",
"comment_text": [
"Worms can't stay above ground long on dry days, they'd dehydrate and die.",
"When it rains they take that opportunity to try and cover a long (for a worm) distance to try and find some better dirt.",
"Some of them end up on the sidewalk and get disoriented, they're not well adapted to an environment where they can't just burrow back down.",
"The old claim that they come up to breathe isn't true, worms can survive fully submerged for a long time."
],
"score": 24
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0g6pn",
"comment_text": [
"Worms are not known for their cunning."
],
"score": 19
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0kw6i",
"comment_text": [
"I always move them because they dry up if they don't make it back :( "
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0kwvi",
"comment_text": [
"You've obviously never seen tremors!"
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0fo26",
"comment_text": [
"Interesting, I always thought they were just trying not to drown.",
"Seems silly though, makes them a easy target for birds."
],
"score": 8
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do all my Sims act exactly like me???
|
explainlikeimfive
|
6498b9
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.29
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0cayo",
"comment_text": [
"Because you're controlling them, and therefore, influencing their behaviour. You are their god and you've created them in your image."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0dea8",
"comment_text": [
"They do not."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0mygj",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is not for:",
"Discussion of fiction, including gaming. ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0cwwc",
"comment_text": [
"Nonono, they control me !"
],
"score": 0
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0m031",
"comment_text": [
"They control you !!!"
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5:How are humans supposed to have reached North America 14,000 years ago, but Ireland only 9,000-12,500 years ago?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
648pmq
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
Arising from this: This makes no sense - how do primitive humans go from Africa to Canada without going to Ireland?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg07rsb",
"comment_text": [
"There was a hundred mile wide land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. I don't believe Ireland had such a thing."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg07wca",
"comment_text": [
"It did, but was gone by the time that people began settling the area, before that Ireland was probably tundra wasteland type environment on most of the island, as the northern portions of Europe began to thaw, the land bridge would likely have been gone by that point. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg07wsa",
"comment_text": [
"You're funny. ",
"They went the other way around. Through Siberia and then across the 'Bering Land Bridge' to modern day Alaska. ",
"During and just after the Ice Age, ocean levels were lower, exposing a stretch of land across what is now the Bering Strait. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0bvgw",
"comment_text": [
"Ireland was cold as hell back then, and didn't have a land bridge connecting it. People could easily walk to and from Siberia and Alaska thanks to low sea levels. Ireland just didn't have that connection."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0ckl5",
"comment_text": [
"Getting to Ireland required the invention of boats. Walking from Siberia to Alaska over the Bering Land Bridge did not."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do places like Costco and Walmart mark your receipt at the door before to leave?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
649dj3
| 19
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.82
|
Always confused me, and I don't see a logical purpose behind it.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0cy7v",
"comment_text": [
"Guessing, but it's to make sure you can't come back in, collect the same goods as are on your receipt and leave with them a second time. If you try to leave with goods and a marked receipt, they know you're trying to steal them."
],
"score": 24
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0dx7z",
"comment_text": [
"Never had Wal-Mart check my receipt, but Sam's Club (like Costco) always does. Sam's receipts have the total quantity of of items purchased at the bottom so the person at the door is doing a quick count/guestimate of the number of items in your cart to make sure it matches your receipt. Marking a line through the receipt is just an indication that you have been checked and cleared. ",
"As someone else mentioned, most retail stores like Wal-Mart cannot stop you from leaving or force you to allow them to check your purchases, but you agree to this inspection when signing up for membership at warehouse stores. "
],
"score": 18
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0hxg3",
"comment_text": [
"I have had Walmart stores attempt to check my receipt. I Ignore them and keep walking because I never signed anything to shop at Walmart. I did at Costco. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0dkj9",
"comment_text": [
"Basically to make you're not stealing anything. They mark the receipt so you can't reuse it. ",
"The reason Costco and Walmart do it is different. Most stores put stuff in bags, so if you walk out with a cart full of bags it's assumed you went through the checkout. Costco doesn't use bags, so they manually check your cart.",
"Walmart does use bags, but their low profit margins mean loss prevention is more important. ",
"Also, they can't legally stop you unless they have reason to suspect you're stealing, except at club stores like Costco where you agree to it when you join. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0d5z8",
"comment_text": [
"They want proof you bought it. If you leave the store with a bunch of random stuff they will get suspicious if you have no proof of purchase.",
"It's more like security theatre to deter shoplifting."
],
"score": 5
}
|
ELI5: Why does reading in a moving vehicle cause motion sickness in some individuals?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
64gtss
| 9,433
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.9
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg2738s",
"comment_text": [
"A little late to the party but I read something interesting on it a while back. The idea that prevails currently is that your brain has 3 (and a half?) ways of knowing whether or not you're moving. 1) it's telling your legs to move and they are 2) your inner ear says you are 3) your vision says you are (and a half: your peripheral vision says you are). If there is a mismatch on any of these fronts ie: you're in a car reading (legs say they're not moving, direct vision says you're not, peripheral says you are, and inner ear says it's confused depending on how bad the driver is) your brain wants to know why. Because your brain hasn't evolved as much as our modes of transportation have it can come up with only one explanation, you're being poisoned. The fastest way your brain has to get you unpoisoned is to forcefully eject whatever nasty thing you put in your face back out of your face bits. How much your brain actually believes it's being poisoned varies from person to person so not everybody gets car/ motion sick. ",
"Tldr\nBrain: wtf is happening guys?\nLegs/ears/eyes: yes things are a happen\nBrain: uuuuuhhhhh poison? Idk man just to be safe empty out whatever we just ate and we'll call it good. "
],
"score": 9916
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg25wur",
"comment_text": [
"If your inner ear detects motion but your eye does not, the body interprets this as illness. Carsickness can often be mitigated simply by staring at the horizon for a while, and so can seasickness. This is why on yachts, crew who are seasick will often be sent above deck to steer.",
"Sailors swear by candied ginger to remedy seasickness, this is widely used on small vessels. It may well help with carsickness as well. There are also prescription meds."
],
"score": 823
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg21nyb",
"comment_text": [
"It's a simple concept, your eyes think you're not in motion because they're looking at a stationary page. Your mind knows you're in motion because you are. The conflict makes your brain think it's ill, so it assumes you're ill because you consumed a toxin, so you puke. "
],
"score": 809
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg29cmu",
"comment_text": [
"I frequently suffered from motion sickness and only recently discovered the reason.",
"It's because the jerks / accelerations felt by you inside the vehicle give the illusion that you are moving, but the still insides of the vehicle give the illusion that you are at rest. Your brain can't handle these conflicting inputs and hence - motion sickness.",
"An interesting corollary of this theory verified by observation is that ",
"This is because the driver's attention is fixed on the road, and therefore their brains realize the fact that they are indeed moving, corroborating the input felt through the accelerations experienced by the driver.",
" : ",
"If you're in a car, look out the windscreen and concentrate on the road in front of you. I've done this experiment many times now. Everytime I don't do it, I feel motion sickness. When I do it, I feel just fine.",
": The purpose of concentrating on the road is to anticipate the turns and the bumps of the motion in advance, and prepare yourself for them. The driver is the one guiding the vehicles, so they already have this covered. For other passengers, you need to make a conscious effort."
],
"score": 712
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg28qjt",
"comment_text": [
"This is why I love this sub, thank you so much, I can't even think of a time I was thinking about such thing, but I come on reddit, scrolling down and see this and I start to wonder, why? Now I know. And learning something like this while on the toilet...dunno. I just think is awesome. Have a great rest of your night, or day"
],
"score": 336
}
|
|
ELI5: What happens to the qualifications of people who go into the witness protection program?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
647ht5
| 28
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.82
|
If all of your degrees/certificates and other qualifications are linked to your old identity, how are they passed on to your new identity? E.g. I have a masters degree, but if I go into the WPP, would I need to start over again?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0g34n",
"comment_text": [
"I would still like to know what happends to previous experience or degree. How about lifestyle? \nDoes the program attempt to keep a similar lifestyle? How do you find a job if you have a new identity?\nEdit. Is for if*"
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg06hwu",
"comment_text": [
"It's important to understand, you can leave the witness protect program whenever you want, so long as it's not an issue of safety for someone else (some other protected identity).",
"When you leave the program, the identity you had prior is returned to you.",
"The US marshal service operates this program to protect criminals set to testify against other criminals, in most cases (95% of them). The purpose is for the state to protect the case from witness tampering, where [only] the individual is generally operating out of a sense of their own well-being. ",
"If you return to your old identity, there may also be the issue of a criminal record.",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Witness_Protection_Program",
"\n",
"http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/16/justice/witness-protection-program"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0hbog",
"comment_text": [
"If your life is in danger that you need to go into witness protection program, why would they or why would you even want to keep a degree/certificate or qualification that links you to your previous life. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0ju8b",
"comment_text": [
"Thats the sort of thing that when you go into Witness protection that the Marshals likely drill into your head. You do not make any connections to your formal life. Such a thing would be very dangerous thing to do."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg0ps7x",
"comment_text": [
"Well because you get a new identity in WPP you cannot have a degree that your new identity wouldnt have gotten. Depending on why you are in WPP if some government string pulling was done, they would have a grad school do everything to make the degree in that name. But that would almost never be needed for the people in WPP."
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: Why do ninjas run with their arms back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
646zt5
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.42
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzuofl",
"comment_text": [
"They never have. It's a stereotype created by animators.",
"The idea was that the ninjas in films travel so fast that it's more efficient for them to put their arms back than for them to push their arms against the air resistance."
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzuu7j",
"comment_text": [
"I read that it was because it is the correct way to run with a drawn sword. The idea being that if you fell, were tripped or otherwise disabled while running, you wouldn't land on your own weapon. ",
"As to why its become so common in films and animation, is that it is a cool looking pose for ninjas and its been adopted to be the pose for all fast movement, rather just when in use with a sword. ",
"Edit: missed some letters which changed the whole meaning! "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dg00nx9",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Loaded questions are not allowed on ELI5.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzup46",
"comment_text": [
"it's cool because ninjas run with their arms back"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzup46",
"comment_text": [
"it's cool because ninjas run with their arms back"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is it that when we do something, we have to tell someone about it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
645o3i
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
For example: I was driving in the rain, and it was crazy so i had to tell someone.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfznaoh",
"comment_text": [
"While I'm no psychologist, I would have to guess that the event of a new (or irregular) experience is always something that sits on the top of your mind. If you feel the need or desire to talk to someone you begin to talk about the first thing that comes to mind. For me, I just changed calipers, rotors and pads on my wifes vehicle. Sure it's not that big of a deal, but it's something worth of conversation, and you bet your ass everyone I talked to that day heard about it."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzowwo",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah i feel that way too haha"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzox7x",
"comment_text": [
"You never see/hear/experience anything thats worth a mention to someone else?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzx9oz",
"comment_text": [
"You're saying there's an obligation to do so, not that something occasionally happens where we feel it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a second opinion on that thing or make someone else's day better by sharing it."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfzm5cb",
"comment_text": [
"You don't? Why do you think that's true?"
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5: How close are we to a WW3, really?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
6436f7
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfz1nvz",
"comment_text": [
"Not really that close. Russia has everything to lose by attacking the US and the US has nothing to gain by attacking Russia. The current conflict this more of a proxy conflict between Russia and the United States."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfz28fy",
"comment_text": [
"Most of the major world powers would prevent a full scale world war from occurring. The only wild card is North Korea, but if they become an actual threat to anyone but themselves, china will just eliminate them.",
"China has a vested interest in not being the country all the rockets and nukes arw shot down over"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfz2d4x",
"comment_text": [
"There's a couple neat articles about how close we've come to actual accidental launches over the past 20 years. :)"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfz1n76",
"comment_text": [
"Not very, depending on how you look at it.",
"Most nations are not comfortable going to war. World War 1 and World War 2 were both caused by contractual alliances, but there's only really one powerful alliance in the world today (NATO). Because NATO can crush any other countries it likes, nobody wants to go to war with all of NATO at once, so most of the world will not get dragged into any wars."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfz22nu",
"comment_text": [
"To be fair, everyone will always have ",
" to lose from WWIII... that may not avert it. As far as these things go we're not exactly on the brink, but we're closer today than yesterday. Russia has said they're done with our force agreement, they're hardening Syria air defenses, and Trump is a genuinely unpredictable factor. ",
"WWIII's most likely trigger at this time is probably a mistake that spirals out of control. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: what does it mean to refinance your home and what are the positive/negative consequences of doing so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63x2my
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxp60m",
"comment_text": [
"Refinancing is taking out a new loan on your home. This can be done for several reasons:",
"Banks are offering better interest rates than your current loan. ",
"You want to turn your equity into cash for investment purposes",
"You need to turn your equity into cash for an emergency financial need, such as medical bills",
"You want to convert your equity into cash to pay off other debt, such as credit cards, that charge a lot more interest",
"Pros:",
"It can save you a lot of money. If you took out a loan 20 years ago at 8% interest, but banks are currently offering loans at 4% interest, then it makes sense to refinance your house. Let's say you only owe $100k on your $200k home. Your new loan will be for $100k, but at the lower interest rate of 4%. You take that money and pay off the 8% loan. In the long run, this will save you around $100k in interest.",
"It allows you access to a large amount of cash for investment. Say you have a $300k house and you have built up $200k in equity. That $200k dollars may not be earning very much money, only rising in value if real estate prices are rising. What you may do is refinance your house to pull some of that cash out. You typically have to have a minimum of 20% equity, so that means you can refinance your home leaving you with $60k in equity (20%) and giving you $140k in cash. You can then invest that $140k in say, rental homes. So long as those rental homes earn more than the interest rate of the loan, then you are using your money more efficiently. Say the loan is at 4%, and the average return on a rental home is 10%, then this would gain you a 6% rate of return that you did not have before.",
"You can access the equity in your home to gain access to large amounts of cash in the case of a financial emergency. The majority of people have most of their net worth tied up in their home. If you have a surprise $50k medical bill, you may not have that much cash on hand. What you can do is refinance your home to pull $50k out of your equity position and use it to pay off the bill. The 4% interest is much cheaper than putting it on a credit card at 10% or 20% interest.",
"You can refinance your house to pay off other high interest debt. If you owe $40k on a credit card at 18%, you can refinance your house to get $40k out to pay off that credit card. Now you are only paying 4% interest on the $40k instead of 18% with the credit card.",
"Cons:",
"You have to pay closing costs and fees whenever your refinance your home. The cost depends on the value of your home, the size of the loan you are taking, and the bank you are working with. Typically, this will be between $3k and $8k dollars, so refinancing does have an upfront cost. You have to make sure that the savings or profits are more than the cost of refinancing. ",
"If you are pulling equity out, then the resulting loan with either have higher monthly payments if the loan termination date doesn't change or you will have to extend the loan termination date and may have to pay your mortgage for many more years.",
"If you are pulling cash out of your home, you are taking on more debt. If for some reason you lose your ability to pay back the loan, you could go bankrupt or lose your home in a foreclosure."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxnrmd",
"comment_text": [
"Refinancing is taking out a new loan with more favorable terms to pay off an existing loan. Typically, the new loan will have a lower interest rate or longer repayment term in order to reduce the monthly payments or overall cost of the loan. Refinancing is good when it saves the consumer money or makes the payments more affordable."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxnu2e",
"comment_text": [
"A refinance generally refers to making a new mortgage to pay off your existing mortgage. This can be done to take advantage of more favorable terms, or release equity (selling the part of the home you own to the bank) for other purposes, or whatever. ",
"However, generally speaking the terms of a refinance could be worse than the original, and depending on the new loan, you could end up paying a lot more in interest over the years, with a longer loan period."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxo6b1",
"comment_text": [
"Buying a home typically involves borrowing money from a bank, because most people don't have the cost of the home in cash. So a mortgage loan is negotiated with a bank at the time of the purchase; the bank pays the seller of the house, and you sign that you agree with the terms and will pay back the loan.",
"Refinancing means taking out another loan, with another bank, to pay off whatever you have remaining of the first loan. Typically it's done in order to:",
"take advantage of lower interest rates (new loan has lower interest rates than the old loan)",
"reduce the monthly payment (take a longer loan, 30 years instead of 15 years, for example; more months = lower payment per month).",
"Disadvantages are:",
"each new loan comes with transaction fees",
"if you extend the period, you pay more interest / are in debt for longer"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxpm77",
"comment_text": [
"Awesome thanks for the examples! Definitely makes things easier to understand! "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What are the main differences between the American and European Union system of governments?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63xblm
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxqvat",
"comment_text": [
"You mean the EU or the governments of member countries?",
"Between the US federal government and the counterparts of the EU members... There's plenty. State autonomy, as you see it in the US, is unique to it, and countries like France have nation-wide laws for things like weapon and drug usage, driving, drinking, penal sentences... They also have a lot of well developed public services like public healthcare, which Obama tried to implement and is going through I-don't-know-which changes now."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxrgcc",
"comment_text": [
"The EU is not really very comparable to the United States because the EU is a collection of many different countries who retain most if not all domestic sovereignty. ",
"They sort of play the same function though, economically: they both manage the a community wide currency, allow free flow of trade and people. But the EU is just different because it is composed or countries that have very different cultures compared to the US which is relatively homogenous. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxwm5m",
"comment_text": [
"Source for this: IAmA former diplomat.",
"The US is a sovereign state. (The individual states are not sovereign in any useful definition of the word, no matter what some people say.) The EU is what is called a ",
" entity, it is composed of 28 actually sovereign states.",
"The executive branch of the US is headed by the President, who is elected by an electoral college elected by the people according to bizarre and stupid rules. The executive branch of the EU is headed by the President of the Commission, who is appointed by the legislative branch based on politicking among the 28 national governments, without direct input from EU citizens. Both the US President and the EU President of the Commission head a cabinet which is responsible for day-to-day policy implementation and administration.",
"The legislative branch of the US is composed of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are both elected by the people, with the House using the procedure known as gerrymandering. The legislative branch of the EU is composed of two houses, the European Council and the European Parliament. The Council is composed of representatives of the national governments and the Parliament is directly elected.",
"For political purposes, the judicial branch of the US is composed mainly of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should have the role of guaranteeing that the Constitution is followed (which means, that everything that happens in the country, and especially the actions of governments in all levels, do not contradict the Constitution). In practice, the Supreme Court is heavily politicized and partisan. Meanwhile, in the EU, the judicial branch has the more limited role of making sure all of the EU institutions, as well as all of the national governments, comply with the rules of the EU treaties.",
"Since all of the 28 EU states are sovereign, they are explicitly allowed to leave the Union. Since the reform brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, there is an explicit procedure for this, called Article 50, which Britain recently triggered. Even before that, member nations were always allowed to leave by simply ",
" the treaties (this means they said \"these treaties will stop applying to us\"). US states are not legally allowed to leave the US, because they are not sovereign entities, they gave up their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxwaxr",
"comment_text": [
"their Constitutions make rules for the citizens.",
"That is mostly not true. Modern Constitutions set out rules for what governments ",
", while the US Constitution mostly limits itself to saying how government is set up (the original Constitution and most Amendments) and what it ",
" (the Bill of Rights and some important Amendments).",
"This translate basically means that the US government (usually) has less influence over its people than European governments do.",
"That is arguable at best."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfyol41",
"comment_text": [
"Yup your right. But i think its kinda difficult to point out all of the exceptions, because so many countries have all these weird exceptions and holds and differences... the eu is in general a lot more complicated i think."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why is america not changing it's police policy ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63un45
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.46
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx7q2e",
"comment_text": [
"Clarify, please:",
" about America's \"police policy\" needs to change, based on ",
" metrics, to achieve ",
" ends, measured in ",
" ways?",
"All you've asked about is training time, and I'd like to know \"how long\" it takes to properly train a police officer and why you think that is the case. Something more than \"We do it this way in Germany and we are obviously better, no explanation required\"."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx5qx7",
"comment_text": [
"This is one of the major police reform groups in the United States, ",
"Campaign Zero",
". As they say on their website:",
"At least 88 laws have been enacted in the past two years to address police violence",
"New legislation has been enacted in 30 states since 2014",
"6 states (CA, CO, CT, IL, MD, UT) have enacted legislation addressing three or more Campaign Zero policy categories",
"At least 46 bills are currently being considered in 17 states to address police violence.",
"Executive action has been taken at the federal level as well as legislation",
"Local ordinances have been passed in many of America's largest cities",
"There's a long way to go, but work is being done"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx3xik",
"comment_text": [
"Noted. Have a nice day.",
"As others can see, there's a lot of work left to do, in no small part because reactionary individuals such as this fellow have a rooting interest in racist oppression."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx3xik",
"comment_text": [
"Noted. Have a nice day.",
"As others can see, there's a lot of work left to do, in no small part because reactionary individuals such as this fellow have a rooting interest in racist oppression."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx9cgk",
"comment_text": [
"Separation of powers prevents the federal government from deciding how local law enforcement is performed. Changes are being made, but not universally at the same rate.",
"Plus, in my opinion, a lot of cases are typically the wrongdoer is actually doing something illegal but the action used to combat such demerit is in excess. Because these individuals are still doing something illegal, proper punishment of the individual officers are actually often overlooked"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why can we have dozens of normal interactions and a few positive ones every day, but we fixate on the one negative one for hours?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63trsi
| 96
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.82
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwyb0i",
"comment_text": [
"Because your brain's primary directive is survival. Good things, positive things, are normal and help your survival. In these cases, your brain did what it was supposed to, increase your chances of survival. But when a negative experience occurs, your brain turns on it's memory and activates other things which help you later on. This is your brain trying to prevent that negative thing from happening again. Whether it's social anxiety or being mugged. You think about it and feel strongly about it, because your brain wants you to, because it wants to prevent it from happening. That's why you think about what you could have done. Your brain wants to prepare you for if it happens again. It's simple survival. Everything we do or think has to do somehow with survival. Friends, food, sex, drugs, depression even. Depression is like your body going into a low energy state to protect itself. It doesn't care that that ends up making you suicidal. Suicidal thoughts are themselves a coping mechanism. "
],
"score": 65
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwzwq9",
"comment_text": [
"That's actually a true metaphor for depression. Let me find the source but I'm not sure if I can...",
"Yeah I can't find it. But I have read that this is a proposed theory on depression. Suicidal thoughts bring catharsis, a sense of relief, because you feel like you actually do have an \"out\".",
"Depression is not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain as is commonly believed. They only thought that because raising the level of certain chemicals seemed to cure depression. So their theory is that depression is a sort of protective mechanism. If you stay at home, and relax, sleep, and eat, which is what depression encourages, you are in the safest possible environment, according to your lizard brain. Your lizard brain doesn't give a shit about a job, friends, your career, your family, your projects, your life. Its job is to keep you alive and it does this in spite of how you feel. You may want to stay up for two days partying, but your lizard brain makes you sleep. ",
"Kind of like hibernation that doesn't end. However, it can end. Exercise, proper diet, social support, family. These things tell your lizard brain that the environment is very good and safe and healthy. It will slowly turn off that protective mechanism. I've dealt with depression for almost 20 years and done a lot of research on it. I'm no doctor of course. ",
"If I am wrong I'd love to be corrected. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx0nf7",
"comment_text": [
"Wow, I never thought about it, but they totally are so long as you don't actually go through with it. Like a fever, dangerous and can kill you if it gets bad enough, but otherwise useful to help you survive.",
"Suicidal thoughts helped me through one of the hardest parts of my life. At the time, the thought of not having to deal with the struggles of life and even thinking about the people who would miss me were very comforting thoughts. It was like pressure relieving."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwy5ae",
"comment_text": [
"Negative = bad. Bad = problem.",
"We're programmed to solve problems that affect our well being. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxd85b",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly. It's like finding an exit in a burning building. Even if you decide to stay and put out the fire, it's comforting knowing that exit is there. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: What happens at the power company when the power goes out? What is the process that follows?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63tluq
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.7
|
How do they determine the problem and fix it? How do they prioritize where to go first? The power is out and the outage map only shows it getting more reports. So now to keep from being pissed off I'd like to understand how the process actually works. The current estimated time of restoration is twelve hours from now. How do they determine that time too?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx1vuj",
"comment_text": [
"Shit. I was hoping the estimate was a lazy one. Like \"I'll meet you there within the next 6 years\" when you're 4 minutes away. I don't want accuracy :("
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwum9f",
"comment_text": [
"Well, it's likely the power isn't getting out to houses but is still being created at the plant. So somewhere down the line, closer to the homes and cities that are powered There's a broken power line or a blown component. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwzrub",
"comment_text": [
"How do they determine the problem ",
"Power distribution grids are networks. When power goes out on part of the network either a customer or the power company (through automated or manual systems) will notice and report the outage. These reports inform the provider where in the network the power ceases its flow. This allows the company to narrow down the location of the outage. It will usually require an on-site eyeball inspection to determine what the actual cause is. (Pole taken out by auto accident, transformer blown by lightning strike, falling tree took out the lines between poles, etc.)",
"and fix it?",
"This decision is an easy one ",
". Restring the wires, replace a pole (or several), or a transformer (or several).",
"How do they prioritize where to go first? ",
"Power companies have priority restoration lists that are based on customer and company needs. Generally speaking facilities like hospitals, nursing homes, emergency services operations (fire, ambulance) and public safety facilities like police stations and jails are at the top of the list. Special case needs like customers with home oxygen generators, life support equipment, etc. where people stand a reasonable risk of death due to the absence of power are also among the first to be restored. After those customers are restored then high priority customers (Think business willing to pay extra to avoid production losses.) and large customer service area groups (If your repair crew has time for one repair and there are two outages, the outage affecting 1,000 customers is generally fixed before the one affecting only 50 customers.) are restored.",
"It may prove to be the case in any given outage that a lower priority repair may have to be completed before a higher priority repair. This can be due to availability of resources, network architecture, etc.",
"The current estimated time of restoration is twelve hours from now. How do they determine that time too?",
"This part is reasonably easy for the power company to get right most of the time. You assess the repairs that are needed and determine the physical resources and staff levels required to complete them, along with the ability to actually access the repair site. Then it is a (relatively) simple scheduling problem to determine the most efficient order of restoration given the priorities and resources and external constraints. There can be \"flies in the ointment\" that affect the accuracy of the estimate. Crews may run into more damage than expected, resources may be slower getting to the site from their staging areas, access may be unexpectedly blocked, and so forth.",
"I'm sure the accuracy varies among power companies but here in central Virginia Dominion Power seems to have an excellent accuracy on their predicted return of service. (Typically I will get my power back 30-60 minutes before their estimated restoration. I only recall one time of them missing the estimate on the long side. After Hurricane Isabel they told me initially \"3-4 weeks\" and it took them 3.5 weeks to finally get to my area of the city.)",
"I do hope they are able to get your power back soonest. In this day and age it can be very frustrating to be without electricity."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx1tys",
"comment_text": [
"Little tidbit about the business paying to be priority thing, metal foundries pay a lot of money to ensure every reasonable action is taken to keep their power from going out. If their arc furnaces turn off it can cause the entire furnace enclosure to crack, and need to be replaced. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfx25xk",
"comment_text": [
"I was thinking of them when I wrote that. Some power critical operations can be maintained with backup generation systems. A foundry uses so much power that ain't happening. And as you note, it is a butt load of money lost if they lose power for very long, with both production and capital infrastructure losses."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What motivated poor white Confederate soldiers to fight and possibly die in the Civil War?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63solp
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
The simplistic explanation for the Civil War was pro-slavery vs anti-slavery.
I find it difficult to accept that poor whites who didn't own slaves, land or businesses felt so compelled to defend slavery that they would die for it. Surely there was something else about the Union that warranted putting their lives on the line. Option 1. I'm wrong and there is a reason they felt so strongly about the subject of slavery Option 2. I'm right and there is/are other reason(s) Either way could you kind Americans explain it to me please?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwmyer",
"comment_text": [
"The civil war was not purely a social war; it had a LOT to do with the industrial revolution and the production distribution of the North to South (vice versa)"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwq24d",
"comment_text": [
"\"Simplistic\" or not, the cause of the war was slavery - that's what caused states to secede and what caused the war. Multiple states cite it as the reason, the Cornerstone Speech cites it as the reason, as early as 1861, northerners acknowledged it as the cause (\"as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free\" - The Battle Hymn of the Republic). The \"states rights\" argument holds no water when you consider that multiple states mention the northern states exercising their \"rights\" to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act as reason for them to secede or when you look at how the Confederacy and its constitution treated slavery.",
"Southern propaganda, at the time, focused on Lincoln's election and ratcheted up fears that the Republican Party would target the south and make it subservient to the north. Slavery was the central facet of southern life at the time - everybody knows about the plantations and the like, but slaves were part of the social fabric in large farms, small farms, cities, etc. Tradesmen and merchants owned slaves in addition to the farmers. Slaves were everywhere in the south and as tensions increased between northern and southern states, lots of whites feared that they were only a few days away from a massive slave revolt. The Haitian revolution and the slave uprising that triggered it was still within the living memory of some people. So there's the fear motivating poor whites to fight.",
"What economic reasons were there for a white man to fight? An attack on slavery was an attack on a poor white man's ability to make a living and climb the social ladder, even if they didn't own any slaves at the time and the Southern leaders made sure that everybody knew this. Slaves were a key component of that climbing - if you obtained land, it was easier to work that land and make a living if you only had to pay for labor once and remember, this is at a point at which the west was still \"wild\" and land was widely available to settlers. The Republican party was against extending slavery to new territories and so these poor white men felt as though the election of a Republican president threatened their path to making their fortunes (and they weren't wrong - while Lincoln wasn't an aggressive abolitionist at the beginning of the war, he was against the extension of the institution into new territories). ",
"There was also a social aspect to it. A lot of pro-slavery leaders appealed to the social status argument. Slavery instituted a system where the white man was naturally superior to the black man and argued that ending slavery would equalize them - to the white man's detriment (drag the white man down to the black man's status, not bring the black man up). This sort of thing also got tied into religious arguments (\"The Bible authorized slavery so abolishing it was anti-Christian\").",
"There was also just old fashioned conscription too, on both sides. ",
"Sources:",
"http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45y8iz/how_did_the_souths_elite_convince_so_many_of_the/",
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp",
" (Secession documents)"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwnb7q",
"comment_text": [
"Slavery wasn't the real reason. It was about state's rights. The north was becoming industrialized and the south remained farm oriented. The government was pushing regulations, taxes and laws that the south felt was unfair and harmed their economic interests and freedoms. They went to war to either exercise their right to leave the United States and form their own government or to stand up for the \"rights\" in a national level. The north refused to let them leave and went to war with them to keep them in the United States.",
"One of the results of the war is that the Republicans abolished slavery."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwoif1",
"comment_text": [
"Well, technically the Civil War was fought on economic grounds, it's just that slavery was a fairly large part of the economy in the south.",
"Poor white people will fight to the death for anything they feel impacts their ability to make money, so if you view the Civil war as a war over economics, it makes sense that poor whites in the south would want to die for their confederacy.",
"I guess you could say we're seeing something similar happen in the US right now."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwv2t4",
"comment_text": [
"Slavery prevented blacks from competing with poor whites. If you were a farm hand or worked in the cities, the last thing you wanted was a huge influx of cheap labor.",
"Also, the plantations employed a lot of poor whites, and drove a lot of secondary businesses centered around them. Removing the engine of that economy would have been disastrous for everyone.",
"Finally, poor people aspire to be rich people, and one of the ways you did that was to become successful enough to own slaves of your own. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: How can Samsung agree to manufacture iPhone panels and at the same time have pending patent case with them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63s3yo
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwj1au",
"comment_text": [
"They sign an agreement with Apple in which they agree to manufacture panels for the iphone despite the fact that they have a pending case against Apple. Just because you're suing someone doesn't mean you can't do business with them. "
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwjkh1",
"comment_text": [
"I bet there is a significant number of people who do exactly that."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwjv6x",
"comment_text": [
"Sure you can. You can even date her and remarry her if you want. But that's personal. ",
"Business isn't personal and neither are these kinds of lawsuits. The purpose of the lawsuit isn't to establish a barrier for them to no longer work together. The purpose is to establish who owes who some more money. ",
"It's just another potential revenue stream. It's not a personal fight for either company. One thinks the other is owed a sum of money and the other disagrees. Has nothing to do with other business they might do with one another. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwjnyc",
"comment_text": [
"If she agrees? Yes. As long as both people agree and its otherwise legal you can do whatever you want with someone else."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwmx9x",
"comment_text": [
"I'm still a bit confused is it personal? "
],
"score": 4
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are airports allowed to charge ride hail services and taxis for picking me up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63nga0
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
When I arrive at the airport, I can have a friend pick me up for free. Absolutely nothing is paid to the airport (except of course the fees I have already paid the airlines). So why are airports allowed to charge a pick up fee when I am picked up by a company like Uber, Lyft, or a taxi? Furthermore, why are they allowed to tell me what ride hail service I can and can not use? Meaning, some airports will not allow me to call Uber or Lyft.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvm8ff",
"comment_text": [
"Airports are generally owned & operated by the government. The government is in charge of establishing laws. If they want to have revenue to fund the operation of the airport, they can assign fees for taxis that pick up at the airport."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvhm12",
"comment_text": [
"The taxi rank will be on private land, as a result they have the legal right to charge an admission fee for entry. I guess a taxi could pick people up outside of the airport grounds and the airport could not charge for that, however in most airports this will be a considerable distance from the terminal building and a long way to walk with luggage."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxbnil",
"comment_text": [
"I get that. But then, why don't they charge me when I pick up my wife or friend?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfxnhwa",
"comment_text": [
"They're not stupid. There would be a huge public outcry. The majority of people taking taxis are going to be on business travel (and don't care) and/or from out out of town (and can't vote)."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvlnqd",
"comment_text": [
"A lot of airports had/have monopolies on taxi service. The reasons vary but mostly to help prevent airport roadways become super congested from taxis looking for fares and to prevent fraud by shady drivers charging people exorbitant fees when they may not know better since they're from out of town. ",
"Charging a fee to Uber/Lyft is a happy medium. Presumably the risk of fraud is lower (with the way uber works at least) and the extra congestion is paid for. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: this meme
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63o9f4
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvoent",
"comment_text": [
"John Cera, a very famous Wrestler and actor, proposed to his long time girlfriend at a major event called Wrestlemania. His distinguishing characteristic is the phrase \"U CANT C ME\" and this meme plays off of that which states he's invisible while proposing."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvpvlc",
"comment_text": [
"...",
" "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvqo36",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"/r/outoftheloop",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvpt8h",
"comment_text": [
"I just imagined Michael Cera's identical twin brother John leaping into the ring during Wrestlemania."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwtlsm",
"comment_text": [
"oh ok, thanks!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are people allowed to contest a will?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63m2fr
| 11
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfv5hdw",
"comment_text": [
"This is for the United States. There are two main challenges raised against Wills. The first is a challenge saying that the submitted Will is actually a fake. The second is a challenge saying the submitted Will is real, but it is invalid because the person who signed it (the testator) did not have testamentary capacity at the time (a fancy way of saying they didn't know what they were doing or signing) or they were tricked into or forced into signing it by another.",
"For the first issue, people can turn in fake Wills. Most Wills aren't kept at a courthouse or something; they're usually kept in people's houses if they exist at all. If someone dies and you know the family can't find the Will or that there isn't one, you can make one up and a court wouldn't know the difference unless someone contested it.",
"For the second issue, in order to make a valid Will you have to do it of your own free will and be able to recognize what assets you have and who your family and friends are. If someone coerces an older person into making a new Will (e.g., an caretaker who convinces an old widow who is on a lot of medications to leave everything to the caretaker instead of the family) then the law won't consider it a valid Will. Similarly, if the testator was so mentally out of it at the time the will was made that they did not understand what property they had or they did not remember about their friends and family then the law won't consider it a valid Will. The reason for this is that we don't want unscrupulous people to take advantage of the elderly when they are having mental problems or susceptible to being tricked.",
"You can put what's called an \"",
"\" or \"no-contest\" clause in a Will, which says that if anyone unsuccessfully challenges the Will then they will be disinherited. Most states in the US will enforce these clauses to varying degrees (usually only disinheriting someone who challenges a will without good reason). This can help ensure that only people who really think the Will is fake or invalid will challenge it. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfv6070",
"comment_text": [
"To answer that, it's easiest to look at the most common grounds on which someone contests a will:",
"lack of testamentary capacity - the deceased lacked sufficient mental capacity at the time the will was drafted to understand the amount and nature of their property, their family members and loved ones included, and how the will disposes of the property. Dementia is a common factor.",
"undue influence - someone coerced the deceased into drafting a will that was beneficial to them. This came up recently with baseball legend ",
"Ernie Banks",
", where his will left his entire estate to his friend/caretaker instead of his family. Undue influence is very hard to prove.",
"insane delusion - similar to lack of testamentary capacity, but an insane delusion is defined as \"a spontaneous conception and acceptance as a fact of that which has no real existence except in imagination. The conception must be persistently adhered to against all evidence and reason.\"",
"duress - some threat of physical harm or coercion upon the deceased by the perpetrator that caused the execution of the will",
"And then there's fraud, forgery, or technical errors, which are all pretty self-explanatory."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvenkk",
"comment_text": [
"That may be true in your jurisdiction, but in mine (Canada) wills are contested for being unfair in some way. In fact, a will can be entirely nullified. As an example, it is legal to will your estate to other people based primarily on their race or sex, but only if that race is non-white, and that sex is not male. (This is the law, as interpreted by the courts).",
"Also, a will can attempt to violate other family law by not leaving sufficient amounts for the surviving spouse. This could be due to a bad lawyer writing it up, or due to a change in the law after the will was written."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvhagl",
"comment_text": [
"That's interesting, but seems bizarre to me as an American. What's to stop someone from giving away the money right before they die? Or from putting it in a trust to get around those rules?",
"Also, are you sure that's the law? A quick google search revealed one case where a court said a daughter couldn't be disinherited because she had a mixed-race child, but that was criticized and was a one-off thing. There was another case where a will said \"only sell my house to someone of a certain religion\" and that was unenforceable, but that's because you can't restrict who you sell property to on the basis of religion (in both the US and Canada) - it had nothing to do with who got the money in the end."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwgje0",
"comment_text": [
"If someone dies and you know the family can't find the Will or that there isn't one, you can make one up and a court wouldn't know the difference unless someone contested it.",
"Surely Wills have to have some sort of signature on it, or a witness?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why would Assad’s regime use chemical weapons, as opposed to conventional ones, which don't generate anywhere near the same international uproar and are presumably equally lethal, albeit less horrifically so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63tlu3
| 139
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.86
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwx9m7",
"comment_text": [
"Every town exists for a reason. Some enterprise is producing something of value to someone outside the borders of the community, bringing in cash to support the town's local economy. ",
"If you flatten the town, your country loses it's largest producer of widgets. Generations of experience, tools and machinery evaporated. You still need widgets, but now someone has to kick out millions to rebuild the factory and the town around it to produce them within the country again, and even then it'll be a year before you're in production. ",
"Until you're producing again you'll have to pay double the price for imported widgets, which is made even more complicated when the US has ",
"1000ft of freedom",
" parked off your coast, enforcing a trade embargo. ",
"However, if you hit them with chemical weapons the property damage is trivial. Sure you lose the people, but they were lost anyway. With them out of the way more... cooperative people can be shipped in and widget production can begin as soon as they figure out where the light switches are. For experience, you can recruit cash-motivated foreigners like fabrication-mercenaries to train the new folks. "
],
"score": 185
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwy2md",
"comment_text": [
"upvoted for 1000ft of freedom"
],
"score": 41
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwv67x",
"comment_text": [
"presumably equally lethal",
"This is pretty much why. Chemical weapons tend to have very high human casualties while being able to minimise damage to infrastructure. ",
"To achieve the same effect with conventional armaments you would incur far greater collateral damages in terms of infrastructure. "
],
"score": 39
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwz60y",
"comment_text": [
"He must also believe Russia will protect him from consequences and/or Trump won't impose consequences."
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfwz3n2",
"comment_text": [
"Would you say that currently in the 6 year Syrian Civil War, that conventional weapons are winning it for the Government? I would say not, that in fact conventional weapons clearly aren't strong enough to dislodge any kind of rebel. Chemical weapons are extremely powerful, both physically and psychologically. ",
"Dropping Sarin gas on a village and killing everyone indiscriminately is a terrifying move. Both sides have guns, both sides have rockets, etc, but only one side has the means to 100% kill everyone in an area. ",
"So, there are tactical reasons why, to dislodge an enemy they have been unable to dislodge using conventional weapons. There are psychological reasons, to scare your enemy into surrender. Sending a message, we won't just bomb you, we will poison the air so even your kids just die, and then if you survived, we'll bomb the clinic too - and most importantly Trump won't do shit. Putin won't allow his boy Trump to do anything, so why not use it? What's gonna happen if you do?",
"The last reason is that Syrian Command and Control structure ain't exactly top of the line. The US spends billions and billions in training and technology to enforce a command structure in which orders are always followed - and it still doesn't stop some humans being human and doing what ",
" want. The US armed forces are still rife with violations of the geneva convention, still struggles with the problem of soldiers and commanders doing things based on their own personal desires rather than the desire of their commander.",
"So the Syrian army definitely has men in it capable of ignoring the prospect of outrage and uproar and just using sarin gas because he is an evil bastard. Or he's angry, or...whatever reason.",
"My best guess is that this was not authorised by Assad, nor Russia. A commander just decided, he didn't want to deal with bullshit, send in the gas."
],
"score": 9
}
|
|
ELI5: Can anyone just walk into my house?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63jdrt
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfulmey",
"comment_text": [
"No. Law enforcement officials can only come in uninvited with a warrant or probable cause and anyone else would be trespassing,assuming they didn't live there."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfulp9w",
"comment_text": [
"But what could be classified as probable cause? Wouldn't that be a subjective thing? And if someone comes in and finds something that is not legal, if you take it to court, despite not having probable cause, couldn't they submit that evidence, and essentially get you in trouble?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfulrn1",
"comment_text": [
"I could be wrong on this, but I believe that any evidence found on your property with out a warrant or suspicions within reason cannot be used in court. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfuls0t",
"comment_text": [
"It could be subjective. Police have also been known to abuse the law to gain entry. Stuff like being able to hear gun shots, smell weed would be examples of legitimate probable cause "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfultf9",
"comment_text": [
"But what could be classified as probable cause? Wouldn't that be a subjective thing?",
"Kind of, yeah. Things like hearing someone call for help, or seeing/smelling illegal drugs would constitute probable cause. Basically, they need some sort of evidence, observable from outside your property, that a reasonable person would believe to be indicative of a crime being committed.",
"And if someone comes in and finds something that is not legal, if you take it to court, despite not having probable cause, couldn't they submit that evidence, and essentially get you in trouble?",
"No. Evidence obtained without a warrant or probable cause is not admissible in court. This is precisely to prevent cops from just barging into houses they they have a vague suspicion might be home to some illegal activity just in case they find something."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why wasn't Obama allowed his Supreme Court nomination/nominee? Isn't that illegal since it is/was a presidential duty?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63l5tj
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfuys59",
"comment_text": [
"OK. Let's be clear. The constitution lays out the process for a supreme court nominee.",
"The president puts forward his(or her) choice for the vacant seat. The Senate must vote to confirm (or reject) that person. This is the process as laid out in the constitution. ",
"There is no given timetable for the senate to confirm. It does not say \"senate muse do X within Y days\" or anything like that. ",
"The majority party in the senate is the one who gets to schedule everything. All votes, all hearings, everything is scheduled by the majority.",
"So when Obama nominated his choice, the Senate Republican leadership simply did not schedule any hearings or votes. They basically did nothing, and that was within the letter of the law. ",
"Since Obama's choice was not confirmed, he could not sit on the court. An election was eventually held and Trump was elected. Trump nominated someone else and the Senate has held hearings and scheduled a vote, as would be the normal process. "
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfuzkmm",
"comment_text": [
"It's technically legal to steal a pick, but I am still going to be pissed about it. Republicans first refused to consider a nominee. Then there was a transition in power. Now Republicans are stunned when Democrats refuse to consider a nominee. Of course they're blocking the stolen pick.",
"The GOP brings party over country to a new extreme. They don't want to work with anyone until they are in charge."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfv5d26",
"comment_text": [
"This really isn't a new phenomenon - it's been going on for decades. Arguably, the Democrats 'started it' with Bork.",
"Throughout history, the nation goes through periods of political ascendancy by one party or another. If you look at Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan, you can see the breakpoints of political ascendancy where one party's dominance transferred to another party's.",
"Eventually what happens is the out-of-favor party adapts to the new political climate by moving closer to the political center. However, until that happens, you tend to get a great deal of political venom thrown about."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfv93my",
"comment_text": [
"If you want to search for reasons to create a hostile political climate, it's always possible to find them. Please don't labor under the delusion that your reasons are 'good ones' while other people's reasons are 'bad ones' - ultimately they're all just reasons not to work together.",
"In other words, they're a ",
" of politics. The entire point of politics is to reach a consensus, not to treat it like a zero sum game.",
"You also should pay attention to the stark difference between your interests as a citizen and the interests of policy groups and politicians.",
"Policy groups - of any stripe - are looking out for their continued existence. Frequently this means that they emphasize simplistic marketing messages over rational policy. It also means that they rarely ever have concrete goals - victory for their cause is also defeat for their institution.",
"Politicians are interested in getting re-elected. This means they tend to prioritize simple marketing messages rather than nuanced positions, attempting to conceal the compromises they make while touting the hardline stands they make to rally their supporters.",
"When you say it's a 'stolen pick', you're not reflecting your own interests - you're just repeating propaganda designed to serve someone else's interests. I'd encourage you to think about what your interests actually are and examine how various policies impact them rather than simply serving other people's interests."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfvic32",
"comment_text": [
"What you want would require a change to the U.S. Constitution and I'm not sure what that change could be. Do you want to entirely eliminate advise and consent?"
],
"score": 6
}
|
|
ELI5: why did only Japan use Kamikaze Pilots in WW2 and was there some special kind of nationalism going on in Japan?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63jatv
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
Doing some research for a history paper and this made me curious
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dful8b9",
"comment_text": [
"Kamikaze pilots was a strategy that evolved out of the growing gap in air power between America and Japan during WWII. After Pearl Harbor and in the early part of the war, Japan had arguably one of the best air forces around, at least in terms of numbers and experience.",
"However, due to a number of mitigating factors, Japan essentially could not replace the losses that accumulated as the War in the Pacific progressed. As you drew into the later part of the campaign, the position had essentially reversed with the American air force now possessing superiority in numbers, training, experience, and resources available.",
"With dwindling supplies (especially fuel) and scores of inexperienced pilots (who can't get sufficient training because you're rationing fuel), the principle of the Kamikaze was to maximize the amount of damage a single inexperienced pilot could inflict.",
"In short, their pilots were so poorly trained and equipped, kamikaze was seen as one of the few ways they could inflict any damage on the Americans."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfulg7k",
"comment_text": [
"No, there wasn't really any \"nationalism\" thing going on although the Japanese warrior code did play a small role.",
"Unfortunately, despite any mythological ideas of kamikaze pilots, the real fact is that Japan was losing the battle in the air (and sea) for pilots very badly, and for many pilots, a battle with american forces meant you weren't coming home anyways... as in, if you were forced to fight against US naval forces, especially if combined with US planes, you were dead in the water anyways (excuse the pun).",
"Kamikaze attacks begin making sense, when your potential to destroy a ship or cause major damage by regualr flying and fighting (and eventually dying) is low, but as a human guided missile you could actually do damage before you died.",
"The kamikaze attacks grow more as Japan's ability to field experienced pilots who might have a reasonable chance-despite everything against them-dwindled down, as such many inexperienced pilots, a kamikaze attack again made sense, they definitely weren't gonna survive a battle anyways, and at least they could be useful.",
"[As a side note, at this point in the war, Japanese planes were sub standard, not properly maintained and such, which means yeah, just more notches against the Japanese pilots]",
"tl;dr: You were probably going to die anyways in the battle. Take the bastards out with you"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfuln8t",
"comment_text": [
"A lot of your questions have been asked before in ",
"r/askhistorians",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=kamikaze&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfundgi",
"comment_text": [
"I don't think this is very accurate. Nationalism had a lot to do with it. Compare the Japanese Kamikazes to, say, the German ",
"Sonderkommando Elbe",
". The Sonderkommando Elbe was instructed to bring down Allied bombers by ramming into them, usually at the cost of the life of the pilot, but there was still the expectation of the preservation of your own life as objective #2 after the #1 of taking out bombers. They were given all possible resources to survive, and told to abandon their planes before the crash if they were confident that they would succeed. They were specifically told that these were ",
" deliberate suicide missions, just ",
" ones.",
"The kamikaze pilots, on the other hand, were given ceremonial short swords to kill themselves if they failed, rather than come back home. There was an intense nationalistic pride there underlying the willingness of the Japanese pilots to not only put their lives in danger (like any soldier), not only to seek out the death of the enemy at the cost of your own, but to ",
" beyond a shadow of a doubt that your mission was to die - not to do something that would probably result in your death (like the Sonderkommando Elbe's mission) but literally, explicitly, to die and ",
" take some enemies with you, probably. The death of the German pilots was likely but undesirable; the death of the Japanese pilots was requested of them.",
"That nationalism existed in Germany, too, which is why the Sonderkommando Elbe pilots were willing to ",
" die for Germany, but there's a huge cultural difference there. If the German commanders put them in planes without parachutes and handed them a sword, saying \"Don't bother trying to come back alive\" the German soldiers would have resisted. Sure, worded correctly (\"The fatherland needs you to sacrifice yourself, etc.\") most of them would probably have still jumped in the Messerschmitt and taken off, but there's a difference between a willingness to sacrifice your life for something you believe will help your country, and sacrificing your life because the emperor told you to. The kamikaze pilots would have flown their planes into the ground if their commanders told them to. The German pilots would not have without some ",
" convincing."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfunwnb",
"comment_text": [
"You're trying to compare unlike items just by the nature of \"suicide mission\". ",
"Understand Japan was in a far different situation that Germany. Their equipment sucked, they were badly losing, and their home was about to be invaded by an enemy they were told (falsely) was the devil incarnate and would bring hell and death and torture to them and then families. ",
"Then on top of all of that, Japan had simply no resources to support helping a pilot live--they were going to die in combat, not \"some day\" but the next engagement. There was no capture. They devil would take you. You had to kill, you had to help, suicide seems like a good option when the only other is to do nothing. ",
"Germans, despite some suicidal missions, were never so desperate or lacking in materials they had to truly resort to human guided missiles as a realistic weapon. And even then, to what end would they do damage? A kamikaze attack by Germans could do what? They aren't attacking valuable destroyers or air craft carriers, of which a hundred or more trained pilots it may take to damage, or a single kamikaze. Germans were fighting tanks and troops. There is little value there in that cost of a solider and material compared to the value in crashing into a big destroyer. ",
"Understand that in the naval game, with low resources, a guided missile is a totally realistic weapon, especially if you can do nothing else. But against ground forces? There is not much to gain at large expense."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Do Glasses 'worsen' eye-sight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63husi
| 12
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.78
|
I have glasses, and I do admit, I got them yesterday... now, the thing is.. if I take them off, I can't see anything, at all... it all looks worse/blurry now! Is it because I'm already getting use to the glasses and anything other than them is weird?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu7n17",
"comment_text": [
"They do not worsen eyesight. But they make your eyes' job easier. Once you take them off, the eyes have to work hard to get a good image again. Since you have glasses, presumably they can't adjust sufficiently to see 'great' but they will work to get back to 'the best you can do.'",
"The glasses do not contribute any lasting harm."
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu7kz0",
"comment_text": [
"What I've read, which might not be true, is that them making your eyes worse is a myth. You just became used to wearing them so your vision seems worse after taking them off. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu838g",
"comment_text": [
"It is a myth. When people say that glasses make your eyesight worse usually they're forgetting that eyesight naturally gets worse as you age"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfugm2n",
"comment_text": [
"This video from SciShow will explain in more detail about the myth of glasses worsening eyesight.",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ReCCjCdyI"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu7prs",
"comment_text": [
"If you prescription is wrong you can end up damaging your eyes. It has happened to me and now I can't see anything more than 3 inches away without my glasses."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: How are companies such as FedEx, UPS, or USPS able to deliver packages so quickly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63fb65
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
How can these companies sort out millions of packages, ship them out and get them to (in some cases) the other side of the world in just a few days? I'm especially curious when there are few packages going to a location, so the total volume of things shipped to that area is relatively low. Wouldn't it be a waste of resources to ship to such remote areas?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftmxr0",
"comment_text": [
"I can answer how the delivery company I used to work for worked - might not be this way for all of them however.",
"Basically it's economies of scale. I worked in a small but central distribution centre that could and did handle 100'000's of parcels an hour. They would be sorted and loaded onto semi trailers bound for smaller more local depots then onto vans to the final destination.",
"Some of the routes would fill a semi trailer in a couple of hours - these would be making the most money for the company. Others might only fill 1/4 In a day. These would probably loose money but still maintained as you don't want to start saying you can't deliver to ",
" as you would loose business.",
"If the distance was great enough they would be sent to the nearest airport and flown part of the journey to speed it up.",
"If you want to know ",
" the parcels are sorted and know where they are going I can explain."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftv7ul",
"comment_text": [
"Um, no, employees sort it (worked at both FedEx and UPS as a package handler so it could be different elsewhere. There is of course conveyor belts. The belts bring all the packages down a chute (literally thousands of packages), they get sorted and scannwd, then get picked up/placed into a hugggee revolving machine that the truck loaders use to fill each truck. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftmsq2",
"comment_text": [
"They operate on a hub and spoke network, where everything goes into centralized sorting centers (FedExin Memphis, UPS in Louisville) and then get sent out to regional centers closer to deliver. So a package from NYC to Dallas would go from NYC to Memphis, and get sorted with all the other packages going to Dallas from Seattle, Chicago, Miami, even Houston, etc. Then they are transported to Dallas and distributed for delivery. Some items are trucked and others are flown, depending on size, urgency, etc. For items going to more obscure places, they may just fill a cargo bin that goes via commercial flight while large cities get a full plane/truck or even multiple. So items going to Anchorage may just get put on a commercial flight to Alaska. Sometimes, companies like FedEx subcontract to the USPS for delivery to more rural areas rather than having a driver spend a whole day making 3 deliveries."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftn0u2",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah, working in the hub and seeing how massive it is. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftv3al",
"comment_text": [
"How are they sorted? I assume some sort of machine? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why is socialism seen as a bad thing when it was the the nazi socialist party that helped get Germany out of their depression before WWII?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63fuu7
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.32
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftr746",
"comment_text": [
"1) There are many kinds of socialism. When people talk about \"socialism\" today, what they're generally referring to is \"Marxist socialism\", which is the most famous type because it was espoused by the Soviet Union. \"National socialism\" as practiced by the Nazis was very different from Marxist socialism. The Nazis in fact hated Marxists almost as much as they hated Jews - Hitler's writings and speeches are ",
" of anti-Marxist arguments.",
"2) National socialism isn't great for an economy, either. The Nazis got Germany out of their depression through massive and unsustainable amounts of government spending. They grew to have the power to take over most of Europe, but the cost of this was that they ",
" to take over most of Europe just to pay for that growth. They built and built and built, but the only way to pay for all the stuff they were building was to steal money and resources from people. They stole from the Jews and other undesirables in their own country, and then they invaded other countries and stole their stuff too."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftqm4b",
"comment_text": [
"The Nazis were fascist, not socialist. There's a huge difference. Their naming themselves socialist was propaganda.",
"Socialism is seen as a bad thing particularly in the US because of Russia, the Soviet Union, and their experiment with communism, combined with the McCarthy era red scare. ",
"Besides all of that, when you fill in the blank in the question \"why is ___ seen as a bad thing when the Nazis did it successfully\" is a self-answering question: because the Nazis did it successfully. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftqrfy",
"comment_text": [
"Modern America was built upon capitalist ideals so Socialism was an enemy especially with the USSR as an enemy post WWII. Socialism in itself is not bad, but there are not many countries that are successful being socialistic societies because of the ease of corruption. Sure capitalism has a similar flaw, but a measure of the two provides good reasonable results. America got out of the toughest era it had seen because of WWII which was caused by the over production post WWI, both caused by capitalism and daddy warbucks funding. ",
"Mainly easy corruption is the reason we don't pursue a more socialist society. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftsd6j",
"comment_text": [
"Yes? We have plenty of corruption in our capitalist society, and most socialist societies have a problem with corruption as well making them less optimal to live in (and part of the reason we view them as negative). "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftvdk5",
"comment_text": [
"The key to understanding Nazi Germany is to understand that Hitler hijacked the country: after wangling his political clout to reach the position of Chancellor, he set fire to the Parliament and blamed it on the Reds, thus enabling him to declare martial law and arrest enemies of the state - but since he had a secret army, he was able to arrest ANYONE who said 'boo', and from then on he had the country in his grip. His agenda: revenge on France, destruction of French and British armies, so he'd have a free hand to destroy The Soviet Union. This was the really big aim, for Hitler: stamp out the Reds. Why? Because they caused the collapse of the German Army (which Hitler was in all through the war) by staging a coup in Berlin in 1918, leading to the Kaiser fleeing to Holland. 'Socialism' had nothing to do with it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is Starry Night considered a masterpiece?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63eznh
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
I am curious as to how and why Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh arose to its level of fame today. What makes it special?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftmjmr",
"comment_text": [
"Well... um... big question, but, to me Van Gogh is the finest painter of them all. Certainly the most popular, great painter of all time. The most beloved, his command of colour most magnificent. He transformed the pain of his tormented life into ecstatic beauty. Pain is easy to portray, but to use your passion and pain to portray the ecstasy and joy and magnificence of our world, no one had ever done it before. Perhaps no one ever will again. To my mind, that strange, wild man who roamed the fields of Provence was not only the world's greatest artist, but also one of the greatest men who ever lived."
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftjhls",
"comment_text": [
"Well, Vincent Van Gogh is a very well known artist. He's one of the most prolific, influential, and well-known artists of the last 200 years. He was also mentally ill - he cut off his own ear in a fit of rage, spent some time in an asylum, and killed himself at age 37.",
"Starry Night is probably his most famous painting aside from the obvious fact that it's beautiful and instantly recognizable - but also the context of its creation. He painted it while he was recovering in an asylum in France after the aforementioned ear cutting. The landscape was inspired by the view from his bedroom window. ",
"So why is it so well known and so famous? It's basically a \"greatest hit.\" Famous and influential artist's best known work. Kind of like how people who know almost nothing about classical music have still heard Beethoven's 5th"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftmqhj",
"comment_text": [
"YES. I love this. Vincent and the Doctor is my favorite episode out of any show I've ever seen."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftn2tp",
"comment_text": [
"Mine too. That scene is just crying fuel."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dftm3a4",
"comment_text": [
"I thought he cut off his ear to send to a lover? Or was that Picasso?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How do cops know exactly where to go when they get a call?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63h7h0
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
Say someone becomes a cop in a new city or town and are out in their car and get calls from dispatch. Do they use GPS to get to the address? In movies and TV, when a police officer receives a call with an address, they automatically whip a U-turn and speed to the call. That has always seemed so unrealistic to me... Do cop cars have GPS that is connected to dispatch so they know where they're going? Cops don't just show up to a new city and study a map so they know all the different streets... Edit: Grammar
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu29hg",
"comment_text": [
"Cops don't just show up to a new city and study a map so they know all the different streets...",
"Uhh, yeah they do. Police tend to have certain areas they patrol so it is more like \"learn your quadrant\" and knowing where things are is absolutely something police start to learn immediately."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu2yf5",
"comment_text": [
"I'm pretty sure they just have to learn the city or town they patrol. ",
"Years ago I had a cop come blairing down my street and bang on the front door and run in asking who was having the heart attack. Me obviously having no idea what he was talking about. He then asks this is XYZ street? Me no this is wrong street, XYZ street is right there and I point out my back door to the house behind and catty cornered to me. Cop takes off through my back yard hops two fences and bursts in through the back door of my neighbors house. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu34kg",
"comment_text": [
"some cruisers do have onboard GPS. but mostly it's about knowing your neighborhood. ",
"if your dispatch tells you to go somewhere you don't know.. you either get a map, pull it up on your phone, or ask dispatch where to go. ",
"not all cops work in city blocks. county sheriffs work a huge area. they don't know every little street in the county. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu3qqx",
"comment_text": [
"Police get training of their beat, the specific area they cover. They also pair an experienced officer with a rookie for a period of time, for them to learn the ropes of the job in general and also to learn the geography. And nowadays the cars all have computers with GPS and additional information available to them."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfu2bo0",
"comment_text": [
"Okay. Knowing cops have designated areas to patrol makes more sense, thanks for your response! "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What happens if lightning strikes the road close to a car in heavy rain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63b44t
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
So the wife and I are in the car driving through a thunderstorm and she asks me "If lightning strikes the road by the car, what happens to us?" Now I'm thinking that the tires should insulate us from a nearby strike, however the car is covered top to bottom in water, so I'm unsure of what the end result would be.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsqoww",
"comment_text": [
"Rain water is not an awesome conductor, and would likely be spotty and streaky, especially if you're driving, so there's probably not a complete water circuit covering the car. The metal that your car is made from is a better conductor.",
"In all likelihood. Your car would be struck before the nearby ground. Those inside the car should be pretty safe as the electricity should move on the vehicle surface and not through the cabin or occupants in any meaningful way.",
"Of course, these are generalities. You could be in a deluge, covering the car in a layer of water that t seeps through the cabin, conducting the lightning all over the place. That's not likely, though,"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsqtgk",
"comment_text": [
"Unless you are fording deep water there won't be enough continuous water to create a useful path and negate the insulation from the tires. Plus the lightning is going to be seeking ground and your car isn't in that path (quite the opposite actually). "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsth98",
"comment_text": [
"Other than the stench of shit in the car because the occupants collectively shit themselves, basically nothing. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsqy9y",
"comment_text": [
"Nothing would happen. To speak colloquially, lightning basically wants to \"dump\" its charge, and the only body large enough to accept it is the earth (talking about cloud-ground strikes, cloud-cloud strikes are also very common).",
"At the split second the strike hits the road (or a metal pole near the road, it really makes no difference), that point has an absurdly high potential- up to many millions of volts. But at some distant point, the potential is zero (because that's what we define it to be). So from that point to every point of remote earth there's a gradient - think of throwing a pebble into a lake.",
"Even if you were close enough to the strike where the potential gradient was enough for an appreciable current to flow though the high resistance of your car \"circuit\", all of the charge would flow through the chassis of the car - it acts as a Faraday cage. There wouldn't be any potential difference that would cause any current to flow through the passengers.",
"Where you could be in trouble in a situation like this is if you're in stride near a strike. Your fore leg and hind leg bridge a potential, and this difference causes a portion of the charge (current * time), to flow through your body."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsrvbj",
"comment_text": [
"Your car forms a somewhat effective ",
"Faraday cage",
"; if lightning strikes the car, the electricity in the lightning bolt should flow to the ground through the metal of the car and the water on the tires. Might blow your tires or start them on fire, and the thunder will likely deafen you."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: What are all the possible outcomes of a US Senate filibuster?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63b6sz
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsq83b",
"comment_text": [
"It ends when either the minority gives up filibustering or the majority gives up trying to get a vote on the issue being filibustered.",
"There's no particular reason it has to end at all other than that the public will eventually get sick of a deadlock and force a compromise."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsq1u7",
"comment_text": [
"Maybe try ",
"r/AskHistorians",
" ?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsql5o",
"comment_text": [
"If cloture isn't reached and the nuclear option isn't used, then the filibuster continues. It will last until either one of the two previously mentioned things happens, or the majority leader withdraws whatever whatever the minority party was filibustering."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsqosp",
"comment_text": [
"It doesn't. Eventually a new election is held. The session of Congress ends, and a new congress convenes with some new members, and any proposed legislation has to start over from scratch."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsy9qk",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is not for:",
"Straightforward answers or facts - ELI5 is for requesting an explanation of a concept, not a simple straightforward answer ",
"/r/answers",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why do non-cyrillic languages not have direct phonetic translations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
63afia
| 23
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
Why do languages that never natively used the cyrillic alphabet not have directly phonetic translations? For example in Mandarin, Xi is pronounced SHE... Why is it not translated phonetically?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsizb2",
"comment_text": [
"I think the word you're looking for is \"transliterated\" rather than \"translated.\" ",
"Transliterations are the transformation of non-Latin script into its Latin equivalent. In the case of languages like Mandarin, there is a convention which is followed when transliterating names. ",
"However, the languages which use the Cyrillic alphabet aren't the only ones which usually garner phonetic transliterations. I read and write Hindi; the Latin-script derivations of Hindi are usually phonetic when read aloud by a somewhat knowledgeable English speaker. ",
"While I'm not familiar with Mandarin, I would guess that in some cases, transliterations don't always follow English conventions due to the presence of sounds or sound combinations which we don't have in our language. For instance, in Arabic, there is are multiple letters which approximate the \"th\" sound. "
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsl0fw",
"comment_text": [
"In one form of Chinese transliteration, it was decided to use two unimportant Latin letters (Q and X) to represent totally unrelated sounds in Mandarin (maybe Cantonese also, I'm not sure). I guess in most transliteration systems, combinations of two letters were used instead to minimize confusion by English speakers, but single letters were used here for orthographic simplicity. To me it just seems slightly less English centric, as X has an 'sh' sound in some other languages (some dialects of Portuguese and Spanish I believe, perhaps among others), so it's not totally arbitrary. ",
"I can't think of any other languages like this. Do you have any more examples? "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfslxsn",
"comment_text": [
"I can explain some of that; Hindi has four different \"D\" sounds, four \"T\" sounds, three \"N\"s and \"S\"s (sort of), and two each of \"L, R, and G\". Obviously they aren't exactly like the English consonants, but they are written as though they are. ",
"There is just no way to easily portray all of those differences with Roman letters, nor would it be useful for most of the English speakers who are incapable of hearing or reproducing the differences.",
"To me, knowing how Hindi is transliterated into Roman letters still does not give nearly enough information unless you already speak Hindi; many different sounds are written as though they are exactly the same sound, and the only way to fully make sense of it is to already know the words. In that, I disagree with ",
"u/PrettyFarAwayNow",
" 's comment. I support everything else they said, tho."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsnji0",
"comment_text": [
"A few more points on non-phonetic Cyrillic transliteration, in this case for Russian:",
"X (EDIT: not Ж) is rendered \"kh\" as in Khrushchev, but really ",
"sounds more like a husky \"h\" in Russian",
", with nothing much like an English \"k\" sound.",
"И and Ы are identically rendered \"i\" or sometimes \"y\", but the sounds are distinct in Russian, and the latter sound does not exist in English.",
"And I'm sure there are more - my knowledge of the language is only passing."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsp9pq",
"comment_text": [
"You're completely right - I wasn't even thinking of that. Now that you've raised the point, I can think of plenty of examples where Hindi transliterations are not phonetic. ",
"For instance, nobody without an understanding of the language would know how to pronounce \"ladka\" or \"pappad.\" ",
"So I suppose a good deal of contextual knowledge is necessary. Thanks for helping me realize my mistake!"
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: Ethics of blood and platelet donation -- why is it morally good?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
637ouw
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfs0jpc",
"comment_text": [
"Usually there is a surplus? Where do you live?",
"In the US blood donations usually easily outstrip need. Improvements in surgery methods have seen demand for blood to trend downward."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrx985",
"comment_text": [
"What country context are you using? My country has it as a completely voluntary thing funded by the government as part of socialised healthcare so there isn't a profit aspect."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrxqj3",
"comment_text": [
"The NHS does. ",
"The person who recieves the blood as they don't die, the person who donated the blood as they gave a litttle back to the world. ",
"They would say 'oh we are low on (blood group) (rh +/-) and we have no other blood groups that can donate', they'd then contact a blood centre. My blood went to a fairly local University Hospital."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfry9r8",
"comment_text": [
"Given that blood needs to be tested for diseases before being used, why can't organizations which extract donor blood pay for them?",
"I think this generally falls under legislation which prevents the purchasing of biological material from people. While aimed at preventing people from purchasing kidneys from poor people, it also covers paying for blood.",
"Regardless it isn't necessary as a surplus of blood is usually collected via donation.",
"Who profits from donated blood? Do the organizations that extract the blood or the hospitals that use the blood profit?",
"People who need the blood profit. The hospitals profit from giving people blood but that is generally allocated under the cost of administering the blood, not charging for supplying the blood itself. They do incur costs for handling the blood though and those can result in some profit.",
"If so, how is this ethically acceptable if the donors themselves are barred from being paid?",
"Just because you can't ethically purchase a kidney doesn't mean you can't ethically charge for the surgery to implant a donated kidney, or transporting the live kidney, etc.",
"What do hospitals do if they are running short on donated blood or platelets? Do they have lines through which they can purchase blood or platelets?",
"They transfer from other nearby areas and run blood donation drives. Usually there is a large surplus all the time. Many people are willing to help for free such that purchasing blood is not required."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfs054e",
"comment_text": [
"Usually there is a surplus? Where do you live?\nCause that sounds like an exageration"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why aren't there Muslim terrorist attacks in South or East Asia?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
639cks
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.44
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsbd6v",
"comment_text": [
"The premise of your question isn't necessarily accurate. I suggest looking into the ",
"2008 Mumbai attacks",
", the ",
"South Thailand Insurgency",
", the countless issues in Pakistan, and the ",
"2002 Bali bombings",
", though there are other examples. ",
"But I think the gist of your question is asking why Islamic Terrorism isn't as prominent a threat in South and East Asia as it is in Europe and North American. ",
"A hugely generalized answer to that question is that Islamic Terrorists are largely motivated by what they see as excessive influence from the West on traditional Muslim culture and territory. ",
"As an example, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda spawned from people who fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. They disapproved of the USSR and the communist influence in Afghanistan and organized against them (ironically, they were funded by the US for those efforts). When Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden offered his experienced Afghan-based forces, but was turned down. The Saudis instead accepted help from the United States. Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders felt that by allowing the US to come in, the Saudis had allowed the Middle East to fall victim to what they saw as American imperialism and exploitation. They saw the US as exploitative (just trying to protect their oil interest) and feared that American influence would encourage liberalism and activities that hardline Muslims saw as against their religion. Al Qaeda saw the United States as a real threat to their view of the 'Muslim way of life' in the Middle East, so they declared open war against the United States. ",
"As more western countries got involved in conflicts in the Middle East (from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Syria, etc.), they also became targets of radical islamists. ",
"In general, terrorists target those they perceive as the enemy. For most radical Islamic terrorists, they see the West as encroaching, and target those Western powers. ",
"Asian countries have largely stayed out of conflicts in the Middle East, so they aren't seen as targets. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsc0u8",
"comment_text": [
"Others have talked about how there are, indeed, Muslim terror attacks in Asia. But if you are asking why there are (or at least seem to be less of them), there's two key reasons.",
"First, they are less likely to be reported in Western media. This is apparent from the fact that you didn't even think they existed.",
"Secondly, there's less of it because all terrorism is political, and the governments in Asia are far less likely to have foreign policy priorities that Islamic extremists consider unacceptable.",
"The root of almost all of the terror attacks is the position of Western governments on issues like Palestine and Israel, Iraq, and so on. A country that isn't using it's influence in the Middle East isn't likely to attract foreign terrorists."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsbsst",
"comment_text": [
"ISIS has actually identified South Korea as an enemy. There were some generic threats towards South Korea, but nothing substantial has happened yet. I'm no expert, but I suspect that the reasons they're not aggressively targeted is for the reason you stated -- they're not a \"valuable\" target. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsab8q",
"comment_text": [
"There are Muslim terror attacks in Asia all the time. We just don't hear about them as much because they're both more common and less relevant to western countries."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsajgl",
"comment_text": [
"Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China have all had significant Islamic terrorist attacks in the last several years. What exactly makes you think there aren't \"Muslim terrorist attacks in South or East Asia\"?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: What are the cognitive benefits of reading?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
637x0h
| 112
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.86
|
Why are we better off reading a book than watching an episode of a TV show, for instance? Do these benefits spill over into everyday life? I'm looking for answers related to the actual process of reading a book of any kind, not so much the raw knowledge that nonfiction has to offer.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfscusz",
"comment_text": [
"According to ",
"Patterns of Reading Practice 1996 by Terrance D. Paul",
" practicing reading is the number one predictor of school performance and standardized test scores, beating socioeconomic status and parental education. Reading seems to be the brain's equivalent of weight training - you don't have to lift a lot of weight, but you have to practice it regularly and you'll get tremendous academic gains.",
"Now, that doesn't sound that surprising when you consider that reading is done in basically every class. Being good at it because you have practiced doing it isn't that surprising either - practice a sport, an instrument, etc. and you'll get better and it will be easier, and eventually it will be fun rather than a chore. Doing something beneficial when it is also fun compounds the gains.",
"Extensive reading is going to expose people to more words, which allows for understanding on another level - if you lack the word for something, then you can't have as many subtleties of meaning. Reading an hour a day will expose you to 4 million words per year. So vocabulary building is an essential benefit of reading, that is applicable in a variety of ways to learning.",
"Reading allows people to experience things vicariously - reading ",
" will allow you to climb Mt. Everest from your armchair. Reading allows communication of knowledge, philosophy, etc. in ways that allow for re-reading, allowing comprehension that could be missed in seeing a video, lecture, etc. that happens and is gone. Going further, taking notes, writing in the book, figuring out just what the author is getting at and the devices they're using to get there can allow for a more complete understanding. There is a denseness in the highly literate work that would lead to confusion in a TV show, where the expectation is that it will be seen once and be gone. Reading can be slower and more deliberate."
],
"score": 51
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsh00x",
"comment_text": [
"I feel these points just support the idea of a cognitive benefit to reading but don't really say why 'reading' and why not another medium. \nReading is the only way of absorbing information that is truly at your own pace. ",
"You can read and reread a passage of text as many times as required until you understand. Sure, you can rewind video or audio but not nearly as easily of elegantly as you can with reading. ",
"Because of this quality, the content of things that are 'written' can be vastly more complex and detailed, meaning that those who read a lot are more likely to encounter such content.",
"If you think about it, every piece of content that has extreme significance and or complexity in society is written down - and I don't think it's a just tradition. "
],
"score": 13
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrz0pq",
"comment_text": [
"Reading, fiction or non fiction, is an experience of being in another person's head. Reading thoughts from others are understood in our brains unlike a tv show where we usually only see the actors actions rather than thoughts. Studies on reading fiction has shown that readers have a better ability to have empathy and in turn allows better insights to how others act and feel.",
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/novel-finding-reading-literary-fiction-improves-empathy/"
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfshb2e",
"comment_text": [
"ehhh, that's a lot of words. TL;DR?"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfsis2h",
"comment_text": [
"Reading > TV"
],
"score": 6
}
|
ELI5: Why 4-chan and its troll lean so much to the right of the political spectrum
|
explainlikeimfive
|
6362yx
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrnc7d",
"comment_text": [
"The far right express views that general society has come to consider unacceptable, such as advocating racial discrimination against minorities. The views on the far left may be unpopular but they are not taboo to the same extent. So the few places in society where 'anything goes' attract the far right."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrxogx",
"comment_text": [
"4chan users may or may not hold those views. A lot of the time, they just want to cause offence. Internet users are typically fairly left leaning for various reasons so they're less likely to be hugely offended by extreme left wing views. Extreme right wing views though are much more likely to offend.",
"Naturally this does also attract some genuine right-wingers. A lot of them exagerrate their viewpoints because they understand the point of the forum. Some of them genuinely hold those views. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrmxuv",
"comment_text": [
"It's important to point out that this is the perspective of the trolls in question, and to pretty much everyone else \"rampant censorship\" turns out to be \"Banning trolls\". After all, if the ideal state for someone is the mess of /b/, then sure anything less is going to be oppressively controlled. ",
"tl;dr Increasingly research is suggesting what we already suspect; trolls are mostly broken young guys. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrnmnm",
"comment_text": [
"That, and the \"far left\" in the US is truly a tiny group. The majority \"Left\" in the US would be Center-Right to Right anywhere in Europe, for example. Unfortunately generations have now been raised with \"liberal\" and \"Left\" as specific buzzwords that have utterly lost their real meaning. ",
"This is partly why so many alt-righters think the entire world is biased to the left, because they define everything in opposition to their own insignificant existence. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrp5e3",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly, the \"far left\" was very prominent in the 20th century and it refers to the belief that the proletariat should seize the means of production, which usually works out to literally overthrowing the government, confiscating everything, and redistributing it.",
"It does not refer to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Jill Stein."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5 : Flat Earthers
|
explainlikeimfive
|
631stz
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqmqhr",
"comment_text": [
"They believe that the earth is a disk shape, ice caps keep the water on the disk, like the lip of a plate. They have no evidence, they have no pictures, they have no supporting data. These people are either morons, or very gullible. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqn0ok",
"comment_text": [
"How would they ever explain when something circumnavigates the globe?",
"They say it just traveled in a big circle."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqn0ok",
"comment_text": [
"How would they ever explain when something circumnavigates the globe?",
"They say it just traveled in a big circle."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqnkfb",
"comment_text": [
"Is there any basis for the belief? Or is it just another way to question The Man?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqnryw",
"comment_text": [
"I've not heard any real basis. It's a conspiracy by the government but they can't seem to explain why every other advances government supports the lie and they can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why that benefits the government. It's hard to tell sometimes if these people are really that dense or if they are trolling that hard"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why do TV actors earn residuals upon re-airing for their performances, but recording artists don't earn a dime when their music is played on the radio?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
6330bz
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqyiye",
"comment_text": [
"This answer is gonna be totally unsatisfying, but its the answer",
"Because thats just how the business model those industries work. Yes I know, unsatisfying. Here's some details.",
"For actors, they are members of unions, and these unions have negotiated rates and pay like this. The unions are VERY strong and active and have been able to get fairly good deals in stuff like this, they have been around a very long time, and are a huge part of the industry and giant player.",
"In music, there are no such unions among the artists. It's very every man for themself. In music the artist doesn't even get paid for radio play. The songwriter and publisher get paid, not the artist. The music labels hold most of the power.",
"In other words, actors, through their union, secured pretty good rights and pay for residuals. Musicians being a more disperse and non-union thing, have never been able to do it, and the power (and money) really resides with their label, so they have no reason to pay them anything."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqynwu",
"comment_text": [
"Short answer is they signed different contracts. ",
"Recording artist generally do earn money off of future use of their songs as long as they signed a contract that gave them the rights. Usually this requires them to write the songs but song rights change hands so it's not strictly required. I can't speak to radio play specifically but they can earn money off of more than just direct sales. ",
"TV actors are in a guild which is basically a union that ensures they all get a basic level of compensation and some universal benefits in their contracts and one that's been around for a while is that actors can be paid for future tv airing of things they've acted in. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqylls",
"comment_text": [
"Courtenay Love wrote the best article on this topic I've ever read.",
"http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy.html"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqyoe3",
"comment_text": [
"Because tv actors have better unions. Musicians have never effectively organized and so we receive terrible/no pay for our work often. Another great example is that payola (paying radio stations to play your song) is supposed to be illegal, yet it's a standard industry practice and everyone knows it and no one is fighting it because there is NO organization. TV and film actors often HAVE to belong to SAG or other Acting unions in order to work on a large production, and thus their unions are stronger. As someone who is being paid $.008 for something that used to cost about a buck I can say with some authority UNIONS ARE IMPORTANT! "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfr001c",
"comment_text": [
"Recording artists either earn residuals for every play on the radio, or they earn residuals over a period of time that the radio station pays for. It is almost an identical system to how TV actors are compensated. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What's the process to get into U.S from Mexico legally (immigrate)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62ya8y
| 14
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpz4jk",
"comment_text": [
"It depends. The US will offer x amount of work visas every year for jobs where there are a shortage of American workers (it could be working on farms or being a doctor), student visas and travel visas (you don't need a visa to visit the US if you are Mexican) ",
"After you get your foot in the door you are only allowed to stay for until your visa expires. After that you are supposed to return. If you want to legally stay, you have to apply for permanent resident status (which means you are not a citizen, but are legally entitled to stay permanently [a green card]). This can by done a few ways. First, you can apply based on family ties, if you marry an American you can apply, if you are unmarried but are the offspring of an US citizen, etc. If you posses extraordinary capabilities or training, if it is of the national interest or if you belong to a group that is being persecuted and your country's government does not have control of the situation, or are a refugee you can apply for refugee status. If you belong to the last group the state department will investigate your case and grant or deny you asylum; all require an interview with US Citizenship and Immigration Services.",
"Employers can also petition the government to grant x amount of visas to do x job because these jobs require workers to be in the US for extended periods of time and there are not enough people in the US that can do it.",
"All th is does not grant you citizenship, it grants you the right to live in the US, you do not serve on jury duty, there are certain benefits you are not eligible for but you are fully protected by the constitution (even if you are here illegally).",
"Generally, if you h ave no special skills then you will not be granted a green card."
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfq04xr",
"comment_text": [
"Yes probably"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpzbgw",
"comment_text": [
"What do they seek to grant you asylum? I know if you're a political prisoner or otherwise you can be granted. However, what are some common reasons families in Mexico get up and leave and come to America? Are any of those reasons asylum eligible?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpzgmm",
"comment_text": [
"Not Mexico, there are a few cases that are being (were?) heard in immigration court over the gang violence in Honduras/El Salvador."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfq07id",
"comment_text": [
"And do they get approved? Who is ICE kicking out? ..I keep hearing on the news so and so father got kicked out, etc."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How do pyramid schemes like Vector Marketing still exist if it is illegal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62xkpx
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfptwqu",
"comment_text": [
"You kind of answered your own question: it exists because it ",
" illegal.",
"Why isn't it illegal? Because they sell a product. CUTCO Cutlery. In theory, you can make income from selling a product and selling a product isn't illegal. You can also make money by recruiting people and offering money for recruiting people isn't illegal.",
"Why is it still a pyramid scheme? Because no one wants the product or, the market for such a product isn't large enough to support the supply. This means people duped into being salesmen usually end up having to resort to recruiting to make up the lost money from failing to sell the product.",
"But as long as they could have potentially made money by selling the product, it's not illegal for it to be a pyramid scheme in practice."
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpuygo",
"comment_text": [
"Consider the typical law firm: Partners are at the top, they recruit senior attorneys and department heads, who in turn recruit junior attorneys out of law school. The junior attorneys earn a salary and this is supplemented by a performance related bonus. The more senior attorneys earn a slightly higher salary and a much bigger bonus, which is based on the profits that they create on their own work, and also the profits of the department they supervise. The partners make an income from the profits of everyone under them.",
"The proposition made to a new recruit is therefore that you will earn some money based on the work you do, but if you're successful and in the future you can recruit new people you will be able to make much more money out of the work they do too.",
"In theory this is the same principle as MLM, but the key difference is that legal services are an actual viable business that clients will pay for, and therefore the whole system stays afloat and can benefit everyone.",
"Pure pyramid selling is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and there is no product at all. All the money comes from joining fees of new recruits.",
"Most MLM schemes are somewhere in between, they do have a product and they do sell it for profit to an extent, however the product will generally be inviable itself and would not otherwise be capable of supporting a profitable business, so the real money made by the people at the top is all in the joining fees of people who will end up losing out.",
"The legal situation varies by jurisdiction, but in countries like UK where pyramid selling is illegal, the lines will be blurred somewhat for companies that have a product to sell. For people to actually be prosecuted the authorities would have to prove that the intent of the scheme is not really to sell a product but to make all the money in joining fees. A defendant in these cases would argue that there is genuine money to be made from the product, and that the joining fees are just an incidental administrative necessity. The success of the prosecution will come down to the weight of evidence in the particular case. The companies that have been going for a long time will have enough plausibility in their product to make is hard to prove that they are not offering a viable business opportunity to the people who join"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpu19z",
"comment_text": [
"No doubt, and others have been as well, for deceptive business practices in terms of advertising potential sales returns. But the core business model (pyramid recruiting scheme + actual product to sell) is still fundamentally legal."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfptzag",
"comment_text": [
"I believe they've been on the end of prosecution/lawsuits about their business practices as a result. They're ",
" skirting the line of what you can legally get away with."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpuf97",
"comment_text": [
"Hmm ok thats interesting. It's really sad that stuff like this exists but what else could you do? If I ended up getting pulled into one of these schemes my current career path would be so behind and thats what brought this question up.",
"Thanks!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do undercover cops still drive the ubiquitous "cop" car, and wear uniforms?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62xtq7
| 31
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.65
|
You know when you see those black Ford sedans with the antennas out of the top? They're missing that cop paintjob, but when you pass them they're just sitting there in full uniform, in what is supposed to be an undercover police car. Why not have a fleet of PT Cruisers and Priuses and Escalades and Civics with plainclothes officers in them? Are the cops not allowed to be that sneaky?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpviux",
"comment_text": [
"Those aren't undercover cops. They are just cops in unmarked cars.",
"Generally police officers who aren't on patrol or doing traffic enforcement drive an unmarked car because it's less conspicuous. They aren't trying to hide, they just don't necessarily want to stand out or cause a commotion."
],
"score": 73
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpvjo8",
"comment_text": [
"Those aren't undercover vehicles, they're ",
" vehicles. They're not trying to actually hide the fact that they're cops, just be a little less conspicuous when driving down the freeway."
],
"score": 33
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpzg7r",
"comment_text": [
"There are different grades of what lay people call an \"under cover\" car.",
"Obviously there's the standard patrol car with the light bar on top of the roof. High profile, let's drivers and criminals know a cop is in the area and to behave. ",
"Then there's the standard patrol car with no roof mounted light bar, just lights in the grill or window. Difficult to tell that's a cop car from a distance or rear view mirror, good for traffic enforcement. ",
"Then there are these ",
"ultra-low profile police cars",
". It might satisfy the legal requirement for a \"marked vehicle\" because it has the police logo. It might be used for traffic enforcement and patrol, depending on the local laws. ",
"Some detectives, police chief, and others in management might use a standard fleet vehicle that has the low profile lights, radios, etc but isn't painted like a patrol car.",
"Actual cars used by undercover and plain clothes officers can be anything the department feels is necessary to use."
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpwibu",
"comment_text": [
"That is not an undercover cop. Those are normal officers in an unmarked car. They are not trying to hide, they are just trying to be less obvious than a full on police car. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpz50w",
"comment_text": [
"On a side note: ",
" Anybody can order flashing lights and put them behind their grill.",
"I seem to recall a number of women being stopped and raped by the driver of such a car in San Antonio in the 80's."
],
"score": 5
}
|
ELI5: Wouldn't global warming have some positive outcomes as well? It doesn't sound all bad to me; are there larger risks than what I see published?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
631m8r
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
Among the biggest threats of global warming that I see written about is melting ice caps and rising sea levels. So yes; millions of people would be impacted by this. However, wouldn't fertile, livable land also become accessible in places like Greenland, Canada, Norway and Russia? Yes, current farmlands will be wiped out when it gets too hot, but wouldn't otherwise too-cold areas become farmland where it is currently too cold? I assume there's something I'm not understanding here.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqlqbm",
"comment_text": [
"80% of the world's people live within 100km of the ocean. \"Millions of people would be impacted\" isn't even close - it'd be closer to 5.5 ",
". Where would they all go? (Hint: They'd go to places where there is good land, further reducing the supply of arable earth)."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqmp8q",
"comment_text": [
"Please don't guess the answer. The result of global warming will be less farmland available for use not more. It is possible that some individual crops may be able to produce an increased yield but this will be a minority of crops."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqn4bm",
"comment_text": [
"CO2 is not a limiting factor in plant growth on land, increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere will not increase crop yields, levels of phosphorus, magnesium, and nitrates can be limiting factors in plant growth but not CO2. ",
"https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqmagq",
"comment_text": [
"No, but global warming is exponential. If you let it get high enough that all the polar ice melts (as it would for the land to be arable as OP suggested), you end up with 230 feet of seal level rise. At just 10 feet, all major coastal cities are gone.",
"There are 0 positives to global warming."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfqnewy",
"comment_text": [
"The global temperature has NEVER been as high as it is now (it was close, admittedly, but never this high)."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: Why do fire fighters and other department workers put out large forest fires in wilderness areas? In particular, in Australia, where it's good for the bush to be periodically burnt.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62wm5w
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
Following on somewhat from a link earlier in the week about putting out fires in abandoned buildings etc If there's no danger to human life and the bush is going to be better off for the burn, why build fire lines, cut tracks and spend many man hours to stop something that will be on the whole positive for the environment?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpm5bo",
"comment_text": [
"Because you want some to burn yes by not all of it and you need to contain the spreading so it doesn't reach homes that are near the woods. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpmcof",
"comment_text": [
"They do a risk assessment before going to tackle the fire. If there is genuinely no risk to life or property and that area is ok to be burnt with no major knock on effect (camping ,tourism, wildlife (endangered or rare species etc) then they will let it ride itself out. Like I said though without fire breaks etc eventually it could spread to where you don't want it "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpn9vf",
"comment_text": [
"without fire breaks etc eventually it could spread to where you don't want it",
"This is the big thing to understand. Bushfires, if left unchecked, can get VERY large and VERY intense and you do not want to find yourself in a situation where, by the time they are threatening properties, they are too large to be controlled.",
"Fighting bushfires isn't about \"putting them out\" but trying to control where they burn so that they can naturally burn themselves out. You can't \"put out\" a bushfire - they are too big and too intense. It's all about striking that fragile balance between letting the bush burn as it needs to and making sure you can keep it under enough control to not destroy houses and farms.",
"All you need to do is look at something like Ash Wednesday to see what happens when a bushfire does get out of control. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpn9rr",
"comment_text": [
"even if the fire is not near any human settlement, it will spread and inevitably get closer to one and the more it spreads, the harder it gets to fight so you might as well fight it before it gets even more out of control"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpnzuk",
"comment_text": [
"Nowaday's there are humans in enough places that most fires do pose some sort of risk.",
"But there are still thousands of Bushfires every year that nobody worries (much) about because they are able to start and finish without ever getting near anything significant. It's just that you only ever hear about the one's that do pose a potential risk because they're the ones that something gets done about.",
"Ash Wednesday is a really good example though, and one of the main reasons why Australia is much more active then they used to be in \"fighting\" bushfires. When it started it burned for a few days without anyone thinking it was going to do anything other than just burn itself out. But then there was a sudden change in the wind direction (and a massive increase in wind speed) which meant that the fire got too massive to stop before anybody was able to react. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Why are they trying to remove Earth monitoring from NASA's budget?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
633u1m
| 510
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.87
|
Neil Degrasse Tyson just mentioned his opinion on the matter in an AMA. What's the back story?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfr4ghl",
"comment_text": [
"A cynical view would be that they do not want to document climate change. A scientist recently complained that observations made years ago on arctic regions are no longer available online since the Trump administration to over. Without the ability to refer to how things were how can we tell they changed?"
],
"score": 386
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfr56r8",
"comment_text": [
"You can say \"nothing disappears\" but it's not that easy. I while back I attended a seminar discussing the data-management techniques they were using to upgrade the archive of Landsat images, which go back to the seventies and were mostly stored on magnetic tape.",
"Long story short, it costs a lot of money, time, and effort to serve that data to scientists who want to study this and that about historical land types/plant types/use types. Without funding, it's a race to download petabytes of archives and get them up into some other host, and keep them up. (Which is actually something that's happened recently, over just these fears.)"
],
"score": 120
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfr4qkv",
"comment_text": [
"Well, this isn't the 1960s when if you wanted certain records to disappear, like your draft card files, all you had to do find where they kept those filings and burn the building down. ",
"The Internet age, nothing disappears. Seems almost juvenile to even try that. ",
"Now to stop data gathering, that's a different issue, so I see your point. This administration could be trying to do both. "
],
"score": 75
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfrcky4",
"comment_text": [
"I can't speak for the administration, but it's possible the idea is that the best use of taxpayer funds is to centralize Earth monitoring at the agency which has that task as its primary mission: the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. As quoted from here ",
"http://www.noaa.gov/our-mission-and-vision",
" --",
"NOAA's Mission: Science, Service and Stewardship",
"Now, if I were a betting man I'd guess the same amount of money will not be magically transferred from NASA to NOAA, but I have to admit on the surface of things the efficiencies in centralizing the work seem apparent.",
"If I were President, I'd likely move the spending to NOAA. In terms of NASA's involvement, NOAA would be a customer of NASA's spacelift and spacecraft developments (analogous to NGA [and others] using NRO assets to accomplish their missions)."
],
"score": 71
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfr8132",
"comment_text": [
"\"Nothing disappears\" is a cautionary note, not an assurance. You should be cautions with what younput up because it might be around forever. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the case. Esepcially with large archives of data that aren't widely mirrored or easily reproduced."
],
"score": 70
}
|
ELI5: The American university system
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62s5im
| 12
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.61
|
What exactly is a GPA and how does uni work over there? You seem to take loads of different subjects and not graduate within a specific timeframe. Here in the U.K. you apply for a certain subject and that's pretty much all you study and then you graduate, most courses are three years.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfotyd4",
"comment_text": [
"In the US each class is worth a number of credits. The courses that are more time intensive are worth more credits. Your grade for that class is both a letter grade and a numerical grade. An A is a 4, B is a 3, C is a 2 etc..",
"So your GPA is the average of your grades. If i take a three credit class and get an A each of those credits counts as a 4.",
"For my degree I will need a certain number of credits in different types of classes. ",
"Students can take any course that they satisfy the prerequisites for whether it goes toward their degree or not. Since we pay for each course ourselves. We can change which credits we are collecting to go for a different degree or multiple degrees if we choose to.",
"That's the basics."
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfoy548",
"comment_text": [
"Each curriculum has a pretty specific list of courses that you have to take. For example, I graduated with a degree in Engineering Mechanics from the University of Illinois. Here was the ",
"list of requirements",
" for me.",
"In America, each course is generally assigned a number of ",
". In the document I linked you to, they seem to use the words ",
" and ",
" interchangeably. In this context, the word ",
" has no correlation to sixty minutes of time. Instead, it's just a way to measure how involved your coursework is.",
"A normal course is worth 3 credits. A more-involved course can be worth 4 credits. (For example, CHEM 102 is the classroom portion of General Chemistry I & CHEM 103 is the lab portion of General Chemistry I. They are meant to be taken concurrently. Together, they add up to a total of 4 credits.)",
"It's generally expected that a student is enrolled in 12-18 credits at a time, which translates to 4-6 courses at once.",
"As you can see at the top of the document, 128 credits are required for graduation. This comes out to an average of 16 credits per semester, 8 semesters total.",
"92 of the 128 credits are rigid requirements, specifically chosen for you.",
"Another 12 credits labeled \"",
"secondary field electives",
"\" are your choice but require supervisor approval to make sure it's relevant. For me specifically, it was advanced courses in mathematics.",
"Another 18 credits are labeled \"",
"Liberal education",
"\" and that's a somewhat limited choice too. This is when an student in engineering is forced to take classes relating to religion, or the fine arts, or world history.",
"Only 6 credits out of 128 are completely free choice. Actually, you can take more than 6 credits of free electives if you have a desire to learn, but the excessive credits won't get you any closer to earning your degree.",
"Of course, I'm only listing one particular curriculum from one particular school in America. Others may vary slightly. But hopefully my example gives you a general understanding.",
"Edit: formatting"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfovioz",
"comment_text": [
"In the US a person can take any class that they satisfy the prerequisite for. Space in certain classes could be preferentially reserved for students in a degree program or a major, but generally it is pretty open.",
"If i want to earn a degree I need to collect enough credits to satisfy the requirements for that degree. I could go to school for a decade collecting random credits and never earn a degree. That would be a foolish thing to do, but it is possible.",
"Since we pay for each class there is no reason to restrict us to a certain curriculum. If a school is state funded there is an incentive to do that."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfozqd2",
"comment_text": [
"Most American Universities believe in the concept of Liberal Arts Education. This is the idea that education prepares people for citizenship, as well as a job. Therefore it should be wide ranging so that citizens can understand the concepts of government, and participate in democracy. We got this idea from Thomas Jefferson, who helped write the U. S. Constitution, and, also founded the University of Virginia and pretty much created the American system of university education that was imitated around the country, especially by other state universities. ",
"As a result of this philosophical underpinning, almost all American universities have \"general education requirements\" that you complete prior to specializing. There are many methods of organizing this concept (almost as varied as the number of universities in the US) but generally, no matter what you study as a focus (called a \"major\" or a a \"concentration\") you will also study language, writing, mathematics, social science, and hard science to some required degree, BEFORE you begin to work on your major.",
"You are accepted to the entire university and can take any introductory class they offer. You are not required to declare a major at most universities until your 3rd year. Usually knocking out the general requirements takes about 2 years. By taking a variety of classes, many people find that their skills and interests are different than they originally thought when they started. Some huge percent, like 80% of American student change their major at least once. ",
"You may get a lot of posts in this thread talking about how you must be accepted to the program when you start in Engineering. That's because there are an uncommon number of engineering majors on Reddit, not because that's a common scenario in general. That is virtually unique to the field of engineering, and wouldn't be true of almost any other field of study."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfovbiz",
"comment_text": [
"How much choice do you get in what classes you take? Could you be really specific or do you have to take a variety? It just seems like you'd come out of uni without a very specific/ detailed knowledge of your chosen area. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: What is the point of underwear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62vttd
| 14
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.62
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfphhbv",
"comment_text": [
"It adds an extra layer of clothing protection from sweat and assorted bodily fluids. It makes the outer clothing last a bit longer. Notice how you buy more underwater than pants every year?"
],
"score": 36
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfphox7",
"comment_text": [
"OH? Explain to me this buying new underwear every year thing."
],
"score": 18
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpig2t",
"comment_text": [
"Body oils and other fluids are not great for clothes, both in terms of longevity and hygiene.",
"Clothes used to be relatively expensive (much more so than now). A set of fabric in the various zones that tended to secrete fluids and odors (chest, crotch) that is much more cheaply made drastically increased the expected lifespan of the other fabric.",
"It's quite pragmatic, really. It morphed into more over time, but that's the origin, and from a utilitarian perspective, still the reason many people wear them."
],
"score": 17
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpl5r8",
"comment_text": [
"Underwear gets changed every day",
"get a load of this guy"
],
"score": 17
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfpq8k6",
"comment_text": [
"Have you seen what a vagina can do to a pair of panties?"
],
"score": 12
}
|
|
ELI5 How are people able to port entire games to Minecraft?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
62qbfr
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
I know what Minecraft is but I thought it was just a building/exploration/survival game. How is stuff like this possible?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfon55z",
"comment_text": [
"Minecraft has two gameplay modes, survival (where you have to gather resources to build) and creative (you have unlimited resources) so obviously this was done in creative.",
"Minecraft has a very basic 'electrical' system which can be used to build logic gates. This is called 'redstone'.",
"Minecraft also has 'command blocks' which allow programming (e.g. to change a certain block to a black block when it receives a signal).",
"Essentially the game wasn't ported to Minecraft but painstakingly rebuilt over a very long time period."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfoxzaa",
"comment_text": [
"You absolutely could, it would probably not even be all that difficult if you build tools to automatically translate existing digital CPU designs and software to the Minecraft strucutres.",
"But the resulting world would most likely be too big to run on the current Minecraft client or current computers, and booting Windows would take decades."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfprbig",
"comment_text": [
"At it's most basic, a computer is a set of very simple electronic switches, which are AND, OR and NOT. AND means \"switch is on if the two inputs are on\", OR means \"switch is on if either or both inputs is on\", NOT means the switch is on if the input is off and vice versa. By combining those you can do simple addition, subtraction, and also AND, OR and NOT operations, and by combining those you can do more complicated things. We've developed lots of very elaborate ways of getting complicated ideas out of our heads and down into a series of operations a bunch of switches all linked together can make happen, but that's the gist of it.",
"Minecraft has AND, OR and NOT switches for a basic circuit system so you can basically build a functioning if slow computer, with memory, a processor and an output display. From that you can basically have Minecraft run Crysis, albeit agonisingly slowly and it'd take forever to build. As pointed out it's actually really hard to reverse engineer a game so odds are some cheating happens here and they build a processor that matches what the game ran on (thanks to a lot of knowledge about how old consoles were built and some very detailed schematics of their processors). You then dump the ROM of the game into Minecraft via some plugin or other and let rip.",
"If you're interested in how you get from tiny switches to big programs read Code by Charles Petzold. It assumes no prior knowledge of anything."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dfooq3x",
"comment_text": [
"Basically, Minecraft includes a very low-level, primitive virtual machine. It is quite correct to say that the game was ported to that VM."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dforrfa",
"comment_text": [
"Can we build windows in minecraft then?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What is the difference between the federal election process in America and Canada?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4vi49c
| 47
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ymed3",
"comment_text": [
"For starters, we Canadians don't have a separate election for Prime Minister the way Americans do for President. In our local ridings (us: electoral distrits) we elect our Members of Parliament (us:representatives/congressmen) to sit in the House of Commons (us: house of representatives). Whichever party ends up with the most seats in the house usually forms the government, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.",
"There's no electoral college. Each riding is worth one seat in the house. The riding is won by the candidate with the most votes in that riding. Ridings are delineated by population, and re-drawn as required after the census by a non-partisan department called Elections Canada. They are also responsible for all the legwork of running the actual election.",
"The campaigns leading up to the election are much shorter. Campaigning can't begin until parliament is dissolved and lasts between then and election day. This past election had the longest such time in Canadian history - 78 days. Usually it's less than two months, many have been as little as 36 days. There isn't a full year-plus of campaigning ahead of time like in the US.",
"Each party's nominee is chosen by that party's members. In Canada you don't have to declare your party membership when you register to vote. In fact most people get registered to vote just by filing their taxes (there's a check box on your tax return that says \"I agree to let Revenue Canada share my inforation with Elections Canada for the purposes of registering me to vote\" and most online tax software just checks it automatically for you). So to become a member of a party you basically contact the party via their website or phone, sign up, and pay whatever the membership fee is. Then when that party decides to have a leadership race, members log in and cast their vote online. Most votes wins. No delegates, no caucuses, no lining up at voting booths for primaries. In fact the leadership races for the parties are independent of the federal election process. They elect their new leader when the old leader steps down which could happen pretty much whenever. ",
"I'm on mobile so I'll wrap it up there but can answer any other questions that folks have. ",
"Source: Am Canadian who follows politics in both countries pretty closely.",
"Edit: Also we don't elect our Senate. The Senate up here works kind of like the Supreme Court in the US - near-lifetime appointments (they are now forced to retire at 75) made by Prime Ministers throughout the years. Many want that system to change but it would require changing the constitution and that's a big can of worms that no one wants to get into.",
"Edit 2: Made some corrections thanks to ",
"/u/hoffmania1",
" below."
],
"score": 33
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5yodjg",
"comment_text": [
"This is excellent, but two minor corrections:",
"Whichever party ends up with a majority in the house usually forms the government, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.",
"The party that forms a government is (usually) the one with the most seats, regardless of whether that's a majority.",
"The Senate up here works kind of like the Supreme Court in the US - lifetime appointments made by Prime Ministers throughout the years.",
"Nowadays you're forced to retire at age 75. And if you really want to get nitpicky, the PM does the choosing, but the it's the Queen who does the appointing."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ynwvb",
"comment_text": [
"I always felt the campaign differences were very important. The length and breadth of campaigns in the US requires an obscene amount of money. This can lead to pandering to and influence from contributors. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5yv56e",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks for the corrections, I'll edit them in."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ymzy5",
"comment_text": [
"Canadian here. I'll give this one a shot.",
"In Canada, the Prime Minister isn't elected directly by the people. We vote for candidates, usually from one of the three major parties (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, from right to left), and whichever candidate gets the most votes becomes the Member of Parliament for the district they were elected in. There are currently 338 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, which is our lower house. Then, the Governor General (representative of the Queen) chooses the Prime Minister. Technically, the Governor General is allowed to choose whoever they like so long as the House of Commons supports their decision; in practice, the PM is the leader of whichever party holds the most seats. The PM goes on to appoint new Senators as seats come up; Senators serve until they retire or die.",
"EDIT: Also, AFAIK the PM doesn't approve laws. They only lead the executive. They also don't have the power to issue much like Executive Orders, or if they do I've never heard about it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: What happens if we're isolated for a long time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4vhsnd
| 80
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.74
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ylh2k",
"comment_text": [
"This guy probably has some mental illness, but he willingly lived in the woods alone for 27 years. They didn't find out much about his psychological state because he doesn't like to talk to anyone, but he had to spend time in jail for stealing some stuff while he was in the woods. Because of the noise and crowds, he said it was torture. Sorry this doesn't really answer your question, but it's the only example I know of of someone who was willingly isolated for a long period of time!",
"https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/23/north-pond-hermit-finishes-court-program-maine/kaf019uywApzNZiFRBo9EO/story.html"
],
"score": 27
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ynglp",
"comment_text": [
"Humans are biological wired to be social because we depend on others for protection, caring, food(hunting), and our brain chemistry rewards us when we succeed in conforming to the group. So, usually, serotonin and a host of other chemicals are negatively altered when isolated leading to depression. Seriouslydepressed people can become self-destructive and sometimes also murderous. However, the real answer is more complicated. Depresssion isn't always 100% the result of isolation. Extroversion and introversion are on a continuum. Some people like being alone 80% of the time and enjoy it. Others have a genetic propensity for depression and for still others, social contact makes them more depressed. Another example to muddy the waters, would be Monks. Buddhist monks spend time in isolation praying and trying to find spiritual enlightenment(nirvana). These monks report feelings of happiness and ecstasy after being isolated for months on end. "
],
"score": 22
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ynlkw",
"comment_text": [
"You sure that's not just a western romanticized idea about monks? I'd like to see some data on that "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ys38u",
"comment_text": [
"Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been shown that things like reading a book can be equivalent to socializing? I have had paranoid anxiety (to the point of being sick from midnight to 7am for about six months, going from 115lbs to 102lbs) and servere depression. I had to take about four meds for two years. With dialectical behavioral therapy and also regular psychiatrist appointments, I have been able to decrease the number of meds I take. I still have issues like hygiene (sometimes I can't shower for weeks on end, or alternatively I rarely leave my home because I get paralyzingly anxious about being in crowds/public), but I will put on makeup, accessorize my outfit, give myself a mani-pedi, and have correct hygiene if I do leave the house. I would absolutely never hurt anyone. There's a lot of fear about mental health, usually with regard to any violence, in th those situations, there are also aggravating circumstances/non-mental health factors at play. I have a best friend with schizophrenia/depression/anxiety and she is one of the most nonviolent people I know. She also stays at home a lot, taking care of her orchids, cats, and fish. She is a lovely person. Very beautiful and smart. You will see the health issues' effects before a person \"snaps,\" gets violent, or suicidal. Most people are on a spectrum anyway."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ywbsv",
"comment_text": [
"I have pretty bad social phobia and for the past 4 years have gone months without talking to anyone outside of the internet. Even then I never speak to people one on one or with voice or video. Only on forums.",
"You forget a lot of social norms and social skills. You forget how to talk to other people. How to make yourself understood to them. When you do talk to them you seem quite odd because you don't have the sense of your culture's social norms you once had. You say things people may deem inappropriate or that might make them uncomfortable without realising until afterwards. In a way it's quite freeing because you've forgotten to give a fuck about the petty social bullshit people have forced on you since birth but at the same time it puts other people off.",
"It's also very jarring to go outside and see how much has changed since the last time you were out there.",
"I've found podcasts help to maintain a grasp on socialisation and to feel less lonely. Since I started listening to them earlier this year I think my social skills have started to improve again."
],
"score": 5
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do certain genres of music appeal to some people, but not others?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4vg8jd
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y4jat",
"comment_text": [
"I understand that different music genres appeal to different people, but why is that?"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y4jat",
"comment_text": [
"I understand that different music genres appeal to different people, but why is that?"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y8y3o",
"comment_text": [
"Pretty much definitely the answer to any very general inquiry like this is: a combination of nature and nurture, but probably much more nurture.",
"If you are around a particular genre enough you start to understand its nuances and appreciate it more and more."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y4t2f",
"comment_text": [
"No, you're in the right, this sub is not for literal 5 year olds. AskReddit is for questions where a Reddit user might have a unique insight on."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y56l6",
"comment_text": [
"you're parents",
"*your"
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: What would happen if I try to throw up in space?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4vfj24
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xyfsw",
"comment_text": [
"Vomit is expelled by muscle action which isn't dependent upon gravity. You would spew normally enough and it would float away."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y0t9n",
"comment_text": [
"Unless you're in a spacesuit. Then it would just float around your face."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y618a",
"comment_text": [
"One other thing - you'll be forced backwards into a spin. Whatever force applied to get the vomit out, will be applied do your body as well.",
"So you could end up spinning around with sick all around you."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y0dj8",
"comment_text": [
"Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Top level comments",
" are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.",
"Links without an explanation or summary are not allowed, because links go dead. If you want, you can edit your comment to include an explanation or summary, and then let us know in modmail and we can review your post.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5y0dj8",
"comment_text": [
"Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Top level comments",
" are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.",
"Links without an explanation or summary are not allowed, because links go dead. If you want, you can edit your comment to include an explanation or summary, and then let us know in modmail and we can review your post.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What is Confucianism? Just in general.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ve15l
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xrdpt",
"comment_text": [
"Confucianism arose during the Spring and Autumn era, a period of brutal warfare and strife between Chinese states after the fall of the Zhou Dynasty.",
"In contrast to Western religion which is more concerned with the individual soul, Confucianism is more concerned with social order. Confucian scholars believe that the family is the most basic unit of social harmony, and that by promoting functional family units one would also be promoting the formation of a greater, more peaceful society (which is what everyone wanted in the Spring and Autumn era: the end of these national wars). This is because by extension, the kingdom itself was just one big family, with the King or Emperor as the head of the household.",
"This meant that there were rules that needed to be followed that defined the responsibilities and duties of children to their parents (or, in more patriarchal terms, the son to the father), and vice versa.",
"Confucianism and other philosophies became the defining cultural features of China. Whereas the West focused on military strength and warrior-heroes as their core social/politicial paradigms, China was governed with political and ethical theory in mind."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xsbrv",
"comment_text": [
"The primary concerns of Confucianism are ethical and political in the broader social sense, not metaphysical or individual. If you're just cribbing elements ",
" of Confucianism off of the wikipedia page you're missing out on the historical and social context in which Confucianism was developed and how it was practiced generally over the past 2,000 years.",
"Merging with ",
" in a vague spiritual sense may have been a small part of Confucianism, but even then it was due more to the fact that the influences of Chinese philosophies intermeshed quite a bit. Even then, Confucianism is primarily concerned with the living political and social world of humans, not in how humans relate to the greater metaphysical world. That's Taoism's job."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xreh5",
"comment_text": [
"Generally, it's goal is to unify yourself with Heaven, which can then spread to your family. You can do that by thinking about the whole order, or more precisely, a kind of meditation. So tl;dr, you'd look to calm your spirit and become one with the all-powerful.",
"Wait what? This is the most bizarre and Westernized description of Confucianism I've ever seen."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xreh5",
"comment_text": [
"Generally, it's goal is to unify yourself with Heaven, which can then spread to your family. You can do that by thinking about the whole order, or more precisely, a kind of meditation. So tl;dr, you'd look to calm your spirit and become one with the all-powerful.",
"Wait what? This is the most bizarre and Westernized description of Confucianism I've ever seen."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xs206",
"comment_text": [
"OP wanted a general description, not a very specific one (branch). At the end, that is the goal. Look it up anywhere you want."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are british squirrels exactly the same as american squirrels?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4vbn9g
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5x1xx8",
"comment_text": [
"There are two types of squirrel in the UK. There is the native red squirrel and the introduced grey squirrel which is native to North America. The grey squirrel is by far the most common. So the odds are that the squirrels you see are the same on both sides of the Atlantic."
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5x223r",
"comment_text": [
"introduced grey squirrel",
"Yet another invasive species that we can thank the Victorians for.",
"Like a few other things that the Victorian gentry found on their travels and introduced to the UK, grey squirrels are far better suited to surviving in the country than the native reds, and have thrived."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5x3olp",
"comment_text": [
"They look the same because they are the same kind of squirrels.",
"From ",
"Wikipedia",
"At the turn of the 20th century, the eastern gray squirrel was introduced into South Africa, Ireland, Hawaii, Bermuda, Madeira Island, Azores, Canary Islands, Cape Verde, Italy and United Kingdom.[31]",
"and",
"It spread rapidly across England and then became established in both Wales and parts of southern Scotland. On mainland Britain, it has almost entirely displaced the populations of native red squirrels.",
"However Wikipedia is a little light on why they were brought to the UK. There is some more information at ",
"woodlands.co.uk",
"Grey squirrels (Scirius caroliniensis) are native to North America and were first released in the UK in 1876 in Henbury Park, Cheshire. It’s not clear why they were introduced and the Victorians had no idea of the risks of introducing non-native species. Perhaps they were just a decorative and interesting “exotic” in the park; part of the fashion for collecting that the Victorians enjoyed so much. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5x4tf2",
"comment_text": [
"They aren't wholly better than Red squirrels, it just depends on what type of forest it is.",
"Red's out compete grey's in coniferous forests, where as grey's out-compete Red's in deciduous and mixed forests. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5xgn1u",
"comment_text": [
"this is also true for germany, the americasn squirrel is taking over here and makes the the smaller native one having a very hard tim."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: why do we wear our watches on our non dominant hand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v6cph
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vt4fb",
"comment_text": [
"Imagine you are right-handed (which you probably are) and imagine further you wear a watch on your right hand.",
"Finally imagine you are at work, enjoying a coffee break, mug with scorching hot coffee in your right hand as usual.",
"I come into the break room and ask you, hey kinpsychosis, what´s the time.",
"You look at your watch and ",
"well..."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vt409",
"comment_text": [
"If you have a traditional buckle-clasp watch, you have to fasten the buckle with the hand you ",
" wearing your watch on. Speaking personally, it's nearly impossible to fasten a buckle with my non-dominant hand; I just don't have the dexterity."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vusvs",
"comment_text": [
"Well, as the lefty who literally can't manipulate a buckle with her right hand, adjusting the time just means I have to take off my watch first."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vwgpc",
"comment_text": [
"Also the placement of the winding knob is typically on the right side of the bezel, so wearing the watch on your left hand makes it easier to access."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vuppl",
"comment_text": [
"I think from reading around different stuff about the tradition of wearing the watch on the ",
" left hand that this is the answer. And furthermore, since most people are right-handed and put their watch on the left, the knob to adjust time is usually put on the right side of the face so it's easier to adjust with your right hand. Which means that some people who are left-handed end up wearing the watch on their left wrist anyway. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Public Transportation Question???
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v4r8b
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vh1gc",
"comment_text": [
"If you're talking about city buses, google maps has a very handy feature that basically tells you everything you need to do very simply."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vh5ns",
"comment_text": [
"thats even more confusing"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vh1sw",
"comment_text": [
"I think I maybe don't understand why you have a question. You go to one of the route's stops, and get on when it stops there. Is there something beyond that that's confusing you?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vh5ei",
"comment_text": [
"well I don't see a route 93 on the maps anywhere the bus stop next to mine is 303???"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vhhsi",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"Information about a specific or narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc.) ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why do people remove clothing labels to hide their identity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v5a9v
| 12
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.66
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vl8ct",
"comment_text": [
"Some clothes are only sold on one continent, or in one country. ",
"Finding a label can be a big clue as to where the person was, or has been. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vmmpu",
"comment_text": [
"Or only for a certain time, which narrows it further."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vxdha",
"comment_text": [
"More and more clothing labels contain RFID tags, normally used to a) track the item in the warehouse and b) scan for shoplifters.",
"But it also can be used to individually track and (re)identify a person."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vyfzc",
"comment_text": [
"It makes less sense to do this for our mass-produced clothes, but if it is a higher-end item, or has been custom-tailored, then the labels may provide a link to a specific store, which then may provide a link to an individual."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vyu6e",
"comment_text": [
"I might have misinterpreted your question, but my friend takes off logos because he doesn't think he should advertise for free. He doesn't want to be judged by the brands he wears "
],
"score": 1
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.