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 does reddit use tree like comments?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v3r7w
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7bt7",
"comment_text": [
"Because it is superior to the time based structure like facebook or youtube. A tree based format allows you to follow actual lines of conversation and know who is responding to who. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7mbv",
"comment_text": [
"Posts on Reddit tend to involve many users rapidly divulging into separate topics, and the tree interface allows for multiple discussions without interference.",
"When everyone is on the same topic, a linear layout can work."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7nkf",
"comment_text": [
"So it is superior because it allows for better conversation. You can follow who is talking to a single person. If this is the case, and it is truly superior, why do other large applications like Facebook and Google not follow this format?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7wn2",
"comment_text": [
"Larger corporations do not actually care about what is superior and what is not. They care about what is good enough for them to get by and what causes the least amount of change to what they have already set up. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7rlw",
"comment_text": [
"This makes sense. I am curious if there are other layouts that have been developed but are not heavily used. That would be interesting."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Did the DPRK declare war on US? If not what exactly did they do? What will most likely happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v4vog
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vibee",
"comment_text": [
"No, the DPRK did not declare war. They claim that the US declared war by putting Kim Jong Il on a list of sanctioned individuals.",
"What you should understand is that North Korea is a poor country controlled by an inherited dictatorship that has brainwashed the entire country to believe the West wants to murder them all. Their power structure is based on opposing the West which the US embodies, so they are obligated to constantly threaten and posture. The general idea is that they can make a big stink about something then demand to be bribed with a food shipment so they don't starve or something. Or they think if they don't threaten war during these training sessions it would be a sign of weakness.",
"Basically what I am saying is that NK is as insane as always and there is nothing unusual going on."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vij9s",
"comment_text": [
"Yep, perfectly put. This is Business as usual, however I will add that we still have to be careful. A lot of people like to joke about NK but the truth is they can still be very dangerous and cause a lot of global instability. Which is why we do typically give them aid under the guise of a humanitarian effort. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vijh0",
"comment_text": [
"Just to ride on your comment.",
"Nothing will happen. Nuclear countries don't get invaded."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vinvb",
"comment_text": [
"The general idea is that they can make a big stink about something then demand to be bribed with a food shipment so they don't starve or something. ",
"I remember when I was teaching over in South Korea a few years ago we got the boxes of hard tack. According to my supervisor, they were supposed to go to North Korea, but they refused it for some reason. ",
"Basically what I am saying is that NK is as insane as always and there is nothing unusual going on.",
"Yeah, your right. The north was getting uppity while I was there for some reason or another. Don't they do this on an annual basis? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5viob5",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"2d. Asking about a recent or current event. ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How are photographs transferred for tiny pieces of film strip to full size photographs
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v37ap
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
I understand how something digital can be printed into any size of photograph but what I don't get is how film strip is turned into photographs just by putting paper in the right kinds of chemicals or how the pictures are transferred to the photo paper.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v1ya4",
"comment_text": [
"Shine a light through the negative, projecting the image onto a piece of photosentitive paper a specific distance behind the negative. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7qyw",
"comment_text": [
"To condense what others have said, you need 3 things to make a photo print. An enlarger (basically a slide projector aiming down), light sensitive paper, and chemical baths (developer, stop bath, fixer).",
"Since the negative is well, a negative(reversed, black is white), when you shine light through it you get a bigger negative projection(this is important later). The enlarger has a negative holder, a light, and a lens, so you can focus the image to get it the size that you want.",
"The photo sensitive paper, is layered with silver halide crystals, which react to light. When you shine the enlarged negative on it the crystals react to the photons in proportion to the amount of photons present. The more photons that hit a part of a picture gets darker. Remember that dark objects photograph as light? Well more light goes through the light part of the negative and makes the paper darker.",
"When you take the paper out of the enlarger, it looks white since it hasn't been developed yet. When you put it in the developer chemical(basically vinegar or other weak acid IIRC) it reacts with the light modified silver crystals and they darken dramatically. Then you move it to the stop bath to stop the reaction to keep your print from going totally black. The next step is fixer, this removes all excess un-reacted silver from the paper so that you can take the print into the light and have it be stable and not darken.",
"Also you can control how dark/light the photo is by controlling the amount of time spent in each step.",
"Further reading:\n",
"How film works and is developed",
"Darkroom printing"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v22cu",
"comment_text": [
"Simply by projection, The full size film is photosensitive and the negative ( the tiny film strip is used as a filter to project the image to the bigger film).\nOnce exposed to this light the photographs goes thru different chemical that would allow the grain of the film to change color."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v3hn4",
"comment_text": [
"photo paper and film are made of small, silver granules. These granules react to both light and chemicals. The dark parts of a negative are the light parts of a print. The light doesn't shine through the dark parts thereby leaving the photo paper white(er) in those areas. First the negative is placed in the enlarger and a test print is made using increasingly longer lengths of time the paper is exposed to the light. The enlarger can be on a table and shining the light down or at a wall for larger images.",
"Put a piece of photo paper down and another on top of it but 1-inch to the left. Expose for 5-seconds. Move the top sheet another inch to the left and expose for, say, 2-seconds. Move again and expose for another 2-seconds and so on. So now you have the first strip exposed for 5+2+2+2....the second 5+2+2...the 3rd 5+2. Develop the image and decide which exposure time looked best. The blacks not too black, the whites not too white. Let's go with the 2nd. 9-seconds. Get a new sheet and expose the image for 9-seconds. (We won't talk about dodging and burning)",
"Put it in the developer chemical until the image appears, but not too long or it will over develop. Then put it in the \"stop bath\" which stops the developer from reacting. Then put it in the \"fixer\" which stops all processes, or, fixes the image to the paper. Then a bath with flowing water to wash off all the chemicals. Hang to dry. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vi9rv",
"comment_text": [
"There is a limit, the negative is made up of tiny crystals and if you enlarge the image enough you get a \"grainy\" photograph, sort of like pixelation but much more random. So there were (and are) a number of \"formats\" or sizes of negative used. When you think of film you are almost certainly thinking of 35mm film which was by far the most common. But for professional work where you are going to be printing on a billboard negative sizes of over 20 inches have been used (though rarely).",
"Wikipedia lists a lot of the films sizes, although most of the ones listed were only used rarely.",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format"
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELIF: What happens to my bath/shower water after it goes down the drain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v2w22
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
So I was sitting in a buble bath, trying to relax, when I began contemplating how wasteful my bath probably was. Then I thought to my self, where on earth does my bath water go after my bath? Does it get reused? Does it go where the toilet water goes? Where exactly does the toilet water go? How does this whole sewage thing work?! I know this is a silly question but I tried a Google search and got nothing. Someone, help a gal out!
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uyzx1",
"comment_text": [
"All of the drains in your house (showers, toilets, sinks, etc) go to the same place, which is called the sewer.",
"The sewer carries all of the city's dirty water out to a treatment plant.",
"In the treatment plant, the water is cleaned through various physical (filters, etc,) and chemical processes. It is then either returned to the mains, or released to the environment. "
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vais4",
"comment_text": [
"Where does the waste go?"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vapub",
"comment_text": [
"/u/Red_AtNight",
"'s answer covers 99% of the cases, and probably 99.99% of residential usage. There -are- cases, however, where the toilet drains are separated from the sink/shower/bath/laundry drains; the latter is called \"grey water\" -- dirty but not biologically unsafe.",
"You'll most often find this in cases where wastewater is held in tanks for later disposal -- larger recreation vehicles, for example. The black water tank must still be emptied into a proper sewage disposal drain, but grey water can be disposed of in storm drains, for example."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v1dy1",
"comment_text": [
"No need to shame someone for being curious. Asking questions is how people learn."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v1dy1",
"comment_text": [
"No need to shame someone for being curious. Asking questions is how people learn."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: Why isn't radios announcing positions of police on patrol illegal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v1xux
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5upn1a",
"comment_text": [
"Because... why would it be? Police are visible and I don't see how forbidding talking about them would be justified."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5upucr",
"comment_text": [
"Because it basically defeats the point. Yes the drivers that know about it slow down and are more careful for a while but they do the same thing later."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uq39c",
"comment_text": [
"You do know that drivers still speed even after being ticketed, right?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uq3ka",
"comment_text": [
"I suppose someone could pass a law that forbids someone from talking about public government activity.",
"Except for that pesky First Amendment thing."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uqazg",
"comment_text": [
"Because it basically defeats the point.",
"Luckily we don't make laws based on any random effort of the police being rendered ineffective. Driving through the neighborhood looking for illegal behavior can be defeated by putting up curtains, but we aren't going to outlaw curtains based on that!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do we feel a strange presence when we have sleep paralysis?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v1pfl
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uojx8",
"comment_text": [
"I think this is begging the question.. I had sleep paralysis a lot in the years when I did shift work, and never noticed any presence in the room or anything terrifying.. it was more annoying as I felt like it was wasting my time, when I could be sleeping or up doing something.",
"I suspect when people feel a presence, the brain is not totally awake and probably fills in some sensory details from the imagination. If you're predisposed to suspect strange noises are ghosts, that's probably what you'll get during sleep paralysis."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uozox",
"comment_text": [
"Could it be your own presence that's felt? "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5upfuf",
"comment_text": [
"I think so... I remember a couple of times hearing a breathing sound and realized it was just me. Sensory input gets distorted a bit."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5upx37",
"comment_text": [
"Makes sense. I've never felt anything parascience. More like totally aware."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v69el",
"comment_text": [
"I was at a talk last year about how the origin of myths around incubi and succubi were probably in sleep paralysis. The accounts people gave of being accosted by them were remarkably similar, they said, to the feeling during sleep paralysis."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: The Raven paradox
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v1dcn
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uku82",
"comment_text": [
"It's not a true paradox, so let's start with that. Maybe let's call it the Raven Quandary, because it's just a weird thing.",
"Take the statement \"All ravens are black.\" This statement necessarily also mean \"If something is not black, it is not a raven.\"",
"Now let's imagine we're trying to prove that all ravens are black. If we look at 1000 ravens and they're all black, this would ",
" our argument. It doesn't ",
" it though, but it is evidence that makes it more likely that all ravens are black. The more ravens we see that are black, the more likely it's true that all ravens are black.",
"But, because \"all ravens are black\" also implies \"all non-black things are not ravens\" evidence that support this second claim also supports the first claim. So, we see a green apple. It's not black, and it's not a raven, thus providing evidence that non-black things aren't ravens. And that in turn supports the claim that all ravens are black.",
"THAT'S FRIGGIN WEIRD THOUGH. Seeing that an apple is green should tell us ",
" about ravens. In terms of formal logic though, it does actually work as support.",
"The way to understand this is that it's just very, very, exceptionally weak support, so minuscule that it's not worth really considering. In court, it wouldn't be allowed. Despite tending to help prove one side's case, the confusion caused by the evidence would be ruled to outweigh the minimal evidentiary value.",
"But now imagine that we've actually seen every non-black thing there is in the world. And none of them were ravens. Well now that's interesting! It wouldn't just be evidence that all ravens are black, it'd be ",
" There can't be a non-black raven because we've seen all the non-black things and none were ravens.",
"Those green apples were just a very tiny part of working our way towards that proof. So, they're a very tiny speck of evidence towards the claim that all ravens are black."
],
"score": 28
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5up592",
"comment_text": [
"If you look at formal logic as a branch of mathematics, it can prove mathematical statements true. (And I view formal logic as strictly math, but others may disagree.)",
"What it doesn't do is prove empirical statements. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uoiba",
"comment_text": [
"It can be used to prove things true though. For instance, logic can be used to prove that \"A=A\" or \"If A=B and B=C, then A=C.\" But, the kinda of things logic is using to prove true are more like meta-ideas."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vfo1x",
"comment_text": [
"You are trying to claim p->q <=/=> ~q->~p and that is a non starter. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5vkmmo",
"comment_text": [
"All ravens are black is a corrolary of p implies q--where p is 'x is a raven' and q is 'x is black'.",
"If p implies q, then it is true that not q implies not p... If something is not black, it is not a raven.",
"By claiming that nonblack nonraven things are not evidence of the original premise, you are attempting to suggest a fundamental boolean algebraic identity is untrue. ",
"Fact is, there are two ways to disprove all ravens are black; Gather all ravens, and see if any are nonblack, OR Gather all nonblack things, and see if any are ravens. Collecting black ravens works towards the former, and collecting nonblack nonravens works towards the latter."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: In the US legal system, why is it possible to for children to be "tried as an adult", and what determines whether this will happen or not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uzmzv
| 11
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ui4tr",
"comment_text": [
"Being charged as an adult shows that they had the thought process of an adult through the crime. ",
"Say a 16 year old Rob's a gas station pocketing candy and swiping cash when the attendant wasn't looking. Passer by interferes and the kid kicks him in the shin to escape. He didn't plan on kicking him, but needed to escape. He would be tried as a kid. Stupid mistake that they did and 50 hours of community service/soft jail sentence will fix.",
"Now say said kid plans out a grand heist on the gas station. He fills pillow cases of product like food, drinks, and alcohol and uses intimidation to force the cashier to give him $$. He gets stopped by a Good Samaritan, which he fights off knocking him out cold with the pillow case. ",
"He would be tried as an adult now because the crime wasn't \"Kid steals candy and gets nervous reacting to someone stopping him\" to \"Person plans out a robbery utilizing high level thought processes to steal the cash and disable people trying to stop him with a blunt force object he brought for that reason\"",
"Another example. Highschooler beating up a middle schooler for lunch money. Turns out the kids family couldn't afford food. But stealing wrong so he needs a strong slap on the wrist. Compared to a high schooler constantly stealing peers money for drugs. Both are the same crime, theft. Ones semi justifiable, after all bullying younger kids is nothing new. The others a plan thought out at as being \"Beyond being a stupid kid\" "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ucaqx",
"comment_text": [
"The whole point of trying someone as a minor is so that their crime will be essentially erased from their record upon reaching majority. This is so that you aren't punished for something you did as a stupid for the rest of your life.",
"However, there are some cases where a minor commits a crime that we would like to have on their permanent record. It could be because they are very close to the legal age of majority, or it could have to do with the type of crime committed. If a 14 year old committed a triple homicide and is a sociopath, you might want that to be on his permanent record."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v7r01",
"comment_text": [
"The difference you outline here has more to do with premeditation/severity and does not prove intellectual maturity. Small children are even capable of premeditation. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ugn21",
"comment_text": [
"The idea of trying someone as a minor is finctionally acknowledging that they lacked the intelectual and emotional development necessary to fully comprehend the nature and consequences of a crime, and therefore cannot be justly treated the same as an adult, who is assumed to to the capacity for such underatanding. The idea of an \"insanity\" or other \"mental disability\" claim by defense lawyers for adults falls into a similar category.",
"Some crimes, however, are so severe that it is unreasonable to ",
" assume the accused understood the nature and consequences for their actions, and therefore will still be tried \"as an adult\" for the full measure of the law.",
"For example: we have 2 minors age 13. Minor A is charged with premeditated murder of a classmate where they stabbed the victim repeatedly to death. Minor B is charged with manslaughter because they found their parents's gun and had a negligent discharge while jokingly point the gun at someone.",
"Minor A would most likely be charged as an adult because there is no reasonable way to think that a 13 year-old doesn't know that stabbing someone repeatedly is probably going to kill them.",
"Minor B would most likely be charged as a Minor (if at all) because it's reasonable to assmue that they did not know how to handle guns safely (though this might not hold if the minor ",
" been taught proper gun safety and the prosecution can prove it)."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uhw32",
"comment_text": [
"That's not whole point, and depending on the case, it may not even the main point. In many (most?) cases, it's so the judge and prosecutor are not limited to juvenile sentencing laws."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5 The United States immigration process
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v0oqh
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.61
|
After twenty minutes of research, it seems even more convoluted than I heard/imagined. It seems that: You need to be awarded citizenship to be a citizen You need a green card to be awarded citizenship You need a visa to be awarded a green card I cannot imagine any of this is free, or quick.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ufoi6",
"comment_text": [
"Getting a Visa gets you into the country. There are different forms of visas, depending on why you actually came (work, student, travel, etc.). All must be maintained, and can be rescinded for bad behavior. Once your Visa expires, you're forced to leave.",
"Once you have been in the country for 5-10 years (depending on what your Visa is), you are eligible to file for lawful permanent residency (LPR), which is what the green card is. At that point, you can live and work in the US without penalty, but you don't have the privileges of citizens. 5 years after you get LPR, you are eligible to become a citizen.",
"It should be noted that the hard part is getting LPR; once you have LPR, you're essentially set so long as you don't do something worthy of deportation. Going from LPR to citizenship isn't particularly difficult."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uh1uh",
"comment_text": [
"The issue isn't citizenship, it's permanent residency. We have a very thorough immigration process that's meant to discourage anyone who's not in it for the long haul, or who won't want to integrate willingly into American society. There's a reason we don't have all-Muslim slums with young people primed for indoctrination into Al Qaeda or ISIS, which is precisely what you'll find in Paris and London.",
"Furthermore, they still have Constitutionally protected rights, they just come with 4 caveats;",
"1) They have to prove that they're here for a legitimate reason up until they get their green card.",
"2) They are subject to deportation if they really screw up until they get full citizenship (edit: and if they have LPR, they have to ",
" fuck up to get deported).",
"3) They can't vote until they get full citizenship.",
"4) They can't run for President.",
"But they still pay taxes, they still have essentially all other privileges citizens enjoy, and any children they have while here can become natural-born citizens ",
" the parents aren't at risk for deportation. It's not like they don't get the right to free speech or the right to bear arms just because they aren't citizens."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5v38w4",
"comment_text": [
"lol 13 years do not correspond to 13 steps (coincidence). number 4 and 7 were the most waiting was (talking years here). "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ufa9p",
"comment_text": [
"I've done it all so here is my story.",
"\nYou need a visa to enter the country. The type of visa will determine if you are allowed to work in the USA. A tourist visa will not allow you to work but Spouse,fiancee or simply work visa will allow you to work and set residence in the USA.",
"\nWhile in the USA on the visa, you can now work on getting a permanent residency card (green card) after 5 years of continuous residency or 2 years if married to the same US citizen ( things might have changed since I did that, so don't quote me 100% on accuracy).",
"\nOnce you obtained your Permanent residency status , you can then apply for citizenship after 5 years of permanent residency or 3 years married to the same US citizen. ",
"Visa application is $500 to $1000 depending on the type and may take 3 to 6 month to get it approved.\nGreen card application is about $1000 and took me 18 month from receipt to approval.",
"\nCitizenship application is about $700 and now take up to 12 month from filing to citizenship.",
"\nThat's when you file on your own. Attorney's fees can easily double or triple the cost.",
"\nHope this help."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ugl25",
"comment_text": [
"In the interest of having rights as a citizen, as few as ten years is still too gorram long"
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5:Why are some subreddits called x "porn"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uz8vn
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u4bsd",
"comment_text": [
"It's a gratuitous shot of something.",
"In this case it's a slang term for an indulgently nice picture of something.",
"So food porn is high quality, indulgent pictures of food, etc."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u4vx9",
"comment_text": [
"I read this in Zoidberg's voice."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u51zf",
"comment_text": [
"That's fun."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u4y7y",
"comment_text": [
"I think OP's question is about diction and why we choose to use the word \"porn\" as opposed to how it is being used in these contexts."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u63rz",
"comment_text": [
"Food porn is a reasonably old term.",
" (It predates reddit by a couple of decades, at least.) I suspect that the \"x porn\" subs are just a generalization of that."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: After Tony Blair was investigated in the Chilcot inquiry, why hasn't the US launched any type of investigation of George Bush, Dick Cheney and others for their decision to invade Iraq?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uxo7l
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5tqz1j",
"comment_text": [
"They didn't have to. There's nothing in the U.S. legislation that would compel the authorities to do what authorities in another country have done.",
"Plus, such an investigation would likely need to be pushed by the senate. I'm just guessing, not sure."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5tu3pv",
"comment_text": [
"Who would do such a thing? The GOP controls both parts of the legislature and President s do not want to set the precedent that their successor will come after them. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u1joi",
"comment_text": [
"There is no reason to suspect that US law was violated, and nothing in US law that would compel the government to want to do the investigation. So far as most of the country, and more importantly the legislature is concerned the war was justified and no laws were violated. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u6xnf",
"comment_text": [
"The Chilcot Inquiry wasn't a criminal investigation or anything of the sort. It was an inquiry which looked at Britain's involvement in the Iraq War between 2001 and 2009. The point of such an inquiry is simply to look at how decisions were made and, in particular, what mistakes were made and what improvements are needed. This is really so that changes can be made to avoid the same mistakes and problems in the future: \"We invaded Iraq, didn't find any WMDs and made a complete pig's breakfast of the conflict -- what went wrong and what lessons can we learn from this?\"",
"The fact that the inquiry did indeed say that the whole war was unnecessary and probably illegal wasn't really the point of the inquiry; it's just that the inquiry uncovered evidence that that was the case. It says, for example, not that the government of the day lied to Parliament, but that the government of the day relied too much on evidence that had not been properly fact-checked by MI6. Whether that was deliberate deceit or mindless incompetence (or both), the report didn't exactly say."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5u9ehb",
"comment_text": [
"The short and simple answer: because the Senate and the House have not decided to conduct an investigation. Any such effort would have to originate in the Legislative Branch and the voters have not pushed them to do so. Without pressure from the voters, there's no way either chamber would undertake such an investigation as they were largely complicit in the same acts; it would be completely dysfunctional."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do all dish and hand soaps kill "99.9% of bacteria"; why not less or 100%?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uxmju
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5tzcvt",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Please search before submitting.",
"This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5tzgre",
"comment_text": [
"The strength of antimicrobials is measured in something called a decimal reduction time. Because there are a very large number of bacteria on your hands and there are a lot of variables which affect how well the antimicrobial works, we use a statistical measure of the effectiveness of antimicrobials, which as I said is called the decimal reduction time. This is the amount of time under certain conditions that causes the population of viable bacteria (or fungi or something else) to be reduced to 1/10th the original, or a change of one decimal place. This means that after one decimal reduction time 90% have been killed. After another decimal reduction time, the remaining population is reduced by a factor of 1/10th again and so 99% are killed. The decimal reduction time is experimentally determined in a lab, and to finally answer your question, they say it is 99.99% effective because I'm the standard conditions of your hands, the typical application time is the equivalent of 4 decimal reduction times, so you reduce the viable population to 1/10th of 1/10th of 1/10th of 1/10th. This is 1 in 10000, or 99.99% dead. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5twuev",
"comment_text": [
"It is to avoid lawsuits. If they were to claim that it killed 100% of germs if someone got sick or otherwise proved that it did not kill something then the company could be sued for false advertising or selling a defective product. By saying they kill almost everything they have legal wiggle room. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5trp9i",
"comment_text": [
"To be able to advertise your product as disinfectant, you have to demonstrate that it is capable of killing 99.9% of germs. Once you have successfully demonstrated this, you may then advertise your product as capable of performing this feat.",
"That's my understanding at least."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5tr543",
"comment_text": [
"Most likely, 99.9% is an easier way to represent 9.99999999 (about a million 9's)%, accounting for a tiny tiny fraction of bacteria that are resistant to the soap.",
"Reducing the number of 9's is simply to convey the same message of \"almost everything\" yet not everything without looking redundant to the average consumer."
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5: What is the significance of the order of the alphabet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4v0cuh
| 805
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.87
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ucy9b",
"comment_text": [
"In general, there is no reason it's in that order. It needs to be in some order, since having a consistent order is necessary for many tasks such as sorting. The order for the current alphabet was adapted from an alphabet written by a monk in 1011 (",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrhtferth",
") I'm not sure where he got his ordering. But it doesn't matter what the order is, as long as there is a consistently agreed upon ordering."
],
"score": 407
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ud396",
"comment_text": [
"The Alphabet we use today is a mutation of mutation of Greek. The Greek when dealing with Phoenicians observed that their use of a standardized character order aided greatly in business transactions and thus adopted a similar practice. The exact order is not clear though likely arbitrary for both the Greeks and Phoenicians. As did the Greeks, so did the Roman who adopted their own alphabet (taken from the names of the letters Alpha and Beta) and it evolved from there to English Lettering, French, Spanish and so on. ",
"The alphabet continues to evolve in odd ways as well. In the 1600's we lost a major letter in the alphabet because of the printing presses at the time were made by Germans who lacked the Þ (thorn). Today we have more modern and complex lettering working its way into our language thanks to computers using Unicode. Arguably emoji could also represent an evolution of our language, but for now let's scoff at that notion :eggplant:"
],
"score": 241
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5udh5g",
"comment_text": [
"The \"th\" sound.",
"The, they, Heath, and so on. ",
"The Y in Ye was a substitute for the old English Þ.",
"\"Ye olde candie shoppe\" is actually \"Þe olde candie shoppe\" or \"the old candy shop\" in today's English. "
],
"score": 44
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5udh5g",
"comment_text": [
"The \"th\" sound.",
"The, they, Heath, and so on. ",
"The Y in Ye was a substitute for the old English Þ.",
"\"Ye olde candie shoppe\" is actually \"Þe olde candie shoppe\" or \"the old candy shop\" in today's English. "
],
"score": 44
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5uebf0",
"comment_text": [
"we lost a major letter in the alphabet because of the printing presses at the time were made by Germans who lacked the Þ (thorn)",
"The letter \"y\" was substituted for it, because that was the letter that printers thought looked most similar. Thorn had the sounds of \"th\" in \"this\" and \"think\", and is the reason why \"the\" is spelled \"ye\" in old texts. (This means it should really be pronounced just like \"the\", but it is now usually pronounced like the pronoun \"ye\").",
"These days we use \"th\" rather than \"Þ\", so no great harm has been done by losing this letter.",
"EDIT: missing word"
],
"score": 38
}
|
|
ELI5: How does a Health Insurance Marketplace/Health Exchange work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uqi7x
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
How do these exchanges "trade" insurance coverage exactly? I cannot wrap my head around the idea right now.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rx0p2",
"comment_text": [
"It's a market, you trade money for services. The market places are essentially a government run Amazon.com like site where you can search and buy. The government contracts pays to rub the site and insurance companies put their plans on it assuming they meet the requirements so people can search them."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5s0lvq",
"comment_text": [
"Does it operate similar to a stock exchange, or is it operating on another architectural model?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5s1ubl",
"comment_text": [
"Nope, like Amazon, companies say how much they charge for X and people decide if they want to buy it."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5s1z2b",
"comment_text": [
"It's a market in that there are multiple sellers on a single platform... you go to your state's Health Insurance Marketplace, and can choose from among a number of different plans from different companies. They are exchanges in that they bring many buyers and many sellers in one place."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5s2075",
"comment_text": [
"ELI5 Answer: We all put money into an envelope. Health insurance companies take some money out as payment for holding the envelope. When you get sick, they take some money out to pay for your care. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why cant you swallow with your mouth wide open?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4upqdu
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rpj7v",
"comment_text": [
"I just did it, and was able to have my mouth almost fully open (the swallow itself pulled muscles that forced me to close a bit)"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rpl7t",
"comment_text": [
"Inhuman."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rpms0",
"comment_text": [
"Shhhhhhhh.. Don't tell anyone"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rpqe4",
"comment_text": [
"Me too."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rpr1x",
"comment_text": [
"Removed as not necessarily true, under rule 6.",
"rules"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do timezones even exist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uowvl
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rilbz",
"comment_text": [
"People like having their clocks agree with what time of day it is, but have to make sacrifices to coordination.",
"\nBefore timezones every clock would count noon as when the sun was directly overhead, this meant that pretty much every clock disagreed with each other by several minutes. Bad news if you want to make sure that trains aren't crashing into each other.",
"\nSo they divided the world into timezones to allow for easier to rationalize coordination. ",
"Now let us suppose the world was all one time zone.",
"\nWhen it's Midday in New York, it is Midnight in Hong Kong. At least one of these cities is going to have their clocks completely divorced from the time of day.",
"\nIt would also introduce weird problems, like say you have a restaurant open at 8:00 am, is that a store that opens for breakfast? or is it open for lunch or just dinner? The answer would start changing depending on where the store was. Bad news if you're operating a multinational chain of restaurants. It just complicated your management greatly, you might mess up and get a restaurant opening at local mid night and closing at dawn.",
"\nWhat's more time zones are there for local coordination, if time is divorced from the day, you'll get dozens of different ideas on when \"morning\" or \"afternoon\" start for their local time, leading to greater confusion. ",
"Finally, people who need to coordinate action at multiple places across the globe can already just use GMT. They wouldn't see any real benefit to one time zone being the same"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ri6j9",
"comment_text": [
"How so? Even if we all kept the same hour time, we'd still shift the time we do various life activities to correspond with light and dark, so whether it's noon in NY and 6pm in Paris, or noon in both but starting to get dark in Paris then the Parisians would be home from work and the New Yorkers would be heading to lunch. So is it easier to remember that Paris is 6 hours ahead, or that Paris works from 3am to noon, while New York works 9am to 5pm?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rijpt",
"comment_text": [
"I understand that, but what you're explaining is already happening. The only difference is that Paris is told their timezone is UTC+01:00. If no one thought of timezones, people will still be working at the same times they're working at now. ",
"For example, I'm from the UK, it's 9am here. We start work, whereas 9am in australia will be there night time. Australian workers will have just finished. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ritej",
"comment_text": [
"For example, I'm from the UK, it's 9am here. We start work, whereas 9am in australia will be there night time. Australian workers will have just finished.",
"But you only know that because of time zones. If time zones didn't exist, you'd have no idea, off hand, what time of day it was in some other part of the world. You travel to India for work, but want to phone back home. Is it ok? Are they awake yet? At work? Just gone to bed? To know those things you'd have to know the difference in time.",
"Boom. You just created time zones.",
"Time zones solve problems like these. They don't, as far as I'm aware, create any problems."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ri752",
"comment_text": [
"Wouldn't it be easier without them?",
"Nope. What time will you eat lunch today? With timezones, you know that you'll probably eat lunch at noon. Without timezones it depends on where you are, and traveling across the country will result in things like you trying to eat at noon only to discover that all the lunch-only restaurants are closed, because mid-day here is actually 4pm, and everyone is just now getting started with breakfast and going to work/school at noon."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: My Political View
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uo69j
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rce1j",
"comment_text": [
"Wow! Thanks for explaining! :) I'm always neutral on very political test. Maybe it comes from being in Debate club lol"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5sryp2",
"comment_text": [
":)"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rc4pe",
"comment_text": [
"It either is going to mean you have relatively middle of the road views, or, no offense, but I think you just put 3 for too many questions instead of actually answering the question."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rc57y",
"comment_text": [
"BURN"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rcc7j",
"comment_text": [
"Nah,I answered every question as honestly as I could. Every time I take a political test I'm always in the middle :P Maybe I should run for president! lol"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Does anyone police public elections?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4um3tj
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
With everyone complaining about how the elections are rigged/fraudulent/corrupt-is there any non-biased 3rd party maintaining the integrity of it?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5quw55",
"comment_text": [
"Well, there is.",
"In the US, election processes are fairly open. Election rolls are open, showing who has registered to vote and what elections they voted in. Often, the actual ballots are available for inspection after the vote has been certified.",
"So, our third party? It's the press. The fact that so much of this is available for public inspection makes it hard (but not impossible) to taint the process.",
"And really, in a free society, that's how it works best. The press is the watchdog against the government. That's why so many people fight to ensure freedom of the press and open records."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5qz263",
"comment_text": [
"No that's not it. In the United States, the ",
"Federal Election Commission",
" is responsible for enforcing the election laws at the federal level. There's similar enforcement in place at the state/local level. You should know people ",
" complain that their enforcement doesn't have the teeth it needs to, but it at least exists as another layer besides the media.",
"Also there are independent observers, who are allowed to send monitors to polling places and observe how everything goes down. Both major parties, various international organizations, and several nonprofit activist groups tend to send observers to sensitive elections. Again how much they can ",
" is a matter of debate but they're yet another layer in the process."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5r17r9",
"comment_text": [
"There's no ethics commit making sure no one's being bribed?",
"You mean state elections officials? Not any more than there are people ensuring ",
" is being bribed (in other words: prosecutors investigate it just like any other corruption).",
"Or money is mishandled? ",
"The FEC regulates campaign finance for federal elections. I'm not sure what else you'd mean by \"mishandled.\"",
"Or people being manipulated by false claims that are only used for their shock and awe value to get votes from increasingly ADD constituents?",
"The legal category for most \"false claims used for their shock and awe value to get votes from increasingly ADD constituents\" is \"constitutionally protected speech.\" There are a ",
" of edge cases where it's not protected, but it is extremely difficult to win such a case. The government does not get to proactively monitor and decide what truth is. They mostly don't get to reactively punish people for not telling the truth. The danger of a government abusing that power is far more than the danger of someone telling lies during an election.",
"That brings me to an important point: the government is a terrible place to turn to stop election rigging, because when elections are rigged it's often the government doing the rigging. If you give governments lots of control over campaigning, they can use that to throw the election in favor of one side or the other. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5qx0yp",
"comment_text": [
"Seriously?! That's it? There's no ethics commit making sure no one's being bribed? Or money is mishandled? Or people being manipulated by false claims that are only used for their shock and awe value to get votes from increasingly ADD constituents? We're trusting the outcomes of something as important as the leader of our country to Time Warner and 21st Century Fox? Really????"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5rr3xx",
"comment_text": [
"In addition to what the others have said:",
"\nThe parties also watch each other. If one party has any credible evidence someone is interfering with the elections you can bet your firstborn they will be the first to cry foul. After all they are the ones who stand to lose directly. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why are children taught the RYB primaries, as opposed to the CMYK primaries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uikh4
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
Having a full understanding that RGB is an additive principal used in technology (emitting light, to stimulate the response in the eyes), and knowing that in print (either RYB or CMYK) is subtractive, why are children taught the RYB colour wheel as children? It is my understanding that the CMYK is the true print form of pigmentation, as there are some colours RYB can not create - whereas CMYK can create absolutely anything.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5py0fj",
"comment_text": [
"Having a full understanding that RGB is an additive principal used in technology (emitting light, to stimulate the response in the eyes), and knowing that in print (either RYB or CMYK) is subtractive, why are children taught the RYB colour wheel as children? ",
"Because when you're explain things to children it's easier to keep things simple. The RYB color space is simple because it only addresses one variable (tone), works well with the handful of colors a child is expected to know (mostly ROYGBV + White, Brown & Black), has a very straightforward visual representation (the color wheel) but at the same time captures a lot of the important bits like complementary/contrasting colors and the basics of mixing. ",
"It is my understanding that the CMYK is the true print form of pigmentation, as there are some colours RYB can not create - whereas CMYK can create absolutely anything. ",
"Your understanding is incorrect, CMYK can not create \"absolutely anything\". \n",
"This is a helpful picture",
"\nThe whole color shape is the range of colors your eye can see. The white line roughly represents the area you can reproduce using CMYK."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5q24gg",
"comment_text": [
"K for Key!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5q20et",
"comment_text": [
"According to the picture it would seem RGB actually produces more colors, is that correct?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5q254i",
"comment_text": [
"Keep in mind the distinction between RGB and RYB - RGB being additive, RYB being subtractive."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5q26ve",
"comment_text": [
"Okay!",
"I was just considering that... RYB has been ingrained in our teachings, even though it has flaws in comparison to CMYK - I didn't know that teaching it just a little different would be so much harder.",
"It's not just as simple as 'yup, you learnt it in kindy, so it's gonna stick', it needs to be easily relatable in other ways too?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why are non-American airline companies consistently ranked higher than American ones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uhxed
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pu299",
"comment_text": [
"Its simple the US airlines have all taken to becoming low cost carriers and service has taken a hit. Emriates, Qatar, Singapore and Etihad have all kept their customer service focus and with it the Luxury that used to be assosiated with airline flight"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pu87w",
"comment_text": [
"Many foreign airlines also have government backed subsidies (or are outright state owned enterprises), so they can keep prices low and quality high. The US Airlines have been bailed out by the government several times, but they don't get on-going subsidies like many foreign airlines do. Since they are also publicly traded companies with shareholders, they have to consistently turn a profit, but American consumers demand low prices.",
"It's the Wal-Mart syndrome. The US airlines used to be very luxurious, but an airline ticket cost much more and people didn't fly often like today. The average price of an airline ticket has fallen 50% in the past 30 years alone.",
"Here's a good read: ",
"http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5qj7df",
"comment_text": [
"This was all over the place and made no sense at all."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5puofz",
"comment_text": [
"It's not just airlines. Most products and services in America are lower quality than in places like Europe and Japan.",
"American consumers value cheapness and quantity more than quality. Europeans tend to buy less stuff but when do spend money on something they expect a higher quality and are prepared to pay more. Asians are big on conspicuous consumption and are also prepared to pay more for a luxury product. Airline travel is still seen as a status symbol in much of Asia and has not been commoditized to the extent it has been in America."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pve0m",
"comment_text": [
"There's a beverage storage compartment?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What's at the bottom of quicksand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ugmam
| 30
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pl4ap",
"comment_text": [
"That, or the bones of people past. "
],
"score": 29
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ppajm",
"comment_text": [
"Well...there are many who did just that, and they became part of the treasure."
],
"score": 25
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pjyz5",
"comment_text": [
"Either an underground spring or non permeable soil. If you are thinking about the wet kind."
],
"score": 23
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pldbd",
"comment_text": [
"Treasure, lots of treasure. "
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5plesa",
"comment_text": [
"That just makes me want to go into the middle of a pit, go under the bottom, and bring all the stuff back up.. i mean, why didn't the previous people just do that?? Wow, I'm a genius"
],
"score": 9
}
|
|
ELI5: How does "duty free" work? Why do they have it? Who is it helping to have overpriced bulky gifts at the airport?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ufuww
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pnd1k",
"comment_text": [
"Well when else would you buy a Toblerone?"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pcgfe",
"comment_text": [
"Duty free goods allow a person exiting a country to buy certain goods tax (aka \"duty\") free, as long as they are not going to use the products in that country and are confirmed to be leaving.",
"In many countries taxes on certain goods, particularly \"sin\" goods like alcohol and cigarettes are be particularly high, as can higher priced goods or luxury goods. So being able to buy these goods without having to pay taxes on them can make them a bit cheaper.",
"Why do we have this? Well airports like making money. It's a good source of income, and govts have OK'ed it, because since its leaving the country, they don't care, its not their responsibility anymore.",
"You often see people who come from countries with high taxes on some goods, like alcohol, buying a lot at duty free, because it will end up a lot cheaper when buying a bunch of stuff. They may also be able to get goods that are not easily available in their country or area."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pe8vr",
"comment_text": [
"The shop should check your ticket before letting you make a duty-free purchase."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5peahb",
"comment_text": [
"Not all flights are domestic - there might be flights to Canada or Mexico in there or you might be on the first leg of a trip that will eventually take you out of the country."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5pnj0g",
"comment_text": [
"Once you have passed security in an airport, you are in a special place where the tax laws no longer exist as you in no mans land - a stateless place, same as on cruise ships out of port, aircraft mid flight, the arrivals area in airports before you clear immigration. ",
"As it's not really the US anymore, and you are leaving the US, the Government allows the shops to remove the tax from items, because the theory is that you will not use that item in the US, as you are leaving, so you don't need to pay the tax.",
"That was the idea back in the day but now it's just a huge money making scheme for airports. That's why you have duty free on arrival - last chance to buy booze n fags before you get home. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5 What would happen if less than 5% voted on the United States presidential election?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ubkga
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5oe4t5",
"comment_text": [
"5% of citizens or delegates?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5oe5xn",
"comment_text": [
"If less than 5% voted in the presidential election than less than 5% would get to determine who makes up the government. Maybe people would consider democracy broken but there is no such notion in the law or constitution. ",
"If 95% of people didn't vote, then how are they going to consider it broken? They were the ones not to vote. Someone can't fail to participate and then claim that failure to participate means something beyond them. Will the 5% that did vote and thus decided the government feel that its broken? their voices were heard, why should they think its broken. ",
"So no, simply not voting doesn't say anything. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5oebpk",
"comment_text": [
"There are some layers to this are you asking if 5% of the population voted? ",
"OR",
"5% of those who are registered to vote?",
"Because those two concepts are quite different. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5oecr4",
"comment_text": [
"the presidential election isn't decided by popular vote. it's decided by electoral votes. so it doesn't matter if nobody other than the electoral reps votes. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5oee5t",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"2b. Asking for subjective or speculative replies. ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: When sad or crying, why do men often comfort other men by squeeze the grieving person's shoulder/collar bone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4uc2i1
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5oij2p",
"comment_text": [
"Possibly because it is about the most non-sexual way we can comfort another man. Wouldn't want to get too intimate. "
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ojxco",
"comment_text": [
"I think it has a lot to do with the nature of touch in general, and the stabilizing effect specifically. Touch has shown to be very comforting and deeply rooted in our psychology. My take is that the act of reaching out and grasping someone by the shoulder is a subconscious attempt to brace the other person and keep them steady."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ojjxs",
"comment_text": [
"I guess it's just contact with the person and getting close to them. Puts more emotion into it"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ok0cb",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly what I would type. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ooiuq",
"comment_text": [
"It's like a hug, but less gay, and I'm not trying to be funny. It's a \"no homo\" way for one man to comfort another man without either of them feeling like they're being too intimate. Similar to a \"man hug\" where the participants vigorously slap each other on the back.",
"I have no issues with hugging another man that I know, but some guys do."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How did "Friends" do so well in terms of ratings compared to today's television?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u8yhy
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.65
|
Wikipedia shows that each season of Friends averaged more than 20 million viewers (remember, that's , which include the premiere and finale which tend to be episodes with the most viewership). When comparing those numbers to other popular shows over the past few years that I can think of (though it should be noted that I don't watch that much TV), Friends absolutely destroys all of the other shows. For comparison, I'm looking at Breaking Bad, The Office, 24, The Big Bang Theory, and The Flash -- all shows that I believe have large fan bases. For starters, the highest average that Friends pulled off was in the 2nd season with 52.9 million viewers. This is attributed to the fact that an episode premiered after the Super Bowl (much like another show if you continue reading). For arguments sake, lets ignore this season and look at the next highest average, which was season 3 with 24.9 million viewers. This number doesn't seem to be inflated by any sort of supplement like the Super Bowl. Within season 3, the least watched episode still brought in 22.6 million viewers. The highest average Breaking Bad pulled off was in season 5 with 4.32 million viewers because of the finale which pulled in 10.28 million (which I can understand; I only watched the last few episodes of the show but was also a viewer of the finale as it was broadcast because of the constant talk of the show on social media). The highest average The Office pulled off was season 5, though this can be attributed to the fact that NBC broadcasted the Super Bowl that year and The Office was on right after (just like Friends) which led to a total of 22.91 viewers. The highest average 24 pulled off was season 5 (seems to be a trend, haha) with 13.78 million viewers. I can't seem to find any reason outside of the show being "that good" at this point (which I can't confirm or deny as I've never watched an episode). This was 2006, so outside of traditional advertising/marketing, I don't believe there was the added impact of social media. The highest average The Big Bang Theory pulled off was the most recent season, season 9, with an average of 20.36 million viewers. My assessment is the same as 24 -- never watched it so perhaps the show is just "that good" (though I've been told otherwise) so it's been able to reel in that many viewers. Though it's only done 2 seasons so far, the highest average The Flash has pulled off is 4.62 in its first season. This intrigued me a bit because I watched almost every episode of the 2nd season live and it by the end of every broadcast, "The Flash" was always the number 1 trend on Twitter, which led me to believe that perhaps social media today would play a bigger part in increasing viewership. I know I didn't go in depth with all of these metrics and there's probably more to be explained, but from what I've shown it's clear that Friends outperformed these shows. Is there an explanation for this? Are we watching less TV now or is Friends actually that much better than most TV shows (I've been watching it on Netflix and I absolutely love it)? The only other show I could think of that was on par with Friends was American Idol (basically, it held up nicely -- occasionally doing better than Friends -- for the first 10 seasons and then began to fall off).
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nrimg",
"comment_text": [
"In the time of Friends, being on air. Viewers content was limited basically to the cinema, for new release, home movies or renting at Blockbuster or Hollywood video ect.. and then of course the mainstream everyday stuff of cable TV.",
"Today the population has such a wide array of available content to view.",
"Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube...the list goes on for days of available media and then of course cable and satellite. There is a much broader list of contenders fighting to supply our entertainment needs and that means cable is loosing out. Plus no annoying commercials every 2 minutes."
],
"score": 17
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nwkxw",
"comment_text": [
"Also worth mentioning that non premium cable TV was largely reruns, movies, sports, and low effort, low budget garbage original shows until the early to mid 00s. The only place to find new original quality mainstream TV was on the major networks: NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5o08q3",
"comment_text": [
"Broad appeal and few competitors. Now there's so much competition for niche demographics that shows with broad appeal lose viewers. Why watch a show with a few tech jokes if you can watch The Big Bang Theory? There's a lot of shows like that which would steal Friends's viewers away in the modern tv space."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nwtn8",
"comment_text": [
"Pretty sure NCIS and big bang theory are on broadcast TV, not basic cable. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ny3k8",
"comment_text": [
"This trend follows for most other forms of media over the time period in question. Newspapers? Check. Radio? Podcast now. And as you've already mentioned, Big screen feature length movies. ",
"I'd venture to say that the 90s 6 month turnaround of features to VHS was the \"biggest\" time of profit (net not gross for the production rather than the box office) for studios. My perspective is skewed by my age of course though.",
"As for books, I don't know. Lots of people \"worried\" about the loss of the paperback industry though."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What makes a voice raspy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u7pcx
| 20
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.66
|
Ok, I feel like I get what a raspy voice is, and don't get it at the same time, and it's getting seriously annoying and confusing. Whenever I type in raspy voice in to google, I just get links to people trying and failing to sound cool. I've given up on google, and am just going to ask people now, what the hell makes a voice raspy? So far all I've gotten is that it is somehow sexy, and mature, nothing about how it sounds. My internet connection is shit, so I'm not going to wait fifteen minutes for a two minute video. Any help much appreciated, this whole enquiry gave me a damn migraine. Thanks and bye.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5npiqt",
"comment_text": [
"Lots of things. If you're talking about someone like Emma Stone, she had colic as a baby which left her with permanently scarred vocal chords.",
"When people say vocal chords they actually are talking about vocal folds. Air from your lungs comes through the windpipe in your throat and vibrates across a thin membrane that opens and closes to create sound. After years of abuse by screaming or talking in a lower or higher pitch or smoking or drinking, any number of things...that membrane can develop little nodules on the edges that stop the whole thing from opening and closing correctly. That's what actually causes the raspy noise. It's actually pretty unhealthy and those nodules can become infected or even cancerous if you're unlucky. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nqik2",
"comment_text": [
"You might want to try using the term \"vocal fry\" as a search term. It's used sometimes as a term to refer to the lowest register in singing, but it also refers to a speaking effect of slowing your vocal chords down to get them to vibrate slowly enough that you can hear a grainy sounds in the voice, possibly the sound of the vocal folds actually striking each other slowly enough to sound more percussive."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ns2nd",
"comment_text": [
"You may get some better search results by using the term \"dysphonia\". Like mentioned already, a raspy voice can be caused by nodules or polyps forming on the vocal folds which interfere with their movement and closure. Other causes can be vocal fold edema or even neurological damage resulting in paralysis/paresis of one or both vocal folds."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nliaq",
"comment_text": [
"Sorry for not have an actual explanation. But, Fanto is a raw form of tobacco that some Jamaicans put in their joints. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nliaq",
"comment_text": [
"Sorry for not have an actual explanation. But, Fanto is a raw form of tobacco that some Jamaicans put in their joints. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do we still use "Painful means" of torture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u6gke
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5n8gd3",
"comment_text": [
"What would u say is a \"proven effective way\" then?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5n8i1z",
"comment_text": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff",
" Like this german interrogator from WWII. Or ",
"http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20698098",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5n8jr1",
"comment_text": [
"As opposed to \"pleasurable means\" of torture?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5n8m68",
"comment_text": [
"I guess you could call it that? It would be a means of getting them to slip it out in a less forced means (Pressuring them into saying ANYTHING) I guess the best example for my POV, would be the links above."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5n8pkd",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"2b. Asking for subjective or speculative replies. ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: If Jesus was fake
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u766t
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5neumg",
"comment_text": [
"If plenty of medical documents are written, then it should be simple for you to provide a good source for one. Stop avoiding it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5neumg",
"comment_text": [
"If plenty of medical documents are written, then it should be simple for you to provide a good source for one. Stop avoiding it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5nen2a",
"comment_text": [
"Also nobody knows for certain that's why it is called faith. There is no evidence anybody has been contacted by Jesus. Also it's widely believed Jesus was a real person but whether he was the son of God or just a self proclaimed prophet is the debate "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ner91",
"comment_text": [
"Can we get links to those events? Because those would actually be medical miracles and should be written about everywhere."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ner91",
"comment_text": [
"Can we get links to those events? Because those would actually be medical miracles and should be written about everywhere."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What would happen if a presidential candidate won the election but decided not to take the job?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u3p7f
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mpb8g",
"comment_text": [
"If they resigned after being sworn in the VP becomes president until the term is completed. The former VP could run for their own term or simply allow others to run and not opt to take the office again.",
"If the person quit after the election but prior to being sworn in it's not clear what would happen. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5myv7j",
"comment_text": [
"It depends on if the electoral college votes had been counted in December. If they hadn't voted/been counted yet they will still have the right to vote however they please. The electoral college is what ultimately decides the election, not the popular vote. Some states have a requirement that the electors must vote for the winning candidate, but not all do.",
"So in theory, they could vote for one of the losing candidates or the winning candidate's VP.",
"If the electoral college has already voted for a candidate and the candidate resigns before swearing in the incoming vice presidential candidate would become president."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mz0wi",
"comment_text": [
"To my knowledge the scenario has never happened. We did have a president back in the day die from illness only a few weeks into office, but none during the interim period.",
"The Speaker of the House is a representative, and as with all other reps is up for re-election every two years. If they won their re-election bid they may be eligible as the \"third in succession\" with no further action by anyone, but if they lost or stepped down from the Speaker position then the House would not yet have selected a new speaker and that would be interesting, too.",
"It's also possible the sitting VP could be promoted as the current president was no longer able to be in office and no clear winner was available. If this happens the 'promotion' would likely be temporary until the issue was resolved and they were either fully confirmed to the office or someone else was finally settled on.",
"A speaker has never yet succeeded to the President's Office without an election. VPs have become president this way, but only during a president's term, not following it.",
"The second place candidate in the election could become president as originally the second place candidate would become vice-president (candidates ran alone back in the day). They would have been the VP-elect and first in line to succeed the President. There is precedent for this scenario, though the laws surrounding tickets and such are somewhat murkier now that it is traditional (though not required) to run with a running mate.",
"The winning candidate's running mate may also be 'promoted'. Legally speaking the results of the election may put them in the first point of succession to the Oval Office, and that succession has happened many times for various reasons; but only ever during a term--this would be an issue for Congress and/or Supreme Court to consider. Is the intent of the people in an election sufficient to enact the succession clauses in the Constitution ",
" an election but ",
" the term begins? The precedent here is ambiguous.",
"Alternately, because the popular vote does not elect the president, it is also possible that the Electors who ",
" would have a special session and ratify a new candidate from among those who ran and collected at least one delegate each for their respective parties. Normally the electors simply ratify the results from their state, but they are not legally bound to do so--they can vote for any candidate. Traditionally the electors do not violate the will of their state, but that is not required. ",
"It is also possible that the House of Representatives could vote in a special session to elect the President because the results of the election were inconclusive. This scenario did happen once, though not due to a candidate's unavailability. That was back in the early 1800s, story ",
"here",
". This is the most likely scenario to occur if the electoral college had already ratified a candidate.",
"My guess is the House would vote in a special session, current reps would do this before the end of their term. The Senate would soon after vote on a VP. If the VP candidate was not selected to be President by the House they would still be eligible for selection by the Senate; likewise the Senate could elect someone else of their choosing.",
"Because there is no clear legal precedent for how to handle such a lame-duck resignation or death the situation would likely set off a situation not unlike what happened with Florida and New Mexico after the Bush/Gore election back in 2000 and the Supreme Court would end up determining which precedent, if any, would stand in that situation. There is no way to know for sure what would happen. We can hypothesize, and the options are fairly limited but due to the complete lack of precedent there is no way to know with certainty what would happen."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mytv5",
"comment_text": [
"When the presidential candidate wins the election but hasn't been sworn in yet, they're known as the President Elect.",
"What happens when the President Elect is unable or unwilling to assume the role of president is covered by ",
"the 20th amendment, Section 3.",
"The Vice-President Elect becomes president."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mquc5",
"comment_text": [
"That's what I'm asking. If a candidate wins, but says \"just kidding\" and doesn't swear in, dose the current President continue until a re-election? Or would the speaker of the house take the interm position? or what?",
"Edit: correcting punctuation."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do job recruiting portals ask for your resume AND work history?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u2ohe
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.37
|
I know I'm not alone on this one but it boggles my mind with every application I submit. Someone please help me contain my rage by explaining this.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mabqm",
"comment_text": [
"Because the work history entries on their sited can easily be pulled into their database and filtered using their search tools, where a resume can be formatted thousands of ways and would usually require a human to pull the information from. I agree, it is extremely annoying. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mabqw",
"comment_text": [
"it has to do with the two stages of application screening, and the software that the company bought not being good enough. When you put in your work history to all those dropdowns and text fields, it formats it in a way that the system can see if it meets whatever 'minimum' requirements the recruiter has set for the job. Chances are though that the human recruiter at the other end doesn't want to look at it that way, and just wants to read your resume, so they end up asking for that too.",
"If the computer could just read your resume, all those unnecessary screens could go away."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5macjs",
"comment_text": [
"A resume typically consists of the info pertinent to what you're currently looking to do for work. A work history is aaaall the jobs you've done. Because your work history might not be pertinent if you're looking at working in a specialized field. For instance you wouldn't say you worked at McDonald's while going for a job as a heart surgeon."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mrxxf",
"comment_text": [
"Your resume would contain your work history. It is not expected for you to pull down non relevant work history.",
"The question is really why are you asked to input all this information twice after already uploading a resume.",
"Good software parses and you may only need to make a minimum amount of adjustments. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mr9on",
"comment_text": [
"Because your resume is meant to be read by a human,the hiring manager. That means you put though into formatting, the font, the spacing, etc.",
"HR records don't want any of that. They need the raw data. There's two options to get that data from your resume. Hire a minimum wage worker to read your resume and type it into the computer. Or force you to do it for free. Pay vs free."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: When we hear something for the first time, or learn something new, why does it seem that this terms or idea comes up much more often than before we knew what it was?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u3ib9
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.81
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mjid1",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, and it's already doing that. ",
"You probably know like 100 types of cars, but when you walk through a parking lot, you don't notice unless there's an abnormal one.",
"You know how to count, but you don't know how many stairs lead from the main to 2nd floor of your own house. ",
"The true strength of our minds isn't noticing things, it's filtering things out."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mid9i",
"comment_text": [
"Suppose you've seen rainbows before, but never knew that there was a word for \"green.\" If you saw something green and were asked to describe it, you'd probably say \"a yellowish blue\" or \"a bluish yellow\" depending on its shade. But then someone tells you that all these different things between yellow and blue are called \"green,\" and you start noticing things... fashion, video games, paintings... that use green deliberately as its own color, and not just because they needed something between blue and yellow. When you look at rainbows, now you notice the green in them. It's not that you've never seen the color before-- after all, it's always existed-- it's just that you never thought to look for it before you knew it had a name. Human brains are masters of oversimplification, so we're likely surrounded all the time by things we don't think are important-- until we have a name for them."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mvwpz",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you so much for the name! Definitely gonna read up more on this. It's very interesting "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mvwpz",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you so much for the name! Definitely gonna read up more on this. It's very interesting "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5miiww",
"comment_text": [
"A follow up question: is there a point where we recognize so many things, that our brain deliberately tries to ignore stuff?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: This article: http://www.boredpanda.com/true-size-countries-mercator-map-projection-james-talmage-damon-maneice/
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u1xz7
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.45
|
The maps just looking so wrong, and fake.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m5dj5",
"comment_text": [
"There ",
" no accurate rectangular maps of the earth's surface, since the earth is spherical.",
"You can have maps that preserve area but not shape, or ones that preserve shape but not area, or ones that keep angles correct, and so on.",
"There is a great Wikipedia article on \"map projections\" that goes over a lot of them, plus ",
"this",
"."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m50p9",
"comment_text": [
"The reason why certain countries looks bigger or smaller than others is because of something called the Mercator Projection. Putting a 3D planet on a two-dimensional map was something of a challenge for early cartographers and so a Flemish geographer and cartographer named Gerardus Mercator came up with a solution. In 1569 he designed a map that could be accurately used for navigation purposes, but the downside was that his system distorted the size of objects depending on their position relative to the equator. Because of this, landmasses like Antarctica and Greenland appeared much larger than they actually are.",
"Try reading the page..",
"They only look fake because you are used to seeing the distorted map that is most common - the Mercator projection.",
"It should be obvious that Antarctica isn't a humongous gigantic continent if you have ever seen a globe or any pictures of the earth from space before. Same with Greenland."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m9ego",
"comment_text": [
"The thing to realize is that it's the map projection that's changing the size of things. If you could roll the outline of a country across the globe, of course it won't change size. But it can look larger or smaller on the map.",
"You see, a map is just a flat plane whereas Earth is almost a perfect sphere. You can't deform one into the other perfectly. Try to flatten an orange peel, for example. You can't do it without leaving gaps and bulges that won't flatten.",
"Since flat maps are more practical, we still try to make it work. Various projections have been devised, none perfect. Some preserve angles. Some preserve area. Some keep the shortest path between two points straight. Some don't preserve anything perfectly but try not to let any one thing get out of hand. Some are centered on a point. Some are centered on a great circle like the equator. Some have cuts in them. You can't get everything right at once.",
"The Mercator projection is the projection you get when you center on the equator and preserve angles. The effect of this decision is that places that are farther away from the equator (either north or south, but more notably in the north because more of Earth's landmass is concentrated there) appear larger than they really are. In fact, the poles are infinitely far up and down. The square covered by Google Maps and most similar maps ends at about 85° north and south. It's still a good map for navigation because as you zoom in, angles are correct and the change in size across a small part of the map is insignificant. Just don't zoom out too far or you'll have a very unbalanced view.",
"I'd recommend looking at a globe, either real or virtual (e.g. Google Earth). What you see there is correct. Compare it to a flat world map and see how distorted it is!"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m8z57",
"comment_text": [
"This. Try it for yourself - peel an orange and try to get the peel to lay flat on a table without either tearing it, or stretching/compressing parts of it. For added bonus: draw the continents on the orange before you peel it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m58kl",
"comment_text": [
"Why is that we couldn't come up with a solution for this sinc the 1500's so we have more accurate maps? Or is this accuracy enough?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why the Christian Right would support Trump?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u3yac
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mlomm",
"comment_text": [
"Religious conservatives who care a lot about social issues would probably prefer a Cruz to a Trump, but his nationalist message probably still jives well with religious conservatives."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mmpb9",
"comment_text": [
"You're right that the alliance between the Religious Right and Trumpism is shaky. He is generally less hardline than establishment Republicans on most social issues that they hold dear.",
"However, his message of nationalism and culture conflict does shine for them. One of the key reasons that the Religious/Republican alliance developed in the second half of the 20th century was the message of the Cold War as a holy war against \"Godless Communism\", that the US was a nation of Christian values in an existential conflict against a nation of atheists.",
"Trump is reviving that Cold War mentality by fanning the flames of another existential conflict. Instead of a fight against communism, he's championed a fight against Islam. His supporters believe that Islam represents a grave and spreading threat to the Western way of life, and they back him because they believe that he will stand up against it. The \"city on a hill\" mentality plays into this - they believe that Trump will make America a shining beacon to the world of how to deal with Muslims, compared to Europe, which (they believe) is in flames."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mn08c",
"comment_text": [
"I would probably be labeled as a Christian conservative.... I don't necessarily support Trump as much as I am opposed to Hillary Clinton winning the office. And not for any religious reasons... I think the policies she would pursue would be bad for America, regardless of your religion.",
"Ben Carson was my early choice... then probably Cruz. So for me, Trump is more like the better of two poor choices.",
"For me, God is God regardless of who sits in the White House...."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mpxco",
"comment_text": [
"I think the other answers are missing what I believe to be the biggest factor, which is the narrative of fear supported by conservatives and alarmist news media stories. The Christian right has constructed this idea that \"PC culture\" is out to curb their freedom of expression, that there is a war on their beliefs and values, a war conducted by the political [atheist] left and, depending on exactly how paranoid they are, secretly controlled by Muslims. They are afraid of the \"war on Christmas\" and evolution being taught in schools. They believe these things are attacks on their religion. To be fair, they believe that because ",
"sometimes they ",
" attacks",
" on their faith. Regardless, that's a polarized extreme, not what most people think - which is that most people generally don't care what you believe as long as you're not hurting anyone, and that science is probably a pretty cool idea and we should teach our children how to science (and have sex without getting STDs or pregnant) properly.",
"If you listen to Trump's speeches, he's building himself as a champion of freedom of speech, that he \"says it like it is\" and that he opposed the PC culture that the religious right believes is slowly eroding their right to worship. Again, that's not actually what's happening, but religious communities tend to be very insular and particular about what information they accept. Trump has built up a ",
"straw man",
" of the super PC atheist Muslim sympathizer. Trump has never been running against Hillary, and he's never been running against Bernie. He's been running against that cardboard picture of what the religious right believes the atheist left is, and Trump simply implies that his present opponent is that person the religious right fears.",
"And of course there is the fear of Islam, which the Christian right believes is of Satan, more or less. Even if the average Muslim is peaceful and friendly (which is true), the Christian right believes that ",
" belief other than Christianity is dangerous to your immortal soul. A Muslim may not bomb you, but they might set up a mosque near you and then your children might wander into that mosque and be ",
" by Islam. In fact, a friendly Muslim is, really, scarier than a murderous Muslim because no rational person sees someone trying to kill them and thinks, \"This is a religion I want to follow.\" Trump has grabbed onto that xenophobia and touted himself as the savior of the Christian right by being ",
" Muslims. Even if Trump is a shitty Christian, he is still viewed as being someone who is pro-Christian and anti-Muslim, which resonates with the fears of the Christian right.",
"Finally, you have the fear of immigrants, regardless of their religion. That fear is more subtle and not directly related to Christianity, but it is in many ways supported by a kind of Christianity that says Christians are God's chosen people and therefore deserve special treatment. The jobs here in the US belong to the good, American, ",
" citizens and if immigrants come and take those jobs they are taking jobs away from the Christians who deserve them. As well, Trump has created another straw man - the thieving, rapist, evil immigrant, that does not hold Christian values, despite the fact that Hispanics are overwhelmingly very strongly Catholic. Immigrants want to destroy your family. Your good ",
" family. Again, these ideas are only loosely associated with Christianity, and I've emphasized that very tangential connection to make the point. That has less to do with the GOP being the \"Christian\" party and more the embedded bigotry that the party has had for generations, regardless of religion. Still, the connection is there, and Trump has subtly steered himself into the role of the great protector of the people, while at the same time implying that Hillary (and the other Democrats, and the other Republicans) don't care about you or your family.",
"Trump has gotten away with that because he rarely actually says anything of substance. He just makes super vague implications and waits for people to come to their own conclusions about what he meant. This was seen as early as the Obama \"birther\" thing, where Trump didn't outright accuse Obama of being a secretly Kenyan born Muslim, he just said \"There's something fishy about Obama's birth certificate...\" Other people jumped on that, built their own conspiracies, and then Trump positioned himself at the head as if that was where he was going all along. So basically, ",
"Schrodinger's Douchebag",
" but as a politician. Since there's so much fear of oppression in the Christian right, so many people believing that everyone is out to get them and silence Christianity, they believe this narrative that Trump has created.",
"TL;DR: The Christian right is afraid that everyone hates Christianity and wants to destroy their faith. Trump has accused others of being the confirmation of those fears, and painted himself as a defender of the freedom of speech/religion that the Christian right is afraid that they are losing (despite the fact that none of that is actually true).",
"Source: I'm from a big, southern, Christian family that is the definition of \"Christian right\". Several of my cousins, including my racially (if not culturally) half-Mexican cousin, are Trump supporters."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mnw8z",
"comment_text": [
"President doesn't really matter for the issues the Christian Right most cares about, only SCOTUS does, and Trump has said he would follow the Heritage foundation's recommendations on SCOTUS picks. Now there are plenty of other reasons why I (as someone who at least nominally considers himself as part of the Christian right) cannot in good conscience vote for Trump as a Christian, but I understand why people might do it from a tactical perspective.",
"Another element I think is worth considering is that Trump does pretty well among self-identified evangelical Christians, but that support starts to drop significantly once you only track the ones who attend Church regularly. This to me suggests that a lot of Trump's Christian support comes from people who culturally identify as Christians, but are not particularly religious.",
"The exception to that is the \"prosperity gospel\" types, who's theology is very well aligned with Trump's philosophy (If you are a good Christian, God will make you rich, Trump is a rich, therefore he must be a good Christian), and Trump had a few notable followers of this type of Christianity at his convention. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How did the moon come to be?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4u26n7
| 21
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mhu3z",
"comment_text": [
"There are 2 main theories as to how the Moon formed. They both start with a Mars-sized object, dubbed Theai, colliding in a catastrophic manner with the Earth during the early formation of the Solar System. ",
"The first is generally referred to as ",
"Great Impact Theory",
", involves Theai impacting earth at a severe off-centered angle. What results is most of the matter being absorbed into the Earth and remnants of Theai being flung out and coalescing into the Moon.",
"The second possibility is the ",
"Accretion Theory",
". It starts with Theai colliding pretty much dead-center with Proto-Earth, but instead of a large mass left over, almost all of the matter merges into the Earth and pushes loose debris out from the center to form an ",
"Accretion Disc",
" around the new planet. Then, over time, these orbiting debris clump together and form the moon. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mlbjf",
"comment_text": [
"That's a stupid thing to ban.",
"\nThe answer is Yes.",
"\nA funny thing I like to point out is that any picture of a dinosaur in a grassy field is impossible since grass had not evolved until after most dinosaurs were gone.",
"\nPlants and insects were on land long before lunged fishes (amphibians).",
"\nEstimates have plants moving to land about 700 million years ago.",
"\nInsects on land about 480 million years ago.",
"\nFirst amphibians about 370 million years ago.",
"\nBacteria and viruses have always been present and dangerous. Plants and animals are just big environments waiting to be exploited by a new disease mutation. In turn the survivors of the new disease pass on their genes and a slightly different dominant population has evolved from the last generation. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m71ea",
"comment_text": [
"Side rant-not related. I posted a question a little while ago that was deleted, asking about the evolution of plants and animals. It was deleted because of speculation or theory or something. How is it this is a legit question to ask here?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5m71ea",
"comment_text": [
"Side rant-not related. I posted a question a little while ago that was deleted, asking about the evolution of plants and animals. It was deleted because of speculation or theory or something. How is it this is a legit question to ask here?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5mkdaz",
"comment_text": [
"Also, when the first animals breached the ocean barrier and came into land, was the land already inhabited by plant life? how much of a threat was the environment for animals in regards to bacteria and viruses inland?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5 - How does a water main break?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tx699
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kyo6d",
"comment_text": [
"They are pressurized pipes, comprised of many sections of pipe connected together, and many of the ones in place have been so for decades... so over time pipes rust/rot/crack, seams between sections weaken, etc. and those weak point can no longer take the pressure of the water and break."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l1z7x",
"comment_text": [
"You don't happen to live in the western new York area so you?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kyztx",
"comment_text": [
"something compromises its structural integrity. A flaw in the design, a small earthquake, some jackass with a drill, a lot of things. Any weakness under that sort of pressure will get worse and eventually cause a problem. Major water pipes are under a lot of pressure even for pipes. So when something goes wrong, it goes very wrong."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l08d2",
"comment_text": [
"I'll add to this, if a pump truck connects to a hydrant and pumps at too high of a pressure it can actually cause the main to collapse."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l17dq",
"comment_text": [
"The vast majority of water service pipes are iron. When it expands and contracts as often as things in the ground do, it becomes \"work-hardened\", making it brittle. One too many cycles of heating and cooling and it cracks. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Is there a reason why the windows on airplanes are so low relative to where the seats are?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4txe66
| 86
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.89
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l1x2a",
"comment_text": [
"Ideally, from an engineering point of view (especially with regard to preventing things like fatigue), there wouldn't be any windows at all. ",
"But it took designers a while to understand the risks. If you look at passenger aircraft from the first half of the 20th Century, they look more like buses, with big windows and lots of natural light in the cabin. Moving into the jet era, it soon became apparent that having big windows, or windows with square corners, or too many windows, or (seemingly) anything other than tiny, reinforced, rounded portholes, in a straight line on a certain point on the curve of the fuselage, could (and sadly did) lead to catastrophic failure and thus to crashes. So we end up with the kind of compromise we have now.",
"If you think of the loads placed on an aircraft, and then imagine having to tell the engineers that you also need to punch a series of holes in it so people can have light, the least-worst solution with regard to not compromising the fuselage's integrity is to have them be small, rounded, and in a neat line along one particular part of the wall, which doesn't at all correspond with where you want to put the passenger cabin floor.",
"If that makes it harder to see out of them, well, that's just tough, say the engineers, because while that's annoying, it's even more annoying to have the plane break up and fall out of the sky."
],
"score": 96
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l6xr5",
"comment_text": [
"Its a curious story, the first jet passenger jet was actually British, The Dehavilland Comet, The problem is that milltary jets were smaller and flew a lot less hours then commercial jets so they didnt have much expiriance with long term metal fatigue.",
"After a few thousand flying hours in combination of the constant compression and decompression of the hull, combined with the fact that the Comet had square windows, the planes started falling out of the air beucase fuselage would just rip apart from metal fatigue cracks, ",
"While De Havilland was redesigning the comet to correct these errors Boing stepped in and took the lead in jet airliners from the british. the biritsh civil aviation industry never recovered. "
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l10xi",
"comment_text": [
"A.) design ( accounting for wires running above the window/through the airframe",
"B.) Most people look down rather than up. If they were higher, shorter people would only see the sky, not the ground which is what most people will look at"
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l88bf",
"comment_text": [
"I love the Boing 777"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l78zp",
"comment_text": [
"It is most likely a combination of two factors:",
"1) The fact that adding windows to the aircrafts fuselage creates weak points where it can fracture and break (cutting holes in things makes them weaker), as well as the windows themselves needing to be able to contain the higher relative air pressure inside the cabin. As the fuselages of most commercial planes are not perfect cylinders and have a slightly oblate shape (they bulge in the middle roughly in line with the wings) the best place is in the middle (wing level) where the windows will have less of a structural impact. Thus the windows are as close to this point as possible while still allowing passengers to comfortably see out of them.",
"2) Firstly, having windows at eye level would become extremely uncomfortable and annoying as bright light would be shining directly into your eyes on day flights as apposed to at an angle to the window so that it's less harsh(yes, you could close the blinds but this stops you from being able to look out and also isn't allowed during take off / landing on a lot of flights). Secondly windows at this height would stop shorter passengers from being able to see the ground as their heads would be below the window so they could only look up at the sky.",
"This compromise leads to windows that are low down so as to sacrifice as little structural rigidity as possible and also provide maximum passenger comfort for all the passengers.",
"TL;DR: This is likely the result of a compromise between sacrificing as little structural rigidity as possible and ensuring comfort for all passengers. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
|
ELI5:Why can't brewery's make a non alcoholic beer that tastes similar to real beer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4twg1p
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
I love the taste of IPA beers and even if they had no alcohol i could still put them down just the same. But why have they still not figured out how to make a non alcoholic beer that can taste almost similar to a real beer? Iv'e tried many kinds of NA beers always hoping i will find one that has that real beer taste but it has yet to happen. Will it ever be possible?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kt6uk",
"comment_text": [
"A lot of the \"texture\" and mouth feel comes from the specific gravity and density of the ale. This is provided by the alcohol. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l3w0o",
"comment_text": [
"You missed the point."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ku5yk",
"comment_text": [
"Non-alcoholic beer has 0,5% already and it gets closer to tasting like real beer the higher you go. We have a 2,7% beer where I live and it tastes pretty ok if a bit thin. You could probably make something resembling Coors or American Budweiser at that ABV.",
"You can \"cheat\" using lots of hops as well. Brewdog has ",
"Nanny State",
" at 0,5% which is pretty damn decent. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ktmub",
"comment_text": [
"If you want to produce beer with low alcohol content, you'll have to remove the alcohol after brewing the beer. There are two processes that can do this: Pushing the beer through a membrane which doesn't let ethanol through, and using vacuum distillation to remove the alcohol without having to heat the beer up.",
"The problem with both of these is that they don't just take out the ethanol. They can also take out all sorts of compounds which are of similar size or have a similar boiling point to ethanol, many of which contribute to its taste. There are ways to reduce this problem, but you'll never be able to avoid it altogether."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l5y42",
"comment_text": [
"I read somewhere that the company that owns Budweiser now is making a heavy push into the low / no alcohol beer area and is looking specifically at boosting the flavor. There may be hope for you OP! ",
"Edit: found ",
"the article"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why are soda cans 330 ml? Why not 300 or 350 ml, which is more pleasing to eye?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tszpy
| 11
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jzi2x",
"comment_text": [
"In the US a standard tin for most things, from peas to beer, was 12oz. 12 US fluid ounces is 350ml. In Europe this was rounded down to 330ml to make it roughly 1/3 litre."
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5k56jj",
"comment_text": [
"Yes they could, ultimately it's just punched and formed sheet metal, mostly need to switch out the dies and it's good to go, they probably did do some of that for WWII. As for it having an effect, no, not really, it really is just that people in the US settled on 12 fl oz for bottle and tin size, and the can dimensions picked are something reasonable for shipping/stacking/producing at that capacity.",
"330ml is the standard because it's about 12 fl oz."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kclz1",
"comment_text": [
"12oz is 355ml, but cans in Europe are 330ml."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5k5cvr",
"comment_text": [
"the simple answer is :---",
"\nthe ratio of the height of the can, to the diameter of the can means that that is the most amount of liquid, to the least amount of can possible. . in effect it's a square cylinder. also, it allows for more or less the highest packing density, without using an octagonal cylinder, and allows the strongest can, without it being a perfect sphere.(as i'm pretty sure that having perfectly spherical cans would look good, but would be a pain to stack.) ",
"for a can of soft drink, this just happened to work out at 12floz. .. which more or less standardised the diameter of a can. ",
"later, larger 660 / 750 ml cans came along, and used the already being produced lids. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5k4qjk",
"comment_text": [
"I once hears that factories that produce things such as cans can be transformed to make bullets and artillery shells. Is there any truth to this? Would this have had any influence of the dimensions of the cans of soda?"
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5: Why the floor in every Mall is smooth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tulyw
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.29
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kesvy",
"comment_text": [
"How would a smooth floor make you walk slower?",
"You would get a tiny slowdown due to slightly lowered friction meaning you need to be a bit more careful, but this is probably negligible, since even smooth surfaces will have decent friction against most people's shoes.",
"I would assume they are smooth floors (as opposed to carpet) because a) they are easier to install, b) they are easier to clean, and c) they are easier to maintain."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kfegi",
"comment_text": [
"I walk quickly (faster than 95% of the people I pass) and worked for 7 years in a mall with smooth tile floors. I have never found it to be slippery or to encourage me to walk any slower than normal."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kf4o3",
"comment_text": [
"Try sometime to walk faster in a mall, even with a pair of sport shoes is not easy, you will slip a little. ",
"I agree that cleaning it is faster."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kg579",
"comment_text": [
"I'm in agreement with ",
"/u/taggedjc",
"; I've never had to walk more slowly in a mall than anywhere else. Maybe you have shoes with slippery soles? If you're wearing dress shoes, like you'd wear with a suit, that may be the issue, since they tend to be smooth-bottomed rather than having treads that grip the floor better."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5kenau",
"comment_text": [
"Because what's the purpose of making it not smooth? Is your kitchen smooth or rough"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is it that the only way to get rid of garlic smell on my fingers is to rub them on stainless steel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4trgq8
| 208
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.87
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jlow0",
"comment_text": [
"I had personally never heard of this before so I had to look it up, \"It makes sense that the sulfur from the onion/garlic/fish would be attracted to and bind with one or more of the metals in stainless steel. Formation of such compounds is what makes stainless steel stainless, after all. Onions and garlic contain amino acid sulfoxides, which form sulfenic acids, which then form a volatile gas (propanethiol S-oxide), which forms sulfuric acid upon exposure to water. These compounds are responsible for burning your eyes while cutting onions and also for their characteristic scent.\" "
],
"score": 54
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jm17a",
"comment_text": [
"In ELI-5 terms: the chemicals in garlic that smell strongly have one or more atoms called Sulfur in their structure. It sticks to your hands, but it (theoretically) sticks to steel better, so using a piece of steel \"wipes off\" theses compounds.",
"I wasn't able to find any proper scientific references for this, and even the anecdotal ones seem split as to whether it really works. But I did find ",
"one of the coolest scientific papers ever written",
" on the physical and mechanical properties of garlic.",
"So if any of you physicists ever need to know the coefficient of friction for garlic on concrete... we gotcha covered, fam."
],
"score": 52
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jmrk5",
"comment_text": [
"I used a knife and sliced the stink right off. Now it smells like iron "
],
"score": 22
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jns4n",
"comment_text": [
"Solution:"
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jq6za",
"comment_text": [
"It's not the only way. But, because there are many compounds in garlic that form ionic bonds, you need another medium that more readily bonds with garlic than your skin--which is stainless steel."
],
"score": 8
}
|
|
ELI5:What prevents people destroying or fabricating documents relevant to a legal case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tqo7p
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
You often here of documents being obtained through freedom of information requests, or subpoenaed, or something to that effect where someone is compelled to produce it. These documents are often emails, memos, etc. that seem like they'd be pretty easy to either falsify or destroy by an interested party. If so, how do they rely on documents like this in major court cases or investigations?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jf5sh",
"comment_text": [
"Sometimes they certainly are, but measures are put in place to reduce this likelihood. Primarily there is separation of duties. That is, one person doesn't have control over an entire process. The person who generates the record isn't the person who makes the back-up of it who isn't the person who stores it and isn't the person who provides it for the FOIA request.",
"So, in order to falsify and/or destroy said record in response to the FOIA request, there would have to be collusion (i.e. conspiracy) among most or all of those people to accomplish this. If there is a request for that record for a case, then it most likely has to do with the person who generated it in the first place. None of the other people in that chain have a vested interest in protecting that first person, so they have no incentive to commit a crime to protect them.",
"Also, you can't just go \"Oops. We don't have it. Sorry.\" Federal law requires that agencies implement certain minimal level of security to protect information. So even if they destroy it, they're basically admitting to a failure of their security since they're supposed to ensure the integrity of information under their control."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jgmjm",
"comment_text": [
"Destroying documents responsive to a subpoena is a felony. Certainly people in office jobs have been known to commit crimes because they're told to, but it's not really very common for people to risk jail time just so their boss doesn't get sued."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jjhzs",
"comment_text": [
"I can't speak for the government, but in business, documentation is usually only created in order to be sent to someone else, inside or outside of the company. Claiming that you don't have a document means that you run the risk of someone else having a copy of the doc. Nothing like a rival coming in with a copy of the document to fuck you over.",
"Furthermore, computer forensics can, in some cases, be used to prove that a document existed up until the court demanded the document, at which point it was deleted. This isn't going to be applicable in all cases, but I've definitely witnessed the FBI raid an office for all of its computer files and equipment.",
"A third thing that can get you is standard operating procedures. If SOP's within the company demand that all E-mails be backed up, and the only E-mails missing are the ones demanded by the court, things get pretty fishy. Then the court starts putting employees on the stand to testify as to why those E-mails are missing. Somebody always cracks. ",
"So yes, if everything goes perfectly, a company might be able to completely destroy a document before the court finds it, but it only takes one slip to state sending people to jail on destruction of evidence charges."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jq492",
"comment_text": [
"If somebody has a copy of document X, and they turn it over to the Justice Dept, in exchange for immunity for example, then everybody who was involved in responding to the subpoena for X is investigated as a criminal. If some secretary flips on you, and testifies that you told him to shred it, you're off to jail.",
"Fabrication, usually called forgery, is something folks get caught at all the time. Printers put watermark dates and id numbers on papers, there are a million ways you can make a mistake."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5jftsk",
"comment_text": [
"Okay, that explains a lot. Thanks. But what about fabrication? How do you know they're actually providing what you asked for? And if all these people are working for an organisation that has an interest in the proceedings, isn't conspiracy quite likely?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:How are some people charged for breaking US laws when they haven't even stepped a foot in the US to begin with.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4twu2z
| 3,947
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.9
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l5y6m",
"comment_text": [
"You're one to talk"
],
"score": 356
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l5p5n",
"comment_text": [
"hmm... Makes sense now, Thanks for the explanation ",
"u/iclimbnaked",
"Interesting username btw."
],
"score": 309
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l5p5n",
"comment_text": [
"hmm... Makes sense now, Thanks for the explanation ",
"u/iclimbnaked",
"Interesting username btw."
],
"score": 309
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5lahvu",
"comment_text": [
"Imposter 😒"
],
"score": 130
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5l6hjj",
"comment_text": [
"you had to go and ruin it with your normie name"
],
"score": 127
}
|
|
ELI5: Why does your mind feel clearer when you're outdoors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tp60y
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5j46bp",
"comment_text": [
"Less distractions. Less sensory input. Less threats to monitor. Less of pretty much everything the brain feels the need to gate. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5j48j6",
"comment_text": [
"You're exposed to many more things while outside, so one could easily argue that this is not an appropriate explanation. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5j4qxs",
"comment_text": [
"A big part is that it takes you out of your \"every day life\", and gives you a chance to sit back and reflect on things.",
"It is also a bit of an existential feeling that is hard to quantify, being around such a beautiful and intricate system that is not made by man."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5j5ody",
"comment_text": [
"Studies have shown that being in nature has a significant affect on stress, anxiety and depression. It's likely due to things like the smell of fresh air, the openness, the sunshine on your skin. It's the same as how a room can feel \"stuffy\". "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5j469g",
"comment_text": [
"Not an explanation, but I feel like I should mention this is not a universal experience. Your clarity probably has something to do with your personal psychological association with being outdoors. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How can no one be guilty in the Freddie Gray case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tl7v5
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i4vxo",
"comment_text": [
"Someone did ",
", but the question for the court is if that something constituted a criminal offense.",
"Criminal law doesn't just look at whether something bad happened. It asks if a person committed a criminal act and did so with a criminal frame of mind.",
"In the latest trial, the prosecution was seeking a charge of involuntary manslaughter. In order to do this, they have to prove not just that someone died (pretty easy to prove), but that the death was caused by the defendant acting in a grossly negligent manner. The judge found that placing Gray in the police van without a seatbelt did not rise to the level of gross negligence. So, his frame of mind was one of ",
" negligence, but not a criminal level of negligence."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i4t54",
"comment_text": [
"Your question is assuming a desired outcome is the only one possible and therefore something else is interfering ...",
"It's entirely possible a cop did actually cause the harm that lead to death but is either not culpable for it or they couldn't prove it. It's entirely possible he hurt himself in police custody and the cops aren't responsible (this seems to be my layman casual understanding of the case)."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i4z4c",
"comment_text": [
"Very true. But if my hands and feet were tied and I was locked in a van I'd wager that I'd have a very hard time killing myself. Knocking myself out is probably possible though. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i51f7",
"comment_text": [
"Again I don't know the facts of the case. It's entirely possible he injured himself before being arrested. And from what I read \"on the net\" (so take that with a grain of salt) the other prisoner in the van reported that Gray was in fact bouncing himself off the walls of the van.",
"The problem remains that you've made a conclusion and now are trying to map reality onto it. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i51py",
"comment_text": [
"The court has to prove gross negligence which is a much harder standard to prove then just negligence. ",
"For example, driving recklessly is negligence but driving with your eyes closed or under the influence of drugs is gross negligence. ",
"In this case the courts have to prove these cops acted grossly negligent but the evidence suggests that what the cops did, not buckling Gray in and driving roughly was common practice and not particularly out of the ordinary. Similarly the evidence suggests that Gray appeared alive until he suddenly was dead, so the prosecutors have struggled to prove that a cop was grossly negligent in regards to calling for paramedics. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:why hasn't the USA declared war since WW2?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tmghm
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ifvqa",
"comment_text": [
"While the USA hasn't declared war since WW2 they have declared authorization of use of military force a couple of times. I'm no expert at american law but I believe they are essentially the same, with one major difference being that a declaration of war automatically triggers a whole bunch of standby statutory authorities that gives special powers to the President with respect to the military, transportation, manufacturing etc so it's probably less domestic sensitive to issue AUMFs instead."
],
"score": 13
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ihlgf",
"comment_text": [
"President's generally get a Congressional authorization to use force at the time of their choosing, rather than a declaration of war (for the 2003 Iraq invasion, Congress authorized the president in 2002 - so he could credibly threaten force if Saddam didn't comply with UN mandates, for example). Also, they are usually through multi-national alliances - like in Vietnam, the US wasn't trying to invade North Vietnam, it all started trying to help South Vietnam defend itself from insurgents. But even Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution from Congress giving LBJ more power. ",
"The War Powers Act also lets the president take some actions for a brief period of time. Some of the significantly smaller actions, like Grenada or Panama, got started and basically wrapped up in those timeframes. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ikec0",
"comment_text": [
"This is essentially it. Congress doesn't want to let the Executive Branch have unchecked authority to conduct a War. So, they constrain it by not declaring one. But, Congress still wants to let the Executive Branch send in troops, ships, planes, and tanks."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ik7e2",
"comment_text": [
"You'e asking what it would take, it doesn't take much - in the case of Haiti (2004) all it took was for the Haitian population to democratically elect a president that had something real to say to the USA and UN. Here's full list of declarations of war by the US since ww2:",
"Korean War (1953) via UN\nLebanon (1958)\nVietnam (1964-73)\nLebanon (1978) via UN\nLebanon (1983-84)\nPersian Gulf (1991)\nBosnian (1992-96) via UN\nLiberian (2003) via UN\nHaitian coup (2004) via UN\nAfghanistan (2001-14, continued military occupation 2014- present)\nIraq War (2003-11, continued military occupation 2011-present)\nLibya (2011) via UN",
"plus, some articles regarding USA's authorized use of hillary force….\n",
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/hillary-clinton-unfit-for_b_8313372.html",
"\n",
"http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-presidential-material-or-war-criminal/"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5j630p",
"comment_text": [
"A couple reasons. One is that while being able to declare war is a power granted to the congress, it's not really a power congress actually wants. Their reelections hedge on their voting record, and war is a hot button issue that can go south real fast for reasons beyond their control. Look at Iraq. While we didn't get an actual vote to declare war, we did get a vote on authorizing the use of military force, and congressmen who voted for it because it seemed like a good idea to them at the time have been skewered since.",
"The distinction there between declaring war and authorizing force is important. War is pretty cut and dry, but authorizing the use of military force is very broad and can mean many things. War is pretty much just \"Fuck you, we're gonna wreck your shit, other country!\", but with an AUMF can mean bombing a couple weapons factories, or deploying a peacekeeping force, or launching a small scale operation, or establishing a no fly zone, etc. Hell, some congressmen supposedly thought the Iraq AUMF was primarily meant to back up threats and help resolve things diplomatically, rather than actually leading to a massive ground war.",
"To some extent this all has to do with what the military landscape has been like since WWII. We don't fight \"countries\" for the most part. We fight rebels, insurgents, revolutionaries, and terrorist groups. When we went to Vietnam, we weren't fighting a country called North Vietnam, we were fighting rebels for the South Vietnamese government. Asymmetrical warfare is the norm now."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: [Games] Why wouldn't Bioshock Infinite's floating cities be possible IRL?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tih7r
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.17
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5hkx9c",
"comment_text": [
"A few reasons.",
"The most egregious one is the logistics of actually keeping such a large mass aloft.",
"Propellers simply aren't efficient enough, helicopter rotors need to work feverishly just to lift small vehicles.",
"You could in theory accomplish it with an insane volume of helium, but actually sourcing that much gas and trying to contain it would be implausible. Hydrogen is much too dangerous. You need huge blimps to lift small crew cabins.",
"The behavior of the atmosphere itself is also an issue. The air currents inside storm clouds can be incredibly violent and would destroy the city. Such a massive structure would be too unwieldy to avoid fast moving thunderheads."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5hkz5z",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"No offense, but.. ",
"/r/nostupidquestions",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5hktkf",
"comment_text": [
"Not with any known technology. The amount of energy required to keep something as large as even a single building off the ground is astronomical. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5hkz0j",
"comment_text": [
"So, two reasons:",
"Weight -- there's just no possible way to get that much weight suspended in mid air. Think about how much fuel a helicopter goes through, and it's not even that heavy & then, think about the size of a building & the idea that the building is up in the sky 24/7. You'd need a hose to a fuel source on the ground because fuel in the sky would mean way more weight.",
"Wind -- wind gets way faster in the air. At the top of the Empire State Building, the windspeed averages around 110mph, and the building sways. The Taipei 101--one of the tallest buildings in the world--has a really cool looking ",
"\"tuned mass damper\"",
" because the building sways so much. And these buildings are anchored to the ground more than anything has ever been anchored to the ground. Even a 3 story building in the air would catch so much wind, it couldn't possibly stay in one place, let alone stay with a grouping of other buildings. Look at a sail of an ",
"old wooden ship",
" -- those three sails carried that immense ship across the ocean. A building in mid air stands no chance."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5hl093",
"comment_text": [
"Cost/practicality. You could imagine such a thing probably using gigantic balloons and some kind of propulsion to keep it from blowing around, but everything up there would be ridiculously expensive for no benefit I can think of other than the view.",
"Such a city has numerous other drawbacks besides cost too. It's essentially indefensible, a large storm could potentially wreck the whole thing, if you float it above storms then you probably can't breathe the air so everything has to be pressurized, moving any kind of goods up there requires a plane or helicopter, etc."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:How do we know where to send our space probes so that they reach the desired planet/comet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tku0a
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i1oe6",
"comment_text": [
"Because Newton",
"We know how the planets are moving, to such a precise degree that we can predict where they will be at any given moment in time, in the future or in the past.",
"If we want to send out a probe, we simply use the known positions of the planets to our advantage. For example we can use the gravity of our own planet to slingshot probes into deep space. We can also use other planets to adjust it's course or add speed.",
"Because we know exactly where our destination will be we can adjust the probes flight parameters to suit."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i1o7o",
"comment_text": [
"Math, in particular calculus. Because we know the speed and trejectory of a planet or comet we can predict where it will be at X time. ",
"We know how fast the probe will go, so then it's just a matter of figuring out it's trajectory from earth to arrive at Y place at X time."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i2bei",
"comment_text": [
"This is why the flat earth brigade amuses me so much. They never seem to stop to wonder how space probes get to their destinations, or how planes land in the right airports, or even how smartphone maps take you to where you want to go instead of miles out of your way. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i2saw",
"comment_text": [
"You forget Kepler, and maybe Einstein, although Einstein only really has effect when it comes to Mercury."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5i4sqv",
"comment_text": [
"I figured so. The fact that we know these trajectories amazes me"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why are afternoons so much hotter even though noon is supposed to be the hottest time of day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4td1zn
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
At noon, the sun is almost shining down perpendicular to where you are (almost right?) so why are afternoon still hotter?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gdj1g",
"comment_text": [
"Noon isn't the hottest part of the day, it's when the sun is highest. Just as the longest day isn't the hottest day, heat builds up over time as long as the sun is up, so August is hotter than June and 4 PM is hotter than 1PM. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5geae4",
"comment_text": [
"True, the sun is at its highest at noon but that that doesn't mean that it is at its hottest. Throughout ths day the heat from the sun accumulates so although the sun emits the most heat on earth at its highest point, the earth is hottest when the accumulated heat is at its max. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gtt7v",
"comment_text": [
"It may not be a closed system but it's certainly a complex one. Heat is stored in large bodies of water, in rocks and built-up areas (see urban heat islands). This isn't a desktop terrarium. Cloud cover affects the amount of heat radiated back into space and clouds are the product of the water cycle, driven by heat. Lots of factors in play. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5grlf9",
"comment_text": [
"But thing is, the earth isnt a closed system; the heat will always be escaping at a certain rate so it's hard for the heat to \"build up\"... I mean, if the heat escapes at x number of watts, then at the point of the day where the sun the providing the highest intensity should be the hottest because only so much heat escapes? meanwhile as soon as the sun's intensity goes down,ans since the heat escaping should be constant, shouldn't everything start to cool down or rather, not be able to reach such a high temperature anymore?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gdjvf",
"comment_text": [
"Noon is not the hottest time of the day. Usually 2-3/4 is. The sun is highest at noon, generally, but then it's still in the sky continuing to warm everything up. Then towards evening, the sub has been low enough for long enough that the earth has had time to cool down. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why did America fight for independence from Britain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tg1ff
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gyvhm",
"comment_text": [
"America served as an economic powerhouse for Britain prior to the Revolution. The relationship was very one-sided, with the colonists receiving comparatively very little in return. This led to tensions between the two. Moreover, the colonists felt that they should govern themselves since Britain was so far away and most of time were not aware of the problems and tribulations that the colonists felt. Lastly, over time the taxes that were levied on the colonists were seen as unjust since Britain was extracting much of the value of the Americas and again giving very little back. When Britain refused to allow the colonists representation in Parliament, which was the law-making body of Britain's government, the colonists got pissed off and revolted."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gz1n2",
"comment_text": [
"In the form of taxes, yes. But America was a huge producer of tobacco and cotton as well, which GB refined and sold around the world for a hefty profit."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5h08ym",
"comment_text": [
"Cotton production was pretty tiny in the US until the 1800's, and what production there was tended to get used to fill domestic needs. This is because it was the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793 that really caused production of Cotton in the US to take off. Before that the labor component was so large that it just wasn't worth it.",
"Really, besides tobacco (which in 1770 was the #1 American export) you get things like furs, indigo, food, lumber and other wood products. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gyz41",
"comment_text": [
"Makes sense, thank you! What was it that America was providing Britain with to make it such an economic powerhouse? Gold? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5gzqhj",
"comment_text": [
"Cattle, lumber, fish, fur, corn, whale, metal, wool, flour, meat, rum, iron, horses, beer, flax, wheat, apples, glass, wine, rope, bricks, tocacco, grain, bread, cloth, clay, beaver, rice, indigo, silkworms, furniture, grapes, olives, raisins, capers, currants, pork",
"I don't think gold or silver were mined in the British-owned colonies. Americans imported coinage to use"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why does it hurt when you accidentally bite your tongue, but doesn't hurt when done on purpose?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4tbyg0
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5g4u60",
"comment_text": [
"I think because you don't actually know your tongue is there when you bite it accidentally, your main purpose is to chew the food, not your tongue. When you bite it on purpose you won't actually bite it with your full power, it's a natural instinct. The same concept on biting your finger, you can actually tear your finger into little pieces but your brain just won't let you do it. ",
"EXTRA:\n(Try tickling yourself and see if you laugh or not, then tell someone to tickle you, now notice the difference.)"
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5g63wj",
"comment_text": [
"I'm calling bullshit on this legend, at the joint? Whichever way you look at it you're munching through or breaking bones. Nowhere near as soft as a carrot."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5g7813",
"comment_text": [
"Sane people are incapable of biting their own tongue in half, yet they possess the ability to do so, easily. It's the difference between consciously doing a thing and accidentally doing it. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5g87z6",
"comment_text": [
"I thought this might be like the tickle thing, so I bit my own tongue, either op is a successful troll, or he is not biting his tongue hard enough",
"if this is serious imo it is because when you bite your own tongue by accident you meant to chomp right through a piece of food, so you put a proper amount of force behind it",
"when you bite your tongue on purpose, you know its retarded so your subliminally wimping out"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5g81ou",
"comment_text": [
"I meant getting to the bone would be as easy as chomping a carrot. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: If someone were to knock me out with a punch and I was asleep for 7 hours, would that count as adequate rest for a night's sleep?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4t6xb0
| 34
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5f16ex",
"comment_text": [
"If you were knock out for that length of time you would have been in a coma rather than asleep. The point of the coma is to fix traumatic injury rather than get the benefits from REM sleep.",
"For coma - ",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4GsqFOrYKc",
"REM sleep - ",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABKpJ8hQn8o"
],
"score": 32
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5f98wi",
"comment_text": [
"I believe it's the other way around.",
"The higher chance of brain injury, the longer the coma"
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5f2z3k",
"comment_text": [
"No. Being knocked out is the bodies way of dealing with trauma. The longer you are unconscious from a traumatic head injury the great the chance of possible brain damage. "
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5f3c98",
"comment_text": [
"Is your insomnia really that bad? "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5fby3h",
"comment_text": [
"If you get knocked out by a punch and are out for more than 5-10 seconds, you need to see a doctor. It's not like the movies where you can get knocked out and wake up somewhere else."
],
"score": 6
}
|
ELI5: how do people actually move out of a country from one to another and start a whole new life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4t5x5m
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
Assuming one has a somewhat professional skill. I am in a place it is detarioating fast and I am looking to stack up skill and money to move in the mid-run ~10-20 years. Looking through all those worry of moving to the other side of planet and going through those bureaucracy still somewhat terrifys me. But I am afraid I have very limited time before something bad engulf my beloved home city.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5etbl1",
"comment_text": [
"1) get a visa to your country of choice\n2) get a work permit\n3) get a job\n4) get immigrant status\n5) settle in",
"note: 2 and 3 can be switched about."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5f0481",
"comment_text": [
"not that easy. there's only a few visas that many countries give to foreigners that allows you to legally work. one of those is a work visa. you can't get a work visa without a sponsor company that's willing to pony up $5-10k and legal fees. catch22, you won't easily find a sponsor company unless you're already legally in country. illegally overstaying a visa is grounds for deportation and disqualification from getting legal status to settle. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5etjir",
"comment_text": [
"Figure out which country you want to apply for citizenship and contact their consulate or embassy, if it's still open. If your country is truly imploding around you then you may need to apply for refugee or asylum status first and use that as a transition. The \"easiest\" way to do that is to find a company based in the country where you want to move and try to get hired so that they will sponsor your visa."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5etkmm",
"comment_text": [
"You need to pick a country and find out what they require. Some expect you to have a certain amount of money before you immigrate, some expect you to have a detain degree of health and require medical testing and proof of various vaccinations. Many require that you don't have a police record.",
"Many countries only accept a certain number of people from specific other countries a year. If many people are emmigrating from where you live, you might want to select a country to immigrate to that is more likely to accept you.",
"Start be researching countries where you'd like to immigrate. Do you have any ideas about where you want to to?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ets1l",
"comment_text": [
"Slowly, hopefully not suddenly otherwise there will be billion of people trying to run. But it seems like it is not much difference for me thinking that if anyone would have any plan other than getting a job and asking for visa."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do so many desk jobs have cubicles? Wouldn't it be a better working environment if it felt open and free like at places like Google?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4t2n84
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5e4xby",
"comment_text": [
"This. For what it's worth, offices used to be laid out in totally open plans, and it used to be viewed in exactly the same way that cubicles are viewed, now: as dehumanizing, monotonous, and borderline-intolerable. The cubicle was initially hailed as a way to bring privacy to the common worker-drone. It was the \"new, hot hip thing,\" for quite a while-- set up in opposition to the traditional method of a bunch of desks set up out in the open, where everyone could be monitored constantly, there was pretty much no room for personal items, and the whole thing probably felt like the adult version of elementary school, with the workers' desks all facing forward, and talking between employees discouraged, even though they are 5 feet away from you."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5e4xby",
"comment_text": [
"This. For what it's worth, offices used to be laid out in totally open plans, and it used to be viewed in exactly the same way that cubicles are viewed, now: as dehumanizing, monotonous, and borderline-intolerable. The cubicle was initially hailed as a way to bring privacy to the common worker-drone. It was the \"new, hot hip thing,\" for quite a while-- set up in opposition to the traditional method of a bunch of desks set up out in the open, where everyone could be monitored constantly, there was pretty much no room for personal items, and the whole thing probably felt like the adult version of elementary school, with the workers' desks all facing forward, and talking between employees discouraged, even though they are 5 feet away from you."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5e4tpz",
"comment_text": [
"Mod answer: I'm not really sure if this is the right sub for your question. Because there is a debate on what is the optimal work space design. a lot of depends on the type of workers, the company culture and the type of work being done. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5e56ju",
"comment_text": [
"One of the reasons cubicles took off is because they were perceived as giving everyone their own office. Having your own office was a big deal and a lot of people thought it was actually really cool. Having some degree of isolation and privacy can also be good for concentration, and not being able to see or talk to others easily is intended to prevent people from slacking off and chatting with friends.",
"The problem, of course, is that they pretty quickly became seen as dehumanising and lonely, and the novelty of having ",
" wore off. I think the ideal is what some workplaces are now doing, where a team of 10 people has a small conference room next to 10 small offices, and each worker can choose to either sit in the open conference area and work with the others or retire to their own closed-door room. It's especially good for fields like software development where sometimes you want to sit around as a group but sometimes you want to focus in solitude. Of course, it's very expensive in terms of facilities and space, which is why it's not common.",
"There are pros and cons to both the cube-farm layout and a totally open layout and people have been experimenting with compromises and alternatives for a while."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5e4yb9",
"comment_text": [
"This. For what it's worth, offices used to be laid out in totally open plans, and it used to be viewed in exactly the same way that cubicles are viewed, now: as dehumanizing, monotonous, and borderline-intolerable. The cubicle was initially hailed as a way to bring privacy to the common worker-drone. It was the \"new, hot hip thing,\" for quite a while-- set up in opposition to the traditional method of a bunch of desks set up out in the open, where everyone could be monitored constantly, there was pretty much no room for personal items, and the whole thing probably felt like the adult version of elementary school, with the workers' desks all facing forward, and talking between employees discouraged, even though they are 5 feet away from you."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: The combat boosters prohibition/legalization/pirating in EVE online
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4t1uz5
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
I'm listening to a podcast called This Week In Drugs, episode 50. They just did a segment on EVE online legalizing "Combat Boosters" which are basically drugs... in an online game? My questions are, how were these drugs created? Wouldn't they need to be programmed into the game? Couldn't they have removed them if they didn't like them? How is there an illegal trade for transporting and making these? I'm just so lost as to how this could happen in a videogame, it seems like you would need some kind of amazing computer simulating a real world for this.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dxs0i",
"comment_text": [
"Uh, you misunderstand.",
"Eve has certain areas policed by NPC force (CONCORD) where certain things like boosters are \"illegal.\" If you're carrying boosters or anything else illegal and CONCORD scans you you get fined and/or blown up. The vast majority of EVE's space is either un-policed by CONCORD (LowseC) and only covered by local/other forces or not policed at all by NPCs (Nullsec).",
"Also last time I played Eve boosters were useless and nobody bothered to actually produce them."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dydto",
"comment_text": [
"Eve doesn't have a profession or class system. It has 4 races/nations you can start as, but all that really determines is where you start in Hisec space and which bunch of NPCs you have the best relationship standing with.",
"After that you research skills. You don't have to do anything to gain skill, just click the button and then play the game while the skill researches. Or not, you don't even have to be logged in. Different ships/ship parts/economy mechanisms/etc rely on different skills that you need trained to a certain level.",
"A low level skill might take a few minutes to train, the highest level ones take more like a few months.",
"The best part is that you are a legitimate combat threat to anyone in the game on your first day. By the end of your 2-week free trial you're a valuable member of the fleet. Because every fleet needs guys who can fly cheap ships and don't give a shit if they're flying them right into a suicidal tackling run against a dreadnaught.",
"The worst part is that Eve doesn't have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff. There is a huge amount of stuff to know, and most of it isn't explained in the tutorial."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dxtzc",
"comment_text": [
"So the creators of the game intentionally made these \"drugs\" and made it so that they are only illegal in certain areas? Okay, that makes more sense."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dxwjt",
"comment_text": [
"Yup. A lot of stuff is illegal in high security (Hisec) space. Slaves, drugs, certain other smuggled materials, wanton unprovoked murder, etc."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dy6ac",
"comment_text": [
"You can do all of that??????",
"What is the gameplay like in this game, do you have to pick a 'profession' per say or can you experience everything on a limited time budget."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do bagels and donuts have holes in the middle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4t00gk
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dhjog",
"comment_text": [
"It evens out the cooking process so the dough is cooked through in all places during the boiling/frying. Other baked goods like cakes are actually baked and ovens tend to cook through more consistently then boiling liquids. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dhkyo",
"comment_text": [
"The hole in the middle allows for more even cooking (otherwise, the outside could cook faster than the inside, resulting in a raw center - bundt cakes similarly have a hole in the middle for this reason), and can also be used for ease of carrying by threading them onto a pole."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dhndl",
"comment_text": [
"Bagels are cooked in boiling water and donuts are fried in oil. Think of each of them as being a long tube which has been turned in order for the two ends to meet. Having this space in the middle means that the surface area is increased and each point in the 'tube' has a max distance towards being exposed to heat.",
"Without the hole in the middle, the middle area would be less exposed to heat as horizontally it would be much further to the water. This would mean the whole product would have to cook longer in order to not have a doughy middle. Since bagels and donuts are not supposed to be too hard on the outside (which would be the result of leaving them in the water/oil longer) they need the hole to keep the entire product at the same cooked level."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dm3v8",
"comment_text": [
"Yarr, ",
"'twas asked by those what sailed in before ye!",
"Enjoy yon older explanations, and remember ",
"rule 7",
" says search to avoid repostin'."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5dkhwl",
"comment_text": [
"Then what's with jelly filled donuts"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: If I were to fly to Mars, would I be able to claim territory and rename it to what I want?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sxzpx
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.53
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d3kb9",
"comment_text": [
"At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what you can enforce. If you landed on Mars and some government on Earth said you were doing something illegal, then the question becomes if they can and will stop you. If so, they evidently have jurisdiction."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d274i",
"comment_text": [
"No.",
"\n",
"The Outer Space Treaty of 1967",
" defines space as part of the ",
"Common Heritage of Mankind",
".",
"\nMeaning it belongs to everyone.",
"\nYou can put a flag on Mars, you can name a territory, but you'd lose any court case if you attempted to actually control the place like you own it. \nAlso renaming some place is kinda useless. For example if you started calling the Olympus Mons region \"SnapKreckelPopistan\" there would be no way to force anyone to change the map.",
"\nLots of countries with competing territorial claims on certain places still have their names for a place on their maps and will disagree with each other on what the place is called."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d830u",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, but.",
"The outer space treaty of 1967 says no one can claim territory in space. And this has some meaning for the space immediately around earth and the moon.",
"Get yourself to Mars, take and hold territory, establish yourself their independently for the long term, and no one can enforce that treaty against you. If the UN today said \"north korea isn't a country\", north korea wouldn't throw up its hands and say \"well i guess that is it then.\" They would say \"come and try to take it from us and we will launch a nuke at new york for the general assembly\" (or something to that effect).",
"Possession is 9/10th of the law by the 67 treaty was about politics and the cold war basically agreeing there was not going to be a territorial race to the moon or orbit.",
"Think of that treaty this way. You and I both want to impress a girl. She mentions that she always wanted to live on the top of a mountain. Now we both figure climbing everest is a good way to impress her and we start training. But she is talking about living on the top of that mother fucker. We both look into it and realize yeah I mean you could build a house up there (if it was pressurized) but it would take a lifetime of effort to do, it would be a shitty house, it would cost WAY more than you want to spend, and if the other guy SAYS he is going to do it, you have to SAY you are going to do it as well (and take some steps to try) or lose the girl. So the two of you agree that no one is going to try and build a house on the top of everest (\"for the common herritage of mankind\" or some grandiose bullshit) and you are just going to make your competition over her who can get to the top first. (in this case global public opinion is the girl)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d1zc4",
"comment_text": [
"If you could defend yourself, sure. That's to say someone with a big gun can come down to unclaimed territory and kill you, it is war. Good luck :)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d41qo",
"comment_text": [
"This is the key answer. On a national level, it's the police who enforces law and rulings. On a transnational level that enforcement is upheld by armed forces. On an interplanetary level, it would be a matter of what military force you have to claim your land. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5 how to explain to my aunt-in-law we didn't fake the moon landing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sx7iy
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cvpx1",
"comment_text": [
"Don't bother. If she doesn't want to believe it, all the scientific evidence won't convince her. There is plenty of evidence (we left mirrors up there, for example, that we point lasers at to measure stuff). Furthermore, every (and I mean ",
") piece of \"evidence\" that it was faked has been ",
" debunked. This information is ",
" available online. There was even a Mythbusters episode dedicated to it. ",
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to double-down when presented with evidence to disprove their theories. Don't bother arguing with her. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cvv5f",
"comment_text": [
"Don't we have good enough telescopes to take quality photos of the flag and tracks on the moon?",
"No. Because of something called the \"diffraction limit\", resolving something the size of the flag on the moon would require a telescope with an aperture over 200 meters across, and we don't have any telescopes that size. See ",
"this article",
".",
"Isn't there definitive proof?",
"Yes. Astronauts left a reflector on the moon that astronomers can bounce lasers off of and measure the reflection. Why would every astronomer who ever claimed to have bounced a laser off of the reflector lie about it? But that's probably not going to convince your aunt-in-law, because distrusting authorities is usually part of conspiracy theories.",
"A better approach might be the fact that the Soviet Union and the USA were competing against each other in the space race, and the USSR would ",
" called bullshit on the US if we claimed to land on the moon, yet their radars never tracked the launch. So suddenly this conspiracy requires two nations who were enemies to cooperate to fool the public that there was a moon landing . . . why, exactly? There's no gain there, but there would have been plenty for the USSR to gain from humiliating the US."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cvqyy",
"comment_text": [
"With a powerful enough telescope you will be able to see the (bleached) flag planted by the US. ",
"But really, whatever you say will not convince her. People who are dead set in such ideas are simply not interested in proof. You will just be wasting your time. As someone said, \"my silence to the idiot ",
" an answer\"",
"Besides, how will knowing about the moon landing even effect her life? Let her believe what she wants."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cvsnu",
"comment_text": [
"Why would those photos prove anything to her? They could be fake as easily as the footage from the moon or from a lunar orbiter. ",
"If she's dead set on believing that the cold war was a sham and the Soviet Union and the United States came to some sort of back room agreement to both say that the US landed on the moon, and an insane number of people are lying about it, no evidence you can give will matter. ",
"Its a position that's on its face not rationally able to be maintained, you're not going to find evidence to refute something which is in its totality irrational. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cvw9a",
"comment_text": [
"Don't we have good enough telescopes to take quality photos of the flag and tracks on the moon?",
"Not even close. And even if we did, what would it prove? It's not as though your aunt-in-law can trust the telescope operators not to fake the pictures.",
"Now, there ",
" some devices that were planted on the Moon that we can ",
" They're some optical devices that reflect light back in the same direction it came from. So if you shine a laser at them, they'll reflect back a tiny but detectable fraction of the light."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Who is winning the "war on terror"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4swi13
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cphix",
"comment_text": [
"Smart money is always on terror. Whether its the terror they inflict on us, or the terror we inflict on them, the end result seems to be a lot more terror. ",
"There are children in the middle east scared of blue skies, because that's drone strike weather. There are children in the west scared gunman and bombers and now trucks. ",
"People aren't winning this war, terror is. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cpjua",
"comment_text": [
"This is all my opinion, so take it for what it's worth:",
"Well, that's the problem with a war on a noun. Wars on Poverty, Wars on Drugs, and Wars on Terror are faulty, because poverty, drugs, or terror can never sign terms of surrender. So you kind of have to define \"win\" a little bit more:",
"If \"winning the war on terror\" means that there are no more extremist organizations who are willing to use terroristic tactics like killing civilians, then we're not winning, no.",
"If \"winning the war on terror\" means making the US safer from acts of terror from foreign agents, then we might be doing pretty good. Statistically, ",
"more people were killed by toddlers with guns than were killed by terrorists in America in 2015",
".",
"More of my opinion, less refined: The backwards ass political rhetoric that's coming from a certain orange-skinned clown who is still pretending to be a Presidential candidate is an awesome recruiting tool for extremist groups. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cq0g3",
"comment_text": [
"Who the heck are the belligerents in a \"War on terror.\"",
"Well, that's the problem--it depends on who you ask. Trump would probably say that the problem is foreigners who want to see America fail (Mexicans & Muslims). Clinton would probably say that we need to have a more diplomatically focused foreign policy.",
"Generals don't fight Wars on Nouns--politicians do."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cqm6n",
"comment_text": [
"the contractors.",
"just like Mortimer and Randolph explained. it doesn't matter who is profiting or losing, the broker always get a cut of the revenue.",
"contractors and arms mfgr's win win win."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cptv1",
"comment_text": [
"People aren't winning this war, terror is. ",
"Ugh. Where's the reset button?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is the US women soccer team so much more popular than the US men soccer team?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sw5zy
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.53
|
I guess what I'm trying to say is... why are girls/women in the US much more into soccer than men? Is it because men have the alternative of american football, basketball, and baseball? The US women soccer team dominates in international competition, but the men's team is average at best compared to other countries. Why is that?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cmaor",
"comment_text": [
"Women's soccer is a much more \"modern\" occurrence than men's soccer. In Europe, South America, Africa and Asia there's a long tradition of men's soccer. In many countries it's by far the biggest sport when it comes to the number of active players. However, in most of these countries (northern Europe excluded) women's soccer never became popular. In the US however women's soccer did become popular, perhaps owing to the fact that no woman in the US plays American football?"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cu5mr",
"comment_text": [
"Plain and simple, the USWNT is successful, they win against the highest level of competition. The men's team is a middle of the road squad when compared to other nations. Winning gets the women exposure and support."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cnuwf",
"comment_text": [
"The USA has a law called Title IX which mandates that schools provide equal athletic opportunities for men and women. This is a fairly rare situation. That means that women's HS and collegiate sports are quite well-funded compared to the rest of the world, and it means the USA is a powerhouse in those sports."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cvgpu",
"comment_text": [
"Your title question is different from your body text question.",
"Idk if the WNT is \"more popular\" than the MNT. But as for why the WNT dominates, it's almost certainly because there aren't as many women in other countries that play sports/soccer compared to how it is in the US."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5cn79b",
"comment_text": [
"Soccer is not very popular in the US save for a very niche subculture. Women's soccer is more popular than men's soccer here, but they are both still at best fifth place in terms of sports popularity. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Why is the nutrition data per 100g of food not 100g in total?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ss7ke
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bpx0j",
"comment_text": [
"Much of the rest is stuff like non soluble fibers which simply are not digestible. They just follow the tubing out. Ingredients lists usually only include nutritionally relevant materials of a base line measurement, not full chemistry run downs of the total product. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bpzcu",
"comment_text": [
"And water, don't forget water."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bq0wl",
"comment_text": [
"Yep, and now you understand where poop comes from."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bq0wl",
"comment_text": [
"Yep, and now you understand where poop comes from."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bq2b7",
"comment_text": [
"This. Water comprises a lot of the weight of many fresh foods. Nice catch!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Why does the ocean reflect blue if space is black?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4srs6q
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bpalx",
"comment_text": [
"Space being black and the ocean being blue have nothing to do with each other. Space is black because black is the absence of light and space is extremely large and extremely empty, meaning there is nothing to scatter the light. The ocean is blue-ish (depending on a number of factors) because it absorbs the red portion of the visible light spectrum, and the blue portion is what gets reflected back to our eyes."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bqavh",
"comment_text": [
"TL;DR- the ocean is actually just ",
" blue, but when in large quantities shows up much more vibrantly. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bqhri",
"comment_text": [
"The sky doesn't absorb any light, it scatters it.",
"Most colours (Red through Green) largely are unaffected, or only alter course slightly, where as blue bounces a ",
" off the molecules in the atmosphere.",
"So the white light of the sun appears yellow with the blue being scattered away, and the rest of the sky appears blue because it has been scattered towards you instead of hitting in a 'straight line' from the sun to s different bit of the planet.",
"Edit: ",
" blue does also come straight through and ",
" of the rest bounces as well. But not enough for us to see a noticable difference."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bqbxu",
"comment_text": [
"Also- I know it's been said- but space isn't actually black. It's just not illuminated. In terms of light (light and pigment are two different color scenarios) what our eyes perceive as black is really just the absence of light on OUR spectrum of visible light. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bph8a",
"comment_text": [
"because it absorbs the red portion of the visible light spectrum, and the blue portion is what gets reflected back to our eyes.",
"That's a fancy of way of saying that the Ocean is blue. Anything that is blue does the same thing. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: If the Wacraft Movie cost 160M and its boxoffice is 430M, why is it still considered a loss?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ss4p4
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bpn0p",
"comment_text": [
"Only 46 million was domestic, and domestic revenue is the most valuable. For each dollar the studios get about half back on tickets. So that's 23 million dollars. But the domestic market is even more valuable in terms of how much money you can get down the road, licensing to watch on cable, selling home video, merchandise, etc. Over 10 years or so you expect domestically each dollar spent to be worth about 1.75.",
"Now much of the money was made in china which has a rate of 25 cents on each dollar of ticket sales to go to the studio, and over the next 10 years will not provide basically any extra value in terms of licensing or home video sale. Meaning of the 220 million dollars from china the studio gets about 55 million dollars. The market is still valuable clearly, but it wasn't able to carry the movie alone. ",
"Other foreign grosses aren't nothing of course, but they still require operating overseas and managing tariffs and taxes, and the added costs of operating. A dollar overseas isn't quite worth as much as a dollar at home. ",
"So the current return to the studio for the movie is probably about 120-140 million dollars, depending on what the average value of a dollar gross is overseas excluding china. "
],
"score": 21
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bwkl4",
"comment_text": [
"You're off on one thing, the studio that owns Legendary, who made Warcraft own the largest theater chain in China, and in those theaters, they got 50% or more of the cut. But in overall trends you are correct."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bpe8z",
"comment_text": [
"Wasn't the movie a loss in the US, but a success in China? "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bpzy8",
"comment_text": [
"The movie seemed to be more or less a success all over, except US."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5c12sw",
"comment_text": [
"I didn't realize that. Though of course, owning the theaters means added costs as well, and you only see a benefit for the people who wouldn't have seen some other movie in theater instead of Warcraft. They also only own 6% of the total cinema screens in china, according to Wanda Group wikipedia page, so its not that significant at best. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why we use the year 2016 when the earth has been around for millions of years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4srvqb
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5boagx",
"comment_text": [
"So maybe we're all atheists and we don't care about the association that the year zero has with Christ. Sure, ok, fair enough. And let's ignore that changing our system of date would be REALLY hard and involve reprogramming, like, every computer ever.",
"Can you name one specific thing that definitely happened in the year 208,658,452 B.C.? Not in the form \"A dinosaur lived\", but \"THIS single dinosaur lived\".",
"Can anyone? We know what sorts of things were happening then, what primitive life forms were crawling about, and we can use radiological dating on fossils and stuff, but you can only produce so small a confidence interval. Recorded history only began a few thousand years ago, and as you go further and further back, the ability to refer to very specific dates becomes less and less important, because it becomes less and less plausible to actually demonstrate that it happened in any specific year. After a while it's just entirely pointless and you have little to no need for anything beyond the use of a unit \"MYA\" for \"millions of years ago\".",
"Furthermore, \"year\" is kinda a weird term. Ideally it would mean 365 times 24 times 60 times 60 seconds have passed. In reality, we have leap years, even leap seconds, and as you go back further and further in time the year's length gets even MORE troublesome, as days were SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than they are now. By several hours. Even if we could tell exactly when something happened, the meaning of \"208,658,452 B.C.\" is now questionable anyway."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bnwno",
"comment_text": [
"The dominant religion of your geographic region says that you live 'in the year of the lord'. Btw, Thailand uses totally different date system."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bnybt",
"comment_text": [
"There's dozens of calendars in use around the world.",
"The vocabulary word for the starting date chosen for a calendar is \"epoch\"."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bo818",
"comment_text": [
"That is just what stuck and what we (in our western society, the middle east for example (or the islam) uses different years) use as a frame of reference. There were calendars before and after that just didn't stick with different points of reference.",
"\nEarth, on the other hand, has been around for billions of years, not millions, but that doesn't matter because we don't know its age well enough to use it as a frame of reference for a calendar, even if we wanted to, a day is a huge difference when it comes to time tracking in a human life (imagine having just one day difference in one direction or the other when making plans, its neigh impossible) and we are not talking days here, not even weeks, month, years, decades or centuries, we could be thousands of years off. Also, we really don't care for most of the timeline of the earth, its relevant once humans became relevant and that was a couple of thousand years ago."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bozih",
"comment_text": [
"Im too lazy to write out 2016 let alone 208,658,452. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What is a good, non-chemistry metaphor for enthalpy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4srfjy
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.64
|
In the physical world entropy is often used as a metaphor to explain neglect (energy leaving a system) and the "breakdown" of physical things in the world over time (systems seeking a lowest, most stable energy state). If that's the case, could someone use the word enthalpy to explain the opposite: putting energy into a system to keep it maintained or restored so as to prevent it from breaking down? For example, could you use restoring a beat up house or car as a metaphor for enthalpy? Putting hard work and energy into it to "fix it up"....would that be enthalpy in that scenario? Because if not, then what would be a good example of enthalpy in the physical (as opposed to chemical) world?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5brbei",
"comment_text": [
"Enthalpie is a bit like you are suddenly able to store energy in a magic balloon.",
"You can put in energy by heating the gas inside the balloon. Or you can withdraw energy from the balloon's hot gas by putting the hot balloon in somewhere and let it heat that up.",
"You can also increase the pressure inside the balloon to store energy. Or withdraw it by letting the gas escape now and drive a propeller (really a turbine, but meh).",
"Or - in case the gas is not escaping as forceful as you'd like to drive the propeller, you can invest work yourself and reduce the balloons volume by squeezing it.",
"The balloon is a big magical, because it is hard to reach the limits of it. It's figurative of course, but it will never burst and also behave a bit weird, e.g. just become hotter to store heat energy, but not expand necessarily, as a normal real balloon would do.",
"But - by exploiting the properties of this magical energy store device we can do many things. In fact, it can become an energy conversion device. A car engine is such a thing (see e.g. Carnot process and similar). A chemical is combusted in it which provides Energy in the form of heat and increased pressure. With the cylinders that move up and down we withdraw energy from the \"magical balloon\" by having the pressure in the just fired cyclinder sink now. Cleverly this drives up another cylinder to e.g. load up that magical balloon far enough, that the Diesel/air mix present in the cylinder ignites in a now enabled chemical reaction all by itself."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bsjsb",
"comment_text": [
"Enthalpy - If I want to go into town I either have to walk, get the bus or drive myself. All routes have different speeds, if i walk it will take longer than driving. Enthalpy says that no matter what route I end up taking, its going to cost the same amount of energy to get me to my destination."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5c5vu6",
"comment_text": [
"This is not correct, at least not in any practical sense."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d7amy",
"comment_text": [
"This is still not correct. Entropy itself is a state based variable so it's value at the end point will be equal regardless of path. However, work is a path dependant variable so the \"energy requirement\" by any relevant metric is not equal along two different paths unless it's a coincidence. In your mountain example one of the paths would be more energy efficient than the other. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5d7cfy",
"comment_text": [
"Which is why such a topic is difficult to paraphrase in a context understandable to someone not familiar with chemistry. Its not something that translates well in that sense "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:How does someone know what floor to go (Ground floor or very top floor) when someone says "first floor"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4srq3e
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.13
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bn1xj",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks for the reply,\nI asked this question when my friend told me to meet her at the first so generally I pressed 1st floor.",
"And next was the screams of him that he meant the very top floor.",
"Again, Thanks for the reply"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bn8p9",
"comment_text": [
"The top floor is not the first floor, unless you are in a basement and the elevator only goes up to the first floor.",
"(In some places in the world, the \"first floor\" is the floor ",
" the ground floor, but in those cases the elevator would have an \"M\" or \"0\" or something else for the main floor, and a \"1\" for the \"1st floor (above the ground floor)\" and so on, so either way, the \"first floor\" would be the \"1\" on the elevator, unless there is no \"1\" at all, such as when the \"2nd\" floor is the one just above ground floor and they call the ground floor \"M\" or something...)"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bmqu8",
"comment_text": [
"You press '1' on the elevator when someone says 'first floor'. First = 1nth. It's as simple as that."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bmt68",
"comment_text": [
"You generally find the ground floor at ground level so would refer to it as that. You then count the floors from that point, eg, 1, 2, 3, etc."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bn7ur",
"comment_text": [
"1st floor= top floor?",
"Hehe it sounds like your friend just has a rather unique convention for labelling floors!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How do lotteries get away with pocketing the winnings themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4srgeu
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5blf86",
"comment_text": [
"Megamillions is a multi-state game. The prize was won, just not by someone in California."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5blf86",
"comment_text": [
"Megamillions is a multi-state game. The prize was won, just not by someone in California."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bkol5",
"comment_text": [
"They probably said somewhere that this would happen if no one wins, and it was approved to operate that way."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5blhl7",
"comment_text": [
"As ",
"/u/stevemegson",
" stated, Megamillions is a multi-state game, and someone won that large Megamillions jackpot. The winning ticket was ",
"bought by someone in Indiana",
"."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5blcne",
"comment_text": [
"How do they \"get away\" with pocketing about half of the ticket price in the first place and only offering about half as prizes? Those are the rules. The lottery's objective is really to fund education rather than to make a few people rich."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do so many names/nouns have "ia" at the end. Examples being, Scandinavia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Britannia, Latvia, Estonia, etc...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sr864
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bkm56",
"comment_text": [
"It's a suffix that means \"of\" or \"pertaining to.\"",
"So Croatia is the country of Croats, Serbia is the country of Serbs, Academia is pertaining to academics, etc.",
"Not every word that ends in \"ia\" has this meaning. Media for example is the plural form of medium which is a word borrowed from Latin. Likewise trivia is the plural of trivium.",
"Scandinavia is neither a pluralized Latin name nor related to the meaning of \"ia\" as a suffix meaning \"of\" or \"pertaining to.\" Scandinavia (and \"Scania\") are thought to go back to the Proto-Germanic compound \"Skaðin-awjō.\" "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bjc5m",
"comment_text": [
"Going to guess it has something to do with Roman naming convention (Britannia, Caledonia, Germania, ect...)"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bk4xf",
"comment_text": [
"Is it kind of like how there are so many countries that end with -stan (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan) because it's the Persian word for land "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bjjse",
"comment_text": [
"They're certainly all latin. But I don't know why they all are first declension nouns, whether that's a rule for place names or if there are others that aren't. But they're all first declension latin nouns."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5bkcee",
"comment_text": [
"But the area that spans places with \"ia\" as a prefix spans multiples cultures."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: How was Theresa May 'elected' or 'appointed' as the new Prime Minister?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sp2wi
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b0hni",
"comment_text": [
"So the prime minister is just the leader of the party which forms the government (so in this case the tories). So when Cameron stepped down the Conservative party needed to vote on a new leader, in this you're only eligible to vote if you're a Conservative party member as you're not voting for a new pm you're voting for a new party leader. The 2 candidates put forward were Theresa May and Andrea leadsdom. May was the most popular one in terms of the MPs. Anyway before the vote on the new leader took place Andrea leadsdom stepped aside leaving Theresa May as the only candidate meaning she won by default, and as she's the leader of the largest party and that party is in government she becomes the prime minister "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b0l8k",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly, the UK is not a Presidential government, like the US. The PM isn't someone picked in an election of the people. They are picked by the members of Parliament."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b0gmf",
"comment_text": [
"She was the one that had enough support in Parliament to become the Prime Minister.",
"It's not unlike how, in the US, the House of Representatives would choose a Speaker of the House -- whoever can get the support of the majority of the members gets the job. The difference is that, in a parliamentary system, this person becomes the head of government with executive authority."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b1l6e",
"comment_text": [
"Elections are called when a vote of no confidence passes Parliament. Votes of no confidence happen when the ministers agree that the government isn't working. A successful vote dissolves the government and forces an election for a new one."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b1l6e",
"comment_text": [
"Elections are called when a vote of no confidence passes Parliament. Votes of no confidence happen when the ministers agree that the government isn't working. A successful vote dissolves the government and forces an election for a new one."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why did not the allies put up a whole smokescreen, covering the line of sight of the bunker MG's, on D-day just before landing on Normandy beach?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4somx6
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
Before the landing crafts reached Omaha beach why did they not put up like a whole smoke curtin, would that not have helped to keep the number of casualties down?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ay2pc",
"comment_text": [
"Smokescreens only work if you are able to hide ",
" them or if you are able to do your job ",
" them. You can't do either of those things in a beach landing. It would have hindered the Allied forces just as much as the Germans.",
"In addition, if you've ever been to the beach, you know that there is almost constant wind blowing. Smokescreens go away very quickly in the wind. On that day, the winds were blowing approximately 15-20mph."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b12p6",
"comment_text": [
"No. First of all there were no sufficient ways of deploying enough smoke. (dropping them by plane would most likely not have been precise enough)",
"Second point is the amount of smoke devices you'd need. The landings took hours and the landing zones at the beaches stretched over dozens of miles. There is no way to even produce that much smoke, even if you could deploy it. (I do think you are vastly overestimating the effect and long-livety of smoke screens in open areas)",
"And even if there was a way to produce all that smoke and deploy it it wouldn't have helped much. The smoke would have made coordinated action at the beaches impossible. At the heavily defended areas of the beaches the allied soldiers needed to break through fortifications like razor wire etc and then storm the bunkers. If you can't see shit you can't communicate. You wouldn't know where to go, or what to do since you'd have no idea what was going on around you. ",
"Also the landing crafts partial used landmarks to navigate while approaching the coast. Smoking it off would have made that impossible "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5axxip",
"comment_text": [
"they would never risk hitting friendlys",
"Why do you say this? Its not like they all stood in a line one person deep. The large majority of troops would have friendlies in front of them."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5ax1dr",
"comment_text": [
"It would blind the troops too? They wouldnt know where the MG fire is coming from and risk hitting friendlies?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5b1ca9",
"comment_text": [
"Tripod mounted machine guns have a thing called a T&E device which allows the gunner to know very accurately where his gun is pointed. The first thing that any halfway competent infantry leader would do after establishing a basic defensive position would be to go around and make sure that his machine gunners were carefully considering the area in front of them and taking notes about what settings the T&E device was showing when the gun was pointed at various terrain features. Then if they're in a situation where they're fighting in limited visibility the gunners can refer to their notes and point their guns accurately even at things they can't actually see.",
"Even totally blinded a machine gun could run a \"program\" where it would sweep back and forth along the coast where they know troops are going to be struggling in the surf, and then switch to hosing down natural obstacles where they know the enemy soldiers are going to naturally bunch up, then switch to hitting their own barbed wire which is also going to likely be a spot for soldiers to be bunched up as they struggle to get through."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5 - Why do quotes in media often have [brackets] around some of the words?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sjd5o
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59r976",
"comment_text": [
"It means that the exact quote was part of some larger conversation, and has something that wouldn't be well understood without some information from earlier in the conversation.",
"For example, imagine a reporter who asks a politician for some thoughts about bill number 1142, and the reply is, \"it's a complicated piece of legislation, with lots of moving parts we're considering.\"",
"If the final story doesn't include the question, but should include the quote, it's will be unclear, so they'll replace that pronoun and use brackets to indicate the paper changed the speakers words so the reader could understand the quote we used. The final quote would be: \"[Bill 1142 is] a complicated piece of legislation, with lots of moving parts we're considering.\" "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59q8ug",
"comment_text": [
"Bracketed words are ones that have been paraphrased by the author for clarity. For example, they might replace a \"he\" or a \"she\" with a proper name... so the quote is not ",
" what was said -- but it was what was meant -- and the brackets indicate what was changed."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59y870",
"comment_text": [
"paraphrased ",
"Key word here."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59q627",
"comment_text": [
"Those bracketed words are not words that were actually spoken/written. They are there sometimes to clarify or condense something that was spoken. Sometimes it is to correct verb tenses so that they sound appropriate for the context of the quotation."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59q62l",
"comment_text": [
"Often when the quote is reworded to have more readable grammar or to make the quote fit properly in a sentence. Usually journalists use it just as a tool to explain what the speaker was saying in a cogent way, but sometimes they also use it to take something completely out of context."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: The reason that giveaways/contests have the phrase 'Purchase not required.' and then have an alternative method of entry (usually mailing in a postcard).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4siiz0
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59iln4",
"comment_text": [
"Because in most places, if a purchase is required to win the prize, it's a private lottery and therefore illegal. So, they have to provide a way for you to enter the contest without purchasing one of their products -- and as you noted, mailing in a postcard is a common way (or, in the case of an instant win, sending in a SASE)."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59iqc7",
"comment_text": [
"The laws are different if you have to pay to enter (it becomes a raffle or straight up gambling) and then they have to abide by gambling laws. If you don't have to pay then it's a sweepstakes which has different laws.",
"Some jurisdictions are more strict, in ",
"many parts of Canada",
" it needs to be skill based to not be gambling, so they stick a math problem on it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59is5n",
"comment_text": [
"If you give people the chance to win something in exchange for money, you're running a lottery. Lotteries are heavily restricted in many jurisdictions, and it's much easier to run competitions with free entry."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59jz9p",
"comment_text": [
"The skill testing questions always crack me up. Sir, you did not win this prize at random, no no! You won the opportunity to solve this very simple math problem at random, and the prize is for solving the math problem."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59il46",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah about 10 years ago. Now they are mainly online and require you to give permission to sale your information or send you advertisments. That's all these big giveaways are, marketing techniques. Companies aren't going to give you a brand new car unless they expect to make it back several times over."
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5: What is the difference between actionable feedback and a suggestion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4si7bm
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
Hi reddit: I would like to know what constitutes an actionable feedback and how is it different from a suggestion. Seems like both tell the receiver of the feedback something they can do differently to improve their current work. How do they differ? Thank you
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59g2ig",
"comment_text": [
"I would like to know what constitutes an actionable feedback and how is it different from a suggestion.",
"Suggestion: \"Try making your paintings more upbeat and happy!\"",
"Actionable feedback: \"Try using more yellow and orange in your paintings to brighten and make them more upbeat.\"",
"The actionable feedback is something that can clearly be acted upon, rather than a suggestion which has no clear path to implementation."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59qa9f",
"comment_text": [
"The purpose of instruction is to guide. If they were to figure things out for themselves then why would they need a teacher?",
"It is hoped that one will gain the ability to teach themselves over time but ultimately if an instructor is only giving advice and not actionable feedback then they can't expect improvement in the desired vein. Advice may tell them ",
" to do better but they probably already knew that. Actionable feedback tells them ",
" to do better."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59gh15",
"comment_text": [
"In many cases this a gray area matter, but some extreme examples:",
"actionable: please increase the volume from 7 to 10.5 on the dial.",
"suggestion: i think people would have an improved experience if the sound was a bit better.",
"Needless to say for the person who understands the situation, they might see an obvious action within the suggestion - hence the gray area."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59p5t6",
"comment_text": [
"I always thought that figuring things out on your own was the best way to learn. Giving actionable feedback seems to contradict this notion. Am I misunderstanding something? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59p8y6",
"comment_text": [
"Honest curiosity. How is giving actionable feedback better than letting people figure things out on their own?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: why Netflix content varies from country to country?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sfo6n
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58xi6z",
"comment_text": [
"I can't talk to all cases, but some content owners do deals with other local providers to allow them to show the content first. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58y8r3",
"comment_text": [
"Its not that they aren't ok with releasing it. It's that when Netflix says \"how much to stream to 10 million users?\" and the rights owner gives them a number. Then Netflix says \"how much to stream to 30 million users?\" and the rights owner gives them another, higher number. ",
"At some point Netflix is going to say they don't want to pay that, so they license the content for the countries that they are willing to pay for based on who they think will watch it most. ",
"If the content explodes in popularity, then after the year or whatever the length of the license is up, Netflix asks again hoe much. Now the rights owners want twice as much money because the show is so much more popular. Netflix might only license it for a single country, or drop it entirely, or pony up. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58xv60",
"comment_text": [
"I'd say there are two reasons, one being that Netflix tries to cater to different audiences, hence why in Brazil there are even some telenovelas and national shows available that you wouldn't find in any other country. There's also some licensing issues they go through that make it harder to get a lot of productions on their catalogue, like some TV channels which have rights to display the content first or local government bureaucracy. At least that's the explanation they give to Brazilian viewers."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58yngn",
"comment_text": [
"It is not that the content providers don't want to release it.",
"It is that they don't always want to ",
" the local rights for what Netflix offering. Especially if Hulu or Amazon or some local service is offering more."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59190b",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How does detonation of suspicious packages by the bomb squad work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sd43b
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
When in an urban area how does the bomb squad detonate suspicious packages safely? If what they're detonating is potentially a bomb isn't there a risk of causing a large explosion? I'm thinking of a situation as described in this .
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58c6zr",
"comment_text": [
"Actually no. Most commonly used explosives are commonly used because they are very hard to make explode. For instance, C4, the explosive most commonly used by bomb squads for this purpose (and variants of which are commonly used in IEDs), requires both an electric shock and a hard physical jolt to explode. By blowing up the explosive, you actually prevent it from blowing up by rapidly separating it from the detonators and burning the explosive in a more controlled way."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58c5fe",
"comment_text": [
"Well, obviously they clear the area first.",
"And detonating a suspicious package is normally only done when the situation prevents identification/defusal.",
"But, for the most part, a small controlled explosive won't set off the package assuming it is a bomb. A bomb requires activation to explode, they're decently complex things, especially a big one. Even a small bomb for the most part requires it to be set off to actually go off.",
"So by using a small explosive to wreck the fiddly bits, the larger bomb won't go off. And if it does the defusers will have cleared a very large area so there won't be casualties besides property damage, which would be unavoidable in any case."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58f1i0",
"comment_text": [
"Heat, not an electric shock."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58it1e",
"comment_text": [
"Ah. That's usually accomplished with electricity, which is what I was thinking."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59zd6p",
"comment_text": [
"Sympathetic detonation can easily happen. Using explosives to detonotate other explosives is a last resort."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: If a doctor has to prescribe opiates like Oxycontin, how do so many pills end up on the black market?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4sd8ad
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.69
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58d3ns",
"comment_text": [
"Doctors and hospitals have to buy it somewhere...there are crooked people involved in the manufacturing and distribution of opiates. Also a LOT of people get fake prescriptions. Opiates are pain relievers and there's no surefire way to prove whether or not a patient has pain so often Opiates are prescribed to liars who then pick them up from pharmacy and sell them."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58d1cq",
"comment_text": [
"People fake symptoms in order to a get a prescription they aren't actually planning to take, or they go to several doctors (and pharmacies) getting the same prescription repeatedly.",
"And there are some criminals who are also pharmacists or doctors, and therefore have access."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58frdg",
"comment_text": [
"My g/f of three years worked as a pharmacy tech, had to do modules related to learning the laws of pharmacy operation. I helped her with them here and there, despite having no prior experience, and learned a ton.",
"They call it \"diversion.\" Typically, it involves someone with a legitimate prescription (meaning actually issued by a doctor, regardless of reason) selling or giving away their pills. There are other instances, like pill mills (FL had a rash of these for awhile) where doctors and pharmacists work together to distribute mass amounts of meds, doing pretty much the worst thing their degrees can do, and make a shit ton of profit in the process because this is typically cash-only with jacked-up prices. Some people in my town got busted running a major drug ring with pills they got from FL pill mills, one trip down there per month, they'd come back with loads of painkillers, Xanax, Adderall, you name it, and then sell it. ",
"Another way is that they come from inside hospitals, snagged by nurses and other employees and sold. A guy I knew who was a nurse got busted for this, he was stealing morphine.",
"There are plenty of ways this stuff makes it into the street, though typically there aren't enough pain meds on the street for it to become an epidemic, that's where heroin comes in. A city in my state is going through a pretty nasty epidemic of heroin use, much of which turns out to be fentanyl, an extremely strong opiate, and rarely prescribed compared to oxycodone or hydrocodone. Lots of ODs and deaths. There was a bust in Canada recently where police seized enough fentanyl-precursor powder on the street to make millions of pills. ",
"38 million, to be exact, according to Vice.",
"Opiates are here, and they aren't going away. The Canadian bust proves that doctors and prescriptions aren't always needed to create an opiate problem on the street. ",
"For some more info, this is a great post where an independent drug researcher answered some questions I had about opiates, both prescription and non, and provided some great links.",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/Drugs/comments/4rh6xo/dear_druggitors_i_am_currently_working_on_an/d51qpkf"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58dryz",
"comment_text": [
"Trust me, it wouldn't matter. I'm a pharmacy tech. I've seen people get caught faking their prescriptions and drug deals happen right in the parking lot and a lot of pharmacists don't care or don't want you calling the cops cause they don't wanna deal with them. Doctors are the same. I filled a lot of prescriptions from a certain doctor who would prescribe every patient the same 5 drugs, one of them technically a controlled drug in the state but not as strong as Norco or Oxy, because he's probably seen so many addicts he just doesn't give a shit anymore.",
"You can trace the drugs, but if the legal suppliers don't care, neither do th tracers. It's why I like hospital better. At least now when I load narcs, I know they're secure and only being used on in-patients."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58dryz",
"comment_text": [
"Trust me, it wouldn't matter. I'm a pharmacy tech. I've seen people get caught faking their prescriptions and drug deals happen right in the parking lot and a lot of pharmacists don't care or don't want you calling the cops cause they don't wanna deal with them. Doctors are the same. I filled a lot of prescriptions from a certain doctor who would prescribe every patient the same 5 drugs, one of them technically a controlled drug in the state but not as strong as Norco or Oxy, because he's probably seen so many addicts he just doesn't give a shit anymore.",
"You can trace the drugs, but if the legal suppliers don't care, neither do th tracers. It's why I like hospital better. At least now when I load narcs, I know they're secure and only being used on in-patients."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What are autistic people like and what's the difference between them and antisocials?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s9ui2
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57ngnq",
"comment_text": [
"Antisocial people know the rules, but break them.",
"Autistic people don't understand the rules at all."
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57poss",
"comment_text": [
"I worked with a very autistic guy once. You could never make eye contact with him. During meetings he would be standing away from the table, examining blank walls like they were a painting, holding his chin. Whenever he said things he would always follow up with mhmm like he was agreeing with himself, which was actually quite endearing. He never said anything irrelevant or wrong - every point he made was spot on. He was a nice , very smart guy but it took some getting used to."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57pqgy",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks for taking time to understand him. People like you are rare."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57pq6a",
"comment_text": [
"As someone with high-functioning ASD, this describes it perfectly. We ",
" to understand the rules, we sometimes either miss the mark slightly or are so off-base that we come across as another species."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57ztsf",
"comment_text": [
"Also, being antisocial means that their social behaviour is harmful, not that they avoid interaction. Crime and violence are considered antisocial activities. Shy and solitary persons are said to be asocial."
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: What's it called when someone has to, for example, turn a light switch on and off a certain number of times each night before they go to bed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s8997
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
I was watching an episode I it's always sunny in philadelphia and one of the characters moms was flicking light switches off and on three times, then turning a door lock back and forth three times. They joked that she did it so her son wouldn't die. I had a friend of mines aunt who would do the same sort of thing, but instead of flicking light switches, it was kissing her dolls a certain number of times each. This happened every night before she went to sleep. What exactly is this sort of thing called, what causes it, and what are some reasons? Any other info appreciated.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57a6d3",
"comment_text": [
"Thats OCD right. Like in the aviator when jude law ate airplane mans peas off his plate?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57aa4x",
"comment_text": [
"That is OCD. The whole \"obsess over details/cleaning/organizing\" thing that people think is OCD actually isn't. OCD is when a person feels like they have to do some specific task like that, or something bad will happen."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57ar7u",
"comment_text": [
"That's just called being extra neat and organized. We don't know what causes OCD.",
"Having ",
"bsessions and ",
"ompulsions like those is the only real kind of OCD."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57aaqq",
"comment_text": [
"That's what I'm trying to figure out, if its a particular kind of OCD or something else, and what causes it. The woman I knew personally as well as the example from tv I listed, they both did these things because they thought it was keeping their kids from dying. I think Trevor Moore from the whitest kids u know had a song about this too."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57em7j",
"comment_text": [
"Some people with ocd categorize their ocd based on what particular theme of obsessions their ocd is centered around; however, i believe this is more for therapeutic support than for official diagnosis. And often times, one may have several different \"types\" of ocd. One of the messiest mental illnesses ive had to deal with lol"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:How is Male & Female a social construct? And how are there more than 3 Genders?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s9g85
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57kfnq",
"comment_text": [
"Obviously male and female are the two biological sexes, although it's ",
"not extremely rare",
" for someone to be born with a mixture of both.",
"But ",
" these days is used to refer to how people are perceived, or wish to be perceived, by others or by themselves. Clearly there are people who prefer to be treated, and to behave and think and feel, different from the average person of their sex. So this leads to there being more than two genders."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57kkt6",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks for the explanation! LOL every time I try to understand it I either get someone who thinks all trans are gross or someone who just calls me transphobic for just asking this crap. Glad you explained it simple and that makes sense."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57l8ka",
"comment_text": [
"You have body parts that make you a boy or a girl. In some rare cases it's not that straight forward, but this isn't about that.",
"A very long time ago people started living in larger and larger groups. Eventually we called these groups societies. ",
"These societies liked doing stuff in certain ways. These ways are \"social constructs\". There is nothing wrong with them, but they are made up by people, because it made sense at some point.",
"So men and women did things, and acted, and dressed, in a way that made sense for a place, or a time.",
"There is nothing about your girl or boy parts that physically causes some of that behavior, some of those \"social constructs\". They are there because of history, tradition, habit.",
"When someone says \"gender is a social construct\" they don't mean that your boy or girl parts are the same as the other. They mean that a lot of the behavior and choices people think we are born with were just made up by society over time and shouldn't apply to us now, in this day and age. We should move on to better social constructs, new ones. More fitting for us all. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57lqrk",
"comment_text": [
"Sex usually refers to the biological system of chromosomes and reproductive organs. Gender is the way people perceive others and themselves and refers to a socially constructed system. ",
"In this system gender is perceived as a spectra from ultra masculine to absolutely not masculine at all, and ultra feminine to absolutely not feminine at all. What defines masculine and feminine is culturally determined and relates to the expected behavior of 'biological' men and women. ",
"Historically almost all cultures have acknowledged more than to genders, christian cultures being the only one I know with no documented non-binary population. What this refers to is people who do not fit in a roll of having overly masculine or overly feminie attributes. This is where you get non-binary genders like intersex, agender etc. ",
"Add to this you have transgenderd people and cisgenderd people. Transgender refers to people whose gender is not the one they were given from birth. The most common example is trans men and trans women this refers to folks that are gendered male or female at birth but are the opposite. Trans folks experience transgender dysphoria which is extreme discomfort with ones body especially the sexual organs like genitals, breast etc. This often leads to depression and other mental problems. ",
"Most experts in this field argue that all of this is a spectre and that almost no one 100% masculine or feminine. Of course not excluding anyone's lived experience that would contradict this. On my phone now so if you want more material or sources just comment or pm me. I recommend gender in history and a history of European sexuality for some historical references."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57l1yl",
"comment_text": [
"There really is no right answer to this. Even the most strict PC police will disagree with each other to some degree about it. ",
"The way I see it, its the gender roles more than the sexes that are social constructs. Ingrained in our culture is an expectation of how males and females are supposed to act, how they are supposed to think, what is supposed to interest them, how they are supposed to dress, and on and on and on. Obviously you can't expect everyone to fit into each of those expectations, and when someone clashes with their supposed gender roll strongly enough they may begin to think they should be the opposite sex, but are trapped in the wrong body. ",
"You can have people that identify as pretty much anything you can imagine, and polite society will tend to support them in an effort to not offend, and because its really up to the individual how they feel they should live. You can have biological men identify as women, or vice-versa. You can also have people that refuse to identify as either because they don't want to conform to either gender role, or you can have people who prefer to be identified differently depending on the situation, such as who they are with, what they are doing, or what have you. ",
"My opinion about the whole thing is that with people who consider themselves to be a transsexual, it is not about the actual sex organs, or who they are attracted to, but simply the gender roles society has placed on them that they are uncomfortable with. And that convinces them that they have to change themselves surgically in order to feel like the fit into one of the 2 boxes they think exist for them, rather just accepting themselves for what they are."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: why are there so many Korean women in the top golf rankings compared to their male counterparts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s7dh6
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.61
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d574wxz",
"comment_text": [
"The military is also typically the end of professional Starcraft player's careers."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d574jmj",
"comment_text": [
"I'm only a non-Korean golf fan, but heres how I understand it",
"One major hurdle for men in Korea is the mandatory 2 year military service they have to provide. Golf is a game that requires an extreme amount of practice to be good at on a professional level, meaning that the 2 years that the men spend in the military are very detrimental to development ",
"Another more interesting point that I heard a Korean professional talk about is the style of majority of courses in Korea being very short and not difficult enough for the males to push them further as they grow"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57ffm0",
"comment_text": [
"Must construct additional pylons...."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57mjbj",
"comment_text": [
"You didn't explain why women are seeing more success than men though..."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d57r0c8",
"comment_text": [
"Oh. Korean men are competing against a much larger and better established International field of players. There's simply less women competing at that level from all countries including the US. In some countries, very few women even play. Not the case in Korea where the whole country \"dabbles\" in it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do phone scammers call and ask if I'm over the age of 30 and unless one answers in the affirmative, they won't try to take their money and they'll just hang up instead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4si8dh
| 641
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.84
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59gcm7",
"comment_text": [
"Old people would tend to have higher credit limits on their credit cards, so managing to get the card of someone under 30 might not be worth their time and effort."
],
"score": 357
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59jf8n",
"comment_text": [
"\"Excuse me, are you over the age of 30?\"",
"\"No, but I have lots of money in the bank. My social is two-four-six - nine-three - sev-",
"\"K bye.\"",
"I'm ",
" to get scammed, you complete douche!"
],
"score": 196
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59iijo",
"comment_text": [
"If that were the reason, the cutoff age would be closer to 50.",
"Elderly people are less technologically adept, and also many of them tend to be more trusting, especially if they have to depend on other people (friends, children, neighbors) for a lot of the things they do.",
"Young adults are a little more prone to falling for scams, largely due to lack of life experience. But, as ",
"/u/Squid10",
" points out, they don't tend to have very much money so they don't make for good marks."
],
"score": 52
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59iijo",
"comment_text": [
"If that were the reason, the cutoff age would be closer to 50.",
"Elderly people are less technologically adept, and also many of them tend to be more trusting, especially if they have to depend on other people (friends, children, neighbors) for a lot of the things they do.",
"Young adults are a little more prone to falling for scams, largely due to lack of life experience. But, as ",
"/u/Squid10",
" points out, they don't tend to have very much money so they don't make for good marks."
],
"score": 52
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d59lvj9",
"comment_text": [
"I'm hoping a least a few."
],
"score": 48
}
|
|
ELI5:How did the term "fine" come to mean both something extremely detailed, pure and exact, as well as "just ok"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s4x42
| 21
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.61
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56lfii",
"comment_text": [
"These sorts of words sort of go through a cycle of fading in their meaning. Because fine means things like pure and exact, describing something as being \"fine\" means \"really good\". But if we start using that word too much, over time it loses its impact, and describing something as being fine no longer actually sounds that remarkable any more. And so eventually it just becomes run of the mill.",
"You can see this with lots of other synonyms for \"really good\". If you say something is \"awesome\" now, the reader/listener has to infer from context whether that means \"ok\" or \"really good\". For example, someone might say \"awesome, thanks!\" in response to \"here's the link to that report you were looking for\", and also to \"I got us two tickets to your favourite band's sold out show you thought you'd missed\". And even in that example, while you could ",
" \"awesome, thanks\" to the latter and have just how really awesome it is come across in your voice, in writing you'd probably worry about \"awesome thanks\" coming across as dismissive and would instead write \"HOLY FUCKING SHIT that's so fucking awesome you are my hero man, thank you so fucking much!!!!!! Heart-emoji partyhat-emoji face-with-loveheart-eyes-emoji music-note-emoji heart-emoji heart-emoji\" Because awesome on its own just doesn't mean what it used to.",
"Also commonly seen in English is bad words coming in to replace the overused words for \"really good\". Even \"awesome\" would have in times past included a connotation of inducing fear, as would words like \"terrific\". \"Sick\" can be good, as can \"wicked\" and \"bitchin'\". Over time some of those words might become commonplace (probably not ",
" ones though), and then fade into mediocrity as \"fine\" already has and \"awesome\" is currently doing.",
"All this is just a wonderful feature of language, that as people use it, meanings change, almost without us noticing. It's why \"literally\" now also means \"figuratively\" and \"ironic\" means like a million different things depending on context."
],
"score": 16
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56npel",
"comment_text": [
"That use of \"literally\" doesn't really mean figuratively. No one who uses it that way would consider \"figuratively\" to be an appropriate substitute. What it means is closer to \"this is a perfect metaphor\" or to add hyperbolic emphasis to an action. ",
"E.g., \"I literally hit the roof\" doesn't mean the same as \"I figuratively hit the roof\". It means \"I was extraordinarily angry\". ",
"(And yes, I had to restrain myself from saying \"It doesn't literally mean figuratively. Oops, I said it.). "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56jyhd",
"comment_text": [
"But it's an adjective in the sentence \"I'm fine,\" since it's describing \"I\"."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58oen1",
"comment_text": [
"But isn't that figuratively hitting the roof, exactly as you described it not being?\ni.e. They didn't really hit the roof, they were just extraordinarily angry. They used \"hit the roof\" figuratively to mean getting angry."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d58t361",
"comment_text": [
"It's being used figuratively, but that doesn't mean it's a word for word replacement. The word \"literally\" isn't being used to mean figuratively. It's being used in a figurative sense to connote emphatically. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How do Top Gear keep "The Stig" character secret?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s5z7m
| 34
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.69
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56qsul",
"comment_text": [
"They don't show who he is. That's about it. Then there are dozens of rumors so even if the real guy is revealed, people wouldn't know until it was confirmed somehow.",
"Anyways, the Stig has been revealed several times in the shows history. When the identity is revealed they \"kill off\" the Stig and replace it with a new one. They aren't able to keep it secret for long."
],
"score": 35
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56qu83",
"comment_text": [
"And don't forget he has a big family so it could always be one of his cousins."
],
"score": 24
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56sxqa",
"comment_text": [
"I don't think that's quite true. There are only 2 Stigs that have been revealed, Perry McCarthy and Ben Collins, the latter of which was secret for seven years. There's always been tonnes of speculation about who the Stig is, but that's mostly all it is."
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56z5kb",
"comment_text": [
"He's not secret. He's their tame racing driver. Some say that on really warm days, he sheds his skin like a snake, and that for some reason, he's allergic to the Dutch. All we know is, he's called The Stig.",
"But seriously. When you're contractually obligated to keep your identity secret, you find a way. As another poster suggested, it's probably easier because it's usually a lesser known - but still talented - driver who is probably billed as a consultant or something to throw the scent off. Those inside the racing/automotive industry probably know who it is, and stay quiet because it's more fun (see also: ",
"kayfabe",
"). ",
"Minor edit to make the link non-mobile."
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56szxc",
"comment_text": [
"It's primarily a secret to us who are outside of the \"industry\". Within the community of, say, elite racing car drivers the identity of the Stig was pretty much of an open secret. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is ice not sold anywhere in Europe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s4877
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.47
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56e0gd",
"comment_text": [
"Australia is in Europe?"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56e0gd",
"comment_text": [
"Australia is in Europe?"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56dybx",
"comment_text": [
"Wtf? You can buy ice at any gas-station,there are ice vending machines also. One is in front of our building..."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56em63",
"comment_text": [
"It is less common to have ice in your drinks."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56enhn",
"comment_text": [
"I see. Is it common enough to invalidate my post, at least enough to where I should delete it?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why so many websites have "age checks" that don't really do anything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s3qkr
| 14
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.65
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d569drv",
"comment_text": [
"I think it's more of a liability thing. It's so that if someone underage accesses some content they're not supposed to, and that person's parents try to sue the website, the website can say \"Well it's not our fault, we asked them their age and they said they were at least 18!\""
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56c1mi",
"comment_text": [
"You know those wet floor sighns? They're not there for you, they're there for them. They might get sued."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56bvz8",
"comment_text": [
"yeah when I was really small I was like damn I am not 18, this sucks. guess I'll play a game on the nicelodeon site instead. only did that once though."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56bvz8",
"comment_text": [
"yeah when I was really small I was like damn I am not 18, this sucks. guess I'll play a game on the nicelodeon site instead. only did that once though."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56crw5",
"comment_text": [
"At least here in Wisconsin, if you show a fake id that is reasonably believable, the bar is not liable. But if they don't id you and you end up being under age it's bad news. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How does eating more portions throughout the day make you lose weight more than just eating less, (ie. One meal)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s1rxx
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.53
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55t5z2",
"comment_text": [
"The idea is that you do end up eating less. Eating smaller meals more frequently keeps you consistently satisfied, so you don't get real hungry and then have a huge 1000 Cal lunch. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55wgz6",
"comment_text": [
"It doesn't really. It's purely for dietary adherence. Check something like ",
"/r/leangains",
" for a protocol where people don't follow the 'small portions often' mantra. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d56b2ik",
"comment_text": [
"It doesn't. What makes you lose weight is a caloric deficit between what you consume and what you burn off daily. You can eat all your calories at night or break it down into smaller meals to feel full, but neither way matters to weight loss. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d569qtx",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah, if you're really hungry, it's easy to shove massive amounts of food in your face all at once, and eat way too much before you realize you've eaten enough to feel full. And if you wait till you're really hungry, you're probably more likely to eat unhealthy food because you don't want to wait to prepare a healthy meal.",
"If you eat when you're not that hungry, it's easier to eat appropriate sized portions. And you're more likely to think ahead and plan healthy items."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55vwe6",
"comment_text": [
"If you eat 5 meals totaling 2000 calories in one day and then eat 1 meal equaling 2000 calories the next day. Both days are the same in your bodies perspective. However, it isn't to your mind. If you waited til dinner to eat all your daily calories your mind will be going crazy with hunger. You'll sit down and think, \"EAT ALL THE FOOD!!!!!\" This puts you at risk of overeating your calorie intake, because it takes time for your stomach to tell you that you're full. So instead of 2000 calories you eat 2500 calories because you inhaled your food at dinner and then thought, \"Man, that cream pie looks pretty tasty.\" if you eat 3 meals, by dinner your brain is thinking, \"Oh, dinner, this looks good.\" You eat it slowly and by the time your done you think, \"Wooo, I... am... STUFFED!\" "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do dogs bark so loudly when they have such good hearing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4s04my
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55gv6m",
"comment_text": [
"As they are not barking at themselves, why are you considering there should be a connection between their volume and their ability to hear?",
"Consider wolves and other canine ancestors are usually howling to signal their pack that could be miles away, not the dog on the immediate other side of the fence."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55gwmz",
"comment_text": [
"In addition sometimes the bark is a form of intimidation, the louder the bark the greater the intimidation the less likely a fight."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d566kgx",
"comment_text": [
"Because they are either trying to warn you that they believe there is a threat or they are trying to intimidate that threat themselves by appearing as loud and strong and overwhelming as possible."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55hoha",
"comment_text": [
"When people say dogs have good hearing, what that actually means is that the frequency range is better than a human's (20kHz vs ~45kHz), which is why dog whistles work. You are talking about sensitivity to sound, which while slightly better than humans, it's not by much."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d55gwv5",
"comment_text": [
"It made me wonder, because deaf humans have volume control issues with their voices. They speak louder, because they can't hear that they are speaking too loud. So I was wondering if dogs have better hearing, why would they be so loud. "
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5: Freedom of Travel, No Need For Driver's License, etc etc
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ryrgb
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d557v8u",
"comment_text": [
"In supreme court rulings, you only need a DMV registered vehicle when operating a commercial vehicle",
"Not true. No such supreme court ruling exists. This is a stance proposed by so-called \"soverign citizens\" who have a very bad habit of misinterpreting the law. They see laws that say that you must have a license \"when employed in operating a motor vehicle\", and willfully misinterpret the intended use of the word \"employed\". Yes, \"employed\" can mean \"having a job\", but it can ",
" mean \"actively doing something\". In this case, the law says that you must have a license on you when actively driving, not when driving for business purposes.",
"A traveler is someone who goes from point A to point B, while a driver is someone who operates a commercial vehicle.",
"Oh boy. Yep. Soverign citizen nonsense. There's no such thing as a \"traveler\" vs a \"driver\". That's a made-up distinction invented by people who identify as soverign citizens. This never holds up in court. ",
". And they're always surprised when it doesn't for some reason.",
"See ",
"this Snopes article",
"."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d557zvf",
"comment_text": [
"There are websites suggesting that you don't need a driver's license. They should be given no more credence than a website that advocates an arsenic diet as the key to good health.",
"You are 100% wrong that you only need to register a vehicle when using it commercially. There are no valid court rulings that say that. These arguments have been dismissed by courts as ",
"absolutely frivolous",
". They rely on taking extremely old decisions out of context. The site you linked cites ",
" as saying ",
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day. This right is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will.",
"It does say that. ",
"It then continues with:",
"The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.",
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.",
"The case was really about whether the city could ",
" ban someone from driving. It did not say cities can't require a driver's license. The ordinance in question required a license, and that was fine; the only issue was that it let the chief of police revoke it without setting out in enough detail what the law was on when it could be revoked. The court ruled that the right to drive couldn't be left to the unfettered discretion of the executive branch of the Virginia government.",
"There is no distinction between \"driver\" and \"traveler\" in the context of someone operating a motor vehicle. Driver is not restricted to someone operating it commercially. Attempts to argue otherwise generally involve specialized laws (like federal laws that are meant to regulate commercial trucking, and have nothing to do with why you need to register your truck with the state), or definitions in law dictionaries (which are references only, and have no actual legal authority) from the beginning of last century.",
"The 10th Amendment provides no support whatsoever to any argument about this. It's the amendment that says \"anything we didn't just give the feds the power to do, is a power reserved to the states.\" The states are the ones who impose almost all motor vehicle laws; the feds actually ",
" mostly just care about commercial drivers, but the feds aren't the ones making you register your pickup truck.",
"If you pull off your license plate, you can be pulled over, ticketed, and arrested, and the police are entirely in the right."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5581gv",
"comment_text": [
"TL;DR: Don't want to pay insurance on my super old truck.",
"TL;DR: Then don't drive it on public roads.",
"'ve read a lot from place's like this ",
"Are you high? Have you looked at that site? The top two articles right now are about how the Orlando shooting attack was a government conspiracy and how weed cures literally every disease ever and the government doesn't want you to know.",
"That is clearly a site run by insane people and/or fraudsters."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d558aev",
"comment_text": [
"It's interesting that \"sovereign citizens\" were able to get away with this from police.",
"They typically don't. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d558aev",
"comment_text": [
"It's interesting that \"sovereign citizens\" were able to get away with this from police.",
"They typically don't. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5:Do the signs on the backs of trucks that say, "warning stay back 200ft, not responsible for broken windshields" carry legal weight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rws3l
| 37
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d54szi6",
"comment_text": [
"I have always thought they refer to rocks/gravel getting kicked up and cracking a windshield and not something falling off the truck. If anything it helps deter people from following too closely, which is a much more likely cause of injury/death than the load coming loose and falling off the truck."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d54szi6",
"comment_text": [
"I have always thought they refer to rocks/gravel getting kicked up and cracking a windshield and not something falling off the truck. If anything it helps deter people from following too closely, which is a much more likely cause of injury/death than the load coming loose and falling off the truck."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d54st8s",
"comment_text": [
"200ft, not 20. If you decide to drive 20ft behind a trailer, you're the one putting your life at risk, not the driver."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d54rylq",
"comment_text": [
"But the question is who is at fault and if the warning sign can absolve somebody. And I'd hope the answer is no. It makes more sense to say that truck driver is responsible than to say somebody following at a legal distance should be blamed for not following at 200 feet (which is often times impossible on highways). "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d54tghd",
"comment_text": [
"A forcefield generated by the rare and powerful element idealium."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: How can we see so far with the declination of the Earth
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rsedw
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53qbly",
"comment_text": [
"Your dad might be dumb.",
"For an average man standing on flat ground the horizon is a little less than 3 miles. If the Earth were flat that wouldn't be true.",
"Also, you know, all those pictures of the Earth being round."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53qm93",
"comment_text": [
"well it doesn't matter anyways because like rhomboidus said if you stand high you can see the curves of the earth. and also you can see all the other planets are spheres as well so it just wouldn't make sense. According to occams razor at least"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53qygw",
"comment_text": [
"What? No they aren't.",
"The first photo of the Earth from lunar orbit, 1966."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53qfwo",
"comment_text": [
"yeah he is a weird conspiracy theory guy and I tried to argue with him and now he keeps randomly busting in my room trying to prove me wrong and I just tell him I don't care because no matter what I say it won't get to him. He said NASA released it and I am like okay let me see your sources was it off NASA website and he doesn't show me so whatever"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53qt6a",
"comment_text": [
"My aunt actually started going nuts on the exact same conspiracy theory lately. Just about everyone in the family routinely makes fun of her for it but she's so certain that it's right lol."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5 - I am honestly not trying to provoke or offend - can someone please explain how the existence of All Lives Matter belittles Black Lives Matter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rscnv
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53pvyb",
"comment_text": [
"People who support BLM are saying: \"hey, stop treating us as though black lives don't matter. they do.\"",
"The ALM response changes the subject to some idealistic fantasy without accepting, or even responding to, the complaint. By so doing, they dismiss the complaint and treat it as unimportant and irrelevant. "
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53pxzt",
"comment_text": [
"Black Lives Matter is a protest movement against police brutality ",
"All Lives Matter is a direct response to this movement, and is basically saying \"there is no particular problem of police brutality toward African Americans\". No one is saying all lives don't matter. The issue is that it appears police in the US understand that all lives matter except the lives of black people."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53q0e1",
"comment_text": [
"I would assume that BLM supporters feel they're being ignored with ALM. For them, it would be like when Rosa Parks said, \"I have a right to sit here, too\" and the response from white passengers essentially being \"We ALL have a right to sit here, you're nothing special\" - it's missing the point that yes, they both have a right to sit there but because she was black, her half of that situation was dismissed and overlooked.",
"Essentially, all of our lives DO matter but not all of our lives are being TREATED as if they matter, and therefore special attention needs to be brought to that group. They feel that pushing them back in with the \"protected\" group once again diminishes their plight and makes their situation invisible once again.",
"BTW, I'm not a BLM supporter. I'm just trying to see where they might be coming from in their thinking."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53pyap",
"comment_text": [
"Because the entire reason the Black Lives Matter campaign exists is because it is terribly obvious that not all lives matter to the justice system.",
"Black men are more likely to be arrested, more likely to have force used against them, more likely to be charged, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive a harsh sentence than people of other colors.",
"\"All Lives Matter\" is garbage. If all lives mattered there wouldn't be such clear racial disparities in the treatment of Americans by the law."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53qtya",
"comment_text": [
"BLM's message is reaffirming that Black lives have value, ",
". BLM's message is not that only Black lives matter. There's an unspoken \"too\" at the end of it. Black Lives Matter (too).",
"ALM is a way for people to purposely misconstrue the meaning so they can get upset and say, \"No, all lives matter, not just Black lives!\" But that wasn't the message. The reason it's insulting is because it dissipates the discussion to be had about being Black in America but unfocusing it, and when it's unfocused, very little can be done.",
"To say that all lives matter is true, but to say it as a way to dismiss what's happening ",
" to Black Americans is a trick."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5:The Conservative Argument that Obama has Worsened Race-Relations in the US. While President
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rpzz1
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d534sgt",
"comment_text": [
"I'm not a conservative pundit but if I hat to guess I'd say that that conclusion is being reached from the fact that race-related violence and controversy has been in the news frequently over the past few years or so. Ferguson, Baltimore, etcetera. This sort of thing seems to have occurred with much more frequency over the last few years, especially as compared to before 2008.",
"I'm not supporting that idea (I happen to think its really bad logic) but that's how someone might reach that conclusion."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d535fm7",
"comment_text": [
"The main argument is he is exploiting racial divisions to advance his political agenda, a la Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.",
"For example, some would say his policies are intentional exploiting the uproar over police shootings, and instead of supporting the police or trying to address the crime and poverty involved, he is using it as an excuse to push forward gun control. Some go so far as to suggest these shootings have been deliberately orchestrated.",
"Not a particularly strong argument, but if you entertain notions Obama is a secret Muslim, that one is not too hard to buy. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d53617n",
"comment_text": [
"One measure I make on the matter is the fact that I'm not hearing a lot of black people blaming Obama for the current state of race relations (cue a hundred people providing me evidence to prove I am wrong).",
"What does stand out in my mind is a short quote from the brilliant K. West: \"GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE\"",
"If it comes to the point where musicians are making these types of claims, I think it's evident there is a problem."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5362yv",
"comment_text": [
"First: It's not just conservatives who believe this.",
"Second: The main (and most logical) argument I've heard is that most of the reactions President Obama has had to recent events are reactive instead of pro-active. They say that by not doing anything to stop it in the first place these issues are becoming more heated and people are getting angrier, thus causing race-relations to get worse."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d536ri0",
"comment_text": [
"I think it's simply because before 2008 most people didn't have camera phones. Police havent gotten more violent at all, people are simply able to record it now and instantly show it to millions of people"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: how does one pull his grades together?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rly5k
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d528go3",
"comment_text": [
"What do you think the problem is? Do you just not turn in homework or do you For many, it's not a lack of understanding of the material but rather organization. I helped this with a few tricks, the big one below. I have ADHD so the school staff are obligated to assist you in any reasonable capacity for this sort of thing. Involve the school and your parents if necessary.",
" Make sure you do that homework and do that reading. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5293dn",
"comment_text": [
"Can your parents afford a tutor or does your school have a tutoring center? ",
"Also make an appointment with your guidence counselor right away. They can point you to different resources and hopefully guide you through this.",
"It will also help to figure out and narrow down exactly what the problem was that caused you to fail. And talk about this with the guidence counselor.",
"Is it procrastination or laziness? Start forcing (not try to but force) yourself to do your work right away. If you have trouble doing so, make it into a game. 20 minutes of homework, you get candy or watch a video, or browse reddit for 5 minutes, or some other small reward. If you find you are abusing the reward system add penalty time to the hw doing interval. ",
"Is your problem rebellious? Then who are you rebelling from? Stop thinking of it as studying for their sake (therefore causing not studying to be rebelious) and get in the mindset that you are studying for you and your future self.",
"Is it frustration? What fustrates you? Does the work seem too tough at any point causing you to give up? Talk to your counselor about tutoring and maybe look into seeing if you have a learning disability.",
"If your issue is something else then talk to your counselor about it.",
"Also study. If you have a test study. Read the textbook and take notes. Better yet pretend the teacher allows a notecard of notes and make the notecard as you would if it were real. Then test yourself or have a friend or parent test you on what was in the text. Remove anything you didnt need to look at the notecard for and add anything you needed that wasnt there . Study the notecard subjects again and repeat."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5296oi",
"comment_text": [
"You should probably still see a doctor. You may have a learning disability and getting help will be your best bet. Also see if you can record classes with a tape recorder app on your phone",
"Edit also are the headaches because of thinking or stress? I honestly completely understand the zoning out and thinking headaches problem. But i think those kinds of headaches for me are more caused by the stress of not knowing what to think."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d5299ir",
"comment_text": [
"It would be worth getting your hearing and vision tested, if you have issues with concentration. As an optometrist, many of my patients have such trouble due to fatigue, when in fact the students are very bright. You might want to start there.",
"Thinking you are 'stupid' isn't ",
" excuse. The phrase only serves to let you to beat yourself up and lack motivation to go further, making the problem worse. Go get tested for attention disorders so that teaching staff can identify the problem and help you. Good luck! "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d52aafe",
"comment_text": [
"A couple ideas:.",
"\n1) read ahead in the textbook or whatever book you are working from. You might only get 10% of it, but it may help you follow the teacher a bit better.",
"\n2) after class, ask the teacher for some help. Basically say what you said here -- you want to improve, you are not sure how, and you sometimes tune out because you get lost. Maybe just do this with your favorite teacher for a start.",
"\n3) pick any book that looks interesting and read it. A lot of stuff I know I learned from random reading, including fiction. I learn way more when it is just an interesting subject. Like I thought space travel was super cool, so I read all about the moon missions and the space shuttle. And sometimes whatever you read connects back to the things you learn in school I'm surprising ways.",
"\n4) when you get lost, raise your hand and ask a question.",
"\n5) try to explain what you learned today to a friend or your parents. If you can explain it to someone else, then you learned it. Sometimes, that helps you figure out what questions you need to look up online or ask your teacher.",
"\n6) do the homework. It's practice!\n7) find a smart kid in your class and say \"I am embarrassed, but I didn't get that thing the teacher said. Can you explain it again?\" There is always at least one smart kid who does not know how to make friends and is glad to have someone to talk to.",
"\n8) ask a teacher you had a year ago or a while ago for advice. (sometimes easier than asking the ones you have now).",
"\n9) maybe just pick one class that you want to improve in (your best class, or your worst).",
"\n10) I don't know you, but I bet at least some of your headache is based on freaking out that you don't know the answers, or won't know them. If you get a few successes going, this might go away. (could also be you need glasses, or better lighting?).",
"\nThese are ideas -- you can pick one to try, or a bunch. People learn differently. Find what works for you.",
"\nGood news is, you are asking this question pretty early. A lot of kids don't ask until they hit junior year, which is harder than your situation.",
"\nGood luck!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How can so many criminals get away with their crimes by getting absurdly low jail time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rjhqx
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.25
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51lct5",
"comment_text": [
"If the criminal is getting jail time for a crime, then they didn't get away with that crime. That's less of an issue of a criminal escaping law enforcement and more of an issue with the way sentencing works.",
"That being said, you need to be more specific in your question. What criminals are you talking about? What do you consider \"absurdly low jail time?\" If you're referring to Oscar Pistorius' sentencing, there's a pretty good discussion in the comments on the front page story about why the sentence was only 6 years."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51m31p",
"comment_text": [
"\"Absurdly low\" is a matter of opinion.",
"Sometimes the public doesn't understand the law, and the sentence is appropriate.",
"Sometimes the DA isn't confident they can prove a more serious crime, and offers a plea deal for a less serious on.",
"Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances the judge and/or DA is taking into account.",
"Sometimes the judge screws up and gives too lenient a sentence.",
"Sometimes the judge is corrupt."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51qv2v",
"comment_text": [
"Sometimes jails are too full & the state can't really afford to keep people locked up for long periods."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51luo4",
"comment_text": [
"Jail time is not, by definition, \"absurdly low\".",
"In any case where the defendant gets jail time, they didn't \"get away with it\". They were punished. The punishment was set, within legal bounds, by an impartial jury or judge.",
"If you think the punishment should be more, then you might like to see higher minimum sentences passed, though that's very expensive and has plenty of other side effects. Or, you could become a judge and hand down sentences yourself."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51q8qw",
"comment_text": [
"Are you a legal scholar? A Judge? A lawyer? If not, how do you know that the jail time is \"absurdly low\"? What makes jail time \"absurdly low\"? How do you quantify that? What is a regular jail time? What is a low, but not \"absurdly low\" jail time? How many criminals is \"so many\"? Got numbers or percentages? Any crimes in particular? Or all of them? Without this information, it's impossible to answer your question. If your question is \"Why do criminals not go to jail for as long as I want them to go to jail?\" then the answer is \"Because you aren't the one sentencing the criminals.\""
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How is a 12oz can of coca-cola and a 20oz bottle of coca-cola both one serving size of coke?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rjyio
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51q0lq",
"comment_text": [
"serving size has zero to do with nutrition. The laws are changing so that items must be labeled with a \"serving size\" that is reasonable - ie most people will drink the whole 20oz bottle in one sitting. In the past they could sneakily say the bottle had two servings to make it look like it had half the calories for people who don't pay attention to, or who don't understand, serving size. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51q11k",
"comment_text": [
"Serving sizes are set by the FDA, and were recently shifted to reflect what people actually eat (as opposed to what they're 'supposed' to eat). As part of this shifting the FDA changed the serving size of a soda from 8 to 12oz. In addition to that change the FDA realizes that when people buy a 20oz soda they're probably drinking the whole thing. So they made a 20oz bottle a serving. ",
"More generally the FDA rules work like this: A package that contains between one and two servings are generally supposed to be labeled as if the whole package is one serving, to reflect the fact that people will generally eat the whole package. ",
"If your package contains 2 or more servings but might be consumed in a single serving (e.g. a 24oz soda) then there should be a 'dual column' label that contains information for both a serving and for the whole package. ",
"Technically the new rules don't come into place for another 2 years, but a lot of manufacturers are already switching over. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51pstk",
"comment_text": [
"Because most people will drink the entire can or bottle in a single sitting, and not save some of it for later."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51qish",
"comment_text": [
"Makes sense. I always thought it was a \"recommended amount to eat/drink\" based on nutrition and calorie amount"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51pwur",
"comment_text": [
"So serving size has nothing to do with nutrition?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How do doctors explain to people that have been blind there whole life that they can't see?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ritoq
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.47
|
I'm very curious as to how doctors explain something completely unfathomable to a blind person that has never seen before. Is it as hard as sighted people trying to understand 4 dimensional objects or no?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51ga4b",
"comment_text": [
"Doctors don't have to explain to these people that they can't see. They are fully aware of the senses they have. If anything needs to be explained, it might be why sight can't be repaired. ",
"Blind people have good spacial reasoning, because they use it to remember the geometry of rooms that you simply look at every time you're in them. They have touch, and can build a spacial understanding of an object by holding it. Schools for the blind help them build these skills.",
"Your doctor didn't have to explain to you that you can't fly."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51h3vk",
"comment_text": [
"Your doctor didn't have to explain to you that you can't fly.",
"Mine did when I woke up in the hospital.",
"No, just joking. It is a good comparison. Explaining to blind people how seeing looks like would be much harder."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51j6i2",
"comment_text": [
"Still, as a side-question, in case of people who are blind from birth... Around what time do they realize that they're actually \"missing\" a sense? They have to be told by someone that other people can see and they can't. Because they couldn't by themselves imagine up a sense that they don't have.",
"How would such a discussion go?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51nr58",
"comment_text": [
"oh ok i understand thanks man"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51ntrl",
"comment_text": [
"oh yea i can see how this could help someone understand that they are missing a sense"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How can they show faces on shows like "To Catch A Predator" when the people explicitly ask not to be on TV?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rjvax
| 42
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.71
|
I have been on a recent kick of watching NBC Dateline's To Catch A Predator. From what I understand, when filming people in public, for the most part you require consent from the individual to show that film publicly. Youtube prank videos, social experiments, Television shows, etc. all show examples of people that either consent to their face being shown publicly, or examples of blurred out faces due to lack of consent. My question is: How is it that there are some criminals on "To Catch a Predator" that explicitly say, while on camera, "I don't want to be filmed" and hide their faces, yet NBC (or whoever) still have the right to show their faces? Is it because they are incarcerated and therefore lose that right?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51ovka",
"comment_text": [
"From what I understand, when filming people in public, for the most part you require consent from the individual to show that film publicly. ",
"Largely, if you are outside and in public, you have a right to capture images in plain view. There can be restrictions on locations available to plain view from public, but which are areas with an expectation of privacy (from the street into someone's bedroom window, or a locker room, for instance). The rules for private property can vary based on the consent of the owner, you can't trespass and film, since you're violating their expectation of privacy (well, and trespassing). Rules for conversations may differ, for instance wiretap laws may prohibit recording conversation without the consent of all parties. ",
"That being said, public recording has been somewhat contentious of late, and what your rights are, versus how your rights are presented to you (for instance by police or offended persons) may vary. Additionally, more specific laws for your jurisdiction may vary."
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51tkdc",
"comment_text": [
"You seem to be confused; a private setting does not mean ",
" has the right to privacy, rather, it means that ",
" gets to make the rules. Visitors/guests are not entitled to privacy when visiting someone else's property. TV shows like ",
" get permission from the property owner to use their property for the show."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d524rrn",
"comment_text": [
"I don't think that's true, but I don't know enough about privacy laws to dispute it."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51q97z",
"comment_text": [
"Dateline is classified as a \"news\" program. They are held to different standards than \"entertainment\" shows. They have much greater protections under the first amendment. Think about when the news will show a picture of an accused (or convicted) murderer. They do not get those people to sign waivers.",
"From what I understand, when filming people in public, for the most part you require consent from the individual to show that film publicly.",
"This is not necessarily true. The police will not arrest you just for filming another person (assuming you aren't committing some other crime in the process). If you are filming the police themselves (and they ask you to stop) it is more complicated. ",
"In addition, there are \"expectation of privacy\" issues as well. If you have no expectation of privacy (like a a sports event or walking down the street) you can be filmed without your permission.",
"The reason the vast majority of shows get a release is to protect them from lawsuits. Even that is not foolproof. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d52do55",
"comment_text": [
"If the police ask you to stop and you are in no way interfering with their duties, you can tell them to fuck off. The Supreme Court has already ruled that as long as you are in public and NOT interfering with them you can film all you want."
],
"score": 5
}
|
ELI5: Why do people complain about csgo gambling sites being available to children, but not about csgo being available to children?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4riir2
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51cpx6",
"comment_text": [
"Violence in videogames is an ongoing debate. Gambling is something generally agreed to be addictive and dangerous. ",
"Plenty of people are against CSGO being available to children, but it's a much more complex issue (from the public perception, at least). The gambling aspect is easy. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51d18b",
"comment_text": [
"Game age restrictions are not legally-binding. They're there to inform parents, and most game stores won't sell mature-rated games to children, but it's not illegal to do so, and many parents have no problem with their kids playing such games."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51d18b",
"comment_text": [
"Game age restrictions are not legally-binding. They're there to inform parents, and most game stores won't sell mature-rated games to children, but it's not illegal to do so, and many parents have no problem with their kids playing such games."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51cmli",
"comment_text": [
"Do you mean that CS:Go should be unavailable to kids because of violence, or because of potential pseudo-addiction? Gambling is legally iffy, and can ruin lives with some people. Violence and addiction in gaming, though, is a different deal. If we starting having problems with a child's access to that, we'll be on a slippery slope. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51crpj",
"comment_text": [
"CSGO's \"availability\" to children is mitigated by the fact that the game is rated Mature (17+) and many stores would likely not sell it to an unaccompanied minor, so the game is only (likely) available to children via the consent of the parent.",
"However, the gambling portion has been supplemented by freely accessible web pages that are not controlled or managed by the makers of CSGOs. Anyone can visit them and \"gamble\".",
"Furthermore, the CSGO rating is 17+ whereas most gambling is 18+ or 21+, so there are different thresholds, not to mention one is just industry recommendation and the other is a legal issue."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: What is the difference between sexual assault and rape, and why would a victim accuse the assailant of one over the other? (Possibly NSFW?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4ri576
| 6
|
Other
| true
| true
| 0.87
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51a3fj",
"comment_text": [
"I believe sexual assault is more of a broad term, with rape included. With rape there has to be intercourse but sexual assault can be almost any unwanted sexual contact"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51b531",
"comment_text": [
"TL/DR; Semantics. Rape is a type of sexual assault, but sexual assault isn't necessarily rape.",
"It's legal terms. Rape usually includes some kind of penetration while sexual assault is a term that more broadly covers any type of sexual act. Rape is a type of sexual assault, but sexual assault isn't necessarily rape. E.g. groping someone on a train/bus is sexual assault but not rape while penetrating the person in the same situation would be rape. ",
"as an example ",
"this dude",
" \"placed\" his semen in a coworkers coffee for a long period of time. That is considered sexual assault but not rape. I don't know what became of it in the end, and i'm too lazy/don't care enough to figure it out"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51dzc6",
"comment_text": [
"This is not legal advice. You should never take legal advice from anonymous or pseudonymous internet people. ",
"These are technical legal terms. They vary by jurisdiction. If you provide a jurisdiction I can answer more thoroughly. ",
"Speaking very broadly with the caveat that this may not apply to any specific jurisdiction, rape generally requires some form of penetration. It may be gender neutral, it may not be vaginal specific, and it may include cases in which someone was forced to penetrate, but penetration is typically involved. ",
"With the same caveat sexual assault typically means unwanted contact (assault) of a sexual nature. This is much more broad than rape. ",
"Typically a rape will also be a sexual assault, but not vice versa. If an act that is a rape is also a sexual assault due only to the components of the act that constituted the rape, a defendant generally cannot be charged with both. The sexual assault becomes a \"lesser included charge\" that the jury can convict on instead of, but not in addition to, the rape charge. ",
"Prosecutorial charging decisions are more art than science. Remember that prosecutors do not have an objective view of what happened. They have evidence and testimony that they will present to a jury, and an opponent doing the same. What they charge on is typically based on what they feel the evidence will successfully convince a jury to believe about what happened. They usually favor higher charges over lower because of their prosecutorial role, but they also must take into account likelihood of success. Specific incidents may also require them to consider other more specific concerns. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51amoq",
"comment_text": [
"These are legal terms and thus this depends on the jurisdiction.",
"For example, Maryland defines two degrees of \"rape\" and four degrees of \"sexual offense.\" In the Maryland statues, rape is limited to \"vaginal intercourse\" whereas \"sexual offense\" is for \"sexual acts\" or \"sexual conduct.\"",
"A prosecuter would charge whatever it is that the act meets the criteria for, usually trying to get whichever allows for the harshest sentence."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51g5sa",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you. I wasn't asking for myself, but I hear sometimes of celebrities / professional athletes being charged with sexual assault and just wondered what the technical differences were."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How do video game developers make profit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rj1mb
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
It appears that a lot of time and money go into the development of making a video game. You have to pay all of the programmers, designers, legal, etc. to build this game, and what happens if it flops? For example. Look at this game: That looks like it would cost a bit of money to make but I don't see many people buying it, and there's thousands of other "D-list" games out there just like this, people probably aren't buying them, or at least not in a high volume. So how do they make profit?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51h6a7",
"comment_text": [
"If it flops they don't. That's part of why the price of games is high; it needs to cover the expense of developing that game and also give the company the ability to absorb the loss of having a total dud of a game that doesn't sell sometimes."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51hxdz",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, it likely cost quite a bit to make that game, and its not selling very well. However, people may still be buying it 5 years from now and gradually cover the cost of the game. Also keep in mind this is a foreign game likely more popular in other countries, or on platforms other than Steam."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51j28e",
"comment_text": [
"Also worth noting this is the 13th sequel (or... something) of this game and it's apparently it's 30-year anniversary. That doesn't sound like \"unpopular\", and also sounds like something you'd bet on making money. ",
"Additionally, this game may be using an engine that's freely (or cheaply) available - many games use pre-existing engines developed externally. That cuts down on costs by a ",
". "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51i7hc",
"comment_text": [
"It depends on the game. For a game that is being published by a studio there are usually marketing teams and campaigns that push it to their demographic. These are funded games and the studios have invested in games they think will sell. On the other hand you have indie games that are self published. The majority of these do not make a profit and some never see the light of day. The ones that do are well thought out and have unique ideas, and usually travel by word of mouth and reviews, especially if they are published on a major platform such as steam. The budget for those type of games are usually very small and most of them fail. There are a few out there that boast interesting concepts and poor execution that make a ton of money (made easier by a platform like steam) even with broken controls/ai/unfinished products. They usually charge very little for these with hopes that people will unwittingly buy a product that was made with very little effort. Again, not every game makes a profit and some make more/less of a profit then others. Then there's the concept of microtransactions, which some people are willing to spend loads of money on and since anyone can put out a product on something like the app stores it makes it very easy to put out small product that makes a lot of money. People see it as 10 cents here, 50 cents there, harmless. When in reality these are the ones to make the most profit because so little development time and cost and the fact that people get addicted to that kind of thing."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d51kirm",
"comment_text": [
"The Romance of the Three Kingdoms series is kind of a niche title based on Chinese historical fiction. The games have been around since the 1980s and the basic formula hasn't changed much since the days of the NES. Choose a general from one of three kingdoms, develop your armies and fight for control of China. These will never be blockbuster titles that sell hundreds of millions of copies, but there are enough people that are into turn based strategy games and Chinese history to make a series of games that combine the two at least a little profitable.",
"It also helps that since the story and basic gameplay haven't changed in decades the developer doesn't have to start from scratch every time they release a sequel."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why is any time between midnight and noon considered "morning", but from noon to midnight there are different classifications?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4rgzlz
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
I work nights and I don't like it when people say good morning at 1am because I still consider it night. But then after 12pm there', afternoon, evening, night and sometimes other words people choose depending on time of day. I had thought maybe it's to distinguish between am and PM but no one is going to mistake 1 o'clock at night with 1 o'clock in the afternoon... Please explain the logic behind this, thanks!
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d512q0v",
"comment_text": [
"Well, we obviously separate the day into more delineations because we are active during the day so it is more useful to categorize it. We do different activities in the morning, afternoon, and evening.",
"While you might call 3am \"3 in the morning\", it wouldn't really act much like morning at that point. You aren't going to have breakfast at that point. It is just that it is the 3:00 that comes before noon, so it is counted as morning since everything before noon on a given day is considered morning.",
"On the other hand, 7pm is after noon, but we don't say \"7 in the afternoon\" we say \"7 in the evening\". That is because we separate the day into morning, afternoon, and evening. You spend the evening resting and having dinner and getting ready for bed, unlike the time just after noon while you would still be working.",
"Night, on the other hand, is just for sleeping.",
"Of course, in modern life, we are often up at night and asleep during the daytime."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d513ah1",
"comment_text": [
"ou have the wee hours of the morning, dawn, mid morning, 0 dark thirty, and daybreak.\nPeople are just less likely to use common terms for them because everything between 9 and noon is them at work, and they're not awake for the other ones"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d511pyx",
"comment_text": [
"Dawn, sunrise. Noon, afternoon, evening, night."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d511xxw",
"comment_text": [
"I wouldn't say midnight to noon is morning. 3-4 AM is still the night. It's a determination made by the sun's position. So night is longer because half the time the sun is non visible. Then it's broken up into parts of the day depending on where the sun is or what normal activities we perform."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d512jck",
"comment_text": [
"I consider it this way, but I've found that almost everyone I see after midnight says \"morning\". And people say X in the morning for pretty much any time in that twelve hour period."
],
"score": 1
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.