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: How are animal parts that are naturally exposed to fecal matter such as intestines prepared so that they are safe to eat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5gei3p
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.81
|
I know that when we slaughter animals for food we generally use their intestines for things like sausages and hot dogs. However these parts are also the same parts that their food travels through as it's being digested which ultimately means it touches their poop. How are these parts that are inevitably exposed to their fecal matter prepared or cleaned so that it's okay to eat them? I should probably clarify that I want to know how they're cleaned so that they don't absorb potentially harmful chemicals. I know that cooking them kills a lot of the bacteria, but they can't just be shipped without being cleaned because the bacteria present in fecal matter would rapidly accelerate the rate that the food would decompose at, so logically there would have to be a way to clean most of this out without also having the meat absorb dangerous chemicals that would potentially be used to clean them. This is what I want to know about.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darnly8",
"comment_text": [
"That is in fact, more or less, exactly what they do.",
"There are plenty of cleaning agents that are perfectly safe for human consumption. And anything washed as a part of processing is thoroughly rinsed afterwards."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darn9i9",
"comment_text": [
"They are washed and then cooked.",
"While washing removes a lot of the nasties, it doesn't get them all.",
"The bacteria and parasites that may be present in fecal matter are killed by ordinary cooking, such as boiling in a stew pot, or baking."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darnnpa",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you for clarifying that."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_das1if8",
"comment_text": [
"Sausage casings are made from the thin outer membrane layer so much less exposed to the dreaded \"poopicles\". How people eat \"chitlins\" (whole hog intestines) is beyond me. I hear there is an unholy stink in the kitchen but I have no first hand experience."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darnaes",
"comment_text": [
"Well yes, I'm aware that they're washed. I probably should have specified to ask how they are washed so that they don't absorb potentially harmful chemicals."
],
"score": 1
}
|
Eli5: the Two-man rule, in relation to the launching of Nuclear weapons.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5gd9xd
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darb7bs",
"comment_text": [
"It is so one person can't go rogue and set them off their self. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darbbtv",
"comment_text": [
"The president can't wake up and just decide to launch nuclear weapons for no reason. He will need the Secretary of Defense to agree with him. If they both agree they can launch nuclear weapons without anyone being able to stop them. It serves as a sort of last resort defense against the president going mad and ending the world."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darbnj9",
"comment_text": [
"United States Deputy Secretary of Defense (vice-secretary of defense) takes his place. In theory the president can dismiss a secretary of defense who refuses to follow his order to launch nuclear weapons as well."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darbfev",
"comment_text": [
"What if the Secretary of Defense is Dead or incapacitated? Who else is on this magical murder list? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darbe89",
"comment_text": [
"A crazy person who hates the world has somehow gotten assigned to the control room at the nuclear missile silo. If that crazy person decides to launch, a push of the button, and good bye world. ",
"Probably not the way to control such a powerful weapon. If instead every step from the president's order to launch requires 2 people, the chance of a crazy person somewhere in the middle injecting a fake order to launch or executing the launch is stopped. ",
"For example, I want to spend the night at my friend's house. Mom is a pushover, and can be pressured into giving permission. Dad is strict. I can't just bully mom into giving me permission, I need dad's permission as well. ",
"For example, in the control room, 2 identical control panels, the launch button on both control panels has to be pushed at the same time to launch. The safe that has the launch key is locked with 2 locks, so 2 people need the combination to open it. The launch order needs 2 people's codes to decrypt it. The order to launch is not decrypted unless it comes from 2 different types of communication methods, and so on."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What causes ingrown hairs after shaving?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5gc9j6
| 12
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.69
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar85cw",
"comment_text": [
"I've been struggling with this on my neck, and I've almost perfected a cure for myself! Use these steps/techniques:",
"Take a hot shower or soak a hand towel with hot water and apply it to area to be shaved.",
"In the shower don't use shampoo on the particular area as it steals natural oils from the hair. Use conditioner only.",
"Use single blade razors; they don't cut the hairs too short. Also, don't stretch the skin when shaving.",
"Finish with beard oil (I hear coconut oil works too) and if you can apply a lotion containing Glycolic Acid (this kills the bacteria that irritates the skin).",
"???",
"Profit"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar8ae7",
"comment_text": [
"Bump Fighter razors. Single blade with a guard on it that will prevent a really close shave. I can't shave any closer on my neck or I'll get grown hairs. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar8cgb",
"comment_text": [
"Two options. That have worked for me",
"Exfoliate using an abrasive sponge. Ha worked really well for me in that past. Had the same issue with my neck ingrown hairs ",
"Grow a beard!!! I'm 9 mo into this and it has been a rewarding experience."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar6lnk",
"comment_text": [
"Clean blade completely each pass, 0 hairs in razor, if its trouble getting it completely clean look into getting a different razor. If it doesn't clear easily its not going to shave well."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar7vbs",
"comment_text": [
"How does that work? Also why does it happen in the first place?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is there an emphasis on the Secretary of Defense being civilian as opposed to military?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5gbtgr
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
From the SecDef Wikipedia page: an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force.[14] It seems natural that the person who is in charge of the military have extensive military experience
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daqz5gc",
"comment_text": [
"One of the bedrock principles of liberal democracy is that the military is ",
" apolitical and firmly under civilian control. ",
"The SecDef is the 2nd-highest-ranking person in the military chain of command, which would give a hypothetical ex-military SecDef a large amount of political power."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daqz4zb",
"comment_text": [
"The US has a very strong tradition of civilian control over the military. When the Department of Defense was created after the Second World War, the law stated very clearly that there had to be delay of several years after leaving active duty before someone can be Secretary of Defense.",
"The idea is that while military experience can be helpful, a life as a civilian is ",
" to the position.",
"Since that law was passed, only once has Congress passed a waiver to allow someone to become SecDEF without waiting those several years -- and even then, the law that granted the waiver made it clear that that act should not be used as precedent for a future such confirmation."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar7flv",
"comment_text": [
"I'm going to piggyback on this since it is the top comment. The reason that civillian control of the military is important is that often, when it is not controlled by civillians, the military starts getting involved in politics, and that often leads to military leaders deciding they could do a better job governing than the elected officials. Since they have all the heavy weapons, they then take over the country and institute a military dictatorship or junta (when a group of generals rules instead of just one). The SECDEF and secretaries of the army, navy, etc are all civillians specifically to try to prevent this. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darfwic",
"comment_text": [
"This is also why many people have criticized the practice of the President saluting soldiers. Reagan started doing it, and now everyone has to or else they get yelled at for not respecting the military."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dar0sfx",
"comment_text": [
"One of the hallmarks of a stable society is civilian control of government. Military control ends in dictatorships due to them being the people with the best weapons. That being said most Secretaries of Defense have had some experience with the Armed Forces whether as a junior officer, or a civilian attaché to the DOD. Also, being a Senior military officer is an established path to the American Presidency taken by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: How do we (in first world countries) contribute to the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" and other marine trash issues?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g7pvv
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
I'm speaking as a person living in the middle of the midwestern United States. One of the frequently given reasons to recycle plastic is the preservation of marine life, and typically accompanying this reason are pictures or videos of turtles and fish getting trapped and/or strangled by said plastic. For me personally though, I an stuck in a bit of a disconnect. I want to protect marine life, and I see that plastic waste in the ocean harms marine life. But how does my plastic trash end up in the ocean rather than my local landfill?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daqd6jh",
"comment_text": [
"A lot of the trash is blown off beaches or picked up by tides off of beaches world wide. ",
"Other trash was thrown in by careless boaters. ",
"Trash is washed into rivers and sewage system pipes that flow into the ocean in heavy rains. ",
"Faulty sewage treatment plants, or sewage treatment plants that are overwhelmed by heavy rains.",
"There was a time when cities like ",
"New York City",
" dumped their sewage sludge and other materials, oxygen concentrations in waters in the locations like the ",
"New York Bight",
" by the barge full between 1949 and 1969.",
"Now ",
"China dumps between 1.3 to 3.5 metric tons of plastic in the ocean",
". ",
"Military and nuclear waste dumped in the oceans as far back as the 1940s",
".",
"Illegal dumping of industrial and construction waste into the ocean either by ship or by truck.",
"Some trash is picked up by birds and dropped in the ocean.",
"Check out the EPA's page on "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daqhec8",
"comment_text": [
"So then, would it be right to say that ocean debris is not a valid reason to recycle in the US since it's illegal to dump trash in the ocean anyways? ",
"Edit: Not saying there aren't valid reasons, just wondering whether or not this is one of them."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daqnn1i",
"comment_text": [
"Not certain what you mean? ",
"Recycling to keep stuff from ending up in the ocean would be a good goal providing the recycled material, or some unrecyclable part of what was collected, did not find its way dumped in the ocean whether legal or not."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daqou6e",
"comment_text": [
"My thinking is this: If I throw my waste in the trash, then it's not going into the ocean. Therefore, recycling it instead of throwing it in the trashcan would not have any effect on the amount of trash in the ocean. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_darmmae",
"comment_text": [
"Throwing your waste into the trash instead of recycling is no better than recycling it if you cannot confirm that either method does not result in dumping in the ocean or a landfill. The whole purpose of recycling is to reuse the material over and over so that it never ends up in the ocean or a landfill. One of the problems of recycling things like computers, etc. is that the supposedly recycled computers end up overseas in fields where kids take them apart and melt the parts to obtain the gold in them and create a toxic mess that is killing them."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What is the strategy in racing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g5zmm
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapqrqs",
"comment_text": [
"Car racing? Horse racing? Foot racing?",
"There's definitely strategy involved but you need to narrow the focus here."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapqw5j",
"comment_text": [
"Rally racing? When in doubt, floor it!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapr3gs",
"comment_text": [
"strategy depends on which type of racing you do.",
"on endurance racing, fuel stops is the major factor. it takes a very long time to come into the pits and refuel. by the time you fuel up, the person that was just behind you is now much more ahead of you. you have to decide whether you want to take on more fuel, which lets you last longer on the track, but makes you slower. or less fuel, which lets you be faster, but you have to come in again for fuel.",
"tires is the other major factor. tires don't wear evenly. tires don't perform evenly. if the weather changes, the tires you had may not be the best tires for now. if the sky goes from sunny to cloudy, the tires that your competitor were using may now have a huge advatange over yours. if it starts raining, your dry tires will be extremely dangerous and cause a crash. but rain tires are much slower than dry tires in the dry. ",
"driving style. an aggressive driver can put down a great lap time but wear out the tires in 20 laps. how far you push the car to balance fuel and tire wear vs what your position is in the race is a strategy.",
"in mixed class racing, choosing how to pass other vehicle determines what choices the following competitor cars end up in their passing strategies. timing the pass could mean the competitor gets stuck behind a slow passed vehicle as you pull away. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapr40z",
"comment_text": [
"Too vague a question, clarify as necessary and repost.",
"Removed"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daps41f",
"comment_text": [
"You really need to be more specific, but I can tell you a bit about the strategy involved in a middle distance foot race like a 5k or 10k.",
"In a race like the 100m dash, the goal is to accelerate up to your maximum speed as quickly as possible and hold on to it for as long as you can. You push yourself as hard as you can for a little under 10 seconds (if you're a world-class sprinter) and then you're done.",
"A longer race requires a bit of strategy. You can't exert yourself at a maximum effort for the entire duration of a 10k race so you have to either set a moderate pace at the start, gradually increasing your speed as the race goes on until you hit the final half lap or so where you've hopefully saved enough energy for a final kick to the finish line while all the other runners are exhausted or go hard right from the start, hoping that everyone else will be just as tired as you from trying to keep up that they won't have the energy to beat you in a sprint to the finish line. Steve Prefontaine was known for this style of racing, saying something like \"The best pace is suicide pace and today's a good day to die\".",
"Some runners like to start a race in the lead since it allows them to control the pace of the early stages of a race and lets them run in a way that they're accustomed to. If you can hear that the runner next to you is starting to breathe a little heavier you may decide to speed up a little to make them work even harder or you may decide to just hold the pace that you're at now, saving your strength if you think that you'll be able to outrun him at the finish. Others prefer to stay behind the leader for the bulk of the race since you don't face as much wind resistance as the person in front. The effect isn't as pronounced as it is in car or bike racing, but it lets you save a small amount of energy that might make the difference when it comes time to make your move.",
"The tendency to hold back during the first 80% of a 5k or 10k gets a lot of criticism with people complaining that it essentially turns the race into a glorified 200m dash and has led to results like the Olympic 10k gold medal time being worse than the Paralympic 10k gold medal time."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why Taiwan and United States have severed diplomatic ties.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g6y08
| 22
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapywzm",
"comment_text": [
"Because the People's Republic of China (usually just called \"China\") gets really mad when other countries recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan). The US has decided to not recognize the ROC to avoid antagonizing the PRC."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daq3hzq",
"comment_text": [
"The Chinese Civil War ended in about 1950 with the Communist insurgents taking control of the country. The losing side retreated to the island of Taiwan, where they continued to claim to be the legitimate government of China. The US recognized that claim until 1979 (though signals of the change started in 1971-72). The US now recognizes the Communist government as the legitimate government of China.",
"Both the mainland Chinese government nor the Taiwanese government continue to consider mainland China and Taiwan to be the same country. The Taiwanese government continues to claim to be the legitimate government of the whole of China. The mainland Chinese government continues to claim Taiwan as part of China.",
"Since neither side believes that they are separate countries, the US has determined that it cannot recognize both governments.",
"That said, there is definitely a relationship between the US and Taiwan. It's not as if the US refuses to deal with Taiwan at all. It's just a complicated, delicate diplomatic situation."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapynhm",
"comment_text": [
"The US and the Republic of China (Taiwan) have never had \"official\" diplomatic ties",
"Yes they have. In fact, the US recognized the ROC as the ",
" legitimate Chinese government until 1971. That year, they switched recognition from the ROC to the PRC.",
"The real answer to OP's question is to avoid antagonizing the PRC. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daq7cai",
"comment_text": [
"Also a question that the PRC and RoC would rather not answer."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daq7cai",
"comment_text": [
"Also a question that the PRC and RoC would rather not answer."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: How can some drinks have over 100% of a vitamin?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g4y69
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
I'm drinking a vita rain right now and the label says it has 150% vitamin C. How is that possible?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daphsu2",
"comment_text": [
"Hey bud. The percentage is based on the recommended daily intake which is basically a guide to what would be a good amount of each vitamin to take. Your drink has 150% of that number which means it has more.\nSo basically, recommended daily intake of vitamin c is 90mg. Your drink has 135mg."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daphv1e",
"comment_text": [
"Hey thanks so much! Perfect ELI5 answer."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daphjss",
"comment_text": [
"I get the feeling you're reading the nutrition information, which is showing the daily percentage of expected intake, not the percentage of the drink that is that substance.",
"So if you get 150% of Vitamin A at 75mg, for example, that would mean you needed 50mg for your daily intake, but instead got 150%."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daphjxv",
"comment_text": [
"It has more than your ",
".",
"It isn't saying anything about the actual composition of the drink itself.",
"Something that contained 100% of your recommended daily intake of iron in one serving wouldn't be a big hunk of iron."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daphwhp",
"comment_text": [
"Okay that makes sense. Thanks a ton."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How did climate change, a natural, scientific issue, become a political issue? Furthermore, how does acceptance of it support the liberal agenda and go against the conservative agenda?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g3thc
| 19
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap8dwz",
"comment_text": [
"The fact of climate change is a scientific issue. ",
" about climate change automatically becomes a political issue.",
"The Liberal/Conservative divide generally comes about due to the different ideas about the role of the Federal government in dictating people's behavior. The US as a country was set up as a true union of States with their own individual governments. The Federal government was set up with a specific set of responsibilities and powers, and it was later clarified in the Tenth Amendment that those powers not specifically deligated to the Federal government are reserved to the States or People. In other words the Fed is capable of doing what the Constitution says it can do ",
".",
"Conservatives generally pay a lot of attention to this structure and figure that nowhere in the Constitution does it say \"Earth, fire, wind, water, heart! By your powers combined, the Federal Government is Captain Planet!\" Dealing with the threat of climate change is clearly reserved to the States or People so any climate-justified regulation, grants, etc. on the Federal level is a bad thing.",
"Liberals on the other hand tend to be much more group-oriented and concerned about collective action, and climate change responses are really only effective if everyone acts together. The Federal government has its fingers in everyone's pie so it is an obvious one-stop-shop for instituting climate change plans. They are less concerned about following the specific allocation of powers and figure the legitimacy of the need (and a dose of \"Heart!\") justifies the Federal government becoming Captain Planet regardless."
],
"score": 13
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap89hf",
"comment_text": [
"If \"climate change was real\" it would force companies to spend money to stop them from accelerating climate change. So, this is a matter of cherry picking data in order to make money. In the US, the left is typically pro-environment and pro-regulation (to that end), and the right is pro-business, anti-regulation, and anti-science (that doesn't conform with what they want).",
"This makes it political."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapc27q",
"comment_text": [
"but it ignores the fact that a very large portion of those on the right simply deny that it's an issue at all.",
"This is a typical reaction of people to ideas they disagree with: Demonization, denial, straw man argumentation, etc. It isn't unique to Conservatives and can be observed in any area of disagreement with deeply held beliefs or when people are indoctrinated with a belief they understand incompletely.",
"I think it is more instructive to focus on the central reasons why conservatives and liberals disagree rather than broad cognitive errors which occur in any ideological conflict."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap9o49",
"comment_text": [
"No, that's not it. ",
"Global warming/climate change became a politicized issue in basically one year, between 1988-1989, because of a convergence of factors.",
" ",
" came out 17 years later.",
"No question that that movie really solidified Gore as the face of climate change politics, both pro and con, but it was already a massively-politicized area by that time."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapcjxq",
"comment_text": [
"This argument would make sense if the republican party didn't constantly use the federal government to control state behavior outside of its responsibilities.",
"One of the biggest reasons conservatives are against additional climate regulation is because it directly conflicts with their core support of coal, steel, and other industries that would be hurt by climate regulations. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How do prosecutors prove someone had been sexually assaulted decades ago? Assuming no physical evidence, isn't it all hearsay?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g3fs9
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.8
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap4hin",
"comment_text": [
"Hearsay has a specific definition, which is saying that someone made a statement to you that can't be independently verified. So, if I say, \"John told me he raped Susan,\" that's hearsay because I'm claiming that he told me something that can't be independently proven. For such a confession, John would have to make it directly in order for it to be legal evidence. However, saying, \"I saw John rape Susan,\" is not hearsay because you're making a statement about your own memories. The information isn't \"secondhand\" so to speak.",
"To answer your question more directly such a case would probably be heavily dependent on witness statements, photographic records, and police reports, although without physical evidence of any kind it would probably be quite difficult.",
"EDIT: For a more detailed and accurate explanation of hearsay, please refer to the responses to this comment."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap6cfq",
"comment_text": [
"This is not the definition of hearsay.",
"Under the Federal Rules (which wouldn't apply to a state law crime like rape, but are nonetheless typically representative of state evidentiary rules), hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted and as a general matter (more on this later) is barred by the rules of evidence. \nTherefore, if you were to testify in court that \"John (the defendant) told me he raped Susan\" the out of court statement (John's confession that he raped Susan) being offered to prove that John in fact raped Susan, would be hearsay and accordingly disallowed (either by pre-trial hearings or the defense attorney objecting to the witnesses statement).",
"However, and this is a big however, there are various exceptions to the general prohibition on hearsay, including, and of particular relevance here, a rule which essentially says out of court statements made by the defendant are not hearsay. ",
"As such, because John is the defendant, his out of court statement made in the presence of the witness may be offered as evidence that he raped Susan. It's important to note, however, that the statement was made in the presence of this particular witness. If, for example, John told James he raped Susan, and then James told Mary, Mary would not be able to take the stand and testify to James' statement that John confessed to him that he raped Susan, because the out of court statement (James saying \"John told me he raped Susan\") was not made by the defendant (it was made by James). Other rules of evidence would preclude Mary from testifying to matters she has no personal knowledge of (e.g. she did not personally hear John confess). ",
"However, just because there are two layers of hearsay in the above example, does not necessarily prevent Mary from testifying for purposes of proving that John raped Susan. If, for example, John told James he raped Susan, and as a result, James became overwhelmed by excited emotion and fear, then ran directly to Mary and blurted out that John had just confessed to him about raping Susan, James' statement made to Mary, may be offered by Mary to prove that John confessed to the rape, which may be used as evidence that John raped Susan (the exception to the hearsay rule being an \"excited utterance\").",
"It's not about independent verification of the statement, but instead the rationale typically focuses instead on \"indicia of reliability\" (I'm going off the top of my head here, this phrase may be used in a different legal standard, but this is the gist of it) surrounding the statement. ",
"I can go on all day about hearsay, so let me know if you want me to clarify."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap4rir",
"comment_text": [
"This. Too many people confuse hearsay with \"he says, she says\". "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap9ehb",
"comment_text": [
"Lawyer here.",
"So, if I say, \"John told me he raped Susan,\" that's hearsay because I'm claiming that he told me something that can't be independently proven",
"You're absolutely right about hearsay not just being \"anything without physical evidence.\"",
"What's interesting is that your example actually ",
". It's a statement by a party opponent, covered by rule 801(d) \"statements which are not hearsay\", (2)(b) (an opposing party's statement the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true).",
"Things like that are part of the reason even lawyers have trouble with it at times.",
"Broadly, the reason we ban hearsay isn't because it can't be independently proven (the same ",
" be true of any testimony not supported by physical evidence). We ban hearsay because (with certain exceptions) it's not really possible to cross-examine the person who made the underlying statement. Steven tells you he saw John rape Susan, but if Steven doesn't take the stand there's no way for the jury to gauge how reliable he himself is, and no way for him to dispute that he actually said it.",
"But John ",
" take the stand in his own defense and state that he never said that to you, which allows the jury to asses who is more likely to be telling the truth about whether he said that to you (and infer that he only would have admitted it to you if it were true)."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dapa0xw",
"comment_text": [
"Fair enough. My knowledge of the subject is obviously limited and I defer to your expertise. Thank you for clarifying and for correcting me."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do baby clothes have pockets?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g36rk
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.83
|
It's not like they need them to carry spare change or their phone, or do they?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap2d2h",
"comment_text": [
"It's mainly just for aesthetics. Baby clothes are modeled to look similar to adult clothes, and we think that clothes without pockets look a bit strange."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap5iv8",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly. It's the same reason that some women's clothes have fake or otherwise useless pockets. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap66g0",
"comment_text": [
"I've wondered that. ",
"A different but related question I've had is: Why to baby clothes have baby sized buttons? It's not like the baby is actually going to be able to use them. Instead mom and dad need to fiddle with them using their fat adult-sized hands. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap5v9h",
"comment_text": [
"Though now that I think about it, why not put a pacifier or some tissues or something in them? That way you don't forget to bring that stuff wherever you take the baby."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap66ku",
"comment_text": [
"That's what a \"diaper bag\" is for. You stick everything in it you might need when you take the kid somewhere."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: My Facebook feed is giving me random mobile game advertisements everyday where animals are abused in a cartoony way even if the games do not revolve around this, why is this becoming a trend? it feels like provocation!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fyci2
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danzbbx",
"comment_text": [
"It sure got your attention, didn't it? It also goes for huge boobs, gross skin conditions, things that fall inside the uncanney valley, etc. -- advertisers want to get your attention, which is hard in a 300x300 square, so they try to hook into your lizard-brain that won't let you look away."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao008j",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, it's kind of obvious when I think about it, perhaps I should have asked why Facebook allows these kind of advertisements but that would've been dumber even... I also got another answer by someone who answered that as well and that set me straight in the process."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danzaok",
"comment_text": [
"Is there any clearminded person that could explain this advertising strategy to me?",
"That sounds like a response from incredibly sheltered and naive people. Resource management involving food has historically involved hunting and slaughtering of wild and farmed animals. For many people in the world the image of two people carrying a bound pig doesn't imply a distasteful killing of an \"innocent pig\" but rather the preparation of a feast of celebration. Chopping a moose until it instantly pops into cartoon meat is a comically sanitized version of the reality of slaughtering food animals.",
"The actual issue is that your social group is so far removed from reality that meat comes from the deli in slices and cartoons obliquely referencing the truth are considered offensive."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danzrj8",
"comment_text": [
"I had to read it a few times, but it makes sense now. ",
"To me it seems offensive, but I eat meat daily not thinking about the process. I'm not getting angered by eating meat so why WOULD a cartoon of chopping said animal into pieces depicting the truth anger me if that doesn't even hurt one?",
"Never thought about it that way, somehow the advertisement seems to carry a deeper meaning all of a sudden. Thanks!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao153y",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks, no I cannot allow myself to get angry over the truth, that would make me a very small minded being. ",
"Actually I had to laugh because I basically let myself get swayed by a stupid videogame advertisement that showed me what an idiot I am. Serves me right"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: What exactly are we smelling when we smell that its going to snow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fxhk4
| 91
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.82
|
I know i cant be alone in saying that i can always smell when its going to snow, especially the first snow/frost of the season. There's a distinct smell in the air that's just impossible to ignore. i was just wondering if anyone knew what exactly it is that causes that oh-so-nostalgic scent every winter.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dansxwx",
"comment_text": [
"Cold air holds less moisture. It's hard to smell things in cold, dry air. ",
"When the humidity rises, you feel it on your skin, and your nose can smell things better. The \"smell of snow\" is your heightened smell sensitivity thanks to humidity, despite the cold. "
],
"score": 58
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daoh7gb",
"comment_text": [
"You can smell snow in MN it is an odd pleasant smell that only happens before or when it is snowing. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daoe3r3",
"comment_text": [
"The same as the smell of rain coming. Not sure what coming snow smells like(im Australian), but I love the smell of rain coming in the air. All of the fresh smells of dirt and grass and plants."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daogy7g",
"comment_text": [
"I live near mountains so when the rain comes it messes with some plants and you can smell the \"rain\" coming so great. I've just never been able to smell snow coming, that sounds beast. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daohvib",
"comment_text": [
"Wow cool"
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: How is US foreign policy decided and implemented?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fwrhi
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
Who exactly, in the US Government, decides what America does in the larger world, according to what ideas and what interests. What institutions are empowered to decide? Is the President able to do whatever he wants (almost) or are there checks and balances in place? Also what role does private lobby play?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danltrd",
"comment_text": [
"The President decides foreign policy. His authority to use the military is limited by congress, and any treaties he negotiates have to be ratified by the Senate, but his authority on how the US conducts business is what's done. It's implemented through the State Department run by the Secretary of State who is appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dano2yo",
"comment_text": [
"The president's authority to use the military isn't really limited by congress, as we no longer declare wars before military action. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act is unclear and has been officially denied by every administration, I think, even as they complied with the Act to avoid a dispute."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danowir",
"comment_text": [
"I would argue it's effectively curtailed by the Congressional budgeting powers. You can't fight a war you can't get paid for. Gerald Ford found this out the hard way when he tried to send troops back to Vietnam in 1975 when the NVA was approaching Siagon."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danl992",
"comment_text": [
"The President is the one who ultimately sets foreign policy. There are checks against them in Congress and the Supreme court, but for the most part the President can do what they want within reason before those checks come into play. Lobbying rarely has effect on foreign policy. Lobbying does not often directly talk to the President and normally talks to Congress. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danma21",
"comment_text": [
"The president decides and executes foreign policy with the assistance of the Secretary of state, state department, CIA, NSA, national security advisors, Congress provides some assistance, ratifies treaties. But generally Congress doesn't get much power in foreign policy."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:Why are Prince William's children above Prince Harry in the line of succession?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fysje
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.99
|
I was thinking, if Henry is Prince Charles' son (aka England's future King),shouldn't him be the third in line?Why are Prince George and Princess Charlotte above him?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao2ejm",
"comment_text": [
"For the same reason the Prince Henry and William are above Prince Charles's brothers and sisters (Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, & Princess Anne). Royal succession travels 'down' the family tree before it travels across. In other words it goes first from parent->child before it travels between siblings. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao29ry",
"comment_text": [
"That's how Absolute Primogeniture (the succession law) works.",
"The crown follows a bloodline, down the family tree. Henry ",
" 2nd in line for the throne (once Charles becomes King) until the second that George was born. Then he became third because the crown would first go to William, and then to his son. ",
"If for some reason George and Charlotte both died, then the crown would have run out of heads to sit on and gone back up the tree to find a new head. That would probably be Henry and his children."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao2lfa",
"comment_text": [
"The line of succession is patrilineal. Succession passes to the first born son, and then his first born son, and so on.",
"Not any more. They changed the law so it is gender blind. Had Charlotte been born first she would be the 3rd in line once Charles becomes King."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao2nya",
"comment_text": [
"Right, thanks. So not patrilineal, but goes from eldest child to eldest child. Younger siblings still get the ol' shaft unless their oldest sibling dies without any children, or unless all of those children also die. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao2snh",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah basically, though how much of a \"shaft\" they get now is a matter of debate.",
"Being a Royal is a giant pain regardless, but not being on a throne means you are a lot more free to enjoy life. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: Why do so many jokes involve 3? "3 Guys walk..." "3 Women died...." "3 guys find a lamp..."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fyoni
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao1huo",
"comment_text": [
"I actually learned a bit about this. Comedy works on repetition. The two best # of times to repeat something is either 3 or 5. It has to do with audience anticipation.",
"3 drives the joke the home, and 5 passes through 'overplayed' and into the \"It's funny again\" category.",
"Using 3 of something as the baseline of a joke, allows for this same thing. The first 2 are just the setup, but it's when you get to the 3rd that the joke gets innately funny.",
"This actually works with quite a few things. I learned about it in a computer animation class. The teacher used the Pixar logo as an example. When the desk-lamp comes in from off screen and bounces on the the letter 'I' in Pixar, it does so 5 times, in order to create the same repetition effect."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao1vf1",
"comment_text": [
"Triples are important in humor. You will tell a joke about three people. You say what the first one does, OK. Then you say what the second one does. That establishes the pattern of behavior for these people.",
"Then you say what the third one does. This breaks the pattern, and is where the humor comes from. A lot of humor is based on defying expectations and conventions, so you have two other people to establish what the expected behavior is."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao1gi7",
"comment_text": [
"Most humor relies on irony, so having three of anything allows for the joke to set up a norm to contradict at the end."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao2bga",
"comment_text": [
"Roy Peter Clark have written a book called 50 Writing Tools. Number 17 is \"The Number of Elements\".",
"The basic idea is that 4 is too much, 1 doesn't compare it to anything, 2 gives equal weight to each part and 3 is just perfect. ",
"In summary:",
"\n• Use one for power.",
"\n• Use two for comparison, contrast.",
"\n• Use three for completeness, wholeness, roundness.",
"\n• Use four or more to list, inventory, compile, and expand. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dao1klp",
"comment_text": [
"Thats what I suspected, thank you!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: When a show is a Netflix or Hulu Original, does that mean the company funded/created it specifically, or just bought the rights to it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fv9om
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
If they bought the rights, how do the companies decide what shows are worth investing in (like why didn't Hulu take the rights to Orange Is The New Black versus Netflix getting it)?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danbj94",
"comment_text": [
"Netflix is in fact in total control of its 'original series', they merely subcontract because most of their body is not made of filmmakers. For shows that they buy the rights to later on, companies look at return on investment. Hulu didn't go for OITNB because they likely did not think it would return well. Also because Hulu is garbage, but whatever. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danbqpr",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks! As a follow up, if you know, does that mean (in theory) anyone with a new show could share their idea with either company, if they were to receive an audience, and hope for the best, or do either of them actively seek out new \"original\" content? Or perhaps it's a bit of both. I guess I'm trying to see how much is genuinely \"original\" and what's actually just re-branded \"exclusive\" content since it's not on cable TV."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danbspt",
"comment_text": [
"Companies sometimes send agents to a fledgling company (i.e. a tv show's hosts) if they think they can buy it out and spin a profit. Creative companies are also willing to accept proposals, though depending on your size they may dismiss you, as they do not want to spend money on hundreds of contractors for one person. So yes, it's both. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danctjt",
"comment_text": [
"Not all of them. Some Netflix Originals are shows that Netflix just bought exclusive rights to for the US, and the show airs on TV in its home country, and is distributed for DVD as well. E.g. knights of Sidonia, Ajin."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dancpdv",
"comment_text": [
"For most shows, yes, they were created from start to finish for Netflix.",
"In some cases, like Black Mirror, Netflix bought out the rights and the back catalogue, and financed the creation of a new season just to be shown on Netflix - at that point it becomes a Netflix Original.",
"It's not so much Netflix vs Hulu \"getting\" the rights - the show creators will usually pitch the idea to several networks (TV and/or online) and go with the best deal. The second-best company will then take the money they would have spent, and keep looking for a good show to produce with it.",
"It's also possible for, say, Netflix to directly hire a show creator they believe in, and say \"you have this much money to work with; think up a show for us\"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: We say hundreds, thousands, millions. So why do we say dozens instead of 'tens'?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fuds1
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.83
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dan4xpd",
"comment_text": [
"We do say \"tens of thousands\" but things have been sold in groups of 12 since ancient times. So I guess we just got in the habit of saying that.\nOne of the theories as to how things started being grouped into dozens is that England previously had an odd monetary system where a pound was not 100 pence but 240, so it was much more suitable to sell things which fit into that system. 1 egg for a penny or 12 eggs for a shilling. Made things much simpler for the merchants."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dan5bkh",
"comment_text": [
"His point is that it would be more correct to say tens because most of the time you aren't talking about literal groups of 12 unless you are talking about baked goods. Why say dozens of people instead of tens of people. We say hundreds or thousands of people, so why is a group of anything less than 100 referred to as a number that groups them by 12's instead of the even 10 like everything else?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dan5bkh",
"comment_text": [
"His point is that it would be more correct to say tens because most of the time you aren't talking about literal groups of 12 unless you are talking about baked goods. Why say dozens of people instead of tens of people. We say hundreds or thousands of people, so why is a group of anything less than 100 referred to as a number that groups them by 12's instead of the even 10 like everything else?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dan5uyq",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danez3d",
"comment_text": [
"Funny thing because I already asked my self the same question the other way around, in french we say \"tens\" (ie \"dizaines\") and I have always been wondering why english speaking people said \"dozens\".",
"Here we only use \"dozens\" for eggs."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5:So musically speaking what is "Concert Bb?"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fsdu1
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
For someone with absolutely no musical talent whatsoever, I always prided myself in having an above average understanding of music theory when compared to the typical power chord rocker. With that said I never understood what Concert Bb is? I know in band like some instruments are playing C and some are playing Bb and it's supposedly the same note or something? Help?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damo9wd",
"comment_text": [
"“Concert pitch” is literally “the exact pitch of the note when it is played on a grand piano”. So when you are playing a “Concert scale”, you are expected to play the same succession of pitches as if this scale was played on the grand piano. You might be playing the F# Major scale on your instrument, but it sounds exactly like C Major played on Piano.",
"This is a direct quote from ",
"bandnotes website",
":",
"Flutes, oboes, bassoons, trombones, tubas, baritones reading bass clef and all string instruments are concert pitch instruments: when they play a C it sounds like a C on the piano. They don't have to transpose. (All instruments that mostly read bass clef are in C, but some - like bass guitar and string bass - are written an octave higher to keep the music in the staff).",
"Clarinets, bass clarinets, trumpets, tenor saxes and baritones playing treble clef are Bb instruments: when they play a C it sounds like a Bb on the piano. So, if they want to play a concert Bb scale, they start on a C (they have to think up a whole step). Concert C is their D, Concert Ab is their Bb.",
"Alto and baritone saxes, alto clarinet and most alto horns are Eb instruments: when they play a C it sounds like a Eb on the piano. So, if they want to play a concert Bb scale, they start on a G (they have to think up a six steps in the scale - or down a minor third). Concert C is their A, Concert Ab is their F.",
"French horns and some alto horns and the English horn (that's the one related to the oboe) are F instruments: when they play a C it sounds like a F on the piano. So, if they want to play a concert Bb scale, they start on a F (they have to think up five scale steps). Concert C is their G, Concert Ab is their Eb."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damq9j8",
"comment_text": [
"Why is it that if you play a C on a trumpet it is a Bb on a piano though? Shouldn't that just mean its a Bb?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damtfxc",
"comment_text": [
"it's written and read in a different key to make it easier for performers to learn multiple similar instruments."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dan0ycu",
"comment_text": [
"I genuinely have no idea. I’d make a new clef which is suitable for the instrument and call it a day. But… Here is a fun theory:",
"The dynamic ranges of different instruments are wildly different. At some point someone decided that it’s too uncomfortable to write the entire instrument half a step up, because the extra lines on top and bottom suddenly get unbalanced and stuff like that. At the same time, they were too lazy to make a new clef for the instrument where C would not be on the first extra line below the bottom of the stave, and instead somewhere else. So instead they decided to rename the pitches on the instrument. This caught on, then spread to other instruments.",
"As a cello player, I got to be fluent in bass, treble and tenor clef, so I really don’t get it why not make clefs for instruments of different dynamic ranges. Piano players, on the other hand, can operate in maybe five clefs, which is supercool. But I guess having renamed pitches really rocks the winds’ boat so there we have them."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danoxmr",
"comment_text": [
"It has to do with tuning on those instruments; you tune to the note played on the instrument in it's default (or near default) setup. That note becomes the C note on that instrument. This is typically because that note has the best sound quality, and is the easiest note to play.",
"For example, almost all Saxophones are either concert Eb or concert Bb, alternating as the size changes (so Sopranos are Bb, Altos are Eb, Tenors are Bb, Baris are Eb, Bass are Bb, and so on). On each saxophone, though, the concert C pitch that you tune to is the middle C on the saxophone's range, which is when you just hold one key down (leaving all keys open would make a C#, which doesn't sound quite as good). By comparison, holding all 6 main keys down produces a D, which sounds genuinely awful, and which no one uses to tune the instrument.",
"Similarly, on a Trumpet (which is concert Bb), the default tuning tone is a played with all of the valves open."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why does Stephen Spielberg need to acquire licensing agreements to feature products / brands in the "Ready Player One" movie, but (I assume) the author the of book did not need to to feature them all throughout the novel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fqyus
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
Is it simply because the products / brands will be visible?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damb7bc",
"comment_text": [
"It's really difficult to claim any rights to ownership over ",
", because we use them all the time. Slogans are a little different. ",
"However, it's really easy to copyright something like a ",
", which requires an intentional effort to reproduce. You could get away with throwing around a brand name in a movie, but including a piece of design of theirs is a different matter.",
" also, in the case of ready player one, some specific games, songs, and movies are tied very intimately into the plot. for instance, part of the book has the main character trying to find an easter egg in a game where you literally reenact ",
" War Games and get points for not flubbing lines. Spielberg cut this part iirc (rightfully so), but things like that are the real meat of the story, so it would be very hard to adapt without including at least a few of them"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damd27z",
"comment_text": [
"(Psst: I think he had to recreate Wargames, not BttF.)"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damd891",
"comment_text": [
"Crap, you're right. Fixed. Thanks!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damg4zk",
"comment_text": [
"Holy crap that bit about recreating wargames just reminded me how painfully, embarrassingly stupid I thought that book was."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damt3sv",
"comment_text": [
"I think it's pretty good, but I do have to forgive it for quite a bit. It's definitely not the best writing in the world by a long shot. It's pretty much powered by nostalgia."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: what are the moving lights in the sky?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fo614
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalqsdh",
"comment_text": [
"Some of them are satelites in geo-synch orbit with the earth, others could be high flying aircraft. Some are stars that are moving relative to a constellation in a different direction and you are seeing the tiny minute differences cast from thousands of lightyears away.",
"Most of the time though, it's simply distortion from vast travel and gravitational lensing from other bodies of gravity the light has passed by to get HERE!",
"You have to realize, that just because you look up and see 2 stars seperated by a tiny space the size of this hyphen - , then that does'nt mean those stars you are looking at are actually anywhere close to eachother. What you could be seeing, is 1 star that is 12,000ly away and a 2nd star that is 30,000ly away. That light, over those many thousands of years of travel, passes by other bodies of gravity like other stars, planets, asteroids, and so forth, that cause the light to bend. So it can appear, as you lay down and look up at the sky that some stars are \"moving\" because of an optical illusion created from the effects of the light being changed in its long travel to Earth."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalqn8s",
"comment_text": [
"Those are either meteors or some sort of satellite or space station. Those objects are orbiting Earth. Stars are much too far away to move that fast in the night sky."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalqt8v",
"comment_text": [
"You are looking at one of several things depending on how fast they move. If they are slow, you are probably looking at planets. If they move visibly to the naked eye and it's more often nr dawn or dusk, then it's more likely you are looking at satellites or the ISS. All other random movements are likely highly altitude planes."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalr4vg",
"comment_text": [
"Since this question isn't asking for a complex subject to be simplified, but rather for an answer, it has been removed. That doesn't mean it's a bad question! It is just better suited to a different subreddit. Try ",
"/r/answers",
" (be sure to read their rules), ",
"/r/askreddit",
", ",
"/r/nostupidquestions",
", ",
"/r/outoftheloop",
", or another \"ask\" subreddit."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dam3iba",
"comment_text": [
"Awwwww :("
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How does wind form?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fqhfg
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dam6qzm",
"comment_text": [
"The sun does not heat the atmosphere of the earth evenly. Sunlight can be more or less direct in angle. Different terrain reflects or absorbs more or less sunlight and redistributes it as heat into the local air. Additionally, the terrain of the land itself and the Coriolis effect redirect air as it flows across the surface of the globe.",
"These result in pressure differentials, areas where there is higher pressure and areas where there are lower pressure. As a gas, the atmosphere moves to 'even out' these differences, which means a flow from high pressure to low pressure. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damea0f",
"comment_text": [
"The air doesn't all warm up the same, or flow the same. This means parts are different from other parts. Gasses don't like differences, and so try to get rid of them by moving around."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_damdvw8",
"comment_text": [
"You did not explain it like I was 5."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_danhp9l",
"comment_text": [
"To go even further: when the air in location A heats up and rises, cooler air from location B moves towards A to fill the empty space left behind. This movement of air is the wind."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dan23my",
"comment_text": [
"Warm air rises, so when it goes up it pushes the air that's up there to go elsewhere and...wind!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do some people use wooden spoons to cook but there are no wooden spatulas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fmc0a
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalb73v",
"comment_text": [
"...there are wooden spatulas? I use to own one. If you don't believe me, here's a link to an amazon link for one:",
"https://www.amazon.com/Eddingtons-Italian-Olive-Spatula-12-Inch/dp/B001APPMKM"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalds9h",
"comment_text": [
"There are definitely wooden spatulas. ",
"However, spatulas come in different forms depending on purpose. Metal spatulas or rigid plastic spatulas are used for flipping burgers and similar. Wood couldn't be made both thin and strong enough, plus they have a risk of burning due to heat. Flexible plastic spatulas are used for stirring and scraping. Their flexibility is useful for pressing against the contours of variously shaped bowls, and obviously wood couldn't do that as well. ",
"Wooden spatulas are used for stirring, especially sauces, and for scraping particles when deglazing a pan. For stirring, they're similar to wooden spoons, so people will use whichever is convenient. You can use a wooden spoon for deglazing, but a wooden spatula has a better shape. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dalcyjc",
"comment_text": [
"I cook with a wooden spatula."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dald4f9",
"comment_text": [
"me too"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daldml1",
"comment_text": [
"me three"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why does McDonalds partially cook products before shipping to stores?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fkwvb
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
There's a TIL today about McDonald's chicken nuggets having predefined shapes. They say in the article that they are "partially cooked" before shipping to stores. Seems like a waste of money. Is this due to food safety/transport laws? Does this decrease cooking times? Seems like an unnecessary expense.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dakzdp6",
"comment_text": [
"The nuggets are pre-cooked and flash frozen, which makes them virtually impossible to fuck up at the individual location, and ensures that they taste the same worldwide. Just like the ones you buy at the store."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dal03l6",
"comment_text": [
"It may be cheaper to do it all at the store but if you end up serving fewer customers that way then you'd lose money overall. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dal015o",
"comment_text": [
"Raw, mashed chicken is not very structurally sound. Any typical store-bought ,factory-made chicken nugget is already partly cooked and, generally, has been deep fried at last once already to create that crunchy breading. ",
"If it wasn't partly cooked it would be more likely to fall apart, get mushed, or otherwise not survive the long transportation.",
"The nuggets, mcchikens, and even french fries also benefit from faster prep time at the store (or at home for many pre-cooked, breaded, fried consumer products)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dal0gre",
"comment_text": [
"It's WAAAAYYYY more cost effective for them to be manufactured and partially cooked in a giant factory supplying 1000's of McDonald's than to have somebody individually prepare them in each restaurant. Because of the way they are made, they'd either need to be transported as they are currently, or made from scratch in the restaurant -- forming and cooking ground chicken enough to hold its shape, then breading and frying."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dal35cn",
"comment_text": [
"Also safety."
],
"score": 2
}
|
Eli5: How did Englands royalty go from being in charge to figure heads?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ffzbd
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajz257",
"comment_text": [
"The monarchy saw the writing on the wall and realized that if they didn't give up their power, the commoners and aristocrats would rise up and take it by force.",
"So they made a deal to transfer governmental power to the parliament in exchange for keeping their hereditary titles, massive landholdings, and bomb-ass palaces.",
"Of course this took place over hundreds of years, but that's the basic gist of it. Same thing took place in most European countries that didn't overthrow their monarchs."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak0g4o",
"comment_text": [
"For the English royalty, there first limitation of power was when king John signed the Magna Carta in 1205 that protected noblemen from illegal imprisonment.",
"While the King would still be more powerful for hundreds of years after, the monarchy from that point on gradually declined. ",
"The Glorious revolution of 1688 is when parliament became more powerful than the monarchy. Basically, Catholic King James II was ousted in favor of Dutch Protestant William of Orange who then signed the English Bill of Rights .",
"After the passing of the parliament act of 1911 is officially when the monarch of England became a figurehead. The Parliment act of 1911 made the directly elected house of Parliment house of commons more powerful than the monarch appointed House of Lords by taking away their veto powers. ",
"It's important to note that the monarch still has a lot of power that they just don't choose to use. For example, Queen Elizabeth can still declare war, can appoint/dismiss the prime minster, and ratify treaties.",
"Keep in mind I glossed over tons of British history and there's a lot more to the subject. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak65i8",
"comment_text": [
"The Glorious revolution of 1688 is when parliament became more powerful than the monarchy. ",
"Oliver Cromwell wants a word."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajzaru",
"comment_text": [
"I am sure someone more verses in history can explain this more thoroughly, but it mostly comes down to what it means to be in charge.",
"You are only \"in charge\" when either those you are in charge of agree, or you have the means to coerce cooperation. ",
"When the king lost the support of the other landowners, they banded together and were able to wield more power collectively than the king could. This allowed them to water down some of the powers the king held as those the king was \"in charge\" of allowed him to only have those powers.",
"This shows that although the king held absolute authority, his power to enforce his powers went only so far as he was able to force people to allow him.",
"CGP grey has a great series on power and the right of rule (i think one of them is called \"rules for rulers\") if you are curious to learn about a more generalised way to think about power."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak0b0w",
"comment_text": [
"You may find ",
"this AskHistorians thread",
" and the linked FAQ helpful. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: WTH does 'Run Hide Fight' mean as in OSU's emergency announcement? Isn't anyone who fights risking being confused for the active shooter by anyone else who fights/the authorities?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fgemw
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.52
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak1myw",
"comment_text": [
"So a friend of mine explained this to me earlier. Essentially it was supposed to be taught before getting the text, but it's a simple reminder of the best options in crisis management. ",
" is your top priority, if you have the opportunity to get far away, do it. ",
" is your next priority, if there is a lockdown or anything stopping you from leaving, your highest survivability chance is based on your ability to not be in contact with the subjects. ",
" is the last resort, in cases where you heavily outnumber and running/hiding isn't an option, use everything around you, books, chairs, hammers, rocks and whatever else you can find to fight back as that is your last option to increase your odds of survival. ",
"These are supposed to be explained during crisis management, but are often gone without explanation at most universities. I'd imagine after this one, it will be discussed a lot more though. ",
"Edit: in the fighting, you are not meant to fight the authorities. It's fighting the shooter/stabber (in this case). In this case it was one person with a knife, a couple people with books might as well turn on him if backed into a room. "
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak1kl9",
"comment_text": [
"It's a decision tree. Run if you are able to. If unable to run, hide. If unable to hide, fight (the shooter, not authorities)."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak2i7t",
"comment_text": [
"People don't think rationally in a crowd. People also all think differently, if you have 2 people jump on and dog pill, they are dead to multiple stab wounds even if they take out the stabber. The goal to run, hide, fight is to hopefully stay away long enough for someone who knows what their doing to answer the problem. ",
"That is essentially what happened this time, people ran and hid while a police office arrived and swiftly answered the problem. No one died (afaik). ",
"My personal opinion on Run, Hide, Fight is irrelevant. I am just explaining the reasoning for it. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak1kq3",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah. That's one of the reasons ",
" is the last option listed, to be taken only when the other two are unavailable."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dak29qt",
"comment_text": [
"3 people can easily take down an individual with a knife. If everyone runs and hides then the damage is multiplied. I know it's common to say run and hide but those incidents with the least damage are those in which a few people get together and put an end to it. Easier said than done. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
[ELI5] Why can't we just 'terraform' mars to be habitable by bringing water, good soil, etc. over to it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fd63h
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajaa21",
"comment_text": [
"Because money. It costs a huge amount of money to lift things out of Earth's ",
" gravity well. I don't remember the exact value, but it's something like $50,000 per kilogram. So transporting those things from Earth would cost a tremendous amount. ",
"Not to mention the fact that covering Mars in those things would deplete them from Earth. Mars isn't so much smaller than Earth that we could strip those things from our planet and move them to Mars without making a difference. ",
"Also, there are still problems with going to/from Mars. It takes a long time in the best-case scenario (~18 months), and we don't have radiation shielding good enough to prevent the astronauts from being exposed to harmful levels of radiation. ",
"A better scenario would be to build factories in space to harvest energy from sunlight and use that energy to move asteroids to Mars. But that would not get organic materials there...it would still presumably be sterile. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daja5m5",
"comment_text": [
"Because terraforming requires more than just some soil and water. You need an entire atmosphere that can sustain life, in addition to a hospitable climate. Even if it was as easy as bringing soil and water, it would cost more money than exists on Earth to send the amount of those materials that would be required to Mars. We don't even have the technology to send people to Mars safely and reliably at this point."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daja8yv",
"comment_text": [
"Cost, resource consumption, possible loss of resources if a supply ship goes kablooey. I'm pretty sure Mars doesn't have the atmosphere to help keep things cycling either (but I'm not Mr.science, so...). If that's true then we'd be kept in covered colonies as opposed to being directly interacting with planet surface and everything else around it. Which would also cost a lot of money and then runs the risk of also going kablooey."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajaa02",
"comment_text": [
"It is extremely expensive to send things from Earth in to space at the magnitude needed to accomplish something like terraforming a planet. Capturing these materials from space and sending get them to the planet is not quite a possibility yet. It makes more sense to use the materials that are there than to import them from elsewhere."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajaa4c",
"comment_text": [
"To bring resources there, we would need to take it from the earth, and fly it there. The space for cargo on the average space ship is not a lot, therefore you would need to make many trips to mars, and back. Going into space is very expensive. It would cost in the upper hundreds of trillions of dollars to do that. Neither the global economy doesn't have enough money to do that, nor does the earth have enough resources to make the necessary amount of trips to terraform mars."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How can someone be cold and the other person be warm in the same room?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fce71
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj72xa",
"comment_text": [
"Women actually have a higher body fat % than men, and much of the difference is in subcutaneous fat that does real insulating work.",
"Not sure about gender differences in cold sensitivity on the whole, but that fat thing is backwards."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajs6f9",
"comment_text": [
"Couldn't the amount of iron in your blood have something to do with it?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj3x8u",
"comment_text": [
"women are usually more sensitive to cold because of their smaller bodies, less fat, and thinner clothes (even if it's the same numbe of layers). also, people have different preferences"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dajgh52",
"comment_text": [
"It's actually muscle mass differences. Body fat for the most part just extends energy reserves.",
"In an environmental exposure situation(stuck in the snow), in general men will go longer without frostbite damage but will succumb to death sooner than women. Women will suffer frostbite sooner but ultimately survive longer."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj7jh5",
"comment_text": [
"i may have been thinking of total fat, but % is probably more important so i'll give you that. what about surface area proportional to body mass?"
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5: For what reasons does a juror get challenged before they can take a seat in the jury?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fbe2k
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daiwusk",
"comment_text": [
"There are many reasons. One of the more common ones is making sure they have no biases such as racism, sexism, etc. They also need to make sure that the jurors are not acquaintances of anyone involved in the case.",
"But another thing that jurors need to go through is vetting from the prosecutor and defendant. In general they seem to want people that'll be easily swayed to their side. One common theme I've heard is that they don't like engineers or scientists. Some reasons I've heard for this practice are that they want to sway people with emotional arguments instead of logic, or engineers will just overanalyze everything and delay the trial."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daix92v",
"comment_text": [
"I agree, but lawyers don't like it."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daix3z6",
"comment_text": [
"I would rather be over analytical than easily swayed by emotion. Thinking things through all possibilities seems a far better way to reach an acceptable conclusion. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daixse0",
"comment_text": [
"Fair enough."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj0800",
"comment_text": [
"Ehh, the big problem is what if they are wrong? Lawsuit over doctor killing patient because they didn't give the patient some life saving drug. Expert witness says doctor shouldn't have given them the drug, it doesn't actually work and has nasty side effects. Other expert witness says it works great and has no side effects. One is lying, one is telling the truth.",
"The science minded person is going to pop that into google and get a consensus from the internet. What if all the things saying it sucks has been suppressed by the drug companies, and it actually does suck, but you don't get that on the internet? They'll side with the people saying it works when it is in fact wrong."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why can we not re-freeze something after it has thawed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fcbgi
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.58
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj39z9",
"comment_text": [
"If you mean food, you ",
" refreeze it, and assuming it was defrosted safely you could even thaw it, cook it and eat it without a problem. However, freezing has the effect of bursting cell walls (the water in each cell expands), which can cause a deleterious change in texture. This is especially noticeable in meat. Freezing once doesn't normally make things too bad, but twice will make the meat somewhat mushy and unpleasant."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj49xo",
"comment_text": [
"One reason why you do not want to refreeze food once it has thawed that has not been mentioned is the risk of foodborn illness.",
"If kept absolutely sterile and in a sealed container such as a can food will keep far beyond any practical application (50 years or more). But food which is not sealed in such a way is inevitably contaminated by bacteria and other nasties. Bacteria will grow in practically any conditions but grow fastest in the \"danger zone\" of 4 to 60 degrees Celsius.",
"Once bacteria have a chance to get their population kick-started they grow like wildfire. Often they create byproducts which are toxic to humans which renders the food inedible.",
"Depending on the type of food there is a period of hours during which it can be safely held within this \"danger zone\" until it is assumed that a bacterial colony has had time to grow to a dangerous size. The problem with re-freezing food is that a bacterial colony can be established within that time, sent into hibernation with the freezing, and then when thawed will become dangerous much faster than anticipated. Re-freezing food in that case is like setting a trap for the next people to use that product!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj39g2",
"comment_text": [
"I believe OP means to ask why we ",
" re-freeze many frozen foods."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj3666",
"comment_text": [
"I'm confused, why can't you? Can you elaborate?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj3b1w",
"comment_text": [
"Ahh that makes sense."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why its referred to as "American Football"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fb5d2
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daivaz1",
"comment_text": [
"Because there are other games played that are also called Football.",
"There is Association Football (AKA Soccer) that is played throughout the world. There's Australian Rules Football (AKA Aussie Rules) that is mostly played in Australia. There's Gaelic Football that is mostly played in Ireland. There are probably more that I'm missing too.",
"People use the term \"American Football\" when speaking to someone who might use the term \"Football\" to mean a sport other than American Football to avoid confusion about the topic."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daivopg",
"comment_text": [
"Well Rugby used to be called \"Rugby Football\" so it could be something to do with that.",
"All of these sports originally came from the same game which was just called Football, which didn't really have standardised rules like it does now. Different people in different areas had their own variations and take on the rules.",
"Eventually these different ways of playing the game were all developed into the specific rules and standards that we play today and were each given their own names."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daivopg",
"comment_text": [
"Well Rugby used to be called \"Rugby Football\" so it could be something to do with that.",
"All of these sports originally came from the same game which was just called Football, which didn't really have standardised rules like it does now. Different people in different areas had their own variations and take on the rules.",
"Eventually these different ways of playing the game were all developed into the specific rules and standards that we play today and were each given their own names."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daivlvn",
"comment_text": [
"I never understand it's roots. Like foot-ball: we play football with the feet on the ball",
"It's not called football because you kick the ball with your feet; it's called football because you play the game on foot instead of on horseback. ",
"Football has origins in games played by peasants, as compared to games like polo, which have roots in games played by the aristocracy (who could afford the luxury of playing games while mounted on a horse)."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daivu70",
"comment_text": [
"Well just to make it more confusing, the term \"soccer\" actually originated in Britain to deviate between Rugby and Football.",
"When Rugby and Football branched apart, nobody wanted to give up the name \"Football\", so Rugby was still called Football and Association Football became Soccer. Eventually Soccer became a lot more popular than Rugby and people just started calling it Football and Rugby became known as Rugby (named after the school it originated from)",
"It's wasn't the Americans that thought it up to deviate between our football and theirs. They just used the word \"soccer\" to avoid confusion because they were already using \"football\" for their preferred sport."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: is being a morning person genetic or a choice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f9sh8
| 14
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
I have long been a night owl, and I can't for the life of me get used to being a morning person, in my culture sleeping early at night and waking up early in the morning is a must, but as I said I just can't get used to that, so my question is, can a person get accustomed to being a regular morning person with no issues if he chooses to, or is it something that one needs to be born with? I am new to this sub and reddit in general, so please let me know if I need to fix anything.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dain5ry",
"comment_text": [
"People can adjust to living in a different time zone, and we can switch from working days to working nights with varying degrees of difficulty per person (but it is possible).",
"To make yourself more like a morning person, you should go to bed sooner which will directly help you to wake up sooner as well. Do not train yourself to rely on coffee or other stimulants because this will just make it harder for you to stay awake in the mornings naturally.",
"Alternatively, screw what your culture says. Somebody has to watch over the city at night."
],
"score": 19
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daiu88r",
"comment_text": [
"we can switch from working days to working nights with varying degrees of difficulty per person ",
"^ This. I once read that what you are depends on the time of day you were born. I was born at 11:55pm, and yep, I was a night owl for many years of my life. I worked nightshift for 15 years as a result and it suited me perfectly, until that company closed down.",
"Now, in my current job, which I've worked for 10 years, I start at 8:30am, and it's taken this actual 10th year for me to ALWAYS get tired at 10pm and to wake up at 6:00am every day, without fail, even on weekends and days I don't work.",
"can a person get accustomed to being a regular morning person with no issues if he chooses to",
"Yes. My body took 10 years to switch to dayshift and now I'm a full-converted morning person. :)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daj86f1",
"comment_text": [
"I think that the time a person is born is not the answer that we seek, could be that it might play a part, but it doesn't seem plausible. ",
"And 10 years man, that must've took some dedication and commitment, and a lot of late arrival excuses lol. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dainm6q",
"comment_text": [
"Recently read about this in my developmental psychology class. Turns out age factors into this, so perhaps genetics could factor in? Age 18-21 statistically average most likely to be more of a night-owl than an early bird, and then decreases somewhat consistently as we age. I would find the sources but it's too late for that..."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daizwg9",
"comment_text": [
"Both, though the (admittedly limited) research I've seen swings more towards nature than nurture. ",
"I would follow the advice of ",
"u/jasonthefuzz",
" gives in his post. It's also worth looking up sleeping habits. Google 'sleep hygiene'. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5:Westworld
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f9cp9
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.45
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daihlla",
"comment_text": [
"Westworld is a television show that airs on HBO. It is about a Western themed amusement park that guests visit. It is based off of a movie from the 70's."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daihlj5",
"comment_text": [
"You might need to be a little more specific. Are you asking for the plot? How the hosts work? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daihqzk",
"comment_text": [
"I'm just in general a little mind-fucked with the amount of depth that is continually building, and would like a well organized explanation of multiple timeline theory/various developments/etc"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daiipus",
"comment_text": [
"Well, I don't know. I don't think it's really complicated. Rewatch it and watch it for what it is. You be less confused and more entertained"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daior03",
"comment_text": [
"Think you may want to try searching in ",
"/r/westworld"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why can you exclude members of specific racial groups from entering your home, but businesses cannot do the same for their stores? Aren't homes and businesses both private property?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f8tzi
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daid2zz",
"comment_text": [
"A business being open to the public is implicitly a public space & subject to different rules than a private home. There's two different sets of meanings for private/public spaces. One relates to ownership & the other relates to access. Here's the 4 combinations:"
],
"score": 22
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daid3ef",
"comment_text": [
"A home is private property where you exclude the public.",
"A business is private property where you invite the public.",
"So you can't discriminate based on race in business for the same reason that someone who walks into your open business isn't breaking and entering. It is a place where you have invited the public to enter and do business.",
"If you don't want people of a certain race in your shop you are perfectly welcome to exclude the public entirely."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daicz9j",
"comment_text": [
"Because the law says that a business is different from a home. There is no single type of \"private property\", there are a bunch of different categories within that."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daiepel",
"comment_text": [
"Not really. ",
"A business is by definition open to the public and is therefore a public place even if it is privately owned. It therefore is under different rules than a home that is privately owned and a private space. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daifhj8",
"comment_text": [
"1) Your question is very disturbing.",
"2) We are all permitted to exclude strangers from our private homes because they are just that, strangers, and our homes are not public places where just anyone is allowed to go. That right has nothing to do with the race, gender, religion, height or weight of the stranger. Or yours, for that matter.",
"3) It's also not totally dependent on who actually owns the property you live in. In most places, even if you're just renting your house, you still have the right to keep a stranger out, even the landlord himself if he shows up drunk at 2:00 AM. Or, actually, if he shows up unannounced at any time. Your privacy rights in your own home trump his property rights.",
"4) We have decided as a society that excluding people from public spaces based only on race is unfair and discriminatory, and so it's not allowed. Just as it's not allowed to bar those groups from using the sidewalks or public restrooms."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: Why shouldn't you eat raw oats?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5fi4hm
| 528
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.87
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dakdomr",
"comment_text": [
"\"All grains contain phytic acid (an organic acid in which phosphorous is bound) in the outer layer or bran. Untreated phytic acid can combine with calcium, magnesium, copper, iron especially zinc in the intestinal track and block their absorption. This is why a diet high in unfermented whole grains may lead to serious mineral deficiencies and bone loss. The modern misguided practice of consuming large amounts of unprocessed bran often improves colon transit time at first but may lead to irritable bowel syndrome and, in the long term, many other adverse effects. Soaking allows enzyme, lactobacilli and other helpful organisms to break down and neutralize phytic acid. As little as seven hours of soaking in warm acidulated water will neutralize a large portion of phytic acid in grains. The simple practice of soaking cracked or rolled cereal grains overnight will vastly improve their nutritional benefits.\"",
"From here: ",
"http://claireobeid.com/why-you-should-never-eat-raw-oats/",
"Tl;dr, phytic acid which is found in most grains can prevent minerals from absorbing, leading to a deficiency when consumed regularly. It can also cause irritable bowel syndrome. Soaking oats allows enzymes and bacteria to break down the phytic acid."
],
"score": 294
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daksqhj",
"comment_text": [
"Oats are pre cooked (steamed) in order to roll them, are they not?"
],
"score": 36
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dakjedx",
"comment_text": [
"Another source",
" concludes: ",
"To argue that some plant foods are “unhealthy” because of their phytic acid content seems mistaken, especially when phytic acid’s potential negative effects on mineral assimilation may be offset by its health benefits.",
"So it may not be as simple as that blogger states. "
],
"score": 35
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dakm7ag",
"comment_text": [
"Also maybe don't take health advice from a blogger with no qualifications. "
],
"score": 34
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dakwm0r",
"comment_text": [
"That's a preeeetty sketchy source for answering a scientific question. And it really bugs me that you're upvoted so much by people who didn't check your source. From her \"about\" page:",
"Claire Obeid is a Certified Holistic Health Coach and Yoga Teacher who inspires women to discover balance, true happiness and perfect health. ",
"What am I about? Oh-so-much. A soul-centered and heart-driven life. Inside-out wellness. Shadow work (from the darkness comes the light!) Truth-seeking. Leaning into the joy of life."
],
"score": 24
}
|
|
ELI5: In McDonald's, what are all the beeping noises that can be heard from the kitchen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f6mx3
| 12
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahtrfi",
"comment_text": [
"To make sure that the food at McDonald's is identical every time, there is nothing left to chance.",
"A bag of frozen French fries will be opened and poured into a wire basket. The basket gets lowered into the hot oil and the staff member presses a timer button. Once the fries have been cooked for the correct amount of time, a buzzer or beeper will sound repeatedly to ensure someone removes them from the oil.",
"When they make a burger, a similar process is followed. The frozen burger patty is put onto the hotplate and the timer button is started. After a couple of minutes the timer will beep to tell the cook to flip the burger over, at which point he resets the timer. A couple of minutes further it beeps to say that the burger is cooked.",
"Multiply all of the above by maybe half a dozen frying and grilling areas all working simultaneously, and you get the near-constant array of beeping sounds."
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahwjle",
"comment_text": [
"I work at an Arby's. Beeps come from ovens when beef is done cooking, timers telling us that turnovers/cookies etc. are done cooking, fryers when fried products are done, timers telling us when fired products have expired and must be thrown away, a timer up front that makes sure we wash our hands at least every hour and when other products die, a beep is heard when a car pulls up to the drive thru pad, and occasionally an incessant squeal from the radio because it's older that the restaurant."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahtkv0",
"comment_text": [
"Those are timers going off and being set for different items that are being cooked or being stored"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahxv24",
"comment_text": [
"This is the correct answer. \nSource: my first job was at MickyD's. ",
"Years later when I worked at a small restaurant the boss was given shit to a co worker for something and I heard i boss say in a sarcastic negative manner, \"What? Do you want a timer like McDonald's?\" ",
"In my brain i thought to myself, \"Yes. This is one of the reasons McDonald's is WAY more successful than you\" "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahzib0",
"comment_text": [
"Nah, that's just about consistency. If you had hundreds of restaurants all serving the same menu, that's a pretty big deal. Not to mention it's \"fast food\" and accidentally burning something then having to remake it while a customer waits and backs up your drive thru is a bad thing. Not such a big deal at a sit down restaurant where customers expect to wait a little bit anyways.",
"Plus most of McDonald's staff is highschool kids with no experience. A real restaurant has real cooks and chefs and they know how to tell when things are ready.",
"Is the chicken in the fryer floating? It's done. Is the cheese brown and bubbly? Pizzas ready. Any red spots left in that burger on the grill? Must be done.",
"Timers are redundant and useless in a real kitchen. You're much better off simply being 100% present and paying attention to what's going on around you rather than relying on a beep to tell you shits done.",
"The only time they every really get used is for prep work - ie roasting turkey breast for sandwiches or baking desserts, etc."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why was the American Mafia interested in vending machines?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f5lph
| 18
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.71
|
I have seen this referenced in a few gangster movies, Goodfellas, Black Mass, etc. But I don't understand why they were so interested in vending machines/coin-op machines specifically. Am I not realizing just how much money one can legitimately make from selling soda? If that were the case wouldn't a legit business be more efficient and better suited than the Mafia?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahljnm",
"comment_text": [
"It's a cash business.",
"The mob makes a huge amount of money through illicit dealings, but to spend that money later they need to \"launder\" it by finding a way to claim it as legitimate business income.",
"Enter the all cash business. Since there's no real record of what the machine sold or for how much, you can report the illegal cash as vending machine income.",
"That makes the money safe to use without attracting the attention of the IRS."
],
"score": 45
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahls0a",
"comment_text": [
"That's gotta be the shortest ELI5 ever.. Thanks for the explanation! "
],
"score": 16
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahls6u",
"comment_text": [
"Since there's no real record of what the machine sold or for how much",
"Not entirely true. The business would still have a record of everything it ordered, and would have some sort of price list somewhere (or an investigator just looks at the machine and takes notes).",
"But, there's still two good ways of laundering money through them even if you do have records of prices and how much you sold.",
"First method, you order an extra $100,000 worth of product and drop it in the harbor. Then you just claim you sold it.",
"Second method, your underlings, instead of paying you, they put the money into the machine and buy a ton of candy.",
"In both cases, the wholesale cost of the candy is a loss, and basically the cost of laundering money. But, markup on those things is so huge, that this will only be a small percent."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahlkwx",
"comment_text": [
"Cash and coin operations are GREAT ways to launder money. It doesn't matter how much money they actually make from a vending machine it just matters that they can launder dirty money and report however much they want"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dahmxww",
"comment_text": [
"First method...what does dropping it into the harbor accomplish? Can't you just keep it, claim it sold and not lose the product?",
"It has to go somewhere. When the inevitable investigation comes around, you don't want to be caught with a warehouse of goods you can't account for -- they'll figure out pretty quickly that you lied about it selling.",
"Second method... They are basically forced to buy your overpriced product which becomes your income but is now legitimized. So effectively a win-win. You get your fear induced monthly payment and they get candy.",
"Even better if you have a product they actually want. Say you've got a motorcycle gang that's involved in organized crime. You open up a service garage as your front and charge the fuck out of your members. They have a legit reason to get their motorcycles serviced, and then they hand over the payment on top of what they'd actually owe for the service. Doing that with a vending machine is more suspicious. You have a detective watch the machine to see who's putting in $10k at a time. Better to have things people actually funnel a ton of money into, like a casino. Your lieutenants just lose big every once in a while on purpose."
],
"score": 6
}
|
ELI5: Why in WW2 and Vietnam did the US invade with troops. Couldn't they have just bombed their way to victory without soldiers on foreign soil?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f23ko
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.44
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagutt9",
"comment_text": [
"You can (and we did) pummel the infrastructure to dust and send the soldiers into fortified bunkers and dense jungles, but at some point you will have to go in on foot to shake them out.",
"We weren't prepared (militarily or morally) to bomb these countries with such ferocity that there was nothing left living and nothing worth fighting over."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daguu2c",
"comment_text": [
"WW2 Germany had a lot of guns.",
"Combine with this the limited capacity of many bombers and it doesn't make a good mix.",
"During D-Day the 101st Airborne was spread out over half of the front purely because many of the bombers and troop transports carrying them were shot down resulting in them bailing out before they anticipated.",
"This would have been much worse if the Germans weren't also dealing with several miles of beach being invaded.",
"In Vietnam they were fighting a guerilla war. Much like the Middle East.",
"Look at how poorly drones are working. People can hide from bombs and drones and it means it isn't as effective as putting boots on the ground and going door to door."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daguxjo",
"comment_text": [
"You can deny the opposition total control of the battlefield by using air power. But you can not capture the battlefield unless you use troops. Pre aeroplanes the same concept was considered, only with naval power. ",
"The latest idea with unconventional warfare only makes it more important to use troops."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagv2y7",
"comment_text": [
"You would still need ground troops to get intelligence on where to bomb, you can't use bombing to secure an area once it's captured, bombing wasn't very precise then, and in the thick jungles of Vietnam, bombing was of limited effectiveness where they had their infrastructure and forces hidden underground."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagxqrs",
"comment_text": [
"TL;DR airplanes are really bad at hide-and-go-seek. At least for the seeking part."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do BBC and Reuters get sourced so much more often compared to American news sources?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f08j2
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
I know folks in the USA often make jokes about CNN. Are all news sources in USA corrupted/biased/unreliable? What makes BBC/Reuters so much more newsworthy?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagfkqg",
"comment_text": [
"British television news (but not printed newspapers or online-only sources) are required by law to present an impartial point of view. Although this applies equally to all broadcasters, the BBC is by far and away the best-known British television news organisation internationally. Additionally the BBC's funding method means that it's far less likely to be influenced by advertisers or other forms of commercial product support.",
"Reuters is (or at least started out as) a newswire service rather than a publisher of news to consumers. Therefore its stories often report just the basic facts of what happened rather than attempting to put any kind of editorial or political spin on the story."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagjze7",
"comment_text": [
"Pretty much. Fox would make big deal about how the people in the school / nightclub weren't allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves, whereas CNN or MSNBC would question why we don't have an assault weapons ban, etc. From what I've seen of BBC they would just report it without an editorial slant. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagf1v6",
"comment_text": [
"Most \"news\" sources here are products of the Rupert Murdoch / National Enquirer paradigm of \"Shock and Awe\". They don't present news in a factual (or even believable) manor, do not cite sources and offer no rebuttal. They have become the ClickBait of news \"sources\". You can tell when it is just being used to sell ads, pontificate for an agenda or mislead when you hear phrases like \"Its been said\" or \"We just learned\". No source, no proof, not news. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagfvv5",
"comment_text": [
"It applies to all of them some of the time and some of them all of the time."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagj5xf",
"comment_text": [
"Every news source in the US has a mild to strong liberal slant, except for Fox, which has a strong conservative slant. BBC is more unbiased. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Why is Greenpeace equally against nuclear energy and energy from coal, when the former is only potentially harmful to nature, while the latter is constantly polluting it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5f0iw3
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.62
|
I mean, I know that Greenpeace wants to eventually use only renewable resources, but while we get there, shouldn't it rather focus on how to make nuclear safer while protesting against coal power? Because as far as I know(and I might be wrong) nuclear power plant safety is only matter of how much money you have. And when it comes to Greenpeace, no price is too high for our environment, right? Please explain me, I'm sorry if this sounds rude, I'm not saying that Greenpeace is a bad organisation, it just really doesn't make sense to me... Thanks
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daghic1",
"comment_text": [
"The premise is that to run a nuclear power plant you have to extract the radioactive material, refine it, and dispose of radioactive waste after its use. So it is still harmful to the environment. ",
"But Green Peace is mostly a bunch of hypocritical criminals so I do not pay much attention to what they say. After they damaged the Nazca Lines, fled the country, and then the organization did not divulge the names of the criminals involved they lost what little credibility they had in my eyes. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daghvja",
"comment_text": [
"a nuclear power plant you need the relevant fuel and thus needs to be dug out of the ground. It's this processes that's the biggest issue because the fuel is quiet rare so they generally need to dig deep and move lots of earth. This has a major ecological impact which green peace see as unacceptable.",
"This actually completely incorrect.",
"48% of all uranium is mined by in situ leaching. This involves pumping liquid into the earth, dissolving the uranium, and pumping it back out. It moves no ground whatsoever. ",
"It looks like this",
" ",
"Most of the other uranium comes from a series of underground mines. Only a minority comes from the big open mines. And even so, the enormous energy density of uranium means that it easily produces the least waste of any mined energy source.",
"The environmental consequences of mining for uranium are smaller than the consequences of mining for the rare earths or even simple metals that are required to make solar panels and windmills work."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagi4se",
"comment_text": [
"Well, there a couple of reasons. There are probably more that I didn't mention.",
"The most destructive weapon in the world, and one that has threatened the world for decades during the cold war. Greenpeace was founded originally to stop nuclear weapons testing. Sadly, some of the bad reputation of nuclear war has rubbed of onto nuclear power.",
"Humans can't deal very well with small chances that can have a huge effect. That is why you see people play the lottery, despite the chance of them winning the big pot being nihil. Similarly, green activists are afraid of a big nuclear , far more than the actual risk would suggest.",
"Quite a lot of people in the US were worried about the radiation of Fukushima, despite the fact that the local car down the road would infinite times more dangerous to their health. For some reason, radiation is something should be avoided to any cost, while the status quo of fossil fuels can pollute all it wants."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagjnj7",
"comment_text": [
"The fear is over the dificulty of cleaning up an accident. The poisoning is a small factor in a massive disaster. Thats like saying the biggest fear of another katrina is water damaging your carpet."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagjhh7",
"comment_text": [
"Technically, a minority is anything less than 50%. But apparently it's more than I remembered.",
"There's a big difference between coal and uranium though. To say it with an xkcd.",
"https://xkcd.com/1162/",
"Using numbers for a typical power plant, we can find that uranium is almost 20 000 times as energy dense as hard coal. ",
"http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx"
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5:How are airlines and holiday companies allowed to charge adult prices age 12 and up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ezoda
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.42
|
In the UK, the vast majority of airlines and holiday companies charge adult prices age 12 and up. How is this allowed? Particularly on inclusive deals where children wouldn't be able to enjoy the same privileges that adults would, despite paying the same price.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagajw7",
"comment_text": [
"They're allowed to charge whatever. They can charge adult prices for someone who's 1-month-old if they so choose. There is absolutely no law or regulation saying you need to give a discount to children - they basically do it as an incentive. "
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagapgp",
"comment_text": [
"They are allowed to charge whatever they like, and they are allowed to give discounts to whomever they like. Giving discounts to young children encourages parents to travel and thus increases their number of customers because many parents simply will not travel if they have to pay full price for their children as it becomes too expensive. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagg3af",
"comment_text": [
"They can charge what they want, there are few laws that cover that sort of thing. If you think you're getting ripped off there are dozens of other airlines. ",
"You're mostly paying for the space on the plane. A 12-year old takes up the same amount of space as an adult. You're not paying for the booze or whatever and that's usually extra anyway. Also having kids nearby often disturbs other passengers so i guess we're lucky they dont charge "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagb82i",
"comment_text": [
"I would think the price does not so much reflect chronological age as it does the size and weight of the individual, since that is more of a determining factor in what it costs the airline to transport that person from Point \"A\" to Point \"B.\" This premise is best illusrrated by the fact that the Samoan airline now calculates the cost of ",
" of its passengers' tickets by charging them by the pound. The more you weigh, the more you pay.",
"http://www.ibtimes.com/samoa-air-pay-weight-scheme-hailed-big-fat-success-1506042",
" Downvotes of denial or disagreement neither refute nor impugn the statement."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dagcmur",
"comment_text": [
"Airlines are subject to a lot of regulations, but their pricing is something they control. In the US, if a kid has his or her own seat, they pay the full fare on almost every airline. After a kid turns 3, they are required to have their own seat. From the airline's perspective, that is fair because a seat is a seat. From a consumer's perspective, there is no choice in the matter because a the airlines do the same thing. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How is it that private parties control government elections in the U.S?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5exwet
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
So its my understanding that the parties are both private and yet they make the rules and set the guidelines who can be in the debates, who can be on the ballots and other such things which have GREAT influence over said elections from the local to the federal level. How is this a thing and was it always a thing?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafzb6w",
"comment_text": [
"You are mistaken.",
"The parties run their own primaries, but the general election is administered by the states and the federal government. Who is on the ballot is up to state-by-state rules, but generally the requirements are a certain number of signatures from registered voters.",
"The debates are run by an independent non-partisan organization and are not an official part of the election process. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafzaez",
"comment_text": [
"So its my understanding that the parties are both private and yet they make the rules and set the guidelines who can be in the debates,",
"That's because there's no such thing as an \"official\" debate. That is, the government itself doesn't host debates, and in fact has nothing at all to do with the debates. They're privately-run affairs.",
"who can be on the ballots",
"The political parties don't determine that. Each state determines that on a case-by-case basis. The candidates for major political parties have the backing of their party to smooth out the process, but anyone can be on the ballot if they get enough signatures on a petition, and there's also a spot on the ballot where you can write in whoever you want."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafzk3l",
"comment_text": [
"Parties set the general rules for primaries, but do not run them. Primaries are administered and regulated (to an extent) by the states. (With influence from the parties of course )"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dag2vm4",
"comment_text": [
"Well, if you can't get 10,000 signatures to get onto the ballot, you don't have the organization or coordination abilities to run a successful campaign across a state of millions of people. So, it's an intentional weeding out process that's still pretty easy to complete."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dag36ik",
"comment_text": [
"The thing is, parties are organizations that exist in order to get people elected. The top two parties are the top two because they can do what it takes to get someone elected. If another organization were built that had the money, logistics and organization to get someone elected, they would be able to get their candidates onto ballots and into debates by default.",
"And it's not like it's impossible, ",
"Ross Perot",
" got into the debates in 1992, ",
"Jesse Ventura",
" made it to the MN Governorship in 1998. And those are only recent examples.",
"But it takes a ",
" of resources, not just money but volunteers and organizers and policy wonks, etc to get someone elected to even a statewide position, much less President. And that's probably a good thing, because it takes a ",
" of resources like policy wonks and specialists and volunteers and staffers to form a successful executive branch, and those are resources that the parties provide along with the assistance getting elected."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5 Why do some countries make coins with higher value smaller then coins with lower value? i.e the U.S dime v.s the nickel or the Swiss 1/2 franc vs the 20 cent.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5eudt3
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf73bh",
"comment_text": [
"Coins are now fiat currencies so they are not tied to the value of metals used to make them as tightly as they used to be. ",
"Using the US as an example. Pennies used to be one cents worth of copper, nickels were 5 cents worth of nickel, dimes were ten cents worth of silver, quarters were 25 cents worth of silver, etc. Their size was dictated by the type of metal used to make them. In modernity they are made from alloys that have very little of their signature metals in them, and in the case of silver and gold none, but the sizes are well established with society and for the most part changing them is not worth the time and money redesigning the coin and replacing presses nor is it worth annoying/angering the populace to do so. "
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafmqan",
"comment_text": [
"Other currencies, it's often because the coin was introduced at a later date, and making it the right size would be impractical.",
"For example, British decimal coinage introduced a 5p, 10p and 50p coin. The 50p was only slightly larger than the 10p but heptagonal so easily distinguished.",
"The 20p was introduced later and couldn't really be made at a size between the 10p and the 50p.",
"Apparently the Australian $2 coin is smaller than the $1 because the $1 was already quite large, and a larger $2 would have been impractically large."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf76p7",
"comment_text": [
"thanks!"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf9pge",
"comment_text": [
"nickels were 5 cents worth of nickel",
"Minor correction.",
"Nickels are mostly copper, with nickel added to give it a silver finish.",
"They were introduced in the late 19th Century at a time gold and silver were scarce, to replace the silver half dime."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf9mam",
"comment_text": [
"Coins used to be made of of precious metals like gold, silver, and copper, and were worth whatever the metal in them was worth.",
"That would mean the most valuable copper coin would usually be bigger than the least valuable silver coin, because silver was worth a lot more than copper. The same is true when you go from silver coins to gold coins.",
"The US nickel, for example, was introduced in the late 19th Century at a time when gold and silver were scarce. It was made of copper and nickel, and replaced the silver half dime, which was much smaller."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is Scientology so frowned upon as a religion? Is it more from the beliefs or the practices?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ext8v
| 111
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.84
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafyj6y",
"comment_text": [
"So there's two things at play. First, the beliefs are ridiculous by anyone's standards, since the religion was created by a science fiction writer. When a religion has to hide its secret truths from believers until they spend years invested in the organization, there's a problem there. ",
"The belief that human emotional problems are caused by the remnants of alien souls that were scattered across the world after a nuclear bomb exploded in a volcano, and that Scientology has the special techniques needed to clear your mind of the alien's evil influence is well... a thing. ",
"Likewise, Scientology's practices of blackmailing people, keeping a ship in international waters where they keep slaves, and scheming to avoid having to pay the IRS money, as well as their stance of being anti-psychiatry and a lot of other horrifying behavior make them seem more like a supervillain group than a religion."
],
"score": 182
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafylz7",
"comment_text": [
"It's not their religion.. although, that's a dumpster fire full of crazy... It's their aggressive and rapacious recruitment tactics, their infamous litigiousness, and their brutal attacks against political enemies and apostates that makes people so hostile towards the organization. They really are the worst."
],
"score": 43
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafyiz3",
"comment_text": [
"It seems clear they exist more to make money for corrupt insiders than promote human wellbeing"
],
"score": 22
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dafzw78",
"comment_text": [
"Their cult uses brainwashing tactics, infiltrated the US government to destroy records, and destroyed countless lives. I recommend the documentary \"Going Clear\" if you want to learn more."
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dag0x13",
"comment_text": [
"Short answer: watch \"Going Clear\". Or read the Leah Ramini book. Longer answer: Besides all the nutty Xenu stuff- they hold sessions similar to a Catholic confessional called \"auditing sessions\", except they record and store these conversations. Later, should one step out of line or threaten to leave Scientology, they are blackmailed with these same recordings. (Think of the well known Hollywood actors rumored to be gay that are members.) The Chairman of the Board: David Miscaviage, is a power drunk zealot who is believed to keep his first wife in a dungeon! Or \"the hole\" as they call it. L. Ron Hubbard the founder of the church was big into boats. He began recruiting young lost people (susceptible to cults) then worked them to an inch of death in the \"Sea Org\" as navy shipmen. This still happens today. The more famous story from the Ramini book was where she and her husband attended the wedding of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Ramini kept hearing a baby crying at the reception. She walked in a room to see the Cruise's infant daughter Suri lying on the ground covered in a shit diaper with a 13 year old girl staring at it clueless. Ramini changed the kid and noticed she was very sick. When Ramini reported this to the Cruises she was cursed at in front of the party and basically told she was a piece of shit. Ramini had several stories of Cruise in the book (who is #2 in command in the House of Scientology). Somehow between the blackmail, physical abuse, and extortion, this cult pulls in $3 billion/year. Last note: They purposely hire hot people to work the doors of the Church to lure people in. Stay the fuck away!!! TLDR: they're an abusive cult!"
],
"score": 19
}
|
|
ELI5: Why in the living hell do athletes get paid so much more than people who spend 8 years in college and sacrifice everything to save other's lives?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5erkn7
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.53
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daenrp9",
"comment_text": [
"The plebs love their Colosseum entertainment....",
"Honestly though, mass entertainment has been popular since ancient times. Its not a new phenomenon to place athletes and entertainers on pedestals. They take away from the monotony of a boring basic life stuck in the lower-middle classes...people will pay to have their minds entertained and don't mind much for those who do the entertaining to be paid well. Thats why movie theatres tend to continue to do well during recessions. People want to escape their troubles. "
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daenxu0",
"comment_text": [
"Simple supply and demand. 4% of the adult citizen population have a doctorate level degree. That equates to millions of people. Don't like your doctor? There are tons of others to choose between. But there are only a handful of elite pro level athletes who entertain millions of people. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daeo2gl",
"comment_text": [
"Because your pay is based more on how many people could do your job than on how important it is to society. Doctors are important, but there are hundreds of thousands of them. There's only 1 Lebron James or Tom Brady."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daenxlc",
"comment_text": [
"Also keep in mind that even the best athletes are only getting paid because the team owners are getting paid a lot more. The guys making $20 million make that much because they're making the owners $200 million.",
"When you think about it, especially for a sport like football, these guys have maybe a ten year career if they're lucky and will end it at 30 years old with a laundry list of medical problems related to sports injuries. So the average salary really isn't unreasonable."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daenowz",
"comment_text": [
"First not all athletes do, only the best in sports that people demand to watch it and will pay to do so.",
"Simply put athletes are paid so much because they are rare talents that only a small percentage of people can do and they play a sport that has enough people wanting to watch it where they are a highly demanded commodity that is in very low supply,"
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: When did tobacco companies start adding to cigarettes all of the carcinogenic properties we know about today? Were cigarettes ever safe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5eqz40
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.8
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daeilvp",
"comment_text": [
"Tobacco smoke contains most of those carcinogens naturally (there are such things as cigarette additives but they're mostly flavorants and they're regulated)",
"Turns out burning a dried leaf and inhaling the smoke is bad for you. Go figure. \"Natural\" is not the same as \"good for you.\""
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daevh31",
"comment_text": [
"For the most part they didn't, they were already there, that whole carcinogenic additives thing is a bit of a distortion.",
"Turns out that burning complex organic substance creates a lot of weird molecules, and a whole lot of them are carcinogenic. This is true whether you burn cabbage or petunias or tobacco. ",
"So while tobacco smoke does technically contain lots of carcinogens, it isn't particularly noteworthy."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf1f1t",
"comment_text": [
"It's tempting to just say you're wrong, because you are incredibly wrong. But it's also not entirely untrue that cigarette manufacturers have made cigs more deadly. That's not because they added poison. Actually, modern cigs are quite highly refined. But they have a ton of nicotine, which means they're very addictive. And so while each Marlboro is less carcinogenic than, say, a Galouis or an Upman cigar, the typical user smokes them way more often."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf1f1t",
"comment_text": [
"It's tempting to just say you're wrong, because you are incredibly wrong. But it's also not entirely untrue that cigarette manufacturers have made cigs more deadly. That's not because they added poison. Actually, modern cigs are quite highly refined. But they have a ton of nicotine, which means they're very addictive. And so while each Marlboro is less carcinogenic than, say, a Galouis or an Upman cigar, the typical user smokes them way more often."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf1kvw",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, absolutely. MJ is probably not as bad as smoking cigarettes because cigs are engineered to be highly efficient nicotine delivery devices, and nicotine is addictive, so cigarette smokers smoke many times a day. However, as MJ becomes both legally and socially more accepted, you can bet that corporate interests are going to get more involved. Several years from now they're going to be selling branded marijuana that is refined and mild, and as such it's going to be a more regular part of the smoker's daily routine, and cancer risk is going to increase. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why every time I look at my bathroom mirror I think I look pretty good but every time I take a picture I think that I look horrible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5eq7qs
| 21
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.77
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daec6vt",
"comment_text": [
"When you see yourself in the mirror every day, you're actually seeing a version of you that's backwards. So when you see what you actually look like to others, rather than the backwards you that you're used to, it looks completely strange."
],
"score": 23
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daed5me",
"comment_text": [
"Just from a photographic viewpoint, a big part of it could be lighting. Not only are you used to the lighting in a mirror, which tends to be pretty good, but with the wrong lighting the most beautiful face in the world will look like a ghoul's. Look at the pictures from this last election. In some of them the candidates look pretty good, but in others they look hideous. Same people, same day, different lighting. (Of course that's ignoring the ones that were deliberately manipulated.)"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daeuhc4",
"comment_text": [
"Here are some other considerations:",
"A photograph will tend to make you look heavier.",
"The image in the mirror is similar to looking at a 3D object in video game on a flat screen monitor, as opposed to a flat 2D image of yourself in a still photo print. The perception of depth is greater in the mirror. ",
"A comparison of a video and a mirror would likely be closer to each other than a still photo and the mirror would be. The ability to move, turn etc. under the lighting conditions enhances the effect in the mirror and in the video.",
"Size matters. When you look at yourself in the mirror it is at actual size. When you look at photo it is a reduced image.",
"Lighting. The image in the mirror is as it is with no overriding lighting conditions. On the other hand the still photo involves the lighting captured in the image and the lighting conditions on the photographic print being viewed.",
"Substrate. A mirror has a reflecting silver backing that does not impair the degree or volume of color values seen, while a photographic print has several dye layers and a paper backing that impair or limit the volume of color values seen. Similar to why a photo on a computer screen looks better than a print."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daec3mh",
"comment_text": [
"Focus point, try to take a photo from twice the distance of you and the mirror and see that it's almost the same."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daei1dl",
"comment_text": [
"I've always wondered this, the argument regarding the flipped angle doesn't convince me too much. Nor does the lighting argument. I've had professional photography taken of me once and encountered the same situation. ",
"I've considered if perhaps this has to do a bit with body dysmorphia, even in the slightest degree. If not in terms of all of the population, at least for me. Although it would be a bit of an odd body dysmorphia...where you see yourself as you'd like to be? Okay, I'm just making things up now."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5: How can video games pre load without leaking data of the game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5eokok
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
I understand that when games pre-load, everything is encrypted, but every single encrypted file can be decrypted with enough time. Thanks!
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dae26t9",
"comment_text": [
"but every single encrypted file can be decrypted with enough time.",
"The game will be out well before any reasonable time for decryption."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dae3xs1",
"comment_text": [
"I believe that the preload consists of data, so textures, sounds, etc. You can encrypt those. Or preload them in an incomplete state.",
"Taken from ",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC5",
"12-round RC5 (with 64-bit blocks) is susceptible to a differential attack using 244chosen plaintexts.[1] 18–20 rounds are suggested as sufficient protection.",
"RSA Security, which has a patent on the algorithm,[4] offered a series of US$10,000 prizes for breaking ciphertexts encrypted with RC5, but these contests have been discontinued as of May 2007. A number of these challenge problems have been tackled using distributed computing, organised by Distributed.net. Distributed.net has brute-forced RC5 messages encrypted with 56-bit and 64-bit keys, and is working on cracking a 72-bit key; as of February 2016, 3.909% of the keyspace has been searched. At the current rate, it will take approximately 218 years to test every possible remaining key, and thus guarantee completion of the project.[5] The task has inspired many new and novel developments in the field of cluster computing.[6]",
"So even a large botnet is no guarantee. And if you encrypt different files with different keys it gets even harder.",
"I think that the executable is never included, so you can't run the game making it rather useless even if you manage to decrypt everything."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dae6el1",
"comment_text": [
"but every single encrypted file can be decrypted with enough time. ",
"Turns out with readily available encryption, \"enough time\" can be weeks, years, or even centuries.",
"Also, encryption isn't necessarily the only thing they do. A preload doesn't have to download ",
". If you have 10 gig game, you can preload 9.9 gig of it, and hold back the 100 meg of the really important stuff until the game goes live."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daf2v36",
"comment_text": [
"You're vastly underestimating how difficult good encryption is to crack.",
"For instance the biggest RSA key ever cracked was a 768 bit key. It took the equivalent of about 500 current laptops running for a full year to break it. ",
"Typical key length used today is at least 1024 bits, and every extra bit in keylength approximately doubles how hard the encryption is to break.",
"In essence strong enough encryption is not breakable in any reasonable amount of time. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daeiz93",
"comment_text": [
"Ahhh so it's just very strong encryption then. Thanks!"
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5 request how do American football players keep their pants on
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5eocrz
| 10
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.66
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadxjtp",
"comment_text": [
"When I played the pants had a belt that went around the inside. It held several pieces of padding and also pulled the waist tight. Also, the pants are extremely tight, and once they're on, you slip even more pads into them, making them even tighter. Also, holding is against the rules, so people aren't really trying to grab onto the slippery skin-tight fabric. Finally, people do lose their pants occasionally. "
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadwym5",
"comment_text": [
"They wear belts, and they have string ties in the front. They are also pretty tight and don't wiggle very easily."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadz4jn",
"comment_text": [
"This is correct! I also was a former player and was a coach as well. This is how all football pants are that I have seen."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadzsb9",
"comment_text": [
"American college football player here. Typically there are belts on the insides of pants. The pants are extremely tight to begin with and nice pants have a line of clear rubber grip around the inside waist line to prevent them from slipping/falling. A lot of players will opt not to where a belt because the tightness provides a sufficient hold."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadzaw6",
"comment_text": [
"No.",
"Players wear belts like this ",
"http://m.epicsports.com/Football/p/26319/index.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvNrBBRDe3IOwzLn6_O4BEiQAmbK-Dv7V0uXIPup6_6cDtrHlxUGn-H7BGEfVxiIaxY_le3UaApWS8P8HAQ",
".",
"I have forgotten my belt before a game. Had to tie the pants really tight and pulled my pants up after nearly every play."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why does sweater weather sound like its sung by a girl?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5el0ot
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.45
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dad8dwh",
"comment_text": [
"It's called \"Falsetto.\" The guy's singing at a high pitch.",
"The big difference between male and female voice is pitch, and there's some overlap. A guy singing \"high\" can sound effeminate."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dad9lxo",
"comment_text": [
"The live and music video are usually relaly different, they got audio techs "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dad9lxo",
"comment_text": [
"The live and music video are usually relaly different, they got audio techs "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadadv7",
"comment_text": [
"It doesn't sound like a falsetto to me. Countertenor, perhaps, but I'm no expert on vocal ranges. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadh9ea",
"comment_text": [
"I'm very confused by your question since never before today have I heard anyone even suggest that Jesse Rutherford's voice is effeminate. I mean... you could ask this question far more accurately with Coheed and Cambria or Philip Bailey as an example and still, I'd posit that it's a bit of an odd question. ",
"There's 7 voice categories by range. In order from lowest they're:",
"Bass, Baritone, Tenor, Countertenor, Contralto, Mezzo Soprano, Soprano.",
"While the latter 3 are most likely owned by women, there's no rule. Anyone can be of any range (And multiple ranges even. Check out Warrel Dane)"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:What depicts the real you (how people see you in real life), Camera or Mirror?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5el2ux
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
Sometimes the front camera goes like a Mirror, the back camera acts like a regular camera. I'm having doubts which image is most likely true (how people see you in real life--physical dimensions), is it the one you see in the Mirror or the one on the camera?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dad8qre",
"comment_text": [
"A mirror will \"flip\" your image around, left to right.",
"A camera doesn't. ",
" a lot of factors (focal length, lighting, pose etc) can dramatically impact how you look on camera. A really good photographer can make you look ",
", but your friend's casual cameraphone shots probably do nothing to flatter you.",
"Also, cameras produce a two-dimensional image, when in real life you see in three dimensions.",
"So the end answer is that no human invention (so far) depicts you ",
" as how others see you. Frustrating, huh?"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dada4hk",
"comment_text": [
"But why do I not see my head the way I see theirs in the mirror? ",
"What do you mean?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dad9274",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, a mirror does flip left/right. That explains why I see someone's head sort of distorted if I looked them in the mirror. But why do I not see my head the way I see theirs in the mirror?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadbpnt",
"comment_text": [
"Mirrors flip front to back, not left to right. We only think it's left to right because we're more or less symmetric around a vertical line. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dadegfp",
"comment_text": [
"But why do I not see my head the way I see theirs in the mirror?",
"Because you usually ",
" see your mirrored image, so that's what looks \"normal\" to you. But you usually only see everyone else's ",
" image, so that's what looks normal to you for them.",
"So when looking at yourself and a friend in a mirror, you see yourself mirrored, which is how you always see yourself, so it looks normal. And your see your friend mirrored, which is how you almost never see them, so it looks weird. And they're thinking the same thing as you (they think that they look normal in the mirror, and ",
" look \"distorted\")."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What is the point of starting a business if some bigger company can buy you out at any moment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ee4g1
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabq7ev",
"comment_text": [
"This may require more context.",
"If you go public (and sell shares so that you can raise money) and you don't own a majority of shares so that anyone could buy you out from under you, that's on you (and you still make money).",
"If you're a privately owned business, and the sole owner, a company cannot buy you out at any moment if you don't want them to do that.",
"Being bought out by a bigger company could be seen as success. Example, everyone's friend Tom (the myspace guy) made half a billion by getting bought out and he gets to just travel the world and take photographs. Or he could have just started another business if he wanted."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabqdvg",
"comment_text": [
"Many businesses are started with that express purpose... A bigger company can buy you out so all of the founders of the company walk away with $10 Million and never have to work or want for anything for the rest of their lives... not a bad deal. ",
"Anyways, if a company is private, a bigger business can make you an offer but by no means can they buy you out without your consent. You own the company. ",
"If your company is public, you already agreed to sell your company... you just sold it to stock holders. If a bigger competitor wants to buy your company... well it's not yours, it's public. They don't need to ask you, they need to ask the people who own the company, which are your stock holders."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabq71w",
"comment_text": [
"A bigger company can buy you out only with your consent. When a bigger company buys you out you usually make a lot of money and a bunch of other benefits which is the point of owning a business in the first place."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabq92p",
"comment_text": [
"For a lot of people, getting bought out by a bigger company is the point. Particularly in tech.",
"Kevin Systrom, one of the co-founders of Instagram, made 400 million dollars when Facebook bought Instagram. I'd say that's a pretty good thing for him, wouldn't you?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabtmlc",
"comment_text": [
"I am wondering if you mean swamp you out - just copy you and swamp you out. \nThat has to be considered in your business model. If you can't work out the business model to dodge that threat, or slip in under the radar, then its not a good business model, that simple. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: If the term gun refers to artillery, what would be the proper name for a "heavy machine gun"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5egvtt
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
Or is this one of those weird exceptions like "shotgun"?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dacb22c",
"comment_text": [
"\"Gun\" used to mean cannon historically, but it's been redefined to include other firearms and, more recently, anything shaped like one (captive bolt gun, hot glue gun, spray gun...). Linguistics are just funny like that."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dacbpq2",
"comment_text": [
"Heavy Machine Guns, like the Maxim gun and Gatling gun before it were considered close range artillery pieces. They were worked by teams of people, normally 3. ",
"The term gun refers to all gunpowder weapons that launch a projectile out of them ranging from cannon and long range artillery, to small arms like a pistol. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dacbfc3",
"comment_text": [
"To add to your point, It's not even the weight of the weapon system, it's the calibre of the round that's being referred to",
"Light MG - 5.56 mm",
"Medium MG - 7.62 mm",
"Heavy MG - 50 cal"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dacxf5v",
"comment_text": [
"From my experience in the Marine Corps any heavy machine gun is carried by a minimum of two people.",
"Specifically my experience is with the ",
"M2 Browning",
" and the ",
"Mk 19",
" both of which weigh more than 70lbs dry. Usually the barrels would be removed and a man would carry the barrel and the ammunition, and a tripod while another man would carry the receiver itself.",
"Could you provide some sources and specific details on what heavy machine guns are carried by a single man?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dacb7de",
"comment_text": [
"When was it retermed? I am studying history and we just covered WWI, which had a lot of artillery and also heavy machine guns. Were HMGs called as such at the time? or was this later rebranded>?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5:Why does Italy have such a disappointing military history
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ebyvn
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
The History of Italy after the Roman Empire was essentially foreign powers flexing their power over them. Many leaders in the 1800s were afraid of a unified Italy, like Napoleon III. However, Italy has not proven them right, and I was curious why.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dab8m1n",
"comment_text": [
"Actually this is not true. Sardinia-Piedmont's rise led to the ",
"Unification of Italy",
" and till the end of WWI Italy took control over the area around Trieste and South Tyrolia - mainly what Italy represents nowadays.",
"So during the whole phase of unifying Italy actually grew - that is a rather successful military history."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabh5ez",
"comment_text": [
"Yet still military victories in terms of extending control. Using other means than building an own military and fighting everyone else but joining the right alliance at the right time and let the others do soem fighting is just being smart."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabg9kg",
"comment_text": [
"I recognize that Roman and Post-classical Italy are completely different, it's just that many Italians would like to think that they are the inheritors of Rome",
"Anyways, so the Italians could not support their troops with air and tanks? That would make sense"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabgw9m",
"comment_text": [
"Well, they didn't completely lack them, but here's an anecdote from October 29 1936. Spain. Pro-Republican Soviet T-26 spots a Frankist Italian-made Carro CV3/33. Carro fires its hull-mounted twin machine guns at a target, futilely. The 8 t T-26 briefly points its 45 mm main cannon at the roach, and then rams the 1.5 t tankette into a ditch before going about its business.",
"Pretty much the same in Africa in WWII proper, except that the gap was only increasing with time. Heck, those tankettes were being defeated by Ethiopian boarding teams ",
". In 1939, when Hitler demanded Italy to go to war alongside Germany, Mussolini drew up a demand of five million tons of war materiel up front. Then he put up a parade with wooden machine guns, and beefed up his infantry division count to 137 by changing each division from three regiments to two."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabgfsn",
"comment_text": [
"But wasn't this (unification) through clever diplomacy and timing wars perfectly with some French help? The Italians should have been able to take Ethiopia, but either through lack of ability, the strength of Ethiopia, or a combination of the two prevented that."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Is this sentence correctly conjugated/makes sense?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5e9mir
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daar0nm",
"comment_text": [
"It depends on what you're trying to say.",
"If you're trying to say \"love\" as in the \"there is only one person who is your one true love\" kind of sense, you might say, \"Love is like an illusion--you may see many, but there is only one that is true.\" ",
"If you're trying to say \"love\" as in the \"I love you\" sense, you might say, \"Love is like an illusion--you may see many, but I see only one.\""
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daar4fx",
"comment_text": [
"thanks a lot, the second one sounds amazing, the one i was trying to say was the first one, but i will use the second one, since it sounds AMAZING!!!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daar6sr",
"comment_text": [
"but i dont get the -- kind of thing, cant it be \"Love is like an illusion, you may see many, but I see only one\"?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daar9d7",
"comment_text": [
"The em dash (elongated hyphen) is used when two parts of a sentence can be separated by a comma, but also work on their own. It can, at times, replace commas, semicolons, periods, or even parenthesis. A comma works, but seems less elegant in this case due to how many you want to put in the one sentence. As a general guideline, you should try to use only one comma per sentence. ",
"I just figured I'd give you a prettier looking version, but feel free to use a comma instead."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daare3s",
"comment_text": [
"ohh wow, i learn something new today, my teachers never tough me to use that in an sentence(essay) but seems pretty useful, i will try to use it more commonly. it was just that i tried to make it look like a quote, it looks kind of weird(for me) to have a -- , is there anything that could make it grammatically correct but keep the essence of the sentence?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: In Seinfeld, there is an episode where Jerry desperately wants out of a traffic jam. Kramer advises him to remove the plates + serial number and to abandon the car at the traffic jam. Kramer says to say the car was stolen and the insurance would give him a new car. Would this work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ee0kc
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabplji",
"comment_text": [
"You would have to file a police report and lie to the cops. The chance that the truth is gonna come out eventually is very high and you would be charged with insurance fraud and a bunch of other stuff. So in theory it would work if you are willing to risk years in prison and massive fines."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabprtt",
"comment_text": [
"Besides, the police would have people looking for the car. If they find it within X days (usually 30, but depends on your contract), they give it back to you and no new car.",
"Source: my mom had her car stolen a few years ago, and the police found it exactly 29 days later."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabpt4j",
"comment_text": [
"This, the insurance won't do shit without a police report, so to even get the ball rolling you've just committed a crime."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabq4b7",
"comment_text": [
"It probably wouldn't work, for various reasons. You'd have to get out on the shoulder with people watching you strip the plates off the car. And it's not like they have anywhere to go, they're in a traffic jam. So you're going to end up home, file a police report that your car was stolen, while they're getting reports of people matching your description tearing the plates off of a car.",
"If they take your story at face value, you'll just get your car back and have to likely pay for towing and new plates (you can't just put your old ones back on because they were 'stolen').",
"If they don't, best case scenario you're looking at obstruction of justice charges for wasting police time by filing a fraudulent report. More likely you're going to end up doing real time in actual prison for insurance fraud and conspiracy. Especially if one of your accomplices accepts some kind of plea bargain. Do you trust the person you're doing this with enough that they'll keep their mouth shut in an interrogation rather than take community service? Sounds like a bad bet.",
"I'm DEFINITELY not encouraging anybody to do a crime, but doing so with a captive audience in an age of cell phone cameras is like, a recipe for failure."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dabq6uu",
"comment_text": [
"your car has Vehicle Identification Number plates in various locations, including on the rear or bottom of the engine and transmission. hard to remove those in middle of traffic."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5:Why do people get hungry again after eating Chinese food?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5e6t1j
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa5xvf",
"comment_text": [
"Thats not how msg works"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa5f35",
"comment_text": [
"Chinese food tends to be highly focused on carbohydrates, with a minimal splash of protein and almost no fat. Since carbohydrates digest quickly, you are hungry earlier than if you had been eating a meal heavier in fat/protein (such as a typically 'American' meal like a burger)."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa40nz",
"comment_text": [
"What Chinese food have you been eating? I always feel so stuffed if I was to eat anything else poop would come out, that poop would be egg fried rice. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa4cqp",
"comment_text": [
"I know its a common joke that after you eat Chinese food you get hungry 20 minutes later. Well I guess I have been eating a lot of Chinese food lately and I have found that to be true. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa76tw",
"comment_text": [
"Plus the huge carb dump brings on high blood sugar which is soon followed by low blood sugar which = hunger."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How to explain to my dad that being trapped in this house, with no one to talk to, is bad for my mental health.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5e6qx4
| 3
|
Other
| true
| true
| 0.58
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa3v4j",
"comment_text": [
"get professional help - therapist, counselor, psychologist, whatever works best for you. if you're at a point where homelessness is preferable to living with your father, something clearly needs to change."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa40t4",
"comment_text": [
"Uhhh... a bit of context is needed. how old are you? Why are you being kept in doors against your will? Why can't you just... go out? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa9mtt",
"comment_text": [
"And how old are you? Why don't you have a job...? Make money, save up for a car? Then go do stuff. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa9mtt",
"comment_text": [
"And how old are you? Why don't you have a job...? Make money, save up for a car? Then go do stuff. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa4frc",
"comment_text": [
"How old are you (of age or underage)? A bit of context is needed here, but this sounds a bit sketchy/scary."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How to contact my parents??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5e4url
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9n9v7",
"comment_text": [
"You could perhaps call the courthouse and ask if they are there, but realistically you just have to wait for them to come home. Probably went to the shops on the way back."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9ox3l",
"comment_text": [
"First, if it's only a few hours they might've stopped somewhere for lunch, or gone shopping, or something. If it ",
" take considerably longer (say, 8 hours) longer, then you ",
" call 911 - that whole 24 hours thing is a myth. Or you could call other relatives and see if they have any ideas.",
"I do want to point out that ELI5 is not a good forum for these questions - it's not the focus of this sub so you'll get far less useful advice (and the automod might nuke posts like this). I would try ",
"/r/advice",
" for stuff like this in the future. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9nef4",
"comment_text": [
"Likely... thanks anyways though."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9p12f",
"comment_text": [
"I hope they come back soon. ",
"If they don't, say in an hour or so, do call the police. No need to use 911, just call your local police number. They'll know if there's been an accident or similar. ",
"I am going to have to delete this message, it's not a good idea to leave it open, but well done for trying and using your brains."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9wehw",
"comment_text": [
"They came home a few hours ago, but thanks <3"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: why do adults enjoy learning things more than children?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5e1xfj
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
As a child and a teenager, I absolutely hated studying, learning and education in general. But now I'm an adult, I spend most of my leisure time reading about educational things like history books. I now take every opportunity i have to learn something, useless or useful.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da927un",
"comment_text": [
"\"Want to\" vs \"have to.\" Also, you probably go and read up on topics that sound fun.",
"As a kid, you HAVE to go to school, sit in that unpadded desk, learning about whatever they want, for hours and hours. ",
" day.",
"As an adult, you're learning whatever you want, ",
" you want. If you get home from work and decide \"fuck it, don't feel like it today\" you can just do that. It's at your own pace and leisure."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da92sfh",
"comment_text": [
"I'm of the belief that adults, as they mature, are looking to expand either their knowledge or skill set. As a child, having an adult telling you what to do can discourage you to actually learn. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da93b8a",
"comment_text": [
"This is only my personal opinion. I think adults tend to learn by themselves about stuff they find interesting or just want to know the answer. Children will enjoy learning if they are interested in it or if the teacher make it fun. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daabv8x",
"comment_text": [
"I loved learning as a child, and love it as an adult.",
"Some things at school were pretty pointless though. I could totally see why that would squelch people's desire."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da94nwj",
"comment_text": [
"I am very alike to your description of yourself as a child/teen and now adult.",
"I chalk it up to still having the subconscious need to \"play\" in order to learn more about yourself and people in general and having less options for entertainment.",
"If I still had a handful of people who were ready, willing, and able to just fuck off and go do cool stuff ALL the time I doubt I'd ever read anything. "
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5: When someone says "He/She is my first cousin once removed" - what does the "once removed" part mean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dyesf
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da87q3o",
"comment_text": [
"Once removed means a generation apart. So, if your 1",
" cousin has a kid, that is your 1",
" cousin once removed."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da88frl",
"comment_text": [
"Your parents first cousins would also be your first cousins once removed"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da88v9m",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"Your post is requesting: Straightforward answers or facts - ELI5 is for requesting an explanation of a concept, not a simple straightforward answer ",
"Recommended subreddit(s): ",
"/r/nostupidquestions",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da88xsd",
"comment_text": [
"a cousin has the same grandpa, a second cousin has the same great grandpa, a third cousin has the same great great grandpa. ",
"A once removed cousin is the kid of your cousin. twice removed is the grand child of your cousin. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da88e38",
"comment_text": [
"You could try \"my cousins kid\".. As you can see the whole one and twice remove thing is kinda confusing to some"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are there two pronunciations of the word 'the', and why are both acceptable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dqw7y
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.84
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6n14q",
"comment_text": [
"\"The\" isn't special in this by any means. There are many ways to pronounce various words: comfortable, been, aunt...",
"But ",
" if \"the\" is followeed by a vowel sound it is pronounced like ",
". If \"the\" is followed by a consonant sound it is pronounce \"thuh\". This is similar to the rule for \"a\" vs \"an\". However with \"the\", the rule isn't as strongly followed. Especially for singing. Just pronounce it in whichever way makes the lyric sound better."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6n1us",
"comment_text": [
"It's sort of the same deal as the indefinite article. You use \"a\" before a consonant sound and \"an\" before a vowel sound"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6mtwm",
"comment_text": [
"If the next word starts with a vowel, then most times it tends to be 'thee', eg: the apple, the orange, etc. As opposed to 'thuh' banana."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6te6s",
"comment_text": [
"Indeed! Except back in the day it was always 'an'. We just lazy!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6n3os",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Please try ",
"/r/linguistics",
". ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why Skype and Facetime have different video quality although they both use same camera?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5e5x56
| 1,960
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.87
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9w78m",
"comment_text": [
"I guess it all depends on the bandwidth each app \"requires\". The lower the quality the more fluid the communication will be on low reception environments."
],
"score": 413
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa6jhg",
"comment_text": [
"The quality on a video chat can only be as good as the \"weakest\" link.",
"The camera will set the upper bound for how good the quality can possibly be. If your camera has a thick layer of grease on it, nothing's going to look good.",
"After that, the controlling factors will be the resolution that the software chooses to record at (the pixel size, like 640 x 480, 1920 x 1080, etc.), the amount of network speed available or that the app chooses to use (\"bandwidth\", measured in kilobits or megabits per second, for network and video applications), and which encoding format is being used.",
"Better encoding formats can get more visual quality with the same amount of bandwidth, but often being more difficult to encode and/or decode. \"h264\" is a lot higher quality than the old \"divx / xvid\" type of MPEG4, which in turn was better than the ones that came before those. Phones and tablets (and many digital cameras )now have the ability to encode and decode x264 video \"in hardware\" rather than requiring the main processor to do all the hard work.",
"Skype and Facetime are very likely using different amounts of bandwidth, or different video encoding techniques, which is why they don't look the same. It's not much different to a phone call on a regular landline (or a cell phone with great signal coverage) vs a cell phone call where one person is on a really bad network (low signal strength, heavily overloaded cell tower, roaming on a bad 2G-GSM network).",
"I haven't used Facetime so I don't know how it compares to Skype, but on Skype you can really tell if you don't have enough bandwidth if the call quality goes to crap."
],
"score": 343
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9wrre",
"comment_text": [
"Yep. Also, FaceTime uses H.265 (mainly used for 4K UHD video), and it's about 40% better at compression, and Skype uses H.264 (standard codec for 1080p), so if they use the same bandwidth, that alone would cause a noticable difference."
],
"score": 157
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa9cb7",
"comment_text": [
"Okay, but this won't be easy. I'll try my best.",
"Skype and FaceTime are both what are called \"video conferencing technologies,\" computers and programs that take a video from one phone and send it to another, while receiving the video from the other phone and displaying it for the user. You want to know why the video looks better on one app than the other, and the answer is very much about speed. Let's clear up a few things first.",
"We are talking about using the same phone, same camera, and same lighting conditions, but different apps and an internet connection that can be cellphone or WiFi. Now, to send a video from one place to another, the other place needs to show many images, slightly different from one another, and one after the other, so that it tricks the user on the other side into seeing a smoothly flowing picture. The human eye needs about 25 images every second to see this, and to do this, we would have to send 25 pictures every second to the other phone.",
"Because the internet used to be very (VERY, VERY, VERY!!!!) slow not too long ago, people came up with a way to solve this problem: send one picture, and then only the changes between pictures for a few seconds, and then another picture. This is why you sometimes see the picture show trails and deform weirdly. Doing this is called video compression, and the trails and deformities are called \"video compression artifacts\" and they are caused by the data not getting through.",
"But, because the internet was so slow, this wasn't even enough. We had to come up with a way to make even the full pictures much smaller. So the pictures that are sent between the difference information are also \"compressed.\" We do this by analyzing the image, and breaking it down into many rectangles of different colors. If you start with drawing many large rectangles and then draw smaller ones with different colors on top, and you keep doing this, you will be able to come up with a picture that is very close to the original picture, and close is good enough. Telling a computer how far down and how far over to start drawing a rectangle, and how far down, and how far over it should end, and what color it should be, takes up less memory than telling it the color for every pixel because you can tell it to cover many pixels with one rectangle. This is called \"image compression,\" and when you see an image that has a lot of squares or rectangles in your video, it's because of \"image compression artifacts.\"",
"Now, Skype was made sometime between the dinosaur extinction and the internet getting fast, but definitely before it got fast. Many people still connected to the internet with these crazy devices that screamed noises at each other over a telephone, instead of using the internet to make calls. So, to make things happen quickly enough, video calls were encoded with less advanced methods of \"video compression\" and \"audio compression.\" Even the methods I explained are just hints at how it really works, but let's say that the maths and science have evolved. FaceTime was made between when being cool stopped being cool, and when cellphone internet got really, really fast. At first, you couldn't even use FaceTime through cellphone internet without hacking it. It was WiFi only.",
"Because Skype was made in the long, long ago, it still uses an older version of \"image compression,\" and \"video compression.\" To give a good example, let's say that the new ways to do compression can also do circles for images, and can come up with the differences between images faster because they are made to do more than one image at once, or more than one change at once. One of the big steps forward in computers has been to do this compression, the action being called \"encoding,\" very fast, in hardware. The opposite of this, on the other side, putting it back together, on the screen, is called \"decoding.\" I hope this clears up a few things."
],
"score": 67
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daa5j9n",
"comment_text": [
"Is wikipedia outdated? According to wikipedia Facetimealso ",
"uses H.264"
],
"score": 50
}
|
|
ELI5: Why/how humans started drinking cow milk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5drdiq
| 37
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.74
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6r45b",
"comment_text": [
"The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose first evolved in dairy farming communities in Central Europe.",
"The genetic change that enabled early Europeans to drink milk without getting sick has been mapped to dairying farmers who lived around 7,500 years ago in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe. Previously, it was thought that natural selection favoured milk drinkers only in more northern regions because of their greater need for vitamin D in their diet. People living in most parts of the world make vitamin D when sunlight hits the skin, but in northern latitudes there isn’t enough sunlight to do this for most of the year.",
"Many reasons have been put forward for why being able to drink fresh milk should be such an advantage. For example, milk can compensate for the lack of sunlight and synthesis of vitamin D in skin at more northern latitudes, since vitamin D is required for calcium absorption and milk provides a good dietary source of both nutrients. Milk also provides a calorie- and protein-rich food source, comes in a relatively constant supply compared to the boom-and-bust of seasonal crops, and would have been less contaminated than water supplies."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6qwyf",
"comment_text": [
"Wide spread consumption of it in European nations (particularly norther Europe) was common well into antiquity. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6r0n0",
"comment_text": [
"I don't think we have an exact date. But given that a subset of humanity have evolved a gene to process lactose safely (those of European decent) it would have to have started 1000s of years ago. Simple enough to imagine why. At the time people survived by raising cattle. Why just keep them for their meat when they also offer milk."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6udpd",
"comment_text": [
"The notion that it is a necessary food is very recent, and has to do with excess supply in the 20th century."
],
"score": 0
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da6qwi5",
"comment_text": [
"People saw baby cows drinking their mothers milk. Someones lightbulb turned on and they said, \"If they could do it, couldnt we?\" and thus milk was born."
],
"score": -3
}
|
|
ELI5: InfoWars
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dnpkp
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5xl02",
"comment_text": [
"Primarily a conspiracy theorist media outlet most well-known because of Alex Jones. Usually off-kilter, but sometimes pursing something less ludicrous; some conspiracies do exist, after all. Earns money selling bogus \"meds\" and energy drinks.",
"With the 2016 Presidential Election involving a notoriously corrupt and scheming candidate who was unanimously backed by much of the mainstream media (a conspiracy theorist's worst dreams coming true), InfoWars have ridden on the coattails of Breitbart into prominence; to a Trump supporter, InfoWars's outlook on the world was vindicated, courtesy of Hillary fainting and the DNC/Podesta/WikiLeaks."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5xyjd",
"comment_text": [
"Let's not overlook that said candidate also proclaimed she was for feminism but took a LOT of donations from saudi arabia."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5yguv",
"comment_text": [
"I'm trying to avoid removal for bias here! This sub is popular with ",
"/r/TwoXChromosomes",
"."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5z4jr",
"comment_text": [
"With the 2016 Presidential Election involving a notoriously corrupt and scheming candidate who was unanimously backed by much of the mainstream media ",
"This is the most accurate description of Trump's rise to power I have ever seen. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da68prx",
"comment_text": [
"And Associated Press.",
"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-many-donors-to-clinton-foundation-met-with-her-at-state/",
"And The New York Times.",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash",
"And Wikipedia.",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93State_Department_controversy"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How did so many different currencies all come to use the dollar sign ($)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dlmw6
| 40
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.71
|
A lot of other currencies seem to have symbols specific only to themselves (€, £), so I have been wondering how it is that the dollar sign is common to so many different currencies worldwide. Off the top of my head, I can think of pesos, USD, CAD, and AUD. I'm also interested in why more than one country calls their currency "dollars" even though USD, CAD, and AUD are very different and have different values in the international exchange.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5i4yo",
"comment_text": [
"It wasn't really until the 1648 and the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia that the modern concept of a nation state with fixed borders really started. Before then unless you were an island like the UK then your borders shifted as kings died and neighbouring countries extorted taxes from whatever territories they could.",
"So without different countries money was just some token of value that people only trusted to some extent. If it was a gold or silver coin then it didn't really matter which king's face was on it, it still had value.",
"The town of Jáchymov in Czechia had a silver mine and for centuries minted a coin from this silver, the German name for Jachvmov is Joachimsthal (Saint Joachim's Valley), the coins were known as Joachimsthallers, or thallers for short which would be roughly pronounced as 'dollar'.",
"For four hundred years the thaller or dollar was a popular coin who's value was trusted all over Europe and the known (western) world.",
"When nation states became established, they created their own coins and would name them similarly, the American dollar, the Canadian dollar, etc."
],
"score": 43
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5iwv0",
"comment_text": [
"The $ symbol has indicated money since 1770, when people who used pesos abbreviated it as \"p",
" and it started to look more like a $ (same as the & came from \"et\"). As other currencies were created, they kept using the same symbol (and sometimes the same name), with the country initials in front (US$, A$, NZ$, R$, etc). "
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5yb48",
"comment_text": [
"Both the dollar and the peso descended from the original \"piece of eight\", which really existed. It was a Spanish coin, worth eight reales, which was at the time the Spanish unit of currency. This coin was particularly useful because it was worth roughly the same as a thaler, and so was called the \"Spanish thaler\" in English, which is where we get \"dollar\" from. The Spanish for \"piece of eight\" is \"peso de ocho\", and that's where \"peso\" comes from. In Brazil, the old real simply kept going. Since all these currencies actually have a common ancestry, it's not surprising they all had the same symbol."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5isy5",
"comment_text": [
"Not true. For example, the brazilian Real is represented by R$."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5isy5",
"comment_text": [
"Not true. For example, the brazilian Real is represented by R$."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5:How do people become homeless as a result of large medical bills?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5di3zr
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.62
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4ox49",
"comment_text": [
"When you declare bankruptcy, the courts effectively conduct an orderly forced sale of all of your assets. This means you lose almost everything you have. For most this doesn't matter much since they likely have little (given that if they had a lot they could avoid the bankruptcy)",
"There are limits, though. In ",
"Illinois",
" for instance, there's a \"homestead\" exemption, which means that for the purposes of bankruptcy, part of your home isn't counted in your assets. Unfortunately, the cap for this exemption is 15k. ",
"So that means if you lived in a $16,000 house, owned nothing else, and declared bankruptcy for $5,000 dollars in debt, the creditors would only get $1,000 dollars. If you lived in a $15,000 house they'd get nothing.",
"Given those numbers, though, it's pretty clear that homes are going to be sold off pretty frequently even in bankruptcy. And given that bankruptcy makes it hard to rent (since it leaves you with bad credit) it's plausible that people end up homeless. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4ophi",
"comment_text": [
"Yeah, they could probably get medical bills expunged if they didn't have the funds. But if they chose bankruptcy that could lead to bad credit, lack of funds for apartment security deposit + first/last month rent, etc. might be reasons that it would be difficult to find housing after a medical incident. Probably not the whole story, but combine with loss of job/income and inability to find new work after, too."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4pion",
"comment_text": [
"Bankruptcy will write off your debt, but it'll also kill your credit. It's a domino effect that could easily be made worse by whatever situation they were in prior to those medical bills. If they were out of work for a good amount of time, that will lead to loss of wages and the other bills will pile up. Cell phone, car payments, utilities, house payments, and then come the medical bills. If you don't have insurance those medical bills are going to astronomical. My wife had surgery a few years ago and just the surgery itself was over 10K. That's not counting paying for everything else that they charge you for and break down into multiple bills. Luckily we had insurance or we would have been screwed."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4w4b0",
"comment_text": [
"I'm going to add on to the domino effect as well.",
"The typical American doesn't have a large emergency fund on hand. If whatever condition you get cause you to not work for a while, then you start digging into your emergency fund.",
"If you don't have one, you start to lose things. Cellphone gets disconnected, car gets repossessed, etc. Once you start to lose the things that are essential to holding down a steady job, things get ugly really fast."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4ywxb",
"comment_text": [
"These days, shit credit can make it harder to get a good job. Shit credit can make it harder to get an apartment."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: What does hmu mean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dgwnm
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4ecm5",
"comment_text": [
"Hit me up "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4fk07",
"comment_text": [
"Ty"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4ecqe",
"comment_text": [
"\"Hit me up\"\ncontact me."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4fjvd",
"comment_text": [
"Ty"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4eebn",
"comment_text": [
"Hit me up"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What is muslim registry?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dhor9
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.44
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4l8ph",
"comment_text": [
"A Muslim registry is exactly what it sounds like: A database of all Muslims visiting the US or inside the US, which may include all Muslim US citizens depending on how it's implemented.",
"It's bad because it's one step away from when the Nazis forced the Jews to wear Stars of David on their clothing. It's a pointless measure that doesn't actually ",
" anything, but rather pins the blame on a group of people--most of whom have nothing to do with the issue."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4l94y",
"comment_text": [
"It would be a list in short that all US Muslims would have to sign and be placed on, and people are apposed because it's singles out one group for simply having a belief and that list could then be used to restrict the rights and freedoms, it would be like the sex offenders register except your only crime is existing. Also think of what could happen if a far right extremist group such as the KKK got there hands on it."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4m92h",
"comment_text": [
"Also think of what could happen if a far right extremist group such as the KKK got there hands on it.",
"You don't have to imagine it - The Holocaust... that's what happens."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4m4v6",
"comment_text": [
"So remember when the Nazis required everyone who was Jewish to register themselves? It's literally that. Anyone who is Muslim would be required to go to the courthouse or DMV and officially say \"I am Muslim\". Then, they would either have to wear something identifying them as Muslim, like a pin or patch, or more likely it would be marked on their ID. ",
"The idea is that Muslims would be readily identifiable, so during violence like a mass shooting, police would be able to..control them better?",
"The problem is that history, over and over again, shows that when you start identifying people like that it's so you can take away their rights. Muslims would suddenly find it difficult to, say, purchase weapons under the justification that it's \"for public safety\". Then you have police officers accosting them for no particular reason, which they can do because they know who is Muslim. People start denying them service...",
"\"But that's ridiculous! America isn't that racist!\" Well, given that those things already happen to LGBT, Muslims, blacks, and other minorities, yeah making people wear a big symbol identifying them as \"dangerous\" probably won't end well for them."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4lfqe",
"comment_text": [
"It is more pointless because most of the dangerous people are converts and they won't show up on a register."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How do animals know to look into our eyes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dghfc
| 24
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.66
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4wiry",
"comment_text": [
"Picture a bunch of alien jellyfish swimming around in an alien ocean on an alien planet. They've all evolved to have these reflective organic disks on one side that lets them detect other jellyfish (or obstacles) in that direction. Some of these jellyfish are carnivorous and will try to eat others.",
"There is suddenly a distinct evolutionary advantage to knowing when the reflective disks of another jellyfish are facing you. And therefore know that you've been detected. So you can take evasive action, etc. Therefore there's a selective pressure, ensuring that those aware of the disk's function survive to sexuality maturity. The clueless often get eaten and do not get a chance to breed.",
"The same is basically true of eyes in most animals that possess them. And it's been true for so long, that many animals have it hardwired into them. ",
"Big cats for example have it drilled into them instinctually. So that when a prey's eyes are facing away their hunting instincts tell them to ",
". ",
"In this video",
" for example, the big cat hasn't decided to be a dick all of a sudden. It simply can't help itself. It's instincts are telling it ",
" Villagers in Bangladesh, in response to frequent tiger attacks, even exploited this by ",
"wearing masks on the backs of their heads",
". Keeping tigers permanently stuck in the \"wait for it, I'm being watched\" mode.",
"In another example",
" (if you can forgive the cringe-worthy narration and editing), these Stoats have learnt that if they move in a certain way they can exploit the rabbit's instinctual desire to track incoming threats with it's eyes. And by twisting wildly, the rabbit can't tell it's being snuck up on. A 'bug' of sorts, in the rabbit's wetware. At any point...the rabbit could just stop watching and bugger off. But so overwhelming is the urge to use it's eyes, it can't help but be transfixed.",
" - There's a strong instinctual drive to use your eyes to watch others (and especially the eyes of others). And in understand what the eyes actually do. The animals that watched the mouth, or nose, or earlobe instead, got eaten."
],
"score": 26
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4b86c",
"comment_text": [
"It is a normal sense of awareness that humans and animals have. It alerts the less dominant animal if they are in danger. Instinct."
],
"score": 12
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4b99p",
"comment_text": [
"I will look for my source. Brb..."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4ut36",
"comment_text": [
"Eye contact means different things to different animals, looking a silver back gorilla in the eyes is a good way to end up in a hospital. Dogs, lizards, and birds also respond to eye contact as a challenge.",
"You're most likely thinking of pets, who have been conditioned by their owners to believe eye contact leads to treats and scratches. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4cuag",
"comment_text": [
"This instinct is exploited by some animals. The eyed hawk moth has spots that look like eyes on its lower wings. When threatened it will flare its wings, revealing the spots, mimicing the head of a much larger animal.",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Smerinthus_ocellatus_MHNT_Female_dos.jpg/2560px-Smerinthus_ocellatus_MHNT_Female_dos.jpg"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why free college instead of free daycare?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5dg9wg
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4955k",
"comment_text": [
"In the US we do have free childcare. From roughly the ages of 5 to 18 public schools will watch your children for several hours a day for almost 10 months of the year. ",
"I assume you argue that we should expand that to younger children?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da49xph",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, should've been clearer- I mean from the time maternity leave (if you have it) ends, to the time that your child is old enough to enroll in public schools. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da495ju",
"comment_text": [
"Education should not be a choice. For people with low income it often can be.",
"Having a child is a choice."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da49z3n",
"comment_text": [
"Good point. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da49hqb",
"comment_text": [
"So why exactly is this comment gone?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What can Obama do before he leaves the presidency?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5df8bl
| 77
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
I mean, what can he do (within his power) before leaving and have that decision to stick even with incoming President, Senate, House or Supreme Court? What are his extend of powers?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da42nvb",
"comment_text": [
"Nothing beyond his current Article 2 authorities. And that's the point. Imagine 4 or 8 years from now... would you want the outgoing president to have unlimited, autocratic power? Peaceful transitions of power are essential to our nation. Those unhappy with the result of the election get another chance to vote for a president in 4 years. And, get another crack at shaping Congress in 2 years. Maybe it's going to be a wild ride. Or, maybe nothing of consequence will happen. Who knows. ",
"Edit: Other posters mention Executive Order. They do have the force of law, but only after they are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. That takes a lot longer than 60 days. "
],
"score": 65
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da4682q",
"comment_text": [
"No one has mentioned the traditional activity of an out-going president. He can issue pardons and clemency. Because these sometimes have political issues, the president tends to hold these until the last part of their out-going term. It's not that these get rushed through, they have been going through review for a long time (years?) but it has become common to publish many of them as you are leaving office."
],
"score": 21
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da437lq",
"comment_text": [
"Only Congress can \"officially\" start a war"
],
"score": 21
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da442lr",
"comment_text": [
"But the President can authorize combat actions for a certain amount of time before Congress has to either end it or declare war. I believe that is 90 days, but I'm not sure.",
"Edit: It is 60 days. Thanks for the correction!"
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da45m49",
"comment_text": [
"Not to mention any executive orders could be reversed on day one by the new President."
],
"score": 12
}
|
ELI5:What to do for incoming wisdom teeth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5db48h
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.38
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da351kk",
"comment_text": [
"There's really not anything you can do. This is why babies are so cranky when they are teething. They experience this constant annoyance/pain, but they don't have the coping skills to deal with it like you hopefully do by the time your wisdom teeth come in.",
"EDIT: You may want to get it checked out by a dentist, but unless it's crowding your other teeth or messing with alignment, there's not much they can do."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da36fhr",
"comment_text": [
"You need to go to the dentist. ",
"There is a reason dentists recommend the surgical removal of wisdom teeth. Pain is just one symptom. Wisdom teeth can misalign all the teeth in your mouth, causing permanent issues. The root can also extend all the way into your jaw bone, possibly damaging your entire jaw structure. What you see on the surface is by ",
" the whole story - you need dental x-rays stat. ",
"Most people get their wisdom teeth around ages 16-20. Sometimes, it is fine for decades but they can still cause problems in your 40s and 50s, at which time the problems may be much more serious. Dentist. Now. ",
"The surgery, at least for me, was barely even noticeable. I was able to eat everything like 24 hours later. No bleeding at all. It didn't hurt at all and they give you plenty of fun opiate drugs. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da3alst",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, but there is a lot going on under the skin. That's why dentists take X-RAYS. You need to get x-rays, and soon. Wisdom teeth can cause issues long before they even come through the skin at all, and on some people they never do."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da3alst",
"comment_text": [
"Yes, but there is a lot going on under the skin. That's why dentists take X-RAYS. You need to get x-rays, and soon. Wisdom teeth can cause issues long before they even come through the skin at all, and on some people they never do."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da3jkxu",
"comment_text": [
"You still haven't said you're going to the dentist. Please do this like tomorrow. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: WTF is with Spider-man and Elsa videos? When/how did that start?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d9rw0
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.53
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2vqjz",
"comment_text": [
"Apparently it's a bunch of youtube pranksters trying something new. Evidence in ",
"this video",
" from H3H3."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2wbzi",
"comment_text": [
"This as much as I know sorry, didn't even watch the entire video."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da3i3cl",
"comment_text": [
"I commented but apparently the bot didn't like my comment. They are actually shows for kids, and are just kind of fun. They have been around at least a few years, my daughter loves them. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2w44e",
"comment_text": [
"Right, but did it originate with pranksters? Where does that match up even start?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2wgzo",
"comment_text": [
"FYI, when you notice posts like this, you can hit \"Report\" and let us know. We can then remove the post and direct the poster to the correct sub. Reposting is anonymous in case you worry about that. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
Eli5: Why do we focus more on speeding drivers than we do distracted drivers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d9dqd
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.64
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2rjoj",
"comment_text": [
"An officer can easily prove a person was speeding, they've got it all logged into a computer that tracks nearby vehicles. They can't prove you looked down at your cellphone for two seconds. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2qmay",
"comment_text": [
"Because it's a lot easier to spot a speeding driver than a distracted driver. You have to be pretty close to someone and be able to get a nice long look at them to see whether or not someone is distracted. A speeding car can be clocked from a distance. Cops will definitely pull you over if they notice you're distracted, but they're not really able to set up distracted driver traps like they can speed traps."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2st4n",
"comment_text": [
"Right but with what we spend on unmarked cars that sometimes never get used for their full use. Couldn't they be out to use to eliminate distracted driving. It would even help road rage in most cases if they cruise around and find people who are either ragers or someone sitting in the left lane holding traffic up because they are on their cell phone."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2t6mp",
"comment_text": [
"And if you're driving while paying that much attention to what another driver is doing, you might be distracted yourself. Speeding is easy to quantify. It's a number. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2uck2",
"comment_text": [
"Well I'm sure people who notice them are people who were stuck behind them till the distracted driver notices the 10 cars behind them that they should move over or pay attention to driving. I don't think people are doing 100 down the high way are taking their eyes off the task at hand to look and see what the hold up was. But I understand what you're saying was just curious with some many texting and phone deaths why we haven't ramped up on ways to stop besides just a ticket threat. Where speeding ticket isn't really a threat since it's something that not discretional it's done by a computer."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:If a nuclear war broke out between two countries how would the rest of the planet be effected?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d82oa
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.8
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2i7r1",
"comment_text": [
"Depends on many factors, like how many bombs and what size they have, where they hit and what types of bombs they use.",
"If it's USA vs Russia with a full scale strategic fire-the-whole-arsenal shoot out, it might fuck up our complete atmosphere, give us a nuclear winter and even survivors in remote areas will have their days counted.",
"A regional exchange like India vs Pakistan with a few small bombs might even end without us noticing much on other continents."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2ikoz",
"comment_text": [
"If you are talking about the planet in general (ie Mother Earth) and not the populous living in the other places nothing will happen. The Earth will keep on spinning and producing life as it had before and will after. ",
"Now if you are talking about the populous in the rest of the world it gets complicated some what. On a nuclear fallout level nothing will be really affected. There is a video that shows on a monochrome world map all the nuclear explosions (Nuke tests) since the dawn of the bomb. Most of them have been in the deserts of the USA and life still goes on. Heck look at Japan. The radioactive fallout will disperse over time to almost zero and people will move back. ",
"On a economic level quite a bit will happen. If the two \"countries\" are super powers as I assume you are speaking about go to nuclear war, you can be sure the \"rest\" of the world, if they dont get involved, will be effected. The import/export, stock, commodities, trade, etc would be effected. Countries relying on the warring countries would have to find other methods of obtaining what they were getting from those two. For instance if Japan and another country fought at that level, the electronics industry would be highly disrupted. Considering what the effect that the nuclear power plant meltdown in Japan did for a while. ",
"Hopefully that gives some insight to your question. This is my first time answering an ELI5 question so :)"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2jqik",
"comment_text": [
"If they don't get hit directly, even they depend on trade and supplies. There is still the possibility of a nuclear winter. If enough dust gets into the atmosphere, the climate could change drastically. Last time dinosaurs have gone extinct. Some places may be self sufficient - but for how long will they function alone? Survivors would face some mad max scenario with many resources gone. ",
"And maybe not. But should we feel safe and try this?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2jqik",
"comment_text": [
"If they don't get hit directly, even they depend on trade and supplies. There is still the possibility of a nuclear winter. If enough dust gets into the atmosphere, the climate could change drastically. Last time dinosaurs have gone extinct. Some places may be self sufficient - but for how long will they function alone? Survivors would face some mad max scenario with many resources gone. ",
"And maybe not. But should we feel safe and try this?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2knet",
"comment_text": [
"The black death didn't burn the infrastructure, crops, stock, fertile land, supplies and buildings. It didn't kill everyone in ground zero areas and survivors were not injured. The local ecosystem was unharmed. ",
"Today, a huge portion of urban people can't survive without the industrialized food chain. A nuked city centre would leave suburbs without hospitals, electricity and logistic support. Agricultural produce would be beyond reach. Roads, transport, fuel would be unavailable. ",
"It took Hiroshima from '45 to '49 to even begin rebuilding."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What makes some humans generally considered more attractive than others?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d68js
| 20
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.74
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2ehla",
"comment_text": [
"It is just a tool of evolution. We are programmed to seek out optimal mates for reproducing, and we can dicern more than just physical attributes from looks. Just over 200 years ago, being obese to morbidly obese was considered very attractive, because it meant their family was wealthy and could afford to eat enough to make them fat, which was an uncommon thing at the time. It isnt even a conscious effort, our subconscious breaks down the subtle meanings and gives us either positive or negative feedback. ",
"These days, when someone is obese or morbidly obese (this coming from a former obese man and student of Philosophy, so dont get too offended), it no longer means they are incredibly wealthy, so we do not find it attractive. On the contrary, it typically (not always) shows that they lack discipline, have difficulty setting long term goals, and struggle controlling their impulses, all traits that would effect a partner negativley when trying to reproduce and raise offspring. ",
"The mind is a fascinating thing."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da25bmq",
"comment_text": [
"Attractiveness is an evolutionary tool to discriminate mates with better genes. Facial symmetry, which is generally seen as more attractive is one indicator of good genes. Genes that I wouldn't mind mingling with my own."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da290i2",
"comment_text": [
"Yes. Symmetry is very important. Also, we men are attracted to features which would allow for ease of child birth and many offspring. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2j5a5",
"comment_text": [
"That's a pretty subjective concept though isnt it? "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2gloi",
"comment_text": [
"Beyond the biological reasons that others have outlined, many standards of beauty are cultural. So people that have whatever those traits may be are going to be seen as beautiful by the bulk of the population."
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5 Who pays for the departing President's new house?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d5x5p
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.54
|
As President Obama leaves office, and moves his family into their new home, I wondered how they can normally afford such an estate. Do they have that much money, credit, etc. that they can pull such a purchase off? Is there some government/private fund for such a purpose?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da20ipm",
"comment_text": [
"The departing president pays. Obama's net worth is $12.2 million, I don't think he'll have any problems affording a house. ",
"Presidents get paid $400,000 annually. Even if they walk into the White House with zero net worth, they'll have plenty saved up after four or eight years. They'll also either have money from selling their old house or still own their old house. ",
"Even if they totally screw up and blow their entire presidential salary, they still get paid $200,000 annually for the rest of their life. Should have no problem getting a mortgage to buy a house with that salary. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da20m84",
"comment_text": [
"The President gets paid, and since he's lived on government property for the past 8 years, he hasn't had much in the way of expenses. So he's got pretty solid savings. ",
"Also keep in mind Obama has written several books, two of which has sold millions of copies. He has made several million dollars from his book sales for \"The Audacity of Hope\" and \"Dreams of my Father\" alone. He also is paid for speaking engagements, which he'll probably do quite a few of over the next few years. Financially, he is just fine.",
"They also still own a $1.6 Million home in Chicago, which he purchased in '05 from proceeds of his books. The Obamas are worth about $10 Million."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da211h6",
"comment_text": [
"Obama family wasn't poor to begin with. Barack was state senator and then congressional senator. Michelle was an attorney where she met Barack. She was later Dean of Students at univ of Chicago, then executive director and then later VP of community services of the univ of Chicago hospitals. Annual income for them two combined was just short of a million before they started transition to be the First Family.",
"Neither were Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter...."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da20zg6",
"comment_text": [
"Being the president also allows you access to several sources of secondary income. For example, people will pay massive amounts of money to have someone as famous as Obama speak at their event. Books and autobiographies, of which Obama has already written two, both reaching massive success, are also easy opportunities."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da20n04",
"comment_text": [
"Presidents make $400 000/year.",
"Considering they still owned their previous residences and didn't have to pay for the White House, that's more than enough to pay for a house."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: How is *anyone* going to get deported?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d5n8g
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1yk4m",
"comment_text": [
"Legally working a job is an activity that requires valid papers. ID credentials and social security card. ",
"If a company is caught employing people without documented credentials and social security card, then those employees are detained and jailed, pending possible deportation."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da20fqw",
"comment_text": [
"Theoretically it should come up when someone tries to find work. What's supposed to happen when someone gets a job in the US is that the employer takes a copy of their social security card and generates a W4. Illegals get around this by either finding an employer willing to break the law by not doing these things, or stealing somebody's social security number. Mandatory use of e-verify, and a crackdown on employers breaking the law should put a stop to that."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da21x00",
"comment_text": [
"Employers are supposed to make you fill out a I9 employee authorization form"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da227bz",
"comment_text": [
"Your employer was doing it wrong. As an employee, your boss is required to complete an i9. You can easily google the form. They are supposed to either get one of a variety of documents that show both your picture and legal status (like a green card or a passport) or a combination of 2 id's from specific lists which each veryify part of that (such as a combi drivers license & social security card.",
"Many employers don't follow the law though. If they are lazy they might just ask your soc and then sign (under penalty of perjury in fact) that they did in fact see your social security card."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da20c99",
"comment_text": [
"a US citizen or legal resident only needs to show such proof, such as passport or resident alien card.",
"a person that is not able to get a passport or resident alien card would need to show proof of work eligibility. such as a SS card or Employment Authorization Document issued by the state department. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: The purpose/benefit of Google's new AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) search results to Google, the website owners, and to us users?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d4x2h
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1sdyn",
"comment_text": [
"I work in digital marketing and in short the big thing about this is that it is a way of verifying that a website is 1) fast and 2) mobile responsive. If you use AMP it's a way for Google to know for sure that website is likely to be formatted and built in a way that is user-friendly for people on a mobile device. Honestly though, if you write good code and know what you're doing this doesn't have a huge effect. AMP is really only a wake up call for the people that haven't fully embraced mobile first."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1spsd",
"comment_text": [
"Mainly to users:\nUsers get fast-loading pages, and a good experience due to a number of tweaks and bans on some components. \nWebsite owners (developers):\nTheir users get a fast-loading pages so they're ",
". Google have got some great statistics about how many people won't bother if the page takes longer than 3, 5, 10 seconds.\nGoogle:\nPurpose is to give developers the tools to make these pages, and encourage the kind of techniques that give a fast loading page.",
"If anyone's unfamiliar with AMP, it basically makes sure that your page loads as fast as possible by rendering everything you can see without scrolling ",
". It also ensures that images that haven't loaded yet have a placeholder so that when they ",
" load, they don't make you scroll up. It's particularly targeted at news/blog sites that are not too interactive (in the way a social network or shopping site might be)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5amer",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks for the response! However, if a website hasn't made themselves mobile friendly by now, isn't that their problem? Why does Google have to butt in?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da9vu7t",
"comment_text": [
"Fair question. It's mostly due to user experience. People trust Google to provide them with the best results possible because they have proven themselves. This is why they are so far ahead of everyone else. By ranking non-mobile responsive websites lower it creates a higher quality user experience because people won't be going to websites that are frustrating to use. ",
"Imagine consistently going to low quality websites that are a pain to navigate/use. Sure, the first few times you might blame the websites but after a while you'll start to blame Google, and may even consider using another search engine. So, they make sure you're getting the best content. It's a win-win for both parties. You get better content, they get more ad revenue from happy people using their search engine frequently."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da5al6o",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks so much for the response! I can't say I enjoy it with the wasted real estate on my screen and the fact that I can't copy the link, but I appreciate the faster loading time!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why is it illegal to send me spam email but not illegal to send me spam physical mail?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d9unl
| 1,074
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.92
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2wubd",
"comment_text": [
"If I send you anything via regular mail I bear 100% of the cost. We call this \"postage\".",
"If I send you SPAM then I am using other people's money. There is a non-zero cost for data transit across the various networks ",
" you, the final recipient, may have some sort of metered service (like data limits on your cell phone); so if I spam you I am wasting ",
" money instead of ",
", without your permission no-less.",
"Many people justify their \"business\" because \"hey, email! It's free\" but it's really just not costing ",
" anything they recognize.",
"So with a zero-dollar barrier to entry, the natural cost was hidden from the initiator... they felt no pain from their act so they acted without restraint.",
"At that point an explicit law became necessary because, as always, the much lionized \"free market effects\" did nothing to curb abuse.",
"(Systematic rant on how, when I was a child, rivers were on fire and and the sky was smog-dark because \"the free market\" does nothing to curb misdeeds ... skipped for now.)"
],
"score": 407
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da32j9c",
"comment_text": [
"If I send you anything via regular mail I bear 100% of the cost. We call this \"postage\".",
"A related aspect that people often overlook is that it goes even further than this, because that \"discounted\" bulk mail actually subsidizes first class mail. The only reason the postal service can afford to deliver a piece of mail for 47¢ is because they're ",
" delivering mail to every house on the street anyway."
],
"score": 73
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2u2uv",
"comment_text": [
"It is not actually illegal to send you spam e-mail. It is only illegal to send you specific forms of spam e-mail. Physical mail is different, those companies pay for the delivery of the mail via a federal service. Their right to have that letter delivered outweighs you right to not get it. "
],
"score": 49
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da32krh",
"comment_text": [
"The big reason I haven't heard mentioned yet, is money. The USPS makes a ungodly amount of money from these junk mail companies buying giant bulk postage orders and due to the internet they aren't really seeing a lot of growth in their business. If they made an easy opt out option for these things then the USPS would suddenly need a lot more money from some other source to make up for it. These would generally either be A. pass a tax to increase funding for the USPS or B. raise the prices on all USPS postage by a lot. Neither of these options are considered better by most consumers compared to the current system of just throwing it all away. "
],
"score": 33
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da36vc0",
"comment_text": [
"That might have been true once but now thanks to Amazon they are always delivering parcels instead"
],
"score": 17
}
|
|
ELI5: Why can't we average out our sleep? Like, if we sleep for 10 hours one day and 6 the next, why do we still feel we didn't get enough sleep even though on an average we slept for 8 hours?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d4gx8
| 32
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1nvd5",
"comment_text": [
"It's not so much that we can't average it, it's that we can't store it. Sleeping 10 hours, when you only need 8 hours, doesn't make you more well-rested than the 8 hours (and in fact may make you feel worse). Think of it like a bucket of water; if you need 8 gallons to fill it put but you put in 10, the extra 2 just overflow and are wasted. ",
"If you sleep 10 hours then 6, you'll be tired. However, you can sometimes sleep 6 hours then 10 and feel good; you incurred more a deficit with the 6, but made up for it the next night so you're back to normal."
],
"score": 18
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1rqo5",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks mate! Well explained! "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1usw2",
"comment_text": [
"This question is hard to answer because we really don't know why we need sleep (although we do know that it is essential to get sleep). ",
"Now, that isn't to say we don't have theories. One such theory is that during sleep, our brains use that time to eliminate waste products and other toxic byproducts produced in the very metabolically active brain. ",
"If that is the case (or at least a part of the explanation), it does explain why we can't \"store\" sleep. After you've completely cleaned the brain of waste products, more sleep accomplishes nothing/very little.",
"Please keep in mind, this is an argument made for the sake of explanation. If you pulled this theory out in front of anyone working in neurology, you will likely be treated like you're five...so mission accomplished, I guess."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1vuj0",
"comment_text": [
"This is a good explanation. I like to think of it like a phone battery charging, you would not think that if you charged it for 24 hours straight that now you could use it for four days without it dying."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1vvas",
"comment_text": [
"Well there's two different kinds of sleep debt: acute and chronic.",
"Acute sleep debt is where you pull an all-nighter or two. This can be recovered by sleeping a little longer than usual (typically up to around 12 hours), after which you feel pretty much back to normal. Acute isn't that big a deal.",
"The bigger issue is chronic sleep debt, where you get ",
" sleep each night but not enough (3-6 hours, generally), and over a much longer period of time (months or even years, generally). Chronic sleep debt is much more difficult to recover from; it sometimes requires over a month of regular (8 hour) sleep before you actually get back to you full level of mental functionality. A single night of 12+ hours of sleep does nothing for chronic sleep debt."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are jurors not allowed to ask questions during a trial, even if asked anonymously?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d4bbk
| 41
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1mq6e",
"comment_text": [
"Juror's are allowed to ask questions, at the discretion of the Judge presiding over the case. There are a number of reasons why this is not commonly practiced:",
"Juries aren't supposed to be \"involved\" in the case. They are supposed to be impartial third parties evaluating a case based on the evidence provided to them.",
"It increases the length and complexity of the trial.",
"Jurors are lay people, so may ask questions that are inappropriate or irrelevant.",
"It can emphasize or highlight bias on behalf of the juror asking the questions."
],
"score": 28
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1o2gu",
"comment_text": [
"In Colorado jurors may ask as many questions as they want. The questions have to be reviewed by the attorneys and the judge, but if they seek admissible evidence or clarify some legitimate evidence, the questions are almost always asked. There is a trend towards allowing questions by jurors. In the past, the questions were not permitted because jurors were supposed to judge evidence that was presented, not attempt to investigate the case themselves. The trend recognizes that there is no good reason to prevent the jury from considering evidence they legitimately think is relevant."
],
"score": 13
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1pmpj",
"comment_text": [
"That's pretty common, I ran into it was a witness too. Jurors expect DNA and fingerprints to be on every piece of evidence, and if it's not, then they think you didn't do your job right. I had a whole spiel about why evidence might not be recovered I pretty much recycled in every relevant trial. The other common one was jurors not understanding that collection and analysis are performed by entirely different lab personnel, so I could tell them where a firearm was collected from but they'd have to wait for the firearms examiner to give the full examination results."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1pmpj",
"comment_text": [
"That's pretty common, I ran into it was a witness too. Jurors expect DNA and fingerprints to be on every piece of evidence, and if it's not, then they think you didn't do your job right. I had a whole spiel about why evidence might not be recovered I pretty much recycled in every relevant trial. The other common one was jurors not understanding that collection and analysis are performed by entirely different lab personnel, so I could tell them where a firearm was collected from but they'd have to wait for the firearms examiner to give the full examination results."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1s3ss",
"comment_text": [
"For what it's worth, if you don't have enough information to decide, the decision ought to be \"not guilty\" because it is the prosecutor's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
],
"score": 7
}
|
|
ELI5: How do home renovation programmes on tv (like extreme makeover: home edition) pay for everything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d4lwe
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.43
|
This may be a silly question, but I see these programmes on TV all the time, and they spend so much money building all these extravagant houses for people. Who pays for it, and how do they earn that money back? I realise they have a lot of merchandising for the different stores they use in the show, but do those companies really pay them enough for that to make them afford all this?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1pa24",
"comment_text": [
"The show is funded by the network, in this case ABC. These homes, built in such a quick time, may cost $500-700,000. ",
"That might seem like a lot. Let's compare to some other show budgets:",
"\"Friends\" in the later seasons cost $10 Million per episode, as each of the stars were making over $1 Million per episode. ",
"\"Frasier\" cost $5 Million per episode. ",
"There are many others that cost even more. ",
"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition required no locations other than that of the \"winner\", no cast other than Ty and crew which was the same every time, no sets, absolutely no special effects to speak, not a single \"artistic\" lighting scene, or anything. You pay the cast (none of which were huge celebs), you pay the crew, you build a big house in a week. All in all, you have spent way, WAY less money than a single sitcom episode."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1ourh",
"comment_text": [
"Yes. And then some.",
"Every show you see on network television is paid for by advertising. These renovation programs not only have the ads in between the acts, but lots of product placement opportunities.",
"Advertising is big, big money."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2pysr",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you for answering!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da2pz15",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks! :)"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1phld",
"comment_text": [
"First off, reality type shows are super cheap to create relative to scripted TV. You're not paying script writers, big name actors, set designers, renting locations, special effects, etc. The hosts make good money, but not star of sitcom/drama money by a long shot. The participants do it for free. There are not a bunch of locations that require moving truck loads of equipment for a 30 sec scene. So your labor costs are a tiny fraction of scripted TV, and the construction costs are probably less than an actual show that needs sets, on-location set-ups in many places, etc.",
"The remodels are partially subsidized by products mentioned or that buy sponsorships. Then the shows have ad time in them that is sold.",
"So a production company spends $100k on a remodel, $100k on crew & host, $50k on post production. Then they sell the episode for $300k to HGTV, who sells $500k in ads against it (might only be $50k per airing, but they run each episode like 5x a week when new, and run re-runs later on)."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: why would we die if the global temperature rose by 5.5 degrees?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d23h1
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.62
|
I read this comment today: Maybe I misinterpreted it but can anyone explain it a bit?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da16iu7",
"comment_text": [
"There are all sorts of reasons why such a large temperature increase would be bad for many people (although I don't think humanity is actually going to go extinct).",
"1) People can die from overheating. Higher average temperatures also means more extreme heatwaves.",
"2) Crops are dependent on the climate - higher temperatures means crop yields are likely to fall, so people will starve.",
"3) Most people get their water from the natural hydrological cycle (i.e. rivers etc.) - changing rainfall patterns and melting of glaciers will affect this, so some people will lose their source of drinking water.",
"4) Sea level rise will flood many coastal areas (and many people live near the coast).",
"5) It is likely to increase the number/magnitude of extreme (and dangerous) weather events such as hurricanes.",
"6) There may be more wildfires.",
"If you want to learn more, a good place to start is this ",
"IPCC report"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da18z4z",
"comment_text": [
"I'm not aware of any reliable estimates, but the short answer is no. As a species, humans are abundant, widespread and highly adaptable. I can imagine quality of life getting worse for a lot of people, maybe even a significant reduction in global population, but I don't see us going extinct anytime soon.",
"However, other species are much more vulnerable than us, and some have already gone extinct. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1a059",
"comment_text": [
"The Earth's temperature has fluctuated by at least that much in its history, but our problem today is that there are billions of people on the planet, many in places that would be in severe danger in the event of such a rise. Over the long term we can adapt, but currently the ",
" of increase is like nothing seen on this planet before. The faster the change, the more difficult it will be to adapt. It would make tropical zones largely uninhabitable, but the habitable zones would shift towards the poles. Even so, there's a strong likelihood that the Earth's sustainable \"carrying capacity\" for people will be reduced even further - at a time when we are already exceeding current capacity and population is still increasing. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1861r",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks! Some of these I knew of but others weren't as obvious. Although they do not seem to be thretening to our life as a species (as in go extinct). Would the probability of temperature rise this \"\"small\"\" eradicating us actually be significant?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1658u",
"comment_text": [
"It's actually 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a ",
" of temperature, not an absolute temperature, so the conversion is °F = °C x 9 / 5."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why are rare coins worth so much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5czvt4
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0pnf8",
"comment_text": [
"See that word, \"rare\"? Rarity makes things valuable. Basic supply and demand. ",
"And yes, the ",
" of that penny is exactly 1 penny. If you were using it at the store, that's what it'd be worth. But yes, a collector would pay you much more. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0qcs0",
"comment_text": [
"The fact that other people want it, but there is a limited supply. If everyone decided to stop collecting coins, it wouldn't be valuable anymore. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0qd9l",
"comment_text": [
"It's basic supply and demand, like I said., It's worth a lot because people want it. Maybe that demand is \"real\" (like you need food and water), or maybe it's artificial (like we have with diamonds). ",
"As to what good comes from collecting stuff - you'll have to ask collectors. The basic thing about ",
" is people enjoy collecting things, be it coins, stamps, art, beanie babies, plates with pictures of Elvis on them, antique Coca Cola bottles, or just about anything else. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0r4e0",
"comment_text": [
"There are a finite amount those coins in existence (and some eventually get lost/destroyed, reducing that number), and there are many people who would love to have one of those in their collection. ",
"The two specific coins you mentioned are errors, accidentally produced in small numbers, and never intentionally put into circulation. For collectors, this makes them extremely valuable for the fact that they own a piece of currency that was never supposed to exist in the first place, and that they are one of the few owners of said error.",
"As long as there are collectors who are willing to voluntarily pay high amounts for an object, the market value will be that high. If for example, thousands of those coins popped up overnight, the value would likely crash ."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0q4bk",
"comment_text": [
"I get that rarity makes things valuable, but why is it? what good comes from having it, that leads to it being so expensive. I guess I should have made my question more specific :)"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Say I am a 20-something year old with absolutely zero connections to the political sphere. How would I get started on my track to be my state's next governor? What is the path up the political ladder like, and how possible is it for an every-man/woman to climb?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d4y2n
| 3,439
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.92
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1rzrj",
"comment_text": [
"If you identify with a political party, volunteer with them. Find the local county meetings and start attending them. You'll make connections there and find opportunities.",
"Consider volunteering for municipal boards. Sometimes cities and towns have problems finding people for boards, or are happy to see someone other than the same few people volunteering to work. That's how I became a housing commissioner."
],
"score": 798
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1scru",
"comment_text": [
"Many states have an age limit for governor candidates, which is good, as you have no connections, so you'll need to spend some time building connections. ",
"The first thing you would likely need to do is volunteer at your state's party. Get to know people and make friends. Support other people's campaigns, who will hopefully want to return the favor when you build your political career, serve as a delegate to your state convention, etc. ",
"Once you've gotten a network of friends start running for lower office (because these take vastly less money so you can self finanace). Then you keep running for higher and higher office, and work with people to build support to enable you to credibly run in your party's primary for governor. ",
"Finally, you live in the age of social media, you'll then want to prepare for the entire state to know your deepest online secrets, as there will be a million eyeballs looking for anything on you that can be used against you in a campaign. Expect an increased interest in phishing your email and other accounts. Plan on all your social media being repeated in the worst possible context. "
],
"score": 669
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1sxvh",
"comment_text": [
"Support other people's campaigns",
"Are we talking like knocking on doors, making phonecalls, etc.? If I'm allowed to get personal on this sub, would the fella appreciate one with a Masters / PhD in economics endorsing their policy as logically sound? I guess my point is anybody could do the former things mentioned (door-knocking, phone-calling, etc.), but I wonder how I could leverage my specific set of skills to better aid someone.",
"Plan on all your social media being repeated in the worst possible context.",
"Good thing I don't have a Facebook. And uhh, you and I never spoke on Reddit, either. I don't have a Reddit account."
],
"score": 246
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1sm02",
"comment_text": [
"I guess taking things to a more personal level, what kind of credentials are needed to make any headway? It seems that a large minority (forgive the oximoron) of congress members hold law degrees. I'll be wrapping up a Master's in econ this May and continuing on for a PhD. Of course the job requires a working-knowledge of law itself, which makes me concerned that a politician need start as a law student.",
"I suppose when I think of running for office I think of costly campaigns and knocking on doors, the latter of which I'm not afraid of, but the former of which I'm apprehensive about. Further, if one doesn't proceed through the law school-to-politics pipeline, I wonder how they get to the politics?"
],
"score": 206
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da1sv76",
"comment_text": [
"Well, a law degree does help for a legislator... it's a natural transition for someone who has studied the law to move on to writing laws and passing legislation.",
"But not all politicians start in law school. State legislature is a common path to get there. My state legislator doesn't even have a four year degree. That's also the path my governor took -- she had a four year (non-law) degree, worked for various state agencies as a staffer, then ran for legislature to begin her political career."
],
"score": 188
}
|
|
ELI5: Are there places where the moon appears much larger?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cx1zh
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
Sometimes in film or other media, you'll see a shot of the moon dwarfing buildings, etc in the background, to where it almost seems close enough to reach out and touch, and all the craters, etc will be clearly distinguishable - as if the moon were just outside our atmosphere in orbit of the planet. Are there places where the moon actually does apepar this large, and if so, why does it appear so much closer there?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da00s9s",
"comment_text": [
"No, the moon appears to same size to everyone on Earth on any given night and it's size doesn't change very much from night to night, even when you hear about there being a \"supermoon\".",
"The big moons you see in media are likely someone taking artistic license to depict the ",
"moon illusion",
", which makes the moon appear bigger when it is near the horizon. It's not totally clear what causes this illusion, but it's got something to do with our perception and the way we judge size, since the moon on the horizon is the same size as when it is high in the sky if you actually measure it. While it can be striking, the moon illusion is nowhere near as dramatic as the depictions you are describing."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da009k9",
"comment_text": [
"No. Any such image has either been edited to make the moon look larger or uses camera angles to give the illusion of the moon being larger. At any given time, the moon appears the same size to everyone on Earth. If you looked at last night's moon last night, that's as big as anyone on Earth will see it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da00btx",
"comment_text": [
"The moon moves around the early in an elliptical pattern, meaning it gets closer and further away on a regular basis. ",
"A supermoon which is whats happening today, where it will look really big, is when there happens to be a full moon on the same day when the moon is closest to the earth. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da00scr",
"comment_text": [
"To add to the other responses, the reason we don't see it change very much in size is because of how far away it is.",
"At it's furthest, it's 400,000 km away from the earth. At its closest, it's 360,000 km away from the earth. So it varies by about 10%.",
"So imagine you're 20 km away from a mountain, compare it to its size in your field of view when it's 18 km away from you. It will only change a small amount. Measurable, but probably not noticeable. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da04qfx",
"comment_text": [
"Just add (to the other right Comments) that a dirty Atmosphere is increasing the Size of the Moon for our Eyes. ",
"The Moonrise look much bigger than a Moon above the Horizon."
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5: Why do some instruments tend to overpower each other more at outdoor concerts, like festivals?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cv5ew
| 4
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.62
|
Maybe a sound engineer can satisfy my curiosity here. In my experience, a lot of outdoor concerts have terrible volume balancing between instruments. It's not always the same instruments, but usually the drums and backup guitar are really loud (I know drums are naturally loud, but I'm talking fully mic'd concerts), while the lead instrument is so quiet that the only way I notice he's doing a solo is that the vocals have stopped and the band turns around to look at him. This is especially infuriating when I know the song and can't hear a single note of an awesome riff I was looking forward to. I used to write it off as having a bad sound engineer every now and then, but I've since experienced this across concerts with a huge variety in venue size, music genre, time of day, ticket price, and across the world. So I'm starting to wonder: Not trying to bash sound engineers here - I've had the wonderful experience of working at a venue for a few months with an absolute wizard who somehow managed to make bands sound better live than in the studio. If the mix is so good I can hear every single instrument individually, even during loud parts, I always come up to compliment the sound engineer!
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zmsuy",
"comment_text": [
"Also weather conditions can have a huge effect on how sound travels as well."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zmsuy",
"comment_text": [
"Also weather conditions can have a huge effect on how sound travels as well."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zr81t",
"comment_text": [
"If you want to hear what the sound engineers are hearing, move close to the front-of-house (FOH) mixing desk. I've done that before, and depending on the gig, I can genuinely believe that some of them are suffering from significant hearing loss. My ears should not be overloading and clipping like a cheap guitar amp turned up to 11, but that's what happens at some gigs before I put the earplugs in. ",
"One aspect to be aware of is that bass frequencies take more power to produce a given level than treble frequencies. You can be deafened by a tiny tweeter putting out a watt or two. Conversely, the bass is getting more power, and carries better over distance."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ztqwl",
"comment_text": [
"One aspect to be aware of is that bass frequencies take more power to produce a given level than treble frequencies. ",
"If you have the ability to use large speakers, that's not really true. PA tweeters are usually a type of horn, which are inherently more efficient - but the size of the horn scales with wavelength. You normally don't see true bass horns because they are fucking huge, but with a few tricks and cut corners, they can be made small enough to be practical for PA. These monstrosities can be about as efficient as a tweeter. Without them, you'd probably need an entire power plant for a large outdoor concert."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zmv0k",
"comment_text": [
"Sound engineer here (admittedly without MUCH experience of mixing outdoors).",
"Here's a couple of \"top of my head\" thoughts.",
"Firstly, sound does behave quite differently outdoors. Sound is only moving air, so if you try to create sound in an environment where the air is already likely to move, due to shifting air currents and wind, you are going to get some unpredictable effects.",
"Also, projecting sound outdoors soaks up an enormous ammount of energy. A PA system that is perfectly capable for 5000 people indoors will be woefully inadequate for a similar audience outdoors.",
"However, I'd be the first to admit that neither of those facts goes all the way to explaining your question. Maybe they are just poor sound engineers! The actual balancing of the mix is not an easy thing to teach someone... you can train someone in the tech side of things but the artistic balance does have to come 'from within' to a large degree.",
"The last gig I went to was of a group where the keyboards are incredibly important to the band's sound. But they were pretty inaudible for the entire show and as keyboards are EASY to make louder (being usually direct injected into the mixing desk rather than miced-up) I can only assume the sound guy just didn't LIKE keyboards, or was just crap! "
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5:Why are egg rolls called egg rolls if they don't even have eggs in them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5d0kmu
| 16
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.71
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0uggx",
"comment_text": [
"Originally, the wrapper was made with eggs and flour, ie an egg dough (this is a very common base dough for cooking), so it was called an egg roll. Nowadays, the name stuck, but the wrapper doesn't have to be with egg, and often isn't.",
"All this said, the history of the egg roll is a bit of a mystery, its a chinese-american invention, and no one is really certain, for sure, how it came about."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0z2wp",
"comment_text": [
"In Australia we call them spring rolls. Took me a really long time to figure that out and thought it was something we just didn't have here. So I'd say it's a uniquely American thing"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da136if",
"comment_text": [
"That's different altogether. That's Vietnamese."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da13kvu",
"comment_text": [
"Lol couldn't be chiko rolls innit."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da13t4m",
"comment_text": [
"Typically there still is a difference. I have worked at multiple Chinese restaurants. The thinner super crispy shell is generally referred to as a spring roll. The much thicker shell that does generally have egg as a component tends to be called an egg roll. Some restaurants dont care anymore but if you buy them premade from any distributor thats what you will get."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why did they think the Titanic was so "unsinkable"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cske3
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
I have heard (but not really paid attention to) an explanation before that was something along the lines of "There were compartments in the side of the ship that could be sealed off, and it could stay afloat if anything less than 5 (or some other number, I don't remember) were ruptured, but that's exactly how many the iceberg did rupture so shit went down (literally)." My problem with this explanation is that it seems to me that anything that ruptured one area of the ships hull would be far more likely to rupture more than not to, so why were they so cocky about it? Like they clearly were aware of the possibility of a hull breach, but by far the most likely cause of that (in my mind at least) would be a collision with another massive object. I mean they were probably thinking more along the lines of another ship or a rock than an iceberg, but the fact that they made the compartments isolated at all shows that they understood it could happen. And since ships don't exactly move sideways (AFAIK) by far the most likely angle of the impact would be either head on or glancing, which seems pretty likely to rupture numerous compartments, not 1. Which is exactly what happened. I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but it really doesn't seem like that had any good reason to call the Titanic "Unsinkable", and given the state of the lifeboats, they had a whole lot of eggs in that rather tenuous basket.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9z16dg",
"comment_text": [
"The actual shipbuilders did not dub the Titanic \"unsinkable\". It was the White Star Line VP who used that word as part of a promotion. ",
"While the design would protect against ",
" icebergs, the belief was that larger icebergs would be avoided. If the ship were traveling at slower speeds and the lookouts were able to see large icebergs in clear waters, the ship might only collide with small icebergs, which might cause some damage, but not sink the entire ship."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zmdow",
"comment_text": [
"as its been told, the lookouts weren't provided with binoculars on that night so by the time they saw it was too late "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zb9yp",
"comment_text": [
"Here's an ",
"article",
" that goes into the mythmaking behind the \"unsinkable\" claim. Captain Smith didn't think that it was just the Olympic Class that was unsinkable as he said \n \"I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that.\" \n - On the maiden voyage of the ",
"Adriatic",
" in New York, 1907",
"The above indicates to me quite clearly that this is not an opinion on White Star Line vessels alone, but any ship built at that point forward.",
"As a side note, these were not the only ships marketed as such before or even after. Captain William Turner of the Lusitania calmed his passengers saying that his ship, the Lusitania, would not have tragedy befall her because she was ",
"unsinkable",
". This was during her last voyage.",
"In the White Star Line's defence, it's not a baseless claim. The most common incidents were ship-to-ship collisions and groundings which the Olympic Class could easily survive with the ",
"compartment",
" set-up and double-bottom.",
"I'd point to three recent incidents (as in recent in 1912) in White Star Line's history with ships of similar design that would back up their claims. The first would be the ",
"SS Suevic",
" in 1907 when it was grounded. She survived but the bow was stuck. They decided it was worth it to cut her stern off and tow it back to Southampton, build a new bow and attach it. Suevic served until she was deliberately sunk in the Second World War. The second would be ",
"RMS Republic",
" in 1909 that took 38 hours to sink after a ship-to-ship collision that damaged two compartments. The conditions to the Titanic disaster were fairly similar and what was expected should any ship be significantly damaged. The only casualties were caused by the collision. The third would be the ",
"RMS Olympic",
", Titanic's elder and identical sister ship. She was struck by a military cruiser yet not only remained afloat but mostly functional and was able to sail back to Southampton and eventually Belfast for repairs completely unaided.",
"All of the above were due to the same designs that Titanic had."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9z3lue",
"comment_text": [
"Right I basically knew that much (see the text below the actual question), I just didn't understand how they thought that was such an \"impossible\" thing to occur."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9z1fdw",
"comment_text": [
"So basically false advertising. I wish that surprised me more."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: The Matrix
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cs5jz
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
Please explain in the simplest terms possible what the matrix is?! Thank youuu
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yxgm4",
"comment_text": [
"The Matrix in the titular franchise is a massive computer simulation of late XXth century Earth, designed to keep the humans busy while they serve as a power source for the machines that have taken over the planet and exterminated most of humanity."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yzq55",
"comment_text": [
"Further explanation in case you asked this about 'glitch in the matrix' posts i see frequently on reddit. In the movie when the 'mods' of the computer simulation alter the world it sometimes causes a glitch where you would see a person walk by the same hallway twice. So it has been known that when there are two similair looking people wearing similar clothes and doing the same thing; standing, reading, drinking coffee, as a glitch in the matrix."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zb4tb",
"comment_text": [
"No, the humans are humans. The robots are robots."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zi8qj",
"comment_text": [
"The humans do... nothing. They are living batteries; yes, it doesn't make sense. The robots ",
" they didn't have to do anything but exist either, but they have to hunt down the few unplugged humans outside the Matrix as well as renegades within it."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9zjanc",
"comment_text": [
"There are many fan theories, one of which is that ",
" is an AI. The \"real world\" is just another layer. It explains the impossibility of using a human as a battery, as well as Neo being able to see in the real world after being blinded."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: Is there a special law that protects soldiers at war from being convicted of murder?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cr19q
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.66
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yphuv",
"comment_text": [
"So by that logic all soldiers on the losing side should be tried for murder? "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ypyvq",
"comment_text": [
"Technically murder is defined as \"unlawful killing.\" In war, killing is done by lawful military orders, therefore it doesn't qualify as murder. There still can be murder during war, though. Sometimes someone goes rogue and kills people, but not under the lawful orders of their commanding officer, resulting in murder charges."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ytqyf",
"comment_text": [
"From Wikipedia:",
"Military justice",
" is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.",
"So yes, in many countries there are special laws regarding military personnel on active duty.",
"If you're asking about the United States in particular, that would be the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yxd94",
"comment_text": [
"The special laws are the Geneva conventions, which set out rules of war and dictate how captured soldiers are to be treated if they obeyed those rules. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ymzmm",
"comment_text": [
"Truth. Only murder if you can't justify it. Who decides who is just? The winning team."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why are hollow-point rounds banned for use in war?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cqz99
| 9
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.64
|
I can understand why poison gas/flamethrowers are banned from war from th Geneva convention, but why HP bullets? I thought due to the expansion of the tip, it increases the stopping power resulting in more tissue damage and a quicker death? Isn't the point of the G.Convention to reduce misery in warfare and ban weapons that cause slow/painful deaths?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yqw0p",
"comment_text": [
"Everyone else is giving a good history of the laws/conventions/treaties involved, but I think the answer to your question regards ",
" they were enacted - the ",
" behind them. The point of these limits on wars was to only allow weapons whose effects could be survived. Yes, they're designed to kill, but the hope was that anyone injured could receive medical care and survive. They wouldn't be able to fight anymore, but they wouldn't have to die. You don't necessarily win a war by ",
" all your enemies, you can also win by ",
" all your enemies. These conventions are an attempt to make war more humane - giving your enemy (and your own soldiers) the chance to be disabled, but survive."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yr85g",
"comment_text": [
"Then why not use rubber bullets and stun grenades? I don't get how vulcan cannons that fire 60 rounds per second of explosive and incendiary ammunition are fine but HP aren't. If a hollowpoint kills faster and more often than a FMJ why not use HP? It's not like the rockets/mortars/RPGs/Heavy Machine Guns/Missles we fire are survivable..."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ynfy2",
"comment_text": [
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp",
"This isn't from the Geneva Conventions. It's from the earlier Hague Convention of 1899 (emphasis added):",
"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of ",
" in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.",
"But the Hague Convention ",
" says that it's intended to follow the goals of the earlier St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which spells out the purpose of limiting weapons of war (specifically, explosive ammunition):",
"Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war:",
"That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;",
"That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;",
"That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;",
"That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;",
"The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.",
"Basically, the Great Powers agreed in 1868 that explosive ammunition caused way more suffering than was needed to accomplish the ends of war (that is, defeating the enemy's military). And in 1899, they extended this to hollowpoint bullets. The later conventions against chemical and biological weapons followed similar reasoning."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ymyl5",
"comment_text": [
"From wiki: ",
", hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police,[4] which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ymyl5",
"comment_text": [
"From wiki: ",
", hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police,[4] which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: Why when recording a song in a studio do they use a screen in front of the mic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cqpe7
| 149
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.84
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yk8l5",
"comment_text": [
"It's called a pop filter, and it is used to break up \"plosives\" which are your Bs and Ps. When these sounds are produced they release a blast of air, and the microphone picks these up as bass rumbles under the fundamental frequency of the voice. The mesh of the pop filter diffuses the air passing through so everything useful goes through while the rumble is reduced. "
],
"score": 251
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ykj1b",
"comment_text": [
"Well TIL. "
],
"score": 66
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ys7wk",
"comment_text": [
"You can actually test this: ",
"Hold your hand in front of your mouth and say \"boy, I can't believe Pete\"",
"Every time that breath hits your fingers, it would cause a low rumble to get picked up by the microphone. "
],
"score": 48
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yqr96",
"comment_text": [
"Watch the documentary ”I Know That Voice” about the voice acting industry. They talk about it in there and it's also a very good documentary."
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9yp39i",
"comment_text": [
"this is also what the big fuzzy sock thing is over the boom mic you see on tv. There are pop filters for almost every kind of microphone. Mostly they are some kind of foam covering the microphone itself. The screen type pop filter is mostly just used in studio recording for vocals. ",
"scource: I am a Sound engineer"
],
"score": 11
}
|
|
ELI5: How can science know that an achieved result is the correct one and not just a repeated incorrect result?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5clkc5
| 5
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xe4ee",
"comment_text": [
"If their model is incorrect, then eventually there will be a time when experimental results do not concur with the theoretical results. At that point, the scientific community will look for a new model and theory that better explains the situation.\nIf there is never a difference in result, then the model would just be correct.",
"Also, remember that empirical sciences aren't as \"exact\" as, say, mathematics. A theory or model can be wrong but still useful, as in it incorrectly models the situation but still produces useful results.",
"Take, for example, the Bohr model of the Atom, the ball with the electrons spinning around it in orbitals. This is absolutely incorrect, but it still explains the vast majority of simple chemical reactions, which is why it's still taught in schools.",
"Or Newtonian physics. Accurate enough to get us to the moon, but Relativity proves that it does not correctly model the world in certain conditions."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xurum",
"comment_text": [
"This is a fantastic question!",
"It seems like the short answer to your question is indeed 'repetition', as others have suggested, but if you're at all interested in the long answer, here is the best I can manage - this is an issue close to my heart, because I work in an area where I often have to convince people that something is, in fact, really working - or not, and I think we'd all benefit from a brief look into the scientific method when we hear the news that ants cure cancer or chocolate makes your eyes sparkle.\nBroadly speaking, I'd say there are two categories of things that frequently go wrong when attempting to scientifically prove something. ",
"1) \"Your experiment is poorly set up!\" or \"You're drawing the wrong conclusions!\"",
"These are two sides of the same coin. As you note in your question, most scientific experiments are conducted with a hypothesis in mind - a theory based on small scale observations, logical extrapolation (≈continuation or broadening of an idea) or anecdotal evidence.",
"Scientists will then do their best to come up with a test setup that is designed to empirically show (≈a fancy way of saying 'make it observable') that their hypothesis is true. To do this, they need to try and isolate the thing that they're attempting to prove from other effects that might muddy up the results.\nFor example, if my hypothesis is that throwing a stone in my pond will make the water ripple, I'd want to be sure that there's no fish breaking the surface from below at the exact moment I throw my stone..\nAnd if my hypothesis is that eating chocolate will increase people's feeling of happiness, then I'll want to make sure that my test subjects haven't all been drinking the coffee from the waiting room minutes before I feed them my chocolate and ask them how they feel -- because then I might just be observing a caffeine high, not the benefits of chocolate! ",
"This is the first broad category of mistakes that will be made. Mistakes in experiment setup and interpretation - I might be observing the greatest effect, and be a super-proud scientist writing my paper -- but I'll be attributing the effect to the chocolate, when in reality it's the caffeine I'm seeing. You can also look into 'confirmation bias' to see why things like this happen more often than they should!",
"These mistake are most often caught through the \"peer review\" process. Scientists will publish their work in scientific journals, where others with a similar background (their 'peers') will be able to poke holes in their thinking, question their results, or draw different conclusions.\nWhen they don't manage to find any big holes to poke, the second possibility needs to be addressed:",
"2) \"The experiment was done well, but you observed an accident\"",
"So, if we assume you're trying to prove something where the cause and effect is not immediately observable with your own eyes (like throwing a rock into a pond to see if it causes ripples) but much more subtle, or hidden from view. The big example is, of course, when complex biological organisms like humans get involved. Medicine, biology, sociology, etc. ",
"Some of the best science we can do here is a \"controlled experiment\". This is when, instead of simply doing something and observing the outcome (like giving people chocolate), we actually take two groups of people that both undergo the exact same things (the ride to the lab in the morning, the waiting room, the coffee machine), with the only difference being our special treatment:\nOne group gets chocolate (the 'treatment' or 'test' group), while to the other group we do something that we expect should have no special effect ( this is the 'control' group). Say, they get a sugar pill instead of a piece of chocolate.\nNow the people of ",
" these groups may have had some coffee, but only the 'test' group has had your chocolate. If we now observe a ",
" between the two groups, then we might be on to something.",
"But! Let's say you have 20 people in your experiment, with 10 in each group.. and on this day it just so happens that 9 out of the 10 in your 'test' group felt thirsty when they came in, and only 2 of the 10 in your control group felt thirsty! Now you have a result that you still can't trust!",
"This is entirely possible, and there's nothing we can do to stop this from happening. People are different. But what we ",
" do is find out how likely it is that this happened in our experiment and publish that likelyhood along with our findings! So: what are the odds that you just happened to have all the thirsty people in the 'test' group?\nWell, it turns out while we humans did all our sciency stuff, we got a pretty good understanding of how randomness works when you take a look at lots of randomness together: Statistics. (or if you want to be a know-it-all: stochastic processes)",
"If you roll a die 10 times, then average your results, some averages are more likely that others! It's very unlikely, for example that your average of 10 rolls is six or close to six. An average of three on the other hand is very likely. And because we've observed random processes like this many, many times, we can actually say how likely! Science!\nNow, if you roll ",
" dice 10 times, the likelyhood that the averages of both are different, can be calculated! It's quite likely that they'll not be the same.. but does that, in fact, mean that one die is different from the other?",
"Say your shady gambler friend comes along and uses a die that is slightly weighted, and you roll both 10 times, you're probably not gonna be able to tell the difference, just from rolling them 10 times. You'd want to repeat the experiment.. maybe roll the dice 100 times, maybe 1,000 times! Suddenly you start noticing the pattern when you calculate the averages. The likelyhood that you throw the dice 1,000 times and one has a much higher average than other without being a weighted die is very, very low\nThe same basic principle holds true for randomness all around!",
"So there we have one way of reducing the likelyhood that an observed effect is due to chance:\nBigger groups.\nThose 1,000 die rolls are very similar to having 1,000 people eat your chocolate. The chance that 900 of one group feel thirsty, but only 200 of the other group, is very, very low. You'll probably get an average \"thirstyness\" in both groups.",
"Most fields in science decided, somewhat arbitrarily (≈without a particular reason) that an observed effect where we can be 95% sure that it didn't happen due to chance is \"statistically significant\". That means that for those fields, about 1 in 20 findings, ",
", still shows a results that happened 'by accident'.\nThat's not very reassuring, I know. So that's why any finding needs repetition! The scientific process demands that experiments and findings not only be 'peer-reviewed' but also repeated! If you have an experiment with 95% confidence that is repeated, and the new experiment also shows an effect with a confidence of 95%, then you can be more than 99.99% sure that the there is an effect.",
"It makes sense: It's not always economically feasible to invite 2000 people into your laboratory and feed them chocolate. Money and time are often hard to come by.\nBut it you can get 100 people and publish your findings, saying \"I'm 95% sure I'm on to something, please repeat!\" then you're not blowing huge sums of money on a hunch anymore, and the people who come after you actually have a very good indication that there's something here worth looking into.",
"Some fields where it really matters actually impose much stricter standards, like medicine, where an expectation of 99% confidence, or even 99.9% confidence are very common.",
"Conclusion:\nFor most things in science, we actually have a pretty good idea how certain we can be that the results are correct or due to chance. For the well-researched areas (long-used medicines for example), we can be very confident that the results are correct. There is \"scientific consensus\". Man-made climate change for example is something that dozens of papers have been written on. And if 1 in 20 comes to a different conclusion, you now know why you should still listen the other 19. In fact, 1 in 20 going the other way can be pretty reassuring of the fact that the scientific process did take place. ",
"The problem that probably sparked your question is that \"news\" seems to be fundamentally at odds with the scientific process: Many websites and news outlets want to report on the 'cutting edge' of science. They will jump at the first sign of a good headline and spread unreviewed 'findings' much too early - before the 'long tail' of the scientific process has taken place. This overreporting of isolated findings is the reason why it can sometimes seem like chocolate or wine both cause and treat every imaginable condition known to humanity.",
"There are other factors that make the scientific process a bit harder than it should be:\nIt's very unattractive to write about negative findings - the absence of an effect, (\"Hey we ran this big study, but turns out we were wrong\"), even though oftentimes it's useful to know that something does NOT work the way we thought.\nAlso there's much more glory in publishing about something for the first time, and not so much about repeating other people's work to make sure they got it right, (\"So that thing they did 2 years ago? We did it again and got the same results! Yay us!\"), even though the first publishing should not even be considered complete until more studies come to the same conclusion.",
"I hope this answer was helpful in some way, even after some of the other great replies"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xe3mz",
"comment_text": [
"Because science doesn't just get written in a holy science bible that future generations just read out of as gospel truth. People run experiments again and again forever. And you still have college kids running experiments from 300 years ago and checking the results and someone would notice. ",
"Beyond that, all knowledge is always infallible and there is no way to ever prove anything is real or whatever but people have to get by with the best tools they have. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xexn3",
"comment_text": [
"By repetition really.",
"If one scientist has an experiment and publishes the results ",
" other scientist will try the same experiment as described to see if they get the same results.",
"Now it can happen and it has happened in the past that some scientists trying to recreate a described experiment came up with the same wrong results as the first guy, mostly because their instruments were bad and their interpretations of what they though they saw was false.",
"On example was the N-Ray. Shortly after Rötgen had discovered his X-Rays others started messing around with that stuff to see if they could find out more along the same lines. After some time a guy named Blondlot announced that he had discovered something he called the N-Ray after the university of Nancy in France, the place where he had discovered.",
"Other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Many came up with the result \"I don't see anything\" but enough others fooled themselves into believing that they had seen the same thing Blondlot thought he saw, that for a short time people seriously though N-Rays were a thing.",
"Another example is were the Channels on Mars. A guy named Schiaparelli looked at Mars though his telescope and thought he could make out some straight lines that he called channels or canals (there were some translation issues). Other people looked at Mars and though they could see them too.",
"It turned out that they fell prey to an optical illusion and later observations with better telescope showed there never was such a thing.",
"In both cases we now know that the canals on Mars and the N-rays were wrong because scientist kept trying to learn more about the phenomenon and looked at it with better and better instruments. They were both cutting edge science of their time.",
"It is not uncommon that when entering a completely new and unexplored field that there will be a few missteps at first, but the more try to replicate it the surer we get of the results.",
"For the most part it is not being completely wrong about the outcome of an experiment that scientist worry about but getting better and more accurate descriptions of the effects.",
"Separately form the experiments themselves there are also the the theories used to explain the results (which is what is mostly thought in textbooks) and these can still be 'wrong'. However here the results are less likely to be that the theory is completely wrong just that it is a simplification and that there are better often more complicated theories that better predict the results of experiments with greater accuracy."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9y4wnt",
"comment_text": [
"Biomedical PhD here. Will answer from a bio standpoint.",
"The biggest misconception re. scientific findings is that they \"prove\" something. In reality, significant scientific findings disprove the null hypothesis, which usually means that a change was observed not due to chance. There are a couple of ways to make somewhat sure that is the case. There is always a non-zero chance of a freak coincidence, of course.",
"(1) Reproducibility - in a bio lab setting, most experiments get repeated at least 3 times in biological replicates (also know as \"n value\"), as that is the magical number at which point you can analyze data for statistical significance (the abovementioned defeat of the null hypothesis). Personally, I think the intense focus on statistical significance in life siences is a crock of shit since the cutoff is fairly arbitrary, but oh well. ",
"(2) Controls - a well controlled experiment will control for possible non-specific effects of the treatment or environment. A good experiment includes a positive (I expect something specific to happen here) and a negative (nothing should happen here) control, as well as other controls as needed. All controls should be run at the same time as experimental conditions to ensure environment/handling didn't cause an artifact in experiment. There could be additional QC steps, such as confirming reagent purity, DNA quality, or something else depending on specific protocol. ",
"So, if you do your experiment 3 times, your controls work as expected, and you've taken all the necessary QC steps, chances are your result is real. ",
"Also, as others in this thread have mentioned, usually multiple labs work on a similar topic for many years, thus arriving at a \"scientific consensus.\" Honestly, I wouldn't consider something a reliable finding until I see at least 2-3 papers on it, preferrably from different groups. A single paper on something in this day and age means very little, no matter how headline-grabbing it is.",
"Results are also defined to some degree by the system in which the expt was run. Different cell lines/animals may respond differently, so whatever observed may be peculiar to that model organism. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why would my brother's wife be called my sister-in-law? Doesn't that imply that they became brother and sister?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cxyx8
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0b6mb",
"comment_text": [
"brother's wife -> brife",
"make this popular"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0c75k",
"comment_text": [
"Here's the funky way that I like to think of it: legally, in a lot of ways a married couple can be thought of like a single person - they can file joint tax returns, they can't be forced to testify (in many cases) against each other, they share ownership of most property and income obtained during the marriage, etc. That's a simplified way of putting it, but bear with me.",
"So if we think of your brother and wife as \"one person,\" then you have one sibling: your brother/sister. One of those parts is biological, the other is legal, so we have a special legal term for them. And neither of them is brother/sister to each other, because they're \"one person.\""
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da089tq",
"comment_text": [
"No, it implies that she became your sister by marriage rather than blood relation. They are the actual married pair, and so by the same ruleset, they are husband and wife. The status change between them results in a set of changes between the non-blood family and blood family. But that ",
" set of changes do not cause a similar secondary set of changes, and so on. In other words, the change in relationship between your brother and his wife (marriage) changes your relationship to the unrelated woman, now sister-in-law. the change in relationship in you gaining a sister-in-law does not result in any other change, (your brother gaining a sister-in-law through you)."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0dsk7",
"comment_text": [
"sister's wife -> strife",
"make this popular"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_da0aov8",
"comment_text": [
"I see, i mean i knew she wouldn't actually be my brother's sister but maybe they should have just come up with a better name for it lol."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: In a roll of duct tape, how does the glue stick to the correct side?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cl0fx
| 542
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.88
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xl8sx",
"comment_text": [
"Between the top of the tape and underside of the tape is a layer called the \"release coating\". In most tapes it is olyvinyl carbamate, but I don't know if that is what is used specifically in duct tape. It's just an anti-cohesion layer that exists precisely for this purpose."
],
"score": 249
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9x9jj4",
"comment_text": [
"Id assume the outside layer of the tape has a very thin wax like coating that gets sprayed on, which prevents this, but as soon as it is unraveled, it gets air contact which stops the process. but im no duct tape inspector."
],
"score": 65
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xs4gi",
"comment_text": [
"In many tapes and labels, the release coating is an extremely thin layer of silicone rubber. Some self-wound tapes have no release liner and depend on the adhesive binding much more strongly to one side or the other by way of a primer or chemical bonding. "
],
"score": 62
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9x9zxh",
"comment_text": [
"It's called the \"release coating\" which is used on all sorts of tape, not just duct tape. "
],
"score": 36
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9xz4v9",
"comment_text": [
"Who said it wasn't?"
],
"score": 26
}
|
ELI5: Why do we send millions of dollars of aid to Saudi Arabia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cibxt
| 23
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.68
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wpm2o",
"comment_text": [
"The US provides about $1.5 million in the form of International Military Education and Training (IMET), which is joint military training in order to advance our common interests in bilateral security operations. Basically it is training Saudi military officers to work with US military forces in the event that is required.",
"This is pays off in other ways such as the Saudis purchase things like $30 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets."
],
"score": 16
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wpbt9",
"comment_text": [
"I am not sure that we do. Are you sure of this?",
"We do allow Saudi Arabia to buy advanced aircraft with sophisticated weaponry and radar installations. They are using the aircraft to bomb Yemen.",
"We have also sold weaponry to Israel including artillery shells loaded with white phosphorus, an incendiary shell intended only for military targets. I have seen photographs of children screaming from the wounds from the white phosphorus."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wplhm",
"comment_text": [
"We just offered to sell them 115 billion dollars in weapons. In 2010 we sold the 60 billion in weapons. I think we give them a million here or there so they can know how to fly an F-18"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wr5h6",
"comment_text": [
"Here's the list of countries the State department sends money to.",
"Saudi Arabia gets about $10,000 annually. I.e. ten thousand.",
"http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224071.pdf"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wuova",
"comment_text": [
"They purchase these from the government?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do beauty products have such a large effect on women, but not men?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5chgqh
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9whnkt",
"comment_text": [
"The question in the title and the question in your added text are different. Firstly, makeup defintelty can have a big effect on a man should one wear it. Secondly, it's a social construct for women to wear makeup, that also explains why their naked face is generally worse than a man's naked face, they usually always have their face covered, so it doesn't get direct sunlight and can hinder the natural removal of pimples and such."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wjsy5",
"comment_text": [
"I imagine because men already have more dominant facial features, like brows, big schnazzoles, jaws. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wj81z",
"comment_text": [
"No, he is much more illuminated than the stuff behind him, which means he is lit entirely by the camera flash.",
"Better lighting is a) orange tinted, such as a incandescent bulb, instead of the white that comes from a flash and b) directed from above, instead of head-on.",
"Another that affect the quality of the picture are angle of the face relative to the camera (it's best when the camera looks down on you). I have no idea why this makes such a difference, but it does."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9whlj5",
"comment_text": [
"I'm gonna blow the fuck out of your mind:",
"All the handsome tv men and movie men don't actually look like that. They all are wearing makeup too. If you just see an actual random photo of like chris helmsworth (thor) he kinda just looks like a dude. ",
"http://65.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmisxeJvnP1qf1xlbo1_500.jpg"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9whqtr",
"comment_text": [
"That's just a bad picture with bad lighting. And even in that picture, he's still a stud."
],
"score": 1
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.