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:Bullet sizes/dimensions
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ch9fd
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wgawn",
"comment_text": [
"Some use metric and some use imperial. 9mm, 10mm, 5.56mm, 7.62x51mm (bullet is 7.62mm wide, cartridge is 51mm long), 12.7mm, all are referring to how wide the bullet is, in millimeters. The others are also referring to how wide the bullet is, but in imperial. .50 is half an inch wide, .408 is .408 inches, as is .308 (which is the same thing as 7.62x51, just two different ways of saying it), 7.62x39 (which is the AK round, and is as wide as the x51 round, but shorter). ",
"Basically the person who invented the round gets to name it, and they usually do depending on where they're from. Europeans generally invented the ones that are measured in mm and Americans or British invented the ones that are measured in inches. ",
"The stuff like BMG (Browning Machine Gun), Luger, Winchester, Magnum, Kurtz, etc are things that are tacked onto the end to denote who made it, or what gun it was made for. John Browning invented the M2 .50cal machine gun, and it fired the .50cal Browning Machine Gun bullet. 9mm Luger is the same as 9mm Parabellum is the same as 9x19mm, because they were popular in Luger pistols. If a round has \"Winchester\" after the name, it was probably for a Winchester rifle. If it's called \"Magnum\" it's probably a bigger version of a similar round, and calling something Magnum was popular a while back. There's .45ACP (.45 inches wide, made for the Automatic Colt Pistol), and a .45LC (also same width, but stands for Long Colt, a revolver round). "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wgtiv",
"comment_text": [
"A 7.62 is in mm, and so is the 51. 51mm is 5.1cm, which is about 2 inches. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wh6q2",
"comment_text": [
"Ah, thanks :D Was having a bit of a 'one of these things is not like the other' moment"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wvdil",
"comment_text": [
"(bullet is 7.62mm wide, cartridge is 51mm long),",
"Just to clarify for OP. The 51mm refers to the length of the cartridge case (the brass part) and not the length of the complete cartridge. A minor quibble to an otherwise excellent explanation of the often confusing naming of cartridges. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wh5af",
"comment_text": [
"The caliber of the bullet refers to the widest diameter.",
"The most common 9mm ammunition refers to a bullet projectile is that is 9mm in diameter, fired out of a metal casing that is 19mm long. Hence the 9x19 designation. However there is also 9x18 makarov, 9x21 largo that fire the same diameter bullet out of shorter or longer.",
"However not everyone decided to use the diameter of the bullet as the designation for the ammunition. .38special used a .357\" bullet, same as the 357 magnum, by using the diameter of the casing.45acp uses a 0.45\" bullet. .44 colt uses a 0.451\" bullet."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How did the UK phase in and implement single payer healthcare?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cggo7
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.74
|
What happened to the countries pre existing insurance companies? Did they all lose their jobs? How did they make the move to single payer?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w9d0k",
"comment_text": [
"The National Health Service (NHS) was formed in 1948. This was not long after the end of WW2, when the UK was still recovering. Private healthcare insurance, such as it was at the time, was left alone: the NHS became the public health insurer for the majority who had no insurance, not a blanket forced replacement for existing insurance. Many people in the UK have private health insurance for things the NHS doesn't cover as well (or at all), such as dental or quicker access to specialists. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wb8vb",
"comment_text": [
"Dental treatment was originally covered by the NHS though, it was about 25 years ago when dentists refused to work for the NHS because they're all money grabbing bastards who know that they can exploit peoples' excruciating pain to charge a fortune."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w9asq",
"comment_text": [
"There weren't insurance companies. The rich got medicine and the poor made do with what they could."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wczg7",
"comment_text": [
"The 1911 ",
"National Insurance Act",
" introduced basic medical cover for the working population. Access to a doctor was free to workers who earned less than £2 a week. However, this didn't necessarily cover their wives or children, nor did it cover other workers or those with a better standard of living. ",
"Hospitals charged for their services, though for the poor there were voluntary hospitals which relied on charitable donations. The absolutely destitute had access to workhouse infirmaries through the 1834 ",
"Poor Law Amendment",
", though by the 1930s these had mostly come under local government control.",
"Throughout the twentieth century, the need for free health care was increasingly recognised as the best way to solve the deficiencies of the existing system; lack of access to hospital care and lack of access to health care for working men's families. However, opposition from wealthier parts of society, including the medical profession, remained.",
"The ",
"National Health Service",
" began on 5th July 1948. It was not phased in but from that date everyone became eligible for the benefits it brought. As the ",
"leaflet",
" that was prepared in advance of the launch date states:",
"It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone - rich or poor, man, woman or child - can use it or any part of it. There are no charges, except for a few special items. There are no insurance qualifications. But it is not a \"charity.\" You are all paying for it, mainly as taxpayers, and it will relieve your money worries in time of illness."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wbwoi",
"comment_text": [
"Many people have in the UK have [sic] private health insurance for things the NHS doesn't cover as well (or at all), such as dental or quicker access to specialists. ",
"I'd hardly consider it \"many\" but roughly 11% of the population have some form of health insurance. That figure, however, gives a misleading impression as far from all of that cover is \ncomprehensive. Few policies, whether company-paid or provided, or individually paid, \noffer maternity or mental health cover. None provide cover for accidents and emergency \nor for general practice. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Humans endured the drastic climate changes of the Ice Age for thousands of years. Why do people think the current climate changes will result in the end of humanity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cfngj
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
I'm all for renewable energy and mitigating climate change as much as possible, but how detrimental is it to humans compared to the glacial and interglacial periods of the ice age?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2u3b",
"comment_text": [
"I don't think it's so much as to whether humans would survive, but rather that society could not be sustained as we know it. Millions of people would be displaced, there would be a huge migrant crisis. Weather will (and already has started to) become more violent and unpredictable. Crops could fail, infrastructure could fall, economies could fall (most of the world's major economic centers are near area that could be effected the worst). New York, Hong Kong, just about every major shipping port, etc. ",
"It's also worth noting that current climate change trends are not really comparable to natural ones in the past. In the past, humans had time to adapt. They could easily migrate, as established cities didn't really exist. It doesn't take much to move a little straw hut village, or to move all 3 of your belongings from one cave to another, but you can't move a city of millions as easily. Also, the violent weather now is something our ancestors didn't have to contend with at least to the same extent. Now, a single hurricane can cause billions in damage and kill thousands, and displace hundreds of thousands (which each cost a lot to relocate). It's because of the society we've built that we're ill equipped to handle it. The species could survive, but it wouldn't be pretty. It'd be much easier just to reign in climate change.",
"Edit: fixed autocorrect typos"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2q1y",
"comment_text": [
"It's not just about how warm or cold it is. It's about how quickly it's changing.",
"This xkcd",
" helps put it into perspective.",
"When temperatures change over thousands of years, species can adapt. Some go extinct, but others grow more/less fur to keep themselves warmer/colder, or migrate to new habitats. Most survive. But when temperatures change too quickly, they don't have time to adapt. The faster the change, the more species go extinct.",
"Human life is very tied in with the planet's ecosystem. We think of food as being something we just get off the shelf at a grocery store. But that food has to be grown on farms, and those farms depend on pollinators like bees, and on pest-eating birds, and on a whole bunch of other life most people wouldn't even think about. If those start going extinct, farming will become much more difficult. ",
"Very few people think that humans will actually go ",
" due to climate change. Most of the predictions say things like \"radically changed\" or \"much more difficult\"."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2poq",
"comment_text": [
"No one's saying it's the end of humanity, but it's certainly going to be a huge cost and and social upheaval. Cities near the coast will be flooded due to sea level rising, agricultural regions will change, areas of the earth will become inhospitable, prompting mass migrations, etc.",
"There's 7+ billion people now vs maybe a few hundred thousand/million at most during the ice ages."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2v1m",
"comment_text": [
"Because the change is much too fast, and there's too many of us.",
"The first is simple. Adaption takes time. When you're dealing with several degrees and likely major local weather changes in a short time (on an evolutionary scale), some species probably fall through, which in turn disrupts the food chain, which we also rely on to some degree.",
"The second: There's far more of us than back then. Lower yields in the ice age just meant that the population in the thousands had to use more territory to feed themselves. That's not really an option anymore. We rely on large scale industrial farming pretty much everywhere. If the current fertile areas no longer yield enough you're looking at famines, if the current plentiful water sources get as dried out as parts of northern africa/the middle east, you're looking at water wars.",
"Now, it wouldn't result in the end of humanity. We're resilient, we've made it through worse. But it would get nasty."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w44b7",
"comment_text": [
"The keyword is drastic : what previously took hundreds to thousands of years can now take place ",
" faster, possibly within a generation.",
"Also, there wasn't a world-encompassing civilization during the last Ice Age as well as the Interglacial Period.. a few ",
" people displaced from every bit of lowland, much of which would've also been our best farmland, infrastructurally-complete cities, our culture and heritage, rushing up anyplace above water in wildly messed-up weather would be a disaster fit to end all disasters."
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5:How does the ignitor on a gas stove stop igniting once the flame is lit
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cfohh
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
to clarify my stove continues to spark in any position on the knob until the flame lights
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w5ffw",
"comment_text": [
"Automatic ignition (aka auto reignition) is a relatively new, high end feature. So many people with gas stoves won't be familiar with it. ",
"It turns out that the gas flame produces a slight ionization that allow the flame to conduct some electricity. There's an electrode with the igniter unit that detects this and uses the information to turn off the igniter when the flame is present. It will also turn the igniter back on if the flame goes out (which could happen if the flame is turned low a strong breeze comes through). ",
"These systems aren't related to the position of the knob. There's a YouTube video that shows someone where one of the sensors is malfunctioning and the igniters all click even when all the knobs are set off. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2li2",
"comment_text": [
"The ones I know only fire when the gas control is turned to a certain position turning them on. Once the gas lights you turn the knob slightly and the igniter quits.",
"I have a wall gas heater. When I want to light its pilot I push a button which produces the spark. There is no battery. Only my finger pushing the button makes the spark. One spark per push."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2ic8",
"comment_text": [
"The ignition is nothing more than a spark that ignites the gas. Even if it goes off while the stove is lit it wouldn't do anything as the gas is already burning. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2wws",
"comment_text": [
"If it's electric, it stops because once you move the dial a little bit it opens the circuit and the sparking stops. If it's a pilot light, there's a small flame that's always lit under the stove."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w39hv",
"comment_text": [
"Usually the knob is spring loaded on the portion of the turn that turns the igniter on. Once you remove your hand, the spring just turns the knob back enough to stop the igniter from sparking. It is just a switch that you control with your hand. I'm sure there are some stoves that don't require your hand to turn the knob, but I haven't used them. Gas furnaces have a small pilot light that is always lit."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Illegals and taxes
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5cfb4w
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
If they work with fake social security, who collects the money next year April 15th? Does the US government benefit from this, how does the US spend that amount of treasury? Do illegals receive welfare? Why not give all of them social until their status is decided? And fast track procedures.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9vzsn8",
"comment_text": [
"If they work with fake social security, who collects the money next year April 15th?",
"The IRS keeps the tax monies received if a fake SSN is used.",
"Does the US government benefit from this, how does the US spend that amount of treasury?",
"The US benefits to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Google it, there are a number of analyses and studies from multiple sources to back this up.",
"Do illegals receive welfare?",
"Generally not. Even those who may be eligible within the state that they live who may be entitled to receive some public benefits often do not apply for them, due to their situation and poor information access about how to apply for such benefits. (For example food or limited housing assistance where program funding is not tied to immigration status or federal programs.)",
"Why not give all of them social until their status is decided? And fast track procedures.",
"Well, there is something called an ITIN -- an individual taxpayer ID number that people can sign up for to assist in paying their taxes.",
"And lots of people do use this program. However, is use is limited and only addresses taxes owed on earnings.",
"People going through the legal immigration process also use it, until they receive an SSN.",
"It doesn't really fast track anything. It just helps honest people file their taxes, which can help in the long run in parts of the immigration process. Immigration is handled by Citizen and Immigration Service, not the Treasury Dept or IRS."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9w2nr6",
"comment_text": [
"You gave some great information, but I would like to take it a step further.",
"The U.S. government likes receiving money, so much so that they are not too particular about where it comes from. In the same way that monies withheld from the earnings of a fake SSN spend just the same as those from a real SSN, even though the DEA refuses to remove Marijuana from their Schedule 1 (thereby keeping it illegal), within three weeks of the first states legalizing the recreational use of it the Federal government had established a mostly anonymous system to collect taxes from it.",
"Never underestimate our government's hunger for cash."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9vzesn",
"comment_text": [
"\"Other\""
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9vzesn",
"comment_text": [
"\"Other\""
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9wo14s",
"comment_text": [
"If they work with fake social security, who collects the money next year April 15th?",
"No one. The IRS collects the money throughout the year, via withholding from the employer. Nothing particular happens on April 15th. An illegal alien using a fake SSN is unlikely to file taxes on April 15th.",
"Does the US government benefit from this, ",
"That is a matter of debate. Obviously they benefit from getting money, if you just look at it in isolation. But what costs are there that are coupled to the condition that led to them getting this money (i.e. the fact of illegals living and working in the US)",
"how does the US spend that amount of treasury?",
"It just goes int other same big account as all the other money, and is spent on the same things.",
"Do illegals receive welfare?",
"Generally not, but it depends on the state, and the welfare program, and what programs you think fall under the label of \"welfare\".",
"Why not give all of them social until their status is decided? ",
"What status is decided by whom? Most illegals don't turn themselves in and petition to have some status decided. They live under the radar and hope they don't get caught. ",
"The IRS can issue illegals a number called an ITIN, which are just like SSN for tax paying purposes, only called something different. But, the IRS can only issue ITIN if asked to. Since the whole premise of your question is \"they work with fake social security\", then it seems pretty obvious that they have decided not to ask for a ITIN.",
"And fast track procedures.",
"Procedures for what?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do characters in movies that take place in the past have British accents, even if the setting is nowhere near Britain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5c8u1r
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uijzn",
"comment_text": [
"If they're in the past for the United States, it's because most of the early settlers in the US came from Britain. If it's Australia, same story. If it's not either of those, I'm going to need an example of what you mean."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ujgt6",
"comment_text": [
"That is sort of the default historical accent, I guess because most of the great Shakespearean actors were British, and so directors nowadays associate a British accent with a higher class production and better acting.",
"If it's in english, what else could they use? American hillbilly accent like Jed Clampett? An Indian accent like Apu from the Simpsons? New Jersey accent like Dice Clay?",
"There really aren't that many choices."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ulcqs",
"comment_text": [
"Good question. It's because most movies are made by Americans and the British are close-enough culturally to understand yet the accent gives away the difference between the countries. This allows viewers to easily understand what is going on (the English language) with the easily understood notion that it's different (the accent). ",
"So when we have pop-culture movies about the past that aren't super-detailed (ie. in a foreign language) the British accent allows Americans to think what they are seeing is real because we can understand but it's not something we actually hear every day. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9unyzw",
"comment_text": [
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheQueensLatin"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uj3hy",
"comment_text": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_at_the_Gates"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What happens on the new president's first day, does he undergo a training day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5c89rs
| 43
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.7
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uim9g",
"comment_text": [
"I just pictured Obama describing how precisely to bang on the vending machine to get the candy to fall out. "
],
"score": 82
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9udpfb",
"comment_text": [
"The President elect already started to get briefings and preparation prior to their actual election. Their \"first day\" will likely be mostly taken up with preparation for the ceremony to swear them into the office, and the ensuing speeches and events afterwards."
],
"score": 41
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9udvuy",
"comment_text": [
"So they don't show him how to use the coffee machine then?"
],
"score": 33
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uiw6a",
"comment_text": [
"There's a knack to it."
],
"score": 17
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uniew",
"comment_text": [
"G Dubs taught me this one, you just gotta finesse it the right way. "
],
"score": 14
}
|
|
ELI5: Why isn't the U.S. Supreme Court required to be politically balanced?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5c7scx
| 89
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.7
|
3 liberals, 3 conservatives, 3 moderates? Considering they are appointed with life tenure by the president, shouldn't it be representative of many sides?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ub1hu",
"comment_text": [
"Ideally the supreme court should not be political at all. This is part of the reason why congress have to approve the supreme justices. The justices are appointed to make sure the will of the congress is followed and not their own will. If you were to make sure they were aligned politically you would open up another can of worms entirely. How do you make sure they are not extremists in each camp? How do you define the political sides as there are a lot of different opinions?"
],
"score": 78
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uepm0",
"comment_text": [
"That's the beauty of the system. The justices are supposed to interpret the law as it's written, not to create new law based on their own politics. If a power isn't plain in the letter of the la, did Congress clearly intend it? That's what they're debating. It's also why they have a lifetime appointment. A legislator is supposed to reflect the views of the constituents, and those views might change...thus, elections. A Judge isnt supposed to reflect the beliefs of their president, constituents, etc. ",
"If a Justice had to be re-elected, the fear is they would try to please their constituents rather than use their own judgment. ",
"And by and large, they do. Lots of people fail to realize that the big debates amongst the justices aren't as blatant white as likes guys, doesn't like gays. Take Scalia. He would usually side against interpretations of laws that would stretch what's actually written in the law. This usually hurt progressives , so he'd get branded as a conservative, racist, anti gay, etc. But if you actually read his dissents you'd realize he's not against any groups when he hears a case, he was against the court interpreting a law in a broad fashion to create powers that were not expressly stated by the law makers. He was a textualist, if the right in question wasn't written in the law, he wanted Congress to create the law, not for the court to create it through broad interpretation. Sometimes it made sense. Sometimes you could argue that the implication of the law was plain so maybe he is just being biased.",
"Point being, politics come into play based on the personal beliefs of the justices, but not because they feel like they have to please voters. And so like most people, they're not black and white. They can be conservative on some things, liberal on others. But their fights tend to be over broad and narrow legal interpretation, not politics. "
],
"score": 56
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uangr",
"comment_text": [
"\"Required\" how precisely? Who decides what is conservative, liberal, or moderate? The UK for example has conservatives who would be considered hard-line liberals in the US.",
"There is no way to require balance without in effect making the arbiter of what \"balance\" means to actually be a supreme dictator."
],
"score": 54
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ube2u",
"comment_text": [
"Two things. First, Supreme Court appointments is one of the powers that the president has. If one ideology controls the presidency for a long time, that will be reflected in the appointments which are made to the court. This is in part a story of how prevailing ideologies evolve over time. In a two-party system, the line between the parties will drift back and forth to reflect the views of the voters.",
"Second, once appointed, Supreme Court nominees are completely free and independent. Many times in history, their own ideologies have not ended up matching those of the president that appointed them -- either right away or it changed with time. The liberal justices Souter, Stevens and Blackmun were all appointed by conservative presidents, while the conservative White was appointed by a liberal president."
],
"score": 51
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9uful6",
"comment_text": [
"So then a nominee thinks \"hey, there's a slot for a liberal open, I'm conservative but I'll just say I'm liberal and go for the promotion\".",
"Your natural response will probably be that someone should backcheck the judge's case history to validate their liberal/conservative/whatever claim, but that just leads straight back to the initial problem of who gets to decide that and what criteria do they use?"
],
"score": 16
}
|
ELI5: What would actually happen if California left the union?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5c3a1b
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9t9zee",
"comment_text": [
"Since there's no legal mechanism for this to happen at the moment, the answer would strongly depend on whatever sort of mechanism is actually built. Both groups would at least suffer some economic damage, but it could be anything from economic hardship to actual war. ",
"Far, far, far more likely, is that none of the above happens and this just gets muttered about like some in Texas do upon occasion."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9taqh0",
"comment_text": [
"War. Cali is about 1/7th of the US economy, and it provides roughly 50% of its non-cereal agricultural resources. ",
"Don't worry though, they also don't have enough water or electricity to make it work. Maybe if they'd invested in nuke plants over the last decade... then they'd actually be self-sufficient."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9tandq",
"comment_text": [
"Secession was ruled illegal in ",
" in 1868. If a state decides to secede, the Federal Government would have to intervene. This would likely look like the National Guard or even the Army moving in to restore order. If the citizens in the seceding state fight back, it could easily erupt in to full-out civil war.",
"The odds of that happening are pretty slim, though -- despite a lot of talk, most secessionists understand that even in the current political climate, leaving the country would to irreparable harm to their state."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9tarb0",
"comment_text": [
"It would be an act of treason and our unstable president would hunt them down. If they do it right now, maybe civil war? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills..."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9tauj4",
"comment_text": [
"Not going to happen. Several states tried it before. There was no clause in the constitution forbidding it. Lincoln said no. There was a war. The South lost the war of Northern Aggression. Do not try it."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do long-term partners often pass away soon after one another?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5c2ynp
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9t8apy",
"comment_text": [
"Because it's sweet when it happens, so you hear about it. For the millions of people who's lifelong partners passed away decades before them, it's depressing so you don't hear about it."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9t8vgn",
"comment_text": [
"because generally they are the same age and trends point towards old people dying around the same age?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9tloyd",
"comment_text": [
"I think it has something to do with the partnership. For long term partners, alot of times one person does the majority of a certain chore and the other does the majority of another. They become so co dependent or interdependent that they literally need each other to survive. ",
"For example, my parents have been married for 37 years. My mom pays all the bills to the point that my dad can't even balance a checkbook or create a monthly spend plan. If she died I doubt he would even have the sense to look for a person to care for his estate (can't think of the word right now) but I'm sure the stress of trying to manage that chore would literally kill him. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ttfc6",
"comment_text": [
"I am an actuary and have priced joint survivorship products and studied this. We call it \"broken heart syndrome\" and indeed, there is a higher mortality rate for a surviving spouse compared to the general population. It makes sense - if a person you've built your life around dies, you may just sort of stop caring and give up on life."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9t83o7",
"comment_text": [
"Emotional distress has real physical symptoms and sometimes the person's health is not sufficient to deal with those symptoms long. They often also lose the will to maintain their conditions (exercise, eating right, etc) and so their health can slip for those reasons putting them into a state that they are unable to recover from. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How do you become a Canadian permanent resident?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bylal
| 20
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.74
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9sahv5",
"comment_text": [
"There are standards for becoming a Canadian permemant resident, and unfortunately you don't fit the criteria.",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/53hxvp/20_year_old_working_a_dead_end_job_with_an_income/"
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9sbbb2",
"comment_text": [
"You wanted an answer and I gave you the answer.",
"You need to start taking accountability for your actions and accepting the truth of your scenario."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9sba73",
"comment_text": [
"I'd say it's pretty damn relevant. "
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9sbnl0",
"comment_text": [
"WEW LAD THATS SPICY"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9sbtek",
"comment_text": [
"Has I gone too far?",
"Has I gone MENTAL?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Why does soup make you feel better when you're sick?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bx5fd
| 23
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.65
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rxufk",
"comment_text": [
"It's easily digested and generally warm which needs less energy to absorb. It provides fluids, nutrients, and calories very easily. On to of that, the placebo effect from having been told your whole life that it works."
],
"score": 51
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ryedz",
"comment_text": [
"Hydration and electrolytes. Mounting an immune response uses a whole lot of water and salt."
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9s57po",
"comment_text": [
"Chicken noodle soup became popular when it was cooked with real bones. Bone broth is highly nutrient-dense. Plus, it tastes yummy and is easy to swallow if you have a sore throat. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9s8lxv",
"comment_text": [
"not to mention the garlic and onion used in it helps open your head up and you breathe better. some studies indicate that onion and garlic can help you recover faster from a cold"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9sqvnq",
"comment_text": [
"Here's a breakdown the various ingredients and their properties of chicken noodle soup:",
"Nutrients from chicken noodle soup can aid with that support system. Studies have shown that a hearty bowl of chicken soup may help you to clear nasal congestion and have a mild anti-inflammatory effect that can help ease cold symptoms.",
"So it works on multiple fronts, it provides nutrients and vitamins your body needs to fight infection, the warm liquid helps soothe sore throats and clear nasal passages and it helps you feel full at a time when your appetite may not be the greatest. Even the placebo effect may play a role in its effectiveness."
],
"score": 3
}
|
|
ELI5 Lots of animals, including primates, are territorial and are hostile to outsiders.Could this fact go some way to explain xenophobia and racism in humans.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5btzxj
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9r6x44",
"comment_text": [
"Probably not. They are territorial to those not part of their direct social group, they don't divide among lines of \"similar to me good, different to me bad\". "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rca71",
"comment_text": [
"Ah, but when your social group is all people who look like you, wouldn't it make sense that it is easier to accept people who look like you into your social group? "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rdmos",
"comment_text": [
"being territorial may have evolved into our distrust of strangers, which that could be linked to racism/xenophobia, but only due to humans tending to living in homogeneous groups. Even then people aren't innately racist, Distrust and caution towards the unknown is not the same as blind hatred. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rchyk",
"comment_text": [
"Those territorial animals attack other animals who look identical to them. They attack all outsiders. What your saying isn't necessarily wrong, just not relevant to this example."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rd8kb",
"comment_text": [
"I disagree. OP isn't asking if being territorial is the same as being racist/xenophobic. OP is asking if the territorialness of chimps is linked to our own racism and xenophobia. So when we evolved from primates, did our territorial tendencies also evolve? "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why does America have such a weird voting system?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bui4l
| 50
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.73
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rd5tl",
"comment_text": [
"The answer is rooted in history. ",
"When America was founded, there were no political parties. At least, not in the sense that we think of them. It was believed that there would be many candidates running on different platform. Further complicated matters, the 13 states had very different population sizes; the populated states thought that they should have the most voting power, but there were concerned that more sparsely populated areas would essentially be overlooked.",
"To solve this problem, they set up the American system of voting. Any candidates that meet the qualifications may run, and state receive a set of electors equal to the number of Congressional representatives they have. States have, at a minimum, 3 representatives: exactly 2 in the Senate, and 1 or more in the House of Representatives based on their population from the last Senate. Electors tend to vote for the candidate that wins their state (some states legally require this, but this is not true over the entire nation), and in Maine and Nebraska, the electors split their votes according to state laws, in which not all votes go to the winner of the state. Whoever has at least half the electors voting for them wins.",
"Further, in the original system, the runner-up becomes the Vice President. Because the Vice President has only 2 official duties (to carry out the President's duties if the President can't, and to break ties and preside over the Senate), it was thought that this wouldn't be a problem. The 12th amendment changed that (I won't get into all the reasons here; Google if you're interested). Under the 12th amendment, electors vote separately for a President and a Vice President, and it is very strongly expected that the electors will elect the VP of the Presidential candidate's choice.",
"Further, because they expected more than 2 candidates, they had a solution if nobody get a majority of electors: the take the top 3 candidates and the House of Representatives votes, with 1 vote for each state cast. This happened only 1 time in U.S. history (1824; interestingly enough, all the candidates that year were from the same party).",
"Today, we have 2 overwhelmingly dominant political parties that are extremely bitter rivals. They didn't see that one coming. ",
"There are measures that could be taken to soften this, and some states and cities use slightly different voting schemes. Today is more than just a national election: lots of issues are going to be on the ballots, the people of Maine are voting on whether or not they wish to use one scheme, known as ranked choice voting, in their elections, which allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates and still support the party they really want (Google for details). Some states also have non-partisan, independent commissions to determine voting districts to prevent gerrymandering, which would favor certain candidates by making their seats safe from challengers. ",
"However, to change US politics at the national level, that would require an amendment to the US Constitution. That document is inordinately difficult to amend, and that was done deliberately, as any Amendment can threaten the balance of power in the government or scale back the rights of the citizens. I won't go into the whole process, but suffice it to say that any attempt at electoral reform would not favor the politicians who got into office, so they have no advantage in proposing reforms. The best the states can do is to call for a new Constitutional convention...but that has its own sets of risks, as the process of writing a new Constitution from scratch threatens issues such as individual rights, state sovereignty levels, the scope of the federal government, how grievances could be addressed, etc.",
"tl;dr: it was set up this way, it's hard to change, and the people who could change it have everything to lose and nothing to gain by trynig."
],
"score": 25
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9retx9",
"comment_text": [
"It also doesn't help that the two major third parties in the US are both rather insane, and thus are marginalized",
"I think this is really just an outcome of the FPTP system. Like you said, we have two big tent parties that covers anyone. Any sane person is going to side with one of those parties, it's the only real way to win. If we all sided with the party that is the closest to our ideal candidates Trump wouldn't be running as a republican, and Sanders wouldn't have run as a democrat (in fact he identifies as an independent). Since they all do that, all our would be third party candidates lose during the primaries and don't make it to the ballot."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9retx9",
"comment_text": [
"It also doesn't help that the two major third parties in the US are both rather insane, and thus are marginalized",
"I think this is really just an outcome of the FPTP system. Like you said, we have two big tent parties that covers anyone. Any sane person is going to side with one of those parties, it's the only real way to win. If we all sided with the party that is the closest to our ideal candidates Trump wouldn't be running as a republican, and Sanders wouldn't have run as a democrat (in fact he identifies as an independent). Since they all do that, all our would be third party candidates lose during the primaries and don't make it to the ballot."
],
"score": 9
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rel7m",
"comment_text": [
"tl;dr: it was set up this way, it's hard to change, and the people who could change it have everything to lose and nothing to gain by trynig.",
"It's sad to see the system put in place by our forefathers, designed to prevent an abuse of power, now being used to prevent anyone from fixing an abuse of power."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9rkk07",
"comment_text": [
"It depends how you look at it. A Prime Minister has the support of Parliament by definition, so usually they are able to pass whatever laws they like as long as they keep that support.",
"But the US President can't do that because their party might not have a majority in Congress, and they can't necessarily order their own party members around to the same extent a Prime Minister can. And of course the President can't directly introduce new laws."
],
"score": 6
}
|
|
ELI5: why aren't fracking waste earthquakes in Oklahoma (that release tension building up) a good thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bpphd
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.57
|
I grew up in Southern CA, and I always heard that little earthquakes were a good thing because they released tension and helped prevent a really big earthquake. Now that Oklahoma is apparently having more little earthquakes from fracking waste, why isn't that a good thing? It seems like all that tension would have been in the ground anyway, and this way it can more easily release? Sidenote: I hope you don't try to answer this on mobile because autocorrect does not like fracking. ;) Flair: Geology
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qdqa8",
"comment_text": [
"It is the fracking that is building up that pressure. It is not a natural fault being released. In California you have natural pressure building and so small earthquakes are a good thing, but in places without active faults it is fully artificial and not good at all. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qbecv",
"comment_text": [
"You were told that in CA because a major fault line (as well as hundreds of smaller fault lines) run through the state. Fault lines are places where earthquakes naturally occur, which is why pretty much every building in CA is designed with earthquakes in mind, since it's a natural disaster we expect.",
"Oklahoma doesn't really have fault lines. Earthquakes aren't a natural and common disaster to expect there, so there's no tension waiting to be released from the ground. This also means their buildings aren't designed to survive earthquakes, which is why they're a bad thing."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qbtvt",
"comment_text": [
"There is tension, and smaller faults are all over the crust. However, they don't slip easily like at major fault lines, rather the weight of the Earth and pressure holds them together. So there's too much friction for them to slide for the most part.",
"Injected wastewater (primarily through wastewater injecting wells rather than the actual fracking site itself), forces these 'smushed' fault blocks apart, giving them room to slip, and hence potentially inducing localized earthquakes. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qh87d",
"comment_text": [
"You might get a fair number of local quakes. I wouldn't expect anything on the scale of continental plates."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qblyr",
"comment_text": [
"so there's no tension waiting to be released from the ground",
"Why do they have earthquakes then? I don't understand it."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why is the phrase "used to" as in "I used to do that" grammatically correct? What EXACTLY does it mean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bpflo
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.69
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9q95r1",
"comment_text": [
"So, the phrase isn't \"used to\" - it's \"used\" + the infinitive \"to do.\"",
"Why is that important? Because the noun \"use\" once meant \"habit,\" and the verb \"to use\" meant \"to habitually do.\" The majority of that definition has fallen out of favor in modern English and the simplification of tenses and moods, but it lingers on in the format you mentioned."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9q9bxq",
"comment_text": [
"I see people are trying to explain what the phrase means, but obviously you're wondering ",
" the word \"used\" means that, in this context. That's a good question, since it's a bit antiquated. ",
"The phrase goes back about 600-700 years, when \"used\" also meant \"accustomed\" or \"having practiced.\" Thus, \"used to\" meant \"being accustoming to [doing]\". Over time, the phrase become more generalized as a way of simply introducing something in the past. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9q8g59",
"comment_text": [
"It means that I habitually did that, but I no longer do that.",
"It's pretty ordinary grammar; notice the identical structure:"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qbkb2",
"comment_text": [
"Indeed, that is a grammatical error."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9q8t4l",
"comment_text": [
"But what is the present tense? Where is the word derived?",
"I want to eat.",
"I need to rest.",
"I tend to yawn.",
"I use to worry doesn't make sense. ",
"I think maybe that is what OP is asking? "
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5; Why is it impossible for me to imagine a completely original human face I've never seen before?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bpitq
| 23
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.83
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9q95oq",
"comment_text": [
"Because our own definition for a face is based on previous examples. It's like saying \"think of a color you've never seen before.\" How could you? Our experiences dictate the possible configurations. ",
"Of course, if you really wanted to be creative, you could still come up with something new; a person whose nose droops to their belly button, or a mouth that opens in the wrong direction. These are, however, impossible (as far as we know), so they become ridiculous and grotesque. The only way to know a possible face ",
" ridiculous is to it in real life."
],
"score": 25
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qahzc",
"comment_text": [
"OP must think that all cartoon characters have faces that the animators have seen before, or that it is impossible to imagine what one person would look like with a different nose or eye color. If you would like to see colors you haven't seen before: ",
"Impossible Color"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qceg1",
"comment_text": [
"weird. i can totally do the \"yellow-blue\" cross eyed thing. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qh3ew",
"comment_text": [
"i can make it look like it's two yellow and blue oils sloshing around each other in a pan, and i can also kind of \"force\" them to merge into a weird color i can only describe as dark green yellow."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qkio7",
"comment_text": [
"yeah. for me, the best way to describe it is if you made a giant checker board with the blue and yellow colors, and stood back to let the colors sort of mix but not quite... ugh. it's strange. it reminds me of an almost teal color. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5 Why can't an independent sports league, such as UFC, MLB, NFL etc., allow steroids if they wanted? WWF and weightlifting have no problem with them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bsas5
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qvnbg",
"comment_text": [
"In some cases it is a matter of law. Some substances like steroids can have an effect on public health and is therefore banned in some countries but not in others. This means athletes can not train and compete on equal grounds. The question of drugs in sport is quite disputed. On one side it prevents people from getting an advantage from cheating and makes the sports more impressive to watch. However drugs have caused fatalities in events which is pretty bad for the sport. A lot of drugs also have serious long term effects on the athletes. Long term steroid use is linked to aggression, fertility loss, testicular cancer, heart attacks and lots of other conditions. You might say that this is the cost of being a top level athlete. However to have best effect of the drugs you need to start early. Some of the biggest doping programs have involved thousands of kids where only a handful of these turned professional. If you were to allow drugs then you might end up having dads doping their toddlers hoping that they turn into the next MLB or NFL stars. This could have serious health issues for them later in life."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qvv90",
"comment_text": [
"I'd advise looking up the WWE wellness policy which has been in place for over a decade, their wrestlers don't use steroids any more (or at least no more than any UFC, MLB or NFL athletes), so you should stop using them as an example of an organisation that don't test"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qvuqr",
"comment_text": [
"it is well known and/or accepted that their wrestlers use them.",
"It's really not. There are frequent suspensions for banned substance use. Even their most popular babyface was recently suspended for 60 days.",
"That is the reason. Because they're not safe. They are not allowed because they are not safe.",
"Edit: As has been said, WWE absolutely do test."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qvybt",
"comment_text": [
"Sorry, are we still talking about performance enhancing steroids that will rarely be prescribed by a doctor?"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9qwn5r",
"comment_text": [
"I can disagree, because of the examples you gave, two (Hogan and Goldberg) were from before the wellness policy existed, so are no more relevant than using Bonds as evidence of the laxity of the MLB's current system, and the Lesnar situation has been discussed elsewhere and is (in my opinion) a hole in WWE's policy, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how they treat their full time wrestlers. Cena, in my opinion, looks like he's on the upper bounds of what someone can achieve without steroids, but he's not clearly the result of steroid use"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5:If I listen to a recording of my voice, would it sound the same as how others hear it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bm478
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9phzdb",
"comment_text": [
"What you hear on the recording is what everyone else hears. You're the only one that hears your voice the way you perceive it when you're talking because it's coming from inside your head."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pi1i4",
"comment_text": [
"Simple answer: yes.",
"Why don't you hear your voice like other hear it? ",
"Because you hear your voice through the sound that travels as sound waves through the air (like everyone hears it) ",
" through the sound that travels through your body and bones (so only you do hear it).",
" ",
"Why does it seem strange? ",
"Simply because you are not used to it. You heard yourself for a longer period otherwise than just through the sound that travels through air."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pilg0",
"comment_text": [
"It really depends on what you understand by others. If your question is whether the recorded voice is the one that is closer to what others perceive, that's true, but at the same time the way people hear things is quite different, at least as far as subtle details are concerned. ",
"You voice as it comes through your mouth is distorted due to the fact that you do not perceive it as an external sound, and due to the fact that you also hear it via bone conduction (you know how the noise cancelling audio jawbone headsets offer sounds?)."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pjxh1",
"comment_text": [
"Simple answer: They hear you like you sound in the recording.",
"Why don't you hear your voice like others hear it?",
"Because you hear your voice through the sound that travels as sound waves through the air (like everyone hears it) and through the sound that travels through your body and bones (so only you do hear it).",
"Why does it seem strange?",
"Simply because you are not used to it. You heard yourself for a longer period otherwise than just through the sound that travels through air."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9piwn5",
"comment_text": [
"Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Top level comments",
" are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.",
"Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 0
}
|
ELI5: What Does the US Government do With Taxes They Receive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bn8ye
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.46
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pqrf6",
"comment_text": [
"There is a really nice breakdown of how tax revenues are spent here: ",
"https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/"
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pqrkk",
"comment_text": [
"It uses those funds to pay for things that the government provides, like national defense, highways, food inspectors, weather forecasting, housing assistance, nutrition assistance, and many other things."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ps41e",
"comment_text": [
"the government hires contractors for most things. They don't have on-staff government construction people to build schools and roads. They hire construction companies. So yes, it is regular spending by companies... but their ",
" and the one's ultimately footing the bill is the US gov't and by extension, us."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ps7st",
"comment_text": [
"If you can borrow money at a low interest rate and then invest that money for a higher return, you are making free money. The government borrows billions and billions, but they are the US Government, so they can borrow at a much lower interest rate than you or me. Then they can invest that money into things that pay off way bigger, and over way longer periods of time than you or me. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ptv0v",
"comment_text": [
"I think this is my whole theory. Businesses and general public would spend the saved Tax Dollars more efficiently than the US government. As your example above, the Gov is buying lots of boats..lol"
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: How does the Ocean and Air Temperate create a difference between the weather in Lakeland, FL and Tampa, FL?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bjsk1
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.6
|
Why is there a difference in temperature between these two areas? What creates the differences?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9p1mwj",
"comment_text": [
"Water needs to absorb more energy than dry air to warm up and needs to lose more energy than dry air to cool off. When warm air passes over, the land that is close to water won't heat up as much as a city that's further from the water.",
"The opposite is true. If cold air passes over, more energy is required to cool off the water so the city next to the water won't get as cold as a city further from water.",
"This is why deserts can be so incredibly hot during the day and cold at night. Since there's hardly any moisture (water) in the air, it's very easy for temperature to go up and down."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9q5f9v",
"comment_text": [
"Would depend on the season. For example, I live in Michigan. The land right next to Lake Michigan doesn't get as hot in the summer because it's closer to the lake, there's also some extra water in the air to help regulate temperatures. But in the winter all that water helps keep the land next to the lake warmer while it gets freezing cold further inland."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9p1zod",
"comment_text": [
"This is wrong. Mermaids turn into invisible fairies and change the air temperature to punish white people."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9p2aph",
"comment_text": [
"Thanks :) So I guess the weather in Tampa would be hotter because there is more water surrounding it, and it's closer to the water than it is away from it?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9r4hgr",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you very much for your answers :)"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What emotions are being experienced when we cringe at something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bit3a
| 17
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.64
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oy8sd",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly. Everytime I see something cringy on youtube I feel so embarrassed. Then I need to pause the video, tell myself that it's not me and to not give a fuk. It helps. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oy8sd",
"comment_text": [
"Exactly. Everytime I see something cringy on youtube I feel so embarrassed. Then I need to pause the video, tell myself that it's not me and to not give a fuk. It helps. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9p5zx1",
"comment_text": [
"It's perceived embarrassment, so sometimes your cringe is even less relevant than that. Not everyone is embarrassed by the same things"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pgsgr",
"comment_text": [
"In German the word \"fremdschämen\" is used. It literally means foreign-embarrassment and describes a feeling of being embarrassed/awkward with someone else's actions."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9p2jk3",
"comment_text": [
"Totally. I almost never embarrass myself, but my second-hand embarrassment due to the the unfortunate awkwardness of others is strong. "
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5: The feeling of malaise felt after a nap.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bismv
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.66
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ov2j8",
"comment_text": [
"Depending on the length of a nap you may have suffered from SLEEEEEP INEEEERTIA! Basically you slept too long to have a nap and not long enough for actual sleep. So as you wake up you're pushing through the \"stay asleep\" hormones and generally making your body do what it doesn't want to do which is uncomfortable."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9p6lzs",
"comment_text": [
"I typically try to avoid naps, but had no choice but to succumb to a nap this afternoon. I slept for about forty-five minutes, and after I woke, I felt shitty the rest of the day."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9pea3y",
"comment_text": [
"Try to sleep in ",
"intervals of 90 minutes",
" or 10-20 minute short naps. It really does help. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oz07l",
"comment_text": [
"hah i heard that in a 60's esque loud speaker voice"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oz5ax",
"comment_text": [
"Are you fighting the good fight against communism? You may be eligible for a new television! They come in both black! And white! Just be sure to have a proper American nap for no longer than twenty minutes to increase productivity!"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5 Tasty Subs acquired a delivery truck on October 1, 2015, for $21,600. The company estimates a residual value of $1,200 and a six-year service life.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bhqhk
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.45
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ol7or",
"comment_text": [
"$850? ",
"You should really post this to a more appropriate sub, like ",
"/r/cheatatmathhomework",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9olcmq",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you! How did you get that answer?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9olhn6",
"comment_text": [
"$21,600 initial purchase, six year usage and residual value of $1,200, giving you a depreciation of $20,400. I then divided it by 6 years and multiplied by (3 months/12 months). ",
"I have no clue if that is right. ",
" I seem to have calculated the depreciation just for 2015. If we change 6 years to 72 months for easier calculation, the depreciation from the purchase date to the end of 2016 would be ($20,400/72)•15=$4,250."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ompqf",
"comment_text": [
"850 is correct for 2015 i already had the answer for 2016 for 3,400 thanks"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oovy0",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"ELI5 is for questions with objective explanations.",
"Information about a specific or narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc.) ",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do third party candidates even run? Do they honestly think they have a chance, or is it more of a strategic move to take votes away from a major party's candidate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bhwa2
| 22
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9onq9h",
"comment_text": [
"Like soccer, national politics is something that the majority of Americans only pay attention to every four years. Launching a 3rd party bid gets exposure for them and their parties that they may be able to translate into more support, votes, donations, etc. They may never win the presidency, but it's not unimaginable for the Libertarians or Greens to translate the name recognition they get this cycle to pick up some House seats or seats in state legislatures."
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oy9h9",
"comment_text": [
"This country didn't start with the Dems and Republicans, nor is it part of the Founding Father's plans. Although it hasn't happened in anyone's living lifespan, it is entirely possible we can have new parties emerge, especially with the power of the internet. It won't happen without third parties."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9otuwb",
"comment_text": [
"Many times, politicians of third parties will run in order to bring attention to certain issues with no intention of winning and forcing major parties to pay attention to the issues or lose support. ",
"Ralph Nader ran in 2000 under the platform of focusing on (quoting Wikipedia), \"voter fraud, environmental justice, universal healthcare, affordable housing, free education including college, workers' rights and increasing the minimum wage to a living wage. He also focused on the three-strikes rule, exoneration for prisoners for drug related non-violent crimes, legalization of commercial hemp and a shift in tax policies to place the burden more heavily on corporations than on the middle and lower classes.\"",
"Nader spoiled the election for Gore (if NH Green voters had all voted for Gore, Gore wins NH and Florida becomes irrelevant). Not a surprise that the modern day Democratic Party has taken up many of these issues in a similar fashion. ",
"tl;dr Many third parties bring attention to issues in hopes that a major party will shift to their side in the long run. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9oxe9v",
"comment_text": [
"Maybe the third party people earnestly believe in their ideas and they are trying to promote them and gradually garner more and more support over the years and thus gradually change politics to make it more like they think it should be?"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9onr5w",
"comment_text": [
"It is generally a strategic move to garner attention for their party in smaller elections. Libertarians and Greens for example have a small number of local and state offices, and the Libertarians have had legitimate shots at a few governorships.",
"Some of them also see a presidential campaign as a way to booste their personal brand and sell books, get paid speaking gigs, etc.",
"And some are just loons with more money than sense."
],
"score": 5
}
|
|
ELI5 : Why is it that in an insect's [Ant, fly...] perspective humans appear to be moving slowly???
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bfwuk
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.5
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o5e4s",
"comment_text": [
"I hate to break it to you, but works of fiction, like movies, tv, novels, are not scientifically accurate. They often make things up for artistic reasons."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o8fyu",
"comment_text": [
"You are talking nonsense. ",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Frame_rate_and_human_vision"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o7lo2",
"comment_text": [
"Are you talking about nature movies depicting real insects or fictional representations?",
"High speed photography may have something to do with the viewer's perception that time is moving slowly for those other than the insect.",
"Also, if you smoke marijuana that might affect your perceptions as to how time passes.",
"Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9urk35",
"comment_text": [
"In order to keep the various parts of your body in sync, the brain operates on a slight delay as signals from the furthest parts of the body reach it. The larger the body, the longer the delay. This, combined with other factors that contribute far more than this delay, is what causes larger creatures to move and act slower relative to smaller creatures."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o6v8s",
"comment_text": [
"This is mostly artistic interpretation. Perception of movement and time is different for every organism. For example, imagine the perspective of a humming bird. Being able to control your position in space by hovering accurately, the world may indeed appear to move slower when you (other animals) observe things that move slower than you. For a fake example, think of the Flash, DC comic hero. Literal super speed in the Flash TV show and comics, both make several references to when he (The Flash) uses his powers, everything else around him is perceived as super slow and easy to avoid. This only becomes a real problem when he encounters another speedster that can move relatively as fast as him."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What Is Ethical Egoism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5beoad
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
Hey guys, I am aware this is a philosophical term, and I'd like to learn what it actually means, and perhaps even a real world application of it. Thanks.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nxa3x",
"comment_text": [
"Ethical egoism is the idea that you only ever act in your own self interest. For example if i give to charity, its because it makes me feel like a good person. People will also think better of me.",
"There was a famous ethical egoist (whom i forget) who was once riding in his carriage and sees a pig stuck in a hole. He stopped the carriage and helped the pig out. His companion said: see that wasnt in your own self interest! And the man replied: if i didnt help him it would have bothered me all day"
],
"score": 15
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nyoqu",
"comment_text": [
"I completely disagree, and what you just sourced didn't sound like ELI5 material at all. ",
"Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.",
"How is that ELI5? Too many foreign philosophical terms. ",
"If you have further questions after reading those sources, that's when you turn to forums like this.",
"That's exactly what I did. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ny499",
"comment_text": [
"Actually, egoism is the idea that you only do things that are in your self interest. Ethical egoism is the idea that it is right to do only what is in your own interest. It's a subtle but interesting distinction. ",
"Suppose one child asks another whether they should cheat on a test. If the second child is an egoist, she can say \"it doesn't matter what you should do, you'll do what is best for you because you are not capable of doing otherwise\" and if she is an ethical egoist, she can say \"you should cheat as long as you're confident you won't be caught.\""
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nxi01",
"comment_text": [
"That's really interesting. Thank you for educating me! "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ny7yg",
"comment_text": [
"Not quite, you're close, but it's more subtle than that. You've described a basic form of egotism, but not what separates egoism from ethical egoism or any other variation. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How can I kiss my two girlfriends and one boyfriend? (btw I'm 15, my two girlfriends are 14 and 15 and my boyfriend is 17)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bfjr2
| 0
|
Other
| true
| true
| 0.14
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o2n7y",
"comment_text": [
"all at once"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o2n7y",
"comment_text": [
"all at once"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o2wsa",
"comment_text": [
"okay"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o2wsa",
"comment_text": [
"okay"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9o2odd",
"comment_text": [
"I'm completely lost. What is happening right now? Did Freddie also finger you while you spent 5 nights there OP?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: If the moon can eclipse the sun why can we see stars every night?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5bekqt
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.55
|
If the moon can almost entirely block out our sun shouldn't there be a massive amount of planets between us and the stars to block them out too?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nw6ge",
"comment_text": [
"The moon can block out the sun because it's massively closer than any planets. Sometimes that one really bright star you might see in the night sky is actually Venus. It's just a tiny point of light and it's the closest planet to the earth. Other planets in our own solar system will be even less visible than that. Planets outside of our own solar system are entirely invisible to the naked eye."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nwyxj",
"comment_text": [
"...and the moon only blocks the sight of the sun to a ",
" small portion of the planet for a limited amount of time."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nwd8k",
"comment_text": [
"They only marginally dim the light due to the sizes and distances involved. My thumb is very near and can block a sun sized object, but my thumb at twice the distance doesn't stand a chance.",
"This dimming of light from other stars when exoplanets transit in front is one of the best ways to detect exoplanets. :)"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nw5ot",
"comment_text": [
"I think you answered your own question. It is speculated that there are billions of light producing extraterrestrial objects (mostly stars). The tiny amount you can see in the sky are they ones that miraculously didn't get eclipsed by the other billions of objects (which could be other stars). "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9nwcxd",
"comment_text": [
"The moon can cause an eclipse due the distance between the earth and the sun and their sizes. The moon is and the sun are just the right size and distance to cause them to appear to br same size in our sky.",
"I believe the sun is 40 times greater in size and 40 times the distance. That's from a science class 20+ years ago so I may have the number wrong.",
"Stars are so massive in comparison to planets that there is no way they could block the light from another star. If there was a planet in another solar system in the path between us and another star, that planets star would be more apt to block it. ",
"One of the methods for searching for exoplanets is to measure the decrease in light eminating from a star as a planet passes between us and the star. It's my understanding that this is a very small difference in light. Just barely detectable. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: Why do we sometimes get paradox like dreams?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ba39l
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.47
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9mve7i",
"comment_text": [
"Dreams are pretty much a side-effect of your brain sorting through memories (which happens when you sleep). They have no meaning beyond that. "
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9n26ek",
"comment_text": [
"It's still true, though. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9n25ub",
"comment_text": [
"That's not \"meaning\". That's cause and effect. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9n2r92",
"comment_text": [
"Didn't have to downvote me there but thanks. It does have a personal meaning. Two people can have the same dream but have it mean something completely different to them if/ when they remember it due to differentiating circumstances in their respective lives. If you keep having dreams that you're being killed, you likely have a lot of anxiety about something. Not saying they have a deep meaning, but each dream does have a personal significance with the dreamer. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9namaw",
"comment_text": [
"Inception isn't a dream within a dream, it's the act of implanting an external thought in the subconscious of a dreaming human. ",
"If you're trying to play a scifi heist movie as scientific fact, art least do your research. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
ELI5: What happens if the US Department of Justice is suspected of being corrupt? How would such a case be investigated, and who would prosecute?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5b7mbs
| 19
|
Other
| true
| true
| 0.77
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9mdoix",
"comment_text": [
"Probably a special prosecutor would be appointed. When, for example, Bill Clinton was being investigated for various things including relations with Monica Lewinsky, a special prosecutor Ken Star was appointed to head the investigation. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9merax",
"comment_text": [
"Ken Starr probably isn't the best example given that he spent over $10 million trying to bring down Bill Clinton . And now he's been forced to resign from Baylor for much of the same behavior that Clinton exhibited. I would say that covering up a culture of sexual abuse and assault for years on a major college campus exceeds anything that Clinton did. But that's just me, my opinion of course."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9meos4",
"comment_text": [
"There have been a number of scandals within the Justice Department itself. The Senate Judiciary Committee has some power to step in.",
"Going backwards in time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was pressured to resign in 2007 because of a scandal involving the alleged firing of government attorneys on political grounds. The Senate passed a no-confidence resolution against him. In the late 1980s, an independent prosecutor was appointed to investigate Attorney General Edwin Meese over a couple of scandals and he resigned to avoid prosecution. During Watergate in 1972-74, a few things occurred. Attorney General John Mitchell was eventually convicted of perjury and another Elliot Richardson resigned because he refused to fire a special prosecutor. In the early 1920s, Attorney General Harry Daugherty led a scandal-ridden cabinet in the Harding and Coolidge administrations and was eventually asked by Coolidge to resign because of corruption charges.",
"So, you can read up on these cases where the Attorney General was not seen as above the law."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9me8ha",
"comment_text": [
"The original Ken Starr investigation was for the Whitewater real estate deal. The Lewinsky information came out as a byproduct of that investigation."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9mpdka",
"comment_text": [
"I remember being 15, pulling the Starr Report from IRC and being disappointed it wasn't the spank bank promised by Republicans. ",
"You got me once, evangelicals."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5 what is the theory behind juries? Why can't judges just make all the decisions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5b2xwg
| 8
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lbr4d",
"comment_text": [
"The idea behind juries is that you don't want to turn judges into an elite ruling class that has total power over people. That kind of power is easy to abuse.",
"Plus, laws are supposed to be a reflection of society itself determining what rules it wants to follow, so having \"society itself\", in the form of a jury of the accused's peers, determine whether or not the law was broken seems only fitting."
],
"score": 14
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lde3a",
"comment_text": [
"Basically, to get every single case to be treated as unique. ",
"Human brains are so hardwired for pattern recognition that we frequently see ones that don't exist (e.g. rain dances, old medicine, etc).",
"As skilled as judges are, they are not above the most basic human instincts. You might say the same problem applies to juries and you'd be right, but the difference is that members of a jury are selected from the general public (incredibly diverse) whereas judges are all quite close knit. The bias problems that arise are less likely to hold a majority and therefore less likely to hand out unfair judgments."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9li5eq",
"comment_text": [
"I work for a judge. I am in court every time he is. Because of the amount of cases that come before the court, you develop a very jaded or cynical view about things very quickly. Juries take some of that cynicism out of the system and probably result in a more fair verdict most of the time.",
"That said, there are many \"legal fictions\" involving juries. For example, a judge will sometimes, following an objection, tell the jury to disregard testimony they just heard. The law takes the view that juries follow instructions, and they will disregard that. However, based on your own experience, what happens when you tell someone to not pay attention to something? They pay more attention to what you are telling them to ignore.",
"To borrow a phrase about another subject, the jury system is an absolutely horrible system. It's just better than all the other choices."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lo6m7",
"comment_text": [
"Well, generally yes. I would trust a judge's opinion on someone more than a member of the general population.",
"However, the collective experience of twelve random individuals is more reliably unbiased than the experience of one judge.",
"Some countries have acknowledged this but still (understandably) wanted to keep the judgement in the hands of experienced professionals, so they appointed boards of judges to act as juries.",
"\nThe problem is, the world of law is incredibly separated from the normal world. Both in socioeconomics and in culture. In systems like these, the lower socioeconomic classes suffer more under the court system."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lhnee",
"comment_text": [
"I like what others have said. Also diffusion of responsibility. ",
"You see juries in cases like felony cases and capital (death penalty) cases. ",
"If we're going to send someone to prison for life, or take away their life, it's a good idea to diffuse responsibility for that decision across a team of people rather than one person. For the well being of the person/people making the decision, and for the better quality of the decision. ",
"Think about firing squads. Supposedly one person in the squad has a blank, permitting plausible deniability for everyone. But more to the point, no one person stands there and shoots the prisoner or convict."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: What are the measures being voted on in California in 2016
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5b3lai
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lgojo",
"comment_text": [
"The sample ballot sent to voters has that information. The California Secretary of State has this on ",
"their fine website",
"."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lhxu2",
"comment_text": [
"Just Google \"California ballot measures\" You should have sites come up that have good explanations of the measures. That's what I did."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ljqiy",
"comment_text": [
"Voting questions go the voting megathread. Here's a link to it. ",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/591nem/eli5_2016_presidential_election_faq_megathread/",
". You could also try ",
"/r/California",
" and ",
"/r/California_Politics",
". "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lpy37",
"comment_text": [
"And the /California election megathread:",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/California/comments/53v1gu/the_california_november_2016_election_megathread/"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9lg0ta",
"comment_text": [
"other"
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5: How can modern libraries copyright ancient manuscripts that they merely scan in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5axkax
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k4rrv",
"comment_text": [
"No. You cannot copyright something that has already entered the public domain. You can copyright a variation on it ( what Disney does with most of their movies), but you cannot copyright the original work. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k6d55",
"comment_text": [
"Sure, Disney copyrights their character art and their scripts, etc. using out of copyright stories. ",
"But if you take a moment to visit GettyImages you can search \"Daguerreotype\" and ruling out any of them that have a frame, they still charge royalty fees to ",
" scans or photographs of photographs that are non-transformative in any way. ",
"Seems like a scam to me. Like they're basically just charging for the convenience but they are essentially bluffing about copyright. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k6h2z",
"comment_text": [
"They are copyrighting their specific photo. That is a product they have made. It is not a scam, you have no right to view the object, they are selling you that viewing. It is the same reason many museums charge an entry fee. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k82jh",
"comment_text": [
"Not the same as a museum. Museum's charge entry fees because they are selling the experience of their space, their property (physical, not intellectual). ",
"Now, as to their specific photo, my question gets at (at least in the US) the concept of authorship.",
"See here: ",
"http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-copyright-scans-public-domain-works/",
"\"I’ve had a number of people ask about this situation, and it seems to me that the “Bridgeman Art Library vs Corel” case (50 USPQ2d 1110) is exactly on point. It’s a Southern District of New York case from 1999. Bridgeman produced slides of public domain artworks, and sued Corel for including the photos on one of their CDROMs, claiming that they had expended a great deal of work to make their copies as accurate as possible.\nIn this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create “slavish copies” of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality — indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances.\nThat makes sense to me – otherwise, you would be essentially recreating copyright every time you fed something into a scanner and edited out the dust, or fixed the odd typo. Every copy of Huckleberry Finn would be subject to a different copyright, because somebody had to enter the text into a typesetter, proofread it, etc.\""
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k4uso",
"comment_text": [
"Their particular style and method. Dictionaries are also copyrighted under the same sort of copyright. So is photography of landscapes. Anybody can go out there and photograph that same landscape from that same position, but that one is yours and if someone uses it without your permission then you could take action. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: How do the toasters at subway melt the cheese & make the meat warm without making the bun too crispy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5b04dt
| 140
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.83
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ksbdy",
"comment_text": [
"Start a small fire inside your microwave before you use it."
],
"score": 53
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9kq3xi",
"comment_text": [
"It uses microwave in addition to convection heat (hot circulating air). The one we had at Safeway also had infrared lights w/weird reflector plates top and bottom."
],
"score": 45
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9krxuc",
"comment_text": [
"So there's no special technique I can do at home with my toaster? :'("
],
"score": 19
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ks5ri",
"comment_text": [
"If you want to do this then put it into the oven at a low temp ( like 300 degrees ) and wait for the cheese to melt! Obviously the bun will toast as well, but it will be a lot slower. "
],
"score": 11
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ksgyy",
"comment_text": [
"Turn your oven to broil and leave the door cracked. Let it warm up for 5 minutes. Place your sandwich open faced on a light aluminum tray (or on foil). Leave the tray in for 2-4 minutes about 6 inches from the top of the oven. Results may vary"
],
"score": 7
}
|
|
ELI5: Whats the best way to solve gerrymandering?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5axdcy
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k37un",
"comment_text": [
"Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Top level comments",
" are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.",
"Joke-only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k37un",
"comment_text": [
"Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Top level comments",
" are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.",
"Joke-only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k36bz",
"comment_text": [
"Scrap the political party system altogether. Or at least make all primaries open. "
],
"score": 0
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k36bz",
"comment_text": [
"Scrap the political party system altogether. Or at least make all primaries open. "
],
"score": 0
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k44m8",
"comment_text": [
"Partisanship is the ultimate root cause - one party using any and all tactics to secure lasting power. If everyone in a state can vote for either House or Senate candidate in a primary it renders districts moot. "
],
"score": 0
}
|
|
ELI5: How significant is the Cubs winning the World Series in the world of baseball?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5awxfn
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 1
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9jzhro",
"comment_text": [
"The World Series is the championship of the top baseball league in the US/Canada. This top league, Major League Baseball is the oldest major sports league in the US, dating back to 1876 (or some would say 1871). The Cubs along with the Braves are the two franchises that can be traced back to 1876. Of those two, only the Cubs stayed in their original city.",
"They haven't won since 1908. Simply put, that's just a very long time. Generations of baseball fans were born and died since the 1908. All this time, despite not winning, the Cubs remained one of the more beloved franchises due to them playing in a big city (Chicago) and in one of the two remaining historical ballparks, Wrigley Field. As recently as the 1980s, there were no lights in Wrigley and all their games needed to be played in the daytime. As old an historic as this ballpark is (buiilt in 1913), the previous championship in 1908 pre-dates that park!",
"I'm sure if some team or country hadn't won something equivalent over in the UK for 108 years, it would be a big deal when they finally won."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9jzjda",
"comment_text": [
"I don't know anything about soccer either here or there, but I'll try to fill you in on some baseball. First of all, the Mets are a team so good job :). Second, the World Series isn't the league, it's the championship of our baseball league, the MLB. This \"World Series\" is the championship between the two teams who have won their side of the playoffs bracket (I assume most sports have this same concept). The Cubs winning is significant because they haven't won since 1908, thus ending their 108 year drought. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k2kx3",
"comment_text": [
"I just looked them up, most MLB teams either wear a solid color or thin pin stripes so I don't think any are very close "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k5oys",
"comment_text": [
"Hah shit man idk. Do you like any other American sports teams "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9k73th",
"comment_text": [
"The Knicks are basketball as well, Philly's basketball team is the 76ers. So maybe go with one of those city's baseball teams. New York has the Mets and the Yankees, philly has the Phillies "
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: If 0.2 amps could kill me, why doesn't the average 15A or 20A wall outlet do any serious harm?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5as4vf
| 1
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.67
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j5huz",
"comment_text": [
"I think you have a basic misunderstanding of how electricity works. A 15A or 20A outlet can deliver those currents if required to do so - they are ",
" values that the outlet can handle. The amount of current that ",
" flows at any time depends on the voltage and on the resistance of the load. For example, if you have a 110V outlet and plug in a 2200W kettle, the basic power formula P = VA tells us that A = P/V = 2200/110 = 20A. However, if you plug in a device that uses less power, say 550W, you have A = 550/110 = 5A. The second device uses less power because it has a higher resistance to electricity: you work out the resistance using another formula. R = V/I = 110/5 = 22Ω (ohms). The outlet could deliver more, but you're not asking it to.",
"So what happens if you plug ",
" in to the outlet? Well, the first question I would ask is: what is your resistance? It depends on a lot of factors, such as what part of you makes contact, how good the contact is, whether or not your skin is wet, and so on. You may take a \"glancing\" contact and not feel much. However, if you squeeze a wire tight in each hand, a good deal of current could flow through your chest between your hands. Your heart is in the middle of your chest, and the figure I heard was 20 mA (0.02A, 1/10 of the number you quote) as being sufficient to disrupt your heart enough to kill you. This is a small fraction of what the outlet is capable of delivering."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j7jq0",
"comment_text": [
"This is not the kind of question that has a clear yes/no answer. Too many variables. Even the amount of salt in your bloodstream can make a difference. It might not kill you, but leave you wishing it had. Just Don't, M'Kay?"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9jcnbl",
"comment_text": [
"You would drop like a rock. If you grab the hot in one hand, the neutral in the other, the only path for the electricity is through your chest. It wouldn't matter if you were standing on a foot thick block of rubber."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j7b8k",
"comment_text": [
"So if I'm wearing boots, not wet at all, not touching anything metal, and grab the neutral and the hot, would it be fatal?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9kjgzd",
"comment_text": [
"It's normally said that ventricular fibrillation kicks in around 50mA (0.05A), below that you might lose muscle control and be in a lot of pain, but it's unlikely to prove lethal unless there are other factors involved"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:What is Congress exactly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5aqsr8
| 3
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.8
|
[deleted]
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9iitga",
"comment_text": [
"Congress is the US legislative branch. It's the equivalent to the British Parliament. Like Parliament, it has two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. ",
"The Senate has 100 members, 2 from each state, elected to serve for 6 year terms. The House has 435 members, representing districts from within each state based on population (so a sparsely populated state like Wyoming will have one representative in the House for the entire state, while California, the most populous state by far, has 53 representatives), each elected every 2 years."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9iinht",
"comment_text": [
"Congress = Parliament",
"Senate = House of Lords",
"House = House of Commons"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9iiq4z",
"comment_text": [
"Two fine countries separated by a common language."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ijgzg",
"comment_text": [
"Well being anti-aristocratic effectively prevents taking any of the British names. We don't have any Lords to have a house of and all of us are commoners, and our legislature isn't attempting to parley with a king. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9iiyy1",
"comment_text": [
"House of Representatives = House of Commons"
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: How come so many sports originated in England? Soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5arb0d
| 2
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.56
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9in5dt",
"comment_text": [
"Every country develops their own sports. English sports are just more widespread because they conquered most of the world at one point and brought their culture with them.",
"Also, while modern soccer may have originated in England, variations of the game have been played in other places for thousands of years. I don't know about the other sports, but I suspect many of them had pre-English predecessors as well."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9inckd",
"comment_text": [
"Of the ones you list, only cricket and tennis seem to have originated in England.",
"Soccer and rugby are just evolutions of predecessor ball games invented by the Greeks and spread around Europe by the Romans.",
"Golf was either invented by the Dutch or the Scots, depending on who you ask.",
"And there are tons of sports not invented by the English. Lacrosse, Ja Alai, Curling, Baccee, Basketball, etc..."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9in4xw",
"comment_text": [
"Golf definitely originated in Scotland, not England. ",
"Soccer was first played in England but has it's roots in an Ancient Chinese game called Cuju. ",
"These others are quintessentially British games - they were a country with lots of strict rules in higher education, where all students wore uniforms so it lent itself well to sporting events."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9itwc1",
"comment_text": [
"Tennis is not English in origin: it can be traced back to northern France. It became known in England in the 16th century when King Henry VIII took a liking to it. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j0rhl",
"comment_text": [
"Could it also be that because they conquered the world , they were able to discover sports overseas and then brought them back to Great Britain where they evolved in a more organized way? \nJust curious if that could also be the case."
],
"score": 2
}
|
|
ELI5: What exactly is human trafficking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5atq17
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.7
|
I've been browsing social media and reading stuff and this is something the comes up from time to time. What is it exactly?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j8aeo",
"comment_text": [
"It's basically slavery. It's people being transported and sold like goods, and robbed of their most basic freedoms. "
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j802c",
"comment_text": [
"Human trafficking is the illegal trade in people for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and other forms of forced labor."
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9jby4q",
"comment_text": [
"To be fair, and not to diminish the horror that exists for those people, that statistic is somewhat misleading; there's more people living in slavery now but there's also way more people living ",
" now.",
"If the past had 8 billion people to deal with, they would have more slavery than today.",
"That said, that doesn't mean we should be comfortable with the level of human trafficking that goes on today. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9j8dsq",
"comment_text": [
"There are two classical definitions of human trafficking:",
"The first is when someone is taken against their will and moved to a different area for the purpose of selling them into slavery (sexual or otherwise).",
"The second is when someone is voluntarily smuggled into another country as an illegal immigrant or refuge.",
"More modernly there has been a push to include a third definition of human trafficking which is whenever a prostitute is moved from one geographical region to another by their pimp - even if that move is voluntary. According to the FBI, about 2/3 of the human trafficking in the US falls under this category, while about 1/3 falls under the more traditional two categories."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ja9b6",
"comment_text": [
"Holy shit. That's horrible. "
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5:How can non cell phone companies provide cell phone discounts to their employees?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5aofff
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
I work for a plastic injection molding company, since I work there I get discounts on cell phone plans, cell phones, and accessories at a particular cell phone company in the USA. How does that work? Does the company I work for kick in some money for the bill?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i1sxs",
"comment_text": [
"The markup for phones is high so a % discount for a select group of customers isn't going to hurt the company. The discount is likely to entice or influence the decision for someone to purchase a phone with them as opposed to a competitor. So for a negligible decrease in profit they have potential to increase customer base and give a net increase in customer profit.",
"It's really that simple and why a lot of companies are part of work discount schemes. I think there's somewhere around 250 discounts I can get via my work at any one time for various products "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i2n32",
"comment_text": [
"Does my company get a kick back from the cell phone company for getting their employees to sign up for a particular cell phone company? My wife's employer offers a discount to the same cell phone company, but her discount is less, 8%. Mine is 18% thru the company I work for. Why do companies offer different discounts for the same cell phone service? Why does the % of discount differ from company to company? Why don't all employers offer a discounted cell phone package/service?"
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i2pl5",
"comment_text": [
"The cell companies want to attract large numbers of customers. They offer the discount to get employees of other companies or members of other organizations to sign up. A company that can provide more customers will get a better discount. Your employer doesn't get a monetary kickback, but they can add this as a benefit, like health insurance, gym memberships, free snack bar, etc. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i3cbi",
"comment_text": [
"If you have a job where people need to have phones on them and they are checking email, reviewing documents etc, they are probably going to be owners of expensive phones. These are the prime customers of cellphone companies so the carrier will make a deal with the employer for the discount. You offer 20% off phone purchase to all of the staff and 90% of them will be your customers. The vast majority of their profit comes from monthly fees anyway, which aren't affected by the discount. ",
"It's just advertisement. Your employer isn't paying shit. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i4hxn",
"comment_text": [
"In your case specifically, the plastic injection company you work for, might be making parts for the cellphone company providing discounts. Often times when two companies become business partners they will scratch each other's backs as they say.",
"\nFor example, the company I work for deals with a lot of home renovation and DIY products, one of our partners deals in washing machines, and extends a discount to all the employees at my company. ",
"This might not be the case at your company, as others have said, it may just be that the cellphone company saw a good business opportunity and took it."
],
"score": 1
}
|
ELI5: What is the purpose of House Flies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5apcnr
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.33
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i7i1b",
"comment_text": [
"\"House flies\" are simply flies that end up inside houses. They exist because they can make more of them, and exist ",
" make more of themselves."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i7le8",
"comment_text": [
"Animals don't exist for a \"purpose\". They exist because there is an ecological niche that offers them the ability to get food and reproduce successfully. Houses are friendly environments, offering both shelter and food, particularly during months when the weather might be challenging outside."
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i7qd6",
"comment_text": [
"...and they're better at making more of them than predators are at making less of them."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9i7fad",
"comment_text": [
"God invented a helpful decorating technique where He fills your windows with little dead carcasses with pretty shiny backs!",
"Or, they are just flies that come inside seeking food and places to lay eggs and then get trapped and die. They would have preferred to have gone to a rotting carcass in the woods, but ended up dying on your window."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9imwip",
"comment_text": [
"The house fly is actually a specific species of fly, and if I recall correctly it actually makes up somewhere around 90% of all flies found in people's homes."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What types of research bias are the most difficult to eliminate from studies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ahvkr
| 50
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.69
|
I imagine that scientific rigor during peer review would reveal more obvious biases and flaws in a study, but which ones are the hardest to catch? What are some of the more surprising types of flaws to appear in studies?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gpn7d",
"comment_text": [
"I think the hardest to catch are the \"reference circle jerks\". A work which references another work, which in turn references a third work and so on, and when you start looking closer at it, you'll find either:",
"that the references just back each other up, with no connection to actual data;",
"that the references, which might have looked impressive with their bulk, when you dig all the way to the bottom, all goes back to the same shady study.",
"For example (and I don't know if this example is true or not, I'm just retelling what I've heard to illustrate), for a very long time, it was accepted as a fact that cholesterol was bad for us, and much research said this. However, someone dug into it, and found that it was just reference to reference to reference, and the trail for all of it ended at a single study, comparing a group who had more cholesterol in their diet with a group that had less, and found more heart problems in the group with more cholesterol.",
"The hitch? The cholesterol rich group where \"fat American couch potatoes\", the other group where African Masai warriors. Hardly comparable groups.",
"Yet, it took a long time, because that single study was hidden under many, many layers of reference circle jerking."
],
"score": 35
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gt0vo",
"comment_text": [
"Sampling bias.",
"Most places simply do not have the funding and time that would be necessary for a proper study, and have to draw conclusion from limited and often biased samples. It's not surprising though. ",
"There are ",
" of biases, most of them are hard to pick out in individual studies. ",
"(I think this should be in askacademia, rather than ELI5, since you're not actually asking for an explanation of a particular thing)"
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gsto5",
"comment_text": [
"I'd give you a downvote for trolling, but here's a genuine answer to why this answer is irrelevant. I believe that OP is asking about people who ",
" to remove bias from their studies. The fact that you state money as an incentive and 'finding a cure' as a goal says a lot about your opinion on how academic research should be conducted... ",
"There is ",
" of money going into cures for homosexuality and 'academic' books discussing homosexuality as a disease. It's just that those tend to be privately funded by religiously motivated universities and publishing houses that do not meet academic norms. However, at no point do these studies claim to eliminate bias from their 'research', given how they have no qualms using dated terminology, research, and a strong personal view that does not belong in an academic study, so I believe that they go beyond this ELI5's range. ",
"The political and ideological drive behind treating homosexuality as a disease is still rampant (despite it being depathologised in 1973 following extensive scientific debates spanning over decades), but fortunately it is difficult for it to make it past peer review into legitimate academic circles, though it is not unheard of for a few to slip between the cracks in low impact factor sources. Of course, the general population does not care for peer reviews, impact factors and rigorous investigations so these thinktank pseudoacademic 'studies' become fodder for certain news media, but that's another problem."
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gtmn1",
"comment_text": [
"Reason why? I'm not allowed to say that homosexuality is an abnormality (although scientifically it is, as it's not the norm), as it's against the nowadays political agenda and \"published opinion\" (using the words of Sir Winston Churchill).",
"The problem is that \"abnormal\" is now generally a pejorative term. That is just a matter of linguistic convention, that isn't worth debating. People are reacting badly to this, not the claim (you use the word scientific in a strange way there) that homosexuals are a minority.",
"On the other hand, if you do think that a moral truth about homosexuality follows from its uncommonness, then you are not making a scientific claim.",
"Which did you mean?"
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gqrnp",
"comment_text": [
"Funding.",
"They'll pander for it, shedding integrity like a snake's skin."
],
"score": 4
}
|
ELI5: Why do humans find eyeless or pitch black eyes scary/unsettling?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5ah0zt
| 27
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.63
|
I've never been able to find an explanation for it, but it's extremely common for movies, games, shows, etc. to use pitch black eyes to cause discomfort. Why is this so effective? Why do we find it so eerie? (Apologies if I didn't do something right while posting, the rules wouldn't load on mobile.)
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gfixf",
"comment_text": [
"It's called The ",
"Uncanny Valley",
", and it's not limited to eyes. Basically, the closer something gets to looking human, the more we can sympathise with it - until it gets to be about 95%-99% human. Then it ",
". Basically if something is just a bit... off. ",
"Eyes may have the additional trigger of us being A. Very attuned to identifying Human faces, B. Vision being our primary sense, and C. Knowing how sensitive eyes are. "
],
"score": 34
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gfkwi",
"comment_text": [
"It's the ",
"uncanny valley",
". Basically anything that looks human but has some small characteristic that's just ",
" (black eyes, unnatural movement, etc) elicit a strong feeling of revulsion. We don't ",
" know why, but some of the more compelling arguments:",
"It's an instinct to avoid disease: if someone comes up to you with festering boils and leasions... it's probably best to not be around them. Same instinct kicks in with these more subtle cues like black/empty eyes.",
"Reproduction: We're programmed to find certain features attractive (facial symmetry, figure, etc) that indicate fertility and good genes, while deviations we find repulsive. Guy walks up to you with a funky leg and a weird giat, your instincts tell you that potential babies will probably be... not optimal."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9gnogn",
"comment_text": [
"Essentially, up to a point, it looks like something else trying to look human, which is usually fine or even cute. Once it gets human-like enough, we sort of stop seeing it as a cute humanoid thing and start seeing it as a human with something wrong. This is important in animation and, more recently, robotics; that's why a lot of animated people are shaped so unrealistically: animators figured out that unrealistic people are cute, but if they try to make them realistic they just look like broken humans"
],
"score": 6
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9ghips",
"comment_text": [
"Seeing the white and black parts of someone's eye lets you tell what they are looking at. Without that information you can't tell if they are looking at you or not and this is unsettling because for all you know they could be staring at you. The movement of the eyes can also show the intentions of the person because you can tell what they are paying attention to and what they are wary of. Without that, you have much less info to judge them with and the eyes seem expressionless and suspicious. "
],
"score": 5
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d9giqq2",
"comment_text": [
"I find it odd that a zombie is at the bottom of the valley in that chart and a Bunraku puppet, which I find way more horrifying, is actually so lifelike, according to the chart, that it starts to become acceptable again."
],
"score": 3
}
|
ELI5: did stalin turn "feudal" country into "superpower" in 20 years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4qg01n
| 6
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.75
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sq43n",
"comment_text": [
"Stalin and Lenin did. Lenin was the leader of the workers revolution that overthrew the dictatorship of the Tsars and the Provisional government. After Lenin's death Stalin pushed the USSR towards manufacturing, so hard that one of the criticisms China made during the Sino-Soviet split was that they focused too much on the manufacturing and not enough on agriculture. That focus on manufacturing came just in time for world war 2 where the Soviets could outproduce the Germans. ",
"Affer World War 2 the USSR was the leader of the socialist world and came out (kinda) strong from the war, enough to be a superpower."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sr46x",
"comment_text": [
"The Sino-Soviet split occurred well after WW2. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4srqo7",
"comment_text": [
"I know it did. That was still one of their criticisms. Even after WW2 the USSR never put a strong focus on agriculture, and when certain people did like Khrushchev, they became obsessed with corn."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sq0v3",
"comment_text": [
"I think you're not giving Lenin and Stalin enough credit. The revolution happened on the backs of the people, but it was their visions, for better or worse, that turned Russia into a superpower. They had help getting there, but I think they deserve some credit. ",
"Mind, you're absolutely right that it was the peasants that paid the price for it. ",
" did Stalin do it? Basically by starving 20 million people to death. Change rarely comes without a cost in lives, and that change was brutal. But that's how Russia often does things, historically. Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great...none of them are remembered for being very ",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sryf6",
"comment_text": [
"Ofcource they had a part in it but I would claim that someone else could have taken Stalin's or Lenin's place and the result would be somewhat the same. When the October revolution happened anyone could have been in charge and would probably act in quite a similar fashion. If the leftwing faction or the right wing faction of the Bolsheviks had taken over after Lenin they would probably not have that much choice. Something would maybe chanfe, Trotsky wouldn't need to purge the army of Stalinist sympathisers. ",
"The massive crimes that was done under Stalin, especially that of seizing the land from the culacks (land owners) was a consequence of Lenin opting for private property over collective ownership. ",
"The famine in Ukraine was also not really Stalin's fault, the famine was a consequence of climate. The damage was exaggerated by taking the crops that was dearly needed by the Ukrainians and giving it to the starving urban proletariat. ",
"I could go on forever but ofcourse Stalin had a role in it but I would argue that most of his actions was somewhat rational even if causing terrible suffering. The industrialisation was mainly a reaction to exterior threats that probably would have been present with or without Stalin. Western imperialism and later fascist expansion."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Govt should allow abortion? Also, how is an abortion not terminating a live fetus (that, scientifically, is alive at conception)? Isn't that murder?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4qgchu
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4spge7",
"comment_text": [
"This \"ELI5\" question should not be allowed here. You're setting forth an argument, not a \"question.\""
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4spstd",
"comment_text": [
"The government decides what is NOT allowed. As far as i know there are only laws prohibiting abortion. Legalizing abortion would just be removing laws that prohibit abortion. Similar to how gay marriage became legal in the US because they made it illegal to make laws that prohibit gay marriage.",
" ",
"that, scientifically, is alive at conception",
"Well sure its considered \"alive\" in the same way that sperm cells, egg cells and skin cells all exhibit signs of life. But its not considered a person until it develops further. You cant abort a baby thats about to be born. So somewhere between birth and conception someone had to define when it is illegal to abort. Im not going to argue where this line is.",
" ",
"Lastly, this is a super loaded question and im reporting it if it hasnt been removed already. Try ",
"/r/changemyview"
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sqhjh",
"comment_text": [
"Your definition of \"alive\" is not shared by the majority. Otherwise a man jerking off would be murdering thousands of human lives as sperm share the same cognitive ability as a fetus. ",
"Right to life cannot interfere with another person's right to life. In this case the right of life for the fetus does reasonably endanger the life of the mother. The fetus has no right to endanger the mother. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sqbng",
"comment_text": [
"Why did Noah let the ",
" sink? Bizarre marginally-connected questions don't help, kid. Try again. "
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4spl24",
"comment_text": [
"Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):",
"Loaded questions are not allowed on ELI5.",
"detailed rules",
"."
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: Why do some Olympic Trial swimmers have a little white string hanging in the middle of their goggles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4qdjea
| 7
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.59
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4s5bma",
"comment_text": [
"It's just a style of swim goggle - they're called \"swedes\" - popular with competitive swimmers. They're great because they fit well, they're cheap (like $5 each) & they don't come off.",
"When you buy them, you need to tie the string between the lenses yourself. This lets you customize the fit. There's no real reason to trim the excess string off, so they don't.",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_goggles"
],
"score": 7
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4s5k8j",
"comment_text": [
"If you trim them flush, you can't untie them and adjust them as the string stretches out.",
"Swimmers aren't really concerned about looking cool out of the water. As long as those strings aren't bothering you while swimming, they're not worth fucking with."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4s5ga4",
"comment_text": [
"I would still trim them off better LOL"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4s4tgc",
"comment_text": [
"Examples:\n",
"https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/lilly-king-2016-ncaa-womens-swimming-2783-700x500.jpg",
"\n",
"http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/pics33/800/EJ/EJJNSVKUEBULHVJ.20141106022907.jpg",
"\n",
"http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ryan-hoffer-winter-junior-nationals-2014-1-e1418436488397.jpg"
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4s5fwx",
"comment_text": [
"I guess now that I look closer, I see the string goes all the way through. But there is some sort of tube that covers it up. Can't see that as well on TV. "
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5:Does cereal ever go bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
4qhbs0
| 0
|
Other
| true
| false
| 0.4
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4syq48",
"comment_text": [
"Yes.",
"Any refined grain will go stale, moldy or else gets infested with insects."
],
"score": 3
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4sypuz",
"comment_text": [
"It does.",
"It'll absorb moisture from the air after being unsealed. Moisture will make the cereal stale, and will also allow bacteria and fungus to grow more easily."
],
"score": 2
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4t8yfm",
"comment_text": [
"Stale food isn't going to kill you."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4t8yfm",
"comment_text": [
"Stale food isn't going to kill you."
],
"score": 1
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_d4syz1m",
"comment_text": [
"That's my favorite kind of cereal. Whole grain with protein😜"
],
"score": 1
}
|
|
ELI5: What exactly happens when someone regains consciousness?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
c1l1av
| 122
|
Biology
| true
| false
| 0.88
|
In particular, what happens in the brain? Does something realign?
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_erdxt8k",
"comment_text": [
"Doctor (with anaesthetic/ICU training) here. ",
"We don't really know what consciousness is, therefore it's pretty difficult to answer this.",
"The best explanation we have is that neurons in the brain either work or don't. The more that aren't working, the more likely you are to be unconscious. Conversely anything that increases the amount of nerves firing will result in agitation and hyperactivity.",
"The most common reason for bothering of these is drugs, both therapeutic and illicit. \"Uppers\" make you hyperactive, whereas \"downers\" calm you down. Most general anaesthetics, for example, work by reducing the number of nerves firing and making you unconscious. We don't even really know how general anaesthetics work at the molecular level. ",
"The other main reasons for unconsciousness are sleep and brain injury.",
"Regaining consciousness therefore is the number of neurons firing (properly) increasing to a point where you can process to the point of consciousness.",
"The Glasgow coma score ranks 3 different domains giving a total from 3 (totally unconscious) to 15 (totally conscious) which demonstrates that consciousness isn't black or white but a spectrum between one and the other."
],
"score": 116
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_erdyx0b",
"comment_text": [
"It depends what medication they are giving him and whether he has a brain injury. It likely he's on some sedation. This is most likely a good sign, unless of course he's on no sedation at all.",
"I'm sorry to hear about your friend."
],
"score": 24
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_erdy81w",
"comment_text": [
"Sorry slightly off topic, so my friend has an motorcycle accident last night. And he is in the ICU right now with all those tube things inside of him according to the family he's unconscious for long. When I visited him today and talked to him, his eyes is open and scanning the place back and forth with some hand movements. Do you think it's a good thing?"
],
"score": 20
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_erecht8",
"comment_text": [
"OP said the scale ranks 3 things, so presumably each thing gets a score from 1 to 5 and that gets added together to give a total consciousness score.",
"If you are totally unconscious you score a 1 on Thing One, 1 on Thing Two and 1 on Thing Three giving a total consciousness score of 3.",
"If you're completely woke, you get a 5 on each thing for a total of 15."
],
"score": 18
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_erdz80e",
"comment_text": [
"Thank you. All the results are okay, the only test left is the neurological. Seeing my friend in that state breaks my heart. The doctor says they have to restrain his arms because of the involuntary movements."
],
"score": 16
}
|
ELI5: What is the difference between a server and "the cloud"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
5g3of3
| 6
|
Technology
| true
| false
| 0.72
|
Isn't this just a fancy word for old technology? I often see a lot of non technical people become confused by this word.
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_daph7go",
"comment_text": [
"So all the answers so far miss some key parts to the story. Why should you take my word for it? I'm a senior engineer with 20 years commercial experience, several of them in ISPs and Telcos, and I've been working a lot with cloud technologies for the last 6-7 years or so.",
"To make sense of the difference, let's go back in time and figure out what changes people made.",
"The very first computers were large and cumbersome. They lived in the place where they were built, and were used by the people who built them. This was the case in the 1950s.",
"In the 1960s it became possible for a computer to be built somewhere else and delivered to you. A large computer would need a specialised room, known as a \"machine room\" (although it was sometimes called a \"data centre\" to make the horrific costs more relatable at board level). A company buying a new computer would find some space in one of their buildings, raise the floor (so that power, cooling and other systems could go underneath the computer components), and the computer would be installed.",
"In the 1970s computers became smaller and so these machine rooms would house not one big computer, but perhaps several smaller ones - albeit quite large by today's standards.",
"By the 1980s computers got to a size where you could fit one on your desk. However, you'd want it to be able to talk to your company's bigger computer, or perhaps a computer in another town. Clients and servers had been around for some time, but now they became much more popular. Even smaller \"big\" computers were now put in machine rooms that were rebranded \"server rooms\" or retain the title \"data centre\".",
"In the 1990s, the Internet started to take off. Even before the web, small independent ISPs were popping up, each of them with very different kinds of server requirements. By now it was possible to take a standard PC, put the internals into a rack mount case, install a server operating system on it (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), and put it in your ISPs machine room/data centre for a fixed monthly or yearly cost. This is called \"co-location\": you buy hardware, you go and install it in a data centre, and if it breaks, you need to buy replacement parts and go in and physically service it yourself.",
"One of my first jobs was looking after one of these sites, we'd have hundreds and hundreds of machines brought in by clients every year, and we'd rack them up, and plug them in - they'd have access to high-speed (for the time) Internet and power, and be in a climate-controlled room with good fire suppression. These rooms were not nice places to work quite often.",
"After a while, somebody realised that people would want a server to host a website on, or run their own email server, but they didn't want to buy the equipment, or perhaps wanted to try it for a few months to see how well it worked before making an investment. That led to a lot of innovation.",
"First, there were dedicated servers. These are machines you rented per month. You specified the OS, and it was \"your\" machine (you didn't share it with anybody else), and you could cancel with a months notice. You could install games servers, web servers, whatever you wanted on there. The main advantage is that if the hardware failed, it was your server provider's problem, not yours. You would know your system's specs, but you'd never see the server itself.",
"At the bottom end of the spectrum was application-focused shared servers. You'd pay £5/month and get some space on your provider's server for a web site, or for email hosting for your own domain. One of the problems with this model is that if you're sharing a server with a \"noisy neighbour\", your website or email can slow down as well as theirs.",
"Next came the idea of the virtual server. A virtual private server (VPS), looks to an engineer to be like a dedicated server, but it's actually an imaginary server running inside a real dedicated server. It's almost like a hybrid of the previous two approaches: you're sharing a server with other people (so it's super cheap), but you are able to install what you want inside this virtual server (so it's flexible), and if the server has a hardware problem, it's not your problem.",
"And that's where we were for many, many years.",
"A lot of effort went into making virtualisation really good. One company - VMWare - got to a point where I could take a virtual server on this physical machine in this data centre, and drag it over to a completely different machine in another part of the data centre, and it would carry on working without a reboot. Quite amazing, really.",
"Lots of companies though had a problem: how many servers to buy? If you imagine that for a few days a year - say Black Friday weekend - you are incredibly busy and need 100 servers, but the rest of the year you are very quiet and only need two, how many do you buy?",
"Well, if you're co-locating, you buy 100 servers. You need to provision enough for peak load. That's quite wasteful. If you're on dedicated servers or VPS's, you might decide to rent 2 machines 12 months of the year, and then say in October rent 98 more and get them ready, and then in December cancel them - three months for a few days is still quite wasteful.",
"What people wanted was a model where they could scale just in time for when they needed the capacity, and only pay for what they used. The day after Cyber Monday, ideally I don't want to still be paying for these servers any more.",
"Amazon knew this more than anybody - because this is what they wanted. The problem is, at Amazon's scale, this stuff only make sense if they own their own data centre. They weren't just co-locating, they were going back to the 1960s model of building physical spaces they owned for this stuff. But if they could get other businesses to share these machines with them - perhaps using the exact same model that Amazon themselves would want - it could offset the costs, and indeed move the data centres from being cost centres to profit centres.",
"And so we got to cloud computing. The key things that made cloud so radically different to what came before were:",
"These combined, made a lot of people rethink systems administration and what it meant to \"run\" a web site or application. It has radically changed the industry and allowed for huge efficiency savings.",
"Interestingly, that's meant that we're now in an era where Amazon themselves and others are building tools on top of all this that aren't just virtual servers by the hour, but more like applications. Want infinite storage capacity? Here's S3. Want to install a message queueing system but getting confused about RabbitMQ? Here's SNS and SQS. Fed up of having to run an email system? OK, here's SES. And on, and on, and on.",
"Some companies think about how to solve a developer's life a little. Heroku for example provides an interface where the developer doesn't even have to think about servers quite so much. This is called PaaS or \"platform-as-a-service\". In this model, I don't even auto-scale server, I just deploy applications.",
"Others have gone another route: Docker is a good example of a technology that looks at how to have auto-scaling and immutable server images but based on your own hardware, or even on cloud hardware that you scale at a layer removed. Funky.",
"And then there is serverless. Serverless - AWS Lambda and Goolge Function makes the world a strange place. No longer do we think in terms of applications or servers: we think about a single function in a piece of software and just give it to the cloud to run at infinite scale, paying every time it is invoked/called, so we don't even pay for the capacity of a server we don't need in a quiet period, and the \"auto-scaling\" is automatic and seamless and needs no management.",
"Google and Microsoft were late getting to the party, but they're now gunning for it, and it's getting interesting.",
"Back in the late 1990s I had my own server, onto which I would install various things. Cost me a fortune, and I only got to co-locate it free because I worked for an ISP - I wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Today I just wrote an application in for Lambda that if it got 1,000,000 hits a month would cost me perhaps $4 to run it.",
"And ",
" the difference between a server and the cloud."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap6stf",
"comment_text": [
"\"The cloud\" is just a buzzword for what we just called \"servers\" until 10/15 years ago. The whole concept of the modern Internet is that it's divided between your computer requesting information (the client) and some other computer providing that information (the server). That client/server relationship became how the Internet started working in the 80s (or so, there's room for debate).",
"The buzzword that is \"the cloud\" just means that either the computational work or simple storage is being done elsewhere (i.e. on a server) that you can access from anywhere. There's a further implication that you can access it from a wide variety of clients and the server-end (\"cloud\") will do the work of delivering it properly."
],
"score": 10
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap822i",
"comment_text": [
"It's not a simple linear improvement. There has been a major shift in how client/server relationships exist and the \"duties\" of each.",
"In the modern \"cloud\" environment, most of the duties that you'd hire a sysop to do (like maintaining the server itself) can be much more economically done by a large company that runs thousands (or millions) or servers. ",
"The cloud is basically an economy of scale when it comes to servers."
],
"score": 8
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap7qg7",
"comment_text": [
"Just a marketing tool to sell old (albeit an improved version) Technology.",
"Sort of, but the way I would put it is \"the Cloud\" is a term more suited to a philosophy of management or development of a network rather than a mechanical view.",
"An analogy would be the concept of \"object-oriented programming\". This model of programming splits the processes a program performs into \"objects\" which perform tasks from certain inputs and give certain outputs. By splitting it up this way a programmer doesn't need to know how every aspect of the program functions in order to work on it; each object is a sort of \"black box\" where what happens inside is a mystery. An example object might be a pricing module where it takes a list of product codes and returns a total price for the order.",
"There likely isn't very much different in that pricing module for object-oriented programming compared to just writing the item price lookup, bulk order discounts, etc. in traditional programming form. But by doing it with the object-oriented model you can easily have multiple programmers working on the same project without interfering with each other. Someone can write a module to generate a shipping route for all the items without ever knowing about what is going on within the pricing module.",
"Bringing this back to the Cloud, the term is more for talking about using decentralized remote servers as infrastructure rather than a local hardware solution. True, it is all servers like before just how the code within objects is the same code as would be written without the object model. But the term isn't just rebranding the same stuff as a marketing gimmick."
],
"score": 4
}
|
{
"comment_id": "t1_dap6974",
"comment_text": [
"\"Who owns it\".",
"In a \"On Premise\" environment, you (the business/consumer) own the server. It is on your property, and you pay for the care and feeding of it.",
"In a \"Cloud\" environment, you (the business/consumer) do NOT own the server. The server is on someone else's property and is maintained and cared for by their team for you. In fact you are probably just one of many people living on the same server."
],
"score": 4
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.