q_id stringlengths 5 6 | title stringlengths 3 296 | selftext stringlengths 0 34k | document stringclasses 1
value | subreddit stringclasses 1
value | url stringlengths 4 110 | answers dict | title_urls list | selftext_urls list | answers_urls list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3h7esx | where do moths, and other insects attracted to light go during the day? | Hundreds around a street light, but nowhere to be seen during daylight. I like to think they're furiously flying at the sun. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h7esx/eli5_where_do_moths_and_other_insects_attracted/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu4w4vg",
"cu516nd"
],
"score": [
77,
6
],
"text": [
"If I recall correctly, it's not so much that these insects are attracted to the light source. It's more that they have evolved to navigate by the sun and moon. Artificial light sources confuse them, and they end up circling the light source because their positions relative to it change so much with each distance they move. During the day, they just behave like they normally would.",
"... and where do birds go when it rains?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
5v4vzm | why is foul language such a common occurrence in every day chatter nowadays? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v4vzm/eli5_why_is_foul_language_such_a_common/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddz826e",
"ddz8734",
"ddz97q7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Just like any other word that's entered the common vocabulary - it's used extensively, and the more it's used the more it enters everyday usage.",
"Literacy was less common in the past, so I would imagine speaking in a literate manner would have shown that you belonged to the upper class of society. Now that nearly everybody is literate, vocabulary is a less considered facet of a persons worth. ",
"How many of you think throwing the F bomb next to a family with small, impressionable kids in a social setting is not a big deal?\n\nI mean, come on. Where is the decency?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1zw9l9 | how do doctors and psychiatrists know the recommended dosage for a medication? | Is is in there a "cheat sheet" manual of all medications they use, or something like that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zw9l9/eli5how_do_doctors_and_psychiatrists_know_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfxjesi",
"cfxkpex"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes there are books that have recommended doses. All drug manufacturers are going to publish this information. If its a common drug then the doctor has simply memorized it.",
"There are books containing huge lists of recommended doses per body mass, gender and such, as given by the manufacturer when it is seeking for permission to market the drug. There also tends to be a recommended dose guideline on the software they use to prescribe. Certain medications that are prescribed very often will become ingrained into memory - for example the anaesthetist in charge of a crash team will have some important doses memorised. (for that sort of situation, the medication doses are pretty standard - if I'm crashing I want medicine quickly, and the standard doses ) Some medicines which are handled fine by the body will be given at a standard dose that doesn't change much at all - like you would go out and buy 500mg tablets of paracetamol.\n \nAs for how they get the recommended dose, that's done in clinical trials, I believe at stage II, where it is then refined through further stages. It will vary based on body mass, gender, activity, severity of condition and a tonne of other things, but can be calculated.\n\nI'd advise asking a pharmacologist or doctor specialised in pharmacology for proper information on it, though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
eb4t6l | why does some medicine have extremely specific instructions? e.g. take one in the morning and one in the evening instead of simply taking two per day. is it the time difference between the times taken or can the body somehow tell morning vs noon vs evening? and before vs after meals, why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eb4t6l/eli5_why_does_some_medicine_have_extremely/ | {
"a_id": [
"fb23dy7",
"fb244ta",
"fb299uq"
],
"score": [
4,
49,
2
],
"text": [
"If a prescription instructs you to take one pill in the morning and one in the evening, and you decide to take two in the morning and be done with it, the problem you'll experience is that you'll have a diminished level of the medication in your body. For a prescription like that to be effective, the level needs to stay more consistent, and not fluctuate as it's used and broken down.\n\nBefore versus after meals has to do with chemistry; the absorption rate of the medication changes with what your body's doing, as well as some medication can cause discomfort if you take it on an empty stomach.",
"Medication dosing is usually designed around keeping a concentration of drug in your body that it will have an effect while not being dangerous to the patient (called the \"therapeutic level\").\n\nThis means for example they may say to take one in the morning and one in the evening because the body will start clearing the drug from the blood throughout the day. By taking a second pill in the evening it tops off the amount of medication in the body to keep it in the necessary range. If they just said \"Take two per day\" then people would take two pills at the same time at some random time during the day, which isn't going to keep the concentration where it needs to be. In fact you might have someone taking two pills at 11 PM and then another two pills at 1 AM since it is \"the next day\"! People are dumb.\n\nAs for taking them before or after meals, this often has to do with nausea. Some medications are very rough on the stomach and being able to dilute them across the mass of a meal and the time it takes to digest them can help people not feel terrible or even vomit up their medicines. Antibiotics I think are particularly prone to this effect and so are often given that instruction.",
"It can be like you said, like when you step down Prednisone, your system can be messed up if you go cold turkey. Otherwise it can be to make sure you actually take the pill so you give them a reminder you can relate too. People are more likely to take their pills in the morning time if you ten or then to take them before breakfast instead of simply 'morning'."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5ib9dz | why do we get that uncomfortable feeling when seeing a deep wound/blood? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ib9dz/eli5_why_do_we_get_that_uncomfortable_feeling/ | {
"a_id": [
"db6szyx",
"db6t5wb"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"As a species we are empathetic towards others. We feel their feelings, literally. We have these special neurons called mirror neurons that induce a feeling in ourselves similar to what we see in others. So you see someone get hit in the crotch with a baseball, and we feel it too. We wince or make a pained sound. As a social animal this sort of behavior is important to build unity. We protect others as we would protect ourselves for the benefit of the group.\n\nIt also works in the positive direction. Good feelings are catchy.",
"Agreed, it's probably an evolution thing. I always think this regarding people fleeing / ignoring an injured or sick person on the street etc. Of course you get some that go to help, but the majority of people will literally run away. I can only think that it's a subconscious evolutionary programing. As dumb as it sounds when you actually think about it, seeing someone harmed makes us scared for our own safety, even if what happened can't effect us. Instinctively our brains will engage the flight or fight response. Most will flee for self preservation. We see it in animals all the time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
9uuxzf | how the tv pundits can predict a winner with only 1% of votes counted | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9uuxzf/eli5_how_the_tv_pundits_can_predict_a_winner_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"e977dfs",
"e97bj5r"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Polls, history, etc. Sometimes the person is running unopposed or just against write in candidates.\n\nThey use a lot of data to inform the projection, not just the polls that they show us. ",
"Assuming that the counted votes are random, you actually don't need a large sample size to make a conclusion of significance. According to Wikipedia, 235,248,000 Americans were of voting age in 2012. Using [this calculator website](_URL_0_), I found that the necessary sample size needed to be 95% confident of being within 1% of the true value is only 9,604 people. A sample size of 16,640 is needed to be 99% confident that you're within 1%. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm"
]
] | ||
7zghog | how do flash floods work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zghog/eli5_how_do_flash_floods_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dunvopa"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A large quantity of water falls in a short amount of time overwhelming the capacity of the ground to absorb it and/or a cities drainage infrastructure to drain it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
83qd19 | what is the purpose of a lion’s mane | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83qd19/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_a_lions_mane/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvjrpgk"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"A male lion's primary role in the pride is to protect the pride from lions not within the pride, and from any animal that threatens the pride. The mane helps to protect the throat and shoulders from attacks from rivals and the like. They only have it there so as to not overheat. \n\nThey have also found that it has a role in mating selection. Lions with larger and brighter colored manes tend to be seen as more forminable individuals who attract mates easier and win rivalry disputes more often. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
218vs3 | why do americans care so much about the missing malaysian jet? | Why are the American news outlets spending so much time covering the missing Malaysian jet? Most Americans can't find Malaysia on a map, much less know anyone who might be from Malaysia or be directly affected by the crash / hijacking / whatever. I'm not being callous, it just seems like there's more important stuff going on that actually has a direct effect on their lives. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/218vs3/eli5_why_do_americans_care_so_much_about_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgapoyy",
"cgaqayr",
"cgaqe7e",
"cgaqnry",
"cgar9mn",
"cgas034"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"What about the 5 Americans who were on the jet? Or all of the American resources (satellites, Navy, Merchant Marines) that are in use to find it? Or the American company that makes a lot of jets that can't find one now? What about the sheer interesting factor that a jet up and disappeared with 239 people on it?\n\nThere are a lot of good reasons Americans might/should care about a missing Malaysian jet.",
"Most people I know don't really care other than a passing curiosity. Where does a jet with a load of people just up and disappear to? \n\nI only hear about it on reddit. ",
"Its a distraction - plain and simple. Ratings get money for ads too. People were interested , and remain interested. Therefore, continue to focus on this until interest wanes. It will have the most ad revenue",
"Because some people like to kill us with jets.",
"Don't be confused by what the \"news\" is. Most people don't watch it because they have a thirst for knowledge and are concerned with spending their time in the most productive way possible. It's for entertainment. And why not? It's always changing, most fictional stories are based on real-life crazy shit, and it's relevant.\n\n",
"As with most 'news' from an American outlet, it's just a smokescreen to deter our attention from shit that actually matters. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
27s3hk | why do i see shadows or figures in the corner of my eyes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27s3hk/eli5_why_do_i_see_shadows_or_figures_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci3topr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The inside of your eye is lined with a viscous fluid called the vitreous humor. This gel is attached to your retina, the light sensing part inside of the eye.\n\nNormally with age, the vitreous will start detaching from the retina starting from the periphery of your retina (the far sides of your vision). As it is detaching, the pull the vitreous performs on the retina can cause the retina to either send signals (seeing brightness) or stop signals (seeing shadow, spots of darkness). You may only be seeing the brightness when it is dark because the actual signal is too low in normal light. The gap that forms in the detachment will be filled with clear fluid.\n\nIt may be worth just going to an eye doctor to get a full eye examination just in case."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
p373x | how does a country pay for goods it purchased from another country? | What are the payment mechanisms that countries use to pay for purchases made from another country?for example oil. Why is money sometimes routed through another country?
Edit: I got this doubt after reading [this](_URL_0_) article | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p373x/how_does_a_country_pay_for_goods_it_purchased/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3m5hx6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Normally the payment is done through a clearing mechanisms involving the central banks of the countries. However, in this case India's central bank in 2010 stopped the clearing mechanism due to pressures from US. \n\nTherefore both the companies - Indian and Iranian had to find a bank which could act as an intermediary, therefore the money was routed through Turkey."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/worldbusiness/india-says-it-wont-cut-back-on-iran-oil-imports-in-defiance-of-stiffer-us-and-eu-sanctions/2012/01/30/gIQAo6kqbQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop"
] | [
[]
] | |
9zency | how does juicing a fruit or vegetable decrease its nutritional value? | Long story short, some relatives of mine say that drinking fruit juice isn't as healthy as eating the sane fruit as a solid. They say that the act of juicing it somehow makes it less healthy.
Is this true? How does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zency/eli5_how_does_juicing_a_fruit_or_vegetable/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea8icv5",
"ea8if18",
"ea8ihtc",
"ea8iptp",
"ea8md5b",
"ea8rxok"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
5,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Juicing a fruit means you miss out on dietary fibre and complex carbohydrates, plus the flesh still contains a lot of the vitamin content after juicing.\n\nAlso, most juices are drink with a meal rather than as an alternative to fruit, meaning you're adding a lot of sugar to that meal.",
"There is nutrition in edible skins and flesh. Fibre in the flesh and skin will also help control sugar levels in fruit. When you juice an orange the flesh gets left behind. With apple juice the skin and flesh get left behind or filtered out",
"Juicing means you lose dietary fibre, in general. I don't the know the specifics of what nutrients are in the pulp of every fruit and vegetable, though.\n\nPoint is, the solid parts of fruit and veg have nutritive value, too. ",
"Whenever you process food it makes it easier for the body to absorb.\n\nNormally fruit has fibre along with it’s juice. When you strip out just the juice you have all the sugar and none of the fibre. The other aspect is that you consume much more fruit sugar in a glass of juice than in a piece of fruit. How many oranges does it take to make a glass of orange juice? Are you going to sit down and eat that many oranges at once?\n\nThe same phenomenon exists with grains. A slice of white bread is effectively just sugar to the body because it has to do almost no work to absorb it, versus whole grains.",
"I see a lot of answers about 'juices vs fresh fruit', but I think what OP is trying to ask is \"if I were to i.e. eat a basket of strawberries while they were whole, would they have the same nutritional value as if I were to put them in a blender then drink it, without any other ingredients added\"",
"The sugars in fruit are bound up in fibre, when you eat fresh fruit you have to digest this fibre in order to release the sugar. This provides a slow release of sugar into your bloodstream.\n\nWhen you juice fruit you are separating the sugars from the fibre, meaning when you consume you are getting an instant sugar hit.\n\nAs we know your body can only process sugar in 2 ways, either burn for energy, or store as fat. As the fresh fruit gives a steady sugar release it can usually be burned to fuel general daily activity. The sugar hit provided by juice usually cannot be burned straight away (unless you are performing strenuous activity) so gets stored as fat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
4yxijr | what the fuck happend with no man's sky and why does it suck now? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yxijr/eli5_what_the_fuck_happend_with_no_mans_sky_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6r4f2x"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"What happened? The game came out, people found that it didn't live up to that hype, and they felt disappointed.\n\nHype is just that - hype. It's never reflective of the quality of the actual product. And the more that something gets hyped up, the harder the fall when people get disappointed that it doesn't live up to it. Doubly so for a product that nobody actually gets to toy with beforehand.\n\nIt doesn't suck *now* because of something that happened recently. It would have either sucked no matter what, or it wouldn't have sucked no matter what. And the thing is, it's not like it's the worst game to have ever come out, it's not like it's that bad of a game. But it may be the most disappointing game to have come out in a while, if only because it was so overhyped."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6g98r9 | how do keygen programmes work? | I'm sure lots of you have used a Keygen programme to crack software before but, as somebody who doesn't have any idea about coding, I've always wondered, how is it possible to generate a code that activates something like Photoshop or Ableton etc without paying?
Do the programmes have specific rules for the codes that they are supposed to accept? And how do people find keys that cause the programmes to activate when that key has never been generated by the software's publisher? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g98r9/eli5_how_do_keygen_programmes_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"diog5nb"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The programs in question have a specific bit of code that checks the key. This check is performed by an algorithm (i.e. fancy math equation) that determines if the key is valid or not; it doesn't store all possible valid keys, just the equation that determines a valid from invalid key.\n\nIf you get into the code of the program, you can find this algorithm and reverse engineer it - learn how the math equation determines a key is valid - and develop a generator that uses that knowledge to generate keys that will be found to be valid.\n\nFor example, lets take a super simply algorithm that checks keys - it checks 5 digit numbers to ensure that they add up to 25; if it does, the key is valid, if it doesn't, it is not. Once you know this, you can make a keygen that spits out 5 digit numbers that add up to 25 and register as valid keys.\n\nIn the real world, the math is much more complex, but the basic concept is the same."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2a57tc | if a minor is charged with a crime, tried as an adult, and found not guilty... is that minor now a legal adult? | If the legal process decided a minor was adult enough to stand trial as an adult, does that minor have legal grounds to be an adult (able to drive, vote, etc.) if found not guilty? Or does the government get to say loljk my bad!? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a57tc/eli5_if_a_minor_is_charged_with_a_crime_tried_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cirkyxf"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
" > If a minor is charged with a crime, tried as an adult, and found not guilty... Is that minor now a legal adult?\n\nNo.\n\n > If the legal process decided a minor was adult enough to stand trial as an adult...\n\nThe thing here is that they haven't been decided as being \"adult enough to stand trial\". Rather, they have been decided to have an adult-level understanding of the consequences of **the specific crime under consideration**. Normally, you only see minors being charged as adults for things like murder, where a 16-year-old understands how legally and morally wrong it is just as well as an adult."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2wupx3 | why are russian bombers flying "over" the uk? | [Russian bombers near UK](_URL_0_)
1. Russians pilots are ordered to fly near (or into) our airspace.
2. Our pilots are ordered to fly over to these guys and ask them "what's up" and could they take their potential-nuclear-weapon-carrying-planes elsewhere.
3. They relay this information back to their superiors who tell them "yeah, come home"
4. Everyone calms down.
What the hell is the point of all this nonsense?
EDIT: Front page? Crikey.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wupx3/eli5_why_are_russian_bombers_flying_over_the_uk/ | {
"a_id": [
"couavgs",
"coub2jg",
"coub5q4",
"coubvu8",
"coucg2i",
"coucvvj",
"coucwl8",
"coud1do",
"coudw6h",
"coued98",
"couerdx",
"couf5fe",
"coufce5",
"coufeeu",
"coufhtk",
"coufhzy",
"coufl8q",
"coufmry",
"coufntw",
"couft9v",
"couftuj",
"coufu52",
"coufwnm",
"coug2a1",
"cougahi",
"cougjf9",
"couglpz",
"cougufp",
"cougypa",
"couh5kj",
"couhokc",
"couhpat",
"couhrvb",
"couhxv3",
"couipxz",
"couis70",
"couixn2",
"coujlv8",
"coujtn7",
"coujvku",
"coukd53",
"coukfck",
"couksre",
"coukw62",
"coukxe1",
"coul7e6",
"coulbso",
"coulxoj",
"coun1n7",
"coun276",
"coun4ll",
"counf9y",
"counwq3",
"couo3t2",
"couoapk",
"couoj4a",
"coup5r3",
"coup6yh",
"coupzmm",
"couqp20",
"couqsgf",
"cour5vu",
"cour60q",
"cour6wm",
"courmsh",
"courrq3",
"coushkg",
"cousu8r",
"cousvwt",
"cout4o7",
"coute35",
"coutjww",
"coutndd",
"coutylf",
"couuh9z",
"couuwcg",
"couvf3x",
"couvudb",
"couw47q",
"couwxci",
"coux4gm",
"couxwgp",
"couyleq",
"couzmf3",
"cov28cu",
"cov2cos",
"cov2mfy"
],
"score": [
2810,
683,
127,
50,
11,
17,
6,
68,
5,
17,
2,
12,
3,
2,
2,
44,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
905,
5,
3,
21,
2,
12,
4,
776,
3,
34,
7,
3,
4,
10,
3,
5,
23,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
4,
3,
25,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
4,
13,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
16,
3,
3,
4,
4,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are flying over the uk to prove they can, train their pilots and most importantly test the response time of the RAF. Provides them with valuable information in the event of relations heating up even more than they are! They have been doing this three or four times a year for the past decade, there's nothing new!",
"They aren't flying over the UK, they are flying in international airspace near the UK.\n\nUK pilots don't ask them anything, they escort the bombers while they are near UK airspace.\n\nRussian bombers don't talk to their superiors to ask to get back, they follow the route of their \"patrol\".\n\nIf Russia would someday decide to surprise-bomb the UK, it would be beneficial for the flight to look like a \"routine\" patrol, so as not to have the whole of NATO on high alert once they leave Russian airspace.",
"The same reason they do flights near Alaskan airspace: old-fashioned saber rattling. They've been doing it since the early years of the Cold War, and do it to test response times, train aircrew, etc. The Soviet pilots would do it so often that they often became quite familiar with the American interceptor pilots.",
"Putin have been pushing limits around Sweden's borders as well. Planes showing their missiles to Swedish Gripen-planes, flying into Swedish airspace. The Swedish army also suspects that they have been mapping our archipelago near Stockholm in October last year. They haven't been this aggressive since the eighties. ",
"To test the reaction times of the RAF, how fast they can deploy the Eurofighter, especially in bad weather. They've been doing this for years now but only seem to have started to become relevant since the media have started to notice.",
"Try to look at it from their view. \n\nCurrent events with Ukraine very much parallel the US intervention with Cuba (and every other South American communist/attempted communist state). To put it differently, they see a \"NATO\" stronghold showing up near Moscow, and they're pissed about it. \n\nI'm not saying that their only reason, but, if France suddenly decided to ally with Russia (or insert British enemy here), you would get very hostile as well.\n\nPutin is basically their Reagan (in some ways, again, it's hard to make comparisons with terrible people like Putin, seriously, people don't kill me for this). He's incredibly nationalist, and his two basic missions (outwardly) are to restore Russia to her former power and to defend what power she still has. \n\nSo while their actions are *incredibly* disagreeable, not only is it intentional, but it has *some* historic justification. \n\nEdit: this is almost entirely Dan Carlin",
"I think it's the same thing as the US does with its navy. The reason I say this is because the US has a lot of oversea points to establish power (and they are strategic points, but I'm mainly mentioning the power).\n\nRussia is probably flexing right now. I think they want to intimidate. Although, I could be wrong. It's just my opinion.",
"Now that we're on this topic: I keep reading reports about Russian aircraft flying really close to European national airspace. However, I never read about western/NATO planes doing the same thing near Russian borders. Is this because it isn't happening? Or does the news just go unreported?\n\n",
"As part of a Charlie Brooker programme the other week, there was a segment about Putin, and basically he tries to confuse everyone (both foreign states and his own people) as to what his real motives are. I see this as part of his plan.",
"Same thing happens with the Turkish pilots who fly over Greece!",
"Does anyone know what bombers they are using? Are they using their classic Tu-95 or their B-1 ripoff Tu-160?",
"1. no they aren't flying over. They are in international airspace.\n2. standard procedure to scramble and ward off\n3. yes, because the test was about time, not threat\n4. yes, of course everyone calms down. that is the nature of saber rattling.\n\nThe point is to maintain supreme power in government and military institutions. If you forget they are there, they lose the impact of their perceived value and strength.\n\nIs it base? yes, but so is humanity. Despite all the nice stuff we do, the buildings and amazing things, the truth is that power rests in the hands of those with might. It has never changed and it will never change. We cannot nurture our nature away.\n\n",
"Russia is exercising its right to determine the UK's military concen vis a vis itself. This is allowed under the [Open Skies Treaty](_URL_0_) which allows all member states to initiate unarmed aerial surveillance.",
"They have increased flights by 4-5 times over the past year so with the frequency up it is making news. They fly with transponders turned off making them a large threat/disruptor to commercial aviation and the escorts help with that. Theoretically there is training, and sneak attack potential but after 60 years most of that is well understood. Putin appears to be pursuing destabilization policies and this is likely part of that. The Economist has a nice summary, though perhaps not balanced explanation depending on your point of view. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Sometimes when countries are having tense relations, like when one country wants something and another country doesn't want them to have it, they will go through all sorts of posturing to show off their strength.\n\nIn this case, Russia wants Britain to know that their bombers COULD reach Britain, should it come to that. They also want to know how difficult it is, how long it takes,how the British respond and how quickly.\n\nThey also want to see how Britain responds to the provocation, do they say anything or just grin and bear it?\n\nIn the end, this is classical posturing to try to intimidate the other country into not pushing as hard as they otherwise might.\n\nThe other answer is, 'Because they can't fly under it'",
"Aside from actually fighting a war, militaries are useful for \"projecting power\". Not actually bombing anyone, for example, but showing that you can.\n\nThink of it like how you'd interact with strangers in a potentially dangerous environment. If a stranger manages to convince you that they could suddenly hurt you really badly, you're probably going to treat them differently than you would if you knew for certain that they're actually incapable of mustering any strength.\n\nIt's a way of getting in the head of your potential adversary, in a world where everyone (all the nations) do not really trust each other.\n\nIt's another reason the US wants to have military bases (and sometimes conflicts to justify them) all over the globe.\n\n Everywhere an American military base already exists, is one place where other powerful nations are limited in their ability to \"project power\". A verbal threat from China isn't going to scare South Korea, when the US has soldiers in harm's way in your country. That's because China knows, if they ever tried attacking South Korea, they're now guaranteed a war with America. Neither China nor America actually wants that, because no one would \"win\".\n\nRussia likes foreign bases for their military too, but these are incredibly expensive, and Russia only recently came up with the cash to resume these flights with their bombers (thanks to petro-dollars...which are now drying up again).\n\nTL;DR A military is really just a bunch of chess pieces in the game played by global elites, vying for self-preservation and a pathological quest to expand influence over others.",
"It's pretty much a regular weekly affair in Norway. Good training for our pilots i guess. It's not very dramatic, apart from when green or cocky russian pilots do dangerous maneuvers in close proximity to our planes.",
" [US spy plane fleeing Russian jet invaded Swedish airspace ](_URL_0_) \nUS officials have confirmed Swedish media reports of a mid-July incident in which an American spy plane invaded Sweden’s airspace as it was evading a Russian fighter jet. The maverick plane was spying on Russia when it was intercepted. \n\n",
"These events happen very regularlly, however they are not over the UK, instead they are several miles off the coast, over international airspace, yet an area which the UK decides is of national importance.\n\n[Not so long ago another long range patrol rattled the Japanese airforce] (_URL_0_)\n\nYou should realise the Nato also perform long range patrols around the edges of Russian airspace, such as the Artic and the Black Sea and receive a similar response, however NATO doesnt ususal use long range bomber aircraft.\n\nAs well as testing response times of NATO, these bombers could be equipped with electronic equipment which could collect radio signal information from NATO jets/airbases. \n\nNormally these interceptions happen without incident, the pilots fly alongside each other and wave a hand gesture and then head home for smoked kippers.\nDepending on the type of aircraft used photographers onboard will snap photos of the other nations aircraft for intelligence (sounds dumb, but it could reveal a new design of a component or the weapon load-out could give clues to the flight time/over all weight of the aircraft).\n\nFrom a political point of view its about power projection, Russia stopped these flights for several years due to money problems, now they are keen to show they are rich economy with interests outside of their territory which they will protect, such as what is happening in Ukraine right now.",
"This is nothing new. It has been going on since the 60s. Think of it as world power dick-waving.",
"The Soviets did this along the east coast of the US for years, just outside of our airspace. They were shuttling \"Bear\" bombers back and forth to Cuba. We would scramble fighters to shadow them all the way. It stopped with the fall of the Soviet Union, but I read something about it resuming. Source: I am the son of an air traffic controller.\n",
"ELY5?\n\nYou know when you walk your dog and you go past a neighbours yard and your dog runs up the the fence and goes WOOF WOOF WOOF at the neighbours dog and the neighbours dog runs to the fence and goes GRRR WOOF WOOF BACK and then you carry on? \n\n\nThat's what's happening.\n\n\n(Look up operation Chrome Dome on wikipedia - fascinating)\n\n\nIt's being going on for years as other posters mention, my step dad spent a fair portion of his RAF career in a lightening chasing MIGs around the north sea. It's politically good to report it now to keep us all on our toes and make sure we all join our dog in growling at the fence at putin and his dog",
"The classic term is \"Rattling the saber\". Russia is doing this to show the UK not only that they can do it, but they're not afraid to do it. It's bullying, but on a global scale. ",
"It's only \"news\" now because the US is trying to generate more political will to increase sanctions on Russia. This happens all the time and has been going on for decades.",
"Russia wants more influence\n\nBecause the country is backward and corrupt, it can't be influential\n\nThey have a large military, though it couldn't stand up to the US or combined forces of NATO\n\nHowever, nobody wants to go to war. it's bad for business.\n\nPutin knows this, and knows that nobody respects him, so he tries to scare them by acting like he can bring war to their doorstep.\n\nin Europe, Putin's like the drunk, racist uncle that no one likes, but you can't kick him out of a family gathering and if you react to his antics he'll knock over a bowl of soup.",
"I poke you, you poke me back. Both side's populace sees said poking and cheer. Everybody wins.",
"Because it was a standard drill in line with INTERNATIONAL LAW, but our media would like to set us up to fight the russians once again.\n\nWhich is a fucking bad idea, because atom.",
"The simplest explanation is that they are *not* flying *over* the UK. ",
"CTRL + F: radar. Nope, doesn't look like anyone is talking about it. Warning, long post about radar ahead. If you know how it all works skip to the bottom.\n\nYes, one of the reasons Russia does this is to show off their dick. We (USA) do the same thing to them. And yes, we're also doing it to show Russia how big our dick is, and make sure they remember that we can still send tons of bombers to their lands with tons of bombs each.\n\nBut there's another reason. Most NATO and Russian bombers are very well known by either side. They've been around for a very long time and they've flown many missions all over the world. Consequently, we all know the capabilities of each other's bombers-range, radar profile, typical cruising altitude, all that good stuff. But we both know that our bombers can reach their shores and theirs can reach ours.\n\nWhat is less well known however is the defensive radar capabilities of each other. Radar installations aren't waved around in each others countries giving themselves away. They sit in the mountains, or on the shoreliens of their respective country, and for the most part run in a pretty passive state.\n\nWhat you should know about defensive/offensive radar is that it has two modes-scanning mode and targeting mode. Scanning mode does just like what it sounds-it searches the whole sky for return signals (echoes of itself bouncing off an airplane), in all directions-just like what air traffic control centers use to direct planes around. Think of it like a flashlight spinning around in the dark. You spin it around with nothing to see and all you'll see is darkness. Hit an airplane with the flashlight beam and you'll see the airplane. Except, just like the flashlight, it's easier to \"see\" the radar from further away than it is for you to point it at something and be able to see it. Imagine shining a flashlight out in the dark at a bug far away. That bug would have to be relatively close for you to see it. However, the bug could be over a mile away and it would still be able to see the flashlight winking at them.\n\nSame thing with radar. Radar detectors on the airplanes can \"see\" the beam of the radar wayyyy before the radar can detect the plane.\n\nAlso, remember how I said there are two modes? Targeting mode is kinda like switching from a flashlight to a laser beam...or just twisting the lens on a Mag-Lite so that it focuses on a smaller point farther away. It focuses the radar in a particular direction, lighting up the target so that you can fire a radar guided missile at it. This mode is usually at a higher frequency, higher power, and points at the target constantly instead of rotating around. Being able to see the enemy activate this mode would be extremely advantageous from a signals intelligence standpoint. Because once they've turned it on you know that is the range at which their scanning radar has detected you. Sure they can keep the targeting radar turned off until you get much closer so that they don't show their cards, but keep flying towards them waving your dick-making it look bigger with more airplanes, and someone might get scared and turn it on earlier. And then you keep flying at them over and over to see how soon they'll turn it on. They might turn it on over and over at 300 miles, but they might get scared, screw up, and turn it on at 500 miles and there you go-you know that anything inside 500 miles from the known location of the radar and you're done for. They were just bluffing when they kept turning it on at 300 miles. Stay outside 500 miles and you can do whatever you want without them knowing.\n\nDifferent radars will operate at different frequencies. Some will pulse on and off, or hop between frequencies to make them more difficult to detect (imagine trying to listen to an FM radio station that kept bouncing between 101.5 and 99.1). They'll operate at different wattages and have different antenna shapes which both vary their range of operation, and the wattage can be altered to extend the range.\n\nKnowing all of these capabilities is invaluable to the enemy, and the only way to get them is to either have really good spies that can infiltrate and steal the info, or to have airplanes fly up to the radars and have the enemy turn them on, and to have radar detecting equipment good enough to analyse and record it all. This in turn allows them to go back home, share the data, and have someone build a better radar detector. If you know the frequency hops around or that the radar pulses you can tailor the detector to look for that type of signal. Think of it this way: if you know you're looking for an infrared laser you don't want to go looking for it with just your eyes or a UV laser detector. You want the device to look for infrared. The difference isn't as drastic since it's all within the radar spectrum, but the distinction is just as important.\n\nAlso it should be noted, that since the RAF scrambled fighters, that likely means they never turned on the targeting radar. Having fighters go up and meet the bombers sends the same message: GTFO, we know you're here. Unfortunately for Russia that means they have to make a guess at how far out they were detected by estimating the time it takes for them to scramble the fighters. But the RAF could just as easily have held the fighters on the ground for a while to let the Russians think it took a while to detect them.\n\nTL;DR: Make no mistake, these are not bombing missions these airplanes are being sent on-they are reconnaissance. They might have bombs loaded just in case or to make a bigger point, but their primary mission is to collect radar data.\n\nedit: Obligatory thanks for the gold, stranger.",
"Ok, so about 70 years ago WW2 ended and the United States and the Soviet Union were the two countries that managed to get out of that fight with the ability to just about flaten anyone else on earth. Over the course of the next 50 years the US and the USSR were involved in a \"Cold War\" in which both built up staggeringly vast stockpiles of world-ending weapons just in case they had to fight one another. \n\nDuring this time the US and the USSR were what political scientists call \"super powers.\" According to Alice Lyman Miller a superpower is \"a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony.\" \n\nAnother way of saying that is that a super-power is a country which could, unopposed, run the world. \n\nNow conventional wisdom holds that the USSR was a superpower right up until it fell apart in 1992. How and why the USSR fell apart is beyond the scope of this answer but suffice to say that 80 years of Bolshevism (which is more or less a flavor of communism) didn't do good things for the Soviet Union's ability to hold things together economically. Shortly after the fall of the USSR the Soviet military was in shambles, its citizens were starving, and the entire country was run by drunks, thieves, and has-been-spies.\n\nBut Russia is huge, has enormous mineral wealth, and is nothing if not stubborn. Over the course of the past 25 years they've come a long way. \n\nBut in those 25 years the US and her European allies have treated the Russians as a has-been power. America has expanded the NATO alliance -- a Cold War club of nations founded with the express purpose of telling the Soviets to piss off -- right up to Russia's borders and, today, American military units run and use bases within a stones' throw of Russian soil. \n\nThis understandably threatens Russia. More to the point, it wounds Russian national pride. Remember, within living memory this was a Superpower -- a nation which terrified the great and wealthy United States and which Americans approached with caution and deference. Today the same countries that feared Soviet expansion chide the Russians for their involvement in Ukraine while simultaneously attempting in insert their own influence in the area -- this in a part of the world that was part of Russia since the 1700. \n\nSo why is Russia ordering nuclear capable (armed?) bombers to buzz British and US airspace? It's to remind American and British leaders that Russia is not some third rate power to be pushed around like North Korea or Iraq; Russia has strategic bombers, missiles, and more than enough nuclear firepower to turn every city of note between Berlin and Berkley into a smoking crater. \n\nThis is Russia reminding the West that it too has a sphere of influence and that it will not be ignored and if the US or the Brits speak up about this the Russians will respond something like \"I'm sorry; I thought this was a thing we did now what with your ships in the Black Sea and your interference in the whole Ukraine thing.\"",
"North East England here. This is a pretty frequent thing, and it seems right now people have just decided to report it this time cause it fits in with the whole Russia thing going on right now.\n\nBasically, it's dick waving.\n\nThey're not technically in UK airspace, they're hanging around the international airspace borders. It's the international equivalent of putting your hand in front of someones face and saying 'look how close i can get to yu, y u gettin mad bro, i aint touchin you i aint touchin you y u mad i aint touchin you'",
"People have given plenty of good explanations as to why Russia might do this, I'm going to answer why this is in the news at the moment.\n\nThe fact is this has been happening fairly consistently since the cold war. It is absolutely nothing new. A bomber reaches our air space, we send a couple of fighters up, make sure it doesn't actually enter our airspace and follow it until it is a safe distance away. This usually occurs a little way off the coast meaning if a bomber were to start flying towards a major city it would be shot down long before, and would most likely crash in the ocean.\n\nThe question is therefore, if this is happening on a routine basis, why does the news care all of a sudden. Well firstly, it gets a good headline and sells a few extra papers. However it also whips up a bit of fear in the population. Fear is good for two reasons, it help the papers as people are more likely to follow the news closely in times of fear. It also help the government because if everyone is busy panicking about an imminent world war 3 they are less likely to be paying attention to the laws government are passing. You will see quite often these big frenzies coincide with the government passing unpopular laws. In addition to this the more the population fears communism the further right our government can move.\n\nTL;DR: If the headlines are about the worlds impending doom, be concerned about what your government is up to not the media instilled frenzy. ",
"This happens in canada too, we only caught them once... But it's probably a monthly routine. \n\nRussian pilot reporting back: \"sir, we have been flying here for 8 hours and they still have not responded...\"\n\nOooh canada.",
"It's because nato are patrolling russian borders basically a dick swinging competition ",
"The Russians try to start a Bro Fight:\n\n1. Find a target.\n\n2. Tell them that you are not looking for a fight.\n\n3. Tell everyone that you are a tough guy who you should not fuck with.\n\n4. Get your bombers to the start.\n\n5. Claim that you just want to defend your country.\n\n6. Let your bombers take off.\n\n7. Show off your super dope new missiles.\n\n8. Make sure that your bombers turn before shit really starts.\n\n9. Make your bombers turn. Let them fire a few shots into the sea.\n\n10. Announce on RussiaToday how stupid the West is and that you always get sanctioned because you are too nice.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The Norwegian airforce has to intercept russian military planes almost weekley. The russians like to show of their air sovereignty. Since the 1980's, it has been observed almost 500-600 russian military planes along the norwegian border yearly! And it's said that the russians these last years have gotten more finance to their air force, so therefore the air activity has increased. Look at their flight [raid pattern](_URL_0_). \n(i was stationed north in the norwegian army, and my experience and interpretation of the russians is that they do what ever they want, Sorry my bad english.)",
"They are just doing what the US military does.... getting near other countries in a show of force.",
"Okay, pilot here. Let me explain Russia's motives here:\n\n**Training**\nRussia has increased the frequency of their flights in the past few years in part due to the increased spending on their military, which means more money is available for training operations.\n\nThis means that their aircraft get more flight hours and have more fuel available to use - and these missions of flying near UK and neighboring airspace is perfect for long-range missions that provide -real-world (non-simulated) interaction with foreign airspace and foreign air defenses.\n\n**Strategic Interests**\nCountries often fly aircraft close to other nations while staying in international airspace. The US is one of them that does it. Part of this is to gauge the response time of other nations - to probe their defenses, if you will.\n\nThe other is that it provides valuable intelligence as these aircraft carry sensors and what not that can pick up enemy radars, communications, etc. and provide updates on their capabilities.\n\nAlso, in the case of Russia, they do it out of strategic necessity - it is an integral part of their nuclear defenses. Read on:\n\n**Nuclear Triad**\nThe nuclear triad of a country is the trio of nuclear-weapons delivery capabilities (by strategic bombers, submarines, or land-based ballistic missiles) of which only the US and Russia has a comprehensive capability. These ensure a second-strike capability in a nuclear exchange.\n\nThe US hasn't relied on its strategic bombers much because the US has turned to its extensive submarine-launched ballistic missile fleet and its advanced rocketry which made ballistic missiles in general more appealing.\n\nRussia, however, doesn't have the same extensive capabilities, especially in its smaller ballistic missile submarine fleet. In turn, they rely a lot more on bombers, for which the Tu-95 Bear, the bomber commonly intercepted, can launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles near a country's borders. This gives that country only minutes to respond - often not enough - and ensures Russian nuclear dominance against less-capable foes.\n\nThus it is imperative for countries like the UK with its small territory to send fighters to intercept these bombers out over international airspace. If one opens to perform a hostile act, the RAF would be inclined to shoot it down to prevent any launches from happening.\n\n**Politics**\nAlso, Russia is re-asserting itself (or, at least trying to) on the European political front. And it is doing so by telling its neighbors that \"look at us, we're able to do what we used to during the Cold War!\" again.\n\nTechnically, they've never officially stopped, but the frequency has increased and has garnered a lot more attention in Western news lately, especially due to their aggressive moves in Eastern Europe - all of which bolsters public opinion at home for Russia and its allies and puts its rivals on edge.\n\nFinally, some countries just do it to be dicks - I've known of guys flying transport aircraft who the State Department cleared with the government of China to overfly their airspace to get to Mongolia or other countries get intercepted by the Chinese over technicalities and force them to go home. This cat and mouse game has been going on for a LONG time.",
"It's because we've reverted back to a new cold war, complete with proxy wars, propaganda and overt war games to cause fear.\n\nIt was only a matter of time really, Putin is ex. KGB and knows how the game is played, our western leaders have prodded for this for long enough because they need never ending wars and fear to control people. (1984 anyone?)\n\nWe have the Americans training and arming the FSA in Syria to prolong a civil war, while attacking ISIS which itself is blowback, and at the same time condemning Russia for getting involved in the Ukrainian civil war.\n\nFor a brief period in the late 90s to early 2000s we had a chance at real peace, but sadly the Eastern and Western governments all need a target to get the proles to focus on.\n\nDon't be blind to what's going on. Be selective in the bullshit you believe.",
"they are flying in international space, news agencies think this is useful for propaganda and declare it provocation by Russia...",
"Why are US planes flying all over the entire world? We would be much better off if we all Considered the news they do not spoon feed, and we will learn.",
"eli5. So you and your stinky brother have separate rooms. Mom(nato/UN) says dont go in each others rooms.\n\nBut your brother, being a stinky little twit, opens your door, and sticks his hand in your room. Technically he's not \"in\" your room..just floating his hand in . You don't like that, so you yell to mom, and for now he pulls his hand out., but the next day he does it all over again.. This goes on for a while until one day he takes it too far and just jumps in. ..Thus the great room battle 3 began. ",
"Also you should question who is telling you this, I noticed an article in the (horrible) Daily Mail. This is used as scare tactics to up our military spending to defend us from this \"threat\".",
"The British are aware that having two aging soviet era bombers near their airspace doesn't put them at any additional threat given that the Russians have thousands of nuclear weapons or affect the ability of NATO to retaliate.\n\nSo far the British response has been the official version of rolling their eyes or a small shrug\n\n+It isn't really about testing the UK response time since the British are undoubtedly aware of this possibility and are probably deliberately mixing up their response times. And frankly all this would tell you anyway is how Britain would respond to two vintage Russian bombers during peacetime.\n\n+It isn't about seeing what the Eurofighter can do because there are countries with Eurofighters less than a 14 hour flight away.\n\n+It isn't really about training pilots because the 50 year old Bear bombers don't stand a chance against Eurofighters or any modern fighter.\n\nThis leaves the only real possibility which is that this is all for domestic consumption for propaganda reasons.\n",
"in the Netherlands this happens for about 3 - 4 times a month for the past five years.. Nothing to see. Just the Russians showing 'who's the boss'. ",
"I live in Canada and they do the same thing to us. Another reason they do this (in addition to all of the others listed here) is to waste our resources. When they violate Canadian Arctic airspace, one of their planes are going to be met by at least 2 Canadian fighters, and possibly some American fighters as well. One of their planes causes at least 2 of ours to scramble much further distances to intercept them, only to turn around and make a huge round trip for nothing. Jet fuel is not cheap. It costs us way more to scramble and intercept their planes than it costs them to get their planes into our air space.\n\nAnother reason is to wake me, and others, the fuck up from a sound sleep in the middle of the night. Hearing two 2 planes rip across the sky to defend our airspace is fucking loud and waked my ass up every time. Fuck Putin for doing this. If I had unlimited funds, I'd put some kind of sonic/laser oscillator in orbit above his sleeping residence just to shake his house and wake his ass up in the middle of his night in response to EVERY TIME he wakes me up.",
"Listen to the podcast Dan carlins common sense. There isn't a good tldr here, but I'll try. Russia is mad NATO is putting military bases on their borders. Similar to how the UK or US would react it Russia was putting an army base 200 miles from ours. ",
"You know how the Raptors in Jurassic Park tested each bit of electric fence to find a weak spot?\n\nThat's exactly what they are doing. Finding the spots with least radar coverage and slowest intercept times. \n\nThe UK would be doing it to Russia as well but we currently have fuck all combat ready Typhoons as it is. We also just bought 2 new aircraft carriers with nothing to put on them. It's a joke really. ",
"Normally I would tell you this is penetration testing to reveal locations of radars and response times of fighters. But that's not the case with Russia.\n\nRussia has become a paper tiger. They have a desperately old military. But they want to be seen as a threat so they can impose their political will. It is sad, really. \n\nOne day they'll push too far and get hammered down hard. ",
"They are testing the response time and abilities of the RAF to formulate strategies should a conflict ever ensue. They've been doing if for ever, and other countries do it to them too. There's nothing new here, other than the media seems to want to report it more now for some reason.",
"Because Cameron wants to play statesman and he lobbied for crippling sanctions on Russia and on the Russian people (which you never hear about in the media for some reason, presumably because they're white so it doesn't matter if we impoverish them) and has generally pissed Russia off at every turn. And before you blame Putin realize that Crimea *identifies* as Russian. They voted Russian in a referendum; the West had some issues but nobody seriously doubts that they would vote Russian anyway. Exactly the same reason of the right to self-determination is cited by the UK for holding onto the Falkland Islands and various other territories and exactly the same queries could be raised about self-determination polls. (\"OMG you have troops in the Falklands so the locals will feel pressured!\")\n\nIf a war breaks out and we get a hydrogen bomb dropped on us, you have Cameron to thank. He didn't have to drag us into this.",
"You know that \"game\" kids play, where they get as close as they can whilst going \"I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you\". Basically this but in a \"grown up\" manner, or rather big kids with dangerous toys.",
"Because they can't fly under the UK?",
"Basically the reason you see this in the news is because they know it will stir people up and news is a for-profit form of entertainment. \n\nAs for the bombers, this is nothing new. Russia/Soviet Union has been doing this for 60 years.",
"Didnt read all comments so I dont know if this has been said yet but there is a standing agreement between some nations that they can perform flight operations over each others countries for the purpose of surveillance and evaluation. They use bombers because they can be great vessels for taking aerial photos. Additionally there are always representatives from the observed nation onboard supervising that everything is being done in accordance with proper procedures.",
"Russia has been doing this for years, since the Cold War. They used to do it to test our air defences (and still do, sort of- our only operational air base is in Scotland, which is why the Russians flew over the South) and now they mainly just do it to remind us that they're still there. They did it a couple of years ago. It really is nothing to worry about.",
"It's in retaliation for the sanctions put on them. \nThey have not been flying \"over\" the UK they fly in international airspace bordering our sovereign airspace. They get close but don't enter our airspace. They have done the same to other countries since the sanctions were put in place. Holland and Denmark are other countries they tried to show their toothless grin to in recent times.\nThey are achieving nothing but it's Putins way of trying to save a little face. He's failing to do this though. Russia pose no threat to the UK. \n\nYou can be sure that we [UK] have a Trident nuclear sub lurking in (or near) Russian waters at this time. And they know it. It's a pissing contest.",
"We got a battleship further up the UK in Scotland...they wanted to test how long it would take for HMS Defender to get up to them from Portsmouth. It was up in the Highlands too so I suppose it was like a test for the full length of the UK. [Here's a link to an article about it] (_URL_0_)",
"Putin must wave giant Russian penis to the world. ",
"Hands down the best explanation I've heard.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Are those filthy commies mess in with Americas father? Only we can piss of the redcoats. ",
"Well to answer this you have to go back 25 years to the falling of the Berlin wall. At the time no one really wanted to see a re-united Germany, especially Russia (then Soviet Union) who lost over 26 million people in WWII. So at the time US President Bush, who didn't want to have a conflict with the then Soviet Union, made a deal with Gorbachev that Germany would be re-united and kept under NATO while NATO would not move ONE INCH EASTWARD OF GERMANY, and Russia would withdraw their troops near Germany and put a peaceful end to the conflict. This deal was never written down however and after the fall of the Soviet Union, Clinton (mainly because of election promises) expanded NATO east and the US broke its promise. Now Russia also has their own national interests, and has consistently made the claim UKRAINE WILL NOT BE A PART OF NATO and likewise Crimea, which has a huge historical significance to Russia and has always been considered by the Russians to be a part of Russia, would likewise remain under Russian (and not US) influence. About three weeks before this whole Ukraine conflict, someone intercepted and put on Youtube a conversation between US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Kiev saying that there would be a coup d'etat in Ukraine and Ukraine would become a part of NATO and that Crimea was next. The people of Ukraine don't really like coup's to begin with so when the US and EU tried to pull a coup in Ukraine, the conflict started and has carried on to where it is today. Now when Russia saw the coup and conflict in Ukraine and recognized the goal that Crimea was next, they made a stand that they weren't going to let that happen. This is when they annexed Crimea, which has had a long tradition with Russia dating back to the end of the 18th century when Catherine the great expanded the territory to include Crimea as their first and only warm water port. Now despite the fact that a vote was held prior to the annexation and the Crimean people voted 97% in favor of joining Russia, the west has used the annexing of Crimea as major propaganda to make Russia out to be this evil empire, when it actuality they are merely protecting their interests and the US is the empire that can't help but expand and control other countries they have no business being involved in. Now Russia has consistently said that they will not let Ukraine become a part of NATO, but the US and EU can't simply respect Russia's interests here. This is basically the conflict (and what the news is not telling you apparently) and why it seems that Russia is now forced to make this statement of military power. Because the US thinks they can do whatever they want, and the EU jumps whenever the White House tells them to, you have Russia forced to make a show that hey we have a military too and you guys can't just intrude on our territory and cause coup's in our most closely tied countries. \nThis is a brief explanation of what's going on here and it isn't the best and there are a lot of details that I've left out, so if you want to get a more complete explanation of why this situation is occurring I suggest watching this video and go to about 20 minutes in. _URL_0_ \nIn fact any interview with Ray McGovern will probably clear up all your questions about what's going on and you get a much clearer picture of everything. ",
"I'm going to take a shot and guess that it may also be [linked to the treaty on open skies] (_URL_0_) that was signed back in 1992 and put into effect as of 2002. There are 34 countries that participate in the treaty and Russia is one of them. \n\nIt establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. ",
"These are dry runs. Send up a bomber and get immediate interception? Use a new stealthier option and see what haooens",
"BECAUSE THE SHIT IS ABOUT TO HIT THE PREVERBIAL FAN ! Good luck people............",
"If they flew under it the planes would crash?",
"They do not fly into British Airspace and we do not fly into their Airspace.\nThey are flying near to our Airspace and we are flying near to their Aispace constantly.\nThis was never a Problem for them nor was it for us but since Ukraine conflict started our medias and our Nato-Clowns have have discovered that some Russians flying some airplanes can excellently be used to scare the shit out of our people in Nato-States. \nI'm wondering if Medias in the Russian Federation are trying the same scare tactics towards their Citizens whenever they spot a NATO-Airplane somewhere near their Borders.",
"You should seriously check out the latest Dan Carlin podcast called 're heating the cold war'. He goes into exactly this topic. Essentially its Russia playing a game of \"see how this feels\" in response to the Wests influence in Ukraine. Dan Carlin. Check it out. ",
"This happens over the Baltics and Scandinavia all the time. Both Sweden and Norway has seen big increases in Russian activity after the Ukraine crisis broke out. ",
"It's like a bully who you've sometime get along with is pushing your buttons every now and then to see what they can't get away with. Maybe he's just playing, but maybe one day he's gunna sucker punch you so he testing your reflexes.",
"1. They aren't flying over the UK, they're flying in international airspace adjacent to the UK\n2. These flights were a regular occasion throughout both the 70's & 80's & tailed off during the 90's & the collapse of the USSR, they were so regular in fact (two or 3 times a week) that they weren't reported on, it's only recently with Russia increasing its military spend & recent posturing over the Ukraine by both sides that have led to a resurgence in the flights\n3. As well as having a propaganda use of showing your enemy what you're capable of ie sabre rattling, their other primary use is to test the RAF's speed of reaction & extent of their airborne intelligence \n\nSource my father was an airforce officer on a number of the bases used for quick reaction.\n\nFunny tale, in the 80's one of the main bases used to intercept Russian bears was Lossiemouth. Give the frequency of these flights it was quite common for both the Russian & RAF flight crews to wave at each other & exchange pleasantries, during one routine scramble to intercept one of the Russian Bears, the RAF crew of a Phantom (F4 to our colonial cousins) were surprised to be greeted by the air crew of the Russian Bear waving copies of RAF Lossiemouth's station magazine, the photos that the RAF navigator took of this incident then subsequently ended up on the front of cover of next edition of the station magazine. ",
"This flyover has particular relevance because of the timing and current relationship between NATO and Russia. Essentially a \"how do you like it\" type of maneuver being that NATO is nearly bordering Russia. ",
"Its a game. NATO tries to expand and put military bases around Russia, Russia pesters NATO countries a bit.",
"They are probing. Small incursions into another country's airspace to assess their defense posture. ",
"There are many different excuses and justifications, but they all boil down to one single specific reason. \n\nBecause Putin is a dick. ",
"BLUF - nobody's flown into UK airspace. The UK press and government is hamming up an old issue because they want more military funding, and because nothing unifies a population like a common enemy.\n\nEven after the downfall of communism, Russia and China exist as a counterbalance to NATO. Peace lasts as long as profits, and if the global economy keeps tanking another confrontation is inevitable. Both sides therefore do their due dilligence and occasionally probe their adversaries defenses, run espionage, and play diplomacy in a way that will hinder their opponent.\n\nThe reason this is being played up now is because a year ago the US and its allies backed the violent overthrow of Ukraine's unpopular but democratically elected leader. Obviously you can't say that on the news, so they portray it as a home grown popular revolt, then point at the regions in the south and east of Ukraine (culturally and linguistically Russian, who heavily supported the ousted president Yanyukovych) who declared themselves autonomous in its wake and say \"hey look at Russia being aggressive again, better beef up military budgets\". Hyping up something that has gone on pretty consistently (and beningly) since the end of the Cold War feeds that narrative and makes it easier to eventually portray Russia as the aggressor in World War 3 (hopefully without nukes)",
"A reason that I haven't seen anyone touch on is that the Russians, and everyone else in the world with planes, test the response time of other nations. If a bomber flies into your territory, you immediately respond by sending your own planes. It takes a certain amount of time for those planes to intercept. And if you do this enough times, you can gauge where would be the best place to enter their airspace and have the most amount of time there. ",
"Because everybody who has something to say is pissed at each other. And they have bigger and better toys. It's like your neighbor buying a better car than you have, just to prove a point.\n\"Look at me I'm a bad4ss, don't mess with me!\" kind of point.",
"Like if they shot down a commercial airliner?",
"They do the same to Finland. Russian aircrafts have violated Finnish airspace quite a few times in recent times...",
"Let's get a few things out in the open because for casual observers, seeing news like the what the OP showed can be scary but is also misleading, in that it doesn't give you a real perspective on events.\n\n* last year NATO military dramatically increased its airborne missions along Russian borders, and [quadrupled](_URL_1_) the number of aircraft it deployed on Russia's borders. \n* Official statistics show that Russia has [not increased](_URL_2_) its military patrols in the Atlantic Ocean over the year, according to statement made on Jan 28 by a British defense ministry spokesman at the UK Quick Reaction Alert.\n* We also hear that Russian planes fly with their transponders turned off, which is deemed dangerous and unacceptable. In fact, this is a common practice for military aviation around the globe, including, first and foremost, the NATO military.\n\n\n > 1. Russians pilots are ordered to fly near (or into) our airspace.\n\nNear is not the same me as into. This flight (as all other routine flights of the Russian military aircraft) was carried out in strict compliance with the international legal norms including International Flight Rules and Regulations, without violation of other countries’ airspace, therefore it cannot be regarded as threatening, destabilizing or disruptive. As far as I know, the British aircrews welcome the training opportunities these flights provide.\n\n > What the hell is the point of all this nonsense?\n\nAccording to the [former U.S. ambassador to the U.S.S.R., Jack Matlock](_URL_4_), who was present at some of the most pivotal discussions between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev during the Cold War’s denouement:\n\n > the taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion. Beginning with NATO’s Madrid Summit (1994) at which NATO announced it would begin the process of bringing in new member states, through NATO’s Bucharest Summit (2008), at which the alliance declared that “Georgia and Ukraine shall become members of NATO,” the United States has reneged on the promise President George H.W. Bush made to Gorbachev at the Malta Summit (1989) not to expand NATO eastward.\n\nRussia wasn't strong enough to ensure the West kept its promises back then, but now they are in a position to at least defend what they see as their existential interests in Ukraine and elsewhere. \n\n\nDown vote me all you want, but the OP wanted to understand why. Americans are sleep walking into another Cold War, so it's essential you all at least *try* and understand the other nuclear power's position before we become fully committed to this pointless endevour. \n\n\nIf you want to see a real expert talk about it, I recommend the aformentioned [Jack Matlock](_URL_3_), former ambassador the USSR , or political scientist [John Mearsheimer](_URL_0_).",
"why is UK located where Russian bombers want to fly?",
"Russia does this in northern Canada regularly. Should fly over Russia and see how they like it. We invented the jet engine, I'm sure with some noise cancelling technology we can slip into and pass through the entire country before they realize we're not a blip on their acoustic detection system.",
"Vladimir Putin is a thuggish jack-wad who tries to intimidate people with his decrepit fleet of propeller driven bombers. Remember the nerd in school who took Karate but had been handily destroyed in every single real fight he'd been in? That's Putin. Now he's relegated to getting into fights with his weaker friends. A true loser.",
"This has been going on for longer then you have been alive. Sometimes politicians use it to stir up some fear and ferver to help them make policies about who they can and cannot fuck with and how they will fuck with those whom are to be fucked. Its like two idiot jocks standing shoulder to shoulder in a mirror comparing cock sizes to determine some matter of contest. Even if its just to see who has the biggest Dick! We have been on the brink of global holocaust since the advent of nuclear weapons and to be perfectly honest, each and every day we are still alive is a miracle when you think of the kind of people we have giving the orders and making the laws on both sides. I mean lets face it, we have batshit politicians with nuclear weapons running the world. How we even are still here to discuss this is quite literally, as I said, a miracle, an actual genuine miracle.",
"It's all about detection, response time and level of response. in other words intel.",
"This reminds me of the Iron Maiden song \"two minutes to midnight\", I've never liked 99 % of politicians, but to be honest Putin is not really a politician he is a crazed man in power, he envisions Russia the way it was (Soviet Union), and is making his vision a reality, I don't know what keeps him in check at this point but whomever does better have Putin meet with an accident, I wonder if Putin believes he can somehow win from a major war because people as egotistical as Putin care more for themselves above all and everyone else is just \"things\" unworthy of real consideration and obstacles that are in his way to what he visions as the way \"it should be\" too many of these egomaniacs are in power because they are ruthless in their quest to reach \"their promised land\" and people are always foolish enough to follow them."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/raf-scrambles-jets-after-russian-bombers-spotted-near-cornwall-coast"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Skies_Treaty"
],
[
"http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://rt.com/news/177720-u... | |
22794i | how does doing something for charity raise any money? | What I'm referring to is the video on the front page of a girl getting tased "for charity" or if someone does a walk/run for cancer. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22794i/eli5_how_does_doing_something_for_charity_raise/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgk04y4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"they usually have backers saying if you do this I will donate this amount. Then those amounts can be multiplied by corporate donors involved. Also the presumption is that the administrative costs are significantly lower than the amount raised. The difference is given to the charity! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2rcrvm | why doesn't an atomic explosion last forever if it's just a massive chain reaction? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rcrvm/eli5_why_doesnt_an_atomic_explosion_last_forever/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnenu3d",
"cneqekm"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"The chain reaction only works on the specific type of fuel in the bomb (e.g. plutonium). It is propagated when one atom splits, releases some neutrons, and those neutrons cause more atoms to split. \n\nAs the bomb starts to react, and those atoms start to split, the bomb fuel itself is heating up and expanding. At some point, it will expand to the point where none of the neutrons released by fissioning will find more fuel to fission with — they will just \"miss\" all of their targets. \n\nThis race condition, between the bomb exploding itself and the reaction, is a key factor in nuclear weapons design, because the longer you can hold the fuel together, the bigger the boom you get. The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima blew itself apart fast enough that only about 1% of its fuel got to undergo fission. The Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a more sophisticated design that could hold the bomb together much better, so even though it had 10X less fuel in it than the Little Boy bomb, a full 20% of its fuel got to undergo fission, releasing about the same amount of energy as the Hiroshima explosion (a little bit more, actually). \n\nIt is worth noting that _no_ exponential processes in nature continue forever. They either die out spectacularly for lack of fuel (as with a nuclear bomb), or they plateau and cruise on at a steady state (which is what a nuclear reactor is designed to do). ",
"Imagine a room where the floor is covered in mousetraps. Each trap is set so that when it triggers, it will release two bouncy balls into the air. You throw a ball into the middle of the room, then quickly close the door. If the ball hits a mousetrap, then there will soon be a huge chain reaction of balls flying everywhere, and mousetraps going off, until so many of them have been triggered that it's actually really unlikely that a ball will hit a trap that is still set, at which point the rate of traps being triggered slows down.\n\nThat's what happens in a rapid nuclear explosion - fast reactions until there isn't enough fuel to sustain it.\n\nYou can change the configuration to get different results - first you fill the room with a dense, viscous gas. Now the balls move more slowly, so the rate of reactions isn't quite so fast. Then, install some rods that come down from the ceiling that are covered with super-sticky paper, that you can raise and lower with a lever. Now, you can adjust those rods so that on average, you catch half of the balls released by the mousetraps. So each trap triggers one other trap, and you have a steady stream of reactions.\n\n*That* is what happens in a nuclear reactor. And given enough fuel, and careful moderation of the release of neutrons, it *can* go on for an extremely long time. For example, the seam of uranium in [Oklo, Gabon](_URL_0_) is believed to have formed a natural nuclear reactor that ran for hundreds of thousands of years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo"
]
] | ||
3mizlf | if the us is so unequal and hostile towards those in lower socio-economic classes, why does it attract the most amount of immigrants? | [source](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mizlf/eli5_if_the_us_is_so_unequal_and_hostile_towards/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvfbx42",
"cvfc4ca"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Because even our poor have it better than those in the countries that the immigrants and illegal immigrants are coming from. ",
"Because our country is so wealthy even the poor are pretty well off compared to the middle class in most other countries."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/top-25-destination-countries-global-migrants-over-time"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
2vucwh | why are older animations darker and grainier compared to recent animations which are sleeker and bright? | I mean look these two examples of old-ish animation
Spawn
_URL_1_
AKira
_URL_0_
Now look at newer animations
Berserk 2012
_URL_2_
Amazing world of gumball
_URL_3_
There clearly is a difference but I can't say if its purely out of quality or just choice of medium. What exactly is going on?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vucwh/eli5_why_are_older_animations_darker_and_grainier/ | {
"a_id": [
"col02zp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well older animation used drawing on cells that were photographed, newer animation uses computers. There is also a style difference. \n \nSide note- The Amazing World of Gumball is the olnly animated show/movie I have seen to incorporate real/photorealistic objects along with the animation. \n \nTake [No Game No Life](_URL_0_), how would you create those colors except on a computer?"
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbZ_55nEdgM",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NjhkwpFBbo",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh5zBSbZY_I",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k865QEjHIPQ"
] | [
[
"http://youtu.be/tageZDCaZ9E"
]
] | |
28gve9 | why is copying a file slower than moving one? | Just been transferring some files, why does it take so long to copy but no time at all to move a file? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28gve9/eli5_why_is_copying_a_file_slower_than_moving_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"cias78j",
"cias86s",
"cias9lm",
"cias9wj"
],
"score": [
17,
5,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Because when \"moving\" a file, all it's doing is changing an index telling you where the file is.\n\nImagine a table of contents in a book. You want to move Chapter 12 to Chapter 16. All it involves is changing the entry in the table of contents and for all intents and purposes it is now in Chapter 16. The file itself on the hard drive doesn't move whatsoever.\n\nWhen copying a file, however, you are actually having to copy the data into a new location.",
"When you \"move\" a file from one place on your computer to another, it's on the same hard drive (usually). The computer doesn't actually move it, it just puts the filename somewhere else. The time that it saves is lost later if you do a defrag. When a file is copied, it does actually make a redundant copy.",
"For the same reasons it's slower to copy a book than it is to move it to another bookshelf. The contents of the book don't need to be considered when you move it between bookshelves, same with a file, but when you copy it you have to read the whole thing, and write another version of it, same with a file.",
"Moving a file doesn't change its physical location on the hard drive. Your computer has a catalog of where files are stored, their names, and associated information. This catalog is shown to you when you view your file system. Moving a file is as simple as changing the catalog reference.\n\nIf you are referring to a move that requires creating a new copy of the file and a copy that copies to a different location then this is faster because there are bottlenecks associated with different modes of transfer, such as USB bandwidth limits and controller latency (or internet bandwidth limits). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
6esepx | why are people of usa so proud of their nation while they have just such a short history compared to others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6esepx/eli5_why_are_people_of_usa_so_proud_of_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dicoqpb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe it has alot to do with how we actually became a country. Fought tooth and nail for our independence and that pride has been with us ever since. I think this question is a pretty open ended and there is no real correct answer"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6hriri | why is philosophy relevant in relation to the facts of science? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hriri/eli5why_is_philosophy_relevant_in_relation_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj0ldhj",
"dj0lyr0",
"dj0ookh",
"dj0opd7",
"dj0opwy",
"dj0ot64",
"dj0qvar",
"dj0vz3m",
"dj18pyk",
"dj1rodq"
],
"score": [
8,
9,
9,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Absolutely. One example: \n\nEthics are part of philosophy, and ethics absolutely affect our understanding of science. They directly affect facts by establishing guidelines for what we can (or *should*) attempt to research, and how we use our knowledge and facts. ",
"My guess would be the principals of inductive and deductive reasoning. Basically the logic behind how we come to conclusions in science that is based off proven facts. ",
"There's a branch of philosophy, known as [epistemology](_URL_2_), which studies the knowledge, some of the main questions from epistemology are:\n\n* what is knowledge?\n* how can we know something?\n* how can we be sure we know what we know?\n* how should we study nature?\n\nEpistemology is important to science (and scientific facts) because it provides the ground to know if what we've comprehended from nature is actually nature, if we obtained it in a way that can be certain it is knowledge and such.\n\nAs a bonus, here's a [relevant xkcd](_URL_1_) and a [parody adding epistemology](_URL_0_).",
"Philosophy is the study of how we think. There's a few reasons why this applies to facts:\n\n- One branch of philosophy is the study of logic and reasoning. For example: If A then B, and if B then C. Therefore, if A then C. However, people falsely then assume that if NOT A then NOT C, which is a fallacy. An actual example: increase in cardiac arrhythmia is related increased rates of heart attacks, therefore decreasing cardiac arrhythmia should decrease rates of heart attacks... WRONG as proven by the famous [CAST trial](_URL_0_). Philosophy researchers can take an entire book and map out and judge the validity of every argument mentioned in it\n\n- The second reason is that philosophy tries to understand the roots of how we think. When we learn something, we need to base it on previous knowledge and understand it in terms of analogies and similarities. Sometimes there are concepts so fundamentally different that you need more than common sense to understand it. This is especially true when you get to advanced physics. Light is both a particle and a wave. How can it be two things? Because as humans it's difficult to grasp the concept of what light actually is so we describe it as having the properties of both. \n\n- There is also the reason of ethics branch of philosophy. Facts are facts, but even the most logical people won't give up their deepest beliefs. Are there intellectual differences between races? Given all the other things that are difference, logic says probably. But ethics has prevented any conclusions being accepted.",
"I do neuroscience research and majored in philosophy in college. Here are philosophical questions that help guide scientific research:\n\nif every scientific theory has eventually been overthrown, what's saying our current ones are any better? If they aren't, can we ever get to the truth?\n\nHow much proof do we need until we can say something is true? \n\nWhat does it mean when one particle exists simultaneously in multiple places? Is that actually true or is it how we understand it?\n\nWhere is our consciousness? If a computer was powerful enough, would it be conscious as well?\n\nWhat does it mean for a universe to be infinitely large? Can it still have meaningful boundaries?\n\n",
"One reason is that you need philosophy to justify using the scientific method. How do you know a set of scientific results can tell us anything about the world outside of the lab? What reason do we have to expect the world to behave in a predictable way? Can science tell us anything to a certainty? Should something be certain before it counts as knowledge? Can science prove anything, or just refute things? If something happens under the same conditions 99 times, are we justified in thinking that it will happen on the 100th time? What is the difference between a scientific theory and a law? Science cannot answer these questions. You need philosophy to use science.",
"Another difficulty is quantum mechanics. It makes very accurate predictions for experiments; its scientific credentials are in that respect excellent. However, there are many interpretations of it, which is where we move into philosophy.",
"Oh sweet jesus. Philosophy involves the methods of assessing this existence, and philosophy includes the entire scientific method and discoveries thereof.\n\n\nP.S. Religion is just poor knowledge in the field of philosophy, and the poster child of why in science and in politics there always needs to be facts, peer reviews, objective results, reasonable and testable conjectures/hypotheses and the like",
"Basically, philosophy asks questions, and science answers them. They are independent entities, but they put each other into context. Some philosophical questions are irrelevant without scientific answers and running a million scientific tests is irrelevant if you don't understand the results. ",
"There are a few ways this question could be answered, depending on the reason one is asking.\n\nOne place this question comes up is that there are scientists who have said or implied that the academic study of philosophy is irrelevant to modern science (e.g., Stephen Hawking and Neil de Grasse Tyson have both either said or implied this). The philosophers are often up in arms about this assertion. Their arguments take the form of some of the other answers given here:\n\n* **Science was born out of philosophy.** This is certainly true (what we call science was what was called _natural philosophy_ for most of its history, and originated out of the philosophical musings about nature of the Ancient Greeks, and the line between philosophy and science was pretty blurry up until the modern period), but potentially irrelevant (at least, it's not a strong argument for its present relevance). Which is to say, modern medicine came out of bleeding and leeches — does that mean there is still a place for bleeding and leeches in the education of a modern physician? It is a bad argument, but a true assertion.\n\n* **Science uses philosophical concepts.** This is true to a degree; scientists use induction and deduction, for example. They use logic. They use reason and rationality. The care about how to know what is true and what is not — the fundamentals of epistemology. Does this mean that scientists need to take philosophy classes? I'm not sure. Does it mean that philosophers have anything to tell scientists? Scientists use induction as a tool, they are not trying to take apart the nature of induction, most of the time. They don't need even the level of detail that one might find in [the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](_URL_0_), for example, much less a serious treatment of the subject that only a philosopher would read. I also think this is not a great argument. Philosophers often like to claim to be the only discipline that teaches critical thinking and logic and rationality, and that's clearly false (which they'd know if they sat in on other classes!). To my knowledge it is an unproved assertion that philosophers are better at logic, rationality, whatever, than any other highly-educated person. In any case, the work of most scientists does not necessarily entail them interacting with philosophical concepts on a very deep level, and the education of a scientist generally involves these concepts being taught anyway, even if they are not labeled off as \"philosophy\" (or even \"concepts\"). \n\n* **Philosophy makes you a better person.** I have heard professional philosophers argue this, that the goal of philosophy is to understand questions like \"what should we value?\" Personally I think there is zero evidence that philosophy _actually_ makes you a better (or more ethical) person than many other disciplines (but I'm a historian so of course I'd say that), and anyway, the promising of making better people is not going to fill your classrooms or coffers, so I file this under \"not a great argument.\"\n\n* **The scientific method requires philosophy to justify it.** I only point this out because it is something only a non-philosopher would say. Philosophers of science don't believe this. If you've read any philosophy of science (my sympathies) you'll find that most philosophers don't believe there _is_ a single scientific method and they enjoy bending over backwards to show the ways in which any proposed method is pretty inadequate at getting at \"truth.\" (If you are curious about this, read up on the [demarcation problem](_URL_1_).) Anyway, it's not true, and it's not very compelling even if it is true. The only times that philosophers are ever dragooned into defending or justifying science is when someone wants to claim that Creationists aren't scientists, which is fine, I guess, but it's a pretty limited role for philosophers (and many philosophers won't accept that role anyway — e.g., Steve Fuller, who testified in _favor_ of Intelligent Design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, because he argued, correctly, that philosophers of science don't really see a line between science and pseduoscience). \n\n* **There have been times in which philosophical investigations _have_ directly aided scientists in thinking through their work, their problems, and pointed them towards solutions.** This is what I would offer up as the \"strongest argument\" of the bunch, and, curiously, it is rarely used by philosophers! I think it is because most philosophers do not actually dive deep into the history of science even though it would strengthen their claims in this area. (I am a historian of science, who works with philosophers, so you can see my own biases here.) Some of the great breakthroughs in modern science have come out of such interactions. The most famous example is Einstein's relativity theory, which can be shown (by historians, not philosophers!) to have come very directly out of the philosophical work of Ernst Mach (who was a philosopher-physicist who advocated for a theory of positivism that put emphasize on kinematics — measurement — above all else; Einstein's relativity is, in part, based on rethinking the nature of space and time around the question of measurement). Einstein was particularly engaged with philosophy, as far as physicists go, as an aside (and we all know that linking Einstein to something scientists like is a way to convince them of supporting something!). \n\nOne might ask (as I sometimes do) why philosophers are terrible at defending their own discipline — or at least, put forward arguments that have zero chance of convincing scientists, much less many other people, of their worth. I suspect it is because they do not actually talk with scientists as much as they ought to, or really study actual, living, breathing scientists (philosophers of science tend to talk about the idea of science, rather than look closely at the thing itself). They also don't know as much history of science as they ought to, but of course I would think that (as a historian of science). I am sure they think historians don't read enough philosophy. But I think a historian could make the most compelling arguments for the philosophers: there is historical evidence that engagement with philosophy has indeed aided major scientists in trying to think their way out of the very fundamental problems. And indeed that is where you see the most overlap with philosophers and scientists today, in areas where there are some _serious_ fundamentals to be worked out (e.g., cognitive science, where basic questions like \"what is consciousness?\" are still very much in philosophical territory). \n\nThis suggests, perhaps, that the role of philosophy with regards to science and scientists is not as a general catch-all, something that necessarily \"improves\" it, but that philosophy is good for those areas that are either in crisis, or have not yet laid down the \"fundamentals.\" And indeed historically that is where we see the most overlap as well. I think that is a pretty strong argument, personally, stronger than the others, anyway, for some value of academic philosophy to scientists. But I haven't tried it out on a scientist yet. :-)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/eH9Q58N.jpg",
"https://xkcd.com/435/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_Arrhythmia_Suppression_Trial"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/",
"h... | ||
4rrj5b | why can't someone plead the 5th amendment to every question a judge has and be released because they have no proof? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rrj5b/eli5_why_cant_someone_plead_the_5th_amendment_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d53inkx",
"d53io42",
"d53j3z2",
"d53j7vl",
"d53jira",
"d53mq61"
],
"score": [
5,
14,
6,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If they have no proof, the person will be acquitted and released.\n\nHowever, they may have plenty of proof even if the person pleads the 5th. Others may testify, or they may have physical evidence.",
"Well if the defendant's testimony was the ONLY evidence they might have had, the case would not even make it to the court.\n\nIf it does, it's safe to assume that there *is* proof.",
"If there's no proof, then the person *should* be released. I mean, in the same scenario, why wouldn't the person just answer the question with, \"I didn't do it\". If there's no proof, that means that there's also no proof that they're lying. And if there *is* proof, then you don't need the accused's testimony in the first place.",
"You cannot be forced to testify against yourself, but you not be on trial being asked questions if the only evidence they have is your testimony. They will have other sources of evidence. ",
"Trials aren't like movies. The lawyers & everyone involved knows what's there & what will be said before it gets to trial. The last minute surprise witness/evidence is mostly a TV/movie thing. Nobody's going on the stand in the first place if they plan on taking the 5th.\n\nFurthermore, the 5th doesn't mean you don't have to talk, it means you can't be forced to testify to things that will prove you're guilty. Trying to plead the 5th to a question like \"what's your name & occupation\" is going to get you thrown in jail contempt of court.",
"Well, the judge doesn't ask questions, the prosecutor does. The judge just rules on evidentiary issues and gives instructions to the jury. But a defendant never has to testify. And if a witness is asked a question that they feel may incriminate them in anything illegal, they can plead the 5th. \n\nBut the prosecutors will have other evidence - from the cops, forensic evidence of a murder weapon, other witnesses, surveillance cameras, etc. If they have no proof, they wouldn't be charging someone in the first place. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4cs0jn | what makes buying insurance rational? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cs0jn/eli5_what_makes_buying_insurance_rational/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1l5jqk",
"d1l6z4s",
"d1ky1w8",
"d1ky285",
"d1ky880",
"d1l2kzv"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
62,
6,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"It is worth buying insurance to protect against a loss that you cannot afford that would seriously harm you financially.\n\nDo you need the extended warranty on a $79 blender? Not if you can afford to replace it if it breaks, or can do without it.\n\nDo you need insurance on your car? Yes, if a million dollar lawsuit could cripple you financially.\n\nI buy liability insurance for my car because the liability of an at fault accident is something I can't afford. Even though the possibility of needing it is remote. On the other hand I don't have collision because I own my car outright, it is an old model of little value, and I can afford to repair or replace it if I have to.",
"My brother used to work in insurance. He told me that statistically, every person gets into a car accident once every 11 years. Now, of course, that's just statistics. Of course there are people who get into multiple accidents in the span of 11 years, and those who never get into an accident even in multiples of 11 years. It's a game of odds.",
"You are on the right track. Insurance is you paying someone to mitigate risk of a catastrophic financial loss.\n\nThe average, no not just the average, almost all people that buy insurance will pay more than they get out of their insurance. But having insurance protects you from a massive loss that could otherwise ruin your life.\n\nIt is like this. There is a 99.9% chance that nothing bad will happen to your home this year and a 0.1% chance it will be completely destroyed. If you pay me $500 a year I will rebuild your house if it is destroyed. \n\nStatistically you know I am going to make money off of you. But you also know that if your house is destroyed, you do not have $150,000 to buy a new house and you would essentially be financially ruined and maybe homeless. You can afford the $41 a month to ensure that you are never homeless. \n\nThis is an extreme simplification but that is the basic principle of insurance. And all types of insurance work this way including health insurance. ",
"Three main reasons:\n\n1) \"Utility\" isn't just the monetary cost to you; which is all insurance companies measure in their evaluations, because that's all they pay for. \"Utility\" can include peace of mind, among other things.\n\n2) Cost to society. If I cause an auto accident, and don't have insurance, everyone else involved is stuck with the costs, regardless of what the conditions are. If I get seriously sick, and don't have insurance, I'm making people around me sick. For these reasons, many governments subsidize and/or require insurance for certain things.\n\n3) Hedging your bets. Using an example from competitive poker, often good players will buy shares of each other's winnings; so that if I win, I win less; but if I lose and someone else wins, I get at least a little money back. Insurance is the same thing: you end up paying a little money when you win; but are covered when you lose. And often, that \"covered when you lose\" is worth far more to you in the moment than everything you spend when you were ahead.",
"It's not a dumb question at all, this is the question that a lot of people have about insurance. And you're right: in the long run, for the average person, you'll end up paying a little more than you'll ever get out of it. \n\nThere are two big advantages to insurance, though. The first is predictability. It's easier to budget a few hundred dollars a month for a few years in case of a car accident than it is to have a few tens of thousands saved up when that accident hits. If you weren't buying insurance (and it wasn't required), would you have a big savings account ready in case of big car, medical, etc. bills? Most of us wouldn't. It's better to pay a sort of \"fee\" to have the safety of knowing that tens of thousands will be covered.\n\nThe other feature is consistency. Let's say instead of spending $100 a month on car insurance (made up number), we put $100 in a savings account, and don't touch it until there's an accident. Seems like a better deal, right?\n\nBut what happens if the accident happens 2 months into that savings plan? Now you have $200 to pay for that crash. If you'd gotten insurance, they'd cover up to the policy limit. So whether something bad happens on day 1 or day 1000 of a policy, it's treated the same way.",
"Good question.\n\nDiminishing marginal returns of the dollar. If you have a million dollars in the the bank, one hundred dollars is nothing. If you're starving to death, one hundred dollars is a king's fortune. Insurance allows you to transfer your low-value dollars to a potentially high-value area.\n\nWhen it comes to things like medical insurance, buying in allows you to capitalize on your inusrance company's immense bargaining power. This allows them to pay for your medical care for a significantly smaller fee than you could negotiate yourself."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
dladjq | how does an injury cause lifetime arthritis? | I have a friend who dislocated his shoulder. He didn't go to the doctor cause he wanted to be "macho". Now, 4 years later, he says he has arthritis in that shoulder and the doctor (he goes now) says the dislocation caused it. How does an injury cause permanent arthritis? I thought Arthritis was a genetic thing? Like an allergic reaction. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dladjq/eli5_how_does_an_injury_cause_lifetime_arthritis/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4otaq4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > I thought Arthritis was a genetic thing? Like an allergic reaction. \n\nThat's Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is an auto-immune disease that causes your body to primarily attack the synovium lining in joints. There's about 100 other forms of arthritis (and related diseases) that can be exasperated by things such as injuries. The most common is osteoarthritis where the protective cartilage in joints breaks down and can eventually cause the bones of the joint to rub together. Injuries or excessive wear and tear can speed up the degeneration of cartilage in joints. Psoriatic Arthritis, Fibromyalgia, Gout (arguably the most painful in the bunch), and Lupus are also related diseases."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
e5ld63 | why do we not capitalize some words in titles such as “the” and “and”? is there a specific rule for which to capitalize? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e5ld63/eli5_why_do_we_not_capitalize_some_words_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9kh8ys"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There are a couple of different style guides for titles, but the general rules are these:\n\n* Capitalize the first and last words no matter what\n* Capitalize all nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives\n* Do not capitalize articles, conjunctions, or prepositions unless they're the first or last words\n\nSo put those together and you can see which words don't get capitalized - usually the shorter, connecting words of a sentence. So we can take a few examples:\n\n* The Sun Also Rises\n * Capitalizing \"the\" as it's the first word, even though it's an article\n* Little House on the Prarie\n * not capitalizing \"on,\" a preposition, or \"the,\" an article\n\nSome styles will capitalize longer prepositions like, say, \"beneath,\" but it's really up to the publisher. And more newspapers and online articles are using a sentence-style titling where only nouns are capitalized, but the rules above hold true for a typical book or article title."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2s97lk | hypothetically, they say if you smashed the earth down to the size of a marble (roughly), you'd have a black hole. would the earth turn into a star before that happened? | Mainly because all of the forced reactions between the atoms being forced together. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s97lk/eli5_hypothetically_they_say_if_you_smashed_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnd0x4",
"cnndibh",
"cnne74z"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The contents of earth probably wouldn't support the kind of fusion that would make it be considered a star. Although it would probably be rather hot and bright from the reactions that are occurring.",
"There's a lot of hypotheticals here, but by my understanding, Not Really.\n\nThere's a couple problems--one is that you just don't have that much matter. Both pure hydrogen and pure helium are rare, and even if you assume that what we do have--water, for example--breaks down into their pure elements, and you assume that there's enough heat generated from gravity to ignite fusion, you'd burn off the entirety of the matter in moments.\n\nYou *might* get a kaboom, but it's worth noting that the sun is about 99.8% of the solar system's mass, and most of that leftover .2% is Jupiter. Ever use a lighter that just won't catch fire? It'd be a cosmic version of that.\n\nThe other problem is a lot weirder. As massive stars die off and contract, the immense forces of gravity overcome the forces that keep atoms apart. Protons and electrons combine to become neutrons, and that's what you're left with. Nothing to cause fusion.\n\nEarth might flare up for a second as it contracts, but that's all you'd get. Probably not even visible outside the solar system",
"You would ignite fusion long before that point, yes. But since you would have to be applying enormous amounts of pressure to cause the collapse in the first place, it wouldn't really stop the squeeze."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
7pfb0r | why is the sun easier on your eyes when it’s rising/setting, but so much harsher when it’s high in the sky? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7pfb0r/eli5_why_is_the_sun_easier_on_your_eyes_when_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsgrcm0"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The lower the Sun is in the sky the more air the light is passing through before it gets to you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2onkwv | why when walking up an escalator that is broken, why do your legs feel heavier? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2onkwv/eli5_why_when_walking_up_an_escalator_that_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmos7se",
"cmosa71"
],
"score": [
7,
14
],
"text": [
"Escalators steps are a bit higher than ordinary stairs.",
"[Escalators have slightly taller steps than a staircase](_URL_0_). It's like climbing stairs in giant-land."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.quora.com/Why-do-stopped-escalators-feel-so-much-more-difficult-to-walk-up-than-stairs-leading-from-to-the-same-places"
]
] | ||
6wzgjg | how is taking diuretics for blood pressure any different to being dehydrated? | I have to take diuretics as part of my blood pressure treatment. How is this any different to say, simply drinking less fluid? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wzgjg/eli5_how_is_taking_diuretics_for_blood_pressure/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmc3q4i"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm no expert but I do know that some people in certain circumstances (me during Congestive Heart Failure) have a hard time expelling fluids from their body thus needing to take a diuretic to aid in the waste process."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
98i5dq | i have been hearing a lot about medicare for all recently and i was curious how this would affect doctors and the average person if implemented? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98i5dq/eli5_i_have_been_hearing_a_lot_about_medicare_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4g7l8x"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Taxes go up slightly but if ur paying insurance that goes down to zero. So you make more money. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6p2a8l | why when something quotes old documents, is only the first letter of the quote in brackets? | For example, the book I'm reading now has the following quote: "[I]t is a pity to spoil a good mate by making him a master" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6p2a8l/eli5_why_when_something_quotes_old_documents_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkm0eqi"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I think that happens when they begin the quote midway through the original sentence, so the bracket indicates that the first letter isn't quite the same as in the source, because they capitalized it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1boxum | why is /r/circlejerk obsessing with staples? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1boxum/eli5_why_is_rcirclejerk_obsessing_with_staples/ | {
"a_id": [
"c98ra0c",
"c98sukr",
"c9bf8de"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Shot in the dark here, but probably related to all the viral marketing on reddit.\n\nI'll link to this sub, but I'd advise against going there as it's a witch hunt/cry wolf/etc. /r/HailCorporate ",
"[Staples Staples Staples Staples Staples](_URL_0_)",
"I'm with op here. CAN SOMEONE ACTUALLY EXPLAIN "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://i.qkme.me/3tp0b8.jpg"
],
[]
] | ||
22p7tk | why are fire hydrants in the us above the ground? | Here in the UK they are underground and unobtrusive. Also if they are underground vehicles can't crash into them and burst them. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22p7tk/eli5_why_are_fire_hydrants_in_the_us_above_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgp0dhz",
"cgp0k62",
"cgp0muf",
"cgp0q62"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"It's much easier to see a hydrant when its above ground, also its easier to hook up fire hoses.",
"This is just opinion, from a (rather new) volunteer firefighter.\n\nHydrants were once called \"plugs\", because the firemain was originally a system of underground pipes made of wooden logs. Firefighters dug down and drilled into them to get water. I, for one, am glad that we've moved beyond having to dig for hydrants. In a city, some large buildings have standpipes to tie into for water; but out in suburban and rural areas, the benefits of being able to easily see and access hydrants without having to dig for them seem to outweigh the risk of people hitting them. And (again, this is opinion) I don't find them that obtrusive. Between mail boxes, street signs, trash cans, and the like, there are plenty of things by the roads. The hydrants, at least, serve a purpose in an emergency.",
"The above-ground hydrant predates the car by about a hundred years, and so it seems that the cost of retrofitting the hydrants to be underground is more than the cost of cars striking them (or other inconveniences involved with above-ground hydrants).",
"Cars crashing into fire hydrants isn't a common occurrence. I had an above ground hydrant in front of my house for thirty years and no one ever hit it. I think that's more something you see in tv shows. \nOn a side note, I almost lost my virginity to one of those damn things. Kids love to climb on top of them and play. One day I fell on that big nut on top. OMG THE PAIN."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3iwdd6 | how does a wireless/lan router differentiate between the incoming traffic of different computers conected to it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iwdd6/eli5_how_does_a_wirelesslan_router_differentiate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuk749t",
"cuk7bvc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"each computer has a unique identified called a MAC address. It doesnt change regardless of where the computer is connected.\n\nThe wireless/wired router keeps a table of MAC addresses and the communication route to reach that device.\n",
"Your computer has a little piece of hardware called a network card. It can be an Ethernet adapter (wired), or a WiFi adapter (wireless). Your computer is using that card to connect to your router. \n\nEach network hard on the market has a unique number called a MAC address which is set at the factory. \n\nYour card gives the router this number when it's requesting to connect to it. The router stores that number and associates it with your computer.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2lazl0 | what evidence supports the human unconscious? | I know that Freud theorized about the Id, ego and superego, and the whole "consciousness iceberg" thing. However, what evidence did he have to support that? Or, what evidence have we found now to support that we are laregely controlled by our unconsious impulses, and not by conscious thoughts? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lazl0/eli5_what_evidence_supports_the_human_unconscious/ | {
"a_id": [
"clt2zpn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Freud's ideas were very interesting, and captured the imagination of many people, but he didn't actually do any experiments or studies. His theories were largely based on his own personal experiences and ideas. It turns out that ideas that aren't based on anything in particular aren't necessarily very accurate, or useful, and not surprisingly, many of them are no longer accepted by most psychologists.\n\nThe idea of thoughts underneath our conscious awareness is something that existed before Freud, and had already been explored by many philosophers as well as other psychologists. For example, William James, in his 1890 book *Principles of Psychology*, discussed these ideas in depth. (We read a bit of it in one of my classes, and it seemed much more sensible to me than Freud's writings did.)\n\nSince then, there have been many studies that show how various factors that we are not aware of can influence our decision-making, our moods, and our perceptions. But, the modern \"Cognitive model\" of the brain is very different than what Freud imagined."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1pboix | if neo-nazis follow nazism as an ideology and see nazists as heroes, why do they deny the holocaust? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pboix/if_neonazis_follow_nazism_as_an_ideology_and_see/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd0q0m0",
"cd0q7x3",
"cd0stl3",
"cd0t3jp"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"They want to dress up the idea of Nazism to make it more publicly palatable. Regardless of your views, murdering six million people in cold blood is a hard sell to people and even hardcore neo-Nazis buy into this idea as a way of insulating themselves against how scary the history really was.",
"Remember that even the original Nazis tried to keep the Holocaust a secret.",
"I don't sympathize nazis, not one bit. They have really harmful and wrong ideology of the world order, and I hope that with greater education it could be changed. However, I understand their point of view, as I try to be as objective as possible. \n\nNazism wasn't so bad, as long as you were the white German. Actually, Fascism and Nazism were really popular in the 1930's, look at the history of countries like Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Turkey, Persia, even France. National Socialism was indeed something that many working class citizens were derived to, as it seemed like a port towards the better world. Neo-Nazis still believe that the world hasn't changed, and the nation is like an extended family, that must protect it's own kinds and despise everyone who isn't in it. It's the matter of ideology, believe that the nation still exists in these modern times. \n\nBut holocaust, that's the different thing. It's like a shadow over the ideology, as it is something way more than just a genocide, something more than just a operation. It's a crime against the humanity as whole. Neo-Nazis are not that bad people: They don't actually want to systematically destroy whole nations. By denying the holocaust, Nazis don't need to feel the quilt over the event. It's much more easier to explain to the children that holocaust never happened, than to persuade them to think that it was intentional. \n\nSlaughtering millions of people in the rational way is something too horrible to even the Nazis to understand. It is just wrong. It's easier for them to denial it, than face the truth. ",
"Three reasons.\n\na} The Holocaust makes Nazism look very, very bad; which it should.\n\nb} A lot of Neo-Nazis believe, and claim, that the Jews invented the Holocaust as their main form of political and moral leverage for obtaining what they want, in situations like the land conflict with Palestine, etc. \n\nWhile this is not to say that the Holocaust did not happen at all, there is some truth to the idea that contemporary Zionists do use it as a form of manipulation or coercion. You will notice that whenever AIPAC or Netanyahu are not given something they want sufficiently badly, the Holocaust is usually immediately cited as a means of attempting to guilt trip the people concerned, into compliance with Zionist wishes.\n\nc} Fascism in general is part political/economic philosophy, and part collective terminal illness. Fascism is non-sustainable on a long term basis, and has a specific, readily identifiable lifecycle. Large scale mass murder is the event which almost always occurs at the end of it. Most neo-Nazis are unwilling to accept this fact more generally, but the Holocaust is also simply one case of it which they also refuse to accept specifically."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
fyukos | why can people eat so many pieces of toast without getting full, but then get full after only a few pieces of bread? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fyukos/eli5_why_can_people_eat_so_many_pieces_of_toast/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn1x79v"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Water is cooked out of the bread so it takes up less space in your stomach. That’s also why toast is lighter than regular bread."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
9ssrvb | why do airline fares vary so much depending on date of flight, how full the plane is, etc., but bus and train fares are not affected by these variables and stay the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ssrvb/eli5_why_do_airline_fares_vary_so_much_depending/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8r6h9u",
"e8r7ehf",
"e8r7nlm",
"e8r7ybv",
"e8raf5m",
"e8rgs8b",
"e8rgw3x",
"e8rjc4d",
"e8rlgz5",
"e8rmjg3",
"e8rmrzw",
"e8rmxm9"
],
"score": [
202,
85,
53,
14,
12,
5,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When I worked for an airline, the airline had tiered ticket prices. So in order to have the really cheap ones, you have to have the more expensive ones. For a Domestic NZ flight the prices can range from $79 to $280 for example. This is instead of having all the tickets at the same price which would be the average for example $140. People want the cheap tickets. \nSo the tickets come out 350 days in advance, which means the cheapest tickets are usually purchased months or well in advanced. When people then go to book flights for two weeks time, they see only the expensive tickets cos the cheaper ones are gone. Especially if you’re booking for peak times, like 8am-10am and 4-7pm on week nights, any weekend flights and school holiday times etc.\nMy country is small and really only has 2 airlines so we had a bit more of a monopoly, I’m not sure if that’s how the other airlines work but may provide some insight.\nI’m guessing train and bus tickets are cheaper on the whole anyway and don’t require tiered pricing systems as a blanket average will sell just fine. ",
"Municipal transit like buses and trains are run at a loss. The gate fare is only a fraction of the cost per passenger. Airlines are run as a for profit enterprise, with cities supporting the airport infrastructure to some degree, but mostly the airlines compete amongst each other for business.\n\nTickets are sold based on demand and they try to optimize their flight routes. It costs a lot to fly a route between two points, and it’s a big deal to add another flight. They want to sell exact platefuls, if possible, so they vary the price a lot to try and get all the seats filled at the best price possible. ",
"Some trains do that. As an example, if you book trains of the German DB far in advance you can get a cheaper price.\n\nPlane tickets are expensive and most people don't take them frequently. People accept looking up the price (and comparing different offers) each time they fly.\n\nIf a bus company tries to charge you a different price for your commute every day you probably avoid that company. It also means every ticket has to be for a specific time and day - again something people accept for planes, but not necessarily for cheaper bus and train rides.",
"Privately operated buses and trains in the US do vary the price - they aren't fixed. Sure, Amtrak and greyhound are a bit more straight forward about the pricing (they sell them in like 4 tiers, as the cheap ones sell out, only the more expensive ones remain - despite not having a reserved seat). If you look at the bargain lines (like Bolt or Mega bus) you'll see they do something similar too - starting with a limited discounted ticket (was $1 when they launched) but going up substantially higher. \nThe notable difference between airlines and buses is that people are willing to pay a MUCH higher price for a last minute ticket, so the variance is much higher. Also, the volume per plane is larger, ticket purchasing more predictable - so you end up with the ability to really play around with prices. \nAs far as the why - you have to sell so many tickets for the plane to take off (lets say at $100 a ticket). As they book up, you know you can book the flight, so you up the price to sell down the sales. The upside of this is, you can usually book a flight anywhere at anytime, as long as you're willing to pay for it. Downside is really confusing and extreme pricing changes in an industry that already has REALLY skeptical customers. ",
"Wendover productions has a fantastic video explaining why airlines charge what they do, I recommend you check it out",
"Bus and train fares are affected in the same way - at least in the UK they are. It costs a lot more to travel by train or bus before 9:30 than it does after. It is also cheaper to buy your ticket in advance than on the day. However, the reasoning behind this, I believe, is not necessarily to maximise profits but to reduce congestion and make capacity planning easier. Lower prices after 9:30 encourages people to avoid overpacked trains and travel when the volumes are lower. Advance purchase helps the carrier to plan the number of carriages required for a given journey.",
"Amtrak and mega/boltbus have discounts for booking in advance. \n\nA walk up fare from NYC to Philly can be ~$250 on Amtrak but $50 a few weeks in advance. ",
"Also. How did we move from a model where last minute fares were cheap to one where they are expensive? I understand the market segmentation and price discrimination, and that the new model suits the airline businesses, but in other markets, a customer who is flexible will have the power to demand a better spot price. How did the airlines manage to reverse this? Is there some sort of unspoken cartel operating?",
"Most people answered the first part of the question: why do airplane tickets price vary so much.\n\nFor the second part. If you live in Europe or Japan you ll notice that bus and train tickets for long distance journeys and bullet trains do vary a lot and follow the same pattern as airplane tickets. For short distance and commuter train/buses, the prices do not vary much. This can be explained by the following reasons.\n\n-the prices are already very low ( < 10$) so that extra cost of a tiered price system is not worth the benefit\n\n-you do get a discount if you buy monthly passes for short distance commuter so in that sense, there is the same price scheme where early buyers get a discount\n\n-as mentioned in other posts, some buses/trains are publicly operated and run at a loss. This is not an excuse to waste money but usually, public companies do not optimize revenue as well as private companies do\n\n",
"What gets me is the immense cost difference between getting a one-way ticket and a round-trip or an onward ticket. It’s often about twice as expensive to go half the distance.",
"I see lots of answers but none that capture the essence. Airlines do that to minimize “consumer excess” — the difference between the threshold price each passenger would be willing to pay, and the price they actually do pay. The fares are *meant* to be confusing and hard to predict, so that only people who *really care* about a cheaper fare will get the cheaper fares. \n\nThe reason for *that* is that air travel is a highly non-ideal market. The airlines have very high fixed costs (those that are independent of the number of butts hey actually manage to put in airplane seats) while the marginal costs (the additional cost of putting one more butt into a not-yet-full airplane) are tiny. But the equilibrium price of a good in a highly efficient market should be close to the marginal cost, without regard for the fixed costs of the infrastructure. That means the conventional equilibrium price of an airline ticket is far less than the actual average cost, so airlines tend to drive one another out of business. The only way they manage is (A) each airline holds some monopoly power since the markets have few carriers; and (B) they do everything they can to game the market and scavenge additional dollars.\n\nIn the early days of air travel, the U.S. government set ticket prices and held them artificially high, prompting competition based on luxuriousness and convenience. President Jimmy Carter signed a deregulation act at the close of the 1970s, which led to a steady crescendo of air travel volume as prices came down and service quality, comfort, and convenience eroded. At the time airline deregulation was a very controversial move — many folks thought that the airlines wouldn’t survive given the crazy economic forces in the air travel millieu. Many did not. The ones that did mastered cost-cutting and market manipulation in order to survive.\n",
"They are optimizing their revenue.\n\nBuying in advance vs. the convenience of waiting has a monetary value. The airlines realized this. Many other industries are doing similar. It sucks everything will be tiered one day. VIP and double special VIP."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2n0nr6 | what's a grand jury and how does it work? | 1. Who convenes the Grand Jury?
2. Who decides who goes on it?
3. What do they do?
4. How do they do it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n0nr6/eli5_whats_a_grand_jury_and_how_does_it_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm99obr"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"Let's say police think a crime occurred. They report it to the D.A.'s office for prosecution. The D.A. looks at the police reports and what evidence they have. If the D.A. thinks there is a strong enough case, they will move forward.\n\nTo move forward, the D.A. must establish probable cause. There are two ways to establish probable cause, a Preliminary Hearing, held before a judge, or a Grand Jury. Sometimes they can only use one, sometimes they can choose which to use.\n\nProbable cause is essentially that there is enough evidence to support that further investigation could produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable person to believe that the defendant committed the crime. \n\nIn a preliminary hearing, the D.A. puts officers on a witness stand, and sometimes other witnesses. The defense attorney can ask them questions. At the end the judge determines whether there is probable cause or not. \n\nA grand jury is simply a group of people who hear the same testimony from officers or witnesses and makes the same determination, whether there is probable cause or not. \n\nOne major difference is that in a preliminary hearing you have a right to counsel, you do not have a right to counsel in a grand jury hearing. You actually don't even have to be informed there is a grand jury hearing going on about you. You could literally have a grand jury discussing your activity right now and you would only hear about it if they find that there is probable cause to believe you did whatever crime you are being charged with. \n\nA grand jury is convened by the local prosecuting authority. It is chosen just like a regular jury, only there is a much larger pool initially.\n\nIn my county, around 400 people were summoned for jury duty and told when they got there that they were being screened for a grand jury.\n\nThe D.A. asked them questions to determine their ability to serve as jurors. The grand jury meets every other week for several hours. They will all serve on the grand jury for about six months, at which point a new grand jury will be impaneled.\n\nWhen they meet, the D.A. presents a case, and the grand jury votes on whether or not they believe there is probable cause to go forward. Then the D.A. presents another case, and the grand jury votes again. They will go through several cases each time they meet. \n\nYou do not need any special qualifications to sit on a grand jury other than what you need to sit on a regular jury. \n\nSome jurisdictions do not have grand juries, some only have grand juries. \n\nIf you have any questions about this, let me know!\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
r1q9l | sorry if this has been asked, but can somebody explain the science joke from dexter's laboratory? | Dexter: Dee Dee, I heard this great joke! Okay, here it goes: A physics professor and his assistant are working on liberating negatively-charged hydroxyl ions, when all of a sudden, the assistant says, "Wait, professor, what if the salicylic acids do not accept the hydroxyl ions?" And the professor responds, "That's no hydroxyl ion; that's my wife!"
I've been out of school for awhile, and even in school I probably would not have gotten this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r1q9l/sorry_if_this_has_been_asked_but_can_somebody/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4276fs",
"c427b3a",
"c427cnu",
"c4288r3",
"c428guv",
"c429aa6",
"c429ayd",
"c42b277",
"c42bccl"
],
"score": [
33,
5,
17,
10,
2,
4,
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I believe the best explanation is that the punchline isn't supposed to make sense, the point of the scene being to portray Dexter as unfunny. There's nothing hilarious about hydroxyl ions.\n",
"I couldnt help but read that in dexters voice, Fuck you OP. ...have an Upvote.",
"[mfw reading that joke](_URL_0_)",
"All jokes aside, all hydroxide ions are negative, \"liberating\" hydroxide ions is as simple as pouring water into a beaker, and salicylic acid (as with all acids) has no problems reacting with hydroxyl ions; It just forms salicylate ions and water.\n\nThis is just a bunch of scientifically sounding mumbo jumbo jargon words to show that Dexter's humour is... unlike others.",
"The crux of the joke is [technobabble](_URL_0_). There's quite a few jokes like this, but this variant is probably the most famous. That is, the punchline being \"that's my wife!'. If you see it used in media then it's to either, (1) Setup the character as pretentious (2) Setup the character as having a different sense of humor than the normal person.",
"\"That's no *insert random thing here*, that's my wife!\" is a common faux-punchline to jokes used in media, when the viewer only hears the end of the joke. It's kind of a catch-all punchline. Well in this case, they just took a whole bunch of science terms and put the often used placefiller punchline at the end of it. The joke doesn't *really* make any sense, but it's just \"supposed\" to be funny to people like Dexter, as if it were a real joke. And Deedee doesn't get it because she isn't like Dexter at all.",
"The original joke was performed by [Weber and Fields](_URL_1_), a Vaudeville act from the 1890s, the implication being either a) that the speaker's wife may be a woman but she's no lady; or b) that the speaker is indignantly misconstruing the use of \"lady\" to mean \"woman other than your wife.\" \n\nIn the *Dexter's Laboratory* version, the writers were attempting to emphasize Dexter's nerdiness by having him use chemical terms in a joke that is not related to chemistry in any way, in the hopes that listeners would realize that Dexter was trying to say something hilarious (and failing, possibly because his social awkwardness and overly science-oriented mind misapprehends the original joke) -- he has an inability to think beyond the scientific; or possibly that the hoary old \"That was no lady, that was my wife\" line is by this point so deeply ingrained in our culture that no one would ever possibly have to explain it; it has taken on life of its own and no longer needs any real set-up. Apparently they were wrong on both counts.\n\nThe original version: \n\n\"Who was that lady I saw you with last night?\"\n\n\"She ain't no lady; she's my wife!\"\n\n--quoted in *The Haunted Smile: The Story of Jewish Comedians in America*. Relevant page [here](_URL_0_) on Google Books.",
"my best guess would be that the assistant is supposed to respond with \"OH!\" which is the formula for a hydroxyl ion. \n\n_URL_0_",
"I always thought that it was because in skeletal formulas, the hydroxy group can be written as HO, thus a clever way of getting a profane joke in a TV-Y7 show."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://i.qkme.me/3545f6.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technobabble"
],
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=iTarGWLM5CEC&pg=PT31&lpg=PT31&dq=Joe+Weber+and+Lew+Fields:+%22Who+was+that+lady+I+saw+you+with+last+night?%22+%22She+ain't+no+lady;+she's+my... | |
56qz54 | how do developers name the versions of their product? is there any guidelines that a certain number/degree of significant changes must me made to go firefox v48 to v49? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56qz54/eli5_how_do_developers_name_the_versions_of_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8lmyly",
"d8ln1fb",
"d8ln4bh",
"d8ln52r",
"d8lnbgj",
"d8lo85l"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There really isn't any hard and fast rules. Generally speaking if there are major enhancements or backwards compatibility break changes make a major version number change.\n\nOr if you are in a battle with another software house with similar products match their version number or be slightly ahead (see browser wars).",
"Iirc, there's no standard, but generally, you do it like this.\n\nX.y.z\n\nX should Increment to mark make changes, things that after the overall experience of the product. This should include engine changes, major content/feature updates, and big gui updates.\n\nY should increment to mark minor and quality of life changes. Small tweaks to appearance, and minor optimizations, along with minor gui updates.\n\nZ should increment to mark minor version differences that include bug fixes, and tiny feature expansions.\n\nLet's use Minecraft as an example. Version 1.8 might introduce new, minor feature updates, such as new enemies and materials. 1.8.1 might simply introduce bug fixes that arose as a result of new edge cases created by the 1.8 content. Then, 1.9 might introduce new recipes and materials. Then, one day, there may be a 2.0 that not only gives a major overhaul to the engine, but also changes and improves the ui.",
"In the specific case of Firefox and Chrome, they both moved to a rolling-release cycle (the so-called \"train\" model), where there's a new version every 6 - 8 weeks no matter what. Rather than aiming to get a particular feature in the next version, developers just work on a feature and enable it as soon as it's ready.\n\nSo Firefox 49 includes hundreds of changes, most of which you'll never notice - but its ship date was predetermined long ago, and exactly what features made it in or not was determined much more recently.\n\nAs /u/Zemedelphos said, the common pattern is that in a version like X.y.z, the first number is the major version, it changes when new features are added and compatibility *might* be broken.\n\nChanges to y and z indicate minor patches or bug fixes. These vary a lot from one product to the next.\n",
"Yes and while there are some industry guidelines every company pretty much decides what their thresholds are. \n\nOne of hte most accepted versioning schemas for software use the A.B.C.D approach where A and B are pretty much always referred to as A=Major and B=Minor so your two leading numbers are your Major version and your Minor version. \n\nC and D in that format have somewhat different but ultimately interchangeable names such as C={Patch or Revision or Build etc.} and D={Build or Revision etc. }\n\nSo the actual version of a piece of software is usually denoted by Major.Minor.Revision.Build. \n\nNow about choosing when you change which number, as I said each company has their own way of doing things but, by and large, they follow these guidelines:\n\n**Major** is increased when you make architectural or non backwards-compatible changes in the product. \n\n**Minor** is increased when you add new features without any breaking changes. \n\n**Revision** is increased when you fix some major defects or make minor changes. \n\n**Build** is increased when you fix minor defects. \n\nIf you're really interested you can read (a lot) more [here](_URL_0_)",
"So Firefox is the one you're asking about and their version number policy is retarded. This started several years ago when they went from 4 to 5 in about 3 months' time. There were articles at the time saying how stupid this was because users had come to understand that there was meaning behind the version numbers and Firefox was doing this because its numbers were smaller than the other major browsers (which were all around 10).\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFor a long time Linux had the opposite problem - their numbers were 2.6.something for 9 years! it made it very difficult to know if a kernel was reasonably up to date. Some very important features were introduced along the way.\n\nmacOS is stuck at 10.something forever because if they went from 10 to 11 (say) they would break code - \"OS X\" was the name until a few months ago reflecting that the version number began with 10.something.\n\nFor software developers, generally the first digit represents a compatibility-breaking change. If you need OpenCV 2 for a project, you can't use OpenCV 3 because the API probably changed, and that in turn means you need to use obsolete versions of the packages OpenCV 2 depends on. Same with Python (a lot of Python doesn't work on Python 3 yet even though it's been out for 8 years now).\n\nThe Linux kernel will never break userland backwards compatibility so the semantics of the first digit don't make sense here - which is how they got stuck on 2.6.something for so long.",
"Other answers already mentioned the sane, expected scheme. So I present you with the weirder ones :\n\nInternal & marketing name could have different numbers close enough to be confused between them : \n\n* Visual Studio 2010 happens to be Dev10, but Visual Studio 2015 is Dev14, with the next Visual Studio called VS 15 for now.\n\n* Office 2016 codename is Office16, while Office 2013 codenamed Office 15\n\n* Windows 7 internal version is 6.1, Windows 8 is 6.2 and Windows 8.1 is 6.3, thankfully Windows 10 internal version is 10.0\n\nThey could be just indicating date of release :\n\n* Ubuntu 16.10 will be released this month, previously Ubuntu 16.04 was released on April 2016\n\n* MIUI's version number indicate their beta (6.x.x) or final (8.x.x) release with the beta subsequent digits indicate release date (6.9.22 is released on 22 September, newer than 8.0.1.0 released on August) \n\nOr they can approach a number :\n\n* TeX version number is approaching π (currently at 3.14159265)\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning"
],
[
"http://www.zdnet.com/article/is-mozilla-artificially-boosting-firefoxs-version-number/"
],
[]
] | ||
84a9o9 | why are so many old/obsolete/unused assets left in code? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84a9o9/eli5_why_are_so_many_oldobsoleteunused_assets/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvo1k3t",
"dvo9i0g",
"dvo9tm0"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you’ve reached the end of a game’s development cycle, you want to be as cautious as possible, and you want to alter as little code as possible. \n\nSure, assets may be unused or obsolete, but one weird line of code could mean removing that asset breaks some other aspect of the game. You don’t remove anything unless you’re *absolutely* certain its removal won’t affect any other systems. ",
"Some examples of how this could go wrong:\n\n* Some games load all of the assets into memory during startup. If it goes to look for that unused asset and can't find it, something will break.\n\n* That unused asset might actually be in a level somewhere. Maybe the devs were working on a new map when the asset was cut and it just wasn't removed.\n\n* If the game has an anti-cheat built in, it will probably look for new or missing files. It needs to have a list of every file in the game to do this. If you delete the file, but don't update this list, it will think you're cheating.",
"In addition to it being a huge risk to delete something, not knowing what side effects may occur.. cartridges usually came in a few set sizes for each console. For instance, SNES games almost always had cartridge sizes in multiples of 8 megabits. It was just more convenient to make them that way. If your game only took up 13 megabits and had 2 megabits of unused content, then there really isn't any point in deleting, you'd just want to make a 16 megabit cartridge either way. It would be prohibitively expensive if not impossible to make an odd size such as a 13 megabit cartridge.\n\nWith optical media, your game is going to take up (usually) one disc no matter what. It doesn't really matter how full that disc is, it costs the same to manufacture in any case."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3oz6ee | why are humans noses pointed down where nearly ever other animal's nose is pointed forward? | *every not ever. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3oz6ee/eli5_why_are_humans_noses_pointed_down_where/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw1q2hj",
"cw1q8hz",
"cw1qh51",
"cw1rou7",
"cw1s41e",
"cw1z7rm",
"cw26l9b",
"cw295cq",
"cw2b0jl",
"cw2dvvm",
"cw2fe6d",
"cw2lj5b"
],
"score": [
9,
1250,
21,
23,
8,
79,
7,
7,
5,
51,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"My rationale is that our hands, arm length, and opposable thumbs allow us to bring food to our mouth, and hold it up in front of it if needed to inspect visually and otherwise. Other animals, say a dog for example, might need that snout so that they can root around with their nose and whiskers to locate the food, inspect it, and then eat it. ",
"There's a lot of exceptions to noses-pointing-forward. Elephants, tapirs, aardvarks, anteaters, many fish, and so on. \n\nBut those that have noses that do point forward, which includes most herbivores and omnivores that graze, usually walk on all fours, not on two legs, and tilt their heads toward their food by bending their neck, not lifting it to their face. This means their forward-facing nose is closest to their potential food.\n\nIt's impractical for humans to bend down and sniff something on the ground so we evolved the alternate strategy of bringing our potential food to our face using our hands instead, placing our nostrils closest to our mouths by bending our noses down. ",
"presumably something to do with humans being upright and walking on 2 legs as opposed to walking on 4 legs ",
"don't think we know for sure, one theory I've read was we can wade in water/swim better this way \n^^^^^^modbot ^^^^^^wants ^^^^^^this ^^^^^^lengthened ^^^^^^so: \n(in which case just luck of the draw we had genes for this and not a nose we could shut like a seal) \n^(and also being bipeds who primarily use sight(and sound)^) ^(it wasn't a great loss with all that bending down and sniffing things we weren't doing)",
"I read somewhere that our nose points the way it does so we don't get smothered when we are nursing as babies.",
"I remember two theories we disscussed in school; \n_URL_0_ helps prevent aspiration of sweat. \n\n_URL_1_ is one of several features that help us dive for food, as is we can swim without ram jetting our nostrals.",
"There is a lot of shit in these comments including the top rated one. \n\nCaucasian noses evolved to have a longer path into the body to warm the air you breath in colder regions. Just as paler skin evolved as people moved from their origin in West Africa. \n\nIt's got nothing to do with smelling food unless you think Africans and Asians don't need to do that. \n\nEDIT: There is no such thing as power skin. ",
"all these complicated theories and here I thought it was just so we didn't get rain in our nose",
"This is a fun one, most of these answers seem to be about food, and while it makes some sense it wouldn't explain why more apes don't have a nose like we do.\n\nI'm remembering a course and this isn't my area of expertise (lovemaking, just so we're clear), but let's briggity break it down for ya.\n\nBasically, it has very little to do with smell, or the fact that our nose is a filter for air, or the fact that we use our nasal passage to warm air going in to our lungs. After all, apes have a perfectly fine set up for smelling food, our nose isn't nearly as moist as a dogs and thus far worse for filtering out particles, and any nose that travels past a group of blood vessels would warm up before going in to the lungs. \n\nAs a side note, we can dismiss aquatic ape fairly easily here. Sure it allows for air pressure to keep water out of the nose, but it's unlikely that such a trait would develop before a barrier to prevent parasites from entering out brain. The nasal cavity is a doorway past the blood-brain-barrier, allowing parasites to bypass it fairly quickly as seen in those Neti pot deaths a few years back. It's far less likely that a downturned nose would've developed before some defense mechanism for that.\n\nInstead, the reason has to do with our jaws. We are evolved from frugivores, and our diet was mainly fruits, hence why our molars are relatively flat and we have flat incisors. As our distance ancestors continued down the path to a larger brain, our need to have powerful jaws diminished as we had other ways to crack nuts and get at fruit. Our jaws shrank as a result. Likewise, humans at some point ceased being openly aggressive for mates and violent competition was far less prevalent. Insert joke about human brutality here, but in general we do not bite each other to death in order to fuck someone we like.\n\nThis change in our social behavior meant we had no real need for canines, which are really only there to intimidate our rivals. Shrinking canines meant our jaws didn't need to protrude as much since the roots for our teeth were able to be relatively shallow. This process caused our noses to stick out like they do now, and the different shapes are likely just fairly cosmetic variations based on the ancestors of each phenotype.\n\nHelp at all?",
"/u/hazpat suggested that it helps keep us from aspirating our sweat. \n\nThis makes the most sense considering humans seem to be specialized as long-distance runners (for chasing prey to exhaust it); we're bald to maximize the effectiveness of sweating to keep us cool when running. Our abnormally high surface-area-to-mass ratio means pretty much all other animals overheat faster than us. \n\nIf we're relying more than any other animals on sweating (a *lot*) while running distances for our survival, breathing that sweat in might become a real problem. \n\n\n\nThe smelling theory doesn't make as much sense for two reasons: \n\n1. our brains developed with massive selection *against* a sophisticated sense of smell (it takes a lot of energy to run a big region of the brain dedicated to interpreting smells, and evidently that became wasteful for us in our niche), and \n2. you can hold something to your face to smell it just as easily with a forward-facing nose as with our downward-facing ones. \n\nThe idea that it gives us an advantage in water doesn't seem to work out for two reasons as well: \n\n1. animals that are far more aquatic than us don't have this trait, and\n2. our ancestors didn't rely on spending time in the water for survival, so even though they undoubtedly did wade or swim at times, it just wouldn't be a strong evolutionary pressure. \n\nHere's something else that suggests sweat might be the reason: it was a big enough evolutionary factor to give us eyebrows, which exist pretty much exclusively for the sweat problem. ",
"So sweat does not drip into our nostrils while distance hunting. We evolved eyebrows for a similar reason, to keep sweat out of our eyes. ",
"My idea is that it's because of boobs.\n\nMost mammals' babies can breathe just fine with their forward-facing nostrils while they nurse. But if human babies had forward-facing nostrils they would have a hard time breathing while nursing, because they are faceplanted into a squishy breast. The downward facing nostrils allow them to breathe.\n\nThat's my hypothesis and I'm sticking with it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"1.It",
"2.It"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1fk7i9 | if we were to give an fps to basic eyesight, what would that number be? | I've always been curious about that. Also, a follow up question would be what's the slowest something could go and be invisible to the naked eye? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fk7i9/eli5_if_we_were_to_give_an_fps_to_basic_eyesight/ | {
"a_id": [
"cab4005",
"cab6noz",
"cabsym5"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"We wouldn't have a concrete frame-rate. We have different components in our eyes, like rods and cones, that all update independently and at different rates. So in one instant, a thousand of your cones might be updating; the next instant, a hundred cones and a hundred rods might be, and so on. \n\nThen we have our brain, which doesn't process individual neat frames, but kind of blurs everything together as a constant stream, with the focus of our vision given higher priority than things in our peripheral vision. So not only does the 'frame rate' differ moment to moment and cell to cell, it differs on different areas of the eye. \n\nCompare this to a computer or TV, which updates an exact 50/60/100/120 etc times per second (depending on model) every single second, the entire screen at once, and a computer graphics card, which builds one complete frame, sends it, builds the next complete frame, sends it...\n\nIt's not a very fun answer, but we really just can't describe our eyes in terms of a framerate.",
"Eyes don't see in frames, at all. Do yourself a favour and ignore the nonsense answers, and double super ignore those that match usual movie or gaming framerates. The game running at 100 FPS seems life-like not because your eyes are limited to that, but because your brain fills in the gaps and tricks itself into thinking \"yeah, this is fluid, seamless movement\".\n\n > The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to \"see\" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft.\n\nThis doesn't exactly answer the question, but it gives you an idea of how powerful the sight system is, and how wrong some of the myths about this thing are. Note that not only did they experience a visual sensation, they *identified* what they saw. To be completely impossible to see (person can't notice anything, even sub-consciously), despite being visible (reflects visible light) the time an object spends reflecting light would have to be much briefer.\n\nExcuse me for being unable to provide a concrete answer. I could just eliminate some incorrect answers.\n\n",
"Your eyes work in a continuous manner, rather than frame-by-frame. Displays work frame-by-frame. The better the displays approximate a continuous image, the more natural they appear to your eyes. Here are a few important frame rates:\n\n* ~10 fps is the starting point for video appear to be moving instead of being a series of separate images.\n\n* The 24 fps rate used in theaters was dictated by the requirements of the audio technology of the time. It was deemed unwatchably strobby even back then. So, the projectors were set up to flash each frame twice to bring the strobe rate up to a watchable 48Hz.\n\n* Many high-end TV shows use 24 fps to emulate the feel of watching TV broadcasts of Hollywood movies.\n\n* The Hobbit was filmed at 48 fps. Peter Jackson and James Cameron are both trying to push Hollywood and theaters to upgrade.\n\n* TVs and computer monitors traditionally display at ~60 fps. Matching the video frame rate to the display refresh rate makes a huge difference in appearance.\n\n* Doug Trumbull long ago publicized his tests where he hooked up an audience to galvanic skin response sensors, had them watch a video of riding a roller-coaster at difference frame rates and measured increasing emotional response at higher frame rates tapering off around 72 fps.\n\n* Many people can distinguish a monitor running at 120Hz vs 60Hz in blind tests.\n\n* The highest fps experiment that I've heard of was a researcher who had people dart their eyes left and right while looking at a strobing LED. They saw separate dots instead of a continuous line at strobe rates of up to 1500-2000Hz. That's probably the top-end of visual detection for a high-contrast, high-motion video."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
35mxyq | if sauron was so powerful, why did he need the one ring? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35mxyq/eli5_if_sauron_was_so_powerful_why_did_he_need/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr5w1sz",
"cr5whor",
"cr5x64l"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
37
],
"text": [
"Because as powerful as he was, creating the ring offered him a chance at even more power. But there was also a risk in it, because much of his power ended up bound in that ring.\n\nWhen he did end up losing it and being defeated, he was much weaker. Which is why he wanted it back so badly, a ton of his power was trapped inside of it. If he was able to regain the ring, he would've gotten access to all of that power again, and then maybe get his plan to get even more power back on track. ",
"Essentially, he used his power to create the ring. This process did two things, gives him even more power when he is wearing the ring, seriously weakened him when he does not have the ring.",
"Okay a few things. Sauron never died, even at the end. So there is no resurrection like some of the comments are saying.\n\nSauron is immortal he cannot be killed. The best you can do is banish him. Sauron is a Maia and is like an angel (or in this case a demon).\n\nThe ring magnified his power but in producing it he had to invest a large portion of his power IN the ring. His power had already been waning from his defeats at the hands of the Valar at the end of the first age when he was brought to Numenor as prisoner after the fall of Thangorodrim at the hands of the Valar and the Elves. This is the whole reason he had the idea of creating the rings. With the magnified power he could wield he would be more powerful than he was before and also dominate the minds of his foes.\n\nWhen he was separated from the ring his access to this power was severed and so not only did he lose his enhanced abilities he also lost a great percentage of his original power.\n\nBut since the ring was still in existence he was not banished. When the ring was destroyed the power within was destroyed and he no longer possessed the necessary power to remain in middle earth and so he drifted into the void.\n\nHe is still there with his master Melkor awaiting the day of judgement of Eru Iluvatar."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5w096i | how does gap insurance work for a vehicle on finance? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5w096i/eli5_how_does_gap_insurance_work_for_a_vehicle_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"de6afd5",
"de6ah5l"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Let's say you buy a car for $20,000. Since you bought the car, it has depreciated. It's now worth only $15,000, but you still owe $18,000 on the loan. If you total your car, the insurance company will only pay you the $15,000 that the car is worth, and you still owe the lender $3,000. GAP insurance will pay for the \"gap\" between what you owe, and what the car is worth. It pays for that $3,000 you still owe.",
"When you buy a new car and take it off the lot it instantly is worth less than it was before you bought it. If you owe more money than the car is worth and you get into an accident you'll be given less money by your insurance provider than would be required to pay off your loan.\n\nGap insurance is insurance that will pay the difference between what you owe and what the car is worth in the event that the car is totaled and you owe more on the vehicle than it is worth. In this way you won't have to pay out of pocket to finish paying off a totaled car.\n\nGenerally speaking it's a bad idea to ever owe more on a vehicle than it is worth. Your down payment should be enough to cover the difference or you should purchase a more affordable vehicle.\n\nThe reason this can happen is fairly simple. When you purchase a vehicle with a loan the car ends up being more expensive than the negotiated price because there is interest on the loan. Once you take the car off the lot it's worth ~20% less and on top of that you likely have a ~1-10% interest rate on your loan. If you take the car off the lot and instantly get into a car accident totaling the vehicle your insurance company will give you the dollar amount for what the vehicle is worth used. They won't take into account the interest that you owe or that you just paid a premium for a new vehicle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1uwj2b | is carbonated water without added flavor or sugar as bad as other carbonated beverages? | I drink a lot of carbonated water rather than still water, but I'm concerned because of all the warnings about carbonated beverages. Does it offer as much hydration as still water? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uwj2b/eli5_is_carbonated_water_without_added_flavor_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cemcp16"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The consensus seems to be that if that if there's no added sugar/flavoring, it's just as healthy as regular water.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sparkling-water-healthy-regular-water-article-1.1460179"
]
] | |
5zbbb2 | how photons split water during photosynthesis. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zbbb2/eli5_how_photons_split_water_during_photosynthesis/ | {
"a_id": [
"dewtxau"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The photon is not actually splitting the water molecule, it is providing the energy for enzymes and other molecules to perform this work.\n\nThe photon is absorbed into a protein complex (chlorophyll) and an electron is kicked up to a higher energy level...like a shot of caffeine. The electron doesn't like being this excited, and is rapidly passed through a string of other molecules where Reduction and Oxidation reactions (RedOx) take place... this is called the electron transport chain. \n\nOne of the stops along this electron transport chain is a protein complex that catalyze the splitting of water into protons and electrons, releasing O2 gas in the process.\n\nThat being said, this is the most poorly understood part of photosynthesis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
22zfyy | why don't we enjoy the same things as when we were kids? e.g playing with toys. | As a kid I could sit for hours playing with my cars. Planning cities with roads, roadsigns and parkinglots. How come I don't enjoy that any more? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22zfyy/eli5_why_dont_we_enjoy_the_same_things_as_when_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgrwj6o",
"cgrwk8o",
"cgrxett"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I still play with toys they are just bigger and more dangerous. ",
"We still do, they just develop.\n\nInstead of playing with cars, you are now a mechanic.\n\nInstead of planning cities with roads and signs you are now a city planner and/or landscaper\n\nInstead of playing with Lincoln Logs, you are now a carpenter\n\nI know when I was a kid I liked playing with my dogs, now I train dogs on the side",
"You've developed. You've satiated that intellectual curiosity that you had as a child. You know have the capacity to enjoy bigger and more exciting, more difficult problems and tackle them with the skills you've learnt from play as a child."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3g24d4 | how do car keys (not the physical key but the electronic beep boop) each open one car and not all nearby cars? | Even like cars of the same make and model? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g24d4/eli5how_do_car_keys_not_the_physical_key_but_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctu4gdh",
"ctu4hv3",
"ctu506f"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First they have a limited range. Secondly, the transmitter and receiver use a paired code that's specific to the mfgr. So a Honda fob wouldn't have the code that a Ford car would have. And since Honda gives different codes to each of their cars, your Honda fob wouldnt open my Honda car. Hence a key.",
"When you click the button, the key doesn't just transmit a single signal, it transmits a series of signals that encode a specific code. Each car has its own code.",
"As far as I know it works similarly to how wifi works. One wifi hub (car) has a code that can access it known as a password (key). Many wifis (cars) can exist but only a person (key) with the right password can communicate with (open) it. \n\nThere are millions of possible wifi keys. The minimum number of characters for most wifi keys is 8 so the number of possible combinations of keys is the number of characters that can be used to the power 8. So if it's just the numbers 1 to 10, the number of possible keys is 10^8. There are many more characters available for passwords and so the possible number of potential passwords is huge. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1vxhk9 | isp restrictions? | Why to ISP's impose restrictions like hosting server. If I am paying for 1mbps of speed then why should I not be able to use it in any way other than criminal activity. Is it to because their system will crash because of dropping and queuing packets? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vxhk9/eli5isp_restrictions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cewpzsc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's because they want you to pay more for a business plan. Nothing technical is the reason. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7wsezm | an antenna excites electrons to create radio waves. so, assuming you had an extremely powerful antenna, could you create different sorts of waves (such as visible light or gamma rays)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wsezm/eli5_an_antenna_excites_electrons_to_create_radio/ | {
"a_id": [
"du2tay6",
"du2u3n2"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The modes by which electromagnetic waves interact with things are different, and they have to do principally with their wavelengths and their energies. But in a general sense, any machine which produces any kind of electromagnetic radiation could naively be called an antenna. It's just that the production method would be largely different. \n\nRadio waves are the product of an alternating voltage over the radio antenna. There's not too much to do with the excitations of specific electrons in atoms. The characteristic energies of these sort of excitations (where electrons move between atomic energy levels) produce radiation from visible light to x-rays, depending on the exact energy gap. \n\nGamma rays are defined as originating from within the nucleus of an atom, by the rearrangement of protons and neutrons releasing energy. So a gamma antenna would necessarily be a nuclear antenna, in a sense. \n\nAnother thing to note is that all objects emit electromagnetic radiation by virtue of having any temperature above absolute zero. At temperatures we find here on Earth, that is primarily in the infrared region of the spectrum. ",
"Think of a tuning fork, energise it(hit it) and it will produce sound.\nIf you make the tuning fork smaller, the pitch of the sound it makes will raise in pitch (in frequency).\n\nThis is the same for antennas, the smaller they are the higher the frequency(like the pitch in sound).\n\nNow think of a jug, you blow over the top of it and it produces a sound.\nIf you fill some of the space with water and blow over it, it will produce a higher pitch(higher frequency).\nThis is because the space in the jug can only exactly fit one size of wave, and making the space smaller means it only fits a smaller wave that is higher in pitch(frequency)\n\nLEDs work by the 'spaces' within the structure of the crystal(at the atomic level), the size of these spaces, just like the tuning fork, are what determines the frequency(pitch) of the output. The frequency being the colour of the light.\n\nNote, tried to make ELI5."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
dkhwap | how do utilities providers (gas, water, electricity) handle the constant fluctuations in demand from the millions of consumers they supply to? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dkhwap/eli5_how_do_utilities_providers_gas_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4faho0",
"f4fr2n5",
"f4gg7uq"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Basically, pressurized pipes in big loops.\n\nWater lines are high pressure, high flow rate, so that water is able to flow through the piping to each house over miles and miles. There are pumping stations every once and awhile if needed to bring the pressure back up if there is too many services depending on the main or too much distance along the lines\n\nSame idea with gas, and with electricity it is high voltage and amperage in place of pressure and flow rate",
"What is your reference period of time, second, hour, week? For all 3 of these utilities the answer will vary based on how you define the period.",
"Electric utilities have lots of data as to when they expect usage to peak or decline. In a competitive market, the utility will buy power in progressive increments through the day. Typically there will be base load...that amount that the utility expects to be there pretty much 24/7 and is contracted at a set price. As the load increases (for example, morning heat in Texas), they've contracted for intermediate load, usually at a higher price and often from another source. When usage is at it's peak (5:00 pm summer heat), they've contracted for peak load, the most expensive. What this all means is that a generator has a certain amount of capacity that he is basically reserving for the utility.\n\nFor example, at our relatively small electric Coop, we'd contract for 25 Mw of base load, 15 Mw of intermediate, and 10 Mw of peak...all to be scheduled for certain times of the day. This can get quite tricky since most contracts stipulate a penalty if you don't use the expected amount. All this can go to Hell in a heart beat in unexpected conditions. In Texas 2011, all available generation was on line for what was expected to be a brutal winter storm. The storm passed all expectations and, in addition, several generators went off line for various reasons related to the weather. There was a power shortage, rolling blackouts went into effect, and any emergency generation available came on line at the market limit of somewhere around a $9000 Mwh...energy that would sell in normal conditions for more like $40 Mwh.\n\nEdit; It was actually $3000 Mwh, not $9000, but you get the idea."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
cl31r0 | how does a camera sensor capture/digitize light into an image | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cl31r0/eli5_how_does_a_camera_sensor_capturedigitize/ | {
"a_id": [
"evsom3e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Light has energy. The brighter the light, the more energy.\n\nA digital camera focuses light on a chip containing a grid of sensors, literally millions of them.\n\nThe sensors are basically tiny solar panels. When light hits them, they generate electricity. The brighter the light, the more electricity they make.\n\nThe camera then records the amount of electricity made by each sensor. We know where each sensor is on the grid, and now that we know how bright the light was in each spot, we can make a black and white image from the information.\n\nSensors can't tell color, only light level. In order to make color, we put red/blue/green filters over the sensors, so they can only see certain colors of light. Now, instead of reading the black-white level, the sensor reads black-red, or black-blue, or black-green. You wind up with 3 images, 1 in each color. Combine them together, and you get a full-color image."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1r8edg | what will be the ramification of the senate filibuster rule? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r8edg/what_will_be_the_ramification_of_the_senate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdkmr7h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There aren't a huge amount. They only changed the Filibuster rules regarding voting in presidential nominees to the executive and judicial branches of the government (Appeals court judges, directors of different federal departments, etc).\n\nBasically they are going to need bipartisan support to block a new appeals judge or something instead of needing bipartisan support to approve them.\n\nOn a side note, the reason this happened is because Obama has been seeing an unprecedented number of his nominations blocked by Filibuster. He has something like 55 pending nominations while the past 4 or 5 previous POTUS' had something like ~20 at this point. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6hg7cc | why is having money in tax havens like swiss bank accounts considered bad if it is not actually illegal? if it is illegal why is there a swiss bank? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hg7cc/eli5_why_is_having_money_in_tax_havens_like_swiss/ | {
"a_id": [
"diy2ep0",
"diy2ezp",
"diy55tw",
"diy7abd"
],
"score": [
22,
8,
4,
11
],
"text": [
"Depositing income into Swiss Bank accounts for the purpose of avoiding taxes is illegal, but there may be other reasons for wanting to keep money overseas and secret/secure. Also, Swiss banks are governed by laws of Switzerland, so U.S. laws have no bearing on whether and why they exist... their laws could be completely different than ours.",
"It's not illegal in Switzerland(where various Swiss banks are). It's often illegal as shit in many other countries if their citizens are sending money there in an attempt to commit tax fraud.",
"The problem comes when you send pre tax proceeds to the Swiss bank account. By sending it there, you can avoid paying taxes / hide where it came from. It's perfectly legal to have a Swiss bank account, as long as you can show the irs that you already paid the taxes before you transferred it.",
"Swiss banks used to be a good place to \"hide\" money because it could be hidden. But in recent decades it has become less secretive and more willing to work it law enforcement regarding account details. \n\nAdditionally the Swiss government used to control the exchange rate against the Euro so it was a strong currency. They don't do that any more so holding money there is less desirable. \n\nAt this point the term \"Swiss bank account\" means less that money is actually in Switzerland and more that you are hiding funds somewhere, like Panama or somewhere else. Which is why it is considered a negative statement.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2qvgw2 | if salt was a form of currency in ancient times, how did commoners not "counterfeit" with sea salt or stuff they found themselves? | Wiki says the "soldiers were paid in salt" thing is actually a matter of contention, but this has bothered me for years, so I'm throwing it out there. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qvgw2/eli5_if_salt_was_a_form_of_currency_in_ancient/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn9wdp0",
"cn9wg45",
"cn9wh18",
"cn9wheq"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Salt was buying power regardless of how one obtained it. I'm sure some people collected it themselves, but those who had the skills to earn more salt per hour doing other things did that instead.",
"It's like gold. Nobody cares where you got it so long as it wasn't stolen; it's still gold.",
"It wouldn't be \"counterfeiting\", it would be real salt and worth just as much as salt from any other source. With gold as a currency, it wouldn't be \"counterfeiting\" to mine your own gold.",
"Counterfeiting, in the era in which salt and precious metals were the primary forms of currency, was less about it not being from the right person and more about it not being what it's supposed to be in the amount its supposed to be.\n\nIn the case of salt, something either is salt or it isn't. There really isn't a method by which to counterfeit salt. There wasn't an official salt that was used as coinage. It's that people would trade salt for goods and services, rather than accept it in other forms.\n\nWages have not always universally been for money, and at multiple points in history would be paid in commodities instead."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2akgjw | what makes scientists so sure that life can only be sustained within the goldilocks zone? why can't there be life that survives off of super-heated gases, and/or lives within the vacuum of space? | In short; who dictates how life is possible? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2akgjw/eli5_what_makes_scientists_so_sure_that_life_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciw1n8f",
"ciw1pzj"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Scientists don't think that at all. They think that *life as we know it* can only exist in the Goldilocks zone. There may very well be life outside that zone, but it would be very, very hard for us to go see it, and we might not recognize it if we did.",
"A big part of it is the protection offered within the goldilocks zone. Planets with active magnetic cores, for instance, create a field that protects them from their primary star. It's not just the radiation. The force is so great that it strips away at the planet. Mars shows this example well: the planet simply wasn't dense enough maintain its active core and it solidified, losing its magnetic field. In turn, the solar wind literally ripped the atmosphere and liquid water from the planet. \n\nOur sun also has a magnetic field, similar to our planet's. This field protects us from cosmic radiation, which is powerful stuff. It can punch holes through sheets of metal; gamma radiation that breaks molecules apart, and the like. \n\nBecause the universe is considered infinite, it is mathematically feasible that at least once, life could originate in deep space, but its just highly unlikely. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
enig5c | why do bones that have broken and healed many years ago still hurt sometimes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enig5c/eli5_why_do_bones_that_have_broken_and_healed/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe02nd9"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"Its not the bones, its the mussles and connective tissues. They regrow with a lot of scar tissue and nerves that are broken or out of normal alignment.\n\nYou get used to the discomfort most of the time, but certain activities or environment impacts can make it noticable.\n\nSource: broken leg, and knife wound (kitchen knife, nothing interesting) on my palm."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3vvr4p | ai "difficulty" in video games. | So you can set AI difficulty higher or lower while playing a game.
How is that actually done under the hood? How does a hard AI differ from an easy AI? How is it tested? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vvr4p/eli5_ai_difficulty_in_video_games/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxr4ody",
"cxr4zq8",
"cxr6efx"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the game entirely. Some games (like chess) just have the computer think less about consequences of what it does, others have it do worse in aim.",
"It all depends on the game - however, in general, \"more difficult\" AI typically means that the developers allow the computer to *act* more like a computer.\n\nEasier difficulties typically throw up roadblocks that the computer must follow, that reduce the difficulty. E.g., in racing games - force the computer to take a non-optimal, indirect route on the track. In shooting games, increase the delay between shots and add a \"jitter\" factor so that their aim isn't perfect. In chess or checkers - or hell, in *any* video game - take the 3rd or 4th optimal move instead of the 1st one.\n\nThe last one is most important, actually... and is a blanket case for everything else pretty much. That final boss on an easy difficulty versus hard? Hard difficulty spams their most difficult attack against you over and over and reduces your armor, whereas the easy difficulty might suddenly decide to heal themselves a few times in a row with a spell that gains them 50HP--- when all attacks, otherwise, are doing 9999 damage.\n\n**EDIT**: As far as testing it goes, think of it as making cookies... a lot of cookies. They start off with a generic plain \"sugar\" cookie recipe. Then they make three versions of it. Sugar, sugar with nuts, sugar with nuts and chocolate bits. Then they feed these cookies to a bunch of people, who report what they liked and didn't like.\n\nThen, the bakers take the feedback, tweak the cookie recipes and make more cookies, and then feed them again.. get feedback, etc. This happens until everyone is satisfied with the final product - or unless you're EA or Ubisoft, you ship the game while the first batch is still in the oven.",
"While it is possible for game AIs to have different levels of strategy to make them easier or harder, the sad truth is that most first-person games scale difficulty **entirely** through constants like health and damage. \n\nMost realtime 3D games come up with AI behavior and patterns that they think will be acceptable to players, then tweak difficulty by changing the health of the enemies or the range at which they notice targets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2q2ubz | why are the clouds in this photo so very colorful? | Clouds in question [right here](_URL_0_).
It has nothing to do with the camera, I can assure you. They were the only colorful clouds in the sky at the time, the rest were boring old gray/white. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q2ubz/eli5_why_are_the_clouds_in_this_photo_so_very/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn2a767"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Those parts of the clouds are thinner and so sunlight shows through. When the light goes through the thinner clouds there is a prism effect and the color is shown in the light. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/qDWBQYx"
] | [
[]
] | |
75fmao | with oil supposedly running out in ~100 years what real alternatives do we have for airtravel? | The title says most of it.
Are there any real sustainable alternatives? Do we have a unique periode of mobility right now? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75fmao/eli5with_oil_supposedly_running_out_in_100_years/ | {
"a_id": [
"do63z5f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is a common misconception because actually, Oil isn't running out. In the words of the former CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, the problem for the O & G sector in the near future won't be a lack of supply, but a lack of demand. \n\nWith the proliferation of fracking and other 'unconventional' petroleum sources, we are not going to run out of petroleum in any time-frame relevant to policymakers at the present. However, the recent surge in renewables (driven largely by basic economics rather than any noble environmental aims) isn't showing any sign of abating. Whilst this message hasn't quite reached public awareness yet, most public oil companies have been changing their internal projections for future demand substantially over the past few years. Shell now predicts that all fossil fuel sources *combined* will only form a minority of the world's energy supply post-2050. So to answer your question, yes, there are real sustainable alternatives and yes, we are currently at the start of a quite extraordinary energy transition. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8nlt7m | how does the human body prevent bacteria in feces from infecting the colon and spreading throughout the body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8nlt7m/eli5_how_does_the_human_body_prevent_bacteria_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzwgxvx",
"dzwiw5r"
],
"score": [
4,
34
],
"text": [
"By continuously moving and mixing of the faeces using a movement called peristalsis. Also by secreting mucous from the lining, which has proteins in it with anti microbial properties. This lubricates the surface of the colon. Resident bacteria known as commensal bacteria, compete with harmful bacteria and prevent infection. These are taken up into the faeces as it passes through to prevent over population and infection (there is too much of a good thing). ",
"(this explanation is better with the music from Ocean's 11, _URL_1_)\n\nThe gut has defenses that make Fort Knox look like a piggy bank. If you want in, listen up. First, you go towards the gut wall. Strike one--you're stuck in mucus up to the waist. Get past that, and you're at the gut wall. Not only is it solid, the doormen are picky about who gets in. It's littered with guards flinging poison or tagging you with antibodies. And the wall is covered in goop like lectin to stop you from latching on.\n\nBut hey, let's pretend you get past it anyway. You're in the bloodstream and you think it's easy street. Nope. That road leads right to the liver, and a small army of Kupffer cells. These guys are veteran beat cop macrophages, who know every name and face that belongs inside. If you don't look right, they will *eat you alive*.\n\nSo at long last you're into the main circulation, ready to raise hell. Joke's on you, buddy. The bloodstream has more than enough white cells to kill off a few bacteria--hell, people get that by chewing *gum*! If you really want to cause sepsis in this town, you'd better bring some serious virulence factors, or else get ready for a bumpy ride.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_mucosal_barrier",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdSai09_jzc"
]
] | ||
254hgl | when i buy stocks or shares, what exactly am i buying, what is my money used for. | Thanks for the response everyone for your great responses I am understanding this business better. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/254hgl/eli5_when_i_buy_stocks_or_shares_what_exactly_am/ | {
"a_id": [
"chdkzcw",
"chdl0l8",
"chdl8n3",
"chdlgmc",
"chdqb31"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
13,
63,
5
],
"text": [
"Your money doesn't go to the company. It goes to the person who sold the shares to you.\n\nThe exception is where you are buying shares that the company has just issued. Then they put your cash in their bank account, and swap it for the shares they issue to you of the same value. In this case the company is swapping \"cash now\" for \"maybe we will pay you dividends back later\".",
"When you buy stocks or shares, you are actually getting an ownership of the company, that doesn't mean you can go around and tell the company what to do, but you have a right on the profit of the company.\n\nCompanies issue stock to generate capital(money to run their business) ,so when you are buying stocks you are giving the company money to carry its business. As a return, it will give you a percent of its profit, depending on how many stocks you have bought.\n\nEdit: you won't have any physical good or something to show that you bought a stock, just a certificate(everything is electronical nowadays) showing how many shares, you have bought and at what price. ",
"you are buying a right to future earnings. thats the short answer",
"The first time someone buys shares during what is called an IPO (Or initial public offering) the money they pay for the shares goes to the company. Companies often choose to become publicly traded if they need to raise money to do something. \n\nFor example. if you build widgets in your backyard, and everyone wants to buy one, after a while, you may decide to sell shares in your company. you choose to sell 49% of the company (People with certain types of shares get to vote on what the company does, and you decide in my scenario you still want the majority vote). \n\nFor simplicity's sake, you divide the company into 100 equal parts, all with equal voting and dividend rights. Effectively, this means you have 'sliced' your company into 100 equal sized pieces. These are valued at 10 dollars each, meaning your company in total is worth $1000. Hence, your sale raises $490. \n\nThis money goes into your pocket, or more properly, your companies pocket. You use the money to buy machines to build widgets faster. Everyone is happy with your widgets, and they think your company is a very good company. \n\nYou are making lots of money, you pay good dividends (portion of your profits paid to shareholders), and your company is a strong performer in the widget market. Other people want to own part of your company. However, you still don't want to sell any of your 51 shares, so they buy shares from some of the people you sold the 49 shares to. \n\nLots of people want to buy these shares, because they think that, over time, your company will become even better, and they can then sell them for a profit. Also, you will probably pay even better dividends in future. Because of this, they offer to pay $12/share to the people who originally bought shares from you. This money goes to the people who own the shares, not you. This process goes on pretty much forever.\n\n\nN.B. This is my first ELI5 answer. I may have made it too simple, I'm not sure. Obviously shares are far more complex than this but I didn't think much more complexity would be worthwhile in this sub.",
"When you buy shares in a company you are usually paying existing shareholders for their shares. Those (now ex-)shareholders take your money and blow it all on hookers and coke."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
a3fm59 | what is the difference between bandwidth vs latency? | I've heard them in terms of some analogies but am still kind of confused. If the analogy is cars on a high-way, is bandwidth more like having more lanes? Or is bandwidth more like cars are getting on the on-ramp at a higher frequency? Does that mean that Latency is the travel time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3fm59/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_bandwidth_vs/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb5rmpq",
"eb5ro2r",
"eb5ron1",
"eb5tdvz",
"eb5tr0k",
"eb5u5b1",
"eb5yrun",
"eb5z7te"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
2,
5,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Bandwidth is how many cars can be on the road, latency is how fast they are going. So you basically got it.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnother way to put it would be how many things you can carry vs how long it takes you to deliver them.",
"You've pretty much got it!\n\n1. Bandwidth is like having more lanes.\n2. Latency is a combination of speed limit and traffic. (speed limit in this case would be inverted; higher speed = less time to get from point a to b)\n\nBoth can influence speed and number of cars on the highway.",
"Think of it like a delivery company. You computer makes a request for something (like a Netflix show):\n\nHigh bandwidth means they can deliver big packages. If the package is too big they will have to send it in pieces which takes longer.\nLow latency means they show up soon after you place an order.\n\n",
"Cars are kind of bad for an analogy, think of a water pipe:\n\nYou open the valve and the amount of water is the bandwidth, but it doesn’t reach the end of the tube instantly, that is latency, it does somewhat depend on the speed, but mostly on the length of the pipe ",
"1. bandwidth = the total amount of traffic something supports. ie your internet speeds, # of cars on a road, etc. \n\n2. latency = the response time of getting something back when you request for something. ie you go to a website, you request for the home page, the time it takes to get it back is the latency. \n\nyou can have high bandwidth and high latency. for example. you friend asks you to ship them a 5TB hdd and you mail it and they get get it in a few days. the 5TB Hdd can be considered the bandwidth, and the time from when they asked to when you get it can be considered the latency.",
"As an extreme example, shipping a box of hard drives by Fedex has great bandwidth - if you send 10TB of data in 24 hours, that's over 900Mbps. But the latency is awful - it takes 24 hours for a given piece of data to make the journey.",
"Bandwith is total cars per hour, it's a combination of the number of lanes and the cars per hour of each lane (if a car just joined a lane the next car has to keep some distance and wait 2 minutes to join, for example).\n\nLatency is how much a given car takes to arrive, the difference between the departure time and the arrival time. Latency depends on speed obviously, but it's also affected by bandwith because if there are already cars on the road a new car will have to wait until there's a free spot and enough distance to join a lane.",
"Think of it like bees and them getting nectar.\n\nThe bandwidth is how many bees there are out there going to get the nectar.\n\nThe latency is how close those flowers are. \n\nSo, you could have 5000 bees but yet the flowers are 5 km away, that's high bandwidth, high latency.\n\nSimilarly, you can have 5 bees and flowers 10 meters away, that's low bandwidth, high latency. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2slse4 | people always said that video game framerate must be in 30fps or 60fps to avoid screen tearing. but why 24fps/48fps video has no screen tearing at all? | also, I've play many games that has fps in 35-45fps on it, but I didn't see any screen tearing at all.
Then, if screen tearing is not present even if the games was refreshed on non 30fps increment , why game developer always go for 30fps/60fps increment?
EDIT: awful grammar
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2slse4/eli5_people_always_said_that_video_game_framerate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnqocpz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Screen tearing happens when the fps of the game is above the refresh rate of the monitor. A game is constantly rendering the environment so you'll see that affect. If the fps is below the refresh rate and you have v sync on, you'll notice stuttering. Nvidia and AMD are trying to implement standards to dynamically change the refresh rate of the display to match the fps of the game. Gsync from nvidia and freesync from amd.\n\nMovies look fine at 24fps because of the amount of motion blur in each frame."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
9gg9pm | could a bank just write that they have more money that they do, creating money out of nowhere like the federal reserve? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gg9pm/eli5_could_a_bank_just_write_that_they_have_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"e63yxgm",
"e63z157",
"e641ll6"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Afaik this is how it happens. They only actually need to have like 10% of the money they actually loan out or something.",
"Sure, they could try. But it would almost immediately be flagged as they have layers of security including double entry bookkeeping to make sure they catch these errors. Money can't go in unless money goes out, and they have internal audits to make sure nothing is wrong. It's way too costly for them not to.",
"They do already. It's called \"Fractional Lending\".\n\nYou deposit $1000 in the bank. The bank can, in turn, lend out $10,000 total to whoever else they want to. They're basically creating money on paper and betting that not everyone who has money on deposit will want all of their money back at once.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3sakul | matter can neither be created nor destroyed? | How is this true according to events such as the big bang? Does this conflict with religious beliefs or are there some loopholes that I am unaware of?
EDIT: Thank you to all who responded, and have helped me understand this more. On the topic of energy has always been there though, I have a similar question: If energy has always been present, what factor does entropy and equilibrium play in this grand scheme? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sakul/eli5_matter_can_neither_be_created_nor_destroyed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwvhc2g",
"cwvhk8f",
"cwvireu"
],
"score": [
19,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"*Energy* cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. \n\nSome hypotheses suggest the big bang was caused by a lot of energy reaching a critical capacity to burst out and create matter.\n\nThere is plenty here to conflict with religious beliefs since many of those were created before we had scientific observations to model the big bang. Some religious groups change to include the big bang, and others continue to deny it. It's really up to them.",
"If your question relies on knowing what happened before the Big Bang the answer is always \"we have some novel theories but nobody really has a clue\".\n\nWhile we have a pretty good idea regarding how the universe looked just milliseconds after the Big Bang, we have absolutely no idea what it was like when it detonated, what the \"it\" even was and how it got there. We just don't know.\n\nFor all we know the universe could be cyclic and eternal - energy has never been created, it just always has existed.",
"Matter/energy was not created at the Big Bang, the Universe was. There was no time when there was less of it. Before the Big Bang, there was no \"before\". \n\nThis is as simple as it is hard to understand."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5cfsqr | why can't most adults remember the exact order of letters without reciting part of the alphabet? | It seems odd that despite seeing the entire alphabet in front of me over and over again throughout my life I am still unable to immediately recall what order the letters are in. Instead, I have a fuzzy grasp of which letters are near each other and need to mentally recite a group of 2-4 of them in order to know their precise order. This seems to be true for most adults. Why is this?
Edit: to clarify, I am wondering why part of the alphabet needs to be recited in order to know where a single letter stands relative to others. This is opposed to the numerical system, where the order of numbers can be recalled immediately - I need to think about whether S follows R but not if 8 follows 7. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cfsqr/eli5_why_cant_most_adults_remember_the_exact/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9w4g0z",
"d9w4nug",
"d9w7o4q",
"d9we71y"
],
"score": [
22,
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the order is completely arbitrary. There is no relationship between K and L that would put them next to each other, and no reason K should come before L. There are also not a lot of situations where have to go directly from K to L, so there is little reason to know this any better than \"H-I-J-K-L\".\n\nContrast this with number, which have all kinds of real relationships between them, and which you practice counting up and down with all the time.",
"If I understand your question correctly, it is because it isn't information that is readily needed. The alphabet is sort of a mnemonic device in a way to help remember, because you don't need to know the relationship between Q-R-S on a regular basis.\n\nIt is much like Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally for order of operations in math. Most people don't deal with that on a daily basis, so they forget the order, but the remember a trick if they need it quickly.",
"Relearn alphabet.\n\nA-1 B-2 C-3 D-4 etc....\n\nNow you instantly associate each letter with a number solving your problem and the need to answer this question. ",
"A lot of it is practice. There are plenty of times in your daily life where you compare the values of numbers. There's not that many times you alphabetize things, and when you do, knowing that e.g. LMNO comes later than ABCD works well enough. Though recently I had a task that involved a fair amount of alphabetizing, and even with just a little practice I got a lot better at immediately knowing the order without falling back on the mnemonic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
28fc93 | do world leaders bring their own security when they visit other countries? is this different depending on who is visiting and who is being visited? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28fc93/eli5_do_world_leaders_bring_their_own_security/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciadwvc",
"ciae4aq",
"ciafhyl"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Many like to hire local security and just have their own guy in charge. It's way simpler than having a security team that's licensed everywhere.",
"They will generally have their own security with them.\nThe US president for instance, has 2 C-17's fly with him to where ever he goes so that he has all his toys (eg: the beast etc.)\n\nHeres in australia _URL_0_\n\nAnd a funny incident in Ireland _URL_1_\n",
"The US president brings his own guys.\n\nWhich posed a problem when he went to visit NZ as our gun laws forbid his security guys from carrying weapons.\nThey had to do an odd work-around to solve that one, can't remember whether they made all the US security personnel NZ citizens or sworn NZ police officers. (Or even both!)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/nQp1LgXRZWw?t=1m51s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BvABn7L_So"
],
[]
] | ||
j3ka0 | why other countries would "buy" u.s. debt... | I feel like I must be missing a key concept here. If the U.S. has already borrowed money from a lender, how do other countries "buy" our debt. How do the purchasing countries make money through this transaction? Is it similar to investing in a countries currency where a rise in the dollar would equate to a higher return for the country that purchased our debt? Please, explain it like I'm five... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3ka0/eli5_why_other_countries_would_buy_us_debt/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28uaqu",
"c28uhb6",
"c28uqpj"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"If I buy a portion of the US debt then I get the US's repayment of the debt and the interest that they repay with it. The US thus far hasnt missed a payment on their debt, so you get 'free money' with the interest the US is paying.",
"Buying debt is sort of a double negative. It's really **lending money**. If you loan someone money, they will pay you back with interest, and so you make money in the end. So China loans the US money, and takes the interest as fresh income. They also get the piece of mind that their money is safe for that period of time since the US has never defaulted on a loan (debt) and it's exchange rate is fairly stable.\n\nThe US requires so many loans that the interest they pay their lenders serves as a baseline for all interest rates globally. That's why it's called the [Prime rate](_URL_0_). Many banks will lend you money at the \"Prime Rate\" plus a few percent (since you are a riskier investment than the US government).\n\nAdditionally, lenders can effectively get their money back at any time by selling their side of the loan (government bond) to someone else. This is because so many people are want to keep their money in a safe place - and what better place than in a country that has never defaulted, you even get interest!",
"Very simple. Buying debt is basically lending money. So it's like your friend coming to you saying 'can i borrow five bucks, I will give it back to later and in the meantime I will give you 10 cents every week (that's called interest)'. He gives you an \"I owe you\" piece of paper (that is called a bond) and you \"bought\" his debt/paper/bond by giving him the five bucks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate"
],
[]
] | |
dvte0v | how do places like disney world make sure all guest are out after closing the park? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dvte0v/eli5_how_do_places_like_disney_world_make_sure/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7ek4nk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The staff are all assigned to different zones and they sweep through ensuring to funnel guests toward and through the exits. Starting with the furthest from the exit zones, staff check their designated areas and give a \"zone A clear\" signal through their radios and the human perimeter collapses, effectively forcing all guests through the gates.\n\nGuests are typically only ever in a few different states: on a ride, in line for a ride, in a shop/eatery, in a restroom or other guest services area, or walking around the open space of the parks. It's a pretty straightforward process, albeit taking some man power (though staff isn't exactly in short supply at Disney) to systematically check and usher guests from each of those locations toward the exits."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
c1eg45 | what causes a material to be a solid object, and why does it not reform after it has been divided? | For example: what causes aluminum foil to be a solid sheet, but by cutting it in half they cannot be brought back together. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1eg45/eli5_what_causes_a_material_to_be_a_solid_object/ | {
"a_id": [
"ercnjr7",
"ercrwcb",
"ercrxe5"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because of bond between atoms or molecules that form the substance. Stronger bond like metal, cristalline or covalent bond are stronger and less flexible so substance appears solid. Otherwise weak bond as ionc or electrostatic ones like in water make molecules free to move and make substance appears liquid o gas.",
"In the case of your example, aluminium foil doesn't stick back together again because an oxide layer forms on the exposed surface. \n\nWhile aluminium atoms are perfectly happy to stick to one another, oxygen does not bond in the same way so prevents the sheets from joining again.\n\nCold welding can be done by removing or preventing this oxide layer from forming, then bringing your metal together. The pieces will stick to one another. \n\nIn the vacuum of space, this phenomenon led to mechanical issues in early satellites. Parts were cold welding to things they weren't supposed to, which they didn't do when being tested on Earth because of the oxide layer forming.",
"Aluminum won't rebond because it rusts nearly instantaneously upon contact with air.\n\nWhen you cut a block of aluminum, the moment new surface touches air, it turns into rust.\n\nThis rust is fundamentally of different shape and structure to the pure metal and will not form nice bonds with each other or itself.\n\nFor aluminum, this rust is so thin that you can't see it.\n\nIf you were to cut aluminum in a vacuum, you can weld it together by slamming the pieces together since there wouldn't be oxygen to form the rust layer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8fhfdk | what does it mean to "ratify" a law or amendment, etc.? | Attempted to Google it, the definitions looked like they were taken out of a book that expected you to have a basic understanding of law vocabulary in the first place. Any help would be much appreciated! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fhfdk/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_ratify_a_law_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy3l87b",
"dy3lld4",
"dy3yl7q",
"dy4dmwh"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Ratification is a secondary voting process/approval. \n\nIf an amendment passes congress, it then has to be approved by the states individually before it is \"ratified\" or \"officially added to the constitution.\"",
"It is the final approval process that makes it come into effect. If it is not ratified it is not a law or amendment yet, cannot be enforced, and has no power. ",
"To provide an example for the other explanations, when making a change to the US Constitution, after it has gone through Congress, the states must \"ratify\" the vote. This means that at least 3/4 of the states must approve of the change, before it can go through. Note that ratifying doesn't always require 3/4, this is just what the US uses.",
"A governing organization often lacks the power to enact new rules without the consent of their members. They can vote to create the rule, but until some or all of the members *ratify* the rule, it does not take effect.\n\nUN treaties and US constitutional amendments are examples of this, but it doesn't have to be part of government. Industry groups will often set a new standard, but it is not in force until enough members ratify it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2loj3n | what was the european/old world diet pre colombian exchange? | So, TIL many of the food which is a major part in modern cuisine came over from the new world.
What was the european/old world diet pre colombian exchange? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2loj3n/eli5what_was_the_europeanold_world_diet_pre/ | {
"a_id": [
"clwr3ej",
"clwrt4m",
"clx30ae"
],
"score": [
20,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"If you're interested in a factual answer for this, consider asking this in /r/askhistorians as well.",
"My understanding of this is that bread or gruel made from barley, oat, or rye represented the bulk of calories consumed by most people in pre-1500 Europe, potentially along with some veggies like beans, peas, and whatever meat, cheese, and fish could be gotten in any given place.\n\nedit: _URL_0_",
"Wheat, carrots, cabbages, sauerkraut and things like that.\n\nBesides that, lots of diary and fish, and in southern areas, more fruit like grapes.\n\nWe also had some things (some fruits and spices and such) from pre-Colombian trade.\n\nFrom these things many things can be made. Pastas, ~~pizzas~~, bread-wares, many different varieties of kraut and kraut-related plates, cheeses, wines, beers, along with fruits, wild berries, meat, sausages, fish, shellfish, crabs, lobsters, shrimp and honey were things you could find being eaten."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_cuisine"
],
[]
] | |
2scimu | why are there numerous knots why cant we just use the most secure and strongest one for every application? | To my understanding there are numerous knots taught in boy scouts, if out of all knots there is one which gives the highest strength and one that is most secure. Why do we need all the other knots? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2scimu/eli5why_are_there_numerous_knots_why_cant_we_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"cno759n",
"cno7cnt",
"cno8381",
"cno851a",
"cno93wb",
"cno944i"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
28,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It is not always strength and security you are looking for. Sometimes you want a knot to be flexible, or you want a knot to be able to easily be undone in case of emergency. ",
"Different knots are used for different things. If you are tying 2 bits of rope together with the intent of making 1 long bit then there's one knot you want to use. If you are tying rope to itself in order to make a loop there's another knot if you want the loop to be able to grow but not shrink there's another, shrink or grow there's another. Sometimes you want a knot that when you pull on goes tight but when loose is not. \n\nIn addition there's the ability to untie the knot. Some lend themselves to this better than others, combined with the issues mentioned above.\n\nWater affects rope in odd ways, so sailing has their own set of knots because untying a wet rope can be a bitch and a half. \n\nBasically there's 1 knot that 99% of the worlds population know how to tie. It's by far the simplest to tie, and works OK for most cases. If you want a knot that works perfectly for each case you go see the sailors and scouts. There is no one knot that works the BEST in every case. ",
"If you'd learned to tie the different knots you'd probably have also learned about the various situations for which each is best suited. To add to the list of situations already mentioned here:\n\n* There are knots that work better when ropes are of different sizes;\n* Modern synthetic ropes have different properties and work better with different knots;\n* In some situations you want a knot that lays flat or takes up minimal space;\n* In others the knot is there to act as a blocker so you want it to bulky;\n* Sometimes there's a need to tie a knot without having access to the ends of the rope;\n* Sometimes you're attaching a rope to a rigid structure rather than to another rope;\n* You can use knots to work like a block and tackle and gain mechanical advantage;\n* Sometimes you need the knot to slip freely;\n* You may need to be able to tie a knot under load without letting the rope slip;\n\nand many more I'm sure.",
"Each one fits a different situation. Depending on the knot depends on the amount of friction and where. There is a knot, the bowline, that you can make if you're hanging off the side of a cliff and do so with one arm. This one doesn't slip the hole which allows you to not get squeezed as your being pulled up. Need to attach two ends of different ropes? The square knot is the go to, pretty strong, and easily undone. ",
"Might be a bit depressing to tie my shoelaces in a noose",
" > To my understanding there are numerous knots taught in boy scouts, if out of all knots there is one which gives the highest strength and one that is most secure.\n\nThis is a false assumption. The knot the is strongest for tying two ropes together is different than the best one for typing a rope to a tree. A knot that securely joins two ropes together lengthwise is going to be different than one that combines them perpendicularly, and that is going to be different than the knot that ties ropes of unequal thickness.\n\nWhat's more, strength is not the only factor. Sometimes you want a knot that is easy to until, or that will slip, or that will make a loop that doesn't slip. Sometimes you want to lash two piece of wood together, others you want to break a man's neck.\n\nA knot can do many jobs, and there is a best knot for each one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3vu74x | high blood pressure vs. low blood pressure. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vu74x/eli5_high_blood_pressure_vs_low_blood_pressure/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxqqice"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure what exactly you are asking. Your circulatory system is more or less a closed plumbing system. Too much blood pressure can cause burst blood vessels, too little blood pressure and not enough oxygen and other nutrients aren't getting to where they need to be. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
63uare | - the nuclear option and the filibuster | I thought I understood laws. Guess I don't. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63uare/eli5_the_nuclear_option_and_the_filibuster/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfx1yck",
"dfxewn8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This has two parts.\n\n1. The Filibuster-\n\nThe filibuster is not a specific parliamentary procedure per se. It's just a quirk of the rules. In the senate, bills can't be voted on until the debate has finished. Unlike the house, with its strict limits on how long a member can speak, debate in the Senate can go on indefinitely. The filibuster is just a fancy term for 'talking for a long time to delay the vote'. In the past, you could talk about anything (read a book out loud, or whatever) as long as you don't stop talking, don't lean on anything, don't leave to use the bathroom, and don't sit down, though you could have water but no food. (It should be noted that there's always a cloture vote, it just usually passes with no problem once debate has reached its natural conclusion). Nowadays, it's not feasible to allow a filibuster to shut down the whole Senate, so you jut file that you're going to filibuster and everybody just treats it like you were talking forever and moves on to other things.\n\nNow, you might be thinking 'can anybody just stop a bill they don't like on their own?' and the answer is kinda. There's a procedure called a cloture motion to end debate on a bill immediately, allowing a vote. It requires 3/5 of the senate (that's been 60 members for a while) to be present and approve of the cloture motion. In the case of the Gorsuch nomination, there are 41 senators filibustering, so a cloture motion can't pass since only a maximum of 49 senators would approve it.\n\n2. The Nuclear Option\n\nThere are actually no rules int he constitution for how the Senate does anything. all the procedures and rules of order are decided prior to each legislative session (usually in the form of 'just like last time, except...'). The Senate can, therefore, change its own rules. Since 1917, the Senate has been able to disregard all previous rules and set their own according to a simple majority vote. In practice, they usually just reaffirm the existing ones. However, the Senate can change the rules at actually any time, but since it tends to do a lot of things based on tradition, it's dangerous to do so because it means the other side can do it when they're the majority. Hence the name 'nuclear option'.\n\nToday, someone moved to change the rules on Supreme Court nominees to require only a simple majority for its cloture vote instead of 3/5 majority. The vote passed 52-48 and was immediately followed by a cloture motion, which passed 55-45. The vote to confirm Gorsuch is expected to take place on Friday.",
"Generally speaking you need a simple majority to confirm a Supreme Court nominee or to pass legislation Congress, including the Senate. However, there are procedural moves that can be used to bring about debate and prevent a vote. These are generally called filibusters. Because Republicans and Democrats can't get along it's common for \"controversial\" decisions and legislation to go through this filibuster process which basically prevents a vote. You can only end the filibuster in the Senate through a process called cloture which basically means you need 60 senators to agree to end the filibuster/debate so you can move on to a vote.\n\nWhen Harry Reid was running the Senate for the Democrats the Republicans filibustered a lot to prevent their proposed legislation from going through. This is largely because our political system has become so toxic that the party in charge doesn't really work with the other party anymore. They just ram through their own policy proposals which goes against the opposing party's views and the views of their constituents so they can't support the legislation/processes of the majority party.\n\nHarry Reid had enough of Republicans forcing them to constantly get 60 votes to move forward with Senate matters so he got a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate to make it so that basically anything could be voted on with a simple majority, except Supreme Court nominations meaning they'd only need 51 votes and since they had 51+ Democrat senators they could do whatever they wanted. They purposely left off Supreme Court nominations because this move was highly controversial at the time and to be quite honest, Democrats didn't need to. Republicans *at that point* were actually more reasonable. For example, one of Obama's nominees was Justice Sotomayor. The Senate confirmed her despite her history of saying things like she hoped that being a latina female made her a better judge than a white male. The Republicans didn't filibuster her and she only needed 51 votes to be confirmed. She was easily confirmed with 68 votes and some Republicans actually voted for her.\n\nIn the final year of Obama's presidency we had a vacancy on the Supreme Court and Obama nominated Garland for the position. By this point Obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) had passed and due to that the Democrats lost their majorities and their power in Congress to the Republicans. So Republicans said they would not hold any further judicial nominees during an election year and they would allow the outcome of the election to determine any judicial appointments. This isn't necessarily uncommon, in fact when Obama's vice president Joe Biden ran the Senate he withheld hearings and votes on judicial nominees far more often and for far longer than Republicans did with Garland during an election year citing the same reasons as Republicans.\n\nThis miffed Democrats a bit, but they didn't care too much because they were all extremely confident that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency and when she did she'd either push for Garland or put someone more liberal or an activist on the Supreme Court and then they could rub it in the faces of the Republicans for being obstinate. \n\nBut then the unthinkable happened for Democrats. Donald Trump won the election. Garland's nomination was basically rescinded and Trump would get to nominate a \"conservative\" judge to the Supreme Court. Now Democrats were furious. They feel as though the Republicans \"stole\" the nomination from them because the vacancy occurred when a Democrat was president and now a Republican is going to get to fill the role. They have been demanding Garland be confirmed by the Senate and say they will filibuster any Trump nominee. Republicans don't have 60 seats in the Senate which means they can't bring cloture end the filibuster. So today, Republicans took what Reid did the final step and made it so that the rules he put in place also extend to Supreme Court nominees. This means that Democrats can no longer filibuster Trump's choice for the court and Republicans shouldn't have a problem confirming him with a simple majority of 51 votes.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3rf68o | what is the difference between "double" quotations and 'single' quotations? | I see them used interchangeably. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rf68o/eli5what_is_the_difference_between_double/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwni5ka"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Quotations marks (\") are used for direct quotes. \n\nApostrophes (') are used for emphasis, highlighting, paraphrasing, indirect quoting, and should NOT be used in direct quotes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3p0xjd | why are there so many nice cars in places like dubai? | I'm constantly seeing pictures of pricey, expensive cars in every other parking spot around there. Are they lower quality ripoffs, or do they have a way to get them less expensively? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p0xjd/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_nice_cars_in_places/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw263y6",
"cw26ad2",
"cw26czq"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Neither. There is a **lot** of money in Dubai. It's an oil-rich town.\n\nThey're the real deals, and they're not discounted. It's just a town with a lot of incredibly rich people.",
"Wealth distribution in Duabi is not the same as in most western nations. In addition, the vast majority of the population of Dubai are not \"ethnically\" native to the region. Only the people who can trace their linage are considered Emirati citizens and only those individuals share in the resource wealth that the oil has generated. \n\nIt's more complex than that, but basically if you are an Emirati citizen you don't need to work for a living. In particular if you are an Emirati and live in Dubai, you are virtually just given money for existing. \n\nThose cars exist because there is a class of people in that city who can afford to simply buy them. Many, many, billionaires. ",
"Not only are they incredibly wealthy through their oil reserves, but they have many investors with lots of tourism, trade and retail. There are also no corporate taxes except on oil companies and banks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
nyoan | why do liberals and conservatives both complain they other hates america? aren't most people proud to be american? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nyoan/eli5_why_do_liberals_and_conservatives_both/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3czcq7",
"c3d71o8"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"They both think that \"Being American\" means \"Being like me\". The other side wants to be different, so they must be wrong. It's not really complicated.",
"I've never heard a conservative say they hate America. And I've never heard a liberal explicitly state that they hate America, they just piss and moan about how Europe is 100000x better or some similar BS."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4sncfl | credit card transaction fees - who is visa/mastercard, etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sncfl/eli5_credit_card_transaction_fees_who_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5alwcz"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"So there are usually two banks plus the card company in the transaction.\n\nThe bank that gives you the card is the issuing bank, they are in charge in determining your limit, billing you, etc. The merchant charging your account has a merchant account, this is the bank account receiving the funds, they receive the funds from all the transactions and deal with the business. Visa just sits in the middle, they are in charge of making rules for what a VISA card looks like, they are in charge of controlling credit card numbers, and when a transaction happens, they help the merchant bank connect to the issuing bank and transfer funds through the visa network.\n\nSo the way the fees work is the merchant sells Bob something for $100, they send his credit card info to their merchant bank, who forwards it to visa, visa communicates with the issuing bank and determines if the transaction should be allowed. With the approval of the issuing bank, visa gives the merchant an authorization. The merchant proceeds with the transaction.\n\nThe issuing bank then pays roughly $98 to VISA ($100 - ~2%), visa takes a small fee, (maybe $0.50) and sends the other $97.50 to the merchant bank, they take a small fee and deposit $97 into the merchant account. The issuing bank takes a $100 payment from the card holder, using the $2 difference to fund their points/rewards program with the leftover going to them.\n\nFor your card with Wells Fargo, the limit is entirely under Wells Fargo's control, though recent laws have been created that requires they check to make sure you can pay your credit card before they raise your limit. Visa has nothing to do with your balance and limit (aside from possibly setting a few general rules on what is acceptable)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
44gvl9 | why do we still use mother maiden name as a security feature? | I can understand going back thirty years ago because it was a little bit harder to find out but why are we still using it as a default nowadays?
It's very easy to find out what someone's mother's maiden name is with the internet and especially since so many people have their mother's name as their parents aren't married or whatever. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44gvl9/eli5_why_do_we_still_use_mother_maiden_name_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"czq50gs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think a better question is why are you still filling out security questions with real data about yourself? A better way is to fill out security forms with unrelated information and then document your answers in an encrypted file. This way, a database breach only gives the attackers answers to one site's questions...not answers about your real life which could be used for further attacks against the list of email addresses from the first breach."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
6yl11d | if universe is expanding, so the size of earth and everything on it is increasing as well or it is just the space between planets and other heavenly bodies that is increasing. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yl11d/if_universe_is_expanding_so_the_size_of_earth_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmo7aee",
"dmo7dhj",
"dmo7fp2"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"The space between the planets is increasing. One interesting thing is that as light moves across the universe, the increasing size of the universe stretches the wavelength of light out, in a way that's similar to the Doppler effect, into the red spectrum.\n\nWhich confirms what we've been seeing on Earth with the dawning popularity of Bernie Sanders: it's getting redder all the time. ",
"The expansion of space is *so* miniscule that for small distances, local forces such as electromagnetism (including chemistry) and even gravity (ostensibly the weakest force) easily overcome it and keep things bound together.\n\nIt is only when the forces that would otherwise be pulling things together are extremely weak (such as at massive distances - like further apart than some galaxies are from each other) that the distance can actually expand.",
"Space itself is expanding, which changes the distances between distant mass concentrations, but it is not increasing the size of objects. Its effect on objects is to decrease their energy (i.e., cool them) by lengthening the wavelengths of radiation everywhere in the universe. \n\nThe cooling effect is incredibly slow though, and totally irrelevant to timescales that we or even our solar system will live to experience.\n\nThis gives an overview of future history due to an expanding universe:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe"
]
] | ||
21o35r | why whites are excluded from being able to have race specific media and events when other races do the same without being called out as racist. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21o35r/eli5_why_whites_are_excluded_from_being_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgevwx2",
"cgevzuk",
"cgew7g3",
"cgewgku",
"cgewwfk",
"cgey8ph",
"cgeydu8",
"cgez30p",
"cgf4s02"
],
"score": [
34,
3,
6,
2,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because everything that is not explicitly minority media or event, is by definition white media or event. That is what it means to be a majority.",
"Because every day is white history day.",
"[If you aren't just trying to make a point, and you really want to know the answer, click here...](_URL_0_)\n\nA few important points:\n\n\"The very notion of whiteness is relatively recent in our human history, linked to the rise of European colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade in the 17th century as a way to distinguish the master from the slave. From its inception, “white” was not simply a separate race, but the superior race. “White people,” in opposition to non-whites or “colored” people, have constituted a meaningful social category for only a few hundred years, and the conception of who is included in that category has changed repeatedly.\"\n\n\"The original white Americans — those from England, certain areas of Western Europe, and the Nordic States — excluded other European immigrants from that category to deny them jobs, social standing, and legal privileges. It’s not widely known in the U.S. that several ethnic groups, such as Germans, Italians, Russians and the Irish, were excluded from whiteness and considered non-white as recently as the early 20th century.\"\n\n\"The aspiration to whiteness was exploited to politically and socially divide groups that had more similarities than differences. It was an apple dangled in front of working-class immigrant groups, often as a reward for subjugating other groups.\"\n\n\"Those who identify as white should start thinking about their inheritance of this identity and understand its implications. When what counts as your “own kind” changes so frequently and is so susceptible to contemporaneous political schemes, it becomes impossible to argue an innate explanation for white exclusion. Whiteness was never about skin color or a natural inclination to stand with one’s own; it was designed to racialize power and conveniently dehumanize outsiders and the enslaved. It has always been a calculated game with very real economic motivations and benefits.\"\n\n\"...there is nothing in the designation as “white” to be proud of. Being proud of being white doesn’t mean finding your pale skin pretty or your Swedish history fascinating. It means being proud of the violent disenfranchisement of those barred from this category. Being proud of being black means being proud of surviving this ostracism. Be proud to be Scottish, Norwegian or French, but not white.\"",
"Because white people (in the U.S.) are still the majority, and the majority of media represents white people very well, particularly the white male. Women and minority activists push to be represented (and accurately*), so their focus is usually on their particular group. This doesn't mean white, or white men are excluded. They don't need to worry about them in sense, because they have their representation. \n\nIf the scales change and whites are no longer the majority you would expect to see white interest groups pushing for representation.\n\n*If a white male is constructing the platform for lets say, a black woman, he may have the best intentions but he isn't black female, so the voice, the representation isn't truly representation for the black female. Also one person does not make up a group, there are many facets. The more diverse the representation, the more true a picture it will paint.\n\nI kind of went about that in an abstract way, but maybe it's another way to consider how people desire their voices to be heard.",
"Because of massive wide spread hypocrisy.",
"Well, you can have cultural events like for Germans, Irish, French, etc. Those happen all the time. Or what about those fairs where people judge pigs and eat fried snickers? Isn't that akin to Southern culture? The thing is that \"white\" culture is not monolithic in the USA. If you had a white event then the entire premise would be on skin color, which is kinda weird. ",
"In the US, historically \"white pride\" organizations had been racist hate groups, so people have a bad impression of them and things have swung the other way over the years, with society not wanting any \"white\" specific events or gatherings.\n\nIt's not like this in countries that don't have the same history: I lived in Turkey and no one had a problem with Turkish pride over there even though they were the majority.",
"I've been using this same logic to explain to people why they \"straight pride\" movement is nothing but illogcal bigotry.\n\nMy logic behind the \"straight pride\" being stupid is that no one ever opressed anyone for being straight. You didn't have people out there shunning, stoning, and other horrible things to straight people. Gay people were oppressed and hated for many many years, it still goes on. People try to make them feel \"inferior\". So, gay pride is basically a way of banding together and telling these people \"We're tired of your crap. We're not going to let you make us feel like horrible people for being who we are!\" It's not trying to indoctrinate or recruit people; that's just the rantings of bigoted Christians who take the book too literally and think that Jesus actually wrote portions of it.\n\nIf you look through history; white people have generally had a superiority complex; and have treated every other race in an inferior way. Look at the way the English treated the Indians when they showed up; they didn't give them any kind of respect. They didn't understand the way of life so they labeled them savages and did everything they could to drive them off land and murder them. I don't think I need to mention slavery as an example here, we all know that.\n\nBut, even after slavery ended; people did not treat other races with the slightest bit of respect. Indians were still being murdered and driven off land (sponsored by the US Government no doubt); the now freed slaves were still treated like inferior beings; as various Asian races started showing up; these people were treated as inferior as well. Hell, at one point you white people hating white people from other countries.\n\nSo, the reason, in my book, that white people can't have a race specific media event is they spent most of history trying to make it a white-only world. They've asserted their dominance by force; and continue to do so; and when they try to hold a \"white power\" rally...or a \"straight pride\" rally, they are properly labeled as racists or bigots because it is belittling groups of people even more. \n\nJust my .$02 (or as my people would say, 3 husks of corn and a buffalo hide)",
"They're not excluded. They just don't have to specifically market these things because it's already assumed that the majority of the people that will watch/attend will already be white. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/the_history_white_people_need_to_learn/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
855jhx | why do certain muscles (especially in the thigh) twitch sporadically after working out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/855jhx/eli5_why_do_certain_muscles_especially_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvv5arp",
"dvv91y5",
"dvvh2wg",
"dvvisdg"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Need to hydrate and eat some bananas. Not sure why exactly, but it's due to overexertion or fatigue. Water, electrolytes and potassium will calm that down.",
"They are called fasiculations, usually they are common and normal in people that workout a lot, they dont represent a problem. Just spontaneous depolorization of skeletal muscle tissue. ",
"First you need to understand how a muscle contracts. Now a major component of muscle contraction is the concentration of Ca ions (Ca++) inside the muscle fibre. When a stimulus from a neuron reaches the plasma cell of a muscle fibre it causes the depolarization of said membrane. Now this can cause one of the two things: It can either open up Ca++ canals that will allow the Ca++ to pass from outside the muscle fibre to the inside or, the depolarization of the plasma cell will cause the depolarization of the membrane of the sarcoplasmatic reticulum (SPR) which in turn will open the Ca++ canals that will allow the Ca++ inside the SPR to flow outside of it and into the cytosol of the muscle fibre. Either way there's an inflow of Ca++ and so the concentration of Ca++ inside the muscle fibre will greatly increase. When this concentration reaches a threshold level it will allow the two primary contraction proteins, myosine and actine, to cooperate and thus a contraction happens. After the contraction is finished the Ca++ can be transported out of the muscle fibre again or inside the SPR(outflow of Ca++). \nHowever if a lot of impulses come to the muscle fibre and this process is repeated a lot in a short period a time(like during an exercise) the inflow of Ca++ becomes grater than the outflow of it and so the general concentration of Ca++ inside the muscle fibre is higher than normal. This means that now even a smaller inflow of Ca++ can cause the concentration of Ca++ inside the muscle fibre to reach the threshold level for the contraction to begin. So the muscle is contraction-prone or more irritable. \nThat's why muscles seem to contract or twitch sporadically after a workout. Because impulses that cause small Ca++ inflows, that would normally not suffice to reach the threshold level for the contraction to begin, now can cause a contraction because of the already increased Ca++ concentration inside the muscle fibre. \nDrinking water would normally help since it would increase the amount of extracellular fluids, which would cause a decrease of the concentration of extracellular Ca++, which would promote the movement of Ca++ outside of the muscle fibres and into the extracellular fluids. This would prevent the muscle fibre from becoming more irritable and twitching sporadically. ",
"Also it can happen due to injury. I tore my bicep lifting a large heavy box and almost a year later while it was still healing it twitched regularly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
7j7n2h | how seeds are sold deshelled so perfectly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7j7n2h/eli5_how_seeds_are_sold_deshelled_so_perfectly/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr4aord",
"dr4h8zi"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a combination of winnowing and filtering.\n\nYou crush the shells. Then you bounce the mixed shell fragments and nuts across a mesh. You can filter out large shell fragments with a mesh that's just large enough for the nuts to drop through, and you can filter out small shell fragments with a mesh that's just small enough that nuts can't drop through.\n\nAlso, nuts are denser than shells. Bounce them both, apply compressed air in one direction, and the shells go further than the nuts.\n\nThat gets you good enough for many purposes. To finish up, you can have a human pull out the remaining debris.",
"Typically the seeds are run through a machine that bashes the shells open. It breaks a certain percentage of the seeds, and fails to break some other shells, but these are sorted out.\n\nSorting machines range from simple screens for size, to weight-based sorting, to electronic high-speed optical sorting machines."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
l5c9g | taoism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l5c9g/eli5_taoism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2pwa9i",
"c2pxiwk",
"c2pxviq",
"c2pxzs9",
"c2pwa9i",
"c2pxiwk",
"c2pxviq",
"c2pxzs9"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3,
7,
8,
2,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Fifty-One\n\nThose who want to know the truth of the universe should practice the four cardinal virtues. The first is reverence for all life; this manifests as unconditional love and respect for oneself and all other beings. The Second is natural sincerity; this manifests as honesty, simplicity, and faithfulness. The third is gentleness; this manifests as kindness, consideration for others, and sensitivity to spiritual truth. The fourth is supportiveness; this manifests as service to others without expectation of reward. The four virtues are not an external dogma but a part of your original nature. When practiced, they give birth to wisdom and evoke the five blessings: health, wealth, happiness, longevity, and peace. ",
"Taoism (also spelled Daoism) is a theory on life from ancient China. The goal is to become one with the Tao (everything in existence). The path to become one with the Tao is relative to each person, despite Westerners trying to sort it into different categories. Generally, Taoists emphasize the 3 Jewels: compassion, humility and moderation. In order to become one with the Tao, you must practice these things, as well as being harmonious with nature, which is a large part of Taosim. Traditional book-learning is regarded as useless- Taoists find knowledge through unconventional methods. Chuang Tzu (or Zhuangzi- pronounced Sh-wong-zoo) was a major Taoist writer and he wrote a story about a wealthy statesman and a poor wheel maker. The statesman was reading a book written by dead philosophers. The wheel maker mocks him and says that the only knowledge worth having is the special and personal knowledge that resides in each individual, such as the ability to make a really good wheel. These books are just filled with nonsense. The wheel maker's attitude is very Taoist. \n\nI hope this makes sense! :) ",
"Read [this book](_URL_0_) as if you were 5. Then you will get what Tao is.",
"Like You're 5: Imagine there's a kid named Billy at school. Billy is very calm and sweet, and seems like he has the whole world figured out. He lives a simple life, doesn't fight with any of the kids, doesn't get in trouble with the teacher in class and is always just simply happy. He loves nature and he's completely down to earth. When you go up to Billy and ask \"Billy, why are you so happy?\" he says \"I just go with the flow.\"\n\nThe \"flow\" Billy is talking about is called the Tao. He doesn't think about why he is happy, or labeling things around him (that is a tree, this is a sidewalk) or what he's doing later that day or how much his allowance is that week, he just *is happy*. \n\nA better explanation: The Tao cannot be explained in words, but in a nutshell, TaoISM is Buddhism Lite. It's being in the moment and living a naturalistic life devoid of much stimulation or intellectualizing things, but there is no mysticism involved (unless you get into Religious Taoism which is way different!) ",
"Fifty-One\n\nThose who want to know the truth of the universe should practice the four cardinal virtues. The first is reverence for all life; this manifests as unconditional love and respect for oneself and all other beings. The Second is natural sincerity; this manifests as honesty, simplicity, and faithfulness. The third is gentleness; this manifests as kindness, consideration for others, and sensitivity to spiritual truth. The fourth is supportiveness; this manifests as service to others without expectation of reward. The four virtues are not an external dogma but a part of your original nature. When practiced, they give birth to wisdom and evoke the five blessings: health, wealth, happiness, longevity, and peace. ",
"Taoism (also spelled Daoism) is a theory on life from ancient China. The goal is to become one with the Tao (everything in existence). The path to become one with the Tao is relative to each person, despite Westerners trying to sort it into different categories. Generally, Taoists emphasize the 3 Jewels: compassion, humility and moderation. In order to become one with the Tao, you must practice these things, as well as being harmonious with nature, which is a large part of Taosim. Traditional book-learning is regarded as useless- Taoists find knowledge through unconventional methods. Chuang Tzu (or Zhuangzi- pronounced Sh-wong-zoo) was a major Taoist writer and he wrote a story about a wealthy statesman and a poor wheel maker. The statesman was reading a book written by dead philosophers. The wheel maker mocks him and says that the only knowledge worth having is the special and personal knowledge that resides in each individual, such as the ability to make a really good wheel. These books are just filled with nonsense. The wheel maker's attitude is very Taoist. \n\nI hope this makes sense! :) ",
"Read [this book](_URL_0_) as if you were 5. Then you will get what Tao is.",
"Like You're 5: Imagine there's a kid named Billy at school. Billy is very calm and sweet, and seems like he has the whole world figured out. He lives a simple life, doesn't fight with any of the kids, doesn't get in trouble with the teacher in class and is always just simply happy. He loves nature and he's completely down to earth. When you go up to Billy and ask \"Billy, why are you so happy?\" he says \"I just go with the flow.\"\n\nThe \"flow\" Billy is talking about is called the Tao. He doesn't think about why he is happy, or labeling things around him (that is a tree, this is a sidewalk) or what he's doing later that day or how much his allowance is that week, he just *is happy*. \n\nA better explanation: The Tao cannot be explained in words, but in a nutshell, TaoISM is Buddhism Lite. It's being in the moment and living a naturalistic life devoid of much stimulation or intellectualizing things, but there is no mysticism involved (unless you get into Religious Taoism which is way different!) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Pooh-Benjamin-Hoff/dp/0140067477"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Pooh-Benjamin-Hoff/dp/0140067477"
],
[]
] | ||
af3yh4 | can you hydrate yourself by only ingesting antacid, or someother basic thing with little to no water? | Through the neutralization reaction with your stomach acid. Let's say you were in the desert, could you survive without any water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af3yh4/eli5_can_you_hydrate_yourself_by_only_ingesting/ | {
"a_id": [
"edv9cuc",
"edvawum"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, because you are losing water to perspiration and urination regularly, and also the stomach does not separate the acid from food when sending it down the way but instead produces more to replace it.",
"Your body already does that. The first part of your small intestine is called the Duodenum and it neutralizes your stomach juices before going through the rest of the digestive system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1mlfc5 | why didn't gandalf use his powerful eagle friends to transport the fellowship to mordor? or even use them to take thorin oakenshield's group to the misty mountain? it would have saved many lives including boromir. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mlfc5/eli5why_didnt_gandalf_use_his_powerful_eagle/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccabur6",
"ccabztq",
"ccacd72",
"ccaclcm",
"ccaf546"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Eagles have lives, they had places to be and things to do.",
"The Nazgul would have intercepted them. ",
"They would have been seen and killed before they got there. Hobbits on foot were the better choice because they could sneak in unnoticed past hordes of orcs.",
"I'm pretty sure Sauron would have spotted a flock of massive eagles sailing towards Mount Doom and intercepted them. A pair of tiny hobbits on foot could sneak through Mordor undetected.",
" Eagles are servents of Manwe, one of the Valar- the \"gods\". They follow his reluctant to directly intervene in the affairs of Middle-Earth (although it did happen on occasion). Gandalf was special since he was sent by the Valar to help in the fight of Sauron, so it's OK that the Eagles help him when he gets in a jam, but they aren't about to take orders from him. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3nr8v5 | why do mormans need all that genealogical data for everyone born? | It's kinda creepy that they keep that stuff but I'm not Mormon so if someone could enlighten me, that'd be cool. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nr8v5/eli5_why_do_mormans_need_all_that_genealogical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvqjo37",
"cvqk2pa"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that according to their religion, they can retroactively convert people. So the more lineage they have, people they can prove existed, they're converting them to Mormonism by name, which seems to be a requirement. Obviously, this has some mixed reactions, some people don't care, some people say that's not how it works (I kind of find this to be a joke, sort of like arguing over the rules of Calvin Ball), I know the Jews have taken extreme offense to this.",
"Was a Mormon so I can answer this. Pretty much to get into heaven you have to be baptized, but if you died before you got baptized you would be screwed. Except they have a thing called 'baptism for the dead' where they do a baptism in your name and then its up to you to accept it in what is effectively purgatory with Mormon missionaries in it.\n\nThe other reason is a social one. Its a family oriented activity and Mormons love to talk about family. You get recognition from your peers. People who do extensive family histories are actually rewarded by the church with social symbols like plaques or bracelets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
54yy1k | the most common anti-depressants work by inhibiting the reuptake of chemicals like dopamine and serotonin. why is this preferable compared to using drugs that simply cause the body to produce more of these chemicals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54yy1k/eli5_the_most_common_antidepressants_work_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"d866qrb",
"d868fyy"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It would be very easy to abuse drugs that act that way.\n\nAnd the consequences of such abuse very dangerous.\n\nOn another note, why are air-cooled Porsches suddenly unaffordable? Unrelated, just something that intensely annoys me....",
"You're right that typical antidepressants are reuptake inhibitors. I think what you are describing as an alternative would be an MAOI, or monoamine oxidase inhibitor. To translate that a bit, they are drugs that inhibit enzymes in neurons that break down (oxidize) dopamine, serotonin, and other things (these chemicals are called monoamines). The cells then have more dopamine on hand that they can send to other neurons because less gets eaten by enzymes. \n\nTo help people unfamiliar with all this understand the difference, imagine you are trying to get someone's attention from a long way away with signal flares. Oh, and it's raining. You've fired a few flares into the air and they don't seem to have done the job, and the flares you have left are getting wet and will soon be useless. So you go back to the store to buy more - what kind should you buy? Taking a reuptake inhibitor would be like buying flares that burn longer (giving a longer window of time for someone to see it), taking an MAOI would be like buying flares that are waterproof and won't be harmed by the rain (so your flares won't get wet and you can actually use all of them). Both could work, and which is better may depend on your situation.\n\nMAOIs used to be used a lot more until things like Prozac were discovered. MAOIs can have bad drug interactions with everything from cold medicine to cheese (really). So they aren't used much as first line treatments compared to newer drugs that are safer. But sometimes the newer drugs don't work and people will be prescribed an MAOI. \n\n**TLDR:** We prefer reuptake inhibitors not because they always work better, but they are less likely to hurt someone so we might as well start with those. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
tkk3u | how webhosting works. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tkk3u/eli5_how_webhosting_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4nffrt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The internet is a collection of computers that talk to each other. When you view a website you are actually talking to a specific computer or computers somewhere in the world which has a collection of usually images and the code that makes the website format. \n\nA webhost is a business that provides computers for hire that are optimized for showing websites to people very efficiently. They handle all the hard parts of making sure when someone goes to a specific address your website is shown to the person.\n\nThe cheaper web hosts provide whats called a shared hosting service. This means that you share a hosting computer with potentially hundreds of other people. This makes it very cheap to host a website as the cost is shared.\n\nI was going to write a disclaimer about how I've given an extremely simplistic answer, but then I remembered what subreddit this was."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
7v7a6h | how did they print pictures in early days of newspaper ? i recently watched the movie the post and the entire time i was wondering how they printed pictures with the movable metal type ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7v7a6h/eli5_how_did_they_print_pictures_in_early_days_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtq0azw",
"dtq6iek",
"dtql682",
"dtqo2la",
"dtqp0ik"
],
"score": [
362,
14,
7,
2,
19
],
"text": [
"They used a filter on photos that broke the image into tiny dots, called [halftone](_URL_0_). You aren't actually seeing grey or varying shades of black, but dots getting smaller and further apart to create the illusion of grey tones.\n\nThe image was then transferred to a plate, right along with the type, that was then inked and the image transferred to the paper by pressing the inked plate against it. \n\n",
"Newspaper photos are still printed with halftones today. Halftones are a relatively recent technology, began to be widely used in newspapers in the 30s I think. Halftones are not feasible with metal type, what few pictures early newspapers contained were metal engravings. I haven't seen the movie and don't know what \"early days of newspaper\" means here exactly.",
"Just for context, The Post is not set in \"the early days of newspapers.\" Papers have been printed for more than 300 years, images have been printed in papers for nearly as long. Halftone printing has been used in papers for almost 150 years. ",
"they would create an entire plate with the picture (Either by chemically engraving (photos) or physically engraving (drawings) it into a plate, then often casting from it (to reverse the engraving and preserve the original) to produce basically the equivalent of a huge movable metal type block. ",
"An earlier method would actually engrave lines into a soft metal plate.\n\nIn high school, I worked at the local weekly paper ... the paper used linotypes up until about 1971 or so. My job was to lube the Linotypes, break down the chases of type of that week's edition, melt down the type slugs into ingots for the LinoTypes, cast the stereotyped ads for the coming edition, and generally clean the place out.\n\nFor photos, they had a small lathe. On one end, you wrapped the photo around the lathe cylinder. On the other end of the cylinder, you wrapped a sheet of soft metal.\n\nThe end with the photo had a photocell to sense light and dark areas. The other end had a pin-type cutter. For dark areas, the cutter cut less deeply, lighter more so. \n\nThen you turned the machine on. A screw drive advanced the cutter and photocell along the length of the lathe. When it hit the end, you had a print ready photo engraving. \n\nThis also worked with sending images over the telephone or telegraph lines ... kind of like an early FAX machine.\n\nAn old newsreel clip (ca 1937) showing the technology ... \n\n_URL_1_\n\nThe machine demo starts at about 3:40.\n\nImportant international news photos would often have a cut-line, \"AP WirePhoto\" to impress you with the news organization's global reach. Like in the 60's when a grainy, blurred news clip from somewhere else on the planet would have the overlay, \"Live, via satellite.\"\n\nWhen the local paper went to the offset printing process, we started using the half-tone process. \nFor display advertising, the ad agency would send us heavy cardboard mats with the text and images pressed into the cardboard. These were called stereotypes. We would use those to cast a thin sheet of lead holding the image and text. The images were made using the half-tone process.\n\nHalftoning used a rather expensive chemical etching process to make the image. It did make for much higher quality images used in book printing.\n\nThe photo lathe was pretty cheap and easy to run.\n\nDang, looks like that company is still in business, \n_URL_2_\n\nA more detailed description from an old Popular Science issue (1933)\n_URL_0_\n\nEtaoin Shrdlu ;D "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX18748446.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=QuIDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA34&ots=LOjLe7rqCe&dq=photo%20engraving%20lathe&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=photo%20engraving%20lathe&f=false",
"https://www.youtube.com/w... | ||
6zhqw3 | why would the curvature of the earth have anything to do with a sniper shot. | I read this article about the latest world-record sniper shot, and it stated that the sniper had to consider air-resistance, wind, gravity, and the curvature of the earth to make the shot. What I don't get is if the sniper sees the target in a straight line of sight, why would the curvature of the earth affect the shot. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zhqw3/eli5_why_would_the_curvature_of_the_earth_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmvb881",
"dmvmf21",
"dmvmi4x"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The Coriolis force is important in external ballistics for calculating the trajectories of very long-range artillery shells. The most famous historical example was the Paris gun, used by the Germans during World War I to bombard Paris from a range of about 120 km (75 mi). The Coriolis force minutely changes the trajectory of a bullet, affecting accuracy at extremely long distances. It is adjusted for by accurate long-distance shooters, such as snipers.[24] Unlike large-scale motions of air in the atmosphere or water in the ocean, a bullet's path is not constrained to be horizontal, and the vertical component of the Coriolis force is often more important than the horizontal component: westward shots hit low, and eastward shots hit high.",
" > What I don't get is if the sniper sees the target in a straight line of sight, why would the curvature of the earth affect the shot.\n\nThe sniper sees the target in a mostly straight line, but the bullet doesn't travel in a straight line. It travels in an arc, and a rather high one for very long shots. You may remember learning that a bullet travels in a parabolic arc, but that is only true if gravity is in the same direction for its entire flight. But since the earth is curved, the direction of gravity changes slightly as the bullet travels, and it actually travels in an elliptical arc, and winds up in a slightly different place.\n\nWhether the difference is great and whether snipers account for it, I can't say. More likely, the sniper is using charts, and it is the charts that account for these various factors, without explicitly calling each one out.\n\n",
"Note that Coriolis effects have nothing to do with the curvature of the earth. Coriolis effects happen for objects that are rotating. If the earth was not rotating there would be no Coriolis effects even though the earth is curved. If the rotating earth were shaped like a cube then there would be Coriolis effects."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2139el | how do homeschooled kids graduate or advance in grades? later, if they want to go in high school, how do they join? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2139el/eli5_how_do_homeschooled_kids_graduate_or_advance/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg970ew",
"cg97jnc",
"cg98651",
"cg99mom"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Tests, I believe in most states. And they are probably required to take any standardized testing as well. Similarly, many colleges will let you attend if you score well enough on whatever placement test they are using. \n\n",
"Also, once they get to HS age many home school kids take classes at a local community college. My wife did this and when she decided to go to HS for her last year they were able to place her based on her college classes. ",
"Each state has it's own laws/requirements. I can only speak for California since that is where we homeschool.\n\nK-8th grades: You file as a private school. There is very little over-site, no tests required. You pass or fail your students as you chose.\n\nBefore anyone gets all up in arms about this being ridiculous, please know that there has been research that shows that more government over-site of homeschools is not equal to better education...and in fact, waste millions of dollars per year in states that have stricter rules and laws. I do not have online links to these (I have some info in files at home). If you care enough to do some research you can probably find links on sites like: Homeschool Legal Defense Association (_URL_0_).\n\n9-12th grades: Things get more complicated. You still file as a private school. And if you test or not is still up to each family to decide. But you need to take into consideration what colleges want. Will your child be going to college at all? What kind of career are they considering? \n\nYou can give all the grades and tests you want, but the thing that most colleges look at is the SAT. If you give your student straight A's in math for 3 years, then they score low on the SAT, the college will know you are full of crap. \n\nIn California, there are currently no laws requiring testing at any level. That is a good thing...although counter-intuitive. As a private school, we can teach anything we want. Therefore, it does not always align with the standardized tests.\n\nBut as I mentioned regarding SAT tests, if you have a college-bound student, you'd better be considering that. Unless they are going to go to a Junior College first...then there is a good chance that when they transfer to a 4 year college, the SAT will not be asked for. But it may. Plus, of course, their 2 years at JC had better have good grades. And that can't happen unless they were prepared for it while in high school.\n\nYou asked how a student would transfer into a high school if they choose. This is very simple most of the time. Remember, the public schools get more money for every butt in a seat. So they want the student in the their school. \n\nGoing from 8th grade into high school: just go sign up.\n\nTransferring after already completing some high school at home: make an appointment with a counselor and bring in the transcripts you have at home along with some \"proof\" of completed work. They usually accept almost all of the homeschool work as credit.\n\nI know you asked an innocent question about how homeschool kids advance and transfer. But many people with jump on the bandwagon and start a ridiculous thread about homeschool abuses. So before anyone starts with that, I will point out that:\n\n1) California homeschool laws are different than others. Every state has their own set of laws/regulation.\n\n2) Parents don't homeschool to have an easy life. It's a complicated decision and every family is different.\n\n3) Kids don't all learn the same way.\n\n4) More government is not always better government.\n\n5) Religion is not the only reason to homeschool. Please stop being ignorant with this. It is infuriating to those of us who have other reasons.\n\n6) An interesting finding after some research: homeschool parents that had teaching credentials actually had kids that scored lower on tests than non-credentialed parents (although a very small difference). Again, I don't have an online link. If I have time, I'll look for one later.\n\nThanks for the polite question! I hope this thread doesn't wind up like some have in the past with a bunch of rude people talking about things they know nothing about :)\n\n",
"I used the school books from the local elementary/middle school. So every year I would ostensibly learn the same things as the other children my age. There was no process involved with joining high school, I just showed up and registered. This was Indiana in the 90's."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"hslda.org"
],
[]
] | ||
2qtjrh | if the concord jet was so great in 1986, why don't they make a modern day version that's even better and fixes the original problems? | a 3 hour flight from new york to london. why is this not a thing, if they could do it in 1986 why, with todays technology can they not make it even better. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qtjrh/eli5_if_the_concord_jet_was_so_great_in_1986_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn9cml7",
"cn9cqro",
"cn9cvia",
"cn9cxk5",
"cn9iz19",
"cn9jq5j",
"cn9k2ma",
"cn9l60v",
"cn9o3sx",
"cn9tpkm"
],
"score": [
92,
8,
8,
30,
4,
2,
3,
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We could, but its still expensive and few people would pay the extra price to just get there more quickly. Supersonic flight is just naturally less efficient than subsonic and as such will cost quite a bit more.",
"It could be better, the issues arose with the expense of operating the plane, worries over the sonic boom, and an tragic accident.\n\nIt was always expensive to operate, and due to laws could only go supersonic in specific areas, most typically over international waters.\n\nAfter he accident in I think it was 2000...? Where everyone died a lot of people just decided it wasn't worth it and was too risky.",
"It was not \"so great\" by measures that matter to airlines and passengers - it was expensive and unreliable and had safety issues. Everyone in the equation cares about not having those problems.\n\nBy \"good\" you pretty much reduce the dimension of what matters in airline travel to speed - and we clearly care about a broader set of things.",
"A few reasons:\n\n- It'd cost billions of dollars in research, development, and testing. Remember how long it took the 787 Dreamliner to launch?\n- The ticket price would be way too high and not enough people would pay it. The amount of fuel it uses for the number of people it can carry is simply not economical.\n- There's a certain stigma/reputation issue that needs to be repaired\n- Because there's currently no other (reasonable) alternative for transcontinental travel, we're at the mercy of the airlines. Why improve something for the passengers if they don't have to? We're still going to buy plane tickets regardless because we have no other choice - so they might as well make it as cheap as possible for themselves.",
"Uhh, six THOUSAND dollars per one-way ticket?",
"I do not think it was ever that great to begin with, it was sort of white elephant.\n\nOne factor that others have not mentioned yet was the noise. It was a terribly loud plane, people living below the approach path were not thrilled. ",
"In short, the Concorde wasn't *that* great. It was very expensive to operate, and the ticket price was *very* expensive compared to a regular speed jet. Since relatively few people could afford it, there weren't many built, and that means that you couldn't build them efficiently, or maintain them efficiently. \n\nIn order to justify the cost, you would have to factor in the research and development, design of a new plane, including today's updated safety and efficiency requirements (much more expensive than in the days of the old Concorde), then justify that the plane would be used often enough to justify the high price, because most people don't want to spend 10-figure dollar amounts if there isn't a way to help that idea pay for itself, plus a good chance of profit (which is basically a margin of error, that you won't go broke even if things don't go your way).\n\nToday, the competition isn't just things like other airplanes, but technology like videoconferencing. Ironically, Facetime and GotoMeeting have replaced a big enough chunk of the Concorde, probably as much (or more) than other new airplanes.",
"After the Paris crash, Virgin/Richard Branson tried to buy the remaining planes, but British Airways refused to sell, preferring to mothball them instead. I would think that there would be a limited but highly profitable charter market.",
"Sonic booms! When Concorde was under development, there was also a Boeing SST under development. Everyone thought they would be great. The turning point was when people started complaining about the noise from sonic booms (from military jets). By the time it was ready to fly, it was restricted to subsonic travel over populated areas - it could really only fly fast over the ocean. That made a huge difference in both the flights where it would be faster and how much time savings you'd get. Suddenly it was much more difficult to afford.",
"There was only a small group of people who routinely used the Concorde as business transport. Ironicaly Flight SwissAir 111 had a lot of these same people on board, as it is served a similar purpose. There were diplomats and high up business ofiicials on that plane, along with billions in gems and priceless rare pieces of art. \n\nWith these people removed from the equation, the Concorde was doomed. It had already had several key setbacks and the crash in France certainly didn't help (bad luck, sucking up a chunk of tire on the runway wasn't it?)\n\nReading personal accounts from people who flew aboard the Concorde are pretty cool. It was a serious piece of harware. It was naturally crippled by the fact that only three airports in the world accepted it landing there, because of the fairly nasty repercussions of breaking through the sound barrier in either direction close to urban area. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
j57nj | can someone explain 64 bit vs 32 bit li5? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j57nj/can_someone_explain_64_bit_vs_32_bit_li5/ | {
"a_id": [
"c298xjy",
"c299co7",
"c298xjy",
"c299co7"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"In a city, there's a freeway that has two lanes inbound and two lanes outbound. It's the main road in and out of town. This is good for a while and there aren't any traffic problems. \n\nAfter a few years, a new industry has come to town and the city is growing. Now there are traffic jams and accidents every day on this freeway.\n\nThe Department of Transportation folks get together and draw up plans to build a new freeway that has 4 lanes in each direction. This will help the traffic move better because the road can handle more cars at once.\n\nThe first highway is a 32 bit processor; the second is a 64 bit; the cars are the information the chip processes.\n\nThe 64 bit processors can handle more information at once. You'll want to have four or more gigabytes of RAM to really get the goodness out of it though.",
"There are a lot of details, but here's the part that matters to most people:\n\nComputers can only think about a certain number of things. A long time ago, computers were \"16 bit\" and that meant they could only think about 65,536 things at once. That's a lot of things! Everyone thought it was great.\n\nBut eventually, they needed computers to do more complicated stuff. So, they figured out how to make computers \"32 bit\". That meant they could think about 65,536 things 65,536 times over! How many is that? That's over 4 BILLION things! That's a heck of a lot of things! Everyone thought it was great.\n\nBut eventually, even thinking about 4 billion things wasn't enough do to everything people wanted computers to do. So, they figured out how to make computers \"64 bit\". That meant they could think about 4 billion things 4 billion times over. How many is that? That's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 things! Hopefully, that'll be enough for a while...",
"In a city, there's a freeway that has two lanes inbound and two lanes outbound. It's the main road in and out of town. This is good for a while and there aren't any traffic problems. \n\nAfter a few years, a new industry has come to town and the city is growing. Now there are traffic jams and accidents every day on this freeway.\n\nThe Department of Transportation folks get together and draw up plans to build a new freeway that has 4 lanes in each direction. This will help the traffic move better because the road can handle more cars at once.\n\nThe first highway is a 32 bit processor; the second is a 64 bit; the cars are the information the chip processes.\n\nThe 64 bit processors can handle more information at once. You'll want to have four or more gigabytes of RAM to really get the goodness out of it though.",
"There are a lot of details, but here's the part that matters to most people:\n\nComputers can only think about a certain number of things. A long time ago, computers were \"16 bit\" and that meant they could only think about 65,536 things at once. That's a lot of things! Everyone thought it was great.\n\nBut eventually, they needed computers to do more complicated stuff. So, they figured out how to make computers \"32 bit\". That meant they could think about 65,536 things 65,536 times over! How many is that? That's over 4 BILLION things! That's a heck of a lot of things! Everyone thought it was great.\n\nBut eventually, even thinking about 4 billion things wasn't enough do to everything people wanted computers to do. So, they figured out how to make computers \"64 bit\". That meant they could think about 4 billion things 4 billion times over. How many is that? That's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 things! Hopefully, that'll be enough for a while..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.