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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
brp1bz | how does “hollywood accounting” work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/brp1bz/eli5_how_does_hollywood_accounting_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"eofgri7",
"eofzxnr"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Lets say big movie studio like Warner Bros wanted to make Forrest Gump 2. They would make an 'on paper' company (to make the movie) called 'Forrest Gump 2 Movie Company' then charge anything they wanted to the Forrest Gump company. Basically huge fees and although the film is a smash hit, they (Warner Bros) can make it look like it has not made a cent in profit because Forrest Gump 2 company still owes them money.\n\nThat's how actors etc can be in a profit share contract of a huge movie but not see a penny from their profit share cut",
"The actors in Bones sued over this recently. They are entitled to a percentage of money for reruns of the show. Fox owns the show and a channel that wanted to show reruns of it. So Fox licensed the reruns to the channel for free. So the actors got a share of nothing. But Fox gets the revenue from the channel so they make the money from the reruns."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
41gwzb | why does fire turn things into ash? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41gwzb/eli5_why_does_fire_turn_things_into_ash/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz2aepa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Ash is one product of combustion for an organic matter, being made up of carbon. [Here it is as part of a chemical equation.](_URL_0_)\n\nNot all fires create ash though, as some reactions can yield different kinds of products depending on what you burn. Chemical fires and explosions like [Sodium reacting with water](_URL_1_) yield different products than a normal fire."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/fire-reaction-1.gif",
"http://image.tutorvista.com/contentimages/chemistry_9/content/us/class9chemistry/chapter14/images/img23.gif"
]
] | ||
9bdobs | how does "innocent until proven guilty" work in civil law? who is innocent and who is trying to prove whose guilt? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9bdobs/eli5_how_does_innocent_until_proven_guilty_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"e528cuv",
"e528duj",
"e529qdk",
"e52a4r8",
"e52b09t",
"e52b17r",
"e52b94k"
],
"score": [
15,
7,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to civil law. In civil law, the standard is no longer \"beyond all reasonable doubt\", but rather \"the preponderance of the evidence\". In other words, the judgement goes to the side making the claim that is better supported by the evidence.",
"Civil cases are \"preponderance of the evidence\" which is a lower benchmark than \"beyond reasonable doubt.\" Also juries don't have to have a unanimous vote in civil trials.",
"It doesn't -- that's only for criminal law.\n\nIn civil law, there isn't any innocence or guilt, but instead a ruling in favor of the plaintiff (one bringing the lawsuit) or defendant (the one the plaintiff files suit against). And there is no \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" but instead \"preponderance of evidence\". That's why OJ Simpson was still found liable in the civil lawsuit even after being found not guilty in the criminal case.",
"Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that only applies when the state is involved, so it does not apply in civil cases. If you're suing me for breaking your car, you don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to prove that it's more likely I did it than did not - this is called \"the preponderance of evidence.\" So where a criminal trial must be proven \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" which we could say is nearly 100% proof, a civil claim needs only to have more than 50% of the evidence pointing your way to win.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nA good example of this would be the O.J. Simpson trial. O.J. was found not guilty of two murders in his criminal trial, meaning that the jury did not believe the state had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But O.J. lost the civil trial for wrongful death and battery, and was forced to pay damages to the families of the victims. This was because (among other things) the burden of proof was lower for the civil claim, so it wasn't possible for O.J. to slide through on reasonable doubt.",
"\"Innocent until proven guilty\" really only applies to criminal law, and then only to certain assumptions that are made about the defendant during the process.",
"Other answers have touched on how \\*much\\* has to be proven, but not on \\*who\\* has to do the proving.\n\nThe \"burden of proof\" in a civil case lies with the person making the complaint -- the plaintiff. If I take you to court and say you owe me money, I have to convince the court that you actually do owe me money. As others have said, I don't have to prove it \"beyond a reasonable doubt\", but it's my job to present the contract, show the damages, or whatever. I have to prove it, because I'm the one making the demands.",
"Civil Law is about proportionality. Let's do a scenario. \n\nBob is walking home at night on the sidewalk. While passing in front of Dave's house, he trips over some lawn tools that Dave had left lying around, falls, injures himself and incurs some medical costs. Let's say Bob is suing Dave for $500. If a judge rules that Dave is fully at fault, he pays $500. \n\nNow, let's say there are some mitigating circumstances. What if Bob is drunk? What if Dave couldn't clean up his lawn tools because he had to rush to the hospital because his wife was giving birth? In these cases, a judge would award less (or even nothing) to Bob because of these circumstances. There's a concept known as contributory negligence which would cover the first circumstance I mentioned. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
7es4fc | what would you see if you looked at earth from 50million lightyears away? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7es4fc/eli5_what_would_you_see_if_you_looked_at_earth/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq733n7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Light takes a finite time to travel. Light observed from an origination point one light year away would 'show' an image one year old. Your idea is sound, basically. However you would rapidly run into issues resolving any sort of image.\n\nThis is true at any distance. You see your surroundings 'in the past' too, as the light takes a finite time to reach your eyeballs, even reading these words on your monitor. However, the travel time is so fast as to be negligible. \n\nAs to your last question, everywhere we realistically can look for life is very close to us on the scale of the Galaxy, so the distance/time light has to travel is quite minor, relative to the time scale of the evolution of life as we know it. Tens to thousands of years, rather than millions or billions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
43uaah | caucusing and why it was ok to decide a winner by a simple coin toss. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43uaah/eli5_caucusing_and_why_it_was_ok_to_decide_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"czkyv79",
"czkzm53",
"czl0ewe",
"czl0y1f"
],
"score": [
26,
6,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"This was a meeting of party members to decide who to support for President. But I know of elections decided by coin flips. Two candidates ran for the same office. When the votes were counted it was dead even. I think there was at least one recount of the ballots. Rather than the expense and time of another recount the two candidates agreed. They agree to split the term with one serving one year and the other one serving the other year of a two year term.\n\nThe coin toss determined who served first.\n\nThe caucus is a meeting. So it has a beginning and an end. These are ordinary people with jobs in the morning. It is a meeting, a discussion, and finally a decision. In many ways it is better than simply individual voting.",
"Each coinflip decides the allocation of a single county delegate to the state convention. This isn't going to decide the nomination. At some point, both sides agreed long before the primary, that after enough tiebreaker options have been attempted, the result is truly tied, and the delegate should be awarded by chance. \n\nCaucusing (for the Democratic party in Iowa) means people from a precinct gather and stand in groups (it's not a secret vote). Each group that has more than 15% of the vote in that precinct is allowed to remain. After this cutoff the groups that remain attempt to persuade undecided voters (or voters for a candidate who didn't reach the 15% threshold) to join them. Then a count is taken of each candidate's support and county delegates are assigned. ",
"In short, it was ok because that is what the Iowa Democratic Party caucus rules say is the method of breaking a deadlock.\n\nLet's be abundantly clear what was decided by a coin-flip. We are not talking about who Iowa elects as President. We are not talking about who Iowa elects as the Democratic nominee. We are not talking about giving all of the state delegates to one candidate or another. \n\nWhat we are talking about is whether Clinton or Sanders won a single seat to the County Convention, where there are another round of caucuses to select people who go to the Iowa State Convention, where the actual delegates for Clinton and Sanders are elected. So to answer your second question: no, it isn't really important.",
"I think people are getting a bit too caught up on the coin tosses. Say a precinct is set to send 7 delegates to the state convention. Clinton and Sanders get the same votes in the room. That means each side gets 3 delegates, but there's that one left over. A coin flip was used to decide who gets *that* last delegate. In the big picture, one delegate means nothing. Allegedly, this happened 6 times, and Clinton won all six. Ridiculous statistical anomalies aside, a 6 delegate swing where there are upwards of 1400 delegates, still means little.\n\nThese ~1400 delegates will meet to determine how to distribute the national delegates. Iowa has 44. Being that the race was so close, the distribution will probably be something like Clinton 22/ Sanders 21/ O'Malley 1. So Sanders will be behind 1 or 2 delegates in a race for ~1200 delegates. \n\nIf you're a Sanders supporter, stop worrying about teeny tiny fractions in Iowa, and start worrying about how he's down double digits in South Carolina."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2vln3i | why is there more information about the stars and the universe, but little information about earths oceans? | Seriously, I'm interested in deep sea exploration and there is hardly anything about it, instead we know more about stars 500 million lightyears away. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vln3i/eli5_why_is_there_more_information_about_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"coir4gt",
"coir6zh",
"coir94y",
"coird76",
"coiwei3"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't say for sure but I think it's because it's \"easier\" to look up at the sky with a telescope than to get to the bottom of the ocean. Also everyone sees the sky and the stars while not everyone is around an ocean, so some people who may have been interested in deep sea exploration aren't because they don't get to see the magnificence of even the top layers of the ocean and wonder what's underneath. Another explanation could be that the Cold War had a space race, not a deep sea race, which led to a huge increase in technology and also sparked interest",
"There are a few reasons, but the big ones are \n \n1. JFK wanted to go to the moon.\n2. Seeing stuff in space is as easy as looking up.\n \nComparatively speaking, there is TONS of money available for space exploration and space technology development. We as a society heavily benefit from nearly every satellite we put up there, so it behooves us to understand space as much as we can. Additionally, it is easy to do most space research...all you need is a telescope, some computers, and a cloudless night. On the other hand, the ocean is dark, wet, cold, corrosive, and dangerous. The only way to really study it is to get inside it, which is fantastically difficult for us as humans to do. We already know the bottom of the ocean looks a lot like dry land with mountains and canyons, so the only real unknown is sea life, and no one is going to pour billions of dollars into undersea expeditions \"just because\". We have (unfortunately) put a very low value on the potential discoveries the ocean has to offer. For people who actually want to perform underwater research, there is also the rather debilitating reality that vast majority of the ocean is just empty, cold water.",
"I believe its a funding issue, the government and majority of people are more interested in space than they are the oceans therefore more funding is provided to NASA as apposed to deep sea exploration. The white house in fact approved funding to NASA for a trip to Jupiter's moon Europa. I would say they haven't found enough confirmed evidence in the ocean to intrigue investors enough for them to fund the exploration or research into better equipment",
" > instead we know more about stars 500 million lightyears away.\n\nWe can see them. All we need to do is sit in a chair and look at the sky. We can't do that with the sea. We need to go down into the sea with light sources to see. That is a lot easy said than done. The pressures are insane, it's cold, hard to see. That's **if** everything goes right, etc. ",
"There are several factors I can think of. Some more prohibiting than others. \n\n1. Its dangerous. Its just as dangerous as going to space. The incredibly high pressures, volcanoes, mountain ranges, and unknown creatures makes it the most hostile environment on Earth.\n\n2. Its dark. Think if space was like the ocean, and you could only see a few feet in front of you. We would have virtually no information on our own solar system let alone the stars.\n\n3. It requires a lot of energy. Unlike a space probe which will continue to move and explore long after its fuel runs out, a deep sea submersible will not. It requires a constant source of propulsion, which means constantly returning to the surface to refuel or recharge. \n\n4. Its time consuming. We acquire information from space literally at the speed of light. As for the oceans, the exploration happens at the speed of the deep sea vehicle. These vehicles aren't designed to move very fast. Even if their speed was increased, it wouldn't matter. Its like trying to explore all of Siberia at night with a flashlight and a disposable camera while driving a golf cart. It would take many years, possibly many decades to explore the entire ocean.\n\n5. Its expensive. Space is much more expensive over a single mission. But compare to the amount of money it would take to launch hundreds of expeditions over many decades, it's not. With space exploration you get more bang for your buck. A single voyage to the ocean floor yields very little information compared to a single space mission.\n\nIts not impossible, but its definitely a challenge for the future. It really is the final frontier for Earthly exploration. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5vtmdz | information tech professionals of reddit... how can you tell what people are using their work computers for? | Someone in my office got fired today for unethical use of their work computer. How does IT know what is going on? Does clearing search history/browsing info/ cookies/ ect really do anything? What information can IT departments tell about computers and how? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vtmdz/eli5_information_tech_professionals_of_reddit_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"de4rf06",
"de4sfyu",
"de4vt8f"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"All your internet traffic is sent through a device called a router. That router keeps logs of what IP address (a unique identifier for each computer on the network) performs what actions and what traffic goes through it. If a known viral program is accessing the internet through your computer, we get alerts. If you're visiting websites that you shouldn't be, we get alerts.\n\nThe history on your browser has nothing to do with it.",
"In my last job we had software which would scan the machine for any images which may have been porn. We also got a monthly report on the web monitoring software which would highlight questionable websites visited, time spent on youtube etc.\n\nELI5 - IT departments can monitor everything you do on your computer, it just depends on the company policy how indepth the IT admins check it.",
"Thus far every response here is largely inaccurate and clearly not from an IT professional.\n\n > How does IT know what is going on? Does clearing search history/browsing info/ cookies/ ect really do anything? \n\nMost corporate IT departments use content filtering to try to block website they don't want their users going to. Those same devices/applications can also keep logs of all user web traffic. Clearing your local computer's history/browsing is generally pointless. They can generally track you by your Windows sign on and/or the device being used.\n\nAssume that any website you go to in the corporate world is logged in a searchable database for at least 90 days. When they log into their content filtering engine they can easily pull up reports and see top violators of their usage policies.\n\n > What information can IT departments tell about computers and how?\n\nThis depends from company to company, but many have the ability to do remote screen capture/viewing (even without your knowledge), seeing running applications as well as monitoring your internet traffic and utilization. Assume that anything you are doing on your computer can be monitored. It really depends on how much time/energy and money your company wants to invest in management of their corporate users/assets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
42oet0 | why do increments of audio volume increase/decrease differently based on the device? | E.g. turning the dial on my car stereo represents different levels of volume than turning the knob on my stereo system at home. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42oet0/eli5_why_do_increments_of_audio_volume/ | {
"a_id": [
"czbtwbk",
"czbtytx",
"czbufue",
"czc0bjt"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you have a different set of speakers and a different apparatus. Often the volume is expressed as a percentage of the maximal volume that the speakers can produce, and as that volume differs depending on the speaker, so does obviously the incremental steps.",
"My guess would be that the incremental change of each device is programmed differently, so one increases volume by 0.1 while the other increases volume by 0.2. Also one device could have a higher max volume than the other so the rate at which the volume increases would naturally be higher.",
"There's just no standard or reason for there to be a standard. \n\nAlso different amplifiers have different limits on maximum volume, so everything is scaled to that. ",
"There actually is some sort of standard, but it's only implemented on higher end hi-fi devices : decibel or dB. The reference level is 0 dB, which is supposed to be the original volume the producer intended (and is quite loud for movies). these devices generally display a negative value, say -24dB, to show the current volume is the reference level, reduced by 24dB. Some high end amplifiers are able to increase the volume into positive digits. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
13s9cr | how did we know that we could land on the moon? | Did anyone ever think that once we put a man on the moon that he would sink through it like jello, or would burn up once we got anywhere near it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13s9cr/how_did_we_know_that_we_could_land_on_the_moon/ | {
"a_id": [
"c76pjnp"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The Soviets landed an unmanned probe on the moon 10 years before we landed a human. So, we knew that we wouldn't sink in or burn up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
amgb8a | where does the definition of a second come from and why it was decided to be it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/amgb8a/eli5_where_does_the_definition_of_a_second_come/ | {
"a_id": [
"eflrtj9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" The unit of time, the second, was defined originally as the fraction 1/86,400 of the average solar day. The exact definition of \"average solar day\" was left to astronomical theories by the romans and a whole host of other ancient peoples"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6ae1qy | browser war. why did they care so much what browsers people used? they're free, and some are even opensource. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ae1qy/eli5_browser_war_why_did_they_care_so_much_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhdrjtu",
"dhdt35i",
"dhdt6nt",
"dhe0ftm",
"dhe1fxh",
"dheufe0"
],
"score": [
109,
4,
2,
16,
2,
34
],
"text": [
"They're free, but they can still make the parent money, or serve some purpose.\n\nFor example\n\n**Internet Explorer** - only available on Windows. Windows costs money, even if it comes with the computer the manufacturer had to pay for it. So if IE is a preferred browser, people need to give Microsoft money to use it.\n\n**Chrome** - Chrome reports usage statistics back to Google, and ties very conveniently into lots of other Google products and services. Google makes most of its money on ads, and the more data they have about people the more relevant ads they can show.\n\n**Firefox** - probably the most altruistic of the browsers. Mozilla Foundation is nonprofit, and it's original drive of creation of FF was to break the IE stranglehold of the 90s and provide a free, standards-compliant browser that'd behave consistently on any OS.\n\n**Safari** - no idea, but they must be making it for some reason. Anyone else wanna chime in?",
"In short: Dominance. \n\nMicrosoft made it to monopoly with this strategy: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. They want to dominate the market so they are the only one who offers a service, and by default they can decide what happens and furthermore, what other products work in which way.\n\nIf you do business you *need* Office. You need to buy it. For that you *need* Windows. There simply is no alternative. \n\nMS tried and tries the same with the browser market and as such with the internet, they want to dominiate all and everything, so anything that is sold is by them or through their policies. Achieving the same dominance on the net-market the same as they have with desktops failed, but they are big enough to keep trying.\n\nThe same worked for Apple very well. If you are in the Apple world, you are in a golden cage. No matter what one thinks about it, it is financially very good for Apple. \n\nIn a way it is the same with google, they want internet-world-domination, as that increases they ability to control what you see (ads), which is financially very good for them. \n\nAdd a few odd competitors who do it for \"ideology\", as Firefox.\n\nThe question \"Why is the browser war waged?\" is basically the question \"Why want companies utterly dominate your access to the internet?\" and the answer to that is \"To press everyone else out and finally make all the money\". ",
"They want your eyeballs.\n\nIt's tempting to repeat \"if you're not paying for it, you're the product not the customer.\" That's certainly part of it, but it's not all of it or even most of it. There is data that can be mined from your usage, and money can be made off that in lots of ways. But it's the search engines that get most of that value. The browser doesn't search websites, it just takes the one you found and assembles it on your screen.\n\nBut if a browser comes bundled with a search engine, that's different. It's more like a marketing investment, rather than a product.\n\nIf most IE users use Bing, and most Chrome users use Google, that's a great way to get more valuable data from your search engine. So offer the browser for free -- even though you're spending a lot of money to keep it competitive -- as an enticement to get more people using the money maker.\n\nThere are also deals where companies pay each other to have browser X installed by default on a system. The more people are using that browser already, the more it's in demand, the more valuable such a contract may be.",
"Some useful perspective can be gained by looking at when the browsers were originally released, and considering the context that provides.\n\nNetscape Navigator, December 1994: Navigator was a commercial product, sold for profit. A number of developers of NCSA Mosaic (which was mostly free of charge) left NCSA in order to capitalize on the commercial opportunities in developing Internet software.\n\nInternet Explorer, August 1995: Microsoft licensed the Spyglass browser (a descendant of NCSA Mosaic) for inclusion in Windows. According to internal memos, Bill Gates was concerned that the spread of networked content rendered in a standard fashion threatened to \"commoditize the underlying operating system.\" That is, if information could be viewed equally well on any platform, revenue for Windows was threatened. As an interesting note, Microsoft licensed the browser from Spyglass in exchange for a percentage of their profits. Microsof then gave away the browser, cheating Spyglass of any revenue. Spyglass sued them, and won a pittance. Early versions of IE were a stop-gap while Microsoft wrote their own browser that wouldn't be subject to license terms with Spyglass. All of this, more than anything else, is the essential reason for the browser wars.\n\nTangentially related, and also of interest, perhaps, are the Halloween documents: _URL_0_\n\nKHTML (Konqueror), November 1998: Free Software (Linux and BSD) desktops did have access to Netscape, but didn't have good Free browsers. The KDE project set out to produce a usable mostly-Free desktop (they used a proprietary graphics library), including a web browser.\n\nSafari, January 2003: Before Safari, Mac OS was dependent on Microsoft to provide IE. At this point, Internet access was essential for any computer, and reliance on IE meant that Apple was dependent on their primary competitor, which was leverage that Microsoft could use against them in any negotiations. Apple forked the Free Software KHTML components and used them to make Safari and WebKit.\n\nFirefox, November 2004: After AOL acquired Netscape, various changes were made to the browser in an attempt to drive revenue for AOL projects. The AOL Instant Messenger was bundled, for example, and Netscape's pop-up blocking (which served to block advertisements) was very briefly removed before outrage from users brought it back. Several developers forked a new code branch to build a new light-weight browser that was focused on user needs rather than driving revenue for the parent company.\n\nChrome, September 2008: Google derives most of its revenue in whole or in part using advertising in search results, or ads that are targeted based on information they gather from what users search for. It is vital to them that they are the default search engine in most browsers, and they release a new browser of their own (also descended from WebKit, and hence, KHTML). That browser is highly standards compliant, and being an advertising agency, Google is in an excellent position to market it to a broad internet base.\n\nAs a Free Software advocate, I like to point out from time to time that while GNU/Linux still has a relatively small market share, software originally written for GNU/Linux systems powers virtually all of the browsers people use on a regular basis: Chrome, Safari, Android's browser, and iOS's browser all descend from KHTML. The only other brower that matters, Firefox, wasn't GNU/Linux specifically, but was Free Software since ",
"It was because Microsoft tried very hard and pulled some dirty tricks to get a monopoly.\n\nSo to build web pages it should be an open standard meaning if you coded a web page in HTML it really shouldn't matter what web browser you use or even what Operating system you use.\n\nMicrosoft saw this as a threat , looking ahead tons of people use their computer as just a web browser machine. If all you do on a computer is open a web browser and browse the web, Microsoft loses its dominance. You can use Apple, or Linux, of FreeBSD or andriod to do that.\n\nSo back in the day Microsoft tried to do several things that made it so web browsers would only work in IE, if all webpages only work in IE Linux, android and even apple could be crippled .\n\nSo lots of people fought really hard for open web standards . Open web standards would allow any web browser running any OS to work.\n\nMicrosoft tried really hard to make it so lots of web pages would only render correctly in IE or use activeX what would force people to use IE what would force people to use windows.\n\n\nIf they would have succeeded Android or linux would have been crippled. Would anyone use an O/S that you couldn't browse the web in?\n\nAlso apply would be at their mercy , all they would have to do is pull IE from apple and they would be crippled",
"/u/gordonmessmer gets the \"what\" down, but misses some of the \"why\".\n\nMicrosoft's strategy to keep customers captured in \"The Microsoft Ecosystem\" was \"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish\". They used (and still use) it to insert themselves into other positions and then compel upgrades and bankruptcies.\n\nSo, for example, Microsoft would often give free versions of MS Office to the president of a company. Then none of his underlings could read his output unless he used \"save as - > older version\". This would frustrate the boss so eventually he'd demand to know how to \"fix this problem\", but wouldn't want to downgrade himself. Downgrades would feel so last-year and all his stuff would have to be systematically opened and re-saved with that save as older version. So eventually the boss would order an expensive upgrade of the whole company.\n\nNow there is no reason that Office had to work this way. With a little planning the \"doc file\" format could have been reasonably future-proofed into a forward/backward compatible core. But this was a useful strategy.\n\nNow expand that across businesses. If I can get your biggest customer to upgrade, then either you have to upgrade or you have to keep telling your customer to go back and save as - > older format everything they send you. And now you look hopelessly out of date. So now you have to upgrade.\n\nAlso include the fact that \"forward thinking\" Bill Gates famously declared that the internet would never happen in any meaningful scale. (He really wasn't particularly smart about technology, he was just one of the bastards that knew how to manipulate people.) So Microsoft was _very_ late to the party. (EDIT: On looking for citations, this Bill Gates comment may be apocryphal. Microsoft was very late to the internet party, having just hoovered up Berkeley sockets and TCP/IP stack already developed by Berkeley and Apple under the BSD license. Windows had Server Message Block \"SMB\" networking, but that was premises only and could not be routed in any meaningful way. So windows did networking early, but it was very late in terms of any kind of Internet Protocols.)\n\nSo HTML is, among other things, a document format. It can pretty much display any document you can imagine. Not decode any save file, but produce the formats and layouts of an intended vision.\n\nThe actual intent of this vision, this HTML format, was to make document storage universal and accessible. It just so happened to \"also\" let documents refer to each other. But the true goal was to make the \"doc format\" obsolete.\n\nThe internal layout of all document data would be controlled by a data file format that was controlled by public committee and that _anybody_ - company or individual - could write a word processor to manipulate equally.\n\nWhat a disaster for Microsoft!\n\nThis would completely invalidate the whole MS Office model. There'd be no way to control who used what version of who's word processor, or spreadsheet, or whatever if everyone knew exactly what every byte of every data file meant.\n\nWith no \"secret sauce\" there was no need to buy Microsoft at all.\n\nSo, late to the game, MS did whatever it could to get _any_ browser. They gave it away for free - not just to screw Spyglass, which was a bonus, but to make sure that everybody would \"suddenly\" have _their_ browser.\n\nThen MS integrated \"explorer\" and \"internet explorer\" into all their applications so that you literally could not remove their browser without rendering your system basically useless.\n\nThen, having pulled \"market dominance\" out of their collective ass, they started making Internet Explorer \"Work Different\" than the standard. IF you pulled up anything in IE, compared to any other browser, you wouldn't see the same result.\n\nThe implication there would be that the other browser was \"wrong\".\n\nNobody could afford to go into for-profit business against MS' deep pockets and free price tag. (This is why Mozilla is a not-for-profit foundation instead of a business. etc.)\n\nNobody could do anything but _guess_ about the secret alterations that I.E. used.\n\nEverybody who used a standards compliant browser would get different results than all the people using I.E.\n\nThis _almost_ gave Microsoft defacto control over the internet. It _almost_ worked.\n\nThen Microsoft released some really atrocious and really insecure stuff for authoring web pages that were, in turn, really atrocious and insecure. Their I.E. gambit opened a gaping pipeline from \"the internet\" to the heart of windows and so your data.\n\nOne could craft internet URLs to delete files, install software, and do all sorts of harmful things.\n\nThe very ubiquity and thoughtless integration that worked as the sharp edge of the wedge in Microsoft's strategy to control the internet through shear numbers was basically thwarted by the fact that the internet is full of assholes. And thank god for those assholes really, we wouldn't have the internet of today if Microsoft had \"won\".\n\nSo the Price and Penetration were there, and the war seemed all but over, and then the worms came to eat the dead flesh from Microsoft's scheme. (That's what scavengers are for.) The completely insecure Windows platform with I.E. which gave any remote actor control of the Windows kernel at the load of a page, was just _too_ juicy a target.\n\nSo people started losing whole hard drives when their friends didn't and they asked how and why. Well the users of the not integrated browsers were not anywhere near as susceptible to penetration.\n\nWhich is sort of funny. Those other browsers were struggling to be just as bad as I.E. Their developers _wanted_ to offer \"ActiveX\" and the undocumented OLE extensions and match the \"special\" formatting rules but those were secret. So Microsoft had literally locked their opponents out of the chance to make the same mistakes.\n\nSo at that point Microsoft is playing catch-up in the security realm. Trying all they could to turn the inherently insecure Windows into something that wouldn't burst into flames the instant it went online.\n\nAnd the other browser makers are trying to get their products to burn exactly the same way I.E. did because they were seen as failing to do what I.E. did -- e.g. break the rules in those secret ways and open all those convenient security holes.\n\nBut the users were switching away to Mozilla, and eventually FireFox and such, because it was _safer_.\n\nOnce enough people were using \"not I.E\" the differences between I.E. and the rest of the world were finally seen as true flaws in I.E. That is, with Mozilla, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, and all the rest showing results one way, and poor old Microsoft showing them some other way, the user base started to understand that it was I.E. that was broken.\n\nSoon there were \"I.E. emulation\" check boxes and extensions in other browsers one could click to best-guess emulate the broken behavior of I.E. and now Microsoft was suddenly the one limping along. They needed to both fix the security holes _and_ fix their implementation to meet the open and published standards. They also had to do it in a way that didn't break their whole operating system. So for more than half it's life (from IE 5 until now, which is IE 12 or 13) Microsoft's browser has been trying to recover from their own attempt to steal and lock-down the internet behind a wall of secrets.\n\nKeep in mind that if they'd succeeded then they could pull out patents to kill anybody who lived through the wars. Once Microsoft had \"extended\" the internet with their secrets, they could \"extinguish\" anybody who dared to make a compatible browser.\n\n---\n\nAs an aside, these wars are not over. We've still got the Word/Office problem. Microsoft still has their secret sauce strategy at work.\n\nWhen governments started to demand open document formats so that they could use any software they wanted Microsoft paid a bunch of people to join the ~~IEEE~~ ISO so that they could control the Open Document Formats and inject proprietary vendor extensions tags.\n\nSo Microsoft's \".docx\" format is just as bad as \".doc\" for having secret sauce. There is a \"vendor extension tag\" (or set there-of) that lets Microsoft say \"sure, we store our documents in the standard format like your law requires\" but if you say \"so how do we read that chunk there?\" they can say \"that's private\".\n\nIt's the same bullshit of embrace, extend, extinguish but it turns out that you can only cram so much stupidity into those little chunks so it's a slog.\n\n---\n\nSo the browser wars was all about whether one company would be able to dictate what software you could use on the internet, first by subterfuge and then second by patent law. They were stopped at \"first\" because the internet is not just full of assholes, but some of those assholes had a sense of the stakes at hand.\n\nThis didn't save the best of the best (WordPerfect) or let innovation flourish (Quatro Pro) in all areas, but it did stop the bleeding.\n\nSo like any war, it was an attempt by the powerful to take land and things from people who had worked to create them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
36m88q | why excatly did bernie sanders ama drop so drastically in upvotes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36m88q/eli5_why_excatly_did_bernie_sanders_ama_drop_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"crf73ij"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Reddit \"weighs things down\" so that other posts get a chance to be seen. Otherwise the Bernie Sanders AMA would be on the front page for two months."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
976ph4 | the body always gives a warning before a sneeze, burp, or cough. why dont we get one for hiccups? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/976ph4/eli5_the_body_always_gives_a_warning_before_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e45w3fj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"That's because sneezing, burping, and coughing, as well as yawning, are mechanisms intentionally designed for your well being. It's your brain deciding to trigger them, so it is able to remind you.\n\nHiccups are a failure of your respiratory mechanism, a glitch, an unintentional consequence of improper breathing. Your brain didn't choose to trigger hiccups, so it can't predict them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3b1rm0 | why can i see through glass but not walk through it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b1rm0/eli5_why_can_i_see_through_glass_but_not_walk/ | {
"a_id": [
"csi0qdp",
"csi1o3b"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Why would you think you would be able to walk through it. It's still mass it simply lets some light through. The only difference between glass and other substances is that it doesn't absorb or reflect much light. ",
"Simpy put, most objects have a certain range of light which they absorb and a certain range of light which they reflect. The light which they reflect largely defines what color the object is. With glass, there are certain properties which allows the majority of light particles to neither be absorbed nor reflected, but rather pass through. This is why glass is not a traditional color, but is transparent. Some light particles are still absorbed, however, and some are still reflected, which we see in the glass. This makes glass different from many other solid objects we see, but it still retains the structure of a solid in that the particles are stuck together in electromagnetic fields, which you cannot easily walk through. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2sdlk7 | how did humans survive without clothing while we lost our fur? | In a more explained fashion; how did humans not die from exposure before we learned to wear clothing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sdlk7/eli5_how_did_humans_survive_without_clothing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnoh6vq",
"cnoh9hy",
"cnohczz"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
9
],
"text": [
"Before humans invented clothing they did not live in regions that got cold. ",
"Humans evolved in Africa, where [clothing is not necessary](_URL_0_). It's hypothesized that humans didn't spread into colder climates until after clothing was invented. ",
"Our ancestors evolved in the savannah, where hairlessness had benefits of better heat exhaustion and less attack vectors for parasites. The increased intelligence allowed them to utilize animal furs and expand into colder areas without selection pressure and evolution having to work towards thicker fur again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/32754/wm/pd3096564.jpg"
],
[]
] | |
o5xps | what exactly are the 'conservatives' conservative about? | Also, republicans are conservatives right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o5xps/eli5_what_exactly_are_the_conservatives/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3emv4p",
"c3enhmr",
"c3eoj0w"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Republicans are generally considered the more conservative party in the US. Compared to European politics, the Democrats are pretty conservative too, but the Democrats are more liberal than the Republicans.\n\nThe classic definition of conservatives is that they dislike change - they want to maintain things the way they are. Liberals are more open to change - they are OK with trying different things.\n\nExtreme conservatives are called reactionaries - they want to go back to the way things used to be rather than the way things are. Extreme liberals are called revolutionaries - They want change to happen now rather than gradually. \n\nUnfortunately, over the years these definitions have gotten muddled, and there is more to it than just this, but that is the basic definition.",
"They are conservative when it comes to trusting 1) government officials and 2) people's morality. They have a conservative view of human nature. In turn, this means they distrust claims that changing things could make things better.\n\nThey don't trust people not to be corrupted by power, so they do not trust the government to spend their money more efficiently than they could do so themselves. Therefore they don't approve of adding new functions to the government; the more things you put in the hands of the government, the faster it corrupts and the more money it wastes.\n\nThey do not trust people (including themselves) to make proper moral choices, so they prefer to make those moral choices a matter of law. Studies of morality have shown that conservatives place much more importance on respect for authority than liberals, so moral claims that contradict their preferred moral authority are rejected. ",
"To add a little more to the discussion, conservatives favor a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. This means that for most Conservatives, if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow it, it ain't allowed in the US. If the Constitution does allow it, it cannot be regulated by the Federal or the State government. \n\nLiberals take a less restrictive view on the Constitution. They feel that unless the Constitution specifically forbids the US Government from controlling something, then Congress can regulate it. Let's look at an example that has been going on for over 200 years.\n\nThe Second Amendment says in part \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Conservatives need only this phrase to say that anyone can own a handgun and the government cannot make any law that could limit a person's right to own a gun. \n\nA liberal interpretation would look at the first part of the Amendment, \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Liberals take this to mean that unless you are in the National Guard, you don't have the right to own a gun. \n\nCurrently, Republicans are the conservative party. That has not always been the case. For a long time the Southern states would only elect Democrats. That meant that you could have conservative Democrats running against liberal Democrats. Currently, regardless of what platform they run on, both parties are generally moderate. Not leaning strongly one way or the other. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3tfnun | how my satellite dish can be pointed in one specific direction while the earth rotates. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tfnun/eli5_how_my_satellite_dish_can_be_pointed_in_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5p5ex",
"cx5p5q4"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Satellites that are used for TV are what are known as *geostationary* - this means that they don't move, or rather they move at the exact same rate as the planet rotates. Your satellite dish is pointed at an area of sky, knowing that the satellite it's looking for will be there permanently.",
"You probably want to focus on geostationary satellite. That means those kind of satellites are rotating with the same angular velocity as earth does. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
54y91h | how do people in china, russia, japan, india, etc. do computer programming, since all the big languages (e.g. java, c, python) are all written in english? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54y91h/eli5_how_do_people_in_china_russia_japan_india/ | {
"a_id": [
"d85ys55",
"d860nqk",
"d861kkj"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"They learn the minimal amount of English required to program. It's not actually that much to learn; to write Java, for example, you could memorize a list of about 10 keywords that would get you started, and be a good programmer with only 20 or so.\n\nPlus, some exposure to English is common outside the U.S.",
"English is widely spoken as a second language in these countries, particularly by educated professionals. And you don't even need to speak that much English to program in English-based languages.",
"Programming isn't English. Programming is magic incantations with words randomly borrowed from English.\n\nI'm mostly joking, but does this really read like English to you?\n\n for(int i=0;i < =pkbuf- > len;i++) {\n /* ... */\n }\n\nIf we were going for anything remotely English-like you'd see things like this more often:\n\n begin loop from 0 to length of packet buffer incrementing by 1 indexed by i\n /* ... */\n end loop\n\nBut that kind of syntax is really unpopular because it's annoying and verbose, and the attempt to approximate English grammar ends up confusing and annoying far more than helping.\n\nKnowing English is of extremely little help. \"for\" isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind for creating a loop. Even if you know what the word \"integer\" means you still have to know what exactly \"int\" means anyway, because with computers there are limits and portability issues that you have to be aware of. And \"float\" only makes sense if you're aware of the concepts of fixed and floating point, which 99.9% of English speakers learning to code aren't.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5qcdct | is it feasible to build a wall like the us president is suggesting along the mexican border? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qcdct/eli5_is_it_feasible_to_build_a_wall_like_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcy2nkl",
"dcy2oau",
"dcy2vnw",
"dcy37qq",
"dcy3jl3",
"dcy4xw1",
"dcy6ja7",
"dcy8k3o",
"dcy8lwe",
"dcyeigs"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
48,
11,
21,
5,
26,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"We aren't talking about a suspension bridge or a very tall tower or something difficult.\n\nWe're talking about a wall. Walls are very easy to build. It does not need to be a specialized design. It just needs to be a wall that cannot be climbed. Like the peace barriers in Northern Ireland, or the West Bank wall in Israel, or the walls around prisons all around the world. \n\nIt will be expensive, because it's a lot of wall. But it's not a complex technical structure. ",
"Feasible? Sure. There are approximately 2000 miles of border and currently approximately 700 miles of \"wall\". What's another 1300 miles with enough resources to pay for and do the work?",
"Consider 'building' a wall to be three parts:\n\n1) building walls and gates in major populated areas. This part would be straightforward. It would cost money and take time, but nothing about it is revolutionary. We even have some fences/walls up already that could be used as templates.\n\n2) building walls and gates in 'unpopulated' areas. These include large farmland, sparse grazing areas, national park/forest land, and otherwise inaccessible areas. This would be the most expensive part of the construction effort. A wall that makes sense to build in a dense city will take a massive logistics effort and cost to build in the middle of nowhere. Concrete mixers, roads, power, camps for workers, would all need to be build along the construction zone. While possible, it would be a monumental effort.\n\nWe have some current surveillance efforts in these areas, but it's mostly a 'when we can get to it' level of effort.\n\n3) continued maintenance. If it does end up getting built, the wall will leave a large bill to future presidents and society for upkeep and guards. One of the main reasons the Great Wall of China was eventually abandoned wasn't the construction cost, but the cost of keeping thousands of troops in the middle of (literally) nowhere to defend the entire stretch. Supplies, transportation, entertainment would all need to be provided to guards on those stretches.\n\nAs soon as society decides that the cost of maintenance is too expensive, the wall will almost immediately be compromised.",
"It's entirely possible to build it; it's just a wall.\n\nThe question is inherently about whether or not it's worth it, particularly considering most illegal immigrants will bypass it entirely by coming into the country through legal means and then simply not leaving.",
"Feasible and possible, yes. We could even do it without manufacturing capacity or power equipment. For example, see China. For a more modern example, see Cold War Berlin.\n\nThe real question is...will it actually accomplish anything other than costing a f*ton of money and making Trump feel a little more masculine?\n\nSpoiler alert: almost certainly not.",
"A concrete wall and a concrete road are almost the same thing, with a 90˚ rotation. There are thousands of miles of roads in the Southwest US. Making concrete panels is easy, drilling foundation holes and filling them with concrete is easy, pouring posts on the foundations is easy, slotting the panels in between the posts is easy. The US has many hundreds of miles of sound control wall beside the road that's been made with this process.\n\nIt will take money, and time, and concrete, and machines. There are some rugged places where it will take some engineering, but that's a starter project for new civil engineering grads.\n\nThe Rio Grande river has to pass through the wall, and it's very large in that area. This will not be an easy place to build a wall. Serious engineering is required, but not Hoover Dam engineering.\n\nThe \"will it be worth the money\" question isn't an engineering question.",
"Feasible, yes. Useful, hardly.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n* A large percentage of illegal immigrants exist due to overstaying their Visas. \n* Tunnels.\n* Unless you build it high enough, it can be flown over while still being under the radar.\n* A lot of illegal immigrants simply fly in on commercial flights. Some get caught, some don't.\n* The Gulf of Mexico exists.\n* The Pacific Ocean exists.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nA wall is more of a physical manifestation of Trump's foreign policy than actually being useful for keeping out illegal immigrants. It will create some jobs both short and long term...jobs that will likely be undertaken by immigrants, like most construction/maintenance/border patrol work.",
"Feasible yes. That's not the question but whether it's worth the cost. There is already miles of fence and people jump over it and dig under it all the time. Plus there are people going across customs as well as drugs. Drug and human trafficking is a billion dollar industry. A wall won't stop it. ",
"One thing that also needs to be considered is animal habitats and migrations. Animals don't pay attention to national borders so putting up a wall will restrict their movement a lot. \n\nI don't know if Trump will care (probably not given his actions regarding the EPA) but if the wall were to be built, figuring out how to make sure animals aren't badly affected would certainly add to the complexity. ",
"There was a great post earlier today by a structural engineer that estimated it would need 3x the concrete used to build the Hoover Dam, and 6x the steel required to build an aircraft carrier.\n\nNot to mention the labor and overhead costs to build something that is by and large in the middle of the dessert."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
8y52hm | why is the read head in a vcr slightly askew? | [Such as in this image](_URL_0_)
I have taken apart a couple VCRs before, but never understood, why is the read head slightly askew? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8y52hm/eli5_why_is_the_read_head_in_a_vcr_slightly_askew/ | {
"a_id": [
"e286zro",
"e2871hr"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"It is called [“helical scan”](_URL_0_) and by imprinting in angled stripes on the tape a higher frequency signal can be stored without requiring the tape to be moving at extremely high speed. By tilting the head a greater distance can be covered on a wider, more slowly feeding tape.",
"Video signals need a lot of information to store and VHS needs to store information very densely on the tape. To accomplish this it uses a helical scan head. Instead of writing one stripe of data along the whole length of the tape (like audio tapes do) it writes a series of stripes diagonally across the tape as it moves along.\n\nThe head is at an angle to the tape and it rotates rapidly, while the tape moves relatively slowly. Each rotation writes or reads one stripe of data, and by the next rotation, the tape has moved along a little bit and the head writes another stripe right next to it."
]
} | [] | [
"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VHS_head_drum_1.jpg"
] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_scan"
],
[]
] | |
58ls58 | how does heat "draw out infection?" | Many sources state that using a warm compress can draw infections to the surface of the skin. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58ls58/eli5how_does_heat_draw_out_infection/ | {
"a_id": [
"d91hiw7"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Adding heat to an area often opens up blood vessels. When they're cold, they contract more. So by adding heat, you're effectively increasing blood flow to the area, which obviously contains white blood cells needed to fight off infection. This is why diabetics are prone to infection, especially in their feet, because of decreased blood flow to their feet"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
14k5w1 | car depreciation | I understand a few factors involved in depreciation, such as how desirable certain colors or models may be, and how long-term reliability contributes, but what else is involved? For example, why do luxury cars depreciate so rapidly? More importantly, how exactly are these values determined? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14k5w1/eli5_car_depreciation/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7dswon",
"c7du8vo",
"c7dv8w8"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"First of all, when you buy a car from a dealership, the dealership's a business so it has to pay tax on the sale to the government. When you own the car and decide to sell it, you're an individual and (unless you sell it for a profit, which is unlikely) you don't have to pay tax.\n\nSo straight away, if you and a dealership are selling the exact same car and you both want, say, £20,000 in your pocket, the dealership has to charge £24,000ish and you only need to charge £20,000. So already the price is down £4,000 and nothing's even happened yet.\n\nSecondly, there is a lot of prestige involved in owning a brand new car. Especially a luxury car. Imagine spending £100,000 on an awesome vehicle, pulling up to your friend's house and he says: \"That's so cool. Is it new?!\" And you have to say: \"No, some other dude owned it first.\" That totally takes the edge off. So some people are willing to pay a premium for a car that has never driven anywhere and never had anybody else sat in the driver's seat.\n\nAnd then, cars get old. A brand new car has brand new parts. These eventually get old and need fixing or replacing. The more miles a car has driven, the more on it you're going to need to fix soon. So if you buy a brand new car, it's likely that nothing will need replacing for a year, maybe more. If you buy a year-old car, on top of the money you just paid for it, you need to keep some change aside for buying replacement parts. With this on the horizon, the price of the car goes down.\n\nThen, of course, people occasionally damage cars. They don't put the key in the lock straight away and slightly scratch the door. Sitting in it daily wears the seats out a little. Drive too close to the kerb and you might dink the wheels slightly. You're out shopping and somebody walks past and dents your car a bit. Even though these might be tiny, tiny things, they all make the car less valuable, because it's less perfect.",
"Timaldinho summed it up pretty well. \n\nKeep in mind that depreciation on an asset is tax deductible. If you're a business using a car (or computer for example) that gets outdated or used pretty quickly, you can use a double-declining depreciation method to accelerate the depreciation. This makes it so you can take advantage of the tax benefits on something that wouldn't last very long or gets outdated fast. \n\nFor example, if you bought ten new computers for your business, you wouldn't want to depreciate them straight line [(value of computers / years in use)-salvage value] for a couple reasons. 1: the value of the computers declines very rapidly. 2: computers often have no salvage value. You want to depreciate these items as much as you can in their first 2-3 years of use and you can do that using the double-declining method. \n\nFor big purchases, it's more normal for a company to depreciate something straight line. ",
"It's mostly prestige and risk.\n\nPrestige has been described by others, so I will explain the risk first.\n\nWhen I buy a new car from a dealer, I can generally be confident that if it has a problem, the dealer will fix it at no cost. It's fresh off the line, so there will be no wear and tear, but it's possible that a part is defective, and that will be covered under warranty.\n\nIf I buy a used car, I really don't know what has happened. Maybe the previous owner treated it well, but maybe they spilled seafood gumbo in one of the seats. Maybe the engine blew up, and a buddy fixed it on the cheap. Maybe the kid drove like a maniac and burned out the transmission. Maybe it was stolen. Or maybe it's just the usual wear and tear. \n\nA new car has none of those issues. Depending on what you're buying used, it may need a lot of work soon, or it may run fine for another 10 years. \n\nBut the risk of all of that is there. \n\nEDIT: I accidentally words."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
593wrg | is fuel consumption a direct correlation to rpm in a vehicle's engine? | i.e. Would a vehicle use pretty much the same amount of fuel operating at 3000rpm in 1st gear as it would in 5th gear, or is this a variable? If so, what factors are involved? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/593wrg/eli5_is_fuel_consumption_a_direct_correlation_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d95foh3",
"d95fvzy",
"d95is22",
"d95w8vn"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"No. Fuel consumption in an engine is fairly linear with the power output, outside of the extremes, such as en engine 'lugging', or working very hard in low gear, or running at a really high speed where a lot of the power of the engine goes to just keeping the engine spinning at such a high rate. If you are in 5th gear and change down to 4th, your fuel economy doesn't change that much.\n\nReally, this is to be expected. The fuel consumed is providing power, and pushing the car along at a certain speed requires a power output. \n\nThe actual gear the vehicle is in doesn't affect fuel consumption. With a certain throttle position at 3000rpm, you'll use a certain amount of fuel per second. Of course, if this throttle position in 5th gear allows you to cruise at highway speed, then in first gear that throttle position would have you accelerating rapidly. And your fuel consumption in terms of miles per gallon (l/100km) would be very different.",
"The engine computer changes the amount of fuel injected per cycle, depending on a bunch of parameters. So it's not quite correct that an engine operating at 3000rpm will use the same amount of fuel in liters *per hour* independent of gear or speed, but it's close. There is definitely a strong correlation.\n\nNow, in terms of liters *per 100 km*, it's going to be very different, because at 3000rpm in first gear you will cover far less distance in an hour than at 3000rpm in fifth gear.",
"Some factors would be load(amount of work engine is doing\\is it going up a hill? Or are you towing?), oxygen levels(computers adjusts fuel according to oxygen detected), if your engine is still cold, your car will run a rich fuel mixture to reach operating temperature faster. ",
"I dont wanna start a huge explanation involving gears, variables etc.\n\nAs a young lad i had a very nice scooter and as every other kid with a scooter in germany i was upgrading it. Well, these things have no real \"gears\" in the traditional sense, it goes like;\n\nMore RPM = Higher \"Gear\" = Higher Speeds.\n\nEach Round per Minute cycle takes an injection of fuel/air mixture, my scooter operating at 15.000 Rpms was drinking gas like a black hole. But the Acceleration and Speed was crazy fun as a 15 y.o"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3vhrpr | how is it that sometimes when you're driving, you're able to completely space out for a long period of time, but manage not to crash your car? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vhrpr/eli5_how_is_it_that_sometimes_when_youre_driving/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxnntpx",
"cxno68f",
"cxnqijw"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is called ABS or Automatic Behaviour Syndrome. In this state of mind, you are operating on autopilot and can be very dangerous as you're clearly not paying enough attention to react properly. It's something many long haul truckers and other professional drivers have to be conscious of. \n\nBasically, any action that you preform over and over again starts to become more automatic, and you can do it with little thought. Because you stops paying as much attention you can easily lose memory of the long drive. \n\nTo counter this, every 3-5 seconds professional drivers try to change their focus. Look at the road, check mirrors, look at the road, check speed, look at road, so on constantly to ensure attentiveness. \n\nEdit: spelling ",
"I used to make a 12 hour drive to my parents house pretty frequently, and I'd all of a sudden think \"I passed Birmingham already? I don't remember getting on 78.\" ",
"When I worked 5 shifts Friday to Sunday, I once remember getting in my car after work, blinking and being in my driveway. I don't even remember starting the car."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
7ovj6h | how would the suicide net planned to be implemented on the golden gate bridge and other similar structures work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ovj6h/eli5_how_would_the_suicide_net_planned_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"dscleei",
"dsclfgy",
"dscljxj",
"dsclnef"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"It's meant to make it more inconvenient, not impossible. According to [this article](_URL_0_) these nets don't significantly reduce suicides, they just make people choose a different place, so the whole thing doesn't seem quite thought out.",
"The first part is, it would catch the jumper, this has proven effective in the past, even on the Golden Gate Bridge when it was being built, as a safety net. Not knowing the plans for the suicide net I cannot answer how it works, but I suspect it is being designed to catch the person in such a way that they can be gotten to before being able to get out of the net, either through entanglement or being difficult to climb.",
"I guess it would be nice in the case that maybe someone jumps and then realizes while falling that they don’t want to die. Just a sort of second chance opportunity to reconsider. ",
"A very large majority of people who jump off of structures like the Golden Gate Bridge and survive say that they immediately regretted taking the jump, and if they were to land in the net it would be unlikely that they were to try again. However, if you block off the sides of the bridge, someone's just going to find something else. On the other hand, since most suicides are impulsive, the idea of netting on the sides may work, at least until word of the netting gets around and people no longer consider the bridge a suicide option. Of course, the same risk occurs with the safety net. It's just a battle over what is the best option when both have their flaws.\n\nSource: suicide survivor, and _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/many-suicides-are-based-on-an-impulsive-decision-2014-8"
]
] | ||
32st7p | why after working out your body is more toned, but the next morning it doesn't stay that way? | Every time I work out my chest, stomach, arms feel tight and toned, but the next morning my moobs are back and the progress I had is gone. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32st7p/eli5why_after_working_out_your_body_is_more_toned/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqea85u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's called \"getting a pump\", it's a real thing, all those bodybuilders aren't just joking!\n\nWhen working out, your muscles require more oxygen in order to keep functioning, so more blood goes to the muscles. With more blood in your muscles, and the dilated veins to allow that blood flow, your muscles literally become larger (pumped) and harder.\n\nWhen you stop and relax, the blood slowly goes back out, the pump is lost, and you're back to being squishy.\n\nThe progress you have is *not gone*, the temporary swell you had from physical exertion is. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
9rru6x | why is the video quality of sending a video through text on androids so terrible compared to iphone? | Android has not even tried to improve this for years, what is the actual reasoning behind such a huge difference? Sometimes pictures are bad too, and you can't text nearly as much data over an android phone, is it all related? Have s9+ and sending videos is not one iota better visually than when I had my s6 edge | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rru6x/eli5_why_is_the_video_quality_of_sending_a_video/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8j85pg"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"iPhones cheat. They don’t actually send the texts and pictures through the cell lines, they do it through the wifi or 3g/4g/LTE. Now two Android phones can’t send data to each other via the internet cause they only have each other’s cell phone numbers, so you gotta use the same old lines and be compliant with the same old standards (character limits and such.) If you download an internet messager like whatsapp or facebook this limitation goes away, cause now you are using fast data lines and storing your pix and stuff on company servers before your recipient gets it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2s4wta | what exactly will change if the fcc decides to classify internet access as a utility? | From the admittedly small about that I've read about the topic, it seems this is favorable for the consumer, but I don't quite understand why. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s4wta/eli5_what_exactly_will_change_if_the_fcc_decides/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnm8fa8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It gives FCC a lot more power over internet service providers that the FCC currently does not have.\n\nNot too much changes right away, other than a few tax changes for the ISPs, but they have the potential to change a lot.\n\nAdvocates believe that the FCC will regulate the natural monopoly of the internet market, being beneficial to the consumer with policies such as net neutrality, similar to how the FCC is already doing with the other things it regulates.\n\nOpponents believe that the FCC may pass some regulations that consumers want, but also believe that the FCC's policies will be overall hurtful to the average consumer, similar to how the Interstate Commerce Commission, which intended to provide reasonable regulations, helped create railroad monopolies.\n\nTake your pick. Most people I've talked to, and most people on reddit are for classifying it as a utility."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2veo58 | why do cold drinks slow your recovery when you're sick? | When I went to the doctor today from a bad case of the flu, he reminded me to not eat or drink cold things in general -- why is this the case? How does temperature affect our recovery, if at all? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2veo58/eli5_why_do_cold_drinks_slow_your_recovery_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cogyaym",
"cogz7jm",
"coh0sgt",
"coh8cx3"
],
"score": [
26,
135,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"You spend more energy digesting cold drinks and food, but that's reaching really. Ideally you should be drinking more than you usually do wih no regards to temperature. Just try to avoid diuretics like caffeine and alcohol.\n\nOther than that it could be about food poisoning. If you're living a place where this is common it could be to try to avoid getting sicker from something else. If your immune system is already working overtime it would take less to get sick from something nasty your body normally would be able to fight off.\n\nIf it isn't any of those, it's really just old wives tales and would surprise me coming from a professional. You're perfectly fine, even better in fact, drinking cold drinks or eating ice cream with a sore throat for instance.",
"Never heard this before as a pharmacist. Sounds pretty bullshit to me. ",
"I never heard of this until I had a bunch of Taiwanese classmates last year. I had a cold and went to drink from my water bottle and you would have thought I was ready to slit my wrists for all their commotion. I have looked it up time and time again and there is absolutely no scientific basis for it. I think it has to do with traditional medicine, Eastern medicine or some myth that got passed down through families. Are you in the U.S.? ",
"From a scientific stand point? Absolutely nothing (nothing too far reaching that is).\n\nFrom a cultural aspect? Plenty. To summarize old Chinese medicine, the body has a natural flow of various \"fluids\", sort of like chi or ki; these are basic properties of the body which form a system of dynamics. When a person gets sick, it is explained that one or more of these \"fluids\" is out of balance and causing an imbalance in the overall body. Now, each food or herb holds inherent properties which can affect those \"fluids\", thus consuming too much of one can cause an imbalance. But at the same time, if you consume the counter-part you can re-balance the system and get better. \n\nBare with me here, this gets stranger (relatively for those that are not familiar with asian cultures). For example, if you are coughing due to and imbalance (too much) of one \"fluid\" that literally translates to \"hot air\" then by the system as described above, you should avoid foods that have a \"hot air\" property (ie fried foods in general) as they will exacerbate your condition. Then if you go to an old herbalist or Chinese medicin-man, they will read your \"system\" and prescribe you with herbs of the \"cool\" variety to equal out your fluids. \n\nIn your flu/cold situation, it is generally believed that cold foods or drinks exacerbate any coughing symptoms (which is often seen in flus) and thus it is advised that you avoid those foods. Personally I find this mostly true (for some reason that can probably be explained better, but I have no time for) as when I eat ice cream or drink cold soda when I have a cough, it tends to get worse and prolong the symptoms. \n\nSource: All those years of my parents forcing me to see both western and eastern doctors, learning some of the basics of Chinese medicine, and force-fed absurdly bitter herbal tonics. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3ugr7y | english accents. | Can someone explain what accents there are, mainly in the UK. How they are categorized and some distinct characteristics of each one. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ugr7y/eli5_english_accents/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxep9jz",
"cxerk89"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of them, and I think you might better served by audio examples. [This video] (_URL_0_) is a good start, though I think a couple are slightly off (Birmingham & Highlands). \n\nIf you've ever watched the UK show Top Gear, the three presenters are interesting. Jeremy is from Yorkshire, and can still \"turn it up to 11\" if needed, while James is very BBC / RP. Richard is from Birmingham but now lives in Somerset and has picked up a little West Country. ",
"Your title says English accents but then in the description you refer to the UK. Which is it? They are not the same thing. \nUK : England, northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales\n\nThere are huge regional differences, sometimes in small areas, based on historical differences and then some newer accents in urban areas influenced by immigration and migration. \nScottish wise the \"stereotypical\" accent is glaswegian which is very harsh and quite aggressive sounding. \nOversimplifying here but broadly the South West of Scotland sounds like glasgow lite, then as you go to the east coast you get Edinburgh which is more drawly and posh sounding (sean Connory without the speech impediment) then North of that Dundee which is difficult to explain but essentially just replace all vowels with eh.\nEg \"hehr pel giees ferty feve pehs eh\" - here pal give me forty five pies ta\nMoving North again Aberdonians and north east are much softer accents and tend to dimunitise words by putting ie on the end of them. Or spik wir ain leid fit maist fowkies cannae wrap thir heids roon.\nWest to Inverness where the accent is the most neutral in the uk and hence sounds very pleasant and soft. Further north and in the Highlands and Islands it almost sounds like they are singing with a cadence and lilt in the voice that is even gentler. Possibly with more rolling rs.\nThen you have dialects which complicate things further, with some being almost complete languages in their own right eg doric on the north east coast which I used earlier"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyyT2jmVPAk"
],
[]
] | |
4jo0bo | if there was a way to remove a brain from the body and keep it alive, what would it feel? | Had a recurring nightmare where my brain is removed and experimented on, I get these hot, agonising pains. Thought I'd ask what would actually happen if the brain was kept outside the body (if we know). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jo0bo/eli5if_there_was_a_way_to_remove_a_brain_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3851r7",
"d3855vo",
"d38b70w",
"d38cym3",
"d38ex4p"
],
"score": [
76,
16,
6,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"An easy metaphor for it is to ask what a person that's had a traumatic spinal cord injury and is paralyzed from the neck down feels.\n\nNothing.\n\nNow add in what a blind person sees and what a deaf person hears: blackness, and nothing again. \n\nAnd then just strip out the other senses because the brain's not plugged into anything. \n\nSo, blackness and nothing.\n\nI'd imagine insanity wouldn't take very long at all to kick in.",
"You wouldn't feel anything. If the brain was also disconnected from the eyes, you wouldn't see anything. Same with the ears and skin, no sound, no feeling or smell etc.\n\nIn short, you'd be trapped in your own mind. You'd be able to think, but you would have no sensation of the passage of time and likely go insane from total sensory deprivation in a week at the outside. ",
"Is that a trick Question? :P\nWith no nerves or sensory organs the brain would not physically feel anything.\n\nHowever in your mind, the sensory deprivation and trauma would make you imagine all sorts of agonies in an attempt to justify its current condition. Amputees often have to Itch missing legs etc...\n\nWhat is interesting is that you are getting this imaginary pain from an imaginary stimulus. That is how effective the mind is at making up its own feelings.\n\nIn your dream I presume your eyes were left attached to the visual cortex because a painful dream without vision is just sleeping in pain. I presume you could see the surgeon prodding etc...\n\nWith no eyes I would imagine all sorts of sight [and sounds] and would spring to mind :P as the brain fights for sense in this strange situation,\n\nAnd as for feelings as in emotions. you would be utterly miserable, depressed and frightened. ",
"There's a YouTube video of a head transplant between monkeys or dogs I do not recall which. And at some point in the video they do something similar as what you are explaining.\n\nThe brain is removed but still fed oxygenated blood. There is no way the brain can sense anything, but it should in theory still be able to think. You would essentially be trapped in your own thoughts, nothing to see, nothing to hear touch or smell, and most frighteningly for me: no way to scream. ",
"The \"nothing\" answers are solid, and likely what you need to hear. However, it's fun to conjecture about this sort of thing. The brain has a tendency to just [make shit up](_URL_2_) when it loses sensory input. \n\nSo, in our hypothetical situation, if consciousness goes uninterrupted (that is, you don't go to sleep in your body, then wake up in a vat), you'd just immediately lose all sensation. Your sight would dissolve away to nothing, all the sensations your once got from your body (which are numerous—you can approach this experience by abusing dissociative drugs, if you're ever curious and willing to risk your health and the law) would go away, you'd go deaf, the whole nine yards. \n\nSince this is a hypothetical situation where the process is gentle and well-facilitated, you'd go right on thinking things the whole time. In fact, if you didn't know what was going on, I'm sure you'd assume you were moving your limbs and touching your eyes—you may even feel your own \"hands\" on your own \"face,\" thanks to [phantom limb syndrome](_URL_1_). I obviously don't know how phantom limb syndrome could play into full-body amputation, but my layman's understanding informs me that your brain in a vat could suffer from horrifying bodily pains as your brain tries to make sense of the lack of tactile input or nervous response from your old body. \n\nEven if you don't have to contend with the phantom pain, you'd have roughly fifteen minutes before your brain staved off insanity by filling in the gaps, or by filling in the absolute void, I suppose. I've induced deprivational hallucinations plenty of times, and you can really expect anything from them. You could see shifting forms, or dreamscapes, or faces or places that you've seen before or simply imagined before. Sounds could include music, sounds of nature, voices of those you know or indistinct \"generic\" ones, hard-to-describe tones and patters, anything, really. While I could never guide my hallucinations, a brain in a vat with plenty of time on its hands may have better luck. \n\nAll the while, you'd be capable of conscious thought, normal reasoning, access to memories, all that. You can also rest assured that if your brain is ever harvested, it's possible the scientists won't cause you any direct pain. Patients undergoing [brain surgery](_URL_0_) famously stay awake for some procedures, ideally suffering no pain throughout the process. Anybody willing to go to the trouble of keeping your basic essence intact would likely have your best interest at heart and wouldn't cause you undue harm without leaving you a means of telling them they're doing it wrong."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://time.com/awake-brain-surgery/",
"http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/health-library/diseases-and-conditions/phantom-limb-syndrome",
"http://www.wired.com/2009/10/hallucinations/"
]
] | |
3moag4 | why are some beer bottles dark brown glass and some are green? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3moag4/eli5_why_are_some_beer_bottles_dark_brown_glass/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvgopy1",
"cvgq8sj",
"cvgrp3q"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
59
],
"text": [
"It's a design choice. Both colours block UV, which is the reason they are coloured in the first place. Of course they could also use different colours, but it's probably just cheaper to stick with conventional glass. ",
"Here in Germany it is said that the beer in green bottles tastes more towards hop and the brown ones taste more towards malt.\nSadly i have no prove to back it up.",
"It has nothing to do with the type of beer.\n\nHops are a plant used to add bitterness and other aromas and flavours to a beer. Legally, to be called beer (ale, lager, stout, whatever) it has to have hops in it.\n\nUV light will react with some compounds in the beer, specifically hops, and turn it into the same compound as a skunk aroma. We call this being \"skunked\" or \"light struck\"\n\nBrown bottles protect against that. Green and clear do not. The very large breweries in the world will use specially developed hop extracts that do not react with light. Since the beer they are making is not all that flavourful, a flaw like light struck will stand out.\n\nYou can test this yourself, it doesn't take long. Grab a can, and a bottle of a beer. Nothing too intense, get like a blonde ale or a lager of some sort. Sam Adams Boston Lager might be a good call since they're all over, and in several countries.\n\nPour the bottle into a glass, leave it in the sun for ten mins. Pour the can into a glass and compare them. It seriously only takes about ten mins of direct sunlight to skunk a beer.\n\nSource: A lot of expensive pieces of paper that say I know how to make beer. Now excuse me while I go clean things for the next 12 hours."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1d8ymq | does adding "i don't own the rights or anything to the contents of this video" at a youtube video actually affect anything? | I very often see videos that use material still protected under copyright laws that have "I DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO THIS [song/movie/whatever]" or something similar in the description. Does this make any difference in some sort of way? Does this just have to do with YouTubes terms of service?
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d8ymq/eli5_does_adding_i_dont_own_the_rights_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9o1hdr",
"c9o1jbd",
"c9o5n2o"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, it does not affect anything.",
"It sort of depends. As far as copyright is concerned, no it doesn't matter at all. Copyright is all about the owner being allowed to use their works however they want. If you aren't the owner, and you are using it in a way that the owner doesn't like, it doesn't matter that you have made it clear that you aren't the owner. Now, some copyright owners allow people to use their stuff provided that they give the owner credit. In that case, yeah that might help.\n\nWith trademarks, it does make a difference. When you have a trademark, you have the right to use your trademark to represent your business. No one else can represent their business with your trademark. However, other people can use it, as long as it is clear that they aren't implying that your business endorses what they are doing. There are a few other exceptions too. So if you show a Coca Cola logo in your youtube video, and Coca Cola (and the courts) believe that you are implying that your video was produced by the Coca Cola company or endorsed by them, they could sue you. Having a disclaimer at the beginning makes it harder for that to happen.\n\nHowever, the majority of youtube videos would fall under copyright protection, not trademark protection, so in general no that message doesn't really do anything.",
"Its great at showing that your ignorant at even a basic understanding of copyright law.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2lhvt6 | if the moon is moving at a speed of roughly 3600 km/h how can we just land on it | please note i'm not anti moon landing just generally curious | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lhvt6/eli5if_the_moon_is_moving_at_a_speed_of_roughly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cluwhfu",
"cluwj12",
"cluwr60",
"cluysts"
],
"score": [
42,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"By matching its speed. Ever see a movie where someone runs up beside a train that is leaving the station, matches its speed, and then jumps inside? It's kind of like that, but a lot faster, and with rockets.",
"While there are lots of challenging things about landing on the moon, with regards to its 'high speed', it depends on your [frame of reference](_URL_0_). \n\nYou have experienced frame of reference before, when you have travelled on the highway. Relative to the earth and trees around you, you're moving pretty fast. However, because traffic around you is also moving at close to your speed, you could probably easily shake hands with the passenger of the car beside you if the drivers matched speeds.\n\n[Here](_URL_1_) is a short video illustrating the effects of reference frames. (Try not to worry about wholly understanding centrifugal or coriolis forces if they seem confusing)\n\nThe moon is moving quickly, but by matching its velocity, there is less difficulty.",
"Well you're on the earth right now, its surface rotates at 460 metres/ second, The entire planet is moving at 30 000 m/s around the sun, and our whole solar system is turning around the galaxy's centre at a dizzying 220 000 m/s!\n\nAll motion is relative. When you're on a train moving at 100km/h and you pass a cow, that cow is travelling at exactly 100km/h compared to you in the other direction. From the cow's point of view, you're the one travelling 100km/h away from it.\n\nWhy don't you feel a wooshing sense of motion from our planet whizzing through space? Well our atmosphere is travelling with us, and from our point of view, as points on the surface, everything around us travels in the same way. In your referential, Your house and your couch don't move.\n\nNow, when it comes to moon rockets, it's all a matter of shooting where the moon is going to be after you've calculated its very predictable motion, and then matching velocities with the moon, or more simply getting into orbit around the moon.\n\nImagine an orbit is falling towards a planet (or moon) but also moving to the side at the same rate as the gravity pulls you down, so you just keep falling and missing the planet. Then you can decelerate your orbit until you're pretty much stationary compared to the surface, and drop down to said surface.\n\n\n*BBL going to play more Kerbal Space Program.*",
"Relativity. Earth is flying pretty quickly yet we don't feel it, (basically) because we are moving right along with it at the same speed.\n\nOrbital mechanics are complex to explain, but easy to understand in practice. Well, pretty easy. I suggest playing Kerbal Space Program for an nice understanding of them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TkmcdIQbxQ"
],
[],
[]
] | |
1zzqaf | why do humans have so many more emotions than animals? | I'm not sure if this is even true but it seems as though we have many more emotions such as jealousy and anxiety. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zzqaf/eli5_why_do_humans_have_so_many_more_emotions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfygz30"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Short answer is; we don't.\n\nFor several reasons.\n\nFirstly, we ARE animals, so we can't have \"more emotions than animals\" strictly by definition.\n\nThat aside; there's been plenty of behavioural research done of other animals which have found a depth of emotional responses within them. We NOTICE our emotions more because we're highly evolved to be able to pick up on the emotions of other humans - as we're a profoundly social species it's been imperative to our ability to survive that we're really good at picking up on the emotional state of other humans.\n\nOther animals with similar social situations display the same range of emotions as we do - especially visible amongst our closest cousins in other primates.\n\nBut it's also visible in other species that have a similar level of empathy as humans, such as in elephants.\n\nAnd while it's not as outwardly visible for other animals, it's still apparent that many other animals have emotions. Any pet owner can, for a pet they've had for many years, deduce that pet's emotional state with a fairly decent degree of accuracy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
683xq0 | if an animal fails the mirror test, is it because it's not very smart? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/683xq0/eli5_if_an_animal_fails_the_mirror_test_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgvh78k"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"\"Not very smart\" is rather judgemental. Awareness of self is a perceptual characteristic that we tend to associate with intelligent primates like humans. That doesn't mean that if a Blue Whale didn't recognize itself from a closeup perspective that it isn't smart, simply that it doesn't have many face-to-face relationships."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
62y4n7 | what causes nearsightedness? | Why does anything not right up to my face look blurry? What is actually happening or not happening with my eyes that usually happens with someone who can see fine. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62y4n7/eli5_what_causes_nearsightedness/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfpxm2c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you've ever used a magnifying glass to start a fire you know that you have to move it closer to and further from the object until you find the sweet spot that will start a fire. Your eye works the same way except that sweet spot is where the image is and your eye can either be too long or too short (giving farsightedness and nearsightedness respectively). \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
qzf1q | why can i send an email to the other side of the world in seconds, but it takes a week for a bank to transfer money to another country? | Are banks caching my money to make interest for an unfeasibly long time, or is there a justifiable reason for SWIFT transfers taking so long? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qzf1q/eli5_why_can_i_send_an_email_to_the_other_side_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c41o2gg",
"c41o2wn",
"c41o2xp",
"c41wle1"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it's just banks holding on to money. But my bank-to-bank transfers from the US to Nepal or Thailand usually take about 24-48 hours. Maybe find another bank?",
"Probably a little bit of both. The bank has no (in)vested interest in releasing money any faster than required by law or regulation. But those laws and regulations also assure that the money is in the system legally (money laundering is a huge concern), comes from who it says it comes from, and goes to who it is supposed to go to. So, yea, it takes some time to dot i's and cross t's. ",
"Basically almost all of the time is spent on verification that the person has the money, that the person is who he says he is, that the person who is getting the money is who he says he is, and that the money has transferred correctly.\n\nThere are less secure ways of sending that have less verification (Paypal for instance.) But almost all of them work by converting real money to some kind of virtual money and transferring the virtual money and then converting it back. ",
"Because your email is not important.\n\nNo one gets in trouble if it is lost, corrupted, or gets sent to the wrong person. It can be shot through the system as fast as possible, because no one has to double check anything.\n\nMoney changes everything. Everything has to be double and tripled not only to make sure that everyone gets their money, but often to comply with the laws of the countries involved. Because if there was a was to make a mistake, you can be sure someone would find a way to exploit it and make a lot of money in the process. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1qsjmk | what causes sleepy hands? i mean when you first wake up, and it's hard to close your hand or grip anything. | ^ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qsjmk/eli5_what_causes_sleepy_hands_i_mean_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdg0n79"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you sleep your body shuts down lots of non-essential body functions while keeping others (like breathing, heart, brain etc) running. Obviously your muscles and limbs are one of the first things it shuts down. So... when you wake up your body has to 're-boot' those functions and it can take a few minutes... unless you wake up with a fright... then your muscles fire up really fast. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4k25n0 | why is the middle class vanishing in the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4k25n0/eli5_why_is_the_middle_class_vanishing_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3bhol4",
"d3bhwbr",
"d3biufw",
"d3bjldl",
"d3bjoh2",
"d3bn0rj",
"d3booi0",
"d3bqw53",
"d3bwhqo",
"d3bwjkj",
"d3bwp6o",
"d3bwzpd",
"d3bz1y2",
"d3bz7ik",
"d3c1gi9",
"d3c1t2i",
"d3c2jl8",
"d3c4kok",
"d3c6ile",
"d3c8omi",
"d3c93si",
"d3c9bi3",
"d3c9sky",
"d3ca20v",
"d3ca8c7",
"d3ca9mw",
"d3cac2u",
"d3cadks",
"d3cb3b7",
"d3cb6ba",
"d3ccw2l",
"d3cdgkd",
"d3cdiaa",
"d3cdjwl",
"d3cdnel",
"d3ce4kx",
"d3ced0o",
"d3cek0w",
"d3cjzv5",
"d3ct9zz"
],
"score": [
1355,
17,
35,
6,
2,
12,
73,
8,
78,
3,
4,
491,
216,
41,
4,
17,
5,
2,
5,
2,
5,
59,
4,
6,
2,
3,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
4,
10,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A few reasons to consider:\n\n1. Jobs that used to be associated with the middle class have largely moved overseas, and are likely not coming back. There are no longer as many job opportunities for people without a high level of education.\n\n2. There has been a trend whereby wealth is starting to accumulate at a faster pace for the top 10% of earners. There is debate as to why this his happening. Some people think it's because we are crushing small businesses, and other believe it's because the tax rate on the rich is too low.",
"In a functioning economy investors pay money to the workers for services and then they have money to buy products and services. Everyone gets a bit more money at the same rate and there is a nice balance between those who have money and those who have to work for their money.\n\nHowever in the US the federal authorities failed to regulate the loan industries and even gave strong incentives to give out loans. That caused people to take up huge loans on their houses, cars and credit cards so they could buy things and pay for them later by working. This caused prices to increase since people wanted more stuff however the wages did not increase at the same rate. So all the money that were borrowed ended up in the investors pockets. So now there is a big difference between those who invested money and those who took up loans.",
"It seems like a lot of people are confused by the basic facts surrounding median wages in the US. The trend is not a down one. We see wages fall immediately after the recession (as we would expect), but wage growth has most certainly returned to the upward trend, and is getting even stronger more recently.\n\n**The long-term trend is that people in the middle class are getting richer, and are working less hours.**\n\n_URL_0_",
"While a lot of the economic forces mentioned here are making things more difficult, I think it's also important to look at how individuals' decisionmaking affects their ability to remain or move into the middle class. People don't want to budget, delay gratification, etc. They spend all their money and then some, with the result that wealth leaves these pepple and accumulates at the top. If you want to be middle class or wealthy, try budgeting and investing. \n\nSource: was poor. Now middle class. Eventually will be rich. Probably will not make it to wealthy, but kids might. ",
"We can give long drawn out answers if we want, but it all comes down to Greed. Greed is the root of suffering.",
"Watch Noam Chomsky's \"Requiem for the American Dream\" on Netflix. It will explain it.\n\nQuick answer though Power over the distribution of wealth has been strategically planned, and now businesses control the government and greed has destroyed the moral concept of solidarity within a company.",
"The US middle class was built on high demand for skilled manual labor in factories, along with Socialist ideology of worker's rights and labor unions.\n\nReason #1: Labor glut. Today the supply of workers is very, very high and demand is down. Many manual jobs (and now even skilled \"brain\" jobs) have been replaced by robots and software. Globalization lets companies shop for workers anywhere in the world. Unions have almost no bargaining power anymore, mainly because workers are cheap and easy to find elsewhere.\n\nReason #2: Political corruption. If you're rich you can bribe politicians to pass laws that help you get even richer. We call this \"free speech\" and \"campaign contributions\" but everyone knows it's bribery.\n\nReason #3: Ideas. Americans were taught to hate Socialism for decades. At the same time, ideas like 'trickle-down economics' took off and many people supported those ideas. This further weakened labor unions and government programs designed to help to poor.\n\nAnother change in ideas happened in the business world. In 1950's and 60's business leaders put more emphasis on taking care of customers, employees, the community they operated in and the world in general. In the 1970's business started emphasizing profits-above-all-else. Workers started getting less and less, while the business managers and owners got more and more.",
"Wow, looked through all top level comments and did not see: Automation.\n\nYes, the folks who cite globalization are also correct. The folks who cite the shift of power from labor to capital are correct, but the recent driver that's going to put a cap on things is automation.\n\nAs a specific example: self driving cars -- which seem to be coming fast -- fundamentally enhance the value of capital and decrease the value of labor. All those uber drivers? Gone 20 years from now. Truck drivers? Gone. \n\nWhite collar guy sitting there not worrying? Worry. Deep learning is coming for you.",
"A far more important question that no one seems interested in answering: **define \"the middle class\"**.\n\nWhen the term \"Middle Class\" came into existence it was used to define only those people with advanced certifications -- doctors, lawyers, etc. Having a college degree and a white collar job did not make you middle class. The middle class is the level above that. In the last two decades politicians have taken to calling most of America \"the middle class\", but they've never defined the term.\n\nMiddle Class isn't supposed to be the majority of the people. It's the realm between the peasants ('the masses') and the royals ('the ultra rich'). When that extra set of people came to exist, that term was created. People making well into 6 figures are what exists in the middle between those two, not people making 5 (low 6 figures is still not middle class either, sorry).\n\nThe middle class isn't vanishing, people are just trying to change the definition.\n\nEdit - if you ever listen to a republican and democrat debate about what to do about the middle class, what you're really hearing is two people with completely different definitions of 'middle class' arguing without realizing their fundamental communication problem. In fact, one can see this happening while reading most of the comments in this thread. People are arguing about 'the middle class' while all holding different definitions of it in their heads.\n\nEdit 2 -- A couple people have come back to me with arguments about minor generalizations of history that I was using to help make my point simpler and shorter to read. To be clear, I don't honestly care what definition society chooses for 'middle class' today. Word definitions are allowed to fluctuate with time. < thesis > *But we're currently not all using the same definition, and we can't actually have a meaningful dialogue about the 'middle class' until we do.* < /thesis > I think (in a general sense) Democrats use the term to mean a far greater percentage of the population, while Republicans tend to stick with a more historical definition of the term, focusing more on small business owners and job creators than middle managers. They're using the same term but talking about different groups of people, then not understanding why they can't agree on anything.",
"What is \"the middle class\" ?",
"Middle class? The people wo arent upper class but still dont need to work for their money?\nAs opposed to working class who has to work for money?\n\nI just think so many people wrongly think of themselves as middle class.\n\n",
"We're approaching the point where we have to reevaluate some of our very fundamental notions about work.\n\nSomeone in the thread mentioned trucking? We are going to have fully automated trucks before much longer. Retail is already slowly dying as Amazon and others chip away. Eventually Amazon will automate their entire supply chain, including their warehouse workers.\n\nSomeone else mentioned welding, or steel work? Robots are already chipping into a lot of those jobs. Sure, they might require human oversight for now, but they won't in 30 years.\n\nEventually we're going to have a society where virtually everything that's currently done by lower and middle class workers will be replaced by what are effectively computer/robot slaves. And only a very few percent of those people they replace have what it takes to even learn how to write software or design robots.\n\nUnlike previous generations, where \"buggy whip\" workers just retrained as automobile workers, we're just slowly eliminating the need for \"work\" entirely. And that's going to have profound effects on our sense of ethics, economic policy, and self-identity.",
"Life is getting more expensive, but wages aren't increasing. That's how I'd tell it to a five year old. Every year my apartment gets a bit more expensive. My taxes climb just a tiny bit. My cable and phone bill get a small price hike. I have to save a little more and spend a little less on myself. Everything is inflating, from rent to the cost of my internet to the price of my favorite restaurant order to movie tickets. But my pay doesn't climb quite as fast. This means that I have to make a lot more each year to keep up with my life expenses. For most people, you don't keep making more and more each year. Yes, some people in good jobs do. But for many Americans, your lifestyle is getting more expensive and your paycheck isn't going up. So the middle class either has to a) make a big jump up the financial success ladder, or b) fall back even further as debt and the cost of living well increases.\n\n",
"The \"middle class\" is called this because economy naturally only creates two classes.\n\nThe first class is those who have an income in excess of their desired spending. These are the wealthy.\n\nThe second class is those whose income is _not_ in excess of their necessary spending. These are the poor.\n\nSo the middle class consists of those whose income is in excess of their necessary spending but falls short of their desired spending.\n\nCapitalist economies, particularly selfish ones, want to maximize profit, and so it wants to charge the most people the most money they can be charged. So since most people do most of their spending on necessary items, the capitalist ideal is for the necessary costs of living to be maximized while the expenses for those necessary costs are minimized.\n\nIn short, capitalism is designed to maximize membership in the poorest class by default.\n\nSo a society has to _decide_ it _wants_ a middle class. This class clearly _must_ be an expense to the rich because it is created by defying core capitalism and putting a cap on \"necessary\" expenses while _simultaneously_ raising the costs of producing that necessary thing via artificially inflated wages.\n\nIn a utopia virtually everyone is middle class because nobody is allowed to go without their necessities. But that all but kills the wealthy upper class.\n\nMeanwhile, the more money you have, the higher your desire spending threshold. I might want a new car, while that rich guy wants \"another\" new jet.\n\nNow a society that was utopian for the complete lack of \"the poor\" is actually very healthy, but it isn't particularly capitalist. Or in fact it's not \"free market capitalist\". The \"free market\" automatically down-converts the middle class to the second class poor.\n\nSo one of the odd things thats been going on for the last hundred or so years is that technology has been making \"the poor\" obsolete. The industrial revolution, particularly the invention of the tractor, is largely responsible for the end of wholesale slavery. We can oppress the tractor instead of the farm worker. We can over-work the crane's motor rather than whipping the men on the capistan to make them push harder.\n\nSo with a bulk of non-human energy at the bottom and a deliberate intent to feed the poor and artificially inflate the minimum wage and treat employee grevances as a first class expense we manufactured a middle class over the course of decades.\n\nBut capitalism, and particularly \"free market capitalism\" has been sold to a lot of people as slogans of the ideal, instead of taught to them as facts. So over the last two generations (the two I've been here for) we've seen a steady decline in the understanding necessary to manufacture the middle classes.\n\nAnd I mean that, the \"middle class\" is not a position, it is, itself, a product. It must be manufactured and maintained.\n\nThe benefits of a middle class are actually tangible, they both demand the mid-level goods and they provide a circumstantial adaptability and mobility to the culture at large.\n\nBut the middle class is also something like an immune system. It can be trashed by over-use and it can be trashed by under-use. And a trashed immune system can start feeding on itself.\n\nSo we've got the ill-informed who think \"free is good, so a free market must be good\"... but it's not really because an utterly free market impoverishes most participants.\n\nAnd we've got a Wealthy Class who doesn't really know where their money comes from. So, for instance, a company that sells high-ish end stereos doesn't understand that it needs a land populated with people who can afford to buy those stereos, so they offshore their labor to maximize profit. But in so doing slightly injure their local economy so that it can not afford the product being made. Repeat that for every \"middle-class good\" manufacturer and suddenly we have nobody to buy any of those goods.\n\nSo the super short answer is that during The Great Depression, we, as a country, decided to get into the business of making a middle class. But then in the eighties we decided to stop making that middle class in favor of letting the wealthy buy more wealth.\n\nThe existing middle class (e.g. \"the baby boomers\") are dying off, and that will leave \"some of their kids\" in the middle class.\n\nBut since we, as a nation, stopped trying to manufacture that american dream status individual, they are going away.\n\nWe are running our of the middle class because the rich duped the poor into voting for the interests of the rich.",
"[The worker production/productivity since the 80s has gone up while the income has consistently gone down, or directed to the top.](_URL_0_)",
"**Edit**\nSeeing as how a little hyperbole went too far....college debt statement has been modified.***\n\nThere's one other reason the middle class is vanishing that nobody talks about. \n\nIt's NOT UNHEARD OF for students to enter the workforce at 22 or 23 now, with five or six figures of college debt at relatively low wages. \nYou're talking the equivalence of a mortgage hanging over your head right from the start of your career. That money is depressing the ability of workers to take risks, borrow additional money to start businesses of their own, or afford homes. \n\nPublic transportation is crummy in most places, and chickenshit parking, traffic, and speeding tickets bilk poor people at the municipal level, and they're more likely to be hassled by cops because they'll be more likely to drive shitty cars with broken lights, etc. think of these as punitive, regressive taxes.\n\nThrow inability of many young people to limit their expenditures to match their income and their unwillingness to work additional jobs to make ends meet, and you have a tsunami of epic proportions that will hit in a few decades\n\nI feel like the death of the nuclear family is playing a HUGE role in this all as well it's just so much easier for intact families to balance out responsibilities, childcare costs and other costs that pop up.",
"Technological advances have made manufacturing more efficient and thereby lowering the costs of manufacturing because less employees are needed. \n\nThe lowered cost haven't been totally retracted from the prices. A considerable chunk has gone to profits. Which goes to a small percentage of owners.\n\nA lot of jobs have gone overseas, since it's cheaper. Meaning even less employees are needed. (In America)\n\nLess employees means less demand on the job market which leads to lower wages. Now the difference in middle class jobs demand and supply has become so steep that companies don't even compete for those employees anymore. Which lowers the wages even more.\n\nThis all wouldn't have been the problem if the government had intervened by raising the minimum wage or expanded social security by raising taxes on wealthier people and companies. (Who in my opinion reaped the benefits) But that hasn't happened.\n\nBe aware that in every explanation of this problem there is always some political bias.",
"The most simple way to explain it is that the cost of living has increased while overall wages remain low.\n\nI bet if you look at wages for skilled jobs like software programmer have not changed much in the last 20 years. Certainly not at the rate in which the cost of living has increased. \n\nThere are two solutions to this equation. Either increase wages at a reasonable rate or decrease the cost of living by reducing middle class taxes or providing government subsidies. ",
"Taxes, inflation, devaluation of our money, increased housing costs, insurance requirements. Average worker in Los Angeles pays more than 50% of income to rent. 10% to obamacare. 10% sales tax. Income tax. \n\nMiddles class jobs are being replaced by cheap H1B visa workers who immigrate here for 3 months at a time. \n\nTrade deals send our other jobs over seas. \n\nIllegal immigration has decimated many blue collar trade jobs. \n\nPlus, the cost of goods is skyrocketing, far greater than what the government admits with its manipulated data.",
"The question \"Why is the middle class vanishing in the US?\" is a bit of a red herring. I hear politicians, particularly democrats, talking about the middle class vanishing all the time. I have seen no evidence the middle class is vanishing in any consistent way across the entire US. True, certain parts of the US were hit very hard by the recession and housing failure some eight years ago (e.g., Detroit). All of those areas are places that were already struggling. Also true that there are many people leaving college who have difficulty finding jobs (as has always been the case) and people who have difficulty retraining or finding new jobs (as has also always been the case). I came from a lower middle class, blue collar background. I don't buy any of this talk that the middle class is vanishing. What I see is rich people being rich, some people having a difficult time working toward their dream (whatever that may be) and being resentful about it instead of being appreciative that they even have the chance, and some people being poor. So, just like things always have been.",
"1) Real wages in the US have not increased since the late 1970s. The cost of living has steadily increased, however.\n\n\n2) Corporations and high-earning individuals pay much lower taxes today than they did in the post war era (The top income tax rate was well into the 90% range for 20 years following the end of World War 2, and the 70% range into the late 70s. Today it is just under 40%) Much of the tax burden has consequently shifted to the American worker.\n\n\n3) Well-paying union protected manufacturing jobs are quickly becoming non-existent in the Western world, as companies quickly move production overseas to emerging markets where wages are much lower (and thus, profits are higher).",
"To synthesize a lot of the answers here, there seems to be a growing divide between the upper and lower classes for a few reasons namely inequality, technology and outsourcing. \n\n\nInequality has been on the rise in the past few decades. To illustrate this, look at the aggregate income share per quintiles [since 1947](_URL_9_). This arrays all households by aggregate income and divides into equal fifths by population. Then the total income earned by the quintile is divided by the total income of everybody giving you a nice % of how much that quintile earns. Additionally, the top 5% of income earners are also displayed. As you can see, Income was relatively equitable around the 70s and 80s. Sure, there was some inequaility but that is the kind of inequality that drives people to take risks and innovate. But notice that since 1980 the first, second and third quintiles have lost significantly in the income share while the highest fifth and 5% have gained incredibly. This shows that indeed the middle class seems to be declining while the upper class has been gaining. (Note that this is Earned income and not wealth. Income is a flow of money, wealth is a stock. If we were to look at wealth inequality, there would be much greater disparity.)\n[Source](_URL_6_)\n\n\nBut why?\n\n\n\nEveryone knows that inequality has been increasing. but understanding why is much more difficult. Truthfully, no one can narrow it down to one thing. So I'll just give you a list of things and briefly explain.\n\n\n**Income Taxes**\n\nIn the US, we have a Progressive income tax meaning the more you make the higher percentage you pay. Since the 80s, [we've seen a decline in the highest tax %](_URL_0_). The decline of the highest bracket income tax and the rise of inequality begin to occur at the same time and seem to be correlated. Does lowering the tax rate causally affect inequality? We can't prove it (Proving things require experiments and experiments in economics is difficult) but it does seem that there is something here. \n\n\n**Investment taxes**\n\nThis is not something I know well but will mention it. People with a lot of money invest their money. They buy stock and have the luxury of reinvesting their money so their money earns money. The poor do not. The taxes on this money stream are [significantly lower](_URL_7_) than if you were to go out and earn a wage/salary. \n\n\n[**Return on Wealth**](_URL_1_)\n\nIn 2013, economist Thomas Piketty published the book Capital in the 21st century. In it, he goes through thousands of records in different countries to analyze why inequality arises. His main finding is that the return on wealth has outpaced the growth of the economy ( r > g). This means that the ealthy can simply save and their wealth will grow relative to others because others' wealth growth depends on the growth of the economy. So long as r > g, the wealthy will increasingly have more than those with less wealth. \n\n\n[**Assortative Mating**](_URL_4_)\n\nLabor Force Participation of women [has nearly doubled](_URL_3_) since 1948. This means that 2 people per household are earning an income instead of one. This makes a big difference between the two people who are unemployed versus the two people who are working. On top of that, the paper linked above argues that partners mate people like themselves. Lawyers will marry people with similar education levels and minimum wage labor workers will do the same. This effectively doubles the difference between households of different earning capacities. Now instead of having one earner making $50k and one earner earning $30k where the difference is $20k, you have 2 workers making $100k and 2 workers making $60k where the difference is $40k. Although both households gain, the difference increases. Now imagine if one of those low wage, unskilled workers gets laid off because a machine replaced her job, now the difference is $70k between the households. \n\n\n[**College Wage premium**](_URL_8_)\n\nThe difference between getting a 4 year degree and not has been increasing over time. Getting by without college wasn't that bad. Now it is. College is expensive and so higher income families tend to go to college while lower income children do not. Going to college, one often hopes to attain skills and be more employable... (segway into next Section!!!)\n\n\n**Demand Changes in Labor Force**\n\nGlobalization has led the US to be a skill intensive industry. These industries often require highly skilled workers. On the other hand, we outsource low skilled jobs to other parts of the world or replace them with [automation](_URL_5_). Thus the demand for high skilled workers has gone up (less unemployment) and the demand for low skilled workers down (more unemployment). this drives wages up fo high skill workers and wages down for low skill workers, furthering inequality. \n\n\n**Decreased Real Wages**\n\nThe minimum wage is to adjusted for inflation. This means that every year, someone making minimum wage will be able to buy less with their money than the year before (unless the minimum wage is increased). Real wages peaked in the late [1960s](_URL_2_). Added with what was stated above, there is higher unemployment and lower wages for those at the bottom. \n\n\n**Decreased Unionization**\n\nUnions are essentially a monopoly of labor. In this way, they are said to have Market power. They use this power through collective bargaining where they essentially say \"Raise our wages or you will have no one to work for you.\" Unions have become less prominent in the last few decades and thus workers cannot bargain for higher wages. (theres a good journal publication of this by Peter Gottschalk but I can't find it right now.)\n\n\nEssentially, the Middle class is the upper part of the low skilled workers and the lower part of the high skilled workers earning about the same. Because of changing market conditions, the gap between high skill workers and low skill workers is growing. This is my understanding of what is going on but I am by no means an expert on this. \n\nEdit: Formatting",
"These are terrible answers. ELI5 DAMMIT!\n(rescind post if there's a good one after this post time)",
"_URL_0_\n\nIt's not, the income distribution has shifted to the right. People are making more money today than the 1970s.",
"Progressive Income Tax.\nThe poor are exempt and the rich find loopholes and pay less than the upper middle class.\nProgressive tax is the second step in Karl Marx's planks toward Marxism. And its working. The solution is a flat sales or value added tax.",
"I posted this in reply to someone here earlier...\n\nIt is really due to, *in my opinion*:\n\n**1.** low interest rates that artificially boost the economy making it so that a huge amount of capital is available vs the demand and thus pushing it into mergers & acquisitions further increasing unemployment. Also, the resulting inflation pushes wages down while not changing (and sometimes increasing) the tax burden.\n\n\n**2.** High amounts of debt taken on by the average US citizen (student loans & credit cards) that reduce consumption rates.\n\n\n**3.** See 1 + 2 == Further unemployment & underemployment.\n\n\n**4.** Local, State, & Federal Governments mandating an artificial standard of living that makes it pricey to live on a budget (i.e. minimum sq. footage for housing, building codes, etc.).\n\n\n**5.** Just like in the agricultural, industrial, and other more recent economic revolutions, people lose their jobs as a result of advances in technology. Typically in these revolutions it took a generation or more for people to retool. Today, we have what seems like an economic revolution every other day. Yet, the retooling process has not advanced to the point where people can be as fluid with their employment as employers are with employing them. Advances in education and self-learning will probably remedy this to an extent, but probably far too late as employers will be (as always) behind the ball in accepting it.\n\nAt the end of the day, the world can't sustain or support America's arbitrary standard of living. We all love the idea of making more money and having \"livable wages,\" but the truth is that it's just not the way that the world works. We can force companies to do what we want them to to an extent, but eventually the debt and inflation will catch up to us and the \"market\" will correct. We'll then be forced to compete with other countries, except this time on their terms.\n\n\n**Edit:** Added 5.",
"It's all hype. It's been the same for thirty years. People say there are more millionaires than ever but their math doesn't adjust for inflation or population growth. ",
"1) Taxes. The middle class pays higher taxes as a percentage of their income.\n\n2) Inflation. The middle class is full of people who save money -- and savers are losers in an inflationary environment.\n\n\n\n",
"Noam Chomsky says its because banks stop being regulated. America also stopped being a country that was about making things. Now the economy in the U.S. is largely based on finance instead of manufacturing like it used to be when your parents and grandparents were younger.\n\nAlso, corporations realized they could manipulate the government a lot better if they started lobbying candidates, senators and other people who hold public office. Capitalism kills democracy.",
"I always like to say that the middle class never existed. If you look at individuals throughout time, many of them do pretty well and transition through these \"Class Structures\" as they get older and get more experienced. Many of the upper middle class / upper class Americans learn to take risk and either start creating assets or buying existing financial assets. This is why people believe wealth pools in the upper class, which is true, but people don't see that many Americans enter these classes by the time they're in their 40's-50's.\n\nI personally like to look at real GDP per capita for this reason which has grown every year except for 2008. \n\nIf it were true Americans had no class mobility, then I believe there would be a lot more unrest and there would be little motivation for people to immigrate into the U.S. \n\nSo my point being, we should look more at individual mobility and how individuals succeed rather than looking at classes. ",
"The short answer is government interference in the marketplace and economy.\n\nLooking at some of these responses makes my head hurt to the point that I realize trying to explain how that works would be pointless.\n\nJust like Venezuela - gov't control was great. Hollywood went down there and slobbered all over the utopia that would end poverty.\n\nNow they use their money for toilet paper because there is no toilet paper (or anything else) in the stores.\n\nThe middle class is vanishing because the people in this country do not understand what created the middle class in the first place - free markets.\n\nAnd they will continue to vanish because people people who vote don't understand the basics of economics.\n\n\n\n",
"A lot of reasons but two main reasons I would say.\n\n1. The mechanization of labour. When machines can outproduce human labour for cheaper, there is simply less jobs available. If jobs are lost in this way quicker than new jobs are created you get a shrinking middle class. Seeing how technology advances exponentially and job creation does not, you get a shrinking middle class.\n\n2. The greed of the elite. Money is influence. Societies are the most stable and beautiful when money is somewhat evenly controlled by the overall majority. As the rich get richer, the lower classes simply have less access to money. Also, as the rich get richer they gain more and more power over the legal and political system and they essentially buy new laws to be created which protect and serve their interests. \n\nThere's a myriad of sub-issues that stem from the above two but those two are the main ones.",
"Ever since communism fell the capitalist elites have nothing to fear and have been systematically robbing the state and the population. ",
"Have you ever played Monopoly? Monopoly was originally invented to be a warning, a demonstration of what happens when you let unrestrained capitalism take over a society. The fun part is early in the game, when everyone has some money and most people have a few properties. You build houses, you trade territories, some moron argues about that Free Parking rule that's never been in the rules and actually goes against one of the core design decisions, but overall it's fun. But once someone actually starts winning... the game gets less fun, and often players just stop playing when they reach this point. This is because the longer a player has been in the lead, the harder it is for them to lose that lead-- so they'll just slowly suck everyone else dry, and there's nothing anyone else can do but roll the dice and hope for a lucky break.\n\nReal capitalism is much the same way. When everyone has some money, everyone gets to be a part of building and trading, and it's more \"fun\" (and productive!) for the country. But when a few people have all the money, they tend to be able to hold onto it, and that means that nobody else can do anything interesting, and just has to slowly wait for something to happen.\n\nA responsible government should be anti-monopoly, and break up these piles of wealth before they become economic black holes, but currently our government is being run by the very people who stand to benefit from these wealth clusters, so they're not getting broken up anymore, and the economy is being stretched thinner and thinner because of it.",
"The middle class doesn't exist. That's just a fiction. You're an owner or a worker. \n\nSome workers are compensated better than others or have more expensive skills to trade for money than others. The cost of living has gotten more expensive, the workers make more goods and provide more services, but the wages you get for trading your skills has not gone up as high. \n\nAlso, when the country grows in wealth and population, naturally the worker-owner ratio gets even more extreme. creating more competition amongst workers, not so much for owners. \n\nFor the past 40 years, many people have been supplementing this pay cut with payment plans and credit to have a higher standard of living. This is what you call the middle class, but we're all workers. Others use those payment plans and credit to survive, this number seems to be climbing. ",
"Because of the way banks charge interest on interest. This makes it so that debt will always outpace our ability to pay it back. This leads to longer / harder time making money in general so we create new money and new ways to make it but this dilutes and lowers the value which restarts the cycle once again forcing people to work harder and harder to make ends meet. \n\nAlso money hoarding on a large scale. Think of a giant poker game. Everyone adds to the pot but eventually somebody ends up with the majority until we either figure out a system of redistributing or creating -new- wealth. Right now we create new wealth, or banks do but our dollar means less in the process. \n\nThe wealthy accrue more wealth quicker because with more wealth comes more power and more ability to nudge the game in ones favor. Lobbying, conglomerates, monopolies, and big corporations all try to skew the rules in their favor. At the end the only way to introduce more value into the economy is to produce more, but resources are limited. ",
"This is a highly controversial question - it's like asking \"how high should taxes be\"? However, the best narrative I've read was this: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe author describes the dominance of the middle class as a temporary anomaly caused by the rise of big corporations.\n\n > But the rise of national corporations didn't just compress us culturally. It compressed us economically too, and on both ends.\n\n > Along with giant national corporations, we got giant national labor unions. And in the mid 20th century the corporations cut deals with the unions where they paid over market price for labor. Partly because the unions were monopolies. [10] Partly because, as components of oligopolies themselves, the corporations knew they could safely pass the cost on to their customers, because their competitors would have to as well. And partly because in mid-century most of the giant companies were still focused on finding new ways to milk economies of scale. Just as startups rightly pay AWS a premium over the cost of running their own servers so they can focus on growth, many of the big national corporations were willing to pay a premium for labor. [11]\n\n > As well as pushing incomes up from the bottom, by overpaying unions, the big companies of the 20th century also pushed incomes down at the top, by underpaying their top management. Economist J. K. Galbraith wrote in 1967 that \"There are few corporations in which it would be suggested that executive salaries are at a maximum.\" [12]\n",
"What is middleclass in nyc?",
"It has become easier to increase wealth than it is to earn wealth. If you're rich, your money will work for you to earn more. If you're middle class, your labour goes to pay the bills.",
"A portion of the middle class has actually been absorbed into upper class levels of income. Even the \"lower class\" has SHRUNK from 22.8% to 17% from 1967-2009! 2009 was a year after the financial crash, so imagine how much better it is now. Technically, the middle class has shrunk, but those people have moved into the upper class and the lower class has shrunk as well, an all around positive. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://inequality.org/income-inequality/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Historical_Ma... | ||
4o1slj | how do nintendo 3ds games know when the date/time on the system has been changed? | I noticed that if I haven't play a game on my 3DS in months and haven't adjusted the date/time settings on the system, the game will play normally next time I boot it up.
However, if I adjust the date/time settings, no matter how much time passes, the next time I boot up the game it will recognize that I changed it and I have to wait another 24 hours before I can access in-game events that are time-based.
How do 3DS games keep track of the difference in time even when not in use?
UPDATE: Thanks for all the replies everyone! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o1slj/eli5_how_do_nintendo_3ds_games_know_when_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d48wid5",
"d48wscm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I have never been able to find a definitive answer to this (as the way that it happens is going to be hard to work out without reverse engineering the way the DS/3DS works), but there are some quite simple possibilities:\n\n* The console keeps track of how much time has passed since the clock was last set. e.g. 20000 seconds ago. If this number ever goes down, then the clock has been changed at some point. The game could check this number and compare it to a value stored in the save game.\n\n* The console generates a random number each time the clock is set. Games store the random number, and check it against the most recent value held by the system. If it changes, the game knows you changed the clock.",
"Time tracking is likely dealt with individually by games. I don't know much about the DS, but it definitely has its own clock, and if the games are accessed through the Internet, their server has an internal clock. Code between the two might keep a reconciled time that both agree on, and if one changes that time is reset. The same could be true with cartridges, but instead with a simple time stamp held in memory. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
a653hl | why, in almost 2019, do we not have total network coverage for mobile/cell phones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a653hl/eli5_why_in_almost_2019_do_we_not_have_total/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebrqeur",
"ebrzpnc",
"ebs3ano"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For the large part: money. In some areas, primarily remote/rural areas, the costs of building out and operating cellular network towers may exceed the additional revenue the company expects from building/operating such towers, thus there is little or no incentive to build out such towers. ",
"Because putting in a cell tower costs lots of money (especially the further away from a city you go) so spending (say) half a million dollars to provide service to the cellphones of a few people is never going to pay off.",
"Because we don't really have the federal government insisting that we do. It's not profitable for the carriers to get coverage absolutely everywhere. However, as Americans, we are used to things like running water, electricity, and mail delivery basically everywhere. This is because the government says those services have to work everywhere, even if it costs more money than it makes in certain places. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5h2lw0 | does your body break down food and liquid the same way when it has been mixed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h2lw0/eli5_does_your_body_break_down_food_and_liquid/ | {
"a_id": [
"dawwpxk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You've just basically done the stomachs work for it by using a blender. Your intestines won't know the difference. Nutrients, minerals, and water will be absorbed into your bloodstream and solid waste will be excreted."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
498ph5 | how does the weightlifting bar used in record-breaking feats (deadlifting, for example) not snap or bend under the extreme weight? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/498ph5/eli5_how_does_the_weightlifting_bar_used_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0pvbby"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some do bend if they're not rated for that weight, but there are special bars designed for loads upwards of a thousand pounds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
ajtbmk | why weren't there any convictions for emmett till's murder? | It makes perfect sense to me that Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam weren't convicted initially, by all-white Mississippi jury. But after, when the two men confessed, and Carolyn Bryant admitted lying under oath? How would double-jeopardy protect the killers? And if they couldn't be convicted for murder, why not a lesser charge after the confession? And what about lesser charges against Carolyn? After the national outcry, how did they all manage to escape unscathed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ajtbmk/eli5_why_werent_there_any_convictions_for_emmett/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeyka33",
"eeyl6kf"
],
"score": [
2,
19
],
"text": [
"It’s depressing, but even after the outcry, it’s still Mississippi with a Mississippi DA, and Mississippi juries. \n\nThere just wasn’t any will to get a conviction among those who made charging decisions. ",
"Double jeopardy says that you cannot be subjected to the same trial twice. If your question is \"why is double jeopardy important,\" well, that's a matter of opinion; but the rationale is that a hostile government could subject a person to trial for the same crime over and over again otherwise.\n\nAs for why there was no further prosecution, well, this was 1950s Mississippi. Memorials to Till are still being defaced and destroyed *today*, and that's in our supposedly enlightened modern times. In the 50s sympathy for a murdered black child was far, far less."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
96lnq5 | when you try to open a capped bottle with another capped bottle, why does the cap on the bottom always pop and never the top cap? | I thought Newton's Third Law would apply | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96lnq5/eli5_when_you_try_to_open_a_capped_bottle_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"e41gbjx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because you're not applying force in the same direction for the two caps.\n\nSay you're using bottle A to open bottle B. As you can see in [this video](_URL_0_). You are applying force on the bottom of the cap B to lift it up. There's nothing on the top of cap B to stop it so it gets popped off. At the same time force is applied on the side of cap A towards the center and this force is negated by the mouth of the bottle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKTKQVsib4"
]
] | |
340oew | in the uk, how do the foreign-run car washes make any money, when they've got 7 people working and it's only £5 a car? | I mean, before any overheads or water bills or signs, they're running at less than a pound a person. Am I missing something, how is that a viable business plan and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/340oew/eli5_in_the_uk_how_do_the_foreignrun_car_washes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqq5zdn",
"cqq6l8k",
"cqqcb9t",
"cqqckoc"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe it doubles as a front for a drug business? My local one does. ",
"* It is not like they have space to wash only 1 car.\n* It is not like only 1 car would be washed in a day. \n* It is not like all 7 would be working on one car at a time. \n* It is not like all 7 would be working the same shift of the day. \n\nIt could be a viable business plan but we don't have enough information to comment on the same.\nFor instance, they could be washing 10 cars per day on a weekday and 20 per day on a weekend. Total of 90 car washes totalling £450 per week.",
"Volume. They wash enough cars to pay everyone and the overhead, or they will go bankrupt.\n\n/unless they are a front for an illegal business like others suggest.",
"My brother used to have a friend who ran some of these car washes. IIRC he told me that the guys working there get their housing, food and other things like immigration sorted by the owner(because, as people guessed, they are unschooled/unskilled immigrants) so their wages can be minimal. These owners also usually own more than one of these car washes.\nI don't know what the direct cause is for these car washes to make money, might be a drug front à la Breaking Bad, but the guy used to drive a jaguar so some way he did make money off of it.\n\nApologies for any mistakes, english isn't my first language."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
edbio9 | why do people not turn in their sprinklers when there is a fire nearby? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/edbio9/eli5_why_do_people_not_turn_in_their_sprinklers/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbgp9m3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > Is it the cost of water? Is there a max drain that a water system can handle? Would sprinklers be able to stop a wild fire? \n\nNo, sprinklers would not be able to stop a wild fire."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2l810d | why can't we set the clocks 30 minutes back (or forward in spring) and be done with daylight savings time forever? | Title pretty much sums it up. Why do we set the clocks back one hour every fall and forward one hour every spring? Can't we just split the difference and set them 30 min off? What would be the repercussions of this compared to the way we are doing it now? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l810d/eli5_why_cant_we_set_the_clocks_30_minutes_back/ | {
"a_id": [
"clsbd8c",
"clsc5nx",
"clscomh",
"clshnxm"
],
"score": [
35,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Or get rid of daylight savings completely. It's useless.",
"Anyone who does a decent amount of work outside in the winter shouldn't have a problem with DST. It's easier to get an early start in the morning with some sunlight than trying to work around in the dark for an extra hour. Start early, go home early. ",
"Some places do not observe DST. I know in the USA Arizona and Hawaii do not. The 30 minute thing would make sense to me though.",
"Wasn't daylight savings made for farmers a long time ago? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5rh2hr | why does alcohol get better with age, but beer has an expiration date? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rh2hr/eli5_why_does_alcohol_get_better_with_age_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd75j5t",
"dd76chk",
"dd776i0"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Beer's expiration date is not when it goes bad, but the approximate amount of time that the manufacturer guarantees taste. Things like temperature, and light can change the taste of beer.",
"Alcohol doesn't necessarily get better with age. Many wines are aged in a process involving very specific environmental conditions before they are bottled, but once they are bottled the aging stops for the most part. The taste can still be changed through light, heat, etc, but at the end of the day if you had a $2 bottle of wine from 1970, it will still taste like cheap wine.\n\n\nSource: took a university course in viticulture (study of grapes) and enology (study of wine making)",
"*Some* alcohol - wines in particular - will age in the bottle. If the wine is made to age, then the the fruit and sugar characteristics will diminish, and be replaced by more musky flavours as the tannins lengthen. An important thing to realize is that all wine has an implied expiration date as well, but it varies by wine type, storage conditions, and so forth - to the extent that they can't really put a real date on the bottle.\n\nQuick rule of thumb: If you're not deliberately buying wine designed to age, drink it within a year. About 90% of the wine made worldwide is intended to be drunk quite young.\n\nNow beer (usually) has hops in it, and hops (or actually the converted lupulin that ends up in the beer) oxidize fairly rapidly - especially when exposed to near-UV light, which means sunlight and electric light. It happens quickly enough that they can say \"drink this within the next three weeks!\" Maybe it's +/- 30%, but that's still pretty soon. With wine for aging though, you're looking at maybe 3-5 years, +/- 70%, assuming reasonable storage conditions.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
aeb40q | how did land animals in remote areas such as the antarctic get there? where did they come from? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aeb40q/eli5_how_did_land_animals_in_remote_areas_such_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"ednun6v",
"ednwasn"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"You did pick a bad example as the Antarctic does not have land animals with only a few tiny exceptions. Almost all animals are either birds or aquatic animals. It is of course known for its penguins which are both birds and aquatic. All of these animals can migrate from continents further North and a lot of them do migrate to other continents on an annual basis.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHowever your question is still valid. There are places which have been isolated from the rest of the world though large oceans for millions of years. However there were animals around millions of years ago. This have caused different evolutionary paths in different areas of the world. For example Australia have very unique animals compared to the rest of the world. There were also a lot of differences between American and EurAsiAfrican animals. If you look at isolated islands such as the Galapagos islands and Hawaiian islands they also have lots of animals with unique adaptions. And this is a result of being isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time.",
"The Antarctic has no land animals. All animals that live there are either semi-aquatic, flying, or fully aquatic. \n\nBut the answer to your question is multifaceted. \n\nSome have ancestors that few or swam and then they evolved in such a manner that they lost their ability to do that. You see this with a lot of the birds in say New Zealand, and with the tortoises from the Galapagos. \n\nOther animals floated there on \"rafts\" of driftwood. Lots of non-flying insects did this. \n\nAnd some traveled to the region when it was still connected to other landmasses. This is what happened with say Madagascar or going way back Australia. \n\nThe final method is by humans. Either accidentally like the spread of rats to many islands, or purposefully like the bread of goats, pigs, and chickens. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3k5l2j | how does a rocket correct its route if there is no air for it to push? | I've tried getting a lot of people to explain me this, but i just can't wrap my head around the concept of the rocket changing its route when there is nothing to push in vacuum. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k5l2j/eli5_how_does_a_rocket_correct_its_route_if_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuuyowz",
"cuuyqwr",
"cuuywwi",
"cuv0ejt"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Conservation of momentum. Something is shooting out the rear end to propel it forward. The faster the exhaust leaves, the faster the rocket will go.",
"[An easy way for you to learn and understand some basic concepts.](_URL_0_)",
"The rocket actually has smaller exhaust ports on its sides. When it wants to course correct, it sends exhaust out through these ports, which exert a force that pushes it toward its desired flight path. \n\nBasically, it provides its own gases and the force of pushing them out produces an identical force that pushes it in the desired direction. ",
"Spacecraft don't steer in the same way that a plane does. In space, if you need to adjust your course \"up\", you orient the spacecraft \"up\" and fire your main engine until you've adjusted your course enough.\n\nAlternatively, if the course correction is VERY small, you can make use of the reaction control system on the spacecraft (a system of tiny, multi-nozzle jets, that let you adjust orientation, or move slowly) to just thrust up, but this only works for tiny adjustments.\n\nI put \"up\" in quotes just because there's no up, down, etc in space, but you get my drift."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/"
],
[],
[]
] | |
et2v44 | how in the world do gps applications (like google maps) have all the street names? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/et2v44/eli5_how_in_the_world_do_gps_applications_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffdto7r",
"ffdulze",
"ffdwijs"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically yeah, someone input all the street names and locations. Although, the GPS companies and google maps will have it mostly automated, but most countries have large government departments dedicated to mapping out the streets, land sections, assigning postal and residential addresses etc\n\nThey then commonly sell that information to other government departments to use, to private companies such as google, garmin, whoever needs mapping. \n\nMapping and software for it is a huge industry worldwide employment hundreds of thousands of people. Just the license on the mapping software my company uses, and the infrastructure for it costs a few hundred thousand dollars per year, not counting support costs and wages.",
"It sounds like a big job, but with enough man power and time, it can be done. \n\nFor example, New York has 214 streets facing east-west. These streets are easy because they are numbered, but let's pretend they have unique names. These names would already exist in a paper map, but let's pretend those are not available. In an 8 hour shift, you could probably walk (it would even take less time if you go by car) across all these streets and list their names. On the next day, you could walk the other way list on the north-south streets. On the third day, you could transfer the data to the map. In three days, a single person could name all the streets in New York. If a staff of 100 people did this every day for one year, they could map 12,000 cities the size of New York per year. If they have been working since 1990, that one team could have mapped 365,000 cities.\n\nIf multiple teams combine their efforts, lets's say a dozen teams per country, then it wouldn't take that long to map the whole world. Again, most of this work was already done many years ago on paper maps, the teams wouldn't even need to leave the office to figure this out.",
"Yes, someone at some point did input the street names, and it takes lot of man-hours to do so. How it's done varies but OpenStreetMap for example is crowdsourced so there are a lot of people entering in the data."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
nftgt | nietzsche's "abyss" quote | "And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
A famous quote that I never really got. Could someone explain? Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nftgt/eli5_nietzsches_abyss_quote/ | {
"a_id": [
"c38sf6i",
"c38tq6x",
"c38v36f",
"c38sf6i",
"c38tq6x",
"c38v36f"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
2,
8,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the short of it is that you cant have any sort of realization without it effecting you in some way. Every experience you have, every event you go through, you cannot remain an observer, and what you see becomes a part of you. Not a perfect example but think about something like Rule 34. Once you know about the concept of seeing everything sexually it is difficult not to do so yourself. This is a very brief explanation, and that whole passage is full of great rhetoric, but thats the best ELI5 I can do for it",
"I have seen the full quote given as \"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.\"\n\nThis gives a bit more context. And it means that exposure and interaction with something will effect and possibly change you. \n\n",
"When you learn about something (bad, for instance, that (bad) thing influences you in some way. In a not so eli5 way: When you observe evil acts (stare into the abyss), the act influences you in some form (stares back at you). Losing your innocence, realizing your parents are people, etc. You can't unlearn it.",
"I think the short of it is that you cant have any sort of realization without it effecting you in some way. Every experience you have, every event you go through, you cannot remain an observer, and what you see becomes a part of you. Not a perfect example but think about something like Rule 34. Once you know about the concept of seeing everything sexually it is difficult not to do so yourself. This is a very brief explanation, and that whole passage is full of great rhetoric, but thats the best ELI5 I can do for it",
"I have seen the full quote given as \"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.\"\n\nThis gives a bit more context. And it means that exposure and interaction with something will effect and possibly change you. \n\n",
"When you learn about something (bad, for instance, that (bad) thing influences you in some way. In a not so eli5 way: When you observe evil acts (stare into the abyss), the act influences you in some form (stares back at you). Losing your innocence, realizing your parents are people, etc. You can't unlearn it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
fqsof9 | why do tanks use "continuous tracks" instead of wheels? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fqsof9/eli5_why_do_tanks_use_continuous_tracks_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"flrywlj",
"fls06jb",
"flsqo6z",
"fltt1ji"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It increases the surface area in contact with the ground. Essentially, a row of people (the wheels, in this scenario) couldn't stand on their feet on water, but a row of people on surfboards could. By increasing the surface area, the weight that can be supported on terrain like loose sand, which would be a pain to get bogged down in (especially in combat), increases",
"Like someone else said, it increase the surface area on which the weight of the vehicle is distribution. The ground have a limit on how much weight per surface it can carry before you start to sink, so increasing the surface area is important for a vehicle that weight 20-60 tonnes. \n\nThe second advantage is the traction. Since you have more surface area touching the ground, it's more surface with friction with the ground, which create more traction, allowing the tank to advance in difficult terrain instead of getting stuck. \n\nIt's stronger. In a normal wheel, you can't really have it made all of metal, because it will slice through the ground and give you little traction, it's one reason why we use tire. But tire are made of material that are less strong than metal and will get damage more quickly over time. In a tank, you can make the wheels and the track in metal and still have traction, while keeping stronger pieces that will last longer. That become more and more important as your vehicle become heavier.",
"Imagine this. A tank lays its own ground,uses its massive gears as wheels to pull itself along its own surface then lifts it up behind itself and repeats.",
"Tanks have wheels. They are called “road wheels” and they are on the inside of the tracks. They help distribute the load of the vehicle on the tracks. \n\nYou also see tracks on construction equipment like dozers, excavators. It gives the vehicle a bigger patch of ground to drive on and they can maneuver better in mud or soft ground.\n\nIf I raced a tank on sand in a 4x4 truck, the tank will win. Tanks have no problem driving 20-30 mph on sand, I can’t do more than 15 mph in without damaging the differentials/transmission. But on a road (with the tank driving next to the road cause the track will tear it up) I will win."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5e9s6a | why and how does sex appeal change over time? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5e9s6a/eli5_why_and_how_does_sex_appeal_change_over_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"daashaa"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's a combination of cultural and biological factors. Obviously its typical and instinctual to be attracted to the opposite sex and certain features that indicate health/child-rearing ability and the like. However, if you particularly like something or especially associate it with sex, either accidentally or because society associates them together, then you may find it sexually attractive in a kind of pavlovian way. Heels might be a good example of something a lot of people typically don't find sexy until it's associated with women (or whatever else they already find sexy). Some people with poor social skills may find they don't enjoy humans at all and be sexually attracted to inanimate objects such as cars or trains, because they DO enjoy those things and we're raised to associate pleasure with sexuality (either implicity or explicity) -- truly, there are some interesting documentaries out there about people in extreme cases, fucking their cars and the like. People can be attracted to pretty much anything for the vaguest reasons between biological triggers and sexual association and pure chance. It is almost wholly subconscious and out of your control though. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3eexwp | why can we fit a gigabyte inside of a space that can fit 64 gigabytes of storage in the exact same amount of space? (sd cards and solid state drives | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eexwp/eli5_why_can_we_fit_a_gigabyte_inside_of_a_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"cteaoy1",
"ctear76",
"cteatcl",
"ctecuum"
],
"score": [
21,
44,
35,
3
],
"text": [
"SD cards and solid state drives use solid-state circuitry known as flash memory to store their data. These circuits are tiny wires etched into silicon. Every couple of years we figure out ways to etch tinier and tinier wires. So, in the same amount of space we can draw more circuits, which leads to a higher capacity.",
"With SSD's its an easy answer. For example:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Storage devices have to be made in standard sizes in order to properly fit into the slots/bays that devices have for them, so they can't just make the ones with less capacity physically smaller.",
"I'm assuming that what your asking is why we do that, as to which the answer is that high capacity flash storage have a much lower yield rate than smaller capacities. Making them the same size makes them cheaper to produce."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2014-12-08/DSC06202.JPG"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
332itl | why does a video on youtube buffer when i pause it but a show on netflix doesn't? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/332itl/eli5_why_does_a_video_on_youtube_buffer_when_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqgw7mw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Netflix does buffer. Flip off your router, you'll get a few seconds of playback before the show cuts out. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3le6t4 | how wireless internet gets connected with the undersea cables in this .gif from /r/interestingasfuck? | [This .gif was on the front page.](_URL_0_)
I might be asking the wrong way, but I thought all the satellites distributed the connection.
EDIT: So satellites are mostly used for gps functions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3le6t4/eli5how_wireless_internet_gets_connected_with_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv5k6co",
"cv5k8fc"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"There is also a huge network of cables on land too. These form the network that your home router is connected to, and your router broadcasts a wireless signal.",
"Satellites are not often used for Internet; it turns out they're pretty bad at it. For one thing, they orbit very, very far from the surface, and your signal has to get there and back (high lag). For another, there aren't that many of them, and there's a limit on how much you can send over the wireless link.\n\nWith Wi-Fi, you aren't connecting to a satellite. You're connecting to a wireless access point located near your computer (at home, this is probably the router you got from your ISP). That access point is connected by wires or fiber to your ISP's local office, which has fiber connections to other offices, which (through a mesh of fiber) gets to places where it's sent through undersea cables.\n\nWith cell phones, incidentally, a decent percentage of towers use fiber or copper wires between the cell phone tower and other phone company switches. A lot of towers do use radio links, but those links are not satellite links (high lag is *awful* for phone calls); they're radio links to another station on the ground that has fiber or copper to connect with other phone network equipment.\n\nSatellites are a last-resort thing. They're excellent when you can't lay proper infrastructure; you could put a satellite dish on a house in the middle of nowhere, and it could get Internet from there. But when you can use wires or ground-based radio, it's better."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/31dvcbJ.gifv"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
dew9jr | why do shoe repair shops often offer key cutting services? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dew9jr/eli5_why_do_shoe_repair_shops_often_offer_key/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2ze6jb"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Shoe repair on it's own doesn't have enough demand to keep a lot of them afloat - it used to but as non leather shoes became more common and shoes became cheaper and more disposable the need for shoe repair dropped off and these businesses needed to expand into other services.\n\nKey cutting was a logical choice because it's a high demand (albeit not very profitable individually) service to offer and because they already had the rotary grinder on hand for shoe repair it was easy enough to learn how to and expand their services to also offer key cutting.\n\nA lot of shoe repair places will also offer knife sharpening as a service as well for the same reason (they already have the tools on hand to do it)\n\nEdit to add: A lot of shops now will use a separate tool for key cutting that is quicker and more accurate but they still offer the service because it's just become kind of accepted now that shoe repair shops will cut keys."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1u3ni5 | what's the difference between a 2 rotored and a 4 rotored helicopter? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u3ni5/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_2_rotored_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cee6by7",
"cee8bvv"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Easy, 2 rotors duh",
"I'm gonna assume you mean blades, not rotors. Anyways, 2 bladed helis are cheaper, lighter, easier to store, etc. But lack control and lift. While if you'd have 4 blades you'd have more surface area which means more lift and generally more control and top speed. But it really depends on the heli and optimization for what you're looking for "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
210tny | if esperanto is considered a "universal language", what makes it so universal compared to (for example) english? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/210tny/eli5_if_esperanto_is_considered_a_universal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg8j34v",
"cg8j3wj",
"cg8jhz0",
"cg8k1ns"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"Esperanto was created in such a way as for it to be easy and logical for speakers of other languages to learn.\n\nEnglish is difficult for some people to learn because the grammar rules are not very uniform and the spelling is usually not phonetic. As far as learning languages go, English is on the upper end in terms of difficulty.",
"Esperanto is considered an \"international auxiliary language\". I've never heard it called universal. However, it is an IAL because it's designed (as opposed to English, which evolved naturally) to be a secondary language for people with different native languages to share. As such, it takes components from many different languages and structures itself in such a way to make it easier and more logical for anyone to learn regardless of their primary language. It is not designed to function as a primary language.",
"I think that's in reference to how everyone who speaks Esperanto made the decision to learn Esperanto - it's no one's first language.",
"It's not a \"universal language\", it's an \"international auxilliary\". It was designed to be easy to learn by anyone so that everybody could learn it as a second language. \n\nIn that regard, the language has failed. There is an obvious European bias in grammar and vocabulary that makes it no easier than English or Spanish or French for native speakers of American, Eastern, or African languages. However, this does make it super easy to learn for many Europeans:\n\nThis has led to experiments using Esperanto as a \"first second language\". Studies have shown that, going from a monolingual European language speaker to a bilingual European language and Esperanto speaker takes only about 100 hours of study, compare to thousands of hours to learn another natural language. Furthermore, studies have shown that, having learned Esperanto first, learning a third language becomes much easier than if the students were monolingual. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
tyeik | how does one understand how fast a computer will be simply by reading the specifications, like a clock speed of 3.3ghz? | For example does Moore's lore actually make computers twice as fast in the allotted time? Or does it simply increase an arbitrary number that doesn't increase the functional speed of the computer? I guess the overall arching question here is, how can one make sense of these numbers and fully grok computer specifications' implications on practical and functional performance? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tyeik/eli5_how_does_one_understand_how_fast_a_computer/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4qrrp0",
"c4qruzg",
"c4qrvyz",
"c4qrwk3",
"c4qsfgi",
"c4qsgj7",
"c4qshde",
"c4qsu44",
"c4quem4"
],
"score": [
22,
7,
2,
4,
6,
10,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Moore's law specifically measures the number of transistors on a silicon chip will double every 18-24 months. Transistors are little switches that turn on and off very quickly, and are one of the main components that are required for a computer.\n\nA clock speed simply measures the rate of which these transistors turn on and off.\n\nSo clock rate does not have everything to do with speed, the architecture of the chip is very important. The best way to measure and compare two chips are to actually run software benchmarks on both and compare the performance.",
"All Moore's Law (it's not really a law...) says is that the **number of transistors** doubles every two years, it says nothing about performance. For many years, each new generation of processors has increased clock speed, which is how many **cycles** the CPU does a second, and they have also done things like pipelining, out of order execution and so on. So basically, if you took a *single-threaded* program that you wrote and ran it on a new processor, it would always run faster. However, since the mid 2000's, this hasn't been true, due to heat dissipation and energy consumption we can't simply always be increasing the clock rate, essentially we hit a wall. Instead, we add parallelism through adding more cores to the chip. So now we have to rework our programs so that we can see performance gains in using multi-core chips. \n\nTo come back to your original question, it's sort of difficult to just look at the numbers and say which chip is faster. Everything affects performance from clock rate, to cache size, to instruction set ... everything is relative. The only true way of comparing performance is through software benchmarks. One of the reasons why we just don't look at peak performance in supercomputers, we instead look at software performance benchmarks. See the K computer versus Sequoia. The K computer is able to reach 93% of peak performance (12 PFLOPS I think...) when running the LINPACK, while Sequoia, which I think is just about finished, is probably only going to reach ~60-70% of peak performance according to my professor (20 PFLOPS peak). \n\n**TL;DR** You really need software benchmarks to tell the difference between two processors. \n\n**I am probably wrong with some of this, but I think I am mostly right...**",
"By comparing it to computer specifications you have experience with. ",
"GHz is an abbreviation for GigaHertz. 1 Hertz means there is one clock cycle per second - the processor can perform a single operation. 3.3 GigaHertz is 3.3 *billion* operations every second. Processor architecture is a bit more complicated than just numbers because processors do more than one kind of thing - to be great at one type of calculation means being worse at other kinds - but in general, more clock cycles means more stuff gets done faster. Video cards are a good example of this because they are specifically designed to be good at the calculations for making pictures. \n\nMoore's law is an observation that processing power per dollar doubles every 18-24 months. A super fast processor costs a lot now, but in two years you could buy a processor with the same power for half the price. ",
"The only good indicator of performance is benchmarks. You have to Google them model-by-model.",
"[Moore's Law](_URL_1_) describes how the transistor count of an integrated circuit will double roughly every two years. It's not useful for understanding computer specs. \n > \nIt can be difficult to translate computer specs to performance; you need to look at performance in practical terms. \n > \nUnderstand what the computer is needed for, as in what software is required, and what duties it is expected to perform. You can then relate these to known performance data of both software and hardware. There is a veritable cornucopia of this information on the web.\n\nOk on to specs.\n\n**CPUs**\n\n* Model numbers \"[For example- Intel Core I5-2435M](_URL_0_)\" tells you that the chip is a specific version of the Intel I5- this one has two physical cores with two threads each, which the operating system (windows, macos, linux) treat as four logical cores. \n* Number of cores is more important (dual core, quad core) as that figure theoretically increases the amount of workload a CPU can handle.\n* Clock speed- only part of the picture. Also need to know number of *instructions per clock* to determine number of *instructions per second* that the CPU can process.\n* Cache on the CPU helps it process faster, without having to go to the memory or the hard drive to get information (when the CPU has to do that, it takes longer to complete). \n\n**RAM**\n\n* Capacity is measured in Gigabytes (GB) and provides a faster repository than the hard disk for the CPU to use to hold information that is currently \"in use\" in the system. More is generally better, for example Windows 7 works *just* with 2GB, ok with 4GB, decent with 8GB and super smooth with 16GB or more. Your memory (and number of CPU cores) plays a big factor in determining how much you can do at once.\n* Clock speed of the memory determines how much information the memory can move around at once and how quickly\n\n**Hard Disks**\n\n* Capacity is measured in Gigabytes (GB) and can be directly related to practical requirements. For example windows 7 may consume 16GB of the hard disk to store all of it's components. A DVD-quality movie consumes up to 4.7GB. \n* Read and Write speed in MB/S is mostly used for newer Solid State Disks (no moving components) and refers to the theoretical speeds that the drive can move data around. It is not commonly appended to specs for magnetic disks though.\n* Speed in RPM (5400, 7200, 10k, 15k) is related to magnetic platter disks and refers to the maximum speed that they can attain. Higher is faster, but also hotter and noisier.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n",
"For me it's just a reference point, I can estimate how well a 3.3ghz will perform because I know how a 1.3ghz performs. \n\nLook at it like this; (I'm assuming)you know how fast 55 miles per hour is, and from that you can estimate what 100mph looks like/feels like. But you'd have a harder time estimating 100 kph, because you might not have a proper frame of reference.",
"When your looking at computers the 3 basics things to look at are:\n\n1. RAM\nIf you think of RAm like a table the more RAM your have the bigger the table so the more you can do at one time.\n\n2. Hard drive size\nThe bigger the hard drive the more you can store on the computer.\n\n3. Processor\nThe higher the clock speed generally the faster the compter will be able to perform. The clock speed is the number of operations per second the processor can do.\n\nOutwidth that if your looking for gaming performance look at the graphics card same idea here the hight ther clock speed and amount of RAM gernerally the better the graphics card is.\n\nAs covered by several others Moores LAW is that every 18 months or so processors transistor count will double. Although this has mostly held true it is not set in stone. Think of it as every few years you'll be due an upgrade.\n\nThe best way to measure a computers performance is through the use of benchmarks compairing it to diffrent systems. There are plenty of diffrent bench mark software programs available and lots of information about the comparisons of individual parts available online. The unfortunate truth is that without looking into every compenent you won't know exactlly how poweful a computer is but by looking at the main components you can get a rough idea.",
"There is no straightforward way to know how one computer's speed compares to another just looking at specs. The only reliable way to compare them is to perform some tests, but even then the result you get compares on how you test them.\n\nThe clock speed of a CPU chip can only be meaningfully compared to another CPU of the same or very similar design. There are two general ways of improving the performance of a CPU:\n\n1. Keep the same design but increase the clock speed;\n2. Redesign the CPU so that more work gets done during each clock cycle.\n\nBecause of (2), a CPU with a better design can often run programs faster than an older CPU with a faster clock speed.\n\nThen there's also the fact that not all CPU improvements benefit all programs. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://ark.intel.com/products/60636/Intel-Core-i5-2435M-Processor-(3M-Cache-up-to-3_00-GHz)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1htbwm | how does funding nasa create economical benefits for the usa? | How do space programs bring in any money? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1htbwm/eli5_how_does_funding_nasa_create_economical/ | {
"a_id": [
"caxpjh4",
"caxpsjt",
"caxqbxz"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Why would you *expect* NASA to bring in any money? That's not really the point.",
"Long-term returns in future technology. For example, if NASA develops the technology to mine asteroids for resources (a project underway currently by both government space agencies and private business) then the government can tax businesses which utilize the new technology. \n\n",
"A little abstract but I think this is the best reason why we should fund NASA and how it can generate money for us.\n\n[Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about the future of NASA.](_URL_1_)\n\n[Another similar but longer talk from Brian Cox on why we need exploration.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwOlk6HIVc",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o"
]
] | |
9l8jf0 | why and how do we form such intimate connections with our pets? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9l8jf0/eli5_why_and_how_do_we_form_such_intimate/ | {
"a_id": [
"e750da1",
"e75353e"
],
"score": [
3,
12
],
"text": [
"I think that the most of it is related to the domestication. We know that most of our pets are domedticated. Ergo, they were enslaved in a way so you could think it as a master/slave relationship. Where they both depend on each other. The pet gets food and love and everything they want, and the master gets love from the pet. ",
"Pets basically slot into a modified version of the parent-offspring bond. Communication in the abstract, language based sense is not really relevant for this sort of thing, after all, infants can't talk either."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
7173ca | why couldn't jews in poland, during early german annexation, just say they weren't jewish, or declare a false surname to avoid being sent to the ghetto and camps? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7173ca/eli5_why_couldnt_jews_in_poland_during_early/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn8s1se",
"dn8s619"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They did. And some got away with it. The problem with this working for everybody was very simple: documentation. When Poland was annexed by Germany, that included government census records. Jewish families were fairly easy to pick out due to traditional surnames. All Nazis had to do was go over the records of everyone in the country and find the ones that were recorded as being of Jewish origin or simply had Jewish surnames. Some were arrested simply for being suspected of being Jewish because their ancestors were Jewish. Some were arrested for simple things like having Jewish sounding last names or Jewish features (large nose, dark curly hair, etc.). It was a literal witch hunt in the modern era. Some families that weren't recorded or had spotty records could get away with changing their names but it wasn't something everyone was lucky enough to get away with.",
"The NAZIs developed a whole pseudo (fake) science into a state apparatus of \"weeding,\" out Jews from the 'Master Race' they were aided and abetted by things as simple as family trees, birth certificates and government records to as complex as actual genetic features that made you aryan or not by their pseudo-standard. \n\nAlso consider Poland was no longer going to exist in the German world, little known now but Poland, it became known as the \"General Government,\" so the various offices of the SS and Gestapo were for about a year and a half, solely devoted to rounding up Polish Jews. This was the first of Hitler's Living Space conquests by warfare as well, so the Jews would be removed systematically and replaced by Germans. \n\nAll of this equaled out to a bleak, horrific and basically impossible situation for Polish Jews. They had their own records against them, things like the size of their noses and mouths against them and a state apparatus totally dedicated to removing then annihilating them. It was, quite possibly the most sinister and calculating effort in human history and its results **were** the most sinister in human history. The Poles were on their own for 6 years and in that time the Germans became more desperate as time went on, I recommend the Wannsee Conference on anything past 1940. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2ey1hd | how does piracy work? | I'm starting this thread, not to encourage or discuss piracy, but simply to get an "insider" look of it.
I'm wondering about, who, how and why some people pirate / crack software, movies, tv shows (or any other type of downloadable content) and upload it.
What's their motivation(s) and where, how and why does this happen. I've seen many warez communities where there are a few users that are always uploading and they get next to nothing out of it (a "thanks" is the most I've seen them get). I see there are "pirate groups" like Skidrow, and I'd like to know what they're all about, too.
If someone has any idea of how this "culture" works and what they're in for, I'd like to know. Wish there was a documentary about this, is there anything out there about this subject?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ey1hd/eli5_how_does_piracy_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck41b0c"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Well, a lot of them do wind up getting paid in some form or another. Even if no one directly buys material from them, or makes donations, they still might make some money from things like ad revenue. \n\nOf course, that's probably not the motivation for most of them. \"Because I can\" is probably the best one. They think it's fun. They enjoy testing their skills. They like the internet fame. Maybe they just like helping people out and providing a free service. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3snvmm | how would a country invade another country that is landlocked. (ex: canada goes to war with mongolia) what if the bordering countries refuse to cooperate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3snvmm/eli5_how_would_a_country_invade_another_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwyvi5r",
"cwyyfha"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"That's completely up to the neighboring countries. If they want to permit them through they can, or they can refuse and go to war as well. During WWI, Germany famously marched through Belgium to get at France; the Germans expected minimal resistance, but actually were stalled for months by the surprisingly effective and committed Belgian defenders. ",
"This is sort of why the U.S. has mutual-defense agreements like NATO, maintains military bases in ally countries around the world, and provides defense aid to allies as well - so that if/when it wants to exercise force in some country - it can use ally nations as a staging base, or at the very least use their airspace for strikes. Plus aircraft carriers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
6o6jxa | - how do residential society developers determine the ratio of 2, 3 and 4 room apartments in their projects? | Need to know the demographic data and parameters used... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6o6jxa/eli5_how_do_residential_society_developers/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkf1isv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's just based on the demand of the area. If you are in a college town you might make more 4 bedrooms since college kids are more likely to cram in. \n\nIt is also based on the zoning laws of the area. Some areas require a certain number of parking spaces or land area per person living there. Others do not. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
387rob | the core beliefs of american political parties. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/387rob/eli5_the_core_beliefs_of_american_political/ | {
"a_id": [
"crsydtx",
"crt8aok",
"crtb4zj"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a difficult question, America is insanely vast. A Republican in New York is going to be much different from a republican in Texas. A democrat in California will be different from a democrat in Michigan. Any person that wants to run for major office with a likable chance of winning usually has to run under one of these two parties, recent example: Bernie Sanders. \n\nThe idea is Republican is generally more conservative, pushing for no economic regulation but social restrictions. Democrats are generally more Liberal pushing for zero social regulation but economic and business restrictions. ",
"Republicans: Man is the best decider for himself. Society will be much more efficient if it is every man to himself within reason. So the smaller the govt the better, the less control the govt has the more freedom individual man enjoys. The govt is only there to enforce laws so we dont go full anarchy. Republicans also believe in traditionalism; men should be men; women should be women, everyone has a fixed role in society.\n\nDemocrats: The govt is the parent of its citizen children. As such govt needs to be big, and stuffed with taxes so it can take care of its citizens. No fixed societal roles, people can be whatever they want, do whatever they want (within reason). People's needs are fulfilled by govt back institutions; IE Dept of Education, Welfare Dept, Dept of Health, Dept of Security, etc.",
"The simplest I could put it is: \n\nDemocrats: Government should make adjustments to the distribution of wealth and services for the well-being of the majority. \n\nRepublicans: Government should do only what is necessary to encourage a fair playing field so individuals can create their own well-being. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
6r67d3 | why are college institutions like sororities popular in american and some canadian universities but unknown in other countries? | When I travelled abroad I tried to explain to people what the Greek system is all about. From my explanations some thought it is a charity organization, others probably imagined it as an after school social club and housing community. In Russia, I showed a friend photos of sorority girls all dressed up at a formal dinner event. She said "The girls are pretty but I think it would be boring for me to be in a sorority"
Why is it the concept of the fraternity/sorority system so foreign in other countries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6r67d3/eli5_why_are_college_institutions_like_sororities/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl2n0sa",
"dl2nzcd",
"dl2ocb9"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In the U.S. (and Canada, to some extent), the social element of college is fairly significant.\n\nIn contrast, higher education in most other countries tends to just be where you happen to take classes. They're much less likely to have on-campus housing, commuter students are far more prevalent and they tend not to have non-academic pursuits like big name sporting events.",
"because in other countries it's about what you know and the universities are there to teach you needed skills.\n\nIn America (and I guess Canada?) What you know is irrelevant and you only get a job if you have personal connections.\n\nCollege in the states is a business, they aren't there to help you.",
"American/Canadian colleges are a different experience in that people tend to go further away from home to go to school, live in dorms instead of living at home with family or getting apartment, have more of a self contained world on campus, plus the fact that most college students can't legally drink/get into bars. All these are reasons for wanting some sort of surrogate family, social structure with which to connect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8p4iy1 | how much butter does one have to consume, and for how long, to guarantee heart disease? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8p4iy1/eli5_how_much_butter_does_one_have_to_consume_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e08dgeu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is far too complicated to give you a precise answer. That's like asking \"How many cigarettes do you need to smoke to get lung cancer\"? It might be 0, or you might never get it no matter how much you smoke. Genetics and lifestyle choices beyond simple diet (Stress levels, exercise, etc) have a much much higher influence on heart disease than dietary fat or cholesterol.\n\nFurthermore, the concept that high-fat diets are bad for your heart is hotly contested and definitely not a settled subject. A study specifically looking at butter and heart disease: _URL_0_\n\n > Butter consumption was only weakly associated with total mortality, not associated with cardiovascular disease, and slightly inversely associated (protective) with diabetes"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/tuhs-ltn062716.php"
]
] | ||
bw46f8 | when you cut something in half, what happens to the stuff in the middle? does it fall off or is it destroyed? or has it just been pushed to either side? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bw46f8/eli5_when_you_cut_something_in_half_what_happens/ | {
"a_id": [
"epv0hru"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"short answer: it depends.\n\nthings are made of atoms. atoms are extremely small. atoms bond together in different ways to make up hard objects. some of the ways they bond are strong, and some are weaker. when you cut something it breaks some of these weaker bonds and separates the atoms. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n so the stuff in the middle usually ends up on either side, like when you cut with a knife, or winds up as sawdust or powder when you cut with a saw."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
7rxx1x | why is it still a challenge for some countries to build icbms while us/ussr could already do it in the 50's? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rxx1x/eli5_why_is_it_still_a_challenge_for_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt0f5a5",
"dt0f8zl",
"dt0facp",
"dt0hvxx",
"dt0u3ww",
"dt10h2i",
"dt2v1zr"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
5,
38,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The US and USSR both devoted enormous portions of their national resourses and both were large countries with hundreds of millions of people and rich in natural resourses. The difficulty of making ICBMs is controlling an explosion, which is never an easy thing to do even if another nation has done this in the past.",
"The amount of effort and budget the USA\nand Soviets put into it were absolutely huge.\n\nOther countries will have less budget thus less developments slowing the proces. \n\nAlso the resources and equipment are strictly managed (paints that withstand the force, rocket fuels, specific technologies) making them unavailable or scarce for other countries again slowing developments or even making it impossible.\n\nAlso, sabotage is a real thing, stalling developments etc.",
"First and foremost it's important to recognize that almost 200 countries at the UN have accepted the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty](_URL_0_), which stipulates that a country should only pursue nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.\n\nYou have a country like North Korea, for instance, that withdrew from that treaty in 2003... The country itself is already plagued by a lack of resources to take care of its populace adequately, let alone pursue a very high-tech missile program (when the majority of its military equipment is already decades old and not serviceable). \n\nICBMs and the nuclear technologies used on them require a lot of high-precision instrumentation and rarer resources that take money and other resources to produce and which are not just readily available on the global market (especially when everyone has sanctioned you and is explicitly stopping you from importing such resources).\n\nIn reality, the money aspect is a huge part of it, and a lot of countries just don't have that kind of money to invest in such lengthy projects.",
"ICBM technology requires an extremely advanced research and development basis in aerospace engineering and rocket science. Which in turn requires strong institutions specializing in physics and mathematical research. \n\nBut that strong research basis will only get you the theory and design because engineering a rocket requires that your country also have a manufacturing sector that includes the skillful production of precision instrumentation, specialized machinery, advanced application of metallurgy, and chemical processing for fuel and lubricants. Which, by the way, requires even more knowledge and research to implement because all those necessary requirements would take decades to develop.\n\nBut that's not all, guidance systems require that your country also have an advanced electronics industry capable of producing components that can withstand conditions normal electrical equipment would simply break down mid trajectory.\n\nNow, you can shortcut this extremely complicated process by buying and importing all those things that are necessary for the development of ICBMs, which is what North Korea did. But that still doesn't take into account the expertise and infrastructure you need to test and produce a viable system. \n\nThe ICBM still needs a warhead which has its own development process, but actually relatively easier than producing the delivery system. \n\nSo the countries that developed ICBMs are countries that had the foundation prior to their goal of producing ICBMs. The United States, and the Soviet Union, already had a strong industrial base and scientific research community to lean on to develop their ICBMs, not to mention that they both were able to acquire expertise and know-how by importing former Nazi scientists and capturing the research the Nazi regime made in developing their own rocket technology. Germany was (and still is) a great scientific and industrial center. \n\nMany countries even developed and advanced economies, lack ALL the components required to develop ICBMs. Even developed countries that do have the necessary factors to develop ICBMs choose not do so because the allocation of resources toward the goal of producing an ICBM would be economically ruinous for their country and result in major hyperinflation and suffering. It would take years and the resources put into developing an ICBM would be resources wouldn't pay for a national healthcare system, public education, retirement payments, etc. So many countries simply ally with the US and sign treaties asking to be under the protection of their ICBM program, for example, NATO. And those countries also agree not to pursue technology like that under international treaties at the behest of the superpowers. ",
"Because most countries aren't in the 1950s yet, in terms of their ability to create new homegrown technology.\n\nSure, they have cell phones and computers, but they didn't make them, and even if they did, they didn't come up with the technology, they got it from technologies other countries gave or sold them. In terms of pure homegrown technical capacity, many countries couldn't even make airplanes. And since ICBMs and nuclear bombs are closely guarded secrets, that is the one thing they do have to start from scratch with.",
"[Scott Manley](_URL_0_) [also on reddit] has done a series of videos explaining nuclear weapon design history, which are quite good at explaining technical detail.",
"Lots of good explanations so far. One I haven't see yet is that some countries, one being North Korea, do not allow their civilians to learn science or engineering in school. This leads to a lack of people who actually would know how to develop this technology. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWWjbnAVFKA&list=PLYu7z3I8tdEnTQMXpP6gYN9DVm_DjXza9"
],
[]
] | ||
4cr7dr | what is guitar scales ? | i'm trying to teach myself to play guitar, i keep Seeing scales mentioned. I don't understand what they are, what they're usefull for, or how to learn them.
feel free to explain like i am literally an idiot. I know the strings, the frets and a few chords. I know almost no music theory. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cr7dr/eli5_what_is_guitar_scales/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1kppxs",
"d1kpwkn",
"d1kqn5v",
"d1kutzf"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"a scale is an arrangement of note values. for example: the C major scale is: C D E F G A B; all the major notes available in western music. C minor scale is: C D Eb F G Ab Bb - several of the notes of the C major scale are lowered in pitch, to create a \"sadder\" sounding group of notes. scales aren't necessarily limited to an instrument - they belong to the greater umbrella of \"music theory\". learning your scales on any instrument is a great way to improve soloing ability and technique. there are countless types of scales, and then later in your theory studies you will learn about modes, etc. which introduce an increasingly confusing structure for aspiring musicians. but stick with it and you will eventually be able to recognize the mathematical relationships in the whole of music theory; it is imperative to understand the theory of music if you intend to stick with instrument playing",
"[A scale is the notes you use to get from one note to that same note 1 octave higher.](_URL_0_)",
"The really useful thing about scales is that they are where chords come from. \n\nFor example, C Major chord is made up of the notes, C, E, and G, which are the 1st, 3rd and 5th notes of the C Major scale. The cool thing is, that 1-3-5 relationship applies to *every* major chord, so if you know your major scale you can now make *any* major chord without having to look at a chord diagram, even if you've never played that chord before. \n\nThe even cooler thing is that if someone in your band plays a C Major chord, you can now play any note from the C Major scale, in any order you like, and it will always sound right - no note will sound 'off' or atonal. \n\nThis is just the tip of the musical iceberg. If you've ever watched another guitarist jam or freestyle and wondered how the heck everything he plays is sounding right, it's because he knows his scales. ",
"Ok, so the way to think about scales is like a language. We have letters in the alphabet, but you can't throw any random group of them together and expect anything meaningful or understandable to come from it. There are rules to any language that both the author/speaker and the receiving listener/reader both have to have some shared understanding of to communicate. It's no different with music. Scales are just an organization of notes to get a certain understanding across to the listener. Scales are just patterns of notes that follow rules that convey different feelings. You can play some of these notes together (chord) or play them one at a time (melody) or any combination. Learning scales is just like any language in that it helps you to understand why what you are communicating works, but it also lets you understand how you can break the rules to create something different. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://home.scarlet.be/guido.vanspranghe/theory1.html"
],
[],
[]
] | |
2ac1id | why do magnets completely distort the coloration of older tvs and computer monitors? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ac1id/eli5_why_do_magnets_completely_distort_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"citi8p7",
"citi9x0",
"citkiuc"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Old CRT (cathode ray tube) displays work by firing a beam of electrons through a large vacuum tube at a screen with phosphors that glow when struck by an electron. The electron beam is aimed by electromagnets in the TV, since electrons are, themselves, essentially tiny magnets. Bringing another magnet near the TV can disrupt its ability to properly aim electrons at the screen, and can push/pull the electron beam to the wrong target locations.",
"Because the image is displayed by a beam of electrons hitting red, green or blue posphorous dots on the screen. The beam emitted by an electron gun at the back of the CRT, then steered by a bank of magnets just in front of the gun. \n\nPutting a magnet on the screen pulls the beam off target, since the correct dots are no longer being hit the picture and colour will be warped",
"Just to clarify, electrons are not attracted to magnets. Rather, they spin circles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2zckhe | what is so "huge" about the mayweather/pacquiao fight, besides the money? | I'm not a boxing fan, I enjoy watching fights but only the big ones, for the spectacle.
Can anyone explain to me the significance of *this* fight? Is it the biggest fight of the century so far? What's at stake for the fighters? Mayweather seems to have more to lose, but is he the more experienced? Does Pacquiao have a chance (ie like Cassius Clay vs Liston) or is he solely an underdog taking a huge opponent? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zckhe/eli5_what_is_so_huge_about_the_mayweatherpacquiao/ | {
"a_id": [
"cphn61p",
"cphn7dz",
"cpho084",
"cphpp02",
"cphq6lq",
"cphsqs1",
"cphu4w4",
"cphu9ow",
"cphvf9s",
"cphx8ia",
"cphxd8a",
"cphxhzz",
"cphxly9",
"cphzy6g",
"cpi05se",
"cpi1g0y",
"cpi3boj",
"cpi4fdx",
"cpi4m15",
"cpi7n13",
"cpi8tl7",
"cpipdf7"
],
"score": [
702,
19,
91,
53,
10,
15,
5,
2,
10,
2,
3,
19,
21,
44,
4,
53,
15,
3,
22,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"2 of the best fighters of their generation. The both have two completely different fighting styles and everyone has wanted this fight for the past 5-7 years. Floyd is undefeated and a five division world champion and considered one of the smartest fighters to ever fight. He can counter-punch well as anybody and has an undorthodox style of fighting using his shoulders.\n\nPacquiao is a southpaw (left handed) brawler with knock out power.\nPacquiao is the first and only eight-division world championin which he has won ten world titles, as well as the first to win the lineal championship in four different weight classes",
"This is the fight that boxing fans have been waiting for , for over a decade. There have been opportunities for it to happen, but it just never did. There was a disagreement over drug testing a couple of years ago that stopped it from happening. Honestly, I feel like fans are being/have been , cheated. This fight would have been epic when both fighters were at their prime. Just to get some downvotes, I am a Mayweather fan, and feel that Manny is out matched now, and then. LSS- we have been teased with this for too long, and are now actually gonna see it happen...kinda.\n",
"This is the most anticipated fight of the century, yes. Both fighters have won multiple championship belts in different weight classes and both are considered the two best pound-for-pound fighters in all of boxing. \n\nBoth fighters have a lot to gain. For Mayweather, it would solidify his status as the greatest boxer of his generation and put him in discussion of best fighter ever. For Pacqiauo, it will be a vindication for those who doubted his ability to fully bounce back after a brutal loss to Manuel Marquez and reclaim his spot as the most electrifying fighter in the sport. \n\nBoth fighters are very experienced, but I have to give the edge to Mayweather. He is simply a smarter fighter, better defender and the best counter-puncher in the sport today. Pacquiao is likely to come out of the gate very aggressive and this could win some of the early rounds for him. But ultimately Pacquiao's aggression will play into Mayweather's style of fighting and his counter-punches will prove effective. \n\nAside from all this, the fight pits two individuals who have different approaches to fame and popularity. Mayweather is flashy and engages in conspicuous oppulance, while Pacquiao's reputation is to give back to his native Philippines and serve for the greater good. One uses his success to enrich primarily himself and the other to enrich those who are less fortunate. ",
"At this point, nothing. Mayweather was basically a huge pussy for not calling out Pacman at a time when both of them were at their peak, so now that Mayweather actually has a chance of winning (which he most certainly never had during Pacquiao's prime) they've arranged the fight to cash in on it.",
"Boxing has gone downhill especially since MMA. The last greatest Boxer had been Mike Tyson. Think about other sports, basketball has Lebron James, football has Calvin Johnson, footie Lionel Messi, and tennis has Rafael Nadal, etc.\n\nSince Tyson, no one has taken over being the top dog in boxing. It has slowly declined as the greatest sports ever. Remember Ali? Liston? Boxing had a ton of great fights back then.\n\nNow Mayweather comes up. Undefeated in all of boxing. Considered to be the best right now in the boxing business. He fought 47 times and won each time. No one has come close to his status in boxing recently.\n\nNow Pacquiao comes out of nowhere and sets records. The first to win in 4 different weight classes and 8 different divisions. Hasn't been done before. You try losing/gaining weight and keep your power the same. It is hard to do. He also brought a ton of viewers back to boxing.\n\nNow the Pay Per View is expected to be the most watched boxing match of all time and the one with the most money. It is truly the biggest boxing match of this century. ",
"To be quite honest I'm more excited for Holyfield/Romney",
"2-3 years ago it would have been a great fight, now its just money",
"I think people forget that they are both out of their prime. This fight would have been way more exciting 5 years ago before pacquiao lost a bunch of fights. Still great to see them finally fight but it just doesn't appeal to me as much as it did 5 years ago. I definitely won't be paying $50 on ppv to watch it.",
"Best offensive boxer meets best defensive boxer. ",
"Aside from the matchups stylistically, their records, and the drama surrounding the matchup, these are the two biggest names in the sport BY FAR. casual fans would probably be hard pressed to name more than 4 active boxers. Mayweather and Pacquiao are the only household names boxing has anymore, so obviously that drives up the hype of the fight. ",
"Last two boxers on Earth that anyone cares to watch fight? ",
"It's also because both these men are poles apart in the way they act. And about the things they care for. \n\n\n\nWhile Mayweather has an Instagram full of $6.4 million cars, Paquino has his Instagram full of pictures of his daughter. Paquino is very religious, attends mass with his wife and all. And Mayweather counts dollar bills all day long. \n\n\nIt's like the all powerful athlete whose rich and probably stuck up versus the down to earth underdog. People want to root for the underdog, but then people also want the best man to win. \n\n\nEDIT : PACQUIAO, NOT AL PAQUINO 😛",
"I want to see Mayweather vs Pacqiuiao in a reading contest",
"I'm far more interested in whether Mayweather could win 50 Cent's bet that he couldn't read a single page from a Harry Potter book.",
"No one seems to have given a complete answer yet, so I'll try. As others have mentioned, boxing is a bit of a dying sport. 20-30-40 years ago you had huge name boxers fighting other huge names on a decently regular basis. Boxing used to be defined by its heavyweights, the huge men with prodigious power who didn't dodge punches so much as they just gave and received (an oversimplification, yes they could dodge). Recently, especially over the past decade, the number of big name heavyweight boxers that the average-joe-household could name has dwindled to maybe one or two, and the heavyweight division is no longer the spectacle it once was. \n\nThe little guys have since emerged to take over boxing. Over the past decade or more the (largely) undisputed best boxer has been Floyd Mayweather. Others have talked about his boxing style so I'll just say that he's known for his great defense and technical abilities. \n\nBack in, oh I dunno maybe 2008, Manny Pacquiao reached a certain level of fame for his boxing ability. He had been working his way up the rankings and was regularly beating other boxers from something of an underdog (undeservedly) position. It got to the point where he had beaten just about everyone he possibly could, and the only remanning fighter he needed to face was Floyd Mayweather. \n\nIt was the fight boxing fans were salivating to see, the type of matchup between two superstars of boxing, the undisputed number one and number two, that the sport hadn't had for a number of years. But the fight never happened. Most people will say, and I'm of this opinion myself, that Mayweather was ducking Pacquiao, that he didn't want to risk his perfect record and legacy by losing to a fighter who could actually challenge him. It's important to note here that Mayweather is seen as a bit of a dickhead egomaniac with a history of abusing women and commonly posting photos showing his outlandish lifestyle, whereas Pacquiao is seen as the people's champ (ESPECIALLY in his native Philippines where he is now a congressman). \n\nOver this time frame, (roughly 2008 but maybe later/earlier, don't really remember) there have been numerous attempts to get this fight off the ground, but it never happened and people basically gave up on this fight ever happening. \n\nNow suddenly it's happening, and soon. Both fighters are generally considered out of their prime now (as compared to six years ago when it would have been the two best fighters of the generation at their highest skill level), but fans are just happy to see it anyways. \n\nTLDR: just read it, but basically fans wanted it for years, never happened but now it is.",
"Mayweather is the root of all evil. Flaunts a ridiculous lifestyle. Charged with assaulting women multiple times. Arrogant. Stereotypical movie villain.\n\nPacquiao came from nothing. He's mowed through a bunch of weight classes since his start and eventually arrived at Mayweather's weight class. He then beat everyone Mayweather beat, but beat them better.\n\nThey almost fight five years ago, but Mayweather requests blood testing that's close to the fight. Pac doesn't like that. Pac finally agrees but Mayweather gives a million reasons why it wont happen when we all know the truth.\n\nMayweather is afraid.\n\nHe is the best defensive boxer ever but he knows that if anyone can beat him, it's Pacquiao. Due to Pacs speed, ferocity, and the fact that he is a south paw...he is tailor made to be the first person ever to beat Mayweather.\n\nThis is Hulk vs Superman, Beatles vs Stones, Dogs vs Cats, all rolled into one on ONE night only. This is history.",
"Basically, to put this in the lowest possible terms. Mayweather is a giant pussy and has been afraid to fight Pacquiao because he knows there is a solid chance he loses and tarnishes his perfect record.\n\nHe even went as far as trying to get Pacquiao to do unorthadox pre-fight tests to get it sanctioned. Shit fighters never do as far as testing goes. Pacquiao said sure, Mayweather still backed down. This will be the fight of the century now that Mayweather found his nuts.\n\nAll of you Mayweather fans can downvote and berate me, you know this info is true.",
"it could be debated that this is the last superfight",
"**Can anyone explain to me the significance of this fight?** \nFloyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao are the two best boxers of the last decade. People who like to complain say it's happening 5 years too late, but they're still the two best boxers in the world right now. \n\n**Is it the biggest fight of the century so far?**\nEasily the biggest fight of the century and probably the biggest in 35-40 years. Not only are they the two best fighters, they're by far the two most famous fighters in combat sports right now.\n\n**What's at stake for the fighters?**\n\nManny has the WBO Welterweight title and Floyd holds the WBA and WBC titles, and the winner gets all the belts. But no one who follows boxing takes the belts seriously (why there are so many titles is a question for another day). What makes the fight important is the winner gets the mythical title of the #1 pound for pound boxer today and will be remembered as the best fighter of an entire era of boxing.\n\n**Mayweather seems to have more to lose, but is he the more experienced?**\n\nFloyd is undefeated and been in more championship fights, but Manny has actually been in more total fights. Both guys have been top level fighters for the last 15 years and experience is a non-issue.\n\n**Does Pacquiao have a chance (ie like Cassius Clay vs Liston) or is he solely an underdog taking a huge opponent?**\n\nMayweather is the favorite because he's the naturally bigger man, is undefeated, is a master defensive boxer. But styles make fights. The strengths of Pacquiao match up well with the weaknesses of Mayweather (and vice versa). It's an interesting matchup which is another reason why boxing fans have wanted to watch it over the years. ",
"I'm a huge boxing fan from the UK who stays up to 5am to watch fights in the USA etc... \n\nIn 2009 the fight was discussed. Pac and Mayweather got famous after fighting Oscar De LA Hoya. \n\nFloyd is such an extremely skillful boxer who has cat like reflexes, great balance, timing, eyes and footwork and an understanding of boxing. His chin is exceptional where he's not been dropped and his defence very difficult to land flush on his chin. He can see and move to another person, much like a kung full master in films for example. Ever played a game where someone is just so much better than you? That's him. He rarely madness mistakes in the ring if you truly study boxing. \n\nHis loud, show off type personality appeals to some, and he is hated by others. However, it sells. Like any story, you need a bad guy. \n\n\nPacquiao has the role of a religious family man. He is a jewell of his country where crime is reduced by something incredible like almost nothing. \n\nHe is a south paw which are harder to fight to orthodox fighters. He's got a technique that creates speed, angles and power. He has darting footwork along with combination punching that is unreal. He madness mistakes but it's exciting. He has the very style you can't train for because he's unique. \n\nBoth are stars in their respective countries. Both are icons that create attention. Both are extremely good. One is a pure sweet science boxer, the other an extremely great fighter. \n\nAge has caught up, but the skill they both possess is there. You will see the best of boxing from two perspective sides. \n\nEnjoy it because they really are enigma's in boxing. ",
"I have $20 on Pacquiao vs. my buddy's $100 on Mayweather. \n\nSmart bet? ",
"Its way too early and I read this as the Mayonnaise Potato fight. Just thinking how people get really specific with potato salad. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
6c8jt9 | why are there so many different bread-type snacks in japan? | For years, I've watched this Japanese youtube channel by the name of "shitemita", the guy does nothing but food unboxing videos, and I noticed that there's like a million different "bread with cream filling" snacks. I believe they're called "pan" (pronounced "ponn" like pond) in Japanese.
Literally, hundreds and hundreds of different ones, many different brands, some branded with cartoon/anime franchises, tons of different flavored fillings and different flavors of bread, etc.
Why are there so many of these? What has created such an incredible demand for "bread with cream filling" snacks? Do they just like them that much? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c8jt9/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_different_breadtype/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhss6d2",
"dhtamzy"
],
"score": [
31,
5
],
"text": [
"Well in general there is a bit culture of rapidly cycling fads in Japan, to an extent that would baffle most people in the US. We're largely familiar with their most unusually long-lived franchises, like Pokemon, but the average Japanese craze lives and dies in Japan (or some small part of it) in a matte of weeks, or months. In that time though, *huge* amounts of money can be made, and companies sometimes specialize in merchandising these fads. \n\nAs for stuffed bread though... that's huge there, and not just cream-filled. In general though, a buns or breads are insanely popular in Japan... and most of Asia. In Japan though they have a particular style which eschews more traditional buns, and goes for actual bread. You find bread stuffed with yakisoba, or curry, or green tea custard. It's cheap to make, easy to ship, and relatively inexpensive. Students (and teachers) go for it a lot, but you may be getting a slightly distorted view from your source. \n\nHaving said that, \"fast\" food in Japan tends to be much higher quality than in the US, and a much more viable option. Often fast food, ready-made meals in 7-11's, and bento sets in supermarkets are some of the only affordable sources of quick food for a lot of city dwellers. \n\nFinally... on average I'd say that the average Japanese person doesn't love sweets as much as the average Westerner. That's not to say that they don't like candy, but when it comes to desserts they're often more subtly sweet than cloying. An egg custard in bread, maybe with some sugary-cookie dough criss-crossed on the top is sweet, but not too sweet. \n\nSo... external cultural factors: China started the whole \"bun\" thing, which includes the soft ones, but also more bready ones, some filled with egg custard. Internal cultural factors: variety-driven market, big market for fresh fast food. Palette. \n\nHaving said that though, a far more universal portable fast food would be rice balls (onigiri). \n\n\n\n",
"The Japanese word \"pan\" is an import word from Portuguese in the 1700's. The single word/concept covers the entire array of baked products (except maybe cake). Other cultures subdivide bread into sweets and pizza and sandwich etc. The Japanese never developed those subdivisions so they routinely combine ingredients that more compartmentalized cultures wouldn't consider. I've seen rolls stuffed with spaghetti and sauce. They will put just about anything inside a roll and think nothing of it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
7ohab9 | how is it that new numbers are "discovered" and or named? do we just have a computer constantly counting up or something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ohab9/eli5_how_is_it_that_new_numbers_are_discovered/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds9icrz",
"ds9mq9v",
"ds9oeme"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"New numbers are never discovered; we can describe every countable number that can possibly exist.\n\nWhat's discovered are numbers that have interesting properties. For example, 17 is interesting because it's a prime number, while 18 is not a prime number.",
"Specifically, i can think of [Graham’s Number](_URL_0_) \n\nThis was “discovered” by being the biggest number used for a mathematical proof, at the time. So it was named after the person who figured out how to write it, and how to use it in said proof.\n\nThis being said, i know that their are computer programs that can search for unbelievably large prime numbers. And once someone with a powerful enough computer, or enough time, discovers the worlds largest prime- they just “update the record book” i guess. \n\nEli5: all numbers are there already, if you find a number that is unique or awesome in some ways, and put the number to good use in a math equation of the like, you could name it. Your computer CAN find numbers for you, but they take a while.\n\n\n\n ",
"First of all, there are so many numbers that we couldn’t ever count them all, even given all the time in the universe, because the number of numbers is so large. So, we have to settle for knowing that these numbers exist in theory. How does this work? Well, let’s start with the natural numbers (0, 1, 2,..)\n\nNow, obviously we’ve counted a lot of natural numbers, but there comes a point when the numbers get really big that it’s infeasable to count them; that’s where something called the Peano Axioms come in (they are a set of assumptions about the natural numbers). One of the statements the make is that every natural number has another natural number right after it. If we accept this axiom (which almost all mathematicians do. I believe the ones that don’t are called finitists?), then *in theory* we already have all the natural numbers. Let’s move on. \n\nNext, what about negative numbers? Well, this ones easy. Let’s just say that for every natural number, there is another number such that the first number plus the second is 0 (so, 3 + (-3) =0, for example). That gets us the negative numbers practically for free. Together, we call the negative numbers and the natural numbers the integers. \n\nNext we need the rational numbers (fractions). Here, using a bit of technical Mumbo-jumbo that isn’t really important, we basically just take all the possible combinations of 2 integers and divide one by the other. Interestingly, this set of numbers is of the same size (cardinality) as the natural numbers. Note that we still haven’t actually found most of these numbers - we are only constructing theory to tell us that they are there. \n\nThe last step we need is how to go from the rationals to the reals. The process gets pretty technically and I personally don’t have an Eli5 of it, but if someone does and can jump in, please do! Spoiler though, it’s kind of the same idea. We never actually *find* all the numbers- just show that they exist based off of some fundamental assumptions(the peano axioms) that we can all agree on. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number"
],
[]
] | ||
disvmz | how does the talk show industry work? | Conan, Ellen, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Craig Ferguson, David Letterman, Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, Ed Sullivan etc. they all share one format but honestly I don´t get it, why are there so many of them, why do they all have a variaton of each other´s show name, and why does it seem to be so important for american culture? Is there a documentary or book in which i can learn about it? I´m very interested in it, from the aesthetic of these shows, to the history of the format | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/disvmz/eli5_how_does_the_talk_show_industry_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3y5dnj",
"f3y6e81",
"f3yb24k",
"f3yin89"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"It's just a mixture of comedy and advertising. They bring people on to talk about their new movies or shows and they make jokes along the way. It's a mix for people who want to hear about the personal lives of famous people (direct from the source, instead of through TMZ) while also being able to laugh.",
"Most of them are on late at night, when not as many people are watching. It's a relatively cheap way to fill hours, as the host is typically the only expensive talent to pay and then other actors/celebrities are coming on for free (well, they have their travel/accommodations paid for) to promote their stuff. You don't need to be traveling all over the place shooting at different locations, so you can crank out a lot of episodes every year; most regular TV shows have like 10-20 episodes a year, whereas talk shows can have hundreds.",
"There were other late-night talk shows before, but the modern shows can all basically trace their format and success to Johnny Carson and *The Tonight Show*, which ran from the early '60's until Carson retired in 1992. He sort of solidified the talk show format that's followed to this day - starting with a monologue based on current events with some quick one liners, then maybe a few recurring bits or sketches at the desk, and interviews with actors, politicians, authors, entertainers, etc., usually ending with a musical guest. It was designed to be a good variety show for people to watch at the end of the day - a little news, a little comedy, a little music, easy to sit around and doze to.\n\nBut the reason there are so many shows now starts in the 80's, when David Letterman came onto the scene. Carson basically held a monopoly on the late-night format for decades - no competitor on another network ever had anywhere near his popularity and longevity. In the early 80's, along with some contract negotiations, Carson and his production team secured the timeslot that followed *The Tonight Show* and decided to have a similar late-night talk show to follow *Tonight* \\- the difference being that while *Tonight* still focused on appealing to adults of all ages, the following show, *Late Night* would focus towards young men, the age bracket that Johnny Carson didn't have as much appeal towards. David Letterman was hired to take on that slot, and his edgier, more biting style appealed to a younger audience than Johnny Carson and his \"safer\" approach. Those shows went together for about a decade, with everyone sort of understanding that Letterman would eventually succeed Carson when he retired, and take over the earlier show.\n\nWell come 1992 and Carson's retirement, that didn't exactly happen. NBC went with a \"safer\" choice - Jay Leno - to succeed Carson, instead of the edgier Letterman. Well, Letterman didn't take that so well, feeling cheated out of a job he'd been working towards for nearly a decade. So he moved to a competing network, CBS, and hosted a new show, *The Late Show*, which eventually got it's own later little sister show, *The Late Late Show.* Meanwhile, Leno took over *Tonight* and Conan O'Brien took over *Late Night*, expecting (as Letterman had) that he would succeed Leno eventually.\n\nWell, that didn't really happen either. Conan took over for Leno, Leno was given a new show immediately *before* Conan's timeslot, and ratings weren't the best. Eventually, after NBC suggested pushing his timeslot further back, Conan left the network for his own show on TBS, while Leno returned to *Tonight* and his eventual successor, Jimmy Fallon, took over *The Late Show*.\n\nAnd all of this showed other competing networks that the format worked, that there were a lot of comedians willing to cover a late-night desk, and that competition was possible. So ABC gave Jimmy Kimmel a show, Comedy Central competed pretty well with their more news-parody *Daily Show* and *Colbert Report* (Colbert eventually taking over for Letterman on CBS!) and a few other networks have their own late shows as well.\n\nLong story to get to my point, but the fact is: the networks all have their own shows because of a bunch of broken deals and a bunch of hosts moving channels, and because the format is cheap, easy to write for, and easy to watch. Several networks have two shows a night, with the later show geared towards a younger audience, and hosted by someone who's expected to succeed their predecessor on the earlier show - though history shows that isn't a guarantee. And if Fallon isn't your jam, you can tune in to his competitors who might be - Colbert, Kimmel, Conan, etc - or wait around to see if the later shows (like Seth Meyers and James Corden) are more your speed.",
"Talk shows in general. I lived with a woman who booked guests on talk shows and she said it’s all commercials. So every guest is selling something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3ozjvj | why are people so attracted to others that can sing? | Why is it that someone who can sing intensifies your lust for them? or if you normally wouldn't be attracted to them when you hear them sing you are? maybe its just me but if a girl can sing well I'm all about it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ozjvj/eli5why_are_people_so_attracted_to_others_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw1ssqt",
"cw1t935"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not just you, a lot of people are similarly attracted.\n\nIt's because that person is demonstrating talent, and it increases the odds that they're interesting. With some exceptions, a physically beautiful person that is both useless and is dumb as a post is not as attractive to most people as a physically beautiful person that shows some clear talents and capabilities. We might not be able to tell which is which from just looking at a picture, but ten minutes watching some Kardashian family TV show will educate most of us more sensible people pretty damn quickly.\n\nWhen one of those talents is to sing or make music in a way that causes us to observe their talent or experience an emotional response, it makes it much easier for us to have our own emotional response to them amplified, and feel attracted to them. \n\nAnd when it seems that they're singing directly to us, especially when they're a celebrity and they're picking US out of a crowd instead of someone else, that can be a huge turn-on.",
"Because it is intimate and expressive. It demonstrates confidence, power and social cache. Many, many attractive qualities are evidenced when such a public display is given."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
cmzcp1 | why do some hot sauces/spicy foods not hit you instantly, but instead creep up on you? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cmzcp1/eli5_why_do_some_hot_saucesspicy_foods_not_hit/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew5u2cb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"depends on the chile, source of the spice. habañero is delayed and hits the back of the mouth. jalapeño hits the front and more quickly"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2lemld | why these fashion shows, like the sao paulo fashion weeks still exist, even though anyone uses almost anything that comes out of it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lemld/eli5why_these_fashion_shows_like_the_sao_paulo/ | {
"a_id": [
"clu1k7k",
"clu26m6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of them like auto shows. Have you ever seen a car company display a \"concept vehicle?\" They look different from other cars. It's meant to show ideas and styles to let people know what kind of engineering is out there.",
"Wait, there's São Paulo Fashion week?\n\nWhy didn't I get an invite? I *love* hats with pineapples on them!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
71eqjb | what does a software engineer acutally do | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71eqjb/eli5_what_does_a_software_engineer_acutally_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dna6y3y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I work with some. From what I understand, they write computer code for an engineering project. Often they are part of a team, in which parts of the project are broken up into sections for each person to work on.\n\nFor example, say you work for a company that makes a video entertainment system like Roku or Apple TV. As a software engineer you might help with making the computer code that runs the GUI (graphical user interface) - all the menus and buttons etc. Or you might work on computer code that handles core functions like streaming video and audio, that kind of thing.\n\nSo all that to say an software engineer helps to create software to meet some goals or requirements. If you are interested in it, check out coding as there can be decent money in it!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1u2uzl | how does water printing work? | I'm sure some of you have seen this, but this is an example: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u2uzl/eli5how_does_water_printing_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cee2vam"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When the object is pushed through the film, it pulls the rest down with it, and it doesnt want to go down so it wraps around the object and sticks to it."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKuXyeAGzEU"
] | [
[]
] | |
5ha2dq | what is the difference between fantasy and science-fiction? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ha2dq/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_fantasy_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dayl6ly",
"daylw65",
"dayly42"
],
"score": [
24,
9,
5
],
"text": [
"It can be something of a spectrum with significant overlap, but principally, Science Fiction takes an existing scientific principal and expands on it in to explore the consequences, possibly hand-waving the specifics of the egineering, but generally holding to the accepted laws of the universe with specific scientifically justified exceptions.\n\nFantasy includes clear impossibilties that are not even attempted to be justified by modern, real science, but instead are justified internally by \"Magic\", where \"Magic\" is an aspect of the in-story universal laws are fundamentally different than our scientific understanding of the real world.",
"They're very similar genres, which is why they're often put together in a generic \"science fiction/fantasy\" category. To a lot of people, science fiction takes science principles and takes them out their extreme (such as star trek: which took principles like space distortion and mass-energy conversion and turned them into warp drive and transporters). \"Fantasy\" by comparison, is a story that is generally set in the past and usually has magic. \n\nThere's not really a consensus on where fantasy ends and science fiction begins, or really which stories belong in which genre: for example, *star wars* (in my opinion) is not science fiction, but rather futuristic fantasy. \n\nRod Serling said once \"fantasy is the impossible made probable, science fiction is the improbable made possible\" and I think that sums up what I've said here.",
"Sometimes, not much. Star Wars is a good example of something that blurs the lines between science fiction and fantasy.\n\n\"Hard\" science fiction takes a \"what if\" scenario that is plausible in the real world and explores it through fiction. \"The Martian\" is a good example of this. Not everything is scientifically accurate, but it tries very hard to stay within the lines of our current scientific knowledge.\n\nSomething like Star Trek is a little further along the spectrum to fantasy. There are no ghosts or magic powers. Instead, they use \"dilithium crystals\" to travel faster than light. There's no current science to suggest what a dilithium crystal is, or how it would work, but it's not completely implausible to think faster than light travel may be discovered some day.\n\nStar Wars goes further. It has space ships, but they don't even bother to go into mechanisms of how they work. The Force is basically magic. Dead characters even show up as ghosts of a sort. Take away the space ships, robots and use real swords instead of laser swords, and you're sort of into Lord of the Rings territory."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
bv3t62 | nowadays we even have cellphones that record in 4k. why do the tv stations still use that big cameras? (professional video camera, aka television camera) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bv3t62/eli5_nowadays_we_even_have_cellphones_that_record/ | {
"a_id": [
"epkvttj",
"epkwg1x",
"epl5k2c"
],
"score": [
15,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Depth of field, focusing ability, and visual detail. There is versatility in the larger versions. Have you noticed your cell phone camera takes _awful_ pictures of the moon, compared to what you see through your eyeball?\n\nSame type of thing.\n\n(Also — what phone records in 4k?)",
"Its arguable that phone optics will never be as good as the real thing. \n\nYes you can record in 4k with a phone, but I doubt we will have a practical 35mm+ sensor in a cell phone along with very good optics(lenses) any time soon because then your phone would easily weigh 2 pounds at least. \n\nResolution is not the end-all-be-all of quality/clarity. The size of the imaging sensor and quality of the lens matter just as much, if not more.",
"Sensor size and lenses. I am not an expert but IIRC when you squash gazzillion pixels in a small sensor they start to effect each other more. Which causes noise. \nLenses’ performance is measured how they resolve detail. Optical resolution. Big lenses are made with lots of different glass elements. Polished and coated to correct abbreviations both optical and color. For example nikkor 70-200 2.8 have 21 individual lens elements in 16 groups. Which means some are glued together. As compared to cellphones’ single element, quiet possibly; some sort of plastic; lenses. (Most of them anyway )"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5i2o53 | what is the 'mental barrier' that stops us from biting our fingers | I bet we've all tried to 'bite off' our fingers, or even sections of our skin but what is the scientific reason and how does the 'mental barrier' work at stopping us from biting through out flesh. We know our jaws can easily rip through our skin like butter. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5i2o53/eli5_what_is_the_mental_barrier_that_stops_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"db4x9os"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It's called \"pain\".\n\nI'm not being flippant, that's seriously what it is. [Some people are born without the ability to feel pain](_URL_0_), and they're at great risk of chewing off their tongues or fingers or damaging their eyes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain"
]
] | |
1enjrv | hockey faceoffs | Why do the players doing the faceoff sometimes switch with their teammate after touching the ice but other times they don't? What are some faceoff strategies a lay man watcher of hockey would not pick up on? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1enjrv/eli5_hockey_faceoffs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca1yewn",
"ca1yh1u"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The ref makes them switch if they think the player was in the faceoff circle with their stick too early. It's pretty much just the judgement of the ref, but I and many other hockey fans think it's stupid and it's delaying the game. I'm not too informed on strategies, but some players like to have their parallel to the ice and kind of pounce on it when it's dropped and block off the opposing player. other players like to stand up and hold their stick regularly...(never been a hockey player, I moved to minnesota so I had to pick up on the game)",
"The ref has the discretion to kick a player out of the face-off if he thinks that player tried to get an unfair advantage (such as moving your stick before the ref drops the puck). Teams will always put their desired face-off man in first, so whenever you see a switch it's because the original guy did something bad.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
2ru2zd | - if you don't read anything for a long period of time, would you eventually forget how to read? | I just watched Castaway and it made me wonder if you were on an island or something and didn't think about writing/alphabet for, say 20 years, would you eventually forget how to read/write?
Maybe a stupid question.. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ru2zd/eli5_if_you_dont_read_anything_for_a_long_period/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnj9vwk",
"cnj9wqd",
"cnj9xkr",
"cnja2ae"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"depending on how old you were when you learned to read, yes. people who learn japanese as adults forget how to read it if they don't use it for a while.\n",
"You would lose some ability to read, but it would likely be recovered. This is due to how learning and memory work, since we learn to read early in life (in the western world). I am dyslexic, which feels sometimes like losing the ability to read if I don't practice every few months. For a person who does not have that affliction, 20 years without written words would be put aside for other abilities.",
"Yes, it's possible. \n\nThe length of time needed for you to forget depends on how much time you've already learned how to read, taking in the fact that you go feral for lack of a better word and don't read/write for an extremely long time, it's possible yeah.",
"No. The saying \"it's like riding a bike\" comes into play here.\n\nLearning how to read forms neural pathways in your brain. Your brain is like a library. The pathways are like books. You write something down in a book and put it in the library and you can walk away for YEARS and what's written in that book will not change. The trouble begins when you try to find the book later. \n\nOnce the pathway is built, (the book written in) it doesn't just go away. It might go away due to brain cell death (brain damage or trauma), and it would become more difficult to come back to (the same way it would get harder and harder to find the book in the library after being away longer and longer), but what is written in the book (the pathway's shape and form) remains essentially the same.\n\nSo you could not read for decades and still pick it back up, perhaps very slowly and difficultly, but you wouldn't have to re-learn how to read.\n\nThere is something called synaptic-pruning, which is when the bridges between pathways in the brain (the hallways in your library) are overwritten by new information. This is why you have forgotten details of things that happened in the 4th grade, but remember what you did in class today perfectly well. The brain can tell when you haven't bothered to access the information for a long time, so it uses that wasted space and puts other things there. But because learning to read and reading itself are incredibly large and complex pathways (we're talking hundreds of books worth of brain function here), and because you could always picture the words in your head while you weren't reading (you could still open that book in a different way), your brain wouldn't have time to overwrite very much, if any of those pathways.\n\nFun fact of the day: Reading is the most complex action your brain does (aside from running your body). It takes huge amounts of brain power (thousands of books) to look at an image, interpret that image as a word, and then define the word, and THEN apply a feeling to that word. It's literally the hardest work we make our brains do, reading:)\n\nETA: This refers to the stereotypical way of learning to read, at a young age, when neural pathways are easiest to form, and reading for years before you end up lost on an island. Learning to do something as an adult, and not having it be an extremely central part of your life for YEARS would yield a different result. But even so, you wouldn't have forgotten HOW to read, you would have forgotten WHAT each symbol on the page MEANS, and that is only a part of the process. It's the difference between knowing how to walk and losing the ability for ten years, and never having walked before in your life (like a baby) and having to figure out all the mechanics from scratch. Walking after being immobile for ten years would be hard, but you already have the platform of \"how\", it's just a matter of making it easy and natural again, it's not the same thing a baby is doing when they learn to walk (having never done so before in their life and things like gravity/balance are foreign concepts entirely)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
pxqwn | why are these so expensive? | _URL_0_
To my understanding, each one is only worth $2 New Zealand currency, so why, with shipping, are they almost $300? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pxqwn/eli5_why_are_these_so_expensive/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3t2gwv",
"c3t2nap",
"c3t34nc"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Half the reason why it's so expensive is because there's 4 coins that are 1 troy oz per coin of 99.9% silver. According to [Wolfram|Alpha](_URL_0_), the cost of the silver alone is nearly $135, so that's almost half the cost. The other reasons are probably shipping cost and markup to make a profit. I don't image shipping something from New Zealand is cheap, let alone shipping something with a little bit of value. They probably ship it insured.",
"I'll explain it the way my dad explained it to me when I was 5:\n\n\"Because people are willing to pay it.\"",
"Those are commemorative coins, the face value is pretty meaningless and they are sold mainly as collectables instead of being traded as currencies (even though you technically could use it in New Zealand as $2, assuming the government issued them). Also like AmAChemicalEngineer said, they are made from pure silver, so you are also paying for the significant material cost. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://spongebobcoins.com/"
] | [
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4+troy+oz+silver"
],
[],
[]
] | |
9m9xw5 | what gives meth users the sensation of bugs crawling under their skin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m9xw5/eli5_what_gives_meth_users_the_sensation_of_bugs/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7d6gjc",
"e7dg8f8"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Nerve impulses - if you know someone with restless leg, or you've drunk far too much coffee, you know the sensation of your nerves pulsing without your desire. Meth is a lot stronger stimulant so more random nerves fire, and the brain is good at making up stories to explain sensation. ",
"The sensory part of the brain uses the same neurotransmitter as the pleasure part of the brain so when meth floods the brain with dopamine while the pleasure center feels high the sensory part gets stimulated like something is there.\n\nIt’s basically the exact same biological response as a schizophrenic psychotic episode."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4mmv3d | why do lighter skinned people call themselves "white" and darker skinned people call themselves "black", when neither have white or black colored skin? | Yes, this is a serious question. I don't understand it, nor have I ever. All I see are different shades of beige and brown. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mmv3d/eli5_why_do_lighter_skinned_people_call/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3wpgql",
"d3wpjag",
"d3wsetc"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
5
],
"text": [
" > “When the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, there were no ‘white’ people there; nor, according to the colonial records, would there be for another sixty years.” — Theodore W. Allen\n\n_URL_0_",
"There are people in the world whose skin does get really close to white (e.g. Scots) and black (e.g. Bougainville islanders). But there's more to \"black\" and \"white\" than skin colour: there are cultural and societal differences too. \n\nPS: even among \"black\" people there is some discrimination by colour. The Wikipedia page for [brown paper bag test] (_URL_0_) is written in the past tense, but I wouldn't be so sure about that. ",
"I'm really sorry for the length of this, but it's a deceptively complicated subject. This has a lot to do with slavery and the social construction of race. Essentially \"race\" in the modern sense didn't exist for most of human history. There were of course many ethnic divisions and violence resulting therefrom, but this happened largely within the ranks of those we would today see as belonging to the same race. \n\nWhen Europeans encountered Africans throughout most of ancient and medieval history they referred to Africans by their national/ethnic/tribal affiliation (\"Ethiopes,\" \"Moors,\" \"Nubians,\" etc.). This changed around the time slavery began, because slavery is a pretty fucked up thing to do to someone (particularly as it began to be practiced in the new world in the 17th century). You need a really strong ideological justification for doing that, and so many Europeans discarded the idea of individual African nationalities and cultures and described them in monolithic terms that Africans themselves didn't recognize, \"black.\" \n\nIn doing this they were able to define a group of people they needed to subjugate in terms of a trait that they all happened to possess, dark skin. Because there had never been a \"black race\" before, the Europeans could essentially attribute whatever characteristics they wanted to black people. They were lazy, they were unintelligent, they were uncivilized and prone to violence. This was of course untrue, but in social construction what matters is what people believe, not what is real. This new ideology was incomplete without a role for the Europeans, who came to define themselves as white people in a clear dichotomy with black Africans. While black people supposedly possessed the lowly traits described above, white people (at this time, only the Western Europeans directly involved in the slave trade) were intelligent, enterprising, peace-loving, civilized and devout. This false but very firmly held belief in people who were naturally superior or inferior to one another provided justification for slavery in terms of both the practical need of Europeans to put \"lesser\" races to work and to gradually civilize them through religious conversion and the Europeanization of their cultures. \n\nThis was a complicated process involving both intentional and unintentional actions by individuals over many generations. However, over time this belief system developed and formalized itself. Where before the monolithic description of Africans as simply black people was reductive and inaccurate, it came to have a specific sociological validity in the face of the shared experiences and condition of African people in bondage throughout the world. Similarly, the description of Europeans as \"white\" gradually expanded to include more an more of the European continent as countries not previously engaged in colonialism began to do so with the same justifications as the Spanish, English and others. The successive waves of immigration which brought Eastern Europeans to the US eventually granted them a place in \"white\" society as well.\" Thus the process of racialization began as an attempt to construct an identity for Africans which would justify their subjugation, continued based upon its own logic which extended beyond the original intentions of slavers and white supremacists, and came to reflect a meaningful if biologically unfounded division within many modern societies. \n\nTL;DR: It doesn't make sense because it never did. Black/White was a convenient dichotomy used to invent categories of people inherently predisposed to rule/be ruled. Over time this process actually led to the creation groups of people who recognized themselves as sharing essential traits and cultures even though one might be descended from the Igbos and the other from a long line of Wolofs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://medium.com/message/how-white-people-got-made-6eeb076ade42#.5g35calx7"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Paper_Bag_Test"
],
[]
] | |
92jr8s | why do many flags have a star or multiple stars on them? do these stars all represent something similar? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92jr8s/eli5_why_do_many_flags_have_a_star_or_multiple/ | {
"a_id": [
"e369lii"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The ones I know from my head:\n\nOn the USA flag they stand for each state.\n\nOn the Australian flag you have the Southern Cross constellation and the federation star. The New Zealand flag also has the Southern Cross.\n\nThe Chinese flag has the communist party for the big star and the four classes for the little ones.\n\nThe flag from Brazil has the various constellations visible over Rio over them.\n\nThe stars in the flag of Syria is for the (ruling?) dynasty and represent Egypt and Syria.\n\nSo, they more or less all mean something else based on the country you are talking about. See _URL_0_ for a list of all flags with stars, a quick google search will tell you what they mean for a specific one.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_with_stars"
]
] | ||
3agj62 | how can we suck and breathe out at the same time? | So it's possible to drink through a straw and breathe through your nose at the same time. What is the sucking mechanism? Isn't it related to the lungs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3agj62/eli5how_can_we_suck_and_breathe_out_at_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"cscf9bd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sucking is done by creating a low pressure system in your mouth. In most cases, the sucking itself is done by your tongue, creating a seal with the roof of your mouth, then manipulating your tongue to create a larger area, decreasing the pressure and thus allowing atmospheric pressure to push liquid up through the straw. Since this motion does not require your lungs, you can do it while exhaling. However, usually you swallow the liquid afterward, which requires you to temporarily stop exhaling and close off your lungs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
biby3f | what does dopamine do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/biby3f/eli5_what_does_dopamine_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"elzh8i2",
"elzhoyu",
"elzp52j",
"elzsoiy"
],
"score": [
29,
8,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Dopamine, known more as a “feel-good hormone”, acts as a neurotransmitter— a chemical released by neurons (nerve cells) to send signals to other nerve cells. Dopamine is involved in many pathways in the brain and plays an important role in a lot of body systems and functions, including movement, sleep, learning, mood, memory, and attention. So it’s pretty important. To put the effects of dopamine in a different perspective, the death of the few neurons that make dopamine can lead to some of the classic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Dopamine is kind of complicated, and a simple and short answer is difficult. If this doesn’t answer your question (which I hope it did, or at least sparked some deeper curiosity) I suggest maybe watching a few short videos or articles.",
"As much as people try to simplify neurotransmitters down to doing just one simple thing, that's view of things is so reductive as to be nearly useless. The brain is huge & complex and what a particular neurotransmitter does depends on *where* it's active in the brain and what other neurotransmitters are also flowing around in your brain.\n\nThe nearly useless reductive version is that dopamine is your brain's \"reward\" chemical. You get more dopamine when you do something 'good' - like eating chocolate, having an orgasm or listening to good music.",
"We largely don't know, but we're working on it. \nOne thing we DO know, is that there's a part of the brain that releases dopamine that is responsible for what we call voluntary movement. Basically being able to move when and how we want to. If the cells in this part of the brain are damaged or die, then moving when we want to becomes difficult. Sometimes this means a person's hand will move when they want it to be still. We call that a resting tremor. That's an early symptom. Later it's hard for people to move when they want to, and so walking, talking, or even swallowing can be difficult. \nWe call this disease Parkinson's Disease. And people usually start to show signs of this disease when 80% of those specific kinds of cells have been lost. \n\n\nDopamine is released by other parts of the brain too, and those parts are in system loops that control really complex behaviors. Reward is an easy way to say it, but that leaves out anticipation, that feeling when you're really looking forward to something. Or you're not quite sure what could happen next, but it could be AWESOME.",
"More importantly, what’s the difference between dopamine and serotonin?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4auxs8 | how does your "one phone call" work in jail? | Do you have to know the person's number by memory? What do you do if they don't answer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4auxs8/eli5_how_does_your_one_phone_call_work_in_jail/ | {
"a_id": [
"d13otuc"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"It's really a Hollywoodism, and not reality. You're entitled to contact a lawyer whenever you want. Most jails have payphones, so you're also welcome to use them at whatever absurdly expensive collect call rate they have to call your friends and family. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5g4tvh | how do headphones/speakers work when dealing with multiple sounds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5g4tvh/eli5_how_do_headphonesspeakers_work_when_dealing/ | {
"a_id": [
"daphphf",
"daphycp"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
" > or does it combine somehow into a single one?\n\nThey combine into one wave, interfering both destructively and constructively. Sound is vibrations in air and air cannot be multiple pressures at the same location and time.",
"To understand this you will need to visualize it. \n \nSound from a digital medium is encoded in one or multiple signals and sent trough one or multiple cables. In this example I will use mono (1). \n \nThe sound is \"compiled\" into something called a waveform. This is done by adding all noises for every set and passing the value along to the output. A simple (low quality) mp3 file has 128k sets per second. This means that slight variations in the frequency and amplitude in the sound can get sent over to the output 128 thousand times every second. The very high-end of the spectrum will be lost, since those noises require more sets. \n \nIn short, yes. Everything is sent as a single wave, to be interpreted by the receiver. I would suggest downloading a free program like [audacity](_URL_0_) to see for yourself."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.audacityteam.org/"
]
] | ||
405h62 | why we have driverless cars but not planes, trains or other vehicles. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/405h62/eli5_why_we_have_driverless_cars_but_not_planes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyrmbgk",
"cyrmbuu"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Your premise is incorrect.\n\nThere are many driverless train systems throughout the world, especially on light rail systems such as London's Docklands Light Railway.\n\nAlmost all commercial planes have an autopilot setting which means they are effectively driverless (pilotless) throughout their flight. FDA regulations require humans to be at the controls during takeoff and landing but theoretically even those procedures can be completed by the autopilot computer.\n\nSimilarly most international shipping is controlled by the ship's computer linked to GPS receivers and it's usually only in dismbarcation/docking that humans get involved.\n\nIt is much harder to produce a driverless car due to the fact that road systems are far more complex and chaotic than rail systems, aircraft flight lanes, or shipping lanes.",
"We have just as \"driverless\" of planes and trains as we do cars. Current laws require a driver to be available in case of emergency in cars. That's practically what pilots are in modern planes. No disrespect to their talent, they clearly are capable, even more so than the computer, and that's why they're there to handle anything the computer can't. But almost the entire flight is controlled by the computer these days. On big planes like commercial liners."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
3b8nf3 | if well-done steak tastes bad then why do well-done hamburgers and ground beef taste good? | We are never encouraged to cook ground beef rare for obvious health reasons (bacteria is spread throughout mince and only the surface of steak), so why does it taste okay when we cook it well-done?
People are so quick to be snobby about how a steak should never be cooked above medium but you don't often/ever hear similar complaints about ground beef. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b8nf3/eli5_if_welldone_steak_tastes_bad_then_why_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"csjvjaz",
"csjvkfl",
"csjvuc0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Do the test, i could explain to you how i perceive the taste of well done ground beef and well done steak, but just try for yourself.\n\nBasically it's just the texture of the meat and imo overcooking steak makes most of the flavor disappear.\nThe texture difference between ground beef and steak is 2 whole different things.\n\n",
"I would assume due to fat content? The leaner the meat, the tougher and nastier it can get overcooked. ",
"There's nothing inherently wrong with a burger that's a little red inside, especially if it's pure beef, it's just that fast food joints (maybe other restaurants too, I'm not sure, it might depend on where you live) aren't allowed to sell them. I prefer my burgers to be a little red, too.\n\nIt's not so much that a well done steak tastes bad, but if you're going to eat it well done, there are other, cheaper cuts that will give you a similar experience. The flavor of a good steak will only truly come out if it's at least a little red inside, so cooking it above medium is sort of a waste of a good piece of meat.\n\nIt would be like buying an expensive bottle of single malt scotch, and then using it to make a whisky and coke: you're wasting a good product where an inferior one would do just as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.