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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5rebst | how does wifi on trains actually work? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rebst/eli5_how_does_wifi_on_trains_actually_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd6lgme",
"dd6lip2"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It depends on the operator. Trains need to have communications to the controllers for various reasons. In Europe they figured they needed a standard for this type of communications and based it on the GSM standard as equipment were available for cheap. That meant that a lot of European railways got full cell phone coverage. However you might need special SIM cards to get this coverage unless your operator have access to this. As technology is evolving the cheapest equipment becomes better and better so the train networks have ended up with 3G and 4G coverage as they replace equipment. So train companies have started to install regular home mobile internet routers on board their trains with SIM cards compatible with the networks along the train lines.\n\nThere is also other options. With better antenna and equipment you can get cell coverage for longer. And if you have multiple receivers along the train it is likely that at least one of them will have coverage at one point. In addition they might also install satellite internet receivers. The routers are also optimized for this and may include web cache, compression or extended buffers.",
"Not sure which rail line you're talking about, but rail lines like Amtrak have [private trackside WiFi](_URL_0_) that it taps into. This is wired (often fiber) connections like the ones on your street, with repeaters along the way and special transceivers on board the train."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140626100840-10935831-trackside-wi-fi-for-passenger-trains?trk=prof-post"
]
] | |
1e1s5w | why there are usually two mics at a podium? | I am not talking about multiple news mics getting their own feeds, but two identical, black mics like this:
_URL_0_
is it because one is for live audio in room and one for a feed/recording?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e1s5w/eli5why_there_are_usually_two_mics_at_a_podium/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9vyiwy",
"c9w16ui"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"I always *assumed* it was for left and right channel audio, or so that live speeches can continue uninterrupted if one set of microphones/speakers failed. Perhaps they're plugged into different sound boards",
"When we are filming and use two mics for the same person, we usually have the recording levels set at two levels. This is is case one peaks or something goes wrong. This way we have a backup."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/MLBIK4o.jpg"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
29tu6h | why do americans display their country's flag more prominently than other countries do? | I have a South African pen pal, and he just wrote to me (after his very first recent trip to the US),
"When I was in America, I noticed that people have the American flag in their houses, we only have our country flag on government and corporate institutions. Is there are reason for every household to have a flag?"
I wasn't sure how to answer that, but my best uneducated guess is that it has something to do with the history of the birth of the country. Maybe the answer lies in the Revolutionary War? I couldn't find any immediate answers through a web search, but I thought (since he just e-mailed me today) that his July 4th timing was the perfect day to pose the question. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29tu6h/eli5_why_do_americans_display_their_countrys_flag/ | {
"a_id": [
"cioev95",
"ciof0h5",
"ciohd3l",
"cioi79k"
],
"score": [
34,
8,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"They weren't quite as prominent before 9/11. That sparked a lot of nationalism.",
"World War II and then the Cold War really beat nationalism out of lot of countries around the world. Nationalism dragged them into petty and horrific wars, and then had them dance as pawns between the great powers in the proxy wars between America and the USSR.\n\nBut the US didn't have that experience. Nationalism has worked out exceptionally well for the US, and carried them pretty much to the top of the world. ",
"Driving on Detroit Highways you see a lot",
"Our flag has a lot to do with our national identity. U.S.A was the first nation to use a flag to represent an entire people where other flags at the time like the British Union Jack and the French Fleur-De-Lis represented a national monarchy. \n\nAlso our national anthem centers around our flag and is essentially a story of the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812 where the battle was raging all night and in the light of the bombs you could see the flag still waving and it gave hope to every American ship that could see it by sea. \n\nAlso when most American children are in school they have us put our hands over our hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag every morning.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
577vd7 | are we crushing thousands of microscopic organisms with every step we take? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/577vd7/eli5_are_we_crushing_thousands_of_microscopic/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8ppg0i"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"No. Microscopically, virtually all surfaces are quite rigid, and microscopic organisms or traveling over peaks and valleys. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1cgr6x | what's the difference between the media coverage of the boston incident and reddit's coverage? why is the media considered 'exploitation' but reddit isn't? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cgr6x/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_the_media/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9gbjek",
"c9gc07g"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I would generally think that it is because the media (TV news specifically) is watched by everyone, of all ages, who may just be looking for a local update or what have you, maybe traffic or weather - you don't know exactly which story will be playing when you turn on 'The News'. On Reddit, you have a pretty good idea what you are clicking on when you do so. You have a choice what you subscribe too, and gory links/links NSFW are tagged as such, so Caveat Emptor if you will...",
"Because Karma doesn't equate to money, but ratings often do. In a sense, the news profits from tragedies, which I think is what bothers some people.\n\nI think most people's objection to news media is how they intentionally make things more sensationalist to drive up ratings. For example, when that cruise drift was adrift in the Gulf of Mexico, instead of just reporting facts and numbers, stations were putting up headlines like \"CRUISE FROM HELL!\" and \"FLOATING PETRI DISH OF DISEASE!\" "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
31dox9 | why are pizzas traditionally cut into 1/8ths? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31dox9/eli5_why_are_pizzas_traditionally_cut_into_18ths/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0lx23",
"cq0m4pv",
"cq0mv58"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Cutting pizza into sixths is tricky, because once you've cut it in half, you have to eyeball how to cut each half into thirds. If you're cutting it into eight pieces, you just have to make sure that you start and end your cuts in the middle of an existing piece. There's no earthly reason you would cut a pizza into and odd number of slices, so the choices are four (too wide to eat easily); six (which I just talked about); eight (standard for a reason); ten (all the same problems as six, but worse); and twelve (common for extra-large pizzas).",
"Because cutting round things evenly is somewhat difficult. Two, Four, Eight, and sixteen are the easiest as you simply cut each piece in half till you reach your desired number of slices. ",
"Cutting in half is easy, and 8 slices is cutting it in half four times."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5pw3fq | why are us congress member's allowed to retain their private careers and other outside business interests while serving the government? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pw3fq/eli5_why_are_us_congress_members_allowed_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcucbzf",
"dcufpw9",
"dcufxoa",
"dcug1u0",
"dcul9by",
"dcuuge0"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
105,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Private careers and outside business interests are two very different things. Federal Legisllators don't typically maintain a second job outside of their legislator job, because they simply don't have enough time to do both. However they would retain any licenses they have, like a law license for example. In terms of business interests, this primarily means investments. As long as they aren't using their power to improve the outlook of their investments, it's not a conflict of interest.",
"Because the constitution doesn't say they have to give them up. And the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it's a conflict of interest.",
"Once upon a time, citizens were expected to return to their lives and careers after serving in Congress.\n\nThe same with Presidents.\n\nMany were lawyers, merchants, craftsmen, farmers, and all had means outside of government. They were given a stipend for their service but not a salary.",
"It would be a matter for the ethics committee, notice the first thing the GOP did after the election was to try and get rid of the ethics committee? _URL_0_.",
"They generally don't. I can't think of any example where they do, in fact. However, legislators are different than persons in the executive branch, because they can't do anything (or at least not much officially) unilaterally. But the emoluments clause and anti bribery statutes do apply to Congresspersons. See Jim Trafficant, for a simple example. ",
"We need to make government positions a civic duty, not a career. We would see a govt take shape that actually represents the people and not special interest groups. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/republicans-house-ethics-backlash-233152"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
6u2jjq | when walking, why does it feel so weird to move the same arm and leg forward opposed to moving the arm opposite to the leg going forward? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6u2jjq/eli5_when_walking_why_does_it_feel_so_weird_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlpgokm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Because moving your arm back while moving your leg forward is done to balance your weight and prevent pivoting from the momentum of swinging your leg forward. When you move the same arm forward, you are instead making this more momentum more pronounced."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
38k7aa | what would really happen if the copyright to steamboat willie expired? | So everyone here seems to think that Mickey Mouse would become public domain and anyone could use him for any creative purpose.
I have to think that trademark law would not allow for that, from what little I understand. The early Mickey cartoons might enter public domain, but how does copyright and trademark law handle the use of the character as opposed to the use of the 'artwork' (cartoon)?
I'm not expecting Mickey to appear at Six Flags anytime soon but maybe Six Flags could use Steamboat Willie footage if the had a 1920's themed ride? What's the real deal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38k7aa/eli5_what_would_really_happen_if_the_copyright_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"crvncfh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mickey Mouse isn't trademarked, he's copyrighted. If he were Disney's mascot/logo you could make an argument to the contrary, but a character owned by a company isn't synonymous with a trademark owned by a company."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8pgnlf | why can't we create machine to use carbohydrate as source of energy instead of electricity, oil/gas, or stream? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8pgnlf/eli5_why_cant_we_create_machine_to_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0b3vg0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We absolutely can. One way to do this is a *fuel cell* and another way is just to burn plant material."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2sa58p | what is the differrence between electric field and electric force between two charges? ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sa58p/eli5what_is_the_differrence_between_electric/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnk0c5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A field is put out by a single charge and a force is the measured reaction between two. \n\nFor example earth puts out a gravitational field. Between you and the earth there is a force. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2dqqn6 | why are radioactive things in media portrayed as glowing and green? last i checked, you can't see radiation - hence geiger counters, yes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dqqn6/eli5_why_are_radioactive_things_in_media/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjs3z4c",
"cjs40ry",
"cjs4p4g"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[Read this.](_URL_0_) Basically, a common green paint was made with radium in it, and the radium caused the paint to glow. Radium does glow on its own, but the light is blue, not green.",
"Because movies are a visual experience and need a visual effect. Imagine if you went to watch a sci fi movie and they said \"Quick! Fire the handwavium cannons!\" and you see... NOTHING!!! Although this would make sense in real life as I've never known anything to explode from my wind up torch of death, in films it seems like they couldn't be bothered to make a pretty effect.",
"Green fluorescents are cheap...real, cyan Cherenkov radiation is deadly. The producers will insist on the former over the latter on cost consideration if nothing else."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://depletedcranium.com/why-does-radioactive-stuff-glow-green-or-why-do-people-think-it-does/"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
43ebdg | what are "weaves" on black girls? are they wigs? do they take them on and off whenever they feel like it? what is their purpose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43ebdg/eli5_what_are_weaves_on_black_girls_are_they_wigs/ | {
"a_id": [
"czhl26n",
"czhl98i"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Weaves are individual \"tracks\" or \"wefts\" of hair extensions that are meant to be affixed directly to your existing hair. Your natural hair is braided into a tight pattern that forms a foundation to sew the weave in. Alternatively, special weave glue can be used. Since they are sewn or glued directly onto the head, they cannot be removed easily. There meant to be a semi-permanent alternative to wigs (generally they'll last for several weeks, until the natural hair grows out, instead of having to take them out every night like a wig or clip in extensions). Like wigs and other hair extensions, weaves can be made from synthetic fibers or a variety of natural hair (Brazilian, Indian, chinese, and Malay hair are most common due to their various textures and thicknesses).",
"weaves are a easy way to change your hairstyle fast, make it long, add volume, etc\n\n\nyou cant just take it out bc its sewn in. this is a video on how to put in a sew-in weave\n\n_URL_3_\n\n\n\n\ntheres other kinds extensions like clip ins\n\n _URL_2_\n\nsome people glue in tracks\n\n _URL_1_\n\nand some people wear wigs\n\nyou might be interested in chris rocks doc on good hair. he made it after his 3 year old asked him why she didnt have good hair\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m-4qxz08So",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvE8aHC2PH4",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gonmrNkKF04",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kblCpoKUGlM"
]
] | ||
14rdwf | duty free. why are they found in airports/borders, and why do they usually have mostly alcohol? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14rdwf/eli5_duty_free_why_are_they_found_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7fpp1u"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"Duty free shops (generally found in international airport terminals) allow travelers --who are traveling out of the country-- to purchase certain items free from most taxes.\n\n\nDepending on the country the traveler is from, at, or going to, these items can be sold at a large discount because some countries have high taxes. In other words, if your home country has high taxes on alcohol, it may be much cheaper to buy it from a duty free shop since there will be less taxes.\n\nWhy Alcohol and tobacco? Because many countries impose very high taxes (called sin taxes) on these items, so to get these without taxes could be much much cheaper.\n\n\nFor Americans, duty free alcohol isn't actually all that cheap (for the most part) because US taxes on alcohol isn't nearly as high as other places, you may only save a few dollars.\n\nQuick EDIT: To be clear on leaving the country. Duty free is only available for travelers who are leaving the country as in they cannot consume the products before they get to their destination."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1q74ke | can a licensed radio station play whatever they want? so they have to get permission from an artist to play a song? do they have to pay the artist? | . | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q74ke/eli5_can_a_licensed_radio_station_play_whatever/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd9v53z",
"cd9zjkk",
"cda3rnz"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They have to pay a fee to a performing rights agency (ASCAP, BMI) for using the song for commercial purposes.\n\nIn the past, the agencies didn't assess this fee, as playing on the radio helped to spur album sales.",
"In playing a song, radio stations are making 'public performances' of a song that is protected by a couple different forms of copyright.\n\nThe station has to pay performance royalties to a 'performing rights society' who then pass that money on to the artists, who are members of that society.\n\nWhen you think of a song, it's actually two things: 1) The song or 'composition' which is to say the lyrics and to some extent the recognisable melody as written by the songwriter(s) and 2) The 'master recording' which is to say the mixed recording that is available on CD/mp3/vinyl/etc which is more often than not owned by the record label that released it.\n\nThe smaller radio stations tend to pay what is called a 'blanket license', which is an annual fee calculated using various factors such as their audience listening figures. Larger audiences means larger license fees. This blanket license then allows the radio station to play whatever songs they like that are administered by that collection society.\n\nSome radio stations have to report exactly what songs they play each week and how often, and they pay per usage accordingly. Others just have to pay the blanket license fee and are free to play whatever they like.\n\nPretty much every song you could think of that has been released commercially, stretching back to the beginning of recorded music, is protected by a performing rights society.\n\nWe've established that the radio station must pay the songwriter a licence fee to their collection society in order to make a public performance of their song. So how does that money then reach the song writer?\n\nThis money, the performance royalty, is paid to the collection society, who then share that money equally between all the artists registered to them. Where the societies are paid for the use of a specific track, they'll pay that money to the songwriters behind that track.\n\nThe artists themselves make sure that they are personally registered to a collection society and will carefully register all the songs that they have written so that royalties can be fairly allocated.\n\nIn the cases of songs that have multiple writers, they will all agree contractually the percentage of the song they each own (naturally, this must total 100%) and the royalties for that song are split accordingly.\n\nThe record companies also earn a bit of money from these public performances too - because it's their 'master recording' that the radio stations are playing back.\n\nTo make this reporting easier, each song is given what is called an International Standard Recording Code, shortened to ISRC. This is a totally unique alpha-numeric identifier for each song, that makes reporting of public performances and sales much much easier than using the Artist and Title.\n\nEach country has its own collection society, some countries have several. The larger acts will make sure that they're members of the larger societies - ASCAP and BMI in the USA, PPL and PRS in the UK - so they get money from performances in as many territories as possible.\n\nMany songwriters have their compositions administered by a Music Publisher, who for a fee take care of these registrations and because they are often multinational companies they have links with all societies worldwide and will be able to collect royalties worldwide.\n\nThese performance royalties can amount to a significant percentage of an artists annual income, particularly if their songs have had significant radio plays. High profile artists like Eminem, Lady Gaga, Beyonce etc will earn six or seven figure sums each year as a result of these royalties, on top of their record sales royalties.",
"Music has what's called a \"[compulsory licensing scheme](_URL_0_)\" for radio play, meaning basically that the artist (or whoever holds the copyrights to the music) can't refuse to grant the radio station a license to play the music.\n\nIn practice how this works is that stations pay flat licensing fees to [ASCAP/BMI/etc](_URL_1_). Those agencies make wild-ass guesses as to how many times each song has been played, then forward some fraction of the fees on to the people who holds the rights to those songs, who might or might not send some fraction of that to the artists."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_organization"
]
] | |
3lcpg3 | why do stones and crystals feel cold when touched, even when they're sitting at room temperature? | I have a few stones at home like onyx, quartz, amethyst, river bed rocks, etc. but I've always wondered why these stones always feel cold when touched, but other things in my room like my desk, pens, and bed don't. What is it about rocks that make them feel cold even at room temp? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lcpg3/eli5_why_do_stones_and_crystals_feel_cold_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv55qu1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When something feels cold, what's happening is that whatever you're touching is drawing heat out of you. Some items conduct heat very well. Metals are usually good at this. Other things like cloth aren't. So when both of these are the same temperature, they can feel like they're different temperatures (similar to how an air temperature of 20C feels different from a water temperature of 20C)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
74imvb | how do online games run? | When you install a video game on your PC or Console, the sounds, textures, models, etc. are saved to the hard drive and the game loads them up when you run it. How do flash games and things like that run? Does it need files? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74imvb/eli5_how_do_online_games_run/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnykteo",
"dnyn1av"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"To run in real time it loads all of those elements it needs into RAM; whether you have all the files on your computer and it loads them from a disk drive, or you're running a browser game and it loads them from a server. \n\nMost flash programs if you disconnect from the internet it will still run until it reaches the next point it needs new elements from the server (level change, etc). Similarly, if you unplugged the cable from your hard disk while a game was running, it would still run until it needed to load more elements to RAM; most often during load screens.",
"Your computer cannot show you anything from the internet without downloading what it wants to show you from it first. \n\nOnline games run like every other game. The game logic and all accompanying assets such as sounds, models, textures, sprites, whatnot, are downloaded and executed from your computer. Then the computer runs them as part of the website.\n\nSome games are smarter than others and only request the files it needs to be downloaded as it needs them. Instead of downloading all 50 levels it only downloads level 1. Then you finish level 1 and it goes off to the website and asks for the files it needs for level 2, and then 3, and so on. \n\nFlash games are much, much smaller than the games you normally play via Steam for instance exactly because they are intended to be played online. Flash games are a few mb large at the most. \"normal\" games are on average several hundred Mb, most a few Gb. Having a flash game be a gigabyte large would be a disaster, nobody would be willing to play something that drain their bandwidth and take several minutes to load on a sub optimal connection."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
25wpdr | why does mexican music sound eerily similar to polka music? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25wpdr/eli5_why_does_mexican_music_sound_eerily_similar/ | {
"a_id": [
"chlg2tj",
"chlh4vc",
"cjmvnx9"
],
"score": [
15,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Germans who settled around New Braunfels, and other areas of South Texas brought with them accordions, and their distinct sound of music which Mexicans adopted and incorporated into their music.",
"Along with German settlers, there also were Polish and Czechs who brought polka and waltz. fyi Mexican traditional music is quite diverse; the particular musical styles you're thinking of are Norteño and Tejano.",
"[Here](_URL_0_)'s a short documentary on early Mexican polka in south Texas. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwzGMEmk-0"
]
] | ||
elb1z9 | when designing tall or complicated buildings, how do architects and engineers know their design is structurally sound? | I’m wondering how architects and engineers know that the structure that they’re designing (and plan to build) will be safe and structurally sound, before they start building it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/elb1z9/elif_when_designing_tall_or_complicated_buildings/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdgm822",
"fdgmlm5",
"fdh30y7"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Well first off there exists software to simulate a building to see what will happen if they built it\n\nThe way it’s simulated is based off of calculations and tests ran on the materials used to find out how much strain something can take before it snaps\n\nIf the test says it doesn’t snap then they build it if it does snap well they redesign the building",
"The building makes force over itself, they decompose those forces into smaller ones that are easier to calculate, with a lot of math they can figure out how much force every point of the building needs to bear, knowing this, and every kind of \"strength\" of the materials they are using, the can not only know that it is stiff enough, they can also figure out the maximum capacity of it.",
"That's what civil engineers go to college for, to be able to make the calculations required to know a building will be structurally sound. They know how much materials weigh, how strong they are, and what sort of forces they are likely to experience, the rest is just a bunch of math.\n\nAlso, people have been making buildings for a long time and most of the materials haven't changed that much. There is a joke about how a mathematician finds the volume of a sphere by measuring its diameter and applying the correct formula. An engineer finds the sphere's part number gets the volume from the manufacturer's specs. There are centuries worth of calculations that have already been done, new engineering is mostly about applying this old work in new ways."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
bkbtpx | how do flaps on aircraft help with take-off? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkbtpx/eli5_how_do_flaps_on_aircraft_help_with_takeoff/ | {
"a_id": [
"emfhadn",
"emfhmol",
"emfiv2k"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"They make the wings bigger. Bigger wings = more lift.\n\nThey are moveable because bigger wings/more lift = more drag. By storing them once the plane is up to optimal flying speed, the plane operates more fuel efficiently, due to less drag.",
"Great minds think alike. I've searched tha seven seas fer an answer. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: Pilots of Reddit, Why are flaps required for takeoffs? I'm really big into flight sims, and actually want to begin commercial training, so I know quite a bit about the subject. But this is one thing I never understood, and can't seem to get a straight answer for. ](_URL_2_) ^(_20 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: Why are flaps used on jets during take-off? ](_URL_1_) ^(_6 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How can the same flaps create lift for takeoff and destroy lift for landing? ](_URL_3_) ^(_7 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: Why do aircraft use flaps to take off? Doesn't it create drag? ](_URL_0_) ^(_16 comments_)\n1. [ELI5 the different wing positions airplanes use for take off, flight and landing ](_URL_4_) ^(_1 comment_)",
"Lift is proportional to several factors: air density, airspeed (squared), wing area, and a lift coefficient. \n\nPilots increase wing area when they extended flaps and/or slats. That increases the lift produced by the wings. But the flaps also change another of those lift variables. The lift coefficient is a function of the angle between the wing chord (the straight line between the leading and trailing edges of the wing) and the relative air flow, or angle of attack. When a pilot lowers flaps, the angle of attack also increases. This means that in addition to the increased lift from the increased wing area, there is an increase in lift from a higher angle of attack (and related increase in lift coefficient). \n\nThe drawback is that flaps significantly increase drag, which is why most airplanes are only certified to take off with one or two notches of flaps (the actual deflection of a notch varies by model)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6scwhq/eli5_why_do_aircraft_use_flaps_to_take_off_doesnt/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jt5ho/eli5_why_are_flaps_used_on_jets_during_takeoff/",
"https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6h20ea/eli5_pilots_of_r... | ||
2e62jc | if i am 99 lbs, and i ate a pound of gummy worms, would i be 1% gummy worm? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e62jc/eli5if_i_am_99_lbs_and_i_ate_a_pound_of_gummy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjwe5t8",
"cjwefaw",
"cjweoch",
"cjwepep",
"cjwettq",
"cjweyqs",
"cjwf6nc"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
6,
3,
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"No more than a glass filled with juice is ~80% juice and ~20% glass.",
"Probably not. We poop out the stuff we can't digest or don't absorb. Also, much of what you get from gummy worms is sugar which is more of an energy source than a supply of proteins (building blocks of your body). \n\nAlso also, look up Ship of Theseus. ",
"Indeed you would my friend; indeed you would. \n",
"When you inhale, do you consist of more air than before? No, because that air is never a part of your body. Same goes with the gummy worm. You will however later consist of some proteins, carbs and fats from said worm.",
"Yeah, 1% gummy worm and 100% in the toilet all day. \n\n*Technically speaking* - no, you wouldn't be. Your digestive process starts in your mouth, so as soon as you swallow your gummy worms your digestive system has already started breaking down the sugar and other materials it's made of, so it's no longer a \"gummy worm\" as much as a blob of half-digested sugar and gelatin. ",
"No you would be 80% human and 20 % diabetes",
"Yes, until your stomach digested them and you spend painful hours on the toilet crapping out the remains of your gummy worm meal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1m1hxp | why is it so much more difficult for humans to fall asleep, compared to other species? | I already have the understanding that stress is a factor, but why did humans evolve into beings that typically need a "winding down" period in order to fall asleep? Evolutionarily speaking, I can understand the need for us to be on alert as hunter-gatherers. But why do the majority of us need at least anywhere from 5-30 minutes to actually lie in bed with our eyes closed in order to fall asleep? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m1hxp/eli5_why_is_it_so_much_more_difficult_for_humans/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc4vbcm",
"cc4xwow",
"cc509sk"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of this is psychologically stress related. Many of us are on our computers or otherwise staring at a screen right before bed. the blue light from our screens messes with our circadian rhythm, sometimes being more stimulating than sunlight.\n\nWe're also distracted right before bed. As our head hits the pillow all we can do is think and for some of us, that's when the worrying starts and we begin working it over in our heads for solutions to our problems. All this combined with lack of adequate exercise, caffeine, and dozens of other issues make it much harder to fall asleep.\n\nAnimals might not need this \"winding down\" period that we do, but they're not asleep the moment they close their eyes either. Animals go through the same sleep cycles as humans with differing lengths of each stage depending on their sleep requirements (ex. a cat that sleeps 10 hours at a time vs. a giraffe that sleeps 4 minutes at a time). If you have a pet at home and some free time, you can watch them lay down to sleep and then try to wake them, chances are if you do within 10min. they'll pop their heads right up but if let them go for 30-45min. it may take some shaking to rouse them.",
"Because we have this idea that you're supposed to go to sleep at certain times. Like, oh, \"5 o'clock,\" just about bed time.\n\nFor animals, it's fairly cyclical, but not on purpose. They don't hit 7 o'clock and think \"ok, better finish up, almost time for bed. gotta get up by 5.\" No. They're like... \"ok, i'm not hungry anymore... and if i move right over...yep, right here, fuck ya, sun's gone. time to sleep.\"\n\nThey don't live in this ridiculously arbitrary clockwork routine. They don't try to force themselves to sleep. That's why they go to sleep easily... because when they go to sleep, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO SLEEP.",
"Sleep is quite an hard and not well understood field in science. Even between animals (not just human vs animals), some big differences exist.\n\nFor instance, some animals are never fully asleep. Dolphins sleeps with only one hemisphere at a time.\nGiraffes are known for being able to stay awake during long periods (months !).\n\nGenerally, animals don't have a lot of REM sleep (as they would be too much exposed to attack from their predators) while humans can experienced a lot of REM sleep.\n\nAlso, human brains are quite different from animals (the most obvious fact of it is our consciousness). We humans think a lot while animals are more \"instinct\" beings.\n\nThe point is that the differences being so great between human and animal brains (and even between animals and other animals), it's quite hard to explain the difficulty we have to sleep as for the difference between the way different species sleep."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
29wg73 | is al jazeera biased? a lot of people have said its reliable, but it's run by the qatari monarchy, so should i trust it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29wg73/eli5_is_al_jazeera_biased_a_lot_of_people_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cip50js",
"cip8iw8",
"cip9msz",
"cipaw56",
"cipc0cd"
],
"score": [
63,
5,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Every news outlet is biased. Unless they are literally reporting nothing but lists of facts and are attempting to report every single fact, there is always going to be some bias. It could be in as much as deciding what is and isn't important enough to include in a brief news report, or managing to secure an interview with someone from one side of a conflict but not the other and still deciding to air. These things might not be malicious or major, but they're still a form of bias.\n\nCompared to most other news outlets though? They're practically saints. They've got a great track record, and most of the criticism of them comes from people wanting to get their own way, ie: Arab states decrying them as \"zionist\" for giving Israeli issues any airtime at all and not portraying them as inherently negative. Which is another point; they're Qatari owned but whatever bias they may show isn't the kind of thing you'd expect if the monarchy really were pulling the strings, and at times has even been contrary to the monarchy.\n\nNot that they have a completely clean nose, you can have a read of [their bigger criticisms here](_URL_0_), but somewhere like Fox News pulls more bullshit than that entire list combined on a daily basis, so it's about as good as you're going to get for now.",
"What I suggest doing is having a mix of outlets to get your news from - Al Jazeera, New York Times, BBC, Russia Today, Bloomberg and probably something Chinese.\n\n Combining their biased or slightly skewed percpectives and averaging it out might help alleviate some of the subjective messaging.\n\nWhile not all sources are directly affected, there's always an agenda that media outlets have to deal with, whether coming from political pressure, funding reasons or access discrimination (\"you wrote a bad article about us, so we are not giving you a pass to our military base - we'll give it to your main competitor\").\n\n",
"The thing about Al Jazeera is that it is an alternative to western media,which has it's own agenda to fulfil and it keeps on potraying middle east as a dangerous,barbaric place and middle east politics as dehumanising,every news corporation has an agenda to fulfil,the bbc has the british government,Fox the right winged republicans,cnn is well cnn.What I like about Al Jazeera is not neccessarily the news reports but the documentaries are phenomenal,they are well researched and well documented.Inside Story and The listening post are my personal _URL_0_ news media outlet is actually 'unbiased'.Someone from Al Jazeera actually had a great Ama in this regard,and frankly I like Al jazeera's non sensationalist style.\n\n\nApologies for typos.",
"[Here's](_URL_0_) some relevant information from the Wikileaks Embassy cables. Generally speaking, AJ English is better than AJ Arabic, but there are plenty of criticisms made of the former as well. \n\n > Qatar is using the Arabic news channel al-Jazeera as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations by adapting its coverage to suit other foreign leaders and offering to cease critical transmissions in exchange for major concessions, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks claim.\n\n > Doha-based al-Jazeera was launched in 1996 and has become the most watched satellite television station in the Middle East. It has been seen by many as relatively free and open in its coverage of the region, but government control over its reporting appears to US diplomats to be so direct that they said the channel's output had become \"part of our bilateral discussions – as it has been to favourable effect between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and other countries\".\n\n > In February, the US embassy reported to Washington how \"relations [between Qatar and Saudi Arabia] are generally improving after Qatar toned down criticism of the Saudi royal family on al-Jazeera\". In July 2009, the US embassy said the channel \"has proved itself a useful tool for the station's political masters\".\n\n > In a clear example of the regional news channel being exploited for political ends, the Doha embassy claimed Sheikh Hamad (HBJ) told the US senator John Kerry that he had proposed a bargain with the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, which involved stopping broadcasts in Egypt in exchange for a change in Cairo's position on Israel-Palestinian negotiations.\n\n > \"HBJ had told Mubarak 'we would stop al-Jazeera for a year' if he agreed in that span of time to deliver a lasting settlement for the Palestinians,\" according to a confidential cable from the US embassy in Doha in February. \"Mubarak said nothing in response, according to HBJ.\"",
"You shouldn't trust any news source but Al Jazeera has shown itself to be more reliable than most. Certainly more than any US based news source. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism"
],
[],
[
"favourites.No"
],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy"
],
[]
] | ||
27s1p4 | - why was edward snowden made out to be a traitor/enemy? didn't he do us a favor? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27s1p4/eli5_why_was_edward_snowden_made_out_to_be_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci3sjzf",
"ci3swf9",
"ci3swof",
"ci3t2b0",
"ci3tdyw",
"ci3u501",
"ci3v8h3",
"ci3vtt5",
"ci44zs7",
"ci466z3",
"ci47cpi",
"ci48dmb",
"ci49g88",
"ci4al8u",
"ci4ebjl"
],
"score": [
68,
3,
6,
13,
24,
9,
6,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"He was and still is made out to be that way because he basically stole what was considered government property, with \"sensitive information\" included, and leaked it all to the media and such. \n\nThe people of America didn't really make him out to be an enemy or a traitor - in fact, many of them, including a large portion of reddit, made him out to be a hero of the common man/woman, exposing such government tyranny. The government however, says that he is endangering public security and order, and in turn, American lives. And of course, there are people who support the government.\n\nAnother reason he might be viewed negatively is that instead of facing the consequences of his actions, he fled first to China/Hong Kong, and then to Russia, where he was basically used as a large foam middle finger for Putin to flip off Obama with. Fleeing to a country that is often seen as an \"enemy\" of the US won't usually help your public image.",
"[This explains things pretty well](_URL_0_)",
"Let's say the government is Mom, and Edward Snowden is one of her children. One of her many, many children (citizens of America = children). He's a teenager, and like many teenagers, he thinks he's smart enough to know when Mom is messing up.\n\nLet's say Mom has been super irresponsible lately; basically she's being a bad mom. All of her children have left the nest, so to speak, but she's trying to keep tabs on them. In her eyes, she's doing the right thing -- as a mother she's worried about her children, and she's trying to look out for their best interests. How can Mom protect her children without knowing what to protect them from? \n\nMom knows what scary things are out there better than her children, or so she tells herself. So since she knows better, she thinks she's justified in keeping tabs on them. Only, in this family, the way she's keeping tabs on her kids is illegal, and some of the things she's been doing with other families has been questionable.\n\nEdward, a bit of a Momma's boy and so hangs out with her a lot, sees what Mom is doing. Heck, Mom even asks Edward to do some of it for her. And Edward thinks to himself, \"Mom, this ain't right.\" \n\nBut telling his mother won't solve anything. She knows what she's doing, and she knows that it's wrong. She won't stop.\n\nSo Edward decides he has to tell some of the other kids what Mom's been up to. He's very concerned about how Mom keeps tabs on them because it isn't right, and if she won't tell them what she's been doing... well then, by golly, Edward will!\n\nEdward thinks they ought to know (since they're her kids too, after all), so he goes to one of the children who's a bit of a loud mouth. Let's call her Nosey Nelly. Nosey Nelly loves telling stories about her mom. Mom really hates Nosey Nelly (yes, she hates her daughter), and Edward knows that Mom won't like it when she finds out he's talking to her.\n\nWhen Nosey Nelly meets with her brother and learns about what Mom's been up to, it's a real barn-burner. She tells EVERYONE -- all the other children, and even the other families. She tells them all what a bad mom her mother's been. \n\nWhen Mom finds out, she's really unhappy. She's been trying to be a good mom, she really has been, so she's hurt that Edward has betrayed her like this. In fact, when she really thinks about it, Edward shouldn't have done it. What he's done is tell the other families exactly what she's been up to, and most of it is baaaaad stuff. \n\nThe other families point at Mom now and say, \"That's a bad mother. We can't trust her anymore.\"\n\nSo Mom tries to stop Edward from saying anything else. She asks him to stop playing and come inside. But Edward says no. He knows she's going to put him in timeout.\n\nWhich, of course, is true, but his disobedience only makes Mom more upset with him. How *dare* he stay outside and play with the other kids. And look at that, he's even hanging out with a new family, one of Mother's enemies! Mother wonders if they've adopted him. And she wonders what else Edward will tell them, because he's got all her little secrets, and lots of them are about his new family.\n\nTL;DR -- Gov't = mom. Ed = her kid. Ed learns what his mom is up to and rats her out. Mom's pissed, even though he's right, because she doesn't like admitting she made a mistake, and she doesn't want the other families to know what she's been up to.",
"A simple way to put it is that Mr Snowden did wrong by the law, but right by the people. \n\nDepending on who you ask, some say that the law triumphs over the people **(the law is always right because it is written by the best and brightest, just shut up and obey)**, others say the people triumphs over the law **(the people decide whether a law is fair/just or not regardless of who wrote it).**",
"Because he leaked 1.4-1.7 million secret documents to the world. He gave them to reporters and said \"use your own discretion\". There's no way he knew what was in all those documents. \n\nAs much as people love to think all this was about freedom of information and the abstract, it has real life (deadly) implications for some people in our intelligence services, and long term military planning. \n\nBe a whistleblower all you want, by leaking a couple damning documents to reputable American media that could change the way things our done. Don't download sensitive data in the millions for everyone to see. \n\nA former KGB official stated the Russian FSB had targeted Snowden as a candidate for defection by 2007, in Geneva. Who knows if that's true, but the conventional spy game is alive and well these days - as much as we'd like to pretend the world has evolved past it. ",
"For most Americans, the divide is between optimizing freedoms vs. optimizing security. Snowden is fast in the freedoms side of the fence. On the other hand, there are lots of people who never minded the TSA scanners and pat downs because they'd rather have the security. You don't know how precious either is until you lose it. ",
"What he did was a favor to the people of the world and of America in particular. \nWhat he did was traitorous to the government. \nIf that juxtaposition doesn't scare the fuck out of you there is no helping this country.",
"metaphorically, even when an american stands up and tells his other country men that the government is feeding them shit, the government will convince them shit is good for them and many of them will agree. ",
"You know when you catch someone talking shit about you, but it is true, and it's been nothing but proven true? \n\nYou get really mad. Well, that, times a billion.",
"Many of the people of the US do not understand much about what goes on. They become very annoyed when anything challenges their world view. Snowden pointed out something they don't like much so he is a traitor to the enemy. You could not think he did something good or worthwhile as that would challenge some unfounded but strongly held beliefs.",
"Because a friend to the people is an enemy of the state.",
"Goes through proper channels, gets ignored.\nGoes to press, government kicks self and wants revenge.\n\nSounds like they got what was coming to them.",
"Because, as it turns out, he absolutely did act against the best interests of his government, his agency, and his peers all while violating a host of laws. \n\nThat what he did was illegal is not in dispute - what is, however, is the morality of his actions. Some people would make the case that he is a villain because his disregard for the law undermined the efficacy of our intelligence services and placed a number of collection sources at risk. Others would make the case that his breach of the law was necessary in order to protect the public good. \n\nThe fundamental disagreement is simply that some people believe it was better to keep the secret things secret (and thus make them effective) whereas others place more value on various rights supposedly guaranteed to citizens of the US. It is thus the classic debate between security and freedom.",
"Enemy to the government.",
"He is portrayed as a \"traitor\" because he exposed the fact that our government was engaging in the illegal spying on its own citizens, as well as the elected officials and citizens of other nations. \n\nIn short, he pointed out that our government was pulling a lot of sneaky, underhanded shit, and made the evidence available. \n\nOur government officials reacted the way you'd expect when a person in power is exposed as a criminal- blame the accuser, paint them as a \"traitor\" and do your best to shut them up.\n\nIt's exactly like the time in 8th grade when I found out that my Math teacher couldn't solve the problems in the book without the answer keys. I pointed this out in class, and I was given 3 weeks of detention.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StlMdNcvCJo&feature=youtube_gdata_player"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
aanpwi | how do the bacteria in not-safe-to-drink tap water work? | So I recently had a trip abroad, and there you shouldn't drink the tap water due to bacteria. Where I'm from the tap water is safe and tastes great.
I assume I won't automatically get sick if I drink it. But is that because the bacteria is rare, and I might not ingest them in a single glass of water? Or are they in every drop of water, but I need a certain amount to be sick? Is it a combination? Is it random?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aanpwi/eli5_how_do_the_bacteria_in_notsafetodrink_tap/ | {
"a_id": [
"ectg30t"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Bacteria are microscopic and reproduce quickly, which is why when a source of water is contaminated it is considered tainted throughout. It is *extremely* likely you will ingest the bacteria, though not 100% but close enough to that number that the chances of you not getting it are statistically insignificant. As for whether or not it will make you sick, it largely depends on your immune system, the type of bacteria present in the water and your previous exposure to it, etc. For example, locals might be able to get away with drinking the water if they were born to parents who grew up drinking that water and spent their whole lives drinking it, building up an immunity to that specific culture, however you as a foreigner who’s immune system has never faced this bacteria, you could get very ill from just one glass. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
d0hmss | friction shifting (left hand) in bikes | I read somewhere that you should adjust it based on where you're riding (flat land vs hills), but how does that work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d0hmss/eli5_friction_shifting_left_hand_in_bikes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ez9ovwp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your bicycle's transmission consists of at least one chainring and at least one sprocket. If it had exactly one chainring and one sprocket, you'd have a fixed gear bicycle. Road bikes usually have two chainrings and 8-12 sprockets. Mountain bikes usually have three chainrings and 6-9 sprockets. \n\nThe reason you have multiple gears is to change the gear ratio on your bike. In every gear, there's a different ratio - in a very low gear, every revolution of your pedals corresponds to a revolution of your wheel. In a very high gear, every revolution of your pedals corresponds to 4 revolutions of your wheel. These are the gear ratios - the low gear is 1:1, the high gear is 4:1.\n\nIt's much harder work for your legs to pedal in a higher gear, because you have to supply more force to keep the pedals spinning. So you typically use your lower gears when you're going up hills, and you reserve your higher gears for descents or for riding on the flat. The reason being that it's already hard to pedal uphill, so don't make it harder by mashing the pedals in a high gear.\n\nIn terms of the left hand and the right hand, your left hand is the chainrings, which are the big rings next to your pedals. Your right hand is the sprockets, the small rings on your back wheels. There's a much bigger adjustment to gear ratio when you switch chainrings, so the left hand is for coarse adjustments, the right hand is for fine adjustments. \n\nIf your bike has two chainrings, you probably want to use the small ring for going up hills and riding easy, and the big ring for going downhills or for when you need some speed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1iziv4 | how are iq points calculated? is there a cap? | So I'm sure we've all heard of geniuses with high IQs and the more unfortunate ones with low IQs, but how is IQ actually calculated?
I'm not looking for "You take a test" but how is the test graded/formatted/converted into points?
Is there a max number of IQ points? (There shouldn't be... right?) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iziv4/eli5_how_are_iq_points_calculated_is_there_a_cap/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb9m4cm"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's a kind of ratio of your physical age to your intellectual capability. If you're ten, but have the reasoning capacity of the average fifteen year old, then you are said to have a 150 I.Q.."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8uamta | why do big companies fear their workers unionizing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8uamta/eli5_why_do_big_companies_fear_their_workers/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1dtqi0",
"e1dw3l2",
"e1dw8b7",
"e1dzylw",
"e1e1nli",
"e1e3ieg",
"e1e48ku",
"e1e5e6p",
"e1e5tma",
"e1e5u0u",
"e1e6l46",
"e1e80h1",
"e1e8nr8",
"e1eaq4n",
"e1eawmq",
"e1ebdov",
"e1ebnrm",
"e1ebrmt",
"e1eed7w",
"e1een9b",
"e1eey6u",
"e1ef2nk",
"e1egbei",
"e1egfwy",
"e1elyhs",
"e1enr2g",
"e1epadt",
"e1epc9g",
"e1epupb",
"e1esrex",
"e1esrqu"
],
"score": [
72,
8437,
288,
42,
13,
4,
83,
27,
2,
4,
1136,
181,
9,
86,
4,
2,
3,
19,
11,
12,
2,
8,
2,
50,
3,
7,
8,
3,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Unionized workers have more clout to go against management, which typically results in better pay, more benefits, investment in better working conditions. Those are all obviously good for the workers. But they cost the company money, and that upsets the shareholders and senior executives who have bonuses ties to company profits, etc.",
"Lets say you work for a company and you feel like you deserve a raise. You walk into your boss's office and you say, \"Pay me more or I quit\". Your boss can let you quit - it is easy to replace a single worker after all.\n\nNow, lets say that you get _everyone_ in the company to walk into your boss's office and say, \"Pay us more or we quit\". Your boss isn't so quick to let that happen - if everyone quits, then the company can't do any of its business. They are going be much more likely to listen to why you all deserve that raise.\n\nThat is the ultimate benefit of unions - a single worker has virtually no power to ask a company for anything and is easy to deny, but a _group_ of workers has much more value to the company and, as a collective, will be taken much more seriously.\n\nNow, naturally, your boss knows all of this and doesn't want you to have this kind of power. They are going to do everything in their power to keep this from happening because unions don't benefit the company, only the worker. ",
"Companies would rather negotiate with their employees one-on-one, because that places them in a position of power and leverage. They can use that position to exploit their employees.\n\nWhen a group of people unionize, the employer must deal with them as a collective rather than individually. They are no longer able to exploit their position to the same degree and they are forced to accept a more equitable deal.",
"So lets first look at how wages are decided.\n\nYou'll often hear how people say \"X is paid too much/too little\", but what is actually \"fair\"? For most people, it's an arbitrary gut feeling, but economically there's a right answer: \"It's the amount that two consenting parties agree to.\"\n\nSo for example, if I offered you $1 to mow my lawn, would you do it? $2? $3? You'd probably say no to all of these.\nLets say I suddenly offered $100, you would probably say \"yes\" in a heartbeat. But then someone next to you would say they'd do it for $99. And the person next to him would be willing to do it for $98.\nIf you keep doing this from both directions, we will eventually reach a dollar amount where you'd be willing to do it and no one else is willing to do it for less than that amount. That's equilibrium and that's a perfectly competitive market. \n\nUnions intervene and make it no longer perfectly competitive. Basically, you convince everyone else to not be willing to work for less than $100, so it forces the price to be set at $100. \n\nNow, why is this problematic for big companies? I've got experience with union & non-union in the US and also unions abroad in Belgium which has pretty jaw dropping worker protections, so I'll bring some anecodtal tidbits into the mix. Unions protect the worker's short term interests such as work conditions & pay. But this comes at the expense of the business. A higher labor cost means less capital to invest in improvements, regulations on hours emloyees work reduces flexibility which often means higher costs to accomodate. \n\nMost people would just view it as shifting the money from the stockholders and executives to the people at the bottom. But it's not that simple because we're not in a closed environment, there are competitors. \n\nLets say we have Union Corp, and the unions negotiated:\n\n* Working hours from 8AM - 6PM\n* $12 hourly wage, so your #1 product, Product A is priced at $20.\n* Changes must be agreed upon by unions and representative thorugh bargaining.\n\nAnd Super Corp, a competitor comes into your market. They are not unionized so they are not bound by so many restrictions. They are:\n\n* Open 24/7\n* $8 hourly wage, so their #1 product which is almost exactly identical to Product A Union Corp sells is priced at $15.\n* Can make changes as fast as they want the moment they decide.\n\nCustomers will flock to Super Corp because they're cheaper, available at all times, and they can also adapt faster to any changes such as customer preferences or fads. Union Corp is bogged down by the Union agreements and can not become competitive on price, service, or adapt in time. This means over time, Union Corp will go out of business.\n\nThis is the exact kind of situation my company was in, because the company was incredibly old and over the years the union had built so much leverage. We were unable to fire unproductive employees or implement new changes to increase productivity. Eventually unions had to concede back a lot of power because if they didn't the business would be looking to shut-down given the trajectory it was taking.\n\n\n\n",
"Workers have more power but unfortunately this new power is often taken advantage of and limits upwards mobility of the same workers and slowly destroys the company.\n\nThere is a balance. ",
"Because unions make everything a pain in the ass. You can no longer do what you will with your staff, for good or ill. Every staffing decision then has to go through the union. This can be good for workers, as it gives them more bargaining leverage to have the union backing them up. This can be bad for business, as it makes it very hard to make staffing changes and can make it very difficult to cut bad employees loose.",
"As a worker and member of the United Steelworkers Union for 13 years when I was younger, my union got me much higher pay and benefits than any of the multiple non union factories in my area. The company benefitted from employee loyalty as many of the workers had been there for 2-3 decades.",
"I'll play devil's advocate and point out that people can easily abuse a company when they're part of a union.\n\nFor example, a few guys were part of a union and untouchable when it came to firings at a job I used to have. They didn't do their part in the company and spent all their time sitting in the lunch room and telling anyone who walked by how they're suckers. I'm not gonna lie, I was always kind of pissed off about how they didn't have to work and didn't lose their job because of it. Maybe I was jealous, I dunno. ",
"Change your question.\n\nCompanies aren't afraid of unions, unless they want to skirt legal requirements.\n\nIn reality, unionization is a by-product of 3 things. Poor leadership, poor employee representation, and poor communication.\n\nThe first one, and the second one are the biggest contributors to facilities, or employee bases unionizing. \n\nWhen leadership is horrible, and employees aren't properly represented, it is a failure of the leader, whether that is a plant manager, or a company CEO, their failure in treating a work force fairly, and competitively lead to the creation of a union.\n\nNow, the problem with Unions, is that it makes it harder for star workers, the \"go-getters\", to be promoted or individually recognized and it makes it harder to fire unproductive workers (My plant is unionized, and we have a paper trail 2 years long on a guy who comes in late all the time, does less than the bare minimum, 10 write-ups over the past year, 2 counts of malicious destruction of company property, and leaving his post before his relief arrives, yet we can't fire him, because the union contract stands in the way).\n\nUnions do serve there place, and a company shouldn't be afraid of it when it happens. They allow fair treatment of workers, but often times it is never truly equal or fair. \n\nLeadership failure is what allows for unionization. If workers are treated fairly, compensated competitively, and have a voice, they won't unionize.",
"Because money. Individual and siloed workers cost less in terms of salary and benefits vs workers banding together and cooperating together so everyone involved gets their fair share.\n\ntldr Companies want to divide and conquer because it saves money.",
"Because there is strength in numbers. I work for Southwest Airlines going on 16 years now, I can say without a doubt that our raises, vacation time, and better work conditions are a direct result of having good union representation during negotiations. ",
"Everything everyone is saying can be summed up by the term \"collective bargaining.\" That is the main benefit of the union. In many companies, even a rumor of unionization can get you fired. ",
"Because the work place is a tyranny. Any attempt to unionize it would be a step toward democracy which the capitalist board of directors, who extract the surplus value of the labor of the workers, will not and cannot accept. There should be no real reason to be afraid of unions unless exploitation of the workers is a number one priority.",
"The downside of unions is that it eliminates that owner's ability to regulate its employees after they are hired. Short of committing a crime, it is extremely difficult to reprimand a unionized worker for poor work quality. That is why it can be difficult to get a job in a unionized company - once you're in, they can't kick you out. This is very dangerous for a growing company that needs to hire more people for a growing market, while trying to maintain the quality that earned them their success.\n\nMost of these other comments are very pro-union, and they are not wrong in their facts. Unions give workers significant bargaining power, and that is great for the workers. But most companies are not evil entities who wish slavery was legal. Most are entrepreneurs who had a dream of providing a service or product to the public, and were smart enough that they became a company instead of an individual.",
"Simple question. Do you believe that everyone in your department does the same amount of work and deserve the same amount of raises?\n\nOr do you believe that each individual contributes in their own way and each individual deserves a raise based upon their performance?\n\nYou have ten people who work at the widget factory. They all make the same thing. The production of all ten workers varies. Should they all get a 5% raise? Where is the incentive for each of the ten workers to produce or innovate if they know that each year they are guaranteed a 5% raise?\n\nThe reddit hive mind would have you believe that the fat cats in corporate America hate unions because of cost. That simply isn't true. They would rather pay the workers based upon contribution to the company rather than a fixed rate, so that poor workers are compensated the same as good workers. ",
"Take one stick and bend it. It breaks. Take two sticks. Probably will still break it get harder to break. The more sticks the hard it is to break. The movie bugs life does good portrayal of this. But hey capitalism fuck working together. ",
"Because unionized workers tend to get paid more. Companies don't like paying their workers more.",
"At my company half of the locations are union and half are non union. I work in Human Resources and one of my goals is to ensure my locations remain non union.\n\nWe pay and give better benefits to our non union employees than our union. We would rather pay more to not have a union than to have one.\n\nWith unions you have the threat of striking, grievances, arbitration, contract negotiations. It is slow to make changes because nearly anything has to go to the union before it changes. Unions also have different priorities than the business. Without the business, you would have no union. Without the people, you do not have business. \n\nUnions had their place, most are rather useless now. The unions in our company are not very good because they negotiate worse pay and benefits than our non union employees. Remember at the end of the day, you do not get something for nothing. Everything a successful company does is math and budgeting. Pay, benefits are huge costs. Health insurance for a family plan cost the employee $280 a month, it cost us $1180 a month.\n\nSo there are many cons to unions for a company. That's why I have a job to make sure we treat people in a way that they would not want one.",
"It can be absurdly expensive. If your company has razor thin margins, unionization could bankrupt the company.",
"Every comment here portrays the companies as evil money driven monsters, so let me do the devil's advocate. As most of you already explained, forming an union gives the employees enormous power. This is a good thing if you assume the demands are fair and toughtfull. Sadly it is not always the case. Not all employees understand that running a business might cost more than they think. If the employees are already well paid compared to the market or if what they ask is too costly for the business or again if the employees arent open to compromise it can turn ugly real quick. Im Canadian and laws are different than the US but here's a exemple where employees abused their union's power and it turned out bad. \n\nThe local walmart employees got unionised and asked for a pay raise. Classic. Altough they asked for more than other similar jobs would pay and the walmart being in a small town it couldnt afford to pay such high salaries and stay open. I don't have any prejudice against Wal-Mart employees, but these bunch weren't thr smartest. As seen in the local news and the various strikes they went on. The employees forced a lockout that lasted 2 and a half years. The thing is, it is illegal in Canada to close shop during a lockout. So when the owner did close shop to avoid bankruptcy, he haf to go on trial for it. \n\nSo the thing is, unions are always tricky for both parties. They are a good thing if not abused of, which is hard to assure as an employer.",
"Thanks for this post! my co workers and I have been looking into what being part of a union entails and when is it worth it. Being in a public school district, we are one of the only departments that isn't part of a union, and constantly feel we are being taken advantage of (empty promises, revoking benefits, and just lots of stuff that make for a very unpleasant job) because of that fact.",
"I'll provide a bit of a counter-example. I manage a union shop, and I think the presence of the union is great. Sure, the labor costs more and those of us on the management side can't be utterly incompetent or lazy, but at the end of the day the contract provides a mutual benefit. The laborers have their duties laid out in black and white, and I know exactly what I can demand of them. There's no gray areas, no pressure from the higher ups to ignore safety, low turnover, and since we pay nearly three times industry standard and have better benefits than anyone else in the industry, we can hire the best workers, which helps keep this company one of the most profitable in the business. If a worker isn't up to snuff, I simply have to document the incident(s) and my attempts to get the worker into compliance if applicable, suspend them, go into mediation so the union can see if there's a misstep on my part so they can prevent the worker being fired, and that's that. Process takes less than a week. The union will jump on any mistake I make, of course, but that's where not being lazy or incompetent comes in. If either side had agreed to a worse contract we could be in a bad spot, but all involved see that we've got a good thing going here, and thus far nobody wants to rock the boat too much.",
"As a followup question: Why do many people not associated with businesses dislike unions? Should all people like unions because they benefit the worker instead of the company?",
"One reason is work rules that add layers of rules and extra manpower to the payroll. For example, you have no union and your 3 guys drive out in a truck and all 3 of them go to work at the job site. But the union could get a job classification of 'driver' in the contract. Now you send 3 guys out in the truck but the 'driver' can't work at the site because he is only a driver. Now you need 4 guys. That might be an extreme example but there are jobs where a 'welder' class worker has to be present every time heat is applied to metal. So an electrician has to wait for a welder to show up before he can solder wires. At our local convention center a 'porter' is the only class allowed to transport the vendor's products from the vendor's truck to the vendor's display booth. Then there are several other classes to do work such as build the booth, a separate class to put up the drapes around the tables, an electrician is needed if you want to plug in lights, a carpenter if you have to put 2 boards together with any type of fastener. Every vendor is capable of setting up his own booth but he has to pay and wait on 4 different crews to do a bunch of simple things to his own equipment. I don't know about elsewhere but here the pipe fitters and sheet metal unions where fighting over who can do air ducts. Ducts are sheet metal until they are formed into square 'pipes' and then the pipe fitters wanted to take that work. Another famous case is from the now out of business Hostess plant where the union rules required separate drivers and separate trucks for delivery of Twinkies . Twinkies had to go in their own trucks separate from all other products. Doubled the routes, trucks, and driver expenses. ",
"Another side I couldn't find mentioned is that unions can potentially limit certain forms of incentives. The nature of the rules that can be put in place by unions may make it difficult to incentivize a \"high potential\" employee because they can not be rewarded for performing more work than his or her union members with more seniority and the same job title.",
"I've never been in a union but I know people who have. \n\nLot of answers are about negotiations for pay but I don't see much else. \n\nOne union guy told me he hated it because his coworker did terrible things, messing up, fighting, and not following instructions. Any time they'd threaten to fire the guy, he'd run to the union and they'd back him up. The guy I talked to would say \"You can get away with whatever you want in a union, it's difficult to fire somebody unless they do something extreme. So people like me have to deal with terrible workers\"\n\nBasically from what I've heard, companies don't want unions not only for employee pay, but also because it makes getting rid of problem employees more difficult. ",
"On the Devils advocate side, there have been many instances of unions going too far. The dockworkers Union is a known issue in many countries. The idea that if your industry is critical, you can simply threaten to shut it down if you don't get whatever you want leads to some tyrannical individuals doing things for large sums of money. This is not very good for business. This is not the norm for everyday job unions but it does occur.",
"As a devil's advocate, I have to say some of these comments portray businesses as greedy bastards who hate their employees. And while yes, that is what some companies do (and what the people over at /r/LateStageCapitalism think ALL companies do), unions do have other negative side effects for the company, and it's not all about profit. Unions tend to provide a sense of comfort in workers that may drive their productivity down, and workers can get away with more things they normally wouldn't be able to do. Some union leaders (only the nasty ones) can also blackmail companies into doing their bidding with motives other than helping workers, like allowing nepotism, handing out unreasonable bonuses, or just straight up halt the operations completely.\n\nLike I said, I'm in agreement with the majority of these comments, but people need to cut managers some slack as well and understand where they're coming from.",
"There are many answers in here that talk about companies worrying about impact to profitability, and they are worth considering. There are, however, other downsides to unionization.\n\nWatch the NFLPA (NFL players union) have to defend the indefensible--Ray Rice slugs a woman in an elevator, and it is recorded; look at Zeke Elliot, or Adrian Peterson abuse cases, and watch the union intercede to protect those guys jobs. Ever wonder why teachers, or police, who perform terrible acts, aren't fired? Unions serve to protect bad employees as well as good ones.\n\nOr watch the saga of Hostess, makers of Twinkies; the union ultimately was not flexible, and they had to enter bankruptcy, jeopardizing 100's of jobs, because they did not have the flexibility to needed to trim costs; it was all or nothing, and it became \"nothing\".\n\nSo while there are concerns about employees bargaining power for wages and benefits, there are also concerns re the quality of the resulting workforce, and the international competitive challenges those impose on businesses.",
"There's a lot of good reasons posted already, but what may not have been mentioned is the impact on unions for smaller companies. Sometimes union leaders have unrealistic expectations and their demands can result in a company shuttering. This is what happened to Hostess when the bankers striked and their leaders refused to compromise. \n\nYou also see it in the film and TV industry, where powerful unions like SAG make it notoriously difficult for indie productions to operate with any of their talent. You end up seeing SAG actors use fake names to be part of some productions because the budget doesn't exist for the things SAG demands, since SAG is largely oriented to work with big budget pictures -- even their so-called \"indie contract\" is designed to work with \"indies\" like Fox Searchlight rather than actual real independent film production companies who don't have a mega conglomerate backing them. \n\nUnions are largely a good thing, and came about out of a very real necessity. But they have lost a lot of their power in a global economy where manufacturing can just be moved overseas or automation can be implemented domestically. In some cases they are a driving factor in the scaling of these transitions. ",
"Big companies like money. They want to make as much as possible. Therefore they want to pay as little as possible for their workforce. Unionized workers are in a stronger bargaining position than ununionized workers, meaning they'll cost more. Therefore big companies don't like unions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
9vhelj | why are some coins worth a small fortune, but another of the same kind of coin is almost worthless? | To explain: I recently heard about a 1968 quarter getting sold to a collector for $8000. Why couldn’t I for example sell my quarter, also from 1968, for the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vhelj/eli5_why_are_some_coins_worth_a_small_fortune_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9c8936",
"e9c8kas",
"e9cdkvw",
"e9deg5v"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"For such a price, that coin was likely either an error strike, or an exceptionally pristine specimen of a lower-mintage species. \n\nA Google search suggests the latter.may be the case here.",
"Condition, uniqueness, and rarity affect collectable coin values. High-value collectables are in mint or uncirculated condition. They might be unique, like being double-stamped or had a limited run. They might be rare in that few are still around\n\nAccording to this article, there were only 6 of this kind of coins in mint condition _URL_0_",
"Also, you said it yourself. He sold it to a collector, meaning that person wanted the coin for a particular reason. At least in the US, coins were produced in different mints denoted on the coin by a letter. If there was a set of all coins from that mint, he might have been missing one, or it was a bonus like a miss-stamp. Your coin is probably very run of the mill, even for that time period. Everything matters, like condition and specifics.\n\nAlthough, people find super rare and valuable coins in pocket change and rolls of coins all the time. ",
"Typically with coins and stamps, collectors are looking for the hardest to find, most rare ones. A common 1968 quarter isn't that rare, but if one has a mistake, as others have said, or that particular mint didn't make many of those, or there was a special one that was never meant to see the light of day, any of those cases create a very rare, hard to find coin. A good stamp example is that there was a stamp with a picture of an airplane printed upside down on it. Most of those were destroyed, but the few left are very valuable. The stamps with the plane right side up are not."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2016/02/have-a-look-at-this-impressive-1968-d-Washington-dollar-market-analysis.all.html"
],
[],
[]
] | |
30u5bb | why do we use eleven, twelve etc instead of the same pattern for all other "tens" units? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30u5bb/eli5_why_do_we_use_eleven_twelve_etc_instead_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpvw0yh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They are decendant words from much older words. Example:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe etymology section seems to say that the old root of the word eleven comes from a word that meant \"one left\", so, effectively, \"ten and 1\" - which is essentially the same as \"21\", \"31\", etc. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eleven"
]
] | ||
81cfem | how did twitter go from being a regular social media site to an official platform for many political figures, celebrities, and businesses? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81cfem/eli5_how_did_twitter_go_from_being_a_regular/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv27nly",
"dv3289t"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a quick way to send a message and \"communicate\" with the people who follow you. Its popularity is probably due to the fact that it is much easier to manage and use than FB and (kind of) gets the job done. \n \nAfter that, it's the same social media effect as with FB. Once many are on it, soon, everybody's on it. ",
"Short Answer: The 24-hour news cycle's obsession with having quick, concise statements from people in positions of power."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
43u8ka | how does the boat in this gif not tip over with a sail that big? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43u8ka/eli5how_does_the_boat_in_this_gif_not_tip_over/ | {
"a_id": [
"czkyfcj",
"czkyh49",
"czkyil9",
"czkz46x",
"czl0r4z",
"czl230y",
"czl31us"
],
"score": [
7,
11,
3,
8,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The catamaran has a very low centre of gravity and is built from very lightly materials.\n\nThe people on it make up a sizeable portion of the boats weight and by distributing themselves correctly they can really shift the centre of gravity around to keep the thing from tipping over. This takes skill and hard work and does not always work as well as it did in the gif.",
"It is called 'trim'. See how all the crew is one side at the beginning? Then they start to move a few at a time to the other side as the ship tacks across the wind. While the sail is huge, the crew controls how much wind it traps, spilling the rest to help maintain trim. ",
"Boats like this quite often do tip over, but when they don't it's due to the fact that composite sails like this are very light, but even with this, operating boat like this is difficult and involves work of many highly trained people with great coordination.\ntl;dr light sail and trained people",
"It basically is tipping over. It is always in a constant state of almost tipping, with the crew making constant corrections in order to keep it from tipping. At one point you can see them deploy the brake to pull the right side back down. ",
"For most sailboats the keel sticking down into the water takes quite a lot of pressure to tip over, and generally as the boat get more and more horisontalt, bending with the wind, the wind pressure lessens.\n\nOn a professional(I assume) racing sailboat like this, I'm sure the others redditors point of weight distribution of crew are the main thing, but on most sailboats it would mainly be the keel underneath the water keeping the boat floating.",
"These boats are made of composites and carbon fiber. Under each pontoon is a hydrofoil. That big tall sail is incredibly light and strong. The hydro foil allows for the boat to be lifted out of the water once it gets up to speed to decrease drag, while simultaneously acting similarly to a spoiler in a formula 1 car. All the while the crew distribute their weight accordingly. ",
"Even though the sail is big most of the force on it is not acting sideways on the boat but rather pushing it forward. \n"
]
} | [] | [
"https://i.imgur.com/jk8ZE3y.gifv"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8tw0qn | why do prescription pill bottles made up of a yellowish, maybe green, plastic? what purpose does it serve? | I've seen multiple bottles in the easily recognisable shade of yellow but I've never figured out the reasoning behind that color choice. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tw0qn/eli5_why_do_prescription_pill_bottles_made_up_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1anrxf",
"e1axgpj",
"e1ay6ae",
"e1brwtw"
],
"score": [
31,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It keeps out a large percentage of light. Some medicines contain chemicals that can be damaged by too much exposure to light (or the resulting heat).",
"_URL_0_\n\nPosted around the same time as you posted haha",
"I addition prescription pill bottles were not always made of plastic. a number of years ago they would have been made of Glass. Ironically some of the are sought after by some slide guitarist for the sound properties that they create when used.\n",
"Light protection. There are four major causes of degradation of drugs and other chemicals. Light, moisture, air, and heat. The yellow plastic keeps out almost all UV light, which is the light that does most of the bond making and breaking work. Many pill bottles are opaque white plastic, which keeps the pills in the dark even more effectively."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/8tvoj5/til_the_reason_why_medicine_bottles_are_orange_or/?utm_source=reddit-android"
],
[],
[]
] | |
1nam8o | why does your pinky toe face inward, while the others face forward? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nam8o/eli5_why_does_your_pinky_toe_face_inward_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccgv7y6",
"ccgv9ik"
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text": [
"Years of wearing shoes.",
"speak for yourself, ugly-foot"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
8ndop6 | why does the position of an object on a scale affect its weight? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ndop6/eli5_why_does_the_position_of_an_object_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzurx0t",
"dzuxk6x",
"dzvmmjd"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is because of what is known as moment. Pick up an axe by its head and it’s rather easy to lift, try and lift the axe head up from the far side of the handle and it’s much more difficult. The axe head exerts more of a moment the farther away your hands are (ie the fulcrum).\n\nThe same thing happens with flat scales. The further away the mass is from the fulcrum (the base) the more of a moment it will exert, making it pull down more.\n\n",
"Interesting to add other applications of the same concept because momentum is CRAZY important to understand object interaction.\n\nAngular momentum:\n\nA place with a broken engine will be constantly trying to turn since the other engine is off-centre.\n\nTanks steer by speeding down one of the tracks.\n\nA trebuchet throws a light ball very fast by using a counter weight.\n\nNon angular momentum:\n\nA gun shoots a bullet very fast, but the soldier is not accelerated that much in the opposite direction.\n\nA big ball shocks with a lighter one, the lighter goes way faster than the heavier one slows down.",
"If it's a properly constructed scale, any weight on the pans will be directed through small pivot points supporting the pan, arranged so that they are equidistant from the main beam balance. Ideally it would be a knife edge as was used on old-style brass and wood lab balance. That should make the reading independent of the object position.\n\nIf you just have fixed pans or poor pivots then mechanical forces can be unequal due to different distances from the pivot.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
9afv4h | why does some produce seem to lose flavor when refrigerated? | Is it just the cold numbing my taste buds, or does something happen on a chemical level? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9afv4h/eli5_why_does_some_produce_seem_to_lose_flavor/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4v4ad3",
"e4v4o5c"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Refrigeration removes moisture from objects so that could explain why some items taste less/ worse compared to fresher ones.",
"A big reason for this when it comes to meat especially is because the fat which had been warmed to a liquid when it was piping hot, now has been cooled into a solid, not allowing as much of the flavors to come out. This also is true for vegetables, as you cook vegetables the fibers are broken to some degree, but when you refrigerate them the plant tried to reconstruct these fibers but they are broken, leading to an often slightly different texture.\n\nThe last reason is also simple old reactions to heat, when some food gets hot it changes drastically in flavor, and texture. So when the food is now cold instead of Luke warm or hot. It will just have a completely different flavour."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
dhjqbd | how come smart devices like alexa, google, and iphones (siri) aren't triggered by tv commercials that say "hey google..." or "hey siri..."? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dhjqbd/eli5_how_come_smart_devices_like_alexa_google_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3ogby8",
"f3oghnl",
"f3owalc"
],
"score": [
5,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"This used to happen. So now they transmit a sound that is brief or out of our hearing range that indicates to the smart device to ignore the next signal to activate.",
"Your \"smart\" device is actually pretty dumb. It's brain power is all in the cloud, so it's relatively easy for it's manufacturer to manipulate. \n\nA great real world example is Alexa and South Park's episode about it. The creators of South Park really went out of their way to fuck with Amazon, so the episode was full of Cartman ordering stuff. \n\nDuring the initial airing of that episode A LOT of Alexa's responded to Cartman's voice on the TV and ordered stuff that their owner's didn't want. Amazon has a whole team devoted to this, who immediately sprang into action. During the initial airing of the episode thousands of orders were placed by mistake. By the time of the repeat episode a few hours later, they had already taught Alexa globally to ignore Cartman's voice. \n\nA side effect of this, if the guy who voice's Cartman legit tried to order via an Alexa using the Cartman voice, the device would ignore him.",
"That was happening when they first released. Those commercials now have tones that are inaudible to humans that transmit during the phrase that basically tell the device to ignore the command. \n\nThey can also program it to ignore specific voice patterns (such as specific recorded audio) and so that voice will not operate the commands. But this one is risky as someone with similar voice patterns could also be ignored."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
ow99q | why did we evolve our tails away? | As an outdoorsman, I feel like it would be so beneficial. I could balance better when wading across slippery rocks and crossing logs, and I could smack away flies when I've forgotten my DEET. In everyday life it would be pretty cool too. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ow99q/eli5_why_did_we_evolve_our_tails_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3kjbag",
"c3klkgw",
"c3kloxd",
"c3km2sp",
"c3kn0o5",
"c3kn3c7",
"c3knafy"
],
"score": [
176,
20,
49,
7,
17,
14,
4
],
"text": [
"Quadrapeds (four legs) use their tails for balance when walking, and as a rudder to stear while running at high speeds. Bipeds (two legs, two arms) like monkeys use their tails for balance as well as an extra gripper while climbing. Upright Bipeds (only walks on two legs) have a totally different balance to maintain; if we had tails, we would need to have them between our legs to keep from falling backwards. A tail that would maintain balance in an Upright Biped would be so short that it would not be useful for your needs, being maybe half a foot long.",
"would you have sex with someone with a tail? neither did your ancestors.",
"[Because it would be too awsome.](_URL_0_)",
"My guess is the non-tails viciously killed the tails in an act of genocide.",
"Seriously? Because we no long need them to survive and having them would be inefficient. You would need to eat more to replace the energy it's pointlessly consuming. Plus, having extra limbs gives more area for injury, and so death.\n\nDouble seriously, I would fucking love a tail.",
"Because tails suck for sitting in this chair for hours reading reddit.",
"I think you should ask \n\nELI5: How does evolution work?\n\nBecause we did not \"evolve\" our tails away. Evolution is a random process of genetic mutation. Over-simplified: one of our ancestors randomly did not have a tail. Because of his environment, he somehow succeeded because of it. He produced off spring and thrived and his kids had that same genetic defect of no tail. So animals weren't like \"hey, lets get rid of these bitches\" it just happened randomly. Evolution has no rhyme or reason, it is random. Then, after the randomness, whatever succeeds produces more and then we have what we have. So there was no thought process to losing the tail."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://sp2.fotolog.com/photo/2/5/71/lucio_dragonball/1225579481638_f.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
uk3im | why do a lot of internet scammers live in lagos, nigeria? | as above, why do a lot of Internet scammers live in Lagos, Nigeria? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uk3im/eli5_why_do_a_lot_of_internet_scammers_live_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4w2nnv",
"c4w54ic"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Lagos is a huge city...8 million people. Only slightly less than NYC's 9 million. It is also a poor city in a city with horrible law enforcement and corruption is a way of life. And scammers apparently make 3-4X average income. And since the oil economy made a drastic fall in the 80s, well....GDP went down, people didn't have jobs, and couldn't keep up their standard of living. \n\nIt's kinda the reason why we have so many drug dealers in bad neighborhoods in American cities. It's hard to survive, so people have to turn to crime.",
"Here's another possible solution: IP Scramblers. There are certain programs that can be downloaded to mask your IP address, and re-hash it so a random location. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
38mays | how does espn do its "wired" segment where it is able to focus on a player's voice (generally during basketball games) even though the arena is incredibly loud? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38mays/eli5_how_does_espn_do_its_wired_segment_where_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"crw3ae8",
"crw5s7r"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that they have directional microphones in the hands of guys on the sidelines. Point at the player and you can hear him, even above the background sound. ",
"I'm a dude who studies sound engineering, and it's a combo of two things. One is mics with a very focused polar pattern called shotgun mics. The polar pattern basically determines the amount of the surrounding area's sound the mic will pick up, and since a shotgun mics pattern is extremely focused it pretty much only picks up what it's pointed towards. They will also use those big cones to help capture and focus the sound (_URL_0_)\n\nThe other way is they just mic up the players.They do it NBA players and NFL players, I'm not really sure about other sports. But some sports (NFL comes to mind) have gear like helmets with mics already in them (especially quarterbacks) so some of the audio comes from that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/278/156/1156278.jpg"
]
] | ||
6d3c1o | why does the government give tax incentives to married people and those with kids, but no incentives for single and childless people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6d3c1o/eli5_why_does_the_government_give_tax_incentives/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhzh2mv",
"dhzh4rd",
"dhzh6wa",
"dhzha7x",
"dhzi71x",
"dhzihf5",
"dhzilt4",
"dhzkdj0",
"dhzl7cx",
"dhzsfng",
"dhzxxix",
"di0sdox"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
51,
148,
19,
4,
23,
2,
8,
2,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"Think about it for a bit. You are increasing your purchasing costs, incentivizing family creation, and single people tend to have a higher available income if they are doing any sort of financial planning.",
"The other posters aren't wrong, but the answer is ultimately, \"Because the lobby for those breaks exceeds the lobby against.\"",
"You really don't get an objective benefit on taxes for being married. You just file differently. Sometimes that benefits families sometimes it doesn't. The government does this because married people sometimes live off the income their partner makes without generating any themselves. That is not a bad thing but it needs to be handled different.\n\nThe tax break for kids is because kids cost money but do not generate money however kids are IMMENSELY valuable to society as a whole because they are the future, literally. The tax break is to try and even the playing field and reward the parents for contributing to the future of the country.",
"It is generally believed that people having kids is helpful to a society. It creates the next generation of consumers/taxpayers, for example. \n\nHaving kids is also generally costly. The idea of tax benefits for people who have kids is that it represents an offset of the cost to the individual of having the kids, giving them a slightly larger share of the wider societal benefit of having kids that they can't individually capture. \n\nMarriage is similar, though more debatable and less direct. There are many who argue that marriages, especially stable ones that produce kids, tend to create \"stronger\" or better ordered societies. However, at least in the U.S. so far as I know, most of the tax \"benefits\" of marriage tend to be more about the weirdness of people having combined incomes---more an after effect then a genuine \"incentive.\"",
"There aren't tax incentive for married people. If there is a wide range in income between the two, or if one is a stay-at-home parent, then the tax bracket would be different for married couple and they might save. So if you had a husband who made $100k while the wife stayed home, then he'd see lower taxes on his income filing as married than before. But if they each made $50k before getting married, they'd see no difference in taxes filing jointly.\n\nAs for kids, there are deductions for each member of the household because presumably it costs more to feed, clothe, house more people so the same person supporting 4 people on $100k pays less in taxes than the single person earning $100k.",
"Why would they need incentives to do nothing? Its pretty simple. People with kids are providing a next generation, and not just that, they are taking on the extra costs of raising them. Our country is below replacement level. People don't need incentives to do what they are already doing, aka not reproducing. Incentives for single or childless people is basically a reward for doing nothing. For a government to work, you need people paying into it. Fewer people, less money. Less money, poorer government. I don't see how it isn't obvious. ",
"Child poverty!\n\nThere are three solutions:\n\n1) Watch them die.\n\n2) Give them aid.\n\n3) Help their parents.\n\nIn the US, tax filers who make less than $3000 in a year receive no tax credit (they cannot care for themselves or their children independently, so they are assumed to use the care of others or the government). Tax filers who make more than $150,000 also receive no tax credit. They are assumed to have enough resources to care for any number of children they may have. Those in between get $1000 credit per child.\n\nWhen you don't have children, giving you a tax credit does nothing to address child poverty. It has nothing to do with encouraging fertility. You will not find parents who decided to have children because they could take advantage of $1000/year.",
"What's really stupid is marriage tax benefits only go up to a certain household income. Once you reach that point, your combined taxes are higher than if you were single. Basically if too well-paid software engineers marry each other, their total tax would be higher than the combined tax they'd pay if not married. It doesn't matter if you file separately or together because household income is still known. ",
"You incentivize what you want more of. Single people are fine and all, but society needs a healthy birth rate so that we will have enough workers to pay for things like Social Security and Medicare.",
"Because the government wants to give incentives to make more people they can exploit and tax at confiscatory rates. \nIn short, without the backs of future generations to stand on, the elites would fall. So might as well throw the plebes a few crumbs from the table.",
"For the people that are a little PO'd because it seems like BS that you don't have kids, yet your taxes pay for public school and tax deductions for others:\n\nRemember you were once a kid too, so you go to see these benefits. You are paying the system back. Maybe your parents technically go the deduction, but they had more money that was spent on you as as result. Perhaps looking at it from a different perspective will make you less sour about the matter.",
"The way taxes work for married couples is a bit misunderstood. You may have to pay less in taxes if the married couple has disparate incomes. But, more commonly these days you pay a marriage penalty when your income is similar. I just got married and will be eligible for said marriage penalty.\n\nAdditionally, children are treated as dependents, similar to elderly or disabled person. This tax deduction exists because the person is working not just to provide for themselves, but for another person who is unable to work and care for themselves."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2i01rc | why do photographs look so hideously wrong when 'flipped'? | It can't just be me - fairly often my phone flips a photo after I have taken it, and suddenly it looks awful to me. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i01rc/eli5_why_do_photographs_look_so_hideously_wrong/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckxlgho",
"ckxlji4",
"ckxn5mk",
"ckxo4wg"
],
"score": [
49,
7,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"If you're talking photos of people, it's because our faces aren't symmetrical. So when you see a picture of your friend, you see them in the picture how you see them in real life. When the picture is flipped, you see their mirror image. It's also why people think they look odd in photos, because you are used to seeing your own mirror image.",
"This typically happens when using the front facing camera. It's because the image of you that's shown while in camera mode is actually flipped to more closely resemble a mirror, as that's the primary way most people are familiar with viewing themselves. When the photo is taken, it corrects this by undoing the simulated mirroring, which shows the picture as a normal camera would see you. This looks odd because 99% of the time we're looking directly at our own faces, it's in the mirror, and this looks like a flipped version of that.",
"Here's a related [radiolab](_URL_0_) podcast discussing this ",
"it's because you don't see as much as you think you do. your brain processes visual data and eliminates what it considers extraneous.\n\nwhen you take a picture and rotate it 90^o , some people's brains won't catch on and you will see it without your preconceptions. essentially, your brains visual acuity compression algorithm isn't set applied to that data, and all the info looks confusing. ergo, you notice more details you missed before. once you realize it's just rotated, the your brain can overlay and compress the data for your higher functions to process.\n\nsame thing happens (in a good way) when you bend over and look behind your legs to see if something is straight, level or parallel to something else. try it out.\n\n > take a picture that isn't quite level, but you can't figure out why. turn around, bend over and look at it upside down. all of a sudden, how it is out of level is very visible.\n\ni learned this trick in Engr Measurements, but i've seen craftsmen use it from time to time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/122382-desperately-seeking-symmetry/"
],
[]
] | |
361au4 | why is /r/twoxchromosomes a default subreddit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/361au4/eli5_why_is_rtwoxchromosomes_a_default_subreddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr9sim6"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"It's a very lazy and heavy handed way of trying to make Reddit more appealing to women. At the expense of ruining the subreddit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
es4on2 | does having plants in your house actually improve the air quality? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/es4on2/eli5_does_having_plants_in_your_house_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"ff7s0eo",
"ff7shog",
"ff7voj7",
"ff8bhnl",
"ff8capz",
"ff8e3mi",
"ff8ieke",
"ff8jgre",
"ff8on67",
"ff8opt5",
"ff8vyqx",
"ff8xpxb",
"ff8y2jv",
"ff9c3s8",
"ff9c8kg",
"ff9gp85"
],
"score": [
1090,
56,
23,
295,
27,
5281,
269,
39,
2,
3,
25,
11,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not really. \n\nStudies show that in a completely enclosed environment (like a space station), they can help a little. But in a house, air is coming from out side constantly, so the little bit the plants may do to help is overshadowed by the contaminated air from outside. \n\nBasicly, its like trying to clean your car in a the rain in a dust storm. Your little effort isn't gona do much for all the mud the rain and dust is making.",
"Yes but not on a noticeable scale. All plants use carbon dioxide and put out oxygen. They just do not do it in great enough amounts that a couple plants will improve an average house. It would take around 500 house plants to produce enough oxygen for one human. Less then that of course to just improve the air quality, but more then most homes have.",
"The air inside your house is much dirtier than the air outside. That's why it is code to bring fresh air into well sealed houses and buildings. Not bc you'll run out of O2.",
"I have a lot of houseplants, and water them about a gallon a day. That’s equivalent to running a gallon a day through a humidifier. So although they may not add a lot of O2, they certainly help with the dry air where I live.",
"No. The best way to improve the air quality in your house is to eliminate as many sources of offending particles as possible. Get rid of carpets, especially old ones, move away from people with pets (unless you're a pet owner yourself), do not permit smoking on premises, have mesh installed on your windows to prevent pollen, small insects and dust from being blown inside. Plants are incapable of filtering out any of these irritants.",
"Not in a significant way, however house plants are shown to have psychological benefits. We evolved in an environment filled with plants and having them inside your home helps calm/de-stress.",
"Everyone commenting but no one siting sources. Depends on the quantity and type of plant.\n\nI think the NASA clean air study is still the best paper on the subject.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It does not really purify the air.\n\nBut it's worth remembering that they have a positive psychological impact that is definitely not negligble.",
"It depends on what you mean by “improve air quality.”\n\nThe right plants in the right concentration can certainly have a positive impact on offensive odors.",
"How about if you had one of those 'living walls'?\n\nWould many plants increase the humidity in your house?",
"Lots of misinformation here, plants do add oxygen to the air while removing CO2 and some air born toxins. They just do it at a rate that is completely negligible. You'd need something like 25 20m tall trees in a room to counteract the output of a single human.",
"My brother and I own a house together and love plants. Our girlfriends love plants. This year we put Christmas lights on our yucca tree. They bring me happiness. The morning sun comes through ivy’s and monsteras in the winter and here in Maine that’s enough to jump start me in the morning.\n\nIf you’re worried about plants dying look up ones that are hard to kill or start with some succulents.",
"I recall recently reading an [article that addressed this exact question](_URL_0_), among other related questions. The answer is basically; a tiny bit, maybe, but you need a ton of plants and it is definitely one of the least efficient ways to improve indoor air quality.\n\nEdit: Quoting the article:\n\n > Like … plants? I’ll just buy lots of plants! The oft-cited 1989 NASA research paper on the air-purifying properties of plants made me hopeful that I was a few beautifully curated planter boxes away from gloriously clean air. So, I reached out to the folks at online plant retailer Bloomscape and asked them to send over some samples from the company's suggested list of air-cleaning plants. They sent two, a large lush sansevieria and a medium-size Kimberly Queen fern.\n > \n > However, I then had a conversation with Garden Myths author and plant expert Robert Pavlis, which filled me with uncertainty. His written work about the media’s misinterpretation of the NASA plant study makes the point that the study itself was done in a tiny chamber a little larger than an air fryer and did not prove that plants actually clean the air of a small room, much less a home. As Pavlis points out, the bacteria in the planting soil used in the NASA experiment also might have cleaned the air in that tiny chamber.\n > \n > As I discussed my plan and the practical use of houseplants as air purifiers, he mentioned I would need eight plants per room to make a difference. Looking around my 200-square-foot den, I wondered aloud how I would squeeze eight plants in the space.\n > \n > “No, I didn’t say eight, I said 80—eight-zero,\" Pavlis said. \"And they would need to be large. A cactus in the corner, that’s not doing much.\"",
"A popular botanist said it would take 80 plants minimum to \"clean\" the air in your home. Will try and link if I remember his name.",
"The short answer is yes, the long answer is it depends how you measure \"air quality\"\n \n0. Other comments are mostly about oxygenation and carbon dioxide..obviously 10-15 pounds of plant matter isn't going to displace 200 or 400 pounds of human-produced CO2.\n1. Humidity decreases a lot in winter months, due to heaters pumping out dry, waterless air. Watering/misting your plants is going to increase the amount of water vapor aka humidity, which helps your skin, breathing passages, and any sensitive wooden objects like instruments to stay in tune much better. \n2. So, if you narrowly focus on O2 and CO2, most people don't have nearly enough mass of houseplants to make a big difference. If instead, you think of water vapor/humidity, then its clear houseplants DO provide tangible air quality improvements.",
"Don't forget that almost all houseplants are planted in containers with wet soil, which can create millions of mold/fungal spores, bacteria, insects, and other microorganisms. Some people are sensitive to these organisms or the compounds they create, so being near a houseplant can actually be worse than not having any plants. People with mold allergies should probably avoid bringing soil into their homes: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wired.com/story/the-quest-for-clean-air/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://asthmaandallergies.org/asthma-allergies/mold-allergy/"
]
] | ||
720rrs | why must the pythagorean theorem contain squared values? is there a relationship between sides prior to squaring them? | In a way it is self-evident that the sides of a right triangle are proportional to one another; visual proofs illustrate this. However, I am at a loss for how to describe this relationship without squares, and cannot articulate why squares are used other than they make the math simpler.
My intuition tells me that if a relationship exists after an operation it must exist before it. However, A²+B²=C² , but A+B≠C
Is my intuition wrong?
I suspect there is a lesson to be learned as to the nature of exponents and their relationship to their roots.
It seems as though the sides simply exist as square roots a priori. As if the way they were generated - within the system - defines them as such.
But I can’t describe this process, and I feel as though it would give me a greater intuition into the theory if I did.
Visual proofs have thus far not help demonstrate whether a relationship exists before squaring only that squaring creates a relationship.
Please note that I only have a basic math education. I have yet to take calculus. It may well be that the tools needed to articulate an answer require a more advanced math education. If so I apologize for being inarticulate. I’m doing my best with the concepts/tools I have available.
EDIT: Just wanted to point out that there is a linear relationship (non-squared). Stack exchange user provided the example _URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/720rrs/eli5why_must_the_pythagorean_theorem_contain/ | {
"a_id": [
"dneucao",
"dneuszh",
"dnfj6y2"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Your sense that if a relationship exists after an operation it must exist before it is not necessarily wrong, but it is misapplied. Think about how it can be that A²+B²=C², yet A+B≠C: it is because (A+B)²=A²+2AB+B²≠A²+B². Going from A, B, and C to A², B², and C² does not simply involve squaring both sides of the equation.\n\nThe fact of the matter is that the \"unsquared\" side-lengths are not directly related (except by the the triangle inequality A+B≥C). The relationship *really does* derive from their squares.",
"I think looking at it visually is the best way\n\nTake a look [here](_URL_0_)\n\nNow lets forget about squaring things, and instead think about actual squares.\n\nWhat the pythagorean them says is this:\n\n1) Take the smallest side of a triangle, use its length to make a square of the same size, and find its area (i.e. in the picture above, we take the side 3, make a square with size 3, and find its area, which is 3^2 = 9. it has an area of 9)\n\n2) Take the next smallest side, and do the same (size 4, we then make a square with a side of 4. Take the area 4^2 = 16)\n\n3) Add the areas together of the smaller sides: 9 +16 = 25, this equals the area of a square of doing the same for the third side, very convenient! I only had to know two sides to know the third, but I don't know it yet\n\n4) Now for the 3rd side, work backwards. If the area is 25, instead of squaring it, we square root. sqrt(25) = 5. So the side there is 5!\n\nSo) a^2 [the area of a square made by the smallest side] + b^2 [same for second side] = c^2 [the sum of the areas of squares a and b]",
"Assuming you're most likely in algebra two or so, I'll speak in those terms, not too simple but not too complicated. \nIf you go on to the physical sciences, you'll notice that many quantities are related to their squares or higher order powers. It's unsatisfying, but that's just nature. Nature doesn't care what kind of theorem we humans make to describe it, it just is. I can see that your logic is \"if A^2+B^2=C^2 is true then A+B=C should have some sort of relationship as well\". The answer is that the square and square root operations are not linear operators. Mathematically, that means that a linear operator, L (like f(x) where f is some operation on the variable x) must satisfy L[(cf(x) + cg(x))] = cL[f(x)] + cL[g(x)]\nThis just simply means that if you apply an \"operator\" (haven't told you what this is) simultaneously onto two functions, you will get the operation on the separate functions and if you multiply the function by some number, it can be factored outside of the operation. \nYou could also look at as two different conditions, \nL[cf(x)] = cL[f(x)] and L[f(x) + g(x)] = L[f(x)] + L[g(x)]\n\nLets say L means to multiply whatever is in the brackets by 25\nf(x) = 5x + 4 and g(x) = 2x\nIf you apply the first condition and assume c is just some constant, you get 25(5xc + 4c).l Factor out the c and you get 25c(5x + 4) and if you replace the numbers for what they are, you get cL[f(x)]. For the second one, if you add those two functions together, multiply it by 25, then factor it out, you'll satisfy the second condition. This means that multiplication is a linear operator, which is what you do when you multiply something to a polynomial, you \"distribute\" and multiply everything inside. Notice that the square root operator is not a linear operator. You don't \"distribute\" the square root to each term individually, you square root the whole thing and you can't factor out the functions separately shown by how srt(9 + 16) is not equal to srt(9) + srt(16) [5 = 7]. This shows that just because the squares of things can be related by an equation doesn't mean that the square root of the terms are related by an equation. Backwards can be said as well: just because some terms equals something doesn't mean the squares of the terms must satisfy the same relationship. "
]
} | [] | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2442256/255348"
] | [
[],
[
"https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/images/triangle-3-4-5-pyth.svg"
],
[]
] | |
6nl2wf | how were physicians able to put out all of those theories by themselves? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nl2wf/eli5_how_were_physicians_able_to_put_out_all_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dka9m59"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You are talking about physicists, not physicians.\n\nIn both of these cases, they built on the work of those who went before them -- spending *years* reading books of math and science written by others. So these were not solo accomplishments."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4ysm0z | how do services such as spotify and overdrive make sure that you don't permanently download their material? | Certain services, such as Spotify and Overdrive, allow you to download music or books. But you can't keep these files: Spotify, for example, would never let you keep them unless you continue your premium subscription—or else you could just download everything, unsubscribe, and then have all the music in the world. So how do they make sure that users—despite having downloaded the content already—not simply keep it for themselves? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ysm0z/eli5_how_do_services_such_as_spotify_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6q59jr",
"d6qa3dl",
"d6qei09",
"d6ql7ua"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The files are not in a standard format. You couldn't just take the files and play them using another media player app.\n\nThe Spotify player knows how to decode the files into a normal audio stream and then sends it to your sound card. If the process used to encode the Spotify tracks was known, then it could be reverse engineered and a conversion utility could be made. That of course would break the Terms and Conditions contract you agree to as a user and could also be illegal based on the laws of where you live. ",
"They can't, like at all.\n\nAll you need to do is create a virtual sound card, get your browser playing to that, and pipe that into your line-in.\n\nYou can then use the windows sound recorder to get a copy of that.",
"They can't. While the file itself is encrypted and can only be played with the spotify program / app, you can record the stream with a variety of methods.\n\nPretty much in the same way as you could record it with a microphone, only more sophisticated.",
"Honestly what's the point. You use your phone or computer. It's not like people use CDs anymore. I have premium 5$/mos as a student. That's chump change. I have too many playlists lol and I have them all synced for offline use, so why would I need to download the music? If you're that cheap, use sound cloud. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
94asq7 | the differences between individual and institutional discrimination. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/94asq7/eli5_the_differences_between_individual_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3jlqfm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Individual discrimination is one person discriminating against another person. Examples include a mother who doesn't approve of her daughter dating black men, a boss who refuses to promote women because he believes that women are inherently bad at management positions, or a clerk who follows kids with punk rock style appearances around the store because he believes they all steal. It can be harmful and do damage to you, but it can also be more avoidable than institutional discrimination.\n\nInstitutional discrimination is when institutions are designed to discriminate. If a school had a policy about students' hair that made it a violation to wear various styles that are common in black communities, this would be an example of institutional discrimination. This is much more difficult to deal with than individual discrimination because teachers and staff are pressured to enforce the rules even if they don't personally have discriminatory beliefs. The machine of discrimination keeps moving regardless of the personal beliefs of those who have been tasked with maintaining the institution because it's codified into the \"rules\" of the institution. That is what makes it more difficult to overcome because if you respond with \"this is discrimination!\" to the teacher who is writing you up for your dreads, the teacher responds with \"I'm just following the rules\" or something to that effect. You, the person being discriminated against, are removed from the decision-makers who are creating discriminatory policies and only get to interact with the enforcers who have the defense of having never had any input into the rules.\n\nIt is also more difficult to avoid institutional discrimination. You can decide not to date women with racist moms or stop shopping at places that follow people around for looking a certain way but where you go to school is far less a choice and you have far less power to change the rules at an institution than power to avoid interacting with people who are personally bigoted."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
ezusov | how can a absurdly small amount of deadly poison, like botulinum, kill a human? | I can’t understand how a small grain, a speck of toxin can kill a grown adult?
If this has been asked before please redirect me to the post. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ezusov/eli5_how_can_a_absurdly_small_amount_of_deadly/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgplv3f",
"fgpqfet"
],
"score": [
110,
5
],
"text": [
"The botulism toxin can do this because it's an enzyme - it cleaves a critical neurotransmitter protein in half, then resets to do it again.\n\nAnd again\n\nAnd again\n\nA single molecule can keep dicing up protein and disabling a neuron for hours before it finally degrades.\n\nIn that time, you've been unable to breathe because the signal pathway is all locked up.\n\nCompare that to a poison molecule like carbon monoxide that disables a single protein and is then permanently expended.",
"for example, many viruses are not organisms, just a protein finding itself a hosting cell so it can regenerate.\n\nother toxins, like cyanide, just disable curtain essential functions. cyanide bonds to hemoglobin (a protein which bonds to oxygen and carries it to the cells. btw it turns red when it bonds to oxygen, which is why you turn blue when suffocating), stopping it from transporting oxygen to the cells, causing a very slow and painful death"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
abb0dh | what's the difference between regular charcoal and activated charcoal and why is activated charcoal so good at removing impurities from air and water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abb0dh/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_regular/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecywhzd",
"ecz4aer"
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text": [
"Activated charcoal is extremely porous, full of little holes and/or finely powdered - and that means it has an extremely large surface area. \n\nThat, in turn, is the answer to your second question; for the same reason a sugar cube dissolves more slowly than granulated sugar, carbon with more surface area presents more of itself to react with and so reacts more quickly with other compounds.",
"I was beat to it! But I'll still throw out my fun fact: because of it's porous, absorbing properties activated charcoal is what's given for most ingested poising cases--e.g. bleach, a lot of medications, or unknown substances. Making you toss it back up could burn your esophagus, but ingesting a substance that'll neutralize any toxic properties wouldn't do that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
5u3uxn | what would be the problem with mcgregor fighting mayweather without the ufc's involvement? | Dana white said that if McGregor goes against the UFC it will be an "epic fail." While McGregor has apparently pointed to the "Ali Act" as his way of doing it legally.
my source(of confusion)_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u3uxn/eli5_what_would_be_the_problem_with_mcgregor/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddrd8eo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"TL;DR: Obviously, the UFC stands a lot to lose if they can't be involved in the fight. Whether they can or can't comes down to contract details and lawyer agreements. \n\nMcGregor is under a complex contract with the UFC, which is a fight promotion. This states that he cannot fight under another promotion, like say Golden Boy Promotions (Mayweather's own promotion), while the contract is in effect. But Golden Boy (and possibly McGregor Promotions) is a boxing promotion, not mma, so it may not be a breach of contract (we'd have to know the details of Conor's contract). Regardless, the Ali Act should protect Conor from \"coercive contracts\" (as detailed [in the Ali Act](_URL_0_)]) between a boxer and a promoter. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.mmanews.com/floyd-mayweather-conor-mcgregor-agree-fight-terms/"
] | [
[
"http://www.boxinginsider.com/almanac/the-muhammad-ali-boxing-reform-act-2/"
]
] | |
2nv3sv | why are legos so expensive? | Seriously some of the sets are hundreds of dollars. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nv3sv/eli5_why_are_legos_so_expensive/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmh55wi",
"cmh5qqk",
"cmhauzw",
"cmhbtgs",
"cmheodr",
"cmhjpjt",
"cmhkdas"
],
"score": [
76,
23,
2,
5,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Lego has absolutely insane quality control(considering it's meant to be a kids toy). The difference in size of blocks is really, really tiny. You can pick up a Lego brick from the 70s and it'll fit nicely with one bought yesterday. They also take design deeply serious. A lot of money on R and D. They've relaxed a little bit in recent years, but are still extremely serious about the quality of their product.\n\nSource: my brother works at Lego and keeps telling me how crazy they are. \n\nEdit: I don't remember the exact phrasing(and it was in danish, of course), but they used to have the policy that if something wasn't absolutely perfect, it wouldn't get shipped with the Lego brand on it. To the point it was seriously hurting the company. As I said, the company has changed a lot in recent years, but they still have manufacturing precision you rarely find in a product like that. \n\nEdit2: there's a wired article on lego manufacturing as well _URL_0_",
"They own their market, that's why. No other building blocks brand can even begin to threaten Lego's worldwide dominance.\n\n",
"Look for a report on Lego by a news team called Planet Money. Great history on Lego and their place in the toy market.",
"For one thing their quality control is superb! I had way too many sets (I'd say 50+) and only one time did I get a piece that was deformed.",
"Was given lego to play with as a kid, and always bought at least 1 set a year growing up and never have I encountered a deformed or broken piece. Also looking at some of the modern prints on minifigures, the detail is incredible and the lines are always crisp even at that size. \n\nNow if only they'd get rid of the dam stickers. ",
"Also...they put alot of work into their tech pubs, ie. their instructions...very nice, art in itself",
"Although megablocks makes some nice looking sets (like a 3 foot long aircraft carrier) you can tell that the quality control just isn't as good as legos. It's not uncommon for megablocks to come undone from each other very easily because the tolerances aren't as tight as Lego. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.wired.com/2013/01/why-are-lego-sets-expensive/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3wr6q0 | in theory, how does the new secure quantum teleportation work? | [This](_URL_0_) and [this](_URL_1_) article | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wr6q0/eli5_in_theory_how_does_the_new_secure_quantum/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxyhynt",
"cxyiojg"
],
"score": [
3,
30
],
"text": [
"I don't have access to the paper, as it's locked behind a paywall, but I will try to explain it based on my understanding of quantum entanglement (and I could be completely wrong, I'm a biologist, not a physicist).\n\nFirst of all, this isn't a method of transporting matter, rather it transports data.\n\nThe basic principle is if you had two marbles, one red and one blue, and without looking, you put one of them into a bag, then drove 50 miles away. Then, upon looking at which marble you took (observing the state of one), you therefore know the state of the other. However, until you do, both marbles are simultaneously red and blue (similar to how the electron is both a wave and particle until it is observed). This is the idea of entanglement, but instead of applying it to marbles, you apply it to the quantum state of a particle.\n\nThe article that you linked basically stated that measuring one particle (determining the color of the marble) has an immediate \"steering\" effect on the other (the color of the other marble).\n\nAgain, take this explanation with a grain of salt, as I didn't have access to the full text.",
"I'll give it a shot....\n\nSo lets say we split off a particle A into two smaller quantum particles B and C. \"A\" had a special quality that was equal to X. More over, due to some laws of physics, if we measure that special quality of B and C they must add up to X.\n\n (if we break off a 2 kg mass D into two parts E, F, the total mass of E and F must equal 2 kg. Until we measure E and F they could weigh anything. If we know the mass of E we know the mass of F. That sort of thing but with features like particle spin, polarization).\n\nWe say those two particles B and C are now entangled. They can get detangled if we mess with them (just measuring them detangles them IIRC so that a second measurement is random again), just like if you added mass to E or F, we can no longer know the mass of the other part by measurement. \n\nso if \"A\" had the property 0, If we measure B is 1, then C is -1. If we measure B is 2, C is -2. It doesn't matter how far apart B and C are. Once we measure one, we are actually measuring both and they collapse into a single state. \n\nSo we keep B, and send C over to our other source. Then we measure B to be one of say 4 possible states. It's totally random which state we get. We've agreed that State 1 will mean yes, State 2 is no, State 3 is maybe, State 4 is try again later. Now we know that C's state is the compliment of ours, even though we didn't measure it. So we send C a message via normal internet to say \"hey, perform this and this and this operations on C\". Those will transform C from its initial state to whatever state we want. If C had been in a different state, it would transform into a state we didn't want. They measure C, and get the message we wanted to send them. This is Q teleportation.\n\nSo we are doing the same thing, but with millions of bits instead of 1 to send whatever we want. Quantum is also nice because its dense to store, so we can store 4 possible states instead of two (on/off) with each bit, unlike classic computing. But here is where security comes in. \n\nIf someone gets a hold of our internet message as we send it, they obviously can't learn anything about the intended information because they don't know what state C will take. \n\nIf they manage to measure each C as we sent it to our recipient, then they could use our message! But they de-tangle the system by measuring C as it goes by. As such our person when they measure C will get a random state and the message will give them the wrong information. So we send a couple of test bits over once in a while. They send back their result for us to verify. If it is wrong, we know someone is eve's dropping. Quantum entanglement is good for one measurement. Which is fantastic for security. \n\nAs such we can use quantum teleporation to give someone a unique key to decrypt our information. We can be sure that we know if someone was eve's dropping. We keep sending new keys until no one is sniffing around. Once we give them a key, we can send our encrypted information and have it be completely secure. Or I suppose the hope is we can eventually send ALL our information via quantum teleportation and be aware if someone is listening.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.180502",
"http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-figured-out-what-we-need-to-achieve-secure-quantum-teleportation"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
2gp2ig | why is it that when people in very prestigious positions lose their jobs, they have to tender a resignation, but in everyday jobs, you just get fired? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gp2ig/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_people_in_very/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckl753v",
"ckl79d7",
"ckl8chu",
"cklgnbh",
"cklvu6g"
],
"score": [
11,
244,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think they don't get fired because the board, or whoever is in charge, is worried about lawsuits. So they are \"asked\" to resign. Then they can include language in the resignation as to why they are resigning. They can also avoid mentioning the sensitive aspects of why they were REALLY asked to leave. Like if a SO wanted to dump you because they thought you were flirting with someone on FB and thought you kissed horribly. Rather than accuse you of these things, they \"ask\" you to resign, and then you can state in your letter that you were incompatible and want to pursue other interests. ",
"Most jobs in the USA are at-will; this means that either side can terminate the relationship at any time. You can quit whenever, and you can be fired whenever, for nearly any reason or no reason.\n\nMost upper management positions, however, are on contract. This means that the employee and the company sign an agreement that the person can only be fired for certain reasons. If there's disagreement over those reasons, a firing might lead to a lawsuit.\n\nSo instead, the organization and the employee negotiate an end to the contract. If they agree, the employee resigns and agrees not to sue for termination of the contract.",
"I'll give an example, just to provide context. Your football coach has signed a 5-year contract, paying him $5 million each year. But year #3 just ended, the team stinks, and the team is still under contract to pay him $10M over the next two years.\n\nThey make the decision to fire the coach. As part of that decision, the coach will accept a few million instead of the full contract, but he will be allowed to seek employment somewhere else. ",
"Also if people resign they are not entitled to unemployment insurance in the US.",
"My employer will allow most office employees the chance to resign over being fired. The only exception is for gross misconduct."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2hzlnr | if everyone on the internet can post to reddit why is almost everything in english? | Is reddit English only? Just wondering why people around the world don't create subs in their own languages (are there already reddit equivalents in all countries)
posted in /r/AskReddit was suggested to try here | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hzlnr/eli5_if_everyone_on_the_internet_can_post_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckxf6n7",
"ckxfed8",
"ckxn0ds"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Reddit is not English only, but it's English predominant. If you want to open a subreddit in a non-English language, you're free to. But think about it this way: If you didn't speak English and you went to a website where almost everything was in English, would you feel compelled to stay?",
"Anyone *can* post to reddit but non english speakers wouldn't want to (for the most part). Because it is so primarily english speaking it keeps non english speakers away because they would never be able to read posts and no one would ever care about theirs. Besides, i don't think many non Americans/Australians/British people even know what it is.",
"There are, in fact, subs primarily in other languages.\n\nHowever, because the common language on reddit is English, you will get far more responses in the \"main\" subs (e.g. ELI5) than localized subs (a hypothetical Danish ELI5).\n\nUsually, subs in other languages cater to specific cultures. General topics are best handled in English, because most of the people can understand those.\n\nThis does result in feedback: native English speakers find mute value in Reddit than speakers of other languages, and thus are more likely to participate, increasing the lead English has on Reddit.\n\nThe sort of good news is, English is so essential to internet culture (and the modern world in general) that it is easily the preferred second language worldwide. People learn English specifically because it has such value in communicating across the world, due to historical accident.\n\nMany people wish for a universal language that everyone can use to communicate with everyone. It's not feasible, but English is doing a pretty good job. Better than anything else ever did. So it's easier for people to learn English and benefit greatly, than to try to replicate all the content and communities on the internet in their native language."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8aeagr | why aren’t there more car accidents? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8aeagr/eli5_why_arent_there_more_car_accidents/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwxyois",
"dwxyoxh",
"dwxz35r",
"dwy1wm5",
"dwy21gc"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"One thing to keep in mind is that just because something hasn't happened doesn't necessarily mean the odds of it happening are slim, merely that the odds of it happening hasn't yet been 100%. \n\nThink of this - a chain link fence is mostly empty space, correct? Now throw a golf ball at it. Chances are, it'll bounce off one of the metal pieces even though from a percentage standpoint those make up the minority of the fence. To go through, the ball has to be lined up 'perfectly' with the holes. Now imagine cars. For two to collide, a whole host of things has to go right (or wrong, whatever) otherwise they'll _just_ miss. Seems to me it's kinda the opposite of the chain link fence example in that the overwhelming majority of cars don't hit.",
"Aversion. Safe drivers avoid bad drivers. Overall, most people are conscious, even if they make anomalous mistakes. Heard mentality takes place and helps prevent people from rippling out. The people you refer to long term will have the DL's banned or be barred from insurance. Be mindful of grouping. You don't want to think of an 99% good driver that makes one bad choice as a bad driver. ",
"In addition to the other points, a lot of driving is simply getting onto big roads, driving straight at a reasonably constant speed, and then getting off the big road. This presents a large portion of the trip with a relatively low probability of crashing, and then when people approach roundabouts, intersections, etc.. They tend to concentrate more.",
"_URL_0_\nBasically smart people find out ways to minimize accidents. That is why we see rebuilding of crossings often. Usually from level crossings to something more complex.",
"I recognize I made some very serious mistakes driving at 16. As in, they could have been fatal. they weren't, though, because the people I cut off inadvertently reacted properly.\n\nIn my 30s now, I've driven ~300,000 miles without an accident. I've avoided literally dozens of very close calls, hundreds of medium close calls, and thousands of minor incidents. \n\nI think the answer, then, is that a lot of accidents do actually require mistakes on both sides. The better you get at driving, the more you notice where people's heads are looking, subtle drifting in their lane indicating an upcoming lane change, etc. That behavior is valuable for avoiding accidents, even when the accident would be 0% your \"fault\" from a legal perspective. \n\nIf the road were 100% 16-year-old drivers, it would basically be bumper cars. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_engineering_(transportation)"
],
[]
] | ||
639cl6 | what happens if i don't click "i accept" on these cookie-prompts on webpages? | Are cookies not being stored until I accept or is it all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors trying to give me the sense of control? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/639cl6/eli5_what_happens_if_i_dont_click_i_accept_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfsd2oa",
"dfsnmf7"
],
"score": [
44,
6
],
"text": [
"Nothing happens, cookies are stored the moment you load the page. These banners are only there because the eu passed a law that makes it mandatory to inform users if the site is using cookies, which every site does",
"Hmmm - so I can't get my click back ?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4teceq | the taylor/kim/kanye thing everyone is talking about now? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4teceq/eli5_the_taylorkimkanye_thing_everyone_is_talking/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5gmuh6",
"d5gmwhf",
"d5gn52g"
],
"score": [
12,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"So, Kanye's song famous has lyrics \"I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex, I made that bitch famous\" \n\nTaylor got offended and said she didn't know anything about it and how it's wrong to say that about her (although all her songs are about ex partners??) \n\nKim then released footage of Kanye on the phone to Taylor saying how he will be saying \"I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex\" \n\nTaylor on the phone said she feels that's a compliment and is ok with it, then after the song is released she gets annoyed how he said \"that bitch\" \n\nIt's kinda like she got called out for lying and is now just using any excuse to look like she wasn't, it's all super annoying as at the end of the days it's just music.\n\nAlso Chloe Gormetz (friend of Taylor) posted something about it all, then Khloe Kardashian tweeted her back with a picture that looks like her butthole is out but turns out it was never her..\n\nI'm ashamed I know this shit.\n",
"A while ago in 2009 I think \nKanye west did a rude thing to Taylor swift. Before she was a big star mostly. \nWell having done that thing she got a huge amount of media attention. She played the victim perfectly and road into success through it by all account. Perhaps she would still reach this level of fame either way by pure talent. Perhaps. But you can't deny that Kanye west interacting with her shoved her into the spotlight and definitely helped her. \nAnyway \nNow everyone had forgiven everyone and it was all cool \nBut then \nKanye comes out with a song that has a verse in it that goes: \"I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / why? / I made that bitch famous\" \nNow yeah it's a pretty vulgar remark. But it's not really anything unique if you wanted to read the lyrics of most popular rap songs today. And if you were to actually understand Kanye and his music you'd see the verse has more meaning than meets the eye. But I can't really explain that now. \nBut of course it gained a ton of media coverage and everyone was talking \nAnd so Taylor swift came out and played the victim again. And at a Grammys award she totally dissed him. And made some pretty harsh remarks. But in a subtle way. \nSo then Kanye said that he had called her and she said the verse was cool. \n\nTo which she denied and said no call was made \n\nThen Kim kardashian Kanye husband said there was proof. Or maybe Kanye did. \n\nBut then Taylor said she'd sue. Or as in her team of people who run her life said that. \n\nSo then Kim posted a video of the call on the Internet. \nAnd now everyone knows Kanye wasn't lying. For at least this instance was wasn't being a douche really. \nAnd we also know that Taylor lied. Because she said there was no call at all. So that's sad. Because she is such a pure soul. But of course she's not. But it was nice while that thought lasted. \n\nTaylor replied and said that she was ONLY unaware of the bitch line. Which is plausible. But weak as hell. So no one really takes that as an excuse. \nThis wasn't really for a five year old. Sorry ",
"I think /u/Thugxulax and /u/FreeSpeechEnthusiast pretty much have it covered, but I wanted to point you to a [long thread](_URL_0_) covering the same theme over at /r/OutOfTheLoop, in case you want even more details! :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4td3vw/what_is_happening_between_taylor_swift_and_kim/"
]
] | ||
5rogiu | the philosophy behind censoring hateful speech | With Milo Yiannopoulos having two talks on college campuses cancelled recently, I've begun wondering what words or great thinkers have laid the foundation that supports censoring free speech when it is hateful.
I've grown up under the American idea of being able to disagree with someone's words, but defending to the death their right to say it. Did another specific philosophy come along that makes an exception for hateful/exclusionary rhetoric, or is this something else? Please keep this civil, and do respect each other's right to share ideas. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rogiu/eli5_the_philosophy_behind_censoring_hateful/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd8ukbu",
"dd8ule4",
"dd8ush5",
"dd93uvn"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
4,
13
],
"text": [
"It would fall under utilitarian morality for one.\n\n\"Hateful speech\" can be reasonably assumed to contribute to violent behavior, and thus preventing the spread of ideas that contribute to violent, destructive behaviors, you can reduce the total violence and destruction. AFAIK, this idea of censoring \"destructive\" speech and ideaswas the norm through human history.\n\nThe idea of protecting speech is really more isolated to classical liberalism, which contends that the State is not a moral authority while men (humans) are generally capable of moral actions compatable with their own circumstance, and thus the State ought to be limited in its roll in society, lest a few unscrupulous men obtain abuse the power of the State. Free speech is an extention of preventing the State from deciding what is and is not acceptable.",
"To me, it's the changing attitudes of the world. In the 60's and 70's, Lenny Bruce was among this type of social commentators. He, though, did get arrested on a regular basis for even the smallest \"obscene\" thing he said. He wasn't afraid of it, either.\n\nIn this case, the problem is that he faces no consequence for what he says, but complains when he does. He's never had to fight for his right and he's never had to face being arrested. On top of that, controversial views are always, and I mean always, going to be met with resistance. In this case, his resistance has shut down his speeches. Hate speech, especially in the environment we live in where kids are literally killing themselves because they can't get away from it, is touchy, and someone who makes his living doing something that is literally killing children is never going to be welcomed with open arms.",
"He has the right to say what he wants. He doesn't necessarily have the right to say what he wants where he wants. Like, he doesn't have the right to a stage and a microphone and an audience in a theater. Also, the protesters have the right to disagree vocally with his opinion.\n\nThe government is not arresting him for speaking his mind. That's his right. That's what the freedom of speech is. If he writes a letter, a newspaper doesn't have to print it. If they publicly agree to print it, and later decide not to because people argued against it, that's fine. But if they decide to print it, no one goes to jail for it.",
" > I've grown up under the American idea of being able to disagree with someone's words, but defending to the death their right to say it.\n\nA quote variously attributed to Descartes or Voltaire, but probably apocryphal.\n\nThis wasn't, by the way, the original intent of the First Amendment. It was actually supposed to delegate matters of personal freedoms, including the freedom of speech, to the individual states -- it has since been interpreted quite differently.\n\nHowever, it doesn't exactly apply here, because the First talks about laws. Congress can't outlaw free speech. That doesn't mean a university is not allowed to cancel an event, especially if they fear it might cause a riot.\n\nI think -- speaking as a European -- Americans have probably lost sight of the fact that one person's rights may infringe another person's rights. For example, I might insist on my right to smoke wherever I damn well please, but what about your right to walk down the street without breathing in carcinogens? Or, as the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.\n\nIn fact, even in the US, speech is not completely free. If you tell lies about somebody, and those lies damage that person's reputation, they can sue you for defamation.\n\nThe other thing is that words do actually have power. They can change people's world views. There are people who seriously believe that Donald Trump once said that if he ran for President he'd be a Republican because they're stupid enough to believe anything Fox says -- he never said anything remotely like it. There's a picture now circulating the internet of a blonde woman with blood running down her face, allegedly attacked by people demonstrating against Yionnopoulos: in fact, she's an actress showing off the excellent work done by the make-up artists for a movie she's starring in.\n\nThose lies -- for that is what they are -- shape how people see the world, and it's having a measurable effect. And yes, they are constantly being debunked and proven wrong (that's how I know they're lies: I checked up on them), but most people don't see any of that; or if they do, they refuse to believe it.\n\nThis isn't a trivial matter -- people can actually die as a result of this kind of thing. The pizzagate \"scandal\" -- a total fabrication -- resulted in the harassment of the owner and staff not just of the pizzeria that was targeted, but other nearby businesses as well (even a bookshop), and some bands that occasionally played there; this harassment included actual death threats, and one gunman did actually make his way there and fired some shots (thankfully, nobody was hurt).\n\nThe things we say have consequences. Now, I understand that it is extremely dangerous to start sanctioning government censorship. But somehow, people have to be made aware that the things they say and do don't happen in a vacuum. You can, in my opinion, have your rights, but only if you're prepared to accept the responsibility."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
qpsgy | the differences between the following economic schools of thought: new keynesian (not classical keynesian), chicago, austrian. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qpsgy/eli5_the_differences_between_the_following/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3zjkob",
"c3zkxd5"
],
"score": [
6,
14
],
"text": [
"How about an ELI5 on economics?",
"Disclaimer - All of these economic theories are pretty complex and thousands of economists have either added their own little take on them or offered their own interpretation. I'm just trying to offer the simplest possible explanation. \n\nAustrian School - Austrian School theory is largely based on the works of Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises and Fredrich von Hayek. Basically they espouse that you want as little as possible government regulation of economic markets and really in almost all things, the less government involvement, the better. All things like government regulation actually do is disrupt the inherent efficiency of free markets. Ron Paul is an advocate of the Austrian School, as were people like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. \n\nChicago School - The Chicago School originated from the University of Chicago and was largely a counter to Keynesian theory, which had come to dominate economics. Perhaps the most prominent Chicago guy was Milton Friedman. \n\nThe Chicago School in many ways is similar to the Austrian School, but the Chicago School focuses a lot more monetarism, which is the supply of money in markets. Basically, by controlling the supply of money, you can manipulate markets and ideally you want to keep the supply and demand for money equal. \n\nNew Keynesian - It's a relatively new economic theory that in many ways is still being developed. It argues that basically the inherent flaws exist in free markets that defy expectations. Governments can manipulate or discourage these flaws through fiscal policy or having the central bank manipulate things like interest rates. \n\nI understand a lot of these are sort of complicated and I probably did a pretty shitty job of explaining. \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
f6vlvz | the law of surprise from the witcher | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f6vlvz/eli5_the_law_of_surprise_from_the_witcher/ | {
"a_id": [
"fi792cy"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The Law of Surprise is just laying claim to that which the person has, but does not yet know they have _or the first thing that greets them when they arrive home_. The idea is that when they return home, the first \"new\" thing that greets them belongs to the person whom they owe. Maybe that is a new child (your wife became pregnant before you left but you didn't know) but maybe it is a new pair of pants, or a goat, etc. It is basically putting your reward for your efforts in the hands of fate, and letting fate decide how you deserve to be compensated.\n\nAs to why they agree to it, the idea of magic and fate is very powerful in the Witcher universe. The Law of Surprise isn't refused because doing so will anger fate and bring ruin on you and your house. If it is requested as payment, then you are obligated to accept or face the wrath of the universe \n\nEdit: Spoiler below, since apparently the big black bar isn't clear enough:\n\n > !That is arguably why Cintra fell so quickly to the Nilfgardians - the queen was attempting to deny Geralt Ciri, and thus breaking the Law of Suprise.! < "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2fpsbe | how do movie makers hire actors to play 'ugly' roles. | Here's an example, it's a film with Jack Black and he sees ugly/fat women as models. Wouldn't the actor find that insulting.
EDIT: Another example from Friends. When Ross had to dance with that big ginger girl, Gurt. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fpsbe/eli5_how_do_movie_makers_hire_actors_to_play_ugly/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckbjh1d",
"ckbji9m",
"ckbjngx",
"ckbjztm",
"ckbk0ii",
"ckbk51q",
"ckbkq6a",
"ckbm67o",
"ckbsogc",
"ckbui6c",
"ckbzfvo"
],
"score": [
65,
8,
5,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many actors of course find it insulting, but work is work, and getting acting work you gotta take what you can get, its hard.",
"The actor might be a little insulted, but unless people are treating you poorly even when not acting, an actor will realize that it's just a role and nothing personal. Any half-decent director/producer doesn't want an angry actor coming back at them with a harassment lawsuit.",
"I was once turned down from an acting role ( well more of a glorified extra) because I was too ugly.\n\nI felt great that day",
"In fact there are certain talent agencies that choose to represent actors that don't fit the typical Hollywood mold for looks. Their rosters are filled with talented actors that are too short, tall, fat, skinny or unattractive according to the film industry standards of perfection. They don't sell the leading man or women to the studios, but the common man.",
"Well, an option is to just hire beautiful [ladies](_URL_1_) and [gentlemen](_URL_0_) and ugly them up with a bit of weight and makeup. \n\nedit: and sometimes actors [get fat](_URL_2_) because they think that's how the character should look without actually checking first..",
"Umm I am a PRIME CANDIDATE for one of these roles. So if anyone's hiring!",
"They pay enough that ugly people aren't insulted. ",
"same as they do with fat actors. they use soft words and give no outwards offense. it's business relationship and the money takes the sting away enough for them to act. ",
"I thought about the OP's question when I saw the recent film Under The Skin with Scarlett Johansson. There is a man with a deformed face, played by Adam Pearson. I wondered how he felt doing this specific part. He is one of the most gentle dudes I've ever seen; he did an interview for some [British talk show](_URL_0_). Very like the personality in The Elephant Man.",
"Well, if you still want bums in seats, then you hire [a supermodel](_URL_0_) and use makeup to make them [ugly](_URL_1_).",
"They usually hire attractive actors (which are not in short supply) and then \"ugly them up\" for the role.\n\nFor example, consider Ugly Betty, which kind of depends on Betty being ugly.\n\nActual actress: [hot](_URL_0_).\n\nWhile portraying Betty: [not](_URL_1_).\n\nThe Jack Black film in particular made use of fat suits as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2014932/Harry-Potter-star-Matthew-Lewis-transformation-geeky-Neville-hunk.html",
"http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-starswhogainedweightforroles/9/",
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1335472/Ryan-Goslin... | |
4xu6n5 | why do high ranked female tennis players have difficulty defeating similar/lower ranked male tennis players? | Statistics found here _URL_0_
Even top players like the williams sisters had a tough time against double digit ranks | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xu6n5/eli5_why_do_high_ranked_female_tennis_players/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6iexel",
"d6ifd4y",
"d6ij9bd",
"d6ip6ht"
],
"score": [
8,
19,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Men are physically larger and stronger than women. Their larger size gives them greater reach, and their greater strength means that they serve and return the ball faster. Those raw physical trait differences give an advantage that it takes a lot of refined skill to overcome. Add to that the fact that the men while likely less skilled at the game than the top tier women are, are far from unskilled at it and you have a situation where it is very difficult for women to compete at the same level of performance. ",
"This has nothing to do with sexism and simply down to biological/genetic factors - men are generally taller and able to add more lean muscle mass and can hit the ball [harder](_URL_0_). Combine this with the fact that pro female tennis players are likely only competing and training to beat other pro female players means that they are unlikely to get experience playing against a service game that could be at 20-30% higher speeds than what they might be used to - keep in mind how difficult it is for a pro baseball player to adjust from 90mph to 99mph, just a 10% difference!\n\nWhat 'could' be considered sexist/patronising however is that women's tennis plays 'best of three' sets compared to a 'best of five' in men's tennis. ",
"Tennis requires good upper body strength, grip strength and dexterity, all things which biologically men are far superior at. Short bursts of speed and power is much much easier for men.",
"It's just the innate imbalance of biology. In almost every professional sport the lowest males still outperform the highest females. In our modern society we face far fewer natural dangers, we have much more leisure, so we allow a greater freedom of personal choice. But the environment we evolved in was harsh and cruel, and in that environment the males evolved as the ones to engage in strenuous physical labor. That legacy is carried on in humanity's DNA to this day and as such, at the highest levels of competition, men will always outperform women. It's why we have separate leagues in the first place."
]
} | [] | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)"
] | [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves"
],
[],
[]
] | |
21i9gc | why is everyone finding satellite images of debris, of what is probably the malaysian aircraft in the indian ocean, all of a sudden? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21i9gc/eli5_why_is_everyone_finding_satellite_images_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgda8ek"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As I understand it, the search area is becoming increasingly smaller, which would allow the sats to focus on a specific area (this being the southern Indian ocean). As the Iraqi soldier pointed out when his plane went down, \"Satellites can shoot but they must be told where to point\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
a0z93k | how do magnifying glasses magnify stuff? like how do they do that but regular glass can’t? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0z93k/eli5_how_do_magnifying_glasses_magnify_stuff_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"ealjwmm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They’re curved. The lens is warped soo you see through it differently. It bends the picture. Like if you’re in a house of mirrors and you look funny, it’s because the mirrors are bent/curved. Same with lenses. Bendy glass changes the image. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
27g13c | why are coins worth less than bills? | In modern currencies it seems that coins are always given less worth than bills. Why is this? If the coins are made of metal, shouldn't they be worth more? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27g13c/eli5_why_are_coins_worth_less_than_bills/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci0gkcb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Bills are as much worth as we have agreed on. And that is the same with coins.\n\nThe reason of why we use coins for small amounts instead of bills: Ease of use due to size. Imagine if you had 10 pieces of paper in your pocket just to have one dollar. (Except in Australia with their stupidly large 20 and 50 cent coins)\n\nThe reason of why we use bills for large amounts instead of coins: Generally larger coins are worth more. So larger amounts of larger coins would be too heavy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1snaiq | how does a hydraulic hybrid vehicle work? | I just got a delivery from a UPS truck that had a 'hydraulic hybrid' sticker on it, and it sounds really weird when it moves.
On Google it makes it sounds like there is a pump/motor that is in the transmission/drive train that pumps fluid into some sort of compression tank and when it is needed the fluid reverses out and helps move the truck.
However, hydraulic systems generally aren't compressible, and I would think a large quantity of 'fluid' would be needed to make any realistic difference in moving a UPS truck.
It sounds like some sort of weird hydrostatic transmission combo, but from what I understand the fluid gets 'burned out' using them for anything faster than say a tractor. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1snaiq/eli5_how_does_a_hydraulic_hybrid_vehicle_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdz9ahi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Under braking, fluid is moved from a reservoir into an accumulator.\n\nThe accumulator is filled with compressed nitrogen - I think this is the part you've missed. As the fluid is pumped in, it's the nitrogen which is (further) compressed, thus keeping the fluid (and the nitrogen) under pressure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
41elup | minimum wage increase ripple effect | I am just wondering if someone could explain the ripple effect if there was a minimum wage increase. If the minimum wage was to be increased, how would the wages of those workers who are making just above min wage be effected? And what about those who are making just above the people who are making just above min wage etc etc.. Where would it end? With this in mind, is a min wage increase really feasible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41elup/eli5_minimum_wage_increase_ripple_effect/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz1pswa",
"cz2hqni"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Two things to remember. \n\n1. The proposed increase is designed to be phased in over several years. Most I've seen dont make it $15 the day after signing.\n\n2. Because of inflation, the minimum wage effectively goes down every year it isn't adjusted. That's what people mean when they say, for example, that if minimum wage as set in the 70s had kept up with inflation it would be $20 now, and anyone making under $20 now would essentially be exploited labor. (That particular start point may be slightly cherry picked, but the idea still holds). So in that sense people aren't askimg for a raise, they would just like to get back to where they were before their salary was cut, and arent even asking for back pay.\n\nThat said, to your question. Ovee the following years as minimum wage rises toward the eventual 15$, it is likely those making cloae to 15$ would ask for raises. Part would be fear of being stigmitized as \"minimum wage earners\" ($15 is a good salary as long as someone else is making less than me). \n\nSome would get them. Some wouldn't. Those who didn't could stay in the job and take it, or go look for new work.\n\nIt is likely this would only go so far up the chain. It is hard for someone making $100 per hour to say they need a raise now that their janitor is making 15, but that won't stop people from trying.\n\nAll that would likely take a few more years to trickle through the system.\n\nBest estimates seem to say that overall their would be. Modest at most extra inflation (remember, there is almost always some going on). But you will find differences of opinion on that as it is a very hard thing to definitively say.\n\nTldr.\nOver the years the minimum wage would rise. Over the years that might make other lower paying jobs see their salaries rise. What the overall effect is is a matter of debate.\n\nAnd if you agree at all that a minimum wage has a purpose, you have to be willing to have some of that happen to try and keep up with the creep of inflation over the years.",
"Another effect of increasing the minimum wage.\n\nMc donalds $1.00 cheese burger costs them about $.70 to make $.17 of that is materials, $.20 of that is building, electricity, ect and the other $.33 is labor. (Paying an employee to make it wrap it up take tour payment and hand it to you) in most businesses 50% or more of costs is labor. If it costs more to employ someone to do the job they will pass those costs on to you. Or even worse simply get rid of most of the people and replace them with machines, we already see it in grocery stores with the self checkout. Now the businesses that cant afford the new increased costs of emplyoing people and cant afford the machines/computers to replace them, will be forced to close taking even more jobs out of the market. But i could be talking out of my ass, i am quite a bit drunk at the moment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1xzjzp | the significance of the new star wars film being shot on film as opposed to digitally. | I don't understand the difference between the two except for the *extremely* basic facts, i.e. one exposes film to light to record the images and the other is a super fancy digital camera.
Also, what is the significance of a major motion picture being shot on film in 2014? Is it uncommon? Does it matter for some reason? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xzjzp/eli5_the_significance_of_the_new_star_wars_film/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfg0a7v",
"cfg29hf",
"cfg2qm8",
"cfg3jnf",
"cfg40vn",
"cfg701a",
"cfgi1o2"
],
"score": [
136,
18,
9,
12,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"George Lucas wanted all films to be shot digitally. He invested a lot into the digital process and Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones was one of the first feature length films to be completely shot digitally. So basically Disney is saying fu to Lucas who was trying to push digital film adoption with the success of Star Wars.\n\nEDIT:\nTo answer your other questions:\nIt depends on what the director wants these days. Digital is cheap and easy, but has worse dynamic range (ability to show drastic change in light and dark) so a lot of directors prefer the look of film to digital. The Dark Knight was shot on film because Christopher Nolan doesn't like the look of digital. Also, digital doesn't capture the grainy look of film well, and it can't be replicated correctly in post. Hope this helps, I am an amateur filmmaker so if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.",
"There's a decent documentary called [Side by Side](_URL_0_) which has various film-makers discussing the pros and cons of Digital vs Celluloid.\n\nEssentially it boils down to expense, ease of use and aesthetics. Celluloid is more expensive and more finnicky to edit with but it's generally agreed that it (supposedly^*) gives a richer picture result. Digital is cheaper and much easier to manipulate for editing; it's also less prone to degradation...\n\n^* I say supposedly as one of the core arguments in [Side by Side](_URL_0_) is that the difference between what is captured between digital and celluloid is so negligible that only a small percentage of people would be aware of it...\n\nIt's a very contentious issue with some directors, I really wouldn't want to be caught in the middle of an argument on the subject between Christopher Nolan and Robert Rodriguez ;o)",
"The only real reason it's likely happening is because J.J. Abrams prefers film over digital just like Speilberg and Nolan do.\nThey simply have enough weight in Hollywood to do what they want.",
"First of all, it's not uncommon. American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Star Trek, Captain Phillips, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Wolf of Wall Street are all among many big movies that came out this year that were primarily shot on film.\n\nNow, it can easily be argued that film has superior image quality in regards to dynamic range and resolution. However, the most important advantages of shooting on film are it's archivability and adaptability. I speak from experience, as I'm a preservationist.\n\nModern film can theoretically last thousands of years with little to no maintenance. This means it's incredibly cheap and effective to archive. So films shot on film will simply last longer and will be much cheaper to archive. In addition, it's incredibly adaptable to future formats because it's human readable (it's a physical image). In other words, it can be scanned into whatever format is needed, in whatever resolution is needed, and using any future methods that we can devise.\n\nA simple example: Films like *Her* and *Gravity*, both Oscar nominated films, will never have a true release in 4K, 8K, or anything beyond. However, all of the films I mentioned to begin with will have a 4K release, will have an 8K release, and will even have releases beyond this. This is because 35mm simply contains enough detail and nuance to benefit from these resolutions, while *Her* and *Gravity* are locked into 2K forever.\n\nSo you know how the original Star Wars has lasted this long? This next Star Wars film will last even longer because they are shooting on modern 35mm stocks.",
"I'll approach this from a different angle. \nDid you ever watch starwars (4-6) next to (1-3)? The glory of 4-6(to me at least) is that all the effects were ground breaking at the time and IMO added to the charm and feel. 1-3 were just a visual orgasm for effects IMO and lost the heart of the first Star Wars films. I think they are approaching it this way to give back to the original 3. ",
"Not much really. Mostly it's because film is higher quality than digital, both from a resolution and \"digital range\" point of view and because it has more natural grain. ",
"There will never be 4K versions of the prequels because they were shot with 2K digital (phantom menace was 1080p). 4K of the originals is still possible since it was on film."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/reference"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1s8q1z | the philosophy/idea behind changing a company/product/service name when it is already known by the old name | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s8q1z/eli5_the_philosophyidea_behind_changing_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdv0o3t",
"cdv0ons"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Old names are old. New names are new.\n\nIf I have a brand with an old but recognized name, but I notice that in my market are competitors springing up that are newer, and are eating my market share, I might consider re-launching my product with a new name as well - try to take advantage of that hype and be able to launch a new product with new marketing, new branding, etc., while using my existing resources to stomp the competition.\n\nNew and shiny is always a good marketing platform to stand on. ",
"The general idea is if you are losing business in your current market or you aren't hitting your desired goals from the demographic that currently buys your products you change your image so that you can enter a more lucrative market.\nFor example lucozade used to be mainly bought by older generations or consumed when you where I'll.\nBut obviously this meant sales where not very high so they put money into advertising it as a sport drink changing the packaging, using sports stars to advertise and extending there portfolio of products with lucozade sports drinks. They also started supplying there drink to gyms and eventually the image was transformed and people started to perceive it as something you drink while you workout. This meant that they where selling their products to a much larger group and therefore their revenue increased.\n\nSource: I am a marketing student and this example was used in a lecture a while back."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
37d94u | explain time, space, (dark) matter, (dark) energy, and how they correlate? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37d94u/eli5_explain_time_space_dark_matter_dark_energy/ | {
"a_id": [
"crlpfou",
"crlpg65",
"crmo088"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It starts with the theory of relativity. There are two basic axioms, or truths, that all else are derived from. The first is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and the second is the laws of physics are the same in any inertial reference frame. That just means if two objects are not moving relative to each other, they obey the same laws of physics. \n\nThe big deal with relativity is that Einstein was able to derive more exact equations for motion. As it turns out, Newton's mechanics are just approximations of more general equations. The approximations break down on larger scales, such as with massive celestial bodies, things moving very fast, and at high energies. \n\nThere is a problem however. We can observe the motion of large celestial objects and derive the effects of gravity on those objects. However, using other methods to calculate mass the amount of directly observable mass does not match up with the amount of gravity that is observed. There is a large amount of mass in the universe that as of yet can only be observed by its effect on gravity. A theory in physics is that there is matter that cannot be directly observed, but we can see how it affects gravity. This matter is called dark matter, because it does not interact with light or emit any observable light. \n\nDark energy is a tangent to dark matter, because relativity relates mass to energy. It's energy that is not directly observable. \n\nSo to recap, newton's equations didn't match up with the universe. Einstein's did. However, there is a big gap in observation between what Einstein predicts and what is actually happening. Dark matter and dark energy are theoretical solutions to explain that gap, without violating relativity. It could be Einstein is just wrong, or that his theories are just incomplete, like Newton's. Theoretical physics tries to find more complete solutions to these problems, dark matter and dark energy are one such theory. Relativity is very good at predicting other observable phenomena so physicists are extraordinarily hesitant to toss it away. \n\nIf this stuff interests you try watching the new episodes of Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson. It sets up the history of physics and towards the end explains how relativity solved many problems with the laws of physics as they were understood at the time, without going into math.",
"Space and time are both things that can be distorted in accordance with Einstein's Theories of [Special](_URL_0_) and [General Relativity](_URL_1_). The TLDR of these is that really fast velocities and gravitational fields(curved space-time) cause things like distances and times to change depending on your point of view.\n\nDark matter is just like regular matter(we think) and makes up ~26% of the Universe, regular matter is just ~4%. It's dark because it doesn't interact with electromagnetism so we can't see it because light is just EM waves. It does interact with gravity, which is how we \"discovered\" it. Discovered is in quotes because we still don't know what it is, just that there's stuff out there which gravitationally acts like matter but can't be seen. The current most popular candidates are WIMPs(weakly interacting massive particles).\n\nDark energy makes up ~70% of the Universe. Like dark matter, we can't see it with light. DE is thought to be what's behind the accelerated expansion of space. Common sense would say that gravity should overcome the expansion from the big bang and eventually everything will collapse back together. The problem is observations disagree with this. Things are moving apart at an accelerated rate. So there has to be something counteracting gravity, we call this something dark energy.",
"Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.\n\n'Was the universe born spinning?'\n_URL_2_\n\n*\"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis\"*\n\nOur Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.\n\n'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'\n_URL_1_\n\n*\"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. \"We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going,\" Kashlinsky said.\"*\n\nThe clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.\n\nIt's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.\n\nThe notions of dark matter and the dark matter particle are incorrect. The mass which fills 'empty' space is beginning to be referred to as the 'dark mass' in order to distinguish it from the baggage associated with dark matter.\n\n'Dark Energy/Dark Mass: The Slient Truth'\n_URL_3_\n\n*\"That is, all that we are certain about [is] the dark mass, not dark matter, let alone to say about the dark 'particle'.\"*\n\nDark energy is dark mass continuously emitted into the Universal jet.\n\nOur Universe is a larger version of the following artist's image of a galactic polar jet.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.livescience.com/32216-what-is-relativity.html",
"http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html"
],
[
"http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/import/images/c/9/4/mcg63015.jpg",
"http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html",
"http://physicswo... | ||
3m6p9t | why are there such frequent stampedes at the hajj and why are the resulting fatalities so high? | According to Wikipedia 2,760 pilgrims have been trampled to death since 1990. I get that the Hajj is a massive gathering of people, but I'm sure there must be significant efforts in place to control crowds and attempt to avert these disasters. Is there a scientific (e.g. flocking) or cultural (it seems like this often happens during the "stoning of the devil" ritual) explanation for why this happens with such frequency at the Hajj and not, for example, during Papal Masses or major concert festivals? I feel like I'm missing something. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m6p9t/eli5_why_are_there_such_frequent_stampedes_at_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvcgo3i"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > Is there a scientific (e.g. flocking) or cultural (it seems like this often happens during the \"stoning of the devil\" ritual) explanation for why this happens with such frequency at the Hajj and not, for example, during Papal Masses or major concert festivals?\n\nI think the scale of the Hajj blows all of these events out of the water. Over two MILLION people showed up at Mecca last year. Also the Hajj is an annual event. \n\nAll of this means that stampedes would be more frequent and cause more fatalities than they would for other less frequent, less attended events. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4pmjb8 | when a male puppy grows up without male role models, how does he know to raise a leg to pee? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pmjb8/eli5when_a_male_puppy_grows_up_without_male_role/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4m4x0t",
"d4m4y79",
"d4ma2hk",
"d4mdkmx"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"He won't know to do it, it is a learned behaviour. A male dog that has no 'role models' may still lift his leg to pee, but only after seeing others doing it at a park, kennel, etc. \nMy mother in law has a 6 yr. old male golden retriever that still squats when he pees as he was raised with females, and the only other dogs in their neighbourhood are females as well. She goes out of her way to avoid him learning it due to a past pet that made it a habit of urinating into her flowerbeds. He was a good dog. :)",
"My dog was about 9 months went he started cocking his leg, it was like a little milestone, I was so proud of my little boy getting all grown up!",
"We had a male dog who always squatted like a female, because he had never see a male dog lift its leg. One day we were dog sitting a friend's male dog. Our dog was about 4. He saw the other dog lift its leg, and from that day on my dog always did too. Seems like it is a learned behavior. ",
"I volunteered at a shelter, and one of the dogs there actually laid down, kicked his back feet to the side, and peed. I wonder what kind of role models he had."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3twdd6 | why don't our bodies ignore germs to avoid getting sick | If we catch x germ and die from the fever wouldn't our bodies be better off having just ignored the germ. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3twdd6/eli5_why_dont_our_bodies_ignore_germs_to_avoid/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx9smnd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"You can't simply \"ignore\" a germ. The germ will grow and grow until it affects your body.\n\nSidenote: Are you high?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3q5226 | if humans create a space elevator, or essentially a pipe to outer space. would the vacuum suck out our atmosphere like a straw? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q5226/eli5_if_humans_create_a_space_elevator_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwc32pf",
"cwc3ic1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Gravity would act on the air in the pipe just like air not in the pipe. So, no.\n\nAlso, 'vacuum' does not suck. It merely provides an empty space for something with air pressure to flow into. It is the difference in pressure that creates to flow.",
"If you're interested in space elevators, I would recommend the book \"pillar to the sky\" by William R. Forstchen\nIt's a fantastic book, telling a story revolving around the construction of a space elevator. \n\nThe design discussed in this book isn't hollow at all, it's built of carbon nanotubes (so yes, there is some suspension of disbelief required as such technology isn't realized as of yet)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
50ebio | why do hospitals have visiting hours? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50ebio/eli5_why_do_hospitals_have_visiting_hours/ | {
"a_id": [
"d73cm6a",
"d73cqgf",
"d73df2r",
"d73dhjm",
"d73e4xz"
],
"score": [
22,
6,
11,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"So patients can sleep in peace through the night and the lower number of staff on duty at night can focus more on pt care than tending to the families and their needs",
"You don't come to a hospital to come chill out and hang. They actually have to do things and that is easier if everyone isn't in and out and the hospital needing to set everything up like a hotel. ",
"For the benefit of patients and staff alike. Visitors bring chaos. A limited amount of time spent by Doctors and Nurses dealing with interruptions makes for better care. ",
"Because people will hang around, keeping patients awake, demanding nurses and doctor's time, interfering with other patients, crowd around, etc. Sometimes, even well-meaning loved ones will interfere with a patient's recovery, touching and talking to patients who are too sensitive to stimulus, trying to speak for them when they don't need it etc. Also, it gives the staff a bit of a break, too. The number of times I've been interrupted by a family member to reposition a patient while I was giving report to the nurse relieving me.... ",
"A little advice. Make plans with family and friends before you visit so you don't go everyone at the same time. It sucks to have everyone visiting one day and nobody the rest of the time. . "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
9rot44 | how humans can be such picky eaters if food quality has been much poorer until recent history? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rot44/eli5_how_humans_can_be_such_picky_eaters_if_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8iitt9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most people in developed countries are not especially malnourished and are not facing starvation. Many of us have the luxury of choice and we lean hard into it.\n\nIf you're fighting and farming for every meal and every meal is the only meal you're going to get, you can't afford to be a picky eater and before long, you'll tuck in even if it's not to your taste.\n\nTo take that to modern extremes, look at survivalist cannibalism."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1rs2yo | why do some clothes say they're 'made in hong kong' rather than 'made in china'? | I've noticed that some clothes specify Hong Kong. Why do they need to mention the city? I don't often see other countries name cities. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rs2yo/eli5_why_do_some_clothes_say_theyre_made_in_hong/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdqa3oe",
"cdqa6u6"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Hong Kong is an autonomous region in China. It has a special status. That's not just in name only. Hong Kong basically has complete autonomy in how it is run. Think of it like being in a federation. The only things it doesn't do is diplomatic relations with other nations and defence. Those are the business of China itself. ",
"Hong Kong is different in that it's a \"Special Administrative Region\", that's only technically part of China. There are two of these SARs, the other being Macau. To quote [Wikipedia](_URL_0_), they have:\n\n > [T]heir own governments, multi-party legislatures, legal systems, police forces, monetary systems, separate customs territory, immigration policies, national sports teams, official languages, postal systems, academic and educational systems, and substantial competence in external relations that are different or independent from the People's Republic of China.\n\nHong Kong was a British colony, and was reintegrated with China in 1997. Part of the deal struck to facilitate that reintegration was to make it a SAR."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Administrative_Region_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China"
]
] | |
2fuuzw | what is the process involved in joining the eu? | Since Scotland and UK are in the news, I was wondering if someone could explain the process of joining the EU. It would be awesome if there was a chart with arrows to assist the mentally challenged like myself! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fuuzw/eli5_what_is_the_process_involved_in_joining_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckcy60f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The prospective state has to meet economic and social benchmarks. If the state has trouble meeting them the EU will help if the state seems serious. After the state meets the benchmarks the state hold a referendum to see if domestic audience wants to join the EU. EU votes to let state in. BTW, anything EU is a horrible ELI5 question because it is a bureaucratic nightmare."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
22q93a | why do married couples get additional benefits from the government? | With all the court cases pending on gay marriage bans, I frequently hear the argument that same sex couples should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. I don't disagree with this, But I am curious what additional rights they are given and why. I believe that there is a tax advantage to being married, But isn't that the discriminatory against people who choose to remain single? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22q93a/eli5_why_do_married_couples_get_additional/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgpbb9s",
"cgpbvxd",
"cgpca6c"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The theoretical idea that I've heard for the tax break is, essentially, that the government is subsidizing families. There are countries that are facing a very real problem with an impending population crash. Our country needs to make sure we keep making people; a lot of our systems, like social security, depend on there being new people. And, ideally, people raised in healthy families are more beneficial to society. So we subsidize people who are trying to raise families.",
"I can only really answer the tax benefits question. Married Couples Allowance (MCA) only applies if one of the Married/Civil Partnership couple is born before 1935 and got married before 2005. The benefit of MCA being if you haven't used up all of your tax allowance within a year the remainder can be added to your partners allowance, meaning your partner pays less tax on their income.\n\nIn terms on why the government offers married couples benefits I think it's due to statistics which favour their interests. Statistically married couples are more likely to live longer, less likely to commit crimes, more likely to buy homes and pay bills etc.\n\nThis jus stands for the UK, I'm unsure on other governments.",
"There is a problem that comes from combining your finances and filing as married as opposed to two people filing separately.\n\n(Numbers below are Federal Taxes only, and do not take into account any deductions, etc. They are for example purposes only.)\nLets take two people that make 60,000 each you will end up paying about $10,000 in taxes each, making a total of $20,000 for the both of them. \n\nFor a lot of reasons most married people combine their finances and file taxes together, when you are making major purchases and investments together this makes more sense.\n\nTaking our two people making $60,000 each, we now have a household that makes $120,000, You are going to pay about $26,000 in taxes on that money (if you file as single because filing as married wasn't an option) because of the higher tax brackets your income is in. \n\nIn effect the tax system penalizes people for combining their finances, to equal that out the government allows a married couple to file as married. \n\nWhen you file as married the % of tax you pay in each bracket is lower, but more of the money will be in higher brackets. \n\nIn our example a couple making $120,000 filing as married will pay about $21,000, almost the same as our first example of two separate $60,000 incomes.\n\nAlso /u/incruente is correct that the government also wants to encourage stable family units as this is seen as a benefit to our society. Sometimes there isn't the political will to raise the benefit for having a child but they can make other adjustments that effect people that are likely to have children. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
a6qqyl | how significantly does piracy really effect a films income? and how frequently do people actually get punished or caught for piracy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6qqyl/eli5_how_significantly_does_piracy_really_effect/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebx7vmt",
"ebx9efs"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It's way more complicated than that. [This great article at Stephen Follows](_URL_0_ ) explains how the money gets split up. The theater gets half of the ticket money after taxes (approx). They also have costs (building, electricity, workers, ...) so their profit on the ticket sales is pretty thin. They need a certain number of tickets sold or they can't afford to stay in business and try to make money selling popcorn.\n\nLots of other people divvy up the money from the movie. Most people profit from tickets **and** video sales/streaming. That means that piracy impacts two of their sources of money. \n\nHowever piracy impacts both ways. Watching a pirate copy could get some to like the movie and buy it on bluray for future viewing. Piracy could cause some to say good things about the movie to their friends, and increase sales in the long run. There are no \"with and without piracy\" studies that don't have lots of agenda and dubious assumptions.",
"It's not easy to figure out. Lots of pirates were never going to pay in the first place. But them talking about a film might help boost sales. Some of them just don't have access to content. \n\nThings to remember. The most serious film pirates pay for piracy. Lots of people think torrents are the end all be all, but even private trackers are slow compared to (the first rule of this source is that you don't talk about this source). Serious pirates have remote or home servers and storage. That's not cheap. I pay about $15 a month for subscriptions for piracy and about $2 a month for it's energy use. \n\nAs for punishments, there isn't much because it's hard to prove if you aren't seeding. I almost never use torrents. I share my media with 20 people. I have 0 worries. Even if you do seed, typically ISPs warn then stop service."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/"
],
[]
] | ||
5hbu6t | how do musicians instantly know what to play from such small instructions? | Whenever I see people jam like at open mics they have no idea about what song is meant to be played, never heard it before and never met, but the singer just says to the guitarist something like 'it's a C then a G' and they instantly can play the song. Like in TV shows the guy is like 'do you have a C for me?' and the musician plays the tune perfectly as the guy sings. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hbu6t/eli5_how_do_musicians_instantly_know_what_to_play/ | {
"a_id": [
"daz0bv2",
"daz1jop",
"daz1yqq"
],
"score": [
2,
24,
2
],
"text": [
"A great a majority of jazz or even jam bandy tunes are free form. In that you have a set scale of notes you play that will almost alway fit. I can't remember the half step/whole step sequence, but as long as you play a note in the key within the rhythm you can fake it well. ",
"Imagine you meet your friends at the park for a quick game of pick up basketball. As long as you all know the basic rules, you can all jump right in, split up into teams, and start playing. Music is kinda like that basketball game; you all know the general rules, you're not playing soccer or baseball, this is basketball, so you can all have fun and the game goes smoothly.\n\nThe choice of game is kind of like picking a style of music and/or a key signature; if it's blues, it's probably a basic blues chord progression. If it's jazz, it can be pretty freeform, but still within the certain limits based on the key signature.\n\nJust like basketball or other sports, the better you are and the more you play together, the more options you have for fancy plays and what not. You know your teammates or the game well enough to anticipate upcoming moves and plays, and things just sort of flow.\n\nAlso, ear training helps a lot too; that's the ability to translate what you're hearing to what you're playing. Kind of like being able to tell just from looking what kind of throwing/catching ball game is being played (rugby, American football, two hand touch, flag football, etc). To an inexperienced spectator they may all look the same, but someone with a lot of experience can tell at a glance exactly what's going on and jump in and start playing right away.",
"There is also a factor nobody mentioned yet : practice. People don't just pick an instrument and jam. Those who have the confidence to do so usually have tons of practice in all the keys (that's like minimal training for any jazzman), so they're not naked when they start jamming on stage, they're USED to the chords being thrown at them. Also, blues is usually in A (or E), so you could say there is really not much to know to be able to play the blues, key-wise. Obviously, all the variations are going to be in the rhythm form : it can be fast, shuffle, groovy blues, whether you're playing on a \"traditional\" blues or \"modern\" one, your choice of notes may be restricted or not, so there is that, too.\n\nFor jazz, I'd say it's even easier : you don't start a jazz jam if you don't have the level, because you're going to be shredded (it happened to Charlie Parker, go figure !). So people who do jazz jam are usually VERY solid harmony-wise and technique-wise, and are used to improvise on anything thrown at them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
206qea | why after a shower, the mirror gets covered up in water vapour, almost like it was sticking to it? and why the water vapour reveals all the signs of the cloth cleaning the mirror, which were invisible before i took the shower? | and why does the mirror slowly returns to normal starting from the bottom?
also, in some hotels I have seen they have sections of the mirror which stay unaffected by water vapour. how do they do that, are they back-heated mirrors?
more thoughts/science about vapour and mirrors also appreciated!
thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/206qea/eli5_why_after_a_shower_the_mirror_gets_covered/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg0b039"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In order to execute a phase transition, matter need to gain or give off energy. Not just in increasing/decreasing demperature, but what is called latent heat.\n\nLet's do an example. Imagine water in it's gas form (vapour). If it is exactly at 100⁰ celsius, then (for whatever reason) becomes water (and stays at 100⁰ celsius), it will give off energy. This is called *latent heat*.\n\nThe glass that make up the mirror have high heat conductivity. It is therefore \"easier\" for water vapour to throw it's latent energy at the mirror than to, say, your wood cabinet (althought it still happens in significant amount). \n\nAlso, glass will not absorb water, unlike wood or other materials. If even trace amounts of water condense on it, you will see it, because it does not penetrade the glass at (unlike, again, your wood cabinet)\n\nNow, you will see the traces of the cloth used to clean the mirror because the cloth left trace amount of \"stuff\" that have different heat conductivity.\n\nFinally, the product used to prevent said condensation are hydrophobic: they repel water, so they prevent water vapour from approaching the mirror to condense on it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5fdo33 | how do keywords help search engines find websites? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fdo33/eli5_how_do_keywords_help_search_engines_find/ | {
"a_id": [
"dajmr4g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The search engines send out \"crawlers\" that read the meta data about various websites, then store that in a big database. However, actual keywords are not really used anymore, as they were too easy to abuse. Some creators would add unrelated keywords to their site to increase their visibility, and unfortunately they ruined it for the rest of us. Search engines will now try to use the actual page content (especially headers) to determine what a website is about and what searches it should be shown for."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
50glp7 | what's the point of 'c' and 'k'? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50glp7/eli5_whats_the_point_of_c_and_k/ | {
"a_id": [
"d73tzsf",
"d73uj01",
"d73v6lj",
"d73wchj"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most languages are not intelligently designed, but naturally grew out from older languages over time. Standardized spelling and grammar is pretty new, and it's quite extreme to start abolishing entire letters just because you think it's neater. For English, there is no single authority on proper spelling and grammar, while some languages have a government body for that purpose.\n\nIn short, letters don't have to have a purpose. I would say that it would make more sense to remove the letter C and use S and K instead, rather than abolishing K.",
"Was thinking about Kelvin and Celsius when I read the title, was ready to give a short lecture :)",
"Why do we have PH and F?\n\nSome languages pronounce C and K differently. Some don't use K at all. Since most words come from other languages, Greek, Latin, the spelling of that word was kept. \n\nDifferent pronunciation of C depends on the letter next to it,\n\neg. you couldn't make a rule for pronouncing C as K in the word \"kept\" because \"ce\" is pronounced like \"see\".",
"What about the \"ch\" sound?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4kdpky | why do people still accept that all the states in the u.s. get two senators each even though they have wildly different populations? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kdpky/eli5_why_do_people_still_accept_that_all_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3e429i",
"d3e4qow",
"d3e4rjn"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the Senate gives a degree of political power to the smaller states that they are, understandably, not interested in relinquishing. Any change would have to include an incentive to the smaller states for them to agree to it.",
"Senators were originally supposed to represent interests of the state as an entity, not the people within it. Equal representation prevented larger states from running over the smaller states.\n\nUntil the 17th amendment (1913), you didn't even vote for senators, your state legislature did.\n\nThe current system is a corruption of the original intent.",
"I'm not sure \"people\" do really \"accept\" this. If your question really is, as stated above, \"Why do we still have this system?\" the answer is a mechanical one:\n\nThe allocation of two senators for each state is [specified in the US Constitution](_URL_0_). Changing the U.S. Constitution is difficult. It can start in either of two ways: 1) two-thirds of the Senate (and House) must propose the amendment, or 2) two thirds of the states must call for a constitutional convention (this has never happened). \n\nBut for this particular thing, even an ordinary constitutional amendment is not enough to do the trick! The Constitution makes it extra-tough to get rid of this because of this provision: \n\n > no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate\n\nSo even if the Constitution were amended, changing the number of senators per state would require the approval of each of the small states who would lose out. They'll never do it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html"
]
] | ||
5vr15v | how do bluetooth iems/headphones actually transmit sound without any physical connection between the iem and device it is paired with? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vr15v/eli5_how_do_bluetooth_iemsheadphones_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"de45jas"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The sound is converted into a radio wave and broadcast to the receiver, which then receives the waves and converts them back into data. This data could be sound, or it could be any other kind of data you'd like to send.\n\nAnything and everything \"wireless\" works in this way. What makes Bluetooth different from FM radio is the frequency it uses, and the way it encodes data. Bluetooth uses a much higher frequency than your car radio, which means it has a much shorter effective range, but also means it can send more data at once."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4tqzkr | negative interest rates | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tqzkr/eli5_negative_interest_rates/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5jh82o",
"d5jhj8g",
"d5jqgwv",
"d5ju3zp"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically where you have to pay money to keep you savings in a Financial institution (bank). Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Japan currently has negative interest rates. \n\nSo to clarify, in a bank where there are positive interest rates of let's say... 10%pa... And initial investment of $100 would have $110 at the end of the year. Whereas a bank with negative interest rates of 10%pa would leave you with $90 at the end of that year \n\nEdit: added more information",
"They're basically used as a last resort method for an economy experiencing a massive downturn, going on recession... Because what it does is discourages people from saving their money, because essentially saving money is losing it... So people will spend it much more impulsively, thus stimulating the economy (hopefully)\n\nOops: this was supposed to be a reply to above comment ",
"The important distinction is negative real interest rates. The real interest rate equals the nominal rate minus inflation. The nominal rate is what banks advertise, and is the rate you effectively pay (assuming we consider a typical bank loan).\n\nIf prices increase at a rate of 10% per annum and you pay 5% on your bank loan, the negative real interest rate is 5%. This doesn't usually happen with commercial banks, because their revenue comes from issuing loans at positive real rates and therefore factor inflation expectations into their rates.\n\nIt's much more typical to find negative interest rates on bonds or at a central bank, which is a policy measure designed to incentivise commercial banks to issue loans to individuals or firms. Banks then need to decide between the guaranteed return of, say, -1% real rate from bonds, or the risky yield of perhaps 5% from giving a prospective homeowner a mortage or a loan for a car.\n",
"Imagine you had never heard of a bank before and I told you it was a company who would store your money safely for you so you couldn't be robbed. They would even insure it so if it was stolen from them you would still be ok.\n\nYou would figure you would need to pay a fee for that service correct?\n\nWell a few hundred years goes buy and some smart banker figures out that with all this money he is sitting on (like a dragon) if he lends out a small portion of it he can use the profits from lending to eliminate the charge for holding the money, thus getting even more money to sit on and allowing him to lend more and make a larger profit.\n\nFast forward again. The bank realizes that there is so much borrowing happening today that there are no safe loans it can make. If it can't lend its money safely it needs to charge people for sitting on the money.\n\nAnd so you pay a negative rate when you realize that you can't do anything with your money without taking on a big risk, and your best way to minimize your loss is to pay a bank (or a big bond issuer) a negative rate to protect your money for you for a set time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1vy9c6 | if i kept mobile data enabled while on a flight, what would happen? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vy9c6/eli5_if_i_kept_mobile_data_enabled_while_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cewwt2c",
"cewwv4g",
"cewxbhe",
"cewxz9q",
"cewymvc",
"cewyo43",
"cewzi9o",
"cex0guk"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing, probably. Cellphones affecting airplanes is becoming increasingly debunked.",
"Not much is actually likely to happen, but there is a possibility that the radio waves that your phone is emitting (which it does if you haven't turned it on flight mode) will interfere with their radio transmissions (communication to other pilots, airports, and positional data). ",
"Your would run down as you constantly tried to acquire and reacquire signal.\n\nThere is a slight chance that if everyone on the plane did it, it could interfere with the communication of the plane in some inconsequential way.",
"Most electronic devices trying to connect to a cell tower or use WiFi can interfere with airplane systems like the smoke alarm or radio communications between the plane and control towers. [Here is a short 2 minute video showing exactly what your phone could do if you leave your phone/laptop/tablet on with WiFi or even data](_URL_0_). Till today there has never been a case of an electronic device bringing down an airplane but leaving your phone on or not putting it in airplane mode does makes the workload much more for pilots.",
"Nothing. The Pilots on the airplane use their own personal iPads for replacing their flight manuals and paper charts. sometimes it interferes with it.",
"Nothing. I regularly fly for work and keep my phone on. You lose signal at a certain height and it comes back on when descent begins (for me anyway). Oh and none of the flights I've been on have crashed or anything remotely fireball-esque.",
"So a good example of the interference is the following,\n\nIf you have fairly cheap speakers for your computer, turn them way up then place your cell phone next to them. Have somebody text you. You will hear a wierd buzzing/clicking noise coming from the speakers.\n\nThe big concern with electronics is this interference. It isn't going to make the plane crash but if by some weird chance a pilot gets some interference in his communications system this would be very bad.\n\nRegulations state that any electronic device needs to be tested and certified to work properly with the aircraft it is in. Your cellphone isnt. So they dont want to risk it.",
"Just after takeoff some of the navigation equipment in the cockpit would malfunction forcing the pilots to use paper maps and such in flight...This leads to so much..you know what I give up making a story...The answer is nothing ...you could have asked google"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc5R3qXblI4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
sfhjr | what exactly is the mechanism behind the corruption of the "nintendo" graphic on older game boy systems when the cartridge connection was poor? | Furthermore, do the various patterns mean anything specific? I seem to recall commonly getting identical patterns across different games if they hadn't been played in a while.
An ELI21 is fine too. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sfhjr/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_mechanism_behind_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4dov06"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, the image is transmitted by bits of code that if there's not a proper electrical connection for the game cartrigdge, some bits make it and some don't. Leaving gaps/corruptions in the data stream to show the image.\n\nNewer consoles have a bios, but still read data similarly from disks, memory, or other methods."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3upnkp | if british police don't carry guns, what do they do when facing a criminal with a gun? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3upnkp/eli5_if_british_police_dont_carry_guns_what_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxgqela",
"cxgqmmd",
"cxgrgrh",
"cxgrnni",
"cxgrqe4",
"cxgsky9",
"cxgsnu0"
],
"score": [
54,
36,
3,
7,
21,
4,
13
],
"text": [
"When a suspect has a gun the units that are armed with firearms are the police that are sent, not your standard beat cop. If a beat cop stumbles on the situation they would call for backup and observe the situation and try and diffuse it they have to in order to protect civilians. ",
"Its rare, but there are armed response units which will be called to a scene where a gun is suspected or has been seen.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Is there a reason why they don't carry guns? I don't know if it's working for them but doesn't sound like a good idea to wait for backup when dealing with an armed maniac ",
"In Norway the general rule is that police don't carry guns - just like in the UK. (Since last year there has been a temporary gun- carriage due to terror- threats, but this is not the normal situation). Anyway our cops have guns locked up inside their cars and can assert the situation and call up on the radio to get permission to use the guns. If they are on their way to a call and the nature of the call demand weapons, they arm themselves. In addition, we have SWAT teams. ",
"Contain and attempt to de-escalate the situation until the firearms team arrive.\n\nThough its fairly rare, if you want a black market firearm in the UK they are difficult enough to get your hands on that criminals [have to rent them](_URL_0_)\n\nSo most illegal firearms dealers will only supply to someone they trust to return the weapon and not draw to much attention to themselves. this seems to be mostly drive by hits against rival gangs with the same firearm sometimes been used alternately by both sides in a turf war (there are on average about 40 murders using a firearm a year in the UK).\n\nAs a result when a shooting happens most of the time the perpetrator will have already left before the police arrive.",
"Have you seen this video of two British police taken down a man with a knife using pepper spray? - [link](_URL_0_)\n\nThat man would have been shot and killed in America, I guess they're just trained 'better' instead of just told to murder people.",
"It's worth mentioning that whenever they're polled on the issue, rank and file police officers in Britain always vote extremely strongly **against** being routinely armed with firearms.\n\nAlthough this sounds counter-intuitive, the answer lies when you look at the UK police roll of honour, which comemmorates police officers who have died in the line of duty. This year in the entire country there have been only [three police officers who died](_URL_0_) while on duty, none of them from firearms. [2014 also had three deaths](_URL_1_), again none firearm-related. In fact you have to go back to [2012](_URL_3_) before you find any British police officers killed by guns, and that was [two female officers who were lured to an address](_URL_2_) by a known criminal who had the express intention of killing police officers.\n\nThe police themselves take the view that if they were to be routinely armed, so would criminals, and therefore their job would become infinitely more dangerous."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_unit"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242287/Gun-shortages-forcing-rival-gangs-rent-weapons-middlemen.html"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpYBV34pec"
],
[
"http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?pag... | ||
cw17my | why does opening your eyes underwater dry them out? | Shouldn’t water have the opposite effect or am I missing something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cw17my/eli5_why_does_opening_your_eyes_underwater_dry/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey7oqlr",
"ey7oxpk"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"It is not that they are drying out. It is that they are getting irritated by material dissolved in the body of water.",
"The liquid in your eyes is called \"Lacrimal fluid\". when you open your eyes under water it is washed away. Although you may have water in your eyes the natural fluid that is normally present is no longer there. This is why your eyes feel discomfort. Much like washing natural oils out of your hair can dry your scalp."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
20egv1 | measles have reapeared in the usa because of anti-vaccination movements. why should i care if i'm vaccinated, aren't i protected from it? | I'm vaccinated, the vaccine is supposed to keep me safe from the measles virus. Aren't only unvaccinated people at risk?
EDIT: Thanks everybody for the replies, I posted this in a hurry while finishing work, here's a link about the article that prompted me to ask [Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers. You Just Brought Back Measles in NYC] (_URL_0_)
EDIT2: I meant the question as "How does this affect people that are willing to be vacinated/have been vaccinated, not just me", a lot of you are commenting to tell me how selfish it sounds | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20egv1/eli5_measles_have_reapeared_in_the_usa_because_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg2fbw2",
"cg2ff1t",
"cg2fs55",
"cg2fvq9",
"cg2gryg",
"cg2hims",
"cg2i3hk",
"cg2i43f",
"cg2ie0v",
"cg2ip3u",
"cg2itbp",
"cg2iy42",
"cg2j2fd",
"cg2j8qt",
"cg2jdpv",
"cg2je8u",
"cg2jeet",
"cg2jn2p",
"cg2jn3u",
"cg2k859",
"cg2k8kw",
"cg2ku96",
"cg2l1ol",
"cg2l5gn",
"cg2lrre",
"cg2lsto",
"cg2lynt",
"cg2m0sg",
"cg2m5ur",
"cg2mhd1",
"cg2mn0f",
"cg2mtke",
"cg2n2pw",
"cg2n7zp",
"cg2n90y",
"cg2nm1k",
"cg2nz7r",
"cg2o2dz",
"cg2o37b",
"cg2obhw",
"cg2ol0j",
"cg2otpc",
"cg2p0mz",
"cg2pk9r",
"cg2q8f1",
"cg2qaau",
"cg2qzwp",
"cg2rihm",
"cg2sxgt",
"cg2t3u1",
"cg2u40q",
"cg2ul6y",
"cg2ut9x",
"cg2vb1i",
"cg2vt6e",
"cg2vw4a",
"cg2vyeo",
"cg2wacm",
"cg2wcaq",
"cg2xeyc",
"cg2xmrj",
"cg2xwvr",
"cg2y751",
"cg2yaim",
"cg2z93k",
"cg2zcg3",
"cg2zxd7",
"cg314al",
"cg31oo1",
"cg31tyr",
"cg322bb",
"cg323yo",
"cg32o82",
"cg33b09",
"cg33u9f",
"cg34cq1",
"cg34fwc",
"cg34rbf",
"cg34tmh",
"cg35a8h",
"cg36bcg",
"cg38pyt",
"cg3t5ck"
],
"score": [
14,
201,
2515,
117,
2,
23,
5,
3,
78,
24,
20,
3,
692,
46,
3,
10,
7,
10,
5,
33,
6,
2,
2,
49,
18,
2,
6,
2,
9,
7,
2,
2,
2,
5,
27,
8,
2,
5,
31,
4,
9,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
5,
6,
2,
2,
4,
2,
12,
2,
2,
2,
3,
15,
3,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
4,
12,
3,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, you're safe if you are vaccinated. However, not all unvaccinated people chose to be. Some people can't get vaccinated for whatever reason (medical conditions, etc.). That's why getting vaccinated is important; if fewer people, in general, can get infected, then the vulnerable people who can't get vaccinated are less likely to catch that infection/disease from someone else, keeping them healthier.",
"Maybe. While vaccination is very effective, it is not 100%. Some persons who receive the vaccine won't become immune - for some reason, the body does not produce antibodies for the disease.\n\nIf almost everyone was vaccinated, this wouldn't be an issue - the chances of that rare someone who was not immune coming into contact with someone with the disease would be extremely low if everyone has been vaccinated. But with so many persons refusing to be vaccinated, it becomes important.",
"1. The vaccine isn't always 100% effective, and it's possible (though rare) for the vaccine to not work properly for some people.\n\n2. Many people can't be vaccinated (allergy to the materials in the vaccination, compromised immune systems, too young to be vaccinated, etc.), and those at-risk groups rely on everyone else being vaccinated to protect them.",
"You should also care because it's a lot more expensive to provide medical attention for someone with measles than it is to get vaccinated. We are all footing the bill. ",
"I saw this one video (can't remember where) but some people can't get immunized due to various factors such as allergies. \n\nTo prevent these people from getting said disease, they rely on everyone else to be immunized and not have the disease.\n\nAlso, immunizations only last a few years I believe, although I think some last up to 10 years so....",
"Even if you were vaccinated for the measles as a child, you may very well be at risk as an adult because **[vacines wear off over time](_URL_0_).** That's why it's recommended to get a tetanus shot roughly every 10 years to keep your immunity up. Herd immunity *used* to be good enough to protect adults from possible resurgences of things like the measles, but we're now having to re-think that.",
"People can still pass it on. If your unlucky like me a few years ago someone passed the mumps onto me even though i had the immunization for it. I spend two weeks in pain due to that. I'm just lucky that it wasn't as bad as it could have been. ",
"I'ts called herd immunity, and its very imoprtant to maintain it.",
"How about caring for the sake of the children whose parents refuse to have vaccinated? They didn't ask to be brought into this world, nor is it generally their choice to not be vaccinated. Why should they suffer based on the ignorance of their parents?",
"Are there statistics available to show a direct proportional correlation between anti-vaccination adherents and an outbreak of a particular illness? Or is it possible there are other factors that might explain this resurgence? ",
"And by unvaccinated people tiny babies are in that list. Children too young to be vaccinated are at risk because of the bad choice of others. If either of my children got measles because some anti-vacc movement I would be murderous. It is negligent of the government to not require vaccines for being in public. You don't want the benefits of medical science go live in a mud hut some where else.",
"Babies aren't vaccinated right away when they are born. You could worry that some dummy will be the reason your baby gets very sick or worse. As a father of a two year old girl (and another kiddo on the way), this thought makes me furious.",
"Because my baby can't get the vaccination until she's 12 months old.",
"There is also the fact that some people can't get vaccines (I have a friend who has had a kidney transplant who could get severely ill if she got a vaccine since her immune system is compromised). If everyone around her is vaccinated, this puts her under a lot less of a risk of catching something like measles (or polio, or the whooping cough, etc), if they're not vaccinated, and are a carrier or sick with a disease and don't know it yet, they could infect and possibly kill her because her body is already weakened from her kidney transplant. People that are vaccinating themselves are also keeping people like her safe as well. ",
"Why can't you eradicate a disease? ",
"What's your source on your comment \"because of the anti-vaccination movements\"?\n\n",
"Say the herd immunity threshold for measles is 95%, and the vaccine is 98% effective. That is, of 100 vaccinated people who are exposed, only 2 will get it. (I made that number up.) If 100 people get vaccinated, only 2 are susceptible and thus an epidemic will fizzle out. But if 5 refuse the vaccine (crazy anti-vaccers + those with legit medical reasons + those who can't be bothered), now we're below the threshold and most if not all the unprotected people will get measles.\n\nAnd of those 7 people who get the measles, a significant chunk --2 --*did* get vaccinated. ",
"What the hell is wrong with people that they reject vaccines? \n\nIt's not only endangering yourself (or your children) but also others, for example babies that can not have the vaccine yet, suddenly people around them start having diseases. \n\nAlso why don't the doctors notice that someone hasn't had his vaccines on checkups and educate people? ",
"Because even if you were pro-vaccination, there's a period of time before your children would be old enough to be vaccinated, so if the virus is rampant in the community those least prepared to deal with it have a high chance of infection/death (due to the super weak immune system). ",
"True story. My grown son, when he was 12 months old, developed measles. Immunizations for measles are not given until 18 months. All of our family had Always had their shots, so I have no idea Where he picked it up. This was in 1984.\n Well I was very lucky, as I KNEW he was not well, glassy eyes, fever, rash and I had an excellent long time family doctor. And even SHE called in another doctor to verify her diagnosis. They immediately gave him a gamma globulin shot (to this day not sure what that does!) but I had to keep him indoors, out of direct light and treat that fever.\n\n Children, many children, used to get very ill and die from the measles. There are two main reasons these diseases are re-rearing their ugly heads, and yes one is the anti-vaccination movement, a whole generation who has never SEEN any kid die from the diseases to they are unaware of the risks. and two, immigrant families who may not have had access to vaccines, have not gotten them yet, don't know to get them. It's not really Required til they start school y'see.\n\nIn the so -called 'olden days' the Public Health Dept still used a lot of pamphlets, posters, educational material to teach parents why innoculations were so important.\n\nNow we've got the generation who has never seen any kid with any of these diseases, suffer, and/or die. Education helps. Spread the word.\n\nI THINK, one gets boosters at age 11 and perhaps high school? It's been awhile, but vaccines are a miracle of the generation past. I HAD all those diseases and so did my sibs. They are very unpleasant, and yes, can Kill!\n",
"Here's the concept.\n\nImmunize everyone who is able. Let's call it 95%. This excludes those who can't because of age, or allergy. That means that only 5% of the people who are wandering around can actually get the disease.\n\nIf they somehow contract it, their likelihood of spreading it is significantly reduced. Using a pool of 100 people, there would only be 4 other people who \"could\" get it. Everyone else is \"immune.\" \n\nBasically, most people are immune from the get go, which prevents an initial outbreak, and even if there was an outbreak, it is drastically reduced in size, because most people are immune.\n\nWe don't have small pox, because people are immune. We generally don't have Measles, Mumps, or Rubella, because we had MMR shots. The current generation got Chicken pox shots, which is giving people herd immunity to that and Shingles. Polio? When was the last time you heard of someone getting polio? \n\nVaccines, and Herd immunity is awesome. \n\n",
"Vaccines don't work on all people, but if everybody is vaccinated it is enough to wipe out the disease so we are ALL safe.",
"Virulence. MMR vaccine is 88% effective, and has a set infectious amount of days. If population of X% is 88% immune, how many Y% of non-vaccinated people do you need to infect the populace? That is the question.\n\nSo normally, you'd be safe because in a standard population where everyone is 88% immune, there will be no virulence.\n\nBecause 88% resistance in reality means much more - diseases cant just enter your body willy nilly. There is barriers. Licking a person with measles, wont guarantee infection you see. But in a scenario where it would a vaccinated person would resist it 88 attempts out of 100. \n\nWhich means, that when vaccine is introduced in a populace, that due to the lesser virulence, it will eventually die out. As it did in the developed world. But now it's back as we 1) Travel more. 2) Have anti vaccine people to such a degree that it allows virulence high enough to matter.",
"So a couple of things. \n\n1) measles has never been eradicated (it's not smallpox) so there have always been people in the US and abroad getting measles each and every year. _URL_1_\n\n2) As the above article explains, about 28% of the people who contract measles in the US each year have traveled abroad and contracted it overseas and brought it back with them. The strain of measles contained in the vaccination does not necessarily match ALL strains of measles virus in the world and so it does not offer universal protection. \n\n3) Vaccines protect you for only a certain period of time. And even then they are not 100% effective and many people in this country who THINK they are protected because they have had vaccinations in the past as children, are no longer carrying sufficient titers to protect them as adults. This is one of the main problems with the theory of herd immunity because when the baby boomers received their vaccines, they were told they'd be good for life. When 30-somethings like myself received vaccines as kids we were told they'd be good until we got to adulthood and then maybe we'd need a booster. Now there is plenty of evidence that most vaccines' protection wears off after 10-15 years. So if you look at yourself, your friends, your parents, your kids' teachers, etc. you'll likely find a whole lot of adults who have not had a vaccine in recent memory and have no idea if they're still 'current' on their vaccinations. \n\n4) Vaccines more than likely protect only those who receive them. You being vaccinated does not make you less likely to transmit the diseases you are vaccinated against should you happen to get exposed yourself. Here is a very well done study regarding the DaTP (Diptheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis) vaccine in baboons which demonstrated that vaccinated baboons DID contract, harbor, and transmit the Pertussis bacterium DESPITE showing NO SYMPTOMS themselves. So the monkey didn't get sick or have any signs of infection, but was in fact infected and capable of infecting others. _URL_0_\n\nSo. TLDR: vaccines can help prevent many illnesses and diseases but people (mostly vaccinated people I might add) in the US continue to contract it in small numbers every year. Vaccines do not protect you forever, or against all strains of viruses, and most likely do not prevent vaccinated individuals from spreading the very same diseases they, themselves, are protected against. \n\nEDIT: thanks for the gold kind stranger! Now I'll have to figure out what I'm supposed to do with it:) ",
"You should care about the well-being of all people, not only yourself.\n\nFirst time I actually answered as if talking to a 5 year-old. *insert success baby*",
"Herd immunity is like lining up politely for something. One or two people might butt into the line, but the more people that do it, the less it is a line rather than a shoving match. \n\nWhy should you care? As others mentioned, some people can't tolerate the vaccine or are too young. Also, money spent on (preventable) disease treatment subtracts from that which could be spent on better things. People without health care are going to cost the taxpayer.",
"You should care because of those fucking idiotic anti-vax douchebags running around promoting a fear-based, psuedoscientific agenda to impressionable young parents and the general public... You really should be more worried about these morons. They shouldn't be having kids. They should be vaccinated against life.",
"What are the chances of it mutating and the vaccinations becoming ineffective?",
"I am highly allergic to the meningitis vaccine so all these stupid people who aren't getting vaccinated hurt people like me and a bunch of my family who are also allergic.",
"I was vaccinated and my kids will be in the future but I can see why some people are sceptical, the majority of us don't understand what these vaccines are or what they contain and what effect they have on the body, couple that with corrupt government constantly and systematically lying to the electorate and your going to find people are naturally going to be cautious.",
"People all start out unvaccinated. Rubella, aka German Measles is particularly nasty in utero and can cause hearing loss, heart damage and brain damage depending on when a pregnant women is exposed. The window before kids cannot be vaccinated extends back before they are born and infections can be even worse in utero when organs are busy forming. ",
"Some people (like myself) lose immunity over time (blood tests when I was 18 showed I was immune but ten years later they showed I wasn't). So unless I get a booster shot, I'm vulnerable to infection from measles. Also kids/babies who aren't yet vaccinated are susceptible and some people can't get vaccinated for medical reasons and they depend on herd immunity for protection. If enough people in the \"herd\" don't get vaccinated, it puts more people at risk.",
"Hey guys, Nanny here.\nI currently work with a child in the spectrum, and his typically developing sibling.\nAutistic child is 6, and partially vaccinated. He was diagnosed at 18 months.\nI asked Tina (mom) a few weeks ago if her children were immunized against measles (shes a professor at UC Berkeley, and takes BART in the am, potentially being exposed to measeles, as she was in the same train as the unvaccinated Filipino with measles)\nShe replied \"No, well Niko is partially immunized, Dominiki isn't, but look! She survived until her 2nd birthday, and hopefully longer\" this coming from a Grad. Engineer Professor.\n\nWhat the what. Damn Religion and Jenny McCarthy",
"The virus can mutate in ways inside of other people that would cause the vaccines to become ineffective.",
"My GF was vaccinated against whooping cough. \nWell guess what she got 2 years ago... Whooping Cough.\n\nShe coughed a rib apart. \n\nFeeling secure is not enough. \nHerd immunity is still necessary. ",
"If you have kids, they can't be vaccinated for some things until a certain age. If everyone is vaccinated, they have some protection from exposure. If other people are carrying it, kids too young to be vaccinated will be the most vulnerable group.\n\nThis is why avoiding vaccination makes people so mad. One persons' fearful ignorance puts other kids lives at actual risk.",
"I found this article interesting. _URL_0_\nThe church advised its members to avoid immunizations and now have an outbreak among its members.",
"Mutation.\n\n* Once a person/host contracts a virus it has an opportunity to mutate and then be passed onto a new host (pathogen transmission ie. coughing, sneezing, touching). The more the disease spreads, the more it has an opportunity to mutate, becoming a modified or new strain. Examples: Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B etc.\n\n* The new host contains a mutated/modified strain which may then not be recognized by the population that was vaccinated (their immune systems). \n\n* A vaccine works by helping the immune system learn how to kill the virus. \n\n* If the virus mutates (1) and is then passed (2) the immune system of the new host may not be able to recognize it as it was trained to do by receiving the vaccine (where new host was previously vaccinated against original virus, not the mutated one). And thus, the new virus can potentially kill the host even if he/she was vaccinated. The new strain can do damage because the hosts immune system cannot see it. It only knows how to kill the virus it was trained to kill through the vaccine the host received. (eg. I've been trained to see A, so I can kill A. I cannot see B, so I cannot kill B).\n\n* A great example of this is the common Flu (Influenza). It mutates every year. So that is why there is always a call to get a flu shot. It is transmitted easily, and has many more opportunities to mutate. So it mutates often. If you receive a flu shot, you are vaccinated against that seasons flu variant. It means you are less likely to carry the virus and pass it on, giving it a chance to further mutate.\n",
"How do Vaccines Cause Autism..\n\n_URL_0_\n\n[Relevant - Please Up Vote.] ",
"Do you plan to have children? They aren't born immunized and the first dose is at 12 months. Young children are protected by herd immunity until they get the vaccine. If people choose not vaccinate they are relying on you and everyone else to protect them and their children. If they get exposed then they are a threat to your children. \n\n",
"I was vaccinated as a kid and before I entered college I had to have a booster for the MMR vaccine. Two years later though I got the Mumps. It was horrible. I had a high fever and my face and neck swelled like a balloon which was very painful. I went to the ER and the doctor (she was young) didn't even know what the symptoms were and had to look them up on the computer. Still, even though I had all the symptoms she wasn't convinced and gave me antibiotics and sent me on my way. I visited my doctor the next day and he confirmed that I did have the Mumps. I had to basically stay in my room for over a week since my parents were never vaccinated. Needless to say sometimes the vaccines don't work or you lose immunity over the years. I now have my immunity levels checked ever so often since I'm still in school and definitely do not want to catch any other of those viruses. ",
"Vaccines aren't a 100% thing, and of course they don't last for an infinite amount of time. Some people's immune system (those with HIV and AIDS) may have trouble working with these small vaccines and may get sick from even a small dosage of that disease. While that sometimes is OK, their systems still may not immunize to it properly.\n\nSorry for posting after solved, but I wanted to add a bit more. ",
"You should care because your neighbors might be stupid enough to not vaccinate their children. ",
"... How does the author know that this new outbreak is the result of \"anti-vaccination\" movements. Restate: how does Mr. Russel Sanders writer for The Daily Beast and pediatrician know that this new appearance of the measles virus is a result of people refusing to vaccinate? Does he have records backing this up?\n\nThis article is complete opinion with absolutely no scientific data to back it up. Absolutely none. \n\nI personally believe that the vaccine is worthwhile and will make sure that any kids of mine have the vaccine, but there is nothing in this article that supports the argument that the author is making. He's just stating an opinion and claiming that because the disease has resurfaced he has proof positive that the anti-vaccine movements are to blame.",
"You shouldn't be concerned with it in regards to your own health; it's more of an ethical issue. While all of us who are vaccinated are safe, it is still deeply troubling that this movement exists and that countless children are being put at such an unnecessary but serious risk. ",
"ELI5: how is this quote from the article statistically relevant to what the author is trying to prove? \n\n > \"Over a dozen people around Los Angeles have been diagnosed with measles already this year, nearly half of them intentionally unvaccinated.\" \n\nSo over half either had the vaccine and got sick, or they are unintentionally unvaccinated? Why did these people get sick? \n",
"Because it is important to care also about other people.",
"Immunity doesnt mean what you think it means. Its not absolute. Kids with compromised immune systems can still get measles even if theyve been vaccinated. Hospitals and waiting rooms are common places where people get sick because thats where youll discover both infectious diseases AND delicate immune systems. Its a recipe for disaster.\n\nIn my experience, many antivaxxers are mothers with autistic children. I guess through denial they find meaning and purpose in their lives. They need someone to blame, someone to hold responsible, a reason to wake up in the morning. No mother wants her child to be born autistic. But it happens, and often without rhyme or reason. And thats the sad cruelty of nature. So while theyre wrong, both scientifically and ethically, I understand why they think the way they do. ",
"My daughter is a population that while vaccinated would still be at great risk. \n\nAt age 2 she was so chronically and severely I'll that she had to undergo immunology testing. \n\nShe came back as having an autoimmune disorder. Auto means for some reason the body is attacking itself unlike acquired where you get it from someone else. \n\nHer diagnosis was hypogammaglobulinenmia I am sure I spelled that wrong. Basically she had little to no antibodies to things she had previously had been vaccinated for. Also things she had been diagnosised with while hospitalized by lab tests did not show antibodies. \n\nFor her, we had to revaccinate her which had to be done over time as if we did them all at once we risked making her serriously ill. She was also put on profolatic antibiotic treatment. Meaning she took antibiotics daily for a really long time (more then a year) even having done all that she was a sickly child. \n\nShe is 24 now and still ends up hospitalized at least once a year. Usually pneumonia that gets so out of control she needs 7 to 10 days of IV antibiotics along with respiratory therapy treatments. \n\nSo for someone like he coming in contact with an illness like measles could be deadly. \n\nThere are people out there who could me immuno compromised like her and be unaware they are \n\nAlso it seems that in the last 10 years or so colleges have wanted students to repeat the mmr vaccine as its protection begins to wear off. ",
"People travel. Some country doesn't have vaccination program and cost money to do. A person may pick up the virus while traveling to other country. ",
"Where are the anti-vaxxers or anti-vaccination websites? I hear all about them but never met/seen one...",
"TL;DR Slightly related rant, get yo shots kids or you're a biological terrorist\n\nUnrelated to the question, BUT:\nWhat the fuck is wrong with people? I mean, I've known that people have been against vaccines for whatever reason for awhile now, and earlier on it was easier to understand; it was 'new' and essentially injecting a often devastating sometimes lethal pathogen directly into the body. But years, DECADES, of WIDE RANGE, LIVE HUMAN USAGE (Which, by the way, is what doctors and scientists do to ensure it's safe and effective, it's called testing then. Then again, there's holistic medicine people out there, but that's a different rant) which have yielded VERY few adverse results. Now with the measles vaccine (as well as some others), it's different cause people are allergic to some things in it. But it's more rare than common, so there is literally no reason not to. Scared of a tiny sliver of metal putting dead/functionally disabled cells into your body? How about being a willing vector of a virus that is (usually) TOTALLY preventable? Obviously some people are legitimately exempt, AND WHO RELY ON YOU TO BE VACCINATED so they don't die. You're essentially committing biological warfare! Okay, not really, but point implied: people could die because of you, like driving drunk, choosing to drink and drive is like choosing to not get vaccinated, someone could be hurt, be it you or someone else. Some people are afraid of the possibility of an adverse effect of it, but that probability is so low it hurts to be used as a fear argument. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it's as low as getting into a plane crash (although that does seem to be happening more and more...). For context, airports (well, air traffic and planes) are regulated by some of the highest expectations for a job, up there with doctors and engineers. Sure, some smucks get through, but the HUGE majority know what they're doing, and often have done it for HOURS before you ever fly in their first commercial flight. Anyways, the point is, there is almost NO reason to not get vaccinated. Of course, those that don't probably aren't that fit to survive, so I guess their helping out the greater good in a way. \nSorry if I offended anyone, I'm an asshole and fuck your feelings if you were offended, I don't care. Sue me ",
"There are 10^31 viruses on Earth, I'm vaccinated against 10 of them, so at least I got that going for me.",
"You'll start to care when you have a baby that isn't old enough to be vaccinated who catches it because of some idiot lunatic cunts fucking up the herd immunity in your area. \n\n\n",
"While the vaccine does provide protection from the disease, it does not work 100% of the time.",
"Isn't it the greater good to let those die who refuse to get vaccinated?",
"Been lurking for almost a year and never posted.....now I have something to ask though.\nIf those that don't get vaccinated or don't get their kids vaccinated are to blame for this, then why are the people who are getting sick the ones who have gotten the vaccine? To me it would make a lot more sense if those who never got the vaccine at least got sick...\nHere's what I read. \n_URL_0_ ",
"First of all, these kids are now suffering from a disease that their parents could easily have prevented if they had just had them vaccinated. Maybe someone can ELI5 how that isn't a form of child abuse.\n\nSecondly, because now this measles outbreak puts an additional strain on the healthcare system, which drives up costs for all of us. Parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids should have to pay a hefty additional fee on top of their health insurance premiums.",
" I have asthma and got whooping cough (pertussis) last year I am still feeling the effects today. I caught it off my son who picked it up from an unvaccinated kid at school. We were both vaccinated and I am glad of that because my son only suffered a very mild case but I was off work for a month and still find I hard to breath after climbing a set of stairs! I find it incredibly frustrating that my Heath and that of my children could be fatally effected by the uninformed fringe fanatics. \nI think this spells it right out \n_URL_0_\n\nWhy vaccinations are great! \n",
"herd mentality friend. less than 95% of the herd immunized, means it's useless. ",
"Errr.. because compassion?",
"[Allow Penn and Teller to explain](_URL_0_)",
"ELI5 : why can't \"Anti-Vaxxers\" stop being so stupid.",
"I have cousins that are Anti MMR. Would really like to know a decent way to convince them that people don't suffer from \"autistic states\" in some cases of the MMR vaccine without being reactionary or reductive.",
"Well, let's see. Do you have an infant who is too young for the vaccine? The baby is at greater risk if s/he gets a preventable childhood disease. Do you have a relative who is immunocompromised? My husband is diabetic; he almost died in the emergency room of pertussis. Of DTP fame. Also known as whooping cough. :/ \n\nI blame the generational disconnect. Infant mortality is such a foreign concept in the first world -- if more people had access to their (great?) grandparents and could hear the stories of the ravages/body counts wrought by polio/measles/scarlet fever, they would be lining up to get the vaccine.\n\nThanks, Andrew Wakefield! You are a disgrace to your former profession, and the reason for the vast majority of these outbreaks.\n",
"I have a young son and continually struggle with the question of what vaccinations to get and when. I don't trust the drug makers, I don't trust simplified science, I don't trust anecdotal evidence. It is difficult to evaluate risk vs benefit when neither are clear. What I am sure of us that he shouldn't get too many in one appointment so we stagger them and make extra appointments. The causes of autism remain mysterious. But I would rather have an autistic child then a dead one. So I vaccinate for the illnesses that I believe are are true threats. ",
"Herd immunity. That's why you should care.\n\nIf everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, then individuals with illnesses/immune deficiencies etc who can't get the immunization are protected. Also, babies who are too young to be immunized will be protected as well. If not? those people can die. \n\nIf people start opting out of vaccines just because, we could see things like polio epidemics again. \n\nIt's a matter of public responsibility. It's not enough to just look out for ourselves, we have to look out for each other.",
" > Aren't only unvaccinated people at risk?\n\nLargely. Other people have covered the health risks for you as a vaccinated persons. \n\nBut that still matters to you as a taxpayer and as a consumer of healthcare services. Because it's the same hospitals you would use, the same doctors you would see who now have to waste time helping people who were too stupid to do what they should have. \n\nIf kids (particularly kids) get sick from this it's you as a taxpayer on the hook for the bill if the parents cannot or will not pay for treatment. It's you as a person trying to sell a product or service that suffers if other countries start to restrict travel to or from the US because of this sort of thing. Just because you're vaccinated doesn't mean you can't be a carrier (of some diseases anyway) for a brief time, do you really want to end up in quarantine every time you travel? \n\n",
"ZOMBIES ARE COMING PEOPLE. ",
"Reading the comments on that news article actually made me angry. I try to resist the instinctual \"someone is wrong on the internet!\" reaction, but this pushes a button. And it's impossible to argue with anti-vaxxers! There's nothing to be gained. It's disheartening.",
"the vaccine has an efficacy of 70%, this is why mass immunisations are required, so that the 30% who don't get full immunity have little chance of encountering a carrier. measles is popping up in areas where herd immunity is down",
"The best way to think about it is this: your vaccination is a small dose of the virus that generates a moderate immune response that protects you from future small doses of the virus (through incidental contact). Your moderate immune response is enough to stamp out whatever little amount of virus is around in everyday living, and thus you remain disease-free.\n\nBut when someone who isn't vaccinated acts as an incubation chamber for the virus, they build up a very concentrated dose of the virus that overwhelms whatever small immunity your vaccine has given you, and thus you can become ill from their concentrated virus. This in turn puts others at risk and so on.\n\ntl;dr: you have a dilute immunity from vaccination which is prone to infection from a concentrated virus.",
"Smokers cannot smoke in public areas for second party health reasons. Those not vaccinated shouldn't be allowed in public areas for second party health reasons.",
"You should care because not everyone is vaccinated. Maybe your wife isn't vaccinated, or your mother, or your sister. You should care because your a human being, and you should care about your fellow human beings.",
"I have lost many acquaintances to this very debate. \"How can that many shots in that short of time be good\", they cry. \"Google baby with tetanus\", I reply. Seriously if I had to get poked a hundred times a year just so my daughter would not have any chance of getting sick from me I would roll up my damn sleeve and say let's do this. If she had to as well I would help keep her calm but, I would make sure she got every single shot. ",
"Jenny McCarthy is about as smart as a door knob. WHO'S WITH ME?!",
"It isn't just the folks who are against vaccinating that are causing the problem. It's also folks who have immigrated to this country without ever having received a vaccine for anything in their country of origin. If you look through the employee handbook for places that have a large number of (legal or illegal...it doesn't matter) immigrant employees, the employer tends to have a zero tolerance policy for illness. If they're at work w/a fever, rash, vomiting, etc., they are sent home immediately. Employers know how quickly these things can tear through a plant/office. TB is also becoming an issue in certain regions. It's not just the Jenny McCarthy followers who are messing with fire.",
"An individual being vaccinated against a virus does not necessarily have immunity to that virus. Some vaccines do provide high immunity but In general that is not how vaccines work. \n\nA general example\n\nA vaccine raises immunity to a virus slightly. If 95% a population agrees to a vaccine then all of them become slightly more resistant to the virus. Because of this slight increase in immunity to the virus the virus finds it hard to spread and maintain an infected population. Eventually with continuous vaccinations throughout the population the virus is unable to spread effectively and its infected population size dwindles and it dies out within the population. This is called herd immunity. It is important to maintain herd immunity as some people are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons. Some vaccines are almost useless when taken individually or below a certain percentage of the population. That is why measles are making a comeback in the U.S.\n\nHaving a vaccine does not necessarily make you immune to a virus.\n\nIn order for several of the vaccines to work they require that a certain proportion of the population takes the vaccine if not the vaccine is not effective.",
"I haven't seen an actual answer really in the top comments. So I assume it has not been given. \n\nViruses can mutate. They can only mutate in someone who can carry the disease, these are non vaccinated people. If the virus mutates in such a way in someone, that it becomes immune to vaccines, you have a new disease in the country with no effective barriers in terms of people who are immune to it. It can cause incredible damage if not deaths. \n\nSo everyone needs to vaccinate in order to protect the collective. People who don't vaccinate are an effective source of harm. \n\nIf you're more in IT; would you like to accept files from someone you know got a computer virus, thinking \"oh, my antivirus\" will block it? You'll likely want to pass on that with some common sense regardless. ",
"Is there actual evidence that the resurgence of the disease is due to anti-vaccination activists? I just don't feel that the article actually makes any strong case. I obviously agree that people should be vaccinated, but I just can't take statement attributing particular causation without some numbers. \n\nCitation for \"measles have reappeared *because of*\" anti-vaxxers? ",
"The State of Colorado has just passed a law requiring children to have all vaccinations prior to attending public school. No exemptions any more. ",
"1. Mutations - the longer the disease exists, the higher the chance it could mutate into a strand that we do not have a vaccine for.\n\n2. Your children/nephews/nieces/etc. cannot be vaccinated until a certain age. They will be at risk until that age because herd immunity no longer exists.",
"**Vaccine History and Effectiveness**\n\nVaccines are one of the greatest advances in the history of medicine, starting over 2000 years ago when the Chinese would administer the dried crust of small pox sores into the mucous membranes of the nostrils as a form of inoculation. This delivered a weakened version of the virus to the immune system, allowing a significant enough infection for immunity to develop without the considerable life threatening risk of a full blown infection. Treatment was 98% effective, but 2% still became disfigured and died as a result of treatment (Sears, 2012). The advent of more effective modern inoculation techniques eradicated of small pox worldwide, as well as reducing the number of polio and diptheria cases by 100%, 99% for rubella, mumps, measles, and H. influeza, and more than 90% for pertussis and hepatitis A within the United States (Anderson & May, 1985). Accordingly, vaccines have demonstrated themselves to be some of the most favorable disease prevention strategies. They are also one of the most cost-effective methods to control diseases. For example, when considering the direct medical costs and the in-direct time loss, there is an estimated saving of $80,000 through use of the pneumocccal conjugate vaccine (Davis, Zimmerman, Wheeler, and Freed, 2002). However, this great triumph for mankind has turned out to be a double edged sword.\n\n**Vaccination Effort Threats**\n\nThe massive reduction in the number of cases of these diseases has eliminated the majority of firsthand accounts of how horrible these diseases can be, making it difficult for parents to understand the magnitude of the threat these diseases pose. Without an adequate understanding of the threat, many parents have begun to minimize the importance of vaccinations for their child’s health. (Kennedy, Brown, and Gust, 2005). Instead they begin to focus on the generally unsubstantiated claims of adverse side affects spread by anti-vaccination campaigns, on-line websites, and books such as A Shot in the Dark (Wolfe, 2005). The suspected side effects range from autism, to neurological disorders and cancer. These are generally considered to be unsubstantiated because severe side-effects are so rare that they often cannot be measured to any statistic significance (Gangarosa et al, 1998). This is unlike the very real and proven risk of a life threatening and vaccine-preventable infection. For example, a study in Colorado determined that those unvaccinated are 22 times more likely to contract measles and 6 times more likely to contract pertussis (Smith & Barker, 2004). This ends up posing a threat not only to the unvaccinated child, but also poses a significant threat to the vaccinated public at large (Park, 2008). This is because vaccines are not 100% effective, allowing any individual to have a small chance of infecting even protected individuals. Thus, the threat to the public is minimized once a critical threshold is met that minimizes the probability of contact between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. \n\n**Herd Immunity**\n\nOnce this threshold is met, it results in something called herd immunity. Herd immunity is the resilience of a population to a disease, and requires approximately 95% of the population to be protected against a disease (Cockman, 2011). Such a large majority is required because vaccines are not 100% effective, and a contagious individual may have the opportunity to contact expose hundreds of others to the disease. There is a risk of an epidemic if contact results in greater than one new infection. For example, a mathematical model reported that if the probability of contact from exemptors to nonexemptors increased from 20% to 60%, the incidence of acquiring measles increased from 5.5% to 30.8% within the population; this is more than double the linear effect. (Smith, 2004) The risk derived from not meeting the requirements for herd-immunity will disproportionately affect children below the vaccination age, the elderly, and the immuno-compromised such as those with HIV. Accordingly, since the 1980’s all 50 US states have enacted vaccine requirement laws for children entering school. However, there is a clause in 48 of the 50 state laws that allow a parent to opt-out for religious reasons (Gangarosa, 1998; Omer, 2006). This technicality is easily abused for non-religious reasons, and has allowed for a disturbing trend in the United States, where an increasing number of parents are opting out of vaccinating their children, citing conflict due to “religious reasons.” (Daniel Salmon, Johns Hopkins)\n\n**Sources:** \n\n-Alice Park. (2008, May 29). “How Safe Are Vaccines?” [Electronic version] Time. \nRetrieved from _URL_1_\n\n-Anderson, R. M., & May, R. M. (1985, November 28). Vaccination and herd immunity to \ninfectious diseases [Electronic version]. Nature, 318(1), 323-329.\nCenter of Disease Control. (2010). National Immunization Survey (NIS) – Children Only. \nRetrieved from _URL_0_.\n\n-Cockman, P. (2010, August 20). Improving MMR vaccination rates: herd immunity is a \nrealistic goal [Electronic version]. BMJ,343(1), 13-19. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5703 \n\n-Davis, M. M., Zimmerman, J. L., Wheeler, J. R., & Freed, G. L. (2002, December 5). \nChildhood Vaccine Purchase Costs in the Public Sector: Past Trends, Future Expectations [Electronic version]. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1982-1987.\n\n-Gangarosa, E. J., Galazka, A. M., Wolfe, C. R., Phillips, L. M., Gangarosa, R. E., Miller, \nE., & Chen, R. T. (1998, January 31). Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story [Electronic version]. The Lancet, 351, 356-361\n\n-Kennedy, A. M., Brown, C. J., & Gust, D. A. (2005, May 28). Vaccine Beliefs of Parents \nWho Oppose Compulsory Vaccinations [Electronic version]. Public Health \nReports, 120(3), 252-258.\n\n-Omer, S. B., Pan, W. K., Halsey, N. A., Stokley, S., Moulton, L. H., Navar, A. M., & \nPierce, M. (2006, October 11). Nonmedical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(14), 1757-1763.\n\n-Salmon, Daniel. Mandatory Immunization Laws and the Role of Medical, Religious and Philosophical Exemptions. (Unpublished commentary). Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland\n\n-Sears, Duane. (2012, Jan. 7) Introduction to Immunology. Immunobiology. Lecture \nconducted from University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.\n\n-Smith, P. J., Chu, S. Y., & Barker, L. E. (2004, July 3). Children Who Have Received No \nVaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live? [Electronic version]. Pediatrics, 114(1), 187-195. doi:10.1542/peds.114.1.187\n\n-Wolfe, R. M. (2005, February 28). Vaccine safety activists on the Internet [Electronic \nversion]. Future Drugs, 20(3), 240-24\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/thanks-anti-vaxxers-you-just-brought-back-measles-in-nyc.html"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/rec-vac/need-imz.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815247",
"http://www.cdc.gov/measles/outbreaks.html"
],
[],
... | |
1vhf6r | why are voter ids bad, but gun ownership permits good (us-centric)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vhf6r/eli5_why_are_voter_ids_bad_but_gun_ownership/ | {
"a_id": [
"cesa85p",
"cesanj2",
"cesdifn",
"cesgxd7"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Many people who oppose voter IDs also oppose gun ownership permits. You shouldn't presume that the terms of your question are fact.",
"[Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud](_URL_0_), not enough to change the outcome of a single election and only 0.00002% of votes cast.\n\n[The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.](_URL_1_) Many elections can be changed by 2% not showing up.",
"Showing and ID is nothing like being issued a permit. The idea is when the government decides it's going to confiscate all the guns in the country, all it has to do is look up in the database who has a gun permit. If it was just showing an ID to buy a gun, like showing an ID to vote, there wouldn't be a problem. \n\nThere already is something similar to voter ID with gun buying, in that you have to show ID and pass a background check to buy one. This is not the same as requiring permits since no record is kept of you having a gun. Personally I think voter ID is not needed. ",
"Voting is not only a right but something of a duty. Gun ownership is entirely optional. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376",
"http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
1xj59d | since blind spot mirrors have convex mirrors and thus see more of the road, why don't all cars have them as primary mirrors instead of the flat ones? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xj59d/eli5_since_blind_spot_mirrors_have_convex_mirrors/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfbsag7",
"cfbse8a",
"cfbvael"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Because they also distort the location (to a small extent) and the distance (to a much larger extent) of the objects reflected in them. In a way that a flat mirror does not. Meaning people would be more likely to pull out when there is simply not a safe distance between you and the object in the mirror to do so.\n\n",
"Check this out _URL_0_",
"The [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards](_URL_0_) in the US define the two main mirrors (outside door mirrors and central rearview mirror) as flat-plane mirrors with unit magnification. What this means is that the mirrors must be flat, and they must magnify everything they reflect by the same amount. Convex blind-spot mirrors do not comply with this standard. Passenger side mirrors are allowed to be convex, but their shape is limited to a very specific amount of curvature, and cannot be only partially convex (like all-encompassing blind spot mirrors are). Fun fact: this is why \"Objects in Mirror are Closer Than They Appear.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://gizmodo.com/5916670/this-driver+side-mirror-works-like-a-flat-disco-ball-to-completely-eliminate-blind-spots"
],
[
"http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.111"
]
] | ||
4npp4s | if mass shootings are a mental health issue which everyone uses an excuse. then why is free health care not a constitutional right. yet guns are ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4npp4s/eli5_if_mass_shootings_are_a_mental_health_issue/ | {
"a_id": [
"d45vgcs"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Pretty loaded question, but it's because presidential candidates have tried to get free health care as part of their campaign but citizens don't like more taxes (the 'free' has to be payed for by somebody)\n\nThe mass shooting issue is a combination of mental health issues and gun accessibility. If they're absolutely determined to carry out their plan and get declined through legal means there's always an illegal method of acquiring a gun, simply because there's a market for them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5ke7u5 | what is the current most accepted hypothesis of schizophrenia? | I was diagnosed with non-hallucinatory schizophrenia on February 2014. It is only referential delusions that put mush pressure on me so that I was led to be diagnosed. On the following 2 years, I recovered very steadily, and now my psychiatrists and I are confident that I have totally no positive symptoms.
After I got diagnosed with schizophrenia, I am often curious about what exactly is the cause of schizophrenia? After some googling, I found that it seems that there are still only hypotheses about the cause of schizophrenia, and no explicit mechanism is confirmed to be the cause.
**Question:** What is the current most accepted hypothesis of schizophrenia? (And why it is the most plausible?) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ke7u5/eli5_what_is_the_current_most_accepted_hypothesis/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbn9u74",
"dbnbji3",
"dbnhyh5",
"dbnngh9",
"dbnouca",
"dbo5u2c",
"dbo7sqk"
],
"score": [
34,
11,
7,
8,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"ELI5 gets many, many questions about mental disorders and what causes them. As you yourself note, this is not something we actually know. \n\nThere's not really an \"accepted\" hypothesis, and if you ask 10 psychiatrists what they think the most plausible one is, you're likely to get anywhere form 20-40 different answers. I would submit to you that asking about a \"popular\" hypothesis is not going to really give you any useful insight, as that is subject to change. It wasn't all *that* long ago that the \"common sense\" cause was \"your mother didn't love you enough\" (which we now know is absolute bunk). \n\nAs with many other disorders, we have tons and tons of correlations. High levels of dopamine, for example. But is that the cause, or is it a symptom? We don't know. We know there are usually larger lateral ventricles in the brain, but again, cause or symptom? No idea. \n\nThere's some correlation between your mother having the flu while pregnant. I think that's as close to \"cause\" as we can get. There are also a lot of genetic links, but then we get back to cause/symptom. \n\nAnd that's all just the purely biological side. \n\nI'm afraid that mental disorders are not something we fully understand yet. We diagnose based on symptoms and statistics, and we often know how to *treat* them successfully, but we haven't worked out causes quite yet. ",
"Schizophrenia has a genetic basis, but there isn't a direct one-to-one correlation between the genes themselves and the manifestation of the disorder. A common saying among geneticists is that genes \"load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger\", which is to say that someone born and raised in a stable environment may never manifest the symptoms despite carrying the genes. While other people with the same genes that are raised under situations of constant/prolonged stress will have their genes activated by chronic stressor hormones. The human brain is the most complex item in the known universe and we don't really know much about it at all. However, there is rarely a singular identifiable cause for conditions as complex and poorly understood as schizophrenia. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_",
"Genetics, biology, environment, life events (i.e. stressors). It's generally accepted that all in combination either cause or contribute to schizophrenia. However, it's also a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. For example, it's theorized that the illness is what may change neurotransmitters in the brain, not the other way around. It's also possible that something we've completely overlooked starts the reaction that leads to schizophrenia. Looking at OCD, it wasn't so long ago that PANDAS was weird science. Now people take it seriously. But PANDAS isn't the sole cause of OCD. It is one of many factors or vulnerabilities.\n\nBottom line? There is probably no one singular cause. Frankly, be wary of people who have an easy answer or quick fix.",
"First of all, not much is actually known about schizophrenia and because of this there is no one theory that scientists gravitate towards. We know that it's mostly genetic. We know what drugs seem to work. We don't know much more. I can however tell you about my favorite theory (I'm a clinical psychology student, but not much more than that. I read a paper on this a couple of years ago and I'm writing from memory. Also I'm not a native english speaker so I hope my grammar is ok).\n\nThe brain is built in a sort of hierarchy. The point of this is to make perception effective. For example, if you take vision, after light has entered your eyes the signals then go to a bunch of very specialized areas at the back of the brain. These areas \"code\" very simple aspects of a picture, a neuron here may say something like \"there's a tilted line towards the right side of the visual fields\". And there's a buch of neurons that respond to really really specific things like that in these low-level areas. These areas of the brain in turn send information to higher-level areas. These areas are slightly less specific, instead of representing lines they represent geometric shapes and curves and movement. Even higher areas respresent less specific and more abstract things until you get something like the invariant visual concept of a chair. The same thing happens for other senses too like hearing and touch.\n\nThe point of this hierarchy is to extract the most important information, and then send that information along to the frontal cortext that makes decisions and controls intentional behavior. But it's not just feed-forward from low-level areas of the brain to higher ones. Every area also sends information back to lower areas. This is information about what each area \"expects\" to see. For example, some lower-level visual areas may say say that they see lines in certain spaces. And these higher areas recieve that information and respond with \"given what you see, here's what I expect to see\". These expectations is what orders the whole process. For example see [this image](_URL_0_) . Even though there are no lines forming a proper triangle, it sort of \"feels\" like there's a triangle there. Neurons in low level visual areas only see the lines that are, the higher areas see the shapes that should be.\n\nIn schizophrenia [some scientists](_URL_1_) believe there is something wrong with this feedback process, especially at higher levels of the brain. Usually this hierarchy works as a filter that determines what's important for the frontal cortex to be aware of. When the top-down feedback gets weaker too much is being sent through. This results in the subjective experience that some things are somehow very \"significant\". It just feels that way. Meanwhile, the frontal parts of the brain are trying to do their job, which is making sense of the world. And since what feels important has become sort of jumbled up, that job has become a lot harder. The response is delusions. Maybe a newspaper on the table suddenly seems super important to your brain, and your brain thus figures that the most likely reason that it feels so important is that it's a secret message. In this theory delusions are a long term consequence of the distorted thinking that comes about when irrelevant stimuli in the environment suddenly feel relevant.\n\nIf you want to talk about specific biological mechanisms the theory is that the neurotransmitter dopamine is involved. Supposedly, dopamine is very important at the higher levels of this brain hierarchy. In schizophrenia the brain produces too much dopamine which leads to a general distruption of dopamine-related functions.",
"In the masters courses of the psychologist program there were many theories, but as mentioned in the comments, schizophrenia can be understood through a reverse neuroscientific perspective. First lets look at what is actually known about the brain:\n\n- Amygdala, the fear-centra\n- PFC, the prefrontal cortex, the integrating goal directing (motivation) centra\n- Thalamus, the relay station of perceptive functions\n- Neocortex, the regions responsible for sensorn input\n\nEtc..\n\nNow, we also know that dopamine receptor systems account for:\n\n- movement and motor functions\n- motivation and goal directed behaviour\n- integration with seretonin, adrenalin and noradrenalin pathways\n\nHence, the most plausible hypothesis of schizophrenia is that a neurobiological self-recycling chemical imbalance is causing too much and too little dopamine in certain areas and pathways of the brain:\n\n- too little in PFC = negative symtoms (withdrawal)\n- too much in limbic and other complex areas = seretonin and noradrenalin imbalances causing thalamus relay to lose focus = hallucinations because the brain can no longer differentiate internal sensory information from external = hearing thoughts as voices, or seeing things = positive symtoms.\n\nFurther the imbalances in neurochemistry causes the amygdala to activate too much = fear and paranoia.\n\nIt is the very same stuff that happens when a person is on drugs, only now in schizophrenia the imbalance is permanent and autoimmune\n\nThis hypothesis is supported by how neuroleptic medicine (dopamin antagonist) works in the brain.\n\nHowever, neuroleptica such as abilify or seroquel, can only help reduce dopamin. With to much suppression the patient will get motor dysfunction side effects (similar to Parkinson disease). It is a trade-off. The neuroleptica can however seldom help balance out negative symtoms, but scientists are working on that.",
"Along with neurotransmitters like the other posters pointed out, there seems to be slight [differences in the brain structure of people diagnosed with schizophrenia.](_URL_0_) The lateral ventricles are larger, and the cerebral cortex is smaller than in a normal brain. The temporal lobe is also smaller, and activation of pre-frontal areas of the brain is reduced, along with other things my link should cover. ",
"There isn't one, probably because it isn't one disease, more like a related cluster of diseases. \nAlthough it's treated in the way it's always been treated , by antagonizing the D2 receptor under the assumption that too much dopamine is causing the problem. And that model has had sucess in treating psychosis. Now although every medication for schizophrenia antagonizes D2 they also bind to a wide variety of serotonin receptors to treat some of the negative symptoms like depression. \n \nAn interesting study was done a year or two ago showing commonality of genetic material between those with autism, depression, bipolar, add, and schizophrenia with a strong relationship between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. So what people now call different illnesses have some relationship to each other.\n \nGenetic relationship between five psychiatric disorders estimated from genome-wide SNPs. Nature Genetics, August 11, 2013"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2014/schizophrenias-genetic-skyline-rising.shtml",
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2014/07/25/stronger-genetic-basis-for-schizophrenia-landmark-study-finds/#2bf67dd46a71",
"https://bbrfoundation.org/brain-matters-discoveries/new-insights-int... | |
7wkr5h | why do boiled eggs smell worse/go bad faster when you crack/de-shell them | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wkr5h/eli5_why_do_boiled_eggs_smell_worsego_bad_faster/ | {
"a_id": [
"du13o7n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Kinda hard to make it sound like a 5 year old would say it but...\n\nBoiling them allows the protein to break down releasing the mineral sulfur that is found within the make up of the egg.\n\nOnce the shell is cracked the sulfur gas releases into the air.\n\nAlso once the shell is cracked the air begins to break down the organic parts of the egg (everything). Much like fruit left out of a container.\n\nWhich is why most boiled eggs if not eaten right away are pickled. Slowing the decomposition process."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1t6dcw | why and how the value of bitcoins has gone down by 50%? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t6dcw/eli5_why_and_how_the_value_of_bitcoins_has_gone/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4rozi",
"ce4xk05"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I have no idea how bitcoins work, but I do know that the leading country in terms of economics refused to make transactions and to use bitcoins at all. Given the fact that Bitcouns are a global currency, when the chinese say they will not use it, everything crumbles.",
"Economist here.\n\nPart of a bitcoin's value lies in the different ways in which you can use it. China has no free exchange between its currency and foreign currencies. Bitcoins made it possible to circumvent this restriction which made them valuable because they had a unique use. Now that the Chinese are cracking down on the use of bitcoins, this use is lost and their value decreases. \n\nIf you want a comparison, it is like the governmetn deciding you can only use your mobile phone for text messages, and no longer for calls. This makes your mobile phone less valuable. It is the same for bitcoins. Note that the whole background on the exchange between Chinese and Foreign currencies is a bit more complicated, but that's no material for five year olds. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
262n43 | credit cards and why i "need" to build credit | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/262n43/eli5credit_cards_and_why_i_need_to_build_credit/ | {
"a_id": [
"chn1yo4",
"chn21al"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you ever plan on taking out a loan to buy a car or a house, you need to build credit (also known as improving your credit score) to show banks that you are trustworthy and able to repay debts. If you pay your credit card bill on time and regularly, they will trust you with more money at lower interest rates.\n\nIf you have a history of not paying the credit card bill on time or otherwise being untrustworthy, banks will be hesitant to lend you more money. In addition, they will charge you higher interest.",
"you need to build credit to successfully apply for loans and to get a more favorable interest rate on them. your credit report will also be pulled if you ever decide to rent an apartment. along with other factors like sufficient income, a good credit score will allow you to sign a lease without needing a cosigner to guarantee the rent will be paid.\n\nas for credit cards, you use them for purchases, and the credit company (visa, mastercard, etc) basically vouches for you to the seller. they ensure the seller will be paid for the goods/services and they offer you the ability to pay them back later, usually with interest charges added on. credit card companies also get to charge the seller for the privilege of accepting their card. when you make payments on time and aren't late, you demonstrate that you can be trusted to meet your financial obligations, and your credit score goes up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.