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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2yuqab | i've always wanted to try shrooms. can someone explain the pro's and con's and what i should look out for? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yuqab/eli5_ive_always_wanted_to_try_shrooms_can_someone/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpd4a2z",
"cpd4om6",
"cpd4rgh",
"cpd6a95",
"cpd77ha",
"cpd79nl",
"cpdc05b"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Just don't EVER allow anyone to step on your tail. ",
"They can be pretty fun. The rule with any psychedelic, I think, is to respect that they're mind altering substances and not to use them to get really fucked up. Have some kind of benzo with you just in case. Other than that have fun, you'll probably just giggle a lot and watch the walls breathe all night",
"I was not aware of my family history of mental illness when I did shrooms. I wish I had. ",
"Don't do it unless you want to. If you feel any pressure or anxiety you will have a bad trip. Try to do it in a controlled environment with friends and at least one of them not on in case they need to take care of you guys. ",
"First and foremost, it is a poison and your body will react to it in that way. You will throw up or shit or both. As other people have mentioned don't do it unless your mind is absolutely set. You have to want to do it, if not you will start to self doubt and have a bad time. The thing with psychedelics is that it's all in your head so you have to control it. That being said, I've had amazing times on it. My ideal conditions are: friends who have done it to trip with you, one sober person to control shit and dose everyone out, being outdoors on a nice day, good attitude, 8 hours to spare. ",
"Your minds gotta be right, or you might have a bad time.",
"PROS: It's super fun! \n\nIt's like experiencing the world in a whole new way, a bit like suddenly becoming a little kid again somehow\n\nMany/most people have deep spiritual experiences and/or look at themselves and others in new and fairly profound ways\n\nMusic can take you to other worlds\n\nIntricate patterns move and weave in crazy interesting ways, this is why tripping people will stare at ordinary objects in total fascination\n\nIt's a powerful bonding experience when you do it with close friends\n\nDespite how powerful it is there is little or no hangover or any rough coming down\n\nAlmost impossible to drug test for\n\nAs far as drugs go only pot is safer, no real damage or addiction potential unless you like trip balls and decide to run into traffic \n\n\n\nCONS: You will be pretty inebriated, you cannot drive, period. \n\nA trip is a trip and you can't get off the ride once you take the ticket, shroom trips last 3-7 hours on average, plan ahead\n\nYou will be very sensitive while tripping, a call from ex BF/GF, your conservative mom, some asshole putting on death metal on the stereo, can put you in a dark place (see tips below)\n\nYour body is not really meant to digest the chemicals in shrooms, some people get an upset stomach or straight up puke (see tips)\n\nYour sense of body perception will be off and you may have some (usually fleeting/temporary) mild feelings of bodily discomfort like you slept on a arm or leg funny, can't find a comfortable sitting position, or just a general fidgety-ness\n\nYour sense of reason/logic may be significantly effected depending on how much you take and may say or do something you later regret (not really much different or less control than being drunk though in this regard)\n\nMany people get really paranoid tripping in public, could be a buzzkill for you (see tips)\n\nYou may feel weird around people who aren't also tripping or at least won't know how to interact with them as you are experiencing the same moment very very differently\n\n\n\nSHROOM PRO TIPS: For first timers don't trip solo or in public unless it's like a music festival or concert or something, the best way to guarantee a good trip is to set up a controlled environment where you feel safe and comfortable and trip with a small group of close friends preferably with at least one person who has psychedelic experience. Tripping while camping is also incredibly epic. \n\n Do not go to a big alcohol-fueled party while tripping, it won't work you will want to leave almost immediately, the drunk vs. tripping mindset is just not compatible unless it's a very small group\n\n\nI can't emphasize this enough: TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES. Every bad trip I have ever seen involved a cell phone somehow. There are people who might call you who you do not want to talk to while tripping. Even friends who aren't tripping may decide to come on by and see the goofy shroomers and this almost always in my experience ends up being awkward/buzzkilley. Cell phone addicts will just play on their phones and not interact, someone will randomly decide it would be fun to talk to so and so and it'll be weird cuz so and so isn't tripping and/or turns out doesn't approve of tripping TURN OFF YOUR PHONE, DO IT , HIDE THAT SHIT, NOT JUST YOU BUT EVERYONE, NO PHONES, I'M CEREAL YOU GUYS\n\n\nMake a playlist of chill/happy/trippy/psychedelic music and have it playing at all times in the background, nothing sad or downbeat or too heavy, don't let the music stop!\n\nHave some activities ready before you dose, trippy movies, black lights, fingerpaints, glow sticks ( try snipping em and spraying the liquid everywhere somehwere outside or in a basement, it's non toxic and the effect is fucking beautiful magic while tripping), crazy bright clothes/halloween costumes, a bonfire, are all guaranteed winners for trippery\n\n\nIf you're worried about getting sick first of all don't eat shrooms on an empty stomach, you can also try brewing the shrooms into a tea, just like you would any loose leaf tea, it usually won't be as hard on your stomach but fair warning the tea trips come on much faster\n\n\nKeep in mind how the drugs work, after eating em you will start to feel the effects slowly anywhere from 20min-1.5hrs depending on how full your stomach is/your metabolism, you'll keep getting higher for the next 30min-1.5 hours, be at peak trip for about 2 hours, then slowly come down for another 2 hours or so\n\n\nIf you smoke weed a few solid tokes as you start coming down will usually bring you back up for a while\n\nIf you start feeling anxious go put on some headphones and a song you like, close your eyes and just focus on your breathing, you'll feel just fine in a few minutes\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
605e86 | how does google & youtube backup my files, videos, pictures and not deal with hard drives failing all the time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/605e86/eli5how_does_google_youtube_backup_my_files/ | {
"a_id": [
"df3ko14",
"df3kuit",
"df3l0v4"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"They have back ups for their back ups and, to the best of our knowledge, they *are* swapping out a million hard drives a year.",
"Let's say you have an array of 10 hard drives. The drives themselves aren't going to go bad on the same day. They happen one at a time. \n\nIf they have that array set up correctly, they'll be able to tolerate 3 or 4 failures before there is data loss. So as one fails, they just hot-swap in a new drive. Repeat as necessary.\n\nGoogle will have a bigger example than that, but that's the concept. They would have cabinets of disk that are redundant with other full cabinets of disk.",
"Hard drives are always failing. The drives are in arrays, your data is stored across multiple drives instead of just on one drive. Parity is used to reconstruct data when a drive in an array dies.\n\nFor an example of parity we can use addition. We know that 1+ 2 = 3. Let's say you erase one of the numbers so you have ? + 2 = 3. Even though we've erased one of the numbers we can calculate what the missing number is using our old friend Algebra.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1jqj9c | if testosterone steroids raise estrogen levels, shouldn't those using steroids take estrogen steroids? | I know that regular, testosterone, steroids can raise estrogen levels significantly. This causes things to happen like larger breasts and a smaller package. Would the reverse happen if we instead took estrogen steroids? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jqj9c/eli5_if_testosterone_steroids_raise_estrogen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbhak96"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"No. Testosterone raises estrogen levels as a testosterone metabolite (estradiol) is a form of estrogen/activates estrogen receptors. The opposite is not true, however, as estrogen/estrogen metabolites are not readily converted into testosterone. If testosterone is an egg, than estradiol cooked egg whites. No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to get a raw egg out of the cooked whites."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
a9n0jy | how do drywall anchors work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9n0jy/eli5_how_do_drywall_anchors_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"eckrdkq",
"ecl6ze9"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Different anchors work a bit differently. However the main concept is that when you put the fastener inn the anchor will expand so that it does not fit through the hole in the drywall any more. Some drywall anchors will expand as you put the fastener inn and some will first expand as you tighten the fastener in the anchor.",
"Drywall is made of a compressed chalk-like powder, basically, and thus if you screw something into that, it'll just come off if you pull it by hand. The point of an anchor is two-fold:\n\n* So that the screw \"bites\" into some hardened plastic, and thus stays screwed in.\n\n* To spread the weight of whatever you're hanging on the screw to a bigger area.\n\n[Tutorial Video](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yujfkuBszM4"
]
] | ||
1zo2dv | why does chewing gum not stick to my mouth/gums/teeth, but when i take it out it can make a catastrophic mess? | No matter how long you chew gum, it never disintegrates or begins to stick inside your mouth.
The second your finger or anything else touches it, it consumes it!
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zo2dv/eli5_why_does_chewing_gum_not_stick_to_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfvf3xo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you lick your fingers or get them wet before touching the gum, it doesn't stick as much. It doesn't stick to the inside of your mouth because of the layer of saliva preventing it from coming in to direct contact with the surfaces. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
20vich | why are elementary students first taught to use "x" for multiplication instead of "*" or parentheses as in higher math? when algebra is introduced "x" switches over to almost exclusively represent a variable. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20vich/eli5_why_are_elementary_students_first_taught_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg74neu",
"cg754t9",
"cg75t9m",
"cg75yg3",
"cg76967",
"cg7c8xd",
"cg7cadk",
"cg7ejp9",
"cg7eqfb",
"cg7ivkg"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
113,
2,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's easy to write.",
"Probably because multiplication is a basic operation taught to a lot of people long before they are (if ever) taught higher math. In reality 95% of people really don't do higher level math after they graduate from school and don't need to. Same reason no one uses a division sign. I'm an engineer and I can't remember the last time I used a division sign.",
"My guess is it's just easier to write. In my experience, symbols change with different math classes while still representing the same operation. Examples dy/dx= y'=ẏ. The first two are more common in pure math classes while the third is more common with physicists for spatial systems. Another example would be in electrical engineering to use j to representing the imaginary number as i is more commonly used for current. ",
"The distinction between × and • is irrelevant in elementary school. Once you start getting into middle school and high school, teachers start teaching you to use • and () to break you of the habit as the distinction becomes important.\n\nSo why teach × in elementary school?\n\nThink about the other symbols in basic math.\n\nYou first learn addition and subtraction.\n\n +\n -\n\nLook similar, no? Subtraction is just missing the vertical line.\n\nLater, you learn multiplication and division.\n\n ×\n ÷\n\nThey all look similar, no?\n\nMore than that, × is just + on its side, and with both you're making numbers bigger and through similar fashion (remember, we're talking about introduction level here!). Think about how you're taught multiplication:\n\n 3×1 = 3\n 3×2 = 3+3\n 3×3 = 3+3+3\n 3×4 = 3+3+3+3\n\nBasically, it's just easier for elementary students to grasp onto and the distinction isn't important until later in life.\n\nEDIT -- I get the complaints, but this is one of those things where there can be multiple correct answers as people can have varying reasons for choosing this method of teaching. I am simply repeating the answer I was given when I had asked this question back when I was in school, and it makes sense to me. I was not discussing the history or reasoning behind having × in the first place where there is only one correct response. Its use has been controversial since its inception ([Source](_URL_0_)), but for one reason or another (as I said, there can be more than one reason), it has continued to be a popular way to write multiplication.\n\nMultiplication can be written a variety of ways.\n\n 3×1 = 3\n 3•1 = 3\n 3(1) = 3\n 3*1 = 3\n\nYes, the × can be confused with x and X. But it's possible the • might be confused with a decimal in countries that write 1,000.00 instead of 1.000,00 depending on the writer's legibility or the font used. The * is primarily used only with computers. And (personal opinion with this) 3(1) would be trickier to learn as it's not a single symbol. Plus, when you start learning algebra, you're more likely to use 3x instead of 3(x), as parenthesis is generally reserved for clarification about the order the algorithm needs to be solved, such as 3(x+1).",
"When I was in first grade my teacher taught us that multiplying numbers you used a dot in between them. She was an amazing teacher, got me started on my love of numbers. However, in later years we completely ditched the dot and used x's...I didn't get an explanation until 6th grade haha",
"Living in Scotland I have never encountered this problem. We were taught to write the algebraic x differently, so its a bit curvy at the sides (like c and a backwards c back to back almost)",
"With my 4 children I could see the issue particularly in my two boys. I think it fair to say boys in general have poorer handwriting. My youngest sons periods are BIG circles(he's left handed and having much tougher time with handwriting than my three righties). I could see with younger kids how periods, decimals, and multiplication dots could become a problem.\n\nBUT, I also think it easier for young minds to learn right the first time. Science tells us the younger the mind the easier the learning. ",
"I think it's historically the character used. _URL_0_",
"Being an old fart and living before calculators, it's because of calculators that we use the \"•\" (pretend it is an asterisk). Back in the slide rule day, we used \"x\". When calculators came out in the 70s, we switched to the \"•\".\n\nHistory for you youngins: Back in 1973, the first HP calculators were introduced at the college I attended. They were $500 back then which was incredibly expensive, used reverse polish notation. They bolted two of them to a physics lab bench and we had to book time to use them.\n\nA typical math problem would be done long hand and cover 2 or 3 pages. Then you would redo the problem, if both answers matched, you were good. If they didn't, you would start over and do the problem again. So one math problem could take 9 pages to do and verify or more.\n\nEdit: reddit didn't like the asterisk symbol so had to cut and past in a • instead.\n2nd edit: Strange that reddit didn't like the first \"*\" but did like the second \"*\". so I copied and pasted the second \"*\" to the first.\n3rd edit: now it doesn't like any \"*\", seems to interpret it as a hidden italic command. So back to the •",
"Jesus its not like a 7th grader can't comprehend that a symbol can represent two different things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=bBoPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA157&dq=inauthor:cajori+william-oughtred+multiplication&hl=en#v=onepage&q=inauthor%3Acajori%20william-oughtred%20multiplication&f=false"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_why_is_x_the_un... | ||
4n3db8 | why are laptops with ssds always so space constrained? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4n3db8/eli5why_are_laptops_with_ssds_always_so_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"d40ht4m",
"d40i5s1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > Like is there a downside to these phone storage options I don't know about like insufficient speed or read/write limits\n\nThat's *exactly* the difference. SSDs are far faster & more durable than the storage in a phone or on an SD card. This makes them cost significantly more.",
"They're not very popular yet, but PCI-E SSDs, kind of what you're describing, are being manufactured now and I wouldn't be surprised to see laptop variations come into play heavily sometime soon.\n\nI think part of the slow progress with SSD size has to do with maintaining compatibility and interchangeability through adherence to existing standards. Mechanical drives aren't totally phased out and the 2.5\" form means it can be swapped in and out in laptops and for desktops it means you can pop it in a cheap chassis to fit 3.5\" desktop/server standard.\n\nOne other thing to consider is that some manufacturers (maybe not so common, but Dell does it in some smaller business laptop models) have used those microSATA SSDs for a few years anyway, they're little exposed board chips. They only really matter much for laptops with smaller models though, because with the 16\"+ displays you have a lot more surface area to work with than 13\" screens and the size efforts are more \"vertical\", where a slim SSD isn't going to be taller than components that stick out more like CPU cooling components, disc drives below the keyboard, front facing speakers, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
3nk5y7 | in the us, do victims of school shootings, natural disasters or terrorist attacks have to pay for the necessary and life saving treatment or surgeries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nk5y7/eli5_in_the_us_do_victims_of_school_shootings/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvpd6sq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yup. Capitalism, baby! Ain't it grand?\n\nBut hey, if they don't have the cash, there are other ways of paying the bills. Like cooking meth...\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
30ur7c | how vital is it that the deficit is reduced? | So there's a general election coming up here in the UK, and both the Labour Party and particularly the Conservatives have been constantly pledging to cut down and eventually eliminate the government deficit over the next five years.
However, being a teenager with a distinct lack of economic understanding, all of these promises go right over my head.
The gap between what the government spends and gets back in return is my very basic understanding of what the deficit actually is, but I'm struggling to grasp why this is such a major, pressing issue? It seems like this is a particularly difficult task to achieve anyway, and doing my research on the topic they seem to be the norm - according to BBC News, the last time we had a surplus was 2001.
It seems we've been able to function (to varying degrees) with some degree of debt as a country, so assuming it doesn't float off into the stratosphere, how important is it that the deficit is reduced dramatically? And why does it matter as much as other issues such as say, education, Europe or the NHS? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30ur7c/eli5_how_vital_is_it_that_the_deficit_is_reduced/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpvz7lp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is my understanding, having only the most basic background in economic theory:\n\nWell if the government is spending more than it makes, then it owes money to the some of the people who sell them things. It's alright if the government is constantly running behind on its bills, using its revenue from 2014 to pay back money they owed from 2007, as long as everyone gets paid eventually. If the deficit trends upwards faster than inflation and economic growth and other factors, the government is promising money that they won't be able to pay on time. And that's bad for the businesses they owe the money to, which is bad for the country as a whole. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2s9otp | do the children of people who have been vaccinated to a disease become immune to the disease without a vaccine? why or why don't they become immune? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s9otp/eli5_do_the_children_of_people_who_have_been/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnngvjf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They do not. As long as they are breast feeding some antibodies will pass from mother to child giving partial protection. After that no immunity is passed on.\n\nThe child's immune system itself has to encounter either the virus/bacteria or the vaccine to develop immunity.\n\nThere are some diseases that can not infect humans at all, so I guess you could say that all humans have a form of inherited \"immunity\" towards these diseases, but that is not what we usually mean by the term \"becoming immune\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
9icder | what makes a country song a country song? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9icder/eli5_what_makes_a_country_song_a_country_song/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6ikfj4",
"e6iktya"
],
"score": [
3,
15
],
"text": [
"Classic country is essentially folk music for the working American man. It spread as people traveled westward to settle. It became known as “country music” through radio, mostly to differentiate it from regular old folk. While folk music tended to be more poetic, country moved towards more populist and “salt of the earth” sentiments in its lyrics. There’s a south-western twang to it as well, which isn’t found in folk usually. Eventually, like any other genre of music, country has been co-opted by pop music. Now you have country pop, country rock, country rap, all of which don’t really have much in common with the original country scene, except for the twang.",
"There are no hard set rules but some common identifiers are:\n\nUse of instrumentation traditionally associated with country: Acoustic Guitars, Fiddles, Banjos, Mandolins, Steel Guitar, Dobro, and even Upright Bass. Electric versions are use, but the traditional acoustics are the defining sound, and while drums are used they are generally less prominent than in other genres such as rock or metal. \n\nUse of styles drawing from traditional American Folk, Scottish and Irish Folk, and Spanish Folk music traditions that were merged into what is American Country. \n\nUse of a narrative style that often tells a story dealing with common life hardships, love, and rural life. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2uifes | when we increase the volume, does the speaker produce more sound waves or it's the same amount and they only get longer/shorter? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uifes/eli5_when_we_increase_the_volume_does_the_speaker/ | {
"a_id": [
"co8nt7u",
"co8u280"
],
"score": [
17,
6
],
"text": [
"If you look at a graph of the wave, it would be taller, but the shape stays the same\\*. The horizontal length is how long the sound lasts. \n\n\\*: Only if your amp and speaker are perfect. In reality, the shape can change a little as you turn up; this is called distortion. ",
"ELI5: No. The waves just carry more energy. The waves get taller. \n\nChanging the length of the wave would be changing the frequency, which you would hear as pitch. You would also change the frequency by increasing the number of waves in x period of time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
3jxy2b | how can technology keep shrinking? how can millions of switches fit in a tiny processor? | Is there a stopping point or a plateau in how small we can make technological advancements? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jxy2b/eli5how_can_technology_keep_shrinking_how_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"cut7zqx",
"cut86p6"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"you can never make something smaller than a atom. but we are approaching the point where it's harder and harder to miniaturize. ",
"Yes, and we're actually getting pretty close to the limit of how small you can make a transistor with our current processes. The way we make computer chips now is with light and acid - a sealant is put on the raw silicon wafer, then a light is shined through a blueprint of the circuit, and a lens is used to shrink it down extremely small. The light then burns through the sealant. Then, the whole thing is exposed to acid, which eats away at the silicon only where there's no sealant. This process is repeated several times, exposing the chip to chemical baths in between steps; creating layers with different properties.\n\nWith this process, we're currently producing chips with 7 nanometer transistors, and a 5 nanometer process is in the works for 2020 or so. However, this is getting so small that the transistors just don't have enough atoms in them; it takes very little energy to damage them, so you have to be very careful about heat distribution etc. It's also so small that you'll start to see errors from quantum tunneling.\n\nThere are plans to switch from silicon to carbon chips (smaller atoms, so you can carve them smaller). There have also been experiments with transistors consisting of carefully built molecules or even individual atoms but they're nowhere near ready for production."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1os1ni | i understand the need for software bug fixes but why are other computer software updates necessary? | I assume bug fixes occur when someone under a deadline has to release software that hasn't been adequately tested under all conditions. What about general software updates that usually boast increased functionality? Why wasn't the software released that way to start with? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1os1ni/i_understand_the_need_for_software_bug_fixes_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccuznkd",
"ccuzocb"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Updates are simple and easy. When you're talking about a car or something physical you don't want to expect your customers to show up at a store or to have to take a delivery and do an installation of hardware themselves.\n\nSoftware though? When everybody today has internet? Why *wouldn't* you do them?\n\nJust make your software the basics that are necessary for release and ship it. As users report desired new features you can add them, as platform-specific bugs or other hard to detect ones previously unknown to you crop up you can fix them. Maybe user X is trying to do something you never really expected and you can account for that by patching a problem they hit trying to use it that way.",
"Once the product is out the door, you start making money on it. Until that point, you're just spending money on development. I'd feel safe in saying that *every* piece of software that ships after testing had some feature or functionality in the design that had to be cut to get it out the door. Updates after the fact allow that functionality to be added later instead of holding the release (and spending more money). There's also the fact that if software does incredibly well, they have money coming in and are more likely to add little flourishes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
c1tgih | how does a gas station manage to serve thousands of cars multiple gallons of gas a day when the gas tanker trucks that deliver gas don’t look like they hold that much? how do gas stations manage to keep up with their demand? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1tgih/eli5_how_does_a_gas_station_manage_to_serve/ | {
"a_id": [
"erffp3z",
"erffsgm",
"erffxs6",
"erffynf",
"erffzi6",
"erfks04",
"erfln06",
"erfyz8k",
"erg2x17",
"erg367x",
"erg40bq",
"erg789i",
"erg8i43",
"erg934n",
"ergc94i",
"erge4ol",
"ergfqv2",
"erh1279"
],
"score": [
14,
1025,
3,
450,
70,
14,
26,
62,
10,
6489,
4,
2,
4,
8,
6,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Becausw the tankers do hold that much. Theyre several thousand gallons. A car has what, a 15 gallon tank?",
"The underground tanks are bigger than one fuel tanker holds and they can deliver at all hours of the day. Tankers hold from 3000 to 6000 gallons of fuel, that’s a lot of cars you can fill",
"Cuz they do cary that much?",
"Those tankers hold a SHITLOAD man. That truck holds about nine THOUSAND gallons. For a 30mpg car that's over a quarter million miles. That's the life of the damn car.\n\nEdit: to put it a different way, the average person in the u.s. drives 14000 miles a year. The average mpg for vehicles in the u.s. is 26 mpg. At 9000 gallons per tanker, each tanker you see on the road sustains almost 17 YEARS of driving for a single person.",
"He average tanker contains 10,000 gallons of fuel and the average car is 15 gallons of fuel. Also a petrol station wouldn't serve thousands of cars. They can do around 80 cars an hour which multiplied by 24 gives you 1,920 gallons. This is UK based so scale it to the bigger us stations and they may have 10-12 pumps which is still under the medium to bigger size fuel tankers which make up the average.",
"Stations aren't getting 1000's of customers a day, they're getting a few hundred. The underground storage tanks can hold more than a single tanker carries, and they have multiple tanks for regular/mid-grade/premium fuel. And they get regular deliveries of more fuel.",
"To add to the large volume that tankers carry, many modern gas stations have a reader directly tied to the fuel storage to automatically send alerts to their dispatch when running low on fuel. If the station doesn't have this, the store manager regularly checks the fuel levels to call dispatch if neededl. Source: worked IT for a fuel company.",
"Our tanks way underground hold 30,000+ gallons. 10,000+ of each type we carry. Gas delivery is usually 2-3 times per week and they can offload 10,000-15,000 gallons. However they usually only need to drop off 1,000-5,000 gallons and hit another gas station on their route.\n\nSources: Gas station Clerk",
"Does this mean there is a driver who drives to the same gas station every day? Then back to the main source? What do you call the place where the tanker gets the gas?",
"Gas hauler here.\nGenerally the stations get multiple deliveries per day. I usually do 4 loads per night. Sometimes to the same station, but not often. We generally try to keep the stations topped off, so we take a load when they need it. \n\nThere's also a system that our dispatchers use that can ping the tanks to see when a delivery is needed, and sotware can assist in planning by reading trends. \n\nFor example, say a busy station in Los Angeles sells a total of 12000 gallons of regular, 4000 gallons of premium and 1700 gallons of diesel every day during the week (which is actually quite normal for most of my stations). Then on the weekend, the sales drop. The software would read that trend and generate orders to keep the station full. If that station had 20000 gallon tanks, the typical order would be 8600 regular on one load, then the 2nd load would be something like 4000 gallons of regular, 2300 gallons of premium and 2000 gallons of diesel. Sometimes there's an event that throws the trends off, and we do our best to cope with it, usually by running an extra load.\n\nEdit: My truck can hold 8800 gallons.\n\nEdit 2: Holy hell, this got big. Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!",
"Gasoline tanker driver here.\n\nA fuel tanker (single trailer) will hold a little under 9,000 gallons. Because the stores underground fuel tanks are typically around 20,000 gallons most stores order a load when the underground tank will hold a load. That might be once every few days, or for a busy store once a day.\n\nFor a big high volume truck stop they’ll sometimes take 10-15 loads of diesel in a 24 hr period.\n\nMost gasoline delivery outfits run 24/7 to keep up with demand.",
"When I worked at a gas station we’d get about 9000 gallons of gasoline from one truck, a day. We’d get a second truck of about 9000 gallons of diesel each day, sometimes twice. It may not look like those tankers hold much but they truly do.",
"A tanker or tank truck will very in size depending on the state. In Washington, we use truck and trailer combos. They generally have five compartments between the truck and trailer, and can hold about 10,000 gallons. As people have said below, it will be a mix between regular unleaded (RUL), diesel (ULSD), Premium (PUL), and in some cases midgrade. The trucks will predominantly transport RUL as that is the main selling product used in the US. If they haul ULSD, which not all trucks will, typically they will haul it in a smaller compartment, like 800-1200 gallons and reserve the other 3-4 compartments for gasoline. \n\nThe true limit to the truck is based upon the state DOT freight limits. Going back to WA State, we have a limit of about 100,500 pounds that can be split among the truck and trailer combination, including the tare weight of the vehicle. Other states might have more or less. \n\n\nDepending on the station, the size of the underground storage tanks, and the traffic levels it sees, the station may receive multiple deliveries each day. (Think Costco or another warehouse store provider like that-they are non-stop busy from open to close).\n\n\nThe facility ordering the fuel will make arrangements with third party carriers (the truckers) to pick up fuel they've purchased from a terminal, and have it shipped to the station. \n\nIf you zoom out and look at it from a macro perspective, the fuel is produced at a refinery and shipped to a terminal. The terminal either distributes it to accounts belonging to the refinery, or sells it to other accounts. The account purchasing the fuel will contract a shipping company to come pick up the fuel and distribute it. There's a logistics piece behind it that limits the various customers based upon credit and supply.",
"I work for a large “convenience store” company that sells gas. Our stores use ATGs or Automatic Tank Gauge systems. With a probe on a rod or rope, it measures the level of fuel in a given tank and returns the volume based on the total estimated volume parameters of a tank. \n\nThe ATG has defined parameters of what it considers “low levels” for each tank. When these levels are reached, it automatically notifies a dispatch that sends a tanker to deliver fuel. These deliveries can occur many times a week to several time a day based on the activity of a particular site or store. There are also scheduled deliveries that may also raise these levels before it ever reaches such low levels. Thus there never is a loss of fuel or availability of product at a store.",
"At Sunoco I used to get around 8000 gallons at a time. Sometimes a little more, I only had the super premium and regular..they got mixed together to give mid grade and “premium”....my computer would order the trucks as needed sometimes multiple times a day..I just signed the receipts and gave the drivers free coffee when they showed up...The only problems that would happen were when my premium tank’s pump (and backup pump) died or if my vapor recovery tank would get full, both would either shut down all the stations or restrict them all to just regular gas...people would freak hell out and I couldn’t close because I was a co-op station... people don’t realize that because of the epa when you’re filing up, the pump sucks the excess vapors out of your tank so it doesn’t just go into the atmosphere, and it condenses it into a tank in my parking lot, the oil companies tend to forget about that and don’t empty it often, so when it gets full my pumps all get shut off and no one can get gas...because of laws...small stations can just close but corporate owned places just get to deal with angry customers....",
"Ex fuel tanker here. The tanks in the ground hold on average 40,000 litres (10,000 gallons) each, 1 liquid quart = .946 litres or 1 liquid gallon = 3.785 litres, your fuel tank in your car is about 60 litres. No problem keeping up. The truck I drove delivered just over 30,000 litres at a time but this was usually a mixed load as the tanker has 6 different compartments so I could have 12,000 of 91 5,000 of 98 10,000 diesel and 4,000 of 95. All the stations are monitored electronically and patterns emerge for fuel consumption so you can always keep on top of it.\n\nSo the station has a few tanks in the ground each one holds a lot of fuel",
"One thing that the other comments don't talk about yet is your observation that gas trucks don't *look* like they carry much. This trick of the eye comes down to the fact that volume scales with the cube of the length. If a truck's tank is, say, 15 times as long as car's tank in every direction*, that's 15^3 = 3375 fill-ups per truck. And if a gas station's underground tank is 25 times as big as a car's by length, that's over 15000 fill-ups.\n\n*Made-up numbers, I know nothing about gas tank sizes.",
"Fun fact also. When a tank is running low it will need to be shut off around 600 or so gallons. If you were to run a tank completely empty they would need to be dug up and reinstalled. Also gas pumps have filters much like oil filters in a car. It sucks to change them. If you have ever changed an oil filter in a car you usually get a little bit of oil on your hands. In this case its gasoline all over your hands. Also if the gas station has low fuel in regular odds are they are switching premium gas to regular price until the truck arrives. So stick around if you can because you will get premium gas for regular gas price. \n\nSource: I used to work for a gas station chain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
36w9ge | what is the controversy surrounding the world cup in qatar? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36w9ge/eli5_what_is_the_controversy_surrounding_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"crhlpju",
"crhq6t6",
"crhv8aw"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"1. Playing soccer in a desert in the summer is dumb. No, idiotic. It is going to be 111 degrees Fahrenheit today. So idiotic that there must have been bribery/corruption for people to allow them to host. \n2. The stadiums are being built with slave labor with terrible work conditions. _URL_0_",
"/u/vidro3 already explained it simply, but [John Oliver](_URL_0_) did a piece on it as well that's worth watching.",
"Short 15 min documentary explaining the humans rights violations going on \n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://gizmodo.com/qatar-is-still-using-forced-labor-to-build-stadiums-1706050304"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJEt2KU33I"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJYXgMigfpo"
]
] | ||
2k6lxc | what's preventing world peace? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k6lxc/eli5_whats_preventing_world_peace/ | {
"a_id": [
"clidvxh"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Lack of education, stupid politics, religions, greed, natural resources.\n\nHard to tell. People are assholes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3w7dav | is putin a good leader? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w7dav/eli5_is_putin_a_good_leader/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxty2t0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To the people of Russia, yes. He has improved the economy greatly from the Yeltsin fuckup, strengthened the military and to some extent lessened corruption (still very prevalent though). To NATO he is a thorn in the ass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1yeic8 | why do i involuntarily move some muscles when i am about to fall asleep? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yeic8/eli5_why_do_i_involuntarily_move_some_muscles/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfjt9or"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's called a [hypnic jerk](_URL_1_) and it's incredibly common. The moderator, I believe, is incorrect as it is analogous to asking a question about breathing or blinking...not a perfect analogy but you get my point. HOWEVER, they've also been covered [fairly well in this sub](_URL_0_) as this was just one of the recent entries about it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wdcwe/eli5_why_do_people_randomly_twitch_for_a_bit_when/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnic_jerk"
]
] | ||
wxj6m | how photoshopping something out of a picture works. | I never understood how someone can photoshop something out of a picture. Do they just guess at what's behind what was originally there and draw it in? Do they find pictures taken from the same angle in the same exact place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wxj6m/eli5_how_photoshopping_something_out_of_a_picture/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5hc4g4",
"c5hcb29",
"c5hcm7k"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty much, yeah. What exactly was back there was not encoded in the original image, so you have to either paste it in from another photo, or try to rebuild it from the surrounding area. Photoshop has a lot of tools for automating this, like content aware fill, but usually you have to do some manual cleanup afterward. Either re-using content aware fill in few small areas, or just doing it the old-way with the clone stamp tool, which is a brush that copies one area of the image onto another.",
"You could do both those things yes, also keep in mind that the picture just has to look *realistic*, not *truthful*, if with the person you also remove the bush behind the person, so be it, doesn't decrease the realism of the picture.\n\nAlso useful tools are the \"clone stamp tool\" where you sample pixels from another part of the image and you can draw with it. If you're just going to draw with pure colors over the image, it's going to be very noticeable. It kinda needs the same texture & grain from the original photo.",
"I wonder every time someone restores an old photo of an grandfather/mother.\n\nI wonder if the restored photo is a true representation of how they looked or it varies depending on the Photoshop. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
earpe2 | what do people who claim to be able to eliminate credit card/irs debt actually do? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/earpe2/eli5_what_do_people_who_claim_to_be_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fawe002",
"fawpghh"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"They negotiate with the CC companies to pay off debt at like 60 cents or lower on the dollar. So instead of paying your full $1000 of debt, they will consider $500 to be paid in full. The big draw back is that this satisfaction of debt goes on your credit report, and lowers your credit report considerably. \n\nBut the CC would rather get $500 than chase you for $1000 that they may never recover. \n\nBtw, you can negotiate this yourself.",
"They work with the creditors to renegotiate the debt. The bank would rather get some money than have the debtor run from them forever. \n\nThey may also help the debtor declare bankruptcy. This is just a more formal process of the above. The debtor admits they can't pay their debts, pays what they can with the assets they have, takes a hit on their credit report, and moves on with their life. Nobody wants to end up in a position where they declare bankruptcy, but it exists for a reason and can help them improve their lives. In that sense, the service is legit, even if the advertisements are misleading insofar as they downplay the costs associated with eliminating or restructuring debt."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
9vusx0 | why do people press their ears against safes when trying to unlock them and what are they listening out for? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vusx0/eli5_why_do_people_press_their_ears_against_safes/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9f5sm0",
"e9f601s"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe they’re listening for different sounds while turning the lock, listening for the correct numbers.",
"Not an expert but they are listening for mechanisms to click, meaning the correct position has been found. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
epo0vp | why do women age quicker when they are younger (hit puberty earlier), but tend to live longer and look better as they age than their male counterparts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/epo0vp/eli5_why_do_women_age_quicker_when_they_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"fep8c2e",
"felcwus",
"felhumq",
"fem5mla",
"fem9j2y",
"fekll3y",
"fekmeai",
"fekwtt3",
"fel9rfq"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
5,
3,
2,
9,
15,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Uh what? Wothout cosmetic surgery, women start looking like dumpster fires really early on into the ageing process whereas men (if they don't lose their hair) can look great right into the grave.",
"Women look better as they age???",
"Others have made good points, but I would add that women have better traditions of skin care than men. I don't necessarily mean highly elaborate beauty routines and cosmetics - just basics like moisturiser or Vitamin E cream or coconut oil now and then, which most women use, at least passively since they tend to be in all but the very cheapest soaps and bathing products marketed to women. I have worked in developing countries where those products are not the norm. By and large, their women look older than women of the same age from places where those products are used, even accounting for socio-economic factors (that is, professional women, not just poor women), and they look much closer in age to their male counterparts. To be clear, I am not saying there is any one product that keeps you looking young, but cumulative use of *anything* that nourishes the skin will have some effect in making you look younger than if you didn't.",
"I dunno about that last statement, I feel like older men in shape are much more attractive than women at their age (45+)",
"[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n* \"Between the ages of 15 and 24 years, males are four to five times more likely to die than females\" (young guys are generally idiots)\n* Women develop cardiovascular diseases later in life than men.\n* Women have less iron in their early life due to menstruation\n* Women having two X chromosomes give them a sort of \"backup\"",
"A lot can be attributed to the different pressures put on men and women as adults. Women are pressured to take care of their skin and bodies, to stay as young and beautiful as possible, whereas men are often told things like using skincare products or sun lotion is 'unmanly'. Obviously this is a gross generalisation, and doesn't apply to everyone, but each little thing can contribute. Especially with use or lack of use of sun care products.",
"Women live longer simply due to the fact that males have more dangerous lifestyle. They take more dangerous jobs like firefighters, miners, soldiers, policemen, fishermen. Men also tend to be more aggressive which leads them into fights a conflicts. Men also tend to be more likely to abuse substances more like alcohol, further lowering their life expectancy.",
"Life expectancy has 4 basic parts. \n\nEarly childhood disease which are the same for both genders and largely controlled, although this used to be a huge factor in life expectancy. \n\nYoung adult behavior with accidents and violence. Men through stupidity and more active jobs die at a much higher rate as young adults. \n\nTaking care of your health, getting checkups, etc. Women are much better at this on average. They see doctors more regularly and follow their advice. So women catch problems earlier. \n\nDesire to live. This has a huge impact on older people. Men often die a few years after retirement or the death or their spouse. Women are more social and have more going on in their lives to live for.",
"Estrogen is a more potent growth hormone than testosterone, but it also causes their growth to stop sooner. If they were both runners, estrogen would be a sprinter and testosterone would be a marathon runner.\n\nAfter menopause, women produce WAY less estrogen than before, while men produce testosterone at a (comparably) steady rate through their entire lives. These growth hormones can lead to many health problems later in life (heart disease, cancer).\n\nSource: Am a PhD student in physiology"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.drweil.com/health-wellness/health-centers/aging-gracefully/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1xd27d | why does my brain create unrealistic scenarios of me falling in love with people i've just met? | Or people I know, or have seen, etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xd27d/eli5_why_does_my_brain_create_unrealistic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfa8en6",
"cfa9sbe",
"cfa9shw",
"cfab6v6",
"cfahkgj",
"cfanyjp"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
4,
61,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"i wonder the same lol",
"I'm guessing that sort of imagination isn't limited to just new people. I'm guessing you day dream about stuff all the time. You just have an active imagination. ",
"Because everything on television and in our movies generally revolve around a fictitious world where no matter how well versed we are in reminding ourselves that what we see on TV and in the movies isn't real and shouldn't be taken literally or as true documentation of how life actually is for people other than ourselves; where due to the constant daily indoctrination and brainwashing toward all of our entertainment needing to create drama as a way of creating situations a majority will be able to relate to*, [where said drama usually always involves \"the main character(s)\" participating in some phase or form of courtship that literally hinges on the guy getting the girl or what 99% of the time must be a \"happy\" ending for people to want more, thus giving the idea that happiness resides in \"getting the girl\" or our lives having to involve the same kind of drama as these fictitious characters in order to make us feel whole], we ultimately end up honestly and innocently believing that our lives, expectations, scenarios, situations, and overall dramatic interests should play out like everything mentioned above.\n\nThat's my explanation for what your question seems to ask for me, with regard to why your brain is creating unrealistic scenarios of falling in love with people you've just met/encountered. I mean, it sounds more or less like--myself included in this--you/we want these people who we find attractive but are a mystery until we get to know them better--and are thus a blank slate for us to fill with every fabrication or fictional-want we've created for ourselves by thinking in terms of the entertainment we enjoy--to be a character in our story who fits the hole we've decided on for what will ultimately give us our \"happy ending.\"\n\nFinally, it's possible you've just an active imagination that is helping you cope with and feeding your motivation for eventually finding love. While the scenarios are unrealistic, where if you worked at it, I'm sure you could easily and ultimately end up developing more realistic expectations and possibilities with each new person, it's simply easier and more enjoyable for your/our brain(s) to side with filling said expectations with the stuff (made of pure drama and everything we've been told by people looking to profit off of the human condition and/or create a narrative/piece of art that others can enjoy/relate) that would make it happiest and emotionally positive. \n\nPerhaps, maybe it's just because of how random and unpredictable falling in, and the experiencing of, that kind of love is that we like to identify each pretty girl or guy that we can see ourselves with initially (their being a blank slate and unwritten character and all when first met/seen) as being the one who will bite the line and make what seems unrealistic for all of us lonely, beta-male types (or whatever) who simply want to give love and (fingers goddamn crossed) be loved just the same.\n\n*-[especially and most effectively with regard to romance, love, and relationships because we've either all had one, experienced them as an observer, and/or our need to seek out a mate/share our life with another as is encouraged by hormones and seeing others in them]",
"That's evolution trying to tell you that there's a high reward associated with whatever risk you have to take to try to knock up, or get knocked up by, that person.",
"You're not alone man this happens to me all time.",
"Glad im not the only one..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
15sp5k | in america, why is it common for cities to drop objects on new years? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15sp5k/eli5_in_america_why_is_it_common_for_cities_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7pfyu3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"According to [this Wikipedia entry](_URL_0_), it originated with observatories having balls on top of the building so that sailors in the harbor could adjust their clocks. They would drop the ball at a pre-determined time and the sailors would then adjust their chronometers. Accurate chronometers were necessary to determine latitude at sea."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_ball"
]
] | ||
5pi0kj | why do our ears get oily? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pi0kj/eli5_why_do_our_ears_get_oily/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcrc9bu"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There are modified sweat glands in your ear canal that secrete a substance called cerumen (also known as ear wax). Its purpose is to keep your ear drum healthy, lubricate and clean the ear canal, trap foreign particles, and kill bacteria. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6flv1s | why do politicians sell people out for so little money? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6flv1s/eli5why_do_politicians_sell_people_out_for_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"dij4b7y",
"dij4do3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Politicians respond to the constituents that communicate to them and vote for them. They know who these people are by who donates to their campaign funds. Companies are capable of doing this just like individuals. It is not \"selling out\" as you put it. They are not allowed to take any money directly, that is bribery and highly illegal. ",
"Well, first and foremost, bribing candidates is illegal. Companies and individuals are limited in what they can contribute directly to a candidate; very often, what corporations give a candidate is the maximum they are allowed to under law.\n\nSecondly, you may be putting the cart before the horse. Are they politicians changing their views because of the donations or are companies donating to candidates who already support the stance they want?\n\nFinally, money is just one medium of exchange. Politicians ultimately care about getting elected/reelected. If a company can offer them something _more_ valuable than money (say, building a new factory in their district) then the politician might support their agenda without a single dime changing hands."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
5w2gz9 | why do we still plug a big block into the wall to charge our phones, instead of something more flush with the usb port, since nothing has the grounding peg anymore? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5w2gz9/eli5_why_do_we_still_plug_a_big_block_into_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"de6svjd",
"de6tdgl",
"de6tju0",
"de6tlol"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think I've ever had a phone charger with three prongs, assuming that's what you're referring to.\n\nAlso, you can buy a charger for any phone made in the last five years to plug into USB, mostly because USB is (by name) universal, and connecting to computers has become an increasing advantage for smartphones recently.",
"The power going into your phone via usb is DC format.\n\nThe power from the wall is AC format.\n\nIt needs to be transformed to go into your phone. That big plug is a transformer. It never had anything to do with the need for a grounding plug.\n\nDespite it being 2017 those still take up space to function and the basic rules of electrical currents still apply.",
"That block is a step-down transformer. It takes the 120 (or 220 if you live in Europe) volt wall power - far to much energy for your tiny phone - and steps it down to about 5v for your battery to charge on. \n\n \nIt also contains a converter to change the Alternating Current in the wall (electricity is pulled back and forth- good for transmission) to Direct Current (electricity moves in a loop - like a battery)\n\n\n \n\nIMO the fact that the block is so small to begin with is already pretty impressive.\n\nTL;DR that block does a thing",
"AC/DC converters aren't like microchips. You can't keep shrinking them every year.\n\nYour typical power supply is comprised of a few components. There's a transformer, which steps the voltage down to 5V AC. It's made out of wires wrapped around each other. It has a minimum size, or else it gets too hot or stops working. Then there are some diodes arranged in a way that it \"rectifies\" the AC sine wave to a choppy sort of DC. Those diodes need to be large enough to dissipate all the heat that generates. Then finally there are some capacitors, and possibly a regulator to smooth out the current into a nice flat DC. I suppose theoretically we could discover some super-capacative carbon nanostructure or something, but for now the capacitors are about as small as they can get, and the transformer is still the biggest part anyway. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
7wn0cu | how do moguls on ski runs get formed? are they a result of the grooming process or simply the natural result of people skiing down the hill? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wn0cu/eli5_how_do_moguls_on_ski_runs_get_formed_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"du1m5sz",
"du1mhvb"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"They are formed by the action of the skiers. As they turn, they kick up snow, which over time forms the heaps of snow that become moguls.\n\nOver time, moguls slowly actually move uphill, as skiers kick snow off the front of each mogul and towards the back.\n\nGrooming the piste is what stops them from forming. ",
"The first skier down moves a little snow aside when turning, creating a small bump. Following skiers will naturally try to avoid this bump, which then adds more snow to it as they turn away. Any hill that is not groomed will form moguls.\n\nOn the olympics, those moguls are formed on purpose (so each side of the course is the same and it is fair for all contestants). They may use hay bales or something similar to build off of.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
sqhjc | the whole oil crisis thing. | Why can't we use renewable recources instead?
What's Global Warming? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sqhjc/eli5_the_whole_oil_crisis_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4g5fa7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"we can use renewable resources it is just more expensive and as of right now fossil fuels are cheaper, also there is big money being made in the industry. Eventually we are going to have to convert because the resources are running lower and the consumption of these fuels are going up as the population grows. The population is growing at 1.3% the doubling rate of the population will be 55 years, this means in 55 years we will have consumed more fossil fuels then we have if you combine all the use from the history of man. But to answer your question: greed"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
c4cnl4 | why doesn’t a dogs hair fall out during chemotherapy? | Basically the title.
I’ve seen a few posts on reddit about wonderful puppers beating cancer after having so many weeks of chemotherapy.
Why does human hair fall out leaving the patient bald but dogs tend to keep their hair when receiving the same treatment?
Hope this makes sense! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c4cnl4/eli5_why_doesnt_a_dogs_hair_fall_out_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"erw87se"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Pet chemotherapy does not use the same high dosage as in people. Pets with aggressive cancer often only will live months to 1-2 years (with a few exceptions, notably low grade B-cell lymphoma that respond well to treatment), so the expectation is not usually a cure/remission, but to provide as long quality of life as possible, which would not be the case if we hammered them like they do in people. However, pets still do get side effects of chemo drugs affecting their rapidly dividing cells, but is usually limited to temporary bone marrow suppression and GI signs (vomiting, diarrhea).\n\nPeople with cancer can live a long time if they reach remission, so they tend to be more aggressive, plus people understand the pro/con of the suffering and sickness of going through chemotherapy, making it worth it.\n\nMOST dogs do very well with chemotherapy, side effects wise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
d1szvy | why has the price and amount of ram on computers stagnated over the years compared to the price and sizes of ssd drives and other components? | For example, cheap laptops are still sold with 4GB of RAM. It seems to have been that way for 10 years... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1szvy/eli5_why_has_the_price_and_amount_of_ram_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezpqb0k",
"ezpqdm2",
"ezpynqb",
"ezqq4or",
"ezqyoxu"
],
"score": [
6,
15,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The average PC user might not need more than say, 16GB of RAM. \n\nServers, however, can have amounts of RAM in the terabyte range. But, of course, it costs many dollars.",
"If hasn't. Two years ago RAM was almost twice as expensive as now.\n\nThe amount of RAM in pre-built systems isn't affected by that. They won't magically put more RAM in the system only because it's cheaper.",
"Laptops aren't made(usually) for heavy duty operation(ex. Playing Minecraft, which uses mostly CPU) and for word and browsing youtube is just overkill",
"Windows uses 2GB of RAM and then you need at least a little more for applications and it's really awkward to not go in powers of two so 4 GB is essentially the lowest possible amount of RAM on a computer that makes sense. They don't go above that because cheap laptops are supposed to be as cheap as possible - even though 8 GB might not be much more expensive than 4 it's still a little more expensive",
"The price of RAM if you do a self-build has been going down generally. It is suspected that it was held up 2016-2018 by coordination on the part of some big companies, but IIRC the prices started dropping again. \n\nLaptops generally target market segments, and the market segment that uses cheap laptops doesn't benefit as much from having more RAM. If you want a mobile workstation, you'll want more ram, but you'll also want a pricier CPU, nice keyboard, etc etc. So I wouldn't say the price of the RAM is the determining factor. Everything is just more expensive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
37eei9 | what do people mean when they say the fed is "printing money"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37eei9/eli5_what_do_people_mean_when_they_say_the_fed_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"crm5rz7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Those people could be speaking metaphorically. The Fed doesn't literally print money, but it does create money electronically. (And it recommends to the Treasury how much money should be printed, although it is the Treasury that prints it). So just like you still \"dial\" a phone even though they no longer have dials, you can also say someone prints money when really you just mean they create it in an electronic or book-keeping process.\n\nOr, the people who say that could just be wrong. The Fed is subject to a lot conspiracy theories, misinformation, and miscellaneous lunatics."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
21ec7m | what's the difference between manslaughter, murder, first and second degree and all the other variants? | I'm from Europe and I keep hearing all these in TV shows. Could you please explain? Thank you in advance! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21ec7m/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_manslaughter/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgc7uz9",
"cgc7w6z",
"cgcamku",
"cgcaso1",
"cgccoc4",
"cgcdw7x",
"cgcfdic",
"cgcft33",
"cgcgrlk",
"cgcimiw",
"cgckhxp",
"cgckz1x",
"cgcmxfk",
"cgco4uu",
"cgcozwq",
"cgcsb5w",
"cgcv08n",
"cgcxd8i"
],
"score": [
25,
2810,
21,
5,
2,
36,
3,
2,
12,
17,
2,
2,
5,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I remember I wikiied this once so if I remember correctly:\n\nManslaughter - Didn't mean to kill them\n\nFirst degree murder - A planned, pre-thoughtout murder\n\nSecond degree murder - Murder in the heat of the moment\n\nAnyone, correct me if I'm wrong.",
"**ELI5'd**\n\nFirst, it's important to clarify a term. Homicide is any act that (Edit, thanks all) ~~unlawfully~~ kills a human being. So all of these can be called homicide. \n\n**First Degree murder** - I have had a chance to think about it (maybe a few seconds, maybe years) and have decided to kill you. and I kill you. \n\n * Example: Wife kills husband to collect insurance check.\n\n**Second degree murder** (voluntary) - I have decided to kill you, but I decided it spur of the moment, without giving it much thought. and I kill you. \n\n * Example: Husband Kills wife because he suddenly decides he doesn't like the way she makes the bed. Like, really doesn't like it. \n\n**Second degree murder** (involuntary) - I have decided to do something really dangerous, like trick you into playing russian roulette because I think it'd be funny. Even though I didn't decide to kill you, you die. \n\n * Example: Wife isn't sure whether or not mysterious green substance she found in the backyard is poisonous, despite the fact that it kills all the foliage around it. Decides to secretly feed it to husband to find out. Husband dies. \n\n**Voluntary Manslaughter** - I thought I was defending myself reasonably when I killed you, but I was wrong. OR I decided to kill you spur of the moment (like second degree) but you had provoked me first in a way that a reasonable person might find partially excuses my action, and when I killed you I was still in the heat of passion from that provocation. \n\n * Example: Husband walks in on wife setting fire to the only copy of the novel he's spent the last 10 years writing. He pushes her head into the flames and she dies. \n\n**Felony Murder** - I decide to commit a felony. You die during the felony.\n\n * Example: Wife decides to break into husband's place of work to steal money. Husband sees robber with gun entering the building, has a heart attack and dies. \n\n**Involuntary Manslaughter** - I do something really, really dangerous, but not quite as dangerous as involuntary second degree murder. You die as a result. \n\n * Example (EDIT) - Husband sees wife hit her head. Husband promises he will call ambulance as she passes out. Husband decides to finish watching entire second season of House of Cards before calling ambulance, thinking that she couldn't be that injured. She dies.\n \n**Misdemeanor Manslaughter** - I break some minor regulation, like owning a gun without a license. You die as a result. \n\n * Example - Wife buys raw milk, which is illegal in her town despite usually being safe. Husband drinks it and has unusually severe reaction, gets sick and dies. \n\nEDIT: Thanks for the Gold! Also, examples to the contrary, I hate neither marriage nor my spouse. Just thought it made it easier to follow (and maybe more entertaining) than \"A kills B,\" \"he does this then he does than she does this,\" and the like. \n\nEDIT: Separately, for those asking, someone else will need to provide penalties. I was alright giving these explanations because---even though in reality there's tremendous differences from place to place in the kinds of homicide (especially felony murder and the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder) and what they mean, as many commenters below have mentioned---this is still useful as a sort of a basic framework to understand the common differences. But variation for punishments is much, much bigger, and giving arbitrary or randomly chosen samples doesn't really clarify much. They are in roughly descending order of seriousness, but even that's not guaranteed. ",
"I would like to add a couple things, because while I see a lot of valuable and accurate information, there is also some misleading and wrong information in the posts below.\n\nFirst, homicide refers to the killing of a human being by another human being, and because not every killing of a human being is illegal (soliders killing enemies in war, self-defense killings, state executions of inmates, etc), we need to differentiate between criminal homicide and non-criminal homicide.\n\nSecond, the short answer to OP's question (what is the difference?) is the state of mind or culpable mental state (sometimes erroneously referred to as \"intent\"). Because all criminal homicides include the death of a human being, the only difference was the mental state of the one doing the killing. There are essentially four types of mental state:\n\nIntentional:A person acts intentionally when it is his conscious objective to engage in the conduct or cause the result.\n\nKnowing: A person acts with knowledge when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.\n\nRecklessness: A person acts with recklessness when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial risk that the result will occur.\n\nCriminal Negligence: A person acts with criminal negligence when he ought to be aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur.\n\nFirst-degree murder exists when a person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person.\n\nExample: Suppose r/justthistwicemore gets angry and r/johnnydisco because r/johnnydisco drank the last Capri Sun. R/justthistwicemore has never been a level-headed person when it comes to Capri Sun, and he becomes so enraged that he pulls out a gun and shoots r/johnnydisco dead, we would say that he has committed first-degree murder because he did so intentionally.\n\nExample: Now, suppose r/dict8 is driving down main street looking for some awesome graffiti to post of Reddit and, while not paying attention to the road, hits a pedestrian who becomes lodged in his windshield. Instead of calling 911, he drives home, parks in his garage, and waits for the pedestrian to die. This would also be first-degree murder, because while he did not cause his death intentionally (which means the action is intentional as well as the state of mind), he did so knowingly. By leaving the victim lodged in his windshield, he knew the result would likely be death.\n\nSecond-degree murder is sometimes a more difficult offense to define because of the differences in the way states define their offenses. In some states, second-degree murder can refer to the felony murder scenario described by r/justthistwicemore. In other states, second-degree murder is reserved for crimes of sudden passion, such as a cheating spouse.\n\nVoluntary and involuntary manslaughter are very similar to second-degree murder in that different states define them in different ways. My state does not even have those offenses. We have manslaughter (recklessly causing the death of another person) and criminally negligent homicide (causing the death of another person through criminal negligence). Instead of complicating things even further by adding examples of those two, I will let the examples of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter stand.\n\n**Side note or useful trivia: All states define their own crimes, so when using a word like human being, be aware of what that means in your state. For example, in some places, criminal homicides include the unlawful killing of an individual, not a human being. Individual is then defined by that state to include a living person, or an unborn fetus.",
"While /u/justthistwicenomore gave a thorough explanation, it's incomplete in that each state (plus the Federal government) makes its own murder laws. So what you get charged with can differ significantly depending on where (and whom) you murder. \n\nSome states don't have separate laws for 1st degree and 2nd degree murder, some include the victim in the determination (kill a cop or a kid, it's 1st degree; anyone else it's 2nd degree), some add more degrees (kill a cop, it's 1st degree, premeditatedly kill anyone else, it's 2nd degree, kill someone in a fit of passion, it's 3rd degree), some have fewer degrees (intentionally killing someone is murder, regardless of whom or how much planning).\n\nI assume that the same is true in Europe, with France having different murder laws than Germany or Belgium.\n",
"generally depends on state law -- some states follow common law definitions, others have adopted the model penal code, and yet still others have created their own definitions",
"Basically the difference is intent and planning.\n\n**1st Degree Murder**: Intentionally causing the death of another, with planning, also known as murder in cold blood. (You lie in wait with a gun, for your intended victim.)\n\n**2nd Degree Murder**: Intentionally causing the death of another, but with no pre-planning. (For example, stabbing someone in a knife fight.) \n\n**Voluntary Manslaughter**: Intentionally causing the death of another, again with no pre-planning, but with unusual circumstances that alter your clear thinking. (For example, discovering your SO in bed with another, then shooting one of them.)\n\n**Involuntary Manslaughter**: Unintentionally causing the death of another, through negligence. (For example, running a red light or drunk driving, which causes the death of another.) Involuntary manslaughter can involve intention to commit a violent act (such as punching someone), but no intention to kill, even if death results (for example, punching someone which results in a brain hemorrhage and death). ",
"Manslaughter is the crime of killing a person without meaning to do so (an accident). It is not considered as bad as murder, which involves the intention to kill. For example, if two people have an argument and start hitting each other because they got angry, and one of them kills the other, that would usually be called manslaughter. Killing someone in self-defence is not always thought to be manslaughter.\n\nMurder is when one person kills another person on purpose. It is only called \"murder\" when it is against the law. If a person does something that makes someone else die, it is often known as manslaughter or homicide. This is true if it was an accident. Sometimes, a death caused by someone else may not be a crime. For example, in some situations, killing may be self-defense. A person who commits murder is called a murderer.\nThe legal definition of \"murder\" and \"manslaughter\" may be different in different countries, and is very much argued on: for example, killing in war is not usually called \"murder\" by those who take place in the war. Killing in self defense (if people being attacked kill someone who is attacking them) is not usually \"murder\".\n\nStates have adopted several different schemes for classifying murders by degree. The most common separates murder into two degrees, and treats voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as separate crimes that do not constitute murder.\n\nFirst-degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[6]\nSecond-degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.[7]\nVoluntary manslaughter (often incorrectly referred to as third-degree murder), sometimes called a \"Heat of Passion\" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would \"cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.\" Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[8]\nInvoluntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the \"unintentional\" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is \"unintentional,\" because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[9]\nThe Model Penal Code classifies homicides differently, without degrees. Under it, murder is any killing committed purposefully and knowingly, manslaughter is any killing committed as a result of recklessness, and negligent homicide is any killing resulting from negligence.[10]\n\nSome states classify their murders differently. In Pennsylvania, California, and Massachusetts, first-degree murder encompasses premeditated murders, second-degree murder encompasses accomplice liability, and third-degree serves as a catch-all for other murders. In New York, first-degree murder involves \"special circumstances,\" such as the murder of a police officer or witness to a crime, multiple murders, or murders involving torture.[11] Under this system, second-degree murder is any other premeditated murder.[12]\n\nThe New York statutes also recognize \"murder for hire\" as first degree murder.[13] Texas uses a similar scheme to New York, but refers to first-degree murder as \"capital murder,\" a term which typically applies only to those crimes that merit the death penalty. Some states, such as Florida, do not separate the two kinds of manslaughter.\n\n",
"You can think of it as degrees of culpability. Accidentally doing something bad is less culpable than doing it on purpose. When you kill someone it is a really big deal so we have lots of different names for doing things with different levels of culpability. From least culpable to most:\n\n* Accidentally killing a pedestrian while driving because of something that couldn't be controlled (like a sneeze). \n* Accidentally killing a pedestrian while driving because of an brought on by the driver impairment (texting while driving)\n* Accidentally killing a pedestrian while driving because of an impairment frowned upon by society (drunk driving)\n* Running over a pedestrian because the driver did not care whether the person lived or died. \n* Purposefully killing a pedestrian with a vehicle (road rage). ",
"As this is very American-centric, here it is in the English Legal System.\n\nThere's **murder**, **involuntary manslaughter**, **constructive manslaughter**, **gross negligence manslaughter**, and **reckless manslaughter**.\n\n**Murder** is common law with a partial reform by the Homicide Act (after a year and a day, you couldn't be tried for murder any more, but that's been removed now). _URL_0_\n\nMurder is defined as causing the unlawful death, with malice aforethought, of a reasonable person who is in being and under the Queen’s peace, and that you intended to either kill or do GBH. GBH (Grievous bodily harm) is something like breaking a bone, so if I were to hit you in the chest and it breaks your ribs and then fractures of bone pierce your heart, that is GBH.\n\n**Involuntary manslaughter** is as above, but without malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is 'interpreted to mean intention to kill (express intent, e.g. saying I’m going to kill you) or to do GBH (implied intent)', and the following are examples of it:\n\n**Constructive manslaughter** is that the defendant committed an unlawful and dangerous act that caused the victim's death, and for intention you must have intended to do the crime. So it is death as a result of another crime.\n\nE.g. if you intend to burgle a house and then arson it, you may not have intended to cause death, but the act that you did which was unlawful and dangerous caused the victim's death. R v Mitchell 1983 is an example of this, where the man hit someone who then fell into someone else who broke their hip, and later died. The man battered someone (physical contact), a crime, who then caused him to hit into someone else and break their hip. The crime the first man committed resulted in this person breaking their hip, who then later died.\n\n**Gross negligence manslaughter** is where the defendant commits a grossly negligent breach of a duty of care, which results in the victim’s death. R v Andrews 1937 is an example of this, where a man speeding to repair a broken-down bus hit a pedestrian whilst overtaking. He didn't stop and carried on, and the victim later died. As Andrews had a duty of care to that person affected by his actions, he was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.\n\n**Reckless manslaughter** is where the defendant foresaw a high probability of physical injury and carried on anyway, or the defendant was indifferent to an obvious risk of injury.\n\nR v Lidar 1999 is an example of this, where a bouncer was pushed through the car's window and then the defendant drove about 250 metres with the victim hanging out, before he got caught into the wheel, was pulled under and died. To people, doing that it is obvious how dangerous it is and in this the defendant didn't stop, but carried on, but did not intend for the bouncer to die.\n\nEdit: here's a link that someone else has provided here which explains what I've said _URL_1_ Constructive manslaughter is also known as 'unlawful act manslaughter'.",
"Manslaughter: I shot my gun into the air, and the bullet came back down and accidentally hit you.\n\nSecond Degree Murder: You called my mother a hairy frog, and in the heat of the moment I pulled out my gun and shot you.\n\nFirst Degree Murder: I had your name carved on the bullet.",
"Very simple: \nfirst degree means there was planning and an act of premeditation ie you staged the murder to look like an accident. \n\nSecond degree means you meant to kill someone, but acted in a spur of the moment fashion\n\nManslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, mean you acted in a way a reasonable person would know would end in great bodily harm and/or death, like randomly firing a gun out your window.\n\nFelony murder means someone died during the commission of a felony and everyone is held responsible. I'm the get away driver, you shoot and kill a 7/11 clerk, we both are guilty of 1st degree murder\n",
"Involuntary mans laughter is when you get tickled.\n\nVoluntary mans laughter is when you go to a comedy show, or inhale N2O ",
"The only one that is really hard to break down in an \"ELI5\" manner is First Degree Murder because there are so many stipulations that require breaking down. All of these are variations of **homicide**. The differences between them all rely heavily on intent, who the victims were, and the circumstances surrounding the death(s)/ \n\n**First Degree Murder**: There are two requirements that must be met in order for the homicide to be classified as first degree murder. \n\n1. The killer must have *intended* to cause *bodily harm* to the victim. **AND**\n\n2. The killer must have either been in the act of committing, attempting to commit, or escaping from the scene of a felony (e.g. kidnapping, rape, burglary, robbery, arson, terrorism, etc.) or another particular circumstance must have been met which includes (there are others beyond this list): \n\n* specifically intending to kill two or more victims\n\n* killing a fireman or law enforcement officer\n\n* killing for hire (i.e. hitman)\n\n* the victim is younger than 12 or older than 65\n\n* the killer was engaged in buying or selling drugs\n\n* the killer was performing a ritualistic act\n\nBasic examples: The perpetrator breaks into someone's house and shoots the home owner for trying to call the police (intent to harm/kill while comitting a felony). The perpetrator, who is believed to be selling drugs, engages in a shootout with police officers who want to search his house and kills an officer (intent to harm and the victim is a law enforcement officer). True Detective (ritualistic act). Perpetrator commits a drive-by-shooting on rival gang members, but only kills innocent bystanders (intent to harm/kill, drive-by-shooting is a felony and it doesn't matter if the victims were the targets).\n\n**Second Degree Murder**: Similar to first degree murder, however, only one of the requirements is met. Either the killer had the specific intent to kill the victim or cause great bodily harm **OR** the victim died while the accused was in the act of committing, attempting to commit, or escaping from the scene of a felony (e.g. kidnapping, rape, burglary, robbery, arson, terrorism, etc.). Additionally, if the victim died from ingesting a \"controlled dangerous substance\" (i.e. drugs) the person found to have given the victim the drug could be charged with second degree murder.\n\nBasic examples: The perpetrator is trying to escape after robbing a bank, peels off in his car and accidentally runs over a pedestrian (killed while in the act of committing a felony). The perpetrator stabs someone he had a disagreement with who later dies from his wounds (intent to cause great bodily harm).\n\n**Manslaughter**: In general, manslaughter is murder without the intent to harm or kill. When a killer is thought to have been acting in \"the sudden heat of passion\" (that is, reacting to an event that clouds judgment and provokes an almost impulsive attack) he's considered to have committed manslaughter. The \"sudden heat of passion\" defense prevents the killing from being classified as at least second degree murder by removing the intent element. In general, if you've had time to plan your actions or consider the consequences \"sudden heat of passion\" no longer applies. The lack of intent to harm or kill extends to other classifications such as negligent homicide, vehicular homicide, etc. which have varying circumstances (obviously vehicular homicide relates to killing someone by unintentionally hitting them with your car).\n\nBasic example: Perpetrator comes home to find his wife sleeping with another man and in a fit of rage beats the man to death. It would be questionable if he left the room for even a moment to get a weapon, however, if he picked up something that was already in the room to use against the man it could still be considered \"in the sudden heat of passion.\"",
"How much money you have going into trial.",
"A subject I actually know about. I have worked in the Criminal Justice System for many years.\n\nKeep in mind that every charge/offense has different degrees (i.e. Misdemeanor First Degree, Felony Third, Felony Second, etc.). Murder can be charged as a Capitol offense in some states depending on the intent and the brutality of the crime. Basically the degrees dictate the minimum mandatory and maximum sentences that can be imposed if a person is found guilty. I'll try to keep this in ELI5 format.\n\n**Manslaughter**\nYou accidentally kill someone. You had no intention to kill the person, but were simply being dumb/silly/ignorant/etc and it ended up costly someone their life. There are varying degrees depending on if you were committing another crime when this happened such as Driving Under the Influence of Drugs or Alcohol. This can make this charge vary from a Misdemeanor to a Felony First Degree.\n\nExamples: \n1. You are driving while tired and fall asleep at the wheel. You veer into oncoming traffic and hit another vehicle head on. The driver of the other vehicle dies.\n2. You are showing a firearm to someone and you drop it. It fires and kills the person you were showing it to.\n\n**Murder**\nYou purposefully took another persons life or someone's life was taken while you were committing another Felony offense. Both of these can be considered murder in a Criminal Court. The degrees for Murder vary from Felony Second Degree all the way to Felony Capitol (Death Penalty case). Typically if you didn't actually kill someone, but the person died while you were involved in committing another Felony then you are charged with the lowest severity of degree which is Second Degree. If you murder someone but you didn't plan it prior (non premeditated) then you are typically charged with First Degree which in a lot of states is punishable by up to Life in prison. If you murder someone with premeditation then you could be charged with a Capitol Degree Felony which can be punishable by Death depending on the amount of premeditation and brutality of the crime (i.e. Deciding to end someones life via a firearm typically is viewed as less brutal than dismembering someone).\n\nExamples: \n1. You rob a bank and the security guard tries to shoot you and accidentally shoots someone else. That person then dies. Since you were in the commission of a Felony that indirectly caused someone to die, you are charged with Murder.\n2. You get into an argument with someone and you grab a weapon and kill the person without any planning. It was just in the spur of the moment.\n3. You plan to go over to someone's house and kill them. You drive over and shoot them. This is murder with premeditation.\n\nI can go more into detail but I'm trying to keep this short and to the point.\n",
"dont do it, man. plenty of fish in the sea.",
"i wana play!\n\nok...\nmanslaughter: you killed someone, but it was it was never your intent to kill anyone (this would be like... drunk driving homicide - you know that its wrong, but you never got in the car with the intent to murder)\n\nmurder2: you killed someone, but it was heat of the moment. so this would be like... getting in a fight, grabbing a gun, shooting and killing someone.\n\nmurder1: pre-meditated, in other words, you planned it. this would be like most of the big stories in america. lacy peterson, etc. you came up with a murder plan, took conscious steps to do it.",
"Manslaughter: The big man in front of the class just laughs at you.\n\nMurder: The big test.\n\nFirst degree: The BA.\n\nSecond degree: The PhD.\n\nNot sure about the other variants."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Reform_(Year_and_a_Day_Rule)_Act_1996",
"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
10ab33 | aside from the planets, are the lights in the sky i see with naked eye all stars, or do i see some galaxies and nebulas and such? | When I get home at midnight here in central NJ, the sky is beautiful but very light-polluted I think. I don't see the Milky Way even on a very clear night. Aside from the planets, are the lights in the sky I do see with naked eye all stars, or do I see some galaxies and nebulas and such? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10ab33/eli5_aside_from_the_planets_are_the_lights_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6brhf5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Almost all the lights you'll see are stars or planets. The Andromeda galaxy is probably the only other galaxy you can see with the naked eye in a light-polluted location. I doubt you can see any nebulae with the naked eye from where you are.\n\nSometimes planes and helicopters can look like stars if they're heading towards or away from you, so you can't see them moving very much. If you look in the right place at the right time you can definitely see man-made objects in space. The International Space Station is the second brightest object in the night sky, after the moon. You can find out when and where to look for it, and other satellites, [here](_URL_0_). Finally, if you're lucky and time it right, you can see meteors (shooting stars) or comets. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.heavens-above.com/"
]
] | |
410aj3 | how did mike the chicken survive for 18 days without a head? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/410aj3/eli5how_did_mike_the_chicken_survive_for_18_days/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyyk0fi",
"cyypyo6"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The part of the brain that regulates the basic operation of the body is the stem--which in chickens particularly, is lower down than many people expect it to be. Improperly slaughtering a chicken leaves the stem intact, so that the higher functions are gone (such as they are) but the body can continue to live.",
"Mike actually lived 18 *months* without his head. Enough of his brainstorm remained intact to control bodily functions, and his owners basically stuffed food and water down the open end of his esophagus."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
6k86cg | what is the point of payday loans? why can't you cash a paycheck immediately? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6k86cg/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_payday_loans_why_cant/ | {
"a_id": [
"djjzkeu",
"djjzkro",
"djjznd3",
"djk5df7",
"djk6hmn"
],
"score": [
23,
2,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"A payday loan is like getting paid early. When you get the loan, you haven't actually gotten paid from your job yet but you need money and you pay the loan back plus interest when you get paid from your job. ",
"Payday loans are loans given out with your paycheck as a guarantee. You go in with a pay stub and your check book, they decide how much they are willing to lend you and give you cash. You write them a check for that amount plus a fee they designate and it's dated for your payday. You are supposed to pay back the loan on or before your payday if you don't they cash the check you wrote them.",
"A payday loan is a loan *against* your upcoming payday. \n\nA lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. So if you have an unforseen expense arise, you can go get a \"payday loan\" for quick cahs. Unforutnately they're very costly.\n\nA lot of people get caught in the trap of getting the loan, paying it back, then immediately having to get another one to pay their bills that period. So you end up with an extra bill of $50ish every two weeks that could take weeks or months to pay off.\n\nSource: Got trapped in them two separate times for like 2 months at a time when I was broke. Some people however get trapped for *way longer* though.",
"A \"payday\" loan is a loan you are supposed to **PAY OFF** on payday.\n\nAs in I need this loan to make it to pay day.\n\nThe interest rates are usually fucking absurd until you think about them.\n\nSay I loan you $1,000 and you need to make it 1 week to payday. I charge you 200% interest.\n\nThat seems fucking absurd, but you only need 1 week to get the money. So interest will only accumulate for 7 days. \n\nAnd the payoff amount, if you pay it off on payday (Like you're supposed to) would be about $1,040. So you're basically paying me $40 to lend you $1,000 for a week.\n\nThe problem comes when you don't pay it off, and you let the interest rack up.\n\n_________________________________________________________________________\n\nUsually you need to bring in an old paycheck to show you will be able to pay it off in the agreed upon time.",
"I will refer you to the John Oliver segment on predatory lending:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/PDylgzybWAw"
]
] | ||
8dwotl | why do places like target and walmart blast you with air when you pass through their sliding doors? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dwotl/eli5_why_do_places_like_target_and_walmart_blast/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxqj1oz",
"dxqj4v7",
"dxqj5ef",
"dxqktah",
"dxqnxca",
"dxqofu9"
],
"score": [
614,
10,
51,
76,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The air blowing when the doors open makes it harder for flies or flying bugs to pass through. The air isn’t for the people it’s to keep the bugs out of the store. ",
"In order to be comfortable when shopping it requires a lot of AC or Heat to regulate the temperature of such a large building. Part of that regulation is to limit how much air escapes when the doors open, and they open a lot. So stores with have a double door entry zone, and air units that put a wall of downward traveling air over the open door. ",
"It's an old trick used by places in warm / cold climates to form an air barrier to keep air conditioning in / heat out or heat in / cold air out.",
"Stops bugs from flying through the open door and provides an air curtain to stop heat/AC from escaping the building",
"It's an air curtain which helps maintain the internal temperature of the building and prevent drafts coming in.",
"A few people have mentioned bugs. I know at casinos they pump cold air in to keep people awake so they play longer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
az82mj | knowing the discrepancy between the sound of our own voice in our heads vs. how others hear our voice, how are we able to mimic someone else’s pitch, or any sound really, if we are matching it to our internal voice? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/az82mj/eli5_knowing_the_discrepancy_between_the_sound_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ei6236v",
"ei6dtj5"
],
"score": [
33,
4
],
"text": [
"Pitch (the musical note) is unaffected while the color of the sound is affected. Imagine playing the same note on a violin in a closet vs playing it in a concert hall. The same note will have a different quality of sound based on the acoustics but the pitch will be the same. So we can match pitch. Likewise we can imitate sounds and sound qualities but if you want to do a perfect impression you’ll probably be checking your recordings and training against those. ",
"Do we both see the same colors? What I see as red could be a different color for you, but you were taught that it was red."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
38er36 | please explain why and if it's impossible to cheat a narcotics dog? | I've heard somewhere that smell can penetrate everything, meaning that it's impossible to cheat a sniffer dog. But I also read that they have problems sniffing upwards, so wouldn't that mean that you could cheat them with a helium balloon or something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38er36/eli5please_explain_why_and_if_its_impossible_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"crugjjp",
"cruh5b9"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Smell certainly cannot penetrate everything. That being said, it's pretty hard to put a smelly 'something' into a container without getting any scent containing particles on the outside.\n\nIn addition to that, it is often surmised that the dogs are trained to indicate a positive on command simply to provide the officer with 'probable cause'. If that is the case, then 'scent' is immaterial anyway. \n\nI have no idea what problems 'sniffing upwards' would imply, since it is not as though one must point one's nose at an object to smell it. ",
"There's a difference between being a processional smuggler and a casual drug user. \n\nA professional would package their product at a remote location, and then thoroughly clean the outer package. Put your drugs in a glass ampule and melt the opening shut. Put it in a nice industrial dishwasher with cleanser for a few cycles, and you'll have something that smells like glass. Remove it with gloves and bring it to the place where you're packing the rest of your bags, and it's a difficult test.\n\nOn the other hand, taking your suitcase out of the closet you store your product in, using your hands to move a stash into a baggie, and stuffing that between two pairs of jeans isn't making the dog work hard for its reward.\n\nDogs are very sensitive, and they can localize pretty quickly when they smell something they're looking for. Nothing that's easy to do will work, that's why dogs are cost effective."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1y2tt9 | why does my mouth (specifically my tongue) hurt for a moment when i first begin eating after not having eaten for a while? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y2tt9/eli5_why_does_my_mouth_specifically_my_tongue/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfh8h7b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If it makes you feel better, I know exactly what you're talking about, but I also don't know why it happens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
ay79pr | how do you know sharks won't eat everything when introduced to an aquarium? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ay79pr/eli5_how_do_you_know_sharks_wont_eat_everything/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehyrxvx",
"ehzaiwx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I had a zookeeper tell me that they weigh the sharks often and feed them on a strict schedule x lbs of food per lb of weight.\n\nBasically they keep them full so they don't want to eat.",
"On the show Tanked, there were certain species that paired well with sharks and carnivores. Usually, these fish had natural defenses (venom or poison) or were close enough in size to the predator to be more trouble than they're worth. \n\nAlso, provide places for smaller fish to hide or escape the sharks. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
20ofn3 | how do heads of state of various countries speak to each other on the phone? | Let's say you become a US president? Do you just "get" a cell number to Vald Putin, Angela Merkel or David Cameron?
Also, I imagine that when Obama and Putin speak on the phone, they both do it through a translator. Is there some sort of protocol that dictates whether Obama should have a person to translate from russian or whether Putin should have a person to translate from english?
Lastly, how does one ensure there is no misunderstanding between them - in matters of foreign policy on global level even minor miscommunication can be pretty consequential, right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20ofn3/eli5_how_do_heads_of_state_of_various_countries/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg5bay9",
"cg5cvdi"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Interestingly, Putin speaks German (he was once stationed in East Germany) and Merkel speaks Russian (she was raised in East Germany when it was still de facto a vassal of Soviet Russia), so the two of them communicate in each other's language quiet often. Merkel also speaks English: _URL_0_. ",
"From _URL_0_\n\nIn the case of Obama and Putin, who do not speak each other's language well enough to communicate normally, both sides bring a translator, who is trusted by the leader who brought them in and who has sufficient security clearance. The two translators work together to make sure there is no miscommunication.\nAs for how they get those particular numbers, I would assume there is a confidential record kept that the President can access."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26371443"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20n7v8/eli5_when_highlevel_world_leaders_like_obama_and/"
]
] | |
2fxtx0 | the water near the bahamas | Why is [the water near the Bahamas](_URL_0_) a brighter shade of blue? What's going on there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fxtx0/eli5the_water_near_the_bahamas/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckdquom"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The water is very shallow there so you are able to see the bottom, unlike the rest of the ocean where the light gets absorbed.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/Guhy97k.png"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahama_Banks"
]
] | |
6pmvns | where does the term money "laundering" stem from? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pmvns/eli5where_does_the_term_money_laundering_stem_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkqjvez"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Laundering is a metaphor for 'cleaning' the money, in that they put the 'dirty' or ill-gotten money through a legitimate business so that it can be transferred to a bank account from said business under the guise that it was earned complete with tax paid so that the authorities cannot trace it back to where it originated. They scene you are referencing was a kind of metaphor on a metaphor where he is actually trying to rough up a large amount of these crisp bills that would not have been so crisp had they come from your every day pub or 'titty bar' clientele so as to not arouse suspicion.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
d1d9di | how one can whistle any song they are thinking about but when it comes to playing it on a keyboard, a novice player cannot get past first few keys? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1d9di/elif_how_one_can_whistle_any_song_they_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezkk121",
"ezkyz2i",
"ezl5995"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because even if you know the melody, most non pianist cant map them to the keys easily. Once you play the wrong key your mind gets thrown off and you start over",
"I'd imagine that if a piano were part of your physical anatomy, it would be just as easy as using your vocal cords since they would be directly connected to your neural interface.",
"The same reason why you can speak anything you can think of but sitting down to write it is more challenging. Whistling is easier to practice because you just need to exist in a place where you can breathe to do it, whereas practicing an instrument requires more."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
28th3b | why is the difference betwwen choosing to be gay or being born gay relevant in the debate on homosexuality? | I would like to hear some arguments on why this is relevant, as I think alll should be treated equal for who they are regardless if it is a choice or not. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28th3b/eli5_why_is_the_difference_betwwen_choosing_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cieanxf",
"ciear9r",
"cieatum",
"cieaw2h",
"ciebs5l",
"cied23m"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
5,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There isn't one (a difference, that is, that alters the argument). Some people feel that, if it isn't a choice, it's totally fine (even though those same people would usually be pissed if we called homosexuality a birth defect that needs to be corrected, which is something you're born with). The other side assumes it must be a choice, since they feel it's wrong, and therefore it must be a choice; of course, this assumes that no one is ever born with an inclination to do something wrong (like a psychopath). Ultimately, it really doesn't change the arguments; people just feel that arguing one way or the other will give a sort of visceral appeal to their position.",
"Because a lot of prejudice against homosexuality has been based on the idea that it is an immoral action. Sexual orientation being set at birth would make it amoral.",
"If it's a choice, than it's easier to make an argument that it should be discriminated against. In that case, then being homosexual could be seen as immoral and wrong and that people should not have the right to be homosexual. However, if it's a natural trait that people can't choose, it's much harder to make the same argument. \n\n\nYou can't say it's illegal to be black or ban people from being black because they're born that way. However, you can discriminate people based on the choices that they make. Like felons aren't allowed to vote in many states because they chose to break the law. ",
"The argument is that if it's a choice then they could just choose to not be gay. Much like the people wishing that was true made the explicit decision to be straight.",
"It's not relevant. Close-minded people think that others should change to suit their beliefs. Simple as that. If they think homosexuals have a choice to make they can label it as right or wrong. If they think homosexuals are born that way then there's just something wrong that needs 'fixing'--still, to suit their ideals.",
"It is relevant because if it is a choice, some people believe you are choosing wrong, and that can be changed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
sm8qk | greek and roman hellenism | I was wondering if someone could explain Hellenistic Greece and its influence on Rome. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sm8qk/greek_and_roman_hellenism/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4f5465"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Greeks thought up a bunch of ideas on how people and governments should behave. When Alexander the Great conquered basically everything, these ideas were able to spread. This is the basis of Hellenism. Basically, the Greeks came up with a bunch of smart ideas about how to live and they spread.\n\nThe Romans weren't conquered by the Greeks or Alexander, but they knew about them. For a long time they had more important things to worry about, like just staying alive. Eventually, when the Romans became powerful enough, they had to start thinking about how to act politically and socially. This is when they turned to the Greeks.\n\nBasically, the Romans had a test to take. The test was how to run a large society. The Greeks had already studied for test, so instead of starting from scratch, the Romans just copied the Greeks' notes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1u04zp | why do i hear static on the radio when an "s" sound is made? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u04zp/eli5_why_do_i_hear_static_on_the_radio_when_an_s/ | {
"a_id": [
"ced8e71",
"ced8opl",
"ceda4mh"
],
"score": [
4,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"I'll take a shot at this an assume that what you mean by static is a more shrill pronunciation of the S, making it piercing in nature. If this is the case, this is normally caused by the treble being turned up too high on the radio/stereo. Turn the treble down and it won't be as shrill/piercing.",
"What you're hearing is called sibilance and can crop up at any stage of the journey from the vocalist's mouth, over the airwaves and to your ear.\n\nAn example would be a singer doing the common thing of almost eating the microphone as they perform. Sibilance comes from the fast flow of air into the mic, as 's', 'z', 'ch' type sounds are made. To get an idea of this effect you can stop yourself talking in the sibilant part of a word, sibilance itself being quite a good one, and you'll find yourself almost whistling.\n\nMouth structure, mic placement, broadcast equipment, your receiver, amplifier, speakers. All are possible sources. Professional 'de-essing' equipment is often used by engineers to reduce recorded sibilance.",
"The source audio has a sibilance that is a high frequency noise. Most any professionally recorded music already has de-essing. And it is enough for the CD or MP3 you would normally listen to. But the radio station prepares the audio for transmission by using multi-band compressors and limiters. They \"pump up the volume\" so as to maximize the radio station's transmission levels. If the high-frequency band of the multi-band compressor is set to allow too much high frequency content there may be intermodulation distortion (IMD) caused when a sibilance occurs. This is because sibilances have a lot of energy and in effect the hardware cannot properly handle it. The \"could\" adjust the hardware so it can handle it just fine, but then the levels during most of the song would be low and when a quiet song is played next to a loud one the listener would have to adjust the volume. It is also possible it's partly or purely on your receiver's end with the tuner or audio processing introducing distortion on the sibilances. But I know I have heard the distortions you speak of where it's the way the radio station has set their levels."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1kvf1l | what does the one ring actually do? | I have been wondering for a long time, but felt to stupid to ask. Does it give the wielder some kind of power? Sauron did not have the ring yet he commaned thousands of orcs, trolls etc.
EDIT: Reading all the replies now. Also, you guys make me want to pick up The Two Towers again, i put it down and have not read again for a while. Now i surely will!
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kvf1l/eli5_what_does_the_one_ring_actually_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbsz5hd",
"cbsz7v2",
"cbszeg9",
"cbt10co",
"cbt167n",
"cbt1xu0",
"cbt21vj",
"cbt2jk4",
"cbt3516",
"cbt35op",
"cbt38qq",
"cbt3jgb",
"cbt3sjj",
"cbt3v24",
"cbt46gi",
"cbt4sfn",
"cbt4wph",
"cbt51un",
"cbt5d6m",
"cbt5e01",
"cbt5vkh",
"cbt6g3v",
"cbt6lja",
"cbt6z7a",
"cbt7mm4",
"cbt8g2u",
"cbt9kta",
"cbt9wt6",
"cbtawiu",
"cbtb47l",
"cbtb6o7",
"cbtcw93",
"cbtdawk",
"cbtdepd",
"cbtdyas",
"cbte4r0",
"cbtfc3a",
"cbth9qe",
"cbtig6k",
"cbtjj9p",
"cbtk9fq",
"cbtlkez",
"cbtlloc",
"cbtohw2",
"cbtoizq"
],
"score": [
2,
108,
16,
45,
2756,
750,
99,
5,
3,
7,
5,
3,
25,
7,
2,
4,
5,
6,
17,
4,
10,
15,
4,
2,
9,
47,
9,
4,
3,
4,
2,
3,
3,
4,
3,
2,
19,
2,
106,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You should check out /r/asksciencefiction",
" > Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,\nSeven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,\nNine for Mortal Men doomed to die,\nOne for the Dark Lord on his dark throne\nIn the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.\nOne Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,\nOne Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them\nIn the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.\n\n\nBasically, Sauron made rings with power so that the rulers of each race of Middle Earth would want them for themselves. \nTheir motive might be good and true - the power to rule justly and so on. \n\nBut he secret one ring, the ring he himself had the greatest power and through the rings the others wore he could find them and break their wills. \n\nThe [9 Kings of men](_URL_0_) Was corrupted and now serve Sauron - thus leaving legions of men without a King, further disrupting the ranks of men and sparking feuds over the left over power. \n\nAll in all it was a plan to break the opposition from within. ",
"It is really unspecified what powers it might grant. The phrasing is that \"into this Ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.\" But it seems that the ring is sort of a vessel for a large portion of Sauron's \"soul\" or \"essence\" in Middle Earth. A wielder could not only completely dominate the will of the users of the other Rings of Power (such as the Ringwraiths, and the elves like Galadriel, or even Gandalf) but also to dominate the will of other creatures. The more powerful one was innately the more one would be able to exercise this power in addition to amplifying that innate ability; while a man would be fearsome and someone like Aragorn overpowering, Gandalf or Galadriel would be unstoppable. It also grants immortality of a sort, where the wearer will never die (but doesn't acquire any more \"life\", leading to a feeling of being \"stretched\" beyond their nature).\n\nAlso the mere possession of the ring could give an \"aura of power\" which could be drawn upon to alter one's appearance or impression. Much like when Gandalf intimidated Bilbo, Frodo appeared to Gollum as a white-robed figure wielding a wheel of fire, and Sam appeared to an orc as a powerful warrior holding some nameless menace of power and doom.",
"To understand the one ring properly you first have to understand the way \"magical\" objects work in Tolkien's universe.\n\nA magical object in \"modern\" fantasy is generally:\n\na) A boost to someone powers ( think item of + something in a game )\n\nb) Something that power is channeled trough ( think a wand in harry potter)\n\nc) An item that is inherently better at it's job than other counterparts ( think valyrian steel in a song of ice and fire )\n\nd) An item that in itself has a power that can be used at will ( think the Elven cloak in LOTR )\n\nNow lets look at the most powerful thing that exists in Tolkien's universe other than Iluvatar. The Silmarils held in them power that was matching of the 2 trees created by the Valar, there exact power is nothing in particular. We know that they emanate light similarly to the trees, and we know that from 2 leafs of the 2 trees the moon and the sun were created, thus we could imagine that their special power is having the \"purest light\" that still exist in middle earth.\n\nThe Silmarils held power, they did not give power, they did not boost power and the wearer of them could not use their power, the power was simply \"held\" within them and was an equivalent of their beauty and derived from their beauty.\n\nIndeed a being might hold great power but might not hold the ability to create and thus he will seek a beautiful creation to match his power, this is basically why Morgoth wanted the Silmarils for himself but didn't want to destroy them like he did with other things... because they were the most powerful item in the universe, they matched his power.\n\nIt's on a much more symbolical level than simply \"this blade can cut better\".\n\nThe rings were created by Sauron, the greatest living general of Morgoth and an equal in Power to even some of the lesser Valar. Hence they likely \"held\" a lot of power, so the kings of men, dwarfs and elves might have been persuaded to wear them.\n\nHowever, power corrupts, and that was the reason why the 1 ring existed, the 1 ring was most powerful than all other rings crafted by Sauron and it could \"dictate\" what the power of the other ring does. So trough that ring Sauron dictated the corruption of the king of men and dwarf.\n\nOn top of that in LOTR ones power can hardly be used if not \"made\" into things, you can't harness power forever and use it to destroy, you need to create things with it. That's what Morgoth did when he used his power to create Sauron and his other generals ( The Barlog, the Dragon and the wolf... can't remember their names ). Similarly we can assume that the ring basically allowed Sauron to store his power and use it more efficiently when time called for it.\n\nThe ring , however, was made using Sauron's own power... he basically used part of his soul to create an item of such power. So would the ring be destroyed Sauron would loss that power forever, as of right when the books started he was weakened because he was separated from the ring but he could still use part of it's power, if the ring was no more part of him would be no more.\n\nThus, the ring, if more than anything is important because it holds the key to destroying Sauron, it was basically a \"vulnerability\" that Sauron risked creating for himself in exchange for the chance to corrupt the kings of the 3 races.\n\nThe way people turn invisible when they put it on is simply a misuse of it's powers. Because most people would not be able to use an item of such power and evil. It would require someone of power and evil almost equal to Sauron to use the ring, the Witch King might be able to use it's power, a powerful Barlog might be able to use it's power, a dragon maybe but not someone as pure as Gandalf and Aragorn or as weak as the hobbits.\n\nWithout the ring Sauron was not powerless however he was vulnerable.\n",
"A little background: Sauron wants to rule over all the peoples of Middle-earth. His \"team\" had just lost a huge, earth-shaking war at the end of the First Age of the world and he was \"on parole\" and stuck around nominally to do some community service/rebuilding and whatnot.\n\nEventually, his original tendencies took over again (\"The best way to get the world back into shape is to make sure that it has effective leadership and *I'm just the guy to do it!*\" - devolving into an intent to do this via domination rather than benign leadership/guidance).\n\nThe strategy he took with this was to trick the Elves. He went around (in a pleasing appearance) trying to convince them to accept his help in the creation of Rings that would allow their wielders to halt the decay of time and make Middle-earth more like the Undying Lands across the western sea (this \"preservation\" aspect was the common power of all Rings - mortals that held them did not age or die, the lands where they were used like Rivendell and Lothlorien had a timeless quality, the foundations of the Dark Tower remained after an age of neglect, etc). The problem is that Sauron included a back-door exploit in the technology: when he created the One it allowed him to behold all that had been done with the lesser Rings and dominate the minds of those who wielded them.\n\nThe Elves caught onto him immediately and took their Rings off. He went to war, recovered a bunch and gave them to Men and Dwarves instead (after further tinkering with them to do the whole Nazgul thing).\n\nSo, to address the actual question: it holds powers related to preservation of physical things as well as the extra intent to dominate the wills of others. Sauron was already pretty good at the latter, the Ring acted as a focus so that, while he wore it, his powers were actually enhanced (Tolkien said in a letter that the power he put into the Ring was not lost to him just because he did not have possession of it, only that he didn't get to added effect, so him commanding the armies you see in Lord of the Rings is his base level ability). It provides a similar effect for others, but only to the proportion to their spirit. \"Small\" beings like men and hobbits get shoved into the wraith world (go invisible) when wearing it, but adds to their perceived authority just by holding it (Frodo becomes a daunting figure when commanding Gollum, Sam's assault on the Tower drives orcs before him as they perceive him to be some great champion, etc). This effect is not wasted on the wielder, though, for it is a seductive power and makes the person feel that with it they might do great things, even if they can't really.\n\nBeings of greater inherent \"power\" like Gandalf or the more learned Elves like Elrond or Galadriel might be able to more fully use the Ring, but since its true purpose is meant to be used to dominate the wills of other intelligent beings, getting into the mindset required to do so makes one more like Sauron to begin with (thus Galadriel's line \"All shall love me and despair\").",
"TIL hardcore Tolkien fans can't ELI5.",
"The One Ring as well as the other rings all contained actual power as well as power in a symbolic sense. They were forged by Celibrimbor, who was the grandson of Feanor, the greatest elf to have ever lived.\n\nFeanor created the Silmarils which were three gems containing the life of the world. He forged within them the ACTUAL LIGHT of the two trees, which were literally the soul of Arda. Essentially these gems were some of the literal life force of Illuvatar (God). By wielding these gems, and knowing how to use the power within them, one could create anything bound to the Earth. Morgoth could not wield their power because he was blinded by greed and merely wanted them to establish his dominance over all the world. When Ungoliant killed the trees by drinking the light from them, Yavanna (the Vala who sang the trees into existence) stated she did not possess the ability to recreate them, but the Silmarils held the knowledge of their creation because they contained the light of the world.\n\nNow if this is making sense, you should view the Silmarils as being essentially a 'compendium' for existence, as they contain all the information of the great music sang when the world was born (because they contain the light aka the purest form of knowledge).\n\nNow for the One Ring.\n\nLike I said, Celibrimbor, grandson of Feanor, was the forger of the rings. He was the greatest smith in all of Middle Earth at this time. During this period in history, Sauron was still able to change his form into fair things (because he is technically a lesser god), and learned how to smith rings from Celibrimbor. The rings that Celibrimbor and Sauron forged were made for the three races of Middle Earth, but Celibrimbor alone forged the three elven rings. The elven rings were lesser forms of the Silmarils essentially, because the light was forever gone from the world, but some of the beauty from that time remained. Now Sauron had no clue about these three rings, but it didn't matter. He learned the craft and developed a 'Master' ring. Because these magical items require life itself and the 'soul' of the world to be forged, Sauron had to empty his life force into the Ring to give it dominance over the others. Again, every one of these rings could build and reshape things bound to the Earth. Sauron, in doing this, created Barad-Dur (his fortress), the Morannon (that huge ass gate), and erected the land of Mordor to conceal his intentions. The moment Sauron placed the ring on, the elves were aware of his presence, as they are bound to the Earth and basically share a connection to anything else that is as well. Men however, were not eternally bound to Earth (because of Death), and the dwarves were not the true children of Illuvitar, so they were unaware that Sauron had a Master ring. Using this to his advantage, Sauron corrupted the men and turned them into Nazgul, whilst driving the dwarves into corruption through greed and war. Now turning the men into Nazgul, Sauron literally just USED THE NINE RINGS POWER AND TWISTED THESE PEOPLE INTO CORRUPTION. He embraced the darker forces in life, as darkness is a part of light as well.\nNow this may not be what you're looking for, but basically the answer to your question is yes, the ring of power has actual powers. These powers are bound to Sauron alone b/c he had to put his soul and life into it literally to make it more powerful than the other rings. It can manipulate anything bound to the Earth and is the rawest form of power you can imagine.\n\nI forgot to mention, the reason Sauron's ring could be more powerful than any of the others is due to him having existed since the creation of the world. Remember, the knowledge and light of the world is what basically forms these objects, and Sauron has the most knowledge of the Earth's creation.\n\nTL;DR: The ring has true power, but the power is limited to things bound to the Earth, and can only be used to the extent of its master's knowledge of existence.",
"Controls the wearers of the other rings. It tells you this at the start of FotR",
"First, it's a phylactery - a device into which a mortal imparts his essence to obtain immortality. But by destroying the phylactety, the creator can also be destroyed. Same as the journal, basilisk, etc in the Harry Potter books.\n\nSecond, it gives the wearer authority over the wearers of the other rings of power. The other rings of power help their wearers command obedience, through tyranny or leadership, so people want them and then achieve great things. Once they've done so, the one ring allows Sauron to control their minds. ",
"Sauron put some of his power into the ring. Specifically so he could steal power from the other races. This was his plan:\n\n1. make rings that enhance power for other races\n2. give to other races as \"a gift\"\n3. secretly make a ring for yourself that has some of your power in it.\n4. wait until all the dwarves/elfs/humans who you gave rings to, come back and serve you.\n\nso since the ring is only a piece of saurons energy, it can only really be used effectively by him. I think it's how he raises dead people, is basically immortal, and can smash the stuff with the big mace he had in the movie.\n\nas a side note, the reason it makes the hobbits invisible is because hobbits aren't super strong magically, and so it can only make them invisible. Someone like gandalf or creepy elf lady would get more power because they can use more magical power themselves.\n\n**TLDR; It's like a bit of his soul like voldemort tore his. A bit of his power.**\n",
"So, Sauron is a bad guy. He made these rings that have powers. Like green lantern. One ring is part of his soul, and he is so evil he can make others do what he wants. He is so evil, that the ring hides everyone who wears it from those with any goodness in their hearts. The wearer looks like he disappears. That same evilness is respected and feared by orcs, trolls, and so on. They are afraid of him so much that they rather do what he says then risk angering him. \n\nFrodo, the short guy with fuzzy feet is the wizard Gandolf's closest thing he ever found to pure good. This way Frodo can carry the ring without falling to its power as far as he did. \n\nA morality tale is that under the influence of pure evil, one needs help to beat it. Together, people are able to do anything. That's why Sam sticks with him for so long. \n\nThat's the best ELI5 I can do.",
"The ring is full of evil and is magical. Anybody who wears it will become powerful. It makes them powerful by making the badness inside them much much more powerful (magically so). When a hobbit wears the ring it has very little effect on them because they have very little greediness or badness in them. The are “a simple folk”. The worst thing a Hobbit will ever want is to hide away from others, so the ring’s evil magic makes them invisible. In a way, the ring can do anything because it takes the wearer’s desires and uses evil magic to make them come true.\n\nIf someone else wore The One Ring the results would terrible. A powerful wizard like Gandalf has many strong desires in him and the ring would fulfill them. If Gandalf wore the ring he could probably rule the world. So why not wear it? \n\nThe ring gives a person power, but it also changes the person wearing it. The more you use the ring’s power the more to become evil. As the saying goes “Power Corrupts” – the ring corrupts its wearer. Gandalf will not even touch the ring because he is wise enough to know that if does use it he might win the world, but he will lose his soul.\n\nSo, what does the One Ring actually do? Anything you desire (and corrupt your soul).",
"Sauron *is* the ring. His cruel, evil soul is in it. When Isildur cut off Sauron's finger with the ring on it, he severely damaged Sauron's connection with the rest of the world; Sauron's physical body by that time was just a construction, a sort of golem operated by the malice of Sauron which lives in the Ring. Isildur, king of Men at the time of the First War, tried to throw it away but was swiftly corrupted by its power and, against the advice of Elrond, tried to keep it; this led to his death. The ring was not really \"lost,\" it rolled away and came into the possession of some river-folk, Deagol and Smeagol. Smeagol killed his brother Deagol and possessed the Ring, which over time turned him into a hideous creature called Gollum.\n\nWhen it was time for Sauron to come to power again, the ring mysteriously 'unlost' itself by separating itself from its custodian Gollum and winding up in Bilbo's pocket. Bilbo and Frodo used it as a ring of invisibility but it made them sick and exposed them to Sauron's malicious influence.\n\nA little rhyme explains the original function of the ring well:\n\n *One ring to rule them all*\n *One ring to find them*\n *One ring to bring them all*\n *And in the darkness bind them*.\n\nThe rhyme is engraved on the Ring itself but can only be seen if it is heated. The rhyme refers to the fact that the One Ring was crafted in secret, to be a sort of 'controller' ring over some other rings that Sauron built when he was still pretending to be friendly with the normal folk of Middle-Earth. (Reportedly he was quite lovely and charming!) He made 3 rings for the Elves first; these rings for some reason were never fully corrupted, and Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf (not an elf) get away with wearing them with no ill effect. The Elven rings give some power of precognition to the wearer but it's never fully detailed.\n\nSeven rings went to the Dwarf-Lords in their halls of stone; these rings are lost and we never find out what happened, although we assume those Dwarf-Lords came to bad ends.\n\nNine rings went to human royalty, including one to the horrible Witch-King of Angmar. These human beings were totally corrupted, made immortal and ghostly, and came fully under the control of Sauron and the Ring, along with their lands and possessions. They were called the Nazgul, literally \"those who were gulled (deceived) by the Ring\" in Tolkien's old elf language, also translated as Ring-Wraith. They are horrible monsters, wielding magic swords that inflict poisonous, unhealable wounds on normal folks.\n\nSo let's recap the powers of the One Ring:\n\nIn mortal hands:\n\n* Confers invisibility while worn\n* Sauron can see wearer\n* Mind of wearer corrupted with negativity, doubt, and possessiveness for the Ring itself\n* Body of wearer first sickened, then corrupted and deformed\n* Attracts Nazgul and other beings sensitive to evil influences\n\nBy itself:\n\n* Can roll around and choose its bearer to some extent\n* Strangely compels folks to put it on\n* Can't be lost \n* Can't be destroyed by normal means\n* Can't even be heated up in a fire - impervious to heat\n* Helps Sauron control Ringwraiths, presumably destroyed some Dwarven societies too\n* Tempts Elves who otherwise ought to be incorruptible\n\nIn the hands of immortals (elves, Maiar like Gandalf)\n\n* Confers terrible powers, mostly unspecified, related to power and war\n* Allows Sauron to work through the wearer to wreak great evil",
"In some ways it's a bit of a [MacGuffin](_URL_0_).\n\nIts power is intangible in that it \"corrupts\" its wearers to follow Sauron or do bad things for themselves. Its power is tangible if we consider the direct acts of physical harm that its bearer may do (such as the battle scene in the beginning of the first movie). Its power is symbolic in how characters fear, desire, and respect it more than we ever see it directly used in the books.\n\nBut here's a list OTOMH of actual physical miracles the ring does:\n\n* While wearing it, you are invisible except for a faint outline in the brightest of sunlight.\n\n* Frequent wearers of the ring gain unnaturally long lifespan in a withering sort of way.\n\n* The ring physically expands and contracts, as if deciding to escape the finger of its bearer at an opportune moment.\n\n* The ring has an inscription that is visible when it is exposed to fire.\n\n* When worn, the ring links the bearer more closely to the shadow forces of Sauron.",
"the one ring is the ultimate corruptor. It works by seducing its users to power. Sort of like a drug. \nA drug doesnt usually give you more power but it corrupts your senses because you end up believing that it does give you power. \n\nThe story with orcs is different, they were basically afraid of him, also they were corrupted elves so they didnt feel like they would be accepted anywhere else(its a bit twisted). \nHope this helps",
"ELI5 the One Ring?\n\nIt multiplies the wearer's power. What it does depends on who is wearing it. If you're a little hobbit, you might just become invisible. If you're Gandalf or Galadriel, you become some kind of demi-god (light on the \"demi\").\n\nAnd well ... five-year-olds do like ponies.\n\n**_URL_0_\n\nBEAUTIFUL AND TERRIBLE AS THE DAWN\n\nTREACHEROUS AS THE SEA\n\nSTRONGER THAN THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH\n\nALL SHALL LOVE ME AND DESPAIR!",
"As mentioned more than once already: the Ring has the power to control the lesser rings that were given to the leaders of the other races.\n\nBut it's interesting, this theory that the Ring is meant to represent technology. Because if you look at the recent NSA revelations, isn't that what they are trying to do, in a way? They want The One Technology that can control all others.\n\nAnd if you think about it, having something like that would put you in de facto control of....just about everything.",
"I am reading these responses and I don't feel like I am five.",
"I might be late but I noticed most of the top comments are contradict a lot of what I know to be true about LOTR so here's my take.\n\nThe ring was made by Sauron, who was basically an angel/servant of an ancient god. Sauron went bad to serve an ancient \"root of all evil\" type god. When that guy eventually was destroyed, Sauron took his place and has forever been obsessed with dominating all life. That's where the ring comes in. Sauron went around to all the different races under an alias, an elvish name meaning \"bearer of gifts\" or something like that. He helped them make rings that granted fortune or strength or wisdom or preservation or similar awesome things. He gave these rings to leaders in each race he wanted to dominate and in secret created a master ring do dominate the wills of whoever had the other rings. \nThat's the ring's main effect. It only can be used to great effect, however, by great people. Similarly, great people could fight the effect from the other end. (Frodo didn't get mind control powers over Elrond, who had one of the rings Sauron gave to the Elves).\nThe ring also had the same effects as the lesser rings, most notably powerful presence and preservation (why Gollum and Bilbo lived so long).\nThe ring also had a corrupting force. Because Sauron put his own will into it, people around it were influenced to do what Sauron would have wanted them to do (Boromir trying to take it, Frodo not destroying it)\nThe obvious effect of invisibility was because it is so spiritually powerful that it forces it's wearer out of the physical realm and into the spiritual realm. This is only an unintended side effect that didn't really do shit for Sauron.\n\nI missed a LOT and left a LOT out but tried not to sacrifice too much accuracy for simplicity. If you have any corrections or questions I'd love it. Talking LOTR makes me happy.\n\n\nAll powers given by the ring were proportional to the power of it's wearer (Frodo didn't get much from it)",
"The One Ring gave its wielder the power to dominate, intimidate, read the thoughts of, and control the thoughts and actions of other people.\n\nIt amplified the wielder's own innate abilities.\n\nThe One Ring was made with part of Sauron's \"soul.\" If anybody wielded it for too long, they would more or less become Sauron. It was absolutely corrupting.\n\nIt had minor abilities like invisibility, enhanced hearing, and the ability to easily control the thoughts/actions of the wielders of the other Rings.",
"the ring focused and enlarged saurons power\n\nin the second age sauron created the rings of power to corrupt the leaders of the free peoples. the men corrupted easily the dwarves and elves didn't. When sauron made the one ring he poured a large part of his power into it. the elves sensed his treachery and hid their rings. sauron then waged war on the elves since he could not corrupt them. Sauron lost the war and retreated to mordor. he regained his power and then waged war again agaist the elves this time allied with men. isildur cut the ring from saurons finger and defeated him. the ring which contained a large part of saurons power survived so sauron still survived. he was defeated once and for all when the ring was destroyed",
"It forces people to walk long distances.",
"bye bye usefulness of this subreddit. Couldn't this post been at least as informative if posted in some other sub?",
"ELI5: What happened to the seven Dwarf rings. Why did Sauron fail to convert the dwarves to Nazgul when he was successful with humans?",
"The One Ring seems to be an expansion on the theme of the [Ring of Gyges](_URL_0_) mentioned by Plato in *The Republic*. The Ring of Gyges confers invisibility only; its role in *The Republic* is to pose the question: If you couldn't be held responsible for your actions (because you could become invisible), would you have any reason to behave morally?\n\nIn the legend that Plato recounts, Gyges' ancestor who first discovered the ring is pretty much instantly corrupted by this ability, and uses it to murder the king of Lydia and usurp his throne. Plato's character Glaucon goes on to ask whether a more virtuous person would be corrupted as surely:\n\n > Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.\n > \n > Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.\n > \n > For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice [...]. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.\n\nSocrates's response is that choosing to use the ring to get away with immoral behavior is not rational, since it would make you a slave to your appetites, under which condition you can't be really happy.",
"The phrase 'dominate the will of others' is the key. \n\nLet's imagine President Obama has the One Ring and gives other rings of power to other world leaders in China, India, Russia, and Europe. \n\nPut simply the power of the One Ring will interact with those other rings and those world leaders will then do what President Obama wants. If he controls the world's leaders he controls the world.\n\nI'm not saying President Obama is Sauron. It's just that I'm American so I went with my own leader as an example.",
"Harry uses the ring to summon the Millenium Falcon and that's how he blew up the Sauron and saved Vulcan from JJ Abrams",
"Ok Prince_Cola... have a seat.\n\nLets imagine that you had a group of friends whom you gave each of them a ring pop. Your friends delighted in this treat, because they love ring pops! But little did they know that you had possession of a \"master\" ring pop. This ring pop could control the actions and thoughts of whomever owned the other ring pops.\n\nNow why would you want to do that Prince_Cola? Well, it's simple; you want to be the one person who controls everything that happens around you. So much so, that you would lie and deceive your friends in order to be in control. That doesn't sound very nice, now does it?\n\nThat's because you're a bad person Prince_Cola. A bad person for wanting to control everything. ",
"It's basically Sauron's security blanket. It doesn't DO anything, but he thinks it does. ",
"It gives +1 to every stat, which admittedly doesn't sound like much, but that's EVERY stat, both base stats and derived stats, and it all stacks, so if it increases your dex, your speed, your armor and your dodge, you wind up quite a bit more defensive, and it does this for every facet...\n\nNow the 'two ring' is even more impressive...",
"I thought this was about this nuva ring :(",
"There's a lot of misinformation in here...\n\n[...I'll just leave this here.](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: I know this doesn't really explain this like you're five, but it's fairly easy to follow and logical. I'd summarize, but there's just so much information to talk about.",
"I love how this is on the front page.",
"Primarily, it allows (with sufficient power, practice and will) control over the other rings and those who bear them. Secondarily, it grants (much as the other rings do) both a pseudo-telepathic understanding/connection with the other ring-bearers (as well as the creatures born of the rings malice), as well as extended life.",
" Forget the ring! The ring is bupkis....I found it in a Cracker Jack box.",
"It rules them all, and in the darkness binds them, yo",
"* rule them all\n* find them\n* bring them all\n* in the darkness bind them",
"Saw this post 2 hours ago, i just now stopped reading articles on the LOTR wiki.....",
"One thing that has not mentioned yet is the One Ring is the *Binding Ring.* **Its power is to bind.** It not only binds the other rings. It binds wills. It binds the works created. It binds oaths.\n\nThe first, wills, is well understood. Created works goes beyond the rings of Dwarves and Men which is also well understood. Mordor was created using the power of the Ring. Once the Ring was destroyed Mordor itself became unbound and the very earth itself was destroyed. The Ring also allowed Frodo and Sam to pass through Mordor for the Ring ultimately controlled it more than Saron. Without the Orc's help they would never have reached Mt Doom. The only thing that hurt them on the trip was Shelob. She predated the Ring and was not bound by it.\n\nGollum promises to serve Frodo, and swears by the Ring. Frodo even yells not to because of what it means and that he will be bound and betrayed by it. Once Gollum does anyway, Gollum was going to fulfill this oath regardless of what Gollum wanted. Doubly so because it was against his wishes. In The Hobbit during the riddle game, Gollum swears to show Bilbo the way out if Bilbo wins. That oath was made while Bilbo had his hand on the Ring and the Ring was the answer to the riddle. Gollum did show Bilbo out even though he was trying to prevent exactly that. It binds and it corrupts the oaths made. \n\nThe Council understands the ring has the power to bind. That's why they create the Fellowship but prohibit any oaths to be taken. If they had sworn to protect Frodo then the ring would have corrupted that oath. The Fellowship would have abandoned Merry and Pippin as the Ring would have forced them to follow Frodo to protect him. Which if they had, ultimately it would have doomed the quest.\n\nBind and corrupt. That's what the Ring does.\n\nEdit: Bilbo is the only one who gave up the Ring willingly. Or did he? He *promised* to give it to Frodo before he left the Shire.",
"it makes you invisible to normals when worn, but highly visible, like a shrieking siren with flashing lights visible to dark things.\nit also ruins you and turns you into a twisted version of your former self. \nit has a mind of its own sometimes. or it has a magnetic magic attraction to getting back on the finger of its creator. it has a great allure of power and will tell you anything you want to hear if you wear it just once. \n\nits pure evil in a circle. sauron is fighting the war of the rings. all he needs is his ring back and he is going to roll over middle earth like genghis khan. but for the fellowship he would have won. \n\nif i were you. and you have a real interest. look up all the books. go to your library or pick them up n a ereader. start with the hobbit, as thats where we are introduced to the one ring. and the grandest riddle challenges of all time. what is in the habbitsies pocketies? what does the naaaaassssssty hobbitises have in its dirrrrty pocketses? its my precious!!!! MYYYY precious!!!!!!! and away we go on the worldwind tour of mirkwood, and then the lonely mountain. where the ring has its greatest useage until frodo uses it. when it was found sauron knew. and he was already plotting and building and scheming with the looking stones. when it was used in the hobbit sauron was not nearly as powerful as he was many decades later in the lord of the rings.\nsauron or the evil spirit creature that calls itself sauron this time, has gone by many names in the past and caused many times the fall of kings and continents. \n as others have said the silmarillion provides a history of middle earth but it also has the spoilers for the books hobbit and the trilogy. its better to read it after in my opinion. \n\nedit: forgot to put the link to the hardcore version of the riddle game. it is really the best version fi you are into this author and the story youll really get a kick out of it. njoy!\n\n_URL_0_",
"+1 to all stats.",
"ITT: I finally understand Lord of the Rings",
"Rule them all",
"I never really got that either, but a debate with a friend yielded the following results. From the movie (never read the books, but I've read articles on the differences between the two), it's understood that it makes any being that isn't Sauron invisible, and that's it. It seems to have more negative side-effects on non-Sauron beings: Ringwraiths can detect you, other beings around you that know you have the One Ring become stalker-like, and of course, over time it inflicts you with the \"Gollum\" status effect. This is what happens when not-Sauron puts the ring on *in the movies.*\n\nWhen Sauron has the ring on, he is visible, but he has great enough strength to send maybe 10 guys flying with a single swing. Now, from seeing this happen in the beginning of the trilogy, and trying to gauge the power of the One Ring, I see this in 2 perspectives: The One Ring grants Sauron a range of powers of which only 2 are showcased; invisibility and a strength buff, which Sauron commands at will.\n\nOn the other hand, they talk the One Ring up like it's some sort of godly instrument, and granted Sauron can bash maybe 10 guys in one swing, but think of the tech the humans are using: Swords, arrows, shields and armor, very classic and romanticized instruments of war indeed, but very impractical and inefficient. Now what would happen if we were to drop Sauron in 21st Century America? Detroit perhaps? Does the One Ring grant immortality on some level because Sauron would be shot to bits in a routine driveby. Or, more seriously, the Human Alliance had a well-timed barrage of mortars that were aimed perfectly at Sauron, enough to bury him completely and even his super strength couldn't save him. Could he have been defeated that way and the One Ring buried with him? Would the One Ring have some ability to save him?\n\nI don't really know since they hype the One Ring so much but show so little of what it actually does. The idea though, is that the Ring supposed to be a metaphor for the corrupting nature of power, so it's not so much about what it is and its functions as it is about what it symbolizes",
"This whole comment section really wants me to read the books, i thought i was a middle earth fan but i seem to have missed so much juicy detail, do the books go into detail with more things than just this? how much more do the books reveal that the movies skipped?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://24.media.tumblr.com/0b3b0f3d7bc886f51a2a08dbb660c2bf/tumblr_mkjj5oRrdf1rmysw2o1_500.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcgruffin"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWj8U8zlIk**"
],
[],
[],
[]... | |
14p6op | what does the us federal appeals court ruling on illinois' conceal carry ban mean? | So, I just read [this](_URL_0_) article about how the US Appeals Court has ruled Illinois' Conceal Carry Ban illegal, but I'm still confused as to how this will affect the state. Obviously, if they don't appeal, some form of conceal carry will have to be allowed, but how specific is the ruling? Can they, say, "allow" it, but the police or someone has to provide permits, and then they decide that they won't issue them to anyone? Does the court have to approve the new law? What happens if no new law is put in place after the 180 days? Since each state pretty much has their own conceal carry laws, whose law would be put in place in Illinois in that case? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14p6op/eli5_what_does_the_us_federal_appeals_court/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7f619y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't change anything. Not yet. Illinois has 180 days to get a law in place. (Or Madigan can appeal to Supereme Court.)\n\nWhat will happen is they will allow conceal carry, but it will be so restrictive and that you will have so many hoops to jump through that it will be near impossible to get anyways. So really this changes nothing. \n\nCliffs: Fuck Illinois. This state blows."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story"
] | [
[]
] | |
c6zllr | how and why does snot firm up in your nose, then turn into a goop again? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c6zllr/eli5_how_and_why_does_snot_firm_up_in_your_nose/ | {
"a_id": [
"esc1tla",
"esc39ak"
],
"score": [
2,
19
],
"text": [
"Having a blocked nose isn't fun. I'm trying to figure out why this happens and why you can have a runny nose soon after!",
"The snot doesn't \"firm up\" and block you nose. In fact, a blocked nose has nothing whatsoever to do with snot! \n\nA blocked nose is caused by swelling of the nasal tissue. The mucus membrane swells up and closes off your nasal passage. You have a runny nose after because, when you're sick, your nose also produces a lot of snot. So when the swelling comes down a bit, the snot has an easier time running out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
omzls | how bills such as pipa and sopa can still be brought up to be voted on when there is such astounding public opposition? | Laws are supposed to be decided by the people and theres laws are [clearly](_URL_0_) against what the public wants. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/omzls/eli5_how_bills_such_as_pipa_and_sopa_can_still_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3ihkbj",
"c3ihti8",
"c3ihtx5",
"c3ihw12",
"c3iidrf"
],
"score": [
28,
17,
15,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"\"Laws are supposed to be decided by the people\": completely wrong, laws are supposed to be decided by elected representatives.\n\nYou probably have a biased view of what the public is and what it wants/cares about if you hang out on reddit, as well.",
"Ok lets say you have two people. One is called John and the other is called Pete. John or Pete will be incharge, there is no other choice, you gotta pick one of em or just not choose at all, but one of them will be making the laws as they see fit.\n\nNow most people are poor. Very few people are very rich. The rich guys realize that John and Pete will do what they say if they give them some of their money. So the rich guys being smart give both John and Pete a shit ton of cash.\n\nUltimately it doesn't matter who you choose, John doesn't care what you think, neither does Pete. All they want is for the rich guy to keep paying them and the only way that will happen is if they do what he says.\n\nJohn and Pete in this case represent any politician in the U.S. the rich guy represents the lobbyists.",
"This probably stems from a misunderstanding of the US government. It is *not* a democracy, it is a *democratic republic.* The difference is that as a democratic republic, the people vote for representatives to represent them and their interests in the government. Once the voter has voted, they no longer have any control over what the government does or does not do. Congress and the state legislative bodies, as well as the executive branch officers all set their own agendas and goals while they are in office. There is a set process that must be followed before a bill can even be considered for voting (this is where bills often get pigeonholed or they get pushed off for another year because of too much opposition or it needs more work among other reasons).",
"You're seeing a biased sample. If you go out on the street and ask random people what they think about SOPA, 99% wouldn't have a clue of what you were taking about",
"Laws are made and voted on by the people's representatives. They have a lot of freedom on what they do, far more controlled by the party whip (forceful controller, to keep them voting on party lines) than anything else. Second to the whip (I think, not sure) are the lobbyists who try to get their view heard by lawmakers. In principle lobbying isn't bad but it's so badly misused and costs so much to do that it is used by few people, entirely rich people who generally want to keep earning. Sopa benefits the MPAA and RIAA (film and music copyright owners) who are some of the highest paying lobbyists.\n\nNot an answer to this question, but it's related based on [what I hear of the future of SOPA](_URL_0_)\n\nA bill entering the Congress can be massively edited, the price of it can easily double or triple. You could even add a past bill onto the back of it, and the name of the current bill doesn't have to be changed. This is what is planned, an anti-child porn bill next month will have the whole of SOPA attached to the back. Child porn and terrorism impossible to support, so this is the way to make sure it will go through ignoring public opinion."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/"
]
] | |
70t2i9 | why people of east asian, native american, or african descent look younger than people of european or middle eastern descent. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70t2i9/eli5_why_people_of_east_asian_native_american_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn5s00x"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Darker skin doesn't age so quickly because it's better protected from UV by melanin.\n\nAKA the black don't crack."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2o982c | are any countries not in debt? or is it a case where if everybody owes then no one does? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o982c/eli5are_any_countries_not_in_debt_or_is_it_a_case/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmkwb4e",
"cmkxajv",
"cmkxox1"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There may be some small island nations without much debt, but that's not the point here.\n\nThe point is that countries aren't \"everybody\". There are also corporations, non-profit organizations, district/state governments, and individuals. The amount that governments owe that isn't balanced out by money that governments are due is because of the amount governments owe to these other groups.\n\nDo you or your parents have a retirement account? Then it's very likely you indirectly own a portion of the US federal debt.",
"Before libya went to shit they were a prosperous country and had no debt.",
"[According to this](_URL_0_), Singapore, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Taiwan, and Palau have no debts.\n\nAs it also states in the wiki article, while a country may have a relatively large external debt (either in absolute or per capita terms), it could be a \"net international creditor\" if its external debt is less than the total of the external debt of other countries held by it. For example, Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, China and others are net international creditors."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt"
]
] | ||
1t5btd | why don't establishments which serve alachol all have breathalyzers so intoxicated patrons know they legally can't drive. | Its almost midnight and I was just wondering. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t5btd/why_dont_establishments_which_serve_alachol_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4h7vw",
"ce4h90o",
"ce4haee"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"liability.\n\nif they provided a way to know if someone is too intoxicated to drive, there's some responsibility for them to prevent them from driving.",
"Some of them do, or at least they used to in Canada.\n\nThat said, it's risky. If someone blows under on the breathalyzer in a bar and then goes out and kills someone, the bar may be held liable - and can you imagine the poo-flow if the breathalyzer was out of calibration?\n",
"I heard people tried that, but it didn't work so well when they found out people were using it as a drinking game seeing who could blow the highest"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
76h9jp | how do doctors know when to stop cutting your skull so they don't damage the brain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76h9jp/eli5_how_do_doctors_know_when_to_stop_cutting/ | {
"a_id": [
"dodzpp8"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"med student here- they use a pneumatic drill. Designed to cut-off when there is a sudden change in pressure. You'd have to really not know what you're doing, or be intent on killing someone to screw up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
67w49n | the wells fargo scandal and their attempts to fix it and repair their image. | Possibly switching to their service soon. Can I relatively trust them? Have they bounced back well or responded well?
Bonus points for any sources to back up the explanation so I can look further into the research and protect my money better. (especially if others reading this have the same hesitation). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67w49n/eli5_the_wells_fargo_scandal_and_their_attempts/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgtnsi4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This might help you. It appears that you can access the investigation report that Wells Fargo did. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nMy mom still has her bank account with them and as far as I'm aware of, she hasn't had a problem with them. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/press/2017/independent-investigation-findings_0410/"
]
] | |
fgaam5 | how come my brain doesn’t register the sentence or passage i just read? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fgaam5/eli5_how_come_my_brain_doesnt_register_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk3csz4",
"fk3dvl7",
"fk3ehlh",
"fk3fa9g",
"fk3htg9",
"fk3htwc",
"fk3iuwg",
"fk3jexj",
"fk3k057"
],
"score": [
89,
4,
2,
2,
14,
100,
6,
24,
7
],
"text": [
"Think of it like when you're in a fast moving vehicle, you're looking out the window as stuff goes by but you're not actually looking deeply and concentrating on things too much, but sometimes you are.\n\nAll down to whether you're actually concentrating at first",
"Maybe you're just reading the words and not the sentences. Kinda like seeing a series of numbers and just reading them aloud. It happens to me when there's distractions around.",
"It is about long-term memory and short term memory. I would suggest you have a look at the book called \"Idiot Brain\" which explains it very well.\n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"I've had this before as well. Try reading at half pace or even slower. This worked for me and it helped to become more involved with the story, which then helped me concentrate even more and eventually speed up",
"Try reading out loud. Reiterate each sentence as you complete it. What you are doing is not actually reading. It is just looking at words in series. It gets easy with practice.",
"I do a lot of reading for work and for my studies. When I try to actually remember something, and what to store it in my long term memory, I pause every page or so and mentally summarize what I read. Also, after long reading sessions, I try to take 5 minutes, eyes closed and recall what I just read.",
"This happens to me when my brain wanders while reading. It comes down to paying attention to what you’re reading and not thinking of anything else.",
"Teacher here I have a couple of questions are you:\n\n1. Are you reading a paper copy or off of a screen?\n2. Are you reading fiction or non-fiction?\n3. Do you have similar difficulty when listening to an audiobook or watching a movie?",
"Just need a bit of time to work out how you read.\n\nFirst question: do you subvocalise? When you read something do you... \"hear\" yourself reading it to yourself in your head?\n\nIt has been shown that people that do actually activate the hearing parts of the brain so any other noise can be really distracting and mean your brain can't quite work out which are the words in the book that you're reading and are the bits you actually need to take in. It could just be you might just be trying to read too fast. How much of rap god did you take in and memorise the first time you heard it? If you're reading it aloud to yourself in your head you basically can't go any faster than normal talking speed.\n\nWhen I'm sat reading I need everything else off and Mrs A can snap me right out of it with a single sentence.\n\nWhat are you reading on? My kindle has no other apps installed, the temptation to flick to facebook or anything like that is also a distraction. My kindle has my books and nothing else.\n\nKeep going, keep reading and work out how you read and how you read best. Then set up your reading space at reading time.\n\nThis absolutely isn't meant as it sounds but... you get better at it the more you do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32191721-idiot-brain"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5173sz | how do these tax loopholes work for the rich? | Specifically, carried interest and capital gains. I've tried comprehending these articles online but they just don't make too much sense. I remember hearing about these loopholes from the Paul Ryan vs Joe Biden VP debate. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5173sz/eli5_how_do_these_tax_loopholes_work_for_the_rich/ | {
"a_id": [
"d79s9uq",
"d79sndc",
"d79uj1d"
],
"score": [
13,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"For capital gains.. You have some assets, and you sell them for a profit. You get hit with a capital gains tax. Seems reasonable, right? Well, they're taxed lower than your income from working a 9 to 5. That's why people call it a loophole. If you are wealthy enough, you can generate a lot of income off trading assets and pay a smaller tax than you would if you made that same amount of money at a job somewhere.",
"A hedge fund has a contract with investors that looks like \"2-and-20\" (most common I could find.) So the hedge fund makes 2% of your initial investment, plus 20% of any gains accrued by investments. The 2% is taxed as regular income, but the 20% can be claimed as carried interest, which is taxed at a much lower rate. So if you invest $100 with a hedge fund, they automatically get $2, and are taxed on that as regular income. If they invest well and turn your $100 into $200, they get 20% of that $100 profit, being $20. That $20 is taxed as carried interest at a lower rate than the 2% cut they take off the top. That turns into big dollars when regarding the size of the investments and profits hedge funds work with. ",
"It's not a loophole effectively. In most jurisdictions you have a business which basically works like this: \n\nYou buy raw resources, you build widgets, you sell widgets for profit. Rinse repeat. You don't get taxed on raw resource costs. Just the profit. However what's the other costs? So your salesmen drive a car around selling. You pay for mileage. You might have buildings and pay costs there. \n\nSo in accounting you're getting discounts on your business. If you didn't make a profit, you don't pay taxes. However there's incentives in jurisdictions where you'll pay less taxes on your profits IF you do something; which generally speaking is tax generating. So you displace your taxes by having someone else pay.\n\nSome places taxes from your employee's income taxes cover your taxes. Which makes sense to governments. A business might pay no taxes themselves because they employ people in your country and the income taxes from those people are more than the business would pay in taxes. Especially in many cases where the business might go elsewhere and then no pay any taxes even through employees. \n\nThe 'loopholes' are these incentives to bring jobs to places. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1bwuzd | official eli5 margaret thatcher thread | Former ~~English~~ **British** PM Margaret Thatcher has died. Post here about her life and accomplishments with any questions you may have.
***
There will be opinionated people here... just be sure to be respectful of differing opinions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bwuzd/official_eli5_margaret_thatcher_thread/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9atqc8",
"c9atv1s",
"c9atv2s",
"c9aunrw",
"c9auvd8",
"c9av68f",
"c9avau1",
"c9avg1j",
"c9avg41",
"c9avk6p",
"c9avkej",
"c9avmy5",
"c9aw2py",
"c9aw8u2",
"c9awnhy",
"c9awq16",
"c9awzba",
"c9ax39s",
"c9ax7gi",
"c9ax7pt",
"c9axaqz",
"c9axlsv",
"c9ayr1s",
"c9az0e6",
"c9az88n",
"c9azqpc",
"c9b1r3d",
"c9b1vki",
"c9b2kho",
"c9b2wif",
"c9b48qg",
"c9b5qsm",
"c9b6g90",
"c9b7lpw",
"c9bd7x0",
"c9bftql",
"c9bjhkk",
"c9bkji7",
"c9ccv9e",
"c9d95cc"
],
"score": [
186,
663,
16,
25,
51,
163,
12,
248,
8,
15,
2,
92,
3,
3,
2,
3,
75,
26,
2,
3,
28,
6,
20,
14,
8,
24,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Why are the Irish so bitter towards Thatcher? How did Thatcher deal with the Troubles in the North of Ireland?",
"I'm going through the comments on many Thatcher threads, news article comments and forums - and there is a lot of happiness over her death - parties, celebrations, pints. \n\nI think it'd be worthwhile explaining why she is hated. ",
"Why don't people like her? What did people think of having a female PM at the time?",
"Do the Scottish have a particular reason to dislike her?",
"ELI5: Both sides of the 'was Margaret Thatcher a good PM?' argument with as little bias as possible.",
"Fox news was gushing about her today, so I can only imagine how reagen-esque she was",
"Can someone explain the significance of the milk in schools? I've grown up in Australia and have never encountered this concept so I'm assuming the context is to do with the time Thatcher was in office?",
"Speaking from someone from the North East of England - people in my area of the country are still hugely bitter about the situation with the [pit](_URL_6_) closures and associate her government with [police brutality during strikes](_URL_1_) and what was seen as unnecessary loss of jobs (often leading to current unemployment since three generations of a family have now been unemployed after being reliant on previous labouring circumstances). \n\n[Changes to welfare and unemployment laws](_URL_2_) at the time meant that those unemployed - often as a result of striking - were incredibly impoverished, leading to local communities needing to organise soup kitchens and a 'them vs us' mentality where she was the representation of a government that people hated.\n\nShe was generally viewed as being the devil incarnate - this wasn't helped when she referred to striking miners as 'the enemy within'. Those events are very raw and fresh in the minds of many people since they see their current poverty as directly related to the destruction of those forms of heavy industry. The North East (especially the mining villages in County Durham) had built a way of life centered around coal mining, and for many it felt like not only a loss of a job but the destruction of a generations old way of life, leading to poverty, unemployment, and anti-social behaviour. A famous quote that's often heard is from [this book](_URL_3_): \"In the pit villages they used to say that coal ran in their blood; 20 years later it's heroin.\"\n\n[The 1984 Mining Strike in Pictures](_URL_4_)\n\nShe's also very unpopular for insisting on a [Poll Tax measure which was only supported by 12% of the British population](_URL_5_). This led to rioting in the early 1990s and her downfall. \n\nAdditionally, her views on immigration were controversial: '\"People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.\" (Granada interview, 1978).\n\nFor a fairly accurate depiction of opinions from the North East about circumstances surrounding the mining strikes, I'd recommend the film [Billy Elliot](_URL_0_). Though it's a dramatisation, it was largely shot in Easington and uses footage from actual strikes and knowledge from local people to represent events at the time.",
"MAGARET THATCHER NAKED ON A COLD DAY",
"Can someone explain her role in the Falklands War, particularly with respect to the sinking of the Belgrano?",
"What/how were her relations with Reagan? Didn't they do a lot together?",
"Can someone explain how she managed to remain PM for three terms despite the public hatred.",
"Anybody care to comment on 80's politics in general? I see a lot of Thatcher comments also mentioning Reagan, Mandela, and Castro. I'm a science geek, and as a result, growing up in the 70's and 80's I knew even less than most kids my age about politics in general. I've since read a lot more about Reagan (I'm from the US), but seem to be missing the \"big picture\". Thanks!",
"I don't understand it\n\nPeople Americans revere Ronald Reagan for being a tough, strong, conservative who defeated the Russians, advanced our military, and made everyone richer.\n\nYet, the British equivalent is dislike for all of those same qualities. \n\nWhy.",
"Being 22, I didn't really know or understand what she did wrong.\n\nIs there anything she did that would have changed my life in any way? Affected my town?",
"Not her biggest fan, but she's generally [very highly regarded](_URL_0_) by academics and general popularity polls.\n\nJust putting this out there because this thread isn't very impartial either way.",
"For my two penneth - and bizarrely as I generally dislike the woman - I feel that it's only fair to probably defend some of her policies.\n\nAs a general point, a lot of people make the mistake of judging historical people (and Thatcher is now almost 20 years ago, so it is historical) by the standards of the day.\n\nBasically, the way I see it, is the first 2 terms of Margaret Thatcher's leadership were basically doing what needed to be doing. It was always going to be vastly unpopular, but I'd equate her government of that periods' role as a troubleshooter coming in to make a business profitable by other means.\n\nThe Union control was spiraling (winter of discontent, destroyed British Leyland and was destroying our manufacturing industries). Inflation and the horrors of the Denis Healy/IMF stuff was still fresh in the memory. Thatcher and the then Conservative administration basically realised early on that Britain's manufacturing industries were finished, unprofitable, and would cost huge amounts of resources to keep going. The Unions needed to be broken, and inflation curbed. Plus we needed to move to the industry we have today. The only difference would be that maybe people like Scargill would be held accountable for their collapse.\n\nThis was done through monetarist economics by penalizing those out of work to try and force them back, breaking the unions by just closing down factories and pits (see the miners strike), and actually reducing spending with the economy in recession. Throughout this she had support of the press which helped public opinion.\n\nWithout a pointless Falkands war (which would easily have been won) and confusion of the Labour party who were unable to see Britain needed to evolve, she'd probably have lost the 83 election.\n\nThe second term was much of the same, but the economy moved out of recession, and although incredibly harsh on those in her way, it did appear to be working. At the end of her second term, she'd dragged Britain kicking and screaming to where it needed to survive in the modern and changing world. I still believe that this, if done \"softly softly\" would have still been happening now - and we'd all be paying a small fortune in tax to support useless industry - and if Labour had remained, we'd have ended up bankrupt.\n\nUnfortunately, it all unraveled in her 3rd term when she actually then tried to improve the country. The ridiculous poll tax, the boom and bust economics which were always bound to fail, and various privatisations were a disaster.\n\nSadly, the follow on from these policies along with financial deregulation (with enormous penalties and fines for financial misuse - still amazes me that \"insider trading\" is considered worthy of a longer prison term than if you raped someone then went out and drove drunk and killed someone) sowed the seeds of today's' society. Easy to blame \"new labour\", but what choice did they have? Not as if they could have reopened the pits and shipbuilding yards.\n\nSo for me, her legacy is - troubleshooter who took tough and unpopular decisions to bring Britain in a place it could move forward. But, like most troubleshooters, didn't have the ability or nous to then develop Britain from that perspective.",
"The thing with Thatcher, and a lot of her especially controversial policies, is that she was prone to abandon pragmatism and was extremely ideologically motivated to the point of fault. \n\nExample 1 - the Unions. In the 1970s in the UK, industry was in chaos. A lot of people were sick of constant strikes, 3 day weeks, etc. Thatcher promised to put the unions back in their place, however the extent of her policies went further to completely cripple, not just limit, union power. This is a very divisive course to take, as moderates on each side will buy into a more extreme position.\n\nExample 2 - Privatisation. Britain's nationalised industries were massively uncompetitive in the global market (see- British Leyland). There were also some very weird national industries - even hardcore socialists would probably concede that having a nationalised Travel Agency was unnecessary. However, the actualities of selling off these industries was pitched as a pragmatic decision then executed as a ideologically motivated one. Industries were sold at below their market value in order to get rid of them and suit the political sensibilities of the cabinet.",
"As a Parks and Rec fan, is Margaret Thatcher like Ben Wyatt and his situation with Ice Town? ",
"As an 18 year old, I have no understanding of her actions and therefore no opinion.\n\nUltimately, were her actions beneficial for the country's progression? What are the possible outcomes if that decision was not made, to de-industrialize the country.",
"She invented Mr Whippy ice cream. ",
"She was a strong center-right figure in British politics. She angered a lot of people on the left due to her sweeping economic reforms (she was strongly aligned with Ronald Reagan). Imagine how the Tea Party reacted to Obamacare in the US and just switch the sides to get a good picture of how the British Left views Thatcher. ",
"Her monetary policies nearly crashed the Pound Sterling, Britain's currency. And Rupert Murdoch still bears the grudge.\n\nMurdoch helped perpetuate the old \"Conservatives are the fiscal responsible ones\" myth, the bedrock of Thatcherism, which lasted right up to the bit where [Black Wednesday forced the Tories to withdraw the pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), after they were unable to keep Sterling above its agreed lower limit when currency markets believed the policy was unsustainable.](_URL_0_)\n\nThe most high profile of the currency market investors, **George Soros**, made over US$1 billion profit from Black Wednesday. Which means George Soros, the person so hated by the [f]right[ened]-wing over here, put his money where his mouth was by betting against the Conservative way of doing business. It was a two-horse race: Conservative monetary policy won't fail, versus \"yes it will\", and Soros bet that it was a house of cards just waiting to topple.\n\nSo now you all know why the GOP hates him with a seething irrational hatred... they fear him because he was 100% correct and they lost their little fluffy dreams (and a lot of their investments too) based on Conservative sound-bites. If you ever wondered why there's so much coverage of George Soros on Fox News: Murdoch's a sore loser and still hasn't forgotten it.",
"My first experience of politics was margaret thatcher stealing my milk. One night an old witch called maggie thatch snuck into all the schools and nurseries around the country and stole all the milk. She didn't drink it, she just locked it up in a big room where no-one could get it. She did this because she wanted your bones and teeth to rot.\n\nNow this may not exactly tie in with the facts of the issue, but this was my perception and it stuck with me for a long time. Then the first year I was eligible to vote, the tories lost their first election in 18 years, I think a lot of people that just reached voting age might have been influenced by the same thing.",
"She was also in power when the incredibly homophobic Section 2A was added to Section 28 of the Local Government Act which stated that a local authority \"shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality\" or \"promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship\". \n\nThis amendment lasted 15 years.",
"She wasn't just the English Prime Minister, she was Prime Minister for the rest of the UK, too.",
"I'm a little confused about the situation with the mines, can someone explain in more detail? As I understand it the coal mines were state-owned and were becoming unprofitable. Thatcher privatized the mines, and whilst some changed to more efficient mining techniques, causing a loss of mining employment, others were closed. Have I got the right idea?",
"All i know is, my grandfather owned a farm in rural Scotland, and lived in a nice house, and then bam, according to my father they were poor schmoe's living in Dunfermline thanks to *her*",
"Many people compare and relate Thatcher to Reagan. However, America adores Reagan while Britain detests Thatcher. Why is there such a huge difference of public opinion on two fairly similar politicians?",
"Mod get it right please... UK Prime Minister... Not \"English\".",
"Hi! I read in [this BBC News article](_URL_0_):\n\n > She will not have a state funeral but will be accorded the same status as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother.\n\n...Why no state funeral?",
"I saw picture of her that Anonymous tweeted that said \"No sanctions. Nelson Mandela is a terrorist.\"\n\nWhat's up with that?",
"she was a straight bitch.\n\nedit: i should probably add; this was a (fairly obscure) Community reference.\n\nedit 2: but as someone living in the North East, she was a bitch.",
"Were the mines she closed uneconomical? Where these jobs people were made about loosing mostly make work jobs? Did the overall economy get better with her policies?",
"I'm a second generation immigrant, and the first generations have a general dislike of her. However, we're from Vietnam, were refugees in Hong Kong for a couple of years, and then immigrated to Canada. Was there something she did that was against immigration or did the Britain's dislike of her a globally known hate? I never quite understood why my parents didn't like her. ",
"The rich got richer, the poor got decidedly poorer. \n\nGood riddance to bad rubbish!",
"I have mixed feelings about Margaret Thatcher. As a leader, she certainly used \"the ends justify the means\" and definitely practiced some draconian policies with regards to select communities within Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She, at times, let her own personal conservative beliefs interfere with the common good, and that is a shame. \n\nThat said, she still remains Britain's first female PM, and that in and of itself is quite an accomplishment. In that respect, she should be admired as an inspiration to woman for not allowing the men in her life to stop her from achieving her dreams. \n\nAll in all, you can say the good OR the bad about someone when they pass away. People do not live in black and white, but all are sorts of shades of gray. \n\nAnd that is how Margaret Thatcher and her legacy will remain, spotted with shades of gray. Rest in Peace. ",
"\"The Fletcher Memorial Home\"\n\ntake all your overgrown infants away somewhere\n\nand build them a home a little place of their own\n\nthe fletcher memorial\n\nhome for incurable tyrants and kings \n\nand they can appear to themselves every day\n\non closed circuit t.v.\n\nto make sure they're still real\n\nit's the only connection they feel\n\n\"ladies and gentlemen, please welcome reagan and haig\n\nmr. begin and friend mrs. thatcher and paisley\n\nmr. brezhnev and party\n\nthe ghost of mccarthy\n\nthe memories of nixon\n\nand now adding colour a group of anonymous latin\n\namerican meat packing glitterati\" \n\ndid they expect us to treat them with any respect\n\nthey can polish their medals and sharpen their\n\nsmiles, and amuse themselves playing games for a while\n\nboom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead\n \nsafe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye\n\nwith their favourite toys\n\nthey'll be good girls and boys\n\nin the fletcher memorial home for colonial\n\nwasters of life and limb\n \nis everyone in?\n\nare you having a nice time?\n\nnow the final solution can be applied\n\nby Pink Floyd",
"Not a lot of people know this but Thatcher (a chemist) and her husband Denis (via chemical companies he was involved in) were able to allow the export of nerve gas starters to Iran and Iraq,ostensibly for the manufacture of insecticides, they were actually used to make Sarin.\nSo, the hunt for so called WMD's, which they never found, were used as the excuse for the us/uk warmongering which followed.\nShe should have stuck to making Mr Whippy icecream,she was good at that.",
"[Warning Graphic content]\n\nUnder Thatcher's orders -\n\"some of the most brutal police treatment of people that I've witnessed in my entire career as a journalist. The number of people who have been hit by policemen, who have been clubbed whilst holding babies in their arms in coaches around this field, is yet to be counted.\" - ITN reporter Kim Sabido\n\n[Operation Solstice (Beanfield Eviction) 1985](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Elliot",
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/29/newsid_2494000/2494793.stm",
"http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/5553/1/Thatcherism_New_Labour_and_the_Welfare_State.pdf",
"http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/40... | |
4c1uaa | how car insurance pricing works. i just switched companies and my price went from 201 dollars a month to 102 dollars a month for full coverage, how can such a large difference happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c1uaa/eli5_how_car_insurance_pricing_works_i_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1eah95",
"d1eb5nr",
"d1eb8ss",
"d1ech2y",
"d1ecz3x",
"d1edb69",
"d1edvqg",
"d1edztc",
"d1ee8eo",
"d1ee8r8",
"d1eeh9i",
"d1eeno6",
"d1eepte",
"d1eeruc",
"d1eet2p",
"d1eezq0",
"d1ef7gr",
"d1eftrz",
"d1eg89i",
"d1egrss",
"d1egyjd",
"d1ei8oe",
"d1eim35",
"d1ek055",
"d1eki8l",
"d1el3m2",
"d1el9o8",
"d1elfwb",
"d1els4z",
"d1elsw1",
"d1emht5",
"d1emjzx",
"d1emqb1",
"d1emqpo",
"d1emquv",
"d1emrfu",
"d1enp5j",
"d1enwig",
"d1enyae",
"d1eodt6",
"d1eohwo",
"d1ep9z7",
"d1epklt",
"d1esi85",
"d1et5dd"
],
"score": [
234,
72,
14,
6,
1821,
26,
7,
4,
3,
9,
4,
2,
8,
11,
5,
760,
2,
9,
5,
6,
9,
2,
14,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Raising your deductible, first and foremost. You didn't mention if your deductible had changed. Deductible is the amount of risk that you accept and pay out before insurance kicks in. The higher the deductible, the lower your insurance premium.",
"Car insurance pricing is based on your age, sex, location, credit history, driving history, type of vehicle, age of vehicle and yes prices can vary greatly by company for the same level of coverage. Each company uses different formulas and pricing which is why its smart to shop around especially if you move or buy a new vehicle.",
"EDIT:Profiting from selling insurance is a bet. You get a thousand people to insure their cars for X dollars. The bet is that of those 1000 people, the net claims for the insurance will be less than the total collected.\n\nYour price is lower because the insurance company sees you as less of a risk or less to cover. ",
"Also different insurance companies have different sweet spots - what types of coverage they can be competitive on pricing. ",
"I don't see the main correct answer here which is that apples to apples, a lot of companies give new customers really cheap rates, and then slowly raise them on you year to year. \n\nYou can literally apply to the same company you are with, exact same info, and 90% of the time you will get a cheaper rate. \n\nEdit* to the few dimwits, stop replying trying to convince me this isn't a thing, it *is* a thing for nearly every company. Using the fact that rates are different company to company to \"prove\" it's not a thing is not proving anything. Both of those things can be and are true. ",
"Also, credit score is a huge factor. Most insurance companies run your credit when you take out a policy. Shit credit gets high premiums. Good credit gets low premiums. Assuming you pay your bills on time, most young people's credit scores get better each year, primarily due to the increasing length of time you've had credit available. ",
"You might want to look into the car insurance company your new insurance is through for customer complaints. I was recently searching for car insurance and I noticed I could get insurance from Esurance and Geico for almost half of what more traditional places quoted me at. It turned out that both Esurance and Geico are known for raising their prices dramatically after the first couple of months.",
"Even if you have similar deductibles and coverage, insurance companies rely on you being lazy at renewal time. Discount rates for new customers because they are price sensitive, and you want them as a customer. Raise the rates in the following years and improve profit margin.",
"I just responded somewhat with an answer when talking to someone else, but the real answer you are looking for is this. \n\nCompanies depend on people just setting and forgetting. It autorenews every time and they can minimally raise your insurance or even give slight breaks here and there to keep the customer happy. It's already budgeted so most people won't pay it another mind. However, if you so much as call, you can have your rates dropped drastically just by saying that you are thinking about switching. \n\n",
"Potential damage your vehicle can do is also a factor, my insurance went down switching from an 02 Silverado to a 15 wrangler cause the wrangler can't do nearly as much damage in an accident according to my.insurance of course ",
"200 dollars per month, what are you insuring, a Ferrari? Or is American car insurance just crazy expensive? ",
"Once you hit three years driving record you will see a massive deceease. Also a smaller one at the 8 year mark. ",
"I've switched insurance companies SO MANY TIMES for this reason. I'm pretty sure I've used most major carriers by now, everyone tries to up my rates after 6-12 months, so I just move along.\n\nNo one tries to stop me either, I just say I'm getting it cheaper elsewhere and they're like \"kthxbai\"",
"For me I had a few tickets on my record. But even after they dropped off my rates didn't go down that much. But I filled out the quote with my same details, same car, same coverage exactly. And the rates were shockingly lower. So I called the company and gave them my quote number and they dropped my rate to the new quote.\n\nSo for me it was a case where they could have lowered my rate to what it currently should be based on my current status but didn't have to. Every few years I get a quote on the website I have coverage but NOT linked to my account to see if the rate changes\n",
"First off, full coverage doesn't mean anything really. To some, it means full liability (which most states require anyway). To others it means full liability plus first party coverage of which you can pick and chose what to add so even THEN it's not \"full coverage\". \n\nThere are plenty of reasons rates vary. First off, ensure you have the exact same policy from company A to company B. Line by line, exact. The most expensive part of the policy is going to be the liability coverage (property damages, bodily injury, etc). Then if you add collision, that's typically the 2nd most pricey piece. Then comprehensive, rental, etc. \n\nInsurance companies are also reviewing and adjusting their rates constantly. My company submitted reductions about 8 months ago, resulting in a ton of new customers/current customer's rate drop. Our competitors are JUST doing so now. Rates flux depending on new state laws, # of claims or catastrophes in the previous year, crime rates in certain areas (which is why you can move 5 miles down the road and see an increase/decrease). \n\nIt's also possible that any \"flags\" on you have fallen off your record (think tickets, accidents, even your credit score increasing). Insurance companies run a report on your accident/ticket history report maybe once a year once you sign up so you could easily be paying too much for that ticket that no longer goes against you. \n\nAnd as said below, you typically get a sweet deal in the beginning. New customers are new because they care about price. ",
"Ooooo! A question I can answer! I work in insurance as an underwriter!\n\nFour main considerations, which may be happening together, are possible here:\n\n1) **You might just be paying for a \"cheaper\" product now.** It could be that your 201 dollar policy was the equivalent of a Bentley, but now your new policy is like a Toyota. Your deductibles (amount you pay out of pocket before the insurance company pays) could be higher, which would lower your premium. Your annual maximums (most the insurance company will pay) could be lower. The actual things it covers could be lower (maybe it doesn't cover windshield breaks, for example, but your prior policy did). Car insurance isn't all just one product. You can get a policy tailored to how much you want for 'coverage'. Maybe you just picked a policy that has a lot less benefits, which means you could find yourself paying more out-of-pocket in the case of an accident!\n\n2) **Your new company might have a lot more sophisticated pricing formula and you were found to be lower risk!** Bigger companies tend to have a lot more historical data and they can leverage this to create sophisticated pricing formula. If you're *actually* a low risk, then you can benefit from this. The insurance company has a high incentive to get your premiums as low as possible without making them so low that you end up costing them more than you paid. If they have a lot of historical data about people *similar* to you in a lot of ways (sex, age, accident history, education level, etc) then they will feel more confident about quoting you a price much closer to where you actually belong. If you're a high risk person, you lose out on this since you'll be charge more.\n\n3) **The corollary to \\#2: You could be actually high risk and your old company priced your risk correctly whereas the new one's formula isn't as good and you're paying less than you really should be!**\n\n4) **Your new company might do more things electronically, which saves in admin expenses for the company. Those savings get passed on to you.** Geico and Esurance, for example, have a lot less 'paperwork' to pay for than more traditional car insurance companies. However, this wouldn't cause a $100 difference. It could be a contributing factor though. If you switched from, say, Liberty Mutual over to Geico, then you're going to see some savings just from this factor alone. However, some would argue that you're also losing out on service. That's really something harder to quantify or argue about objectively though. ",
"I got sick of playing games with insurance companies years ago and just went with AAA. Competitive rates and excellent service. Couldn't be happier\n\nI also got sick of banks. Pisses me off just thinking about them. Ugh. So I moved everything to my credit union about ten years ago. I can not recommended this enough. ",
"I used to work as a statistician on an auto insurance price optimization team. Aside from the fact that different companies have varying risk appetites, pricing models (determining your riskiness at an individual level), some companies offer you a price which is also based on their perception of your price elasticity.\n\nIf they view you as price inelastic (not so sensitive to price changes) you will typically receive a nice new business discount so you feel like a special and valued customer. Then, they will proceed to hike your price up each contract period by an amount they think will not bother you enough to shop around. Eventually you will be priced above what your risk alone would suggest (you are now paying too much) and they hope you go on merrily paying them forever. Your longevity with the company is crucial to their profitability.\n\nIt is an easy system to game. Find out which companies use price optimization from your state's insurance regulator, then switch between these companies every time you are up for contract renewal. Rest assured most companies pricing models are way too stupid to realize you are a returning customer who is gaming their system. You will reap the benefits of this new business discount for the foreseeable future. I know we had no provisions for this. \n\nOne caveat. This assumes you are American and in a state where price optimization is legal.",
"I'm an insurance broker and I shop customer rates all the time with a variety of companies. The truth is that each company has their own criteria of what a \"good risk\" looks like. Some carriers rate heavily on credit while others rate heavily on driving activity. I get quotes from Safeco for a young individual with no credit that equals $4000+ per year for one car. However that same person will only pay $1700 at Unigard because the apetites vary from company to company. It's also very true that new customers get the most discounts. The old model of customer loyalty went away about 6 years ago when insurance carriers found they could aggressively raise rates at renewal and enough people would stay to remain profitable. However, now carriers give large discounts to new customers if they have been with their previous company for many years, so it's catch 22 if you try and shop your insurance every year. I know what companies will work best with just basic information. ",
"I'm seeing a lot of misinformation here. I'm an insurance Underwriter.\n\nFirst, \"full coverage\" is not an industry term and using it without understanding this when purchasing a policy can be problematic. If anything, \"full coverage\" would technically be the minimum liability limits your state requires.\n\nTo the above point, many companies offer differing optional coverages (Even comprehensive+collision are often optional but varies by situation.)\n\nCompanies also view rating factors differently. Much of pricing is driven from market research. What one company charges for a set of rating factors (car type, vehicle location, etc) may have better historical data with one company versus another.\n\nAs others have pointed out, we also don't know OP's deductibles which are a huge contributing factor. Some companies allow you to tweak these deductibles and coverages to save you money. Sure you've got every coverage they offer, but is a $2000 deductible sensible?\n\nAt the end of the day, I would compare your declarations page from your old company to the one from your new one. See what's different. \n\nTL;DR Auto insurance is complicated. Read your declaration's page, see what you're actually paying for. If all you're trying to do is save money, try an **independent** agent. They make commission on finding *you* the right insurance company (cost + needs).",
"I switched from Progressive to USAA.\n\nWith Progressive, I was paying about $110/month for full coverage on my truck. \n\nSwitching to USAA, I now pay $169/month BUT I added my wife (who has several accidents) so that we have full coverage on two vehicles PLUS personal property coverage PLUS renters insurance.\n\nI'm not big on advertising for businesses, but USAA earned my 90 seconds to write this. ",
"Credentialed actuary here (life and health, but the same principles apply).\n\nEach company starts with claims experience for the past n years and tries to figure out which factors (make and model of car, age of car, mileage on car, your age and gender, driving record, credit score, etc.) correspond to higher rates and lower rates (e.g. safe driving discount, higher rate for low credit score).\n\nNow here's the important part: Those models are constantly changing. Both the factors (age 20-25 might be changed to 22-29) and the relative factors (10% higher vs. 4% higher). But the policy you bought is locked into the model you bought into. When you get a quote for a new carrier, all the new factors are taken into account. Perhaps your car is older and you haven't had any accidents recently, or maybe your age going up puts you into a less risky bracket. Hence, the combination of factors can result in a substantial discount. Your 50% decrease is unusual, but not unheard of.\n\nLPT: Before switching, if you've been with the same carrier for a few years, ask to go through underwriting again. Then compare that rate to the other carrier's quote. It's always a good idea to shop around every 2 - 3 years minimum.\n\nAdditional Note: Some companies do give a slight discount for first-year customers, but with competitive profit margins and claim-causing incidents being random variables that are more or less independent of length of time on a policy, it's not much, maybe $50 for the first six months and that's it.",
"P & C actuary here. \n\nDifferent companies use vastly different models. They have different target markets, and the models will be setup to 'skim the cream' of their target market --- that is, they will try to find the lowest cost segment of a gorup the industry generally rates the same, and then give them a better price to get all that business. \n\nThis is likely what happened here. You weren't in Company A 'target market' so they had you in a broader class than copmany B is using for your demographic.\n\n",
"I'm going to do a horrible job at this because I'm still learning everything, but:\n\nI work in Michigan, for a traumatic brain injury rehabilitation center (stay with me here). The vast majority of the people we serve are injured in auto accidents. Michigan is a unique state because we have something called \"no-fault\" auto insurance, which basically means that if you're injured in an auto accident in Michigan you will receive healthcare benefits, no matter who is at fault in the accident. This is different from other states which rely on the court system to assign blame and to obtain compensation for care. Other states had this benefit before, but y'all gave it up under the auspices of marginally lower insurance rates (I'm looking at you Colorado, Florida).\n\nFinally working my way around to how this relates to your question:\n\nIn Michigan we all pay a small fee each month to the insurance companies, which in turn pay into a giant fund called the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, which has approximately $20B in it, and is designed to pay for \"catastrophic\" injuries (over ~$500,000, which isn't a lot if you've ever looked at healthcare costs). For a variety of what I deem nefarious reasons, insurance companies are fighting to do away with our system/dissolve the fund (fun fact: they get to keep all the money we paid into the MCCA if they do!). This is relevant to this conversation because in fighting the insurance companies, I've had the opportunity to sit in a lot of legislative hearings with industry leaders and state representatives while they battle over topics directly related to this question (super interesting btw, highly recommend it). I also work with the head of a group called CPAN (_URL_0_), which is made up of the hospital association here, trial lawyers, various brain injury treatment providers, and a bunch of other groups. He's a smart dude and shares insights with us, where allowable.\n\nThe biggest take home point I feel is that insurance companies do not have to tell you how they set their rates. There's no law requiring it. I'm pretty sure they're actually protected from doing so because it's akin to a \"trade secret\", but don't quote that part. So really, they could charge you more for any reason. Driving history, gender, criminal history, car type, whether or not it's Tuesday, what have you. I CAN tell you some factors we do know based on personal and professional experience:\n\n- Credit score (higher is better)\n- ZIP code (don't live near poor people)\n- Job Title (those including wordes like \"executive\" or \"manager\" get you bonus points)\n\nSo, just looking at those three things, you can see huge fluxuations in rate. The biggest example I can give you is the city of Detroit, where rates can be 5x higher (so...like $500/mo) if you live within the city limits. This is because of the perceived increase in risk of living in Detroit (more un-insured drivers). The same can be said of Flint, or any other area where low SES people live. But basically you can live on one side of a dividing line (read: 8 mile), and pay an exorbitant rate in comparison to the other side of a dividing line. \n\nNaturally that's excessive (and immoral from where I sit), so the mayor, Mike Duggan, is trying to come up with a solution. Unfortunately, his solution (dubbed D insurance) is to try and cut the benefits provided by our awesome no fault system. So far he's been unsuccessful, but we have lame duck this year...so yay! \n\nThe above paragraph relates to my next point: You say full coverage, but I'd look into that. I'm not sure what state you live in, and I'd wager I don't know much about the auto insurance of wherever it is anyways, but check the fine print. See if your Personal Injury Protection (PIP) went down. See if your deductible went up, or if your coverage amounts for uninsured motorists changed. Check all of the things, because from what I've seen...insurance companies are shady as eff and you really need to look much closer than \"oh neato I have full coverage and my rate went down\".\n\nI think that's all I have. I could go on and talk about how the former head of the House Insurance Committee got a job with an insurance company after he left office, the lies the insurance companies tell, about how much money they collectively spend each year lobbying to get rid of a system that literally saves/restores lives, or about other depressing things, but I hope you get the picture. Also, note that everything I said here is infinitely more complex than I just typed, but the TL;DR answer to your question is: Nobody can say for sure because insurance companies don't have to say, but insurance companies are shady and there are all sorts of lawsuits in my state showing it.\n\nHoller if you have questions about anything I said. I'll try to answer, but again...still learning.\n\n",
"Insurance companies make money in two ways: 1) premiums and 2) investing those premiums in stocks and bonds. How an ins co makes out with their investments affects their insurance premiums. Ins co's also employ actuaries-people who analyze the vast data collected from each policyholder. They then price their products in an attempt to ensure that each type of insurance they sell makes a profit. And yes, some ins co's price 'new business' customers at better rates than 'renewal' customers, so it's a good idea to shop around every 1-3 years. If you are a good risk (i.e. haven't had a claim lately) and you are unhappy with your renewal price, you can also contact your company and ask them to lower your premium, rather than change to a new company (they may or may not be able to do so). There are over 100 insurance companies so there is fierce competition.",
"There's a lot of factors at play. I'm a Canadian broker so I have only one perspective. Let's say you had a ticket in June 2013 and your renewal is in may. You'll be rated for the ticket until may 2017, but if you quote for insurance elsewhere in may, you won't be rated for it because it's fallen off. Tickets don't appear or fall off mid term.\n\nCarriers price differently for rating factors. The same vehicle for the same driver can vary from carrier to carrier. The same goes with rating territories. These may change mid term for you, but won't affect you until your renewal or if you switch carriers.\n\nYou also need to consider how an insurer spends it's money. Insurance is a giant pool of money to pay out losses of the few. Some carriers will deny a larger # of claims or pay less, meaning they don't need to charge as much premium. This is great until you have a loss and get paid a miniscule amount. Remember, it's up to the insurer to determine actual cash value of your vehicle. More expensive carriers may pay you more for the same wreck, and will give the benefit of the doubt for a questionable claim.\n\nAs for low rates for new customers, it's not as common in Canada because carriers won't retain clients and significant discounts like these are unlikely to be approved by the regulatory body.\n\n",
"My truck was broken into. USAA paid to have everything fixed/replaced and then jacked up my rates for the next 3 years. They actually made a profit from the crime... what a scam.",
"Just switch to The General. \n\nIt's cheap. \n\nAnd you get to see the horror in the eyes of the guy you're trading info with after you just totalled his vehicle. (The best part)",
"Thats fkn expensive i pay like 250 for 6 months. What did u run over some kids or something?",
"Ok so I used to work for an insurance company and here is how they do it.\nFirst and foremost, everything is risk based, and that means the risk of you lodging a claim. This risk is calculated using a wide range of information and data sets, this data can get very detailed!!\n\nSecond, how they apply this data can differ from company to company. Each company applies the information differently in the hopes of being better than its competitors, plus they often use different data sets or interpret data sets differently.\n\nThird, the level of cover comes into play. If the level of cover offers choice of repairer, guaranteed authentic eplacement parts, and a hire car, that means more out of pocket for the insurance company. If the company uses repairers they choose, and can use generic parts, offering a hire car for less time, that makes it a cheaper fix.\n\nAnd finally there will always be an element of price increase for existing customers, but also discounts for them as well. Consumer price index can force the insurance companies to increase premiums each year and also the risk will change from year to year, but also loyalty discount do exist and are used. If you want to check yourself, pretend to be a new customer with the same insurance company. Get a quote online or over the phone, but be sure to use the EXACT same information when doing this (otherwise it changes your risk and therefore price). If it comes back better, call them up and ask for them to match their own price, if it comes back higher then you are probably getting some loyalty discounts on your existing policy.\n\nTL;DR\nHow much the insurance company would have to pay and the risk of them having to pay it. This information is used to calculate how much you have to pay in premiums.\n\nWritten on phone, half awake and half asleep.",
"Former insurance professional here...\nRate decrease upon a carrier (company) switch is due to several things.\n\nYour rate almost immediately decreases purely because you don't have history with them. They base your rate on their algorithm which takes into account your age, where you live, how far you drive, what you drive, your credit score etc. None of the companies have the same algorithm so rates vary from company to company based on the statistics they track. As you gain history with them this also changes your rate. \n\nThe other main reason it changes is because they short change you on your coverages. Look at how much coverage you have compared to your old policy. Do you have roadside assistance? Rental car coverage? Are you carrying minimum liability limits for your states or the amount that will cover you and your passengers in the event of an accident. Read your policy. Compare your policy. \n\nIt's also important to remember that you are purchasing risk transference. This means you transfer your financial responsibility to the insurance company (how much you transfer depends on your contract). ",
"After reading a lot of comments, I wanted to give some background info about how insurance works. I work for Allstate insurance currently. First off, yes we do have a discount exclusively for new customers called the \"early signing\" discount when you sign up for coverage at least 7 days before the effective date. This discount goes down a small amount every renewal for the next 3 renewals where it vanishes. I'm so used to always adding it to new quotes I actually don't even remember the amount of the discount, I want to say 5-10%.\n\nIn regards to rate increases, it is important to note that insurance companies CAN NOT change your insurance rate for no reason, even if you are going to switch companies. It's not like your cable company where you call them and say you're going to leave and they give you a $10 discount. Insurance rates are filed with the state and cannot be altered on a case by case basis. This is why people say when they call their agent and tell them they are switching for a lower premium, they just say \"sorry to see you go.\" The agent cannot do anything to lower your premium EXCEPT adding state approved discounts which you qualify for. So ironically enough, if you call your agent to cancel and they lower your rate, all they did was add discounts you should have been getting this whole time! Or they are doing something shady and giving you discounts you don't qualify for.\n\nAlso, in regards to the OPs original question, insurance rates are based on a TON of different factors. And while most companies all look at the same or similar factors, each company weighs each factor differently. For example, Allstate places a lot of weight on creditworthiness, whereas Geico may be more lenient on that. But maybe Allstate gives more of a discount on multi car households and Geico cares less about that. When all of those differing factors add up, you can get wildly different insurance rates from each company. It's not a standard rate calculation, each company has their own way of calculating the risk a customer represents.\n\nIf anyone has any other insurance related questions, feel free to let me know and I will try my best to answer them!",
"As the top post said, insurance companies offer much lower new business rates and are actually willing to lose money on new business policies in hopes of the -good- customers staying with them in the long term and subsidizing future new business policies and growth. Insurance companies offer a lot of \"discounts\" at new business that roll off year over year.\n\nIn insurance there's something called the tenure curve which shows that on average the longer someone has been with your company, the less losses they tend to incur. These are typically the folks who are less price sensitive and are not shopping around for the cheapest rate at every renewal. As one might expect, these customers tend to perform \"better\" and get in less accidents than your 18 year old drivers who just got a car and are shopping around every year for the cheapest rate.\n\nInsurance companies also have multiple \"books\" of business. One way of thinking about this is that someone who quotes with Geico today, will be put into a totally different rating program/algorithm than someone who quoted ten years ago. These new programs are almost always priced less. You will never be moved from the older \"books of business\" into the newer \"books of business\" by the insurance company voluntarily since you will be paying less for the same coverage and why would a company do that?\n\nIf you have been with an insurance company that you like for 3+ years call and ask the customer service reps to do something called a \"rewrite\" where they'll rewrite you into the cheaper rating program with better/more coverage. This is a good, fast way of saving a lot of money.\n\nSwitching companies can also create drastic differences in premium because of the knowledge difference between the two companies. Did you have a lot of towing/labor claims that the old company charged you for at renewal that the new company didnt know about? Has your credit score gone up since the last insurance company first ordered it when you got your policy?\n\nAnd finally, some companies target different subsets of customers and price accordingly. Geico tends to be more competitive among younger drivers, whereas companies like The Hartford typically are more competitive among 55+ (AARP members).\n\n\nSource: Am a pricing analyst for a top 5 insurance company\n",
"Everybody just needs to start posting who is their carrier, what coverage they receive, and the cost. Making this information publicly accessible and transparent will undoubtedly drive down pricing. ",
"Because insurance companies are all fucking criminals and will squeeze the last red penny out of your cold dead hands with zero remorse.",
"When I first got my license, I was paying around $4000 for Geico. 2 years later I had enough and decided to shop around. Got a quote from liberty mutual for only $1500!! Same coverage! Fuck Geico.",
"Former insurance agent here. Essentially, it comes down to risk. They are: age, your vehicle, your driving record, your zip code (theft/fraud statistics on your area), whether you're single or married/divorced, whether you're going to be purchasing more than one product with that same company. \n\nFor example, I could sell 100/300/100 coverage in North Carolina to a 25 year old single male on a 2015 Honda Civic for about 115 per month, where as in New York City (who drives there anyway, right?), the same coverage could go for about 1,150 per month. \n",
"Such a large difference exists because insurance is a legalized form of con-artistry. One corporation (and, mind you, most all are now corporations) can charge you more than another because you are a profit point to be squeezed, and some squeeze better than others. What they charge has nothing to do with what they cover. They're all about limiting expenses so as to maintain shareholder value. The insurance industry is in dire need of reform. Insurance companies should be mutualist organizations, not publicly traded corporations. As long as you are seen as a profit point rather than an individual needing to be made whole after an insurable event, you will never receive the insurance you think you have. ",
"I used to do insurance pricing so I can answer that. The price is based of this:\n\nA) the predicted loss (what we have to pay you) per policy based on how much people with your age/gender/car/situation usually cost us. Women cost less than men so they pay less, unless the law says otherwise but in a pure free market case that's how it goes. Middle aged cost less than young drivers, so on and so forth. \n\nB) the cost of selling it and managing it (advertising it to you, the website, the cost of you calling us on the phone to talk about it.) \n\nC) the profit we want to make, say 50$ per policy \n\nSo A + B + C = the Premium P we ask you. \n\nNow A is determined by our own history and research, a huge insurance like Geico has very good data, some small insurance companies not so much, the better the data, the more agressive we can afford to be. If we're 99% sure you won't cost us more than 199$ this year we can charge you only 199$ for A. \n\nB is determined by how well organized we are, if we're very effective at managing and advertising B is smaller\n\nC is determined by how much money we want to make off you, if we're trying to capture market share C is smaller, if we have too many clients already (compared to how much capital we have) we raise C.\n\nSo that's why it varies so much.\n\nYou as a customer must read the fine print and get the cheapest cover available that insures you well. That's your job to keep us honest. \n\n",
"Insurance industry is as much a business as any other industry. Different companies have different profit margins and similar but different ways of calculating risk and giving you a quote. The difference you see may be your perspective only. Other people being insured for more specialized things may have a higher quote. It depends on the company's spread risk. \n\nSource: work in insurance industry",
"I've worked in property/casualty insurance for 22 years. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that you're getting the same coverage as your former policy if it went down by 50%. It's possible for companies to be 20% different, maybe 25%, but 50% for the same coverage, unheard of. Either your deductible went way up, your coverage limits went way down, or you lost a bunch of optional coverages. I would strongly suggest you call whoever sold you the policy and tell them you want proof that you got the same (or at least nearly the same) coverage as your old company. You don't want to be finding out that the coverage isn't there when you have a claim.",
"I scrolled through some top comments and didn't see this, so I'll add another possibility to this discussion. Pricing can also vary based on the company's acceptance of risk. Insurance companies invest the premium they get from your policy. Here's a simplified example. One company gets $100 from your premium and expects to on average payout $95, so they make $5 on your policy alone. They also can invest your $100 until they have to payout and make a a few more bucks. Another company could instead charge you $95 and make $0 on your policy premium, but still make a few bucks investing your $95. This is riskier, obviously, but companies can even lower their price enough that they lose money on the policy, but if they can invest it well enough, they still make money. ",
"I work at a body shop, so I deal with most major insurance providers daily. The more expensive higher end insurance companies will use OE parts a lot more often. Especially on a newer car, or higher end car. Whereas companies like Geico will use aftermarket or used parts more often. So let's say you have USAA and you wreck your 2015 Honda Accord with 8,000 miles, USAA will use only OE brand new parts to repair your vehicle. Geico on the other hand is going to try and use aftermarket (poor fitment, lower quality, etc) or used parts. That is just one reason why some companies are cheaper than other. ",
"Also, different companies prefer to take on different risks. Some like higher risk drivers or families with younger drivers, others specialize in older, low risk customers with houses, life insurance...all wrapped up in the same company.",
"Law mandated insurance is rip off business especially when not having one is punishable by fine or worse. The prices ~~are~~ will always be fake."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"www.cpan.us"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2ls1ms | why has the population of the u.s. gone up by 300% the last 50 years, whereas the u.k. has only gone up by roughly 20%? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ls1ms/eli5_why_has_the_population_of_the_us_gone_up_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"clxlao7",
"clxlfe5",
"clxlz0c"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"We encourage more immigration. We have more space. It could be argued that we have more opportunities for economic growth. Those are the three main ones I can think of. ",
"1) Baby Boom lasted a lot longer and produced a lot more babies in the USA. The average age of marriage for women dropped all the way to 19 post WWII (it used to be in the mid-20s for much of the 19th century) and they immediately got busy. This also resulted in the Echo boom of the 80/90s.\n\n2) The USA has far more net immigration, and it is one of the few nations that has birthright citizenship. If your babies are born in the USA, they are American citizens.\n\n3) The US Economy was much stronger. First it wasn't wrecked by WWII, and then it had a much higher GDP growth rate for most of that time period. Good economies create baby boomlets.\n\n4) Abortion laws in the UK were some of the most liberal in the world when introduced in 1967.\n\n5) The USA has been much less urbanized than the UK. Rural areas have higher fertility rates.",
"Premise is incorrect. US population in 1960 was about 180 million. It has not quite doubled since then. 300% increase is wrong."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1dergm | what is the difference between celsius and centigrade? | It seems interchangeable, I'm just curious when to use each, and if there are specific rules about it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dergm/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_celsius_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9pl7mz",
"c9plhcs"
],
"score": [
14,
50
],
"text": [
"There's no difference. It's an old concept, and a lot of scientific terms have evolved over time, leaving multiple or obsolete names for old concepts. You can use either one.",
"The terms are interchangeable. The term Celsius comes from scientist Anders Celsius, who studied and helped develop the temperature scale. Centigrade come from the Latin term meaning *a hundred steps*. The hundred steps are the hundred degrees it takes for water to go from freezing to boiling.\n\nBasically, you can either use the term that is named after the creator, or use the term that describes the scale."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
26i1rc | bad breath? | Why do we get bad breath over night even though we wash our teeth, but when we wash our teeth in the morning it stays fresh more or less over the day until we eat. This confuses me. Thanks for the answer! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26i1rc/eli5_bad_breath/ | {
"a_id": [
"chrbkla"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Saliva doesn't get created that much when sleeping, so bacteria multiply. In the day the bacteria are washed away, so to speak, by the saliva. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
bxtbd1 | ; why is dark skin selected for when you’re in the sun a lot? dark colors absorbs most visible light, while white reflects it. is it different for uv light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bxtbd1/eli5_why_is_dark_skin_selected_for_when_youre_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"eq9grgr",
"eq9hiz0",
"eq9q1uy",
"eqazpmp",
"eqb7vtq",
"eqbhbv1"
],
"score": [
78,
10,
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the upper layer of skin is dead anyway. That dead layer of skin absorbs a lot more of the radiation from the Sun than it would if it was lightly colored, which helps protect the skin beneath it. This is white dark skin people don't get sunburn nearly as easily as fair-skinned people.\n\nDarker-skinned people do technically absorb more heat from the Sun than lighter skin people, but compared to the amount of heat that the body is producing naturally through its own metabolic actions this difference is negligible.",
"Yes it's different. \n\nIt's not about adsorbing light it's about absorbing less uv radiation, which is what dark skin does thanks to the melanin. \n\nFun fact - Very early humans ancestors were actually light skinned, but then we began developing sweat glans and losing hair to survive. \n\nBut obviously the African sun isn't too kind to fair skin so by the time homo sapiens were around we were all dark skinned.",
"You get all of your vitamin D in about 7-10 minutes in the sun with no sunscreen. Past that you start to risk burns (UV damage). Eventually darker mutations, which have more melanin to stop the penetration of UV rays, would be selected for as they wouldn't be in pain often and would have a lower risk of melanoma.",
"I watched this the other day but it actually has more to do with folate and vitamin d synthesis.\n_URL_0_",
"It's not the color that's important but the defensive properties of the substance against dangerous radiation, in this case UV light. \n\n\"White\" in humans actually means lack of melanin.\n\n\"Black\" in humans means saturated with melanin.\n\nThe biology is more complex than that but the basic principle is that pigment in your skin protects against UV light and that pigment happens to be black. Evolution has 'chosen' for a pigment that absorbs light and thus appears dark. Theoretically, a white pigment could achieve the same effect by reflecting UV light (and visible light), but this is evolutionary less likely for whatever reason.",
"Didn’t some Inuit people retain their dark skin because they get most the vitamin D they need from fish?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/hFw8mMzH5YA"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
3dl3yk | why are leathal injections used for the death penalty | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dl3yk/eli5_why_are_leathal_injections_used_for_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct66yck"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a commonly asked question here. Please see the answers among [these previous posts.](_URL_0_) If they don't entirely answer your question, you might create a new post with\na more specific question.\n\nTry our handy Search function sometime. :-)\nFor best results in most cases, use 2 or 3 general, common words\nthat refer to the key concepts in your topic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=why+lethal+injection&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all"
]
] | ||
1yj2ue | why does the tetanus shot give us muscle pain (known as a dead arm) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yj2ue/eli5_why_does_the_tetanus_shot_give_us_muscle/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfl43y4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Mainly due to the fact that the tetanus vaccine is injected directly into the muscle.\n\nShots that are given subcutaneous (just under the skin) are quickly absorbed by the body. These shots are given in a way that lets the spread-out in the layers of skin.\n\nIntramuscular shots (tetanus and gamma globulin) are injected into the muscle. These shots are slowly absorbed by the body. They also don't have the opportunity to spread-out, causing a lump in the muscle that results in the muscle pain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5wh7w8 | why is the government quicker to give me 100k for a student loan but not 100k to start a business? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wh7w8/eli5_why_is_the_government_quicker_to_give_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"de9zvrv",
"de9zxlt",
"dea08op",
"dea1t5e",
"dea3srj",
"dea61a5",
"deabi1g",
"deabzau",
"deac8lt",
"deacie4",
"deacqb2",
"deadfie",
"deadhoo",
"deadk8o",
"deae161",
"deaeali",
"deaedhi",
"deaeh4t",
"deaejsv",
"deagc5l",
"deagwlf",
"deah0i2",
"deah2ex",
"deahuw6",
"deahxej",
"deaikdc",
"deaiomc",
"deaiv7c",
"deaix98",
"deaj42t",
"deajcn0",
"deal08h",
"deal30q",
"deamfu7",
"deany3z"
],
"score": [
1318,
256,
2,
53,
5,
27,
2,
37,
1650,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7,
25,
2,
2,
14,
2,
3,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
9,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For the most part, a college education is seen as more beneficial to society in general, regardless of whether or not you end up getting a career in your field. Knowledge is good! There's also the fact that the vast majority of businesses fail within the first few years - and it takes a ton of knowledge (usually learned in school) to successfully run a business, not to mention a solid plan, good market research, a service or product people both need and want to buy, and a bit of luck.\n\nFurthermore, if you take out a 100k student loan, even if you don't get a career in your field there's a high likelihood you'll be able to pay back at least some of the loan. If you get paid 100k to start a small business and that business dies after a year, all of a sudden you have nothing to show for it at all and possibly will declare bankruptcy, costing the government even more money.",
"Student loans, by law, are extremely difficult to discharge because of financial difficulty, and generally have a positive return on investment. A buisness loan is a gamble with little guarantee, and is not under strong federal protection.",
"I'd add to what's here that there are resources that help small business people get started provided by the government, but a big reason for thr loan difference is that there are plenty of people more than willing to give promising businesses loans. After all, if a business seems to have a chance of success, the loan will be paid off and there will be assets and business plans to back it. \n\nBut with students, that market is much less solid. The loans are riskier and have less to be based on. Sure, people are likely to make the money back at some point, but it's clearly a market where the number of even semi affordable loans available would be far less then the demand. This is why govt ultimately stepped in.",
"You cannot discharge the student loan easily. Generally only death will discharge it. Your wages will be garnished if you fail to pay off the debt for your student loans. \n\nMoney for your business can be discharged through bankruptcy though, so it is more of a risk. ",
"Because 98 percent of businesss fail within a year and no means to pay the money back. At leasf with a degree there is a chance of getting the money back over the long haul. Its all a scam anyways.",
"A student loan is a double investment to government. There is interest paid back on the loan and you are more employable in the workforce and will have a greater economic benefit to the country. For the US this applies world wide as their tax laws apply to citizens anywhere.\n\nA business is riskier. The government is more likely to give money to a business than a bank, but it's more likely given as grants than loans and it's still not easy. Most businesses fail in the first few years and they need the 100k usually during start up. Student loans are given out on a per semester basis, spreading it out over years. So a student who drops out after a year will have had less investment from the gov't than a full graduate, the longer you're in school, the more employable you are. A business that fails will have a far larger debt burden due to startup costs and will no longer be contributing to the economy.\n\nFinally you have elections. You'll get far more votes from parents and newly voting students by helping them out than refusing. Which is why it's hard to declare bankruptcy from a student loan, because there needed to be more security in the programs so the election promised could be kept.\n\nCanada had a situation in 2000 where the banks used to handle student loans with gov't guaranteeing them, but they would no longer agree to that risk. Knowing that ending or substantially changing the student loan program would be political suicide, the gov't took over the program entirely which allowed them to completely eliminate the ability to discharge a student loan through bankruptcy. ",
"Follow the money. When you take out a student loan, the money goes right back to the government when you pay your tuition. They aren't really giving you anything.",
"Because it's been 7 years since you borrowed $100K for your LibArts degree, you still haven't paid it back, and now you're back asking for another $100K to start your kale wrap sub shop.",
"That is kind of quirky way to ask the question. I would phrase it as \"Why is the government more willing to help get me a 100K for a student loan than 100K loan to start a business?\" That is because the government does not provide loans to individuals, just guarantees to lender on behalf of private borrowers.\n\n1. **Slower Escalation** A typical business is going to need most or all of that 100K upfront, while a college student will get it over time. Because it takes time, if you are not fit for the degree you are more likely to drop out before you ever get remotely close to the 100 K amount. \n2. **Student Loans are Self Sorting** Racking up 100K in student loans is not easy. To get that much in debt you likely went to an excellent school, you are close to graduating from college, or you are working on a post graduate degree. You would not be in that school or graduate program unless you were already a well above average person. If youare asking for 100K in student loans, I know you have already jumped through a lot of evaluation and passed it to reach the point that you can ask for it. \n3. **Business Loans Require a LOT of Customization** As someone who worked as credit analyst of small businesses at a community bank, I can tell you that a small time business loan involves a lot of custom agreements and custom evaluation. So for every business loan the lender is going to have evaluate it and assure to the government that it will be repaid for the loan to promote the economy as intended.\n4. **College Education has Great Returns** On average a 4 year degree earned at age 22 has something the realm of a 12% return. That is more than enough to cover the interest on a loan. Additionally College Education has a host of non-monetary benefits to them and society. College educated people tend to have better health, better child rearing, and more stable income. That means that government has to spend less on medicare, less on crime, and less on welfare programs. So a college education pays for itself, increases taxes, and reduces government expenses.\n5. **Public Assistance is not necessary to insure the creation of a market.** For a loan to be worthwhile to make it has to be repaid. And for a lender to borrow, they have to prove that they can repay a loan. If you could prove to the government you could repay your business loan, you could prove to a bank that you could repay your business loan. The government has no role in this market. But what sucks about education is that while it has great a rate of return for the recipient and society, for it to be worthwhile you have make the loan to people who have been adults for just a few months or years. These people have no way of proving that they have a good plan for how they will use the funds. Plus part of the process of going to college is figuring out what you are good at. \n6. **Business Loans do not have a clear link to a better society** In general there is no guarantee of external benefits (benefits that go to someone else) from a business like with college education. This is why when the government does guarantee loans it is because it perceives a way to benefit society as whole with them. Like for example, home loans allow people to buy homes. These homes provide people with equity and more stability. This reduces their burden on welfare programs and makes them more invested in their communities (in theory). The agenda of a government loan program is make sure more loans of a beneficial type are provided more than the market would normally want to provide.\n\n--------------\n\nEDIT 1: Some people have correctly pointed out that some government agencies do make loans directly and that is how they do it since I taught a class on this subject. \n\nBut they are only technically correct (the best kind of correct). Most of these agencies will bundle the loans into a ABS or similar security and sell it in the private market. At the end of the day the government is not the ultimate lender, just a conduit that provides a guarantee. From a economic point of view, it doesn't really matter where the guarantee comes in the funding stream, just that it happens. The effect is the same. The government is guaranteeing your loan to the ultimate lender.\n",
"I'll add a slightly different perspective to the others. In part, it is because the education system (including those who finance the loans) get more money. Inexpensive student loans allows colleges to charge more and fund things like increases in teacher salaries, more teachers in general, higher salaries for administrative personnel, etc. There is big money to be made in making low-risk student loans so you have these firms - and their lobbying dollars - further encouraging it. At the most extreme, we've seen for-profit colleges like Strayer and Phoenix become worth billions of dollars by being able to get loan-money from students who rarely graduate and, for those who do graduate, often a lesser quality education. It certainly provides more opportunities for people to go to school and that is a plus. But if you really want the short answer to your question it has more to do with who benefits from the money.",
"It takes a lot of knowledge to successfully run a business, but not the ones you learn in school for sure.",
"Corruption.\n\nThe economy would be boosted far more with the failed businesses than with the failed college kids",
"No bank in its right mind would offer a student loan to the majority of people that seek them because there is basically no real collateral. As such, the government guarantees them. This is unnecessary as there is a vibrant private market for business loans.\n\nThis is also why you can't declare bankruptcy on student debt.",
"1. It's not the government giving the loan. It's one of a set of approved lending institutions.(banks)\n\n2. The loan is protected from almost every type of default(making the loan go away without paying).(bankruptcy, etc) So that it can't be wiped away. It means the owner of the loan has a claim on you forever, or until the debt is paid. This is the number one reason why it's easy to get a student loan. Not \"benefit for society\" or \"you're a good investment\". It's the lack of default options.\n\n\n",
"Bankruptcy lawyer here. The answer has been stated herein by others, but it bears repeating. Federally backed student loans are an explicit exception to discharge within the Bankruptcy Code. The Brunner Test has developed to determine whether undue hardship exists that should justify the discharge of other student loans, but these are typically privately held student loans, not federally backed. On the other hand, go set up an LLC, borrow a bunch of cash, personally guarantee it, default on the note, liquidate the business and give all proceeds to the lender, then file a chapter 7 and you are off and down the road to start your next venture. The treatment in bankruptcy is where the answer lies. ",
"Because you can't declare bankruptcy on a student loan, ultimately putting you in a situation comparable to indentured servitude.",
"Imagine if to actually get student Loans you had to apply ad interview for them based off merit and not just a rubber stamp?\n\nWhat was your GPA in high school?\n\nWhat is your major and how will you use that in the market place?\n\nWhat are your schools of choice for your major?\n\nOf course this would devastate the college industry and liberal arts areas of that world...but I have to ask...would it be so bad if less people went to college right now who were not prepared for it?\nWould it be so bad if less people stopped going because it is what \"they should do\" or \"their friends are doing'?\n\nYeah \"knowledge is great\" but tell that to how many people drop out after 2-3 years with nothing or all the liberal arts degrees who are working retail right now with $20-30k+ debt for no reason.",
"My cynical perspective is that student loans are a safe return on investment. Now here me out:\n\n**Only death can absolve you of student loans** And even that's not a guarantee. If your parents, or some dumb spouse, co-sign the loan, then THEY are on the hook after your death. Even if your loans are forgiven, the remaining principal is considered \"income\" for tax purposes. That means you owe a percentage of whatever is forgiven to the IRS. One way or another, the government will get their money back.\n\n**It's good propaganda** \"Look at all the students we support, all the dreams we made come true!\" The messaging writes itself.\n\nOn the other hand, there's no guarantee the small business will make any money and there's a multitude of ways they can avoid paying you back.",
"Because the government has no easy way of knowing if your business will be any good. Many or most businesses fail. On the other hand there are systems of accreditation the for colleges to help ensure an enducation is at least decent, and records are kept about what the average graduate makes after he gets his college education. ( it is more than the average non-college-graduate)\n\nIf there was an easy and objective way to rank business plans it would be far easier for banks or the government to give loans for them. But there is no easy objective way to say which businesses will succeed or fail. ",
"For the same reason you can declare bankruptcy as a business owner, but not as an unemployed student.",
"Because it sells better as a politician.\n\n\"Help little Timmy escape poverty through learning all these good things about Gender Studies\" sounds more feel good than perpetuating the great \"Evil\" of capitalism.",
"Because you can declare bankruptcy with business loans. \n\nThis will get downvoted, but using your student loan money to start a business is no more immoral than other students using it to go on vacation in Cancun, live in $2000 month apartments or buying motorcycles or new cars. \n\nIt is riskier for you though vs getting a regular loan or using a card, because these loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy like business loans. And if you wind up with no education cause you were going to be some big business tycoon and a stupid amount of debt you are fucked for life.\n\nSo, using $1000 to start a t shirt biz might be a good business. Siphoning off 100k over 4 years to start a restaurant is prob bad business. ",
"You can go bankrupt and be free from SBA loans, you can't do the same for school loans. And private school loans can follow you into the afterlife if you die.",
"because the business loan is generally more direct, lucrative, and carries a chance of massive failure and an inability to ever recoup their losses. Business loans are extremely time-consuming and oftentimes complicated because of that - meaning they require a ton of risk analysis, possible collateral, and a business model-related things to ensure success of the loan. You also have a more strict timeframe on loan repayment and similar rules regarding the loan. \n\nStudent loans, however, are handled with a middleman setup and are more simplified because of the agreement made (you get this, we get this...if you fail or do this then the agreement is void... etc.). There are also a ton of societal benefits to having a college education even if it doesn't land you a job, so it sort of pays for itself even if it doesn't pay for YOU in particular. \n\nI also suppose it would be sensible to point out that unlike business loans, the college industry (yeah...it's an industry now) is HUGE now, so there is lots of money, job creation, infrastructure, local economy, etc. etc. that come out from increasing the pool of student loan recipients and therefore bringing more money flow into this industry. It also has the perk of being a revolving door, with hundreds of thousands of new and returning students every year.",
"Because if you default on a student loan, the government pays the loan people and the school 100% then they hunt you down beyond the grave to the last member of your family to collect every cent. ",
"The government is simply an extension of our will as a society. If we collectively desire something, it will eventually happen. We care to extend loans to students to finance their education. We don't care to extend loans to entrepreneurs in the same fashion. it's not a particularly complex answer at this level. But it's a concept that people often miss because they think of government as some sort of mystical complex beast whose actions are capricious and not to be divined by the human mind. Like yeah, government is indeed complex and not a perfect reflection of society's will, but ultimately, that's all it is. \n\nPersonally, i think that this answer is the best answer to the technical question of, \"why?\" \n\nFollowing up my answer with an additional, \"why?,\" leads you to all of these other answers (such as /u/ironbear76's great answer). While they're all valid, I don't think the econometrics or the discourse was that sophisticated when these systems were initially formed (probably ~30yrs ago). People weren't really going, \"yeah college means more healthy people and less people on welfare,\" when health insurance costs were otherwise negligible and welfare research was a shadow of what it is today. So i'm thinking that those answers are post-rationalization that have helped to keep the system in place. We initially subsidized education so heavily because we wanted kids to go to college. We've since found that to be a better bet than ever, so we're continuing on with it. But at a fundamental level, the idea of students touches our collective hearts and is something that we want to encourage. ",
"Remember how you voted to support the politician that said \"college education is a right\"?\n\nRemember how you demonized the money-grubbing politician that supported evil corporations/businesses?",
"Other people have pointed out the obvious, but I want to cite one other thing: **we got here gradually**.\n\n[College has gotten gradually more expensive](_URL_2_), as enrollment has risen. College is now a requirement for jobs it wasn't before. Student loans are (generally) a reasonably good investment, as the government guarantees them and the recipients have their entire working lives to pay them.\n\nCollege loans were a reasonable patch for people who didn't have the (nominal, at the time) fees to go to school. Then, as the costs rose, they became more important. People need to go to school, even if they don't need to actually learn anything there. So we, as a society, are on the hook for the whole thing, as costs rise and rise.\n\nWe're all aboard this crazy train, no one wants to be here, and we can't get off of it. [See more here](_URL_1_), and [also here](_URL_0_).",
"They should have student business loans, you go to a course on how to build/operate a small business. 20% of the loan goes to the education the remaining 80% to the business. If you don't pass the class you don't get the 80%. But are still on the hook for the 20%.",
"chance of you actually finishing school and becoming a net positive contribution to society is way higher than your business succeeding.",
"Let's not forget that when you're issued a Social Security card, it is essentially a note and that you are considered to be an investment in the future and success of the country-college is essentially the pinnacle of that learning to how to achieve that success to to become a supportive functioning member of society. ",
"Put yourself in the shoes of an investor/lender. You're willing to accept a 2% return rate on a savings account. It's a virtually risk free investment where the only way you'd lose your money is nuclear war.\n\nWould you be willing to accept that same rate of return on your friend's idea for a new restaurant? No, because the risk of his business failing and you losing your investment is far greater.\n\nIt's all about risk.",
"A student loan is a good investment - you're paying for someone to study which means they're more likely to get a job, which means they're likely to pay off that loan back.\n\nA business is fraught with risks - how does the government know you're going to put that money to good use? Do you make good financial decisions? Do you know how to budget? Is your business idea any good? So there's lots of variation.\nIf you want any indicator - watch Shark Tank or check out Kickstarter for a while. There's lots of terrible ideas haha",
"Because the government is guaranteed to get student loan money back one way or another. It's impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, has no statute of limitations, and never, ever goes away.",
"Over 90% of businesses fail within their first 10 years. \n\nBasically the government has a 10% chance of getting their money back, because, unless you're stupid, you took out the loan in your companies name. And your company is an LLC. (So when you can't make good on your debt, they can only take your companies assets, and not like, your house and your wife's car.) So, consider the fact that there's a 90% chance that the money won't be paid back, and you can only go after company assets which in all likelihood will be worth significantly less now that they've been used, it's pretty much a losing battle. \n\nHowever with student loans, it's directly to the person, there is no way around that. You will owe that money until it's paid off or you die. And there's a decent chance you will be able to pay it all back. Not that it won't really hurt your future to do so. But you will be able to. The odds of them getting their 100k back is close to 98%, and the odds of them getting over 100k back from you is about 85%. So they net a profit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/",
"https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/23/ssc-gives-a-graduation-speech/",... | ||
8jtny7 | what would happen if the world stopped procreating for let’s say 25 years? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8jtny7/eli5_what_would_happen_if_the_world_stopped/ | {
"a_id": [
"dz2cpc8",
"dz2dq4n"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Young people are incredibly essential to economic growth for one, most developed nations already have an ageing population in which aged care is a significant burden which new particpants in the workforce pay for, it goes without saying that there would be a work shortage and young people institutions such as schools... just realised it it ELI5. In short society will struggle.",
"By no means is this exhaustive, or entirely thought out.\nThere would be mass unemployment due to the lack of demand in many industries. Which means less trade and tax revenue.\n\nPediatricians, children clothing industries, toy industries, childrens entertainement, education, daycare, etc etc. All would go under. \n\nThen you would have the issue of there not being able bodied people coming into industries when they should. \n\nFor example professional and amature sports leagues would likely fail when they will be unable to field a team due to lack of athletes. Industries around them would collapse as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
5o9dvb | what is the law on using a brand name product in a movie/show? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5o9dvb/eli5_what_is_the_law_on_using_a_brand_name/ | {
"a_id": [
"dchnjxk",
"dchnmi5",
"dcho8jy"
],
"score": [
2,
42,
3
],
"text": [
"This [website and video](_URL_0_) give a pretty good explanation but basically there's no law preventing you from using and showing product brands in movies/shows. So why do most cover them up or create fake brands?\n\n* If you show a brand, you're give away advertising for free and may have a hard time getting other sponsors to pay.\n* Showing a brand may conflict with other advertisers who may sponsor a movie/show or with program commercial advertisements.\n* If you show a product in any negative way that the company doesn't like, they may try to sue you if they think you've tarnished their reputation.\n* The movie/show producers may not want the viewers to think that they are associated with or are being paid by the brand company. \n* The movie/show producers may just not want viewer being distracted by brands and logos...",
"For the most part, brand name products can be used in a movie or TV show without any restrictions. \n\nBrand names are protected by trademarks, but unlike a copyright or patent, they don't stop other people from using that name. What they do is prevent people from using that name deceptively. If you have a popular restaurant, I can't open one with the same or a very similar name, hoping to trick people they are related. Trademarks are only about making sure consumers aren't fooled. There are a few other legal restrictions, you can't slander a brand, you can't make it appear the brand is endorsing you, but beyond that, they are fair game.\n\nHowever, there are a lot of good reasons a TV show might choose not to use brand names.\n\n Brand names complicate the networks' advertising model. If an episode prominently features Coke, Pepsi isn't going to want to pay for commercials...and Coke no longer has to. Using generic or fictional brands allows the show to maintain neutrality. Similarly, it preserves the value of product placement..why give it away if someone is willing to pay? And when companies arranges to their products featured on a show, they don't want it to play second fiddle so another brand.\n\n Customers often have strong loyalties, aversions, and preconceptions about brand name products. Your Chevy fan might scoff at a Lincoln shown in a good light, while your Budweiser drinker might be insulted when the show's buffoon is always holding a can. A TV show runs less risk of alienating their viewers if the lead drives a Vista Cruiser and the comic relief drinks Duff beer. Fictional brands also can allow for more creativity. You want a major corporation to crumble, or have your favorite coffee chain be a front for a secret government agency? It works much better if you aren't tied to a real brand.\n\n \nFinally, avoiding brands keeps shows from becoming dated. A show that is 10, 15, even 20 years old can still seem plausibly modern...especially if no one ever makes a phone call. But one look at Kramer drinking a Crystal Pepsi, you might as well be watching The Dick Van Dyke Show. Even when the brands are the same, the logos and packaging can change, and that can hurt a show's value in syndication.\n\n",
"Where you see a brand name, it's been cleared and indeed the brand probably paid or at least supplied stuff for free. We had a scene with a family eating breakfast, we got sent a palette of things people might have on a breakfast table - all from the clients of a product placement agency. Every vehicle was from one manufacturer. It means we didn't have to pay for cars or cereals. The makeup was also all freebies from another manufacturer. Kids clothes from another.\n\nBlockbuster films will be able to sell pack shots for brands, those gratuitous shots are gratuitous for a reason. Most films are satisfied with free stuff they don't have to mock up at a cost.\n\nWe can use brands, and it'll be without consequence to do so most of the time if the use is incidental, but where something is in focus in shot we tend to fake brands. This is in case the brand owner decides they don't like the film for whatever reason and sends lawyers to threaten us. Maybe through a silly coincidence of timing and cutting, we make a connection between Kellogg's and white supremacy - they might become upset and injunct. The fact is that rightly or wrongly the cost of reshooting a scene might be $100k since you've got to get everyone and thing back together for a day. Now we'd try and do a digital pack replacement instead, but it's still better to invent a brand our lawyer clears before we even start shooting, and it gives the art department something fun to do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://nofilmschool.com/2015/02/entertainment-lawyer-donaldson-callif-film-courage-logo-trademark"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
18sy1y | how do refrigerators, air conditioners, etc. remove heat (and therefore energy) from the air? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18sy1y/eli5_how_do_refrigerators_air_conditioners_etc/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8hpb2i",
"c8hpplu"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"They don't actually remove heat. They just move it somewhere different - outside the refrigerator, or outside the building.\n",
"Refrigerators and air conditioners both work with the same principle; a heat pump. Thermal energy naturally flows from hot places to colder places. A heat pump moves it in the opposite direction, but it takes power to do so.\n\nThis is just like how water naturally flows down hill, but you can use a pump to push it back up hill\n\nThe key concept in a heat pump is the [ideal gas law](_URL_0_). Basically, it says if you squeeze a gas, it heats up; if you let the pressure go down fast, it gets colder. \n\nAn explosion is hot because of the rapid increase in pressure. If you crack open a compressed CO2 canister you will feel it get freezing cold quickly.\n\nSo lets make a simple AC for example. We set up a closed loop with some fluid inside. This loop is half inside and half outside. On the outside half, we compress the fluid and it heats up. Since it is now hotter then the outside air, alot of its energy leaves to the outside; it 'flows down hill' from our water example. \nThe loop comes back inside and the pressure is released. The fluid becomes cold, colder than the inside air. Again the energy 'flows downhill' from the warm room to the cold coil. \n\nThis loop then repeats; sucking up heat from the room inside by being cold then dumping it outside by becoming hot. Just like a simple water pump with a piston sucking up water on one side and squirting it out the other."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law"
]
] | ||
aj094w | why do the seeds from a grafted fruit free grow a different variety? | I mean, if the grafted top half of the tree grows, say, gala apples, how would the crab apple roots effect the seeds of the gala apples? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aj094w/eli5_why_do_the_seeds_from_a_grafted_fruit_free/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeroi6j"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Apple trees and some other fruit trees can't self-pollinate. That means their flowers reject pollen from trees that have too similar genetics, but are fertile with trees that have different genetics, in order to promote genetic diversity.\n\nSo if you have a whole plantation of trees from the same variety, which are all grafted clones from the same mother tree, they won't grow any apples unless you plant a tree of a different variety nearby. Which is often a crab apple tree as well, since those produce a lot of viable pollen. So in a best case scenario, the apple tree you grow from your Gala seeds will be a cross between Gala and, say, Granny Smith grown on another plantation nearby. In the worst case, it's an inedible cross between crabapple and Gala."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3ouaeh | why does the fire department drain the fire hydrants and why does it turn the water in my house yellow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ouaeh/eli5_why_does_the_fire_department_drain_the_fire/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw0ii5t",
"cw0lfe7"
],
"score": [
22,
3
],
"text": [
"There are a few possible reason to open the hydrants (just be aware that they won't drain as they are connected to the city's water).\n\n1) They are testing the hydrants for pressure. This allows the firefighters to know they will have enough pressure on the hoseline if they ever have to use it in a fire.\n\n2) They were doing some form of maintainence or repair on the hydrant.\n\n3) They were opening it up to clear any debris/ garbage that someone may have put into the hydrant.\n\nThe reason why your water might change color is that both your house and the hydrants run off the same water source. Seeing as the flow of the hydrant is quite high, it will dislodge some fine particles in the system that will mix with the water to give you that color. It is perfectly safe.",
"This is what the inside of a case iron main can look like over time. _URL_0_. \n\nWith the high volume and flow during a fire event, testing the hydrant or flushing a main it kicks up a lot of sediment and creates turbidity. That's what you're seeing. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/hfFrX7N"
]
] | ||
265wqo | which is better: eating before exercising or exercising before eating? | I've been told both versions, that it's better to eat before exercising and that it's better to exercise before you eat. I of course understand that exercising right after eating is not what they mean, and that a ~30 mins break is required between the consumption and the exercise.
Any insight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/265wqo/eli5_which_is_better_eating_before_exercising_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"chnxz9p",
"chny10k"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I like to eat after exercise... though I might be a bit biased as I'm a runner and filling up on food before a 10 mile run in hilly terrain is a recipe for bulimia ",
"from my own experience, getting a light a snack, if not a full meal is still better than not eating anyting.\n\nAt one point I ate lunch at around 14:00, then I was gonna go to the gym at 18:30, at 18:00 I still didn't feel hungry, but when I got to the gym and i was working out, I had no energy, I felt dizzy after every set, I had to take long breaks, it was terrible.\n\n\nTHe main point about this is, you should eat in a way(not just before exercise but every meal) so after you get up from the table, you can easily do like a set of push-ups, or any physical activity, if you can't, you are overeating."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
144yi3 | how do electronics systems keep charged on jets and ships? | As in the jets electronics? I would assume there isn't an alternator. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/144yi3/eli5_how_do_electronics_systems_keep_charged_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"c79w2n2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I can't speak for aircraft, as I don't have enough knowledge to answer well.\n\nFor marine craft - ships and subs - larger than small craft (which generally use batteries similar to automobiles) - electricity is generated usually by means of generators connected to the ship's main propulsion plants. For instance, diesel-powered ships will often have generators tied into the diesels; nuke- or other-fueled-steam plants will also generate electrical power. This power is DC - Direct Current - and most major ship's systems will also use DC; those that need AC - Alternating Current - like sailors' TVs, electronic device chargers, or ship's portable systems - gain their power through standard outlets (much like your household ones) that are powered by AC power converted from DC power bu a device called a rectifier. \n\nThis is a vastly simplified overview; I'm sure a marine electrician could do the description better, much as an aviation electrician can for aircraft. \n\nSource: My own work on historic ship restoration."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
br56e0 | how does audio translate into bits in a computer file? | How audio is so unique but when you open an audio file in a hex editor, the audio is comprised of bits. How is that possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/br56e0/eli5_how_does_audio_translate_into_bits_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"eoa6izq",
"eoaendw"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"If you think of a digital picture, you essentially have a bunch of tiny, single-color pixels which, when put together, make a pretty good recreation of whatever you take a picture of. The same is true for a digital audio file, it's essentially a ton of tiny \"pictures\" of the audio signal and when you put them together and play them back, it's a fairly accurate and sometimes exact replica of the original audio, depending on the audio format. You have an analog-to-digital converter which takes in the audio as input, and separates it into millions of tiny pieces of sound, often 44,100 times per second. Each of these tiny pieces is an approximate record of the sound of the audio signal during that fraction of a second. When you play an audio file, the computer stitches all these tiny fragments back into a continuous sound which is played by a speaker.",
"Sound is wave, you can imagine it as a line on a graph. \nThink back to school, you remember that lesson where they drew little rectangles under a curve? \nThey said that the more rectangles you drew the more closer all the rectangles would match the curve. \n \nWell digital audio does that. \nThe sounds moves a magnet a tiny bit, they record how far the magnet is pulling. \nThis forms one box under the sound curve. \nNow they just have to make several tens of thousands of boxes for every second of music. \nFor example, a CD has 44,100 of those boxes for every second. \nFor the human ear that's close enough to the real curve that we recognize it as sound."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
564hu8 | how different video filetypes work, and why some mediaplayers won't play certain types and why converting doesn't always work. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/564hu8/eli5_how_different_video_filetypes_work_and_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8g8o4v",
"d8g8r1i"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of each type as a different language. As an English speaker I understand English and maybe a bit of French and German but show me Cantonese and I'll have no clue what anything says.\n\nNow different languages although are used for the same thing ie to communicate and some languages are better things than others like german has a lot of unique words that we don't have in English but convey something we can't easily like Schadenfreude. So sometimes video use different compression types to get the required results ie smaller size or less detail lost etc. \n\nSimilarly I can go to Google translate and try and understand the Cantonese but it isn't a complete translation because Google is imperfect.\n\nThankfully for video encoding you can normally get a codex which will \"teach\" your video player the language so it can understand it.",
"A modern video file, say an MP4 file contains information about the video, number of frames, frames per second and resolution etc. However the data inside the file is structured in such a way to keep the file size down and the quality high. To achieve this they need to compress the data and this is done via an intermediate piece of software called a CoDec (Compression/Decompression). This contains the algorithms required to compress the frames and construct the video file to it's specifications.\n\nWhen a media player says it can't play the file, this usually just means that it can't file the appropriate CoDec required to read the file. The CoDec provides an interface that the media player can use to read the data. The codec converts the data into something that can be read by the media player.\n\nSo when you open a video file, the first thing the media player does is to look for the a Codec and load it up, it then passes the file to the codec which then provides a data output for the media player.\n\nWhen you convert from one video format to another, first you must run the video through it's own codec then pass that data over to another codec which takes that data and turns it into it's own format. The problem is you get quite a lot of degradation. The original stream is compressed and the destination codec is also compressing it, resulting in even further loss of quality. During compression some data is deliberately lost. This data is regarded as inconsequential to the quality of the video (according to the settings applied via the codec) and is discarded. If you convert the video this process happens again to the already degraded video and so more data is lost. If you keep doing this you end up with an almost unusable file.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
jgzhi | european soccer leagues | I'm American, and played soccer as a kid, but I never paid attention. I've watched a few big Mens World Cup, and I like watching.
I want to start following a league, and Barclays Premiere League seems the most accessible. I've heard of Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Real Madrid, and Barcelona, but that's basically it. What leagues consistently have the best soccer to watch? Besides Premiere League, what are other leagues soccer fans typically follow?
Followup question: what random team should I adopt? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jgzhi/eli5_european_soccer_leagues/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2c0nz0",
"c2c0o0u",
"c2c1aiq",
"c2c1shu",
"c2c2tko",
"c2c0nz0",
"c2c0o0u",
"c2c1aiq",
"c2c1shu",
"c2c2tko"
],
"score": [
23,
6,
4,
4,
7,
23,
6,
4,
4,
7
],
"text": [
"In a nutshell, every country has its own league, from the big boys like Spain and England to minnows like Moldova and Wales. The top teams from each league play each other in the Champions League every year, with the Europa League as a sort of second-tier Champions League for good teams that didn't quite do as well. \n\nThe best advice is pick a league to start following (whatever's most on tv near you is a good idea) and pick a team. Do some research into the clubs and find one that represents you. Keep in mind as well that with promotion and relegation (imagine every year if the top AAA teams in baseball were promoted to the Majors and the worst MLB teams relegated to AAA), that if you pick a small club, they might not be around in the Premier League next year. \n\nTop clubs in England with long histories and likely to remain competitive for a long time are, in no order, Arsenal, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Everton, Liverpool, Man U, Man City and Chelsea. Some would add Newcastle United to that list as well though they're currently in a major period of instability. \n\nDon't pick Manchester United or you're a twat.\n\n",
"The best team and best league is subjective, as every follower of a team would say their team is the best. \n\nMOST people would say the most exciting league is the English Premier League. The famous top four (six now) clubs in the league are, as you mentioned, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, and Tottenham. The most appealing aspect of the league is that most teams play with an exhuberance and excitement, so even the two worst teams of the league can be an exciting match to watch.\n\nThe Spanish La Liga holds Barcelona and Real Madrid, along with the other teams. Barcelona won the Champions League last season so are probably the best club team in the world at the moment, and I don't think many people would argue with me here.\n\nAs far as general overview of how the leagues work: I'll use the Premier League as the example. There are twenty teams and each team plays a game home and away against the other nineteen. There are thirty eight total matches in the season, with a win counting for three points, a draw would be one, and a loss is zero. The winner of the league at the end of the season has the most points accumulated.\n\nThen there is UEFA's Champions League, which is akin to playoffs in regular American sports to crown the best of the best. It's an international affair between the European nations' different leagues. The winner of each league, along with the top performing clubs of each league get placed into a tournament with each other. England, for example, has four teams in the tournament, which would be the top four clubs from last season's league standings. The tournament is played over the course of the season, starting with group stages, then knock out rounds, and then the finals.\n\nAs far teams to follow, you can jump on the Barcelona band wagon because they do play some very attractive football. Lots of creative passing and entertaining moves. The La Liga is argubly not as entertaining though because generally the top two teams, Barca and Real Madrid are the only two dominant teams that would win the league. The EPL, on the other hand, has had closer run-ins and generally more exciting end-of-the season. Unless you're an Arsenal fan, as I am, and watched the team throw away so much time and time again, but I digress.\n\nI've left out the cup games, which most nations have, as it does not have a real bearing on the league itself.",
"you're american. follow MLS. you can actually attend a match and be part of it rather than being a remote jockey.",
"start visiting [r/soccer](_URL_0_).\n\nThey have lots of good discussions, very helpful and entertaining match threads, and a cheeky amount of humor and rivalry. It's probably one of my favorite subreddits. Some might complain that it's too focused on the big popular teams, but frankly, that's what most people want to read about anyway.",
"There are some key differences between how American sports leagues work and most of the European soccer leagues work. (At least the bigger ones, England, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands)\n\nMost countries have a multiple-tier league structure (think major and minor league baseball, but with the minor league teams being independent, and not \"farm teams\" for the majors). I'll use England as an example throughout this post (I know their league the best). The English League has 4 tiers: Premier League (top), the Championship, League 1, and League 2 (bottom). At the end of each season, the top 3 teams from each tier get to move up a level, and the bottom 3 get sent down a level (this is called promotion and relegation). For the top 3 finishers (or 4... it gets complicated) in the Premier League, their prize is entrance into the following year's Champions League, a competition between top finishers in leagues across Europe. I like the relegation idea a lot, because it gives the crappy teams in each level a reason to keep trying at the end of the season instead of tanking for a good draft pick as sometimes happens in the NBA, for example. \n\nThat brings me to another key difference: there is no draft system to distribute amateur players among the pro teams. If you play soccer at university in England, you are NOT going to play as a pro. Pro players are identified from a young age (even 8 or 9 years old!) and \"educated\" at a team's academy. There are rules about having to live within a certain distance of an academy to attend (so not every good child ends up with Man Utd!).\n\nOne thing that's hard to get used to is that there is more than 1 trophy to compete for each year. I'll talk about the competitions that Premier League teams go for:\n\nFirst is the Premier League itself. 20 teams, each playing a \"balanced schedule.\" Each team plays all the others twice, once home and once away, for a 38 game season. 3 points are awarded for a win, 1 for a draw (tie), and 0 for a loss. No overtime (called \"extra time\") is played in the League. After the 38 games, the team with most points is the champion (no playoffs!). These point totals also dictate who gets promoted/relegated, etc. A team only plays against teams from the same \"tier\".\n\nNext is the FA Cup. This is a \"knockout\" competition (singe-elimination tournament) open to ANY team in England (semi-professional teams outside the 4-tier League can enter!). This is touted as the oldest soccer competition in the world, and carries a lot of prestige (but does seem to be dropping off lately). The teams in the higher leagues can get byes into later rounds. Every year you get a big upset or two as a lower/non-league team knocks off somebody 2 or 3 rungs higher on the ladder. The FA Cup always has some fun stories, even though one of the bigger Premier League teams almost always win.\n\nNext is the League Cup (called the Carling Cup sometimes, as its sponsored by Carling). Essentially the same as the FA Cup in structure, but is only open to teams in the 4 tiers of the Football League. The League Cup is far less important than the FA Cup, so many teams (especially the top Premier League teams) do not play all their best players in League Cup games, using it as a chance to rest their stars and give younger players a chance to get game experience. Even so, one of the Premier League teams usually wins it.\n\n(Neither the FA Cup nor League Cup have a \"bracket\" until the quarter-finals or so. Instead, a completely random draw is done after each round to select the next opponent.)\n\nThere is a Cup competition for the lower leagues only, but I'm guessing you won't choose a lower league team (much harder to find their games to watch!).\n\nThe most elite trophy is the Champions League (CL). I mentioned a little before about how teams are selected. For England, the top 3 finishers in the Premier League automatically qualify for the next season's CL. The 4th place Premier League team has to play a \"two-legged tie\" (home game and away game series, where the winner is chosen by total goals over the two games) against a fringe team from another country before getting into the CL itself. The number of teams from each country in the CL varies depending on how good that country's league is. England and Spain (and Italy maybe?) are the top leagues in Europe, so they get 3 auto qualifiers and 1 into the last qualifying round. Smaller countries get fewer automatic qualifiers and/or have to go through extra qualifying rounds to get in. Some counties have NO automatics! It's very complicated.\n\nThe Champions League structure is similar to the World Cup. It starts off with a group stage, with all the teams in groups of 4. Each team plays each other twice (once home, once away), instead of just once like the WC. The top two teams in each group then go into the \"knockout stages.\" Now it becomes a single-elimination tournament, where each round is a \"two-legged tie\" as I described before (it consists of two games, but the total result of the two games together is what matters).\nThis goes up until the Final, which is a single match for all the marbles. Last year's final between Man Utd and Barcelona was a pretty good match!\n\n\n\nThat is **a lot** of information to digest right there! Feel free to ask me questions if you need clarification. I tried to keep it simple and concise, but its not easy.\n\nAlso, I'm happy to help you pick a team to follow. This is an important choice! Since there is no salary cap rules, and the teams are largely very old, many things have become sort of entrenched. Only 4 or 5 teams in the Premier League have a realistic shot at winning it every year (ManU, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal), and mobility through the leagues is difficult. Some teams are \"yo-yo clubs\" (they get promoted/relegated between two leagues almost every year), some are stuck \"mid-table\" (teams that finish in the middle of the league every year, not near promotion/winning or relegation). Teams also tend to take on an \"identity,\" due to tradition, unique circumstances, etc. For these reasons, choosing a team is very personal!\n\nLike I said, feel free to ask me questions or bounce ideas off me! I know European football can be intimidating at first, so I'm happy to help a new fan get on their feet!\n\n(Also, PLEASE follow an MLS team as well. We all want MLS to continue growing and improving, and it needs new fans all the time!)",
"In a nutshell, every country has its own league, from the big boys like Spain and England to minnows like Moldova and Wales. The top teams from each league play each other in the Champions League every year, with the Europa League as a sort of second-tier Champions League for good teams that didn't quite do as well. \n\nThe best advice is pick a league to start following (whatever's most on tv near you is a good idea) and pick a team. Do some research into the clubs and find one that represents you. Keep in mind as well that with promotion and relegation (imagine every year if the top AAA teams in baseball were promoted to the Majors and the worst MLB teams relegated to AAA), that if you pick a small club, they might not be around in the Premier League next year. \n\nTop clubs in England with long histories and likely to remain competitive for a long time are, in no order, Arsenal, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Everton, Liverpool, Man U, Man City and Chelsea. Some would add Newcastle United to that list as well though they're currently in a major period of instability. \n\nDon't pick Manchester United or you're a twat.\n\n",
"The best team and best league is subjective, as every follower of a team would say their team is the best. \n\nMOST people would say the most exciting league is the English Premier League. The famous top four (six now) clubs in the league are, as you mentioned, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, and Tottenham. The most appealing aspect of the league is that most teams play with an exhuberance and excitement, so even the two worst teams of the league can be an exciting match to watch.\n\nThe Spanish La Liga holds Barcelona and Real Madrid, along with the other teams. Barcelona won the Champions League last season so are probably the best club team in the world at the moment, and I don't think many people would argue with me here.\n\nAs far as general overview of how the leagues work: I'll use the Premier League as the example. There are twenty teams and each team plays a game home and away against the other nineteen. There are thirty eight total matches in the season, with a win counting for three points, a draw would be one, and a loss is zero. The winner of the league at the end of the season has the most points accumulated.\n\nThen there is UEFA's Champions League, which is akin to playoffs in regular American sports to crown the best of the best. It's an international affair between the European nations' different leagues. The winner of each league, along with the top performing clubs of each league get placed into a tournament with each other. England, for example, has four teams in the tournament, which would be the top four clubs from last season's league standings. The tournament is played over the course of the season, starting with group stages, then knock out rounds, and then the finals.\n\nAs far teams to follow, you can jump on the Barcelona band wagon because they do play some very attractive football. Lots of creative passing and entertaining moves. The La Liga is argubly not as entertaining though because generally the top two teams, Barca and Real Madrid are the only two dominant teams that would win the league. The EPL, on the other hand, has had closer run-ins and generally more exciting end-of-the season. Unless you're an Arsenal fan, as I am, and watched the team throw away so much time and time again, but I digress.\n\nI've left out the cup games, which most nations have, as it does not have a real bearing on the league itself.",
"you're american. follow MLS. you can actually attend a match and be part of it rather than being a remote jockey.",
"start visiting [r/soccer](_URL_0_).\n\nThey have lots of good discussions, very helpful and entertaining match threads, and a cheeky amount of humor and rivalry. It's probably one of my favorite subreddits. Some might complain that it's too focused on the big popular teams, but frankly, that's what most people want to read about anyway.",
"There are some key differences between how American sports leagues work and most of the European soccer leagues work. (At least the bigger ones, England, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands)\n\nMost countries have a multiple-tier league structure (think major and minor league baseball, but with the minor league teams being independent, and not \"farm teams\" for the majors). I'll use England as an example throughout this post (I know their league the best). The English League has 4 tiers: Premier League (top), the Championship, League 1, and League 2 (bottom). At the end of each season, the top 3 teams from each tier get to move up a level, and the bottom 3 get sent down a level (this is called promotion and relegation). For the top 3 finishers (or 4... it gets complicated) in the Premier League, their prize is entrance into the following year's Champions League, a competition between top finishers in leagues across Europe. I like the relegation idea a lot, because it gives the crappy teams in each level a reason to keep trying at the end of the season instead of tanking for a good draft pick as sometimes happens in the NBA, for example. \n\nThat brings me to another key difference: there is no draft system to distribute amateur players among the pro teams. If you play soccer at university in England, you are NOT going to play as a pro. Pro players are identified from a young age (even 8 or 9 years old!) and \"educated\" at a team's academy. There are rules about having to live within a certain distance of an academy to attend (so not every good child ends up with Man Utd!).\n\nOne thing that's hard to get used to is that there is more than 1 trophy to compete for each year. I'll talk about the competitions that Premier League teams go for:\n\nFirst is the Premier League itself. 20 teams, each playing a \"balanced schedule.\" Each team plays all the others twice, once home and once away, for a 38 game season. 3 points are awarded for a win, 1 for a draw (tie), and 0 for a loss. No overtime (called \"extra time\") is played in the League. After the 38 games, the team with most points is the champion (no playoffs!). These point totals also dictate who gets promoted/relegated, etc. A team only plays against teams from the same \"tier\".\n\nNext is the FA Cup. This is a \"knockout\" competition (singe-elimination tournament) open to ANY team in England (semi-professional teams outside the 4-tier League can enter!). This is touted as the oldest soccer competition in the world, and carries a lot of prestige (but does seem to be dropping off lately). The teams in the higher leagues can get byes into later rounds. Every year you get a big upset or two as a lower/non-league team knocks off somebody 2 or 3 rungs higher on the ladder. The FA Cup always has some fun stories, even though one of the bigger Premier League teams almost always win.\n\nNext is the League Cup (called the Carling Cup sometimes, as its sponsored by Carling). Essentially the same as the FA Cup in structure, but is only open to teams in the 4 tiers of the Football League. The League Cup is far less important than the FA Cup, so many teams (especially the top Premier League teams) do not play all their best players in League Cup games, using it as a chance to rest their stars and give younger players a chance to get game experience. Even so, one of the Premier League teams usually wins it.\n\n(Neither the FA Cup nor League Cup have a \"bracket\" until the quarter-finals or so. Instead, a completely random draw is done after each round to select the next opponent.)\n\nThere is a Cup competition for the lower leagues only, but I'm guessing you won't choose a lower league team (much harder to find their games to watch!).\n\nThe most elite trophy is the Champions League (CL). I mentioned a little before about how teams are selected. For England, the top 3 finishers in the Premier League automatically qualify for the next season's CL. The 4th place Premier League team has to play a \"two-legged tie\" (home game and away game series, where the winner is chosen by total goals over the two games) against a fringe team from another country before getting into the CL itself. The number of teams from each country in the CL varies depending on how good that country's league is. England and Spain (and Italy maybe?) are the top leagues in Europe, so they get 3 auto qualifiers and 1 into the last qualifying round. Smaller countries get fewer automatic qualifiers and/or have to go through extra qualifying rounds to get in. Some counties have NO automatics! It's very complicated.\n\nThe Champions League structure is similar to the World Cup. It starts off with a group stage, with all the teams in groups of 4. Each team plays each other twice (once home, once away), instead of just once like the WC. The top two teams in each group then go into the \"knockout stages.\" Now it becomes a single-elimination tournament, where each round is a \"two-legged tie\" as I described before (it consists of two games, but the total result of the two games together is what matters).\nThis goes up until the Final, which is a single match for all the marbles. Last year's final between Man Utd and Barcelona was a pretty good match!\n\n\n\nThat is **a lot** of information to digest right there! Feel free to ask me questions if you need clarification. I tried to keep it simple and concise, but its not easy.\n\nAlso, I'm happy to help you pick a team to follow. This is an important choice! Since there is no salary cap rules, and the teams are largely very old, many things have become sort of entrenched. Only 4 or 5 teams in the Premier League have a realistic shot at winning it every year (ManU, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal), and mobility through the leagues is difficult. Some teams are \"yo-yo clubs\" (they get promoted/relegated between two leagues almost every year), some are stuck \"mid-table\" (teams that finish in the middle of the league every year, not near promotion/winning or relegation). Teams also tend to take on an \"identity,\" due to tradition, unique circumstances, etc. For these reasons, choosing a team is very personal!\n\nLike I said, feel free to ask me questions or bounce ideas off me! I know European football can be intimidating at first, so I'm happy to help a new fan get on their feet!\n\n(Also, PLEASE follow an MLS team as well. We all want MLS to continue growing and improving, and it needs new fans all the time!)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer"
],
[]
] | |
608nwn | how come drones haven't been scaled up to fly humans? is there some engineering problem that prevents this from being a personal transport solution? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/608nwn/eli5_how_come_drones_havent_been_scaled_up_to_fly/ | {
"a_id": [
"df4d9bi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty sure there's footage of university engineering students testing a human capable quadcopter, indoors. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3k9ez7 | why is 4chan associated so much with autistic people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k9ez7/eli5_why_is_4chan_associated_so_much_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuvqoyl",
"cuvqt98",
"cuvus9y"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"4chan is a community that revels is challenging \"PC norms.\" People on 4chan frequently use \"autistic\" or \"retarded\" or similar terms as insults simply because it's not deemed appropriate by wider society.\n\nPeople on 4chan will often say this is them exercising their rights to not be constrained by others.\n\nPeople off 4chan will often say this is them going to a place where they can be dicks without being told that they're being dicks.",
"Autistic is not the highest frequency curse directed at OP. Your sample size just happened to be lopsided. The OP of a thread in 4chan is usually a fag. It is used negatively, but most people who start a thread on 4chan, especially b, know they deserve it. So they don't really mind.",
"Chans are populated with bunches of nerds and geeks(such as me). Anime/Gaming/Comics are heavily ingrained into nerd/geek culture.\n\nAnime is (theorized) to be highly popular to those suffering from ASD(Autism) do to a number of things such as Facial Expressions- The large eyes and exaggerated movements make it easy for Autistic people to interpret emotions and reactions. \nI assume the bright pastels and numerous flashy explosions also have an effect.\n\nAnime is popular with the autist crowd+Anime is popular with geeks/nerds+Geeks/nerds are plentiful on the internet= OP is autistic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4hw0i5 | what does plugging your ears do? | I'm taking about if you like plug your nose and then try to breathe in through your nose and it sounds like your ears are plugged. What happens? Does it help protect your ears from damage from loud noises? Does anything move in your ears and how does it stay like that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hw0i5/eli5_what_does_plugging_your_ears_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2ssf5c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sound passes through not only the air surrounding your head and entering your ear, but also your head itself. Sound passes through a solid.\n\nThe most efficient manner of getting sound to your eardrum, which detects vibration, is by passing sound through the air, and that happens, and that air is blocked when you plug your ears in whatever manner. But the rest of your head is also vibrating and so you will never truly block out all sound in that manner."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
12rxme | why is florida such a big deal in elections? | These pundits are ranting about Florida again...what's the big deal compared to other states? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12rxme/eli5_why_is_florida_such_a_big_deal_in_elections/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6xmrxg",
"c6xms1p",
"c6xokov",
"c6xp33v",
"c6xpnk9"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
32,
5
],
"text": [
"Florida and some other states are what are called swing states. These states have voters who may \"swing\" from one party to another which is important in determining the results.\n\nA [map](_URL_0_) of swing states",
"Strange demographics with officials that are particularly inept.",
"They have a huge number of votes because of the large population, and those votes are very evenly split between democrats and republicans. So if you can get just a few hundred voters in just the right parts of florida to change their minds, you can get a significant electoral bump.\n\nOther large states are important too, but they lean strongly towards one party or the other. You would have to change the minds of millions of people to win California or Texas or New York. The only reason candidates even visit those states is to hold fundraisers.",
"Florida is the fourth most populous state, behind California, Texas, and New York.\n\nCA and NY are strong Democrat states, and TX is a strong Republican state. They will almost certainly vote party lines no matter who the candidate is, so no one bothers to fight over them.\n\nFL, on the other hand, is divided very evenly between the two parties. So of the states that can be won or lost, it is the biggest prize.",
"Not all states are equal. The US uses a system of \"electoral votes\" that is supposed to give proportional weight to each state, according to its population. You can think of EVs as election victory points. There are 538 victory points in the game, and whoever captures the most, wins the presidency and vice presidency. That means that if you can capture 269 points, you've got it sewn up and we can stop counting. Almost all states give their electoral votes in a winner-takes-all popularity contest, just like your election for high school class representative.\n\nSo which state is more important for your candidate to win: Montana (3 EVs), or Kentucky (8 EVs)? It's not exactly rocket science. The US is large, and candidates have a finite amount of time and resources. Kentucky is almost three times as important as Montana. \n\nFlorida has 29 Election Victory points. It's worth 10 Montanas. For every dollar your candidate spends in Montana, he could be getting 10 times that value in Florida. Win Florida, and you'really more than 10% of the way to the presidency!\n\nThere are other states with huge EV apportionments: Florida is tied with New York as the third most valuable state, after California (55 EVs) and Texas (38EVs). But California and New York are Democratic strongholds - imagine Romney trying to win votes in San Francisco! - and Texas is a Republican stronghold. Not only is Florida incredibly valuable, but it's what we call a \"swing state\": a state that doesn't lean strongly to either party. \n\nSo that's why Florida is such a big deal. It's a close run every year, and the stakes are very high. Sort of the Park Place/Boardwalk of the Electoral College. It doesn't guarantee a win, but it sure helps. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1infkb | plato's theory of the forms vs the third man | Like I'm actually 5 (or 10, doesn't matter much to me). 2 philosophy classes and a classics course later, I have no idea what they are at all. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1infkb/eli5platos_theory_of_the_forms_vs_the_third_man/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb65snn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Theory of the Forms is kind of like we have an idea of a perfect version of everything. Like the most perfectly pancakey pancake in the universe exists as an ideal of what kind of pancake we want all pancakes to be. \n\nThe Third Man is a gotcha for this thought up by Plato himself, and later talked about more by Aristotle. So if there is a \"Formic\" Man, and an actual Man who aspires naturally to be this perfect Form of Man, you need a Third Man to explain it all as an observer, and another man to describe that, on and on to infinity. \n\nTurtles all the way down. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
ehl2ny | why does a lot of meat stay tender when cooked quickly at a high temperature, go tough if cooked at high temperature for a long time, but then tender again when cooked at a low temperature for a long time? | I hope the question makes sense. If I cooked a fillet steak for 30 minutes at 180c it would be like leather. But if I left it raw or cooked it very briefly, it would be tender. And also if I cooked it slowly for a long time it would be tender. What is happening to the proteins that makes them behave like this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehl2ny/eli5_why_does_a_lot_of_meat_stay_tender_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcjx7ml",
"fcjy9f2",
"fckoorp"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"When you cook it, protein-chains unravel and re-ravels(if thats a word) in different positions. Sometimes when you cook the meat too long it can clump together and get really tough.\n\n\n\n\n\nCooking at a lower temprature for a long period of time can make sure the proteins break down proper that results in them beinf tender.\n\n\n\n\n\nOr someting like that, im no expert",
"The kinds of meat you would cook on low heat for a long time contain lots of fat and connective tissue that breaks down over time with heat. The fibers are shorter, but if you don't break down whats between the fibers (fat/connective tissue), than that part is tough. \n\nThe meats you cook fast on high heat tend to have long strands with less ct/fat between. The fibers will get tight and bunched up if you cook it too slow.",
"Imagine your meat is a bunch of semi-twisted wet towels that have all been aligned, and then the towels have been stuck together with candle wax into the shape of your steak.\n\nWhen you heat the \"steak\", the heat does cause the water to evaporate. However, most of the drying of the towels is going to be from the heat causing the towels to twist tighter, and thus squeeze out water. Additionally, while the heat is causing the towels to constrict, it is melting the wax. But the wax melts very slowly and gradually, much like a candle slowly burns away.\n\nWhen you cook at a high temperature for a short amount of time, your meat fibers (the wet towels) retain more of their moisture and aren't as rigidly dry. This leads to the feeling of \"tenderness\" in your steak. Most of the connective tissue (the candle wax) probably hasn't completely melted yet either, so you get a bit of \"tenderness\" from that, but not much.\n\nWhen you cook for enough time, all of the candle wax (collagen) in your meat is able to properly convert to liquid wax, which lubricates your tongue when you chew on the meat. So even if the muscle fibers (towels) have been long wrung out of water, the meat still *feels* tender because of the gelatin (the liquid wax). You'll notice that if you keep chewing that same ball of meat for much longer, the gelatin is squeezed out by chewing and you're just left with dry meat.\n\nWhen you heat a piece of meat, the heat doesn't instantly permeate the meat either. Imagine wringing out one of those towels manually. The first part to dry is going to be the edges since they are the most tightly wound. Likewise, heat travels slowly through the meat until it reaches an equilibrium. If you heat the outside too quickly, it will cook while the middle stays raw.\n\nYou'll also notice that very lean cuts of meat will not slow cook well. This is because they lack enough \"candle wax\" to still feel \"tender\" when all of that moisture has been cooked out. You want a cut with plenty of collagen so that it can be converted to gelatin during slow cooking, even after that meat has been dried out.\n\nThis is why the best methods of cooking meat to \"tenderness\" involves these goals:\n\n1. Barely cooking the meat so that it remains tender (i.e. your towels are not all wrung out)\n2. Cooking the meat evenly so that you don't end up with fully wrung out towels on the outside with sopping wet towels on the inside\n3. Converting as much of the collagen to gelatin as possible (melting the candle wax binding)\n\nThe problem is that these reactions happen at different temperatures, and the relative speeds of these reactions are also different. Collagen converts very slowly into gelatin at temperatures that are good for barely cooking the meat. However, an enzyme in the meat helps collagen convert to gelatin at even **lower** temperatures than is good for \"barely cooking the meat\". If you cook at this temperature, the meat cooks at a glacial pace - it would take hours to reach a medium-rare done-ness. But you get very fast conversion of collagen to gelatin. If you increase the temperature past that, the enzymes are disabled and collagen has to convert to gelatin without help."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8bgbnc | if i freeze food 4 days before its spoil date, and take it out of the freezer, say a fortnight later, will it still have four days to spoilage? does freezing stall microbes in that sense? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bgbnc/eli5_if_i_freeze_food_4_days_before_its_spoil/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx6geea",
"dx6hgfm"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"No, because you usually also damage important defense mechanisms when freezing. For example you can freeze a fresh yellow banana and it will remain in perfect condition, but within an hour of getting out of the freezer its skin will turn pitch black. The flesh itself is edible for a while longer, but not the same duration. ",
"Secondary question: how much longer does food last for if you freeze it? Say if something spoils in 4 days, how long would it take to spoil when frozen? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
c8tal2 | if a nuclear war would produce an ecological catastrophe, why hasn't nuclear tests produced it yet? | Considerating that there have been almost 2500 nuclear weapons deployed. The amount of nuclear weapons needed to destroy human civilization is way lower than that amount (I suppose). Then why is it said that a nuclear war would create a mass extinction? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c8tal2/eli5_if_a_nuclear_war_would_produce_an_ecological/ | {
"a_id": [
"espmaye",
"espmtit",
"ess23wv"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The tests have been conducted in mostly a select few, remote locations. You basically bombed what already was bombed. And most tests were conducted after the nations agreed to ban open air tests. Underwater and Underground tests create less fallout.\n\nStill the tests have indeed caused a lot of ecological damage, it wasn't a global irridation, though, like thousands of actual detonations spread all over the globe at centers of human habitation would cause.",
"Many of these were done either under ground or far away from where the fallout could touch land. They also we're not all at once on one day as a nuclear war would almost certainly be or be close to. Firing them in the atmosphere above land and causing the radioactive dust particles of fallout would cause many of the plants and animals to slowly, or in a lot of cases, quickly die off. This can cause food chain issues, unbreathable air and toxic water. Radiation poisoning isn't exactly missing in test areas either. Bikini Atoll is still radioactive and so is the Trinity sight so I'd say comparing test areas to mass nuclear weapons usage is not a good comparison.",
"This question gets asked on here a lot. \n\n* Most of the bombs were tested underground\n\n* Those that were aboveground were often in deserts or oceans, not in places where burning would take place, and set off in isolation from one another (one bomb after another, not a hundred bombs at the same time on cities)\n\nAs for whether there would be an ecological catastrophe in a nuclear war, the northern hemisphere would suffer the greatest damage by far, in terms of fire, burning, radioactive contamination. The southern hemisphere would probably have less of that, but would suffer from any climate effects brought on by the smoke release from the fires (which some models suggest could cool the planet enough to kill crops, plants, etc.), and any people would suffer from the destruction of supply chains (e.g., food, oil, logistics, etc.). \n\nThe entire population would not go extinct overnight; most fiction gets that wrong. But it'd be pretty bad."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
e6b9wv | why are doctors' waiting rooms, with the diversity pathogens in there, not considered an extreme, alarming hazard for each person waiting there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e6b9wv/eli5_why_are_doctors_waiting_rooms_with_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9p07oz",
"f9p0w96"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Many , many things that people go to the dr for is not contagious. A lot of doctor appointments are for managing chronic illness and such\n\nNow, walk-in clinics. That’s where many cold/flu etc hang out. You have to remember though. Many germs that cause sickness have to have a specific set of circumstances to live outside a host and to infect a new host .",
"Well- most pathogens seen in an office setting can be limited in transmission by universal precautions- ie don’t come in direct contact with bodily fluids and wash your hands. The reality is that this is in most part true for even hospital pathogens. \n\nThe few that are droplet (flu, rsv, etc) are mainly a problem if someone coughs directly on you or occasionally if their sputum contaminated a surface. This is why they often have masks available during flu season.\n\n The ones that are truly airborne are pretty rare (TB, measles, chicken pox)but are certainly problematic when a waiting room full of people are exposed.\n\nDrug resistant bacteria are usually killed by hand washing and laundry. \n\nSource: I am a nurse.\n\nOthers feel free to correct me as I’m certainly not and ID expert."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
84acvl | why does plastic wrap stick so much better on some materials? | I notice that on some ceramics/glass and plastic containers that when I put plastic wrap on them, you can stretch the heck out of the wrap to create an almost drum-like surface on the top of it. Almost like it glues itself to the sides of the bowl!
Meanwhile you can try the same thing on other plastics/containers and the plastic wrap just doesn't form a seal on it.
Why does this happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84acvl/eli5_why_does_plastic_wrap_stick_so_much_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvo7766"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Electrostatic charge.\n\nThere's really no way I can imagine to simplify this. You really have to understand how static electricity works (particularly speaking of positive and negative electrostatic charges).\n\nElectricity does not flow very well through plastic wrap, meaning it's a good insulator. When unrolled, some of the electrons on the surface of the wrap get pulled away to the next layer, creating patches of positive and negative electrostatic charge. Then, when you wrap the plastic film around another object (such as more plastic wrap, glass, or a plastic bowl), the initial electrostatic charge induces an opposite charge on the new surface (so if the charge on the wrap is positive, it'll cause the other object to have a negative charge), and they'll then stick together.\n\nSo we have plastic wrap, which can be either P or N. Then we have your casserole dish, which is either neither P nor N. When you wrap the plastic around the dish, if the plastic is P it makes the dish N. If it is N it makes the dish P.\n\nP likes N and N likes P, so they stick together.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\nedit: electricty - > static electricity"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-does-clingfilm-cling"
]
] | |
5wzf0g | why was scott pilgrim a financial failure when release in cinema's but quickly became a classic film within 3 years? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wzf0g/eli5_why_was_scott_pilgrim_a_financial_failure/ | {
"a_id": [
"dee0zqn",
"dee170g"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"The same reason Pinkerton by Weezer was a commercial failure, but it's now considered their best album. Sometimes you don't realize how good something is until years later. ",
"Primarily, poor marketing. Most people who would have seen it, myself included, had no idea it was actually a cool movie. They didn't give enough of an idea of what the movie REALLY was. It also wasn't a well known comic book at the time, and so not showing off the movie that way hurt the audience it could have had. Movies like John Carter and Fight Club had similar issues. The previews made the movie look like something drastically different than what the film was. Another thing it didn't have going for it is that it was up against the Expendables, which did the exact opposite in marketing, and Piranha 3D was a pretty surprising \"hit\". The audience was there, they just didn't go to the movies. It was also only 2010, so the \"every comic book movie is pretty good\" thing hadn't happened yet, so I imagine the studios didn't fight too hard for it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4fb3kc | why is it that, when we have a bleeding wound (pimple, cut, abrasion or whatever) when we apply pressure to it, blood doesn't squirt out like how a waterbag with hole would, if applied pressure? | I know that if we cut our artery then there will be pressure to gush the blood out.
For waterbags with hole, the harder to squeeze the more rapid the water squirt out
For humans with a wound, no matter how hard you squeeze, the blood oozes out, just maybe a little faster
And even so, there is a limit to how much you can squeeze out. How do we know how much blood is supposed to come out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fb3kc/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_we_have_a_bleeding_wound/ | {
"a_id": [
"d27c8kr",
"d27c8uh",
"d27cboj"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Unlike a bag of water, your arm is not a bag of blood. It is a bag of tissue, with blood flowing through it, through hundreds of tiny little veins.\n\nWhen you get a cut, it's only slicing through a few of these tiny veins. If the cut is on your finger, you can squeeze all you want, but only the blood very close to the cut is going to come out. \n\nYour body begins clotting the cut immediately to plug up the hole and prevent blood loss, this is why it only bleeds for a short time and stops.",
"Humans aren't just bags of blood surrounded by skin, so the waterbag analogy doesn't work in this case.\n\nBlood is contained in the body in blood vessels such as veins, arteries and capillaries. Unless you have a serious/deep wound that has severed veins or arteries, most of the blood you'll see has come from ruptured capillaries. Capillaries are super fine blood vessels that supply blood to the skin and don't contain enough blood or pressure to squirt bloody like you describe.\n",
"The short answer is that you are less like a water bag and more like a city with flexible water lines.\n\nIf a giant comes along and tears a block or of this imaginary blood supplied city it's going to break some residential lines and maybe a branch, but applying pressure or squeezing the area around the wound collapses the lines.\n\nCapillary bleeds have to wait for clotting factors, veins actually have tiny one-way valves in them to help them collapse rapidly when significantly damaged. \n\nArteries in the limbs can be compressed, and almost always need surgical intervention. Arteries in the abdomen are usually \"incompressible\" where treatment involves shoving a hand in a person and pretending to be the arterial wall, but no one ever has to do that for too long."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
7x7440 | how do insects, that look exactly like leaves, adapt to camouflage that way? how can their dna know what their environment looks like? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7x7440/eli5_how_do_insects_that_look_exactly_like_leaves/ | {
"a_id": [
"du60vh1",
"du60yxt",
"du60z3u",
"du61gt1"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"It doesn't, it's just that the DNA that gets it wrong tends to die.\n\nIt's not DNA that makes the decision if a certain trait is good or bad. Rather, the environment makes that decision, one generation at a time, by killing the losers. Their ancestors happened to end up (probably via a series of other helpful mutations that helped camouflage) looking a lot like local leaves, and it helped so much that their descendants dominate today.\n\nThe ancestors of those insects had DNA that caused them to look like all sorts of things... those that didn't camouflage well are gone now.",
"The DNA doesn't. \n\nLet's pretend it might be more advantageous to have white skin, a black person's DNA isn't going to change their skin and hair color, they're born a certain way, and that's the way it is. Same with insects. \n\nThe genetic changes happen over centuries if not millennia. Maybe one lucky bug is green, it gets missed by the hungry birds, so some of it's offspring are green. Those green bugs are less likely to get eaten, and their fellow orange bugs get eaten more often. So eventually only green bugs are around. \n\nMaybe after a few hundred generation, some other lucky bug is green but has a genetic mutation to have bumps that looks kinda-sorta like the leaves in the area. Over generations the ones that have more leaf-like bumps are less likely to get eaten. Repeat this over generations and you have a bug that looks like a leaf.",
"Their DNA doesn't \"know\" it's a matter of trial and error. That's all evolution is\n\nA long, long time ago, a member of its evolutionary line was born which, by chance, had a color or shape that was slightly closer to those of the leaves it commonly inhabited. That insect was more likely to be passed over by predators, or by prey, and was able to live longer and have more offspring. \n\nIt's offspring then had a chance to look like it did, or down the line, even MORE like a leaf, or to have some other beneficial mutation, which would then allow THEM to have more offspring. ",
"They don't! The environment decides what DNA gets to stay and what doesn't.\n\nThe key to camoflage, and evolution in general, is that random errors - mutations - will happen in DNA, and could change what it makes. \n\nSometimes the errors are bad - like it could cause the bug to be a bright color that a predator can spot easily. This might happen before the bug has offspring and, thus, stops it from passing on that bad mutation. \n\nSometimes they're neutral, and doesn't really affect whether or not the animal has children. This is pretty cool actually because we can use these mutations tell how different animals are related to each other and how far back they are related, since they occur reliably over generations.\n\nBut sometimes they're good mutations - they randomly make the color of the bug a bit more like the color of the plant it likes to sit on, making it be less likely to be spotted by a predator. Over time, some of it's children and grandchildren will inherit that trait and also survive and reproduce - probably even more than other colored bugs. Some of those children will also have mutations, some bad and undoing the good, but also some that might make the color even closer to the plant.\n\nThis is natural selection - how the environment preferences certain random errors based on what they will incidentally result in for surviving and passing itself on to the next generation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
61ejx9 | why would anyone want to share a virus and create one | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61ejx9/eli5_why_would_anyone_want_to_share_a_virus_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfdwwun"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Couple of reasons:\n1. They are looking to gather your info (keystrokes, passwords, bank info, etc) to use or sell for their own gain or malicious purposes. The more they share, the more they get.\n2. They want to gain access to your computer to spread more Trojan viruses to gather more info. See above.\n3. For fun. Some people just want to watch the world burn.\nHope this helps"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
47w2x4 | how is color defined on an atomic level and how does changing the color of something (via dyes) work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47w2x4/eli5_how_is_color_defined_on_an_atomic_level_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0fwsya"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Firstly, it is important to realize that color is not an inherent property of light. Photons are characterized by their frequency. And our brains interpret the frequencies of visible photons as color. Thus, color is a product of our brain, not a property of the photon itself. \n\nHence, \"color\" is not at all defined on an atomic level. What *is* defined is the spectrum of frequencies that can be absorbed and emitted by an atom or molecule. \n\nTo understand which frequencies can be absorbed and emitted by an atom, we have to understand how the electron shell of an atom works. Electrons bound to nuclei cannot have any arbitrary energy. Rather, they can only exist on discrete energy levels. When an atom absorbs a photon, an electron is excited into a higher energy level. Since those levels have very special energies associated to them, only photons that match the energy difference between two levels exactly can be absorbed. Excited electrons will eventually fall back down into a lower level, thereby emitting a photon corresponding to the energy difference between those levels. \n\nSince the frequency of a photon is proportional to its energy, we know understand how different atoms emit photons of different frequencies - and thus \"color\". The energy levels of different atoms are characteristic - that means a hydrogen atom emits different photons than - say - a mercury atom. \n\nThe same principle is true for molecules, only in a more complex fashion. Different molecules can absorb and emit photons of different frequencies. That means, materials that are made up of certain molecules can emit certain \"colors\". \n\nWhen you dye an object, you are simply coating in in molecules that behave differently, thereby changing its color. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
9zqnoz | why does our body need to consume proteins and fats if only carbs (glucose) can be used to make energy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zqnoz/eli5_why_does_our_body_need_to_consume_proteins/ | {
"a_id": [
"eab9jd6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because it's not actually true that we can only use glucose for energy. Carbs are the main and primary source of energy for most people, but if you don't consume a sufficient amount to sustain your body, your body will use fat as energy and occasionally protein. \n\nBut even if you are consuming enough carbs your body still needs fat to feed the brain and protein to feed the muscles. Too much of one or not enough of another can cause your body to do peculiar things to get the nutrients it decides that it needs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
33a25z | why do candy flavors like strawberry or watermelon taste nothing like actual strawberries or watermelon? and why does everyone just accept this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33a25z/eli5why_do_candy_flavors_like_strawberry_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqiz0s2",
"cqj1if1",
"cqj3w7q"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"How is it possible that grape was not the first flavor listed?",
"The answer as I understand from organic chem lab is that not all flavors are the same. Some like pineapple and pear mainly rely on a single chemical (a molecule called an ester) whereas other fruits (I would guess mango and apple) require many different chemicals to reproduce the full flavor of the ripe fruit. It's cheaper and usually good enough to just use one single flavor compound for most candies.\n\nAnd then there are situations like banana, where the artificial flavor was derived from an entirely different variety* which fell out of favour when the market was overrun with the modern Cavendish bananas you're used to.\n\nI'm sure this has been answered even better in the past if you look...\n\n*EDIT: Corrected below.",
"The flavors are much more concentrated. If you cook raspberries down into a syrup, they taste very different from the original fruit. \"Wild Cherry\" is anyone's guess. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2k0m23 | what's the difference between a normal rifle and a sniper rifle? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k0m23/eli5whats_the_difference_between_a_normal_rifle/ | {
"a_id": [
"clgs0ss",
"clgs2s1",
"clgsqma"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sniper rifles are optimized for accuracy at long range, at the expense of lots of other factors that would make them impractical for use as, say assault rifles - things like function in dirty conditions, ease of cleaning, size, weight, etc., etc.",
"Sight and caliber are probably the big thing. For example, in NATO countries, most assault rifles use a 5.56 mm bullet. A sniper rifle might use a 7.62 mm round. \n\nBut basically, a gun's a sniper rifle if you're planning on using it at long range. I don't think there's any set minimum requirements for a gun to be considered a sniper, it's more of an informal designation. ",
"This question asks for a straightforward answer. ELI5 is for explaining complex concepts, so I removed your question. This would be better suited for other subreddits like /r/answers or /r/askreddit. Thanks for understanding!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5z0ajt | how does the ncaa make money off college athletes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z0ajt/eli5_how_does_the_ncaa_make_money_off_college/ | {
"a_id": [
"deu908z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The NCAA is made up of individual colleges and universities who pay fees to the parent organization. These institutions make money in the following ways (in no particular order):\n\nBroadcast rights for the games.\n\nTeam merchandise.\n\nTicket sales and concessions at the physical stadiums.\n\nIncreased donations from alumni who value sports.\n\nMoney appropriated from taxes (in the case of state supported institutions)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1ik75a | the pentatonic scale | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ik75a/eli5_the_pentatonic_scale/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb58ctw",
"cb5a2k2",
"cb5c503",
"cb5cr0p",
"cb5kzyc"
],
"score": [
13,
10,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Bobby McFerrin has you covered:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEDIT: Fuck, that was a stupid typo. Sorry, Mr. McFerrin.",
"In Western music, we consider two pitches an octave apart to be the same \"pitch class\". In the span of one octave, there are twelve equally spaced pitch classes: C, C♯, D, D♯, E, F, F♯, G, G♯, A, A♯, B. (Many of these can be \"spelled\" differently, such as C♯ as D♭).\n\nA \"pitch collection\" is just a set of these pitch classes. The set with all 12 classes is called the \"chromatic collection\". When you take a collection, pick one note to be the \"root\", and sort them in ascending order starting with the root, then you have a scale. The list of notes above is the \"C chromatic scale\". The distance between two adjacent notes in a chromatic scale is called a \"semitone\".\n\nNow, the most common pitch collections used in Western music are called \"diatonic\". They consist of seven pitches, and can be arranged to form the traditional major and natural minor scales. The archetypical example of a diatonic scale is the C Major scale: C, D, E, F, G, A, B. (These are the white keys on a piano.)\n\nBecause there are five pitch classes not present in the scale, some adjacent notes will be separated by one semitone and others by two. This uneven spacing is what gives the scale its structure and characteristic sound.\n\nA diatonic collection has some nifty properties:\n\n- It is \"maximally even\". That is, when you sort it, the shortest interval between adjacent notes (one semitone) is only one semitone less than the longest interval (two semitones).\n- You can order it so that adjacent notes are separated by an interval of seven semitones, called a \"perfect fifth\". Example: F, C, G, D, A, E, B. A perfect fifth is the most harmonious interval other than the octave. (If you continue the pattern, you get B, F♯, C♯, G♯, D♯, A♯, and back to F, so it loops.)\n- You can form an interval of any number of semitones by taking two pitches from the collection.\n\nA diatonic collection is the only kind of pitch collection in Western music that has all three of these properties: it is generated by fifths, it is maximally even, and it contains every interval. However, if you sacrifice the last property, there is one other kind of collection that is made of fifths and maximally even.\n\nThe C Major Pentatonic (\"five tone\") scale is C, D, E, G, A. You can order it in fifths: C, G, D, A, E. Adjacent notes are separated by either two or three semitones, so it is maximally even. However, there are two intervals that cannot be formed using a pentatonic collection: the semitone itself and the \"tritone\" (six semitones). In a certain sense, these intervals are the most remote (you have to add more fifths to get to them), and they are the most dissonant. You can look at a pentatonic scale as a \"restricted\" diatonic scale. A lot of folk music is written using mostly or entirely notes from a pentatonic scale, and it is also associated with Chinese classical music.\n\nAnother way of looking at a pentatonic collection is as the *complement* of a diatonic collection. If you take the 12 pitch classes and remove the seven notes of a diatonic collection, the remaining notes will form a pentatonic collection. This is related to the property of maximal evenness & mdash; because the pitches in a diatonic scale are very evenly distributed, the \"holes\" are just as evenly distributed, so they form the other maximally even collection. The complement of the pitch classes of the C Major diatonic scale forms the F♯ major pentatonic scale: F♯, C♯, G♯, D♯, A♯. These are the black keys of the piano, which makes sense because you're just taking the complement of the white keys (the C Major diatonic scale). If you ever see someone playing on just the black keys of the piano, then they are playing in a pentatonic scale.\n\nFun fact: a pentatonic scale is also the base of the *blues* scale. Take the \"relative minor\" of the C major pentatonic scale, the A minor pentatonic scale: A, C, D, E, G. Then add an \"extra\" note, D♯ : A, C, D, D♯, E, G. The blues scale contains every interval, but it is not maximally even or generated by fifths.\n\nIf you have more specific questions, feel free to ask. See also [this explanation](_URL_0_), which goes into somewhat more detail on some matters.",
"I found this video to be very simple and easy to understand _URL_0_ ",
"If you take the white keys of a piano, starting on middle C, and play up one octave, you'll get a C major scale! Now we label them 1 through 8 and we have\n\n* 1 - C\n* 2 - D\n* 3 - E\n* 4 - F\n* 5 - G\n* 6 - A\n* 7 - B\n* 8 - C again!\n\nNow, the pentatonic scale can only have five notes in it, not including the double C. To make the pentatonic scale, we use \n\n1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, or\n\nC, D, E, G, and A for a C pentatonic scale.\n\nThis scale works really well for almost anything you can play because all of the pitches resolve easily. This scale can be used almost religiously for playing blues, but you can find it in pretty much any kind of music. The pentatonic scale seems natural to the human ear, because none of the pitches are only a half step (one key, including black keys, on a piano) away from each other, so the melodies created don't confuse our ears at all. They got rid of 4 and 7 to make the pentatonic scale because those are a half step away from 3 and 8, respectively. Hope this helps!",
"All tones have a **pitch**—meaning how \"low\" or \"high\" the tone is. Music (melody and harmony) is built out of combinations of pitches that sound good together. For example:\n\n1. The **octave**: these are two different pitches that, nonetheless, to our ears seem to mesh perfectly. So perfectly in fact that we say that the two pitches are \"the same note\"—both are a C or a D or whatever. The physical reason for this is that the *frequency* of the higher one is an whole number multiple of the lower one. \n2. Next comes the **perfect fifth**, like when you play a C and a G at the same time. This combination also meshes very well. The reason is that the pitches' frequencies are in a 2:3 ratio.\n3. **Perfect fourth:** for example, C and F. The ratio of the pitch frequencies is 3:4.\n4. **Major third:** C and E. This one is 4:5.\n5. And so on. The [Wikipedia article on just intonation](_URL_1_) gives a lot of detail (but note that modern instruments aren't tuned exactly like this—it's a long story).\n\nA scale is just a combination or \"palette\" of pitches that people commonly use together because they work well together. But there isn't one unique way of picking what pitch combinations to use. Different cultures have made different choices; in some cultures, the people who made the traditional music came up with a \"palette\" of five notes, while in others they came up with seven. Examples:\n\n* Traditional Chinese music uses five note scales\n* Traditional European music uses seven note scales\n* In some parts of Africa they have five note scales. Listen to, for example, the music of [Oumou Sangaré](_URL_2_), who sings in a style from a region of Mali called Wassoulou, that has pentatonic music. In American music, pentatonic scales are often seen as an influence from African slaves.\n* But while many people stereotype African music as pentatonic, in fact Africa has a mix of 5-note and 7-note musical traditions. Listen to, for example, [Toumani Diabaté](_URL_0_), who is also from Mali, but his music comes from a different tradition, with seven notes.\n\nAnd that's a simplification, because one culture will normally have more than one scale. As I recall it, in the music that Toumani Diabate (the guy in the second video) plays, there are about four different traditional scales—all with seven notes.\n\nModern western instruments with 12 notes, like the piano and guitar, are designed to allow a musician to play music in many different scales on the same instrument, without having to retune it. But note that once people had instruments that allowed them to easily \"break the rules\" by playing notes outside of the conventional scales, they started doing that to spice up their music...."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gjreHt0tRI"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ehsua/eli5_the_difference_between_western_and_eastern/ca0p8ko"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0_F_isPfI"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9pwNboDErY",
"https:/... | ||
445vf6 | group think or hive mind. and why does reddit suffer from hive mind instead of other sites such as twitter, facebook, or instagram? or do they suffer as well? is there any advantages to hive mind? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/445vf6/eli5_group_think_or_hive_mind_and_why_does_reddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cznncza",
"cznnh64"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"I don't know about the psychology behind groupthink but I would argue one of the major things Reddit has that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram don't is the upvote/downvote function, which essentially ensures that popular opinions are brought to the top while unpopular ones are pushed to the bottom. Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook all have \"likes\" but that doesn't affect whether your comments are at the top or the bottom.",
"Reddit has a hive mind because all user votes impact all other users. You can't choose to have Reddit not count votes from certain people, so the majority opinions on the website will almost always appear on top for everyone.\n\nTwitter, Facebook, and Instagram are more like echo chambers. Users control who they hear from/follow and they tend to follow people with similar viewpoints, so they rarely see views that challenge or oppose the ones they already hold. \n\nUsers have a little more control over this on Twitter and Instagram. Facebook will automatically start showing you more posts from friends whose past posts you have checked out often. Since you probably read the walls and links of friends you agree with more than the ones you disagree with, Facebook ends up showing you more content from friends you agree with. So even if you have a lot of friends with contrary views you may not end up seeing their posts.\n\ntl;dr - Reddit's voting system makes it so one clear winner comes out on top for the whole site. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allow groups with similar beliefs to isolate themselves into their own social media circle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.