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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
k3u5q | what separates 'true' intellectuals from 'pseudo-intellectuals'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k3u5q/eli5_what_separates_true_intellectuals_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2has6g",
"c2havd1",
"c2hb11s",
"c2hbaf6",
"c2hbews",
"c2hblgn",
"c2hbvn2",
"c2hby2v",
"c2hc4e7",
"c2hdixr",
"c2hj4pt",
"c2has6g",
"c2havd1",
"c2hb11s",
"c2hbaf6",
"c2hbews",
"c2hblgn",
"c2hbvn2",
"c2hby2v",
"c2hc4e7",
"c2hdixr",
"c2hj4pt"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
5,
2,
3,
10,
14,
5,
5,
2,
4,
6,
10,
5,
2,
3,
10,
14,
5,
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"An Abercrombie & Fitch shirt.",
"True intellectuals are people who are actually smart; pseudo-intellectuals would be college students who think they're smart but in reality they aren't as smart as they think they are.",
"true intellectuals know what they're talking about",
"The attitude of the speaker.",
"Whether or not the person in question's views align with the person using one of those terms.",
"A good way to tell the difference is how much they talk. Ask for an explanation of something. If the explanation is concise, short and really helpful relating specifically to your question, chances are you are speaking to an \"intellectual.\" They may be hesitant to explain more, possibly because they are used to people asking them for information and don't want to play professor for the day. \n\nIf the person volunteers an explanation (whether or not you asked for it), talks a LOT around the topic, corrects him/herself on different points and generally leaves you with further questions, chances are they're regurgitating wikipedia.",
"Intellectuals don't just 'know stuff', they understand it. Once you become a pro at the basics of whatever-the-subject-is you will be able to build on to that information, endlessly discovering that there is more to learn. Being an intellectual is work, you don't just wake up with knowledge, you acquire it by yourself.\n\nPseudo-intellectuals are people who regurgitate facts they know to appear intelligent. These people don't even have to be stupid, many of them are either lacking self-confidence so they try so hard to get this appearance of being smart and important or overly self-confident, believing that they have reached a sufficient level of intelligence.\n\nI guess, sensibility has a lot to do with it. Knowing how to use your knowledge. I guess, again, that it is wisdom that separates true intellectuals from pseudo-intellectuals. ",
"I really hate to do this but I'm going to quote Donald Rumsfeld.\n\n \"there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.\"\n\nThe truly wise know what they know, what they don't know, and have contemplated the possibilities of most of the unknown unknowns.",
"A true intellectual writes the book; a pseudo-intellectual regurgitates words from the book. ",
"A pseudo-intellectual does indeed have knowledge, and they're able to regurgitate facts and statements that they know from somewhere else. They may believe themselves to be true intellectuals, but in reality, they don't really have a deeper understanding of the material other than what they have read or heard from others. A true intellectual is someone who not only knows about the topic, but has an extremely deep understanding of it, deep enough to come up with their own conclusions to further their own knowledge of the topic. In other words, a \"true\" intellectual \"gets it\".\n\nThere's a simple test to see if someone is a true or psuedo-intellectual. In the theme of this sub-reddit, ask them to explain the topic like you're five. A psuedo-intellectual will only remember what they have read, and when they try to mold the ideas to fit a five-year old's perspective, they find that they don't have any way to simplify the topic, or lack the vocabulary and knowledge to step down to that level. A true intellectual has a much more rounded view of the topic, and understands the topic on a much deeper level. A \"true\" intellectual will be able to switch perspectives on a topic much easier, and they will easily be able to explain it to you.",
"Genuine versus pseudo? It's all about fooling people.\n\nHidden agendas. Trying to lie to you. And these boil down to a single thing: honesty.\n\nA pseudointellectual is using dishonest techniques to make a false facade. The facade is there to fool their audience into thinking he/she's a genuine intellectual.\n\nA genuine intellectual can just be themselves.\n\nBut you'd have to be a mindreader if you want to find a liar. A good pseudointellectual may seem *much more* expert than a genuine one.\n\nIn my experience, pseudointellectuals exhibit three big symptoms:\n\n* missing honesty\n* shameless use of logical fallacies\n* missing humility\n\nTo detect their false facade, don't go looking for lies. With expert pseudointellectuals and other con artists, they're good at what they do, so you won't find much dishonesty. \n\nInstead, look closely for their normal human honesty. It's gone. It's gone because it takes lots of work to conceal lies, and takes too much work to create \"fake honesty\" on top of that.\n\nSo be on the lookout for put-downs, changes of subject, and for much use of emotionally \"hot\" language. True intellectuals tend to shun that crap. It's too dishonest. But pseudointellectuals use it constantly, and... when you point it out, **they're not ashamed.** They pretend that it's not important to stick to neutral language or to avoid personal attacks. Or they'll even pretend they're not doing all that stuff, and try to convince you that your imagining things. And that's their big symptom.\n\nThird, many pseudointellectuals have fooled themselves into believing that they're experts. They won't strike you as humble, instead they consider themselves superior. True intellectuals are different: the more they gain experience, the more they'll realize they're still nothing but \"mere students:\" they realize how *little* they know. And the really wise intellectuals see that they might even ruin themselves if they change from \"student\" to \"expert.\" If you think you're a student, you'll keep learning all the time. If you're convinced of your own expertise ...you're in danger of turning into a pseudointellectual! :)\n\nAnd that shows one more symptom: intellectuals will put themselves down and try to act less expert than they really are. It preserves their \"inquisitive student\" status. Pseudointellectuals are the opposite: immodest and self-aggrandizing. They try to act more expert than they really are.\n",
"An Abercrombie & Fitch shirt.",
"True intellectuals are people who are actually smart; pseudo-intellectuals would be college students who think they're smart but in reality they aren't as smart as they think they are.",
"true intellectuals know what they're talking about",
"The attitude of the speaker.",
"Whether or not the person in question's views align with the person using one of those terms.",
"A good way to tell the difference is how much they talk. Ask for an explanation of something. If the explanation is concise, short and really helpful relating specifically to your question, chances are you are speaking to an \"intellectual.\" They may be hesitant to explain more, possibly because they are used to people asking them for information and don't want to play professor for the day. \n\nIf the person volunteers an explanation (whether or not you asked for it), talks a LOT around the topic, corrects him/herself on different points and generally leaves you with further questions, chances are they're regurgitating wikipedia.",
"Intellectuals don't just 'know stuff', they understand it. Once you become a pro at the basics of whatever-the-subject-is you will be able to build on to that information, endlessly discovering that there is more to learn. Being an intellectual is work, you don't just wake up with knowledge, you acquire it by yourself.\n\nPseudo-intellectuals are people who regurgitate facts they know to appear intelligent. These people don't even have to be stupid, many of them are either lacking self-confidence so they try so hard to get this appearance of being smart and important or overly self-confident, believing that they have reached a sufficient level of intelligence.\n\nI guess, sensibility has a lot to do with it. Knowing how to use your knowledge. I guess, again, that it is wisdom that separates true intellectuals from pseudo-intellectuals. ",
"I really hate to do this but I'm going to quote Donald Rumsfeld.\n\n \"there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.\"\n\nThe truly wise know what they know, what they don't know, and have contemplated the possibilities of most of the unknown unknowns.",
"A true intellectual writes the book; a pseudo-intellectual regurgitates words from the book. ",
"A pseudo-intellectual does indeed have knowledge, and they're able to regurgitate facts and statements that they know from somewhere else. They may believe themselves to be true intellectuals, but in reality, they don't really have a deeper understanding of the material other than what they have read or heard from others. A true intellectual is someone who not only knows about the topic, but has an extremely deep understanding of it, deep enough to come up with their own conclusions to further their own knowledge of the topic. In other words, a \"true\" intellectual \"gets it\".\n\nThere's a simple test to see if someone is a true or psuedo-intellectual. In the theme of this sub-reddit, ask them to explain the topic like you're five. A psuedo-intellectual will only remember what they have read, and when they try to mold the ideas to fit a five-year old's perspective, they find that they don't have any way to simplify the topic, or lack the vocabulary and knowledge to step down to that level. A true intellectual has a much more rounded view of the topic, and understands the topic on a much deeper level. A \"true\" intellectual will be able to switch perspectives on a topic much easier, and they will easily be able to explain it to you.",
"Genuine versus pseudo? It's all about fooling people.\n\nHidden agendas. Trying to lie to you. And these boil down to a single thing: honesty.\n\nA pseudointellectual is using dishonest techniques to make a false facade. The facade is there to fool their audience into thinking he/she's a genuine intellectual.\n\nA genuine intellectual can just be themselves.\n\nBut you'd have to be a mindreader if you want to find a liar. A good pseudointellectual may seem *much more* expert than a genuine one.\n\nIn my experience, pseudointellectuals exhibit three big symptoms:\n\n* missing honesty\n* shameless use of logical fallacies\n* missing humility\n\nTo detect their false facade, don't go looking for lies. With expert pseudointellectuals and other con artists, they're good at what they do, so you won't find much dishonesty. \n\nInstead, look closely for their normal human honesty. It's gone. It's gone because it takes lots of work to conceal lies, and takes too much work to create \"fake honesty\" on top of that.\n\nSo be on the lookout for put-downs, changes of subject, and for much use of emotionally \"hot\" language. True intellectuals tend to shun that crap. It's too dishonest. But pseudointellectuals use it constantly, and... when you point it out, **they're not ashamed.** They pretend that it's not important to stick to neutral language or to avoid personal attacks. Or they'll even pretend they're not doing all that stuff, and try to convince you that your imagining things. And that's their big symptom.\n\nThird, many pseudointellectuals have fooled themselves into believing that they're experts. They won't strike you as humble, instead they consider themselves superior. True intellectuals are different: the more they gain experience, the more they'll realize they're still nothing but \"mere students:\" they realize how *little* they know. And the really wise intellectuals see that they might even ruin themselves if they change from \"student\" to \"expert.\" If you think you're a student, you'll keep learning all the time. If you're convinced of your own expertise ...you're in danger of turning into a pseudointellectual! :)\n\nAnd that shows one more symptom: intellectuals will put themselves down and try to act less expert than they really are. It preserves their \"inquisitive student\" status. Pseudointellectuals are the opposite: immodest and self-aggrandizing. They try to act more expert than they really are.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4f890a | what is the sound coming from a car engine ie. the roar of a mustang or sports car rev? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4f890a/eli5_what_is_the_sound_coming_from_a_car_engine/ | {
"a_id": [
"d26oi2n",
"d26qo4e"
],
"score": [
2,
11
],
"text": [
"It is the sound of the exhaust from the engine burning the air / fuel mixture in the cylinders. Most of todays performance cars have tuned exhaust to make a certain sound such as a deep roar or rumble. \nIf you hear a classic performance car the sound of the exhaust is much more raw and dirty compared to todays tuned exhausts. \nSome manufacturers go so far as to drop a tiny bit of fuel in the exhaust which burns to give it that extra performance sound. ",
"The sound of an exhaust is a very complex sound. \n\nBasically, there are explosions going on inside the motor. This is the genesis of the sound you hear. However, different motors make different explosions. A V8 makes more explosions than an inline 4. A large motor makes deeper sounds than a small one. \n\nNow, we have to start combining those sounds. Firing order is a term used to state when each cylinder inside the motor fires off. A [Chevrolet motor](_URL_7_) has different firing orders than a [Ford one](_URL_3_) and this makes them sound very different even though they're both V8 engines of similar size. Ferraris tend to have flat plane cranks as opposed to the cross plane crank of American motors, which rev higher and have yet another firing order that [contributes to it's \"exotic\" sound](_URL_6_). But that's not all. The new Ford Mustang GT350R sounds very different from a Ferrari even though it too has a flat plane crank. [In this clip, you can hear how it sounds deeper and heavier than the Ferrari](_URL_2_), which is because it's a much larger displacement engine -- it can't rev as fast and the explosions are bigger. Also, the firing order again is closer to the regular Mustang than to the Ferrari, which contributes to a different sound. \n\nNow, you can start talking about how these sounds combine once they come out of the engine. Depending on how many cylinders the motor has and how they're arranged, the gaps between firing at the exhaust tip can be very different. This is why an [inline-6 motor like a Jeep](_URL_4_) sounds very different than a [boxer-style motor like a 911](_URL_1_), despite having similar sized engines and the same number of cylinders. It's also why [a V12 sounds](_URL_0_) very different [from a V8](_URL_0_) even when it's the same car from the same manufacturer. \n\nNow, that just gets you the basic harmonic sound of the motor. The way your exhaust is designed and what you have in it can also change the sound, sometimes dramatically. This is why some people will modify their exhaust systems. By making the mufflers less restrictive, you can increase the loudness of the system, and by changing their shape and with resonators, you can make the sound more bassy or more sharp. Here's an example of different exhausts [on a BMW](_URL_5_) and here's one on a [Mustang](_URL_8_). Sometimes that change is subtle and sometimes it's dramatic, but you can never make a Mustang sound like a Corvette or a four cylinder sound like a V12. \n\n\nThere can often be subtler mechanical noises noticed up close too. You might hear a turbo spool up or a supercharger whine or you might hear the difference between a motor with a timing chain and one with a timing belt. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoeHnTVJPy4",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-z7wzzstMs",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mahe7UorTq8",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jfeS91XiQU",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O4KItSxxjo",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys27g9GjWrI",
... | ||
76jws5 | what's the difference between a carbohydrate and a hydrocarbon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76jws5/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_carbohydrate/ | {
"a_id": [
"doei1mo",
"doei57m"
],
"score": [
21,
2
],
"text": [
"\"-ate\" means oxygen.\n\nCarbohydrate = carbon, hydrogen, oxygen\n\nHydrocarbon = hydrogen, carbon ",
"A hydrocarbon is a compound that consists *only* of hydrogen and carbon.\n\nCarbohydrates consist of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4dx0tu | the slingshot in nascar. why is it when the car slingshotting passes it doesn't slow from a sudden gust of air flow. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dx0tu/eli5_the_slingshot_in_nascar_why_is_it_when_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1v22xw"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"The car does slow, but the advantage gained is enough to pass.\n\nRace cars reach a terminal velocity, a speed where the air resistance is equal to the engine's power, so they can't go any faster.\n\nWhen slip-streaming for a slingshot, the lead car deals with the air resistance while the following car doesn't have to deal with it. Without this resistance holding it back, the engine can get the car going even faster. Lets say, a 10mph advantage.\n\nWhen the following car pulls out to pass, all that air resistance returns, and the engine can no longer maintain that 10mph advantage. Instantly, it begins slowing down. The advantage is enough to pass, but after that, they've already slowed down to the same terminal velocity.\n\nWhile I illustrated this at terminal velocity, the same applies during acceleration. Accelerating with air resistance vs. less resistance means the rear car will be going faster in the same amount of time, allowing for a pass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3tpymd | how come so many european written languages like french, spanish, german use accent marks, but english doesn't? | Rephrased something I submitted earlier. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tpymd/eli5_how_come_so_many_european_written_languages/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx8aqde"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"German doesn't have \"accent marks\", except in words borrowed from other languages. The umlaut -- those two dots above some letters -- is actually just a different way of writing an \"e\": \"ä\", \"ö\" and \"ü\" can be replaced by \"ae\", \"oe\" and \"ue\" (although that would be unusual, and officially you shouldn't do it unless the font your using doesn't have umlauts); similarly, the character \"ß\" is just a different way of writing \"ss\" after a long vowel -- and in fact, in Switzerland, the \"ß\" is almost never used.\n\nIn Spanish, the letter \"ñ\" is considered a different letter from \"n\", and comes after it in the alphabet (so, in a Spanish dictionary, \"piña\" comes *after* \"pinza\"). Spanish does, however, have stress marks to show when the word stress is on a syllable you wouldn't normally expect it (e.g. \"chillón\" is pronounced with the stress on the final syllable and not, as you would normally expect, the syllable before it) and a diereses (which looks like a German umlaut but isn't) to show when a \"u\" is pronounced when you would normally expect it to be silent.\n\nFrench, of course, has a plethora of diacritics (to give them their technical name), most of which seem to do nothing at all: for example, the circumflex in \"fenêtre\" doesn't change the pronunciation one bit, but it does mark the place where the Latin word it came from (\"fenestra\") had an \"s\".\n\nBasically, some languages have diacritics that have a purpose, some languages have diacritics that make little sense, some languages have no diacritics at all (and some have characters that look like diacritics, but actually aren't).\n\nBasically, this is to do with the haphazard way that languages change and evolve over time. Writing (unlike speaking) is a very artificial thing that humans invented, and it so happens that while some languages took great care over their writing systems and tried to make them make sense, others didn't.\n\nEnglish spelling, for example, has remained pretty much unchanged over hundreds of years, while the spoken language has naturally evolved -- which is why almost none of our spelling rules make any sort of rational sense. Spanish spelling, however, has been overseen and constantly refined by the Royal Spanish Academy: down the centuries, the Academy has tweaked the writing system to keep up with pronunciation, introducing diacritics when needed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1b7p1c | compound(?) probability | So if you roll one die, there is clearly a 1/6 chance to roll n. If you roll two dice, obviously the probability doesn't increase to 2/6 (since in such a case, rolling 6 dice should guarantee you roll n), but you've clearly increased your chances of rolling n simply by increasing the sample size. I understand that each roll is an independent event and doesn't directly affect any other roll.
I'm having a hard time visualizing the increase, please explain this to me! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b7p1c/eli5compound_probability/ | {
"a_id": [
"c94dlbk",
"c94hwvq"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"\"If you roll two dice, obviously the probability doesn't increase to 2/6 \"\n\nAgreed. It helps to visulize probability by looking at a [probability tree](_URL_0_).\n\nThe first role has six possible outcomes, so we draw six branches. (1/6) is the possibility of any one role. Now, since the second role can happen from any one of those results, draw six branches for each of those results. 6*6=36 possible outcomes.\n\nSince only one branch is possible, (1/36) is the probability of any one branch happening. However, since you're rolling two die, you could role a 1 then a 2, or a 2 then a one. What's the probability of rolling a 1 and a 2 in no particular order? Since two branches give the desired result, (2/36) is the probability. \n\nEven though you aren't rolling the same die, you can draw a probability tree because theoretically each die is the same, and rolling two dice is the same as rolling one die twice. \n\n---\n\n\n\n",
"In cases like this, it is easier to compute it in term of the odds of *not* rolling *n*. Let's say n = 6.\n\nFor one roll, the odds of not rolling a 6 are 5/6, or about 83%. From that, you know the odds of rolling the 6 is 1 - 5/6 = 1/6 = 17%.\n\nWhat are the odds of not rolling 6 twice? Well, 83% of the time, you'll not roll 6 on the first roll....and 83% of those, you won't roll it the second time either. So 83% of 83%...or 5/6th of 5/6th = (5/6)^2 = 25/36 = 69%. And if 69% are the odds of *not* rolling 6 in two rolls, 31% is the chance of rolling it at least once."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://imgur.com/M0MP7mG"
],
[]
] | |
4dtvep | what are the differences between john locke and immanuel kant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dtvep/eli5_what_are_the_differences_between_john_locke/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1ual30",
"d1ulbqb",
"d1umryr"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They are two completely different people. What sort of differences are you looking for, because the list is nearly infinite unless you narrow it down. ",
"lol is this your hmwk assignment?",
"it's a ridiculous question, but one angle you could approach from is that Locke believes our minds are essentially blank when we are born, with no innate ideas and that everything is learned thru experience. Kant – it's an essential part of his philosophy and if you really want to understand why, you'll have a lot of work to do – thinks that our minds are inherently structured in ways that are fundamental to how we experience the world."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
6s57yv | how did inland tribes get their essential iodine without access to seafood? | Didn't know where to take this question, ELI5 seemed viable. Iodine is an essential nutrient in our diet, and regulates our thyroid. Seafood is naturally rich in iodine and has been a huge part of the human diet because of that. Freshwater fish and shellfish don't have large levels of iodine, so we use iodized salt as a supplement.
How did inland tribes and people living in the mountains get their iodine? Wouldn't they all be heavily subject to goiters(enlarged thyroids)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6s57yv/eli5_how_did_inland_tribes_get_their_essential/ | {
"a_id": [
"dla6jvs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Potatoes, some berries, and dairy products are also sources of dietary iodine. Not as good as, say, shrimp, but it's there. In the 1800s, *caliche* - a type of sedimentary rock found in arid or semi-arid inland regions (like the US' Great Plains) - was the primary source for iodine, and it is still an important source today. And food that grows in such soil makes plenty of iodine available to whoever eats it... either eating the plants directly, or eating dairy products from animals who ate such plants.\n\n'Inland' places were not always inland, and were not always above the surface of the sea. The sediments that remain in those places today are a fine source of iodine."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5dan2i | why is the battle for aleppo so important? | Just wondering if the media coverage it's focused on it only because of the humanitarian crisis or because its somehow strategically relevant in the war. Sorry about the poor english. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dan2i/eli5why_is_the_battle_for_aleppo_so_important/ | {
"a_id": [
"da3256v",
"da32fax"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, Aleppo was the capital of Syria and used to be biggest city with a population over 2 million people (about the size of Houston), so in any conflict involving Syria, Aleppo is going to be a big deal. \n\nMore specifically, the battle has claimed the lives (at last count) of about 26,000 people, which isn't enough to be compared to a major military operation, but [it makes the battle one of the deadliest sieges on record](_URL_1_). And it's been going on for over 4 years. I cannot find anything about the longest battle on record, but I'm sure this one is in the running. And it involves three side from dozens of armies, which are backed by various regional and global powers, each one very determined to control Aleppo. \n\nThe complexity of this is probably part of it also, since you don't often see battles shape up the Aleppo has, and the Syrian Civil War in general\n\nAt least part of the media focus on Aleppo is because the city is extremely valuable, but also because most of the 2 million inhabitants are now fleeing or fighting and [the city has been pretty much leveled in many places](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: Correction, *was* the capital of Syria. Sorry",
"It *used* to be the economic hub of Syria and is still a pretty large city. However, a small eastern section of the town has been taken over by Islamist cutthroats under the overall leadership of former Jabhat al-Nusra, the resident Al-Qaida branch. The government army has spent several years trying to eradicate them.\n\nCurrently the Syrian rebels, including ISIS, are taking a severe beating on multiple fronts. Losing Aleppo is likely to cripple what's left of al-Nusra, while ISIS is already on the edge of collapse due to assaults on Mosul and Raqqa; Aleppo is also the last large urbanized area held by the rebels. And because Islamists make up some of the more powerful rebel groups, the fall of Eastern Aleppo would completely avert the fall of the current Syrian government, and force the rebels to negotiate a deal with Bashar al-Assad.\n\nThat's why there's such a craze in the West to avert the fall of Eastern Aleppo and buttress the local Al-Qaida branch so that it can at least keep bleeding Assad's troops."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20-photos-describe-the-WAR-577a14eaef767__700.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties"
],
[]
] | |
e3n5ia | what can long term daily doses of tylenol do to a kid? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e3n5ia/eli5_what_can_long_term_daily_doses_of_tylenol_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"f93xqba"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > \tWhat can this do to a kid,\n\nAs you said, it can seriously damage the liver. Even some healthy adults regularly taking the maximum dose can result in serious liver damage.\n\nIt sounds like your friend is a moron, but there are a few other reasons they should stop. Buy the kid some grape candy, it is cheaper than Tylenol and won't kill them either. Also it is important not to train your child to lie about pain, as it can result in ignoring legitimate pains as asking for a treat. Similarly a regular intake of painkillers can mask legitimate pains that would be early warnings of serious medical issues.\n\nIf all they care about is the label on the bottle then direct them to the bit where it says \"If pain persists call your doctor\", as this is because extended use is not intended."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1katv9 | what does this new "stop and frisk" law really mean for law enforcement & and public? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1katv9/eli5_what_does_this_new_stop_and_frisk_law_really/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbn3luy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The stop and Frisk Law gave police the ability to frisk random people in NYC. \n\nBecause you linked to the recent ruling, the question I think you are asking is, what does this ruling mean for the public. The ruling means that people will have more rights and be able to walk around with less fear from the police stopping and searching them for no reason.\n\nThe Stop and Frisk law has been ruled unconstitutional. The constitution provides protection against illegal search and seizure. Police in NYC were randomly (based on prejudice/body language) stopping and searching people. The police even had a certain number they were supposed to stop in a week. \n\nCeasing random pat downs will cause less people to go to jail, less people going to court for minor offenses like marijuana. It may also allow for a slight increase in other crime since police should not be searching random suspicious civilians. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/12/judge-says-new-yorks-stop-and-frisk-law-unconstitutional/"
] | [
[]
] | |
623ucn | what exactly does the nfl's "relaying an account of the game without the expressed written permission of the national football league." disclaimer mean? | I know they don't want piracy but what does "relaying and account of the game" mean? Does it mean I can't talk about a game with friends? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/623ucn/eli5_what_exactly_does_the_nfls_relaying_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfjizc4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"So i found [an article](_URL_0_) relating to this, and the NFL is clearly overstating their copyright protections.\n\n > Prohibiting any other use rules out a fair use like the one Prof. Seltzer made (educational purpose). And as to “descriptions or accounts” of the game — um, facts aren’t copyrightable. Copyright warnings like this misrepresent your rights to use copyrighted works. Any use that the copyright owner doesn’t expressly agree to, is illegal? Hogwash.\n\nSo yes, you absolutely can talk about NFL games with friends, and you don't need to be an authorized NFL journalist to publish articles and accounts of NFL games."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html"
]
] | |
cd06wg | what creates the speed limit of the movement of the body (i.e. why can't we run twice as fast)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cd06wg/eli5_what_creates_the_speed_limit_of_the_movement/ | {
"a_id": [
"etqkdyk",
"etql73f"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Strength. Balance. Traction. Coordination. Conditioning. Endurance.\n\nA muscle has limited strength. That limited strength can only apply a limited amount of force to push the body. In order to run fast, you have to stay upright, so your sense of balance is a factor. If the the surface you're running on is slippery or has two much yield (like sand), you won't have good traction for your feet. You have two legs that have to move in proper time in relation to each other, and if you don't have that coordination, you will either trip and fall or won't reach the speed you desire.\n\nIn order for your muscles to work, they need oxygen and nutrients delivered through your cardiovascular and circulatory systems, so your heart and lungs will have to be conditioned to work efficiently.",
"Kinetic energy increases as the square of velocity. So to move twice as fast you need 4 times the energy. Roughly speaking, you need to have muscles 4 times as strong. Stresses and strains are also not linear functions - so things like bones, tendons etc need to be a lot more than twice as strong to function at twice the speed. This makes them also heavier - which further increases the energy requirement. \n\nThis is why nearly all elite athletes suffer from multiple injuries, our biological bodies are simply not designed to go beyond certain limits."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
fexn3g | how are gymnastics bars so flexible without breaking or cracking under all that weight? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fexn3g/eli5_how_are_gymnastics_bars_so_flexible_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjt1c1l",
"fjt2aq9"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Gymnastic bars are made out of fiberglass and given a wooden coating. Fiberglass is, by design, an incredibly flexible material. And that as well a sproper trianing allows them to bend without breaking when used by gymnasts. But by no means are they invinsible, they can break it's just rare. Like with pole vault shafts",
"Typically the bars are made of fiberglass with a wooden coating. Fiberglass is of course glass fiber which is embedded in a polyester resin, a substance formed of long chains of strongly bonded molecules. The combination allows for great strength while also allowing quite a bit of flexibility. Fiberglass is used for things like fishing rods where flexibility without cracking is very important, so you could imagine the rods as giant, thick fishing rods."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
5ukstq | what stops superpower like the us from invading a smaller weaker country? or if they joined forces with another powerful country to do it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ukstq/eli5what_stops_superpower_like_the_us_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddusbxq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because then you have to rule that country. The people you invaded generally don't like this and resist. This costs lots of money and lives. In modern times it's much cheaper to just use soft power to get what you want. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5rplgr | why does homework not help kids learn? | Is it only certain age groups? Is there some alternative to homework that helps kids learn? Is there a specific type of homework that is or is not helpful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rplgr/eli5_why_does_homework_not_help_kids_learn/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd94h1c",
"dd954o0"
],
"score": [
10,
9
],
"text": [
"The scientific community generally backs homework as a good way to learn. It encourages self guided learning and improvement through practice. \n\nSaying that, I consider homework to be cruel and inhumane. ",
"I've never heard that it doesn't help kids learn. I just have learned that homework is meant for practice and should not be excessive. New content should never be introduced through homework (unless the homework voluntary and it's just like a preview for the student to see what the instructor will be teaching in the upcoming unit). I feel like if teachers are to give homework, it needs to be meaningful and brief. Especially for the elementary age students. No sense in stressing out 7 year olds over mindless, excessive work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4xkbmf | how hydrogen peroxide works as an emulsifier of earwax. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xkbmf/eli5how_hydrogen_peroxide_works_as_an_emulsifier/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6g5lbt"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"2 things happen:\n\nThe peroxide is cooler than body temperature, so it cools the wax a little, which contracts a little and breaks. \n\nBubbles form and pull the wax off the hairs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6k90ib | why can turkish americans who are citizens in the u.s. get to vote in turkish elections without the u.s. public knowledge of the votes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6k90ib/eli5_why_can_turkish_americans_who_are_citizens/ | {
"a_id": [
"djk6mic"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"People who are citizens of other nations and are eligible to vote in that country's elections can do so, and the fact that they are also US citizens doesn't somehow make their votes public knowledge.\n\nThe privacy and secrecy of votes is a common thread in almost every nation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
8q7jji | why do champagne bottles have tops you can pop with your hands and wine bottles require a corkscrew? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8q7jji/eli5_why_do_champagne_bottles_have_tops_you_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0h2lct",
"e0h2ltf",
"e0hbd79",
"e0hgb5x"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Champagne is under very high pressure. That's why the corks are tapered as well; in order to hold them in.",
"Because champagne is under pressure due to carbonation. Wine is not bottled with any pressure intended. ",
"Follow-up question: if a wine cork had a top, would it be removable by twisting?",
"Conventional wine is flat, sparking wine (champagne, prosecco, etc.) is not, and therefore, has a significant amount of pressure buildup. The flared single use champagne cork is necessary to keep that pressure in, while a traditional cork would simply shoot out of the bottle. An analogy would be water bottles vs soda bottles. You can't use the thinner plastic and shorter cap design on a soda bottle because the carbonation would cause it to burst."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
swksj | what goose bumps are | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/swksj/eli5_what_goose_bumps_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4hkzl0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"10's of thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of years ago when we were a lot more hairy, the goose bumps were actually useful.\n\nThink of when a cat gets angry or frightened its hair stands up to make it look bigger, the same thing happened to us to make us look bigger to whatever was threatening us and hopefully scare it off.\n\nWhen we got cold, the hairs would stand up on end allowing more air to be trapped near the skin thereby making us warmer.\n\nBasically, it's a genetic holdover from a more primitive time that served a much more useful purpose than it does now."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
fyeqmt | why is internet service inconsistent and unreliable for days or weeks after a thunderstorm rolls through town? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fyeqmt/eli5_why_is_internet_service_inconsistent_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmziu4b"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Water can get trapped in the COAX cable and then does all sorts of things to the signal. When I did that kind of work, any low points we built into the wire run also included slitting the wire casing on the bottom so any water that got into the casing would drain out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
12wvqh | how does optical zoom work? like a scope on a sniper's rifle for example. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12wvqh/eli5_how_does_optical_zoom_work_like_a_scope_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6ytsrp",
"c6ytt91",
"c6yuki5"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The scientific idea at work here is optics and mainly the (edit:) refraction part of it. As light goes through a material it is \"bent\" by it and pops out the other side at an angle which we can control, [like with a basic lens](_URL_1_). Nice and simple so far.\n\nNow a snipers telescopic sights are are essentially a series of lenses acting as what is known as a refractive telescope. [This image gives a schematic of the inside of an example of one](_URL_0_).\n\nTo break this down a bit the basic idea is (and well shall ignore the middle section of the above image and imagine a much simpler example like [this one](_URL_2_)); your target gives off light which comes toward you and hits the objective lens which gathers incoming light from whoever you are pointing the gun at (bigger the lens the more light you get in) and focuses it down to a point (the focal point oddly enough), the focused light goes into a 2nd lens (the eyepiece) which magnifies and passes the image on to the eye. \n\nFrom this you would get a magnified but upside down image, clearly not very intuitive while trying to fight a battle, so the other lenses present will be to invert the image the correct way up in some cases and for others their shape and the distance between them will determine what magnification and other image properties such as the field of view (how wide an area you can see) you get out in the end. \n",
"I'm no expert on Optics, but let me give it a whirl:\n\nEverything around you reflects light from the sun or lightbulbs or other sources. That's how our eyes see things, by receiving the light that is reflected off of whatever you're looking at.\n\nThe way scopes and/or telescopes work is by using lenses that bend (or refract) light, you can take light from something very far away, and \"spread it out\" so to speak over a larger area, so to speak.\n\nThis is unlike zooming in on a picture, because real life is higher quality than any picture. The light reflected from objects can be expanded/refracted VERY heavily before you'd start to notice individual photons (aka, real life pixels.) so that's how a telescope/scope image looks just as clear.\n\nHope this helps!",
"You know how a magnifying lens lets you see things closer? By using several different kinds of lenses you can bend light outwards to make an image appear bigger (zoomed in)\n\nHere's a digram showing how [a zoom lens works](_URL_0_), this diagram shows a camera but if you replace the last lens (the \"focussing element\") with your eye then you'd have a telescope. You can see how the light beams going in are more spread out when coming out the other end, that would make the image appear bigger to your eye."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Telescopic_sight_internals.png/799px-Telescopic_sight_internals.png",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Lens_and_wavefronts.gif",
"http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/telescope-basic.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://static.trustedrevi... | ||
arj9r2 | if the engines on a plane stopped mid-flight, to what capacity would the aircraft fly like a paper aeroplane? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arj9r2/eli5_if_the_engines_on_a_plane_stopped_midflight/ | {
"a_id": [
"egnke1h",
"egnkjyo",
"egnley3",
"egnuesw",
"egnvirs"
],
"score": [
20,
7,
5,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"It won’t. All modern airliners are able to glide to a landing if all engines fail.\n\nPretty neat!",
"The best paper aeroplane I've ever built had a glide ratio of almost 50:1, meaning that it would travel 50 metres horizontally for every meter it fell while maintaining a constant velocity. \n\nMy median paper aeroplane was closer to 5:1. \n\nA Boeing 747-200 has a glide ratio of 15:1 which is way better than half my paper aeroplanes but only half what a purpose built glider can be expected to do, and even that falls short of that one truly exceptional paper aeroplane I made. ",
"Most modern airliners have a glide ratio of 1:15 to 1:20. So if they lost all their engines they might be able to glide for about 120 miles from cruise altitude. However current regulation does not require an aircraft to be within glide distance to an airport. Loosing all engines is quite rare, especially in a modern multi-engine aircraft. It have happened a handful of times. But as the pilots have a lot of altitude they can look for a suitable landing site and are able to do an emergency landing. So such an emergency is very survivable.",
"In addition to gliding that other answers say, losing the engines doesn't mean losing steering and control of the flaps etc.\n\nWhile the plane can't fly forever, the pilot can probably still turn, dive a little to gain air-speed at the expense of altitude, or slow down air-speed for the final stages of landing.\n\nI hope someone more knowledgeable could elaborate better on that.",
"Some real world examples:\n\n[US Air 1549](_URL_0_) - bird strikes killed both engines shortly after takeoff\n\n[The Gimli Glider](_URL_2_) - ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet.\n\n[Air Transat 236](_URL_1_) - Glided over 60 miles after running out of fuel\n\n[And a whole list of other examples.](_URL_3_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding"
]
] | ||
1ypkwu | why would we rather tear up a city to install new internet cables than just implement wimax or lte? | LTE in its current form operates in a different way than city WiMAX or something similar would. LTE plans have data caps, say 2 gigs a month. The plans are device specific. And why LTE is okay for what it's made for is if you're driving across the country, your phone automatically switches whatever cell networks are available.
But say you live in a city and want regular Internet. WiMAX (or LTE not part of a cell plan) sounds like a very reasonable option. Myself and tons of people would want to switch Internet plans for that, I could use my laptop in the park or at home.
Portland Oregon is the only US city I know of that tried to get that running but I think the company heading it was badly managed or something and didn't get very far.
Bonus Q: Would you hypothetically have more anonymity/privacy with cable Internet than WiMAX?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ypkwu/eli5_why_would_we_rather_tear_up_a_city_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfmltem"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"physical cable has a lot more capacity than wireless in terms of both speed and users. cell phone towers can only support so many users and so much data at any point, and the service becomes slower the more users it has. cellphone companies have to invest more heavily in infrastructure to support widespread heavy use. thats why they cap the amount of data you can download on a data plan, whereas a physical cable connection has a lot lower overhead cost for telecom companies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3kp3nj | would it be possible to make a sandbox style game using google streetview as a template for a real city? | So I know very little about game design (as much as a five year old, one might say). Could the images generated for Streetview be used to generate a gameworld for a GTA-style game? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kp3nj/eli5_would_it_be_possible_to_make_a_sandbox_style/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuzadwd",
"cuzagoe",
"cuzcdjy"
],
"score": [
7,
17,
5
],
"text": [
"Google images are flat (2D). You would need to have 3D models for everything in the game, so you could theoretically pay programmers to model everything in google street, but you can't just paste google street into a game and be done with it if that's what you're asking.",
"They could certainly be used as a framework for doing so.\n\nHowever, you'd run into two significant obstacles:\n\n1. Real life is boring. There are good reasons cities end up arranged as they are. Those good reasons do not include 'compelling gameplay'. After the 100th time you have to walk past featureless tract housing that exists as only non-interactive scenery on the way to your real destination, you'll probably get very bored. Sandbox games compress reality so you don't have to spend all your time commuting.\n\n2. The images from Streetview aren't actually 'three dimensional' in a useful form. Games render their scenes by starting from a wire frame outline and then pasting textures onto it. But Streetview doesn't work like that. Rather it's just a series of flat pictures which are morphed into one another. You could theoretically come up with an algorithm to transform multiple two-dimensional images into a wireframe/texture structure, but it's a lot easier to just hire artists to design your structures - even if they're just trying to copy a real world location.",
"I want a Tony Hawk style game like the 90s era based with this. None of the stupid shit like crazy cars and tasks. Just a board and skate the WORLD. Or make a driving simulator based on this, help people learn how to drive in like Manhattan for example. Google Wheels. Call me Google.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3hw2ak | is there a difference between the atoms that make up living and nonliving things and why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hw2ak/eli5_is_there_a_difference_between_the_atoms_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cub28zk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are made from basically the same atoms but all life on Earth is based around the carbon atom and need hydrogen and oxygen to function. The exact proportions depend on the life form and the type of rock. Remember some rocks did used to be living material."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3pjoan | why do humans form bonds with animals so easily? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pjoan/eli5_why_do_humans_form_bonds_with_animals_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw6znuw",
"cw74enq",
"cw7dm9z"
],
"score": [
24,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"we're social animals, forming bonds with members of our tribe is important to survival. those mechanisms aren't so strict that it only works for humans. ",
"Par of it is because we are just social in nature. \n\nBut part of it has to do with the fact that we simply can. We are at a point where both our security and food and water resources are so good we can even afford to share them with our animal friends. Animals of different species are able to even bond with each other within these environments because their primary needs are taken care of (by us) - so bonding with different species is not strictly a human thing. \n\nAnimals of different species can bond in the wild but it is pretty rare because they need to spend more time just surviving than making unusual bonds. An unlikely friend while fun probably won't help them put dinner on the table and/or give them protection.",
"About 40,000 years ago, our ancestors and wolves started working together. They were faster and had better senses, but we were smarter and capable of taking down much larger prey. Humans and our canine friends evolved together. Its even been argued that humans are naturally herbivores (our intestinal tract is much closer to an herbivores - meat can actually go bad before our bodies can properly clear it) but because of the carnivorous tastes of our wolven friends, we started eating a heavy meat diet. \n\nCats started hanging out with us when we first started trying our hand at farming. When we tried to store grain and veggies, mice and rats would infest. Cats helped us with that problem, paving the way for permenant settlements (and haven't done a lick of work sense :)) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
pp1by | why do we feel entitled to free movies and music? | Honestly, not trolling here. i did download a few films and songs back in the days but I've stopped now that I'm not 18 yo anymore and have the means to buy/rent any movies or songs I want.
Why are some (a lot) of people seem to think that it's ok to pirate movies because it's not cheap enough for them or have no easier means to get them or the legal screenshots are too long...Or that the industry charges too much for it's products.
I'm all for internet freedom and against SOPA but those seems to be pretty piss poor excuses to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pp1by/eli5_why_do_we_feel_entitled_to_free_movies_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3r3k1n",
"c3r3ovv",
"c3r67sx",
"c3r7dog"
],
"score": [
5,
12,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Some people dont believe you can own culture.\n\nSome people believe they are entitled to free movies due to the amount of advertising that is forced down their throats.\n\nSome people believe that they would pay for it, if only they could.\n\nSome people believe that they wouldnt pay for it period, and if they couldnt pirate it they wouldnt consume it.\n\nSome people believe that its better to pirate because it increases the audience, they also believe that artists get screwed over by the recording industry and those not in the know to move underground are getting screwed by corporate parasitism, so they pirate because they want to support the artist by getting them known but not support what they see as an immoral business model.\n\nSome people are just dicks.....\n\nI doubt you will find a summation that would be sufficient for a 5 year old",
"Sounds like something that would be better for _URL_0_",
"i don't do it much anymore either, not for moral reasons- but because i have enough. the thing that pisses me off the most about this whole debate- media companies made the situation. CDs are cheaper to produce than LPs and cassettes. similarly, DVDs & bluray are cheaper to produce than VHS tapes- by a lot. it's the nature of digital media, it's easy to copy without loss. yet they charge more for them, supposedly because consumers believe that better has to cost more. at least in the music industry, profits soared during the 90s, but that was largely artificial- a lot of people replacing their LPs & cassettes with CDs- now that that's mostly done, profits are falling (or more accurately, the market is correcting), and they're pitching a fit. i think a similar thing is happening with movies, but i don't pay as much attention. hollywood hasn't done anything original in many years, just keep rehashing the same shit, so i really don't have interest in movies anymore, i've collected plenty of classics that entertain me just fine.\n\nso basically, they've pushed the means of production into the hands of the public- i.e. they distribute information on how to reproduce sounds/pictures, we have equipment that reads that information and converts it into sound/pictures- and they're mad when we share the information. the only way for producers to control information is to keep it to themselves- but there's no money in that. so they rely on the law to protect a business model that makes sense for real physical products, but not for information.",
"Because most people would rather get something for nothing if they can get away with it.\n\nHowever, the media industry does a lot of things to push people into this camp. Make me buy a $20 CD so I can get the one song I like? Make it as hard as possible to put that song on my MP3 player? Install buggy spyware on my computer in order to monitor the game I paid for? If they are going to be dicks to people who are paying them, why not pirate? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/"
],
[],
[]
] | |
1ek5us | why am i unable to talk comfortably or walk normally in my dreams sometimes? | My guy feeling is that it has something to do with my body being in a different state when I am sleeping. My brain is sort of on and the rest off, therefore my brain can think about what I want to do, talking, walking, but is unable to do those things because I am sleeping. Is there any relationship here?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ek5us/eli5_why_am_i_unable_to_talk_comfortably_or_walk/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca10wpy",
"ca13blp"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There could be. I don't think sleeping and dreaming are very well understood, but we do become paralyzed when we sleep so that we don't act out our dreams. When the paralysis fails to happen, we sleep walk, and sometimes we stay paralyzed for a little while after waking. I have dreams where I yell but no sound comes out all the time. Maybe it's because in the dream I am aware that my real body is actually not able to yell.",
"You pretty much have it.\n\nWhile you are sleeping, your brain still has some sensation from your resting body. Sometimes it has trouble rectifying your running dream legs with your idle real legs, or your open dream eyes with you closed real eyes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4ve3kr | why do most microwave foods call for an +1100 watt microwave, yet most microwaves sold are below 1100 watts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ve3kr/eli5_why_do_most_microwave_foods_call_for_an_1100/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5xlyhb",
"d5xmquw"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Because then the food can say something like \"Ready in 3 minutes!\" which would give them an advantage over competitors using a lower powered microwave. So they want to use the strongest one reasonable.",
"Where do you get \"most microwaves sold are below 1100 Watts\" from?\n\nMultiple sources on the first page of a Google result say 1200 watt is the average for a modern microwave. Yeah the $40 Walmart one may not be, but then you can't expect that to be the standard anyway :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2ijmyc | why do posts ever leave the front page? | If it has thousands of upvotes, what causes it to ever slip back down into obscurity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ijmyc/eli5_why_do_posts_ever_leave_the_front_page/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl2pi09",
"cl2pjyr"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Reddit uses an algorithm that takes into account the age of the post. All else being equal, a newer post will be higher.",
"You're on the \"hot\" page, which uses an algorithm taking age into account. If you go to the \"top\" front page, you will almost always see the same posts, unless a more recent one surpasses it in upvotes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
cm7c3a | how temperature models are predicting a 2-6 degree temp increase next century when temps increased 0.7 the last 100 years and that was a large increase. | It seems insane to me that models are predicting up to a 6 degree increase, SIX!! When last the last 100 years we had very little emission regulations and temps increased 0.7 degrees, which was a very high temperature increase over that time period. Doesn’t it seem like 2 degrees would be worst case scenario? 6 degrees seems downright impossible.
Can someone give me more information so I can try to figure out why models are predicting such an insanely high temperature increase? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cm7c3a/eli5_how_temperature_models_are_predicting_a_26/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew0ffyg",
"ew0giet"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There were only about 1.5 billion people on Earth. We now have 7.5b (5x as many). \n\nCars were only about 10-20 years old so they were basically non existent. Same thing with airplanes. \n\nJust those two factors are enough to drastically increase the next 100 years.",
"One big reason is that while 0.7 was over \"100 years\", it was heavily concentrated towards the last 20 years or so.\n\nHere's a graph from the IPCC (a climate authority):\n\n_URL_1_\n\nNotice how relatively flat the graph is to begin with, until it picks up.\n\nOn top of that, you have two big effects:\n\nCountries are still industrializing. The shear amount of people in places like China/India (roughly ~2bil or so, 3 bil with africa) are a huge part of growing emissions. The amount of population in industrial countries in the 50's was much, much smaller. For comparison, from 1950-2000, the population of the US was roughly .2bil. And those people are switching over to cars, A/C, computers etc we use in modern living, not the relatively limited stuff we had in the 50's\n\nFeedback effects. Things like glaciers melting, and reflecting less light can cause feedback effects. But that isn't/wasn't going to kick in until temperatures raise appreciably above freezing. An increase from 29-30 is less bad than 31-32, in that sort of scenario.\n\nThat said, 6 is on the upper end. You'd probably have to read the specific article. From a bit of Googling, that number seems to come from a study by Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field that just came out days ago, so i would try to get your hands on it. \n\nI couldn't find it yet (it said published Aug2, so literally just came out), but basically they just assumed demand for fossils would continue as is. So it's mainly that population effect.\n\n > Doesn’t it seem like 2 degrees would be worst case scenario?\n\nMost predictions by scientists peg us at 1.5-2 if we do everything right, so it's not likely. Some of that is baked in from what's already been dumped, the rest is inertia- demand for fossil fuels won't go away over night.\n\nIf you're just looking for more general climate science stuff, the [IPCC report](_URL_0_) is an excellent place to start. It's easy enough for a layman, but links to the actual science, so you can follow it back."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/",
"https://www.wcrp-climate.org/images/news-new/2018/IPCC-SR15-current-and-stabilized-warming.jpg"
]
] | |
2h9fqc | how do tow truck drivers get around parking brakes and parking "gear"? | (I'm asking specifically about tow trucks that only elevate one end of the vehicle with a wheel-lift, not a flat bed truck.)
How do tow truck drivers work around cars having their transmission in the park gear and not damaging parking brakes by towing the vehicle at a reasonable rate? What about four wheel drive or all wheel drive?
Do they have indicators in the cab so they know there's more drag than there should be or do they know from experience? Or is there a safety feature in cars to reduce damage if they're towed?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm seeing tow trucks haul vehicles off without any dollies. They take them about half a block and then secure them down with dollies, but it's mostly because the vehicles are too close to the intersection. Wouldn't that action alone damage AWD/4WD or RWD with parking gears set? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h9fqc/eli5_how_do_tow_truck_drivers_get_around_parking/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckqnrvn",
"ckqos88",
"ckqoths"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The handbrake doesnt lock all the wheels, even on a 4wd car, usually just one set (*usually* the rear). The \"P\" position on the automatic gearbox is just akin to Neutral on a manual, isnt it , and doesnt have anything to do with braking?",
"Towing an AWD in Park will damage the drive train, you are correct.\nDepending on the situation for RWD the drive line may have to be unbolted from the differential.\n",
"A parking brake is weak. Even with it on, you can still drive away. Tow drivers take the drive wheels off the ground. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1nqh2n | why can't hydraulic fracking just use regular water? | In the sense of regular water I mean water without added chemicals. Something raw like river water but not potable water.
There is all the contamination done when the usually 'safe' process goes wrong. Why can't untreated water be used so that if something does go wrong its not such a huge deal?
EDIT: MUST the process be so toxic? Could a slurry of any number of cheap not toxic additives like Salt, cornstarch, clay, vinegar, maple syrup, or Dijon mustard work reasonably well? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nqh2n/eli5_why_cant_hydraulic_fracking_just_use_regular/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccl2i3s",
"ccl3p74"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They add a whole lot of stuff for various purposes. Sand to prop open pores in the rock, lubricants, acids, biocides, things to control viscosity, etc. _URL_0_",
"Of course some combination of less toxic chemicals could be used with enough R & D. The reason it isn't done today is there is no law or regulatory framework forcing the companies to do it, so instead they go with the cheapest, most efficient mix they can to make the most bucks they can.\n\nFracking may have been around a long time, but the intensive stuff we see today is relatively new, and it's a gold rush to get as much profit as possible before the law catches up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Fracturing_fluids"
],
[]
] | |
3okwb4 | so are mass shooters mentally ill or not? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3okwb4/eli5_so_are_mass_shooters_mentally_ill_or_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvy2dij",
"cvy2f2e",
"cvy2mv2"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They can be, sure. But that's not necessarily the case, and the focus on their mental health is something of a red herring.",
"It really depends on how you define mental illness. To me, anytime you go on a suicidal killing spree I would say that you are mentally ill. The law obviously cannot use this definition and few people would agree. But that's just, like, my opinion man.\n ",
"Not all of them. \n\nAnd mental illness is a subjective thing, a spectrum based partially on behaviour. One of the main things that'll get you a mental health diagnosis is going out and shooting a bunch of people, which is a kinda crazy thing to do.\n\nBut 26% of American adults are diagnosed with a mental illness in a given year. But only 5% of people charged with gun crimes are diagnosed with a mental illness at time of crime.\n\nBut *clearly* mental health isn't the thing causing the US problem with mass shooters, because all countries have about the same amount of mental illness, but the US has a hugely disproportionate number of mass shooters.\n\nMental health by country graphic\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSame with the media and celebrity; all Western countries have similar media cultures and celebrity worship.\n\nWhatever it is causing the US's incredibly disproportionate rate of mass shooters, its *definitely not* mental health, the media, or attitudes about celebrity, because all are similar in the US to those in Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany, etc. So it must be something that is *very different* in the US, compared to those other countries..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.humanosphere.org/global-health/2013/06/visualize-mental-illness/"
]
] | ||
5j4f36 | why do ocean canals require locks, is the sea level different on each side? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j4f36/eli5_why_do_ocean_canals_require_locks_is_the_sea/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbdf2ut"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"[This video](_URL_0_) explains how sea level is way more complicated than you thought."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4"
]
] | ||
3s01q6 | day light saving time saves no day light | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s01q6/eli5_day_light_saving_time_saves_no_day_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwsth1y",
"cwsu5h3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a political thing any more as much as it is a practical thing. It's hard to prove any overall net benefit, but it's the law, so we keep doing it. Some people like it that way. \n\nThe idea of course is to take advantage of the earlier / later daylight in summer by sliding the work / school interval earlier in the \"sun-up\" cycle, so people effectively start and end work / school earlier in the day.\n\nWhereas in the winter, you need those things to happen later so that you're not having little kids going to school in darkness, etc. etc.",
"It just changes the time when the sun is out.\n\nremember, NOW is not daylight savings time, daylight savings time is in the summer. We change the clock so that on July 5 of this year (in NY in this example) the 15 hours of daylight go from 5:30 am to 8:30 pm instead of from 4:30 am to 7:30 pm. The theory is that an hour of daylight from 7:30 to 8:30 at night is more useful than an hour of daylight from 4:30 to 5:30 in the morning."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
41umxx | why doesn't earth have nearly as big craters or nearly as much craters as other planets? | Edit: OH MY GOD, I LEFT FOR TWO HOURS AND THE POST BLEW UP. Thanks, I really appreciate the answers!
Edit 2: Guys thank you for all of your answers, I really appreciate it.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41umxx/eli5_why_doesnt_earth_have_nearly_as_big_craters/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz57z8l",
"cz582wo",
"cz583ym",
"cz5853b",
"cz59flb",
"cz59n40",
"cz5amgm",
"cz5b1fl",
"cz5bmfn",
"cz5dfvi",
"cz5dz33",
"cz5f8vb",
"cz5ftkw",
"cz5fty3",
"cz5gumh",
"cz5hfke",
"cz5hg0n",
"cz5hu9i",
"cz5jdbu",
"cz5kth7",
"cz5kzck",
"cz5o9c5",
"cz5qtcm",
"cz5r4fw",
"cz5rd9k",
"cz5v3mk",
"cz5v7w8",
"cz5xc57",
"cz6035v",
"cz6adcq",
"cz6b4fk",
"cz6bpkf",
"cz6c6jd",
"cz6czz8"
],
"score": [
3189,
60,
5,
2,
1352,
5,
2,
2,
21,
2,
200,
2,
15,
3,
9,
2,
8,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
55,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Earth has erosion and large oceans which other planets do not have. Erosion erases craters. So does deposit of sediments. Oceans cover craters and tectonic plate movements erase them eventually. Geologists have become better at identifying craters which have become obscured. The Atlantic Ocean is 250 million years old which means no craters from before that time are visible.",
"Plate tectonics!!\n\nOk so the Moon and Mars are our closest relatives because they're nearby (meaning they'd have roughly the same amount of asteroid impacts). Both the Moon and Mars don't have plate tectonics. Plate tectonics moves the surface of the Earth around, causing either mountains like the Himalayas and the Andes, trenches like the Marianas trench, or mid-ocean ridges like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The Earth's crust is constantly being destroyed (eroded, subducted) and reborn (volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges). The oldest oceanic crust is only 100 million years old. There is continental crust that is older, in Australia, but it's been eroded by wind, water, etc so the craters aren't preserved.\n\nEdit: Also, oceans. There are some big craters underwater, like under the Gulf of Mexico that caused the KT Boundary extinction (Dinosaurs) and there's one from about 30-35 million years ago under the Chesapeake Bay. Since the ocean is such a large part of Earth's surface, the likelihood that an asteroid would hit the ocean is very high.",
"Craters develop over billions of years as essentially the planet/moon/whatever gets hit by asteroids. The Earth for a good part of its history was essentially a giant molten rock. Not much is left to show an impact on a liquid surface.\n\nAfter the Earth cooled and became like we know now, we have the atmosphere to protect us from smaller rocks that may hit us from space. Then you have the crust of the Earth being renewed by tectonic activity and 'cleaned' by erosion. Then you have the fact that the Earth has about half its surface area covered by water (see 'liquid surface' above) then the rest of the earth is covered by plants, sand or snow (which do a good job of hiding craters).",
"1. Because, Earth has a far denser atmosphere than other planets. most asteroids burn up (because of the intense friction of air molecules on an asteroid moving at thousands of mph creates massive amounts of heat) and disintegrate before they can impact the surface. \n2. The earth's magnetic field also resists ferric (iron) asteroids and projectiles from even entering the atmosphere. Most planets do not have this. ",
"Have you ever gone to the beach and made a sand castle? I'm sure you have. A wave comes along and knocks the castle into a little pile, then more waves knock the pile into smaller and smaller piles until the beach is completely smooth again. A crater is like a sandcastle but much bigger. Over time water, in the form of rain and lakes and rivers will wash the crater into a completely smooth plain again, just like the sand castle gets washed away by the waves. The air also plays its part. Think of snow on a windy day. It forms drifts and covers over your toys in the yard so you can't see them anymore. Wind blows sand and dirt and leaves and lots of other things into the crater and cover the low parts and wear away the high parts. The wind and the water doing this is called erosion. Other places in the solar system like the moon have no water and no air, so there is no erosion to get rid of the craters. Places like mars have almost no water and almost no air, so there is erosion of small craters but the big ones are still visible.\n\nEdit: Thanks for the Gold! As Mr. Rogers always said: I love you just the way you are!",
"We have A thick atmosphere that breaks apart/ burns up potential meteorites. Ever heard of a shooting star? Yup that a meteor being burnt up! Other planets might have craters due to a lack of molten core or lack of circulation in said core. A molten core with circulation create a magnetic field which protects us and our atmosphere from solar activity that would otherwise eat away at out atmosphere leaving us unprotected.",
"The Earth has [some craters](_URL_0_). However, the Earth also has plate tectonics. The surface is being recycled (on a geological timescale). \n\nDuring its early history, the Earth was constantly bombarded by meteors and asteroids (called the Late Heavy Bombardment), however plate tectonics erase all the 'evidence'. The Moon (and some other planets) are tectonically dead and look at all the craters there!",
"- Atmosphere. Most asteroids burn up before reaching the surface.\n\n- Two-thirds water. Of those asteroids that don't burn up, 2/3 will land in water where they can't leave a crater.",
"The earth has gotten hit plenty of times. We're just bad at noticing them and they get worn away due to erosion and tectonic activity. However, several impact craters extend deep into the earth's crust and would therefore be unaffected by tectonic activity. The Vredfort (South Africa) and Sudbury (Canada) impact sites are both over 200km across and are coincidentally among the most productive mines in the world. The Chicxulub crater actually forms part of the Yucatan peninsula. The Chesapeake owes its unique ecology to the fact that it's an enormous crater that allows seawater, freshwater and deep aquifers to mix together\n\n_URL_0_",
"Also, the earth has plants, trees and animals these will often cover the scars in a relatively short time.",
"Several reasons:\n\n1. Atmosphere. Anything not extremely massive burns up upon entry. \n2. Water. More of the surface of the earth is water than land. \n3. The moon. Among other things, it's a guardian of our jewel. \n4. Jupiter. Arguably life would not be possible without our solar system's great guardian. It attracts large objects that would otherwise destroy the planets. \nR. ",
"A few reasons. We have a relatively thick atmosphere and lots of water. So between wind, rain, plants, and sediment, they quickly get erased by erosion. \n\nWe also have active geology and tectonic plates. So the really old ones get sublimated underneath a plate or crushed up against a mountain range.\n\nOur thick atmosphere also means that most small meteors burn up instead of striking.\n\nWe also live in a time where strikes are pretty rare. Most craters you see on airless moons have been there since the formation of the solar system.",
"* 71% of Earth's surface is water, so a majority of meteorites will impact that; water doesn't show craters, obviously.\n* Our atmosphere protects us: objects in space travel in a vacuum, so they don't experience any friction. Once they come in our atmosphere, they begin to smash into the atoms floating around, causing them to rapidly decelerate (Figure they go from 160,000KPH to 15,000KPH in a few seconds), catch fire, and disintegrate\n* The moon is a huge shield. It blocks a good amount of impacts; all of those craters on it could have been impacts on the Earth\n* Water, wind, and plant erosion cause impact craters to fade away",
"Doesn't part of it have to do with Earth being molten and therefore covering up lots of its early craters? I hope so... I WANNA BE RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING SCIENCEY T^T",
"Lots of good explanations here, but no ELI5 version. So here it is:\n\nThink of the Earth as being an etch-a-sketch sitting on the dashboard of your car during a bumpy drive. You could draw the Mona Lisa (a crater by an impact) on your etch -a-sketch, but over time the bumpy road will shake it clean (erosion). Every so often, you'll take a hard turn and your etch-a-sketch will fly out the window, causing you to have to buy a new one and restart from scratch (plate tectonics).",
"All of the answers posted are correct, but none of them exclusively. In order of most important to least:\n1. Atmosphere stops smaller impacts that would create the normal craters we see on moon/mars\n2. Erosion from water, rain, wind erases the visible evidence of craters (However there is still other evidence such as shocked quartz, zircons, etc that are less easily apparent)\n3. Plate tectonics recycles *Oceanic* crust, completely eliminating the crust & evidence at the impact.\n\nThat, however, brings up another question. If the oceanic crust is continually recycled, and the continental crust is not, shouldn't we see more impact craters on continental crust? Yes, however my #4 comes into play: Glaciers! The last glacial maximum scoured the landscape and mixed all of the sediment in doing so (This is how the entire Puget Sound region was created, and why we can see deep earth rocks like granites in New York). This surely mixed up the sediment from impacts, essentially erasing their existence.\n\nYou can see impacts in [the arid desert of Arizona](_URL_2_) because they don't have active erosion, and weren't affected by glaciation. Of course some impacts in the north are [still apparent](_URL_1_), but [less so because of erosion & glaciation](_URL_0_).\nTake a look at [this wiki](_URL_3_) and find them in google maps. You won't see clear evidence like the Barringer crater, but it's still there.\n\nLast point: We don't see any impacts in the pacific northwest, and oddly enough, we don't see any dinosaurs either (maybe 2 in washington. None in oregon that actually originated there...but I was there when we found a mosasaur toe near Black Butte). This is because most of the northwest wasn't actually there well into the Cenozoic (time after dinosaurs). It just didn't exist yet! crazy.",
"1. earth has a thick atmosphere, a lot of meteorites burned up before making impact\n\n2. earth has a big ocean, it absorbed a lot of impacts\n\n3. earth has climate, erosion is a big thing\n\n4. earth has tectonic movement, subduction and mountain ranges can hide craters\n\n5. earth has a giant meteor magnet: the moon\n\n6. Jupiter",
"I swear a lot of the answers like \"the moon protects the earth\" are just troll answers. I could have sworn that out atmosphere protected us a lot and a lot of the planets and moons that have shitloads of craters have no or little atmosphere. ",
"ELI5 version? Tectonic movement messes with the surface topography while the atmosphere chews up incoming space debris. We also have a lot of water and soft soil with absorbs impact with minimal cratering.\n\nAlso, Earth definitely has more craters than a lot of other planets, since I think like half of them are just giant ball-shaped space farts.",
"has it ever been observed in human history a crater/impact on another planet/moon? ",
"The vastness of time is hard to comprehend. The moon shows so many craters because in billions of years the hits add up and they are undisturbed by an atmosphere as is the case here on earth. If earth was barren and airless it too would be pocked by craters.",
"If Jupiter wasn't in our solar system the earth would have a lot more craters...Probably one too many.",
"Earths atmosphere burns up asteroids, so lets say a 30 meter wide asteroid was gonna hit the earth by the time it hit the ground the atmosphere would have shaved a lot of it down and thus leaving smaller craters. But I would also like to point out that there are some absolutely HUGE craters. The entirety of the Chesapeake Bay was made from an asteroid around 40 million years ago, also there is the Chicxulub which is even bigger. Also on a sidenote erosion also deteriorates geological features in general.",
"lots of reasons. we have an atmosphere, the moon attracts plenty of rocks headed our way. but the biggest is the earth is still alive geologically. due to storms wins plates shifting etc etc, the earth actually heals itself from big out of place holes. ",
"Earth still has tectonic activity, so while appearing incredibly slow in \"human time\", the crust is still constantly regenerating. A surface with no tectonic activity becomes a canvas of craters if undisturbed. Couple that with an atmosphere that burns up many small pieces of space junk due to friction, a weather system that plays a role in erosion, a moon that pulls tides and by proxy, contributes to erosion, and you get the impression of a much younger planet. ",
" > I LEFT 4 TWO HOURS\n\nIt bothers me how you spelled out the number 2 (\"two\") but used the number 4 instead of spelling out \"for\".",
"So there's a comet, big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head.",
"There's some old meteor strikes still around like West Hawk Lake here in Manitoba. It's our deepest lake at 377 ft. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Well earth has an atmosphere and erosion. The weird thing evidence has brought is that craters are not made from primary impacts but secondary impacts.\n\nHere is an article that explains it a lot better.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Tectonics and erosion.\n\nAs the largest rocky planet, the Earth has stored enough heat in its interior that it's still molten all the way up near the surface. The solid rock on the surface 'floats' on that molten rock, and as the molten rock slowly churns around, it pushes the solid rock, causing it to split into separate chunks (tectonic plates) and creating earthquakes and volcanoes. Where two plates share a border with each other, it tends to be the case that one plate is forced underneath the other, and as more is gradually forced underneath, it melts away into the mantle. At the same time, there are places in the ocean where plates split apart from each other and lava rises up, cools and becomes new surface rock. Thus, over hundreds of millions of years the rock on the surface is 'recycled' through the mantle, erasing old craters. The other rocky planets in the Solar System don't have separate moving plates, so craters there aren't erased this way.\n\nAlso, the Earth has a fairly thick atmosphere (at least compared to Mars or Mercury), as well as liquid water on the surface that evaporates into the air under the effect of the Sun's light, then condenses over land and falls down as rain or snow. The combined effect of winds, rain, flowing rivers and ocean waves tends to wear down any formation of rock on the surface, turning it into sand and dust which is redistributed across the land and often ends up in the ocean. When impact craters form, they are also worn down by these phenomena and disappear or are buried after millions of years. Mars and Mercury have very little atmosphere and essentially no liquid on the surface, so these erosion effects are much less and craters are able to stay for longer.",
"In your edit you used a number for a word and then spelled the number that immediately followed. Why?",
"Plate tectonics and volcanism do the most. Water and life do most of the rest. Only a tiny part of our landscapes is as old as the cratered surfaces of other planets. Most impacts were early in the time of the solar system. \n\nOther bodies also have younger surfaces without impact craters. Parts of Venus, Io, Europa, Enceladus, Pluto ... are young and without craters. Most of them have old cratered parts too though.",
"Early in earth's history there is believed to have been a massive collision with a planet called Thea, the aftermath resulting in the moon.",
"Several reasons.\n\nFirst, the earth has a quasi guardian, the moon. It doesn't catch everything but it keep it's own orbit clear. \n\nSecond, the earth's atmosphere deals with most small meteors ensuring they burn up from the heat created by it's compression/friction as they enter it.\n\nThird, the earth's crust is constantly being resurfaced from erosion, volcanic activity, and the movement of tectonic plates. The ocean crust is constantly being recycled. \n\nFourth, life! If Human settlements have been covered lost by forest and jungle within our lifetime. No telling how many small to medium sized impact craters are hidden due to tree cover. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Haughton_impact_crater",
"https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Manico... | |
20d9a1 | how can you tell women apart if they're all wearing full-cover garments like niqabs, burkas, etc? | [Here's](_URL_0_) a picture of a group of women wearing niqabs. Often these garments (unlike hijabs) tend to be all-black. These women are taking a little bit of leeway with the fabric, but even that's pushing it.
So seriously, how do you find your wife in a store? I know that women in countries that wear the niqab (like Saudi Arabia) probably don't spend much time away from their husbands/their homes anyway, but they do go out in public.
I just imagine being a little kid turning away for a second and suddenly there are eight women in very similar bulky black veils.
Eye contact would help, but what if you're trying to find someone from across a room or something?
I feel like I often see women in full black garments with other women dressed the same. This has to cause confusion,right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20d9a1/eli5_how_can_you_tell_women_apart_if_theyre_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg23rga",
"cg24rzy",
"cg24wif",
"cg26g1e",
"cg286pc"
],
"score": [
12,
22,
13,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the women just follow a rigid schedule and social structure. They are completely dependent on their husbands or fathers. There aren't too many situations where this would be an actual problem. \n\nThere are also hundreds of minute differences that we westerners do not see. If I am being brutally honest, I cannot tell the difference between Asian schoolchildren all in the same uniform, so I could wonder how the parents identify the right children to pick up from school.",
"Even in our relatively revealing society, we easily distinguish people by their gait, posture, height, and movements. I can recognize most people I work with just by hearing them walk by. I can tell people at a distance by the clothes they wear. If you grow up in a society where women cover everything but the eyes, you just learn to recognize other clues. Even in the picture you provided, the women have slightly different patterns on their head scarves, silver accents on sleeves, and different purses. Just like people here, most of them have only a few outfits that they wear frequently, and you just get to know them. I actually don't think it's that hard to tell those four women apart.\n\nETA: I thought of one more thing. Identical twins often look more similar than the women in that picture, and we can still learn to tell them apart after we get to know them. The process is the same here. I'm sure there is sometimes confusion from a distance, but any person will look more distinctive once you get to know them. It even works for animals. When I was a kid we had two tabbies from the same litter. Before they were even a year I could easily tell which was which at a glance even though they looked identical to anyone who didn't know them.",
"When you are used to this, you probably notice the differences that someone who isn't used to it would (because all they see is \"burka!\", it being usual and drew their attention.)\n\nHere are some details I imagine would help: \n\n- height should be very indicative because it doesn't chance at all\n\n- posture\n\n- feet size\n\n- shoes\n\n- to some extant width\n\n- the actual garments (from the quick look I took, in the photo one woman has wider sleeves with silver threads, another has to hat portion draped over both sides as opposed to pulled back, ect.)\n\n- accessories such as purses and watches\n\n- the exposed hands (size, age, skin color, rings or lack thereof)\n\n- the state of the fabric (shiny and new, slightly faded?)\n\n- and of course, the eyes. \n\n\nI'm sure there is more I as a westerner didn't notice. And worse case scenario call out her name, I don't think ear plug are included.",
"Definitely the eyes. Since decorating their eyes is one of the only ways they can express themselves then it leads to very distinct makeup designs. So you can distinguish them with ease.\n\n\n-Spent time in Riyadh (capital of Saudi Arabia)\n",
"They don't, maybe that's the point."
]
} | [] | [
"http://muslimvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/0niqab_sokabs_23524360.jpg"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3fl9je | why are honey wands shaped the way they are? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fl9je/eli5_why_are_honey_wands_shaped_the_way_they_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctpnuop",
"ctpnvad"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Have you tried scooping and dripping honey with a spoon? Honey is sticky and clings to the spoon. The honey wand has spaces so the honey can drip easily. ",
"The little wooden thing, with the grooves?\n\nWhen they are sitting in the container, honey flows into the grooves. When they are taken out of the honey, the added weight of the honey in the grooves is stronger than the stickiness of the honey, so more drips off. But you have to hold it at an angle, vertical and horizontal are both slower than tilted. This also gives you more control over how much honey you get, tilt it upright and it stops dripping.\n\n(But these are among the many kitchen things that look better than they work, many people try it once and then switch to a spoon. Or one of those bear-shaped squeeze bottles.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1yo0ra | why do drivers in third world countries seem to constantly use their horns? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yo0ra/why_do_drivers_in_third_world_countries_seem_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfmd83i"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To warn others that they are approaching from behind.\n\nIn most developing countries you have very few intersections with lights or even stop signs, few lines painted on the road, and you have a mix of carts, bicycles, motor scooters and cars. As a result of this, there is really only one rule of the road: don't hit anything in front of you.\n\nIntersections can be amazingly efficient as vehicles go in every direction at the same time, each avoiding other vehicles. It can look crazy, but it works well once you get used to it.\n\nWhen you're focused so much on what's happening in front of you, it's difficult to pay attention to vehicles that might be coming up behind you. As a result many cars will honk to warn you that they are passing -- or in some cases once as they approach, once to warn that they are about to pass, and once when they actually do pass. This honking can also help to warn oncoming traffic when passing at a bend in the road."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
259wa0 | the link between the gene ccr5 and the resistance to hiv | Is there also a link with the lymphocyte T4 ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/259wa0/eli5_the_link_between_the_gene_ccr5_and_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"chf5foj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"HIV enters CD4+ T lymphocytes (= lymphocyte T4)(cells of your immune system) by binding to the CCR5 receptor (the protein encoded by the CCR5 gene). CCR5 is a receptor on the outside of these cells. A HIV particle can recognize and bind to this receptor. Then it does some other stuff (cascade of events), after which it can enter the cell, use it to replicate and eventually let it die.\n\nNow there are people that a mutation in the gene for CCR5. This mutation leads to an abnormal constructed protein. The HIV particle cannot bind to this receptor anymore and cannot start the necessary cascade to enter the lymphocyte cell as it not close enough the cell surface. Therefore these persons are resistant to HIV particles.\nI do have heard however that there persons with a mutated CCR5 gene and did get infected with HIV, most likely due to a mutated HIV particle (HIV can change itself very easily, also the reason why it's so hard to treat). No source though, I trust my virology teacher.\n\nThe link with CD4+ lymphocytes is just that before binding to the CCR5 receptor, a HIV particle first binds the CD4 receptor present on these cells (hence the name CD4+ lymphocytes)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2c8cs5 | why do our hands get sweaty when we're up high in a precarious place? isn't this counteractive as we're likely to need friction to hold on to something in case we fall? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c8cs5/eli5_why_do_our_hands_get_sweaty_when_were_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjcx0w8",
"cjcxbff"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's only counter-productive if you intend to ignore what your body is telling you.\n\nNervous energy is your body's way of pleading with you to get the hell off that high place. If you don't want to listen to your instincts, that is ultimately not your body's fault.\n\nThe advantage is, that if you are serious about ignoring natural danger instincts, then you can acclimatise yourself slowly, and gain confidence. Your body won't react as nervously if you're mentally prepared for the task you're asking it to do.\n\nTL;DR: Listen to your body and get down, until you've had some training.",
"Note: might not be 100% accurate, but should be close enough to keep it ELI5\n\nWhen you are in a situation that your body thinks is dangerous, it takes meassures to make sure you can deal with that danger - on a basic level by fight or flight.\n\nSome of those meassures your body takes is the production of adrenaline and an elevated heart rate. Your body is \"powering up its engine\". More oxygen is absorbed by your lungs, transported by your heart and burned in your cells.\n\nAll this creates heat. And too much heat is not good for your body - just think of fever. To prevent your body from overheating you start to sweat, resulting in a cooling effect.\n\nThis is all happening on a level that does not take into account abstract thinking and reasoning. If you are hanging on a ledge and are nervous, the problem your body \"sees\" is muscular strain and overheating, so it acts on that. It does not make the logical connection \"I'm hanging on a ledge. I need grip. Sweat lowers my grip. So I need to stop sweating\". Dealing with such situations over and over again can lead to the instinct to be \"subdued\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
14palv | ptsd, post traumatic stress disorder | I just need to know what this actually signifies. I see the wiki page for it and things and know what triggers it but I just need to know what it is I guess. My mind can't seem to process it for some reason lol. I know there's treatment but is there a permanent solution other than medication? And how exactly does sertraline (zoloft) work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14palv/eli5_ptsd_post_traumatic_stress_disorder/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7f66g2",
"c7f8wte",
"c7f980d",
"c7f9ir7",
"c7fdva8",
"c7fklhd"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
789,
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"As someone who has many family members that suffer from this and have asked them t o describe it I think i can give it a shot.\n\nImagine that you were in a bad car crash, It was a bad situation, you were hurt in someway. Well when your mind thinks about this you start to remember more and more about it. Eventually it feels like it's coming back. My grandfather has this from Vietnam and he says that it's like a really bad nightmare that won't stop and will never go away. I've even seen him when he has these dreams. \n\nOne day I was at his house and might I add he's a big guy that you wouldn't want to cross during a playground scuffle. So we we're talking and watching *Forrest Gump* on tv when the vietnam scene came on. He started sweating like crazy and ended up going to another room and sat behind his bed and was very worried for the next few minutes. \n\nIt is like reliving nightmares over and over and over. Non-stop. Not a pretty sight.\n\nMy mom said that hes been like this for as long as she can remember. The only time he started to get better was after talking with a psychiatrist about what happened.\n\nI hope this was what you were looking for!!!",
"very generally some traumatic events can leave an imprint on the brain. This could be helpful in the future because you might be able to take complex action in response to a given stimulus without having to completely process all future sensory data, it is basically just an automatic reaction based on experience (so not like pulling your hand back from a hot stove as that is more hard wired before you do it). \n\nThen there is one part of the brain that sends out a general alert when your senses pick up any sort of shady stimulus, that could something like a smell, a sound, a sight, or even a combination of those. Basically it is your fight or flight response. Occasionally, the imprinted memory part of the brain sends the message back that this is not just shady, but some well known stressful situation and you begin reliving and refeeling the experience.... \n\nEventually all the sensory information is processed by the thinking part of the brain (up to now, your body is just reacting). After the thinking part figures out that there is no threat, it tries to tell the alert part to shut down the alarm, but that message is interrupted by the imprinted memory over reacting. \n\nNo idea what zoloft does, but it may quiet the initial response of the imprinted memory allowing the thinking part of the brain to get the message through to shut down the alert. But I have no idea.",
"When you were little you used to get Mrs Fields cookies whenever you visited your Grandpa. There wasn't a Mrs Fields in your neighborhood, so it was a feature of every trip you would take to visit them. After a while you move out on your own, you don't visit as much, and when you do, you don't go out for cookies. Except one day, you're out with your own kids and you pass a Mrs Fields cookie shop. For five or ten seconds, you're five, not thirty-five, and you're holding your Grandpa's hand while waiting for a delicious slab of gooey chocolaty cookie. The memory is almost completely overpowering and you have to sit down for a minute. Meanwhile, your kids are wondering why their Mom is zoning out in front of a little mall kiosk.\n\nNow, replace getting a yummy cookie with the worst thing that ever happened to you in your life. Maybe when you went there something horrible happened. Instead of happiness and fuzzy fluffy memories with your Grandparents, you think of how scared and alone and in pain you felt. You think of people who can't think any more. You think of not being able to run away, and you think of how helpless you were. And you might even think about the horrible things you did to get out of that situation.\n\nThat's PTSD.",
"in a nutshell: when you are put into a situation of constant stress, tension, danger and hardship, it fucks with your head. after a while your mind's defenses are worn down or kicked in, and you cannot cope with any stress whatsoever. you are like a raw, exposed nerve. if anything upsets you in the tiniest way, the results can be catastrophic. ",
"Stomach so tense you double over, heart pounding, scalp and face throbbing, sweat, horror, the greatest loneliness you've ever felt, alienation from humanity, loss of your identity as a human being-as the person you always were before, desperation to either be alone or find a friend, feeling as if the entire world is a horror show and you'll never find your old self again .... all because you walked by a window with blinds on it or saw the blinking light on a VCR. Simple everyday things that happened to be there when IT was happening to you. \n\nYes you probably have nightmares when you sleep but phrases like \"flashback\" \"feeling like it's all happening again\" is a little misleading. You know nothing is happening but your body doesn't. It causes depression and sometimes paranoia. It's not like in the movies where the person seems to have visions of the event(s) with explosion noises and whatnot. You think about what happened and remember the feelings so vividly you can feel them, true, but it's not like in the movies. I don't know if I explained that right. ",
"For some of us, it goes so far that triggers are not the only problem. Imagine all the stress of a really terrible day, where nothing goes right; bad traffic, trouble at work, late for everything, car accident, burnt meals, fight with SO, screaming children. Sometimes you can wake up in the morning with all of that stress already inside you, and swinging your feet over the edge of the bed can feel like putting your toes on the edge of a bear trap. A friend of mine has also likened it to standing in a house made of feathers, with a hurricaine looming on the horizon. Sometimes you feel hopelessly delicate, unable to stand up to normal daily events, much less your identified triggers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5u4xc1 | why is the playing card below the queen called a jack | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u4xc1/eli5_why_is_the_playing_card_below_the_queen/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddrdnlr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because the other name for it knave was abbreviated kn and that was too close to k so when holding cards it's easier to differentiate king and jack/knave by using the J for jack. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1cxsxk | if valve went bankrupt, what would happen to all of my games on steam? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cxsxk/eli5if_valve_went_bankrupt_what_would_happen_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9kytkw",
"c9l0auf",
"c9l0tko",
"c9l10v7",
"c9l1f9y",
"c9l1w3k",
"c9l1wuf",
"c9l3m26",
"c9l3u4m",
"c9l44wy",
"c9l67mi",
"c9l6m02",
"c9l6o95",
"c9l87wf",
"c9l8t86",
"c9l9exx",
"c9lb2u6",
"c9lg7nk",
"c9lhuur"
],
"score": [
213,
109,
968,
32,
8,
22,
84,
3,
3,
3,
21,
2,
2,
16,
2,
18,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Assuming you mean that Valve no longer exists, you do not retain access to your games as stated in the terms of agreement.",
"I remember someone asking their customer service what would happen in this situation and I think they said that they would do their best to help you retain your games. ",
"In principle you could lose them all. In practice that is highly unlikely. If Valve was going out of business one of the first steps the company would take would be to sell off its valuable assets. Steam is quite valuable and it is highly likely that another company would buy the technology and platform from them and keep it running. ",
"Valve would probably allow for DRM free downloading of the games you purchased, such as what happened after Walmart closed its streaming content service.",
"The answer will depend on the game's developer.\n\nSteam is only a distribution platform; developers are free to make games available through Steam, but are not obligated to be exclusive to it. Their contract with any given developer for any given game will differ from case-to-case, and so will your rights to reclaim the product.\n\nProducts that come with a proof-of-purchase that is verifiable to the developer are the most likely to be honored should Valve suddenly disappear and fail to reinstate access to your products.",
"I once was a large customer of a company that sold DVD Ripping software commercially. \n\nThey also sold a lot of other neat software like \"DVD Recovery\" and \"Flash Media Recovery\" and lots of other really powerful system utilities.\n\nThe software was all server-authenticated on the company side and would not work if not authenticated.\n\nThey were taken to court over their DVD Ripping / Compressing software and lost. So for all of their loyal customers, they sent permanent activations next time you logged in.\n\nBut in this case, I think that the company still has their activation servers up anyway-- almost 10 years later.",
"This has kind of been discussed to death (and back).\n\n[Valve's Official Response] (_URL_0_)\n\nValve's official statement is that they'd do everything in their power to make sure you have access to your games. \n\nMany believe, or it has been implied, that this means that they would remove all DRM and let you play your games without Steam. Others believe you'd just be able to play everything in offline mode. There's no official explanation, and honestly, it's not likely something we'll have to worry about anytime in the future. ",
"This is one of the inherent problems with \"cloud\" services - you're SOL if they disappear for some reason.\n\nImagine where Gmail users would be if google stopped offering email service, or if Apple shutdown iTunes. ",
"They say you'd keep them but if you want my opinion you'd almost definitely lose the majority.",
"In theory you'd lose everything, but according to Gaben, there are failsafes set up to protect their customers in case the company goes under.",
"this is really not an eli5 question. it's not like something super complicated that needs to be condensed down",
"Since there is no official answer, here's what I *think* would happen. \n\nKnowing Valve, if they did ever go under, they'd be willing to shoot themselves in the foot to make people satisfied. They'd find a way to get their games to *everyone* for free most likely. If not, they'd let everyone get their data backed up to some other place (they would work something out) and find a way to allow everyone to continue playing their games forever. If EA was in that situation, they would probably say \"tough shit\" and not do anything. Valve has always been better to it's fans than that. \n\nIf anything, the biggest inconvience that would occur from Valve going under is Valve not delivering any more perfect vidgaemz. \n\ntl;dr Valve loves you",
"This very question is why I still hold on to my physical data as much as i can. ",
"You'd lose them all.\n\nIt happened many times in the past with various DRM systems.\n\nPeople who count on games still working are ignoring this history.",
"*knock on wood*",
"In case of catastrophic failure, everything automatically backs up to Gabe's beard. _URL_0_",
"Your first mistake was to think that they are 'your' games. You are only leasing them.",
"You would be an unsecured creditor.",
"Valve has a net worth of more than 3 billion dollars.\n\nI would be much more concerned with the possibility of Gabe Newell's demise, and the subsequent shift in management priorities."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/4sa1Ln6.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/kzeDPZi.gif"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
o88ij | the cold war separation of germany | So after World War Two Germany was spilt into East and West Germany, who did this and why? I also know that Berlin, which is in East Germany, was spilt into East and West Germany. Why? What did the US (and its allies) and Russia (and its allies) attempt to gain from doing this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o88ij/eli5_the_cold_war_separation_of_germany/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3f7eci"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"At the end of World War II, when four big countries beat Germany, one of the countries was a bad guy. All four countries tried to re-build Berlin, but the bad guy (Russia) decided to take over rather than help. So the three good countries combined their areas into West Berlin, and the one bad country called their area East Berlin.\n\nThe same thing happened to the whole country of Germany, because Russia wanted to take over the world, and wouldn't let go of the part of Germany it was supposed to give back to the people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1xnueg | what's the true cost of a 1 gig of data for a cellular phone company? will the prices be more favorable in the future? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xnueg/eli5whats_the_true_cost_of_a_1_gig_of_data_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfd0opy"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Cell phone companies do not have costs associated with each gigabyte of data transfer, so it's not really possible to specify a number. For instance, if you use 1 gigabyte of data, it's not like it costs the carrier a fixed amount (like $1) to provide that gigabyte of data to you. The actual network operating costs associated with delivering that data are highly variable.\n\nThe largest determinant of cost to the carrier is the amount of congestion on each link and how much data transfer capacity (i.e. bandwidth) is available.\n\nIf you download 1 gigabyte of data from a cell tower during off-peak hours (e.g. 4 AM), it costs virtually nothing for the carrier to provide. If you download the same gigabyte of data during on-peak hours (e.g. 7 PM), it will add to congestion, temporary slow down other user's connections (particularly if they are connected to and using the same cell tower as you), and will add to the congestion on the provider's back-bone / IP transit links. \n\nIf you and others continue to use lots of data over time during on-peak hours, the provider will continually have to add higher capacity back-haul links from the cell towers, increase capacity on the back-bone / IP transit links and potentially add additional towers to maintain high speed network performance. All this costs money (much of which is funded by data charges), but again there is no specific/fixed cost associated with the transfer of data. \n\nThe vast majority of the costs involved all relate to how much peak capacity is needed (the maximum amount of data per second the network needs to be able to handle) and the costs associated with upgrading link capacity to meet those needs. So long as the network traffic is under the maximum capacity for each link, the cost of data transfer is almost negligible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2t6bdd | when we have freedom of speech and other regulations to protect expression, why are video games allowed to be banned? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t6bdd/eli5_when_we_have_freedom_of_speech_and_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnw2qvb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"\"Freedom of speech\" is never absolute. You're not free to threaten to kill someone, or to slander them, or to lie under oath in court, etc.\n\nIn your specific example, video games are \"allowed\" to be banned because your government made it legal to ban them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
af7au2 | what are the darkish spots on a banana and why do people avoid eating them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af7au2/eli5_what_are_the_darkish_spots_on_a_banana_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"edw31sn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People avoid eating them because banana peels taste nasty. Eat the actual banana inside the peel like normal people do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1vu0l7 | why are news networks in america only drawn to those stories that have "wow" factor? why are people not interested in real news? | It seems like the only news that get coverage are those that are very dividing and the news networks make them seem so black and white, why is the general population not more interested in factual news that are more of a journalism piece? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vu0l7/why_are_news_networks_in_america_only_drawn_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cevspvs",
"cevsx9u",
"cevvvsu",
"cew0c9o",
"cewj6xc"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"'Real' news is boring. If it doesn't people argue about it or want to show it to other people, then less people watch. The goal of a news organization is the same as any other company - make as much money as possible. So to do that, they cover the stories that get people to talk about the news, which leads to more people watching the news, which means more money for the company.",
"I unsubscribed from /r/news for the same reason. All people post there is sensationalist, misleading bullshit designed to get people pissed about something. Things like \"Cop slaps baby, gets raise.\"",
"News on TV is designed to sell advertising. It has very little to do with informing the public of important issues. It is simply a transaction - you will be presented with entertainment in a particular form and in return the network sponsors will show off their wares. News shows are no different to reality TV, soap operas or comedy. ",
"If you're talking about journalism and stories, then you're likely to include typical story things like drama and conflict. That's partly why you see the divide. But you also see the divide because it's expected the stories are balanced and offer both the opinions of both sides.\n\nAnyway, I'm not sure which news you're watching but if you tune into your local 6:00 news and not the national programs, you'll get more interesting, more important stories that are more likely to matter to you. \n\nAnd those are not designed to sell advertising as some want to suggest. Neither my colleagues nor I care one bit about making the station money. We only care about telling stories that are interesting, important and informative.",
"I do not think this is a solely American problem. I think the world operates this way, and considering America's biggest export is media, they tailor the media to meet this demand to make money.\n\nBut the reason is viewer ratings, which then get money. \n\nBut there are other sources, you will see. The CBC, BBC, NPR are all sources that are monitored by independent boards to attempt to maintain fair and balanced views. (The BBC is probably the best for this.)\n\nRussia Today and Xinhau (China) are also publicly funded, but are not independently monitored. All these sources are more serious sources of news (though RT and Xinhau are really biased towards anyone but themselves I find). By comparing the two one can see that monetary income is a large correlation. I suspect it is causation as well, but we'll need to prove that first! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
9xpr6y | how does a lithium air battery work and why is it more efficient than traditional lithium ion battery? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9xpr6y/eli5_how_does_a_lithium_air_battery_work_and_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9u7bgg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The main reason is because half the battery is air and thus not counted as part of the battery spec.\n\nIn a typical LiPo Battery, the [chemistry looks like this](_URL_0_), basically 'LiC6 + CoO2 < = > C6 + LiCoO2', In this equation the Cobalt is included just to hold down the oxygen, and both Cobalt and oxygen have weight and take up space in the battery. Really the important bit is the oxygen and you could find that in the air.\n\nA Lithium Air Battery does just that, throw out the cobalt, and replace it with a screen of some sort that lets air in. Now you don't have anything to hold the oxygen (and subtract all that space and weight), and your battery also doesn't include oxygen (so you subtract that weight as well). This generally cuts the weight and volume in half, because you only include half the chemicals, and rely on getting the other half by sucking in air. Since you cut the weight and volume in half, it's equivalent to doubling the power and energy densities.\n\nIf you wanted it to work in space though, you'd need to bring your own oxygen, and if you counted that oxygen, you'd probably find out Lithium Air is worse than LiPo. Also, interfacing with the air causes a whole host of issues, and that's why we don't really use lithium air (the big ones are it's easy to clog the intake, and many things react with the battery you don't want, essentially the inside of the battery gets dirty and it gets all jammed up)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Electrochemistry"
]
] | ||
ceux8o | what exactly happens in the body during drug withdrawal that makes you so sick? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ceux8o/eli5_what_exactly_happens_in_the_body_during_drug/ | {
"a_id": [
"eu52oxl",
"eu54o77",
"eu5eg3x"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"you are being starved of dopamine activity, which is required for many more neural processes other than pleasure. These other functions that aren't receiving the activity they should are what causes these withdrawal side-effects. Dopamine downregulation occurs when a neural synapse is saturated by the neurotransmitter. To prevent toxicity or damage to any of the structures in the clef, the post-synaptic neuron will start removing receptors for dopamine. If you suddenly stop stimulated dopamine via your drug use, neurons which require dopamine to function normally will not have enough dopamine to create an evoked potential. This has the effect of fewer neurons firing and thus less activity in areas of the brain that need it.",
"As an aside, there are only 2 kinds of withdrawls that can kill you: Alcohol and Benzos. \n\nOr at least that's my understanding of it.\n\n Funny enough people withdraw for wayyyyyyyy longer from methadone or subutex than from actual dope. Source: working in a county lockup and watching people stay sick.",
"People take drugs to feel good. This works because the drug either mimics or makes the natural \"feel good\" chemicals in your brain, but at a **massive** extra dose, so you feel way better than would normally be possible.\n\nHowever, your brain always tries to return to normal. If you take this massive dose of feel good chemicals too often, it realizes something changed, and starts getting rid of the \"switches\" those feel good chemicals turn on. This means you need more of the drug to get the same effect over time, an effect called *tolerance*. The longer you take the drug, and the more you use, the more tolerance builds up.\n\nIf you suddenly stop taking the drug, the extra feel good chemicals go away, but you still have a reduced number of switches to turn on from when you were flooding your brain with a lot of it. This means that the normal level of those chemicals isn't nearly enough to activate the switches to a normal level.\n\nSince the switches make you feel good, if you can't turn enough of them on, you feel *terrible*. It basically gives you an extreme version of the opposite of whatever the drug does. That's one reason addiction is so hard to beat: quitting is incredibly painful, uncomfortable, and anxiety-inducing. And another dose of the drug will make those symptoms go away instantly. Its a really hard cycle to break."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4a8kth | why is it that it's commonly accepted that yellow teeth indicate unhealthy teeth, while i keep hearing that yellow teeth is actually a sign that your enamel is strong/thick? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a8kth/eli5_why_is_it_that_its_commonly_accepted_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0y8r9x",
"d0y9kp8",
"d0ya2ua",
"d0yih2d",
"d0yivlx"
],
"score": [
34,
12,
220,
17,
4
],
"text": [
"I've never heard the latter, but yellow teeth can come from not brushing enough, not seeing the dentist regularly, and/or smoking (not to mention tea or coffee drinking).\n\nWorrying about the color of your teeth isn't going to do you any good. Brush and floss regularly. Limit your sugar. Don't do stupid shit like trying to open beer bottles with your teeth. See your dentist twice a year and follow his or her advice.",
"You can try rinsing with water after drinking coffee, tea or juice. Not sure how much that helps tho.",
"*Slightly* yellow teeth are healthy. Yellow stained or brown stained teeth are usually not. Usually when you hear \"yellowish teeth are healthy\" it's in the context of \"don't use whiteners\" which can be [dangerous if you bleach your teeth too much](_URL_0_) and can, apparently, cause some painful side-effects even when used correctly.\n\nThat's not to say any and all whitening is bad, just that people tend to go overboard, and reminding them that bleach-white teeth aren't necessarily healthy is a good way to encourage them to slow down.\n\nSome diseases can cause tooth yellowing, which isn't particularly healthy. Usually, very yellow teeth can be a sign of some other unhealthy habit like smoking or chewing tobacco, or just simply not brushing your teeth often enough so that food/beverage stains set in.\n\nMostly, though, yellow teeth just aren't attractive. Much like our unrealistic standards of beauty where weight is concerned, we have standards of beauty for the rest of our bodies and yellow teeth don't conform to that.",
"First thing I noticed coming to the us was that bleaching is the thing. \nIn Europe it wasn't. English actor usually have unbleached teeth. At least that's what it looks like.",
"Teeth vary in shade. Some people have naturally whiter teeth and some people have naturally yellow teeth. The shade says nothing about how 'strong' or 'healthy' the teeth are. Even surface stained teeth are not per se unhealthy or diseased.\n(Obviously tooth decay and gum disease are unhealthy and need treated).\nWhitener teeth have become culturally desirable, in western society. Very white teeth are not naturally occurring, everybody knows they're artificial, but people still like it.\nAnother example is an older man or lady with no grey hair. Can look good (personal preference of course), but is obviously not natural when you think about it.\nAs it becomes more common, it seems to become more desirable.\n[source: I'm a dentist]"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.prevention.com/beauty/natural-beauty/dangers-teeth-whitening"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
98janl | super capacitors and other power sources. | I've been trying to find a basic explaination for how these things work, but havent been successful yet. How do they differ from typical capacitors? Where do they make sense to use? Pros and Cons? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98janl/eli5_super_capacitors_and_other_power_sources/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4gfvp2",
"e4hnsc2"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"A super capacitor isn't really a power source instead it is a method of storing energy on a temporary basis, a bit like a rechargeable battery.",
"In general, a capacitor is two metal plates separated by a gap. The capacitance increases the closer the two plates are to each other, but of course they can't touch or they'll short circuit.\n\nIn a supercapacitor, one of the \"plates\" is actually a liquid filled with polar ionic molecules. One side of these polar molecules is attracted to the other plate, where it forms a layer separating the solid electrode from the liquid one. With a gap between electrodes just a single molecule thick, that means the capacitance is far greater than you can achieve otherwise.\n\nThe cons are that it takes a while for the polar ionic molecules to move around and form this layer structure, so supercapacitors respond more slowly to voltage than regular capacitors. It's also pretty easy for high voltage to punch through that single layer of molecules or chemically alter it, so they usually have a limit of just a few volts.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor"
]
] | |
13yl5p | tonight's powerball jackpot is roughly a half-billion dollars. what happens when you win that money? | I'm not asking what you would do if you won. I'm asking what actually happens when you win that jackpot. It can't be as simple as showing up to lottery HQ with the winning ticket and having them sign over a check to you, can it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13yl5p/tonights_powerball_jackpot_is_roughly_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c78b4if",
"c78bteg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You do head over to wherever you turn these things in and then you chose how to get your winnings.\n\nYou either take a *severely* reduced lump sum (they pretty much write you a massive check then and there) or you take X amount of money over X years that adds up to your total winnings when all is said and done. ",
"You COULD probably do it that way, however I doubt they'd just cut you a check. They probably wire the money into whatever account you tell them to. Having a check for a quarter-billion in your pocket is a huge risk."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
jyt8l | united states "territories and possessions" | What do these terms really mean, and how does a country find itself in such a state? Even after Wikipedia, I feel confused. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jyt8l/eli5_united_states_territories_and_possessions/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2g7kx2",
"c2g7kx2"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"A territory is a part of the United States that is not a state or the District of Columbia. People living there are US citizens, but typically do not have all the rights of people living in states, nor do they have all the obligations. Basically, they can't vote for president, they can't elect representatives, and they don't have to pay many federal taxes.\n\nThe remaining US territories are islands in the Carribean and Pacific. Most are too small to have state level governments...some are completely uninhabited. Puetro Rico is the only territory large enough to consider statehood, but its citizens have decided against it in multiple referenda.\n\nThere are a lot of ways these islands became territories. Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded by the Spanish after the Spanish-American War. The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark. The North Marianas Islands asked to be a territory rather than seeking independence. ",
"A territory is a part of the United States that is not a state or the District of Columbia. People living there are US citizens, but typically do not have all the rights of people living in states, nor do they have all the obligations. Basically, they can't vote for president, they can't elect representatives, and they don't have to pay many federal taxes.\n\nThe remaining US territories are islands in the Carribean and Pacific. Most are too small to have state level governments...some are completely uninhabited. Puetro Rico is the only territory large enough to consider statehood, but its citizens have decided against it in multiple referenda.\n\nThere are a lot of ways these islands became territories. Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded by the Spanish after the Spanish-American War. The US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark. The North Marianas Islands asked to be a territory rather than seeking independence. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
7kc2dt | heart disease is a top killer in the world, why can't there be preventative maintenance done by a doctor? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7kc2dt/eli5_heart_disease_is_a_top_killer_in_the_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"drd5xpr",
"drd6nrf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If a doc goes in and clears a blockage before the patient has a heart attack, that's the definition of preventative maintenance. A recommendation to increase exercise and modify diet is simply to ensure such things don't repeat.",
"First of all, it's important to think about statistics and what they actually mean. \"Heart disease is the number one killer in America.\" This sounds like a pretty scary statistic, but in reality, it's pretty good news. The reason for that is that, by definition, there always has to be a #1 killer in America. There is a list somewhere of all the things that kill Americans, and that list is always going to have something in the top slot. And since there's always going to be a number one, heart disease is a pretty good option for the number one killer, as opposed to, say, gunfire, or starvation, or AIDS. Keep in mind that \"heart disease\" is a pretty wide category, and it's not limited to young people, so someone dying in their own bed surrounded by their family at age 95, has a good chance to die of heart failure. That guy had about the best death you could hope for, but he still gets put in the \"heart disease\" count.\n\nHowever, the heart [sic] of your question is \"Why don't we do preventative maintenance to save lives?\" And the very ugly, but very real truth is that people's lives have a price associated with them, and as a society, we don't want to spend more than a certain amount of money to keep the average person alive. Sound cynical? Let's take your question, and apply it to cancer instead. The very well known key to cancer survival is early detection. We could prevent some 90% of cancer deaths by giving every citizen a monthly PET scan. But we don't. Why? Because it costs too much. It's not something we like to talk about, but somewhere along the line, in an unspoken agreement, we decided that a human life is only worth a certain dollar amount. I don't know what that amount is, but it's less than the cost of a monthly PET scan, and less than regular preventative maintenance for heart disease."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1yfprq | [us] why is it that the shortage of doctors difficult to fix? | There is a shortage crisis of doctors in the U.S.
From my understanding, assuming every student is eligible, there is limited room in medical school and than one must compete to get matched for residency (I think) which is also limited; each level reduces the number of possible doctors. So the current system artificially reduces the amount of medical doctors being produced.
Why don't more medical school just open up to meet the demand of eligible student applicants wanting to become doctors? What is making getting residence so difficult; dont doctors have 6 residence under them and arent there many hospitals in the country?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yfprq/eli5_us_why_is_it_that_the_shortage_of_doctors/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfk2x1v",
"cfk392r",
"cfk6lse"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
3
],
"text": [
" > What is making getting residence so difficult; dont doctors have 6 residence under them and arent there many hospitals in the country?\n\nIt's not hard to *do*, but it's hard to *profit* from. Government funding is already responsible for a quarter of all residency spots available; nobody's going to open up many more unless they're paid to do it.",
"To run a medical school you must be accredited. This is a long and expensive process and without an established college practically impossible. Your first classes will start with at best provisional accreditation, which means if the accrediting agency decides not to, your students will have wasted four years and many thousands of dollars for an unaccredited degree. It can be done (I know Virginia Tech opened the Carilion School of Medicine in 2010 and has yet to graduate its first class).\n\nTo become accredited you must be able to demonstrate and guarantee quality of education. For a modern medical education, this requires an enormous investment in infrastructure, professors, and teaching materials, and I can't think of a med school that doesn't have a research program which costs even more money and time.\n\nThen it takes four years for medical school and another one to seven for your internship/residency before you can fully practice. Numbers of interns/residents under an attending physician will definitely vary between doctors and hospitals/programs, and many doctors are in private practice or work in hospitals that don't take residents because they simply don't have the capability to train.\n\nWhat this basically means is that if you want to increase the capacity for training doctors, you must invest such vast amounts of money and time that from the time you realize the shortage it will be years before you can realistically do anything about it.\n\nFurthermore, though medicine is still an attractive field to many bright young people, it has gone down due to the uncertainty in the future of healthcare, and many trained doctors have decided to retire early. The rapid changes brought on by the ACA have reduced the certainty of compensation and job security, while the costs and time and effort of training a doctor for both the schools and the trainee have remained the same.",
"As a student pursuing another degree after considering becoming a doctor I will offer my simple answer. \n\nTrying to become a doctor and complete medical school carries with it an extremely high risk of failure and requires that I dedicate all of my time to that goal to have a hope of success. Rather than potentially waste 4-10 years of my life, I chose a career with similar earning potential and almost zero risk of washout. And I don't have to deal with malpractice insurance or frivolous lawsuits if I screw up. I just say \"Oops\", file some paperwork, and restate the error on an amended financial statement. Accountants can make comparable money anyways."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
a3ipib | how icebergs stay solid & water stays liquid when in contact | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3ipib/eli5_how_icebergs_stay_solid_water_stays_liquid/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb6l2vo"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Icebergs are huge huge. water and ice is not good heat conductor. Water in the polar oceans are cold so it might only be a degree above freeing and the water closes to it will have the same temperature as the ice berg. So any change take a long time\n\n\nIcebergs are fresh water and sea water are salt. Fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius but salt water freezes at below 0 degrees Celsius. So the fresh water ice and the salt water can have the same temperature and on is still liquid and the other solid.\n\n\nAnother part why the stay frozen longer is the square–cube law. The surface area grow slower then the volume. \n\nA ice cube of 1 tonne is 1 m^3 and have a surface area of 6 m^2 or 6 square meter surface per tonne. \n\nA block that is 10x10x10 m have a mass of 1000 tonnes. The surface ares is only 10*10*6=600 m^2 or 0.6 square meter surface per tonne\n\nA block 100x100x100 m have a mass of 1 million tonnes. The surface is 100*100*6=60 000m^2 or 0.06 square meter surface per tonne\n\nThe speed of heat transfer depend on the surface but the energy to change temperature depending on the mass so a huge iceberg war up extremely slow. A block of 1 millon tonnes have 100 times slower heat transfer compared with the mass compared to a 1 tonne block"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3epukb | how can tv networks advertise a show as being "uncensored", yet when they air they are still clearly censored? | For example I am watching Naked and Afraid: Uncensored, and they are still blurring out breasts and weiners, and bleeping curse words. I've seen the same thing on countless other networks and shows. How is that "Uncensored"? Or am I misunderstanding their use of the word? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3epukb/eli5_how_can_tv_networks_advertise_a_show_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cthic71"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It is simply not true, but since you are not paying for the show (nothing of value is exchanged) it does not constitute fraud."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3dlj8z | what exactly is going on when a celebrity is hospitalized due to exhaustion? | Why haven't I ever heard of anybody in my real life ever being hospitalized for such a thing? What are the symptoms and why are they so prone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dlj8z/eli5_what_exactly_is_going_on_when_a_celebrity_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct6b6jo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Exhaustion is basically celebrity speak for having a mental and/or physical breakdown from being overworked and not getting enough sleep or proper nutrition. Not in all cases but many of them. In the other cases what happens is the celebrity lifestyle of to much partying and not enough good choices results in major imbalances in the body. Things like dehydration, potassium deficiencies, etc causing weakness, malaise, headaches, sometimes it can progress to more serious issues but overall fluid replacement with rest and whatever other labs being balanced out results in a refreshed and healthy human."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
21mpd5 | i always hear that tuna fish is "farmed", yet the solid white is always near the top of the list of "fish with mercury". why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21mpd5/eli5_i_always_hear_that_tuna_fish_is_farmed_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgeijke"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Farmed doesn't have to mean that the fish was born and raised and slaughtered in a contained space. Many farmed fish are hatched in hatcheries, and then released to their natural habitat to mature on their own -- this is really common with fish that take many years to mature, like tuna and salmon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
thbju | how does truecrypt work? is it run at all differently for macs and pcs? | I'm relatively computer-literate. I can navigate computers with ease, but anything overly technical baffles me because I'm not of such a mind. I've downloaded TrueCrypt because I like my privacy but I'm unsure of how to use it deftly. Help me out, you knowledgeable fellows. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/thbju/eli5_how_does_truecrypt_work_is_it_run_at_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4mmokm",
"c4mmome",
"c4mmwp2"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Truecrypt [encrypts](_URL_0_) your data. This means it takes whatever original data you give it as well as a password, and it uses a special algorithm to \"scramble\" the data up in a particular way. Now, if someone else finds the encrypted data, they cannot use it or tell what it is unless they have the password. With the password, Truecrypt can reverse the algorithm and put your data \"back together\" exactly how it was before!\n\nA REALLY simple method of encryption is called ROT13 (I believe short for \"rotate 13 places\"). The algorithm Truecrypt uses is way, way, way more complicated than this. For ROT13, you take your original text (like HELLO for example) and move each letter 13 levels down the alphabet (so A becomes N, B becomes O, etc.) so HELLO would become URYYB. Someone who just finds \"URYYB\" would not be able to read it. But if they knew the algorithm, they can change it back to \"HELLO\" just by shifting the letters 13 spaces again! Truecrypt does much the same thing except it's MUCH more complex and almost impossible to break (if you use a long password).\n\nedit: SlakaJ explains how to use Truecrypt which is probably more what you were after, this is more the concept behind it.",
"True Crypt creates volumes which are like folders to put your files into, except true crypt volumes are always the same size, it it's 4GB, and you put 4GB worth of stuff in it, you can't make it bigger, you get a new one, and if it's 4GB and you've put nothing in it, it's still taking up 4GB of storage.\n\nThere's a button in True Crypt saying create volume, simply click through the options. One screen will ask you how big a partition you want (which you can decide for yourself), another the password you want to use (choose a good one, your encryption is only as strong as this). True Crypt will also ask you what encryption algorithm you want to use, as far as you need be concerned, all are strong enough. \n\nOne screen will ask you to jiggle your mouse inside the True Crypt window. It is important you do this as randomly and as long as possible (I'd recommend a few minutes) as it is these movements that create your encryption key, the idea is that a mouse movement is random enough that you can't \"guess\" what the key might be.\n\nOnce that's done you'll have your \"volume\", saved like a file on your computer. You can copy it to a memory stick, move it around, anything you like.\n\nWhen it comes down to using it, you open up True Crypt and \"mount\" the file. Think of the volume as like a locked box. Mounting it is undoing the padlock. When you've mounted it, it will appear as if a memory stick or something similar has been attached (On windows this looks like another drive, with a new letter, I'm not sure on Macs, but however memory stick folders appear, it will likely be similar). This will contain all the encrypted files. You can then do as you like with them, the box is open. \n\nWhen you're finished with this, you make sure all files you want encrypted are back (if you're not sure where this is, remember when you first mounted it was like a memory stick was plugged in, think of putting files back on the stick). Then hit the dismount button in True Crypt. You've just padlocked the box.\n\nNow everything is back on the volume. And you can do what you like with it, take it anywhere, make copies, whatever.\n\nThere's also hidden files (where you have two layers of security, one that's just a decoy so you can pretend to reveal those if forced to protect the real files), encrypted operating systems (as opposed to just encrypting important data) and even hidden operating systems, but it's late, so I'm going to leave it there.\n\nIf you want to know about any of those too, or if anything was unclear let me know.",
"When you say it anonymises your internet browsing, you are probably thinking of full disk encryption. This is another Truecrypt feature where you can encrypt the entire hard disk (including all of the OS files, and more importantly, things like temporary storage locations) - you must enter your key at boot time for the machine to boot, and without the key the data is unrecoverable even if the HD is transplanted into another machine, etc.\n\nWhy is this useful? Mainly because of the concept of information \"leaking\" from an encrypted volume via means you don't think about or understand.\n\nFor example, let's say I have a word document in an encrypted TC volume (a normal one, not full disk). If I then mount that volume and then open it in Word, how do I know that Word doesn't store it in some kind of cache or temporary storage location somewhere? If I open a PDF in Chrome to read, Chrome stores that on my disk, etc. etc. Full disk encryption saves you from having to worry about how apps might be leaking your files from your safe volumes, because the whole disk is a safe volume.\n\nOf course then you have to worry about it leaking info in other ways like over the network, but one problem at a time, eh?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/encryption"
],
[],
[]
] | |
28mmny | what does tesla releasing all their patents actually mean and why is everyone so supportive/happy about it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28mmny/eli5_what_does_tesla_releasing_all_their_patents/ | {
"a_id": [
"cicd8um",
"cicdhr1",
"cicdxqy",
"cicfkd5",
"cicfttk",
"cicgfdp",
"cicgy38",
"cici5ej",
"cicicd9",
"cicj0j1",
"cickrk7",
"cicmoh8",
"cicnd8n",
"cicpzrf",
"cicwion"
],
"score": [
268,
205,
3,
5,
15,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"From what I gather, it supports technology growth, rather than hinders it by allowing other companies to use and build upon existing designs. Think of it like open source software. \n\nWith the amount of patent trolls out there, and slap fights over trivial similarities between products (Apple and Samsung), it's good to see a company release their patents for use rather than hoard them to sue other companies for profit.\n\nThat being said, I really know nothing on this subject.",
"The Wikipedia page has this bit:\n\n > Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced in a press release and conference call on June 12, 2014, that the company will allow its technology patents be used by anyone in good faith.[58] Future agreements to be made are expected to include provisions whereby the recipients agree not to file patent suits against Tesla, or to copy their designs directly.[59] **Reasons expressed for this stance include attracting and motivating talented employees, as well as to accelerate the mass market advancement of electric cars for sustainable transport.** \"The unfortunate reality is, electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn't burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales,\" Musk said.[60] Tesla will still hold other intellectual property, such as trademarks and trade secrets, which would prevent direct copying of its vehicles\n\nSo you can't go and clone a Tesla car, but you can make something very similar. For instance you could make a charger compatible with a Tesla car, or a car compatible with Tesla chargers or batteries.\n\nAs I understand, Tesla hopes that this will make their technology into a standard. If say, Nissan releases their next car with a Tesla plug, then they benefit from Tesla charging stations. Tesla in turn benefits from any stations Nissan installs. And if this results in a lot of cars using the same charging tech, then it can be expected that charging stations will pop up all over the country, which is a further benefit.\n\nSame can go for any other tech. If Toyota builds a car with a Tesla battery, they save money on research and manufacturing. And Tesla gets to sell batteries to Toyota owners.",
"There's a kind of chicken/egg scenario going on, where no one wants to build the infrastructure to support electric vehicles (ie charging stations) until there are enough of them on the road to justify the expense, but there are plenty of people who won't buy an electric car until the infrastructure exists to support them.\n\nTesla is interested in both sides of the equation: they build electric cars, and they also build the infrastructure to support them; so it's in Tesla's interested to expand the market for EVs, and by giving away their patents they're making it easier for other companies to get involved, thus growing the market for both cars and infrastructure.\n\nAs more companies build EVs using Tesla technology, more companies build charging stations using Tesla technology. As more charging stations become available more people will likely buy Teslas. As more EVs are sold (even non Tesla EVs), more people will use Tesla's charging stations.\n\nThis wasn't some big selfless charitable donation to save the world; Tesla is a company, and companies like making money.",
"Tesla's business will simply not work worldwide without an international network of Superchargers.\n\nThey cannot afford to build that network.\n\nThey've obviously done a costs/benefits analysis of this situation and realised that the potential loss of current market dominance caused by sharing their patents is less that the loss of growth caused by that infrastructure not being built fast enough.\n\nTesla are a public company. Shareholders demand growth.",
"Patents prevent competitors from doing what you're doing for several years, so you can make all the early money and (hopefully) recoup your investment.\n\nTesla wants as many companies as possible making and selling electric cars their way, because it does not see other electric cars as competition, it sees gasoline as its competition.",
"Open standards. Microsoft and Intel won the PC business because they were pretty open with standards that allowed others to be compatible with their products. Many other vendors went proprietary and ended up dying off or in small niches of the market.\n\nThe potential benefits are that you can have third party vendors making things like spare parts that will save you big come repair time. It also allows multiple vendors to get in the game easier. This would make it much more difficult to kill off the technology.",
"Imagine you discover a brand new windmill pattern that produces more than triple the energy output of the old ones. You patent it, so no-one can use it but you. By Tesla releasing their patents, more car companies will use their technology, and electric cars will become more common. Also I think (but I'm not sure) that Tesla will earn money from all the recharging stations that will inevitably appear everywhere.\n\nTL;DR: By releasing their patterns, Tesla pushes eco friendly tech in the everyday life forward.",
"It's a push for this technology to become more adopted and widespread quicker. This will create and entrench demand, which Tesla will profit from as they are at the forefront with this technology.",
"I've said this before and i will say it here now. \n\nJohn Nash, the genius who developed some algorithm to describe economics, came up with a theory, that he proved mathematically. It says that in economics, helping others, even when it doesn't directly benefit one's own bottom line, is good for ALL business... \n\nThis kind of reasoning is why more and more companies are making their ideas and patents opensource. \n\nI theorize that altruism is the basis for **all** evolutionary advancement. My study is still under investigation.... It takes a long time to prove evolutionary developments in humans.",
"I'll try my hand at five-year-olding this....\n\nOne of the biggest hindrances to the adoption of electric vehicles is power distribution. Gas stations are ubiquitous and universal; they're everywhere, they pump the same fuel, and they work with every vehicle on the road. Electric vehicles don't have that luxury. They're sort of like cell phones in that way; each manufacturer has their own power connectors and charging systems and they're not often compatible with one another.\n\nTesla has been building an infrastructure in the form of their \"supercharge stations\" to allow their cars to charge, but that infrastructure is expensive to create and limited in scope. It's part of the reason why Tesla vehicles are so expensive; by buying the car you're helping to pay for the construction of power stations. But these stations are also limited; they cannot service other electric (or hybrid) vehicles due to the differences in power connectors and charging systems.\n\nBy Tesla opening up their patent portfolio they've effectively stepped up to the plate and offered what could become a universal standard in vehicular charging. Other vehicle manufacturers don't need to invest time and money into developing a power system or infrastructure; it's already there. All they need to do is use Tesla's now-free patent and the same plug and charging station that can recharge a Tesla can also charge a Honda, Toyota, Chevy, or any other electric/hybrid vehicle from any manufacturer.\n\nSo, who loses from this arrangement? Nobody. Not even Tesla. It's 100% win all around. Manufacturers get immediate access to Tesla's patents and start putting Tesla's tech into their cars, which means those cars can now access Tesla's supercharge stations and power infrastructure — making them more consumer-friendly than electric vehicles currently are. Now the economy of scale kicks in; as more consumers buy electric cars, the manufacturers have to maintain supply. The battery manufacturers are forced to improve performance and lower cost — another win. More electric cars on the road means more supercharge stations are needed, making them more ubiquitous and yet more customer friendly — another win. More manufacturers making electric cars means greater competition, which means lower prices to the consumer — another win. Tesla no longer has to spend literal billions of dollars on building all of the supercharge stations; other companies can do this on their own using Tesla's patents, so Tesla will be able to turn that money into R & D money to make better cars — yet another win. As time moves on and the country moves to electric vehicles (make no mistake, we're at the launching point here) the roads will be quieter, cleaner, and safer — still more win.\n",
"-Most companies guard their patents like they're the fucking cure for cancer because they only care about money and not at all about innovation\n\n-Not these guys! These fuckers actually give half a shit about the rest of the world being able to build on all the sweet tech they've already made. This is awesome because it will (hopefully) lead to more cool stuff being invented. They are awesome for caring more about the world having cool stuff than about lining their own wallets even further.",
"If you think about it this way, it's fairly easy to understand:\n\nReleasing the patents for everyone to use kind of sets a \"standard\" for everyone to follow. It expands the market so that batteries and charge stations will be universally compatible with other auto manufacturers. \nJust like nearly every gasoline car out there can pull into any gas station for a fill-up. Right now, one of the biggest hurdles that Tesla has is that charging stations or battery swap sites are very limited, which means people are not willing to purchase a car that they cannot drive anywhere. \nImagine driving to another state for business and after 150 miles or so, you need to be looking for a place to charge... and you cannot find one. You would be completely screwed if your car cannot get charged. No one wants to risk getting stranded, no matter how green the tech is.\nSo, in order to make charge stations a more universal thing, and more common place so people don't have to worry about getting stranded (and therefore more willing to purchase a Tesla motors car), you release your patents so that everyone is using your tech and it becomes standard.",
"Copyrights were created to prevent any one company from monopolizing cultural information (books, technology, etc) while still allowing the creator to have exclusive profits from their work for a time. The original copyright laws were covered for 7 years before being released to the creative commons, or free-for-all material that anyone could use. By having the information available to the public for free, any one could build upon it, tweak it, and improve it just like how Linux works. It inspired innovation with more people building on the same idea to improve it. Ideally, by releasing the patent, the public can design a far superior version of the current Tesla and make advances in electric car technology.",
"Tesla wants to make their technology the **standard**. Essentially, they want companies to compete in their battlefield.",
"It means he put humanity before profits. He is doing something for the good of all. Too often, inventors put $$$ first. Medicine, solar technology, etc. and it cost way too much for the masses. But there are some good souls out there, Elon Musk and from back in the 1955 Jonas Salk, who developed the polio vaccine and refused to patent it, therefore making it available to millions at a minimal cost."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2pd91j | how can some people imitate accents so well? | With no connection to the language, some people can imitate it perfectly. How is this? I was born in Germany and lived there for 10 years until, I moved to USA, but my accent is gone and I can imitate English, Scottish, Russian, etc after hearing it a few times. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pd91j/eli5how_can_some_people_imitate_accents_so_well/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmvkorn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you did this a lot when you were younger, it carries on into adulthood. Some people can imitate a lot better, like Jim Carrey with his voices and faces.\n\n\nIs your first language deutsch or english?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
6iidht | are sounds higher pitched from smaller organisms just because they are small? if a human were to shrink to the size of a mouse, would his voice be higher pitched or be the same but very quiet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iidht/eli5_are_sounds_higher_pitched_from_smaller/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj6hg94",
"dj6hgtl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think it probably has to do with the length of their vocal cords. If they have shorter cords, you'll hear a higher pitched sound. So if you shrunk a human to that level, their voice would also be higher in pitch because the vocal cords got shorter",
"Smaller animals tend to have shorter vocal cords. \n\nShorter vocal cords produce higher pitched sounds better. Just like a violin makes a higher pitch than a cello. \n\nThey will have variations in the sounds they can make, but smaller critters will have a tendency to make higher pitched sounds. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
8c5hkh | why does hard liquor get so much easier to drink when you get used to it? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8c5hkh/eli5_why_does_hard_liquor_get_so_much_easier_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxca09z",
"dxcbgai"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"All foods save for those that you are allergic to become easier to eat as you become accustomed to trying to consume them. You see the same issues with foods of odd textures, odd flavors, or the like. ",
"Your body is pretty good about getting used to things. If you drink alcohol over a long enough period of time (not like over many hours, like over many years) your liver starts to produce more of the chemicals that break alcohol down, which means you metabolize the alcohol faster. Further your brain starts to become less destabilized in the presence of alcohol. Also, the \"burn\" you get from alcohol is very similar to capsaicin (the chemical that makes hot peppers hot), in that it tricks the heat sensors in your mouth into thinking you are eating something physically hot. Your mouth because more numb to it the more you drink it (there is even some evidence that eating hot peppers makes you more numb to the \"heat\" of alcohol and vice versa). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1ai9hi | why is beef in europe not as good as beef from argentina or parts of n. america? | Surely the grass and water cannot be that different. I imagine climate plays a role but does that explain the entire difference in Argentina's beef superiority? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ai9hi/eli5_why_is_beef_in_europe_not_as_good_as_beef/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8xoqyj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What makes you think that's the case?\n\nI'm not saying you're wrong - just that I eat lots of beef, and I've never heard of it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7n0iff | why do establishments make bathroom doors push to go in but pull to come out? why not make it pull to go in and push to go out and avoid touching the door with your clean hands? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7n0iff/eli5_why_do_establishments_make_bathroom_doors/ | {
"a_id": [
"dry3i9u",
"dry3rfw",
"dry45bm",
"dry4kum",
"dry5p7l",
"dry6eq1",
"dry6pdn",
"dry71vc",
"dry728p",
"dry77up",
"dry7av1",
"dry7ccn",
"dry7i6t",
"dry879l",
"dry88io",
"dry8a2e",
"dry8cv7",
"dry8h1f",
"dry8hms",
"dry8p8o",
"dry8pfh",
"dry8qnv",
"dry8udk",
"dry8v3u",
"dry90wx",
"dry912k",
"dry91n7",
"dry9f2a",
"dry9fy9",
"dry9hsu",
"drya0cp",
"drybhl4",
"drybhp7",
"drybr3s",
"drybs14",
"dryc84i",
"dryccad",
"dryccld",
"drycy6j",
"drydokd",
"drydone",
"drydsdu",
"dryeml3",
"dryf52o",
"dryg7mc",
"dryms4y",
"drys1ly"
],
"score": [
39,
5,
7280,
363,
4,
11,
73,
6,
9,
11,
6,
7,
3,
9,
4,
2,
2,
23,
2,
5,
36,
4,
2,
5,
2,
336,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
33,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So you don't nail someone with the door. knocking over a tray of food or causing legal issue. My guess, anyway.",
"There is a code of buildings. It’s not a choice, but they have to build accordingly to get a license for business ",
"I've seen them both ways. \n\nIn general, doors that open to hallways are put in so they don't swing into the hallway. It's a safety issue; you don't want to hit someone. \n\nHaving the entrance a push makes it easier for you to enter the bathroom without contaminating the door if you are going in to wash something off of them. \n\nPush doors have the hinges and lock on the inside, so you can't be locked in.\n\nMany public bathrooms also tend to have drinking fountains, closets, or other utilities near them; having the door open outward makes the wall there dead space. This is more important in a corridor, less so in a bathroom section which is likely just a corner anyway. ",
"It is a common safety requirement to arrange the doors that way to prevent an inaccessible obstruction stopping someone from exiting the building. Imagine if a cart or something was placed in front of a bathroom door that opened outward and then a fire alarm went off. Those in the bathroom wouldn't be able to open the door and the cart would be on the other side of the door!",
"You’re still using your hand to push a door that 1000 other dirt bags touch. Also it’s basically a safety hazard. Can’t have Jim Bob ramming a door into a waitress while she’s carrying 5 plates of hot cheese soup. ",
"What about those who reeaalllyyyy reaaallllyyyy have to pee. Easy open push doors are a lifesaver. ",
"How much dirtier is a bathroom door than a regular door?",
"So how do you push doors without hands? I’m genuinely curious ",
"Fire code. Doors shouldn't open outward into areas that may be trafficked in an emergency situation.",
"I took an architecture class in Korea, so it may be different,\nbut we were told it was so you could stop the door with your foot if someone accidentally comes in on you while you’re on the pot. House doors also follow this rule in Korea.",
"Because when going out you could slam the door in the face of someone?",
"Many are pull to go in. At least in offices.\n\nBathrooms are kept at a lower pressure than the common area by extract fans. This prevents the smell leaking into the common area.\n\nThe door is pull open so it's held shut. ",
"it's usually a space efficiency thing. the corridor leading to the bathroom has other doors usually (the other bathroom door for the opposite sex, or leading to the kitchen or back of house, or store room, etc.), so having a door swing out into that would either be a safety issue, or require the corridor to be wider than minimally necessary. compare that to the inside of the bathroom, the bathroom door can swing into that space.\n\ndoors usually only need to open into the direction of escape when the occupancy load is greater than 50 people, so it doesn't apply here since toilets are considered as a temporary (non-simulataneous) space which are not expected to have people there for extended periods of time",
"There are foot pulls that can be mounted on the bottom of a latchless door to open it hands free. I don't know why you don't see them more often. I've only seen them a few times in the US, I know the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy Center has them, but other Smithsonian museums do not! ",
"Some people have you her on the issue but let me clarify. It is neither building nor fire code that makes a bathroom door swing in the direction of egress; however, the building code does specify how far a door is allowed to swing into a corridor or space. For instance, a door cannot obstruct the means of egress width by more than 7 inches when fully open and cannot obstruct the means of egress width by more than 1/2 in any position. That is why most doors in corridors or other confined spaces open into the space. When you have a door that provides access to a room that can by occupied by more than 49 occupants, then he doors must swing in the direction of egress and two doors must be provided for said room or area. A recessed doorway is very common in this application. \n\nIt is also an economical and architectural decision to have doors swing into a bathroom so there is more usable floor space for movement and patrons. I believe every chair in a bar or restaurant is worth 10s of thousands of dollars per year, so even one more chair makes a huge difference. ",
"when you gotta go to the can in a hurry a door opens faster when pushed....that's why bathroom doors push to go in....well, you dont wanna poop your pants do you now",
"Life safety and building codes require a certain width of egress path based on occupancy number and type. While you CAN open doors into the hallway you must either:\n\nA) Increase the hallway width.\n\nB) \"Inset\" the door in a corridor niche. Which I often see in large offices and hospitals.\n\nPlus you are just less likely to smack someone in the face with the door.",
"Because never in the history of ever has anyone ever caught anything by touching a fucking door handle. \nFor god's sake stop being neurotic.\n\nDownvote all you want. Toilet commercials aren't actual biology lessons. Sheesh.",
"Having a chicane as someone else has noted negates the need for some barrier free requirements. In Canada at least, there needs to be 12\" (300mm) on the push side of a door and 24\" (610mm) on the pull side. Removing the door removes that requirement. Again if you were talking about stall size, barrier free codes require stall doors to be self closing and to swing a certain way so that people in a wheel chair or with limited mobility have enough room to turn around in a stall. Hope that helps",
"basic rule here in Finland is that doors inside are installed so that they won’t block path towards emergency exits and exits should be always pushable so you can run out. I think there was a EU policy also which was about the same.",
"Because unless you actually make contact with an observable amount of human shit, the toilet door is not going to make you ill. Johnson & Johnson would have you believe otherwise, though. There's a reason they make a lot of money selling sanitary products that most people don't really need.",
"Why have doors at all? Changi Airport's toilets have no doors. There's a chicane for privacy, and that's it.\n\nCheaper, and more hygenic. Plus, no likelihood of a swinging door hitting someone. ",
"plot twist: in Japan often they're sliding doors that go perpendicular to one's path, not 'in' or 'out' along it.\n\nSo it's really just a preference of the architect, not a general rule.",
"I’ve always said when I open a bar (never going to happen) you can’t get out of the bathroom until you’ve washed your hands. If you try and not wash your hands sirens go off alerting everyone to what a dirty bastard you are. The amount of people who don’t wash after going to the toilet never ceases to amaze me. \n\nObviously I haven’t thought this whole system through but whatever.",
"It’s about fire codes. Pushing a door to get out of a building facilitates, or at least does not restrict, flow out of the building in case of fire. ",
"Oh! I can answer this! \n\nI recently started a job in HVAC engineering (kids, avoid this industry if you have a mechanical engineering degree). Typically the air that's pumped into rooms (supply air) gets there via diffusers. Once the air is there it needs to get out of the room so it can either reheat or cool down again. That's where returns come in. Returns are typically just an opening in the tile ceiling, or in the case or a restaurant just an opening on the back of the HVAC unit.\n\nA tenant space is designed to have neutral or slightly positive pressure. That way opening/closing doors isn't a hassle, among other reasons. If it's slightly positive it'll keep cold air from getting in during the winter months when an outside door is opened.\n\nBathrooms are a bit different since that air is smelly and gross and no one wants that air getting into their space. An exhaust fan that vents to the roof is put in the bathrooms. The return air in the bathroom does not even mix with the other return air. The exhaust fan's cfm (cubic feet per minute, the unit of measurement used to describe the volume of air put into the space in a certain amount of time) is typically 50-100 depending on the size of the bathroom. The supply cfm to the bathroom is typically 35-80. This puts the bathroom at a negative pressure, which keeps the nasty are inside the bathroom. \n\nWhat does this have to do with doors? Well when you enter the bathroom and you push the door IN that pulls the clean air into the bathroom while pushing the dirty air into the bathroom. When you leave and you pull the door, same effect. It's all about keeping the dirty air within the bathroom.\n\nWhat I don't understand is why don't all restaurant bathroom doors have that foot handle where you can pull it open with your foot. Makes it so much easier.\n\nEdit: I'm not 100% correct, as expected. It actually has to do with the egress of the door swings and other accessibility concerns. Neat!",
"Because smacking people walking down the hall with randomly opening doors is bad for business \n\nThe person approaching a door to open it is mentally prepared to some extent \nSomeone exiting a room is much less predictable to those outside that room.",
"As most said the main concern is blocking the hall or whatever, but another reason is for airflow. You want the bathroom to be negatively pressurized to the outside so you don't smell the bathroom outside of it, this way when you open the door it pulls alr into the bathroom and doesn't suck it out into the hallway.",
"I’ve seen a cool concept that had a little latch type thingy on the bottom of the door on the inside of the bathroom. And you hook your shoe on it to pull the door open.",
"Some places have a door plate at the bottom that will allow the door to open using your shoe - smart way of doing it. Those air blades to dry hands are another potential transmission point of bacteria.",
"The real answer is fire regulations. The door has to open outward from publicly accessible rooms. These kind of regulations took off after some absolutely disastrous fires in England and the USA in the late 19th century / early 20th century. \n\nYou find the same requirements in the exits of lobbies of schools, colleagues/universities, theaters, pubs/bars, modern buildings, many workplaces especially those with hazards such as machine shops, laboratories, factory floors and so on.",
"Here’s how to use the bathroom in the most sanitary manner:\n\n1. Do not use the urinal to pee. Urine splashes back on you. So stand as far back from the urinals as possible and just let loose like a fire hose.\n\n2. The better option for maximum sanitariness is to use the stall. Kick open the door. Seat down? Don’t touch it. Stand as far away as possible again.Pee all over it. Then kick the flush. Or don’t flush. Don’t worry about breaking anything because fuck everyone. \n\n3. Wash your hands for 2 seconds.\n\n4. Dry your hands with the paper towels, use towel to open door, throw your filthy towel on the ground. \n\nYou are now the cleanest most sanitary person in the world. Enjoy your day touching knobs and money and hand rails that are all perfectly germ free. Not like that gross bathroom with piss everywhere and dirty towels on the floor",
"I’m actually qualified to answer one of these!\n\nTwo main reasons:\n\nOne is that a door swinging outward will create a barrier in a hallway that is possibly being used by people to exit the building in an emergency.\n\nTwo is that due to the required clear floor space around plumbing fixtures for people with disabilities, there’s actually more room to swing the door in, and since when the door closes (which it will so you can go to the bathroom) all the floor space is freed back up, it makes sense to have it swing in.\n\nThere’s a couple other minor things such as in a hallway there’s usually very little wall space. The wall either turns or there’s another door next to a door. On the pull side, you want to have some wall, 12 - 18 inches depending on the controlling agency, so that someone who needs the extra leverage can put a hand on the wall to push off of as they pull open the door.\n\nSource: am a licensed architect ",
"Engineer technologist here. I layout floor plans on a daily basis and bathrooms are just a small extent of what I do. In essence, the door swing is dictacted by the building code. In my region, the door may swing either way in certain scenarios but some creteria must be met. For example, for a barrier free washroom the door may swing in either direction but if it swings out from the washroom it must be accompanied by a door operator button. This is to allow someone in a wheelchair to have the door close behind them when they enter. There are also codes restricting doors from opening into access to exits. For the most part it's easier, design wise, to have the door swing into the bathroom. But that's only if you pull a permit and follow the rules. There are many people that just do what they want.",
"It's a fire safety issue: Interior doors open into the room, so that if, during a fire, an obstacle like broken ceiling pieces falls in front of the door you can still open the door. \nExterior doors open outwards, so if there's a big stampede of people running out, the doors can naturally just fly and stay open. ",
"A restaurant in Tampa has a sensor that opens the door for you on the way out a brilliant idea!!",
"We had a swing out door in a main hallway at my high school. People were constantly getting hit with the door, oh and it had sharp metal on it so on top of getting hit, if you tried to stop t you were likely to cut your hand.",
"Typically doors that open into the hallway lead to exits or basements. This is good knowledge for fire fighters to have if they need to go into a burning building for a search and rescue. In smoke filled, low visibility settings you need to know if you're leaving the building or about to encounter stairs. Emergency exits tend to open out however, so if people are pushing against them they don't have to back up to make room for the door to swing open.",
"It’s a safety issue. If someone’s in the stall it’s going to be locked so the door won’t be able to be pushed into them. If it were the other way around people like me would van damme the shit out of that door after conquering a massive dump and victimize a unsuspecting individual.\n\nEver gone into the bathroom and had some guy Karate kick a stall door into your face? No? Now you know why",
"Depending on the building occupancy it has to do with code. Like some people have said they don’t want it swinging open into a hallway during a fire and blocking it. So in some buildings no one had a choice and in order to get occupancy from the municipality the building has to be completely up to code.",
"McDonald's are THE WORST at that. I don't think I've ever seen a McDonald's that doesn't do that. To make matters worse, they don't have paper towels... just air driers.",
"Maybe it's because most bathrooms were built before everyone had a weird obsession with germs. ",
"Apparently the reason this started was because there was a fire in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in 1911. As the workers got ready to go home for the day, the building caught fire. In everyone's mad rush to escape, they all piled up by the door. Unfortunately, all of the doors in that building opened inwards, and with everyone piled against the door, there was no way it would be able to be opened. So, 275 workers died and now doors are required to open outward to prevent anything like this from happening again. \n\nAt least, this is the explanation my history teacher gave a few years ago. ",
"The real answer is room doors open into the room so you can't be trapped by something outside blocking the door. It's a pretty universal safety thing.",
"I watched an episode of one of those restaurant rescue type shows awhile ago where the restaurant expert made a huge deal over the direction the bathroom doors opened and made the owner change them, even though the renovation budget was tight. His reasoning was that it’s subconsciously less awkward to push a door into another room than it is to open it into your existing room if you don’t want to attract attention. If you pull it into your room, your motions are a little more jerky (walk forward, pull back, walk forward again) and you’re flashing a large white 3’ x 7’ object at everyone in the restaurant. It’s a small effect, but apparently it matters.",
"There are rules for how doors are to open in typical scenarios which are driven by fire regulations.\n\nThe principle is to provide safe means of access and exit in normal and emergency conditions. \n\nInterestingly some of regulations vary from country to country depending on the overarching philosophy and priorities - for instance WC cubicle doors open inwards in some countries - to secure escape route and outwards in other countries - to make sure that door is openable if someone looses consciousness inside.\n\nSource - architect ",
"Have you ever sprinted through a bathroom door and vomited in a toilet? Yeah. Make that a pull door instead and there’ll be anarchy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3p1sn5 | why does the fizz or the head of different sodas dissapate at different rates? | I have always wondered why the head of rootbeer stays around for what seems like forever, but diet coke bubbles away by the time you get a lid on the cup.
Also, is it the same reason beer heads act differently? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p1sn5/eli5_why_does_the_fizz_or_the_head_of_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw2hz1s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The fizz is created by carbon dioxide CO2 escaping the liquid when the container is opened (or disturbed in the case of fountain drinks). There are 2 main factors: The amount of CO2 put in the drink to begin with, with fizzier drinks having more CO2; or the chemical makeup of the drink that keeps it trapped better and/or allows the liquid to settle faster. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
ahz944 | what determines the boiling/freezing point of elements and why are some so extreme? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahz944/eli5_what_determines_the_boilingfreezing_point_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"eejojov"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"There are different types of “intermolecular forces” which are the forces that hold similar molecules together. Some include: covalent network, hydrogen, dipole-dipole, and so on. \n\nDifferent molecules are held together by different forces. Some forces, like hydrogen bonding, are wayyyy stronger than other forces. \n\nThis results in the molecules being held together super tight, making their boiling point super high because it requires lots of energy to separate them. \n\nBoiling point also varries based on atomic mass of the elements and size of elements which causes more variance in boiling point of molecules. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6emrry | why do people from south asia clean their bum with their hands instead of tp? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6emrry/eli5_why_do_people_from_south_asia_clean_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dibefbt",
"dibezxp",
"dibfqlz"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They might ask why westerners simply wipe their butts with paper. If i smeared excrement on your arm, would you be satisfied just wiping it off with some paper? \n\nAdditionally, in my experience in Thailand, Lao, Cambodia and Vietnam they used a handheld sprayer in combination with toilet paper. Though i do not doubt that in some areas they do not employ the paper.",
"Tradition and lack of resources. \n\nFrom my experience and knowledge, people still wipe their bum with their hands because its been done like that for centuries. Also, it still happens in underdeveloped areas of the world due to the lack of resources. Of course, if you come from a world where hands have been used for generations, using paper would sound a bit odd. Same thing with people from developed areas being raised with using paper. ",
"Hand + lots of water. Is good, first dozen times you feel like puking, then it becomes routine and freshyfresh. Helps with shitting in the woods too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2mqpb6 | why did france declare war on germany during ww2 if they seemingly weren't in a position to stop the nazis? | I know Hitler invaded Poland and the UK and France wanted to put a stop to him taking over more of Europe, and I know that a war can go either way, but France only lasted about a month and a half before surrendering to Germany. Did the French not realize they didn't stand a chance? Did they believe that the Maginot Line was invincible? Were Belgium and the Netherlands not considered as an easy route of attack by the Germans? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mqpb6/eli5_why_did_france_declare_war_on_germany_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm6phf9",
"cm6qrac"
],
"score": [
6,
9
],
"text": [
"The French were globally believed to have the strongest military in the world. Not to mention a believed strong defensive line along their border with Germany. So it wasnt that they didnt think they couldnt beat Germany, it was that German tactics and strategy knocked the French and the British expeditionary force on their behinds.",
"Ah, but you answer your own question! You see, it was widely thought that the French - and by extension, the Allies - would be able to stop the war. \n\nThere are three aspects of the answer to this. In the end, it devolves into a complex system of assumptions and events formed over several decades. They all tie in and lead up to each other. But I believe it can be broken down into four factors. (I listed some bullets points at the end if you want a straight and simple answer! Otherwise, continue with me and twist your way through an overview of Interbellum French policy.)\n\nThe **Wall and the Army**; World War One changed everything in Europe. The social structure of the people, of the armed forces, of politics. France was morphed over four years of blood and merciless slaughter on its own fields into a shuddering, shattered image of 'Belle Epoque' or the 'Golden Age' of French culture. Its jingoistic, war hungry pysche was transformed on the bloody fields of Verdun and Alscae-Lorraine into one which never wanted war again. Pacifism dominated everything. Movies, newspapers and politicians all promised that 1914 would never happen again. So, naturally, they turned defensive. \n\nI'm just going to touch briefly on the French Army here before we finish up with the Line. The French Army has always been a source of fascination and admiration throughout the world ever since the times of the 'Sun King' and before. France, mighty France, had battled, bled and bruised its way through five centuries of military domination. The mythos established by the Revolution, of hungry French armies swarming into the heart of Europe, didn't die until 1940. The Franco-Prussian War shocked every capital and statesmen of Europe. The deathly struggle on the Marne and the 1914 - 1918 war both suprised but also, in a way, did not, the sons of those same statesmen. The blue-clad poliu of French legend was ingrained into French culture with glory and respect. Even the debilitating effects of the Depression and anti-war sentiment could not entirely negate the overconfident zeal and worship that the French people had for the poliu - the common layman - and towering legends of war and politics, ala Petain and Foch. \n\nSo, perhaps, that explains a little bit of how the French thought they could come toe-to-toe with the German menace. But, either way, let us continue. \n\nWe all know and love Game of Thrones, right? Well, think of the Maginot Line as the 'Wall' from George R.R. Martin's books. Paris would keep the Germans out. The bristling guns, wire and concrete fortresses which ringed the eastern borders - spitting images of the fortifications which, in a fit of Darwinian architecture, emerged from the First World War. The question was poised itself was a simple answer to your question; not how would France invade Germany (and, by 1933, a Nazi invasion!) - but how could Germany possibly invade France?\n\nThe **Plan and the People**; So now you know why the eastern provinces were seen as untouchable. But, now we enter the second part of the question you pose: how were Belgium and the Netherlands not considered?\n\nHere's why; they *were* considered. Very, very strongly. The First World War again tints the perception of everything in this Interbellum period. And now, it is the strategy. Haunting images of Prussian troops marching triumphantly through the cobbled roads of Antwerp spurred the Allies (i.e. British Commonwealth and France) to think of Belgium and *Belgium alone*. For, when the Germans did eventually decide to invade, and when they again re-enacted Plan Schlieffen- well, this time the Allies had their own counter-point. General Gamelin, who was the chief commander of Allied forces, would bring a combined French/BEF offensive into Belgium, where they could meet the spearhead of the German assault. There, as in the first war, they would battle them to a ground in the fields of east Belgium. To sum up twenty years of tactical posturing and arguing between London and Paris: the French wanted a repeat of the Marne - the French wanted the war fought in Belgium - the French wanted to fight defensively. \n\nSo - and I am not looking at the Netherlands yet as they are not quite relevent to us just yet - certain facets of the German high command decided to take a riskier road. Predicting a swift Allied jump into Belgium in anticipation of Plan Schlieffen, they decided to strike through the Ardennes. The Ardennes - a thick, overwhelming blanket of dense forest spreading throughout southern Belgium and eastern France - was, and is, as they say, impassable. It was the Alps of the forests. The barbed wire of Mother Earth. Gamelin and Paris did not fathom that, in 1940 when Berlin finally acted, panzers would whittle their way around the flanks of the magnificent Maginot Line and hopeful Belgian offensive, through this natural impasse. \n\nSo, to sum up this massive, horrendous mistake: the Germans hit the Allied behemoth in the one critically weak spot. And, with sincere luck for the Nazis, managed to bring down the French defence. \n\nIt is all so reminiscient of 1914 and 1870, and this time it worked. The Netherlands - spared the grim outcome of the first war - was simply caught up in the hurricane of Adolf Hitler's egomaniac slice through Europe. The broad sweep of Nazi hosts required room, and due to this Rotterdam and the like played host to the charge of German panzers.\n\n_ _ _ _\n\nSo, to answer your question; they did so, because this was not so obvious in 1939. By all means, it appeared that France had a solid chance. The ghosts of the last war gave inspiring confidence to the sons and daughters of the next. \n\nThere's a lot of interesting ways to explore in this legendary debacle. The relationship between London and Paris. The ethos of the French army and its defensive mindset. The faltering, aged reluctance of an out-of-touch French leadership. \n\nBut we can ground all of this debate down to a few simple things:\n* The French thought they could outbloody and outfight the Germans in Belgium and eastern France. \n* They had an beloved army which matched Germany, and they had the forts to stop them. A big, long line of impenetrable forts, actually. \n* And, finally - they were stopped at the Marne in 1914. Now they would be stopped at Antwerp in 1939. \n\nThis was much longer then expected. You can just use this bullet points if you want a pure 'ELI5'. But I think all the rest should explain it sufficiently enough. :) I'd encourage any further questions or doubts as to my points here! \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3imeul | how are football statistics calculated? especially possession, and distance travelled by each player. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3imeul/eli5_how_are_football_statistics_calculated/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuhrl21",
"cuhs7i1"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Every play is documented and entered in to a database, with information on the type of play, players involved, results, and time.\n\nAlso not, it is not the distances the players travel, it is how far the ball was advanced. If the ball started on the 20 yard line, and the players is tackled on the 32 yard line, that 12 yards, regardless of how long the player actually traveled.",
"Ahem.\n\nOP *might* have been talking about the other football game. Y'know, the one that almost every other country plays...\n\nEx-Dortmund coach Juergen Klopp was one of the first in Germany to use sensors in the players' shoe to measure speed and distance covered as well as which parts of the field a particular player was active in. Now virtually all pro teams use it. These stats are frequently cited and published in any number of sports media sites.\n\nPossession time? No idea unless some poor mope in the pressbox is punching some sort of stopwatch every time the ball changes possession.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2n9c24 | on a political level, what is the difference between an american state (or other federal system) and a constituent country in the u.k.? | I know this may be a bit more like a ELI10! I see considerable leeway in self-control, with locally devolved parliaments in N.I., Wales and Scotland. The idea of multiple units (state/country/nation) coming together to form one unit that is sovereign, but with many local matters handled by the individual "units" seems to be common between them. As an aside, does the use of England's parliament as the National Legislative body create friction (with no way to make English laws in an assembly with only English representatives)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n9c24/eli5_on_a_political_level_what_is_the_difference/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmbj88y",
"cmbja1l",
"cmbjen5",
"cmbjpql",
"cmbs1nx"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
10,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"As I understand it the main difference politically is that states in US have more control over their own laws as long as it doesn't affect a right of the constitution or federal law everything else is fair play whereas with the current system in place in the UK devolved parliaments only have control over certain sections of law for instance in Scotland it is Health care, Education and Creative industries i think there are a few more. National laws are made and discussed in West minister which makes the decisions for all the member nations.\nThis system has its advantages and disadvantages for instance it means that member states have to stay competitive which is good because we are all working within same remit on employment law meaning no unfair competition arises. However one area where this breaks down is in Scotland which has significantly different laws with regards to copyright, ownership laws which leads to forum selection meaning if someone if suing for intellectual property theft for example as long as the company is registered in Scotland then they can choose to take the matter to a Scottish court rather than English one as Scotland has significantly more protection in place for the person who initially owns the IP. \n\nIn contract to this if we look at 'Murica then the legalisation of cannabis is the most relevant example wherein some states have chosen to legalise it and some retain prohibition on all drugs. This could not happen in the UK as this is not a devolved power to each member state and requires a vote in Westminster and also house of Lords before anything an be changed with regards to this.\n\nTLDR: While states in USA can have vastly differing laws regarding most things in UK each memebr state only has powers over select devolved powers which are decided by Westminster ",
"I can't help with your American comparison, but I can offer insight on parliament. It was never really acknowledged as being a big problem until the recent Scottish referendum; people suddenly realised that even if Scotland didn't get independence, it's pretty much impossible to get laws passed to benefit England. The Welsh, Scottish (and I think Northern Irish) have separate 'governments' (I don't think that would be the right term, I'm not sure what it should be) have the power to pass laws that directly affect their citizens- which is why university is cheaper for those residents, and also why prescriptions are free, etc. If a law to do the same for England was to be passed, it could be blocked in parliament, whereas the Scottish/Welsh/NIrish assemblies could pass the law without English government being able to stop it. \n\nLike I said, it's only really recently that this has been made into a huge issue, and it seems to have died away since; much of it was down to patriotic sentiment and fear for the future. If England were to receive its own parliament, there are then issues as to where it would be based, as we have a larger population that covers a bigger land mass. It woukd be almost guaranteed that an English parliament would be based in London. There was talk about devolving certain areas of the country (like Cornwall and Northumberland) that are so far away from London that it seems any decisions would be out of touch with the people's needs. Devolution would mean they would have their own powers to pass laws, but would mean the country just ends up being sliced up, and make things difficult in the long run. \n\n\nThe matter of an English parliament is so complicated that once you get going, it's hard to know where to stop. It's incredibly unlikely to happen anyway (unfortunately). \n\nShould add that I'm pretty much a layman, don't have a particular connection to politics, i've just picked it up from the media ",
"In a Federal system such as the USA all States are equal. They may send different numbers of representatives to the federal government (because they have different sizes of population) but in terms of their jurisdiction they're the same. By which I mean the State of California (for example) has exactly the same law-making powers as the State of Maryland, or South Dakota, or Texas, or ...\n\nIn the UK, each consituent country has different levels of autonomy.\n\nScotland has the most power, having its own Parliament which has control over large sections of Scots' lives, including education, health, and many general economic issues. In addition the Scottish Parliament has some powers to levy a Scotland-only income tax (over and above whatever national income tax is levied by the UK government).\n\nWales and Northern Ireland don't have a Parliament, they each have an Assembly. This serves much the same purpose but has fewer powers, in particular neither the Welsh nor Northern Irish Assemblies have the power to levy an income tax. They are funded instead by a combination of central government grants and a portion of each resident's local council tax.\n\nEngland has no representative body at all. There is no English Parliament or English Assembly, although there is growing pressure on the national government to pass the necessary laws to create one.",
"One big difference is where sovereignty comes from. The USA is a union of states which each have a degree of sovereignty. There are certain matters that the US federal government cannot legislate for because the states have a constitutional right to legislate in those areas for themselves. In theory the states have pooled aspects of their sovereignty into the federal government in a binding and perpetual agreement.\n\nThe same is not true of the UK. The UK government reserves the legal right to make pretty much any law they like across the entire UK. They have \"delegated\" the responsibility over various matters to the devolved parliaments/assemblies, but there is no constitutional guarantee that they won't overrule them. And the constituent countries of the UK have no constitutional guarantee to self government at all (perhaps NI is a bit of an exception here, due to the agreements the UK has made with Ireland). And of course England doesn't have its own government.",
"Individual US states have far more autonomy and devolved power than any of the UK's countries legislatives do.\n\nThe UK is far more centralised. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1aful5 | how will nanobots perform medical procedures in our bodies | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aful5/eli5_how_will_nanobots_perform_medical_procedures/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8x40x7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This question seems... I don't know the word... self-explanatory? Definition-y?\n\nNanobots are just bots on the nanoscale. They don't really exist yet, but if you had robots the size of ten atoms, why wouldn't you use them to perform medical procedures in our bodies?\n\nIt's like, how will teleportation affect transportation?\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
43vfne | what happens to a presidential candidates delgates if they drop out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43vfne/eli5_what_happens_to_a_presidential_candidates/ | {
"a_id": [
"czl97uf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The requirements for what the delegates already have to do are different in each state, as are their requirements if a candidate drops out, so it's a question with 50 different answers.\n\nHowever, in many cases, a candidate dropping out will release his delegates as a sign of good will towards the party, and they are then free to vote for whomever they want. The tradition has been that they vote for the presumptive nominee to help unite the party, but the fact is that there's really no requirement for them to do so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
wgcv5 | how jesus being martyred has anything to do with "our sins" | So this is as i understand it it's all about original sin: God creates existence, creates some humans and let's them romp around a nice garden but tells them not to eat from "the tree". to literally nobody's surprise they eat from the tree. God is angry and being an old testament god dams humanity in perpetuity, taking from adam an eve some essence of gods approval and tainting humanity with "Original Sin"
.
OK so we have some initial taint which depending on where you're coming from is cause enough for damnation in of itself or simply a tendency towards sin.
.
fast forward some years and god (arbitrarily?) allows Mary to be born without this sin (immaculate conception). dunnow how that was achieved or why, maybe he was planning ahead and needed a clean vessel for the birth of his son. at any rate she got a "get out of ancestral sins free"card.
.
later J-Bomb is born, as God's son incarnate. now presumably he is completely human (though able to perform miracles?) and physically representative of the perfection that Adam and Eve lost (2nd Adam in a sense)
he goes bout his time preachin the good stuff and generally being all Jesus . the local government says "fuck that new age religious noise" and has him executed.
and... now i'm lost. why did his execution pay for anything? in what way did that make up for our original sin? i mean if i was God and I bothered to send a messenger, my "Son" no less and some people fuckin' killed him i wouldn't be all "that's great now i forgive you " I'd be more & #3232;\_ & #3232;
at any rate i'm looking for some clarification. Also please include which angle you are explain from (catholic Presbyterian LDS ,whatever) since i'm sure there will be differences. thanks in advance
**EDIT:** ok got the click and figured out the piece I was missing, i can see the thread where it all comes from now.
** for least one PoV:** Perfect human + suicide by cop = sacrificial payment of self for a bargain to make God (or himself) forgive us.
also for the books i'm agnostic and just genuinely interested in how others see these things. i can't fully discount that there is a god (impossible to prove) but i can disagree with how he runs the show.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wgcv5/eli5_how_jesus_being_martyred_has_anything_to_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5d2qnp",
"c5d36o6",
"c5d397v",
"c5d3d2l",
"c5d3hwi",
"c5d3nms",
"c5d3pzi",
"c5d3vjj",
"c5d46ie",
"c5d4nl1",
"c5d5ajr",
"c5d5lty",
"c5d5r6y",
"c5d6e9x",
"c5d6t7l",
"c5d6vbk",
"c5d9qdy",
"c5dcs5s",
"c5dezfe"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
25,
5,
5,
10,
37,
4,
3,
3,
2,
5,
6,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Okay, know how Gods are totally in to sacrifices? Animal sacrifices and in some more extreme (and usually called Barbaric) cases, human sacrifice? Know how lots of religions have a big sacrifice not just as a celebration, but often to make up for a perceived wrong? That the worshipers have somehow gone against their deity's wishes and now need to make up for it?\n\nThat's what this was. Except, as J-Dawg was not just the direct descendant of God, he was God kinda in a eastern Avatar sense.\n\nSo, in short, God sacrificed himself to himself as an apology for the whole Original Sin thing. The entire trip down to Earth was to spread some knowledge then get up on the ol' choppin' block because God sure does love a spectacle.\n\nNote:I am coming from the viewpoint both of J-Dizzle knowing full well what was going to go down and for probably telling Judas to go sell him out because - and I'm making up his words here - \"Someone has to, might as well be you since you're not a complete fuckup like Simon and James.\" I was raised in the Disciples of Christ but have been atheist since I was.. I dunno, 12?",
"I'll give it a shot, I was raised nondenominational, which means we weren't catholic, Lutheran, etc, but rather just plain ol Christian. So in the bible, Jesus doesn't really perform miracles, but rather is a channel for God. Hypothetically anyone could perform these, but it takes a lot of faith. Think of Neo breaking the Matrix. Not everyone has that level of faith, so not everyone can preform miracles. Then, the whole killing Jesus thing. So back then, every now and then, they would let a prisoner go free. Jesus had been upsetting a lot of people, because his teaching was essentially \"don't be a dick, instead treat others nice.\" Not a lot of people thought that way (still don't for that matter.) And so they needed to silence him. So they brought him as a criminal before Pilate, and pilate asked who they wanted to release: the man who raped and murdered, or J-Dawg. Crowd was all like \"Psh, we know this dude rapes and murders, but this Jesus guy seems like he should be killed.\" So Pilate washed his hands, basically saying the situation was out of his control, and let the killer go. Continued lower...",
" > fast forward some years and god (arbitrarily?) allows Mary to be born without this sin (immaculate conception)\n\nThis is Catholic dogma, it's not really in the Bible.\n\n",
"As far as I get it:\n\nWe have sinned and are no longer holy. Punishment for sin is eternal death. For full atonement we need to sacrifice perfect, pure thing. Rabbits won't do it and people are riddled with sin, so our death won't pay for sins. God is graceful though, and gives us his son (who is God, but human) so he can be sacrificed in our place.",
"Born and raised Catholic. Jesus' life on Earth was meant to end in death. Jesus is both man and God, and when he died on the cross, he completed the connection between humanity and eternity (in heaven). Before Jesus' death, all souls were damned hence why he \"descended into hell\" to release the good souls. Then, he \"rose again\" (Easter) and finished by being \"seated at the right hand of the father.\"\n\nIf you watched Mel Gibson's \"The Passion,\" Jesus is quoted for saying, \"Why have you forsaken me (God)?\" That brings humanity in. Since Jesus knew he was going to die, he wouldn't have to say that, but he does. That statement shows that humans are equals with God and shares our contempt most have with the idea of God.\n\nedit: I only used Mel Gibson because he illustrated the idea that has already been around. He didn't make that up.",
"here is my take on it, coming from a protestant background.\n\nAdam sinned, and when he did this he not only made himself imperfect but all of humanity forever too. Therefor no one is up to God's high standards and no one is going to heaven. Seems pretty unfair right?\n\nBut there is Jesus. Because he is both 100% god and 100% man (no one really gets it but its what the bible says, got to be taken on faith) he does not fall under the rules of adam's screw up - he is born without original sin. In addition, he never sinned during his life - he is the only sinless person in the history of the world and the only one to meet God's approval. \n\nSo what does all that mean for us? The same unfairness that caused Adam to screw humanity over for his mistake lets Jesus give everyone a way out for his perfection. This is why Jesus chose to die. He basically made a deal with God saying \"punish me for everything bad everybody has and will do\" God's justice is now satisfied because all the sins have been punished.\n\nThis was actually God's plan the whole time. Now anyone can get into heaven by simply acknowledging that Jesus took the punishment for their sins, instead of before where one would have to live a perfect life - an impossible task\n\nhope that helps, I know some stuff can be really confusing (the whole God/man thing) but imho it is set up to be that way\n\n ",
"I can give you a very basic LDS explanation.\n\nFirst, we don't believe in original sin. Adam and Eve did sin when they ate from the tree. By doing that, they left the garden and were given true freedom and control over their own lives. With that freedom and control, people sin on their own. Nobody gets punished for what Adam and Eve did.\n\nSecond, Mary wasn't sinless (again, from the LDS perspective). She was an incredibly incredibly wonderful person, but she sinned just like everybody else does.\n\nThird, Jesus was born sinless. (No original sin to be punished for.) And he lived his whole life sinless. And he was actually part human and part divine. (Human mother and God father.) That's how he performed miracles. But because he was part human, he could have sinned if he had chosen to.\n\nSo, why the crucifixion and all that jazz? He went through a ton of pain and suffering, not just the crucifixion but much more than that. A lot of mental anguish, temptation, bad bad stuff that we couldn't comprehend. He knew his friends were gonna betray him, he knew so many people hated him, and he knew all the pain that the world was going to go through because of everyone's sins.\n\nWhen we die, we'll be punished for our sins, right? But when Jesus went through all that awful torture, he took on all that punishment. Every single thing. No human could have done it, he could because he was part God. He said, \"Forgive these people, for they know not what they do.\" That was his goal - to have people forgiven for their sins so that after death, they wouldn't suffer. Because of what Christ did, you won't be punished for punching that kid that one time, or calling your sister mean names. Christ let himself be punished in your place.\n\nBUT, there's something we have to do, too. We have to accept Christ's atonement. We accept that we're imperfect, and we try to do what Christ taught because we recognize his sacrifice and want to be good. According to most belief, people have to do that while they're alive. According to Mormon belief, you have a chance after you die, too.\n\nSorry, I talk a lot.\n\nTL;DR: Christ took on the punishment for the sins of every single person on earth. Because of it, we won't be punished if we try to be good and follow His gospel.",
"I know you've gotten a few responses already, but I've seen your follow up questions so I'll try to highlight those:\nAfter Adam and Eve sin, God demands that they start offering both grain and animal sacrifices to him. Basically, your sin gets transferred to the thing you are sacrificing and then you burn it away. Then you sin again and have to do it all over again. Only Catholics believe that Mary was born of a virgin and was a virgin herself. Protestants believe she was born normal but that she was a virgin when she had Jesus. Also, Protests don't believe you're born with sin and thus don't baptize babies like Catholics do. So Jesus is part God and part human. He preached that the religious leaders of the time were self righteous and so caught up in the letter of the law that they forgot what the law really meant. They were instructed to give 10% back to God so they counted every leaf of a plant and picked off every 10th leaf instead of giving because they loved God ect. They got really pissy about Jesus saying these things and they asked they basically bribed the Romans to arrest him. Now, back in the Old Testament, God had promised one day he would send a Messiah. The Pharisees believed that Messiah would come in the form of a king to rule over a Jewish nation (They didn't own their own country back then.) But Jesus' peeps claimed he was the Messiah sent to take away original sin. So basically Jesus is now the sacrifice but since he is part God, he's capable of taking on not only your current sin like an animal sacrifice, but all sin that will ever be committed. The Pharisees don't realize that role that they are playing in \"sacrificing\" Jesus, but that's okay because he took on all sin forever, so all you have to do is recognize and accept him as your sacrifice according to the church. The goodwill toward God part comes in that you're supposed to live a good life of helping others and going to church in exchange for that. Hope that answered some of your followup questions. (BTW- I grew up being taught all this and going to church 3x a week, but I'm an atheist now.)",
"LDS Here.\n\nFirst off, one important note: we don't believe in Original Sin. We don't believe in a God that would punish a child who only lived for a few minutes, simply because they weren't sprinkled with water. Adam and Eve were punished for their transgression, but that doesn't mean we are. \n\nWe believe that in order to be unclean (\"tainted\"), you have to actually commit sin. And committing sin requires Agency, or the ability to choose. Agency requires that you have the mental capacity to understand wrong and right, that you have the physical ability to make a choice, and that you suffer (or enjoy) the consequences of your actions. So naturally, a one-year-old cannot sin. This is why we baptize at age 8; that is what we consider the Age of Accountability (the age you actually have Agency). Any infants who die before the age of 8 go straight to heaven, because God loves children and they don't have the capacity for sin.\n\n...\n\nAbout Mary: Mary was far from an arbitrary choice. I don't believe God chose some random women off the streets to bear his son. I believe that she was the most righteous/pure/humble of all women that have and will be on earth, and God arranged for her to be born then and there. I'm a little hazy on how exactly the conception worked, but that's not important. What's important is the outcome.\n\n...\n\nChrist is born. We do not believe that he was human. We believe that he was the [\"begotten\"](_URL_0_) son of God, meaning that he was half mortal (from Mary) and half divine (from God). This is what allowed him to be the only person on earth to have agency and yet live a perfect life. He was still subject to the pains and hungers and frailties of mortality, and still able to die, but his divine nature allowed him to rise above them. This is how he was able to fast in the wilderness for so long, and do all the other things he did.\n\n...\n\nOkay, so there's your backstory. Now, about the Atonement. The Atonement actually had two parts. The first is pretty simple to explain. As I stated earlier, we believe that Christ was half divine. This means that when he hung on the cross and died, he could have ended his own pain, kept himself alive, and even easily left the cross. His death was a willing act of self-sacrifice, and it was that powerful act of sacrifice that broke the bands of death. Because a pure being, with no fault, who was both mortal and divine, chose to die, we can live again after death.\n\nSecond part has to do with the whole sin thing, and is more complicated. First, a helpful internet-themed analogy:\n\nYou're Herp, a proud father. Your son Derp is the pride and joy of your life. One day, Derp throws a baseball through your neighbor's window. Derp is a child, and he can't pay for the window. He comes to you crying. The neighbor is demanding his due, and because his claim is just you cannot deny him. So what you do is this: you take your child's debt upon you. You make Derp apologize to the neighbor, and promise to be more careful. Then you reach into your wallet, pull out the cash, and pay the neighbor. The neighbor has no claim on either of you, because all debts owed to him have been payed. Derp still has a debt to you, but because you are loving and merciful, and because Derp realizes their wrong and regrets it, you forgive that debt.\n\nSo, in that analogy, Herp is Christ. You (or any sinner) are Derp. Beaking the window is a sin of any kind. The Neighbor is Justice. God is Just, so someone has to pay for the sins. Otherwise he would be condoning sin, and God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. If Christ were not to pay for it, you would.\n\nWhen we commit a sin, Justice has a claim on our souls. We are no longer clean. Because we are no longer clean, we cannot purge this sin from ourselves. However, Christ is loving and omnipotent, so he is able to take that burden of sin off of our backs, and take it upon himself. He won't do this willy-nilly. This is why we have repentance. You have to realize your sin, feel true sorrow, confess it, make restitution, and forsake it. Then, with a contrite heart and a broken spirit, you go to Christ and he takes the sin from you. Because he is perfect, he is able to pay the debt in your place, and here is how:\n\nBefore Christ was hung on the cross, he went to a garden called Gethsemane and prayed. While in that garden, he suffered for everything. Every sin, every misdeed, every mistake, every sorrow for every person that ever had lived or ever would live on the Earth. He felt an immeasurable amount of suffering in that time, and by doing so he paid for every sin. This means that if you have sinned, Christ has already paid the price for it. He's willing to take your debt upon himself and purify you, and all you need to do is repent and ask.\n\n...\n\nHope that helps. I'd love to answer more questions, if you have them.\n\nEDIT: \"You is Derp\".... derp.",
"Christian here.\n\nThe short answer is: we don't know the exact details. The Bible gives us various scriptures to which we can form theories. This subject is extremely speculative and extremely theological so it's mostly discussed in seminaries and schools for higher learning. \n\nThere are about 10 theories (or models) that have developed throughout church history, all with various strengths and weaknesses. Many of them are closely related or variations of one another. I'll list the main 2:\n\n1. **Ransom theory of atonement** and it's Variation: **Christus Victor**\n\nSays that Adam and Eve's sin \"sold\" humanity over to the Devil so Jesus came to pay the price or \"ransom\". In other words, Jesus swapped his life for ours. It's mainly based on Mark 10;45 which says that Jesus came to give his life as a \"ransom for many\". \n\nThis was not a popular theory because it seems odd that Satan, who was a rebel from God, could somehow have a legitimate and just claim over anything, much less humans. \n\nIn the variation of the above theory it says that instead of paying some kind of ransom, Jesus is seen as defeating Satan who holds the world/humanity as its slave. Hebrews 2:14-15 says that through death, Jesus destroyed Satan (who had the power over death) and delivered those who were life-long slaves to sin. \n\nThis was the dominant theory by some of the church fathers for ~1000 years many years. Recently people have revived this theory, specifically those who think everyone gets to go to heaven. The main problem with this theory is that it downplays things like guilt, sin, and personal responsibility. If Jesus set me free from slavery, why do I have to accept it? \n\n2. **Satisfaction theory of atonement** --Variation -- **Penal Substitution**\n\nBy willfully disobeying God, humanity incurred a debt to God's honor or his justice. Since only God can make the necessary repayment, he came to earth as Jesus to fulfill both of these conditions. Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of humanity allowed him to take sin's debt and take God's wrath. \n\nCritics of this view point out that punishing the innocent (Jesus) and letting the guilty to go free (humanity/world) seems very unjust. Additionally, Jesus paying our debt seems to encourage people to \"sin without consequences\". \n\nHope this helps at least a little. \n\nEdit: Forgot a word. \n\nEdit: I'm a Protestant and have studied Systematic Theology and Church History. \n\n\n\n ",
"Well, you did write this with a lot of sarcasm and anti-religious sentiment, and that is your right to do, but I will give a biblical answer to those who want to know. Because of Adam and Eve's sin, man now is born with a sin nature. \n\nSince God is perfect, he cannot fellowship with those who are sinners, but he longs to have fellowship with Man. In the Old Testament men used animal sacrifices, which covered the sin but did not take it away, allowing for fellowship with God.\n\nBecause of Sin, man now is cursed with death, because God is Holy, and sin cannot go unpunished. God still wants to fellowship with man, but the only way to do this is for there to be someone who deserves heaven and fellowship with God to take the punishment of man instead. God's only son, Jesus Christ, takes the form of a man, and takes the penalty of sin upon himself, and being perfect is able to die for our sins. (BTW. the immaculate conception of Mary is untrue, a Catholic unscriptural doctrine.)\nNow everyone in the world can go to heaven, since Christ paid for their sin, all they need to do is accept the penalty that Christ already paid for them as sufficient, repent fo their sins, and take Him as their Savior.\n\nGod is Holy, that is why he must punish sin. No matter how evil man is, God still always desires to have them close to Him.",
"How I don't get downvoted for [this.](_URL_0_)\n",
"This is an awfully loaded question.",
"Muslim here, but was raised a Christian and converted later. You seem to want the Christian explanation, so that's what I'm here for.\n\nWhen I was a Christian I was always taught that due to the 'original sin' a sacrifice was needed for God to forgive your sins, and the sacrifice had to be from a pure young lamb or goat or something along those lines. (After getting a little older, I figured this was from the bible verse Hebrews 9:22, that basically says \"Without blood shed there is no forgiveness\" )\n\nSo then I figured God grew tired of sheep sacrifices, and wanted people to just be able to ask for forgiveness. So he needed a final sacrifice that would make up for all the sheep sacrifices of the future. So he picked Mary as the woman to place his \"child\" in and he made himself a human and was born of her. God being divine - was the perfect human and therefore could be the pure sacrifice.\n\nDoes that make sense?",
"People like to make stuff up. Its bad when it gets out of hand.",
"Of the things that need ELI5'ing about religion, this is pretty far down the list...",
"ha...you said taint",
"You know how you can so love your sister that you hit yourself in the face with a brick for her parking tickets? \n\nIt's just like that. \n\nSimple.",
"The whole master plan can be summed up [with this](_URL_0_) image."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/3.16?lang=eng#15"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/mRZOa.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://memearchive.net/memerial.net/1849/going-to-create-man-and-woman.jpg"
]
] | |
3xi4u9 | pilot talk! all i hear is jargon and more jargon. what are the communicating with the tower during take off? during landing? mid flight? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xi4u9/eli5_pilot_talk_all_i_hear_is_jargon_and_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy4sxki"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"On the ground, air traffic control will give us permission to taxi once our route is clear, and tell us what route to taxi along. They will also issue an \"airways clearance\" - instructions about which route to follow after take-off.\n\nOnce we're ready to go, they will clear us for take-off. Before they do that, they must check with the radar controller that the route is clear, as well as checking themselves that the runway is clear.\n\nOnce airborne, we can just follow our planned route - but usually air traffic control will offer us shortcuts, or steer us around traffic. They will also tell us to climb to our planned level once there's no traffic in our way.\n\nAnd then at the destination they will clear us to fly the approach, and when the runway is clear, they will clear us to land.\n\nMost of this is very routine. They will have set patterns their traffic follows, and they issue the same commands over and over again, always checking first that the same bits of airspace are clear of other traffic. Occasionally they will have to think on their feet, whether that's because of bad weather affecting the routes we fly, or an aircraft experiencing an emergency, or an aircraft doing something unusual. (I'm usually in the aircraft doing something unusual, flying much slower than jets, along training routes, because I'm a flying instructor!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5izdnk | what do asians, especially the chinese, mean when a particular food is 'heaty'? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5izdnk/eli5_what_do_asians_especially_the_chinese_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbc4u6b",
"dbc4v9g"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"they mean that in more of a Chinese medicine way. Like during an acupuncture assessment they will look at your tongue and say you have too much heat. It's kind of a spiritual thing and also just kind of their version of medicine. Heat is cause by a stagnation in Chi. ",
"Heaty (yin) and cooling (yang) foods relate to Ancient Chinese Medicine. \n\nQualifiers for \"heaty\" foods are; hardness, spiciness, dryness, sweetness, fattiness, saltiness, and \"things grown under hot conditions\". \n\n Heaty foods are not unhealthy in themselves. Black pepper is a wonderful ingredient that has many health benefits associated with it, but it's still \"heaty\" because it is spicy. However, if you take a look at the qualifiers again, anything high in fat (deep fried foods) or excessively sweet (loaded with calories!) can make a person fat or sick very easily.\n\nCooling qualifiers are: Softness, wetness, leanness, and available year round. Stuff like potatoes, rice, fish, and the like.\n\nThese supposedly \"counteract\" the heaty foods by offering your body and your diet balance, which is a good thing of course. A balanced diet will likely comprise food from all three groups (heaty, neutral, and cooling), and we all know that a balanced diet is important for overall health and wellness.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1ieisp | what is the difference between eau de cologne, eau de toilette and eau de parfum? | I always treated perfume as perfume. Never really understood the difference between cologne water, toilet water and perfume water. Do they differ in intensity? Do they differ in longevity? Are they tailored for specific purposes or places?
Thanks in advance for your answers :) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ieisp/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_eau_de/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb3nvlq",
"cb3nvrt"
],
"score": [
4,
22
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nI can't help you with a ELI5 answer, but who knows you understand the above",
"Eau de cologne is 2-6% aromatics, toilette is 5-15%, parfum is 10-20%."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://beauty.about.com/od/fragranceperfumes/a/difference-between-perfumes.htm"
],
[]
] | |
9cjt3y | why is it that we’re able to determine the origin of a sound in all directions despite only having two ears at left and right of our heads? | And similarly, do people with one damaged ear still differentiate between sounds coming from left/right, or is that ability lost? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9cjt3y/eli5_why_is_it_that_were_able_to_determine_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5b7arr",
"e5b7kko",
"e5b990c",
"e5bc55d",
"e5beagf",
"e5bk204"
],
"score": [
8,
20,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have two friends with partial, but not what they’d call severe, hearing loss. They’ve both said that once they were fitted with hearing aids (BTW it’s amazing how small and concealed those are these days) the strangest thing to get used to was identifying where some sounds (that they wouldn’t have previously heard) are coming from.",
"The fact that we have two ears gives us the ability to determine left and right, based on the time differences between when each ear receives the sound.\n\nThe fact that our ears are on the sides of our heads, *and* are shaped differently front versus rear, changes the \"shape\" of the sound wave our ears receive enough so that our brains can determine whether the source of the sound is in front of us or behind us.\n\nDetermining above and below works on the same principle as ahead and behind.",
"You determin the location the sound is coming from by having an ear on each side of you head (gives you information that the sound comes from the left or the right) and the shape of your ear (for up and down in space). The determination of up and down is learned when you grow up (sound waves bouncing off you ear into your earcanal corresponding to a specific hight) and you can actually lose this ability an relearn it, if you suffer damage to your auricle.",
"I would attempt to explain, but seriously I don't think anyone could ELI5 better than [this video](_URL_0_) from smarter every day.",
"Watch this video from smarter everyday: _URL_0_\n\nWhile he doesn’t touch on the hard of hearing part, he answers your question perfectly.",
"“...do people with one damaged ear still differentiate between left/right or is that ability lost?”\n\nI had a cochlear implant put in almost 2 months ago, and post-surgery there was a lot of swelling and fluid buildup that made my implanted ear extra useless. I could snap my fingers right next to my ear, and it sounded like it was coming from the opposite side of the room since only my other ear was picking it up. Totally bizarre. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oai7HUqncAA"
],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oai7HUqncAA"
],
[]
] | |
qf2xp | why don't pizza/fast food places make food that looks as good as their commercials? | Seriously, I'd buy a lot more pizza hut if their pizza actually came out looking that good. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qf2xp/eli5_why_dont_pizzafast_food_places_make_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3x3m4g",
"c3x4227"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"They mass produce and standardize their product. A Pizza Hut pizza or Taco Bell taco should look and taste the same no matter where in the world you get it. Speed and price usually mean a loss of quality. \nMarketing goes and makes it worse by hiring food artists for the commercials. What you see in the commercial is usually not cooked (at least not recently) and painted with food dyes, water spritzers, and cooking torches. Get a big enough TV and it becomes really obvious that shit is meant to be looked at and not eaten.",
"Because the one in the commercials has cardboard and tooth picks in it.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k"
]
] | |
9y1yq1 | how do supermarkets work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9y1yq1/eli5_how_do_supermarkets_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9xgm0h",
"e9xialo"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Supermarkets themselves decide which products to sell, but product companies can pay for preferential product placement - end caps for example.",
"More like they offer discounts on bulk purchases and rebates for display placements but yeah, what she said"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
cf1dgr | why just landing on the moon is a big deal and how will it benefit us? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cf1dgr/eli5_why_just_landing_on_the_moon_is_a_big_deal/ | {
"a_id": [
"eu6joyv",
"eu6jzsf",
"eu6l4hh",
"eu6tdkp"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So imagine the earth is surrounded by a thick soup (our atmosphere) it takes literal tonnes of fuel just to be able to break through that soup and get into a zone that's soup free (space). The moon has no soup whatsoever. If we could set up a launch pad on the moon the amount of fuel it would take to launch and visit other planets through out the solar system would be exponentially less thus making it far more cost effective.",
"The moon is made out of cheese. what do you want to be when you grow up? A coward afraid of their own shadow? No, and thats why.\nNow shut up and eat your Soylent Green, there are kids starving in North Korea.",
"back in the 60's, it was a big waste of money. but it was deemed worthy because it was a dick waving space race with the commie Soviets. \n\n & #x200B;\n\na good reason for going to moon is using it for either mining (helium 3 is a possibility) or scientific research. ISS already does alot of research in this area. but a continuous resupply mission to the moon will cost 10x more than a ISS resupply. the moon surface is much more harsh than ISS orbiting the Earth. it would make the cost of going to, maintaining, and extracting resources from the moon extremely expensive.",
"Landing on the moon is incredibly complex.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIt's only a scant 280,000 miles from Earth, but in our current ability, that journey still takes a long time, relatively. Thus, the problem becomes of where the moon will be. Not only that, but we don't have the ability to efficiently carry enough fuel to just make a B line to the moon. We have to use the gravity of the Earth(and, closer to it, the moon) to continue to angle us and accelerate us towards the moon, using only small adjustment thrusts. Then, this becomes a game of intersecting apoapsis to reach the moon.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThus, the obvious advantage is landing on the moon proves that such a thing is possible. Now, multiply the distance of the moon by 142 and that's the distance to mars. This will take months of travel."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
4gso0j | is the money in a bank account always represented by an equal amount of physical cash? is there money that is only digital? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gso0j/eli5_is_the_money_in_a_bank_account_always/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2kdyii",
"d2kfos3",
"d2kfv26",
"d2ku149"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"There's not enough money in the bank if even a majority of the people withdraw all their money, but the money they do have is like a community pile, so kind of both?",
"Almost all money is just numbers in a computer. Modern cash also, has no \"gold standard\" any more. Meaning each bill and coin minted is not represented by an equal value of gold in the federal reserve. \n\nInstead, modem money is know as fiat money. Fiat is Latin for faith, so basically, modern money only has value because everyone else and the governments of the world agree that it has value. This is mostly because it's a lot easier to trade money for goods and services rather than going back to a barter system.\n\nTL;DR: No, most money is just numbers in a computer.",
"Almost all money is digital. Think of your paycheck being deposited into your bank account. You charge purchases by card, even Food Stamps are issued as money on a card now, then you pay for the credit card bill by an online payment.\n\nWhen I was younger the Federal regulations on Savings and Loans changed. Mine went public with stock issued. I bought stock in mine. Later they announced they were going bankrupt. I was down at the branch office drawing out my entire deposit in cash. There was a special officer there that day to be sure the money was available. I got my money and left.\n\nA couple of years ago my son asked me for a loan. His bank had a branch two blocks from my bank's branch. That street was right in front of a major hospital and medical school. So I went to my branch and told them I wanted to withdraw ten thousand dollars in cash. I was willing to risk walking it over two blocks to the other bank.\n\nThey told me they did not have that much cash on the premises. One cell phone call told me that a cashier's check would be fine. Instead of cash I walked out with a check for more money than the bank had there based on my signature. It was ironic since I worked at a prison holding bank robbers who never got as much money as I did by check.\n\nNot only is almost all money digital, most of it is not even real. Loans are made for houses every day. Real digital money gets exchanged. But then there is the promise to pay, the mortgage, which is definitely not real money yet. Mortgages can be bundled together and sold. Future money is sold for real money today. The promise of hundreds of people to pay money in the future is sold for real digital money today. It is sold to savvy people who realize some of those promises to pay will not work out. So to make the bundles of mortgages equal there are deals worked out. Big institutions guarantee the loans will be paid. The guarantee is called a credit default. To spread the risk of defaults around there are swaps of these instruments, credit default swaps. \n\nEnter the housing crises of 2008. Home loans are going into default at an unexpected rate. These credit default swaps which represented huge profits for the big institutions because they were guarantees of the pay off of hundreds of bundled mortgages, these credit default swap agreements become huge losses. Huge institutions fail almost overnight. The Federal government steps in when it is realized that these huge institutions are too big to fail. Failure would paralyze financial markets for years. It would be worse than the great depression.\n\nThis was over imaginary money. The credit default swaps were imaginary money, bets that future money would be paid to pay off the home mortgages. AIG, whose core business is insurance, failed. It was reorganized. Its current stock is worth a pittance compared to what its old stock was worth.\n\n",
"Your bank doesn't have the physical cash for everyone who has an account there to withdraw at once. \n\nInstead banks use \"fractional reserves\". \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThey know that not everyone is going to want to withdraw their money at the same time so they'll keep some cash on hand but use the rest to hand out loans and then make more money off the interest. \n\nOf course, sometimes that fails and everyone *does* want their money all at once and that can lead to a bank run and shut down the bank. Nowadays in the USA we have the FDIC to insure consumers against bank failures. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking"
]
] | |
3q799f | why do people talk about the environmental impact of bottled water but not of pop or other drinks | People complain that bottled water is bad for the environment because you are moving water from one area to another, but pop and other drinks are like 95% water but seem to get no attention to this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q799f/eli5why_do_people_talk_about_the_environmental/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwcoyjx",
"cwcp3uj"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"I think the answer is that bottled water is a packaging of a product that you can get for nearly free, by turning on a tap.\n\nOf course, this assumes you have access to a clean and safe water source.",
"Bottled water gets singled out because fir most Americans there is a perfectly good, nearly free, and in many cases higher quality alternative (tap water). That being the case, it is such a symbol of waste that people pay thousands of times as much for the privilege of choosing the more damaging alternative. Soda and beer may use just as many resources, but they deliver an experience that is harder to achieve otherwise. If we all had indoor coke plumbing that cost $.02 per glass, we would probably see an equal backlash against choosing individually bottled coke at $2.00 each. \n\nImagine if it became fashionable to replace windows with uv enabled tv screens... but ones that took tons of electricity and could only mimic the exact weather outdoors at that moment.\n\nNow, if your question was specifically about the Nestle backlash, there is something particularly dickish about moving to a drought area, bottling the water and than selling it back to the people in the drought at a mark up or shipping that water elsewhere. It isn't technically worse than any existing local soda bottling factories. But the timing is worse and it is easy for people to imagine bottled water equates to water than that soda does. \n\nEdit: dollarcents"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4yybm2 | why is vomiting sometimes more "violent" than other times? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yybm2/eli5_why_is_vomiting_sometimes_more_violent_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6re8co",
"d6rghrt",
"d6rgntr",
"d6rgtg2"
],
"score": [
6,
53,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"I think you might find this helpful: _URL_0_\n\nYou can see from there, how vomiting works, and you can imagine that anything which increases the signalling along any of those pathways would increase the severity of your illness. ",
"Sometimes your body knows what's in your stomach is bad and you throw it up and call it a day. \n\nSometimes you body thinks what's in your stomach is bad and throws it up, but that's not the problem. The bad thing is already in your blood or intestines and throwing up doesn't help. Your body can't figure that out, so you keep throwing up every time you have something to throw up (every 20 or so minutes when bile replenished). And just suffer through it with an increasing desire for sweet, sweet death.",
"Basically, according to the above article...there are multiple different pathways that connect to one final pathway, that leads to vomiting. Vomiting is induced at the end of the common pathway, which happens outside of the blood brain barrier. Because it's outside the BBB, it's susceptible to other chemicals that can induce/exacerbate vomiting. So depending on what you ate/drink/are contaminated with, your vomiting can be cute, or horrendous. ",
"\"Throwing up IS an Opera. You can't understand a word anybody is saying and it goes on forever.\" ~ Eddie Izzard"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.news-medical.net/health/Vomiting-Mechanism.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3tuhrc | why is the star of david called the star of david/why is it associated with david? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tuhrc/eli5_why_is_the_star_of_david_called_the_star_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx9coxv"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The Hebrew term actually translates as \"Shield of David\", and is sometimes used metaphorically to refer to G_d. The phrase has appeared in Jewish literature over many centuries. The six pointed star has also appeared in Jewish writings over the centuries, but didn't really become popular as a symbol of Judaism until the 19th century. But it evolved separately from the name.\n\nIt's not at all clear how the star became associated with that name. But the reason why the phrase \"Shield of David\" refers to David is because David is considered the most important military leader in the Jewish Bible. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2of0ah | why did we go from a space shuttle, back to a small capsule that must land in the ocean for the orion mission? | Why are we using a return capsule instead when we have a spaceship? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2of0ah/eli5_why_did_we_go_from_a_space_shuttle_back_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmmifcm",
"cmmiij5",
"cmmiko3",
"cmmkfqc",
"cmmm8lu"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think I understand what your asking. Why are we using a return capsule when we have a space ship. It is because the space ship does not have enough thrust to enter space on its own. We do not have the technology to create an engine that can gain that much thrust without requiring a large quantity of fuel. The space ship has to have enough power to go where it plans, that requires enough fuel, and thus it is a weight/power problem with size.",
"Different mission.\n\nA winged shuttle lets you bring back large objects from space. The Space Shuttle with the large payload bay and Canadarm was excellent for in-orbit assembly and construction and for Space Lab missions.\n\nBut you wouldn't use it to go beyond low Earth Orbit. You'd be wasting fuel accelerating the wings, tail, now-useless main engines, landing gear, etc. And the much larger heat shield would be a problem re-entering the atmosphere at lunar return velocities. This is where you want a capsule.\n",
"The space shuttle was a massive and expensive system and was one of the most expensive ways to get to low earth orbit (where all the satellites are). It was conceived as a largely-reusable system but in practice that just didn't pan out—135 missions over 5 vehicles just wasn't what the space shuttle had hoped to achieve.\n\nIt turns out that a capsule is just a better way of doing things. We tried the \"spaceship\" approach and it sort of worked, but not better than the capsule approach.\n\nWhen you consider that Orion is targeting regions much much farther away than the Space Shuttle ever traveled (by a huge margin) the extra mass of a vehicle able to glide to the ground and land horizontally just gets way too expensive way too fast. ",
"Because it's cheaper. The whole point of the Shuttle was that it could bring large payloads down from orbit. The Air Force was involved in the early stages of its development and pushed the idea that it could be used to snatch Soviet satellites from orbit. The Shuttle was designed with this in mind and the result of it was that the it was really inefficient (=expensive) for pretty much everything else. If you're not planning on bringing 20 tons of cargo back home, there's no reason to use a Shuttle-like vehicle.\n\nTLDR: For the same reason you drive a small family hatchback to do your shopping instead of a semi-trailer truck.",
"The Apollo program was in full swing. Astronauts were going to the Moon in a nearly routine fashion. But the program was incredibly expensive, and had some limitations (like you couldn't really send astronauts and a bunch of cargo on the same ship).\n\nSo they scaled-back the Apollo program and jumpstarted work on the space shuttle. It was supposed to be the ticket to LEO, offering safe and cheap transportation for crews and cargo. It also worked as an in-orbit laboratory and/or repair shop. But it was designed to take advantage of economies of scale. Lots of launches, fast turnarounds, basically cheap and safe and constant.\n\nBut there were issues throughout the entire shuttle program. In 1986 the *Challenger* disaster grounded the fleet for more than a year. Later, *Columbia* did the same thing. There was never a year with more than a half-dozen launches or so, and it was designed instead to go up 20+ times a year.\n\nSo after *Columbia* they basically scrapped it. And now we're going back to the capsule because it's safe and cheap and effective, and we can have other launches to put equipment up for the astronauts to work with."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
48od92 | what happens with planes during earthquakes, especially when they are landing or at least very close to the ground? | Does a plane shake even if it doesn't touch the ground, but just from the air movement maybe? What happens if the plane is already/still on the ground with high speed? Is it dangerous (at all) and how much?
Do pilots just hope it never happens to them? What about countries where earthquakes of 6+ are not uncommon, are they more prepared? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48od92/eli5_what_happens_with_planes_during_earthquakes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0l7k4i"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Look at it like this. When a plane is off the ground, it's a plane. When it's on the ground rolling around, it's essentially a car. \n\nGiven the extremely short duration of earthquakes, and the short amount of time planes spend in transitional flight, or even taxiing, it's like to not come up too often. \n\n When it does though, and a plane is taxiing around it likely bounces a little just like a car. Once airborne, the plane doesn't care about the ground, at least in terms of earthquake energy propagating through air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4oeyog | why are do so many irish names begin with "mc" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4oeyog/eli5_why_are_do_so_many_irish_names_begin_with_mc/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4bzees",
"d4c5gxh"
],
"score": [
35,
4
],
"text": [
"\"Mc\", \"Mac\" or, sometimes, \"M'\", come from the Gaelic word \"mac\" meaning \"son\", or \"mhic\" meaning \"wife\". So \"McCarthy\" is the anglicised version of the Gaelic \"Mac Cárthaigh\", which means \"son of Cárthaigh\". It's similar to the English \"-son\", with \"Johnson\" meaning \"son of John\".\n\nRelated is \"ó\" or \"ua\" meaning \"descendant\", so \"Ó Briain\" is anglicised as \"O'Brien\" and means \"descendant of Briain\".",
"In the British Isles at least, a lot of surnames come from the name of a person's father. So if you had 2 guys named \"John\" in a village, you could distinguish them by the names of their dads. If one John's dad was named Robert, they could call him John Robert's son, or John Robertson. If the other John's dad was named William, then he'd be John Williamson.\n\nIn the Irish Gaelic language, \"Mc\" means \"son\". So in Ireland, John, the son of Robert would be \"John McRobert\", while John, son of William, would be \"John McWilliam\".\n\nThe Scottish Gaelic language was brought to Scotland by Irish migrants in ancient times. So in Scotland you also find lots of people with \"Mac\" in their names, for the same reason as you find \"Mc\" in Ireland."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
8c1mjk | how come i'm seeing mobile game ads on youtube that directly uses ripped footage from a completely different game, and why is it not getting taken off quickly as it should? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8c1mjk/eli5_how_come_im_seeing_mobile_game_ads_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxbciw9",
"dxbd8n6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The company that has their content plagerized/stolen would have to go through the process with youtube/google about getting the ads removed. That's not instant, and likely the original content makers are not aware of which ones are doing this. \n\nAlso, if one is taken down, they'll just slightly change their skin and name and pop right back up.",
"Mostly, it's because the companies in charge of this don't know or care. Businesses nowadays don't control their own content or ads. Websites usually sign up for an external ad service that pipes random ads to them, and even app stores can't really take the time to review every single app or advertisement. People can submit malicious, fraudulent, or plagiarized content to the website and some random machine will automatically approve it. The only way someone finds out about the 'bad' advertisement is if someone complains. Then they walk through the process of examining the content and deciding whether or not they will continue hosting it. \n\nBut this is really just the symptom of a bigger problem: There's just too much stuff on the internet. There is no single person or group \"in charge\" of deciding what does and does not get published. Organizations like Facebook or YouTube have offices dedicated to removing things like pornography or racist material, but even they simply can't keep up with the sheer volume of junk people submit. This means that offensive, malicious, or plagiarized content can linger quite a while before someone notices and does something about it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
3wrnzv | sleep difficulty | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wrnzv/eli5_sleep_difficulty/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxyjd4m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your circadian rhythm (internal clock) is messed up. Humans are instinctually inclined to rest at night and be active during the day. In order to sleep better, you need to start going to bed earlier. Try moving your bedtime 30 minutes earlier each night until you're going to bed at a normal hour. Also, I'm no expert, but I don't think the air mattress is helping either. Any chance you could get a real mattress? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2fiys5 | how do people "die" on life support? | Technically couldn't they be kept alive until the machines stop running? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fiys5/eli5_how_do_people_die_on_life_support/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck9om87",
"ck9pl9p",
"ck9q09a"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Death is determined by a lack of brain function not a beating heart or breathing lungs. ",
"If their organs are failing the machines may not be enough. The machines are there to replace/support various systems in the body, but they can't replace everything.",
"If this is about Joan Rivers, it is my understanding that the Family chose to remove the life support."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8hpxjd | how come steak can be rare but ground beef must be fully cooked | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8hpxjd/eli5_how_come_steak_can_be_rare_but_ground_beef/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyllhyz",
"dylljut",
"dyllpg7",
"dyllwok",
"dylmemd"
],
"score": [
60,
5,
26,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Steak is relatively dense, so bacteria tend to be on the surface, which you will be subjecting to a lot of direct heat. If you grind the meat up, then you potentially allow any present bacteria to spread throughout the material. ",
"The knives that make steaks only touches the \"outside\", the part that gets exposed to the most heat during cooking. Ground beef has knife contact everywhere, including the middle of your patty. Since the knife has germs / bacteria on it, anything that the knife touches must be cooked to a temperature that kills the bad guys. That's the outside of a steak or the middle of a hamburger.",
"When steak is contaminated it's on the surface, so cooking the outside is sufficient to make it safe to eat, with ground beef the cuts of meat are grinded so a possible contamination could be anywhere in the patty and thus it needs to be cooked thoroughly. Also a steak can only come from 1 cow, but in some cases 1lb of hamburger meat can come from hundreds of different cows exponentially increasing chance of contamination.\n\nSource: Im a certified food manager.",
"Ground beef has more surface area (all those little bits) plus, it gets handled a lot more. That means that ground beef has a much greater chance of being contaminated with germs and parasites.\n\nA steak, on the other hand, is a matter of a few slices, and is less exposed to contamination. A steak has less actual surface area and it's a lot harder for the bad things to get down into the middle of your steak.\n\nKeep in mind this is just about opportunity. Germs and parasites are just as happy to eat steak as they are to eat ground beef. You should handle any uncooked meet with care to prevent contamination.",
"During the cutting and wrapping of meat, the meat may come in contact with bacteria that is on the butcher’s knife, counter, hands of the handler or anything that it touches. We can help to prevent this by keeping all surfaces clean and sanitized, but even then it is hard to completely prevent.\n\nWith a steak or a solid piece of meat such as a roast, the bacteria will only be on the outside. They cannot chew their way through a cut of meat so they cannot get inside a roast or steak unless we let them hitchhike on a fork, knife, thermometer or grinder. Cooking or grilling the surface of the meat until well done, will kill the bacteria that may be there. If we are careful, there won’t be any bacteria on the inside and so it is okay to cook the inside to a less than well-done temperature.\n\nWith ground beef, the grinder will spread bacteria from the outside to the inside of the meat. It is especially hazardous because of the many, many surfaces in the ground meat, each of which may carry bacteria. That is why ground beef must be thoroughly cooked all the way through to the centre to a temperature that will kill the bacteria, which is 170°F (77°C). Because patties are too thin to accurately measure them with a thermometer, they should be cooked until the juices run clear. Cut them open to see inside. If they are still pink, they need to be cooked longer.\n\nSource: Google. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
cnl1j4 | what is 4chan, what is 8chan and what is the difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cnl1j4/eli5_what_is_4chan_what_is_8chan_and_what_is_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewbj81o",
"ewbjgq8",
"ewbomyq",
"ewc1fe2",
"ewc3jpb",
"ewc4by8",
"ewc51ad",
"ewcdbfs",
"ewcdrao"
],
"score": [
3,
82,
42,
821,
3,
2,
40,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They two different websites.\n\nBoth are message boards. \n\nThey both make posters anonymous and are notable for their near complete lack of moderation.\n\nThis has, naturally, made them attractive to some pretty shitty people talking about pretty shitty ideas.\n\n8chan was created and used by people who thought 4chan, which, again, has next to no moderation and regularly has people talking about absolutely insane and terrible shit, was too \"authoritarian.\"",
"4chan is 2chan with twice the chan. 8chan is the natural evolution of that.\n\nThey're imageboards where users mostly post anonymously. 2chan is a Japanese discussion board, and 4chan is basically just that for a western userbase. 8chan was created as an alternative to 4chan because some users deemed it too restrictive. As such it hosts the more fringe of the userbase, which was already pretty fringe to begin with.\n\nIt's pretty much just a bunch of yelling about nothing, sorta like Reddit but slightly crazier.",
"I'll try to be as unbiased as I can. I come from those places and spent years there. Here it goes:\n\nOriginally 4chan. 8chan and whatever else are just imageboards. Forums for people to post stuff in, like any other (even reddit). The \"unique\" thing is that opening posts need to have an image, that's all there is. Responses may optionally include images as well. The reason for this I will not go into explaining as it stems from japanese culture (where chans mostly got popularized and western ones probably took from).\n\nNow, from a while now 4chan was the most popular one, as it allows anonymity. This allows for varied discussion and viewpoints to be exposed without any consequence. Things like upvotes and downvotes are non existant as well so there's no way to hide stuff you don't agree with or hivemind behaviors stopping discussion like it happens here with politics subreddits and news subreddits.\n\nAnonymity of course also leads to people having absolutely no brakes, so shooting warnings, live murders and stuff have been indeed posted on the chans, but believe me, it's the most rare stuff to see. I've participated on both 4 and 8 ch for years and I only ever came across one of those posts myself.\n\nLately, 4chan was sold and the new owner wanted to make some changes to bring the site to a more civil state, with extreme stuff getting banned (political boards, news boards and porn boards becoming heavily moderated). This led to 8chan rising in popularity. 8chan is pretty much 4chan but prides itself on being absolutely unmoderated -UNLESS ANYTHING POSTED IS ILLEGAL IN THE US, like childporn-\n\nGuess what? freedom of expression is legal in the US, so that means they can freely speak about genocide and what not. Once again, this is limited to very few posts and even fewer, well recognized boards, but whatever the case, the only stuff that leaks from the chans is the newsworthy stuff so it makes the chans look like a place for pedophiles and murderers. They are not. \n\n\nEdit: Videogame developers, famous personalities, and other important people all participate in the chans anonimously and sometimes even confirming phisically that they do.",
"What you didn't ask: **2channel** (aka _URL_0_) is an anonymous, Japanese, text-only message board launched in 1999. It became hugely popular, though its new owners have renamed it 5channel.\n\nThis inspired **_URL_2_**, which is an anonymous Japanese, text-only message board that eventually supported image posts too. Its population was mainly otaku and other Japanese social recluses that liked talking about manga, action figures and such\n\nThis inspired **4chan**, which is an anonymous *English* language image board, very popular with those who like the same sort of Japanese things the 2chan membership like. It also plenty of boards dedicated to nerdy topics, which didn't have to be anonymous, but the forced-anonymous /b/ board became notorious for doing things \"for the lulz\" like invading other websites, pranking, posting porn and child porn and generally acting like edgy teenagers - see the [Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory](_URL_1_).\n\n4chan does have moderators (janitors), and they try to stop completely illegal things happening on 4chan.\n\nThis inspired **8chan**, which was set up by someone who thought 4chan was too authoritarian and restrictive, and so made another anonymous English language image board with even laxer standards than 4chan. It brought some of the crazier 4chan users over and they can have even more extremist discussion than 4chan allows them to have.",
"They're imageboards, where people can post messages with or without images. It's where reaction imgs/gifs originate from as well as most original memes. The issue with 4chan is that there was so much traffic on the /b board that most messages don't stay long on its 15 pages of threads. The combination of short lived content mixed with user anonymity, made 4chan a hub of trolls, shady stuff, and illegal content. Several other imageboards exist, idk which one came first but since 4chan is the most famous, most people associate it with the Og. The users love to champion these boards as places of free speech so naturally they become a hive of politically incorrect edgelords, pedophiles, and all sorts of stuff.",
"4chan is an imageboard. Kind of like reddit, but OP posts an image in their post. They have different boards (kind of like subreddits). Everyone has the username \"anonymous\". You can go to _URL_0_ to check it out. You should be 18+ years old to check it out. \n\n8chan is similar to 4chan, but it has less users. 8chan is where you go when you are either banned from, or bored of 4chan. 8chan has less rules than 4chan.",
"8chan was actually founded as InfinityChan. Meant to be looser than 4chan, with no restrictions. The infinity symbol became an 8.",
"Important thing no one has mentioned, there is tons of moderation on 8ch. I guess whoever sets up the board first is the moderator of that board. You wouldn't believe the amount of anti racists that have been banned from /pol/ or /b/ on 8ch so it really effectively creates an echo chamber. \n\nIt's pretty scummy.",
"4chan is an anonymous imageboard inspired by the japanese \"2chan\" board. Its key feature is anonymity - you don't have an account, and if you don't go out of your way, you have no way to maintain a stable identity from moment to moment. This is the key draw, and the key thing that separates it from, say, Twitter, or Tumblr - on Twitter, if you try something new and different and everyone hates it, that has a negative impact on you. On 4chan, there's no \"you\" to hate - people may flame you, but they have no idea who you are - for all they know, you are both the person who posted something _and_ the person in the comments saying that what you posted was stupid. \n\nThe effects this has on culture is a matter of much discussion; I feel any talk about 4chan is incomplete without talking about the culture of 4chan, and [this Twitter thread is an excellent primer](_URL_3_), especially in how it talks about how the anonymity of the chan boards can lead to phenomenally toxic culture (such as 4chan's politics board being a cesspit of neo-nazis). Ian Danskin wrote an [excellent video essay](_URL_2_) on the subject, if you have the time. But the anonymized culture of the chan boards is very unique. Not even always in a bad way, mind you. Just... the bad almost always outweighs the good. \n\n4chan has some extremely lax moderation. They allow almost everything, but there are some rules, and breaking those rules will get you banned (for all that that's worth on an anonymous imageboard, given that you don't really have an \"account\"). You can't post child pornography. You (mostly) can't harass and dox people. You can't spam pictures of My Little Pony characters outside of the /mlp/ board. Things like that - the bare minimum of \"do not break the law\" shit. \n\n8chan is for the people who consider those rules too lax. It is no exaggeration to state that the main users of 8chan are neo-nazis, mass murderers, and pedophiles. How bad is this problem? The website went down after the El Paso shooter became the latest neo-nazi terrorist to post their manifesto on the site ([not the first](_URL_0_)). It was deplatformed from Google Search results in 2015 after news first broke of just how much pedophilia was present on the site. Neo-nazis are actively recruiting on 8chan, and the culture there glorifies and encourages terrorist violence. [BellingCat talks about \"the gamification of terror\"](_URL_4_):\n\n > What we see here is evidence of the only real innovation 8chan has brought to global terrorism: the gamification of mass violence. We see this not just in the references to “high scores”, but in the very way the Christchurch shooting was carried out. Brenton Tarrant livestreamed his massacre from a helmet cam in a way that made the shooting look almost exactly like a First Person Shooter video game. This was a conscious choice, as was his decision to pick a sound-track for the spree that would entertain and inspire his viewers.\n\nAll the same social factors that made parts of 4chan horribly toxic are at play here, but the audience is mostly people for whom 4chan was _not toxic enough_. That selection bias leads to a community that is just... impossibly awful. Also, [just going on 8chan as it currently exists could leave you open to federal charges](_URL_1_), so maybe don't."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"2ch.net",
"https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19",
"2chan.net"
],
[],
[
"4chan.org"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/04/business/el-paso-shooting-8chan-biz/index.html",
"https://www.thedailybeast.com/8chan-refugees-worried-theyre-downlo... | ||
d7xwow | what makes hydrogen flammable? | I understand that adding fire to hydrogen causes it to burn, but what actually happens when fire or heat is introduced? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d7xwow/eli5_what_makes_hydrogen_flammable/ | {
"a_id": [
"f15o0t3",
"f15o6m5"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Weak bonds between Hydrogen atoms, means when a little energy is applied, it breaks the bonds quite easily, giving off more energy",
"The hydrogen atom has an odd number of electrons, which makes it \"hungry\" to connect to another atom, notably oxygen. This connection process is called *burning* or *oxidation* and it releases energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
ccmyjr | how do honey combs only have honey instead of having larvae in them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ccmyjr/eli5_how_do_honey_combs_only_have_honey_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"etnz3hr",
"eto0tfb",
"eto31jw",
"etofcs2",
"etojqq1",
"etokmd5",
"etoqwr5"
],
"score": [
624,
49,
243,
62,
21,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Bees have different \"rooms\" for different purposes. They store honey as a food reserve in storage zones and they have one or more zones for breeding larves.",
"They use them for both but the larva brood tend to be in a semi circle in the middle, and they store nectar/honey for the babies in the corners. \n\nIf there’s lots of space, they’ll use entire comb frames for honey only. \n\nHives constantly rearrange their combs depending on whether they want more space for food or babies. \n\nWhen beekeepers extract honey, they leave the frames with larva brood alone.",
"Artificial bee hives have stacks of pre-made comb. The queen lives in one of the bottom stacks and lays eggs there.\n\nThere is a mesh barrier between the lower and upper levels that the queen is too big to fit through, so she can’t lay eggs in them.",
"Bees kept by a beekeeper use a Queen Excluder, a wire mesh with holes small enough that the queen can't pass through but big enough for a worker to pass through so that the Queen stays in her brood box and can't lay eggs in the upper tiers. With no eggs, there's plenty of space for just honey in the upper boxes.",
"Same reason you dont have a bed in your kitchen. They use different areas of the hive for different purposes.",
"I’m a novice beekeeper. So you have two brood boxes (some people do one) these are the bottom boxes. You put a Queen excluder on the top of those two boxes. It’s a metal or plastic screen that is small enough for worker bees to squeeze through but to big for the Queen. You put all your honey boxes on top of that. The workers will store honey in there but the Queen can’t get up so no eggs/larvae.",
"r/beekeeping\n\nIn a hive, bees have different 'rooms/areas' or 'supers'. The bottom supers are typically used by the bees to rear larvae and store food/honey. The upper supers are also used to store honey, but a beekeeper will put a wire mesh between the lower and the upper supers to prevent the queen from entering and laying eggs in the honey that the beekeeper intends to consume."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.