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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3f224p | why are our spinal cords so poorly protected? | Our key organs have evolved to provide adequate protection: the skull around brain, the rib cage around various organs. The spinal cord however seems to be poorly protected, it's relatively exposed and damaging the spine seems common. Can somebody explain the benefit of the spine's position and why it has evolved so? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f224p/eli5_why_are_our_spinal_cords_so_poorly_protected/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctkjjas"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Most of your organs (nearly all of which are as utterly necessary for life as your spine) aren't protected by any bones at all (most of your GI tract for example). \n\nThe spinal cord is actually a very key development in evolution and is conserved across a huge swath of animals (the phylum chordata). The spine's position helps it do all sorts of things, from allowing the more rapid processing of certain signals and helping to manage the feedback loops that control the responses of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
60vx82 | a law was passed a while back that grants corporations the rights of people | In what ways would a corporation NEED to be treated as a person? The only articles I can find seem to be heavily polarized one way or the other. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60vx82/eli5_a_law_was_passed_a_while_back_that_grants/ | {
"a_id": [
"df9ol6h",
"df9opje",
"df9p9f7",
"df9puc0",
"df9qhuo",
"df9ql8y",
"df9ttro"
],
"score": [
6,
16,
2,
3,
3,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"The supreme court of the US decision in Citizens United was that corporations have the same \"free speech\" rights as persons. That means that the Government can't make McDonalds say \"You will get fat if you eat this food\". The CU organization made a movie, and the Federal Election Commission said that their movie was illegal political speech by a company. They sued, and won, to assure that companies can say whatever they want, just like individuals. It was a very controversial decision.",
"This is not true. I understand why you are asking, because many news outlets report it as true, but it is just false.\n\nCorporate personhood is the term and it has been around for over 100 years. It means that the people that make up a corporation have the many of the same rights as every other citizen. They can enter into contracts, they can be sued and they can sue people, and 1000's of other legal components. \n\nIt is a very necessary legal structure that cannot be removed. I mean literally you could not get rid of it without rewriting the vast majority of our laws. And again, it is not new, there was just a prominent court case that pushed it into the public knowledge.",
"Free speech, when it comes to political activities and spending. You can take a look at [Buckley v Valeo](_URL_0_) and [Citizens United](_URL_1_) if you're interested. \n\nCit U:\n\n > In December 2007 Citizens United filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of several statutory provisions governing \"electioneering communications\".[11] It asked the court to declare that the corporate and union funding restrictions were unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Hillary: The Movie, and to enjoin the Federal Election Commission from enforcing its regulations. Citizens United also argued that the Commission's disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the movie pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.. It also sought to enjoin the funding, disclosure, and disclaimer requirements as applied to Citizens United’s intended ads for the movie.\n\n---\n\nBuckley v Valeo\n\n > Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976) is a US constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. The majority, in a per curiam opinion, contended that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in the Court's view, is the same as written or verbal expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. The lead dissenting judgment of Justice Byron White contended that Congress's judgment had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending \"as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken.\"[1]\n\n > Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the US Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti[2] and in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010.[3] The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional\n\n",
"The ultra-simple way to look at this is this: if individual people have basic rights (eg, speech, assembly, the right to petition the govt), why shouldn't groups of people? More specifically, groups of individual people organized as non-profit companies have long enjoyed exercising basic rights. Why should groups of people organized in a for-profit structure (or a union) be denied those same basic rights when the US Constitution clearly does not make a distinction regarding who gets to exercise basic rights? \n\nThis was the basic gist of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United (from wikipedia): \n\n > The majority wrote, \"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.\n\nPeople look at Burwell v Hobby Lobby as an extension of this basic concept eg, if corporations have 1A rights, why stop there? Why not the full deck of rights? (But note that Burwell v Hobby Lobby only pertains to closely held private companies, not Coca Cola or ExxonMobile). Also from wikipedia on the Hobby Lobby case:\n\n > The court found that for-profit corporations could be considered persons under the RFRA. It noted that the HHS treats nonprofit corporations as persons within the meaning of RFRA. The court stated, \"no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.\" Responding to lower court judges' suggestion that the purpose of for-profit corporations \"is simply to make money\", the court said, \"For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives.\"\n\nAnd before everybody starts listing off every reason CU v FEC & Burwell v HL is bad, please note that I am just explaining the SCOTUS decision, not passing moral judgement on it. ",
"Corporations have had *some* of the rights of people for centuries...those rights are basically what distinguish a corporation from a business. The right to own property, the right to enter contracts, the right to sue, these have being corporate rights for a long time.\n\nA more recent US Supreme Court ruling, *Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission* 558 U.S. 310 (2010), found that corporations had the right to engage in unlimited political speech, so long as they were not directly contributing to a campaign. This gave rise to the various PACs running \"issue\" ads during the election cycle.\n\nMany people unfamiliar with the details of the and the law in general have crudely characterized this as corporations have the exact same rights as people. ",
" > In what ways would a corporation NEED to be treated as a person?\n\nPeople haven't given you a really good explanation of this, but the reason corporations *need* to be treated as \"legal persons\" is that, otherwise, the legal process just couldn't work. \n\nSay I'm doing advertising work for the Coca-Cola company. I sign a contract with Coca-Cola for their services, which is signed on their end by a vice-president for marketing. Six months later, Coca-Cola fails to pay, and I want to sue them. Well, what if that marketing executive has been fired? What if the entire leadership team is gone? \n\nIf Coca-Cola wasn't a \"legal person,\" I couldn't just sue the company -- I'd have to find the fired VP and sue him personally. Also, there's the fact that literally thousands and thousands of people are ultimate owners of stock in Coca-Cola -- if the Court awards me a judgement, unless I've found and served each of these people they Court wouldn't have jurisdiction over them and they couldn't be compelled to pay me.\n\nCorporate personhood gets around that by creating a legal entity that collects everyone's rights and obligations. Instead of having to figure out how tax liability for Coca-Cola's revenue is apportioned among its thousands of stock owners, the government taxes the company. Instead of having to sign contracts with the thousands and thousands of people who own Coca-Cola, you can sign a contract with the company. If you're poisoned by a bad Coke, you can sue the company without joining each individual employee and owner as a defendant. \n\nSo when we talk about a corporations \"rights,\" what we're really talking about is the *collective* rights of the individuals that own the company, collated into a single legal nexus. When the Supreme Court is saying that corporations have free speech or religion rights, they're saying that the *owners* have such rights and that these rights can be expressed through the corporation in their name.",
"This isn't exactly what the law actually is. \n\nThe propaganda here refers to the Supreme Court decision in the \"Citizens United\" case.\n\nHere's the back story.\n\nWay back in the day, the [Campaign reform act](_URL_0_) was passed. \n\nAmong other things, this limited how corporations could spend money that was related to elections.\nA short time after that, Michael Moore produced and released the film \"Fahrenheit 9/11\", a purely political hit piece on the Bush administration. Conservative groups sued, complaining that this was illegal under the act. Their claim was rejected. \n\nThen a conservative group called Citizens United produced a film called \"Hillary the Movie\". This was a purely political hit piece on the Clinton Campaign. Liberal groups sued, complaining that this was illegal under the act. This claim was granted. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme court, and prevailed. \n\nWhat citizens united really says is that just because you pool your money into a 'corporation', you don't lose the right to speak. \n\nThis is, ironically, MORE FAIR than the prior system... Here's why:\n\nIf I'm Bill Gates, I can spend my own money in vast sums to do whatever I want in either system.\n\nBut if I'm Joe Schmoe, I don't have much money... But If I have a million friends that agree with me and we pool our money together, why can't that collective spend it to do the same as Bill Gates can?\n\nThe rich will always have access to power in government. Maybe that's not right, but do you really think that Bill Gates could not get an audience with the President, regardless of how he spent his money?\n\nAllowing others to pool their money to have that same reach is the only really fair solution to an unfair problem.\n\nNow, some people say it means money=speech... Perhaps. But again, that's just reality. If you have the money you can broadcast your speech much more widely. Again, it may not be fair, but the other option is giving the government unlimited power to restrict any speech that it deems political, and that's very dangerous.\n\nThe ability to say not nice things about those in power is the heart and soul of the idea of freedom of speech. And to attack that right is very very dangerous."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act"
]
] | |
9swori | how come we are often more energized when we're running on only a few hours of sleep, compared to days when we had a full 7-8 hours of sleep? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9swori/eli5_how_come_we_are_often_more_energized_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8s0ons"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Sleep for humans is made up of 5 different 'types' or 'stages' divided into two categories, which we cycle through. This progression is Non-REM 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, then REM, after which we will either go back to Non-REM 2 and repeat from there, or wake up at least slightly and fall back asleep into Non-REM 1. Each stage involves different physical processes in the brain and the rest of the body and each has a different 'intensity'. During Non-REM 1, you're still largely awake, but your brain is starting to wind down -- this is the period where you might still be reading your book or talking to your partner but you won't remember it in the morning and won't make much sense. Non-REM 2 is 'soft' or 'light' sleep where you're unconscious but can be easily woken and are likely to toss and turn. Non-REM 3 and 4 are 'deeper' sleeps where the body temperature drops and the body becomes like dead weight. Then comes the REM stage, when we dream and undergo the most intense neurological refreshes. It tends to be hardest to wake us up from this stage. As the night goes on, each REM cycle tends to (but doesn't *necessarily*) last longer than the last (that's one reason you can't just take a 100 minute nap every few hours in lieu of a full night's sleep).\n\nIf you wake up naturally, you will almost always wake up when an REM cycle is over. The processes our body uses to maintain a consistent temperature slow and stop during Non-REM 3, 4 and REM stages, so we get colder. When REM ends and we wind up in Non-REM 1 or 2, they resume, and our temperature rises again; combined with the return to lighter sleep levels, the physical change tends to be what 'naturally' wakes us up. And waking up during Non-REM 1 or 2 tends to feel fine.\n\nThere are two big primary things sleep does for our brains, according to the research we've been able to do (it's a hard area to study). During the deeper phases of sleep our brain slows down a lot of processes so that it can essentially 'flush out' waste chemical products and secrete things that the hard-working conscious brain burns through too quickly to replenish (eg glycogen). \n\nWhen you have an alarm that always goes off at exactly 7:00 AM, there's a good chance it'll hit you smack in the middle of a Non-REM 4 or REM stage, when the brain has put itself into that low-power mode to give itself a clean. You can't just snap it right into action, it takes a while to bring your metabolic processes back up. Until it does so you'll feel disoriented, slow, foggy. That feeling can potentially last throughout the day depending on a variety of circumstances we don't fully understand yet. Entering and exiting these phases involves different chemical triggers, and the problem seems to be the end of REM being triggered by the progress of waste-eliminating or glycogen-secreting processes. If you enter REM and then awake before these processes have made much progress, your brain doesn't seem to be able to completely restore the metabolism to normal levels.\n\nSleep is something difficult to *precisely* study because it's not as if we can just cut into someone's brain in the middle of the night and quickly get a good look at the chemical processes happening in different places at the same time. Nor we can we really rely on animals as great comparisons in this area. The human brain is the most complex thing in the world and it does so many overlapping things. It's much harder to figure out than something like the kidney."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1hfxi7 | texas hold'em | I know the rules, I want to know strategy. Betting patterns, does everyone have a tell? How do I spot it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hfxi7/texas_holdem/ | {
"a_id": [
"caty0b3",
"catydbh"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"This isn't really an ELI5 question because the answer(s) are entirely too broad. There are 100s of entire books written on poker strategies, especially more so in recent years as poker and WSOP tournaments have risen in popularity.",
"As machinedhead933 stated this question is way to broad for an ELI5 but I will give some minor tips that hopefully point you in the right direction.\n\nThere are four styles of play based on hands and betting patterns.\n\nHands include loose and tight, betting patterns include aggressive and passive.\n\nA person who is playing tight passive will only play when they have good hole hands AA for example or suited AK. That player will then bet very passively, for example just betting the minimum bet or checking and only calling. This is an attempt to persuade your opponent that he/she got a better hand than you and they will continue to push into you.\nLoose aggressive is someone who will play with not so good hands like 77 or A5 suited and bet aggressively by raising, betting higher than minimum bet, not checking. The idea behind this strategy is to convince your opponent that you have the nuts (best possible hand) so that they fold out even if they could have beaten you.\n\nGenerally speaking the better style of play is tight aggressive - you will see less bad beats and its harder to make a mistake, and the worst style of play is loose passive - you will be in hands you have no means to be in and you are not convincing anyone that you have a good hand.\n\nHowever the best strategy is to be like the chameleon and change your play style as you see fit. Do you have the most chips on the table? Maybe you should play loose aggressive to push other players in submission. Are you short stack, maybe you should play tight passive to protect your chips and wait for that sweet all in call when you got the nuts.\nIs the guy next to you being brashly aggressive, play a tight aggressive hand and see him fall into his own trap.\n\nAs said before there is a lot more to it, like pot odds and card counting that is way beyond the scope of a simple ELI5, but if you google search Texas Holden strategies there is definitely a plethora of good websites out there. And then of course the best way to get good at Texas hold'em or any kinda poker game like Omaha hi lo or seven card stud is to practice practice practice."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
5thwk3 | how was anime able to distinguish itself from animation in other countries? | I've been into anime for awhile now, but something that I've always been curious about is why Japanese animation was able to separate itself to be considered its own medium, unlike animation from, say, Russia or France? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5thwk3/eli5_how_was_anime_able_to_distinguish_itself/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddmmny8"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It's actually really straight-forward and simple:\n\nIn Japan, cartoons are all called \"anime\", short for \"animation\". When they export animation to other countries, they still call it \"anime\" instead of using each country's colloquial terms.\n\nThat's ... pretty much it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1gw28y | how to become a good photographer | I realize that like anything it takes practice, but how do you really start to improve? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gw28y/eli5_how_to_become_a_good_photographer/ | {
"a_id": [
"caohpa4",
"caola8z"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Mind like a camera, eyes like a lens.",
"1. try to be deliberate about your photography - instead of just walking around looking for something neat to take a picture of, try to think ahead of time what you want to say or capture with your photograph, and then execute on those ideas\n\n2. practice, practice, practice - following rule 1, analyze your photographs and think about whether and why you succeeded or failed to say or capture what you intended - then use this feedback to guide your approach. And practice does not just mean walk around and snap as many photos as possible - in fact do just the opposite - try to take just one good picture per day, but focus on the ideas and the process going into making that one picture - that is the part that needs the most practice - it can take years to develop your artistic sense\n\n3. look at good photography ! Go to the library once in a while and look at the work of the greats - try to think about what you like or don't like and why, and use it to guide your own approach\n\nI might also add, don't just use the internet - there is too much bad photography on sites like flickr, etc., and the \"popularity contest\" ranking methods are rarely the best way to find true artistic quality. It's also dangerous to solicit feedback on the internet - anonymous feedback is generally useless. Try to get feedback from people who you respect as artists, whose work you aspire to equal in quality - or even forget feedback altogether and just do your own thing, live up to your own expectations !\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1g74o8 | how does a computer tell the difference between a 1 and 0 in a sequence? | What I mean by this is because a 0 is represented by no voltage, how does the computer tell the difference between 101 and 11 when both have 2 ones? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g74o8/how_does_a_computer_tell_the_difference_between_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cahdenh",
"cahejzg"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Computers don't look at \"101\" or \"11\" as single entities. They either look at each individual bit one after the other, or at groups of bits, with each bit being routed to a different transistor.\n\nWhen looking at bits in sequence, things are coordinated using a clock signal. \"101\" would be read in three clock ticks, while \"11\" would be read in two clock ticks. It's pretty easy to tell the different in that case.\n\nWhen looking at all of the bits at once, the computer generally looks at them in blocks of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits at a time. In this case, the computer would treat \"101\" as \"00000101\" and \"11\" as \"00000011\". Each bit would be routed to a specific transistor based on its position. So in the case of \"00000011\" the first and second transistors would see a high voltage, and the rest would see a low voltage. In the case of \"00000101\", the first and third transistors would see a high voltage, and the rest would see a low voltage\n\nOf course, things are much more complex than that, but the basic idea is the same.",
"Different parts of the computer use different mechanisms for storing or transferring a bit. Generally it's not \"voltage or no voltage\" it's either \"high or low\", or it's \"positive and negative\" depending on the mechanism. This is to help prevent the confusion you are worried about. Trying to measure 0 as \"the absence of everything\" is difficult because noise will often cause non-0 readings. There is a second problem though, and that is it's still hard to tell 1111111 from 11111111. Many systems (RAM, Hard Drives) have physically distinct regions, and that's how they tell one bit from the next one, but for ones that don't they rely on a shared clock. The current state is checked at set intervals that are long enough that you can finish the transition between the two states before the next clock tick. Many systems use this shared clock mechanism. When you buy a computer, the cpu speed (3.2 GHz for example) that is displayed is actually the speed of the internal clock in the computer. Faster is generally better because the faster the clock speed, the more frequently an instruction is run."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
5wdgqe | how do animals know not to look at a solar eclipse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wdgqe/eli5_how_do_animals_know_not_to_look_at_a_solar/ | {
"a_id": [
"de97vrl",
"de97y9o",
"de9abpy"
],
"score": [
9,
7,
23
],
"text": [
"as far as i know; its a non issue. Its not that they know not to look at it, its that they wouldnt really be looking at it anyway. What use does a wolf have for stargazing? they just know how bright it is. \n\n",
"They don't really know that. However, animals don't have nearly the intellectual capacity of humans, and they just aren't that fascinated by odd-looking things in the sky, so they don't stare.",
"To start with, there is nothing more dangerous about a solar eclipse than just looking at the sun normally. Animals know not to look at the sun, therefore a solar eclipse is not concern for them. They just want look at it.\n\nHumans are told not to look directly at a solar eclipse because looking at the sun is dangerous, and we find a solar eclipse interesting, so people want to look at it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1196x6 | the work of the 2012 nobel prize in chemistry winners. | Link to article: _URL_0_
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1196x6/eli5_the_work_of_the_2012_nobel_prize_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6ki2gn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'll take a crack at it, but I'm by no means an expert. I work in a structural biology lab that focuses on crystallizing of RNA so I'm familiar with the crystallization process. This article focuses on protein crystallization and there are probably thousands of labs around the world crystallizing proteins.\n\nThe first thing to note is the importance of G-Protein Coupled Receptors (GCPRs). The article does a very good job of explaining why they are important in our bodies. Even the most basic Physiology classes will touch on GCPRs. As described in the article, they are a big target for drug design because of the roles they play.\n\nThe next thing to discuss is why crystallization is such a powerful tool. First you have to obtain a diffraction quality crystal. Next you shoot a bunch of X-rays at it. The computer collects the data from the x-rays and compiles them and spits out an image. The end result of crystallization is the atomic structure of the molecule. You can literally \"see\" how the molecule fits together in a 3-D space and the ins and outs of it. \n\nSo what took so long? The article talks about how the GCPR is unstable when you pluck it out of the cell membrane, and it is extremely difficult to stabilize it unless you have the correct combination of \"mystery\" molecules. This quote describes it perfectly:\n\n\"The breakthrough became possible because of detailed manipulation, trial and error and sheer persistence (a trait shared by many protein crystallographers). Crystallography is still very much of an art and there isn’t always a rational path to crystallizing a particular protein.\" \n\nThink about taking a fish out of water. This is a very special fish and it will only survive in a certain fishbowl with certain plants and very special food. The problem is you have thousands of fishbowls, plants, and food and only one or two combinations will work. There is no magical way to find the correct combination either, you have try everything one by one, a process I'm very familiar with.\n\nIn the end, they found a combination that worked for them and it has worked for other labs too. So now that we can see these proteins, we can find out how they interact with their environment and develop specialized drugs for them. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2012/10/10/g-protein-coupled-receptors-gpcrs-win-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/"
] | [
[]
] | |
rhe7x | why did einstein say that if we could travel at the speed of light we would be able to time-travel? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rhe7x/eli5why_did_einstein_say_that_if_we_could_travel/ | {
"a_id": [
"c45tqn7",
"c45x2lw",
"c45yg4g"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's referring to time dilation - as your speed approaches the speed of light, time slows down for you.\n\nThis means you can get into a spaceship, travel very fast away from Earth and come back a year later. Thousands of years may have passed. So in this manner, you have travelled into the future. \n\nPutting any physical impossibilities aside, if you get into a spaceship that is so fast it travels at the speed of light, no time will have passed for you at all, but thousands or millions or billions of years can have passed on Earth and you have thus travelled into the future.",
"The explanation I've always liked goes like this: Everything has a set velocity that is divided between space and time. As you move faster through space, you move slower through time, and vice versa. Your speed through space plus your speed through time is always constant, and is the speed of light. Light travels through space so fast that it doesn't have any velocity left to travel through time.\n\nSo, if you're traveling near the speed of light, you're traveling through time incredibly slow compared to everything else. If you traveled in a huge circle, when you returned to your starting point everything there would have gone much further through time than you, and it would appear to you that you jumped into the future.",
"Here's my explanation from [a previous thread](_URL_0_).\n\n\nSay we're meeting at a coffee shop to discuss time dilation. I need coordinates; you propose 59th St and 5th Avenue. The street gives me the north-south coordinate and 5th Avenue gives me the east-west coordinate. There's also another dimension of height, but it would be absurd to find a Starbucks floating in the sky. We're meeting at street level. That takes care of three dimensions.\n\nBut that'll be of no use to me! I'll just be standing stupidly at 59th St and 5th Ave all day! You haven't given me a time. We could be meeting next year for all I know!\n\nThe dimension of time gives us another two directions. There's already up, down, left, right, forwards and backwards. Time adds futureward and pastward.\n\nI'm standing still at 59th and 5th. Even though I can't feel it, all of my energy is being devoted to moving me in the direction of futureward. \n\nThings get interesting when we put this onto a graph. Time is on the x axis and space is on the y axis. \n\nspace\n\n^\n\n|\n\n|\n\n|\n\n------------------ > time\n\n\nMe waiting at 59th St and 5th Ave is (for the purposes of this graph) 0 movement on the space axis (let's disregard the movement of earth and the solar system), so we just have a straight arrow parallel with the time axis.\n\nspace\n\n^\n\n|\n\n|\n\n|------------ > \n\n------------------ > time\n\nOnce I see you waving across the sidewalk, I start moving towards you. Some of my energy, originally totally in the futureward direction, is diverted into moving through space. That straight line gets tilted up slightly from where it intersects the y-axis. \n\nAs I start running faster and faster, the angle gets greater and greater and the line gets tilted further. Less of my energy is being used to travel through time. \n\nHowever, it takes more and more energy for me to approach the speed of light.\n\nLight travels along the y axis. From light's perspective, everything stands still! It's perpendicular to the time axis, so if you were a photon, everything happens simultaneously. As far as you are concerned, you make it from emitted from a computer screen and hit a human's eye instantly. \n\nIf I were to somehow break the speed of light, my arrow would tilt past the y-axis and the x-value (time) would be negative. I would go backwards in time!\n\n \n\n \\ \n\n \\ |\n\n |------------ > \n\n < --O------------------ > time\n\n----------------------------------------------\n\nI hope that clears things up. If you're interested, Brian Greene gives a great analogy of time dilation in the second segment (around 20:00) in this PBS segment: _URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pllfd/eli5_or_an_add_humanities_student_time_dilation/c3qbvy1",
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time"
]
] | ||
6cps0i | does a soda/coke/fizzy drink contain/weight the same when it goes flat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cps0i/eli5_does_a_sodacokefizzy_drink_containweight_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhwg6lv"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"When the drink has gone flat, it has released carbon dioxide which is dissolved in it.\n\nA can of Coca-Cola has circa 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide in it. If it went perfectly flat, it would weight about this much less than before."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1nz02l | why i like smoking cigarettes. | Especially when I'm drunk. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nz02l/eli5_why_i_like_smoking_cigarettes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccnd4cj",
"ccnd9ns"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Nicotine is ridiculously addictive. ",
"Alcohol and nicotine causes your brain to release dopamine, a hormone that is near the pleasure center of your brain, and controls addiction. When you drink alcohol, you have a heightened dopamine level, in which you are more aware of other addictions. Nicotine in cigarettes creates more of a crave than usual as a result. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
9i07t3 | are muscles an obstacle in surgery? | For example if someone needs to get their belly sliced open could strong abdominal muscles be a challenge for the surgeon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9i07t3/eli5_are_muscles_an_obstacle_in_surgery/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6fsnp5",
"e6fy67o"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Not really. At least, it's much easier to deal with compared to excessive fat. With even very muscular people, the muscle can be pulled back and clamped once it's out of the way. With excessively fat people, it usually requires a surgical intern to hold the fat back through the procedure because it's too thick/weak to be clamped.\n\nNo idea about muscle-bound powerlifters, though.\n",
"No. The anesthetist will administer paralytics which can completely relax skeletal muscle. There can definitely be a difference in the ease of retraction of skeletal muscle by the surgical team based on the patients body habitus (say college football player vs 80 year old frail woman), but nothing that cannot be mostly or completely overcome pharmacologically."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
251eec | proposed internet fast lanes | My current internet provider offers 4 different levels of service. Each offers progressively faster speeds and costs more money. Everyone has the same maximum bandwidth usage. How will the proposed "internet fast lanes" be different from what the internet companies are currently doing when they charge for faster speeds. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/251eec/eli5_proposed_internet_fast_lanes/ | {
"a_id": [
"chcoh85",
"chcovx6",
"chcpiob"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some websites will be faster than others. But in this case \"faster\" will be the current speed, while the \"others\" will be slowed, as they don't pay premiums. It's more money going to ISPs without any advancement ",
"The proposed \"fast lanes\" aren't consumer-facing, they apply to the backend connections between ISPs and websites.\n\nISPs want the individual ability to extort websites for the privilege of connecting to their customers without degraded speed. This not only means that current sites could cost more (see the recent announcement of a Netflix hike) as they start passing on costs to customers once have to start paying all the major ISPs extra \"protection money\", it actually endangers new innovation because these extra costs are something that startups often can't afford.\n\nIn a nutshell, these ISPs have a monopoly due to lack of competition and regulation, and they want the ability to abuse the hell out of it.",
"It's extortion. Pay the ISPs protection money or they'll intentionally slow your traffic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1xrbjq | chemtrails are not real | Not for me, both ye huddled masses of chemtrail conspiracy theorists. I've seen too many posts on Facebook of airplane contrails claiming that they are controlling the weather. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xrbjq/eli5_chemtrails_are_not_real/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfdx5o3",
"cfdx62b",
"cfdx7q7",
"cfdxbhf",
"cfdxet9",
"cfdy59e",
"cfe70b6"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
8,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Are you asking a question? ",
"As I tell the children at work, a statement is not a question.",
"There's usually not much you can do to sway their minds. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. ",
"Well, [see for yourself](_URL_0_). You can see the forward edge of the contrail inflight sometimes if you've got a good back seat window. Then read the scientifically factual [Wikipedia article](_URL_1_).\n\nCarl Sagan's *The Demon-Haunted World* is a good read that explains why people tend to be drawn to bullshit ideas.",
"Airplanes have nothing onboard to create a chemtrail with. The *only* connections sending fluids to the engine from the airplane are the fuel line and (on some designs) an air line. Air and jet fuel can't create a chemtrail. There is no place on a jet to store any funny chemicals in a way that you could get them to the engine. \n\nBurning jet fuel does create CO2 and water. Water at high altitude can condense out to form clouds, which is what we call a contrail.\n\nSource: aeronautical engineer ",
"When I was in high school and early college, I was on the chemtrail bandwagon. After doing more research as an adult, I realized how ridiculous it is. However, there is such thing as cloud seeding which doesn't necessarily control the weather, but it does, in a sense effect it. How I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, is that chemical agents are released at a low altitude while there are rain clouds so that they will produce more rain.",
"Okay, I'll bite.\n\n'Chemtrails' are [contrails](_URL_1_) - those long, white fluffy streaks in the sky that follow airplanes around. Anyone whos taken high school chemistry should know that when hydrocarbons (jet fuel) burn, one of the products is water. Shoot this hot water vapor into the cold air of the atmosphere and - much like your breath and a really cold day - the vapor will shrink and 'condense', and form clouds that come out of your piehole, or out of a jet. Changes in pressure can also cause water to condense out of air.\n\nOn [chemtrails](_URL_0_) - what part should be disproven? The part the says they're spraying chemicals on us to control our minds? To control weather? To make us sick?\n\nWhat tests are being done to prove these 'chemicals', or whatever agents there are, are being dumped on us? [Here's a goofy account](_URL_2_) saying that there was 'contaminating levels of aluminum' found in water samples in areas over where these chemtrails were being sprayed. Here's the deal - there is aluminum in dirt. Obviously, lakes have a lot of dirt in and around them, so it would be strange to think finding aluminum in a sample should raise an alarm. Why is the only and first explanation of aluminum, a metal found in nature, being found in nature, that the government (or *somebody*, cue spooky ghost music) is spraying on the population for nefarious causes?\n\nBy the way. Do you know how much aluminum would have to be sprayed out of an airplane **at that height** to uniformly raise aluminum levels to toxic levels? **A lot.** Do you know how much that would weigh, to jam an airplane full of aluminum? How does it get off the ground? And how much it would cost to buy and spray that much aluminum into the sky? Because that seems like an *enormous* waste of aluminum. And for what? Weather control? How does aluminum 'control' the weather, exactly? Or mind control? *What?* Or as a giant weapon?\n\nAsking somebody to prove that chemtrails aren't real is like a religious person asking an atheist to prove that god isn't real. You *can't*, sort of by definition, prove that god doesn't exist at all, or prove that things aren't being sprayed out of airplanes. Have we sprayed terrible things out of airplanes before? Uh, yeah. Look at Vietnam. Are they spraying anything now? I'm going to say probably not, but who knows. However, the explanations to what it is and why from chemtrail believers are generally quite ridiculous, and the emphasis should be on *them* to prove that their claims are correct, not for people to prove to them that clouds are clouds."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mythicalireland.com/other/planes/other/747-PIA.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail",
"http://www.viewzone.com/chemtrails.html"
]
] | |
203pnx | how do tv shows make money by putting their shows on netflix and how can netflix pay all the networks and only charge 8$ per month? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/203pnx/eli5_how_do_tv_shows_make_money_by_putting_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfzi8xg",
"cfzln4t",
"cfzmgbo",
"cfzml20",
"cfzmpie",
"cfzn8gz",
"cfzn9np",
"cfznj3u",
"cfzo3q9",
"cfzobwg",
"cfzourr",
"cfzpb4p",
"cfzqz03",
"cfzrjpr",
"cfzs5xo",
"cfzszjt",
"cfzt6nm",
"cfzvgxc",
"cfzvjwc",
"cfzvugc",
"cfzvxc7",
"cfzwm7u",
"cfzwrtw",
"cfzx99c",
"cfzysrr",
"cfzyu2x",
"cg00e1i",
"cg00n1i"
],
"score": [
653,
156,
15,
556,
4,
56,
11,
5,
2,
27,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
3,
6,
5,
2,
2,
5,
7,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"$8 a month * 23.6 subscribers = 188.8 million a month of income.",
"All of our parents that pay for Netflix and watch one movie a month.\n",
"The content put on Netflix is mostly older stuff that has already made money though regular channels and now Netflix offers a small extra profit which is still better than nothing. \n\nBut were those shows/movies to rely on only Netflix for their income, then they would lose money. \n\nReally each network should just have it's own web site to stream their content and put their commercials on. I imagine the problem is that the cable companies would drop them and the switchover period from TV to online of viewers would take too long for them to just switch and not go broke losing cable.",
"Television and movie license deals are also based on what window you get. The first window is the right to broadcast a show first. That goes to the major network that first plays the show and they more than pay for the production costs with that license fee. (At least in the US market) Once that window expires the distributor can sell it to anyone, but the price goes way down. So when The Walking Dead comes to Netflix a year after it was first broadcast on AMC, Netflix pays only a fraction of what AMC paid for the first window. Movies are similar, first window is the theatrical release, then DVD, then cable specialty movie networks then plain old broadcast tv. Netflix can presumably jump in at whatever point in that cycle that a given movie is worth it to them. They have amazing metrics, so they know with a high degree of certainty how much value their viewers will get from any given movie and can pay license fees accordingly.",
"It's worth pointing out that the networks don't actually sell the shows to Netflix. The studios that produce the shows sell the networks exclusive rights to broadcast them, then once that period of exclusivity is over, the studio will sell the broadcast rights to services like Netflix. Recently, networks have begun negotiating for digital rights along with broadcast rights, which is why they can show the, um, shows online with ads. ",
"TV shows make money by selling the rights to Netflix, often for a limited amount of time. This practice is called syndication, and is typical for older shows. Lets take The Office for example. The Office was produced by NBC, and therefor NBC owns the rights to all of the episodes of The Office. NBC can sell the rights to The Office (or any other show) to Netflix, which is great for NBC because they make money without having to make anything new, since the episodes already exist. \n\n\nWhen Netflix rents a show, they do it at a relatively low cost (the specific numbers are never released, but both sides benefit equally). Netflix is only given the right to stream the episodes they've purchased online to their subscribers. NBC can still air episodes of The Office whenever they'd like, it just gives them another source of revenue. \n\n\nHope this helps! ",
"I'd love to see the numbers on how many people subscribed to Netflix because of the season 2 premier of House of Cards. Would be nice to see if that model is working for Netflix. I'd like to see them succeed with it, as that show IMO kicks some serious ass.",
"Ken Burns made a [short video about Netflix for Bloomberg Tv last year.](_URL_0_) He basically says the access to content is great, but the money made from PBS selling rights to Netflix doesn't offset the decline in DVD sales. He sees an upcoming front of artists organizing to get rid of middlemen like Netflix.\n\nEdit: clarification ",
"they actually get the rights to play content on contract, so they haven't paid for a lot of content that is available on neflix.",
"Short answer: You'll wish the prices went back down to $8/month in the near-future. ",
"And how does spotify do it?",
"This helps:\n\nNetflix's most profitable markets are the ones where it doesn't officially exist.\n\nNetflix doesn't pay any licence fees in countries where it's not officially available. For instance Netflix sells into Australia by VPN. It doesn't pay any licence fees for Australian rights to the content creators - it just banks the dough.",
"Another question: why Netflix releases whole season of HoC in one day? Can't people just buy one month subscription to watch whole series of HoC and then never buy it again? Wouldn't they get more money by weekly releasing?\n",
"One point that no-one is mentioning here is that a non-trivial portion of Netflix users will be paying for the service and not using it. Paying users who aren't using the service will change from month to month, but Netflix will have metrics on how the total figure per month, and overall there are probably predictable trends. Then of course there will be the users who pay for Netflix, but use it a very small amount - these users are also disproportionately profitable for Netflix.\n\nLower-consuming users will be offsetting the cost for higher-consuming 'power users', who are likely in the minority. If everyone used Netflix like a college-house use it, the model probably wouldn't work at it's current price point.\n\nThe same goes for other on-demand subscription services like Spotify.",
"Broadcast rights are MUCH cheaper than distribution rights. Netflix only pays the broadcasting fee, not the distribution fee, because they are all DRM'd up. ",
"There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. \n\n1) Its like syndication. Sometimes Netflix pays top dollar for quicker access to content, other times they pay a much more reduced rate for what used to be a standard syndication pay table. As you have noticed most NETFLIX content comes out after the show has run its season on TV, and then a month or two after the DVD is released. After about a month of a DVD being out - most media companies stop focusing on the revenue earned from a show or a movie - then NETFLIX swoops in a gets a great deal because FOX, UNIVERSAL, ETC see it has guaranteed extra earnings on whatever property NETFLIX is licensing. \n\n2) Now - as far as local stations paying for content, Almost all local stations are affiliates of larger conglomerates. Namely FOX, ABC, CBS, or NBC. Those local stations make decisions (as well as the parent network) on what exactly the local stations will show. Those local stations obviously have their own original content, but will simulcast most major shows - thereby the do not have to pay extra. \n\n*edit* Source: I work in T.V",
"House of cards has quite a bit of product placement that i'm sure makes money. \"Is that a PS Vita?\" \"This pizza (pizza hut) is really good.\"",
"A lot of people are going on about commercials. I have no commercials on my netflix. Have I just lucked out, or are these people just guessing having not actually used Netflix themselves?",
"How can Netflix make money with streaming? That's a good question. Historically their cash cow has been DVDs. That profit is due to them being able to buy the DVD once and then lend it out many, many times (First-Sale Doctrine). This essentially equates a fixed fee (consistent monthly charges) with fixed cost (pay for the DVD once).\n\nThe issue with streaming is that it becomes a fixed fee-variable cost arrangement. Each time you watch a movie, Netflix pays something. So as people watch more, they earn less and less money.\n\nIt would seem that at some point they will have to tier the membership fees for usage to get past this problem.",
"The majority of a network's income comes by way of advertising. Netflix is a drop in the bucket by comparison. ",
"I really think people are underestimating how much money they make off subscriptions. They have over 40 Million subscribers who pay around 120 dollars a year for their services. That comes out to 4.8 BILLION DOLLARS. ...even if they invested 80% of their profits back into their business they would still be making hundreds of millions of dollars. \n\n ",
"They use a completely different business model than the more common business model used by many major corporations called, \"Fuck Your Customer Over\".\nTheir model of course is not one highly recommended by MBAs and other business management types.",
"Economy of scale. $8/mo isn't a lot - but $8 x 25million = $200million/month. That kind of money is plenty to pay the content distributors for the rights.",
"Warner brothers, is that you? ",
"They gross about $4b a year, but net income is only about $100m. That's about a 2.5% profit margin, so they're clearly paying an exorbitant amount of money to license content.",
"Wow someone's reading my mind. I was laying in bed last night thinking the same thing. Saying to myself I should ask reddit",
"Economist and law student here; there's two parts to my answer.\n1st-License is non-exclusive.\n2nd-Is netflix really stealing TV/DVD/PPPV viewers?\n\nNetflix offers distribution companies and IP holders a legal form of price discrimination. To use a form most people are familiar with, think of what happens to the price of an airplane ticket as departure approaches: the price rises, rises, rises, then suddenly drops. Once the airline decides to actually make the flight, any butt in a seat, regardless of how much the customer paid for it, is a profitable endeavor. This is why you see a massive drop in price in the last 12 hours before a flight.\n\nSimilarly, IP content is only worth something if people watch it. The question content-creators have is \"how much does netflix pirate viewers that would otherwise watch my content on TV/PPV/DVD, all of which have a higher profit margin for me?\" HBO, as a pay-per-view service, knows that that answer is \"an enormous percentage of my viewers,\" so it doesn't put things on Netflix or Hulu. \n\nOn the other hand, NBC knows the answer is \"not many,\" at least for the shows it puts on Netflix. I'll watch the office randomly on TV if its on, and the availability of the Office on Netflix doesn't impact that decision. On the other hand, if I get a random urge to watch the Office, and it isn't on TV or Netflix, that's lost income for NBC. \n\nTLDR: Put a show on Netflix if Netflix viewers wouldn't otherwise watch the show on a more profitable medium. At that point, any revenue is additional profit, since you're getting views that would otherwise be lost. ",
"I have a follow-up question. ELI5 why Netflix will continue to produce original content. At some point aren't they going to max out for their subscriber base? Is the feeling that they will need to keep producing original series to retain the subscribers? Is producing your own content more or less affordable than licensing other content?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DYRBtp1jlo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
7lycb6 | how does an electricity company know how much electricity you use? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7lycb6/eli5_how_does_an_electricity_company_know_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"drpyujt",
"drpyxvj",
"drpyzse",
"drpz4yl"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It measures the current and the voltage and determines the power usage from that\n\nYou can measure current by putting a tiny resistor in the path and measuring the voltage across the resistor or by looping wire around the current carrying wire and inducing current in the loop.\n\nOnce you've got the current and voltage you multiply them together and increment the watt-hour meter at the right rate\n\nGood power meters also measure the voltage. Voltage should be constant but can drift or just be a bit off. 120V countries could have 110-130V at the outlet so assuming 120V can result in inaccurate power measurements",
"The meter measures both voltage and current going into your building/home/whatever to calculate the amount of electricity you're using. Voltage remains the same, but the current flowing in does change when something is drawing electricity from the circuit.\n\n > ...and the amperage depends on the appliance (it doesn't change in the house circuit but in the appliance itself)\n\nAh, but it does: your house circuit is only pulling the current it's using, it's not constantly doing this. When you switch on a bulb, the amount of current you're drawing from the mains increases.",
"Devices in your house use power for a certain period of time. Let’s say you use a lightbulb that is 10W for 30 minutes. The total usage would be 5W x hours. You are billed usually in kilowatt hours. Your power meter calculates these by measuring the amount of current flowing into your house over a period of time. I could give such a better explanation if I wasn’t on my phone lol. I’m not an electrician so I’m not super familiar with the household metering devices, but I am an electrical engineer. But basically they measure the amount of current flowing on the main power line going into your house and get a calculation of kilowatt hours with which you are billed for.",
"The old-fashioned kind of electric meter with all the little clock dials:\n\nThere are certain classes of motors whose rate of rotation is proportional to the voltage that's fed into them. Load and other considerations have very little effect.\n\nSo the main power line into your house passes through the electric meter. The meter has a very-low impedance resistor that the current has to pass through to get into your house. The resistance is small enough that it doesn't effect your household electricity, but it's enough that there's a very small voltage across it. That voltage will be exactly proportional to the current flowing into your house.\n\nSo this voltage that's proportional to the current you use is fed into a tiny electric motor that turns slowly, and at a rate that's exactly proportional to the current you're using. That little electric motor is turning clockwork gears that cause the hands in the meter to slowly move.\n\nOnce a month, the electric company sends someone to look at that meter and note the reading. This tells them how many amp-hours your house used during the month. Then they multiply that by 120V to get the watt-hours you used, and bill you accordingly.\n\n----\nThe fancy new electronic meters:\n\nThere's a computer in there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
20ad6t | videogame emulator "save-states". how do they compare to modern save-files used outside of emulation? | Say for example that I had gone through all of the necessary measures in order to make it [nearly] legal to emulate my Gamecube games on my PC.
Say I decide to use Dolphin emulator to play the game that I own on disc but had ripped to my PC for the sake of science. Legally.
Dolphin allows me to hotkey into a save-state at any point during my time playing said game. I open the save-state when I want to play again, and I find myself right where I left off, even in the middle of an action sometimes.
Traditional saving would have brought me back to the "beginning" of an area, or perhaps back to the designated "save-point"
Are these methods any different from one another, or is the reset-type load of save- *games* a tool that developers use to keep players from gaming the system or whatnot? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20ad6t/eli5_videogame_emulator_savestates_how_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg1avjd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They're completely different things.\n\nA traditional save point is something created by the developer. There is some collection of variables that they are recording--say, which save location you are at, your inventory, and what your characters stats are. This obviously varies from game to game--maybe some games don't have levels or inventories, and it's just a list of what races you have completed, and your best time for each. In that type of game, your save is probably a lot smaller.\n\nSaved games are specific to the game.\n\n\nA save state is completely different--it's literally the emulator taking a dump of all things that are going on at the time.\n\nSaved states are specific to the emulator."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
b8ph92 | catergorical imperative | Hello all,
I was reading through some information and I wanted an explanation of why/how would cheating violate the categorical imperative?
(Please keep in mind that I'm relatively new to this kind of material so I'd appreciate it if you could keep it as simple as you can) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b8ph92/eli5_catergorical_imperative/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejzao5l"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In Kantian (deontological) ethics, a categorical (or moral) imperative is an unconditional moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. The core categorical imperative is: Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people, or (more simplified) - That which you would not want all others to do, you cannot do.\n\nIn _The Groundwork_, Kant addresses deception as a violation of the categorical imperative. Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. \n\nIt is fairly easy to extrapolate this to cheating in any form. With cheating, it would logically contradict the reliability of the test or game you are cheating; if it were universally acceptable to cheat, then no one would not have any faith in the tests that are meant to assess knowledge or the outcomes games that are meant to determine the \"best\" player or team per the established rules. \n\nSimplified, we can rewrite the core categorical imperative, as it relates to cheating: As we would not want all other people to cheat, then you yourself cannot cheat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1j3lwf | if the nsa can see everything (and assuming all other agencies can too) why don't they jail people who download illegal content off the internet? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j3lwf/eli5_if_the_nsa_can_see_everything_and_assuming/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbaqtwz",
"cbaqwm5",
"cbas8xd",
"cbaspub"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2,
15
],
"text": [
"It's not their job to police the American public except for terrorists. The program was relatively secret, so they didn't share the data with the other agencies that do look for illegal downloading.",
"Because computers are not lawyers!\n\nEverything you can see through your internet browser (each web page, each jpg or gif or video) is actually downloaded from a server to your local computer, and rendered on your screen via your browser. That's how the internet works: files are always and only being either downloaded or uploaded.\n\nNow say I download a image file (a jpg) that's entitled *1.jpg*. Does the computers comprising the internet know what the visual content is of that file? The computers know the bits that comprise the image, but even the most advanced computer systems can barely start to visually recognize the content of the image.\n\nSo, now say that *1.jpg* is a picture, taken by a tourist, of the Mona Lisa. There are people that would assert that images of the Mona Lisa are copyrighted, but this is the area where copyright is debated by lawyers.\n\nLuckily, computers aren't lawyers, and serve the JPG file when requested. Then the NSA might know that a browser that you regularly use downloaded a jpg named *1.jpg* - but the NSA does not have any real-time system to determine the copyright concerns, claims, or infractions of the content of *1.jpg*. *(furthermore, because there's no money or intelligence in catching you download a jpg, there's no justification in trying to enforce it too much)",
"Downloading copyright material is not illegal for the most part (only if it's fairly large scale business oriented version of piracy). You cannot be arrested for it, you won't get fined or go to jail. Instead copyright infringement is tortious. That means it causes harm to someone in a way that opens up the person causing that harm to being sued. It's up to the person being harmed (in this case the MPAA/RIAA) to bring suit against the person doing the harm, and it's not the government obligation to assist that.",
"because its not a violation of criminal law, its a violation of civil law. \n\nif you violate criminal law a police agency can arrest you because you may be causing a threat to public safety. downloading content illegally is never a threat to public safety. \n\nif you violate civil law you can be sued by an injured party. the NSA is not the injured party. they can't sue you. the owner of the copyrighted material is the injured party. they can sue you, if they can figure out who you are and what you downloaded. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
6cpzja | what exactly does brake fluid do? what makes it work more than another substance, say something like water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cpzja/eli5_what_exactly_does_brake_fluid_do_what_makes/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhwhpn1",
"dhwhrfj",
"dhwhvsg",
"dhwi3g8",
"dhwqfmq",
"dhwu3fj",
"dhx1i3u"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
17,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It has a high boiling point so it does not vaporize in your brake lines like water would do.",
"Brake fluids biggest advantage is that it takes a lot of heat to boil. The liquid isn't compressible (or not nearly as much) but if it were gas it would be. It also acts as a lubricant for the breaking system.",
"The brake pedal compresses the fluid which in turn pushes on the brake pads and drums, creating friction with the spinning wheel thus slowing it down. The friction of braking creates a substantial amount of heat, and the fluid must have a high boiling point to prevent vaporizing in the hydraulics. Water would boil, creating vapor in the line that would disrupt the hydraulics, thus causing the braking system to fail. The fluid also must maintain a stable viscosity at different temperatures and not corrode parts it comes in contact with.",
"These are glycol-based hydraulic fluids that are not appreciably compressible, non-toxic, biodegradable, hydroscopic, and have extremely high boiling points. That's key for a system that converts motion into heat through friction. Your brake system can easily hit several hundred degrees, and the hydraulic system can itself rise a couple hundred degrees through conduction and radiant heat. Water will boil and turn to steam in your brake system, which becomes a compressible spring. That doesn't mean you get an additional spring force pressing on your brakes, that means you have a spring absorbing all the force you're applying to the brakes. This is a foot-to-the-floor-and-you-ain't-stopping sort of problem. This is why it's important to keep that cap on your master brake cylinder - your brake fluid will actually pull moisture out of the atmosphere. Also, don't keep bottles of old brake fluid around, they, too, can collect water from the atmosphere.",
"Now is my time to tell it how it was. My stepdad and my first new car (5mi off the lot, just a Malibu, but still) in his great genius decided that my brake fluid was low...^^because ^^he ^^drained ^^it. But, he had some power steering fluid and decided since both are \"hydraulic fluids\" that they should work interchangeably. \n\nLong story short, a month later I had to have the entire brake line system removed as the steering fluid corroded them. I've got lots of stories about his smarts. This was one of my favorites.",
"Brake fluid is basically hydraulic fluid but with several properties that make it useful in automotive braking systems. \n\nNeeds to be non corrosive\n\nNeeds to be thin enough to flow easily in small tubes but thick enough to prevent foaming or break up. \n\nNeeds to be stable at a variety of temperatures. \n\n\nWater would corrode the metal of the brake system and it would be unstable and freeze at low temperature, and might boil off or explode at high temperature. \n\nRegular motor oil would be very good at preventing corrosion or being sensitive to high temperature but it may be to thick to flow properly through small brake lines especially when cold. \n\nSo brake fluid is engineered to have these properties as well as as not attacking seals and gaskets in the reservoir. ",
"It was mentioned by others than brake fluid readily absorbs water, but it wasn't explicitly stated why. If you end up with water in your brake lines with a fluid that doesn't absorb it (like an oil) you could end up with the same boiling/freezing problems already discussed, simply on a smaller scale. By absorbing the water the brake fluid becomes slightly diluted, but can still do its job."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
24b6h5 | why does beef turn brown when it's cooked, but chicken turns white? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24b6h5/eli5_why_does_beef_turn_brown_when_its_cooked_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch5dki0"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"There is a certain molecule in meat which gives its red color, that molecule is called myoglobin. Since the molecule is found in all types of meat it is the number myoglobin molecules that differ between the meats, giving them their color variation. The white meat of chicken has under 0.05% myolglobin; pork has 0.1-0.3% myoglobin; and beef has 1.5-2.0% myoglobin. So you can see that as the amount of myoglobin in a meat gets larger the color of the meat appears redder.\n\nThe color change in meats is the re-arrangement of myoglobin molecules when heat is applied.\n\n[source] (_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1859"
]
] | ||
3eega8 | wouldn't raising the minimum wage to $15/hour hurt small businesses? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eega8/eli5_wouldnt_raising_the_minimum_wage_to_15hour/ | {
"a_id": [
"cte5gao"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes. That's the main argument against raising the minimum wage. Along side \"people don't deserve that much money!\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2s80wi | what is the difference between frostbite and chilblains? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s80wi/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_frostbite_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnn098b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"From my experience, chillblains has more to do with damage to soft tissue from exposure to the cold while frostbite is the actual freezing of the tissue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
9m06t5 | what caused humanity to grow so quickly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m06t5/eli5_what_caused_humanity_to_grow_so_quickly/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7aset5",
"e7atjlv"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"1. There's a multiplicative effect. You ever try to solve a problem and once you get over that 1 big hurdle it just comes so fast and you're able to do more with less.\n2. Population. Up till even just the 1800s diseases and plagues and even war were the balances that kept humanity in check. Now we don't really have the same kind of war, there's less casualties than like a castle siege where you lose thousands in a short period of time. Infant mortality rates were really high for so long due to not enough nutrition and other diseases. In fact a fun fact is the reason the church banned homosexuality in the first place and declared it a sin was because the population was so low that having gay relationships rather than helping procreate was considered a very evil thing to do. Because you put your own pleasure above the needs of the community. \n3. Transportation and communication - thanks to advances in communicating and traveling we are now able to share ideas with people all over the world and get different perspectives to solve problems and create tech or limit death\n\n\nFeminism in essence is only viable in a population heavy society. Feminism is designed to reduce your population so it's virtuous in a population abundance but it's a vice in a society that needs population. (i.e. birth control, abortion, gay marriage, avoiding getting pregnant for a job and career etc etc etc)",
"Food.\n\nBasically if large proportions of the population are struggling to find enough to eat they don't have any spare time to do anything other than get food or do work to earn them enough food.\n\nOnce harvests improved people could use spare time to think of new things and surplus population could work in factories rather than on the land."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
25oytj | how do flight attendants get paid? | I'm sitting on a flight, and apparently the flight attendant's got totally screwed and instead of being done and being able to go home, now have to work and fly to another city, stay the night there, then "deadhead" back home.
During the course of my eavesdropping, I caught keywords like "deadhead pay" and pay rate's that were some weird decimal numbers, and coverage for their hotel stay and car.
Can anyone explain like I'm five how flight attendant pay works? It sounded like they weren't even sure they would be paid for this inconvenience / situation. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25oytj/eli5_how_do_flight_attendants_get_paid/ | {
"a_id": [
"chjgj85",
"chjoqwj"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"My husband is a steward. It does vary by airline but he works for a contractor who flies under delta but isn't owned by delta for reasons which are hilarious. Basically his pay is by flight hour. When he is \"working\" ie the plane is doing it's magical flight he gets paid a Decent wage based on experience. While he is on the ground though if he's not at his base (the airport nearest our home) he gets paid a stipend for every hour he's not here to cover expenses (this also varies based on experience). It's only like 3 bucks for him but it usually means he can eat. He brings in about as much as me and I've been at my job 3 years and he's been doing it 18 months. \n\nWhen he started he was on 'standby' which means that he could basically be called in any time. This kind of sucked as it meant if we went out and he got the call the fun times had to end. These days he has a schedule and a line so we know when his show times are (that's what they call the work day) and so he just trundles his way in serves your drinks and pretzels and tells you how to not die in the event of an emergency not that you were listening. \n\nHe enjoys his job people aren't nearly as unruly as you think (probably because he is basically the decider on the flight. Being a twat well it was nice flying with you enjoy the flight and next time you can take the train.) \n\nHe gets to visit places he likes and has made friends in some of these cities. So it's not like he sits in his hotel waiting for his next flight. Pilots apparently have left over money a lot so they'll take their crews out for drinks after the flight (assuming they don't have to fly again within the legally noted time). \n\nTldr: flight attendant more like sky butler/decider. Pays decent. ",
"It varies by airline but most flight crew get paid an hourly rate. This hourly rate is only for when the plane has left the gate. Other time spent not actually flying they are given a Per Diem and/or a much lower hourly rate.\n\nDeadhead means that instead of ending their trips at their home base the crew has to fly somewhere else then back on standby only receiving a low deadhead pay rate. They most likely had to fly another crew's plane/trip, maybe due to weather, delays etc.\n\nIt's a tough industry, very volatile. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1c96o6 | besides moralistic arguments and nimby, what motivates people to oppose expansion of casino gambling? | Casino bills seem to have a hard time getting passed, even in places not usually known for religious/moral panic. So why do people oppose casino gambling bills so loudly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c96o6/eli5_besides_moralistic_arguments_and_nimby_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9e9dgx",
"c9eanr2"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Gambling is bad for people. its addictive and can ruin families. im not very against it but we don't need casinos on every corner and there are very valid reasons to oppose them. They have a bigger impact on poor people too.",
"Casinos tend to have a destructive effect on their surrounding communities. While the casino itself and the immediate area may be nice to attract gamblers, the surrounding areas tend to become slums. Part of this is due to a shift in the job market, with the new casino generally offering better paying unskilled jobs than before and causing those who can get the new jobs to leave while those who couldn't are stuck. Part of it is simply that casinos tend to attract certain types of businesses: check cashing places, pawn shops, cheap motels, strip clubs, prostitution, etc. \n\nThen there's the fact that casinos usually do not perform as promised. Atlantic City NJ is a great example: when NJ legalized slot machines and table games for Atlantic City in the 1970s, the promise was that the taxes and revenues generated by the casinos for the state would cover education costs for the entire state. In nearly 40 years, this has not happened. As gambling has been legalized in other locations and Atlantic City's revenues have fallen, it has now come to the point where the State of NJ has had to loan money to some of the casinos simply so that they can stay in business and people will not lose their jobs. What was supposed to be a cash cow for the state has now become an albatross around it's neck. And with the exception of a few blocks around the Boardwalk where the casinos are located, Atlantic City is a dangerous and dilapidated city that tourists avoid like the plague. \n\nSo TL;DR: while casinos benefit a few wealthy people who develop them and their immediate area, they generally are not as good for the entire community as they're made out to be."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
q5t0d | the english education system...how is it structured? | Just a curious American wondering how England's school system compares to US. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q5t0d/eli5_the_english_education_systemhow_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3uyhai",
"c3uyi1o"
],
"score": [
20,
11
],
"text": [
"Compulsory schooling starts at age 5, or 'year 1'. Things progress year by year until 'year 6', at around age 10. These years are usually all in the same school, a 'primary school', though they don't have to. Separtely, years 1-2 are 'key stage one', and 2-6 are 'key stage two', but this is a fairly arbitrary subdivision.\n\nAfter this, children progress to secondary school, also known as high school. These tend to be larger, with multiple primary schools feeding into a single one. Things continue through years 7, 8 and 9, which marks the end of key stage three.\n\nThe next two years, 10 and 11, are for GCSEs. Students narrow down their subjects taken (though not a great deal) to around 10, consisting of a few compulsory ones (some english, maths and science) and some optional ones. I'm not sure where exactly compulsory education ends, but it's probably the end of GCSEs. It's normal for this to all take place in secondary school.\n\nAfter this, it is very common to continue in the final two years of non-university education, years 12 and 13, or ages 16 and 17. Here, the students take A-levels. Each of these is split in half, an 'AS' and 'A2' year. It's normal to take 4 AS levels and continue 3 of them to A2, though doing more (even significantly more) is not uncommon. This two year period is known as 'sixth form', and commonly takes place in special sixth form colleges separate from the previous school, though there are also plenty of secondary schools with sixth form sections and students.\n\nFinally, in the standard school system, comes university. I think there is less mixing of subjects here than in the US; the student picks a subject and applies to universities with courses in it. They get offers of acceptance based on their predicted A-level results, and must choose two to stick with (a main and backup). Once the results are in, they confirm acceptance of any offers they accepted and met the requirements for, and are off to uni. Normal courses are 3 years, or increasingly 4 years in the sciences.",
"The main difference from the US system, assuming my view of the US system is accurate (SATs at 18, relatively broad choice of courses at university/college), is that we specialise a lot earlier than you do over there, and we have a preliminary exam at 16, which determines which subjects we can take to a higher level of study. \n \n* At 16, we sit GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Education). They are mostly information regurgitation, and are graded from A* ('A-Star') to G, with A* to C being considered a 'level two' qualification, and D to G being 'level one', and pretty much worthless. Students tend to take GCSEs in 10 or more subjects. \n \n* At 18 we sit our A-Levels - these are the exams that universities will use to determine who will get a place on their course, and as such are the equivalent to your SATs. They are graded A* to E, plus U for ungraded (ie a fail), again with anything less than a C being deemed pretty much worthless. They're a lot more involved, with a lot more emphasis on applying the knowledge properly, reasoned argument, that sort of thing. Students tend to take either 3 or 4 subjects at A-Level. I believe that these days they start taking 4 or 5 subjects initially, and after the first year they drop 1 or 2 to focus on their stronger or favourite ones. \n \n* Our university courses are also different, in that we enroll on a specific course up front, with all of the modules we take being relevant to that course from day 1. In US language, we choose our major before we even apply for university, are offered a place specifically for that major, and we don't have minors at all. There are some courses with multiple areas of focus (Accounting with Law, Chemical Physics, History with German, that sort of thing), but again those courses are set out like that from the very start; You don't just start off doing Maths and decide to add on a few Civil Engineering units to change your degree title."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
y8a4b | why does alcohol stay on your breath? | I've noticed that milk, soda, and juice do not stay on your breath, why does booze? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y8a4b/eli5_why_does_alcohol_stay_on_your_breath/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5t82zi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's partly because alcohol goes into your blood stream, and when you breathe in, the air goes into your lungs and meets with the blood, so it interacts with the alcohol in your blood stream."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
zek6g | is there land that isn't owned? can i acquire land without buying through a real estate agent? | Does the government own the land?
How do real estate agents get the land to sell?
How could I get land from the government? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zek6g/eli5_is_there_land_that_isnt_owned_can_i_acquire/ | {
"a_id": [
"c63wjua",
"c63wlsj",
"c63wv1u",
"c63xwim"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Pretty much everything is either owned by someone or otherwise unavailable. \n\nThere is no requirement that you use a real estate agent for a purchase, and they are not the one selling the land. They are usually hired because the process of buying and selling land is complicated and it helps to have a professional working for you. ",
"In the United States, land that isn't owned by a private entity is deemed \"public land,\" and thus is owned by the public. However, the federal government essentially says, \"let us take care of this for you,\" so the land is held \"in trust\" by the federal government, and is primarily managed by the [Bureau of Land Management (BLM)](_URL_3_), and the [National Forest Service](_URL_0_). Other federal agencies control other portions of public land. More info on public land in the United States [here](_URL_1_).\n\nSo, land in the United States is either owned by private entity or the federal government. And the BLM does occasionally sell land, but don't count on it. [More info here](_URL_2_)",
"I would imagine that, if you bought enough rocks, gravel, and soil to raise an island outside of territorial waters, it would be your land (possibly terra nullius first, then your land by right of discovery/conquest/creation).",
"1) Yeah, pretty much. You know how Christopher Columbus showed up with a flag, planted in the ground and said \"I call dibs on America for Ferdinand and Isabella\"? That's pretty much how that works. If there's somebody already living there who's all, \"I called it first\" then you say \"oh, yeah? You and what army?\" and then you have a war and if you win you get to keep the land....or to put it in fancy diplo-speak, it now comprises a part of your sovereign territory. \n\nSince it's 2012 and all and we've pretty much explored the whole globe, basically every piece of land falls within someone's sovereign territory already. There's a number of international treaties about how far out in the water sovereign territory goes --- I don't remember the specifics, but it's maybe like 10 miles out for absolute control and a further distance for \"you can drive your boat through here if you want, but only we can fish here.\" \n\nAfter that you're in international waters --- no one country controls the whole ocean, and you can have all the monkey knife fights you want. If new land were to form via volcano or meteorite or something in international waters, you could go out and call dibs if you wanted. Other people might call it as well and then you're back to the army question, of course. \n\n3) you can get land from the government because the government decides to sell you some. In the mid-west in the mid-19th century the government was giving land away for totally free to everyone who promised to live there and build a farm. They even had no-shit, starters's gun with a pistol races on Free Land day in some territories, where everybody would line up their wagons on the border and charge off at the start to stake out the best places. \n\nNowadays, the government will occasionally sell land to private owners, though it's rarer. Far more often the sell limited rights to certain government lands --- to mine or graze cattle on or log trees from. \n\nOf course most settlers in North America didn't buy the land from the government directly --- jthey just showed up and started living on it and making stuff and growing stuff. \n\nBut if you live on any land which is part of someone's sovereign territory, that means you're ruled by that sovereign, that government. And so they can charge you taxes and send you to jail if you break the law or draft you into the army if they're fighting a war or what have you. You are subject to the laws of that land. (If the land is ruled by a king or queen instead of a democratic government, then you're technically subject to the desires of that individual person --- certain sentences in English law confine the prisoner to jail/a mad house \"until Her Majisty's pleasure be known.\") \n\n2) So, as discussed, you can own all the land you can afford within a country's sovereign territory --- it's just that it and you will be subject to the rules of that land. Real estate agents don't own land --- people who do own it call up the agent and say, \"hey, I got some land I want to sell, you know a lot of people, can you find me someone to buy it off me? I'll pay you.\" \n\nI'll add in some links later to back this up, I'm on my phone at the mo."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land#United_States",
"http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/No-Free-Or-Cheap-Government-Land.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management"
],
[],
[]
] | |
6hicq8 | what is the difference between a 50 and 1500 dollar guitar? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hicq8/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_50_and_1500/ | {
"a_id": [
"diyjp2x",
"diyjq8k",
"diyjur5"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"literally the same difference between anything with such a discrepancy... Materials, quality of craftsmanship, quality control, skill level of those involved in crafting it, experience fine tuning the process, reputation.... No one good at anything does it for free...or cheap",
"$1450. \n\n\nJust kidding, but on a real note, I'm a drummer not a guitarist but from my experience playing instruments, instruments that cost more are generally better, there's always exceptions and depending on skill level you might never notice differences, but things like metal/wood quality, wiring quality, and craftsmanship are the major differences, many expensive instruments are often handmade as well",
"Craftsmanship - A guitar requires precision. A milimeter off one measurement and you can have fret buzz, dead frets, poor intonation, etc. Cheap guitars almost universally have poor intonation. This makes it very frustrating for a musician, but the 5 year olds these are purchased for don't give a shit. On the other hand, expensive guitars usually maintain their tuning over time, and from open string all the way up to the highest frets. \n\nSound - The quality and type of wood is important to how the guitar sounds. Cheap wood is usually very lightweight and resonates poorly. It also scratches very easily. \n\nLongetivity - Quality construction, quality wood, etc. will make a guitar that's still playable after decades. A cheap guitar will bend and warp in bad ways quickly. The weak wood is unable to maintain the tension of the strings over time. \n\nMany other reasons too. Many of these things you can find in a $500 guitar so that would be a better comparison. The difference between a $500 and $1500 is MUCH smaller than the difference between a $50 and $500. \n\nWith electric instruments you also have the added cost of electronics. Cheap pickups are the bane of inexpensive guitars. Many budget guitarists purchase a reasonably constructed guitar with shitty pickups like a Squier Strat, and then replace the pickups and have a $200 guitar that sounds like a $600 guitar. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3un509 | if things have evolved to help its survival, how come some people can be killed by something like a peanut allergy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3un509/eli5_if_things_have_evolved_to_help_its_survival/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxg5vq2",
"cxg620h",
"cxg6dl8"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"People have circumvented the survival of the fittest. We have developed medical ways of ensuring survival of all people, including the ones with genetics that allow them to be killed by peanuts",
"How dangerous is a peanut allergy to people whose ancestors came from a region without peanuts? If a trait doesn't actively hinder someone's breeding potential it can be passed on indefinitely. Like how humans can't synthesize vitamin c. That never was a problem right up until we started going on long trips and packing stuff like salted meats and biscuits without any vitamin c in them. Since it was never a problem the trait persisted pretty much randomly.",
"Because of medicine. Those people should be dead, but we have this thing called pity and morals that doesn't like it when we leave people to die of their own genetics."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
68657e | why have the salaries of athletes, actors, tv personalities, musicians way outpace salaries of traditional occupations over the past 100 years? | In the peak of his career, Babe Ruth (highest paid at the time) made $80,000 a year in the 1930s which is equivalent to a little over $1 million in today's dollars. Today the highest paid baseball players make $30 million+ a year.
In 1937, the highest paid actor was Gary Cooper and he made $370,000 which is equivalent to about $6 million today. In 2016, Dwayne Johnson was the highest paid actor making $65 million in one year.
This is while the average salary (adjusted for inflation)for traditional jobs hasn't risen much in the same time frame. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68657e/eli5_why_have_the_salaries_of_athletes_actors_tv/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgvzn5x",
"dgw1kmd",
"dgw2ctf",
"dgw43da",
"dgw8f5o",
"dgw8sbo"
],
"score": [
100,
53,
5,
3,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Increasingly, salaries are tied to how replaceable we are rather than anything about how hard our job is or how much work is involved. Cleaners work very hard and long hours, but you can get someone else in to take over a job immediately with little training if someone quits, so they are paid crap money. Doctors/nurses/teachers are always in high supply because they are jobs that people want to do regardless of the pay, so they don't get paid much either. \n\nCelebrities that bring in lots of money for companies because of who they are as individuals are quite hard to replace. If you don't pay Dwayne Johnson enough to do the job you can't get another Dwayne Johnson. With movies, particularly, up until around the 60s (not exactly sure) there used to be a studio system where an actor/musician/director/writer etc. would sign a contract with the movie studio and they couldn't do a film for another studio until their contract was up or the studio allowed it - it's a bit like comic book movie franchises at the moment. Because actors were contractually tied to studios they couldn't demand ridiculous salaries or threaten not to make the movie, and when there are only a handful of studios the bidding wars can't really get that high when contract renewals come around.",
"The salaries of celebrities (be it an athlete, actor, musician, etc) have outpaced those of traditional workers/employees precisely because celebrities aren't traditional workers. Celebrities attract unique attention, and that attention can be leveraged and monetized. And over time, celebrities have gotten better at leveraging that attention, and brands/companies have gotten better at profiting from it. It has, in other words, to do mainly with visibility. \n\nSomeone who is 'traditionally' employed by a company gets paid relative to the role they occupy, to what they're tasked with. An athlete might be hired and paid in a similar fashion, in theory, but the key difference is that their role, and what they're tasked with by default has an *audience*. This makes them more valuable, in a number of ways. Put simply, celebrities exhibit desirable talents and traits in a very visible way. Because these talents and traits are desirable, and often idealized, what celebrities commonly do plays upon emotions. \n\nMusicians and actors give a voice to what people are feeling, or wish they could themselves say, or how they wish they could look or behave. Athletes exercise physical and mental acuity in sports, pull off great feats, etc. And because sports have over time become popular to the point that they're tied to people's identities and dreams, they likewise act as an example of who people wish they could be. TV personalities and models and whoever else also offer a fantasy or a target for people's aspirations - how they want to look, how they want to behave, how they want to be seen, how they want to live. And on a lighter note, all of these people offer entertainment and even distraction.\n\nSo you might see how this can all be monetized. What marketing does is play into people's emotions - \"Buy (x) to be more attractive,\" \"Buy (y) to be faster\". And to attach a product which plays upon these desires to a person who epitomizes them? Doubly powerful. As for more traditional jobs, no one is idolizing a lawyer sitting in their office working on a brief. No one (or not many) people are going to want the clothes *that lawyer* is wearing, or go see a movie that lawyer is in, were they somehow, for some reason, hired for a role in a movie. \n\nWhat's interesting about today's world, though, is that we're basically seeing experiments in this. In today's world, a lawyer can start a youtube channel. A teacher can have an instagram. They can find the people who might in fact idolize them, want to be like them, live like them. I think that's great. Maybe they won't be handed a $30-mil a year contract, but they can certainly find ways to make money. There are people in all walks of life and professions making a pretty penny by way of the platforms out there, and the attention they can net. \n\nEdit: typos",
"The correct price for any product or service is the highest price the market will bear. Econ 101.\n\nAs actors/athletes/anyone stipulate that they are worth $X, and a studio/team/employer pays that, then that's the going rate.\n\nIf the movie is a runaway blockbuster, or the team wins the championship, that contract is likely to be renewed or extended. The price goes up.\n\nIf the movie flops, the player tanks, or (more often) the latest/greatest star/player is coming up and will work/play for less, out with the old, in with the new.\n\nIn the movie and sports business, the \"market\" is inflated relative to Joe Schmoe, but as long as the studio/team is making money, the price will be paid. And the staying power of a few \"stars\" (Alex Rodriguez, Jennifer Aniston) that exceed the standard curve are not indicative of the more \"rank and file\" members of the group. They are \"sure bets\" and are worth a premium. Look at the average career of an MLB/NFL/NBA/etc player, or how many \"huge\" roles an \"average\" actor had. Those \"careers\" are short, perhaps sweet.\n\nThe \"A-list\" is incredibly small, even compared to the small group of people that make it to the mainstream level. They are paid well above a \"market\" rate.",
"Athletes/celebrities/musicians are earning more today mainly because of the amount of advertising revenue that is being generated. Companies are subsidizing them because their product can be pushed better due to the amount of people watching them.\n\nAthletes(sports)/TV stars have insanely high television deals right now. TV networks pay for the rights to show the sports because they can sell commercials for those sports. Inside every stadium are tons of ads. Inside TV shows is product placement.\n\nBands/musicians are making big money off of tours and merchandise right now. But everything at the tour is typically sponsored by a company.\n\nActors/Movies- There are so many layers to the success of movies today. First you have the theater, then on demand, then premium channels and Netflix, then DVD/Blu Ray/digital sales, then maybe even television. ",
"The AVERAGE musician and actors' salaries have not decreased. It used to be that if you wanted music, you'd hire a musician. If you wanted to see acting, you'd go to a play.\n\nWhat's different is the scale and reach of all of these occupations. Instead of 200 local talk shows, you have 4-5. Instead of hiring a musician, you play stuff from Spotify. The reach of each actor, musician, TV personality has grown exponentially. It may very well be that the total amount of inflation-adjusted dollars spent on entertainment is nearly the same, but it's spent on fewer entertainment sources.",
"The TOP salaries may have outpaced other salaries, but most musicians aren't Beyoncé and most actors aren't Dwayne Johnson. The vast majority of working actors and working musicians lead lifestyles from poor to middle class. \n\nThere are Tony-winning actresses who instagram their temp job applications. There are a lot of important music artists who can barely pay for their records. Some of the top jazz and classical musicians in the world especially support themselves with teaching work. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3pv77p | if legalizing drugs can potentially end the war on drugs, why don't the people in charge just legalize them already? | Are they unaware?
Or
Do they want to feed the Prison Industrial Complex?
Or
Is it political suicide with all the old farts in charge? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pv77p/eli5_if_legalizing_drugs_can_potentially_end_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw9qd56",
"cw9uli2"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, the point of the War on Drugs is to get rid of them. Legalizing drugs is just admitting defeat.\n\nBut for real answers, drugs are widely seen as a destructive force in people's lives and while incarceration doesn't seem to help that, legalization is seen as a step in the wrong direction.\n\nPrisons are a huge component to a lot of local economies so they do carry quiet the lobbying voice. For better or worse.\n\nLegalization doesn't get rid of the black market and quite a lot of the reasons people don't like drug use is because of all the turf wars and other such nastiness that comes from black market deals. Washington's legalization of marijuana has created a very restricted system of dispensaries and taxes that make legal marijuana more expensive than street marijuana and legalizing it makes it less likely someone will be punished for purchasing from unlicensed vendors. If your goal is to get rid of the black market, then legalization needs to be very carefully pursued.",
"* not everyone agrees legalizing drugs will have a net positive effect\n* the people against drugs are very vocal and will vote against anyone who supports legalization, the people for drugs are more meh about things, and usually don't make it their primary issue\n* many politicians got elected promising to get tough on drugs\n* a lot of money for police and prisons have come from the war on drugs\n* legalizing drugs basically admits the gov't has been lying for the past 80 years"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4z635k | what is it called when you learn a new word and then suddenly it seems like you hear the word very often soon after learning it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4z635k/eli5_what_is_it_called_when_you_learn_a_new_word/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6t9wpr",
"d6tcc9l",
"d6tcl8o",
"d6tdqtj",
"d6tfui9",
"d6tgpvo",
"d6thaum",
"d6thtjt",
"d6tido0"
],
"score": [
299,
52,
9,
27,
8,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, also known as frequency illusion. It has more to do with a word catching your attention rather than an increase in frequency of appearance. ",
"Is it weird that my friend told me about this yesterday, and now it's turning up on here?",
"This happens with pretty much everything, not just words.\n\nA good one is when you think you're always checking the clock at the same time... You're probably just remembering a specific time more than others... \n\nAnother is called \"shroom eye\". When picking shrooms, you first see non, then someone shows you one, you look around again and BAM! Shrooms everywhere!",
"Hey man, [I made a quick video to explain it!](_URL_0_)\n\nIf you prefer reading I'll run through it here:\n\n- It's called the frequency illusion, and it's down to two psychological processes.\n\n- The first is selective attention! This kicks in when we learn a new word, concept or thing. We then subconsciously look for it!\n\n- Once we see it again, confirmation bias kicks in and it essentially reassures you that because you are constantly seeing it now it must have gained overnight popularity!\n\nHope that helped, have a great day brother.\n\nedit: I have been making ELi5 videos for the past week trying to help people out, got a few going now and I'm going to keep at it.",
"Just like this\n\nRight after I bought a new car while driving every other car I see on the road is the car I just got ",
"What I need is the opposite: what do you call it when a favorite word you've known and been using for years suddenly becomes much more popular?\n\nFor me it was ***schadenfreude***, to get pleasure from someone else's misfortune (as when I found that my HS bully had hydroplaned his beloved muscle car on a rainy day and wrapped it around a telephone pole). I usually had to explain what it meant. \n\nUntil 15 years ago when suddenly it was everywhere. ",
"It's just like when you find a rare car in GTA and then all the computer characters are driving the same car ",
"I'm well into highschool and this happens to me at least once a week. This thread just answered a lot of questions. ",
"The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon is also the reason you should write down your goals and review them everyday. If your goal is to get a job or meet someone new, make that the first thing you think about in the morning, and throughout the day you'll take notice of potential job openings and attractive friendly people. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fmnHPRJ1dg&feature=youtu.be"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
m7yav | how do the investors in 'dragons den' quickly estimate the value of a business? | For those who don't know the show, it is a show where entrepreneurs pitch their business ideas to venture capitalists (The dragons).
It only takes the dragons a couple of questions before they decide if the business has been overvalued or not. How do they determine this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m7yav/eli5_how_do_the_investors_in_dragons_den_quickly/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2ytycy",
"c2ytycy"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm sure some of it is experience and intuition about the investment potential. But a lot of it just by comparison to other start up companies and the market for start up capital. The whole reason people invest at that level is to get a big chunk on the company for a relatively small investment. So it isn't a scientific valuation but more subjective, like valuing a poker hand or something. ",
"I'm sure some of it is experience and intuition about the investment potential. But a lot of it just by comparison to other start up companies and the market for start up capital. The whole reason people invest at that level is to get a big chunk on the company for a relatively small investment. So it isn't a scientific valuation but more subjective, like valuing a poker hand or something. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
2hr63v | sleeping plants/trees | Why do certain plants/trees go in a sleeping mode (branches and leaves lower at night and come back up in the morning) and why doesn't this happen with all trees/plants? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hr63v/eli5_sleeping_plantstrees/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckvd4um"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is believed that light sensitive processes such as DNA replication benefit from occurring during the night when they are not being interfered with. By contrast it makes sense to focus more resources on processes that require light during the day. So altered activity during the day and the night is observed in many plant varieties. You should know that this is only a hypothesis and not a strongly supported one either. Ultimate causation is always difficult to pin down. At best one can say that there is no definitive proof that this hypothesis is incorrect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5wkx5k | cars like vw beetle proved that a motor can be refrigerated by air. why this kind of design never succeeded to be the most popular and water/liquid refrigerated won? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wkx5k/eli5_cars_like_vw_beetle_proved_that_a_motor_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"deavix1",
"deavnpu",
"deavvp6",
"deavw5p",
"deawpih"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"It's more likely to overheat. If you're at a standstill or going up a steep hill with a heavy load for example it's not being cooled enough for the amount of work it's doing.",
"Liquid cooling can be used for more precise, in-block cooling.\n\nAir refrigeration is limited by the engine's geometry and is less efficient. ",
"Aircraft engines have been almost exclusively air cooled for decades.\nThe thing with a car is designers want to have a handy source of heat for doing different things like heating the interior or defrosting the windows.Coolant solves that and has the added bonus of making the car safer when it comes to exhaust fumes getting in the passenger cabin.Plus the coolant also heats up the transmission to operating temp faster with a heat exchanger and keeps it from over heating as well.(automatic). When you use the heat from an air cooled engine (either off the heads or from the manifolds) you have an increased risc of exhaust gas getting in the passenger compartment and putting you to sleep,(bad). And the gas burning heaters (vw beetles) just killed your gas mileage. ",
"Just because somethings possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. Liquid coolants have a *much* higher heat capacity, and so can absorb much higher amounts of heat from the engine. This is good, because the engine generally runs more efficiently as it's operating temperature increases, but this necessitates a better coolant system to get rid of the waste heat from the engine block, which allows you to get all of the positives of a hot engine, with none of the negatives.",
"What works in a cheap, low powered vehicle doesn't necessarily scale to more powerful vehicles that generate a lot more heat and have more complex engines."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
e9ir7r | how is it that deep sea creatures live in a very highly pressurized, low food, no light, low oxygen environment and "thrive." | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e9ir7r/eli5_how_is_it_that_deep_sea_creatures_live_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"faj5q7o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Nah. Ocean pressures are super high, but molecules are still pretty much completely indifferent. Meanwhile, these creatures evolved to basically survive off the sh~~ of the animals in shallower water, as well as the chemicals released by thermal vents."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4wwtb2 | wi-fi channel, frequency and the alphabet at the end of 802.11. | And how do they affect the connection quality and speed from the router? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wwtb2/eli5_wifi_channel_frequency_and_the_alphabet_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6ahxac",
"d6ajai9",
"d6als3a"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When transmitting wirelessly you need to be on a frequency. 2.4 and 5.0 Ghz are the standard wireless spectrums that are available to the public to use unlicensed. \n\nEvery country will license or have their own regulations on the frequencies you can use for WiFi and how much power you can use to transmit.\n\nSo as an example, if we look at 2.4GHz spectrum the actual range is something in the neighborhood of 2.4Ghz - > 2.5Ghz. The channels are specific frequencies inside that range. As an example, channel 1 would be 2.412 GHz. Channel 6 would be 2.437GHz, etc. This allows multiple devices to communicate on the spectrum allocated without as much interference.\n\nThe \"alphabet soup\" at the end is just the different wireless standards that have been ratified. They come with different performance and features based on the standard you are using. So 802.11ac is the most current standard and has more features. For example, it allows for up to 160Mhz wide channels for more speed and allows for multiple user MIMO (multiple input/multiple output) which allows the wireless access point to send data to two devices at the same time, previously not possible. Prior to 802.11ac we had 802.11n which allowed for single user MIMO which basically means that you could use multiple antennas to send multiple data streams to a single client to increase performance. It also added additional security features.\n\n",
"The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards committee is releasing standards for equipment so they can easily work together even if they are made by different manufacturers. The IEEE 802.11 standards is a standard for wireless local networking. This must not be confused with IEEE 802.3 which is a standard for wired networks and IEEE 802.15 which is a standard for wireless personal networking like Bluetooth. The letters at the end of the standard is numbered amendments to the standard. From time to time there is new techniques which might improve the service in some way and these new techniques needs to be standardized so different equipment can use it.\n\nThe IEEE 802.11 standard have defined different channels in different frequency ranges. Equipment needs to be tuned to the same radio frequency to work together. Modern equipment will scan through all channels to find the best one. The channels are using different radio bands that is globally assigned to such things. The most common ones are the 2.4GHz and the 5GHz ISO bands. Lower frequency will go further but with lower bandwidth, higher frequency have a greater bandwidth but does not go that far. Furthermore the 2.4GHz band is much smaller then the 5GHz band and just allows for 3 non-overlapping channels while the 5GHz band have 24 non-overlapping channels.\n\nIn short the amendments most often seen on modern equipment is IEEE 802.11a which is 5GHz up to 54Mbit/s, b which is 2.4GHz up to 54Mbit/s, n which is either frequencies and up to 150Mbit/s using two channels or 64Mbit/s and double range compared to g, ac which is 5GHz and can get up to 866Mbit/s using 8 channels. Most equipment support the previous amendments assuming they have a radio which supports the frequency band and will fall back to these if the equipment in the other end does not support the newer standards. If you see equipment supporting IEEE 802.11b/n it is usually an indication that it only have a 2.4GHz radio which might have problems in crowded environments and provide lower speed. However equipment that supports IEEE 802.11a/b/n have a 5GHz and a 2.4GHz radio which might be preferred. You might also find equipment that supports IEEE 802.11a/n that might not come with a 2.4GHz radio and can have issues over long distances, though walls or when used together with equipment that only have a 2.4GHz radio.",
"There's a lot of good information here but I think maybe they're giving you details you don't care about. \n\nThe letters at the end of the 802.11 are what \"version\" of WiFi you have. Right now AC is the most recent version but N is still very common too. \n\nNewer version routers will still be able to talk to older version devices (for example, If you have an AC router it will still be able to talk to your N laptop). \n\nNewer versions will typically be faster than older versions. When two different versions are talking to each other the speed will be whatever the slowest device is. (For example, if an AC router is talking to an N laptop, then the connection will be running at N speeds since that's the slowest device). \n\nFor most of WiFi's history the frequencies (a.k.a. channels) have been in the 2.4GHz band. However, newer WiFi routers are also able to transmit in the 5GHz band. 5GHz is a little faster and often less congested but the range suffers a little bit since the signal can't penetrate obstacles quite as easily. The difference usually isn't noticeable unless you have a big house. \n\nIt also must be noted that there's no backwards compatibility when it comes to the frequencies - if you want to use 5GHz then both your router AND your end device have to support 5GHz. If either of them lacks 5GHz support then both of them will default to 2.4GHz instead. \n\nDon't worry about overlapping channels and finding unused frequencies and all that - modern WiFi systems are smart enough to do all that for you automatically. \n\nTL;DR - Pick the highest letter you can find (AC is the newest), use 5GHz if you can (both your router AND your end device have to support it), and don't worry about specific channels because your router will handle that part for you automatically. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
befgqk | what is a photon, and do we know if it's made of anything smaller? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/befgqk/elif_what_is_a_photon_and_do_we_know_if_its_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"el5ldtg",
"el5n9xw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There was a term used when I last did physics:\n\nWavicle.\n\nI don't think it's in common parlance anymore.\n\nA photon is an elementary particle. As far as we know, there's nothing smaller than these. Protons are made up of elementary particles called quarks, an electron is an elementary particle.\n\nA photon is an elementary particle that makes up electro-magnetic radiation which includes visible light.\n\nWhen you get down to this scale of particle, they act *weird*.\n\nThe particles can be in many places at once, and in many states at once.\n\nThe most common way to explain this is through [the double slit experiment](_URL_0_).\n\nSo, what about the act of observation \"changes\" things? How does observation collapse the quantum wave form? \n\nTo \"see\" a particle like a photon or electron, you must first interact with it. This action changes the behaviour of the particle, and therefore collapses the wave form.",
"A photon is a unit of the thing that light is made of.\n\nLight interferes like a wave.\n\nLight interacts with detectors in discrete clicks like a particle.\n\nThese are facts that fit together really rather poorly, considering they are supposed to describe the same thing, but they are nonetheless both true.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nTo get more technical, The modern concept of a photon comes from applying quantum theory to the electromagnetic field (the area of physics now known as quantum optics).\n\nSimilar to atomic energy levels you will have seen in chemistry class (thanks for the background), the quantum nature of the electromagnetic field at a given frequency has equally spaced energy levels (each level corresponding to a photon's worth). Because of this, we can talk about the field being in a one-photon state, a two-photon state, a vacuum state (zero-photon ground state of the field), or a superposition of all photon-number states like coherent laser light, or in a statistical distribution of photon number states like thermal (blackbody) light.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe quantum electromagnetic field interferes like a wave, but at every point in time, we can calculate the probability distribution for the number of photons we will measure with an ideal photon detector. Here you may see I only talk about probabilities, but that is arguably all that all of quantum theory can provide.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWhen I first studied quantum optics, I was surprised to learn that photons weren't so much objects by themselves (like a bowling ball), but were instead quantum states of something more fundamental: the quantum electromagnetic field. Later I heard about full quantum field theory and learned that most things we think of as elementary particles are also quantum states of underlying fields. I don't know much about quantum field theory, though.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHope this helps :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc"
],
[]
] | ||
7p6lrc | how can surgeries be painful? you are in anesthesia the whole time so why do people call some surgeries painful? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7p6lrc/eli5_how_can_surgeries_be_painful_you_are_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsevi8k",
"dsevvi5"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It's generally the healing process that hurts\nIt takes longer to heal than the amount of time that the anaesthesia covers.\nAlso, certain operations cannot fully be anaesthetised for. Taking out an abscessed tooth for example",
"I got the dreaded Vasectomy several years ago and I don't think the doc did a very good job numbing the area before the procedure started.\n\nThat said I did learn that, when properly motivated, I can walk backwards using my ass cheeks and it is humanly possible to vacuum seal yourself to an operating table. ;) \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
lbs16 | how do the 1% influence politics? | From my understanding, they pay very good lobbyists lots of money to promote their agendas. Is this true? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lbs16/eli5_how_do_the_1_influence_politics/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2rg4ig",
"c2rh63i",
"c2rg4ig",
"c2rh63i"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, it's true … but it's unwise to draw conclusions from that fact in isolation, because it's only part of the picture.\n\nLobbying is nothing more than participating in representative government. Any private citizen can do it; just call your Congressional representatives' offices or visit them for an in-person meeting. You sit down and explain your point of view, and try to persuade the representative to agree with you. It's really very simple.\n\nA lobbyist is someone who's *good at that.* Just like some people are naturally talented at singing or painting or swimming, some people are just naturally talented at communication and persuasion. Others work hard over many years to *get* good at doing that. Sometimes people who are good at it choose to become professional lobbyists: that is, people who will argue a particular case or point of view to elected representatives on behalf of others.\n\n*Anybody* can hire a lobbyist … or at least attempt to. Lobbyists, for obvious reasons, are not inclined to take on clients whose positions they can't effectively support. For example, if you wanted to persuade members of Congress that babies should be slaughtered for meat and leather, you'd have a hard time finding a lobbyist who'd help you. But in general, anybody with a non-crazy argument to make can hire a lobbyist to help them communicate that argument to the right people.\n\nIn fact, you don't even have to *hire* a lobbyist, strictly speaking. There are more than 10,000 full-time professional lobbyists in Washington DC (and of course many more in the various state capitals), and virtually all of them do *at least some* pro bono work. That is to say, they'll choose to take on a particular client for free, simply because they think that client's got a good argument to make … or indeed, sometimes because it benefits that lobbyist in some intangible way to be seen making that argument. For instance, a lobbyist might choose to take a particular client pro bono if it will give that lobbyist a chance to meet with and establish relationships with members of Congress with whom the lobbyist had not previously interacted. But the upshot is the same: The lobbyist works for free.\n\nAnd of course, again, a lobbyist isn't doing anything *you yourself* couldn't do. The only difference is that lobbyists have practiced at it and gotten good.\n\nSo as you can see, it's a more nuanced topic than simply \"rich people run the country.\"\n\nImagine, just for sake of illustration, that we didn't have a Congress, and everybody in the country got to vote directly on every topic that came up. Imagine further that not only did each person get a vote, but each *organization* got a vote as well: each company, each non-profit, each church, each school, everything.\n\nAnd imagine further that a whole bunch of Americans — ten *million* of them — simply chose not to vote. They just can't be bothered, or what have you. And because of that, some proposal passed in a general election because 500 individual people voted against it, and 501 *companies* voted *for* it.\n\nHow would you react to the ten million people who claimed that the system was broken because companies got more of a vote than citizens did?\n\nObviously you'd scoff at them. If those people had simply *participated* rather than opting out of the process, the result of the general election would've been 10,000,000 to 501 … not even close.\n\nThat's the story behind the \"the 1% run the country\" meme. It's not true. What's true is that the process is open to all; we're all practically *begged* to participate at every opportunity. Many, many people simply choose not to bother, or choose not to put in the effort required to do it usefully. And then they complain that only a few have a voice in the public debate. In fact what's really going on is that *everybody* has a voice, but some people have just chosen to remain silent and gripe about things after the fact.",
"Forget the lobbyists. Here's how the 1% control America: they tell *us*, the voters, what to vote for. We do what they say.\n\nFor example: the 1% want us to dismantle the unions, because the key battleground between the 1% and the 99% is the salary-negotiating table. At that table, the unions take the side of the 99%. So the 1% want the unions gone.\n\nSo the 1% rev up their radio stations, and they tell us the unions are bad. They invent some story about unions destroying jobs, or about them causing inflation, or whatever. They send their personalities on TV, who seriously rub their chins and talk in deep, serious-sounding voices about how the unions have sapped America's productivity, devalued its currency, sent jobs overseas, or caused leprosy. And we dutifully respond by voting for union-busting politicians.\n\nThere's always a grain of truth in what they say: they find a story about some union that abused its power, which is easy to do, since all human institutions - corporate, union, or government - abuse power. They pound that story over and over.\n\nSo forget the lobbyists, forget the politicians. The problem is us. We need to stop relying on 1%-controlled media for all of our political information, and we need to do some *real* studying, learn some macroeconomics, and find out how the world really works.\n",
"Yes, it's true … but it's unwise to draw conclusions from that fact in isolation, because it's only part of the picture.\n\nLobbying is nothing more than participating in representative government. Any private citizen can do it; just call your Congressional representatives' offices or visit them for an in-person meeting. You sit down and explain your point of view, and try to persuade the representative to agree with you. It's really very simple.\n\nA lobbyist is someone who's *good at that.* Just like some people are naturally talented at singing or painting or swimming, some people are just naturally talented at communication and persuasion. Others work hard over many years to *get* good at doing that. Sometimes people who are good at it choose to become professional lobbyists: that is, people who will argue a particular case or point of view to elected representatives on behalf of others.\n\n*Anybody* can hire a lobbyist … or at least attempt to. Lobbyists, for obvious reasons, are not inclined to take on clients whose positions they can't effectively support. For example, if you wanted to persuade members of Congress that babies should be slaughtered for meat and leather, you'd have a hard time finding a lobbyist who'd help you. But in general, anybody with a non-crazy argument to make can hire a lobbyist to help them communicate that argument to the right people.\n\nIn fact, you don't even have to *hire* a lobbyist, strictly speaking. There are more than 10,000 full-time professional lobbyists in Washington DC (and of course many more in the various state capitals), and virtually all of them do *at least some* pro bono work. That is to say, they'll choose to take on a particular client for free, simply because they think that client's got a good argument to make … or indeed, sometimes because it benefits that lobbyist in some intangible way to be seen making that argument. For instance, a lobbyist might choose to take a particular client pro bono if it will give that lobbyist a chance to meet with and establish relationships with members of Congress with whom the lobbyist had not previously interacted. But the upshot is the same: The lobbyist works for free.\n\nAnd of course, again, a lobbyist isn't doing anything *you yourself* couldn't do. The only difference is that lobbyists have practiced at it and gotten good.\n\nSo as you can see, it's a more nuanced topic than simply \"rich people run the country.\"\n\nImagine, just for sake of illustration, that we didn't have a Congress, and everybody in the country got to vote directly on every topic that came up. Imagine further that not only did each person get a vote, but each *organization* got a vote as well: each company, each non-profit, each church, each school, everything.\n\nAnd imagine further that a whole bunch of Americans — ten *million* of them — simply chose not to vote. They just can't be bothered, or what have you. And because of that, some proposal passed in a general election because 500 individual people voted against it, and 501 *companies* voted *for* it.\n\nHow would you react to the ten million people who claimed that the system was broken because companies got more of a vote than citizens did?\n\nObviously you'd scoff at them. If those people had simply *participated* rather than opting out of the process, the result of the general election would've been 10,000,000 to 501 … not even close.\n\nThat's the story behind the \"the 1% run the country\" meme. It's not true. What's true is that the process is open to all; we're all practically *begged* to participate at every opportunity. Many, many people simply choose not to bother, or choose not to put in the effort required to do it usefully. And then they complain that only a few have a voice in the public debate. In fact what's really going on is that *everybody* has a voice, but some people have just chosen to remain silent and gripe about things after the fact.",
"Forget the lobbyists. Here's how the 1% control America: they tell *us*, the voters, what to vote for. We do what they say.\n\nFor example: the 1% want us to dismantle the unions, because the key battleground between the 1% and the 99% is the salary-negotiating table. At that table, the unions take the side of the 99%. So the 1% want the unions gone.\n\nSo the 1% rev up their radio stations, and they tell us the unions are bad. They invent some story about unions destroying jobs, or about them causing inflation, or whatever. They send their personalities on TV, who seriously rub their chins and talk in deep, serious-sounding voices about how the unions have sapped America's productivity, devalued its currency, sent jobs overseas, or caused leprosy. And we dutifully respond by voting for union-busting politicians.\n\nThere's always a grain of truth in what they say: they find a story about some union that abused its power, which is easy to do, since all human institutions - corporate, union, or government - abuse power. They pound that story over and over.\n\nSo forget the lobbyists, forget the politicians. The problem is us. We need to stop relying on 1%-controlled media for all of our political information, and we need to do some *real* studying, learn some macroeconomics, and find out how the world really works.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5mcmua | i imagine that if i were in a position of power i'd be so overwhelmed with my opportunity to serve the people that it'd be all i could think about. how is it that seemingly every politician becomes self serving by the time they reach power? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mcmua/eli5_i_imagine_that_if_i_were_in_a_position_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc2jfpp",
"dc2jn4d"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Because they cannot get to that position in the first place without being self serving, at least to some degree. Fully altruistic people never survive in politics long enough to get to any high ranks. Now there are a lot of politicians who have a large dose of altruism, but even these have problems getting to high ranks. ",
"Well, you could make some cynical comment about only self-serving people wanting and getting into power in the first place.\n\nA different way to look at things would involve look at just how much power a leader really has. Most people in positions of power are only there because of the people who support them. Even the greatest autocratic dictators is beholden to his supporters. they have to keep the people who keep them in power happy.\n\nBy the time anybody reaches the top they have so many strings attached to them that even the most idealistic person will be forced to do all sorts of corrupt and underhand things just to stay in power.\n\nYou can't get into power and you can't stay there without being at least slightly corrupt even in a democracy.\n\nPower corrupts. That much is true.\n\nHowever the process of attaining power also corrupts just as much as the power itself will."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
cw3r1x | in a city, how are addresses assigned when a new skyscraper or apartment building is constructed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cw3r1x/eli5_in_a_city_how_are_addresses_assigned_when_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey82cj5",
"ey82v3r",
"ey8flbt"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"In most cities the building itself has an address that corresponds to the lot it was built on. You don't have to worry about changing the address because it just uses the same address as whatever was built there before it. From there each apartment has it's own designation.\n\nSo if you live on the 5th floor of a building your address might be something like 1234 Market Street, Apartment 5B",
"Most cities pre-allocate all the numbers for buildings based on the land, in a city it's common to allocate a block of 100 numbers to a block. A large skyscraper gets one of those numbers. \n\nApartments within the building just specify their apartment number within the building on the address. So if the building is 195 Broadway, and you live in apartment C on floor 16, you'd address mail as \"195 Broadway Apt 16C\"",
"Cities have some sort of rule for addresses, including 0/0 axis point, how far each increment is, etc.\n\nFor example, here in Chicago State/Madison in downtown in the 0/0 mark, and all addresses are noted East or West, North or South relative to that location. And each city block (1/8 mi) is 100 increments... so you'd instandly know that a street that runs 1600 North is 2 mi. from the 0/0 point, and a street that's 4000 West is 5 miles west of that point. \n\nAs such, each block has a narrow range of possible addresses it can have and since there are typically only 1 or 2 large buildings on a block, There are a number of viable options but they are often kept simple with 100 increments or repeating numbers, like 500 W. Madison St. or 444 N. Michigan."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1j634k | am i allowed to produce and sell merchandise with nfl team logos and names? | I want to make my own snap backs and use NFL teams on them. For example: One would say Broncos across the cap with their logo. Is that legal to sell without a license? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j634k/eli5_am_i_allowed_to_produce_and_sell_merchandise/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbbgr7u",
"cbbgrua",
"cbbhfqu"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Absolutely not. The NFL is a trademarked organization. You would be using their trademarked brand to make money for yourself, and they could sue you for:\n\n1\\. Cease and Desist of production\n\nand\n\n2\\. Every dollar you made from your merchandise\n\n",
"No, because those names and pictures belong to them, and you have to ask if you can use them. People pay lots of money to the NFL to use those names and pictures, and usually get to be the only company allowed to use them for a specific type of thing. For you to pay enough for YOU to be that company costs probably a lot more than you have in your piggy-bank.",
" > Is that legal to sell without a license? \n\nThe fact that you knew that the NFL logos were governed by licensing agreements indicates you probably already knew the answer to your question. I'm not sure why you asked it. \n\nIf you were asking if you could make one for your personal use, then yes, that's fine. But you said you wanted to *sell* them. How many people are we talking about? Selling them at your high school? That might be okay. It's not legal, but they're not going to move heaven and earth to stop you. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2zh26q | why are my fingernails no longer translucent once they grow off the tip? | Im talking about the part you clip off, why is this foggy unlike the rest? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zh26q/eli5_why_are_my_fingernails_no_longer_translucent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpiujjy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'm sure you've heard about [tape over frosted glass](_URL_0_) trick right? Your nail is actually rough on the underside, especially with bits of dead skin still attached. The part of your nail that didn't grow out is firmly \"adhered\" to the nailbed so it appears translucent because the hydration provided by the nailbed smooths the rough underside like the tape smooths the rough side of frosted glass.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRoL2q-tU-Q"
]
] | |
2c5kv1 | why is correct torque important when tightening bolts? | I think I get why it's important in terms of under tightening bolts but why is over tightening an issue (other than tightening to the point of breaking the material being joined)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c5kv1/eli5_why_is_correct_torque_important_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjc7ms1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In Engineering design, bolts are selected based on the forces or stresses they will be subject to during use. If a bolt is over-torqued/over-tensioned, it will be subject to additional forces that it wasn't designed to withstand. This increase in forces could cause the bolt to snap or deform, or perhaps the threads will start to strip, causing the bolt to loosen.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8my2f1 | why are there worries about micro-organisms from earth affecting potential micro-organisms from other celestial bodies and vice versa, when they haven't adapted to do so? | I hear about it all the time. Sure, on Earth it makes sense for an isolated group of humans to be affected by a micro-organism that they haven't adapted to, but why is this a worry when no Earth life is on say, mars for example? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8my2f1/eli5_why_are_there_worries_about_microorganisms/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzr923z",
"dzr93dv",
"dzr94dm",
"dzrqiu9"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We know nothing. There can be no microorganisms at all, they can be similar to our or completely different. We have no clue what to expect. That's why it is safer to assume the worst option and take all precautions. ",
"Lets say your eating Cheetos. Your hands and face get covered with Cheetos dust. \n\nWhile covered in Cheetos dust you get sent to mars to see if its surface contains Cheetos dust. Well if your covered in it, your tests will show there's Cheetos dust. \n\nThe point is really to protect the reliability of scientific experiments. Nobody is worried we'll create space aids or something like that.",
"As I understand it, if we find microscopic life on say Mars, we want to be as certain as possible that it is is native to Mars. If every probe we send is covered in earth's bacteria, it would be so much harder to know that what we found is extra terrestrial. ",
"So at this point, the main concern is just not contaminating experiments present or future. We don't want to accidentally detect our own life when exploring Mars, or in the future when exploring some of the outer icy moons. \n\nLonger term, the issue isn't so much disease as invasive species. It's possible that, eg, Earth microbes could be better adapted to certain areas on Mars or Europa or wherever and push out the native species, the same way that animals from one continent can push out native species on a different continent. Earth is a biodiverse planet with a long history of many different species, so it's not impossible that life here would have biological tricks that life on another planet, limited to small populations surviving in barely habitable areas, wouldn't have evolved. It's not for sure...it's also possible that the local life could have the advantage, but we would rather avoid taking the chance, especially when taking precautions doesn't cost us much. Eventually we'll probably send people and no doubt a bunch of bacteria will go along for the ride, but there's no sense spreading them around before then.\n\nLonger term, like in a science-fiction future where humans go between various earthlike planets, there are still ways microbes could mess you up even without being actual pathogens. For example, life from some highly acidic planet could just find stomach acid a pretty good habitat and cause digestive problems that way. Or life could happen to excrete something toxic like cyanide as a metabolic byproduct. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
99cgkd | why do car manufacturers keep making similar styles instead of rebooting a more vintage style that people would spend crazy amounts on, or even making a new car thats similar to those vintage styles? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99cgkd/eli5_why_do_car_manufacturers_keep_making_similar/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4mj1xa",
"e4mj2v1",
"e4mj42g",
"e4mjdtf",
"e4mjvdx"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Old designs are not very aerodynamic, as a result will use more fuel than modern design if everything else is equal.\n\n > a more vintage style that people would spend crazy amounts on\n\nThat would probably equate to a luxury car which by default wouldn't be produced in massive quantity. People also wouldn't pay as much as you think they would for newly produced model that looks like a vintage model. Vintage cars worth more because they're old and rare.\n\n > a new car that's similar to those vintage styles\n\nPorsche has been doing this forever. They improve aerodynamics while keeping design elements of old models.",
"People like exclusive things. Be that cars, watches, clothes, whatever. A real vintage car is rare, which means the owner has something that most people don't have. This makes that person feel better or more exclusive than his or her peers. Rebooting old vintage styles is just a copy, copies aren't exclusive because everyone can get them.",
"A lot of vintage styles come from a time where safety standards varied from more lenient to outright nonexistent. You do see companies lean on their heritage, but they have to take into account rider protection, crumple zones, the angles of the front of the car, and many other facets. It's why in a lot of those reinventions, you can see the inspiration, but they look a bit more rounded off and generally... beefier I guess.\n\nThe New Mini is a giant compared to the classic. The VW Beetle is a whole lot curvier. The sleek Mustang put on a lot of muscle in it's reinvention. All to meet the obligations of safety standards. Personally in this case, I think the substance is preferable to the style.",
"There is 2 reasons I can think of, one finicial and one technical. \n\nFinically, the amount of people that would be interested in a retro style car is probably just not enough to warrant full production. Customs and small quantity shops are already established and can produce many classic cars vs 1 production model. A major car manufacturer just wouldn't have enough motivation to produce that kind of car. \n\nTechnically, the design of cars changed drastically due to the driving forces of safety and fuel efficiency. Old cars often have poor aerodynamics making them less fuel effecient. The frame/structure of retro cars wouldn't be able to meet today's standards for crash safety. (There is a video somewhere of a crash test between a Chevy 55 bel air and a new Chevy car. You can see the crumple zones were not a thing back then)\n\nTldr; not enough people to validate a full production and its design would be too crap vs today's standards to even be legal. ",
"The plymouth PT ceuiser was a disaster, maintenance wise. The redesigned ford thunderbird was a bar of soap, causally neutered. The bubble top chevy s10 was also too effeminate. The chrysler HHR was just plain ugly.\nAs far as taking a risk, design wise, and selling well, i would nominate thepontiac aztek. It was novel, yet vintage in its blocky, cubist style. Everyone had one, 2002-2008"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5a8mu3 | why are fish only able to grow to a specific size, depending on the size of their tank? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5a8mu3/eli5_why_are_fish_only_able_to_grow_to_a_specific/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9eozti"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It's a myth. Fish don't grow to the size of their tank. Their growth may be somewhat stunted by things like poor water quality due to the undersized tank, but they don't magically adjust their growth to fit the size of the container, and in any case, it's a serious health issue and not something that should be considered a steady state of affairs. If fish really did grow to the size of their tank, it would be possible for pet shops to sell miniature versions of fish far too large for the average home aquarium just by keeping them in a smaller tank. \n\nFish aren't bonsai trees. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5ghmg1 | how does audio get balanced? | For example, I was listening to as song where there was a saxophone and guitar duo. The saxophone dominated the left speaker and the guitar dominated the right. How does your sound system differentiate which speaker to play out of?
Other examples of this can be found in 3D soundscapes in gaming. I've never fully understood how this works. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ghmg1/eli5_how_does_audio_get_balanced/ | {
"a_id": [
"dasajg4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Most audio is recorded in two audio streams: Left and Right. This makes sense because we only have two ears.\n\nSince there are two different streams, you get one per speaker. To make the audio directional, you just have it louder in one side compared to the other. This is exactly how our ears work to determine where a sound is coming from. 3D sound positioning in gaming works in a similar way.\n\nIn a more complicated speaker system, you can have more than 2 audio tracks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3pho9p | why can't humans invent machines that activate our muscles without us having to do exercise? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pho9p/eli5_why_cant_humans_invent_machines_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw6cie2",
"cw6fmbx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We can and we have. There are machines that exercise the muscles of comatose patients to stop them atrophying and you can get gadgets that use electricity to supposedly exercise muscles - e.g. Slendertone.",
"Surely it's more efficient to just exercise. I mean that as a serious answer - I imagine if anyone was setting out to invent this, they'd give up pretty quickly!\n if your muscles are moving, you'll feel them just as much as if you were moving them yourself. It's not as though you could just lie there and watch tv calmly while your muscles are flexing and working . You'd still get sweaty and tired and sore - so cut out the middleman of the machine you're thinking of building, and use the muscle-controlling machine in your head instead. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
becz2b | does strenuous physical activity cause your body to process caffeine faster? | If you drink a cup of coffee and work out for an hour, is there then less caffeine in your system than if you had just sat on the couch for an hour? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/becz2b/eli5_does_strenuous_physical_activity_cause_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"el4v91p",
"el4xf8t",
"el4xqa4"
],
"score": [
2,
19,
3
],
"text": [
"There currently isn't enough research to say for sure.",
"A quick google search found a an in depth quora post on the subject.\n\nThe TL;DR being \"There seems to be little to no effect but it's still inconclusive\" \n\n\"Though there are plenty of studies of the effects of caffeine on metabolism and exercise, there are surprisingly few on the effect of exercise on the metabolism of caffeine. (Come on, Red Bull, cough up some research dollars.) What little has been done may have been prompted by the International Olympic Committee’s inclusion of caffeine in its list of regulated drugs and by concern over the effects of teens guzzling so-called energy drinks.\n\nAn unpublished 1981 study which looked at urine samples found little effect of exercise on time-dependent caffeine excretion , but since only small amounts of caffeine itself are eliminated via this route (caffeine is mostly metabolized in the liver to other stuff), the results may have been simply due to the noise inherent in the differences between small numbers.\n\nAnother study looked at blood plasma levels in subjects with and without exercise, but the study was small and limited to a few hours.\n\nOne of the few studies that would seem to speak to your question was conducted in France (European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March 1991, Volume 40, pp 279-282 ) using 12 subjects, half of whom were heavy coffee drinkers and half, light coffee drinkers, measuring serum caffeine levels. For both groups , exercise appeared to reduce the half-life (the time for the plasma caffeine concentration to come to half its original levels) from 3.99 hours to 2.29 hours. Perhaps not surprisingly, the levels peaked at higher values during the exercising part of the study. Also of interest: the heavy coffee drinkers eliminated their caffeine at a faster rate (a shorter half-life) than the light coffee drinkers.\n\nAlas, that may not settle the question (why is it never simple?). A 2002 study from the University of Guelph [Journal of Applied Physiology 2002, vol. 93, 1471-1478] which included measurements of both caffeine and its metabolites, while also noting higher plasma levels of caffeine in exercising subjects, found no statistically valid difference in the kinetics of elimination between the two trials. The authors speculate that the earlier study may not matched subjects well for physical fitness or controlled for cigarette smoking, dietary consumption of compounds known to alter caffeine metabolism, and (for the female subjects) menstrual status.\n\nThis lack of an effect was also noted in a study (British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2008, vol. 65, pp 833-840) that looked at the pharmacokinetics of Ripped Fuel Extreme Cut, an energy drink containing (amongst other things) 21 mg synephrine and 304 mg caffeine. Synephrine is an alkaloid (as is caffeine) that is marketed both as a “natural” stimulant and as a drug (Oxedrine, Sympatol, and generics), and its use in energy drink is not without controversy, despite that it can derived from natural sources. Neither synephrine nor caffeine appeared to be eliminated faster during exercise, though whether there was a synergistic effect between the two drugs on the pharmacokinetics of elimination can’t be determined from the data. \n \nThere are a few other studies out there, but none that seem to enlighten us further. So what’s the bottom line? Given the ambiguity between studies, I’m apt to believe that if there is an effect on caffeine metabolism by exercise, it is not a large one. \"\n\nSource: _URL_0_ by John Kapecki\n\nSo we are left with 2 studies showing yes and 2 showing no. Like our friend John here I do believe there is likely some small effect, but it's just that, small.",
"No, the breakdown of caffeine is not controlled by your metabolism. Theres things in your metabolism that break down food called digestive enzymes. Enzymes make chemical reactions happen. The enzyme that breaks down caffeine is not a digestive enzyme, but is an enzyme called cytochrome P450 oxidase. Same with alcohol, but with a different enzyme (alcohol dehydrogenase)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.quora.com/Does-exercise-expedite-the-processing-of-caffeine"
],
[]
] | |
3skwna | if objects give off a scent, and that scent is part of the object, why don't smelly objects just evaporate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3skwna/eli5_if_objects_give_off_a_scent_and_that_scent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwy5a64"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The molecules that make up the scent are generally a tiny portion of the overall mass of the object. The object can lose its volatile scent molecules and still be left with a lot of stuff that doesn't go anywhere. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
ze330 | why is marriage equality an issue of state law rather than federal law? | Why is this up to each state? Doesn't that just split America apart? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ze330/eli5_why_is_marriage_equality_an_issue_of_state/ | {
"a_id": [
"c63rwyi",
"c63s11k",
"c63slgi",
"c63swmg",
"c63tmy9"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
19,
46,
2
],
"text": [
"The states have to *define* marriage within their state constitution before they may be able to regulate it. While marriage in North Carolina may only be strictly heterosexual and can only be done through a legal process, marriage in California also includes common law marriages, marriages that occur as a result of meeting certain rules like having children with someone. The reason that the federal government can't force gay marriage rights is because there isn't a definition that the federal government itself *has* for marriage, and you can't work with something that's undefined.\n\nThat being said, if there *was* a federal definition made, it would divide the United States *more* because it could make a huge number of people angry: instead of having one group angry in one state and just moving to a state they agree with more or just being angry with their state, a massive number of like-minded people across the entire nation get angry, and there isn't *anything at all* that would work as a quick fix except a change in the definition. Either the people being treated unequally will get extremely angry for being treated badly *nationally*, or those that disagree with gay marriage (for example, this doesn't just apply to gay marriage) would get angry because their religious freedom (marriages are often carried out within a church) would then be limited. Instead of having 100 different groups (the people for and against each individual local law in each state) there would be 2 very large, very powerful groups, causing much more damage.\n\nThe third reason is: local government problems. Marriage is defined within the state and also *taxed* by the state. Making marriage a federal issue would interfere with local tax systems. Marriages are also made official *in local courts*, **not** churches as what many people believe. Although you can be married within a church, it's documented and the court makes it official. Changing marriage laws federally would cause local court systems to lose power, *especially* with governing local issues with married couples.",
"It's a question of States' rights. Before the United States was founded, there were 13 independent colonies that shared no government except the British crown. During the American Revolution, the 13 colonies ratified The [Articles of Confederation](_URL_1_), forming a loosely bound national government. The union was weak; congress had the power to declare war, but not to form an army, instead having to rely on state militias. In 1789, the [Constitution](_URL_0_) was ratified by the states, strengthening the National Government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the State laws were the supreme law in each respective state. The Constitution was passed as the supreme law of the United States, that no State or Federal law can override.\n\nSo, under the Articles, the power of the governments went \n\n* State > Federal\n\nBut under the Constitution, it's redefined as\n\n* Constitution > State > Federal\n\nWhat it comes down to, is that the United States isn't just one big country, it's 50+ once independent States joined in a union. America's Strength comes from its ability to have different laws for different people in different States. Sorry if this didn't answer your question, but it's an important part of what you asked.",
"Each state is like a different playground. Every playground has people who like to play different kinds of tag in it. Some like freeze tag, others like tag that has safety zones, others prefer free for alls. \n\nIf all the playgrounds changed to just one type of tag, then many people would be upset. But if each playground was allowed to have their own version of tag, then people could go to whichever one they want.\n\nAlthough there can be some fighting over games of tag, there are things that many people agree on, like rules to basketball, baseball, and the very important capture the flag. This is what keeps the playgrounds together, not necessarily the issue of tag.\n\n\n\nOr weed.",
"*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*\n\nThat's the 10th Amendment. Since the Constitution to the US does not explicitly define marriage, it is left to the states to decide.",
"States issue marraige licences. \n\n/thread"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
95e6pq | what does it mean that a company goes private or public. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/95e6pq/eli5_what_does_it_mean_that_a_company_goes/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3s01ji",
"e3s021h",
"e3s247e"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For profit firms are always owned by someone.\n\nMost are privately held, meaning they are owned by individuals or small groups of people who manage them as they see fit.\n\nFirms can also go public, selling shares of ownership to anyone who wants to buy them. This can, for valuable firms, raise a ton of money for the firm and make the former private owners huge amounts of money. However, public firms must also issue regular financial reports to investors and generally be beholden to investors' interests.\n\nMusk absolutely hates this, and would love to buy back stock in his firm and allow him to manage it how he likes.",
"A private company is wholly owned by some number of private entities. These companies don't have to present earnings, nor do they have to work specifically to earn shareholders money (meaning they are more free to make certain decisions). You can't go out and buy stock for private companies - they're wholly owned. Examples of large private companies include Cargill and Aldi.\n\nA public company, on the other hand, has opened themselves to the public for ownership. Any company listed on a stock market is public, and you can go buy some portion of it right now. They must meet certain requirements to remain listed - like earnings reports and working to earn shareholders money. Microsoft, Oracle, and Google are all public companies.",
"It means whether they have public shareholders or not, ie. can any investor buy shares of stock in that company. \n\nGoing public and selling shares to investors is a way to gain money for expansion and a way for founders to gain liquid assets — turn ownership into cash they can spend.\n\nBut being public also comes with all sorts of reporting requirements such as quarterly earnings releases. And can often mean company execs are pressured to act in ways that will boost stock now vs. what is best interest longer term.\n\nWhat Elon Musk is proposing is to buy back all the shares of Tesla, currently a publicly traded company, so that it is again owned by just him and a small number of investors such that they don’t have to disclose financial information. And they would all the profits or growth in company value."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
62dqxr | why are kiwi fruits and peaches hairy? | What's the function of the hair on the skin of these fruits?
EDIT: Thanks to all you guys reminding me that I like kiwi's by constantly commenting, I have eaten 4 of them today! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62dqxr/eli5_why_are_kiwi_fruits_and_peaches_hairy/ | {
"a_id": [
"dflsyub",
"dflt0ig",
"dflwf2s",
"dflx6ii",
"dflxp2v",
"dflyliw",
"dflzfy6",
"dfm0aeh",
"dfm1e3j",
"dfm2tqa",
"dfm5izg",
"dfm7pfs",
"dfmc6v3",
"dfmeaa5",
"dfmijue",
"dfmivbo",
"dfmiz8z",
"dfmkid7",
"dfmordv",
"dfmtzs0",
"dfn3lo4"
],
"score": [
96,
4306,
563,
569,
28,
2,
67,
159,
8,
4,
20,
1380,
2,
9,
2,
15,
5,
3,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Quite simply, nobody knows for sure. Some scientists have speculated that it's to deter bugs.\n\nIf you believe in evolution, then you also should recognize two things: Evolution is a process and not a product (so just looking at the end result tells you nothing about how or why something came to be), and that evolution doesn't actively move toward a better solution, so random mutations can survive that do nothing to help or hinder an organism.\n\n(If you don't believe in evolution, then there's some design plan for kiwis and peaches.)",
"To keep small bugs away -- it's hard for them to walk on the skin and get close to the fruit to bite into it -- and also the hairs add surface area to control moisture in the fruit. [Kiwi-specific info here](_URL_0_).",
"With peaches specifically, they are hairy because their human farmers preferred that. Peaches have been a domestic fruit for over 6,000 years (per [Wikipedia's Peach article](_URL_0_)) and have a recessive gene that causes loss of the hair (sold as nectarines). \n\nIf farmers didn't prefer the hair (it helps protect the fruit from bruising) they would have selected the hairless cultivars a long time ago.",
"Hair in plants can be used for defense but also to prevent water loss. The hair created a \"boundary layer\" that keeps the air slightly more stationary so when the water tries to evaporate, the air immediately around the plant is already fairly saturated with water. ",
"because they dont shave! Ha ha! No its an evolutionary method a. to prevent bugs from walking on them as eaisly and b. its eaiser to control moisture loss with little hairs that can control the temp of the fruit.\n",
"Mainly for water retention. Keeps em nice an moist inside.\n\nAlso helps deter pests because they have the appearance of being less edible.",
"In humid environments where pests such a bugs can be an issue for fruit, some have developed this \"hair\" to keep the bodies of insects off the surface of the fruit, as it is irritating to them, and it will also make it difficult to lay eggs, because they cannot penetrate the hair to reach the skin of the fruit. ",
"A buddy of mine is a paleo-botanist.\n\nHis take is that, in general, when the question is, \"Why do plants < x > ?\", where < x > is something that doesn't obviously benefit the plant (like get you high, itch, have hair etc), the answer is usually pest control.",
"Was going to ask what kinda weird ass peaches you buy, but decided to google it and they are indeed hairy, but I've never seen a hairy one in a store. Oddly enough, kiwis in stores are hairy.",
"In some plants in dry places, to compensate for the lack of moisture in the area, instead of leaves, some plants will develop little hairs instead, this increases surface area on the plant and allows for more pores on the plant to absorb water, while not absorbing too much light as leaves would.",
"Follow up question: is it really \"hair\" the way that animals produce it or is it a different compound?",
"\"Well for two reasons. First, to keep bugs away. The little hairs annoy the bugs and help to keep the plant bug free. Kind of like those spikes they put on the window air-conditioning units to keep birds from nesting/hanging out there. Nobody wants bird poop in their air conditioner!\n\nSecond reason is to help the fruit retain moisture. The hairs do this in two ways. They collect the dew in the morning so that helps keep the fruit moist. And, they act like a barrier, keeping the moist air close to the fruit. Think of the hairs like a little shirt for the kiwi. Your shirt keeps warm air close to your body and the hairs keep the moist air close to the fruit. Cool huh?\"\n\n[Sauce](_URL_0_)",
"Well, not all peaches are hairy...Peaches that lack a particular hairiness gene are called \"nectarines\". ",
"The kiwis you buy at the store are still hairy because they remove the heads and legs but they don't pluck them.",
"Anyone else read this as 2 questions first and get super confused?",
"ELI5: Why is Kiwi a weird fruit, a weird bird, and what New Zealanders are called? ",
"I was going to complement you on using the correct name \"kiwifruit\". But then you ruined it with your edit (and a bonus greengrocers apostrophe). ",
"Followup question: chemically, are fruit and bug hairs the same as ours?",
"Did you know there are kiwifruit without hair that grow in cold climates? Look up hardy kiwi.",
"As a New Zealander, reading this thread, the whole bit about rubbing kiwis on bare legs is entertaining haha ",
"Because sometimes you've got to make it through a little hair to get to the sweet juicy inside."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://anemptyencyclopedia.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/why-so-hairy/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach#History"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://anemptyencyclopedia.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/why-so-hairy/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],... | |
3pw9ji | how can imprimis pharmaceuticals get a drug on the market so fast and for a such low price? | How can Imprimis Pharmaceuticals get a drug on the market so fast and for a such low price? I've always tought that the process of new drugs is very hard and a legislative hell, so I'm wondering how it is possible for a company to do this so fast? Or is it just a case of the drug already being approved? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pw9ji/eli5how_can_imprimis_pharmaceuticals_get_a_drug/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw9y3s7"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"This is not a new drug. Both of the ingredients have already been approved individually.\n\nUsually you would need to get FDA approval even for doing this, which is much less expensive than a full new drug application, but still pretty expensive and time-consuming.\n\nBut in this case Imprimis is using a loophole by calling itself a ['compounding pharmacy'] (_URL_0_) rather than a drug company."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/PharmacyCompounding/ucm339764.htm"
]
] | |
43fycy | what does "my asthma is acting up" really mean? | What exactly does it mean when someone says, "My asthma is acting up again?" How does a condition act up and what triggers it? Also, how does someone "grow out of their asthma?" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43fycy/eli5_what_does_my_asthma_is_acting_up_really_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"czhwp4m",
"czhxewo",
"czhyyas"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"As an asthma sufferer, I tend to use the phrase to mean I'm a bit more wheezy than normal and more likely to suffer an attack.\nMost suffers have certain triggers, personally I know that if it's really cold outside, going from a warm building to the cold will normally bring on at attack so I have to up my medication. Same of I have a cold as they tend to sit straight on my chest and linger for a while as my lungs aren't as strong. Other people suffer with pollen, dust, food sources. It's all about knowing your trigger.\nDepending on your trigger, it is possible to grow out of it as you may become stronger/increase your immune system as you get older so your lungs become stronger and better able to fight off the affects. My daughter for example, suffers with asthma but only when she has a bad cold or when her immune system is low. We are pretty confident she will grow out of it as she becomes older and more able to fight off infections etc.",
"People do grow out of their asthma. People are still unsure exactly why, but one idea is that as you get older, your airways get wider. And that's all asthma is - a narrowing of the airways making it hard to breathe. \n\nThere's a lot of things that cause it. Doing things that tire you out like exercise, cold air, pollution. It can be because irritants get in your lungs, or something triggers your body to defend itself when it doesn't really need to (we call this allergies). This makes your air passages tighten and grow small, like clenching a fist. And that makes it harder for air to get in and out, which you need to live.\n\nThat's why it's important for people with asthma to carry their medicine, which they puff in to their lungs. This tells the lungs to relax, making the airways wider.",
"Asthmatic here. A simple explanation for asthma is a condition in which the airway to the lungs narrows and becomes clogged with a mucus that, if not treated, may completely close the airway and prevent the individual from breathing. Why does the mucus appear, you ask? Everybody's body can produce this mucus, and can do so if the lung becomes infected or the body thinks something is trying to attack the lungs. The mucus acts as a barrier to prevent further damage. However, with asthmatics, the lungs tend to glitch out and occasionally think that they're being attacked when actually, the asthmatic may just be exercising or whatnot. Because the lungs think something's wrong, this mucus will occur and cause the individual some discomfort, or as we say \"my asthma is acting up.\"\n\nWhen you hear someone say \"my asthma is acting up,\" they're probably referring to wheeziness, pressure on the chest, coughing, lung pain, or a shortness of breath. \n\nEverybody's asthma is triggered differently, but primary culprits are exercise, pollen, smog, stress, change in temperature, extreme temperatures, dry/humid weather, and so many more. What triggers one asthmatic's asthma to act up could not affect another asthmatic at all, so it really depends. \n\nOccasionally, people grow out of their asthma. This is usually the case in teenagers who had asthma in their childhood. Along with all the other changes that happen to their body during puberty, the asthma \"glitch\" can simply fade away."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
71rze5 | how do common objects like remotes detect when their batteries have low power? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71rze5/eli5_how_do_common_objects_like_remotes_detect/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnczms2",
"dnczotd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Batteries drop in voltage as they drain, and when they're \"dead\" that simply means they don't provide enough voltage to run the device. They still have some charge to them.\n\nAnyway... a voltage meter within the circuit can measure this, and reports battery life based on it. ",
"Most battery powered things don't actually use the power 'directly' from the battery, but put it into a capacitor first, which is like a bucket for power. A clever device keeps track of how quickly and *forcefully* the bucket gets refilled when it empties, and has a wall chart of what to expect. If the bucket starts filling way slower or more gently than the wall chart says, the clever device sends a bit of power down a special 'battery is low' cable, which will probably have a light on the other end of it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
6dgeth | genetically speaking who is closer to my father, myself or his brother? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dgeth/eli5_genetically_speaking_who_is_closer_to_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"di2g2od",
"di2u92z"
],
"score": [
56,
4
],
"text": [
"This is a very interesting question, and one that often comes up when considering organ transplantation.\n\nYou can think of your genetic makeup as coming from your mother and father equally (50% each). This is because, of the two sets of chromosomes in each of your cells, one set must have come from each of your parents.\n\nNow lets consider siblings.\n\nBoth your father and his brother also received 1 chromosome set from each of their parents. This means that there is a spectrum of genetic similarity that can exist between the two, because they get their genes from the same pool of possible genes (ie your paternal grandparents genes). In turn, they can range from being very similar, to being not similar at all. On average though, they will be around 50% similar, just due to probability. \n\nThis is why organ donation from a sibling can lead to much better outcomes, and a lower rejection rate, because there is a chance that their compatibility is greater than the unchanging 50% similarity you get with your own child. \n\nHope that helps. Source: Medical Student",
"We have two types of genes: the ones in our chromosomes and the ones in our mitochondria. You get half of your chromosomal genes from your mother and half from your father. On average, you share about half of your chromosomes with first order relations (brothers, sisters, mother, father, your own sons and daughters, etc).\n\nYour mitochondria only come from your mother. The egg cell that was fertilized by your father's sperm had mitochondria. The sperm did not. You received all of your mitochondrial DNA from your mother. \n\nYour father and his brother share the same mitochondrial DNA. You have your mother's mitochondrial DNA\n\nThat means your father is genetically a bit closer to his brother than to you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
558miu | scary clown sightings | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/558miu/eli5_scary_clown_sightings/ | {
"a_id": [
"d88gil3",
"d88gtcy",
"d88gx2d"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"At this time, there really isn't a set answer. I personally think that there was one crazy person who did it and got on the news so a bunch of other crazy people hopped on the bandwagon. Also a day or two ago a high schooler was stabbed like 6 times by one of the clowns so be careful. \n\nHere's a great video about the clowns: \n_URL_0_",
"There have been several reported sightings of scary clowns or scary clowns making threats on social media in several states. In some cases, people report seeing a clown and being scared, but nothing else. In other cases, people report that the clowns had weapons or were trying to lure kids away. And in some cases people dressed as clowns and released threatening videos or statements on social media.\n\nIt's unclear what the connection is between the cases. Gags was a clown that people reported seeing around Green Bay and someone even made a Facebook page for him. The creator of the page recently revealed that Gags was part of viral marketing for an upcoming independent horror film. So some of the sightings may be viral marketing, but it's unlikely that the clowns with weapons or threatening videos are viral marketing.\n\nFor the vast majority of reports, police never found a clown. That could mean that the clowns move away quickly, but it could also mean that people are perpetuating a hoax and making fake reports. If the clowns really were there, then they might be doing it as part of viral marketing, they might be copycats, or there might be some coordinated pranksters doing it for the lulz. If the reports are fake, it could be viral markets making the fake reports, or copycats, or coordinated pranksters.\n\nIn at least a couple of cases, police saw a clown, so there are clearly at least one or two people trying to make the hoax a reality. \n\nWe know two things for sure: the first clown sightings in Green Bay were viral marketing and police have not been able to confirm most of the subsequent reports. To me, that means it's likely that the whole thing started as viral marketing and then it spawned copycats or a group of pranksters picked up on it and decided to make it a national thing (or there are some coordinated pranksters and some independent copycats).",
"They are copycats perpetuated by the news coverage of the event. \n\nThink about it this way. You're bored and want some lulz. The news media, fueled by people's superstitions, makes an actual news piece out of people dressing up like a clown at night. *Because* they made a news story about it, that means that *other* news channels will do their *own* piece about it. \n\nSo for the cost of a clown suit and a night standing in the dark, *you* can become a viral news story and have great lulz. You can go to work and listen to your coworkers talk about clown invasions or ghosts or demons and lulz to yourself, knowing that it was just you, all along. \n\nBy giving things attention, the media all but ensures their repetition. It isn't like people never did this before. There are hudnreds of prank videos online of people going out and scaring people dressed as clowns or Jason Voorhees or any number of characters well before this became a \"news sensation\". \n\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/FC5IIbbPE8w"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
15oqxs | how does an office chair function? | The rise/fall of the office chair confuses me. When it's at it's lowest and you raise it up, it sounds like you're releasing some kind of compressed air. Teach me reddit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15oqxs/eli5_how_does_an_office_chair_function/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7oe4xf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you sit on the chair and press the lever it opens a valve which allows air to compress and lower the chair. When you pull the lever without sitting on it, the compressed air pushes the chair back up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1aahl6 | what causes feelings of emptiness? | More specifically, that empty feeling that people generally associate with depression. Is there a reason for why our mind enters this state (or any state at all)? For me, I don't think I'm depressed, but occasionally, that terrible feeling will hit me for a while and then my mind moves out of it and I would like to be able to control it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aahl6/eli5what_causes_feelings_of_emptiness/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8vjowa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There's no one cause. That kind of feeling can range from being part of the totally normal range of human experience — if your dog dies, you're *gonna be sad,* and that's not abnormal — to a cognitive problem, to a neurochemistry problem.\n\nIn general, cognitive problems are addressed with behavioral changes. If you get sad sometimes because life gets you down, or because you get stressed, or because you get lonely, you might benefit from finding a new hobby or making a new friend or something along those lines. That's a *normal response* to an *abnormal feeling.* If you feel abnormally sad, you can do something to address it. That works for most people.\n\nSometimes, though, people feel sad in ways they can't address with a new hobby or a day at the amusement park. That's *colloquially* what we call depression … though *clinical* depression is a specific thing that fits certain specific criteria, so be aware of when people are using the word casually (to mean \"I'm feeling sad and nothing cheers me up today\") and when they're using it clinically.\n\nSometimes clinical depression is the result of abnormal levels of certain neurotransmitters in your brain — dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine, mainly. A healthy brain has a good balance of these neurotransmitters; when they're out of balance, all sorts of thinking-and-feeling problems can crop up. It's possible to influence the balance of neurotransmitters in various ways, from getting more exercise to sleeping better to taking (or abstaining from) various drugs. But that's getting into *medical* matters about which only a physician who knows you well can make a useful recommendation.\n\nSo really, the answer is there's no one cause. What you're describing happens to everybody sometimes, and can be caused by any number of things, and correcting it can be done in any number of ways from the simplest to the most complex, depending on your exact situation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
pkhim | the flat universe theory, and why it has zero total energy | How is the universe [Flat?](_URL_0_). This doesn't make sense to me in the slightest, clearly energy is used, so how does the universe have zero total energy? More importantly, why can the universe form from nothing if it does have zero total energy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pkhim/eli5_the_flat_universe_theory_and_why_it_has_zero/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3q30rg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"No one knows how a Universe can come from nothing but there are theories. Lawrence Krauss has new book \"A Universe from Nothing\" and several YouTube lectures (about an hour long each), one called \"A Universe from Nothing\" and another called \"Life, the Universe, and Nothing\". The zero total energy theory is (basically) that the positive energy of the expansion is exactly equal to the negative energy of attractive gravity. Makes a certain amount of sense, one is pushing out and the other is pulling in... it is a lot more complicated than that, but that is sort of the idea.\n\nBeing flat just means that all triangles have 180 degrees. The largest triangles we can measure include corners at the cosmic background radiation (clumsy language, sorry). Using those triangles the Universe cannot be said to be different than flat.\n\nIf the Universe is indeed flat, that also means it is infinite. Based on the triangle measurements (and some other evidence) if the Universe is not not flat than the smallest the Universe should be is about 250 times the size of the Observable Universe.\n\nSo the Universe is a wild, wonderful, awesome, confusing, and mysterious place. But the last 100 years of using high quality optics and powerful mathematics has given us an understanding that was impossible to even imagine before 1900. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe#Flat_universe"
] | [
[]
] | |
bh4ga3 | why do gaming laptops with discrete graphics, i7 processors, etc not seem to function as well as desktops with the same specs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bh4ga3/eli5_why_do_gaming_laptops_with_discrete_graphics/ | {
"a_id": [
"elpxwtz",
"elq5dmp",
"elq6zc0"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It probably has to do with the fact that laptops dont have a graphics card as big and as powerful as a normal gaming desktop would. Try playing a FPS on your pc without a graphics card... It runs like shit",
"Laptops sacrifice power for portability. Open up a desktop and there'll be plenty of room left over. Open a laptop of similar vintage, and everything is crammed in, tight! \n\nThe GPUs used in laptops simply don't have the room for the vast amount of VRAM etc needed for complex computations. They also have to be drastically more efficient, because laptops can't disperse heat nearly as well as a desktop can, nor do they have infinite electricity like a desktop does. \n\nAdditionally, when looking at the specs, look at the whole picture (specifically the numbers, and their benchmarks). Not to be condescending, but just because two components share a name, doesn't mean they're the same. The manufacturers use terms like \"I7\" and \"GTX1080\" because they know those name evoke confidence, when in actuality, the ones being put in laptops aren't anything like the ones built for desktops. \n\nTLDR: Laptops components are designed to be compact and both energy and heat efficient; not powerful. Desktops only need to worry about power.",
"The laptop i7 and desktop i7 are completely different chips, despite the name and generation on the label being the same. They are not the same. \n\nYeah... marketing boyee! \n\nAnyways, the laptop chips are meant to operate at very low power consumption (and produce less heat), and thus are generally WAY less powerful than the desktops operating at full throttle and requiring huge heat sinks on the cpu because they are burning hot with all that power. \n\nDesktop cpus are designed for power. Laptop CPUs are designed to save power and be portable. This comes at a massive loss in performance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3toi8y | the differences between satanic religions, forms of believes and sects | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3toi8y/eli5_the_differences_between_satanic_religions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx7wjkm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Generally there's two main forms of Satanism in the West. The first is LaVeyan Satanism which doesn't literally believe in Satan (or God), but believe that Satan is a symbol that represents the good life: rebelling against authority, giving people what they deserve, worship of the self, etc. A guy in the US named Anton LaVey started the Church of Satan in 1966, and he wrote the Satanic Bible and yeah, they're mainly just atheists who like the aesthetic. Sometimes they talk about \"Magic\" but they don't mean magic as a supernatural force, they interpret \"Magic\" symbolically as using your will to change the world around you. \n\nThe second, more minor variety, is theistic Satanism, which is people who believe Satan really exists and they worship him as their god. There's a lot of variety among theistic Satanists, and it's often hard to tell who truly believes what they claim to believe and who is treating it as symbolic. A few theistic Satanist \"churches\" are the Ophite Cultus Satanas, the Temple of the Black Light, and the Order of Nine Angles.\n\nIn addition, some Satanists are neo-Nazis or other white supremacist neo-pagans. And there also some neo-pagans who worship two gods, sometimes representing God and Satan, as two complementary forces in the universe. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
d9dgeu | how your internal clock works | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d9dgeu/eli5_how_your_internal_clock_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1gthd7",
"f1hfp7x",
"f1ho85j"
],
"score": [
169,
8,
8
],
"text": [
"Your body produces 2 chemicals that help regulate your sleep wake cycle: cortisol and melatonin. Cortisol is the \"awake\" hormone and melatonin is the \"sleep\" hormone. At night, your melatonin level rises and triggers sleep while cortisol levels decrease. In the morning, the opposite happens.\n\nYour body gets accustomed to these hormone levels changing at a certain time. One of the biggest factors for this is light. Light triggers the body to stop producing melatonin (which is why you should stay off electronics and dim your lights before going to bed). Other triggers such as temperature and pressure changes can potentially cause the swap.\n\nEdit: To expand a little bit, pretty much all of these changes are centered around a part of the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) which is often referred to as the circadian clock. It takes in external stimuli (mostly light) and then triggers neural and hormonal changes and described above. How exactly this all occurs and the process of sleep is still not very well understood.",
"All biological clocks work on basically the same principle (regardless of human, plant or microbes). It just consist on a set of compounds which have an activation/repression mechanism between themselves, and the relative ammounts of such compounds will then activate/deactivate other functions such as sleep/activity or many other things. I'll put an example of molecular clock which works on 2 components, but they are usually more complex).\n\nThe cell has genes encoding for 2 compounds: A and B, where the compound A activates the gene for B, and B represses the gene for A. The way it goes is the following: from the initial state (none of the compounds have been produced), gene A is active and the cell produces compound A, which starts to accumulate. As concentration of A increases, it will start activating the B gene, hence B's concentration will increase as well. As B accumulates, it will start supressing A until its production completely stops. That will cause A's concentration to decrease, and as it does so, gene B won't be activated anymore, so gene B will decrease its activity and it's product starts decaying as well. Once compound B's amount is low enough, gene A will be activated again, restarting the cycle. \n\nThis process results in a molecular dynamic which can be interpreted as coordinated waves with a constant length or duration, which can then be further adjusted by external factors via cortisol/melatonin as other comments already explained.\n\nEDIT: spelling",
"You know the excuse \"Sorry I'm late Boss, my alarm didn't go off.\"\nIt's a common excuse for a reason. Many people in fact do NOT wake up by themselves. (Even if they go to bed at a reasonable hour.)\n\nWhile a good amount of us do have a working biological clock, there are many of us who use an alarm clock for a reason. \n\nThat being said, i tell my body, listen punk, tomorrow we are waking up at X:YZ Time and if you dont I will punch you in the gut!\n\nTough Lough works! I used to punch myself in the gut all the time, and now I almost never have to.. I can go to sleep at 11pm and if i have to wake up at 4am the next day, my body will do it for fear of my threats."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
75idsk | are rechargeable batteries better fiscally/environmentally vs. disposable ones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75idsk/eli5_are_rechargeable_batteries_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"do6eh78",
"do6eu2a",
"do6gj2a"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Fiscally no question they are better. Environmentally I am unsure. But the energy required to charge a AA battery costs pennies so assuming you use them regularly they will make their money back quickly.",
"Because you only buy them once, and you don't throw them away. \n\nOne $10 battery costs less than 100 $2 batteries, and throwing away 100 batteries is more trash than throwing away one battery. ",
"Rechargeable batteries are absolutely better than disposable ones environmentally, including all aspects of their life, ie. including production, use, and disposal.\n\nIt's difficult to condense a life-cycle assessment into an ELI5 but across the board for factors like acidification, heavy metal pollution, and climate change contribution rechargeable batteries (assuming an optimistic recharge number) range between 50 and 140~ish times less of an impact.\n\nThe biggest impact comes from the production of the battery itself.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/tech/parsons_2007.pdf"
]
] | ||
dppfpu | why would less population in the future be a bad thing? i thought the world is already overpopulated. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dppfpu/eli5_why_would_less_population_in_the_future_be_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"f5x978j"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Almost every governmental financial policy is based on the assumption that the economy / GDP will keep growing larger, and thus tax revenues will continually increase. Businesses will get more efficient, more goods will be produced and - most importantly for our discussion - more people will exist to create and consume those goods. \n\nIf there is a significant population decline, then the economy / GDP will _shrink_ and all of the programs that were based on the concept of a growing economy will suffer serious financial shortfalls. For example, social security: Social security only works because the people working _today_ are paying into the program at a rate that exceeds the number of retired people drawing funds from that program. A significant population decrease would mean that there is not enough money to pay people who are eligible for SS. Cutting of an income stream (for many, their _only_ income stream) to a section of the population who is more-or-less unable to return to the workforce would cause massive rates of poverty among the elderly, which would not be good for the country as a whole.\n\nThat is just one example."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2ui848 | why do airlines now ask you to unplug smartphones from chargers during takeoff and landing? | I've heard this now in a few flights. They will announce that during take off and landing phones may be used in airplane mode but that they must be unplugged from external batteries or other charging devices. Any explanation? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ui848/eli5_why_do_airlines_now_ask_you_to_unplug/ | {
"a_id": [
"co8n23w",
"co8viby",
"co9240q",
"co96y41"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I know the initial reason they banned using electronic devices during takeoff and landing is because those are the times that something is most likely to go wrong with the plane, so they don't want you distracted in case you have to react quickly to accident. So maybe it's the same reason? Maybe it's to prevent a tripping hazard in case of an evacuation?",
"Actually, if I remember correctly, once the plane goes into takeoff or landing mode, typically the plugs stop working and normally IFE (In Flight Entertainment) also shuts off.",
"The most likely scenario is to reduce the chances of any electromagnetic interference from the sources inside the phone or most likely be chargers themselves.\n\nWhen you put the device in airplane mode, it turns off the radios (which are intentional radiators that send signals through the antenna - no signal no interference risk) when you plug in the charger, you are basically introducing a long antenna (the wire) and a very noisy signal (the current going through the wire to your battery) - all do chargers today use a thing called PWM, pulse width modulation - where they send a square wave (in the order of hundreds of kilohertz) and adjust the amount of time that the square pulse is ON based on the amount of power to send though - (narrow rectangular pulse for low power, wide rectangular pulse for high power) \n\nSquare waves are very very noisy signals and the higher order harmonics can certainly cause interference, especially with the strength of the currents involved in charging. \n\nI worked as an EMC design engineer for a phone manufacturer, and our job was to make sure the phone did not emit any interference during operation. This Included battery charging - not only can you radiate interference through the charging cable, but you could Inject interference into the source (think so outlets in an apartment) imagine I'd those got into the circuitry of the airplane!! \n\nPhone manufactures go to great lengths and several rounds of certifying to make sure they don't cause interference - however from the FAQs perspective, users could end up buying cheap cables or chargers from China (and we know this and have evidence of this) and thus creates huge unknown risk. Even though it's not likely, the FAA takes no chances with these things. ",
"They wanna see how much shit they can keep you from doing before you become wise to their plan and rebel."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3ehzjb | how does someone get tss with a tampon? | I guess not really explain like I am 5, but.... in simple terms how does,whatever it is, occur?
Because I've heard various different things such as it happens with regular use, it happens when people are stupid and unhygienic, it happens because it makes a cut, it happens because it dehydrates one.
So what is it?
Haha thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ehzjb/eli5how_does_someone_get_tss_with_a_tampon/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctf4tpw",
"ctfb0cv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The link between high absorbency tampons and TSS isn't completely understood. It may be because high absorbency tampons are left in longer, allowing bacteria to grow, while less absorbent ones must be replaced faster. Or, it may be because a drier tampon is more likely to cause little tears in the vaginal wall, letting bacteria enter. Staph infections (TSS is just a staph infection that has spread throughout the body) can be caused anywhere on the body just by a little cut. You don't have to be unhygienic or stupid for that to happen.",
"Tampons provide a medium where bacteria can grow without interference by the body's immune system. The bacteria are then strong enough and plentiful enough to attack the body in numbers too great for the body to defend against. Normally, if you have a staph infection on your skin, you see it and it hurts and you are aware of it and go to get medical treatment quickly. But you're not looking inside your vagina, and the vagina doesn't have much in the way of pain receptors, so you feel nothing. This allows the bacteria to get worse with no medical intervention, so by the time you have symptoms and seek medical attention, you've already got a whole systemic infection that is overwhelming your organs and causing circulation problems and can kill you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
jblvx | whaling and why countries still use it today. | Can someone explain why countries still do whaling? I know it was used for insulation and food long long ago, but why do countries like Iceland and Japan still do it today? Also, how is it economically beneficial if so many other nations look down upon it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jblvx/eli5_whaling_and_why_countries_still_use_it_today/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2arihk",
"c2arihk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because whales are tasty.",
"Because whales are tasty."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3mrjb4 | what are the chances of my keyless entry unlocking somebody else's car? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mrjb4/eli5_what_are_the_chances_of_my_keyless_entry/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvhj4z1"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"this is what i found online: \n\"Given a 40-bit code, four transmitters and up to 256 levels of look-ahead in the pseudo-random number generator to avoid desynchronization, there is a one-in-a-billion chance of your transmitter opening another car's doors.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
27ly3u | why do companies like redbull and monster spend so much money on sponsorship and advertising when everyone knows them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27ly3u/eli5_why_do_companies_like_redbull_and_monster/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci23280",
"ci23418",
"ci234dp",
"ci235sk",
"ci23d5p",
"ci23e95",
"ci23hxj",
"ci23pcl",
"ci23zlf",
"ci240pi",
"ci248pw",
"ci26001",
"ci26poq",
"ci27ps9",
"ci283sv",
"ci29xq1",
"ci2a1wn",
"ci2b8us",
"ci2bqm2",
"ci2ek7b",
"ci2qe1m"
],
"score": [
94,
9,
18,
60,
2,
6,
4,
8,
3,
2,
11,
2,
5,
14,
2,
3,
10,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Part of marketing and advertising is to generate impulse desires in consumers. You see a commercial for McDonald's, they talk about a Big Mac, you want a Big Mac, you go out and buy a Big Mac. \n\nEven if they can't compel you to go out and buy a can immediately, Red Bull and Monster are just trying to keep themselves at the forefront of your mind the next time you're shopping for an energy drink.",
"Also in line with keeping their brand popular, these brands got to that point by sponsoring. It's why they are more popular than other energy drinks. ",
"It's also about brand association. \n\nThey want to target their brand within a target market - a cool, young-oriented market. \n\nViews of these sports are usually more young and active. Hence the brand sponsorship and placement in these areas. ",
"You know them, but if they stop talking about themselves, you'll forget them. ",
"There's a reason Pepsi outdoes Coke in taste tests and Coke still moves more product, and it's advertising. Coke is the most drank soda in the world, yet they spend more on advertising than any other as well. Like others said, if they stopped barraging you with nonsense then someone else would, and consciously or subconsciously people will gravitate towards the new boss.",
" > When everyone knows them\n\nThere is your answer. ",
"Also, in the case of Redbull, their extreme sports venture makes them a lot of money, one of their snowboarding videos generated over two million dollars in revenue through iTunes. So it's not just advertising in this case, it's very lucrative venture for them. Also, in Formula 1 and WRC the manufacturers use it as testing ground for new technology. So it's more complex than just advertising or sponsorship for big brands.",
"Oh hey, you mentioned energy drinks. I'm thirsty.\n\n*There ya go...*",
"RedBull and Monster are aspirational lifestyle brands; the intended outcome of the marketing is that you feel like you are part of the marketed lifestyle when you consume their product.\n\nMarketing isn't simply about brand awareness. It could be argued it is more about maintaining an image than creating one.",
"Because they are trivially replaceable. The moment people stop thinking about them as being \"the\" energy drink, is the moment they have to start competing based on cost, quality, etc. With this level of advertising they can charge whatever they want. ",
"I can't find the quote from Coca Cola's advertising lead but it went something like this:\n\nJust because a plane is already in the air flying, you' don't turn off the engines.",
"i'm pretty sure they're both heavily infested into sports, so sponsorship is part of the package",
"Everyone knows them *because* they spend so much in advertising. ",
"A big part of premium brand advertising is not aimed at new customers. What they are doing is giving the current users the reason to not move down to the similar, cheaper models. This is also why mature companies frequently have very abstract adverts without an obvious call to action or offer to bring in new customers.\n\nThinking of buying supermarket own brand energy drinks? That badass who jumped from space wasn't on that. Prefer a Skoda to a Merc? You'll never be that guy with the beautiful girl racing round country roads. Want a cheaper stout? It won't rise slowly and satisfyingly in the glass to a rich and heavy head like Guinness will.\n\nMost people know these huge brands are more than the others, but they buy them and continue to buy them due heavily to a perceived gap in quality. Large scale marketing heavily weights and creates this gap, and keeps regular customers convinced they are right to keep spending that bit more.",
"how do you think everyone knows them? ",
"When people choose a favorite brand, they tend to stick with it as \"their\" brand. \n\nBecause of this, most ads are aimed at \"new\" consumers. Most new consumers are young people. This is probably 10 to 12 years old for soft drinks. I'm defining consumer here as the person who makes the buying decision, rather than their parents. \n\nThose new consumers are constantly being born. If you stop advertising, you lose the new consumer, and eventually your brand and its popularity die off. It only takes a couple years for a brand to die. ",
"Redbull isn't an energy drink company, they're a media company that also happens to sell energy drinks.",
"Having taken a basic marketing course, the answer is that they're reminding you that you want it. Reinforcing your desire. No ragrets.",
"If they don't take the sponsoreship or the ad, their competition will.",
"The only reason you know them is because they spend that much on advertising in the first place.",
"Why do you think everyone knows them?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
aesp39 | how do animals like lions, tigers, etc. carry their young by their mouth without hurting them? | Do they have a method as to not hurt their young? Genuinely unsure on this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aesp39/eli5_how_do_animals_like_lions_tigers_etc_carry/ | {
"a_id": [
"eds7j31",
"eds7mcz",
"edsek50"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It's easy, they don't bite it full force, just the way you don't instantly snap a pencil by chewing on it",
"Their young have a \"scruff\" on the back of their neck. Basically thick, loose skin.\n\nRegular pet cats and dogs have this, too.",
"Mirroring other answers, they have a specific piece of extra, thicker skin on their neck called a scruff. Their parents also bite only as hard as they need to. Might be a vicious looking bear or something, but their maternal instincts are still strong and they’re gentle with their young. Also, when they are picked up by the scruff, the babies become almost paralyzed, or at least really docile (their brain pretty much gets flooded with “chill out” signals). This causes them not to struggle, so their chance of injury is minimized. FYI this works even if you as a human pick a puppy or kitten up by their scruff."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
332p9i | how did anime go from being relatively innocent and cartoonish to highly sexualized characters? | If you compare Speed Racer or Robotech, for example, to modern series like Naruto, One Piece, Bleach, "harem" anime, etc., it's immediately apparent that anime has changed to include highly more sexualized characters and mature scenes. As a westerner, I especially can't understand how there are so many underage girls with in some series. AFAIK, these shows are not shown late at night. Isn't it simply pedophilia and against Japanese morality? Where was the turning point for anime? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/332p9i/eli5_how_did_anime_go_from_being_relatively/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqgxxiw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A big part of it, I think, is that Japan doesn't have the same views on sex as the West does. (Most of the times that Japan's views on sex do match up with the West, it was because of imperialism.)\n\nTo some degree, it's a result of anime becoming more developed and popular with more audiences. \n\nThere was sex back then. Cutie Honey came out in the 1970s (also Robotech is the westernized version of the original Macross). \n\nA lot of these shows are meant for teenagers, not for children or adults. And Japanese teenagers are just as horny as ours. \n\nAnd hey, sex sells. That is the same in every nation. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2xllto | why, if human bites almost always become infected, do we lick our wounds? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xllto/eli5_why_if_human_bites_almost_always_become/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp16ztr",
"cp17gku",
"cp17nl5",
"cp18d27"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
33,
15
],
"text": [
"I always assumed licking wounds came from dogs or cats.",
"There is a compound in human saliva that speeds up the healing process^[\\[1\\]](_URL_0_). It's suspected that the same thing is found in other animals, which is why they lick wounds too.\n\nThe problem is that there's still a danger of infection. Human mouths are full of bacteria that can cause infections. If I had to guess (seriously this is just a guess don't take this as medical advice) I'd think that smaller wounds don't get infected because if bacteria from your mouth does get in your immune system can overwhelm it. In a bigger wound maybe there is too much bacteria for your immune system to handle so you're more likely to get a lasting infection.",
"In addition to adding saliva that helps blood to clot, when you lick a wound that might have germs in it, you expose your tonsils and other specific organs to the germs. Those organs are used by the immune system to quickly identify, and respond to germs. \n\nLike capturing a few enemy soldiers, and torturing them into giving up the invasion plans for the rest of the body.\n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_",
"We can absolutely infect our wounds with our own saliva. Although saliva does contain a variety of proteins that are involved in (among other things) destruction of pathogens and promotion of wound healing, it is by no means safe to lick your wounds. You obviously will not infect yourself every time but you increase your risk of infection when you lick your wounds.\n\nYour saliva has millions of bacteria floating in it, many of them very capable of causing disease. It **does not matter** that these bacteria live inside you already, they can still very easily hurt you. Many infections (and essentially all oral infectious disease) are caused by microbes that are already on or in your body. \n\nThe reason bite wounds are often more dangerous than licking your wounds is that bite wounds often are associated with other types of trauma such as a deeper puncture type wound or crushing of the surrounding tissue. This damage makes it harder for your body to respond to bacteria that get into the wound and increases the chances of infection. \n\n\nSource: Personal and professional experience as an oral microbiologist."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723094841.htm"
],
[
"http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/07/what-do-tonsils-do/",
"http://www.hmh.net/HMHWebsite/Service.aspx?PageID=178"
],
[]
] | ||
a67b31 | how did spacecrafts come back to earth from the moon? did the lack of earth-like atmosphere on the moon interfere somehow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a67b31/eli5_how_did_spacecrafts_come_back_to_earth_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebsiou6",
"ebsivwn",
"ebsjzgt",
"ebt4qu5",
"ebu7hlf"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Very very carefully they put the pieces of their spaceship back together and very carefully let the computer navigate home. Lack of atmosphere = lack of anything to interfere. ",
"The lack of an Earth-like atmosphere on the Moon made it possible to design a spacecraft that could land carrying a spacecraft that could take off. Just look at how much harder landing on Mars is, and how really hard taking off and returning to Earth from Mars has been.",
"Landing on the moon without an atmosphere was harder than getting off the moon without an atmosphere.\n\nHaving an atmosphere means that as you go faster, you get more resistance to acceleration as the air has less time to move out of the way and let you pass. Think about moving your legs in water versus moving your legs through the air; the water is more dense and the faster you move your leg the harder it is to do/the more energy you exert for incremental gains.\n\nMost engines that we use for everyday applications extract oxygen from the air to help fuel their combustion. Rocket engines don't do this; the fuel contains an oxidizer, so that the rocket can create thrust in the vacuum of space.\n\nLanding on the moon, as it had no atmosphere, was a matter of using a rocket to counteract the momentum that was gained during the descent to the surface.\n\nGetting back to the earth from the moon is conceptually as simple as pointing your rocket the correct way so that you break free from the moon's orbit in such a way that your new orbit around the Earth dips into the atmosphere, which acts as a brake (aerobraking is the technical term) so that you don't need any further fuel to de-orbit the earth.\n\nI can't go too much more in depth without a crash course on orbital mechanics and the basics of rockets, but the concept behind what I just described is called a free return trajectory.",
"The spacecraft that landed on the moon never returned to Earth, there was a module orbiting the moon and a small two stage lander that would go from there to the moon's surface using the descent stage. On the way back the lander separated from the descent stage and returned to the orbiter using the ascent stage. Then the astronauts boarded the orbiter again and came back to Earth on it, leaving the lander there since it was a dead weight.\n\nThe lack of atmosphere on the moon didn't interfere because there's no gas to interfere, this saved the lander the need for any aerodynamic design. On the other hand this meant it couldn't leverage the atmosphere to slow down during the landing, as the spacecraft that return to Earth do, thus the need for a descent stage that would use a rocket engine to slow down.",
"Have you seen pictures of the spacecraft that landed on the moon? The bottom part of it stayed on the moon, but the top part of it had a rocket engine in the bottom. It came off and flew upwards into orbit around the moon. In orbit was the main spaceship. So the part that went to the moon and the part that stayed in orbit docked, and they fired their rocket to go back to towards the earth.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBefore they reached the earth, they broke off all the pieces of the spacecraft other than the bit with people inside, and rode that down to the ocean.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe lack of atmosphere on the moon helped. Because of it they didn't have to worry about wind knocking things over, and didn't have to worry about air resistance coming down or going back up, so they could use a very light spacecraft."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1yqy91 | what part of the brain controls typing? is it similar to knowing a foreign language? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yqy91/eli5what_part_of_the_brain_controls_typing_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfmylob",
"cfn00h2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This doesn't quite answer your question but it's a pretty cool relevant story about language and typing.\n\nI'm fluent in English and Chinese, but I can only recall memorized things easily in the language I memorized them in. For example, one of my old passwords I use is a 14 digit long string of numbers. I know it perfectly in English and can recite it perfectly in English. But in order to recite it in Chinese, I would need to visualize the numbers and slowly \"translate\" it into Chinese. Later I realized that my fingers know the positions so well that I can \"translate\" these numbers can very quickly recite it in Chinese by thinking about my fingers typing them out on a keyboard instead of visualizing the actual numbers.\n\nI'm sorry this doesn't actually answer anything but I just think it's can interesting story that's kind of relevant.",
"It's [muscle memory](_URL_0_). You've done it so much that you don't need to think about what you're doing. So it's more similar to riding a bike than learning a foreign language. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory"
]
] | ||
8i4hn7 | - camera shutter speeds and their effects | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8i4hn7/eli5_camera_shutter_speeds_and_their_effects/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyou4fg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The shutter speed is how long the image sensor is exposed to light. Light hitting the sensor makes the image. The shutter covers the sensor and opens and closes very fast to expose the sensor to light for a short time which is why photos are snapshots of time. \n\nThe faster the shutter opens and closes the less time the sensor is exposed to light, so the darker the image will be and sharper because less time is being exposed to the sensor. \n\nThe slower the shutter opens and closes, the more light is exposed to the sensor so the brighter the image is. The image will also be more blurry because movement in the image like people walking or cars moving are captured by the sensor into one image so the moving objects are blurred. \n\nIf you took a picture of someone walking with a shutter speed of 1/100 of a second, which is fairly quick, the image will be dark and he person will be crisply captured in a very brief moment of fine. If you took the same picture at 1/10 of a second, which is much slower, the man will be blurry because the sensor was open long enough to capture his movement. The image will also be brighter because the sensor was exposed to light for longer. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1fcsz3 | why does my stomach feel cold to the touch after a run or jog? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fcsz3/elif_why_does_my_stomach_feel_cold_to_the_touch/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca903t8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When you run or jpg your body is focusing on areas of your body that need more blood than your torso, as it isn't focusing on digestion so more blood is pumped elsewhere. Your heart, and lungs, and leg muscles need more blood when running, so your body is doing it's job by moving the blood from less important areas.\n\nYour body is also regulating it's internal temperature, heat is a byproduct of your cellular system at work. They are working hardest in the muscles in your legs that are being worked out during the run or jog. So the blood is redirected and moved to the surface in your legs to radiate the heat faster."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4ahndt | why do digital computer games cost the same or sometimes more than physical copies? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ahndt/eli5_why_do_digital_computer_games_cost_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"d10fep4",
"d10fuj3",
"d10gmg5",
"d10ix60",
"d10k13z",
"d10l3l4",
"d10lh8t",
"d10lv9p"
],
"score": [
328,
3,
8,
24,
20,
3,
32,
3
],
"text": [
"The expense of the disc and art is relatively minor. Keeping brick and mortar stores happy by not massively undercutting them is also a thing.",
"Two reasons:\n\n1) Barring special items like figurines or 3D cases, the cost of the physical goods is relatively insignificant. Even without the economies of scale available to a company you can get a case, CD, some paper and the most expensive part, ink for less than $2 a package.\n\n2) Maintaining physical inventory is significantly more expensive than a list of codes. The games take up space that could otherwise be used for a better selling item (as opposed to digital keys which take up maybe a few byes of data each), as well as paying for environmental controls so they don't grow mold or something like that. Sometimes businesses decide it is in their best interest to take a small loss in the short run, so they can stock a better selling product making more money in the long run.",
"The Physical stores is where you reach out to the beginner customers, they don't just decide to go online to buy their first game. If the game companies start competing with their own distributors by putting lower online prices they are only biting their own tail. In the short run they may earn more, but as more and more physical stores start closing down because they can't compete with the online pricing game producers will have difficulties reaching out to new customers.\n\nThey much prefer to keep the physical market alive and rake in a huge margin (basically 100% profit, while from a physical store, the store probably takes 50% and with some costs they are well below 50% themselves) on the few people who thinks it's more convenient to buy a digital copy for the same price because the physical one is just a dust collector for them.",
"The digital distribution service usually takes 30%. Physical distribution costs a bit more, but not so much.",
"A dvd costs like $.40 to make and burn. So, the cost is in the software, not the materials.",
"Because in the end your really just paying for the programming. The disc, case, cover are just the cost of doing business and all cheap to produce. In the end the there worth what people are willing to pay for them, and people are willing to part the same for digital and physical.",
"The price of most anything is based less on the actual cost of production and more on the price people will actually pay. Whatever a consumer is willing to pay to maximize profits, that is the price of the item. ",
"You're paying for the software, not the cases, discs, etc. Those cost the publishers maybe a dollar per copy to produce. So even if they were to pass the savings to the consumer, you'd only be saving a dollar at most."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
70v4bg | how can some people allegedly survive years without any food? | And how is it physically possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70v4bg/eli5how_can_some_people_allegedly_survive_years/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn62gvf",
"dn63eyl",
"dn64gzd",
"dn6fapl"
],
"score": [
3,
15,
19,
3
],
"text": [
"It isn't possible, your body can't even survive 4 days without water. Why would they be any different?",
"Short answer: they can't.\n\nLong answer: they can't, but they claim they can and either secretly sneak food when no one is looking, or eat something (like fruit smoothies with protein powder in it) that they declare isn't \"food\" but something else (\"a drink\", \"medicine\", etc).",
"Literally without *any* food (but with water) you die from scurvy or similar malnutrition ailments within a month or 2.\n\nThere have been morbidly obese individuals that survived more than a year on water, vitamin supliments (to fend of scurvy), and small amounts of baker's yeast while under medical supervision. This is basically a 0 calorie diet, but does involve *some* food intake.\n\nThey were able to survive that long because their excess fat was used as a source of calories to keep them alive over that time.\n\nThis kind of crash diet is also incredibly unhealthy, BTW.",
"No person who has claimed to be able to survive without food and water has actually demonstrated it. Those who did attempt to demonstrate surviving without food or water were caught cheating (sneaking out of the test settings to get fast food, for instance)\n\nIn ideal circumstances(eg: decent humidity, and minimal physical activity), the human body can survive about a week without water, and about a month without food- at those points, your body runs out of water for important processes, and has been damaging your body by breaking it down for energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2wv0e9 | measuring computing speed - what's the difference between flops, ips, hertz, cps, and the other cps? | Are any of these synonymous or convertible? Or are they all completely different and unrelated ways of measuring a computer's speed?
- FLOPS
- IPS
- Hertz
- [CPS (Calculations per second)](_URL_1_)
- [CPS (Computations per second)](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wv0e9/eli5_measuring_computing_speed_whats_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"coucn3s",
"coucr90",
"couos5y"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"FLOPS is FLoating-point Operations Per Second.\n\nFloating point operations are more difficult than integer operations.\n\nIPS is \"instructions per second\". (A floating-point operation may require multiple instructions.)\n\nHertz is just the clock speed. Typically a computer can execute 1 operation per clock cycle, but some instructions take longer.\n\nCPS - I'm not sure if there's a difference between calculations and computations per second. I think they're the same. However, some instructions do multiple calculations. (Example: \"madd\" instructions do a multiply and an add). Also, SIMD processors (like the ones in your graphics card, but most CPUs have a SIMD processor as well, now) will do \"vectorised\" instructions, which means doing many (typically 4) instructions at the same time: 4 adds, or 4 multiplies, to different data. This will do 4 calculations, but with 1 instruction.\n\nTypically all these numbers will be fairly close to each other, but they're not exactly the same.\n\nActual numbers that you can measure will depend on which processor you're using (although not that much: different CPUs are pretty comparable - you'll see big differences between a GPU and a CPU, though), what you're doing with it, and how well the code was written, but the numbers given are usually best-case.",
"**FLOPS = Floating point operations per second** \nFloating point is a way of storing № which compromises between efficiency and accuracy (on computers). Operations refers to the mathematical operation.\n\n\n**Hertz (Hz) = Cycles/Second** \nThis is a measure of frequency (how fast something happens in a given time). It can be used to measure anything from your pulse (rarely if ever used) to the frequency of sound.\n\n**IPS = Instructions per second** \nThis is a measure of how many instructions can be executed per second. This measure can vary based on the instruction being tested or other factors.\n\n**Calculations per second** (Almost) Equivalent to FLOPS \n**Computations per second** Equivalent to IPS\n",
"FLOPS, or floating point operations per second, are used to measure the \"speed\" of a supercomputer used for scientific or engineering number crunching.\n\nMIPS, or millions of instructions per second, are used to measure the \"speed\" of a mainframe computer used for bulk data processing like updating the inventory of retail stores across the country at midnight. IPS would be a smaller unit of MIPS.\n\nHertz is the unit of frequency, which represents the number of cycles within a given time, usually 1 second. In USA, line voltage is 60Hz AC, which means that the voltage flips back and fourth between positive and negative 60 times every second.\n\nCalculations per second and Computations per second are a little harder to explain given the architecture of modern processors and computers. Calculations per second show individual mathematical operations per second. Computations per second is a bit harder to explain as several calculations or just one calculation can represent a computation, so it is application specific.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://ourworldindata.org/data/technology-and-infrastructure/moores-law-other-laws-of-exponential-technological-progress/#note-5",
"http://trace.wisc.edu/tech-overview/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/exponentialgrowthofcomputingthumbnail.jpg"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
a032us | why does cold kill plants? | Why does cold kill plants (biologically), and us to a certain extent? What about the cold makes it unsuitable for life? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a032us/eli5_why_does_cold_kill_plants/ | {
"a_id": [
"eae5jzu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It literally destroys cells. Cell membranes contain water, if the water in the cell membrane freezes then the cell membrane ruptures, destroying the cells."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
a7bdxx | why have birth rates been declining since the "baby boom" of the 1950s ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7bdxx/eli5_why_have_birth_rates_been_declining_since/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec1mbry",
"ec1mg66",
"ec1so9y"
],
"score": [
14,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"The baby boom is directly attributable to soldiers coming back from World War II and starting families. This was helped by laws in the US that encouraged soldiers to buy homes. So, the birth rate was artificially high during the baby boom.\n\nIn general, however, birth rate has been declining in developed nations for at least 150 years. As medicine and standard of living have improved there is a much higher chance of your kids surviving to adulthood. There's no longer a need for a family to have 5 kids in order to ensure that some of them live to be adults. It makes more sense to have fewer kids and invest more into them so that they have the best possible advantages.",
"Easier access to contraceptives, sex education, and abortion.\n\nWomen going to college, choosing careers, essentially starting later in life- and then continuing on to have fewer babies. If you start your family at 30 instead of 18, you probably are not going to have 5+ kids. And you probably can't afford to stay home to raise them, either.\n\nCost. It's expensive to have multiple babies, so a typical household apart from religious (drop in religiosity being another factor) or cultural reasons make a conscious choice to have fewer or no children. Also a typical household is going to have two working parents, and child care costs aren't cheap. This also ties into some of the more recent generations wanting less of a traditional lifestyle- having none or one kid to make moving place to place/travelling easier.",
"rising cost of living and health care costs in the US are a big part of it. people just dont have the money to have 3+ children anymore. even the ultra rich stick to like 2-3 or less. people that are poor and live in poor areas might have larger sets of kids though, that can be attributed to lack of contraception or education"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2rqwnx | why do radical muslims feel the need to avenge "offensive" depictions of their prophet? couldn't allah and muhammad dispatch the guilty themselves? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rqwnx/eli5_why_do_radical_muslims_feel_the_need_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cniexwv",
"cnifvbu",
"cnig4fh"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They see themselves as vessels for god's punishment.",
"Question has been answered, but I feel I should point out that to my knowledge Muslims don't believe Mohammed intervenes in the world today. I think they'd consider that notion borderline idolatry or polytheism, and Islam places a *very* strong emphasis on worshipping Allah and *only* Allah. That's why images are prohibited in the first place.",
"Allah is pretend, so he can't do anything himself. Deep down Muslims know this. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
6e8tre | how did germophobes deal with germs pre-1800s? | How did they cope with dirt and grime? Tossing fecal matter in the streets? I know they had no solid concept of germs til the 1860s with Louis Pasteur, but how did they cope with the anxiety? I know that survival took precedence, but I wondered how I,( a germophobe) would cope with it in the hunter-gatherer days, medieval times, 1700s, etc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e8tre/eli5_how_did_germophobes_deal_with_germs_pre1800s/ | {
"a_id": [
"di8gnse",
"di8gxz5",
"di8joc0"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You can't be phobic of something you're not even aware of... in the same way that no one at that time had anxiety around flying in an airplane. \n\nThere were \"neat freaks,\" but they wouldn't have thought in terms of germs or disease, just dirt and cleanliness.",
"The more medical term is mysophobia, the fear of uncleanliness. Before the discovery of germs, this condition no doubt existed and sufferers would have had a pathological fear of dirt and contamination, but it wasn't identified as a condition until 1879.\n\nThe man who identified it was actually investigating cases of OCD that manifested itself as the compulsion to repeatedly wash hands, so mysophobes -- just as today -- would have wanted to avoid any dirt (real or imagined) and wash it off themselves.",
"In all probability, there weren't any \"germophobes\" back then. Science, especially microbiology wasn't as advanced as it is today. Germs weren't perceived as a legible threat because no one knew much about them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
331mdv | why xbox live, psn fall prey to a handful of hackers while facebook, amazon seem airtight? | A small DDoS group takes down PSN and Xbox Live pretty much whenever they want, while other places like Netflix, Facebook and Amazon are immune. Is it a matter of the gaming services being too cheap to increase security? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/331mdv/eli5_why_xbox_live_psn_fall_prey_to_a_handful_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqgs0zv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"You can't prevent a DDoS attack, you can only increase the required size of the attack to something that is not feasible. Given a large enough botnet, you would be able to take all of these services down.\n\nIt's simply far easier to expand web services because a client can connect to any server at any time. If you load amazon you might be connecting to a server in the UK, suddenly the UK server is taken down by a DDoS attack, but this doesn't matter until you click to view a product at which point you download that page from a server in France. As the user, you wouldn't notice anything.\n\nA game requires real time responses from the server. If a web page takes 2 seconds to load you may not even notice, a game would become completely unplayable. It also requires multiple users to be connected to the same server as the code executed on the server is managing the communications between these clients. You can't just route to a different server for every request.\n\nBasically the nature of game servers make them significantly more vulnerable to this type of attack than web servers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
40lszi | why is the canadian dollar falling so low? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40lszi/eli5_why_is_the_canadian_dollar_falling_so_low/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyv5r6m",
"cyvkz27"
],
"score": [
20,
2
],
"text": [
"Because our economy was too dependent on oil being $100+ a barrel, and because as the American economy recovers from the 2008 financial crisis their dollar will strengthen, so ours by comparison has to weaken. ",
"The CAD - > USD is dropping mainly due to the USD strength. The US dollar is very strong, and continues to outperform the world currencies. The CAD - > AUS and CAD - > EUR hasn't changed that much. The US has (and may continue) to raise interest rates which will only make it stronger. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
8q1vlz | what's going in inside of your stomach when you haven't gone to the toilet for ages? | *Using myself only as an example, this isn't a personal/medical help question*
I haven't gone to the toilet for the past 4 days now (completely normal for me (IBS)) but what happens to all the food I've eaten in those 4 days? I've had 4x3=12 normal sized meals, so where does all that food go? I can't imagine that it all sits in your stomach or else it would burst? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8q1vlz/eli5_whats_going_in_inside_of_your_stomach_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0frud0",
"e0fs1ys"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"The waste is building up in your intestines, but if you have eaten low-fiber food, it may be surprisingly little waste — the fluids and nutrients having been absorbed into your body through the intestinal walls.",
"Not in your stomach, no. It sits in your large intestine, devoid of any nutrients and moisture. If you have eaten foods that do not ferment then it doesn't do much, however if you've eaten a lot of indigestable fiber it will bloat your bowels and bring every unpleasant feeling associated with that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
935932 | why do tv stations still air new episodes at a set time, if it'll be on demand and streamable anyway? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/935932/eli5_why_do_tv_stations_still_air_new_episodes_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3ao75e"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The channels or stations that air new episodes have exclusive broadcast rights (that they pay the studio that makes the show) lots of money for. The channel/stations do this for advertising revenue - so for the two or three months between the show airing and when it shows up in iTunes or Netflix, the channel that broadcasts it gets to make money from the commercials they show during it. \n\nNot common, but sometimes a channel will take a loss on airing a new show to highlight their own shows that they'll put on immediately after. Like, CTV airing Game of Thrones season premiere and airing their new police procedural right after. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8tasy4 | how do large scale (business, school, airport) wifi set-ups work? | I assume it is one modem and many routers? How does it seamlessly jump between them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tasy4/eli5_how_do_large_scale_business_school_airport/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1621bh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Commercial networks are setup differently than home networks. In your home you have a wireless router which serves as both a router(directs traffic to the right places) and a wireless access point(generates the wifi for you to connect to). In a commercial environment there is one router which is connected to lots of smart wireless access points\n\nThe wireless access points are all broadcasting the same SSID(network name) but on different channels so they don't interfere with the ones near them. By being on a different channel they can minimize interference between the two access points so that they aren't shouting over top of each other. Some of them can even adjust their power to reduce interference with their neighbors so they're just whispering near each other. As you start to move out of range of one, or as one gets overloaded, it may push you off to another access point on a different channel which can better serve you or your device may decide to change automatically. It all depends on the specific implementation.\n\nAll of these access points then feed back to a single router which is in charge of handing out IPs and connects back to a single modem which connects everything to the outside world, hopefully through a good fiber connection"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3i862r | why does paper appear wet after leaving leather on it overnight? | If I leave my headphones on my notebook over night, the area where the padding (leather I presume, though it may be fake) is on the paper appears to be wet. It creates a circle and "leaks" to the next page as if water was dripping on it, but it is dry. The reason I say it appears wet is because of a yellowish discoloration and the paper is more translucent.
Does anyone know what this is caused by? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i862r/eli5_why_does_paper_appear_wet_after_leaving/ | {
"a_id": [
"cue7fvb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"maybe your headphones get oily from contact with your skin. That oil the transfers to the paper overnight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5ge85y | how does acquainted taste work? why do some people have it and others don't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ge85y/eli5how_does_acquainted_taste_work_why_do_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"darkg65",
"darkhyo"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Do you mean acquired taste? No one has an acquired taste to start - you gain a taste for something only by experiencing it. That's what acquired taste means.\n\nThe best example I can think of is beer. Everyone's first beer tastes gross. It's only after you've had numerous beers that you begin to acquire a taste for it and it becomes more palatable. ",
"Do you mean acquired taste?\nIf so, it is to do with brain plasticity. Ie connections in our brains can change with use/exposure/practice. People vary in how plastic their brain is just like other traits. \n\nTL;DR \nSome peoples brain connections change more readily than others."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
3d7ocn | why does a movie like suicide squad have the trailer out now, but a release date in over a year from now? | What happens between now until release? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d7ocn/eli5_why_does_a_movie_like_suicide_squad_have_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct2kgka"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
" > What happens between now until release?\n\nDid you see how many of the scenes had special effects? A lot of them, right? Adding special effects to raw film takes awhile. The raw, effects free, filming has been done. What they're doing now is adding effects, composing and adding music, etc. \n\nBasically, they're turning it from green screen to final film."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
82lus7 | why are movies available for purchase much faster to the public now vs recent years? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82lus7/eli5_why_are_movies_available_for_purchase_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvb3cvz",
"dvb3k3v",
"dvb3l7k",
"dvb3q0f",
"dvb5ceh"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's easier to do so nowadays, and the studios are trying to milk as much money out of a project as possible in the shortest amount of time.",
"Piracy. The longer people have to wait for a movie the more chance illegal downloads will happen... ",
"Its all about the money. The movie studios have realized that after the initial run in the theaters the movie is not making any money until it is released for home sale. The quicker the movie can get out for sale the more money it can continue to make. You will also notice that the biggest name movies from late summer/early fall will take a little longer to make it to video than movies from earlier in the year in an effort to align the release with the Christmas shopping season.",
"Movies don't run too long at theaters these days. In India atleast, growing up in the 80s and 90s, movie producers used to celebrate when a movie hit a \"Silver Jubilee\" (25 weeks) or \"Golden Jubillee\" (50 Weeks) streak at cinemas.\n\nA blockbuster may be shown for more than a month, but most movie audiences peter out by the 3 week mark.\n\nWith Netflix, Itunes and Amazon Prime, we have a new class of movie viewers, who are content to watch movies at home. These companies are desperately trying to get more subscribers, so they're willing to throw big money to producers for \"exclusive\" or \"first\" rights for internet streaming.\n\nSince DVD/Bluray purchases have come down from the VHS days, Online streaming money is a healthy boost, and the fresher the movie, the more money producers gain.",
"Also to capitalize on the advertising that was used for the theatre run. To keep it in the discussion. Out of sight, out of mind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
8cmd7s | why is britain considered the closest ally of the usa when the usa had to fight a war of independence to break free from britain? why is france not their closest ally since they fought alongside usa in the independence war and without them usa had very low chances of winning? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8cmd7s/eli5_why_is_britain_considered_the_closest_ally/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxg1o3l",
"dxg1x5y",
"dxg2wzh",
"dxg301d",
"dxg339b",
"dxg5oiv",
"dxg5plg",
"dxg68q8",
"dxg6cny",
"dxg6qu0",
"dxg70ga",
"dxg7cvz",
"dxg8dx4",
"dxg8ijl",
"dxg8v31",
"dxg97j1",
"dxg9onb",
"dxg9uew",
"dxg9urs",
"dxga7ca",
"dxgabpr",
"dxgai3a",
"dxgakc9",
"dxgavd1",
"dxgb7bk",
"dxgbexz",
"dxgc1uj",
"dxgc3ew",
"dxgc8cl",
"dxgce9z",
"dxgcj5d",
"dxge9ta",
"dxgregu",
"dxgrn50",
"dxgse9f",
"dxgzb68",
"dxgzc8o",
"dxh2czo",
"dxh2dmv",
"dxh2uwh",
"dxh3k6i",
"dxh3zlm",
"dxh5ybd"
],
"score": [
10592,
156,
35,
1937,
19,
465,
18,
2,
12,
92,
2,
69,
11,
189,
20,
7,
223,
112,
2,
2,
2,
2,
207,
19,
7,
2,
26,
2,
34,
3,
7,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That was a long time ago. Fighting together against Germany in WW2 cemented their alliance. Sharing a language and some culture helps maintain the relationship.\n\nBritain is also a relatively strong military power compared to most countries, with nuclear weapons and a permanent seat in the UN security council. It's useful to have them on your side.\n\nA lot of this applies to France too, which is also a close ally of the USA. Maybe the shared language is the reason why the UK is considered to edge out France as the USA's closest ally.",
"I’m not a historian but speaking as someone from New Orleans, there’s a greater impact from cultural exchange between the UK, Australia, and Anglophone Canada than there is from France or the Francophone (or Ghana). Despite the revolutionary war, most of the US remains culturally very English, partly due to language but also partly due to religion and customs. I wouldn’t say at this point that most Americans have Anglo-Saxon heritage, but for many, that was the assimilation ideal. In order to get jobs and positions of status, it was imperative for immigrants to adopt the culture of the current power structure. In South Louisiana, there are official celebrations of French and West African influences but in many parts of the United States, people still mention relatives who were on the Mayflower. \n\nTL/DR: culture and language dictate these things more than far-flung colonial wars of the 1700s. ",
"Mostly because we both still speak the same language. Same thing with Canada, we've been off and on at war with them before too, and we're allies now largely because of a lack of language barrier. ",
"Which France? The Kingdom of France, which hooked the U.S. up with a lot of support during the Revolution (as a political move to stick it to Britain)? The Republic of France, which we had an undeclared war at sea with (_URL_0_) for trying to claim old debts owed to the guillotined monarchy? Napoleonic France, which sold us a shit ton of land so they could afford to fight everyone in Europe?\n\nThe period after the founding of America was a pretty wild one for France. Upheaval after upheaval, revolution, counter-revolution, invasions to and fro, and so on. Britain, meanwhile, sat there and kept being Britain pretty much constantly. They already had a head start in being another English-speaking nation with a lot of overlapping traditions, common law, and so on, and the consistency of government made it a lot easier to form attachments. Then once the 20th century rolled around, America kept finding itself in common fights alongside Britain, which grew from 'allies of convenience' to a more genuine fondness, again assisted by all that stuff they have in common. ",
"The main reason France helped us is not because they loved us, it was because they hated Britain. \n\nCommon language, common heritage has forged closer bonds with Britain than France. All Americans are still technically \"former Brits\" so we share a common kinship with them. \n\nEven at the time of the Revolution, we didn't hate being British, we just hated being mistreated and ignored by the British Government, which is an important distinction.",
"France only fought along the USA in the independence war because Britain was getting too powerful and they wanted to cripple Britain, not because they really cared about US independence. This was before the French Revolution and the edict of fraternity, and in the 18th century America wasn’t really a plausible war time ally for France anyways - too far away. They just didn’t want Britain to have access to resources.\n\nFrance and the United States did have a mostly friendly relationship for a large part of history, depending on the nature of governance in France which has had a huge amount of political turnover right up until 1958. However put very simply France has made it a corner stone of their foreign policy to develop and maintain their great power status, and they have learned that they can’t rely on the United States to support their foreign policy goals. In fact France feels that the United States frequently undermines their ability to exercise power outside of their borders, either by countering their efforts (as in the Suez crisis or the Rwandan genocide) or by ignoring the authority of the institutions in which France has some power, like the Security Council (the Afghanistan war). Therefore France seeks to develop a global influence that is independent of the United States, for example they are the fourth largest military spender, they have their own independent nuclear weapons programme, and they have made many attempts over the years to develop a European controlled security organization (similar to NATO except it would exclude the US), although in the latter they haven’t been successful because the other largest European powers Britain and Germany aren’t game. \n\nOn the other hand, even though the US has undermined Britain’s ability to be a great status power too, britain has taken the approach not to bite the hand that feeds it. Britain has developed a unique role as the bridge between America and Europe, and that role gives them power. Since the US is more powerful globally than the EU, Britain’s strategy seems to be to wield power and amass security by getting closer to the United States, rather than by balancing against it like France has. \n\n",
"Well, to speak from a place of pure speculation and oversimplification I'll provide a different perspective.\n\nYou've got one group of people all socialised together, so sharing if not similar values, similar values about how disagreements are handled, some of them go off somewhere else for a bit.\n\nAfter a while, the guys that went away don't feel like the guys that stayed behind are helping them enough to stay allied with them.\n\nSo these dudes don't get along. Have a fight.\n\nLots of people are born and die. Both groups of people grow their own influence and are recognised as totally independent entities.\n\nWhy wouldn't they get along? Still got pretty similar core values. New queeny ain't asking for taxes no more.\n\nThey're still all basically the same dudes with the same cultural backgrounds, much larger slabs of common ground than other nations. ",
"We sometimes fight with our brothers for entertainment when we get bored. Doesn't mean we hate them. We just got bored. ",
"Call it a hunch, but there's a chance that situations change over 240 years?",
"Charles de Gaulle. That's why. The man absolutely dominated French politics from ww2 to about 1970. He had ..more tepid relationships with the US and UK. Pursued politics of grandeur - believed France should be an independent great power, developed nuclear capabilities, tried to counterbalance the US and Soviet influence, withdrew US military rights and left NATO. \n\nThe UK only really became the closest ally of the US after WW2, largely because of Churchill and to oppose Stalin and the Iron Curtain that had descended upon Europe. ",
"Another aspect: I've read suggestions that the UK reached out to t he US particularly after the Spanish-American War. Given the gradually rising tensions with Germany, the British realized they would benefit from a better relationship with this rising maritime power.",
"You can't get hung up on stuff that happened a long time ago, who cares which king demanded what from who 200 years ago, who will stand against our enemies today?\n\nWorld War 2 ended in 1945, and 3 years later the US mobilized the greatest airlift in world history to stop Stalin from starving West Berlin with a blockade. Alliances can change practically overnight and the American War for Independance has about as much bearing on modern politics as the 1st Crusade.",
"We fought a war of Independence from our brothers with help from our friends. But we always go back to family in the end but as equals.",
"Pre-World Wars history aside (It's been covered nicely in this thread) the UK and USA have fought and worked closely together in the major tank battles of The First Gulf War, in Afghanistan and still work and train together often. ",
"Enormous amounts of British investment in the US during the 19th Century meant that a lot of business was done between the two. British money financed a huge part of the American economy and it was a big market for American cotton and later kerosene. The UK was political and economically stable with huge cash assets and an experienced financial sector, so Americans could get credit and financial backing.\nEven today, the UK is the largest foreign investor in the US and vice versa.\n\nThe UK also settled its border issues with the US relatively early and without too much rancour, so it was not seen as a hostile force threatening the northern border of the US.\n\nLater, the UK came down on the side of the US in the Spanish American War and didn't take the opportunity to expand its Caribbean empire.\n\nBut the US/UK relationship wasn't stable until well after WW1 - right up until the 1930s, American warplanning, especially in the Navy, was to fight the Royal Navy - at that time the largest fleet in the World. The US was thrilled with the 1922 Washington Treaty that gave it parity with the Royal Navy, whereas in the UK, the treaty was denounced by many as a capitulation - even though it was clear the country couldn't afford to maintain naval supremacy and that the money was needed to rebuild the civilian economy and introduce a social security network.\n\nAs for WW2 - it's hard to underestimate the personal contributions of Roosevelt and Churchill to forging the relationship. They were the very best of personal friends, two of the most extraordinary politicians to have ever lived and we're all the better for them being alive at the same time.",
"Because modern political alliances are based on modern political conditions, not on historical colonial relationships. If conditions change, relationships will change. ",
"Technically Canada would be the closest Ally to the USA, we just don't have the military might. \n\nWe are also very close with Britain.\n\nLots of joint operations with both countries.",
"Not long after the end of the US war for independence, France went through a regime change and no longer had a monarchy. The old French government was the one that helped the US and created friendly ties with them. The new French government created tensions with the US. Since then, France never really became a close friend to the US until World War 1. ",
"I always assumed it was because we had so many relatives in England. Friends and family still there.",
"Because nobody really cares about what happened 100s of years ago compared to ease of cooperation over common interests today. ",
"France was and is weary of American influence in Europe. That was especially the case in the cold war period where France wanted a more independent European policy which didn't really sit well with the USA. Then there's also what other people have noted; some cultural similarities and naturally they use the same language. ",
"Following the war, that was swift recognition that Americans and the British shared more in common than they had against one another - recent war for independence or not. They spoke the same language, had the same family of religions, the same culture, and already had pretty deep business and economic ties to one another. \n\nThat latter one, right there, is sort of the magic: money. British and newly-minted American businessmen were quick to re-establish ties and (much of) the government followed suit. There was a faction (the Jeffersonians) who believed that closer ties with France was better for ideological reasons, but France didn't want those close ties because France was a monarchy and wasn't in the business of helping to free colonies and \"overthrow tyranny\" out of the goodness of their hearts. They wanted to stick it to Britain.\n\nKeep in mind too that there were many on the British side who supported American independence and that position only grew as the costs of the war did. Despite lofty ideals, the war wasn't one where there was much hatred between the two sides. ",
"Shared language (English), shared culture (dominated by Anglican/Episcopalian Protestants), mutual trade (look up the volume of trade between the UK and the United States circa 1900), distance (for most of our mutual history the Atlantic was simply too far for either power to threaten the other across), and co-belligerence in two world wars that exhausted the British Empire. Not to mention the fact that George III was not an especially sane or well-loved king and a great deal of the enmity between the two countries was royal pique.\n\nBasically, by the time the United States was big enough to really hurt Britain, or Britain could have plausibly done more than humiliate the United States, the two powers had been getting along decently for some time. A big part of that was reciprocity of needs; London had enormous financial markets, and the United States had vast natural resources. British capital was invested in America, American goods and raw materials fed British industry, rinse, repeat throughout the 19th century. This was well enough established to make war between the two countries distasteful to both as early as the 1860s (when, ironically, Napoleon III was pissing us off quite a bit by intervening in Mexico; by 1867 we were threatening war).\n\nIt's the same reason Weimar Germany and Soviet Russia cooperated between 1919 and the Nazi rise to power; Germany had industrial expertise and needed raw material (and somewhere to fool around with tanks in secret), the Soviets had raw materials and needed industrial expertise.\n\n(To answer the obvious question: India is different for a few reasons, even setting aside racism. Great Britain didn't conquer India in one go; they conquered Bengal, and then used local forces to conquer the rest of India in bites. And it was a generational process.)",
"In more recent years, the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher was a factor.\n\nThe inevitable wiki page on the \"Special Relationship\": _URL_0_",
"The answer your looking for, at least to explain the *current* relationship, is from the Suez Crisis. France, Britain and Israel collaborated to seize the Sinai and the Suez Canal from the Egyptians after it was nationalized by their (Egypt's) government (Without \"fairly\" compensating the British). After the British and the French entered posing as peacekeepers between the Israeli's and Egyptians, the US and USSR called on them to withdrawal. The UK, France and Israel gave in. The UK, for a long time afterward decided to not make unilateral decisions without consulting the US, lest it be embarrassed again. The French, meanwhile, decided to go their own way, develop an independent military and stay out of NATO. \n\nThe US's relationship with both countries is generally a continuation of that strategic policy.",
"Post WWI the world transitioned from the British Empire being the greatest power on the planet to the US supplanting that role. The UK saw it in their best interest to shepherd the US as it stepped into that role",
"Canada I would suspect is the USA's closest Ally. Britain is considered a closer Ally than France due to culture and language similarities. ",
"I think of America as a Britain's child. They start out young and reliant, then become rebellious in the teenage years, and finally as an adult they cooperate and take care of each other.",
"May I just state for a second that America's closest ally is probably Canada. We do have a special relationship with Britain that we don't quite have with France though. That mostly comes down to two reasons: The political reason and the cultural one. Britain speaks the same language, shares culture with the US, and has a constant stream of tourists. Politically speaking, Britain was the one who wanted to leave when we asked them during the Suez crisis. That's huge because ever since then they've followed America's lead in both international politics and domestic politics.\n\nFrance on the other hand has seemingly been fighting to establish itself as a country outside the American sphere of influence. The French famously refused to work with America during the invasion of Iraq. France in the aftermath of WWII refused to aid NATO military operations as a show of French force. The country has long held that they must be respected and seen as a power independent of America.",
"* Language - both speak English; not many Americans speak French or other languages like German (anymore; up to WW1, different story).\n* Culture/Legal - both countries use a Common Law legal system and share a ton of traditions and norms\n* Revolution - during the American Revolution, only about 30% of the population actually wanted a revolution; there where many pro-English American settlers. Today's \"anglophone\" are sometimes dynasties of those folks. In general, a revolution only requires about 10%-15% of the population going full-over to it to swing a nation.",
"Australia is a closer ally than either.\n\nGreat White Fleet\n\nANZUS\n\nfought together in the pacific during WW2\n\nKorea\n\nVietnam\n\nIraq\n\nAfghanistan",
"Lets not forget that England didn't care much about losing the colonies. It had its main armies busy in Europe with Napolean and the war in the colonies was just another issue it rather not have to deal with. Had the full force of the Bristish Empire been directed to the colonies, the US would have never gained independence. Instead, England just let whatever forces it had over there deal with the problem. ",
"You’re talking about events that happened almost 250 years ago. Things change. And the English and Americans have always regarded each other basically as cousins, with deep cultural and language ties, even if the US had to fight against them for independence.",
"To a lot of Brits the USA isn't considered such a special friend any more. The war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now trump have made that the case. It could be argued that our politicians keep telling us the USA is our best friend to distract from the EU which to be honest in the 21st century are a better bedfellow",
"America is a British colony that gained independence yes, but the \"natives\" in question were still Englishmen. The country is still rooted in English culture in many ways. ",
"Most people assume that Britain and France have always been friends, but that was not true until fairly recently. Historically they have always been fighting and bickering. Britain has alway been sort of like the “parent” of Europe because they were so powerful and actually tried to solve issues with words rather than warfare. The US has had its issues with Britain in the past, but we have gotten over it and are now working together.",
"That was almost 250 years ago. Since then it was beneficial to trade with them and support Western Europe in both world wars. Remember the UK was the global superpower up until about 100 years ago. ",
"I already commented about how Britain isn't the greatest ally, but there were also large political shifts in not only post-revolutionary America, but the world. The US gained its independence with the help of the Kingdom of France. In the 1790's, France had overthrown the monarchy in favour of a republic. This might sound like a great thing for the US, but the new French Republic had just overthrown the government that aided the fledgling nation.\n\nIn the US, the Federalist Party attempted to distance itself from the revolutionary government that destroyed their ally, and attempted to foster better relations with GB. Not everyone was okay with this. Thomas Jefferson formed the Anti-Administration Party (Precursor to both the Republicans and Democrats). As we know with the War of 1812, the Democratic-Republicans (Successors of the Anti-Administration Party) declared war on GB.\n\nNow, to fully answer the question, France wasn't the US's ally because the government they were friends with no longer existed. The US was hostile towards the British for a long time, but time heals all wounds. They both stood for freedom in both World Wars, which may have served as a reason to stand together.",
"What language is the title of this post? That's why.",
"American revolution was a long time ago, recently they're closely allied with similar interests since WW1 and have each others back during hard times.\n\nYou could ask the same questions for Japan and Germany whom USA fought world wars against and dropped two nuclear bombs.They're now close American allies too.\n\nUK has also backed USA in more things than France. In military and intelligence sharing, wars and diplomacy they've backed each other.\n\nThen there's cultural connections, not just language but also in a way of doing things. A lot of Americans are of British descent like the founding fathers.\n\n",
"ww1 France got bodied and Britain stuck it out until we caved and sent them more equipment. \nww2 France got bodied and Britain stuck it out until we caved and bailed them out. \n \nnow add in the shared language, shared origin, similar culture, and Frances staunch refusal to be overtly friendly with anyone. ",
"I'm looking over the comments, and I'm not seeing enough credit given to the influence of religion. Religion may not be as influential now, but it was a huge factor for most of our history. The fact that the UK is a Protestant Christian culture, and France is historically Catholic, followed by being much more secular, should be accounted for. There has historically been a large number of Baptists, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Anglican/Episcopalian Protestants in the US. These denominations make up the majority of the Christians in the US (historically, at least; now, Catholics and Charismatics may have reduced the proportion of the list I gave to a minority fraction), and all of these denominations were founded in the UK and had their confessions of faith ratified in the UK, in statements of faith such as the Westminster confession and catechism, the Baptist confession of London, etc. In the 1700s. Prominent British preachers such as Charles Spurgeon and various authors kept influencing the American branches of these denominations throughout our history.\n\n(I don't remember whether the Wesleyan/Methodist denomination was founded in the UK as well, but add them to this list as well if they were. Was John Wesley from the UK?)\n\nThis historic Protestant Christian religious affinity surely plays a role in reinforcing the cultural affinity for the UK over France.",
"The French are stinky and start wierd revolutions, the Germans tried to take over the world twice, Asia has food we don't like, Italy has good pasta but the Mafia"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.