q_id stringlengths 5 6 | title stringlengths 0 304 | selftext stringlengths 0 39.2k | document stringclasses 1 value | subreddit stringclasses 3 values | answers dict | title_urls dict | selftext_urls dict | answers_urls dict | split stringclasses 9 values | title_body stringlengths 1 39.1k | embeddings list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1ut3yt | Are colas as bad for your teeth as people say? | My mother always lectures me about how dangerous they are and how I am ruining my teeth whenever I indulge. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cele3vq"
],
"text": [
"Yes, sodas really are that bad. Not just the sugar, but the highly acidic environment it creates in the mouth."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Are colas as bad for your teeth as people say?
My mother always lectures me about how dangerous they are and how I am ruining my teeth whenever I indulge. | [
-0.02440665476024151,
-0.05988669395446777,
-0.009482428431510925,
0.039242617785930634,
-0.06406775116920471,
-0.0032081289682537317,
-0.014347451739013195,
0.13610172271728516,
-0.047079626470804214,
0.014900500886142254,
-0.07136702537536621,
-0.008001440204679966,
0.019633492454886436,
... | |
7uzyd6 | Brownian Motion | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dtofigl"
],
"text": [
"Molecules in a fluid are always moving around. They bounce off of each other, and they bounce off of anything solid that they hit.\n\nAt any given moment, a solid object will have more molecules bouncing off of one side than the other. For something big like a person, the difference is insignificant, but for something tiny like a single-celled organism, you can actually have enough extra water molecules bouncing off of one side to give the object a perceptible shove. It all averages out in the long run, but if you look at a tiny thing in a drop of water with a microscope, you can see it vibrating as it gets bounced around by the random water molecules."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Brownian Motion
[removed] | [
-0.045777805149555206,
-0.011637254618108273,
0.07034836709499359,
0.040475841611623764,
0.061011865735054016,
-0.022305838763713837,
0.03747720271348953,
-0.10264252871274948,
0.035830967128276825,
0.01633566990494728,
0.01773218996822834,
0.048163220286369324,
-0.06125994399189949,
-0.09... | |
uz4u4 | Why did Facebook's IPO fail so badly? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c4zvm5e",
"c4zxlqo",
"c4zv12v"
],
"text": [
"Whether or not it was a failure is arguable. \n\nGenerally speaking, the issue is that the value of the stock was greatly over-estimated and over-hyped. Facebook had been such a huge media giant for so long and was so inaccessible to investors that people were REALLY excited to buy stock when it was first available. So it was sold for WAY more money than it was probably worth. The stock's value has subsequently been dropping, back down to what it's actually worth- some people are interpreting this as being a devaluing, when in reality, it's more of a return to it's proper value.",
"It was about playing the game and NOT about the company.\n\nThe biggest factor (of which there are many more) for the swing was that FB ipo'ed slightly higher than it should have. It went out at 38 and quickly rose to 42. Generally ipo values are fairly accurate, the issue here was that this was a just bit overvalued, however this info was given only to some key insiders and not really made public. This special knowledge was used to exploit the stock immensely and made a shit ton of money for some big institutions. At the same time their actions \"screwed\" all of the regular investors as they artificially pushed the stock price down to its more correct price of between 28-34. \n\nNone of this is illegal per se, but everyone is now calling shenanigans. \n\nIt was playing the stock game and had little to do with how people view the company. Now the long term outlook could be a different story though",
"don't know how much help this will be, but the reason as I understand it is that Facebook doesn't actually \"sell\" anything. The only cash value the website has is in advertising. Although it is indeed a media giant with a lot of influence, the company could not get over the face that they are basically the same as if YouTube started an IPO. The reason stocks like Google have such a high sell price is because they represent a corporation that can turn people money into more money (what one obviously looks for in an investment) with their products. Google is the exception to this \"website rule\" is that they have real world products that can be sold in stores."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why did Facebook's IPO fail so badly?
| [
-0.00895715318620205,
0.0073218452744185925,
0.0649726539850235,
0.02511172741651535,
0.034830231219530106,
-0.03728177025914192,
-0.03642462566494942,
-0.010044307447969913,
-0.02590372785925865,
-0.01118308212608099,
-0.005696083419024944,
0.13220590353012085,
-0.013899418525397778,
-0.0... | ||
27m104 | how can those car re-map boxes improve both power AND fuel efficiency at the same time? | In my mind, they're opposite. Surely for 2ltr TDI, remapping can't make it fatser and use less fuel at the same time? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ci23r4p"
],
"text": [
"Increasing the pressure in the cylinders will lead to a general increase in fuel efficiency. The theoretical fuel efficiency is\n\n1-1/e^(k -1)\n\nk is ~ 1.4 for air, and e is the compression ratio. So the higher the pressure the better the efficiency. \nMore pressure means more power as well. So theoreticall it is possible. \n\nThe problem is that increased pressure means increased stress for the parts. This means an increased pressure will affect the engine life."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how can those car re-map boxes improve both power AND fuel efficiency at the same time?
In my mind, they're opposite. Surely for 2ltr TDI, remapping can't make it fatser and use less fuel at the same time? | [
-0.0016369444783776999,
0.02827613428235054,
-0.011914344504475594,
0.03052421472966671,
-0.01964304968714714,
0.008234926499426365,
-0.06206528842449188,
-0.020130885764956474,
-0.017225241288542747,
-0.06473658233880997,
-0.015299764461815357,
0.024865493178367615,
0.0091636274009943,
-0... | |
3bo48x | The difference between fur and hair. | I've never heard of a non-human being described as having hair, and I've never heard of a human being described as having fur. Is there any actual difference, or is it just a distinction we make between animal and human hair? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"csnwlvo"
],
"text": [
"Plenty of animals have hair rather than fur - dogs and horses come to mind right away.\n\nHair is thicker, individual fibers, provides little insulation - but usually some water protection, and while not part of the definition, can be easily combed, cut, and groomed.\n\nFur is far more dense and finer. It provides great heat and water insulation - and pretty much cannot be combed or groomed."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The difference between fur and hair.
I've never heard of a non-human being described as having hair, and I've never heard of a human being described as having fur. Is there any actual difference, or is it just a distinction we make between animal and human hair? | [
0.019536171108484268,
0.008687615394592285,
0.023364270105957985,
0.06680476665496826,
-0.06684738397598267,
-0.03550947457551956,
0.01990467868745327,
-0.005356484092772007,
0.010953693650662899,
0.0406486876308918,
0.06169668585062027,
-0.04570911079645157,
-0.06857854127883911,
0.020006... | |
6gsm46 | why is it now code to install outlets upside down? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dispnx3",
"disppxi",
"diteg2f",
"disupwe"
],
"text": [
"If a conductive object falls accidentally across the main two prongs of a \"right side up\" (😮) plug that isn't completely flush against the outlet, it will close the circuit. If it's your finger you get shocked. If it's metal there could be a spark. If there's a spark there could be a fire. Building codes are designed to prevent things like accidental fires.\n\nBy installing the outlet \"upside-down\", you put the ground prong on top of any plug that has one. The ground prong can't create a spark all by itself, so it's safer to touch accidentally.",
"I don't think they have to be that way, but it's not required by or against code. I have seen it done in a way that was handy, where electricians flip them if they're tied to a wall switch. It becomes an easy visual cue that the outlet is associated with a switch rather than live all the time.",
"As far as my experience with outlets. It's not really union practice or code. I have been a union member for 5 years now with local 716. It really boils down to whats pre-existing, what the blueprints call for, and/or AHJ (authority having jurisdiction).",
"In my area, code is right side up - however, if it is an outlet controlled by a switch (For a lamp or something) Then that one is upside down."
],
"score": [
94,
9,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why is it now code to install outlets upside down?
| [
-0.0068208747543394566,
0.02753611095249653,
0.008073663339018822,
0.036879025399684906,
-0.024348599836230278,
-0.03205503523349762,
-0.041990138590335846,
0.01100229937583208,
0.0454343743622303,
0.06065607815980911,
0.148668110370636,
0.13800491392612457,
-0.0004837651795241982,
-0.0157... | ||
21mzd9 | Does getting vaccinated for the flu each year (if you're not elderly, a child, or someone with an autoimmune disorder, etc) encourage the virus to mutate into something stronger? Why or why not? | I'm wondering because the vaccinations you get in your childhood last your lifetime (or at least a number of years). To the point where the disease becomes infrequent and has fewer chances to infect someone and mutate, etc. So I can see why they're necessary.
The flu mutates too quickly for that (similar to the common cold). So it's still fairly common. Using excessive antibiotics is responsible for stronger strains of bacteria, so I'm wondering if a vaccine that doesn't really seem to be effective for longer than a season is doing the same thing.
I don't really know that much about this stuff though so if someone could give me an explanation, I'd appreciate it! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cgenr4t"
],
"text": [
"No, not really.\n\nInfluenza is a fast-reproducing virus, and all fast-reproducing organisms evolve quickly. That's why geneticists use things like fruit flies to observe the evolution and inheritance of genetic material across many generations. Fruit flies have a 30 day life cycle, so you can observe 12 full generations in a year - you'd need 300-400 years to observe 12 generations in humans!\n\nWhen they prepare the flu shot for the year, the scientists try to predict which of the influenza strains is likely to 'get passed around' that year, and prepare the injection for that. This reduces the amount of flu that gets passed around, but influenza reproduces inside the cells of your body and has a 'life cycle' (though it's not-living) of *hours or days*, so they evolve quickly *without* the use of flu-shots.\n\nUnlike antibiotics, which are a standardized way of killing bacterial infections, and hence the bacteria can evolve against, a vaccine allows your body to recognize the antigen (foreign agent) and learn how to mount a defense against it, so that your body kills it quicker when you're exposed to it. Influenza's fast evolution is, in part, an evolutionary \"defense\" against the rapidity with which our body's can kill viruses."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Does getting vaccinated for the flu each year (if you're not elderly, a child, or someone with an autoimmune disorder, etc) encourage the virus to mutate into something stronger? Why or why not?
I'm wondering because the vaccinations you get in your childhood last your lifetime (or at least a number of years). To the point where the disease becomes infrequent and has fewer chances to infect someone and mutate, etc. So I can see why they're necessary. The flu mutates too quickly for that (similar to the common cold). So it's still fairly common. Using excessive antibiotics is responsible for stronger strains of bacteria, so I'm wondering if a vaccine that doesn't really seem to be effective for longer than a season is doing the same thing. I don't really know that much about this stuff though so if someone could give me an explanation, I'd appreciate it! | [
-0.011721821501851082,
0.007361969444900751,
0.04441379755735397,
-0.06445779651403427,
0.03684649243950844,
0.03117981366813183,
-0.014311002567410469,
0.06856179237365723,
-0.012350025586783886,
0.0105442488566041,
-0.018857434391975403,
0.07900036126375198,
0.11382593214511871,
0.150914... | |
1sfzfp | Silicon gate/circuit line width | I'm trying to compare Intel's 4004 10 micron microprocessor circuit line width to todays 28nm silicon-gate enhancement load technology. What is this length? What is a silicon-gate? What does it mean? The smaller the length, the more transistors you can pack into a circuit? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdx8efd"
],
"text": [
"In general, yes. The smaller they are, the more you can put in a given area. \n \nA MOSFET (Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor) has three major parts...a source, a drain, and a gate. The current between the source and the drain is controlled by the gate voltage. The distance between the source and the drain is (roughly) the gate length. \n \nIt gets a little tricky to compare different process technologies like 10 micron (10,000 nm) to more recent ones, because there are other sizes in the circuit that matter too, not just the gate length. But you can get a good approximate idea by comparing the gate lengths. So you are comparing 10,000 nm to 28 nm. \n \nRemember that those are lengths, and what you probably want to know is the comparable *areas* (since that determines how many transistors you get on a piece of silicon). So what you should compare are the relative areas (10,000^2 vs. 28^2). Again, that won't be totally accurate, but you'll get a rough idea."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Silicon gate/circuit line width
I'm trying to compare Intel's 4004 10 micron microprocessor circuit line width to todays 28nm silicon-gate enhancement load technology. What is this length? What is a silicon-gate? What does it mean? The smaller the length, the more transistors you can pack into a circuit? | [
0.01527420524507761,
0.040517181158065796,
0.006041213870048523,
0.027470787987113,
-0.025524355471134186,
-0.014919767156243324,
-0.03505842387676239,
0.1369047462940216,
0.004726877436041832,
-0.06543713063001633,
-0.010913495905697346,
0.010488412342965603,
-0.0409662164747715,
0.018121... | |
3n54k8 | Why are click-bait, buzzfeedy titles so effective? | They annoy the absolute fuck out of me. But, if they weren't effective they wouldn't be used. So what's the psychology behind this marketing? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvkvqfi",
"cvkyygm"
],
"text": [
"Much the same as any other marketing. Clever people study what works, and hone it until it works better.\n\nIn a way it's like evolution - click-bait sites that don't have the knack of attracting visitors die out, those that succeed - grow.",
"Just read my article called \"9 reasons click-bait works. #3 will Shock you!\"\n\nEdit: You know you want to"
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are click-bait, buzzfeedy titles so effective?
They annoy the absolute fuck out of me. But, if they weren't effective they wouldn't be used. So what's the psychology behind this marketing? | [
-0.015710817649960518,
-0.06476494669914246,
0.04593198373913765,
0.0026985902804881334,
0.06595874577760696,
0.009772920981049538,
0.07835574448108673,
0.037053707987070084,
0.012376424856483936,
-0.12416467070579529,
-0.031291116029024124,
0.04174770414829254,
0.06849628686904907,
-0.027... | |
6w6gzu | Why does inflation have to be a thing? Why can't we all just agree to keep the value of currency the same regardless of how much we have? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm5oa3m",
"dm5o66k"
],
"text": [
"> Why can't we all just agree to keep the value of currency the same regardless of how much we have?\n\nBecause the value of currency isn't something that people set. All of the money in a country is equal to the total value of that country's economy, because that's what a national currency *is*. \n\nSo if the value of the economy increases (for instance, someone invents a great new device that people want), but no more money is printed, then the value of the money people have goes up slightly (deflation), because the same amount of money now represents a larger economy.\n\nBut deflation is dangerous, and can lead to something called a deflationary spiral, where everyone hordes money because it slowly becomes worth more over time with no action on their part. This hording of money slows the economy, which causes people to get laid off, which causes them to stop spending, which slows the economy, which causes more layoffs, and pretty soon the entire economy collapses. A deflationary spiral was a prime factor in the Great Depression.\n\nSo governments adjust the money supply to try to stave off deflation. However, since there are fluctuations in a country's economy that cannot be 100% predicted, the value of money fluctuates over time in ways that also cannot be 100% predicted. So governments will adjust things to cause a small amount of inflation, thus preventing any fluctuations from pushing the currency into deflation.\n\nAnd as an added bonus, inflation (in small, controlled amounts), is actually **good**. It spurs people to spend and invest instead of hoarding money, which results in a healthier, faster-growing economy.",
"> Why can't we all just agree to keep the value of currency the same regardless of how much we have?\n\nBecause that's just not how prices work. They are set by supply and demand, not collective agreements.\n\n > Why does inflation have to be a thing?\n\nFirst, let's review the purpose of money. Money is meant to be an easy way to move wealth around an economy and allow people to exchange goods and services. \n\nPart of the recipe for economic success is to move wealth to places where it can be used most efficiently to create more wealth. This is called \"investment\".\n\nInflation encourages people to invest. If the value of money stays the same or increases, that encourages people to sit on piles of cash instead of investing it. This makes it more expensive for businesses to borrow money in order to grow and ultimately leads to more wealth."
],
"score": [
7,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does inflation have to be a thing? Why can't we all just agree to keep the value of currency the same regardless of how much we have?
| [
-0.05381723493337631,
0.0002709062537178397,
-0.09647534042596817,
0.01223987527191639,
-0.01834765635430813,
-0.040187615901231766,
-0.03801906108856201,
-0.03928086906671524,
0.10357595235109329,
0.020941603928804398,
0.032149337232112885,
-0.04209434613585472,
-0.04689786210656166,
0.05... | ||
2f45sp | Why am I able to set the date on my phone back to 1970? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ck5qnft",
"ck5qle1",
"ck5qlka"
],
"text": [
"Linux kernels (as other UNIX-like systems) [count dates from 1 January 1970.](_URL_0_)\nAndroid is running a Linux kernel.",
"_URL_1_\n\nEssentially, your phone counts \"time\" as \"how many seconds since 1-1-1970\". Going before 1970 would mean negative numbers, which would confuse the system.",
"Computers nowadays use a system called Unix Time, which describes the current time as the number of seconds that passed since midnight of January 1st, 1970.\n\n_URL_2_"
],
"score": [
12,
10,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why am I able to set the date on my phone back to 1970?
| [
-0.03934841975569725,
0.04824000969529152,
0.06457903236150742,
-0.013720367103815079,
0.010544517077505589,
0.06001894176006317,
-0.10295403748750687,
0.020805032923817635,
0.004520541988313198,
-0.02101977728307247,
0.028599198907613754,
0.041343461722135544,
0.030955657362937927,
0.0269... | ||
341hk0 | Why is it that a part of your body getting hurt enough (like getting kicked in the shin) will sometimes give you a taste of blood in your mouth? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cqqdhg2",
"cqqduom",
"cqqgdp9",
"cqqidvj"
],
"text": [
"I've never heard of this phenomenon but perhaps you're hurt so bad without realizing it you're biting your lip or inner cheeks or what have you and draw blood?",
"It's a side effect of hitting a nerve. It's kinda like cross-talk. So the nerves that control your taste sensation are being impacted.\n\nEdit: Unless the injury is the head/brain, then it can be something more serious.",
"For me its different happens all the time. When cut myself i get the taste of blood in my mouth. Even if i hadn't noticed that I've cut myself. Weird.",
"It has happened to me as well where I'll \"taste\" metal after getting knocked in the head or something like that"
],
"score": [
58,
27,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is it that a part of your body getting hurt enough (like getting kicked in the shin) will sometimes give you a taste of blood in your mouth?
| [
0.014509468339383602,
-0.09013349562883377,
-0.009813276119530201,
0.05933072790503502,
-0.03747911378741264,
-0.024438345804810524,
0.08620362728834152,
0.09437505155801773,
0.07194077968597412,
-0.019740797579288483,
-0.11292177438735962,
-0.03958407789468765,
-0.04583460092544556,
0.069... | ||
22bxp4 | How did the jews seem to recover so well from the Holocaust while blacks didnt recover from slavery? | STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, jewish people are very smart, wealthy, and successful, even though theyve gone through endless amounts of opression and discrimination (the holocaust obviously being the worst semi-recent example), but black people (STATISTICALLY) are more likely to be arrested on drug charges, drop out of school, be in prison, be on welfare, etc etc, even though slavery was abolished centuries ago, and I was wondering why one race came back so well while the other didnt really recover quite as much...
NOTE - im not racist, i really dont care about race, im just wondering why it seems one race came back from opression so much better than the other | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cglb51l",
"cglbimy",
"cglbidu"
],
"text": [
"The Holocaust was an event exclusive to Europe, instituted by a single regime (Nazi Germany) and their subordinate regimes. When the Nazis fell, the Holocaust ended.\n\nThe oppression of black people in the United States was the result of hundreds of years of systemic hatred and discrimination from others. Stopping slavery wouldn't suddenly change the attitudes about black people from racists any more than stopping the Holocaust suddenly made Nazis stop being anti-Semites. The difference was we did a good job of rounding up all the Nazis and killing them, or sending them into hiding. Slavery was a symptom of racism, not the cause.\n\nOf course, Jews were also the victim of oppression from various countries from time to time.",
"For one, most of the Jews affected by the Holocaust didn't survive. Two thirds of the Jews in Europe is the statistic most of us are used to hearing, but the reality is that many communities were completely wiped out. In Poland it was closer to 90%, and after the war many of them moved to Israel. Before the war there were 3.5 million Jews in Poland and by 1947 there were only 90 thousand. That being said, there is no reason that a community of 90,000 couldn't become poor and overrun with crime if the situation is bad enough. ([edit to add] Many of the people killed also live in countries that were *occupied* by Germany. They didn't choose to oppress a portion of their own population. Those people were just carted off by the invaders].\n\nA big factor is that prior to WWII, Jews had already been publicly advocating for their rights and freedoms for close to a century, and many had already gained wealth and prestige (although they still couldn't immigrate to very many other countries). Also, the compared to what happened to the Confederacy, the defeat of Nazi Germany was much more thorough. Their leaders were executed and their ideology was very strongly condemned. In the American South, they were defeated and slavery was ended, but they were allowed to pass laws which continued to enforce racism towards black people. \n\nAnd speaking of drug charges, many people are now arguing that the American war on drugs is in itself a form or racial persecution. Actual rates of drug use are very similar in black and white communities. It's just the black ones get in far more trouble because of it. They're more likely to be caught because they are more likely to be searched.",
"It's probably worth noting that most Jews are not descended from people sent to Death Camps. The definition of what constitutes a survivor is kind of murky. For instance, is Hannah Arendt, who fled Germany for France in 1933 and France for America in 1941 a survivor?\n\n**Holocaust**: About 60-75% of Jews who lived in areas that Nazi Germany occupied were killed. Of the survivors, I have no clue what percentage experienced the horrors of the death camps. The truth is, there aren't that many people who experienced Auschwitz or Treblinka and survived. Those that survived would have tremendous psychological burdens, but would presumably emerge with the same level of education that they entered the camp with. Those that lived in Nazi occupied Europe but survived without going to a death camp might be subject to asset forfeiture, but they too would emerge with the same education level. These were skills that they would then put to use, mostly in America or Israel. Israel took in many Holocaust survivors, and received compensation from Germany.\n\n**Slavery**: The legacy of slavery did not end with the 13th amendment. Most Black-Americans are descended from people who only fifty years ago, were pretty much not allowed to get an education or hold a good job. As one can imagine, that has huge lasting implications."
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How did the jews seem to recover so well from the Holocaust while blacks didnt recover from slavery?
STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, jewish people are very smart, wealthy, and successful, even though theyve gone through endless amounts of opression and discrimination (the holocaust obviously being the worst semi-recent example), but black people (STATISTICALLY) are more likely to be arrested on drug charges, drop out of school, be in prison, be on welfare, etc etc, even though slavery was abolished centuries ago, and I was wondering why one race came back so well while the other didnt really recover quite as much... NOTE - im not racist, i really dont care about race, im just wondering why it seems one race came back from opression so much better than the other | [
-0.02942194789648056,
0.05943731218576431,
-0.03156842291355133,
0.08217456936836243,
0.023038549348711967,
0.0880933329463005,
-0.02429467998445034,
0.007064915262162685,
0.007129242643713951,
-0.049504734575748444,
-0.03153504803776741,
0.03645222261548042,
-0.00940154492855072,
-0.02043... | |
3n9k81 | If new stars are born from the remnants of old stars, are the stars gradually getting smaller? | If a star explodes and sheds its matter, and that matter clumps together to form new stars/planets, doesn't that mean the newer stars would all be much smaller than the star they came from? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvm24gj",
"cvm26bb"
],
"text": [
"It's not that gradual. Pop III stars were 1000 times bigger than the stars we call \"main sequence\". Without heavy elements in the dust clouds around them their cooling was less efficient. NASA has a satellite called WMAP that's looking for data to try and understand these processes better.",
"No, but it does mean they have [measurably different compositions](_URL_0_) compared to earlier generations."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population"
]
} | train_eli5 | If new stars are born from the remnants of old stars, are the stars gradually getting smaller?
If a star explodes and sheds its matter, and that matter clumps together to form new stars/planets, doesn't that mean the newer stars would all be much smaller than the star they came from? | [
-0.0035650604404509068,
-0.00403227936476469,
0.044627755880355835,
0.018050065264105797,
0.02528963051736355,
-0.09160017222166061,
-0.012534494511783123,
-0.0456726998090744,
0.02926970273256302,
0.03520762175321579,
0.03223070129752159,
0.08792376518249512,
0.026007959619164467,
-0.0130... | |
2kmrc4 | Why do radio stations always give away money, and where does this money come from? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"clmrrvt"
],
"text": [
"You know those annoying ads for hair removal that they play every six minutes? The hair removal company pays the radio station for that. This is where the money comes from.\n\nOh, and the hair removal companies get it from people who think their body hair must be removed at great expense.\n\nEdit: and the people think their body hair must be removed at great expense because they heard it on the radio."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do radio stations always give away money, and where does this money come from?
| [
0.026094049215316772,
0.019118385389447212,
-0.05544010549783707,
-0.02073337323963642,
0.011018096469342709,
0.06374703347682953,
0.09808748960494995,
0.02269955724477768,
0.12061358988285065,
-0.006520967464894056,
-0.008204205892980099,
0.005032848566770554,
0.04829713702201843,
-0.0374... | ||
3r38ww | Why do damaged joints hurt whenever it rains? | Has anyone one else experienced this? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwki5wh"
],
"text": [
"I believe it is because of the pressure change that occurs when the weather changes, but I'm not an expert by any means!"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do damaged joints hurt whenever it rains?
Has anyone one else experienced this? | [
-0.0014293885324150324,
-0.07994517683982849,
0.15303009748458862,
0.11969205737113953,
0.02016659826040268,
-0.02676638402044773,
0.03898853063583374,
0.028366779908537865,
0.03158855810761452,
0.00944321695715189,
-0.10567759722471237,
0.0498972088098526,
0.04349837079644203,
0.030179711... | |
7vkwl9 | I saw a post earlier on r/gifs of a multi-car pile up on a snowy highway. Does insurance cover damage like this, and how would they determine whose insurance to use/whose more at fault? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dtt3t4p"
],
"text": [
"Yes insurance does cover stuff like that, and it's usually a huge mess.\n\nGenerally (if you have full coverage) you pay the guy you hit, the guy who hits you pays you, and so on and so on. It turns into a pile of insurance companies trying to hash out with each other who owes what after all the claims are paid."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | I saw a post earlier on r/gifs of a multi-car pile up on a snowy highway. Does insurance cover damage like this, and how would they determine whose insurance to use/whose more at fault?
[removed] | [
-0.06606708467006683,
0.07714062929153442,
0.06774179637432098,
-0.029160084202885628,
0.08169417083263397,
-0.026710664853453636,
0.044600848108530045,
0.05533219873905182,
-0.005795659497380257,
0.07440789043903351,
-0.002718257252126932,
0.040225837379693985,
0.04579387605190277,
-0.006... | |
17t6tn | What permits do you have to get to drive a police car or dress as a police officer for a 'prank' video? | This is what I'm talking about: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c88on1i"
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n > Dressing up as a police officer in costume, or pretending to be a police officer for the purpose of play or a harmless prank toward an acquaintance is generally not considered a crime, provided that those involved recognize the imposter is not a real police officer, and the imposter is not trying to deceive those involved into thinking he/she is.\n\n\nEdit: As far as doing something like in that video then I'm fairly certain you would have to get into contact with that localities PD, so they know a film shoot is going on. That prank is not really cheap though unless you know some cops personally. Funny stuff though."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhysHNcPco"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation"
]
} | train_eli5 | What permits do you have to get to drive a police car or dress as a police officer for a 'prank' video?
This is what I'm talking about: _URL_0_ | [
0.007027836516499519,
0.0031915209256112576,
-0.012476219795644283,
-0.05731872469186783,
0.02861919440329075,
0.015264255926012993,
-0.037641413509845734,
-0.04440455138683319,
-0.08524982631206512,
-0.03547883406281471,
0.0733918771147728,
-0.02063097059726715,
-0.022118210792541504,
0.0... | |
3uzayo | Why does TV make a crackling sound while turned off? | You know what I am talking about, crackling, haunting sound TV makes in the middle of the night. I thought this only happened to CRT televisions, but I noticed the same sound with my LED. Not as often though. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cxj2zvr",
"cxizx6n",
"cxjppg8"
],
"text": [
"I would guess thermal expansion for the led tv. It takes a while for things to cool down. Also add in the fact it is usually cooler at night. As it cools, the plastic will shift a little.",
"They had a lot of static buildup on those old screens. Maybe that. Ever run your fingers across then right after they went out? The static would crackle, and the screen would glow where you just touched it",
"There's no reason for an LED TV to make crackling noises due to electricity. Sorry that I can't help you more. \n\nOld CRTs made noise because they have a very high voltage (~25 thousand volts) on the inside of the CRT, not on the faceplate or the neck, but on the wall in between. The inside and outside have a conductive paint, forming a capacitor. When this capacitor charges and discharges, little sparks form between dust particles. That's what you hear from a CRT."
],
"score": [
15,
15,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does TV make a crackling sound while turned off?
You know what I am talking about, crackling, haunting sound TV makes in the middle of the night. I thought this only happened to CRT televisions, but I noticed the same sound with my LED. Not as often though. | [
0.01930733397603035,
-0.08896344155073166,
0.09618041664361954,
0.02667965739965439,
-0.007592981681227684,
-0.03309454023838043,
-0.001746929483488202,
0.042584583163261414,
0.08981563150882721,
-0.06577696651220322,
-0.1036410704255104,
-0.01818520575761795,
-0.05259696766734123,
-0.0567... | |
3c5939 | Why do my ears start ringing at random times and then slowly stop again? | It happens to me fairly often but it's not super common, I'm posting this under the assumption that this isn't something that just happens to me. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cssk87m"
],
"text": [
"Sounds like you might have _URL_0_\n\n > Tinnitus is the hearing of sound when no external sound is present. While often described as a ringing, it may also sound like a clicking, hiss or roaring. Rarely, unclear voices or music are heard. The sound may be soft or loud, low pitched or high pitched and appear to be coming from one ear or both. Most of the time, it comes on gradually."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do my ears start ringing at random times and then slowly stop again?
It happens to me fairly often but it's not super common, I'm posting this under the assumption that this isn't something that just happens to me. | [
0.058016087859869,
-0.08071901649236679,
0.03124249167740345,
-0.02023400366306305,
-0.040876541286706924,
-0.06806991249322891,
0.09075183421373367,
0.018031027168035507,
0.06490401923656464,
-0.05591152608394623,
-0.07416177541017532,
0.023895742371678352,
-0.029801059514284134,
0.013689... | |
1y1kzy | When did time start being recorded? Why does it start with Jesus' birth day? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfgjbun"
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. There are, and have been, many different calendars. Many are older than the calendar which starts at year 1 (AD or CE) with the birth of Jesus. Human civilisations that had calendars date back thousands of years before the birth of Jesus. There are calendars in use in today's world that don't use that event."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | When did time start being recorded? Why does it start with Jesus' birth day?
| [
-0.056698571890592575,
0.08795369416475296,
-0.02757371962070465,
-0.007296099327504635,
0.05361780896782875,
0.04602166265249252,
-0.0258424524217844,
0.00873569305986166,
0.050103478133678436,
-0.040491294115781784,
0.020349018275737762,
-0.016231758520007133,
-0.0669574961066246,
0.0337... | ||
1gr8zl | What's the difference between the internet and the World Wide Web? | I was wondering what makes the www different from just a new iteration of the internet. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"camzf85",
"can00xy",
"caq4dgh",
"caneo68"
],
"text": [
"The internet is a series of interconnected computer networks. The world wide web is where webpages and documents reside and can be accessed. You can have internet without the WWW but you can't have the WWW without the internet.",
"The internet actually existed before the things that make up the WWW did. Initially, information was passed around the internet via things like emails and postings to text message boards. There were also ways to exchange binary files, such as FTP. \n \nThe [WWW](_URL_0_) didn't exist until the notion of \"hypertext\" was invented, and protocols like http were created to allow \"hyperlinking\" of various web pages. That distributed collection of web pages, accessed through the internet, is the thing we call the WWW. \n \nYou need a network like the internet to make the WWW work. The internet doesn't require the WWW, although it does help make it more interesting and easy to use.",
"A \"Computer\" is just a machine that takes some \"Input\" and based on what Input you give, it gives you a different \"Output\" according to fixed rules. E.g. you input \"3\" and \"5\" to a Computer with the rule \"+\" then it outputs \"8\". That Computer does not need to work on electricity and be made of silicon, there are also computers made of wood, gears or just sheets of papers. \n\nThis Input/Output does not need to be via monitor and Keyboard, there are also Computers wich use different methods e.g. printers, punchout cards and so on.\n\nThe one doing the Input and recieving the output is in most cases a human.\nBut: Computers can also input and output to/from other computers.\n\nThat is called a \"Network\". For a Network to function, the computers in this Network need to speak the same language, exaclty as a human wich inputs \"Numbers\" for adding. Therefor computers or humans doing the input must have the same idea of \"What a Number is\". The must speak the same language as the computer.\n\nFor Networks this langage is called a \"Protocol\". We say a Computer that is capable to speak that language does \"implement a certain protocol\".\n\nThe first protocols ever used a single special computer wich connected to every other computer in the network directly. We call that one the \"Server\". All other Computers are called a \"Client\". If client 1 would like to talk to client 2 than it would really talk to the server, wich than manages to forward the talk to client 2. This looks like a \"Star\" with the Server in the middle.\n\nThis was not very useful, so the next type of Network invented were \"Bus\" based. A clients would be connected to the next client wich then would also be connected to a third client and so on. Like pearls on a string. A Client would just \"throw\" its \"talk\" into the Bus and the next client would just grab it. It would forward it to the next computer, if its not for him. Until the \"talk\" would reach its destination.\n\nThis was also not ideal. Networks at this time happent to be used only at universities, the military and very big corporations. Especially the military wanted a type of Network wich didnt collaps when the \"Server\" in Star-Networks malfunctioned, or the \"Bus\" was broken somewhere in the middle. The Network should not be easy to attack or break. \n\nSo they invented a whole lot of different protocols which are intertwined and stacked above eachother and worked together to allow the \"talk\" to somehow \"find\" is own way to the desired client. A malfunction would nomore affect all other computers. A new Computer could be added to or taked from the Network at ease. You could even add or remove whole other Networks at once. Different types of computers could work together als long as they spoke the same language. This is the kind of Network you need to connect the whole world.\n\nThe most prominent protocols of the most prominent network of this type are TCP and IP. Thats why you see TCP/IP so often. This is short for \"Transmission Control Protocol\" and \"Internet Protocol\". We call that network just \"Internet\", because we are lazy.\n\nThere were even some jokesters that invented a protocol which allows Internet via homing pigeon. This was tested and worked as expected. The Internet didn't at the time, so the pigeon was not only faster, is was the only Network wich delivered.\n\nThere is another protocol which manages to give each computer in this Network a name for ease of use. It is called \"DNS\" and means \"Domain name service\". The rules here are that each computer must be part of a \"domain\" which can indicate a country, that it's a gonvernment-computer or a commecially used computer, a university and so on. The domains are written at the end of the name: e.g.: .us .com .gov .de .org .edu .....\n\nThe name of the computer itself is written before that. Let's have a look at _URL_3_. This computer represents the White House. It's in the domain .gov, which is reserved for the US-Government. \n\nThere is also a way to reach different computers with the same name. We call them \"Host\". The host is written at the beginning, also seperated with a dot. E.G. _URL_3_ could be the computer which manages the email for the whitehouse. \n\nThere is also a way to tell the host which laguage=protocol you would like to speak. You write the protocol at the beginning, seperated by colon and a double slash.\n\nAll of this (protocol, host, name and domain - > protocol://_URL_3_.domain) is a \"URL\" = \"Unified ressource locator\".\n\nThe language spoken by most hosts at the www is the \"Hypertext transfer protocol\", short: HTTP. \n\nAs things grew and the Internet got bigger, parts of it became open to the public. This was called the \"World wide web\". Per convention the host that managed the World wide web would be called \"www\". Until now most URLs beginn with www.... \n\nThere are of course other languages and other hostnames, but HTTP and WWW. is what you use mostly use when you surf the Internet.\n\nSo: Back to your question: The World wide web is really a convention/protocol ontop of the Internet, which can be reached via DNS and most likely speaks HTTP.",
"The United States has a whole bunch of roads. Some of them are wide, some are narrow, some are paved some are dirt. You can travel up and down these roads on foot, or on a skateboard, a motorcycle, a bike, a car, a bus, a big rig truck. Each of these ways of traveling have their good points and their bad points. You don't want to carry 10,000 pounds of tomatoes on your skateboard, but it's fine inside a big semi-truck. And each destination on the road can allow truck traffic or not, or can say \"no motorcycles\", or \"no busses\". \n\nThe Internet is like that collection of roads. It connects all kinds of computers all over the world. The World Wide Web (www), is made up of individual computers that accept a certain kind of traffic, called hypertext. Hypertext just means stuff that you can click on and mix pictures and words, and we usually label it with the letters \"http\" (it stands for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol). But there are computers that don't allow hypertext traffic...they only allow other kinds of \"vehicles\", like FTP (File Transfer Protocol) or NNTP (Network News Transfer Protocol) or ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol). \n\nSo, the Internet is a collection of electronic roads and the World Wide Web is just one type of traffic that can travel that road."
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWW",
"host.name",
"email.whitehouse.gov",
"whitehouse.gov"
]
} | train_eli5 | What's the difference between the internet and the World Wide Web?
I was wondering what makes the www different from just a new iteration of the internet. | [
0.016653206199407578,
-0.044345248490571976,
0.055440522730350494,
-0.0754762664437294,
-0.015473858453333378,
-0.10093682259321213,
-0.06049218401312828,
0.05557101219892502,
0.06303562968969345,
-0.031072678044438362,
0.04575683921575546,
0.05105167627334595,
-0.03362906351685524,
0.0111... | |
39b5l7 | Rush-hour traffic jams | I understand traffic jams that are created from accidents, weather etc. but can someone explain why traffic starts around rush hour, from seemingly no disruptions other than a greater than average number of cars on the road? Shouldn't everyone be able to travel at the same rate of speed as usual?
EDIT: Thanks for all the responses! I guess I should've mentioned that I was thinking more on freeways/tollways but I think most of the same principles apply. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cs1vkfq",
"cs1z1s2",
"cs1zeud",
"cs1vlry"
],
"text": [
"First of all, there are always choke-points. Maybe a place where three lanes turn to two lanes. Maybe a bunch of on-ramps where a lot of cars are pouring in. When roads aren't busy it's not a big deal, but when there are *tons* more cars on there, that'll be a problem.\n\nAlso, even if people *can* go at the same, consistent speed, not all people do. If one car slows down a bit, it causes a chain-reaction that will be felt for miles backward in heavy traffic. \n\nRemember, these are people, not self-driving robot cars. We can't account for everything, and we can't adjust to what traffic is doing miles ahead. Yet.",
"Check out [this](_URL_0_) demonstration. When traffic hits a certain density, small changes in speed can have ripple effects that create traffic behind them. \n\nSay we're all going 50. You're in front and slow down to 49. I'm behind you and keep going 50 until I'm too close, then I slow down to 48 to get my spacing back where I want it. Now the guy behind me starts getting closer, but has to slow down to 47 to keep from being too close to me. The guy behind him slows to 46 and so on",
"Pay attention next time someone in front of you slows down. Do you slow down by the exact same amount, at the exact same time? No. There's a small delay, and most likely you will slow down a little more. That gets compounded the longer the line of cars there is. Eventually a bit of a slow down at the front becomes actually stopping further back. Add to this that people are constantly changing lanes, turning off etc, it soon adds up. \n\nThen you add in how long a line of cars will have to stop waiting for the road ahead to be clear at junctions. If a junction lets four cars across at a time, say, and there are three cars waiting, no problem. If there are fifty cars, that's a longer delay.",
"They COULD all move at the same speed, but they're not synchronized. \n\n\nImagine a hallway with two people sprinting down it. No problems. Now add 50 people. If all 50 sprint at the same speed, they can move freely without collisions. But if a few are walking, everyone needs to slow down. Also there are larger hallways with more people in them waiting to get in, and other choke points."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://youtu.be/7wm-pZp_mi0"
]
} | train_eli5 | Rush-hour traffic jams
I understand traffic jams that are created from accidents, weather etc. but can someone explain why traffic starts around rush hour, from seemingly no disruptions other than a greater than average number of cars on the road? Shouldn't everyone be able to travel at the same rate of speed as usual? EDIT: Thanks for all the responses! I guess I should've mentioned that I was thinking more on freeways/tollways but I think most of the same principles apply. | [
0.0401645302772522,
-0.08608601242303848,
0.040660347789525986,
0.0314214713871479,
-0.008510524407029152,
-0.00038960124948062,
-0.013130960054695606,
0.0005724169895984232,
0.055791206657886505,
0.008114549331367016,
-0.0020182058215141296,
0.05435851961374283,
-0.029326004907488823,
0.0... | |
31lxt4 | Why do the LHC need to be so big? Would we get better "results" if it were the size of Australia? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cq2scfh",
"cq2sa53"
],
"text": [
"As well as accelerating the beam up to really high speeds, it needs to bend the beam around into a circle. The tighter the circle, the more energy it takes to steer the beam. A bigger circle lets us control a more powerful beam with the available magnets, and produce higher-energy collisions than if we had a smaller circle and the same magnets. So yes, a collider the size of Australia could be more powerful than the LHC.",
"LHC is built for smashing atoms or molecules at the speed of light. intially it takes a lot of room to accelerate anything at that speed. they managed to actually save a room by making it speed up in a spiralling manor."
],
"score": [
9,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do the LHC need to be so big? Would we get better "results" if it were the size of Australia?
| [
0.00652815867215395,
0.05253949016332626,
0.01286973338574171,
0.03957612067461014,
-0.013756503351032734,
-0.0002133407979272306,
-0.1572462022304535,
0.03300609812140465,
-0.0343121774494648,
-0.01486141886562109,
-0.040428631007671356,
0.016193050891160965,
-0.0424036867916584,
0.022353... | ||
23jehd | Why do websites have to be taken down for maintenance? | Sites like Apple or Suntrust or like any site will sometimes be down for sitewide maintenance... Why? Can't they just push the new code to the site without making a big deal out of it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cgxljfg"
],
"text": [
"Well, It can be a lot of things, but here are a few I know off (there are more, no doubt about that).\n\n1. It could be a major redesign of the website, and if you just \"push the next code in\" you will be putting code on your server that depends on other things, which might not have been submitted yet and you don't want that.\n\n2. It could be a hardware problem/maintenance, most popular server nowadays have backup server for this but they might both have the same issue (electrical failure, a fire, data corruption etc) this will cause your server to be down until it's fixed.\n\n3. Creating backups of data. If you have a website that runs/uses certain data like a game-website and you want to back it up (in case you get a #2 problem). You might have to temporarily shut down your system in order to do a backup, because you don't want people to access/change the data you're using to create a backup.\n\nOf course all 3 of these problems can be prevented if you take enough measures, or at least the chances of them taking down your service will."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do websites have to be taken down for maintenance?
Sites like Apple or Suntrust or like any site will sometimes be down for sitewide maintenance... Why? Can't they just push the new code to the site without making a big deal out of it? | [
-0.02501012198626995,
-0.06369878351688385,
0.08314114809036255,
-0.029209425672888756,
0.03504467383027077,
-0.08178180456161499,
-0.05413711443543434,
-0.041225358843803406,
0.010978742502629757,
0.02962340973317623,
0.015949606895446777,
0.16107849776744843,
-0.03853230178356171,
-0.023... | |
1hvh5h | How are Chinese companies on eBay/Amazon able to sell cables and such for 1.50 shipped to the USA? | I've always wondered how Chinese companies can sell all kinds of cell phone accessories and such for 1.00-2.00 shipped. Makes no logical sense, even if the cables are garbage! How are they making money? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"caybm0c"
],
"text": [
"ManiacalShen may be on to something, but it's not all a marketing gimmick by any means. It is actually quite logical, if only you have all the pieces that is.\n\nFirst of all, as you pointed out, the quality of the cables are usually \"garbage\" - it doesn't cost much to make crappy products.\n\nSecondly, the exchange rate between the USD to Yuan (Chinese currency) works out to about 1 USD = 6.13 Yuan. The average technology and computer industry worker makes an average of $550 a month - very low wages make for inexpensive products.\n\nAnother factor is shipping. Not only is it extremely cheap to manufacture products in China, but it is also very inexpensive to ship products from China - The Chinese government subsidizes shipping, and the USPS has lowered the rate themselves. That's why most consumer goods are, for the most part, manufactured there. Furthermore, eBay and USPS have an ePacket agreement with China Post that offers the country bulk shipping rates."
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How are Chinese companies on eBay/Amazon able to sell cables and such for 1.50 shipped to the USA?
I've always wondered how Chinese companies can sell all kinds of cell phone accessories and such for 1.00-2.00 shipped. Makes no logical sense, even if the cables are garbage! How are they making money? | [
-0.0721295028924942,
0.02957613579928875,
0.06921260058879852,
-0.02380954660475254,
-0.042626380920410156,
-0.04306516423821449,
-0.0016463117208331823,
0.031249502673745155,
0.03987828642129898,
-0.005189117509871721,
0.10571426153182983,
-0.005475516896694899,
0.05729515850543976,
0.007... | |
1moz2f | Are dogs aware of differences in their breeds? | So I have a Bulldog and a miniture Australian Shepard, do they recognize that they aren't the same or not? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ccbb0xj",
"ccb9ct7"
],
"text": [
"I don't think they do. It's kind of like if we lived in a non judgemental non racist world. Dogs don't care if one is overweight or a purebred. They will try to play, sniff, and lick them either way. \n\nOn a small note, I believe they do act differently around dogs that are older. Every time I see an old dog walk around or if they are in a dog park around playful dogs, the playful dogs seem to chill out and relax around old dogs, I guess knowing they won't play. I've seen it countless times. Funny how it's the same with humans if you think about it. :)",
"I have seen a dachshund mount a german shep. Your guess is as good as mine."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Are dogs aware of differences in their breeds?
So I have a Bulldog and a miniture Australian Shepard, do they recognize that they aren't the same or not? | [
0.06871659308671951,
-0.0344117134809494,
0.010202663950622082,
0.012520729564130306,
-0.039114292711019516,
0.03206128999590874,
-0.06416939944028854,
-0.04590520262718201,
0.015773523598909378,
-0.014582999981939793,
0.053108200430870056,
-0.059372179210186005,
0.016871163621544838,
0.09... | |
30zrre | What happens anatomically when a voice changes during puberty? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cpxcm1r"
],
"text": [
"The vocal folds grow and thicken due to the presence of androgens. For most males, there are more androgens present which causes the vocal tone to deepen. Females typically do not have as many androgens present thus, only have a slight alteration in vocal tone."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What happens anatomically when a voice changes during puberty?
| [
-0.024556906893849373,
-0.024805398657917976,
-0.004121746402233839,
-0.022358596324920654,
-0.10529298335313797,
-0.023773306980729103,
-0.004185156896710396,
-0.062126338481903076,
0.044098809361457825,
-0.05277886241674423,
0.0161988977342844,
-0.026136213913559914,
-0.07013138383626938,
... | ||
3eb6ad | Why is putting your hands up and showing your palms the universal sign of "I surrender", and why is it instinctual? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ctd7zvx",
"ctd95ww",
"ctdmbe2",
"ctddwv0",
"ctdazhn"
],
"text": [
"It shows empty hands; no weapons, no tricks. I'm vulnerable and harmless, don't hurt me. Military salutes, handshakes, etc. all supposedly originate from the same concept.",
"You raise your hands to make it clear that they are empty, and it also leaves your body unprotected as a sign of submission. It cannot be construed as a threat. \n\nI imagine it feels instinctive because it would have been a useful gesture 2 million years ago. It has probably been around for even longer than the high-five.",
"Because you tend to hold stabby or shooty things in your hands.",
"It is an instinct left behind from evolution. Monkeys do it as well. _URL_0_ This has some interesting info about other instincts we retain.",
"However, why is it instinctual? Probably not necessarily instinctual, but society Probably trains us to do so"
],
"score": [
147,
32,
13,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhB6w9k4Zo"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why is putting your hands up and showing your palms the universal sign of "I surrender", and why is it instinctual?
| [
0.04852825403213501,
-0.018381062895059586,
0.09462683647871017,
0.043631915003061295,
0.061756014823913574,
0.024558480829000473,
0.09726408869028091,
-0.06037302687764168,
0.13908369839191437,
-0.03923448920249939,
0.013074413873255253,
-0.02293054573237896,
-0.020679578185081482,
0.0369... | ||
684rxj | After the initial sleepiness feeling, why do we suddenly feel more alert after a few hours pass your normal sleeping time before you suddenly feel lethargic and sleepy again? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dgwesyz"
],
"text": [
"A certain sleep writer suggests it's because there is a metabolitic release timed to coincide with the early part of sleep intended to for the heavy lifting your lymphatic and endocrine systems will do in the early part of sleep. Apparently this is the \"second wind\" we feel at approximately 10pm, and being asleep at this point results in higher quality sleep.\n\nThis is the only thing I've come up with on the topic so far. It seams reasonable that one's body would benefit from a release of energy for homonal/repair/immune function that does happen during sleep; however, I traced the reference chain back finally back to an Ayurvedic medicine writer, and haven't found any peer-reviewed empirical research on the topic (yet), so I think the jury is still out on this one."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | After the initial sleepiness feeling, why do we suddenly feel more alert after a few hours pass your normal sleeping time before you suddenly feel lethargic and sleepy again?
| [
0.07803897559642792,
-0.06434725224971771,
0.03959750384092331,
0.14203278720378876,
0.12749655544757843,
-0.009260824881494045,
0.057881779968738556,
0.006934371776878834,
0.13844789564609528,
-0.0550401546061039,
-0.07891656458377838,
-0.001995107624679804,
0.025983523577451706,
0.056746... | ||
2l5ody | What percentage of my money goes to the Japanese economy when buying a Japanese brand car in America? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"clrro88",
"clrpn2e",
"clruj2l",
"clrpmqz",
"clrztt2"
],
"text": [
"So, there's a couple of parts to this: \n**1) Wages:** there's people working for the Japanese car firm in America, and people working for the Japanese car firm in Japan. The Americans' wages go to the American economy. The Japanese's wages go to the Japanese economy. \n\n \n**2) Operating costs:** The overhead for the factories (wherever they're located) such as electricity, buildings, water, heat, etc. is all outflow to other companies--those companies benefit the economies where they are located. Let's include the cost of externally-sourced raw materials in this one: e.g. buy some steel from China?--benefit to the Chinese economy. \n\n\n**3): Profit:** Although these Japanese car companies are located in Japan, they're not *owned* by all Japanese people. They're large, public, global Fortune 500 companies. People, other corporations, schools, pension funds, hedge funds, et al. own varying stakes in such a firm. If a public Japanese firm is making profits and is either paying them out in dividends or reinvesting and increasing the market cap of the company, whomever owns shares, is getting money.",
"Quite a complicated question. The parts that go into new cars are vastly outsourced these days. You will find that BMW, Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda etc all have Altenators made by Bosch, Transmissions made by Getrag. axles made by Dana Spicer etc. Parts from all over the world and different manufacturers make parts for many different Auto brands. I made that statement as an example. Not factually correct but close enough. \nAmerican Honda's are all assembled in the States too. They have plants all over the world: \n_URL_0_ \n\nStill, some profit has to go to the Japanese owned company. But is is all pretty much global at this point.",
"I know I will get downvoted for this, but this is an issue that I'm quite passionate about and I think no one else seems to want to talk about it for fear of being unpatriotic.\n\nFirstly, as many people have already pointed out, very little money actually goes to Japan (or any other foreign country who owns the car brand). Many car companies actually create factories in the US, manufacture parts in the US, hire US workers, and have headquarters in the US to avoid high import taxes.\n\nSecondly, every election year there will be some idiot politician that will stand on their soapbox to tell you to \"BUY AMERICAN,\" \"SUPPORT AMERICAN BUSINESS,\" and demonize countries like China for \"stealing American jobs.\" Every time I see these people I cringe as these people are actually doing you and your family a disfavor by pretending to be your champion. Either they are extremely dumb and know nothing about economics, or they just want your vote and really don't care about your welfare. Either way, they are great manipulators of information and emotions.\n\nThe truth is, you should NEVER BUY A PRODUCT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS AMERICAN. Instead, you should buy the best product at the best price that gives the best UTILITY for you and for family. Simply put, spend your money on the product that does the thing you need it to do best at the price you are willing to pay for it. Patriotism should never be a considering factor, unless the utility you derive from it includes patriotism. Ie, you are willing to pay money for a poor product because the satisfaction you get from patriotism overrides the quality of the product. Let's be honest and agree that until recently, American cars did not have the reputation of being reliable. Also, Japanese cars also had a reputation for being very reliable. Ford has turned around in the past 5 years, but before, people would joke that Ford stood for FIX OR REPAIR DAILY. If you had $16k to spend on a car, you want to get the best product out of the money for you and your family. If you buy a Ford Focus in 2002, you were paying for a car that had a lot of issues, bad performance and overall poorer quality than a Japanese competitor (say a Honda Civic). You would spend more money on gas for poorer mileage, more repairs, and compromised safety for you and your family.\n\nIn basic international economics 101 one of the first things they teach you is that companies should specialize and trade resources. Ie Microsoft makes software and hardware, Kraft makes food products. But why shouldnt Microsoft get into farming and Kraft into operating systems? Microsoft and Kraft are both huge companies with lots of smart people and money, if they wanted to get into a different sector (farming and software) they have the resources to do so and do so well. However Microsoft has engineers and software developers and Kraft has food and agriculture specialists, this is capital and expertise. For each company to get into different sectors they need to invest and build capital. Each kernel of corn grown by Microsoft will be at a greater cost, less profit, and worse quality than what Kraft can make. It would take them years to get up to speed and be competitive. \n\nThe same can be said of countries because there are physical, resource, labor, legal, and technical limitations that are akin to capital. Ie Saudia Arabia is a country rich in oil but scarce in water. It can produce lots of oil per day cheaply but would expend lots of resources to produce water per day. But every country needs fuel and water to survive, so should Saudia Arabia spend lots of resources to produce water to feed its people and crops? The answer is no, instead they should spend their resources on producing more oil, sell the oil at a better price and better quality than its competitors, and then use the profits to BUY water from another country. Essentially, they TRADE. No one country can do EVERYTHING perfectly well because there are limited time, money, and resources. But each country and company can do a FEW things better than everyone else, hence they should specialize and concentrate on those things.\n\nThis example isn't just with resources, but labor, laws, infrastructure, education, culture, capital, etc. Japan is an island country with very little natural resources, but they are a huge exporter of electronics because over the decades they have specialized in high tech electronics. Their export laws, shipping infrastructure, and human labor are all geared towards a large export economy of electronics. China is a huge country with lots of natural resources with an almost unlimited amount of cheap human labor. Hence they can produce a lot of products for super cheap. The utility you gained may not always be better quality, but price might overcome quality as a concern. Cheap Chinese products may not have the best quality, but if you buy a pen for $0.10, do you care if it breaks after 6 months and you have to buy another one for another $0.10? No because you got more utility from it than say an American pen that costs $10 but lasts two years. Politicians love to demonize countries like China for \"stealing American jobs.\" But the thing is, they're not stealing American jobs, they are just doing the job better than the American counterpart. Essentially they are winning in terms of economic competition.\n\nIt's a tough thing to say, but if American manufacturers are not getting business because of Chinese competition, it's because the American manufacturer couldn't make a product with quality, price, and innovation that's better than the Chinese counterpart. It's a cruel fact that capitalism is cut-throat and those who can't innovate lose. When politicians tell you to BUY AMERICAN, they are telling you to pour money into a business that is failing and giving you a worse product in return. That doesn't make any sense. A product company should SERVE YOU as the consumer and give you quality, price, performance, etc, not the other way around. You as the consumer should not cater to the company. \n\nThis is not to say America can't produce good stuff. American excels at a lot of things, namely the service industry. Also some of the best products in the world are American, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc are all high-tech companies from America that dominate the world. Apple products are expensive, but they're at a quality that people are willing to pay for over a cheap Chinese knockoff (there are many). Facebook and Google can't work in China because China restricts social networking (Facebook is banned in China) and literally blocks huge entire sections of the internet. \n\nThat said, Ford and other American companies are having a renaissance lately. A lot of Ford cars and American car companies are becoming much better than they used to. But as a consumer, the fact that FORD is American shouldn't be the reason you buy it, unless being \"made in America\" is more important to you than price or quality. You should only buy American if it does the thing it's supposed to do for the best price and benefits your family the most. If you are looking for a fast sports car and a BMW offers the fastest car with the nicest ride and superior handling, then yes buy that German BMW. If you want a super safe family car with really good reliability in the long run and high MPG, and a Honda offers the best model, then buy that Japanese car. If you want a really large SUV that towers over all other cars and can drive through a brick wall, and GMC offers the best SUV, then yes, buy American. \n\nTL;DR: Don't buy American, buy what suits your needs. (now bring on the hate!)",
"Two points of view for you, and then an estimation.\n\nUnless it is a tech or knowledge-based firm, about half your costs will be in material and the other half in labor. Consider overhead and utilities a part of materials.\n\nSo half of cost of a Japanese brand car built here in America doesn't contribute to the Japanese economy.\n\nPoint two, not only do Japanese brand cars have Japanese electronics and other high quality manufactured materials, many American and non-American cars have those parts as well. So you can take the Japanese-brand out of the model, but you can't take Japanese materials out of it.\n\nIn short, **3-10%** all things considered, goes to the Japanese economy when you buy a Japanese car in America.\n\nHalf of the cost, labor, doesn't support the Japanese economy. The other half, materials, is a question of how much of the materials came from Japanese vendors.\n\nWhy 3-10%? That is your average margin for profits among most industries. If more of the materials of the car are from Japanese vendors, then the value is closer to 10%. Otherwise, closer to 3%.",
"It's almost impossible to be precise about the percentage of **your** money going to the Japanese economy. This is a huge huge question that **can't be defined easily**. **Depending on how each of dozens of companies is structured, you can't be sure of the percentage of money going specifically to the Japanese economy in the end**\n\nDo you want to know **who in the Japanese economy is getting \"x%\" money**? There are investors in the *parent brand companies* (**Honda Motor Co., Ltd**) and their upper management, all the employees, managers, engineers, assemblers at the company(if the car was even made in Japan?) \n\n**TL;DR: This is far more than OP asked for (a solid definitive %) but barely scratches the surface of a very global automotive industry. It would take a breakdown of a multitude of corporation's/companies costs, their manufacturers, suppliers, the raw and recycled materials suppliers, extraction industry analysis. There have been a couple quick studies done by consumer groups to try to determine just how \"American\" each car sold in the US is. I don't have a specific link to offer as they don't give the specific calculating criterion for the \"% American\" each car is (by cost, number of parts, both?).**\n\n**TL;DR #2: Things are made & come as parts from almost everywhere. Good luck sorting it out.**\n\nStarting with the costs you pay to your local dealership, they take a cut.\n \n1) This relatively small portion (compared to the total cost) of money goes to pay their employees, property overhead, upkeep materials and staff for keeping the property sound, chemical and parts costs for their servicing. Money goes both to people in the local economy (paid to work at the dealership/spending it how they please) and to consultants/contractors (to provide goods/services for the dealership for architect/eng, landscaping, site repairs, etc) \n\n2) You have to know where the vehicle was primarily constructed, where the parts were made and finally constructed (who made the big parts and who put the tires on it for shipping to a dealer). \n\nThese locations determine who gets paid for construction of the finished assemblies or partially completed sub-assemblies. It also **may** determine which groups of engineers did the work to localize/specialize the finished cars for market they are sold in. Generally, American engineers and to some extent designers will do the work to make changes to a car to make them suitable for the American market. This means that they do crash compliance testing (for those 4-5 star NHTSA and IIHS ratings, they do a lot for sales), they make the bumpers, hoods, structures, airbags, seatbelts, seats, headrests, headlamps, tail-lamps, engine emissions (ad nauseum) suit the federal (and CA) highway codes. Suspension and gear ratios may be adjusted for American typical road conditions (rougher roads to some extent), but additionally automatic transmissions are king here for sales % as heavy city traffic as well as long hour trips are expected within the country. Also, AC & cruise control are nearly standard options for the cars to have with climate and the Interstate System.\n\nFor specific models:\nA big list of Honda's Global Plants for an idea of which location made what car: _URL_4_. \n**Current USA Honda plants according to Wikipedia**: East Liberty, OH; Greensburg, IN; Lincoln, AL; Marysville, OH. Also a longstanding plant in Canada, and a new one in Mexico. These are the most likely candidates for MOST of the Honda/Acura cars sold in the US. *You can usually find the label on the doorjamb of the car for production/final assembly location. The VIN's first digit will give you the country is was made in officially.*\n\n3) Account for **all the people and resource needs in the North American subsidiaries of these corporations** (**American Honda Motor Company, Inc.**, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing, North America, Inc. (TEMA)...) **and what they do for the parent company(ies)**. Honda NA's parent is Honda Motor Co., Ltd, which is based in Japan, but traded both? on the Tokyo Stock Market (TYO), and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).\n\nThat may include the people working to make changes to the car from a prototype to a ready to sell product if they do research and development, manufacture the cars, advertise the cars, and organize the distribution of the cars (out to the dealership lots). This also includes all overhead and related construction and maintenance industry costs.\n\n**Further, these different corporations are run and invested in complexly depending on the parent corporations' ownership levels in each other, component companies, or just themselves.** Nissan and Renault have a partnership, Fiat has ownership in Chrysler, Toyota and Subaru share different technologies for engineering purposes and a platform, Honda has sold engine designs to GM, the Pontiac Vibe was a Toyota Matrix and vice versa. There are many more I haven't listed, as it can be hard to keep track of for the average person, even if they're interested.\n\n4) Most of the **component parts** in vehicles are manufactured on a global scale. So you want to know about these manufacturers' locations, investments, properties they own, plant and assembly facilities, hiring/staffing practices, sources for parts they don't make themselves. **Most all of the companies are global (like the automaker parents) and have regional or country specific manufacturing facilities**. It comes down to how they manage costs.\n\nIn the case of Honda, they have made their own transmissions of their own designs in the past (a number of manual transmissions and Hondamatics are their own designs, not sure about the newest transmissions, the TLX's 9sp is a ZF unit which is a German corp), but they use many similar suppliers as almost all the other Japanese/American/Korean brands for components such as brakes, suspension, electronic parts, and more. \n\n**It's worth noting that the American brands (BIG 3) also use a lot these component manufacturers for the components they can't afford to make in addition to the completed, tested vehicles. See: Cummins, BorgWarner, AllisonTransmission, ZF (\"chrysler group's\" \"NEW\" 8+spd transmissions)**, Denso alternators/starters.\n\n**Denso** is the big name for a lot of the original equipment electronic components in a lot of Japanese, Korean, American cars these days, just look at the alternators and starters on them. They make other components as well. **Bosch** makes similar parts for the European marques as well as the projectors for their headlamp assemblies.\n\nSpecific to Honda:\nKeihin (Japanese parent company with a NA subsidiary) makes the powertrain control modules for the NA Hondas/Acuras today if I remember correctly? They made carburetors in previous years and now make fuel/ignition computers and a lot of the fuel management side of modern cars in addition to : _URL_4_, _URL_4_. They also make carburetors for Harley Davidson.\n\n**Another Example:**\nThe company Aisin/Aisin-Seiki makes many important components (bodies/chassis/transmissions/drivelines/brakes) of vehicles for a multitude of different car companies (including Toyota, Honda, General Motors, Mitsubishi, Nissan, etc), is 30% owned by Toyota Motor Corp.'s parent company Toyota Group. The corporate partnerships inside the huge number of companies can directly or indirectly involve a lot of subsidiary companies (See: _URL_4_). *The list of what the specific interactions all of the companies have is **incredibly long** and they change quite a lot* over time as dictated by their specific business interests at points in time. \n\nSearch google for \"Aisin-Seiki\" or any other supplier and see how many similar or related automotive component industry companies are suggested. See also: Denso, NGK, ZF, Getrag, Delphi, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Samsung Engineering, etc. The list of suppliers for automotive industry is a good size list, but it's not especially big once you consider how many kinds of components each one makes for the automakers. Google's suggested companies make parts for most light motor and heavy vehicles sold today.\n\n5) Going further down the supply, we have the companies that collect or extract the raw materials from the earth to **make** these components for the component manufacturers' **and** those that purchased recycled scrap materials from specific regions to make into new parts.\n\nWant to know where they got or made...?: aluminum, steel, alloying elements, etc to make the big body parts of the cars and wheels and engines, transmissions, drive-shafts, housings, differentials, suspension, brakes; bolts and plastic fasteners; plastic polymers in the trim panels and pieces before they were injection molded; the material that stuffs the seats and covers the seats and touch surfaces; carpets; glass both tempered and laminated; rubber seals, gaskets, and trims; all the lubricants that keep things moving; lead and acid in a basic battery; nickel metal-hydride batteries of a hybrid; the Li-ion batteries in a Tesla; copper in the starters, alternators, electric motors, wiring; this list is too long and not wholly comprehensive like my post, but I tried.\n\nThe thing is, **everything on a car came from somewhere**. All these companies have people and other companies that do things for them. To find the economic contribution to Japan, you'll have to break this into 100s-1000s+ (many uncertain) points of data and try to assign values and know pretty well how much $ is spent where at nearly every point in the process of making the car & it's components from development to you and the inner workings of the Japanese econ. Automobiles are a pinnacle of societal achievement. Material sciences meeting engineering in a fantastic manner.\n\nThis is all under the assumption of buying a **new 'Japanese' car**. No one will read this"
],
"score": [
28,
12,
4,
4,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Honda_assembly_plants",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keihin_Corporation",
"http://www.keihin-na.com/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Honda_assembly_plants",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Group"
]
} | train_eli5 | What percentage of my money goes to the Japanese economy when buying a Japanese brand car in America?
| [
0.032405029982328415,
-0.011891896836459637,
-0.047764964401721954,
-0.003745387075468898,
-0.00019006928778253496,
-0.01672927290201187,
0.06544728577136993,
0.08606875687837601,
-0.015589294955134392,
-0.05545667186379433,
0.12691672146320343,
0.019183089956641197,
-0.018976151943206787,
... | ||
5kzfi8 | The meaning behind the popular philosophical phrase, "I think, therefore I am." | I know what it's trying to say, but I don't quite understand it. Wikipedia articles are also not cutting it on this one. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbrrz07",
"dbrt6nh",
"dbrrd17"
],
"text": [
"You are thinking. If you did not exist in some manner or fashion, you could not think.\n\nTherefore, regardless of the truth or falseness of your sensory input, the action of thinking necessarily proves that *you* specifically, *exist* as a thinking being.",
"It means that because of the fact that you can think about and doubt your existence, you must exist (IIRC the full phrase is dubito ergo cogito ergo sum - I doubt therefore I think therefore I am). From what I remember, it means that because we have the ability to think and doubt, we must exist - even if we don't exist, the fact that we can doubt and think means that we must exist on at least some plane of existence.\n\nIf you google \"Cogito Ergo Sum\" the wiki page is more informative than I could ever hope to be.",
"It's Descartes's proof that we must exist, because:\n\nSomething that cannot doubt its existence, cannot exist.\n\nIn other words, the fact that we can question whether we are real, or in a simulation, must prove that we are, in fact, real."
],
"score": [
30,
4,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The meaning behind the popular philosophical phrase, "I think, therefore I am."
I know what it's trying to say, but I don't quite understand it. Wikipedia articles are also not cutting it on this one. | [
-0.006856330670416355,
-0.04986649379134178,
0.024320654571056366,
-0.030850691720843315,
0.04159459099173546,
-0.04847327619791031,
0.14546753466129303,
0.056624311953783035,
0.0860140398144722,
0.005119760055094957,
-0.025114580988883972,
-0.02861194685101509,
-0.05402997508645058,
-0.05... | |
5tq2gn | Your immune system causes symptoms like fever, swelling, etc, when fighting an infection. I usually get more mild symptoms than my wife when we both get sick. Does this mean my immune system is weaker or stronger? | If your immune system is what causes those symptoms, does That mean my immune system can't fight as hard, or that it doesn't have to fight as hard to win.
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddo5tvq",
"ddo730h",
"ddohhl2",
"ddoezsd"
],
"text": [
"That's an awesome question, but unfortunately it doesn't have a clear answer, as there are so many variables that can change the response.\n\nThere are 2 components to your immune system: the innate and adaptive. The innate just travels around and freaks out at everything it doesn't recognize. It doesn't matter if it's the common cold or anthrax. (slight exaggeration, since it does matter if it's bacterial or viral). It's going to react the same way. These are responsible for fever, phlegm, swelling, etc. These happen within hours of being infected. The end goal here isn't to kill the infection. It's to fight until your adaptive cells can bring reinforcements.\n\nYou also have an adaptive immune system. These are (primarily) your T and B cells, which take time. They have to 'study' the infection, find a good way to kill it, and then mass produce the antibodies. This can take anywhere from hours (if you've already made antibodies) or days-weeks (if it's something brand new).\n\nLet's say you get an infection that you've seen before. Your innate system attacks right away, and you start to notice those general signs of being sick. But then, your pre-formed antibodies quickly kill it. \n\nOr maybe it's a brand new infection, but for some reason, they don't trigger your innate system as strongly as hers. Therefore, you only get mild symptoms until your adaptive* system kills it. It's also possible that your innate response being smaller actually lets the infection grow, causing you to be sick for a longer period of time\n\nAt the end of the day, you can't really say your system is stronger or weaker. The real question is whether it's good enough, and it sounds like both of yours works.",
"Great question, but it's complicated, because different infections trigger the immune system to different amounts. Sometimes, what kills a person isn't the infection itself, but the immune response to that infection. In those cases, it's better to have a slightly weaker immune response; the response will still be strong enough to fight the infection, but not so strong as to cause you harm.\n\nAnother thing that will make a difference is how severe the infection gets. A minor infection will trigger a lesser response, but if those bacteria or viruses grow out of control, this will trigger a big response, with worse symptoms. You could be experiencing milder symptoms because you're controlling the infection at an earlier stage...or because your body is taking a more measured, less aggressive response to controlling the infection.\n\nIt's hard for me to say without samples.",
"Hers is better, because it's reacting more strongly. However, a little known fact, the great Influenza epidemic of 1918 (a.k.a. H1N1) was unusual because its morbidity rate was so much higher in people who were in the \"prime of their lives\". Older people and children didn't die in such high numbers.\nThis is thought to be because the young, strong adults had the best immune systems, and they died because they drowned in their bodies' own fluids, which were much less plentiful in older or younger people with weaker immune responses.\nBut that's a pretty freaky response. Usually the stronger immune system wins.\nI read it in a book.",
"We all have different responses to infections, and recent studies show that our immune system isn't the only player - normal constituents of your microbiome are also very important for both how effective your immune response is and how strong. They help you fight off disease by competing with pathogens and also prime your immune response to prevent autoimmune conditions. It is quite likely that your wife's strong immune response is caused by her often getting treatments with antibiotics and potentially, if she was delivered by c section. Naturally, there are multiple other factors that play a role."
],
"score": [
264,
19,
7,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Your immune system causes symptoms like fever, swelling, etc, when fighting an infection. I usually get more mild symptoms than my wife when we both get sick. Does this mean my immune system is weaker or stronger?
If your immune system is what causes those symptoms, does That mean my immune system can't fight as hard, or that it doesn't have to fight as hard to win. | [
0.042608436197042465,
-0.013828459195792675,
0.025600401684641838,
0.04639357328414917,
0.027232740074396133,
0.034056589007377625,
0.03497450053691864,
0.13775691390037537,
-0.013570976443588734,
-0.01161857508122921,
-0.07768628746271133,
-0.040047284215688705,
0.11511102318763733,
0.069... | |
2v3mc9 | Bigger muscles v. Stronger muscles | I've heard this thing that says that more reps with less weight gives you bigger muscles and more weight with less reps gives you stronger muscles. Or maybe it was the other way around.
Anyways, is there any truth to it? Is it possible to do an exercise to make yourself stronger but not larger, and conversely to make yourself more bulky but not as strong as otherwise? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"coe6mi0",
"coe5k95"
],
"text": [
"There are three types of muscle fibers in humans. \n\n1. Fast Glycolytic: These are built up in weight lifting. They are fast and strong, but they get tired very fast.\n\n2. Fast Oxidative: These are fast and strong, but not as fast and strong as the glycolytic muscles. They are built up in endurance events such as long distance running.\n\n3. Slow Oxidative: These are not very strong or fast muscles, but they don't get tired for a very long time. They are used in postural muscles (like when you stand in place.)\n\nMuscle cells cannot divide and reproduce in humans. They can only increase in size. More reps and less weight might develop more fast oxidative fibers, and more weight and less reps might develop more fast glycolytic fibers, but for the most part strength and size go hand in hand.",
"I've heard that too and I think there is truth to it. However, you can't make yourself bigger without getting stronger and vice-versa. They go hand in hand. The more reps you do builds muscular endurance, while the more weight builds muscular strength, but they will always help you a little in both categories."
],
"score": [
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Bigger muscles v. Stronger muscles
I've heard this thing that says that more reps with less weight gives you bigger muscles and more weight with less reps gives you stronger muscles. Or maybe it was the other way around. Anyways, is there any truth to it? Is it possible to do an exercise to make yourself stronger but not larger, and conversely to make yourself more bulky but not as strong as otherwise? | [
-0.03843068704009056,
-0.008427136577665806,
-0.01665785163640976,
0.031463347375392914,
-0.07195140421390533,
-0.06674928218126297,
0.05024813115596771,
0.010981584899127483,
-0.032104309648275375,
-0.014070810750126839,
0.02513149566948414,
0.08893347531557083,
0.11021601408720016,
0.056... | |
39b5jo | Why don't gas pumps take cash? | Gas pumps in most (if not all) areas of the US have been strictly pre-pay for years now. Why aren't there machines that take paper money at the pump? It seems like especially in lower income areas there are a lot of times when you just put $5 or $10 in it. Wouldn't a cash-accepting machine be a draw for people who only use cash and reduce some of the manpower needed inside the store? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cs1vlak",
"cs1w04x",
"cs1vmc8"
],
"text": [
"I've seen a few gas stations that do have a cash-accepting machine. It's for models where the individual pumps don't accept money, you have to go to a central automated kiosk to pay.\n\nThat being said, there's very little incentive for gas stations to want to make the pumps accept cash. Not only would that require someone to go and empty the cash from the pumps on a regular basis, which is just asking for someone to rob them, but you are still going to need a person working the store, so you don't save money on staffing. Likewise, you want people to go into the store to pay, so they'll be more likely to also buy an overpriced drink or snack while they're there.\n\nAnd also, the expense of having pumps installed which also take money would be a factor. Especially since gasoline is one of those necessities that they know people will buy no matter how inconvenient it may seem.",
"A few low budget gas stations use them. In general it's not popular.\n\n1: Cash accepting machines have to be emptied periodically, going outside to pick up the cash box has security risks. And they attract thieves\n\n2: You want a cash customer to come inside, and make an impulse buy.\n\n3: The cost of maintaining an outdoor cash acceptor doesn't justify any gains. \n\nI've seen a few that have them, but they're rare. Arco/BP seems to be chain most likely to have them.",
"I feel like people might try to break into the machine and steal the money. You dont really want someone to try to break into a gas pump if only for the fact that they would break the pump or at the very worst blow something up. Its just safer to go inside and pay."
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why don't gas pumps take cash?
Gas pumps in most (if not all) areas of the US have been strictly pre-pay for years now. Why aren't there machines that take paper money at the pump? It seems like especially in lower income areas there are a lot of times when you just put $5 or $10 in it. Wouldn't a cash-accepting machine be a draw for people who only use cash and reduce some of the manpower needed inside the store? | [
-0.04836057871580124,
-0.0001258653064724058,
0.009962835349142551,
0.003821783699095249,
-0.012229609303176403,
-0.0495755635201931,
0.02121032029390335,
0.012521323747932911,
0.009922237135469913,
-0.03399105742573738,
0.031289294362068176,
0.08912137895822525,
-0.03905780240893364,
0.01... | |
2qduu1 | How can some refugees travel without a passport? (or defectors) | Consider you're running away from persecution but have no passport and planning to cross a close by border and you have no passport
Does that mean country won't accept you?
OR other documents such as ID card is enough? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cn582yj",
"cn57174"
],
"text": [
"When you show up at customs state you're intention to seek refuge. What country you showed up in decides what happens next.\n\nThey may deport you, or they may accept you temporarily to review your case.",
"If there in active danger they usually are giving a pass. But they have to prove they are in active danger."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How can some refugees travel without a passport? (or defectors)
Consider you're running away from persecution but have no passport and planning to cross a close by border and you have no passport Does that mean country won't accept you? OR other documents such as ID card is enough? | [
-0.004274200648069382,
0.12213911861181259,
-0.03893955051898956,
0.03258134797215462,
0.07486140727996826,
-0.017310265451669693,
0.011004015803337097,
-0.022832628339529037,
0.0682612732052803,
-0.03461674228310585,
0.0009661004296503961,
-0.058811891824007034,
-0.02548154443502426,
-0.0... | |
pauu7 | what the brick on a power cord is / does. | Pretty clear in the title. On power cords for most electronics, like a console or a computer, there cord is usually two parts - a brick that plugs into the wall, and a cord that connects the device to the brick (I'm assuming the power supply in my desktop is an internal version of the brick on my laptop) - what is that brick, and why can't we just plug these things directly into the wall? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c3nvm1z",
"c3nwlu0",
"c3nvye1"
],
"text": [
"its converts the 120v AC current to DC at the voltage that your delicate electronics crave.",
"There are a few reasons.\n\nSome devices need less power than the wall provides, but they will pull all the power they possibly can, even if it burns them out. So you need a device between them to reduce the power.\n\nSome convert from AC to DC.\n\nThe power sent to your house comes in AC. Imagine a pipe of water blocked off at both ends. The water is pushed back and forth. This is AC (Alternating current) The brick turns it into DC (Direct Current). Imagine your electronics as a loop of water pipe. The energy from the AC is used to pump the DC loop of your computer or device.\n\nI could get into why some devices can use AC and why some need DC, but that's a different ELIF.\n\nEDIT: Spelling",
"Got it in one. In fact, if you pick one up and read it, you'll typically see:\n\nINPUT: 120V - 240V (with a little sine wave next to it indicating the input is AC, and also the input amperage and AC frequency)\nOUTPUT: 5V (with a couple of straight lines/dashes next to it indicating it's DC, and with the output amperage)\n\nI actually haven't looked at one of them in ages until just now, damn there is a lot of shit on there."
],
"score": [
12,
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | what the brick on a power cord is / does.
Pretty clear in the title. On power cords for most electronics, like a console or a computer, there cord is usually two parts - a brick that plugs into the wall, and a cord that connects the device to the brick (I'm assuming the power supply in my desktop is an internal version of the brick on my laptop) - what is that brick, and why can't we just plug these things directly into the wall? | [
-0.02676740288734436,
0.11802216619253159,
-0.05210825055837631,
0.024786025285720825,
0.0611385777592659,
-0.008362198248505592,
-0.055716488510370255,
-0.04374539479613304,
0.04840740188956261,
-0.011062027886509895,
0.09837073087692261,
0.015332811512053013,
0.0519251748919487,
0.048035... | |
1m9zpj | Why do people drink? | I'm 16 and as the people around me are starting to drink slowly, I struggle to find the benefits, all that I hear is stories of massive embarrassment, fights and hangovers, | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cc76aq8",
"cc763mg"
],
"text": [
"A lot of alcoholic beverages actually taste good. Being a little tipsy is (I find) a pleasant experience. Some reports indicate that moderate levels of alcohol consumption is good for adults. Having a drink can help to relax people. Drinking is a very sociable way to spend a few hours.\n\nThe problem is that alcohol reduces inhibitions and has negative effects on decision-making. After a couple of drinks, it's pretty easy to decide that another one will make things even better, and another one and another one after that. It's possible to lose control, especially when one is not familiar with the effects and the aftereffects. This leads to the embarrassment, fights and hangovers you mentioned.\n\nI honestly don't think alcohol in moderation is in any way evil for people of any age. Even when I was small, I would have a sip of wine or beer at dinner sometimes, and on rare occasions and under my parents' supervision, I sometimes had a glass of wine in my teens - once even a small amount of whiskey while camping with my dad.\n\nUnfortunately, people in your age group are not really very well equipped to deal with alcohol without adult supervision. Being teenagers, they naturally fight against the authority of their parents, and they can get out of control. I don't blame you at all for thinking that it's not for you. You may decide that you want to drink later on, or you may even decide that you want to try it next week. I do encourage you to do so in a safe manner if that is your choice.\n\nDon't drive if you've been drinking, and don't ride with anyone who has been drinking either. Keep your consumption under control. Drink lots of water when you drink alcohol. Don't drink on an empty stomach.\n\nOr just be the designated driver for your friends if they need it - that's a very valid choice, too.",
"One of the many reasons is peer pressure. People usually start drinking because they were offered one by a friend or family. Some continue to drink because they like the feeling they get when they drink. Some drink when the are depressed. A lot of people like to drink to celebrate. There are many reasons to drink, and not all of them are good ones. I am not saying that drinking is bad. But when you do drink remember to drink in moderation and be responsible. Never go out to drink unless you have a designated driver."
],
"score": [
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do people drink?
I'm 16 and as the people around me are starting to drink slowly, I struggle to find the benefits, all that I hear is stories of massive embarrassment, fights and hangovers, | [
0.060806937515735626,
0.04184775799512863,
0.038852259516716,
0.05497271567583084,
0.08919219672679901,
0.02110365591943264,
0.039313361048698425,
0.013620717450976372,
0.02170844003558159,
-0.06518891453742981,
0.006414357107132673,
-0.03349998965859413,
-0.04799911379814148,
0.0079279886... | |
6ztdg8 | - Why do all the cows lie down when it's about to rain? How can they sense this? Coming from Indiana, I was surrounded by farms and cornfields, so I saw this all the time. If you drive past a farm and all the cows are lying down, you can guarantee it's about to rain. What's the explanation? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dmxvr31"
],
"text": [
"Cows are more likely to lay down when they get cold, as rain fall is preceded by a drop in atmospheric pressure-- it gets colder before the rain. Cow lay down as the storm front approches, giving the illusion that they lay down for the rain, when they are just keeping warm"
],
"score": [
29
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | - Why do all the cows lie down when it's about to rain? How can they sense this? Coming from Indiana, I was surrounded by farms and cornfields, so I saw this all the time. If you drive past a farm and all the cows are lying down, you can guarantee it's about to rain. What's the explanation?
| [
0.03815573453903198,
-0.07034014165401459,
0.09959343820810318,
0.08006896823644638,
0.10015822947025299,
-0.0641748383641243,
0.039581529796123505,
-0.03055351786315441,
0.06041324883699417,
0.012928266078233719,
-0.006773733999580145,
-0.0378413200378418,
-0.01124886516481638,
0.00714237... | ||
6qsqfp | Why isn't chewing tobacco a big thing in countries like USA, England and ? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkzpejd"
],
"text": [
"If you're talking about nicotine gum, it can have help benefits if it helps a smoker quit. \n\nIf you talk about chewing tobbaco, it destroys your teeth and is linked to mouth / tongue cancer.\n\nAs to why it isn't popular ? It's less addictive than a cigarette (nicotine reaches your brain faster and blood level nicotine peaks faster), it isn't glorified by movies, it wasn't advertised... in one word, it's less profitable for big tobbacco companies."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why isn't chewing tobacco a big thing in countries like USA, England and ?
[deleted] | [
0.09241737425327301,
0.02904338203370571,
0.045201294124126434,
-0.017855901271104813,
0.014815854839980602,
0.03862655535340309,
0.011652964167296886,
-0.027849186211824417,
-0.05195024609565735,
0.06788565218448639,
0.06744268536567688,
0.043809592723846436,
-0.08131890743970871,
0.02047... | |
1ve29z | Why Are Farm Subsidies Necessary? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cerb9rq",
"cerbhiv",
"cerb9a3"
],
"text": [
"The original intent was to smooth out supply, since agriculture is so important to society.\n\nFarming is a business where one bad year, or a string of bad years, could put you out of business. Also, a business where the end price of the product you produce could vary wildly.\n\nSo farming is hard! But it's essential, since everyone relies on farms for food. So Farm Subsidies originally acted as a method to smooth out prices for farmers and give them stability, since them having a stable business also meant that market prices were also more stable.\n\nBut over time, subsidies may have lost their original intent.",
"In modern America they aren't necessary. They are now just welfare programs for the wealthy. A shocking number of farm subsidy checks are given to corporations or wealthy individuals like doctors, lawyers and even entertainers such as [Jon Bon Jovi and Bruce Springstein](_URL_0_).\n\nThe commodity markets allow real farmers to protect themselves against losses. Subsidies just aren't needed anymore.",
"It's hard to say that they are \"necessary\". Proponents argue that farming has extreme ups-and-downs, and the subsidies helps stabilize the markets."
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-06/news/30481936_1_property-taxes-farmland-assessment-farm-subsidies"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why Are Farm Subsidies Necessary?
| [
-0.0869760662317276,
-0.012187149375677109,
0.024048715829849243,
-0.03990477696061134,
0.086003877222538,
0.05448618903756142,
-0.05584927275776863,
-0.0401453971862793,
-0.0177709199488163,
0.015586267225444317,
0.10895644873380661,
0.04230187460780144,
-0.02708142250776291,
-0.039284043... | ||
5ioi0r | If the Earth stopped spinning, would we feel it? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"db9pwpb",
"db9qffg"
],
"text": [
"Only if you count us and everything that's not superbly secured underground flung into the cold depths of space \"feeling it\".",
"It depends how quickly it stopped spinning, and where you are on Earth. \n\nImagine moving quickly in a car. Your body moves with the car, and if you're not accelerating, then you don't feel any force. Now imagine the car stops suddenly. Your body will want to keep on moving, it has inertia. If you're wearing a seat belt, then it exerts a force on you to bring you to a stop along with the car. If you weren't, and it was open at the front, you would be flung through the air.\n\nNow imagine this on a huge scale. We all move with the earth as it rotates, but we don't usually \"feel\" it because the rate of rotation is constant. If it stopped, anything not incredibly firmly fixed to the ground would keep moving! Buildings, cars and people would all fly through the air very violently. This would be worst at the equators where angular velocity is greatest. At the poles, as you are spinning on a point, you would fare much better.\n\nIf the Earth stopped spinning very slowly, we would not get this sudden jolt, just as if you slow down gradually in a car, you don't really notice it.\n\nMichael at Vsauce has a great video that explains it further, check it out!\n\n_URL_0_"
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0-GxoJ_Pcg"
]
} | train_eli5 | If the Earth stopped spinning, would we feel it?
[removed] | [
-0.010398500598967075,
0.00731780705973506,
0.09682399034500122,
-0.04270239546895027,
0.07907136529684067,
-0.033607617020606995,
0.033699896186590195,
-0.04608386754989624,
0.057700544595718384,
-0.033207084983587265,
0.02770802192389965,
0.0420222207903862,
-0.030498886480927467,
-0.048... | |
8239n0 | Why does it hurt to pee with an erection? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dv77y6j",
"dv758rd"
],
"text": [
"Uh, it does? Last time I did it it wasn't uncomfortable. I always sit down in that case though, maybe that's why.",
"Because the vascular system around the urethra is constrained and causes the flow out to be restricted, and thus potentially painful or burning. Basically the erection causes the same symptoms of urethral stricture which is caused by multiple issues including tumors and urinary tract infections."
],
"score": [
7,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does it hurt to pee with an erection?
| [
0.008538133464753628,
-0.04789479449391365,
0.028723478317260742,
0.08336178958415985,
-0.014194684103131294,
-0.025702331215143204,
0.08662992715835571,
0.014783181250095367,
0.08278313279151917,
0.026220601052045822,
-0.10643912851810455,
-0.007251654285937548,
-0.012979756109416485,
0.1... | ||
5a7gyu | Why are some chicken mcnuggets shapped like boots, some like fish, and some are round? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d9e94l3"
],
"text": [
"**Short**: Because McDonald's Inc thought that those shapes would make them look more \"natural\" than all being identical lumps.\n\n**Long**: Before the get nugget'd, the chicken used in McNuggets first gets ground up, like beef is for hamburgers. They do this so the flavor and texture is consistent...and so they can use cuts of chicken meat that aren't the prettiest, not everything that comes off the bird is a nice slab of breast meat. This meat then goes into molds to make the nugget shape, then gets fried. \n\nThe issue though is that if the molds are *the same*, it makes the nuggets look fake to customers. When you get some nice chicken breasts from a butcher, they're never the exact same size because every bird's a little bit differently shaped. So in customer's minds, inconsistent shapes equal authenticity. So by having a few different possible nugget shapes, it makes it more visually appealing than being a bunch of identical balls."
],
"score": [
8
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are some chicken mcnuggets shapped like boots, some like fish, and some are round?
| [
-0.051966115832328796,
-0.009930793195962906,
0.011288757435977459,
0.05780215561389923,
0.041658349335193634,
-0.06763850897550583,
0.07793629914522171,
0.020118100568652153,
0.050204288214445114,
0.016093246638774872,
-0.023436157032847404,
-0.014142186380922794,
-0.03564627841114998,
-0... | ||
2gcq95 | What exactly is being done in the process of remastering a music album? | How do they make it sound better? I mean the recording has been made, how do they make it sound clearer? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ckhw8wy"
],
"text": [
"I'm gonna explain the concept of remastering first and then directly answer your question at the end:\n\n*Most remastered albums are re-releases of very old music, usually from the analogue tape era. When the music was first recorded onto tape and properly mixed, it was then \"mastered\" (finalized) and that master copy of the tape was sent to be pressed onto vinyl records. REmastering is doing the final part of this process again, but with modern technology.\n\nThe reason remastering is needed isn't because of problems with that source tape however (tape is actually a very high fidelity medium), but what came after. The album may have had a perfect sounding release onto vinyl (which given its limits wasn't always), but eventually those albums had to be released on a new format: digital CD.\n\nOriginal CD releases of albums recorded on tape (old and new) were mastered on primitive analogue to digital conversion equipment and the sound was often changed drastically by the mastering engineers to sound more like a digital recording (removing noise and character, changing EQ curves etc), meaning the music no longer sounded like it did on the original tape, or even on the original vinyl home release.\n\nEventually a point was reached (probably the mid-late 90s) where the consumers would pay for better mastered CDs of their old favorites, and the labels and artists realized the monetary potential of this and went in on REmastering them all.\n\nModern remastering (if done properly) is done with the purpose of making the new digital master (and every CD and mp3 made from it) sound as close to the original tape as possible. Different levels of purism exist in the industry and not every release succeeds to please the hardcore fans.\n\n*So to answer your question directly, it's not that they are making the music sound better, it's that they are making a copy available to us as consumers that is better (or more original and true to the artists vision, \"better\" is an opinion) than any digital copy we've heard before.\n\nIn the case of some of these old recordings though, the original tapes have not been handled with all the care that they should. They may be dirty, broken, incomplete, etc. In this case, a lot of cleanup, repair and editing needs to be done. This happens a lot and is an important part of a \"remastered re-release\" of your favorite old album and is often lumped together with it in press releases and cd packages, but it should be considered more as restoration that happens before the remaster itself."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What exactly is being done in the process of remastering a music album?
How do they make it sound better? I mean the recording has been made, how do they make it sound clearer? | [
0.04125218465924263,
0.01165922824293375,
0.017283791676163673,
-0.030972111970186234,
-0.050184186547994614,
-0.007490659598261118,
-0.028370298445224762,
-0.08069463074207306,
0.008560949005186558,
-0.021884379908442497,
-0.02025073952972889,
0.06287594884634018,
0.03904704377055168,
-0.... | |
587u59 | How are bombs (especially the atomic bomb during the Manhattan project) built safely without worrying about it going off? | Manhattan project specifically since it was the first known time the atomic bomb was being created here in America, so research/knowledge was scarce.
Edit never thought this would...*blow up*. Thanks for the awesome responses guys! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d8y6gmo",
"d8yf41x",
"d8ygt1q",
"d8ycx13",
"d8ymr1o",
"d8ygofd",
"d8yc7jh",
"d8yhmn1",
"d8yg1rd",
"d8yjy95",
"d8yg1o9",
"d8ygs4a",
"d8yhqo5",
"d8y6nrf",
"d8ylbtz",
"d8z9hv8",
"d8yn5ea",
"d8ykve8",
"d8yrviw",
"d8yplq4",
"d8yeez1",
"d8yqspr",
"d8yioxx",
"d8yh4z5",
"d8z9jf6",
"d8zbh8j",
"d8ym803",
"d8yg84q",
"d8z4m5q",
"d8yuoq5",
"d8z3hiv",
"d8z7xxx"
],
"text": [
"uranium and plutonium aren't like gunpowder. It's not like a stray spark would make them explode. They're arguably safer to work with than conventional explosives in most respects.\n\nNuclear material will only actually explode under very specific conditions. Building a machine that actually was able to create the heat and pressure necessary was the whole second half of the manhattan project (the first half was isolating enriched uranium). The bigger worry was that the bombs wouldn't explode at all.",
"The answer is that to create a nuclear explosion, you need *exquisite* timing. A careful explosion coming in from all directions. Here's why:\n\nGo to [this ELI5](_URL_0_) post for a general explanation on what radioactivity is, what the chain-reaction is, and what is done to make power plants and bombs.\n\nIf you feel well-enough grounded on that, onto step two:\n\nIn order to get a bomb, you need to make *lots* of atoms split apart. There is a chain reaction going on - one splitting fires off a bunch of neutrons that hit other atoms and make them split, each which make more split - so that's really helpful. It's an exponential process.\n\nThe problem is how far apart the atoms are. If they're too far apart, a lot of neutrons just won't hit any atoms, and the chain reaction will die out.\n\nSo in order to get a *lot* of atoms to split apart, we need a big core (more fissile material so it's more likely to catch a neutron before it flies outside of the targets) and we need to *force* the atoms to be really close together, so the neutrons are more likely to hit each other.\n\nNow, if we keep the core small enough (or keep it in smaller pieces before the bomb is fully assembled), we're not going to get a lot of radioactivity. So it can't possibly explode. That's safety for working on the device.\n\nPart 2 of safety is what keeps the bomb from going off accidentally once its fully assembled.\n\nIf you ever get enough material close enough together, it will start to produce energy. If it's *really* close, it will start generating *a lot* of energy.\n\nBut what happens then? The massive amount of energy and heat will make the core blow itself apart, and then the chain reaction will stop because there's no longer a large concentration. The reaction will stop before any large explosion occurs.\n\nThe only way we can get the massive kilo-ton explosions is if we *forcibly* hold the core together against its own explosion, keeping it in tact and in close proximity long enough to get a lot more atoms to split.\n\nAnd what better way to counter an explosion than with a bigger explosion? *Nothing, that's what!*\n\nSo to actually activate a nuclear bomb, a *super carefully timed* set of explosions surrounding a hollow-sphere of uranium or plutonium all detonated at *exactly the same time* and this crushes the core together and creates enough pressure to hold it together for several microsconds, rather than the nanoseconds it would stay together without the pressure of the explosions.\n\nNow, a few milliseconds might sound irrelevant, but remember this is an *exponential* process. One split makes two more split, makes two more split, etc. Just a little extra time on an exponential function can make an explosions tens, hundreds, thousands, or *millions* of times more explosive.\n\nSo, if we leave a nuke in a warehouse full of grenades, and then we toss a live grenade in there, things will start blowing up randomly. Maybe even the conventional explosives inside the nuclear bomb will go off. But they won't all go off at the same time. So they'll just hit the core from one side, and probably blow it to pieces instead of universally crushing it from all sides. It'll fly apart and never start to split any significant number of atoms.\n\n\n**TL;DR**\nDetonating a nuclear bomb is hard, because you have to crush it evenly and simultaneously from all sides using *very* carefully timed explosions. If the explosions don't all go off at exactly the same time, the nuclear material won't be crushed together, and it won't achieve any significant amounts of nuclear activity.\n\nAny random explosions or perturbations *could* detonate some of the explosives, but it won't have a ghost of a chance of detonating them perfectly all at once, so it's actually really safe.",
"Others have covered nuclear explosives well, but you did say simply \"bombs,\" so I'll talk just a touch about conventional explosives.\n\nBasically, most conventional explosives, for both commercial and military use, are designed in such a way that they're actually rather stable until some kind of detonator/fuse/blasting cap - electrical, chemical, or mechanical - sets the explosive off. C4, famously, can be set on fire, shot with a gun, dropped, deformed, manhandled, and generally abused without ever detonating. In order to actually set off C4, you need to insert a detonator and use that.\n\nA detonator is basically a very, very small bomb that's used to set off the actual bomb. Think of it like a little firecracker you stick into the bomb to set off the bomb. They *are* much easier to set off, so you have to be a lot more careful with detonators than you are with your bombs, but the upside is that a detonator exploding prematurely might give one dude a nasty injury rather than level half of the town like having a half-ton of whatever explosive you're carrying around going off would.\n\nSome explosives can also be set off electrically without any sort of primary explosive either - simply running an electric charge through the material will start the reaction.\n\nBefore this, we were stuck using explosives like nitroglycerine and gunpowder which are very, very unstable (and actually less powerful anyway). Gunpowder, for example, will burn very rapidly under all sorts of conditions, and in fact doesn't even require oxygen to burn since it has both its fuel *and* its oxidizer (so yes, guns actually work just fine in space). Nitroglycerine is even less stable - in its pure form, it'll just straight up blow the fuck up if, say, you just dropped it on the floor. Not only that, but after it's manufactured, it degrades into even more unstable compounds over time. It's even fucking liquid! You can spill it on the ground and suddenly you just blew everything up. Well, except for the fact that its freezing point is 13 degrees C, and when it's frozen, it's somehow even more unstable.\n\nNitroglycerine was eventually made into dynamite by Alfred Nobel (yes, like the Nobel Prize) as a means of making it safer and more stable. Instead of blowing up when you just drop it on the ground, now you need some kind of fuse. And from there, we got to stable high explosives that can be set on fire and shot without exploding.",
"Atomic weapons depend on having enough nuclear material concentrated enough in one piece.\n\nIf you have two bricks separated by a distance, they wont blow up. if the bricks are the right size and concentration, you can lay one brick on top of another, and the reaction starts right up.\n\nIn this regard this story about plutonium research is damn interesting\n\n_URL_1_\n\n > Louis Slotin’s experiment of May 21, 1946 [...] did utilize the same plutonium cores as Daghlian’s experiment, and it was similarly ill-fated. At the secret Omega Site Laboratory, as six observers looked on, Slotin was training a colleague who was meant to replace him, one Alvin C. Graves. As Slotin demonstrated the criticality test, the screwdriver he used to separate the two sphere halves slipped, and the hemispheres came into contact.\n\n > \n\n > Immediately, all eight scientists in the room felt a wave of heat accompanied by a blue glow as the plutonium sphere vomited an invisible burst of gamma and neutron radiation into the room. As the lab’s Geiger counter clicked hysterically, Louis used his bare hand to push the upper plutonium hemisphere off and onto the floor, which terminated the supercritical reaction moments after it began.\n\nThe end result is that to have a bomb, you need a secure way to brick several chunks of material together into the desired shape rapidly and otherwise safely. They usually used something like TNT",
"This is one of my favorite things in the world to talk about. This will take a while.\n\nNuclear Fission releases energy when an atom changes its nuclear configuration (its number of protons/neutrons). In doing so it releases a neutron (which will be important later), but (because mass is weird), the total mass of the resulting atom and released particles is less than the mass of the original atom. This lost mass is released as energy, and it's a *lot* of energy for the amount of mass. We're still talking about a tiny percentage of an atom, so a single atom fissioning doesn't do much, but get a lot of them to and you get an amazing amount of heat.\n\nFission from Uranium/Plutonium happens in three ways:\n\n* **Spontaneous Decay**: These elements are unstable, and will occasionally decay on their own. Uranium has always been doing this, and the fissile Uranium in the world has been gradually \"running out\" longer than the lifetime of the earth. Plutonium does it so quickly that it doesn't even exist in nature anymore, and we have to make it ourselves. Spontaneous decay (even in plutonium) is so slow that it doesn't do much on its own; it's safe-ish to handle even bomb-quantities of plutonium, so long as the second two factors aren't at play.\n\n* **Prompt Decay from Neutron Colissions** When a neutron from another fission action hits an atom, it can \"knock it apart\", more or less, causing it to instantly fission. In the case of Uranium/Plutonium, this can release multiple further neutrons.\n\n* **Delayed Decay of Fission Products** Many of the things resulting from Uranium/Plutonium decay are themselves super unstable, much more than plutonium. They decay with a half-life of seconds or minutes in some cases, releasing further energy and neutrons.\n\nSo, in a nuclear assembly (bomb, reactor, whatever), what matters is the number of neutrons, and how that number changes. Neutrons are added by spontaneous fisson and reaction, and lost by just flying out of the system without hitting anything interesting (also absorption, but we don't care about that for this context).\n\nThis gets us to five very important terms: Sub-Critical, Critical, Super-Critical, Hyper-Critical and Prompt Critical.\n\nCrtiticality refers to how many neutrons a neutron added to the system is likely to \"spawn\" through the second two types of fission I mentioned above. In this case, we consider neutrons from spontaneous absorption to be \"added\" to the system, as if they were external. If one neutron is likely to ultimately result in exactly one further netron before it leaves/is absorbed, then the assembly is exactly **critical**: it will stay at whatever level of heat/neutron production it's at, forever, assuming no external neutrons are added. If the expected result is less than one neutron, it's **sub-critical** and will gradually lose neutrons and cool down to a very low rate determined almost soley by spontaneous fission. If it's more than one, it's **super-critical**.\n\nA super-critical assembly will produce exponentially more and more neutrons and heat, until either it consumes all of its fuel (which would take a while), or more likely, something stops it. If no human controls are in place, then it stops when it melts into a non-critical configuration, because **shape really matters.**\n\nRemember how I mentioned that neutrons leave the system by, well, leaving without hitting anything? The chance that they do that has to do with the ratio of mass to surface area. If the mass is very spread out, or has a lot of surface area, it's easy for neutrons to leave the system without reacting. \n\nSo, we have all the terminology we need to describe a basic nuclear reactor: controls are used to alter its criticallity to bring it up to super-critical until it's at the desired heat production, then level it off at critical. (Actually staying exactly at critical is impossible, but it will wobble back and forth guided by either control rods or physical feedback loops.)\n\nFor a nuclear bomb, though, you want to release a lot more energy, very fast: You want a runaway reaction that doesn't melt and shut itself down, because it doesn't have time. This brings us to the next two pieces of terminology:\n\n**Hyper-Critical** just means like, way supercritical. A normal supercritical system might produce like, 1.2 neutrons for each neutron added. A hyper-critical system produces hundreds.\n\n**Prompt Critical** is much more interesting: It means that the system is critical enough that **it does not need the delayed fission neutrons to be critical**. This means that, rather than having an exponential curve built by the seconds or minutes it takes things things to decay, you have one built by the time it takes neutrons traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light to cross the radius of a bomb core.\n\nSo, to wrap up quickly, why bombs are safe: Because in order to get a nuclear blast, you have to take something that is sub-crtical, and bring it to prompt-hyper-critical before it has a chance to melt. That's actually very difficult to do; almost everything but the Little Boy Hiroshima assembly bomb does it by using an explosive shell to compress the fissile material inwards into a super-compressed bead with very little surface area. Doing this actually involves making \"lenses\" of fast and slow explosives in the shell, so that a perfect inwarldly-moving sphere of a blast way may be approximated by multiple simultaneous ignition points.\n\nIt's really hard to do on purpose, and basically impossible to do by accident. You can melt your assembly and kill yourself with radiation (no one's melted working on a bomb, but a few people have died), but you can't actually blow up the lab on accident.\n\nEDIT: Fun fact, for anyone who made it this far. To my (pretty decent, if I do say so myself) knoweldge, there has been exactly one occasion on which a nuclear assembly has been shut down by being allowed to run wild until it melted into a non-critical configuration. That was at Chernobyl. To make matters worse, the Russiand had placed their reactor directly above a giant tank of water, so when the tens-of-thousands-of-degrees hot molted uranium hit that, it caused a steam explosion that was directed upwards through the remains of the reactor. Chernobyl was a steam-powered nuclear shotgun pointed at the atmosphere.",
"My grandfather was actually a top secret weapons specialist back during Korea and Vietnam wars. Recently, he told me the gist of what it is he did - and this was one of them. \n\nEssentially, you can do almost anything to a nuclear bomb, but if the right elements don't come together at the right time, nothing actually happens. There are several triggers that have to happen in a particular sequence for something to go off. These triggers are in different places and there are MANY steps to get through to make it happen. \n\nIf a nuclear bomb were to be dropped out of a plane or something and hit the ground without the series of steps being completed, it would just cause a tiny little explosion and not much would come of it. If they included the stuff that made it nuclear, well, you'd have the nuclear bomb type explosion. \n\nThat's what he relayed to me. I wonder if he'd do an AMA. I'll have to ask him... that is, if there's interest of course!",
"Well you see now Timmy, a nuclear reaction isn't quite the same thing as setting off a pile of black powder or a cloud of gas. While both of these can be ignited by a single spark or flame and are combustion reactions IIRC(Think of a log burning in super fast motion) a nuclear explosion requires that you essentially smash sensitive nuclear materials together so hard that some atomic technomagic occurs and \"unravels\" the materials on an atomic scale. These unraveled atoms bounce their giblets into their neighbors and cause the atoms around them to in turn become unraveled producing lots of energy. Getting this to happen in the first place takes so many things going right that its beyond many nations technical abilities and makes it relatively easy to introduce safety mechanisms to prevent an accidental detonation. Because of this dropping an armed nuclear bomb on the ground wont feasibly make it go off. If, for the sake of argument you were to take a nuclear bomb and detonate a block of high explosives on top of it all you would likely accomplish would be blowing apart said nuclear bomb and perhaps creating a cloud of radioactive dust. Later implosion type fusion devices are even more complex, involving perfectly molded sections of HE lenses and super precise timing mechanisms to insure the materials are squished together just right for that big boom. Frankly, you'd be in more danger standing at the top of a staircase for a prolonged period of time doing nothing than you would be spending the same amount of time standing next to a nuke. \n\nTraditional explosives are a little different, but the long story short is that every explosive is more sensitive to some things than they are to others, and fuses are usually kept separate from bombs until they are about to be used to prevent any silly accidents from occuring. some like shock, others flame, others just wanna be jostled, and some need a good squeezing(confinement) before they'll do anything but burn slowly. Generally these explosive are quite possible to set off accidentally or unintentionally though, and a great amount of care should be taken around any but the most inert, professionally made, and well cared for devices.",
"I'm seeing a lot of discussion about whether the radioactive material would suddenly explode. The answer is \"no, not really\" though there have been instances where two pieces have been accidentally smashed together and killed people with a brief burst of radiation as a result.\n\nThe main issue was with the bomb itself detonating. There are many ways the explosives can go off to set off the reaction. A fire was a worry, as was shock by hitting or dropping the thing, accidental activation, electrical shorts, and many other things.\n\nEach of those potential things happened at once point or another, and it was often due to safety improvements or sheer luck that they didn't detonate. One of the main improvements was the aim to make bombs \"one point safe,\" where if the high explosives at one point went off (through fire, shock, etc.) then the design was such that it wouldn't be sufficient to start a bomb. Indeed, there were instances where the high explosives did go off, spewing the core around the place, but not causing a nuclear explosion.\n\nPerhaps the most memorable facepalm moment was when a bomber crewman went to steady himself during turbulence by grabbing the release hook in the bomb bay, and released a bomb which went crashing through the doors to the ground below. They later found that all but one safety mechanism was either disabled, or hadn't functioned properly.\n\nIf you want to know more about this, there's a great book called Command and Control which talks about the efforts to secure the US nuke arsenal in these ways. There's also a film to be released based upon one of the main incidents in the book.\n\nAll of this does add weight to arguments why many countries shouldn't gain nukes. It's not nessessarily that we think they'll want to view their use in the right way, but also that their infrastructure and procedural/technical knowledge is pretty much at square one when it comes to preventing nuclear accidents.",
"Imagine that you were going to store energy in a metal spring. The spring is safe to handle as long as it's not compressed. Once compressed though it takes just a little energy to trip the release and it will spring out and deliver it's potential energy all at once. Bombs are similar in arming and detonating. \n\nChemical bombs: \nUsing the spring analogy, they are made safe by having a trip latch that is so stiff you would have to hit it with a hammer to undo the latch. Explosives are only as useful as they are stable. You don't want to blow up the factory after all. So while the bombs have a lot of potential energy ready to unleash, they require a lot of energy to push them over the threshold. Usually a high explosive is set off using a smaller charge. So until the detonation cap, or detonator cord is inserted, it's safe to handle. \n\nAtomic bombs: \nTo use the spring analogy the spring is in 2 parts and it's not until they are forced together that they can release their energy. Atomic bombs need a certain amount of fissile material (uranium etc) in order to sustain a nuclear reaction. They simply divide this lump of material into multiple sections, or they hollow it out like a empty can and then crush it. Until the atomic material is compressed into this critical mass (the minimum amount of material needed to start a chain reaction) it will not detonate. The crushing of the material is usually done with explosives that implode a hollow sphere of material crushing it like a can and when it's forced into such a small area it will detonate. Older designs also used gun type designs where a slug of the uranium was shot into the larger mass of uranium in order to trigger the reaction. \n\nSimilar to chemical explosives, until the explosives are primed, they will not self detonate, even if shot at or the bomb being destroyed.",
"I feel like most of the responses here are missing the point of the question.\n\nLot's of people saying nuclear explosions need to be perfectly timed or else they won't reach criticality etc etc. That's all fine, but the point of the question, and one I'd love to hear the answer to, is assume the bomb is built correctly and when triggered is going to work as designed (whether nuclear or not).\n\nThis is where my assumption and desire for an answer comes in. This means you have you have your entire system built but at some point there's a switch - a break in the circuitry, which when closed lets (I'm assuming) electricity flow through to whatever system actuates the bomb. At it's most simple it might be a domestic light switch type switch. But when you physically build that switch into the bomb how is it done to avoid ANY chance of the switch short circuiting and activating the bomb?\n\nThere must be some super safe and reliable way of building such a switch that there's no chance of the switch closing the circuit accidentally, which I can't reconcile with my thought of the most simple switch being touching a wire between two breaks in the circuit.\n\nI believe nuclear bombs had a removable detonating circuit of some type but the question remains, when you insert whatever portion is removable how is it designed to achieve supreme safety and no chance of accidental closure?",
"Not really TL;DR or ELI5, but a -fascinating- book worth reading if you're interested in that sort of thing is [Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety](_URL_2_). \n\nThe author details a number of accidents including one which involved the explosion (still in its silo) of a Titan II ICBM. In setting the context for this he covers the issues (and the development work and and politics) of safety devices for nukes.",
"On a tour of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in England, I was in a machine shop. I noticed a yellowed card tacked to the wall. I walked over and read the printed message on it. It said,\n\n\"If you hear a loud siren and then see a blinding flash, bend over, grasp your ankles, and kiss your arse goodbye.\"",
"I had some basic explosives training when I was a young Marine (C4, Blasting Caps, Det Cord, landmines, Bangalores, Dynamite, etc)... Most of that stuff requires both pressure and heat to go off, and is actually pretty stable if properly stored (leave anything in the sun for too long and it can get wonky). C4 you can throw around without any problems, but the Blasting Caps (which are used to detonate the C4) can be pretty sensitive and are always stored and handled much more carefully. \n\nIf your explosives are too sensitive, they'll blow up anytime the truck hits a bump or somebody jostles something. But if you water down the explosives with filler or a less sensitive chemical, you can still get a good bang with less risk. On a side note, I find it really cool how each explosive type has a different kind of explosion and thus a different use- Dynamite explodes more slowly than others, and is good for pushing stuff around, like when you're excavating a mine. C4 is a quicker, sharper explosive, and thus good for cutting things like steel beams.\n\nBut maybe we can get an EOD Tech to go into details, it's been way too long since I've had to deal with this stuff on a regular basis.",
"What they solved in the project was how to trigger the nuclear cascade. By surrounding the nuclear material with explosives they created an inward implosion triggering the explosion predicted by the physicists. Uranium/Plutonium is not like nitroglycerine. It won't explode by handling. It is radioactive, however and can cause all sorts of sickness from exposure.",
"They _did_ worry about the weapons going off accidentally. Because even though, as other point out, you have to create artificial conditions to make a nuclear explosion start, once you have all the apparatus assembled, stray sparks or electricity can start the sequence.\n\nFor the Trinity test in 1945, they worried that passing electrical storms could set off the starting switch. And indeed, one did so (fortunately to a set of switches not hooked up to anything) at one point prior to the test. \n\nFor the Little Boy bomb, they didn't actually insert the explosive materials until the plane was already taking off on the Hiroshima run. Then they inserted it in mid-air before pressurizing the cabin. This was because they feared that if the plane crashed on the runway, it might start a nuclear reaction and destroy the base they were using to bomb Japan with.\n\nFor the Fat Man bomb, there wasn't much they could do to make it safer, so they pretty much just crossed their fingers. As one of the top physicists who worked on it put it in his report, \"[We all aged ten years until the plane cleared the island](_URL_3_).\" He took away from the experience the need to design safer bombs.\n\nAnd so the longer-term answer is to design bombs that are hard to set off accidentally. This can mean careful design of electrical circuits, so stray currents can't set them off, and it can mean using components that are less prone to explode in case of fire, etc. Eric Schlosser's _Command and Control_ is a very fun-to-read book which is all about nuclear weapons accidents and attempts by engineers to make such accidents, even if they happen, non-catastrophic. It is not so easy as some of the other commentators here think!",
"Purpose built bombs aren't an accident. They're specifically designed to go off only if a specific sequence of events happens.\n\nYou can abstract this sequence of events as an \"Explosive Train\", a sequence of events that leads to the optimal detonation of the bomb.\n\nIn most (if not all) modern military ordnance, the major explosive component is so unstable, by itself, that you could burn or even shoot it without fear. \nInstead, an explosive train is created. A specific amount of more reactive explosive is linked to the major explosive component. Ideally, this more reactive explosive is reactive to a very specific kind of trigger (heat, electricity, impact, etc). Now, keep that reactive explosive away from the major explosive. Put it in a detachable little container, and it's a fuse. Keep the fuse (easily set off) away from the bomb, and now the big boom is pretty safe.\nYou can multiply this out a couple of times. That ideal fuse is only going to be able to be set off with a very specific stimulus, so you're pretty safe. And if fuse goes off, you're only losing fingers, not the neighborhood.\n\nYou can have one reactive explosive set off a slightly safer explosive, which in turn sets off a much bigger quantity of very safe explosive (This is where the idea of an explosive train really starts to make sense). This is done for both safety, and because some explosives simply won't explode (or do much of anything) without a very significant amount of energy (bullets ain't gonna cut it). So you need explosives with different qualities. Some easy to set off (but in small quantities), some that aren't easy to set off. Some that explode slowly, some that explode very quickly.",
"I would really recommend you have a read of \"Command and Control\" by Eric Schlosser. it deals with this exact subject although purely from an american point of view as i don't believe the soviet records or available or reliable. \neveryone here is talking about how safe atomic bombs are and how hard it is to make them detonate by accident and there is truth to that....now, but for a long time they really were nowhere near as safe. A nuclear chain reaction may be difficult to trigger, but an atomic bomb is a device designed to do just that. it is a loaded gun and the early ones didn't have much in the way of safety features. there was always a fight between elements of the military that put more value on making sure a device would detonate at the right time, rather than fail safes to ensure it wouldn't detonate at the wrong time. in the early designs with the basic electronics of the time an atomic bomb could literally be set off by the wrong sort of short circuit or a lightning strike. arming was done via an electric switch or and then detonation triggered by altitude. in theory the bomb could be armed by accident through an electrical fault and then set off by an impact or another electrical fault. \nthe posts are all echoing the argument of some element of the military, namely it is hard to get a nuclear yield and you have to do things in a certain order for it to happen.....and thats correct in normal conditions and the risk is low, but the bombs weren't only subject to normal conditions. if you think of 50 years of being prepared for an imminent attack and response. these things were dropped out of planes, lost, set on fire, crashed and it really is amazing one never went off. i think there was one particular model that was widely carried on bombers that was especially unsafe in abnormal conditions. if subject to heat from a fire would burn insulation off the internal wires, arm it, set off the battery and then potentially trigger the detonators. worst case scenario a 1 Mt nuclear yield,best case plutonium spread everywhere. \nthere was an incident in north dakota where it almost happened during a fire except the wind blew the burning jet fuel away from the plane. \n\nanyway, thankfully modern weapons have multiple fail safe devices and are designed to be safer. read the book, seriously.",
"The substances that go in the middle of a nuclear bomb to let it explode are radioactive. That means they let off little particles and energy randomly, called radiation. The exact elements used, special kinds of Uranium and Plutonium, are used because when you collect enough weight of those elements together in a ball, its own radiation makes it heat up and get more radioactive. That's called being \"supercritical\".\n\nThe thing about building an atomic bomb is that you don't just have to make the bomb's core go supercritical. If that was all you had to do, you could just build two halves of the core weighing a dozen pounds, and nudge them together to make them explode. Don't get me wrong, that would be very bad, and you would make a lot of radiation spill out - but it wouldn't explode.\n\nWhy wouldn't it explode? Because it takes time for the whole chunk of material to trigger itself to release its heat and radiation. And, in the time it's taking to do that, it's heating up and heating up. In fact, the core would get so hot that it would melt a bit and turn bits of itself to vapor. That would make it shatter apart well before it came anywhere close to a proper atomic explosion.\n\nSo the Manhattan project had to come up with a way to make the bomb explode, even though the core simply wasn't going to do it by itself. They had to either make a core that had a lot of extra material, and assemble it very quickly using a sort of gun, so that it released enough of the energy to explode - or they had to find a way to squish the core together to speed up the reaction and for long enough to let it get nearly finished so it would release enough energy to explode. \n\nThose two types of bomb were referred to as the \"gun-type\" model and the \"implosion\" model. There were other names too, but those are the simplest.\n\nBoth models needed very precise calculations to work, and if they were set off accidentally (like say getting in a fire), the explosives to set off the gun or make the core implode wouldn't fire correctly, and the bomb would \"fizzle\". Setting off an atomic bomb could only really be done deliberately. So, as long as you trust everybody working on the bomb isn't going to try and set it off, it's perfectly safe.",
"To truely ELI5: very carefully. \n\nBut seriously Avoiding anything that could set off whatever is being used as an explosive. This includes but is not limited to things like, wearing grounding bracelets that prevent static electricity which could set off gun powder. Compartmentalized locations so that any accident doesnt cause a chain reaction and blow up a whole facility. And standardized heavily enforced safety practices so that everyone knows exactly how to handle whatever explosives they might be working with.\n\nSource: air force, I dont work on them, directly, but I know people who do and often am working around them when they handle munitions.\n\nIn regards to nuclear weapons, its actually quite difficult to set off a nuclear bomb. The easiest way to build one is by slamming a piece of uranium/plutonium into another at extremely high velocity, basically shooting it out if a cannon at the other piece. So as long as the weapon isnt loaded with the charges meant to smash the two pieces together there isn't much worry. These primer charges would only be placed at the last possible moment before loading the bomb onto the aircraft. There are also about a dozen safeties (just like those on a gun.) To prevent an accidental firing. \n\nEspecially with early nuclear weapons one of the biggest safeties is just how difficult it is to actually set off a nuclear explosion. Virtually any accident that could involve an explosion wouldnt be nuclear but just \"dirty\" as they call it. That said all the previously mentioned safeties were taken very seriously. Remember: these guys werent 100% sure of how large the explosion would be. There were those who thought they might accidentally ignite the atmosphere and kill us all. So safety was the most important thing.",
"Interestingly, the scientist Richard Feynman talked about this issue in one of his books. He and the other Manhattan Project scientists knew that if too much enriched uranium was clumped together in one place, there was the risk of an unintended nuclear explosion. However, the scientists weren't given clearance to fully supervise the manufacturing process. At the other scientists' urging, he said to the general in charge \"We cannot guarantee the safety of the factory unless we are shown exactly what is happening in it.\" \n\nVery quickly he was given clearance. At one point in the process, the uranium is fed through a series of pipes and valves. These valves were unreliable, and could break with no warning, causing a buildup in the pipe behind it. Never having seen blueprints before, he glanced over those of the factory and pointed at random - \"What happens if this part fails?\" To the engineers surprise, he pointed to the only valve which had no failsafe behind it. If that one failed, a chain reaction and nuclear explosion would have occured. Ironically, he didn't understand the diagram at all and he thought he was pointing at a window.",
"Pretend if you will, you are participating in a school science fair. You've decided that you're going to make a volcano using baking soda and vinegar. \n\nTo make sure you've got it down perfectly, you practice at home to get the exact measurements. You finally have the perfect amounts of both components, but now you have to take them to school.\n\nYou obviously can't combine the ingredients in a single container and tote them, the chemical reaction would take place as soon as you put them together. To fix this, you put the vinegar and baking soda in two sealed containers. You went with the double zip ziploc bag because you know they're the best sealed bags. You toss both bags into a plastic container and jump onto the school bus.\n\nThis is essentially how a bomb works. Keep the components separate until it's time for the reaction.",
"Fun fact: (related, but not a direct answer to the question)\n\n\nGoogle map search Mead Nebraska and look at the fields around the town. They're littered with bomb factories from WWII. Far enough from each other that one accident wouldn't kill everyone/lose the stockpile. I don't really know the history of the area or how many there were, but as of at least 15 or so years ago there were still quite a few. Haven't been thru the area since then. \n\n\nAlso no idea if any buildings were ever blown up during production. \n\n\nFound this: _URL_4_",
"[Just don't let it go critical](_URL_5_). As long as you keep the mass sufficiently small and sufficiently undense, no chain reaction will occur.\n\nThere have been times where [criticality accidents have happened for various reasons](_URL_7_), resulting in injury and death. Nuclear bombs work by causing a mass to go critical via explosive force, and the condition under which nuclear bombs go critical, [known as prompt critical,](_URL_6_) results in a much quicker, much more powerful reaction than simply putting together a critical mass. Prompt criticality accidents have also happened, [the most well-known of which being Chernobyl.](_URL_8_)",
"short ELI5 answer:\nenergywise there is a barrier that has to be overcome for the bomb to go off. comparable to why it is safe to walk on an extremely tall bridge. as long as you don't climb over the rail, you stay in that high place. (for the bomb it's the high energy state)",
"The best documentary on atomic weapons is [Trinity and Beyond,](_URL_9_) narrated by William Shatner. Here's the first ten minutes and explains about the first three atomic detonations. The danger wasn't from the bombs going off, but the ionizing radiation from the materials. As someone mentioned, the Demon Core killed several people.",
"Simplest way I can think of to describe it is you use a \"gun\" to set off the reaction. Nothing short of it will set off the reaction. \n\nYou just don't put a bullet in the gun.",
"The nuclear bomb is a very complex system, not just from a physics perspective, but from an engineering perspective. All the parts have to be in place just right for it to work.",
"They had a different department for each part of the bomb. Nobody knew what they were building other then the specific part. Once every part was done they put it together.",
"If you've watched any movie from the eighties or any James Bond film you might notice that you have to insert a Detonator to get the thing to explode",
"I just realized that, eventually, every country will have the nuke. It's just a matter of time of people figuring it out.",
"Google \"the demon core\". Although there was almost no danger of a nuclear explosion... Radiation accidents did occur and killed scientists.",
"[The development of the atomic bomb wasn't safe. For example...](_URL_10_)"
],
"score": [
4408,
441,
290,
40,
34,
25,
22,
18,
6,
6,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2fusf8/til_in_1972_a_pocket_of_uranium_in_africa_was/ckd7ufj",
"https://www.damninteresting.com/bitten-by-the-nuclear-dragon/",
"https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788",
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/08/22/we-all-aged-ten-years-until-the-plane-cleared-the-island/",
"http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/life_10.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#Recorded_incidents",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster",
"https://youtu.be/JvnWXf6UZXY",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core"
]
} | train_eli5 | How are bombs (especially the atomic bomb during the Manhattan project) built safely without worrying about it going off?
Manhattan project specifically since it was the first known time the atomic bomb was being created here in America, so research/knowledge was scarce. Edit never thought this would...*blow up*. Thanks for the awesome responses guys! | [
0.051938626915216446,
0.034157149493694305,
-0.03248943015933037,
0.06934021413326263,
0.02032703347504139,
-0.02897077612578869,
0.0015260743675753474,
0.005983015522360802,
-0.06058419495820999,
0.048702046275138855,
0.012344184331595898,
0.03201775252819061,
0.024998968467116356,
-0.010... | |
2dwluo | How does a traffic light work and how complex its "computer" is? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cjtsfad",
"cjtsxe6",
"cjtrtdp"
],
"text": [
"it depends, some of these have city/synchronization control, traffic measurement and traffic cameras ... but ill limit myself to a 'stand alone' system\n\nSo...\n\n > how complex its \"computer\" is?\n\nI wrote a 4 way traffic light system including pedestrian crossing in the late 1980's on a simple microprocessor with ( if i can remember correctly) less than a hundred lines of code\n\nHow could it work? A simple timing program giving equal length of stop/go times with a variation in the sequence for a pedestrian pressing the crossing button. So at its simplest a microprocessor with (probably) less processing power than your digital watch plus a control board to interface with the various lights and sensors\n\nFrom there the complexity only goes up. Road sensors to detect the presence or approach of cars, extra left/right hand turns, algorithms to change the sequence for how heavy the traffic is etc etc",
"When it comes to simple timed lights, even with pedestrian crosswalks, the older signal boxes had mechanical timers and relays. They're still in used, simply not phases out yet. I used to work at a place where there was a good lunch place across the street. While you're standing outside, next to the control box, you can hear the mechanism winding away and the clack of the relays. These systems got very sophisticated while remaining conceptually simple. They're not space or power efficient compared to a controller board the size of a note card, though.\n\nYou can find YouTube videos of some of these mechanisms. They're fascinating.",
"Varies and varies. A traffic light can be as simple as a timer. It could have a pressure plate in the lanes and switches when someone drives a car onto the plate. Many are a combination of the two."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does a traffic light work and how complex its "computer" is?
| [
0.013261703774333,
-0.010999223217368126,
-0.013011335395276546,
-0.007353773340582848,
-0.06884825229644775,
-0.07342749089002609,
0.03326781466603279,
-0.008169748820364475,
0.049029454588890076,
-0.010320567525923252,
-0.032035909593105316,
0.03891606628894806,
0.015528399497270584,
-0.... | ||
1xqp7l | Where did the stereotype of black people liking fried chicken come from? | Being half white and half black, I find myself pondering this very real stereotype. I've heard a few different reasons but nothing truly concrete.
Serious and funny answers please :D | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfdr8jq"
],
"text": [
"It was a popular dish among slaves, partially because they weren't allowed to keep any animals other than chickens. For a lot of people, Fried Chicken, watermelon, and chitterlings were the best food they were even *able* to have, so it's only natural that they become fond of it. But since whites were used to far greater delicacies, the blacks' love of fried chicken was seen in a prejudicial light. But in reality it is no different then saying \"Japanese love sushi\" - when you are raised up with the stuff on a cultural level, is it any wonder that you prefer it?"
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Where did the stereotype of black people liking fried chicken come from?
Being half white and half black, I find myself pondering this very real stereotype. I've heard a few different reasons but nothing truly concrete. Serious and funny answers please :D | [
0.012232123874127865,
-0.037700701504945755,
-0.007148201111704111,
0.10958168655633926,
-0.02820676565170288,
-0.004374033771455288,
0.008792630396783352,
-0.01591745764017105,
0.0788455680012703,
-0.03963981196284294,
0.025242555886507034,
-0.049860090017318726,
-0.03243430331349373,
-0.... | |
1jw1io | The difference between Chairman, President, and CEO. | My company has all three - how are these different functions? What do that all do? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cbiufe5",
"cbiuda7"
],
"text": [
"The short answer is, it depends on the company's governance structure. No two companies are alike in how they divide up responsibilities.\n\nGenerally speaking though:\n\n**Chairman** refers to the chairman of the board of directors. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders and is the body responsible for ensuring the company is run in the shareholders' best interest. In practice, the board is usually responsible for hiring and firing the company's senior managers, including the CEO and president. The chairman is responsible for overseeing the board in some capacity as determined by the company's bylaws.\n\n**CEO**: Usually, the CEO is highest ranking executive officer in the company (hence *chief*-executive officer). He or she is responsible for setting the company's overall strategy and working with the senior management team underneath him/her (including the President) to ensure they are making progress on that strategy.\n\n**President**: The President usually reports to the CEO and is often responsible for day-to-day operations of the company. In many (but not all) cases, the President may also be the Chief Operating Officer. Or there might be a COO but no President. Within this division of responsibilities, the CEO is responsible for broader strategy and \"big picture\" thinking, while the President/COO is responsible for the nuts and bolts of implementing the strategy.\n\nSome companies don't have a single president but have multiple Vice Presidents or VPs. So instead of a single president, there will be a VP of Finance, a VP of Marketing, etc. These VPs usually all report directly to the CEO and are responsible for the day-to-day operations of their respective divisions.\n\nBut again, this all depends on the company's governance, so your company could be very different.",
"There is no established, consistent definition for President and CEO, except that when there is a CEO it is almost always the person with full responsibility for every aspect of the company and its success. \n\nIn some companies, however, the President fills that role. I've never seen a company with both a President and a CEO where the President is higher on the org chart than the CEO.\n\nLarger companies will often use the President title for people who head very large divisions, or run the company's operations in different markets. So a company might have a President of Latin America, President Eastern Europe, and they all report to the CEO. In companies where the role is less defined the President is sometimes the expected successor to the CEO. \n\nThe Chairman of the Board is just that -- the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The BoD is the board that is responsible for ensuring management and the company are meeting the shareholder needs, they guide the CEO and approve the CEO's strategic plans, but generally do not have a day-to-day operating role in the company.\n\nIt's a division of power and labor that's pretty well established:\n\n* The shareholders are the people whose needs have to be met and are the important party in all this.\n* The shareholders elect the Board of Directors to look out for their interests. They (theoretically) elect board members that share their vision for the future of the company, but that's the only operating role shareholders can usually have -- electing Board members.\n* The Board is the ultimate decider on big-picture corporate direction or big decisions.\n* The Board hires a management team they feel are best qualified to the achieve those goals.\n* The management team manages the day-to-day of the company at the direction of the CEO, who is responsible to the Board.\n* The CEO also needs to go back to the Board to get approval on any strategy or expenditures not anticipated in the plan -- he/she doesn't have free reign to just do anything that seems cool, they are there to successfully execute the Board's plan.\n\nIf it all goes bad, the annual shareholder meeting comes around again and all the shareholders are ticked off. The vote out the current Board, bring in a new Board who fires the management team, and they give the next year a fresh start."
],
"score": [
7,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The difference between Chairman, President, and CEO.
My company has all three - how are these different functions? What do that all do? | [
0.03182920068502426,
-0.07189778983592987,
0.0022268076427280903,
-0.04042335972189903,
0.026259679347276688,
0.012158123776316643,
-0.03654168173670769,
0.0003950960235670209,
0.06709281355142593,
-0.008126446977257729,
0.029871152713894844,
0.00038952872273512185,
-0.04328671097755432,
-... | |
2a1pg5 | What exactly makes different type of animal meat taste different than the other animals? | For example pig and cow meat tastes difference,so what exactly makes it taste different?
Sorry for the extremely poor english,I hope you guys will understand what I meant. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ciqqilo"
],
"text": [
"I am an avid meat eater and in my humble opinion I would think that the difference in taste is related to how the muscle tissue is held together. I agree w Dawwy in that it has to do with fats and the such as well as diet but I think that way that the muscles develop that also affects the taste, such as veal. The muscles of that animal have developed in a way that creates the taste that is desired. Also, that is why you get what is referred to as a \"gamey\" taste to wild animals. Gamey, due to how the muscles developed in the wild, probably more to vigorous exercise required to ya know, live and survive."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What exactly makes different type of animal meat taste different than the other animals?
For example pig and cow meat tastes difference,so what exactly makes it taste different? Sorry for the extremely poor english,I hope you guys will understand what I meant. | [
0.027260378003120422,
-0.09036540985107422,
0.041810356080532074,
-0.020291728898882866,
-0.06113078072667122,
-0.012790465727448463,
-0.017920713871717453,
0.016558349132537842,
0.07688450813293457,
-0.01587291993200779,
0.01574326492846012,
-0.08100239187479019,
-0.09507184475660324,
-0.... | |
6c4fm6 | How do scientists design a medication to treat certain diseases/illnesses/ailments? | Take cystic acne for instance, they have medications to treat cystic acne, but they also have a medication to treat cystic acne specifically for women that have cystic acne from hormonal imbalances. How do scientists go about making a medication to treat specific issues like that? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhruz7l",
"dhrs2fh"
],
"text": [
"The collective body of herbalists, doctors, chemists, and witch doctors from the past two to three thousand years have been documenting findings and studying effects of substances on the human body. \n\nLets work out an easy example. In our tribe of neanderthals, everyone knows if you eat the red berries from the bush by the river you're going to do nothing but shit for the next three days. We also know that if you eat leaves of the tree on that hill over there you won't shit for a week. \n\nThe town doctor recognizes this, and whenever someone has food poisoning due to bad water, they'll advise them to eat the tree leaves to stop the pooping. Can't poop and now your belly hurts? Red berries bro. That'll clean you right out. \n\nAs time goes on, he teaches his son where to find the best herbs & spices for various ailments, which allows his son (as the new town doctor) to look for even more, since he didn't have to spend his entire career finding the same medicines as his father. Eventually they start writing it down, and now all of the five nearest towns know how to treat more and more diseases. \n\nEventually, scientists become a thing, they start looking into the berries to see what about them makes you poop, and if there are other plants that have the same property. Eventually someone discovers how to extract just the pooping oils from the berry and bottles it so now a doctor can carry the equivalent of 100 berries in their pocket. \n\nSince they know one berry = 1 drop = 1 poop, they start administering that to stopped up patients. But eventually someone REALLY needs poop, and the drop didn't work, so they administer more drops. The guy poops! Hooray! He poops more! Yay! He poops blood! That's probably bad. He passes out! That's definitely bad. He dies covered in shit-blood! Whoops. Too many berries. Note for next time: 1 Poop-berry can cure a potentially lethal ailment. 10 poop-berries is potentially lethal. Administer no more than 9 Poop berries to adult males. \n\nFast forward thousands of iterations and documentation, and we now know that the chemical [Sennosides](_URL_0_) is what caused the poop reaction in the body, and that 15mg is a good 'standard dosage'. After even more research we discover a way to use Science and Chemistry to manufacture Sennosides directly, skipping the berry harvest altogether. \n\nTake this logic for literally every medicine we have, and you have the basis for every medicine we use today. Our scientists inventing drugs are standing on the shoulders of everyone that came before them. Some treatments have been discovered hundreds of years ago, but manufacturing and sourcing technologies needed breakthroughs to make what worked on paper possible.",
"Simple cliff notes version:\n\n1) study the ailment and find out what causes it and how it functions\n\n2) find an appropriate chemical or combination that affects the pathophysiology of the ailment and has the ability to treat it\n\n3) clinical trials \n\n4) FDA approval \n\n5) market the medication and track use, efficacy and appearances of side effects or adverse reactions."
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.google.com/search?q=ex-lax+effective+ingredient&oq=ex-lax+effective+ingredient&aqs=chrome..69i57.7307j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8"
]
} | train_eli5 | How do scientists design a medication to treat certain diseases/illnesses/ailments?
Take cystic acne for instance, they have medications to treat cystic acne, but they also have a medication to treat cystic acne specifically for women that have cystic acne from hormonal imbalances. How do scientists go about making a medication to treat specific issues like that? | [
0.01914702169597149,
0.03516868129372597,
0.0375777892768383,
0.022091027349233627,
-0.09869053214788437,
-0.05474887043237686,
-0.019546816125512123,
0.15793119370937347,
-0.03609095513820648,
0.03934670239686966,
-0.10006748139858246,
0.010203569196164608,
0.03468712419271469,
0.07160985... | |
3pvd8i | Why is necrophilia so much more taboo than murder? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cw9rvzf",
"cw9sspp"
],
"text": [
"Victorian dogma about fear and revilement of death/respect for the dead that has lingered on. If we lived in a purely rational society, it would probably be possible to donate your body to necrophilia, because you are correct. Burying a dead body is throwing away a full set of valuable organs and tissues. It's a waste from a scientific and medical standpoint. And for a select few, a sexual one.",
"Because there can be good reasons to kill someone, but there is no good reason to fuck a corpse."
],
"score": [
4,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is necrophilia so much more taboo than murder?
[removed] | [
0.047120530158281326,
-0.006915234960615635,
-0.04171091690659523,
0.014546679332852364,
0.04566200077533722,
0.011138609610497952,
-0.01399649865925312,
0.030876141041517258,
0.03985998034477234,
0.029199587181210518,
0.03896576538681984,
-0.04621093347668648,
-0.011963380500674248,
0.025... | |
8e9npj | Why are clothes with reflector stripes really bright in the dark when in contact with weak light sources, while they just appear grey in daylight? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxti11q",
"dxthx6p"
],
"text": [
"The reflector stripes contain many small [Retroreflectors](_URL_0_), which reflect light back in the direction of the light source. At night it reflects the light from the car headlight back to the car it came from, and looks bright to the person driving the car.",
"The sun is legitimately that bright. \n\nSame principle as when you shine a flashlight in the day but you don’t actually see the light showing up on anything. But when you shine it at night it could be blindingly bright."
],
"score": [
19,
10
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why are clothes with reflector stripes really bright in the dark when in contact with weak light sources, while they just appear grey in daylight?
| [
-0.06428096443414688,
0.057932112365961075,
0.09050008654594421,
0.0701683759689331,
0.04580596089363098,
-0.09015160799026489,
0.020538432523608208,
0.015969928354024887,
0.015314023941755295,
0.019938133656978607,
0.0033225181978195906,
-0.04065850377082825,
0.017027471214532852,
0.01218... | ||
874qrh | Difference between Hinduism and Buddhism? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dwa6ljh"
],
"text": [
"Buddhism doesn't have any god. Just a way of living. Hinduism has million and millions of gods, every creek has their own god. How many gods do they have exactly? As many as there are stars."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Difference between Hinduism and Buddhism?
[removed] | [
0.008165540173649788,
0.026804426684975624,
-0.10150861740112305,
0.027187181636691093,
-0.03322673216462135,
-0.011171513237059116,
0.013502507470548153,
-0.05524216592311859,
0.07947458326816559,
-0.05426241084933281,
0.07324133068323135,
0.008206203579902649,
-0.07998097687959671,
0.005... | |
rnb3c | Why do most smartphones not have built-in FM receivers? (When they have many other technologies like WiFi, GPS, 4G, etc.) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c476atz",
"c47a5tp",
"c478wco",
"c476uy2"
],
"text": [
"This is probably for a number of reasons. For one, people care less about FM radio than before. Second, device manufacturers might have a profit motive in selling audio content and other sources of media rather than FM radio.\n\nThere are some unique complications with FM, though, compared to the other radio technologies in phones. It is on a fairly low frequency, so an effective antenna needs to be relatively large. It is also an analog technology that can be a little bit more complicated to design in than digital communications standards.\n\nIt is very challenging to design many radios close to each other. Mobile phones already typically have, at the very least, a couple of bands of radio for the cellular technology; BlueTooth; and GPS. Many others add near-field communication and WiFi. As you add radios, the chances that some of the radios interfere with or hamper the performance of others increases. This is not insurmountable, but it's already very impressive the number of radios that are put into such a small footprint.",
"It completely depends on the market. In India and China it's an important feature so manufacturers go out of their way to include it as consumers look for it. In North America, it has so little interest that we've seen some manufacturers disable it because it's cheaper not to test/support than it is to deliver it.\n\nMy personal phone is a Samsung Captivate (Galaxy-S) on AT & T. In tear downs, it has an FM chip, but since so few folks in north america care, they've disabled it via software.\n\nAlso: most FM chips are currently bundled as a BT/FM or BT/FM/WiFi, so ofter footprint isn't that big of an issue.",
"They don't? I guess I've been lucky with my smartphone then.",
"Interestingly, there was an [effort](_URL_0_) (Ars Technica link) by lobbying groups to convince congress to mandate inclusion of FM receivers in portable electronic devices. The effort was opposed by a [different group](_URL_1_) of lobbyists."
],
"score": [
17,
8,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/radio-riaa-mandatory-fm-radio-in-cell-phones-is-the-future.ars",
"http://ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/press_release_detail.asp?id=11945"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do most smartphones not have built-in FM receivers? (When they have many other technologies like WiFi, GPS, 4G, etc.)
| [
0.05505044385790825,
0.027433278039097786,
0.012863210402429104,
-0.039535894989967346,
0.005890433210879564,
-0.039723534137010574,
-0.05441952869296074,
0.024873971939086914,
0.033875517547130585,
0.004741705022752285,
0.04123679921030998,
-0.01220463402569294,
0.07377299666404724,
0.012... | ||
14rmmg | What distinguishes good acting from phenomenal, award-winning acting? | Bad acting is pretty easy to spot, but what qualities separate a good, actor from an amazing one?
Gary Oldman, for example, I can understand to be a great actor considering the range of his abilities in the variety of roles he's done, but how would I be able to tell if I only saw one of his movies? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7ftdbk",
"c7ft2ir",
"c7fu2uz",
"c7fufuy",
"c7fuozw",
"c7fsoxj",
"c7fuwm8",
"c7fxci4",
"c7fuv91",
"c7ftfgy",
"c7fueyl",
"c7g01y4",
"c7fuuvt",
"c7ftt09"
],
"text": [
"The illusion that no acting is taking place is always a good one.",
"I would say it has to come down to believability and consistency. If an actor/actress can perform, convincingly, different characters in different situations, they are good. Some actors play the same role in every movie they're in, with minor variations; I wouldn't consider them necessarily good actors, even if they're in a lot of movies. To me, it's all about convincing me you're someone you're not.",
"Great Acting\n\nHeath Ledger - The Dark Knight - _URL_0_\n\nJack Nicholson - A Few Good Men-_URL_4_\n\nDaniel Day Lewis - There Will Be Blood - _URL_6_\n\nKate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind -_URL_1_\n\nBad Acting\n\nNicolas Cage - The Wicker Man - _URL_5_\n\nHayden Christensen - Star Wars Episode II - _URL_2_\n\nHalle Berry -Catwoman - _URL_3_\n\nIt is definitely a somewhat subjective question which is influenced by more then just the actor playing the role. A bad script can ruin a movie as much as the acting. But if you watch enough movies, you can get a feel for who really cares about their job as entertainers and who just mails it in for a paycheck.\n\nSome simply don't have the talent to connect with the audience as much as others. For instance I feel Hayden Christensen tired to put forth a good performance, but was hindered by both the script and his talent level. Nicolas Cage on the other hand has made good movies such as Lord of War, but seemed to not give a shit in Wicker Man (I personally hate him anyways).",
"Inviting the members of the oscar jury to a very expensive party beforehand.",
"This is a complicated question, but I think it basically comes down to, do you buy it? Or does it feel like this person, the actor, isn't being true to the situation emotionally? \n\nThe more demanding the role, the harder it usually is for the actor to convince you that he is the character he's portraying, and the more accolades he deserves if he successfully pulls it off. \n\nOne of the finest performances I've seen in recent memory is Christian Bale in The Fighter. He thoroughly inhabits that character, physically, mentally, to the point where you don't question he is anyone but the loser crack addict brother of Mark Walhberg's character. He doesn't always hit 'em out of the park, but when he does, man is he brilliant. \n\nJohnny Depp is also really good at this, his older, pre \"Pirates\" stuff much more so than any of his more recent work. Look at a film like Donnie Brasco; he carries that film on his back, brilliantly, because he thoroughly inhabits that character. Never a false moment from him throughout that film. \n\nOh, and Cate Blanchett too; her performance as Bob Dylan in \"I'm Not There\" a few years ago was one of the best I've ever seen in a film, ever. She's probably the finest female actress working today, and probably one of the best there ever was, which is saying a lot given how many great female actresses there are/have been. \n\nIt's a skill very, very few actors can successfully pull off, but when they do, there's nothing else like it. \n\nJoaquin Phoenix did it for me this year in \"The Master.\" He's usually a decent actor, nothing special, but his performance in that film was nothing short of brilliant. \n\nTL;DR: There's lots of good actors out there, but very few great ones. The difference is in how thoroughly they inhabit their character, and, in turn, how much of their performance you buy.",
"I don't know about movies so much, since there is so much editing and camera shots and retakes and blah blah blah, but for theater it comes down to commitment (also, no damn do-overs in the middle of a scene, but I digress). How much someone commits to whatever character they are playing (be it happy, mean, sad, intense, etc.) speaks volumes to how good someone is at acting. Seeing someone fully committed makes the human subconscious go \"yay I believe what that person is saying and doing and it makes me happy!\" Good acting skill is also directly correlated to how well of a journey they take you on, if they do a good job of pulling the audience into a story. Connecting the character to the words they are saying is another big one. If someone doesn't commit and is half-assing it in front of an audience and looks like they are just repeating words, our subconscious says \"eww, I do not like that, I think its poopy and makes me feel sad and icky inside.\" \n\nSide note: I typed this all out on my phone, so if I accidentally a word I'm sorry.",
"Acting is all about playing a roll or a character. To be an actor, all you have to do is read the script and do what other people tell you.\n\nTo be a true actor, or artist, you have to not only play the character, but understand how that character feels, thinks and will behave to the point that you become him.\n\nGreat actors like Daniel Day-Lewis will spend sometimes over a year preparing for a part in a movie, slowly becoming their character.\n\nSome other good actors like Gary Oldman could probably perform any roll imaginable, because they have the ability to 'act' and quickly become someone that they are not.\n\nLike anything else, the more you practice something, the better you become at it.\n\nPaul Dano is a great actor. If he continues to work hard and take on challenging movies, he can be a phenomenal one. What happens to lots of movie stars is that they get a big paycheck and become famous. Then movie studios offer them big money to be themselves and not act.\n\n(though I could never be an actor and think any actor or actress is talented. It is just some are much better than others)",
"PR, PR and more PR. it's all about the campaigning and many an Oscar winner has bitched about that.",
"If you don't think, \"That is so and so the actor\" then it is good acting. \n\nFor example, a combination of make up and good acting kept me from realizing that Paul Reubens played the lead villain's vampire henchman in the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie.\n\nHe didn't have much to work with in that movie script, but earned the biggest laugh of the movie with his death scene. Not at all gory. _URL_7_\n\nThat is an excellent example of a good actor making a bad role enjoyable. I'm sure Mr. Reubens knew his character was cheesy and one dimensional, so he played it for laughs. He doesn't emit embarrassment of his character. \n\nCrispin Glover is another example: He plays \"Thin Man\" in the Charlies angels movies, and yet, one doesnt think \"Hey! Its Marty McFly's dad!\" Its not a very sophisticated movie overall, but thats not the point: he steps into the character and his personality is subsumed by it. \n\nOnwards. Towards better movies by far.\n\nTim Roth was an excellent villain in Rob Roy. You can feel his menace in this scene. Caution: blood and violence. _URL_9_ \n\nYet watch his other movies and he is a far different person. For example, watch him in \"four rooms\". Great movie. You never thought a movie about a bellhop could be enjoyable? You would be wrong. Stellar casting. \n\nIncidentally, Liam Neeson portrays Rob Roy terrifically, and I usually don't enjoy his acting. Normally to me, he is always Liam Neeson playing so-and-so. \n\nAnother good example is John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank. I particularly enjoy the fight scene in the school. Most movie fights seem obviously choreographed, and if you have ever seen a real one, you know the difference. They are desperate and sloppy. Watch this, one death, minimal blood: _URL_8_\n\nI tried to use lesser known characters for my examples. A good actor can take even a shitty role and make the most of it. He or she can transcend their other roles and even their base personality.\n\nThere is of course the opposite sort of good acting, when a poor to mediocre actor is enjoyable, despite their lack of depth. I always enjoy Arnold Schwarzenegger's over the top acting for example, though he'll always just be Arnold playing X.",
"Usually, when I say to myself, \"damn that guy's an awesome actor\", it's when they put on a performance that totally suspends my disbelief. And I mean...that's really subjective, because honestly, to me, it seems to have more to do with the scripting than it does with the acting itself. 99% of the time that I catch myself saying the dialogue in a movie or a cartoon is awful, it's not because of the performance. It's because whoever wrote it did a REALLY half-ass job. \n\nSo, in summary! Good script + dedicated actor + peak performance = award nominations.",
"If it came down to one word, I think I would call it \"comfort\". You can see it in hollywood actors, or high school drama students on stage. When an actor has the chops, he does his thing seamlessly. There's no need for over-acting. Unless his character overacts naturally (look at Toshiro Mifune in some of his roles). A friend of mine said it best when he was reading over a story that I had written; \"when I see a character, I like to think that when he isn't on the page, he's off taking a shit someplace..\"",
"Here's my stupid test to tell if an actor is good or not: Can you imagine one character they played meeting and interacting with another character they played. For instance, I can totally imagine Forrest Gump meeting Andrew Beckett (Philadelphia) - they're totally different people. But I can't imagine any two characters Tom Cruise has played in the same room together.",
"While there's no *right* answer to this, I can tell you with some confidence that you wouldn't really be able to spot a *great* actor by a single role they've done. The real hallmark, for me at least, is that they can play a variety of roles with equal conviction and feeling.",
"Eli5: a good actor is one you like."
],
"score": [
187,
25,
12,
10,
6,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8PxG5zvgOM",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFHLE24hDQY",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCw127qWhuU&NR=1&feature=endscreen",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQKunF3zGA",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjme5hh_bYY",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_hFTR6qyEo",
"http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e4_1308477349",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ScNLt2zNc",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtPluUi0_U"
]
} | train_eli5 | What distinguishes good acting from phenomenal, award-winning acting?
Bad acting is pretty easy to spot, but what qualities separate a good, actor from an amazing one? Gary Oldman, for example, I can understand to be a great actor considering the range of his abilities in the variety of roles he's done, but how would I be able to tell if I only saw one of his movies? | [
-0.017315544188022614,
-0.10214337706565857,
-0.04318058490753174,
-0.06293288618326187,
-0.05951899290084839,
0.05411621928215027,
0.010433454066514969,
-0.011752275750041008,
-0.0010867714881896973,
-0.026487385854125023,
-0.02993851527571678,
-0.025854650884866714,
0.03946499899029732,
... | |
35fe09 | How does Coca-Cola have a secret formula when all the ingredients are in the nutrition facts? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cr3vob0",
"cr3vngh",
"cr3vp2y"
],
"text": [
"Its the ratios and the prep that you dont know. I could give you a list of ingredients for my World famous apple pie but if you dont know how much of each or when to use each then your screwed.",
"Because the amounts of each ingredient are not in the nutrition facts. In addition to this, the flavoring ingredients are listed under \"natural and artificial flavors\", which doesn't tell you anything.",
"The recipe is still secret, meaning that just knowing what's inside doesn't give you the\ncorrect amount you need to put in there to make Coke (or any other product)."
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does Coca-Cola have a secret formula when all the ingredients are in the nutrition facts?
| [
-0.05153699591755867,
-0.011258249171078205,
-0.03421533480286598,
0.09228865802288055,
0.07068300247192383,
0.05975272133946419,
0.009710036218166351,
0.05414354056119919,
0.011903268285095692,
-0.026291431859135628,
0.018411856144666672,
-0.07268290966749191,
-0.03319287672638893,
-0.025... | ||
4eopfy | Why are so many more people allergic to gluten or have celiac disease than in the past? Or if this is not the case, how did they live? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d21z67d"
],
"text": [
"I've not seen anything to suggest that more people have celiac disease than in the past. What we do have now are far more gluten-free options for people who do have the disease, and a lot of people who don't have the condition but who seem to think (with little basis) that gluten is inherently bad for them.\n\nIn the past, someone with celiac disease would survive by, well, not eating things with gluten in them. It does restrict the diet, but not to the point that you can't survive."
],
"score": [
10
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are so many more people allergic to gluten or have celiac disease than in the past? Or if this is not the case, how did they live?
| [
0.05456167086958885,
-0.08802017569541931,
0.022952556610107422,
0.05836359038949013,
0.027906030416488647,
-0.004661000799387693,
0.007481633685529232,
0.09583466500043869,
-0.011969872750341892,
-0.008951184339821339,
0.09027870744466782,
0.024801479652523994,
-0.027664290741086006,
-0.0... | ||
8358nb | how does that switch on my rearview mirror that helps dim headlights at night work? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvf8nwv",
"dvfp0dr",
"dvfcry7",
"dvfqg5q",
"dvfvl8q"
],
"text": [
"There's two types. The old style is positional; the new style is electronic.\n\nThe positional ones came first and have been around for decades. These type of car mirrors are actually two main parts - a true reflective \"mirror\" and a plain piece of transparent glass, mounted at a different angle, that's just in front of it. It relies on how transparent glass still reflects some light, and you can see this when looking up from the base of a skyscraper to see the reflection of the sky's clouds in all of its windows.\n\nDuring the day, the mirror's in the \"NORMAL\" position, and you're seeing the reflection of things behind you by looking at the mirror through the glass. It reflects almost all of the light, so you see pretty much 100% of the light that gets to it, which is great during the day. However, at night, you don't want 100% of that light because of the glare that comes with it... so you flip the tab to the \"NIGHT\" position. This moves the mirror out of alignment with your eyes, but {edit for accuracy} moves the different-angled transparent glass into it so it - and the partial reflection it gives you - stays lined up with your eyes. So the mirror's true reflection points elsewhere now and you only get a fraction of the light that bounces off that different-angled transparent window... and that lower volume of light is much easier to see with now.\n\nThe electronic version replaces it with an actual dimming process. The switch in this case causes an electric current to pass through a very thin special film on the mirror that causes it to darken. Think of it like one of those cheap solar-powered calculators where the number 8 has seven segments. To get the number 1, electric power flows to the two rightmost segment, turning them black; the other five are \"off\" and thus transparent. In the mirror, applying current to the film just turns the whole surface slightly gray and stops some fraction of the light from being reflected, not turning it outright black but still blocking a lot of the glare.",
"Now I just wish they would invent auto dimming side mirrors :( stop those dam Toyota Corrolas from blinding me",
"Prismatic Wedge! It's a piece of mostly reflective glass and another mirror behind it. When you flip the tab it angles the back mirror up to reflect the extra light away from your eyes.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Mirror has 2 layers. part of the light reflects off the top layer, the rest off the 2nd layer.\n\nflip the switch and the back layer reflects a bright part of the light upwards, while the front layer stays and reflects a dim reflection in your eyes.\n\n[Picture is worth a thousand words](_URL_1_)",
"There are 2 types: prism and electric. The prism mirrors work by reflecting either off a mirror (in the daytime position) or a piece of glass at a different angle (night time). \n\nThe electric can work in a number of ways. The one I am most familiar is the \"electrochromic fluid\". It's actually 2 pieces of glass with a very thin layer of liquid between the 2 layers of glass. The liquid is held in by epoxy of some kind. There is an electric current that causes the liquid to darken. This is usually automatic based on light sensors picking up the light of the headlights from the car behind you and comparing it to the ambient light. Gentex Corporation makes a version of these that also features a Homelink module to open garage doors and turn on lights and whatnot since the mirror is already wired."
],
"score": [
482,
29,
16,
13,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjQlD7E7QY",
"http://www.edu.pe.ca/gray/class_pages/krcutcliffe/physics521/17reflection/definitions/rearview.bmp"
]
} | train_eli5 | how does that switch on my rearview mirror that helps dim headlights at night work?
[removed] | [
0.008727353066205978,
0.036449287086725235,
0.0010147670982405543,
0.0181076992303133,
-0.021963585168123245,
-0.014740938320755959,
0.07129941135644913,
0.008805055171251297,
0.027851587161421776,
-0.0058939410373568535,
0.06640121340751648,
0.012142443098127842,
-0.09303221851587296,
-0.... | |
3x8tyn | What will happen, in general, if something travelled faster than light? | I'm confused with the whole "nothing can go faster than light" law and "time will become zero if we run at speed of light". I mean what does light have to do with reality and the existence of the physical world?! What will happen if something broke that law? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cy2hdek",
"cy2hpew",
"cy2ia6d",
"cy2hm9g",
"cy2u22l"
],
"text": [
"Light itself doesnt have anything to do with it. The speed of light is really just the upper speed limit of the universe. \n\nSpace and time arent separate things the are actually one thing called spacetime. The faster you move through space the slower you move through time as the two speeds together have to add up to the speedlimit (speed of light).\n\nAnything without mass (photons) has to go the speed of light and as such from its perspective it doesnt experience time. Time is 0 for a photon. We as humans just live in a world where relative speeds are pretty slow so we dont notice the time speed change.\n\nAnyway, if something broke that law and went faster than light it might theoretically go backwards in time. Its basically impossible to know for sure though.",
"> I mean what does light have to do with reality and the existence of the physical world?!\n\nNothing, really. The universe has a maximum speed that anything can ever travel, and only particles with zero mass can reach that speed (and in fact, can *only* travel that speed). Photons just happen to be one of two known particles that have no mass (the other being gluons that mediate the strong nuclear force), so we tend to use \"the speed of light\" to refer to \"the maximum speed of the universe\".\n\n > What will happen if something broke that law?\n\nThat's an invalid question. Nothing can break that law. If they could, then it wouldn't be a law in the first place.\n\nIf you want to start speculating and say, \"Yeah, I know, it can't be done, but *what if it could*?\", then the answer is: whatever the magic that you used to break the laws of physics says happens, that's what happens. The laws of physics have no opinion as to what happens when you break them, just like the rules of Monopoly don't tell you what to do if someone breaks the rules of the game (if they did, they that would be part of the rules, and thus no one would be breaking the rules in the first place).",
"It's not that nothing can go faster than light. It's that nothing can accelerate from below the speed of light to light speed or faster (or decelerate from above light speed to light speed or below).\n\nBasically there are three classes of particle:\n\n- Those that travel below light speed (most of them)\n- Those that travel at exactly light speed (photons)\n- Those that travel faster than light speed (tachyons); these are theoretical at this point as they've never been detected. If they exist, they would also travel backward in time and arrive at their destination before leaving their departure point.\n\nThe amount of energy needed to bump a particle from one category to another is literally infinite according to general relativity, so unless Einstein was wrong, we'll never break the light speed barrier using any conventional method.\n\nEven acceleration to a significant fraction of lightspeed is so daunting as to be effectively impossible at our current level of technology or using any technology we can foresee development of in the near future. The reasons for that are worth a whole post of their own, but basically boil down to \"thrust requires fuel, fuel has mass, more mass requires more thrust, and the faster you go the more mass you effectively have.\"",
"Massless particles travel at the speed of light. Anything with mass does not. Photons happen to be massless so they have to move at the speed of light. Neutrinos are nearly massless so they can almost reach _c_ but not quite.\n\n\"Breaking\" said law doesn't make sense. Laws of physics by definition can't be broken, otherwise they wouldn't be laws at all.\n\nIf something was to go faster than light, following our math the object would also go backwards in time which would cause problems with causality, that just doesn't make sense.",
"Things just can't. It's impossible. Attempting to make something go faster causes it to approach but never reach the fabled speed."
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What will happen, in general, if something travelled faster than light?
I'm confused with the whole "nothing can go faster than light" law and "time will become zero if we run at speed of light". I mean what does light have to do with reality and the existence of the physical world?! What will happen if something broke that law? | [
-0.050465572625398636,
-0.04340925067663193,
-0.028208794072270393,
0.054138313978910446,
0.05302031338214874,
-0.04009534418582916,
-0.0988856628537178,
-0.06479158997535706,
0.0731787383556366,
-0.011210829950869083,
0.1626056432723999,
0.0392671637237072,
-0.06437218934297562,
0.0402902... | |
8wtw3o | Why are there so many specific words for different groups of animals? Herd of cows, murder of crows. Business of ferrets, etc.. | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1yhhqo",
"e1yfayg"
],
"text": [
"I've searched tha seven seas fer an answer. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [Why are there so many different words for groups of animals? Are there real differences in the way a < insert fancy name > behaves vs how < insert other fancy name > does? ](_URL_5_) ^(_._)\n1. [ELI5: Why do different groups of animals have specific names (like pod of whales or murder of crows) is this scientifically useful? ](_URL_1_) ^(_ > 100 comments_)\n1. [Why do we have different names for different groups of animals? Flock of geese, herd of cows etc. ](_URL_0_) ^(_15 comments_)\n1. [Why are there so many different names for animals in groups? Like packs, herds, prides, murders, etc ](_URL_4_) ^(_2 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: Why are there so many different words for groups of animals? ](_URL_2_) ^(_2 comments_)\n1. [ELI5:what is the difference between the names for groups of animals? (I.e. Pride, pack, murder, gaggle, school, etc) ](_URL_3_) ^(_3 comments_)",
"It probably started with hunting, when it was useful to distinguish between a *pack* of animals that hunted and a *herd* of animals that were being hunted; or between a *flock* of geese walking on the ground and a *skein* of geese in flight.\n\nIn 1486, a book was printed called *The Book of Saint Albans* which, among other things, listed dozens and dozens of these collective nouns, and that seems to be where we get them from.\n\nBut at least some of these words appear to have been jokes: \"a subtlety of sergeants\", for example, or \"a superfluity of nuns\". It may be that this list was, at least in part, supposed to be a parody.\n\nSome of our collective nouns are quite descriptive, such as \"a squabble of seagulls\" or \"a chattering of starlings\". The phrase \"a murder of crows\", by the way, refers to an old myth: it was once believed that if a crow misbehaved, the other crows would put it on trial. If the defendent was found guilty, it would be put to death."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/2ewpfn/why_do_we_have_different_names_for_different/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bs48b/eli5_why_do_different_groups_of_animals_have/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tz82n/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_different_words_for/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vm0co/eli5what_is_the_difference_between_the_names_for/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/8dj5fg/why_are_there_so_many_different_names_for_animals/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/2o5kfe/why_are_there_so_many_different_words_for_groups/"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why are there so many specific words for different groups of animals? Herd of cows, murder of crows. Business of ferrets, etc..
[removed] | [
0.06065027788281441,
-0.05586182326078415,
0.036967240273952484,
0.02575163170695305,
0.016840413212776184,
-0.03473661467432976,
-0.007949353195726871,
-0.0900459885597229,
0.10040751844644547,
0.04547066241502762,
0.05267009884119034,
-0.016350388526916504,
0.0017437055939808488,
0.01314... | |
20wdzn | Why does ice expand instead of contracting? | So I know that frozen water gets bigger, and I also know that a solid state is when all the atoms get close together whereas a liquid, they're all floatey. So if the atoms are all closer together, why does all the water get bigger instead of smaller? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cg7cnak"
],
"text": [
"I think scientists are still trying to figure out exactly why this happens exclusively with water, but in a liquid state, water molecules are allowed to freely flow around each other. When they freeze, though, they form a crystal structure which, by the nature of its shape, takes up more room.\n\nIn other substances that don't form crystal structures, like metals, they're at a lower kinetic energy state in the solid form, meaning the atoms can get closer without influencing each other. As they're heated, though, they come into contact more and more, they have to get farther away from each other, and thermal expansion happens."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does ice expand instead of contracting?
So I know that frozen water gets bigger, and I also know that a solid state is when all the atoms get close together whereas a liquid, they're all floatey. So if the atoms are all closer together, why does all the water get bigger instead of smaller? | [
-0.0067551215179264545,
-0.052873991429805756,
-0.022759711369872093,
0.023339902982115746,
0.014572895132005215,
0.04438477009534836,
0.010649078525602818,
0.08702731877565384,
0.08895957469940186,
0.05243215337395668,
-0.05168721452355385,
0.028787191957235336,
-0.012360082007944584,
0.0... | |
31loj3 | Why does cracking your joints get easier if you do it a lot? | With knuckle cracking people always emphasize that it doesn't actually cause arthritis or 'do anything bad'. But joints get easier to crack the more you do it, so it's causing *some* sort of change to the joint. What are the long term effects (positive or negative)? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cq2rt3h"
],
"text": [
"My mom used to be a medical researcher. From what she explained to me, the most negative side effect is that when you pop any joint, you overextend the connective tissue surrounding the joint. Which I guess would eventually make it easier to pop your joints the more you do it. This overextension wouldn't cause to many problems until decades later, from what she told me. \n\nPersonally, I more than likely have Marfan Syndrome, so my connective tissue is fucked anyway. But, I can flex my thighs and crack my pelvis (where the spine connects) so I've got that going for me."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does cracking your joints get easier if you do it a lot?
With knuckle cracking people always emphasize that it doesn't actually cause arthritis or 'do anything bad'. But joints get easier to crack the more you do it, so it's causing *some* sort of change to the joint. What are the long term effects (positive or negative)? | [
-0.019781574606895447,
-0.08451005816459656,
0.06392625719308853,
0.02721414342522621,
-0.017265230417251587,
-0.035713400691747665,
-0.0744704082608223,
0.10456294566392899,
0.024200960993766785,
-0.002155364491045475,
-0.02332763560116291,
0.13244889676570892,
0.04280485212802887,
-0.053... | |
1nrtv3 | Why do our voices get higher pitch when something exciting happens? | I am watching a livestream right now and I realized the commentator's voice goes high pitch when soemthing big is going to happen. why do our voices do that? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cclgnpl"
],
"text": [
"Increased airflow, and tightening of the vocal cords themselves. Excitement can be related to many things, but speaking biologically it implies that extra physical capability could be useful - adrenaline, deeper breaths (feed muscles more oxygen), and tightening of muscles to prepare to spring."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do our voices get higher pitch when something exciting happens?
I am watching a livestream right now and I realized the commentator's voice goes high pitch when soemthing big is going to happen. why do our voices do that? | [
0.05388477444648743,
-0.03924435377120972,
-0.004001189023256302,
-0.08544626832008362,
-0.00961304921656847,
0.03446762636303902,
0.007780218031257391,
-0.006090857088565826,
0.16961432993412018,
0.013060325756669044,
-0.07013918459415436,
0.061450470238924026,
-0.09186910837888718,
-0.05... | |
1qe669 | The Chinese Governments side of the situation in Tibet. | I think its apparent that nobody reasonable does something they consider fundamentally immoral. Though we in the west often question their methods and values, I don't think it would be fair to consider the Chinese Government, past and present, unreasonable.
With that in mind, how did the Chinese Government justify the military occupation in 1950, and how do they continue to justify it today? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdbx1n0",
"cdbx2ge"
],
"text": [
"While I would debate your initial premise as a little shaky, i'll try to answer anyway. Governments must often make decisions which they see as the lesser of two evils. The Chinese justification consists mainly of the idea that Tibet is a part of China and should remain such, but I think think if you dug a little deeper, you would find the view that the possible political ramifications of Tibet breaking away could be more serious than the consequences of preventing it's independence.\n\nIt's important, though, to consider that different cultures have fundamentally different values to each other. China and Chinese history is quite alien to us in the west. Remember this is a country in which *20 million people died in a famine* in which food was being exported out of the country to buy manufacturing equipment. The communist government was certainly willing to put up with deaths in order to achieve it's goals.\n\nThe first thing to think about is that China had been deeply unstable for some time when the Communist government came to power and they wanted to change that. They also needed to appear tough to the outside world. The west of China has several other regions which might have sought to break away had Tibet been allowed to. I think these are the crux of the issue - politics necessitated a tough line be taken.",
"Basically, Tibet had been Chinese territory since the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368) according to China but certainly since some hundred years until in 1903/04 the British invaded and turned it into a protectorate and ten years later given to a Tibetian government under British supervision, so a de-facto free country.\n\nSo the PRC's argument is pretty much that they always had it until the British took it and let it go so it should go back to them."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The Chinese Governments side of the situation in Tibet.
I think its apparent that nobody reasonable does something they consider fundamentally immoral. Though we in the west often question their methods and values, I don't think it would be fair to consider the Chinese Government, past and present, unreasonable. With that in mind, how did the Chinese Government justify the military occupation in 1950, and how do they continue to justify it today? | [
-0.12155835330486298,
0.11567537486553192,
0.07868637889623642,
-0.04931611940264702,
-0.004105090629309416,
-0.025563951581716537,
0.02819882147014141,
-0.012531572952866554,
-0.07936032861471176,
0.07413468509912491,
0.032322388142347336,
-0.00456350389868021,
0.04931982234120369,
0.0275... | |
6eevb7 | How is fetanyl becoming so widely available? | Looking at one such synthesis from erowid's vault it's no cake walk, and I have a chemistry background. Where's it coming from? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"di9u9yp"
],
"text": [
"> Where's it coming from?\n\nThe largest suppliers appear to be in China, shipping both the tools of production and the raw fentanyl to the US and Mexican cartels."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How is fetanyl becoming so widely available?
Looking at one such synthesis from erowid's vault it's no cake walk, and I have a chemistry background. Where's it coming from? | [
0.004844089038670063,
0.0034262079279869795,
-0.0690842866897583,
0.06508024781942368,
0.09955129772424698,
-0.008629017509520054,
-0.04968482255935669,
0.09347748011350632,
0.04078124836087227,
-0.058166638016700745,
-0.04905916750431061,
0.00524337962269783,
-0.012517886236310005,
-0.024... | |
5penrw | Why does our vision flash black when we get hit in the head? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqpvfx"
],
"text": [
"When the head gets hit hard, the brain goes into a lapse of shock and trauma. (It has been a while since I have studied this, so please forgive my mistakes) The brain cannot send signals properly at that moment in time and things sort of stop (not really, just that the brain is trying to maintain itself and cannot focus) The location of vision is in the back of the brain, but it has a \"straight\" connection to the eyes (the eyes actually criss cross and split through the brain). In order to send a signal, the eyes must send it down the long pathway, which only takes milliseconds. However, when we get hit, the brain stops the signals or gets confused as to where to send the signals that the occipital lobe (back of brain) does not get enough signals to understand what it is seeing. Thus the black we see are just lack of signal to the occipital lobe. Of course there are chemical changes too, but I am not familiar with them. There is probably a more exact that would better fit, but this is all that I can recall at the moment."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does our vision flash black when we get hit in the head?
| [
0.06238406524062157,
-0.024678612127900124,
-0.024176007136702538,
0.09439665079116821,
0.08012808114290237,
0.03746442869305611,
0.07841011881828308,
0.009790598414838314,
0.10181927680969238,
0.001498670899309218,
0.03394931182265282,
-0.10681560635566711,
-0.010125404223799706,
-0.01455... | ||
yqd0d | How are TV and Radio ratings are calculated? | I've always wondered how show ratings are calculated and how nightly ratings are gathered. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c5xyhvv",
"c5y5xac",
"c5xyjjr"
],
"text": [
"[Nielsen Ratings](_URL_0_) are the primary method, especially for broadcast TV. Households are randomly selected to become paid participants in a survey of what they watch. Some are simply asked to write down what they watch on a diary, others receive a box they connect to their TV that notes what they watch and then sends the information to Nielsen. It's a flawed system, though. For example, young people tend to watch a lot of shows on devices other than their TV. Nielsen is trying to account for other devices, but shows like Community tend to get low Nielsen Ratings even though they are well-received.",
"**RADIO RATINGS IN A MAJOR MARKET** \n \nA company called [Arbitron](_URL_1_) is responsible for calculating radio ratings. In the old days, they would send out 'journals'. A little paper book set up like an excel spreadsheet with blocks for every hour 7a-Midnight, Monday through Friday for a week. \n \nThey would send them out to many, many random households and people will fill out the 'call letters' (ex. WXYZ in the East, KXYZ in the West) for what hours they listened to what station. \n \nSo if you listened to your favorite station, WXYZ from Noon to 2p on Friday, you would mark that down and the stations would get credit for those hours. (Which is why DJs still say the call letters/frequency all the time - partly for a brand, partly because it's a habit of radio)\n \nThen the person would send that journal back, Abitron would send you $2 for doing so and they would use that information to calculate the ratings. \n \nThis is still how it's done in almost all rated markets except the top (biggest) 50 or so. (Chicago #3, LA#2, NYC #1 - based on population). \n \n \n \n \n***THE TOP 50 ARE RATED LIKE THIS*** \nThe problem with the journals is that people would often just fill in their favorite radio stations regardless if they actually listened, and rarely would people accurately record when they listened. They might just say 'I listened to the radio on my drive home... it was mostly WXYZ, so I'll write down WXYZ'. Terribly inaccurate. This isn't a huge problem in a small market because if there are only 50,000 possible listeners, it's not a huge mistake either way. But think of New York City with 6 million people. You could easily get 100,000-1 Million listeners wrong somewhere... MILLIONS of dollars in advertising.\n \nSo they created a pager-sized electronic device that certain people wear called a **\"Personal People Meter\"** (PPM)... they can wear it on their belt, put it in their purse. Whatever Just like a Neilsen box for TV, people are sent applications if they want to participate (Themselves or any member of their family can not work for a radio, radio affiliate, the parent company of a radio station, agencies related, etc. etc.). \n \n \n*Here's where it gets tricky...*\nAll radio stations subscribed to Arbitron send a silent, encoded, secret signal that you don't hear... but the PPM picks up and registers how long you HEARD what station. \n \nThat's important because it's not about what you're LISTENING to, it's about what you HEAR. Because the advertisers don't care what you're actively listening to... they just want you to hear their ad. Think about every time you walk into a store and there is a radio station on. If you still had the paper book, you'd NEVER write down that you listened to that station for a half hour, but you definitely HEARD it. \n \nThe ratings are 'scored' by an **'Average Quarter Hour'** (AQH) - which means they get a rating point for every 15 minutes someone listens to your station, BUT... in order to get credit for the 15 minutes, the person only needs to listen for 7 minutes. It's kind of like the game 'horseshoes'... get close, and they'll give you the point. \n \n**The 2 ratings that are scored are...**\n\n*Time Spent Listening* (TSL) - The amount of time that people stay on your station. This is big with Oldies, Adult Contemporary, Regional Hispanic and Country stations, because these are often listened to by office workers, blue-collar workers, service people who turn on the radio and listen to it all day without changing it, because it's inoffensive background noise. \n \n*Cume* - The total amount of different people that listened. This is big with Top 40, Alternative, Dance because those people are usually young, busy and only listen to the radio for 15-30 minutes in the car or something similar. So rather than people listening for long periods of time, they get a LOT of people listening for a short time. \n \n**Both ratings are important to advertisers, depending on what demographic they're looking to target** \n \nAnd in case you were curious, PPM wearers attach their little meter to a dock over night which sends the listening info to Arbitron and instead of the $2 they used to get in the mail, they get points which can go towards cash rewards, prizes, etc... just like the Coca-Cola points things \n \n**EXPANDED** \nThe ratings are then based off of the total population of the listening market and basically estimated (in a way that I'm not really sure of), but in a major market, a really GOOD rating (or 'share') is 5 or 6. (Which is 5% or 6% of the total, possible listening population). The highest are usually news stations. Then there are the anomalies like WGN Chicago, which is famous for going from a 5% to 16-20% every summer. Why? Because they exclusively broadcast Chicago Cubs games. \n \nThat \"Lite Adult Hits' station that switches to Christmas music on November 1st every year that you hate? Imagine all of the stores and offices that station is playing in and how many people HEAR it, regardless if they want to or not... They usually go from 3-4% up to 15-20%. The more time they can get that rating, the better. That's why they start it so early.",
"In TV, a \"rating\" is the percentage of households *who own a television* that are watching the show. (There is also something called a \"share,\" which is the percentage of households *who have their TVs turned on* that are watching the show.)\n\nNielsen gathers ratings in two ways: using \"diaries\" and \"people meters.\" In big cities, Nielsen installs (with the owner's permission, of course) a box (like a cable box) that keeps a log of what the person is watching. This gets reported back to Nielsen every night and is how they get \"overnight ratings\" - the nightly ratings you asked about.\n\nDiaries are literally paper notebooks; selected people are asked to keep a log of what they watch for a week. These are sent out a few times a year during sweeps. Advertisers use this data.\n\nRadio is very similar, except since most stations don't have true \"programs\" to track like TV does, they measure the number of people listening in 15-minute chunks. (Also, Nielsen does TV; Arbitron does radio.)\n\nSource: I work in TV and have a degree in TV/film business & management. (Some of this came from my old TV research textbook.)"
],
"score": [
27,
6,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/measurement/television-measurement.html",
"http://www.arbitron.com/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How are TV and Radio ratings are calculated?
I've always wondered how show ratings are calculated and how nightly ratings are gathered. | [
0.04661096632480621,
-0.06589429825544357,
-0.0834624394774437,
0.06365408003330231,
-0.008516911417245865,
0.07079713046550751,
-0.05906561017036438,
0.02923867478966713,
0.06437535583972931,
-0.010484644211828709,
-0.06309853494167328,
-0.041263800114393234,
0.07430576533079147,
-0.00849... | |
8tp7x8 | How are data stored/burned into DVDs/CDs, and also how are the information read? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e196px1"
],
"text": [
"Lasers!\n\nInformation is read from optical media discs with a laser. The disk reflects the laser or not and that is a 1 or a zero for that particular point.\n\nWriteable optical media allow you to use lasers to manipulate the disc in such a way as to burn into them wether a certain spot reflects the laser or not."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How are data stored/burned into DVDs/CDs, and also how are the information read?
[removed] | [
0.06050856038928032,
0.05456148460507393,
-0.10574301332235336,
0.008352673612535,
-0.03380562737584114,
-0.01683705300092697,
0.06115336716175079,
0.000782295479439199,
0.06469385325908661,
0.06620506942272186,
0.04952170327305794,
0.12623906135559082,
0.012140203267335892,
-0.05735759809... | |
6uxxgt | why are a lot of cooked dishes like salmon or meat high on protein if most of the proteins denature at ~40 degree Celsius? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlw7lqo"
],
"text": [
"Proteins denature at high temperatures which means their shape changes to the point where they can no longer do their purpose but they still exist as molecules which can be used for nutrition"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why are a lot of cooked dishes like salmon or meat high on protein if most of the proteins denature at ~40 degree Celsius?
[deleted] | [
0.02015347220003605,
-0.08747860044240952,
0.007603196892887354,
0.022618472576141357,
-0.009353705681860447,
-0.025509675964713097,
0.025047695264220238,
0.049370378255844116,
0.08034826815128326,
0.013906316831707954,
0.0017522536218166351,
-0.02735317498445511,
-0.0027833660133183002,
0... | |
7kzctx | how do serrated blades work? What about the serration makes them better than flat edge blades? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drie9fu",
"drj1mjb",
"dric2j5"
],
"text": [
"The reason a knife is good at all at cutting something is down to pressure. The narrower and sharper an edge, the more pressure it puts on whatever is being cut. The blunter it is, the wider an area the force you're applying is spread so the less pressure there is at the point of the cut. \n\nA serrated edge lifts the main body of the knife up so it's resting on even narrower points, which increases the pressure even further, but has the added advantage that the cutting is being done on multiple points rather than one big point. So if you're cutting something soft, like say bread, it won't crush it down too much while cutting.\n\nThat's why [bread knives](_URL_0_) are shaped like they are.",
"I'd say it's not 'better' as such, it's just designed for different cutting mechanism. \n\nThere is sharp cutting. Like knife through butter, diamond knife through steel, or sharp knife through meat. These ones, you want a nice clean cut, so normal blades are great.\n\nBut then there are 'sawing' cut. Like saw through wood, bread knife through bread, or paper cut. These mechanisms aim to 'rip off' more than cut the work piece. See if you tried to 'cut' wood, the knife would just get stuck in it because if its finite thickness. Bread knife aims to cut by 'ripping' because if a 'sharp knife' fails to cut either the crust or the soft part of the bread, the rest of the bread will get squashed; no body wants this! Paper cut tends to be accidents than by design I suppose, but this is why it hurts so much; it rips off bits of skin! but it heals better because there there is more for to 'hold on' to for healing. Cut by a knife will take little longer/will often reopen, because the clean cut will tend to concentrate any stress onto the healing plane!",
"They're used for sawing things like breads that would be smooshed with a sharp, non-serrated blade. They work the same way a saw works on wood."
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://media.honeyville.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/g/r/grand-prix-bread-knife-zoom.jpg"
]
} | train_eli5 | how do serrated blades work? What about the serration makes them better than flat edge blades?
| [
0.01748014986515045,
-0.04469899460673332,
-0.016494031995534897,
-0.03409412130713463,
-0.046072039753198624,
-0.027327392250299454,
-0.03546227887272835,
0.03409089148044586,
0.04960912466049194,
0.03340187668800354,
0.01550845056772232,
-0.01184166595339775,
-0.06083134561777115,
0.0391... | ||
7fdvup | - Why does extended exposure to water dry your hands rather than moisturize it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqbfct3",
"dqbciug"
],
"text": [
"Osmosis is the diffusion of water.\n\nWhen you overflow your hands or any body parts or almost any tissue/organism with water, the net flow of water will be wherever there is a higher concentration of solute. When you put water on your hands, it flows in because there is more solute like salt in your blood and inside than out.\n\nThis is why you soak lettuce and vegetables in water before serving to make them crisp, and in the same fashion, if you soak vegetables in a bucket of salt water, they will wilt.",
"You have naturally moisturizing oils on your hands. Water removes them, and evaporates off your hands, leaving them dryer than before, although this is more likely with frequent washings with soap."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | - Why does extended exposure to water dry your hands rather than moisturize it?
| [
0.001305675832554698,
0.01165737397968769,
0.11180265247821808,
0.06935783475637436,
0.09404252469539642,
-0.030940787866711617,
0.05198386684060097,
-0.006049866322427988,
-0.010397087782621384,
-0.01309879869222641,
0.015923311933875084,
0.00009472876990912482,
0.00167011097073555,
0.032... | ||
37c0rm | How do we have Skype and telephone calls that provide instant voice transfer but news stations have that slight delay when they interview people at different locations? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"crlcz0m",
"crld70f",
"crlmcpb",
"crljvf4",
"crlrill"
],
"text": [
"TV stations are using satellite links. Satellites are *considerably* farther away than the closest cell tower is. This causes a slight delay in both directions of the conversation.",
"A slight delay exists in all forms of electronic communication. The signal can only travel (at most) the speed of light. For relatively local phone call, that delay isn't very noticeable, but a geosynchronous communications satellite is sitting at 26,000 miles altitude, so generally speaking, a phone call over a satellite has to travel at least the equivalent of the circumference of the earth twice (the signal has to go up, and then back down). That sort of distance starts to become significant relative to the speed of light.",
"It's transmission delay. In Adak, AK I was having a phone call and it was delayed a second or two from the satellites. Video feeds are HUGE, 1500Mb/s, vs 0.064Mb/s for audio without compression. To get the 1500 down to a reasonable size, they compress. Based on how much it buffers, the video encounters an encoding delay in compression. If you are ever close enough to a stadium to \"hear\" a live sports game and watch it on the TV, you will notice the delay there as well.",
"Your assumption is incorrect. Skype and telephone calls both have delays. You can test this out by calling yourself from another phone.",
"I work at a news station. And I have news for you: We use Skype. For damn near all our remote live interviews. It's an enterprise version of the product, and I forget the name, but we use it any time we don't just feed in the video. One thing we *don't* do is carry out conversations over a video feed coming through a satellite, at least not if we have any choice whatsoever.\n\nStrictly speaking, the enterprise version we use has *less* of a delay for a given encode rate because it devotes more resources to decoding the incoming video and is running on a more powerful workstation. However that is offset by the higher video quality it uses, as well as the fact that we use a second product to screen scrape the window so we can feed it into the newsroom. The higher video quality and the screen scraping is what contributes to the delay."
],
"score": [
43,
7,
4,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do we have Skype and telephone calls that provide instant voice transfer but news stations have that slight delay when they interview people at different locations?
| [
-0.036131955683231354,
-0.04240884259343147,
-0.009847809560596943,
-0.0036214301362633705,
0.014466365799307823,
-0.0230062585324049,
-0.008755382150411606,
-0.056945376098155975,
0.0804559588432312,
-0.07548481971025467,
-0.03993997722864151,
0.019007939845323563,
-0.09030163288116455,
-... | ||
3g9ec0 | Why do websites need to ask for your city, country, and state, when they can figure it all out through your zipcode? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ctw1xdh",
"ctw3g1u",
"ctw2i3h",
"ctw6o1k"
],
"text": [
"That pretty much is a thing of \"laziness\" (also known as \"costs\"): Its much cheaper to put multiple inputs there instead of maintaining (or at least buying) a catalogue of all zips mapping to the required information.\n\nEDIT: Source: I work in software development",
"There are edge cases where they actually *can't* figure out all of those things from your zip code. Zip codes were created to aid in postal delivery, and because postal service is provided by the federal government, delivery regions don't necessarily have to follow state borders. This is rare, but it happens. For example, 97635 overlaps with both California and Oregon. More commonly, several small towns may all share a zip code with each other or with a larger city/town (or part of one) if their mail is delivered from the same post office.\n\nZip codes are also used to route mail to members of the military, and in those cases there may be no correspondence at all between the zip code and a fixed physical location. For example, the service member may be stationed on a ship that's at sea. The military will know where to route mail sent to such addresses, but if you needed someone's location for any purpose other than sending APO/FPO mail, the zip code doesn't tell you anything useful.\n\n(Address handling is one of those things that turns out to be a lot more complicated than you might initially think, once you start programming a computer to do it. Handing dates and times is another example of this sort of unexpected complexity.)",
"You have to have the fields for non-US addresses anyway. They could autofill for US addresses if you asked for the ZIP first, but most people are so conditioned to provide the ZIP last that if you ask for it first they sometimes get confused and abandon the registration.",
"In some countries, like Germany, one zip code can belong to multiple localities. Also, there is not a global zip code system that allows you to infer country, state and city from a zip code."
],
"score": [
37,
17,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do websites need to ask for your city, country, and state, when they can figure it all out through your zipcode?
| [
0.012359312735497952,
0.002772658597677946,
0.010140443220734596,
0.03323078528046608,
0.07599993795156479,
0.0018519063014537096,
-0.0399102084338665,
-0.0687875747680664,
0.019928988069295883,
-0.03250240907073021,
0.021155307069420815,
0.06179296597838402,
0.008002033457159996,
0.010275... | ||
4chkmo | Is Erdogan really that powerful as he is presented in western media? If so, how did he become it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d1i97ue",
"d1ihdn5"
],
"text": [
"He's hardly represented in western media in the US. He is an extremist, rather than centrist, politician. While that seems fashionable today, political fashions vary year by year. When warm and fuzzy collaborative politicians become fashionable in a few years, he's going to look like a throwback to the region's dictatorial past.\n\nHe's trending today, but that sort of thing goes stale. It's not commonly associated with \"powerful\".",
"I'm an American and I've never heard of him. That should say something about his appearance in the media"
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Is Erdogan really that powerful as he is presented in western media? If so, how did he become it?
| [
0.11438173800706863,
0.028501424938440323,
-0.009629067033529282,
0.0011233121622353792,
0.006142699159681797,
-0.02133260667324066,
-0.03447625786066055,
0.03650125861167908,
-0.034518349915742874,
-0.02680877596139908,
0.01414529513567686,
0.06462058424949646,
0.02280844934284687,
0.0251... | ||
1bz766 | Why can't I "unbake" a cake? | Why are certain actions irreversible? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c9bhlnw",
"c9bkmnp"
],
"text": [
"There are differences between certain actions (or you might call them \"reactions\"). For instance with a cake, you might mix egg and flour, and whatever other ingredients, together. This is what's called a *physical* reaction - one that can be reversed. It would be a pain in the arse to reverse it, but technically it's still possible.\n\nNow, you put your cake mixture into your cake tin and pop it in the oven. You are introducing heat here, and that makes it a *chemical* reaction, one that can't be reversed.\n\nAnother analogy which might make more sense to you would be destroying paper. How might you destroy a sensitive document? You could shred it. However, the components that make up the page are still intact and could be put back together (admittedly this would take a stupid amount of time, but still possible). That's your physical reaction. You could also burn it, which turns it into ash. This is your chemical reaction, as it's impossible to turn ash back into the document you had before.",
"You can. Put it back in the oven, set it to the negative of whatever temp you baked it at, such as -325 degrees, and leave it in for the same amount of time you baked it for. It has to be exact! If you unbake it too much the flour may turn into wheat and the eggs will turn into a chicken. Don't ask me how."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why can't I "unbake" a cake?
Why are certain actions irreversible? | [
-0.015908721834421158,
-0.016192801296710968,
0.01785976067185402,
0.05753220245242119,
0.031966932117938995,
0.06938263773918152,
-0.007462598849087954,
-0.09101331979036331,
0.06878099590539932,
0.02113930508494377,
0.006527572870254517,
-0.0001527623535366729,
-0.08362264186143875,
-0.0... | |
372wci | Why are mammals (seemingly) so much more intelligent than other animals? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"crj85ao"
],
"text": [
"I think your premise is wrong. There are families of birds -- mostly the parrots and corvids (crow & jay family) - that display higher or even much higher intelligence than a large number of mammals. In fact, there are fish (I can think of several groups like member of the freshwater cichlids and some marine families) and even mollusks (notably octopus and some cuttlefish) who outshine a number of orders of mammals.\n\nIntelligence shows up in some degree among all of the animal groups that have cephalic development (development of a centralized brain); from mollusks to fish, to reptiles (monitors are really smart!), to amphibians, to birds, to mammals. There are even some arthropods that exhibit high degrees of being able to discriminate between individual humans and can solve puzzles quite well (mantis shrimp and several other crabs).\n\nIntelligence is not a \"goal,\" so to speak, of evolution and there is no guarantee that the resources used - or demanded - to generate a species with higher intelligence will assure a greater ability for the species to survive. \n\nBesides humans, think of the most successful organisms on the planet; that inhabit the greatest number of habitats and niches, that produce the greatest number of successful offspring, etc. Think bacteria. How much did a lack of intelligence hinder them at being successful? \n\nAgain, intelligence is not an \"end\" to achieve and mammals didn't get all the \"smarts\" in nature."
],
"score": [
13
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are mammals (seemingly) so much more intelligent than other animals?
| [
0.09816136956214905,
0.015500028617680073,
0.04358150064945221,
0.06102835386991501,
0.07405304908752441,
-0.06321888417005539,
-0.02725544199347496,
0.01633601076900959,
-0.017155500128865242,
0.16404083371162415,
0.009193075820803642,
-0.08311445266008377,
-0.09463126957416534,
0.0260797... | ||
4mz68s | Are content updates in videogames a bad business strategy? | Hello Redditors, while playing I was wondering: games like Minecraft or Diablo III have content updates that add new items, characteristics, functions, powers, recipes, maps... whatever; But aren't those updates a bad business strategy? Because if you buy Minecraft years ago for example, you pay 19.99€ (I'm from Europe) for the entire game. But right know if you buy it for the same price you will have more things. So it isn't weird or contradictory? Because they have just earned the money and they are working for free...
By the way, need to say I love those updates because they make the game feel fresh. I don't have anything against them.
Edit: Thanks to all of you for clarify this! I know see this topic with another perspective! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d3zgfla",
"d3zju1g",
"d3zjn49",
"d3zo2xi",
"d3zk698",
"d3zntd5",
"d3zg42k",
"d40zk8g"
],
"text": [
"A game developer doesn't release a single game in a vacuum. Its competing against other game developers, and it most likely intends to release more than one game. \n\nSo it could publish and then leave it and never touch it again, but if his competition then proceeds to publish a game, and delivers a steady stream of content updates, that other dev will get a better reputation. \n\nAlso, content updates are far cheaper than an entire new game. If you can get 10% more sales with a big content update, that could financially be worth it. Even if you are selling 50% of compared to the day of release price.",
"> Because they have just earned the money and they are working for free...\n\nNot really. If you are still playing the game. Which means that someone may see you playing the game that does not currently play and may decide to pick it up.",
"Well, considering that Minecraft is one of the best selling games of all time and is still selling thousands of copies daily despite having launched years ago, I'd say it's been a pretty good strategy for them. \n\nIt really depends on the game and what kind of community has developed around it. Valve has done significant content updates to a number of their games, and they've said that they often saw very significant spikes in new sales of those games when those updates were released. Most games see the vast majority of their sales shortly after they're launched, but if a content update can give an older game a nice bump, then it certainly can pay off. \n\nIt can be especially effective for multiplayer games, because free content updates can keep players within a game longer, or even bring old players back into the game, and a bigger player base generally makes a multiplayer game more attractive to new buyers. \n\nAnyways, if it didn't work, then companies wouldn't still be doing it, so obviously they feel like it's working out for them.",
"The size of a playerbase (i.e. number of people playing a game) matters a whole lot now than it used to. Content updates keep players playing and minimize how much the playerbase shrinks over time as those players find new games to play. \nEven for single-player games, this size matters because 1. in the age of streaming and youtube videos, more players means more of this media which is essentially free advertising for your game and 2. on some platforms this number is public and media outlets like reviewers or magazines or even subreddits will use it as a measure of success to advertise with. \nWith multiplayer games its even more important because it affects how many people you will play with and how long it takes to find a match. For example the Steam refund system hurt a lot of indie developers of small games because most players would log onto a brand new game, find nobody to play with, then refund. In other words this allowed them to exit the playerbase cost-free if the size of the playerbase wasn't big enough for their liking. If none of those players had the ability to refund and kept looking for each other for matches, none of them would have a problem in the first place. Instead, the game is at risk of dying with close to no active players at most times",
"It really depends on how you look at it. If the game on initial release was a somewhat complete game, then the additional content serves to enhance the experience (ie. 100%+). \n\nHowever, if the initial game was release and was missing features which will get included in a later update, then that is poor practice. (ie. 60%+ we'll give you the rest later). What could make it worse is if the additional DLC costs extra, so now you're kind of forced to pay extra to get 100% of the game.\n\nContent updates objectively are not bad, it's how it gets used.If done right, it's a great way to refresh the game's community by offering additional and new content. If done wrong, then the company is effectively milking it's fan base. In D3's case, it needs to be done right in order to keep the franchise going.",
"One thing I'd like to add that I haven't seen anyone else say is about micro transactions. \nI know in minecraft, you can buy skins and things in the game. \nIf you keep people hooked on your game, there's more chance they will buy something in game. If they don't plan on playing for long, they probably won't buy anything for the game, especially if it's purely cosmetic.",
"You gotta offer your user base something new and keep delivering, or they'll move on to something else. The sheer quantity of games on the market now makes it harder to keep people \"loyal\" because, a day only has 24 hours, and with so many tempting games on the market, people are going to leave yours unless you do something to keep them around.",
"Because people hate paying for DLC. EA for example hasn't understood this yet. The guys over at mojang seemed to release free content by instinct. Some companies only care about your wallet. And some companies care about your perception of the game,your experience with the game, and the lifespan of their game."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Are content updates in videogames a bad business strategy?
Hello Redditors, while playing I was wondering: games like Minecraft or Diablo III have content updates that add new items, characteristics, functions, powers, recipes, maps... whatever; But aren't those updates a bad business strategy? Because if you buy Minecraft years ago for example, you pay 19.99€ (I'm from Europe) for the entire game. But right know if you buy it for the same price you will have more things. So it isn't weird or contradictory? Because they have just earned the money and they are working for free... By the way, need to say I love those updates because they make the game feel fresh. I don't have anything against them. Edit: Thanks to all of you for clarify this! I know see this topic with another perspective! | [
-0.031049653887748718,
0.02180052362382412,
0.013825059868395329,
-0.09875750541687012,
0.03002120740711689,
-0.010490460321307182,
-0.0093632061034441,
-0.044702015817165375,
0.05313529074192047,
0.05268542096018791,
0.026436960324645042,
0.08531112968921661,
0.0006833667284809053,
-0.080... | |
1unow1 | Why do companies care about the price of their stocks? | In other words, how does the current value of a stock sold between investor A and investor B affect the company's success? As I type this I feel incredibly stupid but I've never understood why a $5 drop in a company's stock would lead the company to have to downsize, ect. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cejwkt9"
],
"text": [
"A share of stock is literally a small piece of the company. If the stock value is high, the company is worth a lot of money, meaning the company has leverage to buy things, build offices, take over other companies, and borrow money. \n\nAlso, executives typically own a lot of stock, so it makes them richer."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do companies care about the price of their stocks?
In other words, how does the current value of a stock sold between investor A and investor B affect the company's success? As I type this I feel incredibly stupid but I've never understood why a $5 drop in a company's stock would lead the company to have to downsize, ect. | [
0.041134417057037354,
0.03230608254671097,
0.05989808961749077,
-0.0064034610986709595,
-0.023867256939411163,
0.029328761622309685,
0.07852382212877274,
0.03499500826001167,
0.09079763293266296,
0.02569323405623436,
-0.029938356950879097,
0.08531662076711655,
-0.03454919531941414,
-0.0626... | |
1lrbom | What is it about Chemotherapy that causes hair loss? Why aren't eyebrows and eyelashes affected? | A guy on my running team was just diagnosed am Im curios. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cc1z62p",
"cc21o5p",
"cc26rnf",
"cc1z6w2"
],
"text": [
"Chemotherapy attacks fast dividing/growing/feeding cells. This is normally targeting a tumor, but because hair is a fast growing item, that gets taken out as a side effect sometimes.\n\nYour eyelashes and eyebrows can indeed fall out, but they're not as fast growing, or you'd be going to get eyebrow cuts all the time in addition to haircuts. So they may not react as the rest of the hair on a person's head will.",
"A cancerous cell is one that goes crazy and mutates, and then very quickly begins to spawn more mutated cells that attack the body. \nDifferent cells in your body grow at different speeds. Your hair grows quite quickly. Think about how often you need a haircut. \nChemotherapy is introduced into your body with the mission to kill fast growing cells, like cancer. \nBut the chemotherapy isn't preprogrammed to say \"I am only going to kill the cancer cells.\" Chemotherapy goes in a says, \"That's growing fast! DIE!\" And since hair cells grow fast too, the chemotherapy sometimes can't tell the difference between hair cells and cancer cells. So in the process of killing cancer cells, it kills hair cells too, and that makes your hair fall out. \nAs for the eyelashes and eyebrows, it depends in the person. Sometimes they fall out, and sometimes they don't. \nOften times chemotherapy is done in phases, and each phase changes how strong the doses are, and sometimes what kind of chemotherapy is being used to fight the cancer. There is time between each phase and sometimes your hair will grow back. The weird thing is, is that you never know what it will look like! I knew a girl who had long, straight, blonde hair, and when it grew back, it was red and curly!\nCancer is hard. Support your friend, even when it's hard. It'll be okay :)",
"Not sure if this is worth anyone's time, but hair loss is only the case with intravenous chemotherapy. Intravesical Chemo is confined to the organ being treated, and therefore doesn't get the chance to attack hair cells. I started a \"cancer beard\" when I started my Chemo, and I'm gonna shave it when I hear that I am cancer free! It's pretty lush right now.",
"As far as I know, and I could be wrong, but eyebrow hair and eyelashes do fall out as well. Also arm, leg and any other hair as well.."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is it about Chemotherapy that causes hair loss? Why aren't eyebrows and eyelashes affected?
A guy on my running team was just diagnosed am Im curios. | [
0.025965407490730286,
0.016578875482082367,
0.05350679159164429,
-0.010189245454967022,
-0.06587167829275131,
-0.05271195247769356,
0.017002379521727562,
0.0897633358836174,
-0.046362973749637604,
0.03498808667063713,
-0.00004140571036259644,
0.050708845257759094,
0.03152706101536751,
-0.0... | |
ow90g | Why do people cry? | I understand the obvious that we cry because things make us sad. But why does the body vacate fluid and go through this response to negative things? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c3kn2vn"
],
"text": [
"There are a few reasons. I know of two. When we cry we obviously outwardly express our sadness to other people who are then likely to come and help or comfort you. The second, when you cry we shed hormones in our tears which make us feel sad. Hence we feel better 'after a good cry' because we have shed some of the hormones making us feel bad."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do people cry?
I understand the obvious that we cry because things make us sad. But why does the body vacate fluid and go through this response to negative things? | [
0.006818567402660847,
-0.021885190159082413,
0.1268654614686966,
0.08610460162162781,
0.022642845287919044,
-0.006240508519113064,
0.056954432278871536,
0.054671816527843475,
0.1062641367316246,
-0.05070613697171211,
-0.05122731253504753,
-0.011134665459394455,
-0.04102085903286934,
0.0221... | |
92w517 | What is the difference between a "Creative Commons" license and a "All Rights Reserved" license? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e38tf1v",
"e38y0gs",
"e38ti9p"
],
"text": [
"[All Rights Reserved](_URL_0_) means that the copyright holder is giving notice that at any time they may decide to enforce copyright on the property.\n\nThe designation is defunct, as of the ending of the Buenos Aires Convention and the full enactment of the Berne Convention, and is replaced with the standard and automatic copyright system.\n\nBasically, if the material is under copyright, it can not be used without permission of the copyright holder or under limited exceptions (like fair use)\n\n[Creative Commons](_URL_1_) is a class of copyright notices which automatically release copyrighted material into the wild for general use. There are different CC licenses that can be created, for example if you want your work to be freely used for non-commercial derivative works (fan fiction or cosplay) but not for commercial use (like making a new TV series for a major corporation).\n\nThe material is under copyright still, but you are immediately relinquishing into the public domain those limited aspects of the work.\n\nIf you choose a Creative Commons license, you generally can not rescind that permission, like you can when you contract with another person.",
"I can answer this one from both the creator's and user's perspective. \n\nAll creative works in the US are\"all rights reserved\" by default, meaning that if anyone uses your creation in any way, you are entitled to be paid. It used to be that nearly everything was fair game to use and riff on unless you specifically copyrighted it, but things got a lot more locked down about 40 years ago to protect creators. It's kind of a pain if you need music or a picture for something but you don't want to pay, and as a creator there wasn't a way to say \"no worries, this is open and free\" in a way that was trusted without signing usage waivers and such. \n\nCreative commons is a set of legal documents that make it easy for creators to open their work than the fully locked-down \"all rights reserved\", but not necessarily all way open as \"public domain\". You might say \"free for non-commercial use\" or \"free for others who share their work alike\"\n\nBut why you ask? \n\nFor the users, creative commons stuff is awesome. Need a soundtrack for your film, game, or YouTube vid? Find some CC music with a license that fits your use and use it without worry. Need a pic for your college newspaper article? Search for CC pictures. \n\nFor the creator, making your work CC licensed is a great way to see your efforts get appreciation and exposure, and to share your art without worrying about commerce. It can also be a great way to source other artists that want to work with you and who want to pay for collaboration or custom pieces. \n\nFor me personally, Creative Commons has allowed me to fulfil my childhood dream of making music for video games. I put my 8-bit music out at _URL_3_ under an extremely permissive CC-BY (creative commons attribution, you can do whatever you want so long as you list my name in the credits, and hopefully link back to my site)\n\nOver the past 10 years, my music has been used in hundreds of games and gamejam submissions and too many YouTube vids and podcasts to count. I've also reached nearly 800000 people on SoundCloud, which I never would have accomplished if I'd simply wanted to make a buck selling my music. \n\nMy name and music now come up in the top Google results for free 8bit music, and I get to hear from new creators who I help every day, and it's amazingly fulfilling. \n\nIronically I've actually made some money from my CC works, as the creator of one of the most successful games that used my tunes (_URL_2_) kicked me some cash when he found success in the humble indie bundle. \n\nI'm happy to answer any questions about CC licensing and the creator experience!",
"\"All Rights Reserved\" isn't a thing anymore, and hasn't been for a long time. It's still written on stuff, somewhat by tradition, but it has zero legal meaning."
],
"score": [
16,
9,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons",
"http://www.reprisaluniverse.com/site/playreprisal/",
"http://ericskiff.com/music"
]
} | train_eli5 | What is the difference between a "Creative Commons" license and a "All Rights Reserved" license?
[removed] | [
-0.021789519116282463,
0.0027480742428451777,
-0.05323045700788498,
-0.006049288436770439,
0.13891901075839996,
0.08414910733699799,
0.008163534104824066,
-0.03977668285369873,
0.04806576296687126,
-0.009100060909986496,
0.012666401453316212,
0.0498369075357914,
0.01744900271296501,
-0.022... | |
35aeiy | If we colonised another planet (e.g. Mars) how would the date/time work in conjunction with Earth? | I understand a day on Mars is slightly longer than what it is on Earth, however a Mars year is nearly 2 years on Earth. How would keeping track of Months work, would we start from year 1 etc...? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cr2lmgq",
"cr2ifae",
"cr2ijyf",
"cr2irur",
"cr2in4z",
"cr2sbpm"
],
"text": [
"Seconds, minutes and hours would be the same. Days would need to be adjusted since a sidereal day is 24 hours 37 minutes. This would affect things like months and years, slowly becoming more and more out of sync. I imagine some sort of earth year would be used for certain aspects, while the martian year would be used for other.\n\nInteresting question OP.",
"I'd be surprised if people started over from year 1, but it certainly could happen, such things would be open for debate. And nothing says you can only observe one calendar after all.\n\nI'd expect for shorter durations (like a day), they'd adopt a more local clock, since as you note, the day is longer than Earth's, and using the same clock would get you out of sync. It'd be a pain trying to figure out ahead of time if a 1:30 PM party for your kid's birthday next month is going to be during the day or at night.",
"Smaller units of time (seconds, minutes, hours) would probably stay the same, and for local timekeeping they would function pretty well. A day on Mars is only 40 minutes longer than that on Earth. Using military time, the clocks would shift from 23:59 to 24:00, and then from 24:39 to 0:00 (whereas on Earth they obviously shift from 23:59 to 0:00).\n\nYears would probably still be based on the Terran Year, as a functional means to measure the human lifetime and synchronize events with those of the homeworld. However, local timekeeping for Martian years and months would also probably be utilized. The current concept is that each planet would have a \"Sol\" period, which would be that particular planet's year. At the same time, however, everyone would still track time based on the Sol of Earth.\n\nThis also ignores the issues of space travel and timekeeping, particularly when it comes to the desynchronization of clocks due to relativistic effects.",
"There would have to be a local time. Which we already use for projects running on Mars. Hours, minutes, and seconds, are each 2.7% longer than their earth counter parts. So there is still 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours a day.\n\nWe can't do anything about the fact that there are 668.5991 Martian days in a Martian year. By convention, we'd probably either decide on 12 months with 55-56 days each, or 22 months with 30-31 days each, depending on which aspect (days per month vs. months per year) we want to be closest to Earth's. I imagine we'd want to keep days per month mostly the same. A scheme of 30-30-31 days for every three months, with 31 days for the last month gives us 668 days. If we add a day to the first month, that gives us 669 days. Adding a \"skip\" year, reducing the first month by two days every 5 years gives us 668.6 on average.",
"Look to history. In the US, at one time, every location had its own time. Two cities that were 200, 300 miles apart might have clock times a few minutes apart. Train schedules were hell to maintain, and errors in time calculations even caused train wrecks on occasion. The train companies standardized on time zones in pure self defense. \nSo I'd look to some \"bridging\" adjustments being invented that would keep everyone on Earth's calendar, while preserving some kind of local year/date info.",
"At least at current and near-future technology all Mars colonies would be isolated from the actual Mars climate. Colonists would live and work in enclosed spaces where everything from lighting to humidity to atmospheric pressure would be managed independently from what was going on \"outside\" on Mars proper. I expect things would pretty much stay exactly the same; similar schedules and the same exact Calendar. Colonists would likely make up their own holidays \"First Human on Mars Day\" (aka /u/faisent day) and those might be tied to a Martian year but they'd still use Earth years in their day to day operations.\n\nOnce the colony became more and more self-sufficient things would slowly diverge from an Earth-centric Calendar. *The Grand /u/bfr0g1 Memorial Greenhouse* would still need to draw sunlight during the Martian day; its workers would start to organize their shifts around this cycle. As they form a large portion of the colonists, the rest of the colony starts to follow suit; at first it is a crazy hodge-podge of conflicting time-zones; some of the colonists follow Martian Standard Time, and others stick with Greenwich Mean Time. The few independent businesses finally decide to switch to MST as most of their customers are using it, leaving GMT a standard only to officers, communication specialists, and the few cross-system pilots that have to deal with Earth on a semi-regular basis. \"Months\" are kept simply because seasonal changes aren't as dramatic in enclosed spaces; though the Martian December (which occurs twice in a Martian year) is only used to track Christmas for the few Martians that keep up with that religion. Already \"/u/faisent Day\" is the holiday most Martians feel attached to, followed closely by \"/u/bfr0g1 Day\" - when Mars officially became self-sufficient for its food intake. /u/faisent day Martians exchange gifts, similar to Earth's \"Christmas\" and on /u/bfr0g1 Day kids hunt for variously colored root vegetables and adults dress in garish clothes to represent their independence from Earth.\n\nEventually the Mars colony decides that Earth isn't really needed, even for resupply and luxury goods. They examine their long history and decide to move completely away from the standard Earth calendars. They decide to start their Calendar on IFE or Independence From Earth day. 200 million Martians rejoice in their new-found Independence, and (since this is fantasy and fiction) the various Earth nations applaud and rejoice that humanity has a new home where it can prosper."
],
"score": [
46,
7,
5,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If we colonised another planet (e.g. Mars) how would the date/time work in conjunction with Earth?
I understand a day on Mars is slightly longer than what it is on Earth, however a Mars year is nearly 2 years on Earth. How would keeping track of Months work, would we start from year 1 etc...? | [
0.07244668900966644,
-0.02672620303928852,
0.032348647713661194,
-0.013510161079466343,
0.06968975812196732,
-0.07826568931341171,
-0.06310023367404938,
-0.08729182183742523,
-0.004945468623191118,
0.027829309925436974,
0.05082143470644951,
-0.019156159833073616,
-0.06975874304771423,
0.03... | |
ntrt0 | the little pi thing on the bottom of every page on reddit | My cursor passed over it by chance today, now I'm curious what "Rendered by PID 23270 on app-24 running fd50047" means.
edit: bottom right in case you couldn't figure that out (but I'm sure you did). | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c3bv4o1",
"c3bv5v9",
"c3bvthy",
"c3bwekc",
"c3bvmr4",
"c3bxphc",
"c3c0q21",
"c3bv5o0",
"c3c0rlz",
"c3c421f"
],
"text": [
"This has been asked before but it is hard to search for. \n\nReddit as a whole has a lot of people visiting the website at any given time. That many people would be too much for just one computer, so there's a special computer that moves each visitor to another computer (in a bank of computers) so each individual computer gets less work. \n\nThere are also different versions of reddit, when the developers add features or fix bugs. These are all supposed to go on all the computers taking requests but one might be missed (maybe the admins were drinking beer while they were updating).\n\nThe little mouseover tells you want computer is running the webpage you're looking at, and what version of reddit is running, and some other information, so if something goes wrong, there's an easy way to see what computer is messing up.",
"If you click on it, it will take you to Mozart's Ghost, which is a program that allows the Praetorians to access secure government files.",
"PID is *Process ID*, the numerical identifier of the linux process that is running the server.\n\napp-24 is an identifier, probably the hostname, of the server that handled your request.\n\nfd50047 is the beginning of a SHA hash that identifies the current commit, or \"version\" of reddit that was served.\n\nTL;DR: which server and what version of reddit.",
"When I was in primary school, the Grolier online encyclopedia had this hyperlinked period in the bottom of the page that could bypass the login. It was pretty boss.",
"It is an 'homage' to that movie.. you know\n\nThe Computer. With that girl from The Bus.",
"Never saw it before... and now I'll always see it.",
"TIL i am oblivious to the small details of my everyday routine",
"The real explanation would probably be the processor and computer the particular webpage is running off of so developers/ reddit can tell what went wrong and where. But that is just a guess.",
"I never make all the way to the bottom of the page.",
"How long has that been there? I never noticed that before."
],
"score": [
246,
129,
99,
11,
11,
8,
6,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | the little pi thing on the bottom of every page on reddit
My cursor passed over it by chance today, now I'm curious what "Rendered by PID 23270 on app-24 running fd50047" means. edit: bottom right in case you couldn't figure that out (but I'm sure you did). | [
-0.09259956330060959,
0.021345922723412514,
-0.03862777724862099,
-0.03545727953314781,
0.03747570514678955,
-0.020344583317637444,
0.0022321518044918776,
0.06304014474153519,
0.023488422855734825,
-0.05663566663861275,
-0.014995740726590157,
0.07351306825876236,
0.017965497449040413,
-0.0... | |
tjl98 | How does data corruption work | When I hear that there's data corruption in a computer, hard drive, etc, how does that work on a fundamental level and what causes it? Thank you! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c4n8q3u",
"c4n5x7z"
],
"text": [
"Computers are incredibly fast and incredibly stupid. They expect their data (which boil down to individual bits) to be highly ordered.\n\nIf that order is changed for any reason (a software bug, faulty hardware, a huge magnet next to a harddrive, etc...), the computer can no longer make sense of the data.\n\nHere's a very simple example. One fundamental data type for computers is the character array, commonly called a \"string\". Each byte in a string (1 byte = 8 bits on most computers) contains one character, so the string \"Hello\" should contain 5 bytes, right?\n\nWell actually, it contains 6. The 6th byte is all zeros. The computer uses this to know when the string is done. Basically, it starts at the \"H\" and it keeps reading until it hits *00000000*.\n\nIf, for whatever reason, the zero byte (also called a *null* byte) is changed, the data becomes corrupted. The computer no longer knows when to stop reading and it will continue reading until it hits a null byte.\n\nMore importantly, any data in those bytes will be interpreted *as if it were text.* Because the computer is reading these bytes under the assumption that it's looking for a character string.\n\nThe example I just gave happens in memory (or RAM), but the fundamental principle holds true for disk data as well. If a bit on the disk is changed, it's possible for the computer to behave in a way that was not intended.",
"Data corruption can basically mean anything where data get corrupted ;)\n\nIMO Data Corruption could be caused by Software Issues (like crappy drivers, faulty programms etc), Hardware issues like a broken HDD or a Flash drive with destroyed segments, or even something stupid like unplugging your pc during saving something."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does data corruption work
When I hear that there's data corruption in a computer, hard drive, etc, how does that work on a fundamental level and what causes it? Thank you! | [
-0.0306368637830019,
-0.03578893095254898,
0.025417881086468697,
0.007684443611651659,
-0.01697581820189953,
-0.12479336559772491,
0.011524135246872902,
0.000609627808444202,
0.047603458166122437,
0.02352568320930004,
-0.014127543196082115,
0.09382626414299011,
0.1065184697508812,
-0.08462... | |
50fvqd | What would I die of (first) if I was suddenly exposed to deep space conditions? For example if my spaceship collapses... | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d73pofx"
],
"text": [
"If you are in the spaceship, you will be crushed. If you suddenly get exposed to the vacuum of space, the lack of air. The pressure in your body will expand and you will blow up like a cartoon balloon. If you survive that, you suffocate. Contrary to common belief you won't instantly freeze, as heat needs a medium to move through, you will stay a warm corpse for a bit.\n\n_URL_0_"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exposure"
]
} | train_eli5 | What would I die of (first) if I was suddenly exposed to deep space conditions? For example if my spaceship collapses...
[removed] | [
0.011976761743426323,
0.007441702764481306,
0.07567191869020462,
0.054729193449020386,
0.0667203962802887,
-0.041412658989429474,
0.005070726852864027,
0.08591636270284653,
0.035257626324892044,
0.006257875822484493,
0.01878519356250763,
-0.03978262096643448,
0.008948876522481441,
0.016200... | |
6d7ds4 | What is postmodernism in layman's terms? | Please explain it like I'm 5, and not like I'm 5 years into a Ph.D. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"di0jyh4"
],
"text": [
"The best way to understand post-modernism is first to understand *modernism*.\n\nThis was an early C20th movement that insisted on \"honesty\" in all aspects of design and creativity. In architecture for example it required that \"form follows function\" so that you could tell from a building how it was constructed and how it was to be used and not try and disguise it as something else. The corkscrew (for example) was seen as an honest expression in its form and construction of exactly what it was but the drinks dispenser disguised as a globe or any plastic object designed to look like it was made from wood was unacceptable. In other areas of culture, modernism resulted in philosophies of good literature, good performance etc and a rejection of all that was fake or frivolous.\n\nPost modernism was a reaction against this. Some thought modernism was too \"earnest\" and limiting and experimented with creating things that broke these rules, New materials meant it was possible to build constructions that instead of looking stable and load-bearing were frivolous and eccentric. In other areas it meant abandoning all the rules of \"good design\" or \"good writing\" etc and experiment with ideas that were not hampered like this. So music and writing that combined different genres, everyday objects that were frivolous rather than practical. Imagine the bridge with a see-thru glass floor, or the war-time novel that introduces magical happenings, the oil painting of a cartoon character, the opera based on Jerry Springer - all these are typical post-modern creations and could never have happened during the modernist period."
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is postmodernism in layman's terms?
Please explain it like I'm 5, and not like I'm 5 years into a Ph.D. | [
0.08173350989818573,
-0.0378800630569458,
-0.006422763224691153,
0.04869646579027176,
-0.009764361195266247,
-0.023140570148825645,
-0.05838024243712425,
-0.026135021820664406,
-0.017861658707261086,
0.03684799373149872,
0.010965493507683277,
0.039729584008455276,
-0.052917949855327606,
-0... | |
5ygcc5 | How does glue actually work? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depu0j1"
],
"text": [
"It depends on the glue. \n\nPVC glue actually melts the PVC that you apply it to and then the two melted sections that you're gluing harden and form together into a solid joint. \n\nCyanoacrylate (superglue) reacts with water in the air to form a polymer. Since this polymer started as a liquid it can seep into the many nooks and crannies of an object, and once it hardens it is very difficult to remove from all of them simultaneously. The quick reaction with water is part of why it reacts so quickly on your hands. Gorilla glue is similar, but is polyeurethane-based and reacts primarily with oxygen.\n\nElmer's glue (the white glue most schoolchildren use), as well as many other glues, works by evaporation. There is a solvent in the glue (in elmer's it's water) that slowly evaporates leaving behind a latex polymer. In this case the polymer was always there in the liquid glue, but the individual polymer molecules were being kept separate by the water (or other solvent). When it dries, the water leaves and the polymers tangle up on each other forming a solid."
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does glue actually work?
| [
-0.0742727518081665,
-0.06119030341506004,
0.03448833152651787,
0.022120730951428413,
-0.030109461396932602,
0.01803787797689438,
0.06027185171842575,
-0.005707320757210255,
0.014399449340999126,
-0.028743082657456398,
0.0138544961810112,
0.07305523753166199,
0.013870642520487309,
0.006792... | ||
54nsec | If you killed someone on the Four Corners Monument, which state's laws would you be prosecuted with? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d83e6mn"
],
"text": [
"[Slightly NSFW.](_URL_0_) \n \nSince it's a serious crime that is inter-state, the federal government will likely step in. \n \nAlso, it's a national monument and in Indian Reservation territory, even more reason for it to be the FBI. \n \nDouble also, simply searching Google about this (\"four corners jurisdiction\") brought up an ELI5 post about this as the top result."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://youtu.be/AY4FP7U88ds?t=1m4s"
]
} | train_eli5 | If you killed someone on the Four Corners Monument, which state's laws would you be prosecuted with?
[removed] | [
0.04440173879265785,
0.16592244803905487,
-0.027527211233973503,
-0.03956884145736694,
0.05796300992369652,
-0.012606886215507984,
-0.03492725268006325,
-0.061563681811094284,
-0.04089980199933052,
0.08266390115022659,
0.05970165878534317,
-0.005007193423807621,
-0.010318617336452007,
0.05... | |
uibfb | how a boxer is crowned best pound for pound fighter, and how Pacquiao is considered higher "rank" than Mayweather? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c4vop5a"
],
"text": [
"It's basically a very subjective ranking system.\n\nLet's give ourselves Pacquiao vs Mayweather. Bear in mind that I'm not much of a boxing fan, I just know how it's measured. Anyway, Pacquiao has been against many others of his weight division with impressive w/l/d/ records. Their records are matched against each other, then the match quality is measured. For example, the Pacquiao/Hatton fight. He took down Hatton within the first few rounds solidly. That gives him more brownie points than say if he had a hard-fought, nail-biting match.\n\nIt's essentially a measure of dominance in your matches, hence why it's subjective as to who does the rankings."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how a boxer is crowned best pound for pound fighter, and how Pacquiao is considered higher "rank" than Mayweather?
| [
0.0714237168431282,
0.002530018100515008,
-0.045574892312288284,
0.01080466341227293,
-0.027795113623142242,
0.07966195791959763,
-0.013988989405333996,
0.06681373715400696,
0.04500643163919449,
-0.01655217632651329,
-0.04754646122455597,
-0.08806334435939789,
0.013399814255535603,
0.07991... | ||
3k850m | Why are modern computers still having trouble with editing large-ish (20-50MB) text files? | I have to search through and save parts of some logs, and most are under 5MB, but sometimes i stumble upon a 10-20-50 up to 300MB log (basically text). Why is it still amazingly slow (if it even works) to open/scroll through/edit such files, for a modern-ish office computer (say, 8GB RAM, i5-3230M CPU, SSD, W7-64)?
I'm using Notepad++, but i doubt things would be better with other non-dedicated software. In searching for an answer, i've stumbled upon editors dedicated for large files, but no (clear) technical explanation of why such an editor is needed. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cuvgldn",
"cuvihdm",
"cuvm7f6",
"cuvzurm"
],
"text": [
"it is the limitations of the software not your computer(usually). \n\nif you want to push 1000 balloons up a chimney they still need to go one at a time, more cores and ram = more chimneys. but if you have 100,000,000 balloons it will always bottleneck while the program tries to sort the next lot of data so the balloons appear in the correct order. \n\nalso that is a HUGE text file. \n\nEDIT: other things may also be at play like memory leaks and cpu load before you even try.",
"Software developer here.\n\nMost text editors do not expect you to be editing huge text files so they will load the entire document into memory and display it in it's entirety.\n\nWhen you get to a certain threshold Windows will not allow more physical ram to be allocated as since it will encroach on OS stability or RAM pages are being used by other processes which cannot be overwritten. So instead it will take what it can and put it into the applications working set memory (the memory allocated for normal application usage) and then it will take the rest and attempt to apply to the page file. This file is a binary file that works like an overflow for memory or for memory items that still have a valid pointer reference to an application object but have not been access for some time. Moving memory around like this allows the system to have as much access as possible to physical ram without using it all up.\n\nSo your large text file be resident in physical ram and page file ram and its the page file that's slow.\n\nSome text editors will stream off the disk as you edit. However there are technical limitations to this so not many editors do it. Quite a few hex editors work in this way as users mostly edit single points in the file which is defined to be a certain size and so editing will not affect the overall structure of the file itself.",
"Notepad++ is based on the Scintilla text control that is designed for code editing, syntax highlighting and folding and not bulk text operations. Loading a 300Mb file will use over 1Gb (maybe over 1.5Gb) of RAM. You're using the wrong tool for the job.\n\nEither split the text file into multiple smaller files and only load one into the editor at a time or use a tool that can handle large files, such as [UltraEdit](_URL_0_).\n\nPS. If your employer won't invest in the correct tools then the job isn't important enough for you to be doing.",
"I'm a programmer.\n\n1. Notepad++ does a *ton* of processing to perform syntax highlighting. It either performs it on the entire document storing the new data (with syntax highlighting control characters, increasing it's size) but it also has to update it when the document changes. To speed up initial highlighting, it may instead only highlight whatever is visible currently on the screen and updating upon scrolling, causing a visible lag when scrolling. I didn't write the Scintilla control so I can't say exactly.\n\n2. Memory allocation by the program, and what the OS decides to do with it. As already mentioned, use of the program's \"free memory\" vs dumping a lot in a page file. Also, some programs will load the entire file into a large string or array of bytes, while others will load a predefined \"chunk\" size (i.e. 4096 bytes or 4KB as an example) at a time or, in the case of hex editors, will only load enough characters to show on the screen and update upon scrolling. This has its own disadvantages especially in the case of Notepad++ where syntax highlighting the entire document in one go would be impossible, but it also increases disk I/O depending on caching settings of the OS.\n\nI don't know why memory leaks were even brought up, that seems to be such a \"catch-all\" for \"why is this slow or behaving poorly?\"."
],
"score": [
13,
8,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.ultraedit.com/support/tutorials_power_tips/ultraedit/large_file_handling.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why are modern computers still having trouble with editing large-ish (20-50MB) text files?
I have to search through and save parts of some logs, and most are under 5MB, but sometimes i stumble upon a 10-20-50 up to 300MB log (basically text). Why is it still amazingly slow (if it even works) to open/scroll through/edit such files, for a modern-ish office computer (say, 8GB RAM, i5-3230M CPU, SSD, W7-64)? I'm using Notepad++, but i doubt things would be better with other non-dedicated software. In searching for an answer, i've stumbled upon editors dedicated for large files, but no (clear) technical explanation of why such an editor is needed. | [
0.01020535733550787,
0.038406774401664734,
0.013727100566029549,
0.04331251606345177,
0.09169784933328629,
-0.026995250955224037,
-0.12776994705200195,
0.09647645801305771,
0.08943682163953781,
0.14504402875900269,
-0.009040950797498226,
0.0922052189707756,
-0.04392355680465698,
-0.0170587... | |
2akep2 | Why don't car companies like Ford and GM make technologically advanced replicas of some of the classics instead of ugly modern cars? | I feel like there would be a huge demand for things like a remake of the '57 Chevy but with all modern engines, technology etc. Why hasn't this been done? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ciw1f6l",
"ciw10j9",
"ciw11c6",
"ciw2nyt",
"ciw3fgw",
"ciw1iya"
],
"text": [
"Remember what happened last time they tried that? The Chevy HHR and the PT Cruiser were created. Horrifying.",
"they were incredibly unsafe shapes, impossible to make as safe as the newer ones without a complete redesign of the shape which would defy the point of remaking the old car\n\nalso you overestimate how much people want old cars, they're kinda ugly as fuck",
"You could not manufacture a 50s/60s replica today. Regulations wouldn't allow it. Manufacturers have very little latitude with regards to many design aspects, in today's world. If it looks too wild, it probably runs afoul of various regulations.",
"Due to heavy regulations this simply isn't possible. The cars will not be able to meet the needed safety standards due to their shapes. [This care for example](_URL_0_) could not be recreated without making the roof much thicker and adding a lot of extra supports. The result would only slightly like the original and likely very ugly. It's not worth the time and money it would take to make a safe remake when most people wouldn't even think it looks good because of all the required changes.",
"They have been done, i.e the VW Beetle, Fiat 500, Mini Cooper, Mustang 2014, Corvette 2014, Camaro, Challenger, etc...\n\ncheck in example this 2014 VW Bettle : _URL_2_\n\nthey are called retro-style automobiles, here is a list: _URL_2_",
"dodge has the new challenger which looks very similar to the original 70's version."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
6,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XVWn78_V_nE/TKnhikJ8N9I/AAAAAAAABSA/2xHB12GT1Eg/s1600/50%27s+Cars+01.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/TurboBlackVWBeetle.JPG",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Retro_style_automobiles"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why don't car companies like Ford and GM make technologically advanced replicas of some of the classics instead of ugly modern cars?
I feel like there would be a huge demand for things like a remake of the '57 Chevy but with all modern engines, technology etc. Why hasn't this been done? | [
-0.06589467078447342,
-0.009482338093221188,
0.08461232483386993,
-0.012831943109631538,
-0.009248971939086914,
-0.05704592913389206,
-0.10721959918737411,
0.009782161563634872,
-0.027688369154930115,
-0.009279541671276093,
-0.1022438034415245,
0.08210419863462448,
0.044391289353370667,
-0... | |
2nkezf | In reference to Phillip Hughes' accidental death, explain a vertebral artery dissection from such a relatively small object. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cmedizv"
],
"text": [
"An arterial dissection is a tearing of the inner lining of an artery.\n\nBasically, an artery is composed of multiple layers of tissue. In a dissection, which can happen spontaneously or be caused by trauma, the innermost layer gets torn. Blood then gets underneath this torn layer and begins to push the two layers apart. This can cause the tear to travel further up the artery, but trouble arises when the amount of blood filling this new spaces can cause the torn inner layer to get pressed against the opposite wall of the artery, completely obstructing blood flow. With the blood flow obstructed, pressure begins to build up and the already damaged artery wall can rupture.\n\nI can't find any reference stating where exactly the dissection occurred in Phillip Hughes', however the vertebral arteries run all the way up the neck and join with the carotid arteries around the base of the skull. A rupture in that general vicinity would cause blood to pool around the brainstem. If you're not familiar with neural anatomy, the brainstem controls a lot of our autonomic functions (breathing, heart rhythm, etc), so the pooling blood around it will lead to a build-up of pressure that compresses parts of the brainstem, which in turn can result in rapid loss of consciousness and death.\n\nEdit: Found an [image](_URL_0_) that might help clarify what I was describing."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/AoDissect_Schema_01a.png"
]
} | train_eli5 | In reference to Phillip Hughes' accidental death, explain a vertebral artery dissection from such a relatively small object.
| [
-0.038792841136455536,
0.10470354557037354,
0.0023329625837504864,
0.02476239949464798,
-0.04614695534110069,
-0.09799661487340927,
-0.07220884412527084,
0.04888158664107323,
0.04029158875346184,
0.06422407180070877,
0.05938960611820221,
0.03725211322307587,
-0.10393884778022766,
-0.010520... | ||
7h3ow4 | Why does CO2 increase world temperature but a big enough Volcanic eruption lowers it? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqnukuw"
],
"text": [
"CO2 acts like an invisible blanket, or more accurately like the glass in a greenhouse. It's a \"greenhouse gas\", which traps radiant heat close to the planet.\n\nA huge cloud of dust and smoke from a volcano isn't invisible. While it will also insulate, it's also quite reflective, bouncing sunlight back into space *before* it warms up the Earth. This is why debris clouds from volcanoes, huge meteorites, or hypothetically nuclear war, can caused a \"nuclear winter\"."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does CO2 increase world temperature but a big enough Volcanic eruption lowers it?
[removed] | [
0.0011593920644372702,
0.07176695764064789,
0.0653337761759758,
0.059070780873298645,
0.023501839488744736,
-0.07442522794008255,
-0.06955373287200928,
0.047410689294338226,
0.045456260442733765,
0.03783990815281868,
0.04327605292201042,
-0.05493336170911789,
0.030836189165711403,
0.004263... | |
8cjvgb | Static Electricity and it’s connection to objects | I have tried to think this through but I can’t seem to explain why some objects get the static charge from humans and hold onto it for awhile?
What is it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxfkn18"
],
"text": [
"It’s been a while since this lecture, so forgive me if I mess up a few points.\n\nFrom what I remember, every object on the planet has sort of a key number of electrons it likes to have. Objects that are known to be great conductors of electricity (copper for example) have a much higher key number than say humans do. So, whenever an object has a deficit of electrons, it takes all the electrons it can every time it makes contact with another object that has extra. They all have a tendency to want to remain at that key number. If something has an excess, they’ll give them away. If something has too little, they’ll take them."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Static Electricity and it’s connection to objects
I have tried to think this through but I can’t seem to explain why some objects get the static charge from humans and hold onto it for awhile? What is it? | [
-0.02917453646659851,
0.042078420519828796,
0.02973959408700466,
0.10934724658727646,
0.0277329683303833,
-0.02845344878733158,
0.10532795637845993,
0.013842066749930382,
0.06986747682094574,
0.05867713689804077,
0.023183735087513924,
-0.05763222649693489,
-0.05501997098326683,
0.056150905... | |
3oem7j | Why does WinRAR never actually require payment? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvwkvh9"
],
"text": [
"From _URL_1_\n\n > Winrar is licensed as \"shareware\", the license type is mostly outdated now, but back in the 90's you would see most software marketed as either freeware (free to use), shareware (free to try, pay to use), or just plain paid software. These days we see more software released in the demo/full version form, although some software companies still release shareware (pretty sure Photoshop is still released this way, 30 days full/free, paid after it expires, although it's no longer called \"shareware\") \n\n > A lot of shareware was released like Winrar back in the day, where paying for the software was more of an option than a requirement. By not blocking the customer out after 30 days it garners the customers respect and the developer hopes that you'll eventually pay for it, even if you've used it for a year or two. Even if you don't, you'll probably recommend it to a friend and your friend may become a paying customer. \n\n > It's basically writing software with the hope that enough customers will pay to make it worthwhile. Winrar probably sticks with this model simply because its worked for them for so long. \n\nIt seems like they base it on honesty and trust. They trust that when you are fully satisfied with their service, and that it meets your requirements, that the customer will pay the fee\n\nEdit: a little funny I found while digging _URL_0_"
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://m.imgur.com/gallery/XzkgwRb",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xw36n/eli5_why_doesnt_anyone_have_to_pay_for_win_rar/cff7m2r"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why does WinRAR never actually require payment?
| [
-0.03504909947514534,
0.039091046899557114,
-0.02275681495666504,
-0.006065067835152149,
0.028040414676070213,
0.0017710949759930372,
-0.012927946634590626,
0.0008225151686929166,
0.08694618940353394,
0.08894890546798706,
0.008281072601675987,
0.07579469680786133,
-0.0018857360119000077,
0... | ||
5633ii | you know how people do crazy stunts like unicycling through the Amazon for charity? How does that actually raise money? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d8fw3ka"
],
"text": [
"Basically people just donate money because they either think the stunt is cool, or the stunt gets their attention and then they learn about the cause (where they otherwise would not have) and donate because they think it's righteous.\n\nThe stunt is about getting attention. Nothing more."
],
"score": [
9
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | you know how people do crazy stunts like unicycling through the Amazon for charity? How does that actually raise money?
| [
-0.005846417509019375,
-0.010595770552754402,
-0.015967413783073425,
-0.01756412908434868,
0.007543124724179506,
0.02298939786851406,
0.026539335027337074,
0.0005796851473860443,
0.015421878546476364,
0.046107009053230286,
0.08329234272241592,
0.03453662991523743,
0.037973012775182724,
-0.... | ||
4by8x5 | Why do people swap languages while talking? | This always happened to me while playing League of Legends, so I just assumed it was people who couldn't refrain from insulting me but tried to mask it in their own language.
However, watching TV, I'm seeing people do the same here. They can be speaking English to someone, the other party responds in English, and then they randomly start speaking their native tongue, and swap back to English at some point further along in the conversation.
Can I please get some insight into why people do this? I'm native English and have never been able to speak anything else, so I'm not really sure what's going on here. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d1dfuh5",
"d1dhjmw",
"d1dhu30",
"d1di06b",
"d1dglb2",
"d1dj0ld",
"d1djeic",
"d1diq3q"
],
"text": [
"i do this, switching languages after sentences/in the middle of a sentence/or whatever. the reason i do this is is because sometimes things just don't translate well. some words/phrases in another language or in English, just doesn't have an equivalent that will give you the full effect of what you're trying to say. and then there are other times when you just don't know how to say that word/phrase so you say it in another language instead. being fully fluent means that you can \"think\" in that language so sometimes, i just want to use that language instead.",
"Maybe it gives them a little je ne sais quoi?",
"I switch a lot between Dutch and English.\n\nIn the Netherlands we're exposed to a lot of English, movies and series are subtitled instead of dubbed, at work there's a lot of English (at least at my past 3 jobs) and of course on the internet it's dominant. Possibly as a result of that I've started to notice that a lot of times I feel a certain word or expression in English captures a lot better what I'm trying to say than anything in Dutch. \n\nAt work it's the opposite, we try to speak English around non-Dutch coworkers but sometimes certain things are too hard to translate and I might switch to Dutch for a sentence or two to get my point across and let others provide explanation (or just context by replying in English) so the non-Dutch aren't left out.",
"I do this all the time, and it is common for bilingual people to do. Sometimes, but very seldomly, it is to have private conversation. Most often it is simply using the language that is easiest. Work and some hobbies I have a better vocabulary in English, and am most used to speaking in english. Anything in the kitchen, however, my english vocabulary is skinnier. \n\nAlso, if I'm talking about something specific to the US - politics, vacations, geography - I tend to do that in English, but switch to my other language for topics related to the other country.\n\nEqually important, if the person I'm speaking with is struggling a little with English, I'll switch to our common language simply to make discussion flow more easily.",
"Language isn't just words and speech, it's a process of thought for a culture. There are concepts, theories, and relationships that are very difficult to explain in other languages, especially for topics of human interaction.",
"I'm getting the feeling OP is asking a slightly different question than what people are answering here. English isn't my native language but I speak it more or less every day extensively due to my job and randomly completely swapping languages just isn't a thing that really happens. Like others have said there are concepts and sayings that you want to use your native tongue for but then you of course try your best to translate what the fuck you just said and explain it. \n\nI think what OP is asking is about those moments in TV-shows and movies where two non-English speaking characters swap their spoken language between English and what their actual native language is even though there seems to be no need for it since clearly they both have the same native language. This is only done because American audiences can't stand subtitles so they have to keep the amount of subtitled talk to a minimum. So they just throw in a bit of the language they should logically be using and then switch right back to English.",
"This phenomenon is called [Code-switching](_URL_0_), that's probably the search term you want to use.",
"It's called la ley de minimo esfuerzo (the law of minimum effort) Basically it means that people will use whatever means requires the least amount of time or effort to do or say. Some things, like idioms, can be expressed easier and are more satisfying to say in a specific language. It is the same reason why, many times, we use incorrect grammar or spelling in place of correct grammar, because it is faster.\n\nExample 1: Que sera, sera. In English, this means, what will be will be... or whatever happens happens. Que sera sera is a much shorter way of saying it but the thought that is conveyed is the same....but it takes less time to say. It is also a lot more elegant in Spanish than in English.\n\nExample 2: Saying \"FUCK!\" could mean literally anything, depending on how it is said. It takes less syllables to say fuck than it does to say it's equivalent in Spanish (which varies greatly depending on what country you are from), but most words or expressions that convey that meaning are at least 2 or 3 syllables long in Spanish.\n\nIt is also just the evolution of language and how a person distinguishes themselves from previous generations and other groups of people. The way people talk changes your perception of them. This is something we notice subconsciously at a very young age and our understanding of it grows with experience. We want to be perceived in a certain light, so we choose words and copy behaviors of those that we try to be like, or avoid certain behaviors/words for the same reason."
],
"score": [
26,
21,
7,
6,
5,
4,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do people swap languages while talking?
This always happened to me while playing League of Legends, so I just assumed it was people who couldn't refrain from insulting me but tried to mask it in their own language. However, watching TV, I'm seeing people do the same here. They can be speaking English to someone, the other party responds in English, and then they randomly start speaking their native tongue, and swap back to English at some point further along in the conversation. Can I please get some insight into why people do this? I'm native English and have never been able to speak anything else, so I'm not really sure what's going on here. | [
0.019609129056334496,
-0.06455973535776138,
0.09571275860071182,
-0.05817922577261925,
-0.04208897054195404,
-0.01048501580953598,
0.11205462366342545,
-0.020295459777116776,
0.1326235979795456,
-0.05201372876763344,
-0.0366065688431263,
-0.013077042996883392,
-0.07168883085250854,
-0.0276... | |
8lvlx6 | If meds are always eliminated in half by the body, how is it ever completely eliminated? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dzirh6k",
"dzir2j1"
],
"text": [
"First, the half life of a medicine is more of a general rule to follow when considering dosages, and it's not like **exactly** half is left after each half life.\n\nAlso, unlike pure math, in the physical world an object can't be cut in half infinitely. Eventually you would get down to a single molecule and at the next half life, the medicine would be completely gone. Even if you continued cutting that single molecule in half (which isn't how it would work), how many molecules of that substance do you have? Zero, because a broken molecule isn't the same substance.\n\nIn general, after around 4-5 half lives, there isn't enough medicine to affect your body anyway. (100% > 50% > 25% > 12.5% > 6.25% > 3.125% > ...)",
"medicines have a half life, which isn't exactly the same as eliminated by half. But the answer is technically it isn't, but for all practical purposes it is. \n\nIf I through a billion grains of sand at you, and you got all but 3 off, you are pretty safe to say you got all the sand off, even if that isn't technically correct."
],
"score": [
11,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If meds are always eliminated in half by the body, how is it ever completely eliminated?
[removed] | [
0.07011276483535767,
0.06624007970094681,
0.031765785068273544,
0.045372068881988525,
-0.013885662890970707,
-0.054672084748744965,
0.029063092544674873,
0.03931371495127678,
0.042282622307538986,
-0.010296755470335484,
-0.020645219832658768,
0.10570160299539566,
0.00936268549412489,
0.034... | |
1hpdco | Plea bargains | Specifically, apart from the obvious advantage to the defendant, what is the benefit of getting someone to admit guilt in exchange for less time behind bars? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cawkblt",
"cawkuzs",
"cawk17n"
],
"text": [
"Explanation provided by my prosecutor friend when I asked him this same question on day:\n\nPlea bargains guarantee the suspect goes to jail if even for a little bit as opposed to taking a chance on a jury trial where the suspect might not get convicted at all. Most plea bargains include a lengthy time of parole after the short sentence. Offenders are much more likely to violate parole, which is easy to prove (didn't show up for the hearing, left the state, failed drug test etc.). Once the offender violates parole the prosecution gets to send the offender to jail for a long time, without having had to deal with an inconsistent jury for the original offense. Gets the offender off the street for the same amount of time even if not for the actual crime and does it in a manner that circumvents the ignorant people that end up on juries.",
"They know for a fact that you robbed the store. They have video of it, you dropped your ID along the way, and mentioned to five people \"My name is Scooter McGee of 123 Fake Ave.\"\n\nThere is absolutely no way you are getting away with that crime.\n\nHowever, they cannot prove conclusively that you are the one who then carjacked the Sentra and took off speeding down the road, police in pursuit, and managed to lose the cops after a 20 minute chase.\n\nSo the District Attorney will give you a deal - plead Guilty to the Armed Robbery charge, and they'll drop the rest of it. You benefit by having a reduced sentence as you're only going in for Armed Robbery and not Grand Theft Auto as well as all the other crimes you committed during the chase. They benefit by not having to have a trial in which not only will there be a lot of City money spent trying to get a jury to agree you did it, but they aren't 100% sure they can get you on the other charges anyway so they could end up spending all that money for... just an Armed Robbery conviction.\n\nNow, let's add in Tough McFacepunch. You and Tough robbed the place, you and Tough stole the car, you and Tough outran the cops.\n\nIn exchange for testifying that Tough also robbed the place, that it was Tough's idea to steal the car, that Tough was the driver.. they'll only charge you with being an accomplice to armed robbery, which carries a much lighter sentence. But with your testimony, Tough's conviction on **all** charges is pretty much a guarantee.\n\nYou'll still go to jail, but so will Tough. Without the Plea Bargain, there's a much greater chance Tough will go free.",
"It's like a settlement in criminal court, essentially. It's often used to put someone behind bars when the case against them might not be a slam dunk. The person gets a reduced sentence, while the prosecution doesn't have to risk getting it wrong. Keep in mind that the verdict in a criminal trial of any kind must be unanimous and the burden of proof is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a tough burden to satisfy even if you've got a strong case. Plus, juries are capable of some truly insane verdicts.\n\nAlso, plea deals are frequently used by the state to obtain testimony or evidence against a nother, \"greater\" offender."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Plea bargains
Specifically, apart from the obvious advantage to the defendant, what is the benefit of getting someone to admit guilt in exchange for less time behind bars? | [
-0.0793190523982048,
0.12174738943576813,
0.0013386562932282686,
-0.022405043244361877,
0.09648294001817703,
0.0896691083908081,
0.031185761094093323,
0.011982646770775318,
0.0714091956615448,
-0.007815822958946228,
0.09077958762645721,
0.0022908311802893877,
-0.021896181628108025,
0.01372... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.