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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
87zux4 | If this is the "explain like I'm 5" subreddit, and everyone here obviously knows that, why does everyone put "ELI5:" at the beginning of every post? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dwgs1pe",
"dwgs4ir"
],
"text": [
"Did you try readinng the rules?\n\n > Posts must begin with \"ELI5:\"\n\n > Posts only\n\n > Reported as: 10. Posts must begin with \"ELI5:\"\n\n > This is meant to help identify ELI5 posts on the frontpage or /r/all or any other collection.",
"The title tags required by most subreddits do this to help viewer's read the title Subject with context. Basically, it's so you know what to expect before clicking the link."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If this is the "explain like I'm 5" subreddit, and everyone here obviously knows that, why does everyone put "ELI5:" at the beginning of every post?
[removed] | [
-0.0746903121471405,
0.00327473902143538,
0.07963872700929642,
0.05270324647426605,
0.08644545823335648,
-0.03570083528757095,
0.04721037670969963,
-0.026516279205679893,
0.09529343992471695,
-0.00869726948440075,
-0.046462368220090866,
0.03393186256289482,
-0.02318119816482067,
-0.0380056... | |
2okr44 | Why does my dog go around in circles before pooping? | We used to count them, his record is 8 before squatting :D | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cmo20pb",
"cmo21r9",
"cmo25i9"
],
"text": [
"To find the best playce of course. He probably has to check, whether no other dog had the same idea before.",
"*five seconds of Googling later*\n\n > It’s all starting to make sense. For years I wondered why my dog spins in a circle before depositing her daily double. But now I think I have a clue as to why. Scientists at the Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague have found that, like other animals, dogs are sensitive to Earth’s magnetism.\n\n > Dogs prefer to do their duty with their bodies aligned along the north-south axis, particularly under calm magnetic field conditions, report Hynek Burda, et al. in a study published in the Frontiers of Zoology. The field can fluctuate and I can’t help but wonder if it’s on those unstable days that my dog circles round and round like a housefly on a windowsill.\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"It is many a dog's dream to construct the ultimate shit tornado but to this day there is no record of it actually happening."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-internal-compass-of-dogs-and-their-desire-to-line-up-north-south-when-pooping/2014/02/03/243d60d2-8b9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html",
"http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/04/breaking-scientists-say-dogs-align-along-earths-north-south-axis-when-pooping/",
"http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/dogs-have-a-butt-compass-poop-facing-ns-pole-140102.htm"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why does my dog go around in circles before pooping?
We used to count them, his record is 8 before squatting :D | [
0.07479770481586456,
-0.036593761295080185,
0.048087459057569504,
0.07364177703857422,
-0.07386640459299088,
-0.017950614914298058,
0.04047858715057373,
0.01249011978507042,
0.10192251950502396,
-0.07220188528299332,
0.0095304474234581,
0.0494808629155159,
0.062132880091667175,
0.087054111... | |
2d2gzg | Why TV shows like The Walking Dead can have extreme on screen violence but cannot air swear words? | My friend recently linked me an uncensored season finale of S4 of The Walking Dead. I just found it funny how the violence is considered okay not to be censored but sex and swearing is nowhere to be seen in comparison to TWD comic. But HBO for example in Game of Thrones do what they want. Can anybody explain to me why this is? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cjlgg59",
"cjljn74",
"cjle9kf",
"cjli3cs",
"cjlmmck",
"cjlo5ho",
"cjlnw7s",
"cjlnar1",
"cjlkgej",
"cjlp9vn",
"cjlucbe",
"cjlsuaj",
"cjlnx3d",
"cjlmhte"
],
"text": [
"In America, foul language (and nudity, for that matter) tends to be much more heavily censored than violence is; in other areas (say, Europe), the opposite is often true. E.g., In Germany, graphic violence is more or less taboo.\n\nTo put it another way, there's Kyle's mom from the South Park movie (I'm paraphrasing, here) -- \"Horrific, terrible violence is O-K! Just as long as there are no naughty words!\"\n\nSadly, there are people who really do think this way. E.g., I worked at a game store when San Andreas came out. People were buying it for their 9 year old kids. When we warned them about the content, some parents would say \"never mind, I don't want it.\" Some, on the other hand, would not care. The one that haunts me to this day responded, \"Oh, it's fine! We just turn the volume off so he can't hear any bad words!\"",
"AMC is on cable and as such it is not regulated by the FCC, so they can show as much violence and nudity and have as much swearing as they want. Comedy Central is the same way - that's why they show uncensored movies late at night (more on that later).\n\nHowever, they're still supported by advertisers, and they have to make sure that they don't do anything to cause their advertisers to jump ship. Why the companies/etc. that advertise during *The Walking Dead* are okay with extreme violence/gore but not nudity/swearing is between them and AMC, but that certainly seems to be the case.\n\nInterestingly, *Breaking Bad* had more swearing, but any \"fuck\" was muted on broadcast, and the one instance of female frontal nudity in the pilot was blurred on broadcast. Again, these would have been due to the wishes of the companies paying for commercial time during the show.\n\nNow, back to Comedy Central and their uncensored movie airings. Like I said, they do this late at night. I don't know if you've watched these airings yourself, but if you have, I'm sure you've noticed what kind of commercials are aired during these uncensored broadcasts - things like phone sex chat lines and Girls Gone Wild tapes. These guys don't care what type of content they're advertising with, and Comedy Central doesn't want to sell them ad time during regular hours.\n\nSo yeah, there you go. To simplify it, there are basically 3 levels:\n\n1. Broadcast TV = FCC regulated (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WGN/CW); prevented from heavy violence, nudity/sex and swearing by the FCC; also has advertisers that might pull their support if they're paired with content they disapprove of\n2. Cable TV = Unregulated (AMC, FX, TNT, USA, Comedy Central), so they could do whatever they want, but they also have advertisers that might pull their support if they're paired with content they disapprove of; content varies from channel to channel and advertising partner to advertising partner\n3. Premium Cable TV = Unregulated with no advertisers (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz); can do whatever the fuck they want because they have no advertisers to back out; the only thing they have to worry about is viewers cancelling their subscriptions.",
"AMC has a policy of no foul language, and they have sponsors. Sponsors generally do not want to be associated with shows that include bad language, racism, etc, pretty much anything that could offend anyone.\n\nHBO doesn't have to report to any sponsors can do whatever the fuck they want, in fact, they are known for it, and have carved out a niche for an audience who desires that kind of show",
"All I know is Rick saying \"they messed with the wrong people\" at the end of the last season should have been an exception for the use of *fuck*\n\nedit: spacebar is what",
"Most likely people wont act on killing each other, but they will swear. \n\nRemember, swearing is the spice of life. If you say it on occasion it can add flavor, but the people who don't know how to cook just over season causing conversations to taste bad.",
"What did George Carlin say about this? \"I'd rather watch two people fuck each other than kill each other.\"",
"> \"Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about! \"\n\n--Sheila Broflovski",
"I always thought that there was some \"zombie loophole\" that allowed shows like TWD to have brutal zombie violence, because technically zombies aren't \"humans.\"\n\nNow that I have typed that out, I realize what an incredibly stupid thing that is to think. Reddit, forgive my idiocy!",
"Swear words were forbidden by the church. They were considered to be blasphemy and that practice still carries itself to this day. Murder and such, the church has no problem with.",
"Besides the explanation of how censorship is enforced, there is one more reason, I think. Graphic violence on tv, in movies and in games is actually special effects. It. Is. Not. Real.\n\nWhen there was gruesome violence in something my son and I were watching, we would talk about the make-up and effects that went into the scene. That removed the shock and \"forbidden\" aspects. \n\nAs for language, I also taught him from an early age that there were certain words that would cause trouble if used outside the house. Guess I wanted to make him work harder to shock me than just using swearing.",
"In Europe boobs on television okay, violence is bad. In America violence on television is okay, boobs are bad.. I'd rather have boobs.",
"Because words hurt feelings and feelings are more important than anything else in the world. Forever.",
"Cause you yank cunts and you'r yank cunt kids cant handle it.",
"Because the FCC is dumb as [f***](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: Spoiler"
],
"score": [
162,
119,
73,
13,
8,
7,
6,
5,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/2012/12/dale_walking_dead_ptc_gore.jpg"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why TV shows like The Walking Dead can have extreme on screen violence but cannot air swear words?
My friend recently linked me an uncensored season finale of S4 of The Walking Dead. I just found it funny how the violence is considered okay not to be censored but sex and swearing is nowhere to be seen in comparison to TWD comic. But HBO for example in Game of Thrones do what they want. Can anybody explain to me why this is? | [
0.04351362958550453,
-0.051445744931697845,
-0.033097997307777405,
-0.05443475767970085,
0.08341243863105774,
0.07534703612327576,
-0.02127722091972828,
-0.04208541661500931,
0.11839231848716736,
-0.02017701417207718,
-0.023899486288428307,
0.004962345119565725,
0.005943791940808296,
0.009... | |
1umrqk | Why does a runny nose (post nasal drip) irritate my throat? | My throat is all mucus membrane isn't it? Isn't the drip just mucus flowing down the back of my throat? Why doesn't it lubricate or hydrate my throat instead of irritating it and making it hurt? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cek2jll"
],
"text": [
"The mucous sliding out of your sinus cavity and down the back of your throat is drier and irritating. It can prevent moisture from reaching the tissues at the back of your throat. You should give nasal irrigation a try, using either a Neti pot or a squeeze bottle designed for the purpose. Neil-Med is the brand I use, they also make packets of salt you can add to the Neti pot/squeeze bottle that has just the right amount of salt in it. You can also try saline nasal sprays--I prefer Simply Saline, some sprays have a chemical taste."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does a runny nose (post nasal drip) irritate my throat?
My throat is all mucus membrane isn't it? Isn't the drip just mucus flowing down the back of my throat? Why doesn't it lubricate or hydrate my throat instead of irritating it and making it hurt? | [
0.11652201414108276,
-0.09887190163135529,
0.03411313146352768,
-0.0026474709156900644,
0.055878207087516785,
0.015444504097104073,
0.04036133736371994,
0.03896826133131981,
0.07197032868862152,
-0.04758636653423309,
-0.10844308882951736,
-0.05643182620406151,
0.049937181174755096,
0.07547... | |
72w23v | How exactly does building credit score work? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dnlpfj8"
],
"text": [
"Ahoy, matey! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: How do I build credit? ](_URL_7_)\n1. [ELI5: Credit Scores & Building A Good One ](_URL_0_)\n1. [ELI5: Credit scores, good/bad ranges, and how to obtain it easily. ](_URL_2_)\n1. [ELI5: What is credit score and how does it work ](_URL_9_)\n1. [ELI5: Credit Score and building credit ](_URL_6_)\n1. [ELI5:How does one build a credit score and get an initial credit card? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5: How do I build credit? ](_URL_5_)\n1. [ELI5: Credit Score and how I can change it ](_URL_4_)\n1. [ELI5: How do you build your credit score? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5: Pros and Cons of a credit card & why build credit score? ](_URL_8_)"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17b3w1/eli5_credit_scores_building_a_good_one/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yyzo9/eli5_how_do_you_build_your_credit_score/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oxamw/eli5_credit_scores_goodbad_ranges_and_how_to/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3je2xp/eli5how_does_one_build_a_credit_score_and_get_an/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tv2n4/eli5_credit_score_and_how_i_can_change_it/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20q806/eli5_how_do_i_build_credit/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3trip7/eli5_credit_score_and_building_credit/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34rgcg/eli5_how_do_i_build_credit/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19i1gw/eli5_pros_and_cons_of_a_credit_card_why_build/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/657wio/eli5_what_is_credit_score_and_how_does_it_work/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How exactly does building credit score work?
[removed] | [
-0.04642679914832115,
0.01861962489783764,
-0.05676158517599106,
0.05655582249164581,
0.010717235505580902,
0.05826902016997337,
-0.03914058208465576,
-0.002646614331752062,
0.011800585314631462,
-0.0046775988303124905,
-0.0028573027811944485,
-0.0412447527050972,
0.04273246228694916,
-0.0... | |
3yliud | How does the paint on the 2015 Bugatti change color? | _URL_0_
Is this a camera trick, or is the color really changing? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cyegcgi",
"cyeg9l2",
"d185qn7"
],
"text": [
"That is a video filter. The car doesn't actually change color. Had you not noticed that everything in the background also changes color?",
"I think it's digitally edited. Everything else is in grey scale and the car is the only thing with any color. As though someone has edited the hue in certain parts.",
"This $2.6M car is coated with thermochromic paint, which reacts to temperature changes.\nIt become translucent when warmed, revealing underneath layers of paint.\n_URL_0_"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://youtu.be/3YNRjON0xVc"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/30/lamborghini-gallardo-thermochromic-paint/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How does the paint on the 2015 Bugatti change color?
_URL_0_ Is this a camera trick, or is the color really changing? | [
-0.03508692607283592,
0.08747830986976624,
0.0848732590675354,
-0.04944424331188202,
0.060419902205467224,
0.010168970562517643,
0.051899977028369904,
-0.04199850931763649,
-0.03811582177877426,
-0.045236799865961075,
0.014211111702024937,
0.014758407138288021,
0.01388721913099289,
0.01296... | |
jy91q | Itchiness! Why do we feel "itchy" and why does scratching make the sensation go away? | I tried to read the wiki but there were too many big words... | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2g3lri"
],
"text": [
"Your body is made of cells. Your brain, being part of your body, is also made of cells. Each cell has different things it can do. Cells in your brain let you think, feel, and experience.\n\nYour skin, another part of you body, is also made of cells. But there are different typed of cells in your skin. There are \"skin cells\" and \"nerve cells\", among others. There are many different types of nerve cells in your skin. These different types of nerve cells can detect different things that happen on your skin. Some of them can detect hot and cold, some can detect smooth and rough, and some can detect when you're pushing on something.\n\nYou get itchy when the nerve cells in your skin detect something itchy. Then, the nerve cells can send a signal (that's something special that nerve cells can do) to the cells in your brain, telling your brain that you have an itch. \n\nThe nerve cells in your skin are triggered by something moving against your skin—so an itch tells your that there's a bug or something small on you. But sometimes you feel itchy, even when there's no bug. That happens because your skin is irritated (inflamed) and the nerve cells are sending signals that they shouldn't be sending. The best thing you can to to stop the itch is to wait for the inflammation to go away, and try to ignore the false signal."
],
"score": [
8
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Itchiness! Why do we feel "itchy" and why does scratching make the sensation go away?
I tried to read the wiki but there were too many big words... | [
0.03067353181540966,
-0.10971279442310333,
0.06985121965408325,
0.052269600331783295,
0.03685174137353897,
0.09643404185771942,
0.11748404800891876,
0.06438332796096802,
-0.03623383864760399,
0.06590881198644638,
-0.03290357440710068,
-0.05491425469517708,
0.008966546505689621,
0.051050614... | |
7vaydc | A priori and a posteriori with easy examples | Having a hard time understanding the differences and what each one is exactly. Plenty of examples of 2+2=4 but how is that a priori? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dtqzx11",
"dtr01dq"
],
"text": [
"A priori means independent from experience, thus 2 plus 2 will always be 4 and can't be changed. It will always exist no matter what - we can't influence the answer.\n\nA poseriori means you have observed it happen. Like President Trump is the president of the US. That's based on what you observed. That knowledge wouldn't exist without human observation.\n\nHope that helps.",
"a priori is something you assume. A posteriori is something you learn/observe. \n\nexamples:\n\n2+2 = 4 is \"a priori\" because it flows from the assumptions of mathematics, before we know anything about the actual universe or the example. We know it by pure thought experiment. \n\nA priori usually refers to something you are putting forward as an assumption, to guide further analysis. So, \"assume, a priori, that we win the war, then what do we do?\"\n\nNow, the parallel a posteriori might be, \"I just checked my bad I have 4 apples.\" That's not about addition or math, it's something you've actually observed about the physical world. \n\nAnother example might be something like \"we just won this battle, what should we do next?\""
],
"score": [
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | A priori and a posteriori with easy examples
Having a hard time understanding the differences and what each one is exactly. Plenty of examples of 2+2=4 but how is that a priori? | [
0.04114033654332161,
-0.047529187053442,
0.10145590454339981,
-0.08251432329416275,
-0.06748983263969421,
-0.022085139527916908,
-0.051147688180208206,
0.0617680624127388,
0.054042473435401917,
0.06289976090192795,
0.04074827954173088,
-0.0043635619804263115,
0.056115295737981796,
-0.03562... | |
2htcx0 | What Do ISPs Gain From Throttling Internet Speeds? | Does it actually cost the ISP more money to provide 100mbps vs 10mbps? What makes huge companies like comcast/time warner want to wreck internet speeds? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ckvt8w3"
],
"text": [
"It keeps them from having to upgrade their network. You could offer everyone the top speed but then if more than X number of people used it they would run out of bandwidth and it'd all come crashing down. They throttle in order to keep this from happening so everyone gets the speed they pay for ideally. Now they've abused it and refused to upgrade their network when they should but that's a whole other point."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What Do ISPs Gain From Throttling Internet Speeds?
Does it actually cost the ISP more money to provide 100mbps vs 10mbps? What makes huge companies like comcast/time warner want to wreck internet speeds? | [
-0.0003307431179564446,
0.04552604258060455,
0.11004295200109482,
-0.026609761640429497,
0.023777756839990616,
-0.014866513200104237,
0.04292786866426468,
0.0644751489162445,
0.009253478609025478,
0.05035259947180748,
-0.03592279180884361,
0.05216411128640175,
-0.06961284577846527,
-0.0252... | |
3oi6dl | What do people mean when they say something "became a commodity". | As an engineer, I never took economics class and never grasped the meaning of this. To me, it seems like people are discussing something that was sold before, but is now sold more?
[This comment confused me](_URL_0_) because I don't see how porn is a commodity in the way that they mean it. Are a lot of people misusing the phrase? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvxevhx"
],
"text": [
"Commodities, generally speaking, are goods and services that have little to no differentiation across a market. Gold, for example, is a commodity because all gold is basically the same; there's no functional difference between gold mined in Colorado and gold mined in West Africa. Agricultural and mineral raw materials are usually commodities. Commodities are often traded on large open markets, like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.\n\nSo, no. Porn doesn't really qualify. The commenter may be misusing the word, or they may mean it like a metaphor that porn was widely produced and easy to get."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3ofo13/facebook_paid_4327_of_uk_corporation_tax_in_2014/cvx4i9m"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What do people mean when they say something "became a commodity".
As an engineer, I never took economics class and never grasped the meaning of this. To me, it seems like people are discussing something that was sold before, but is now sold more? [This comment confused me](_URL_0_) because I don't see how porn is a commodity in the way that they mean it. Are a lot of people misusing the phrase? | [
0.020897837355732918,
-0.030004266649484634,
-0.02335052564740181,
0.030966030433773994,
-0.03006858192384243,
-0.029237495735287666,
0.029818085953593254,
-0.01087347511202097,
-0.05353967845439911,
-0.02744901552796364,
0.05215512961149216,
0.03557930141687393,
-0.0018282260280102491,
0.... | |
p7jm4 | What's happening in North Korean government following the death of their leader, and how this impacts on South Korea + other affected countries. | I know very little regarding this issue. I know that North Korea worshiped their leader (at least this is how the media portrayed it) and that the deceased leader's son is now active on the whole leader-scene?
Thanks in advance! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c3n5vm1",
"c3n6uyn"
],
"text": [
"Short Answer: Nothing. The transition seems to have gone smoothly. North Korea is still just a dictatorial, backwards, and dear leader worshiping as ever.",
"This has been asked several times, with some very good answers.\n\nPlease search the subreddit before posting."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What's happening in North Korean government following the death of their leader, and how this impacts on South Korea + other affected countries.
I know very little regarding this issue. I know that North Korea worshiped their leader (at least this is how the media portrayed it) and that the deceased leader's son is now active on the whole leader-scene? Thanks in advance! | [
-0.01959916576743126,
0.06695836037397385,
0.0012345584109425545,
-0.08841046690940857,
0.11604934185743332,
-0.02752787247300148,
-0.01014363206923008,
0.005275706760585308,
-0.03722839802503586,
0.008907157927751541,
0.016864581033587456,
0.05751779302954674,
0.012221845798194408,
-0.067... | |
30tlrt | How can goats climb near-vertical walls without falling? | I understand they have good balance, but how does it work?
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cpvo2ia"
],
"text": [
"Their hooves have rubbery bottoms that help stick and the two halves can move somewhat independently that allow them to grip onto sheer surfaces.\n\nSource: [What If You Had Animal Feet!?](_URL_0_)"
],
"score": [
13
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://imgur.com/a/yyUXP"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.amazon.com/What-You-Had-Animal-Feet/dp/054573312X"
]
} | train_eli5 | How can goats climb near-vertical walls without falling?
I understand they have good balance, but how does it work? _URL_0_ | [
0.0727773979306221,
0.03525028005242348,
0.013772337697446346,
-0.004915446974337101,
-0.03339746221899986,
0.009979486465454102,
-0.07870013266801834,
0.06388145685195923,
0.009325116872787476,
0.03918006643652916,
0.053257256746292114,
-0.066255122423172,
0.03682563453912735,
0.057782813... | |
491yto | What makes that distinct smell when you heat up an old toaster? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d0oit11"
],
"text": [
"Crumbs wouldn't smell different after a few weeks. \n\nIt's dust on the heating coils. Same smell you get when you first turn on central heating for the winter."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What makes that distinct smell when you heat up an old toaster?
| [
-0.010327575728297234,
-0.029323074966669083,
-0.01563979871571064,
0.051393091678619385,
0.07673901319503784,
-0.11019879579544067,
0.017522944137454033,
-0.008763907477259636,
0.09780339896678925,
-0.03938775882124901,
0.02116887830197811,
0.010409479029476643,
-0.015813073143363,
0.0262... | ||
1x9dqz | What are the protocols put in place if a country sends out a nuke? | * I know there is the mutually assured destruction clause, but is there not something being a better alternative? maybe EMP the enemy country or something?
Is it possible or do we have the technology to strike down nukes before they land? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cf9hcid",
"cf9akaa"
],
"text": [
"> I know there is the mutually assured destruction clause, \n\nMutually-assured destruction (with the entirely apt acronym MAD) is not a clause in any contract, it's just a philosophy, the idea being that they won't bomb us because we'll bomb them back. \n\nIt was never the actual *intent* of the US to engage in any fair or limited exchange of nukes with the Soviets, despite what politicians might have said in public. The Pentagon always had essentially one nuclear war plan: on a confirmed launch of so much as a *single* Russian nuke, the US would retaliate with essentially everything it had. By the time of the Carter administration, the most recent data I have, the plan called for hitting the Rooskies with some TEN THOUSAND nukes over the course of a few hours. This was some time before anybody was seriously grasping the concept of \"nuclear winter.\" And bear in mind that this was a decision a President would have to make in maybe a minute, tops, after being rousted out of bed at 2 in the morning.\n\nWhat most Americans don't understand is that, from the creation of the first A-bomb until at least the 90s (and maybe since, I don't have the data), the *greatest* nuclear threat to the US was from *AMERICAN* nukes, not Russian nukes. It is nothing short of miraculous that we managed to get through the insanity of the Cold War without detonating at least one over US soil. We came very, VERY close on dozens of occasions. \n\nFurthermore, it was pretty much the US that started the whole nuclear arms race. Through a combination of lying and ineptness, the CIA convinced the government that the Soviets were WAYYY ahead of us in bombers in the 50s, and nuclear missiles in the 60s. Both claims were bullshit. In the early 60s, the CIA said the Russians had about 490 nuclear missiles pointed at us, which prompted the US government to go into overdrive on building nuclear missiles. The CIA's estimate turned out to be a just a weensy bit inaccurate. And by \"a weensy bit,\" I mean TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. The actually had four--count 'em--FOUR nuclear missiles aimed at the US. So when we started building nukes like there was no tomorrow, THEY started doing the same in self-defense...in response to which, WE started building even more. Lather, rinse, repeat. And there almost WAS no tomorrow.\n\nIf you feel you're sleeping too much and need something to keep you up and cowering in a corner all night, read 'Command and Control,' by Eric Schlosser. It's an in-depth and exceptionally well-documented look at US nuclear weapon safety from WWII to the late 80s. Combine that with Tim Weiner's 'A Legacy of Ashes' about the hijinks of the CIA, and you might never sleep again.\n\n > but is there not something being a better alternative? \n\nYes. To completely eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet.\n\n > maybe EMP the enemy country or something?\n > Is it possible \n\nWhile many nuclear weapons emit EMP, there is no weapon designed to do specifically that.\n\n > or do we have the technology to strike down nukes before they land?\n\nNo. This is pure fantasy, first championed by Ronald Reagan, and referred to by the aptly-derisive name \"Star Wars.\" It was a dangerously destabilizing policy, and it caused the Soviets, who HAD been growing more moderate, to make a U-turn and head back towards hard-line war footing for a time.\n\nBut because big, profitable defense projects are harder to kill than Rasputin, Star Wars lived on, and few people today are aware that $892 million per year of their tax money is still going to this boondoggle. There are two active anti-nuke bases, in Alaska and California, and there has been talk of building a third. Despite being officially deployed, this thing has never had even *ONE* successful test under realistic conditions. It works just fine if the enemy missiles are launched with plenty of warning and in good weather, if the missiles either don't use decoys or they put a homing beacon on the real warheads, if it's OK to count a near-miss as a hit, and if they only launch one or two. Otherwise, not so much.",
"Both the US/NATO, Russia, and China have extraordinarily complicated list of options in the event of a nuclear event. The current plans are of course among the most classified stuff in existence. \n\nThe chance of shooting down a single missile is very very low, many missiles is simply not happening. Shooting down a bomber carrying nukes gets more variable depending on the specifics."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What are the protocols put in place if a country sends out a nuke?
* I know there is the mutually assured destruction clause, but is there not something being a better alternative? maybe EMP the enemy country or something? Is it possible or do we have the technology to strike down nukes before they land? | [
0.012609408237040043,
0.11040344089269638,
0.01280483789741993,
-0.04617222771048546,
0.022502565756440163,
-0.0280230101197958,
0.002613360993564129,
0.020487774163484573,
0.0004334373807068914,
0.0422915518283844,
-0.035601451992988586,
0.009478280320763588,
0.12208911776542664,
0.037252... | |
1vlgog | What will happen on first contact? Who is in charge? Etc. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cetf5s2"
],
"text": [
"I am not sure who is in charge, or what the response will be, however lots of people have developed Post-detection Policies (or PDPs).\n\nA post detection policy is a set of guidelines and rules put together that give us information on how to react if we meet extraterrestrial life.\n\nAt the moment, I am not sure which PDP is the go-to response. I think that is determined by who makes first contact. However, I believe that SETI (**S**earch for **E**xtra**T**errestrial **I**ntelligence) have a popular one.\n\n[You can see it by clicking here!](_URL_0_)"
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/protocol.htm"
]
} | train_eli5 | What will happen on first contact? Who is in charge? Etc.
| [
-0.15161611139774323,
-0.005507795140147209,
0.00555927911773324,
-0.005428794305771589,
0.004194153938442469,
-0.031699247658252716,
0.06202547997236252,
0.009101270698010921,
0.08122432976961136,
0.022764291614294052,
0.037804897874593735,
0.0014009997248649597,
-0.02244439534842968,
0.0... | ||
3d6b3e | The Apocrypha and why it's not part of the current bible. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ct26na2",
"ct26p89"
],
"text": [
"There are many criteria used in determining what was to be considered \"cannon\" or not. It is a large topic which really is better studied in a Christian theology course, however, some of those criteria are along the lines of:\n\n1. No certain quotes are made from them by Jesus or any of the apostles.\n2. Not accepted by the Jewish scholars\n3. Contains a number of teachings which are in direct contradiction to what scripture teaches.",
"For a long time, there was no single Christian bible like we have today. There were some attempts starting in the 3rd century to consolidate it and by 5th century, it more or less took its current form. The apocryphal books either contradicted established Nicene orthodoxy (by then the dominant strain of Christianity) or were obscure/unknown to the broader Christian community."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The Apocrypha and why it's not part of the current bible.
| [
-0.013214380480349064,
0.0622745044529438,
0.01681358367204666,
-0.03844068944454193,
-0.0233348086476326,
0.015867551788687706,
0.019733013585209846,
-0.029517805203795433,
0.103323794901371,
0.09301016479730606,
-0.01267224084585905,
0.04866277426481247,
-0.021856829524040222,
-0.0675767... | ||
20lshm | how carcinogens effect the body to increase the risk of cancer. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cg4iodw"
],
"text": [
"There are three types of carcinogens; biological, physical and chemical. All of them can increase the risk of cancer in a couple of different ways. One is directly damaging DNA (like radiation), which causes mutations leading to tumours, these are called genotoxins. The other is making the cells divide at an increased rate, which increases the chance of natural genetic mutations occurring, these are called nongenotoxins."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how carcinogens effect the body to increase the risk of cancer.
| [
0.05583449825644493,
0.04862396791577339,
0.03459331393241882,
0.02413235232234001,
-0.010988496243953705,
0.031094033271074295,
0.06768237799406052,
0.08456362038850784,
-0.053026922047138214,
-0.004826919641345739,
-0.026852499693632126,
0.025435464456677437,
0.025367705151438713,
-0.044... | ||
8fep1s | What is the purpose of the propeller on current hologram projectors? | Many hologram projectors have a spinning plastic beam that projects the image. Wouldn't make more sense to have a screen, grid, or lens (as conventional projectors have) for the holographic object to project from? Nothing I can find on H-projectors explains this aspect of the machine. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dy2wq7q",
"dy2x7nc"
],
"text": [
"> Wouldn't make more sense to have a screen, grid, or lens (as conventional projectors have) for the holographic object to project from?\n\nIn no case does an image \"project from\" the device. A spinning arm tries to fulfill the goal of having an image in an area where there doesn't appear to be a screen. When the arm is in an area it flashes some light, and after it moves out of the way it allows the viewer to see what is behind it. The result is that you can see an image seemingly floating in thin air because most of the time the arm isn't in any given location, but while it is the light it outputs is very bright. Our eyes tend to blend the flickering light into the perception of it being solid and steady.\n\nTechnically speaking this display is not a hologram because it lacks the aspect of a third dimension. It is no different from a flat screen that is transparent.",
"Can you show us an example of such a gizmo? I've seen lots of so\\-called hologram setups but I'm not familiar with one that spins."
],
"score": [
9,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is the purpose of the propeller on current hologram projectors?
Many hologram projectors have a spinning plastic beam that projects the image. Wouldn't make more sense to have a screen, grid, or lens (as conventional projectors have) for the holographic object to project from? Nothing I can find on H-projectors explains this aspect of the machine. | [
-0.02271062694489956,
0.08137265592813492,
-0.007584786973893642,
-0.07224125415086746,
0.04088088124990463,
-0.02535363845527172,
0.02184964343905449,
-0.0390678234398365,
0.06918150931596756,
0.0005488026654347777,
0.014646111987531185,
0.05169959366321564,
-0.041014671325683594,
-0.0185... | |
4cdgnu | Why does a bigger budget mean better CGI movie effects? Isn't it all made with software? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d1h6ist",
"d1h6nnv",
"d1h7zdf"
],
"text": [
"Its made by people who know how to use the software. CGI is not easy. You need talented artists who know how to use 3D modeling software. Better artists cost more, but are able to make better visuals.",
"It is, but making it *well* takes time and skill on the part of the effects team, which costs money. Additionally, rendering 3D animation is very time and computer intensive. (like more than 24 hours per frame) Convincingly blending computer and live action assets is more time and energy from your effects team.",
"The software is just a tool, the way a paint brush and canvas is. The real money gets spent on paying talented artists who can get the most out of those tools."
],
"score": [
15,
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does a bigger budget mean better CGI movie effects? Isn't it all made with software?
| [
-0.05736016854643822,
-0.06165260076522827,
0.0503736287355423,
-0.022062866017222404,
0.032657090574502945,
0.01071450486779213,
-0.06016630306839943,
0.06808863580226898,
0.13200242817401886,
0.007280170451849699,
-0.1300596445798874,
0.007410774473100901,
-0.028301367536187172,
-0.01932... | ||
349pu8 | I understand that calories in vs. calories out is the only thing to consider for weight loss, but what about for fat loss? Does what I eat matter if I want to predominantly lose fat and not much else? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cqsk0ps"
],
"text": [
"There are several theories on this with results. There are various diets.\n\nDo not fast to lose weight. Your body will use your muscle mass to feed your brain which needs sugar. Your weight loss will be fat loss.\n\nAny diet you cannot stay on forever will result in the yo yo effect with weight loss and gain. If fasting is included the gain is fat.\n\nIncrease your exercise level. Do what you can sustain. Do not try to run a marathon. Decide if you will run. Train up to a goal. Eat low calorie fruits and vegetables for bulk and vitamins."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | I understand that calories in vs. calories out is the only thing to consider for weight loss, but what about for fat loss? Does what I eat matter if I want to predominantly lose fat and not much else?
| [
0.05239599198102951,
0.08726946264505386,
-0.02256852760910988,
0.04590168222784996,
0.02150687761604786,
0.042346153408288956,
0.01207634899765253,
-0.05748613178730011,
-0.013867337256669998,
0.026682620868086815,
-0.03188326209783554,
-0.017234954982995987,
-0.021739186719059944,
-0.090... | ||
42j9sz | Why have analog records (vinyl) made such a strong popular resurgence in the last 3-4 years, and why do audiophiles often prefer them? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"czawmp6",
"czay738"
],
"text": [
"There is this idea that digital audio can't represent all of the music, but analog music can, and the somewhat related idea that analog audio is \"warmer\" (or more \"organic\", there are plenty of variations) than digital music.\n\nFrom the scientific perspective, this is false. An in-depth but still fairly understandable explanation of many wrong impressions of how digital audio works can be found here: _URL_0_ -- it doesn't address your specific point but the section about sampling is extremely relevant.\n\nThe short version: people see digital audio curves, and due to sampling there are usually \"steps\" in them if you zoom in far enough. That's bound to be less accurate than the original signal!, they'll go. And that's true, but only for ultrasonic frequencies. Everything below the threshold (which depends on the sampling rate, i.e. the number of measurements you make per second to construct the digital signal) can be reproduced *perfectly* in digital audio; that's straightforward math.\n\nThe common explanations of why people still believe in the advantages of analog audio, from a more or less scientific perspective, are these:\n\n* If I've already spent this much on expensive equipment and vinyls (or smart person X has spent this much), clearly there must be something to it.\n* These digital curves don't *look* right. (See above)\n* Not everything about a sound can be objectively measured. (This is, of course, highly questionable from a scientific perspective. A scientist might agree that how you *experience* a sound isn't objectively measurable, and so if you \"know\" something sounds better, the experience can be quite different even though the measurements are identical.)\n\nMarketing picks up on these ideas, of course, and cashes in on them. Some of that has happened only in recent years, but there has been marketing dollar in claiming expensive stuff = better sound since forever.\n\nOne interesting quirk of vinyl is that is tends to prevent some extreme practices in mastering (editing and \"balancing\" the final mix of a song for a release) that have become more and more popular over time, such as turning the volume and the bass up to eleven. So that is one way in which the vinyl can actually be different from the CD release in meaningful ways -- it might simply have been mastered differently. (Which master one prefers is down to personal preference, of course.)\n\nApart from all of that, even if you're not into audiophile claims, I guess it can simply be about the vintage. There's something cool about listening to vinyls that you don't get from clicking on a file on your computer. If it were about audio fidelity, though, I would definitely go with digital, simply because there's no difference as long as the devices in your signal chain (sound card, cables, loudspeakers etc.) aren't *complete* garbage.",
"Short and simple version. \n\nImagine digital audio as a bunch of steps with sharp, 90 degree turns. On the other hand analog audio (vinyl) is a smooth curve with no sharp steps.\n\nTo get the digital to a level similar to analog you need to add more \"steps\" which in turn means a larger file size."
],
"score": [
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why have analog records (vinyl) made such a strong popular resurgence in the last 3-4 years, and why do audiophiles often prefer them?
| [
0.00844220258295536,
-0.02039152942597866,
0.02352217026054859,
-0.0628165528178215,
-0.03209460899233818,
0.041231535375118256,
-0.04029533639550209,
0.043573081493377686,
0.02448340877890587,
0.021184207871556282,
-0.06467416882514954,
0.030379917472600937,
-0.011836324818432331,
-0.0415... | ||
le837 | Cthulus, HP Lovecraft. Is it real Mythology or is it just old horror books, is it actually good/scary/cool? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2rzoqz",
"c2rybi2"
],
"text": [
"They just old horror books. For the most part they were originally published in monthly magazines where the authors were paid by the word. Over the years of writing them, Lovecraft started to weave together a fictional history and collaborated via letter with other authors and swapped ideas. Although he wasn't super successful in his own lifetime a lot of the things that he thought were scary inspired other authors to add to his work and write books set in the same 'world' . \n\nOne of the things that he found scary, was pretty core to his writing, was the fear of the unknown. In his books he mostly only alluded to things like 'elder gods' and 'interdimensional aliens' as far as he was concerned it was way scarier only knowing a little bit about these things than being told everything. One of the things he wrote into his world was the idea that the human mind is incapable of really understanding all the weird stuff, and that we'd go instantly mad if we ever understood more than a sliver of it. When other people started writing books set in his world they *loved* the ideas of Mad Gods and ancient interstellar horrors and added a lot of that kind of stuff.\n\nOccasionally something from real mythology will pop up, because Lovecraft had read about it and thought it was a neat idea. Much in the same way 'Clash of the Titans' has a kraken in it which was written about in Norse Mythology or 'Harry Potter' has Trolls which were Scandinavian as well.",
"They are just old horror books. They were written by HP Lovecraft, who was not the greatest writer of all time, to put it mildly. They are interesting though."
],
"score": [
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Cthulus, HP Lovecraft. Is it real Mythology or is it just old horror books, is it actually good/scary/cool?
| [
-0.030787751078605652,
0.026703057810664177,
-0.04718150570988655,
0.017132798209786415,
-0.05699903890490532,
-0.08602014929056168,
-0.06363627314567566,
-0.02882104367017746,
0.07409656047821045,
-0.0421251505613327,
-0.06696788221597672,
-0.017261158674955368,
0.025850186124444008,
-0.0... | ||
17bcn0 | Why do they call it Legend Of Zelda and not Legend Of Link? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c83xuvg",
"c8440u5",
"c843n6m"
],
"text": [
"Because you are Link, and his name is whatever you put for him. His name doesn't matter, and for all the games history knows his name changes from game to game. The one constant is Zelda because after the first Zelda was cursed to sleep forever the king decreed, \"So that this tragedy would never be forgotten, he ordered every female child born into the royal household should be given the name Zelda.\". Skyward Sword changes this a bit, but you still have all the female children being named after the first one. So since the royal bloodline seems to be the keeper of the Triforce of wisdom, and it presents itself only in the women, you get the Legend of Zelda's.",
"Mostly, Shigeru Miyamoto really liked Zelda Fitzgerald's name.",
"This is what I've been told before. The basic reason is Nintendo decided to take three of their early series/games and name each after a different concept.\n\n* The Hero: Super **Mario** Bros.\n* The Princess: The Legend of **Zelda**\n* The Villain: **Metroid**\n\nThis is the seed for all three series name, though it may have become something more over time."
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do they call it Legend Of Zelda and not Legend Of Link?
| [
-0.033473748713731766,
-0.027916839346289635,
0.007184822577983141,
-0.036136507987976074,
0.0037691222969442606,
-0.03261931240558624,
0.06037556380033493,
0.04966879263520241,
0.05992862209677696,
-0.010995322838425636,
-0.010259944014251232,
0.052643097937107086,
0.013412639498710632,
-... | ||
28ur9n | What's the point of Whoaverse? | As far as I can tell it's exactly the same a Reddit expect there's hardly any community, there are less features and the web design is somehow actually *worse*. Why does anybody think that having a near identical site to Reddit will improve anything at all other than having two small communities instead of one larger one.
The only thing they say is "*we'll delete all your comments when you delete your account!*" which is hardly a selling point as I join a site to actually be on it rather than leave it, and you could just petition Reddit to change to make this an option. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cieoh8s",
"cieon8r"
],
"text": [
"It looks like it was created as a \"truereddit,\" so to speak. I imagine that some people were upset about the admins banning certain offensive subs and mods deleting comments in various subs (many claiming incorrectly that it violated their right to free speech). The main kick seems to have been from the vote change that was just enacted. So, it's basically a reddit with less rules and the ability to completely delete posts.\n\nIt remains to be seen if it becomes as popular.",
"It only costs $20-30 to get a website set up and register a domain.\n\nThere's no reason to assume that just because somebody put something on the internet anyone gives a shit."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What's the point of Whoaverse?
As far as I can tell it's exactly the same a Reddit expect there's hardly any community, there are less features and the web design is somehow actually *worse*. Why does anybody think that having a near identical site to Reddit will improve anything at all other than having two small communities instead of one larger one. The only thing they say is "*we'll delete all your comments when you delete your account!*" which is hardly a selling point as I join a site to actually be on it rather than leave it, and you could just petition Reddit to change to make this an option. | [
-0.009139377623796463,
-0.12934191524982452,
0.001982039073482156,
-0.020777739584445953,
-0.0187017060816288,
-0.06345631182193756,
-0.0285240039229393,
0.03695430979132652,
0.020669732242822647,
-0.04742442071437836,
-0.0033422806300222874,
0.04182847589254379,
0.06330929696559906,
0.037... | |
84ufpd | How were Romans able to build fountains ? | Since they clearly didn’t have pumps at that time and I can’t imagine underground slaves or so manually pumping water for every fountain and every household (since they also got fountains and water taps in their houses ...) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dvsffwk"
],
"text": [
"The fountain was located downhill from a river, and water from the river was delivered via a closed pipe, so that it arrived under natural pressure (from gravity).\n\nYo ho ho! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: How ancient Roman fountains worked ](_URL_6_) ^(_6 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How fountains were possible in Classical Civilizations. How was the pressure kept and turned off and on? ](_URL_0_) ^(_48 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How did Ancient Greek fountains work? ](_URL_2_) ^(_9 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How did fountains work in medieval times? ](_URL_5_) ^(_4 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How did the public fountains work before using electricity to produce water pressure? ](_URL_1_) ^(_6 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How did ancient roman aqueducts work? ](_URL_4_) ^(_9 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: Without access to modern pumping technology, how were ancient civilizations able to build fountains with such high flow rates like the Trevi Fountain in Rome? ](_URL_3_) ^(_2 comments_)"
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27ihg0/eli5_how_fountains_were_possible_in_classical/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/267xyh/eli5_how_did_the_public_fountains_work_before/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82lzal/eli5_how_did_ancient_greek_fountains_work/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hr46o/eli5_without_access_to_modern_pumping_technology/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zx94h/eli5_how_did_ancient_roman_aqueducts_work/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60bqqa/eli5_how_did_fountains_work_in_medieval_times/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b1utt/eli5_how_ancient_roman_fountains_worked/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How were Romans able to build fountains ?
Since they clearly didn’t have pumps at that time and I can’t imagine underground slaves or so manually pumping water for every fountain and every household (since they also got fountains and water taps in their houses ...) | [
-0.061304330825805664,
0.014700404368340969,
0.006194218527525663,
-0.05173902586102486,
-0.10038761794567108,
-0.09848082810640335,
-0.011484766378998756,
-0.038862504065036774,
-0.09071671962738037,
-0.018209153786301613,
-0.02704635076224804,
-0.032445527613162994,
-0.028082191944122314,
... | |
25swp6 | Why does it seem like soap operas are filmed with different cameras than regular shows? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"chken3j",
"chki668",
"chkyvn0",
"chkuk3t",
"chkrc7r",
"chksqxz"
],
"text": [
"Soap operas tend to be filmed on video with no post-processing to speak of, so the feeling is similar to news shows, reality shows, etc. They are also filmed in higher frame rates which, as it turns out, makes them seem less cinematic.",
"30fps versus 24fps makes things look less professional.",
"Originally, the difference was between video and film. Film is shot at 24fps, has a shallower depth of field (i.e. a narrower range of things being in focus), and handles colors differently (usually more vivid). \n\nVideo is different in a couple of ways--it's not just that the frame rate is greater (~30fps in countries like the U.S. and Japan, 25fps in Europe and other nations), but *how* the image is captured is different. \n\nWhen you shoot with film, the camera takes in the whole image simultaneously--the light that enters the camera at the same moment hits the film all at the same time. With video cameras, though, the recording has to record the image one pixel at a time, one row of pixels (a \"line') after another, with a very tiny delay between each pixel. Back in the days of standard video and cathode ray tubes (where a single electron gun would shoot across the screen back and forth to generate an image), this delay was enough that if each line was captured progressively (line 1, then line 2, then line 3), by the time it would hit the bottom line, there'd be enough of a time difference that with movement the image would look distorted. So to minimize that lag (and to return the television's CRT beam to the starting point more practically), video is captured with an interlaced image - every other line on the way down, then the skipped lines on the way up. \n\nIn other words, a single frame of video isn't actually just a single frame, but two interlaced \"fields\" taken one after another, resulting in a higher apparent frame rate (~60fps) and more fluid-looking motion. That effect is primarily why video looks different from film, though there are other factors (like depth of field and color fidelity).\n\nOf course, nowadays, with the advance of technology and the introduction of HDTV, the lines are blurred (no pun intended) by \"digital film,\" which essentially are video cameras that have the characteristics of film cameras, and with some post-processing can yield images comparable to that of real film. Still, there's such a thing as interlaced HD video that's used in live/quick-turnover productions like news and reality and soaps that lend a look analogous to the interlaced video look of standard definition video.",
"While FPS is a factor in this it's not at all the biggest one. \n\nTV sitcoms and soaps are shot a lot faster than their film counterparts resulting in the cameras being set up in a way which means they can work fast. \n\nThey generally use lenses that are 'flat' looking, they have no blur around the subject they are shooting, this depth of field is what people consider a 'film look'. \n\nMost importantly it's a lot easier to shoot quickly in a studio when you open up the lens and shoot flat.\n\nTV shows are still colour graded but very few go for a stylised grade as we see in film.",
"Soap Operas use cameras that shoot at 30fps rather than 24fps. Cheap spanish soap operas, known as \"telenovelas\" (literally tele-novels), shoot as high as 48fps. We have gotten used to films and tv shows being shot at 24fps, and cheaper shows being shot at 30 or 48, so we associate the higher frame rates, which can actually provide a higher quality image, with cheap content and that trademark soap opera look.",
"I digress a bit, but why do old-timey B & W films look like they are moving extremely fast? Think Charlie Chaplin days"
],
"score": [
29,
14,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does it seem like soap operas are filmed with different cameras than regular shows?
| [
0.03029284067451954,
-0.06667181849479675,
0.06689663976430893,
-0.07360490411520004,
0.0626225471496582,
0.0025679590180516243,
-0.027912544086575508,
-0.028716320171952248,
0.1243852749466896,
-0.017482805997133255,
-0.0281330905854702,
-0.020995821803808212,
-0.0336819551885128,
0.02564... | ||
784bkl | Ninth Amendment | Canadian here. What is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, and what are examples of laws that would violate the Ninth Amendment. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"doqze51",
"doqzedi",
"doqzp5k",
"dor0fct",
"dor8wit"
],
"text": [
"It basically allows for the possibility that the founding fathers didn't account for 100% of the rights a person has and will always have and allows for \"common sense\" interpretations of those rights so that they don't need to be explicitly stated in the bill of rights for them to exist and be real.\n\nIt's basically meant to ensure the government doesn't try to restrict peoples rights to the limit of a literal interpretation of the bill of rights. So even if a law was crafted that was meant to restrict all free speech except what is explicitly stated in the first amendment, the law would fail because the 9th amendment says there may be more rights that are covered but not writen in the bill of rights.\n\nThis helps keep the door open for future amendments that are meant to specify rights that weren't writen down previously.",
"It has one main purpose. To protect rights not listed.\n\nIt says that just because something isn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. An example of this is the right to privacy. The idea is that without it, it could be argued that only those listed are rights people have.",
"The drafting and ratification of the US Constitution was a hotly controversial subject resulting in lots of compromise. For fear of the US (or any government, really) devolving into Tyranny, certain representatives wanted assurances, explicit limitations on government power. Many people proposed many such limitations, which James Madison patiently codified into 12 amendments, 10 of which were accepted with the Constitution and became what was known as the Bill of Rights.\n\nThis was not without debate either. Critics of the Bill of Rights argued that it wasn't necessary to explicitly limit the government because the government could only do the things it was explicitly permitted to do in the main body of the Constitution. That is, if the main body of the Constitution doesn't say the government can establish a religion, then we don't need an amendment saying it *can't* establish a religion.\n\nFurthermore, if you jot down explicit things the government can't do, people might infer that, if it wasn't included as a limitation, then the Government is allowed to do it. That is, by including these limitations you might have the opposite affect and empower the government to do things it was never intended to do!\n\nIn comes the 9th Amendment. It is a bulwark against that implication. Basically it is a reiteration of the basic principle of the Constitution: the government is only allowed to do the things the Constitution says it can. And that just because *some* limitations are noted here, and some *rights* are offered protection doesn't mean other rights not mentioned aren't also protected.\n\nThere really isn't any specific law that would violate it. Instead, it prevents the government from restricting rights not enumerated merely because they weren't mentioned as being protected.",
"That amendment is the most broad. \n\nBasically the founders recognized that even though they specifically mention some rights in the constitution that they probably couldn’t mention every right, and couldn’t predict every right that people have an should exercise. \n\nAs a result, the 9th amendment specifically states that anything not mentioned in the constitution is still a right reserved by the people and the states. In other words “if we forgot to mention something, it’s still your right”. \n\n\nThis is a really good discussion of the situation that led to the 9A:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAn example of a law that *might* violate the ninth amendment could be one that prevents people from from getting abortions, for example. (Although recent litigation doesn’t generally use 9A claims) Abortions are not specifically mentioned, but one could suggest that a right to control ones body exists naturally as part of being human, and would thus be protected by the 9A.",
"It basically means your rights \"include, **but are not limited to**\" those in the Constitution, to borrow language you may be familiar with from everyday contracts. \n \nThe Supreme Court will often form arguments by expanding upon the rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, beyond their original meaning. The Ninth Amendment gives them license to do so. They try to imagine the intent of the Constitution and apply it to new situations. They may also devise entirely new rights based on common sense if the Constitution is silent on a particular issue, but someone else would have to comment on whether that has been done before.\n \nAn example would be taking the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and expanding that to imply freedom to remain silent or freedom from being compelled to speak, such as a compulsory pledge of allegiance."
],
"score": [
26,
14,
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/9th-amendment.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | Ninth Amendment
Canadian here. What is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, and what are examples of laws that would violate the Ninth Amendment. | [
0.009071804583072662,
0.029624486342072487,
0.07092850655317307,
-0.10876261442899704,
-0.017834844067692757,
0.0734218955039978,
-0.04011467099189758,
-0.0013705645687878132,
-0.07075297832489014,
-0.019581574946641922,
0.0033972410019487143,
0.0713212713599205,
-0.040202345699071884,
-0.... | |
1prvvb | People always go on about land-fill sites, for what reason can we not just chuck all the rubbish in Volcanoes? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cd5cm14",
"cd5ci5d",
"cd5heq8"
],
"text": [
"Fire does not destroy things. It changes them chemically sure, things go into the air and then there's the ash to deal with. Having said that, humanity does use incinerators to deal with trash (the logistics of trucking trash to an actual volcano would be a nightmare). But incenerators have to deal with the problems of just changing it from one kind of polution to another.\n\nOverall land fills are a good solution to a problem that has existed for thousands of years. The problems come into play when you introduce certain chemicals (often the ones that also cause problems when you burn them). Or when the number of people living locally eclipses the landfills ability to handle. \n\nSo the best solution is not just to treat our trash differently but rather to do a better job of identifying the kinds of trash that are best dealt with in certain ways. In addition to talking steps to reduce the overall quantity of trash in the \"system\". Landfills have an important place in that kind of system.\n\nSo it's not so much about finding something to use instead of landfills. It's about dealing with the hows and whys of creating a total solution that includes landfills and other disposal methods. AND adjusting the kinds (and quantities) of the trash we create.",
"There aren't that many active volcanoes, but there is a lot of garbage. \n\nTo get all the garbage of the world to those volcanoes would be more expensive because of the transport distances. It would require more difficult logistics because there are no roads to a volcano top, so you would need a conveyor belt, helicopters or create a new opening that is road accessible. And finally it might not even fit or burn fast enough.",
"Burning things creates air pollution (What bothers little Timmy's asthma). This is why we need to build a sling shot to launch refuse balls into the sun. A conveyor belt might also work."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | People always go on about land-fill sites, for what reason can we not just chuck all the rubbish in Volcanoes?
| [
0.07134348154067993,
0.006841079331934452,
0.10511323809623718,
-0.011433138512074947,
0.05631454661488533,
-0.13018497824668884,
-0.048884354531764984,
-0.02101680263876915,
0.015511606819927692,
0.0023840477224439383,
-0.02640913985669613,
-0.05810549482703209,
-0.010042402893304825,
0.0... | ||
27myhg | How do evolution deniers use the laws of thermodynamics to prove their case against evolution? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ci2d64j",
"ci2cxzf",
"ci2dr6m",
"ci2e8ht",
"ci2m3l6",
"ci2ikyg",
"ci2lj6c",
"ci2qveu",
"ci2pt41",
"ci2ugxk",
"ci2l48l"
],
"text": [
"They take the notion of entropy, and point out that current scientific knowledge points out two things. First, entropy is always rising. Second, complex biological organisms decrease entropy.\n\nThat sounds like a contradiction, right? That's the argument they make: there *must* be some divine intervention or, according to our best science, there would be no way for complex organisms to evolve.\n\nAs you may have already guessed, the people making this argument are *not* trained scientists. They're missing a crucial detail: entropy always rises in a closed system (one which has no energy coming in). The Earth is not a closed system. In fact, none of the systems discussed by evolution, or biology in general, are closed systems.\n\nIn a single sentence: creationists have forgotten that the sun exists.",
"Their idea is that evolution would be subject to entropy, the tendency to go from an ordered state to a disordered state. However, the rules of entropy don't always apply when energy is being added to a system. Basically, they're neglecting the influence of the sun as a constant energy source on evolution.",
"Answer: They use it poorly. The 2nd law states (and does so nicely) that the tendency for a closed system is to progress more towards entropy than order. \nIf an evolution denier were to fully endorse the 2nd law, he (or she) would be incapable of arranging pocket change into like denominations or un-shuffling a deck of cards.\nThe 2nd law only applies to *energy* and not order in some other way. The lowest form of energy is plain heat. Other forms of energy are of a higher order, such as a compressed spring, or a boulder rolled to the top of a mighty hill. When the spring decompresses, or the boulder rolls down the hill, the amount of energy recoverable from the event will be inadequate to repeat it. Some of the energy inevitably goes to the production of heat, which is hard to capture. \nLife forms on planet earth receive much more energy from their environment than they expend on being life forms. The 2nd law doesn't apply to complex systems that receive a boatload of energy from a different source.",
"They don't, because they understand neither thermodynamics nor Evolution. They try to use the 2nd Law to show that life on Earth should get more disordered over time and thus evolution can't happen. \n\nHowever the 2nd Law only applies to isolated systems, where energy and mass are constant. The Earth is not such a system. Even if it was, the 2nd Law deals with overall entropy, not isolated entropy. This means that evolution could occur, provided that overall, the Earth was becoming more disordered.\n\nIf you ever hear someone try to use the 2nd Law to disprove Evolution, ask them what the 2nd Law says, and then ask them what the other Laws say. You'll find out just how little research they've actually done on the topics.",
"They're not being dumb. These people are just as smart as the smartest around us.\n\nIts possible to understand an aspect of a problem or system to a degree that people at the cutting edge of research do but still fail to see how its correctly linked to other processes. The gestalt of systems is more illusive. \n\nIn industry this is common. The dudes that made the ignition switch for GM that caused a bunch of deaths didn't really see the potential danger.. \"Oh.. it turns off easily.. - isn't that good. Sure the airbags also get turned off if you knee the switch off - but how much could that happen?\".. They never went though that process of linking multiple things to see how they progress together.\n\nThat's common and its the source of general misconceptions in science.\n\nIts kinda difficult to see why the 2nd law of thermodynamics participates in causing evolution while at the same time we can look into the universe and see countless examples of it causing things that are somewhat opposed to highly developed structures naturally occurring. It is hard to understand how this works. You can see both pieces in detail and still its not obvious to 999 our of 1000 of the people even working in the field to see why the two processes, evolution and thermodynamics work in a complimentary way. At its fundamentals there is likely quantum behavior contributing in ways we have not found. The real magic is likely undiscovered.\n\nThis type of deep difficulty isn't uncommon in scientific situations. The twin paradox is another quandary that people get stumped on thinking its an actual paradox and disproves Einstein's work. I'd add that lots are using imprecise conglomeration methods to support wrong thinking about climate science.\n\nNo one is being an idiot for putting the pieces together wrong. They could be getting 18 of 21 pieces right that we don't see, just the critical last three missed. Gestalting systems is a rare ability. \n\nIts certainly possible that the creationists are just pushing triggers on the \"maybe, maybe, my tossed together notions will turn out true?\" gambit but I think they genuinely believe. Once they've arrived at a point that faith can tie them to the knowledge they stop looking further.",
"They argue that it is impossible for a cell phone battery to gain charge, because power always goes down, never up.\n\nWhat actually happens is that you use up more power from the wall socket than the amount your cell phone gained. The power plant produced more power than got to your wall socket. More energy was burned in coal than was produced as electricity by your power company. More sunlight was used up than was stored as coal. More nuclear fusion took place in the sun than reached Earth.\n\nA lot of energy was used up to give your cell phone that little trickle of energy, but the power in your cell phone really did go up.",
"If I recall, and I'm gonna paraphrase, they (erroneously) use the following logic: One of the laws of thermodynamics states that things are constantly shifting from less entropy (in effect, disorder) to more entropy; Things will decay and become less orderly over time. This is supported by the scientific community. Life, however, seems to go against that, by organizing and replicating itself as time goes on. Thus, they say, life could not have been created by the random circumstances of the chaotic universe that science says we inhabit, as it goes against the flow of entropy which defines our reality.",
"Because they're ignorant of the definition of a \"closed system.\" We have a rather large nuclear reactor fusing 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second, and it's only 8 light-minutes away. It tends to bring quite a bit of outside energy into the equation.",
"I need someone to explain the fuckin question like I'm five lol",
"basically they haven't realized that the sun is a thing yet.",
"How? Here's how:\n\nStep 1: Have zero understanding of how the Laws of Thermodynamics actually work.\n\nStep 2: Pretend to have complete understanding of how the Laws of Thermodynamics actually work."
],
"score": [
310,
54,
21,
18,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do evolution deniers use the laws of thermodynamics to prove their case against evolution?
| [
-0.10004077106714249,
0.04292679950594902,
0.011382007040083408,
0.04475598782300949,
0.02477082796394825,
0.03164194896817207,
-0.05310016870498657,
0.018774783238768578,
0.005540737882256508,
0.05174117535352707,
-0.04341212660074234,
-0.0720541700720787,
0.001920886803418398,
-0.0326673... | ||
2m38pn | What are we hoping to learn from landing on an asteroid? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cm0pnro",
"cm0mu1f"
],
"text": [
"One of the key investigations of Philae is the chemical composition of 67P. Philae has many sensors and gadgets on it that can collect and analyse samples from the surface. This data will be sent back to earth for the ESA and scientists to further analyse. \n\nThis information can help us understand the history of the solar system. In the early days of the earth, comets commonly crashed on the surface, splattering their chemicals everywhere. The most important molecule that these crashed comets might have brought is water. Water which is very important to life on Earth. Right now most space agencies including NASA are very interested in finding water in other places in the solar system. Especially in liquid form. Finding liquid water gives a locations to look for possible extraterrestrial life. That's why we are very interested in Europa, a moon of Jupiter. Finding water/ice on a comet confirms the thought that water may be abundant throughout the solar system.\n\nAnother interesting aspect is that comets and asteroids may be stockpiles of rare earth metals. Since the earth has finite resources of these, someday companies will have to turn to mining comets for these resources. Philea can help answer how much of these profitable resources to expect on comets and help project when it would become financially feasible to mine them.\n\nEdit: Wording.",
"If you are referring to the recent Rosetta/Philae landing on 67P, it is actually a comet that we are landing on, not an asteroid. If that is what you are referring to then I believe it is the life-cycle of a comet as it travels around the sun and simply the task of landing on a tiny rock barreling through space that we are after. Other than that I'm sure they are trying to gather as much other data as possible while they are there, though I am nowhere close to an expert on astronomy or the mission itself."
],
"score": [
4,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What are we hoping to learn from landing on an asteroid?
| [
0.03766830638051033,
-0.01761954091489315,
0.0412600003182888,
0.021227357909083366,
0.04596888646483421,
-0.04775058478116989,
-0.017754478380084038,
0.03373470902442932,
-0.05565188452601433,
0.06282021105289459,
-0.062260694801807404,
0.023293929174542427,
-0.027199896052479744,
-0.0297... | ||
38hh65 | Even though birds can't taste the capsaicin in hot peppers, does it still burn like the core of a thousand suns when they defecate? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"crv3jpt"
],
"text": [
"Humans don't \"taste\" it either. Humans have receptors that register it as pain. Spice is literally a sensation, not a taste, which is why you feel it on the way out too. Birds dont have receptors sensitive to capsaicin anywhere in their body, so it doesn't burn coming or going"
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Even though birds can't taste the capsaicin in hot peppers, does it still burn like the core of a thousand suns when they defecate?
| [
0.06731685996055603,
-0.0627031922340393,
-0.01633683405816555,
0.07286371290683746,
0.0793089047074318,
-0.07099254429340363,
0.02388889156281948,
-0.04487965628504753,
0.0611337386071682,
-0.05877786502242088,
0.0005173807730898261,
-0.033667001873254776,
0.06459341943264008,
0.072397664... | ||
228mhb | How do we keep discovering new amazing things in astronomy when it takes millions of years for said discoveries to develop? | Just read in r/science that gas from another galaxy is spilling in our own, revitalizing existing stars. Along with that it seems like almost every month we get something equally amazing discovered.
If they take so long for them to develop, how do we happen to find so many? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cgkegpw",
"cgkeqmn"
],
"text": [
"The universe is very big, we estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies (each containing an average of 100 billion stars) in the observable universe. With that sort of number, it's almost guaranteed that somewhere, something interesting is happening at this moment.",
"Because they started happening millions of years ago, and only now are we noticing them or realizing the significance."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do we keep discovering new amazing things in astronomy when it takes millions of years for said discoveries to develop?
Just read in r/science that gas from another galaxy is spilling in our own, revitalizing existing stars. Along with that it seems like almost every month we get something equally amazing discovered. If they take so long for them to develop, how do we happen to find so many? | [
-0.06231613829731941,
-0.051303476095199585,
0.03838030993938446,
0.08113008737564087,
0.0656297504901886,
-0.06876616925001144,
-0.05779120698571205,
-0.058604683727025986,
0.06787315756082535,
0.027414292097091675,
0.01700461655855179,
-0.017375366762280464,
0.0004540348600130528,
-0.009... | |
8ctof9 | Why does petting animals give us physical comfort? | There are numerous benefits to having a pet, both emotional and physical. But why does the physical act of touching a soft kitty make us feel better? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxhtg0r"
],
"text": [
"Most mammals have special sense receptors that respond favorably to gentle touch, which is why the vast majority of mammals will enjoy being pet (or petting something soft). So gentle stroking feels good to them, almost as much as it feels good for you to do it.\n\nWe also have a certain chemical in our body (oxytocin) which is related to bonding and affection. Research general states that this chemical is released while we're petting or sometimes even looking at our pets."
],
"score": [
8
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does petting animals give us physical comfort?
There are numerous benefits to having a pet, both emotional and physical. But why does the physical act of touching a soft kitty make us feel better? | [
0.05973438918590546,
-0.04123377427458763,
0.10464178025722504,
0.1235041543841362,
-0.014741321094334126,
-0.010217848233878613,
0.06502881646156311,
-0.0036060616839677095,
0.025357119739055634,
0.006237252149730921,
-0.04396989569067955,
-0.050584834069013596,
-0.022739559412002563,
0.0... | |
227ltg | Why are some people able to function on much less sleep than others? | I feel like I'm at a huge disadvantage because I need > 8 hours of sleep in a night to be fully cognitively capable. Compared to someone who only needs > 6 hours, that means I have over 700 hours fewer of awake time per year. This means I can be 700 hours less productive and also miss out on 700 hours of awareness of the beauty and intrigue that surrounds me in this world. I have close friends who function better on 3 hours of sleep than I do on 6. Why does this disparity in sleep needed exist?
Edit: Thank you everyone for answering! I don't feel like I'm missing out on much anymore haha | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cgk3xvp",
"cgk8b1z",
"cgkdf2f"
],
"text": [
"Very few people can actually function properly with a good amount of sleep debt. Most of those people just get used to it, like a high functioning alcoholic.",
"Sleep is incredibly important to the longevity of our bodies, we do the majority of the recovery while sleeping for things like muscle repair, memory consolidation. Sure someone people can function better without sleep but they will certainly not live as long as you!\n\nNow whether or not you talking about them getting all the sleep they need in 6 while you need 8, I do not know...my guess is that they don't actually get all the sleep they need, they just got used to it and it's normal for them now so they think they only need 5-6 hours, they probably drink coffee/energy drinks all day to help them stay awake, they probably don't do any exercise/go to the gym.",
"I work a 24 on 48 off schedule. It took me about three months to get in the swing of things as far as getting no sleep is concerned. When I first started if I was getting less than 6 hours a night I was hating life the next day. Anymore as long as I get 3-5 I'm good to go the next day. I've also noticed I'm completely unable to sleep in on my off time anymore. But I've also learned how to nap anywhere, anytime."
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are some people able to function on much less sleep than others?
I feel like I'm at a huge disadvantage because I need > 8 hours of sleep in a night to be fully cognitively capable. Compared to someone who only needs > 6 hours, that means I have over 700 hours fewer of awake time per year. This means I can be 700 hours less productive and also miss out on 700 hours of awareness of the beauty and intrigue that surrounds me in this world. I have close friends who function better on 3 hours of sleep than I do on 6. Why does this disparity in sleep needed exist? Edit: Thank you everyone for answering! I don't feel like I'm missing out on much anymore haha | [
0.10970444232225418,
0.010100736282765865,
0.050103809684515,
0.11279963701963425,
0.06762292981147766,
0.040506258606910706,
-0.00741404527798295,
0.08198574185371399,
0.026636675000190735,
0.009159978479146957,
-0.1006518006324768,
-0.01829541102051735,
0.005756423342972994,
-0.033287882... | |
27v5tu | why don't girls have Adam's apples | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ci4ol8k",
"ci4rrne",
"ci4olww",
"ci4y4sa",
"ci4r8cr",
"ci4sm36",
"ci4vei2"
],
"text": [
"Adam's apples are found on both women and men they just show up more prominently in men as a chunk of bony cartilage that's wrapped around the larynx.\n\nAlso known as the laryngeal prominence, the Adam's apple sits right on top of the thyroid gland, so the area is fittingly called the thyroid cartilage.\n\nGrown men have larger voice boxes that are a lot more prominent. This is also the reason why dudes speak in deeper tones.",
"Really good explanation i saw on YouTube a few weeks ago _URL_0_",
"Women do have Adam's apples, they're just not as large as men's. The reason men have bigger Adam's apples than women is because they are a secondary sexual characteristic that appear as the result of hormonal activity. Men produce more of this hormone than women. It's the same reason that women have bigger breasts than men or that men have more facial hair than women.",
"Women have them too. The Adam's apple is two pieces of cartilage that come together at a point. In men they come together at a more acute angle, making it more prominent.",
"Some women do have large adam's apples and can actually have an operation to have the extra cartilage removed.",
"A LOT of the comments here are missing critical information....women and men both have it, yes, but it does not protrude as much in women because during puberty they grow sideways (or more flat) than the mens adams apple.\n\nWomens adams apples are sideways, people!! Sideways!",
"We have them. Mine shows a lot sometimes. :("
],
"score": [
112,
48,
9,
4,
4,
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://youtu.be/M0org8URLS0"
]
} | train_eli5 | why don't girls have Adam's apples
| [
0.041871968656778336,
-0.009513667784631252,
0.05382949113845825,
0.022924093529582024,
-0.000269884942099452,
-0.0368303582072258,
0.07160837948322296,
-0.07486752420663834,
0.054991982877254486,
0.0625215470790863,
0.04072966426610947,
0.006246612407267094,
-0.0224644523113966,
-0.057219... | ||
61p2wx | the difference between a thrift store, a flea market, secondhand store, and a "goody store" | My grandma uses these three terms to describe certain places, but I don't know the difference.
She will call one place only a thrift store, another only a flea market, a third one a secondhand store, and another a "goody store" (although I think that last one is a generic term for buying used stuff)
Is it all just old people talk?
EDIT: I added secondhand store later, that's why it says 3 places instead of four. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfg6p7c",
"dfg6v1c"
],
"text": [
"Never heard of goody store. Either old people talk or her own lil saying- which is cute. \n\nIn my town (population 100k- somewhere MD USA) the thrift store is a non profit that accepts donations of all kinds and sells them at very low prices. In our thrift store, they employ individuals with disabilities. ( some thrift stores are privately owned yet operate the same way and are for profit)\n\nA second hand store is almost the same- donations that are resold. Maybe second hand is a price tier up and is a lil more choosey with what they sell where as at a thrift store anything goes.\n\nA flea market is usually outdoors and way bigger than any store could be. Sometimes 100s of venders in a stadium type arena. Sometimes 20 tables (venders) in a church basement. People sell their wares- whether we're talking home made baked goods, home made crafts, avon, those baskets that are popular - whatever. They may pay a price for that table space and have to register to be there. The money they pay for the space goes to the church or venue that allows them to sell their stuff. Flea markets can be seasonal and more a Saturday or weekend thing- not open daily. \n\nHope that answers some of it. I think ultimately its the same with slight difference depending on owner and location.",
"Thrift store is an established location that takes donations of used things and resells them. They often are run by non-profits that use the donated goods and funds to help disadvantaged individuals.\n\nA flea market (or swap meet) is typically a venue containing a number of independent vendors. They may be selling all sorts of things, some being little more than what you would find at a garage sale and others selling cheap knock-off brand goods. They are often only open on weekends at an outdoor location such as an old drive-in.\n\nSecondhand store is similar to a thrift store, but may also include antique stores and consignment stores. Consignment stores allow people to give their things to the store to sell them, with the store taking a commission of the profits. This is commonly used with things like baby clothes where one could use the same location to sell old clothes and buy new ones as the baby outgrows the clothes.\n\nI've never heard of a \"goody\" store."
],
"score": [
6,
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | the difference between a thrift store, a flea market, secondhand store, and a "goody store"
My grandma uses these three terms to describe certain places, but I don't know the difference. She will call one place only a thrift store, another only a flea market, a third one a secondhand store, and another a "goody store" (although I think that last one is a generic term for buying used stuff) Is it all just old people talk? EDIT: I added secondhand store later, that's why it says 3 places instead of four. | [
0.027164103463292122,
-0.08155409246683121,
-0.017436105757951736,
-0.00866658054292202,
-0.025523288175463676,
0.00601738877594471,
0.029315879568457603,
-0.011094074696302414,
-0.07181606441736221,
-0.06576218456029892,
0.13363604247570038,
0.055741067975759506,
0.04117408022284508,
-0.0... | |
1kn9s7 | I often hear a deep rumbling noise that that last several minutes while outside, almost like thunder but on clear days or nights that seems to come from above me, is this a known phenomenon and what is it? | Initially I thought it must be airplanes flying low, but I've never been able to see one while hearing the noise, it doesn't seem to fade out with time, and when I can see a low flying airplane it makes a different sound. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cbqp6cv",
"cbqntbl",
"cbqocn6"
],
"text": [
"Do you consistently hear it? Day after day? Are their times? I dread to post the following link because it feels to 'conspiracy theory' for my skeptic tastes, but it is not an unheard (ha) of phenomenon. _URL_0_ \n\nHowever, there have been cases where the deep hums that can last a while are actually minor tremors that are too small to feel but can be heard. \n\nMore details of you exact situation are needed. Only at night? Frequency? Every day? Random? Can you go weeks/months without hearing it? How loud is it? Is it a really deep hum (Low frequency)? High frequency?",
"Must be thunder then. Lightning thunder aren't limited to rainstorm activity. They just most often occur in rainstorm",
"Could be thunder from a far off storm. Sound can travel a fair distance and you can hear it long before you see any sort of cloud if you see a cloud at all."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum"
]
} | train_eli5 | I often hear a deep rumbling noise that that last several minutes while outside, almost like thunder but on clear days or nights that seems to come from above me, is this a known phenomenon and what is it?
Initially I thought it must be airplanes flying low, but I've never been able to see one while hearing the noise, it doesn't seem to fade out with time, and when I can see a low flying airplane it makes a different sound. | [
0.04461443051695824,
-0.09106164425611496,
0.060370154678821564,
0.04320959001779556,
-0.061784278601408005,
-0.10314653068780899,
0.02516142837703228,
-0.029715972021222115,
0.09494214504957199,
-0.09518147259950638,
-0.027530277147889137,
-0.010445659048855305,
0.012365499511361122,
-0.0... | |
296o3h | If the U.S can use drones in foreign countries, how is it that these foreign countries aren't capable of doing the same thing to the US? | I always wondered how it is that the US can do this, but how it is other countries don't end up doing the same thing to the US. Is it because they don't have the technology? Or is it just fear of an all out scale war? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cihxzl0",
"cihy290",
"cii05r1"
],
"text": [
"The US would shoot it down. Most of the time, US drones operate in places were there aren't really ~~air-to-~~ air defenses, so the drone is fairly safe.\n\nAlso, very few countries that would want to operate drones have a base close enough to operate drones from, whereas the US has bases all over the world.\n\nEDIT: Air defenses, as /u/ClamThe pointed out.",
"Oh wow, thanks, I didn't realize you had to be that close, I always thought drones could be flown over the seas or something. Thanks for answering!",
"Your question has largely been answered elsewhere, but I feel the need to clear up some a common misconception about drones:\n\nDrone just means unmanned. That's it.\n\nIt doesn't mean autonomous. Some are, most aren't. Most drones are remote controlled.\n\nIt doesn't mean armed. Some are, some aren't. Drones are highly useful for reconnaissance.\n\nIt doesn't mean military. Some are, some aren't. There's plenty of demand in the private sector for various application, like mineral prospecting (I have an uncle who worked on a project using drones to survey mountains to find areas that would be best to construct mines).\n\nIn response to [this](_URL_0_) comment, it doesn't mean stealthy. Some are, some aren't. Most military combat aircraft these days take measures to be harder to detect, but that is independent of whether or not it has a pilot. \n\nThe media likes to throw around the word \"drone\" like it's some futuristic and evil super weapon, but it's really not. A drone strike may be morally objectionable, but it's almost certainly not because the drone doing the striking was controlled remotely rather than by a pilot in the craft—if the strike had been carried out by a manned aircraft then it would be equally bad. Drone Surveillance sounds scarier than just Aerial Surveillance, but really they're practically the same (you could make the argument that drones allow the craft to stay up longer, but if the government really wants to surveil an area then switching between several planes and pilots would not likely be enough to stop them). Whenever you hear the media use the word \"drone\" realize that it's a thinly veiled attempt at fear mongering 9 times out of 10 and mentally note that the drone in question is just an aircraft whose pilot is sitting in a nearby facility in a simulated cockpit instead of in the actual cockpit of the craft itself (except in the rare cases of a drone that is actually autonomous, but these are never armed). \n\nSo ultimately your question is really \"If the U.S. can use *military aircraft* in foreign countries, how is it that these foreign countries aren't capable of doing the same thing to the US?\" for which the answer is the same."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.reddit.com/user/niknej"
]
} | train_eli5 | If the U.S can use drones in foreign countries, how is it that these foreign countries aren't capable of doing the same thing to the US?
I always wondered how it is that the US can do this, but how it is other countries don't end up doing the same thing to the US. Is it because they don't have the technology? Or is it just fear of an all out scale war? | [
0.07368043065071106,
-0.0635000467300415,
-0.02056492492556572,
-0.05800892040133476,
-0.000816576590295881,
0.005506377201527357,
0.020782751962542534,
-0.08147232234477997,
-0.038754578679800034,
0.03992075473070145,
0.0007514145108871162,
0.05687286704778671,
0.0962490364909172,
0.00131... | |
1orn3r | Munching Noises (More in Description) | Say I went to a movie alone and munched down on a good big bag of corn chips. I'm making munching noises the whole time. And lets say at a different moment I ended up sitting next to a guy making munching noises with corn chips at the theater.
Why is it that I don't mind the internal munching noises (which are loud as hell) but hate the sound when others make quieter munching noises? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ccuwkqw"
],
"text": [
"You don't? Really? I hate the noise my mouth produces when eating pop corns at the cinema, it doesn't let me hear the movie. \nAnyway, I guess is because we are not really able to be annoyed by something we do. For example, have you have tried to leave the toothpaste's cap open? Isn't that annoying as hell when someone else does it? But when it's your fault, you don't care so much."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Munching Noises (More in Description)
Say I went to a movie alone and munched down on a good big bag of corn chips. I'm making munching noises the whole time. And lets say at a different moment I ended up sitting next to a guy making munching noises with corn chips at the theater. Why is it that I don't mind the internal munching noises (which are loud as hell) but hate the sound when others make quieter munching noises? | [
0.13434554636478424,
-0.12472373247146606,
0.06087028607726097,
-0.011636024340987206,
-0.001467495341785252,
-0.11326965689659119,
0.08235763758420944,
-0.011084125377237797,
0.054892443120479584,
-0.06155739724636078,
-0.02721411921083927,
-0.020147694274783134,
-0.02779204398393631,
-0.... | |
2rtxni | What exactly is Quantum Dot Technology for TVs supposed to do? | I googled quantum dot technology and I'm guessing it has something to do with improving color quality, but the language most sites use are so dense that I have no idea how they work. I was hoping someone smarter than me could explain it like i'm five? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cnj8mum"
],
"text": [
"The basic idea is that they're made of a material that absorbs a wide range of light, and then re-emits most of the absorbed energy as a very fine-tuned frequency of light. Being powered by light re-emission rather than electricity means that you can use them as passive filters to improve the light quality of the LCD backlight, or to create LED light quality without LED or OLED cost."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What exactly is Quantum Dot Technology for TVs supposed to do?
I googled quantum dot technology and I'm guessing it has something to do with improving color quality, but the language most sites use are so dense that I have no idea how they work. I was hoping someone smarter than me could explain it like i'm five? | [
-0.05392475053668022,
-0.0331093966960907,
0.0039563653990626335,
-0.029473192989826202,
-0.048267342150211334,
0.011253943666815758,
0.022570831701159477,
-0.022945741191506386,
0.040991008281707764,
0.0065682269632816315,
-0.05157167837023735,
0.02256147749722004,
0.026662468910217285,
-... | |
1vys38 | What is the difference between cheap shampoo and expensive shampoo? | They're all mostly water, after all - but the expensive stuff really does seem better, even on my manly short hair and bristly beard. Here are the differences I can imagine:
• Profit margin
• Collusion between cosmetics manufacturers and salons/barber shops
• Consumer perception
• Essential oils instead of chemicals for scent
• Extra ingredients in general
Are different detergents used? Weird additives that are more expensive than the additives in the cheap stuff? Trade secrets? Things my puny brain can't even comprehend? The prices are often an order of magnitude apart!
EDIT: I'd really like to hear from somebody who works in this industry, specifically the part where they actually make the shampoo.
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cexhqug",
"cex8okn",
"cexcwhn",
"cex5lly",
"cexkmmv"
],
"text": [
"Source: I used to be a chemist for a private label cosmetics manufacturer. \n\nThe more expensive brands have higher quality fragrances and a higher surfactant to water ratio (lower priced ones are essentially watered down). Also, many have silicones to make hair shiny and silicones are expensive relative to other shampoo ingredients. \n\nA lot does have to do with marketing and advertising too. We often made the same product and filled into two differently labeled bottles. The name brands are advertised more, thus cost more to market.",
"I was told this by hairstylist about ten years ago when I asked what's in expensive shampoo that makes it expensive. She said it's what it doesn't have: wax.",
"Different detergents at different concentrations. Different additives. Aside from fragrances, there are often additives that give the shampoo its appearance, that will affect how the hair feels after, how well the shampoo rinses, and probably things that I cannot even conceive. Ultimately, the goal is to give the consumer the perception that the hair is cleaner, softer, silkier, etc, even if it is an illusion.\n\nShampoos and other consumer formulations are very highly formulated. There is a lot of lab testing and later focus group testing, to try to develop formulations that consumers will prefer over competitors. In some cases, the benefits are real, in other cases, it is just appearance.",
"It depends on which expensive shampoo.\n\nGenerally, if you are purchasing it in the supermarket there is negligible difference and price points are hogwash.\n\nWhen buying a particular \"salon\" or high end brand, for example, Kerastase, you are paying for patented technology not available in cheaper brands.\n\nBasically, you have to get above $30/500mL before you are getting in to quality variation in price.\n\nAnything at the supermarket is the same, be it $2 or $18 a bottle.",
"No one seemed to answer this super well, but the lab guy got part of it when he said less watered down, more expensive, and unique (to shampoo formulation) ingredients that actually do affect the look and feel of your hair. \n\nExpensive \"salon\" quality shampoo is also often more of a specialty product, targeting (and being more effective for) the exact hair type of the user and how they treat their hair. Many products from professional shampoo companies are for a very specific user (fine, chemically treated, straight blond hair, for example). There really is a difference in most cases, but it's up to the user to see how much of a difference and if it's worth the price increase. I've been using \"professional\" shampoo literally my entire life and I can tell the difference in feel and styling when I use the lower quality stuff; I'm not sure if it's necessarily worse because I haven't done it often enough, but it's definitely different. \n\nGirls who colour their hair often and have significant experience using salon vs drug store shampoo can probably lend some insight as to the difference. \n\nPrice wise, a huge reason it's more expensive is because that is exactly where your stylist/salon makes their money. Manufacturers of Head & amp; Shoulders sell to Walmart and Walmart takes their (quite small) profit margin on the marked up price. Professional shampoo manufacturers sell to regional distributors who typically take a 30-45% profit margin when they sell it to the salon and the salons usually come close to doubling the price when they sell it to their customers. \n\nSource: family sold out of the shampoo business a few years back\n\nEdit/ps: oh, and unless it's baby shampoo the main ingredient is most likely one of the sodium laurel/laureth sulphate/sulphites, that's the part that cleans and it's pretty standard across most all shampoos that aren't organic/natural/etc., regardless of price or quality."
],
"score": [
8,
8,
5,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is the difference between cheap shampoo and expensive shampoo?
They're all mostly water, after all - but the expensive stuff really does seem better, even on my manly short hair and bristly beard. Here are the differences I can imagine: • Profit margin • Collusion between cosmetics manufacturers and salons/barber shops • Consumer perception • Essential oils instead of chemicals for scent • Extra ingredients in general Are different detergents used? Weird additives that are more expensive than the additives in the cheap stuff? Trade secrets? Things my puny brain can't even comprehend? The prices are often an order of magnitude apart! EDIT: I'd really like to hear from somebody who works in this industry, specifically the part where they actually make the shampoo. | [
-0.0035999834071844816,
-0.045233070850372314,
0.08605209738016129,
0.0004369411326479167,
0.07125945389270782,
-0.0063674538396298885,
-0.035463713109493256,
0.06497147679328918,
0.04357302933931351,
-0.0010633778292685747,
0.007721906062215567,
0.028677402064204216,
-0.02927163988351822,
... | |
1z1khm | Which version of the bible is "the bible" | not trying to start a fight, just interested to know if a specific translation or version is the most respected. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfpp1tu",
"cfpofkd",
"cfpoced"
],
"text": [
"None of them. Before Constantine the roman emperor made Christianity romes state religion there were different sects of Christians and hundreds of gospels competing for attention. When Constantine adopted it he called for the Christina elders to make one book everyone could rally around. Mark, Luke, Matthew, etc. weren't friends of Jesus they were the guys in charge of making a cliff notes version of all the different gospels floating around. Look into the gospel of Thomas, the dead sea scrolls, gnostisim, etc.",
"Every version is \"The Bible.\" The better question is which one is more accurate. Some people feel The King James version is most authoritative. A basic Wikipedia search does not tell me why people feel that way (I suspect that it is based off of tradition.)\n\nThe most accurate Bible in literal translation is somewhat difficult to understand because the idioms from the original culture are foreign to us. A thematic translation (NIV) would try to convey the original meaning, even if the words change during translation.\n\nThis link provides a bit of explanation of what I'm trying to say:\n_URL_0_\n\nI personally prefer NIV because of clarity.",
"You aren't going to get a definitive answer to this question. Nearly every denomination subscribes to a different translation of the text."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence"
]
} | train_eli5 | Which version of the bible is "the bible"
not trying to start a fight, just interested to know if a specific translation or version is the most respected. | [
-0.005897625349462032,
0.11210981011390686,
0.006737746763974428,
-0.09387290477752686,
0.0446195974946022,
0.014825649559497833,
-0.05372781306505203,
0.00596576789394021,
0.06300988793373108,
0.06262139976024628,
-0.07193341106176376,
0.06340990215539932,
-0.04151993244886398,
0.00942536... | |
2m7038 | If we can build the Keystone XL pipeline, why don't we build a giant water pipeline from the Great Lakes to California to alleviate the drought problems there? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cm1hc6k",
"cm1hanb"
],
"text": [
"Because keep your hands off our water.\n\nBut seriously, there's a whole ecosystem going on over there, and mass-draining the water will fuck with that. A ton of goods get shipped in and out of Detroit and other cities via freighters, and if the water level drops too low, it could cut off supply chains. Tourism would be affected if shipping the water damaged the beaches or made recreational boating impossible (Lake Erie is not all that deep in areas where people do a lot of boating so a drop of a few feet could make some areas impassable or some ports impossible to dock in). Those are mostly reasons why Michigan and the surrounding states wouldn't allow it.\n\nThe real reason is just that there isn't all that much money in water, especially for irrigation, but building a trans-national pipeline is expensive and difficult. I imagine the profit margins just aren't high enough.",
"this would essentially drain the great lakes, which have already been receding at a frightening level over recent years. Lake Huron has receded so much in the past decade (about a foot or two where my family's cottage is) that my uncle had to extend his dock 50 feet to get to a point where the water was deep enough for a small boat. Additionally building, and sustaining something like that would be quite costly, with no real profit."
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If we can build the Keystone XL pipeline, why don't we build a giant water pipeline from the Great Lakes to California to alleviate the drought problems there?
| [
0.0025173649191856384,
0.006793559994548559,
0.10619016736745834,
-0.029177764430642128,
-0.05472683534026146,
-0.045932669192552567,
-0.09448543190956116,
0.02139381319284439,
-0.033624034374952316,
0.011503415182232857,
-0.1027926355600357,
0.04172392934560776,
-0.024648305028676987,
0.0... | ||
8s42n6 | How is outer-space relevant in modern warfare, what would space combat look like? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e0wdyct",
"e0we71t",
"e0wed94",
"e0wdzm4",
"e0wgbsp"
],
"text": [
"It's where satellites are, and satellites are the backbone of modern communications and photo-reconnaissance technology. The GPS satellites, for example, allow the US military to guide vehicles and weapons to anywhere on the globe with a tiny margin of error. That's a *HUGE* advantage in a fight. Reconnaissance satellites orbit constantly and collect images of whatever the owner of the satellite wants pictures of. Being able to shoot down, damage, or confuse your enemy's satellites seriously limits his ability to gather information.\n\nAs for space combat, at the moment it looks a lot like slinging missiles (or potentially laser beams) at your enemy's satellites/unmanned spacecraft to disable or destroy them. We're a few lifetimes away from spaceship dogfights.",
"*Outer* space isn't relevant at all. Earth orbit is however. Earth orbit is full of satellites; communication satellites, spy satellites, weather satellites, GPS satellites, etc. These satellites are critical to controlling a military operation on the opposite side of the globe.\n\nSpace warfare would likely look like a lot of missiles being launched at these satellites. The US does have a couple of classified projects in space. It's entirely possible that we've already got some kind of kill drone in orbit, to engage, destroy, and/or capture enemy satellites.",
"A large mass dropped from space can release as much energy as a nuke without radiation.\n\nThe ability to take down satellites of your rivals would be very desirable in war time.",
"Space-based resources like satellites are used for communications (coordinating between friendly forces) and taking pictures. \n\nModern day \"space combat\" would be focused on trying to disable or destroy satellites (maybe electronically with hacking or physically with missiles).",
"You ever watch Star Wars, where Obi Wan famously tells Darth Vader he holds the high ground? That is what orbit around the Earth would represent. Imagine having an orbital platform with railgun darts firing at emplacements / infantry with the firepower of a small tactical nuke, but without the pesky fallout radiation. Whichever country holds the skies, holds the world."
],
"score": [
12,
7,
4,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How is outer-space relevant in modern warfare, what would space combat look like?
[removed] | [
0.0011432109167799354,
0.05289192870259285,
0.020512402057647705,
-0.03398982807993889,
0.01041573565453291,
0.007859202101826668,
-0.03840527683496475,
0.011223657988011837,
-0.05123409628868103,
0.09802044183015823,
-0.007685550022870302,
-0.01292212400585413,
0.002580539556220174,
-0.01... | |
8d2chk | How does hitting hard surfaces with your fists make your knuckles stronger? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxjqfxa",
"dxjqozp",
"dxjyhyw",
"dxjqp6p",
"dxjqe6d"
],
"text": [
"The same way that walking barefoot for an extended period of time makes the sole of your foot more durable and tolerant to pain. The skin forms calluses (another example is callus formation at the finger tips in guitar players). \n\nAnother phenomenon is something called Wolff’s law. The link below explains this law. Essentially, if you load a bone with physical stresses, it stimulates the bone to become stronger. The opposite is true as well\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAstronauts lose something like 1 to 2% of bony mass per month because of the absence of gravity. When it comes to the body “what you dont use, you lose”",
"If I remember properly, the term is calcification. The bones, like any other tissue, will have micro breaks that when in the process of healing will do so through a calcification process which hardens and increases the bone density.",
"In the simplest terms, hitting hard surfaces (or any physical stress exerted on a bone) causes micro-fractures in your bones, which repair stronger than they were. \n\nThe phenomenon is called Wolff's law, named after a german surgeon, Julius Wolff (1836–1902). If you dumb it down, his law basically states that the body of a healthy person (or animal) adapts to loads it suffers (forces, traumas, etc).",
"Thank you guys for the quick responses :)",
"It gives you calluses. I wouldn't suggest it without taping properly or you'll break a knuckle or your wrist."
],
"score": [
28,
7,
5,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolff%27s_law"
]
} | train_eli5 | How does hitting hard surfaces with your fists make your knuckles stronger?
| [
0.029751751571893692,
-0.1078549474477768,
-0.010569920763373375,
0.07413939386606216,
-0.033996861428022385,
-0.06767094880342484,
0.03604039177298546,
0.03966429829597473,
0.02708803117275238,
-0.00886584259569645,
-0.05043643340468407,
0.010775918141007423,
0.03797755390405655,
0.031042... | ||
3ipkka | Why are American houses often of such poor quality? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cuihrd5",
"cuihpnt",
"cuih5xz",
"cuihmqm",
"cuihotq",
"cuih45d",
"cuihvgs",
"cuihxb8",
"cuiogrt"
],
"text": [
"But are they? I mean you are talking the dry wall in a house. There is no point of putting harder/heavier/more expensive materials on the inside of the house. As you have the studs in wall in case you need more support. Also take into consideration many houses in the US are built along the coast and made to withstand some Hurricanes, while in the Plains they are routinely hit with Tornadoes and some houses can withstand that. Again it all comes down construction costs, but I also think many homes are much more durable than you think. Keep in mind how much older homes are in Europe and how much less room there is in Europe compared to here. So different construction methods and different materials were used in the building process. I also think that another consideration is that American homes are much larger than in Europe. So if they are of lesser quality, I think that some of the cost may be spread out more materials for larger houses.",
"American consumers want a house that is 2-3x the size of the average German or British house and they want it for 1/2 the price that it would fetch in Germany or the UK and this is the result.\n\nMost of Europe very population dense. Which leads to housing being smaller and more expensive. The averge price per SQM in germany for a living space is ~$2700 in the USA it is closer to ~$1550.\n\nMeanwhile the average size of a living space in the US is over 200 SqM while in germany is is less than 100 SQM.",
"From what I see American housing generally seems to be of wooden frame construction. Plastic board (dry wall) interior walls. Now that’s not in the cities but more the suburbs and rural areas.\n\nI assume its due to the cost, timber is far cheaper than cinder block (concrete) and brick construction, it covenant and faster to build.\n\nEdit - Plaster board not plastic (trying to type on here and do work lol)\n\nComing from the UK most houses like europe are concrete and brick construction.",
"What do you mean?\n\nIf you are talking about being made from wood it is because it is cheap and we can get larger houses by building with it. \n\nPunching houses is not really a problem, only idiots do that. \n\nWood houses are also safer in earthquakes, are equally vulnerable to tornadoes (a tornado resistant bunker is 4' thick walls that are steel reinforced) and hurricanes (most damage is done by flooding, though winds will tear apart buildings similar to weaker tornadoes as the winds are slower). They are more vulnerable to fires but that is the only disaster that they are at a significant disadvantage in.",
"First off, new builds in Europe are made with the same principles, e.g. wood framing + plaster board/drywall/etc. you might have a brick exterior but the inside of the house isn't a fucking 13th century castle made of limestone or whatever...\n\nSecond, I wouldn't call NA homes \"poor quality.\" I mean yes builders fuck up mundane shit routinely (e.g. get caulking wrong, don't patch drywall cleanly, etc...) but generally speaking framing and what not is built to code. I doubt construction folk in the EU are all perfect either. They're subjected to the same human limitations/biases/etc as we are.",
"Maybe their houses are the same strength as ours. It might be just a simple case of Americans being considerably stronger than us and able to punch their way out of anything.",
"In addition to plentiful supply of lumber, timber houses can be insulated with narrower walls than stone/concrete homes. Insulation is more important in most of the US, where temperature extremes tend to be larger than in most of Europe.",
"Houses in Europe average a lot older than in the US. We, too, have many homes and buildings made of structural brick, but the majority of homes here have been built after faster methods and cheaper materials were developed.\n\nWhile there are less than honourable contractors here, there are still plenty that perform quality work and use premium materials. You just have to be willing to pay for it. There are limits to size vs quality when levied against what you are willing to pay. I once worked for an outfit that cleaned up after construction in upscale subdivisions where the buyers had a lot of leeway in furnishings, trim, etc. and I was amazed how the quality would vary. You want nice stuff, you pay for it.\n\nNothing wrong with our wall design, it's just how we do it. Plenty timber and gypsum available. The space inside permits decent insulation. If you aren't an idiot and take care of your home, it lasts. My subdivision is 60 years old. Interior looks awesome after I updated with modern style trim. No cracks in any of the joints, no holes, everything is solid. Not designed for ramming at full speed, so don't. People in Europe don't do that, because the walls would kick their ass.",
"You are starting from a false premise. American houses are not of poor quality and you did not even give an example of poor quality, you just assumed it to be true based on nothing at all. I would love to see you punch through the exterior of a house, or a wood stud. You can cut through drywall, but it's designed that way. Behind the drywall is the structure supporting material (metal or wood), pipes, and electrical wires. If it was solid brick or concrete and you needed to get behind it, you would be unable to do so without a crew of people to bust open holes or drill through it."
],
"score": [
25,
18,
12,
11,
7,
7,
5,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are American houses often of such poor quality?
| [
0.12771865725517273,
-0.029375813901424408,
0.09159719198942184,
0.05529816821217537,
-0.01574723608791828,
-0.04517880082130432,
-0.06629937142133713,
-0.08352784067392349,
-0.010967802256345749,
-0.016078129410743713,
-0.0073785013519227505,
0.03738784417510033,
0.05598706007003784,
-0.0... | ||
7qpggt | why is there no thunder or lightning during a snowstorm? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dsqx888",
"dsr1z8m",
"dsr2e59"
],
"text": [
"I've seen and heard lightning in a snowstorm. Worked at a ski resort as a lift operator, nothing more scary than lightning when you're sitting in a metal shack at the top of a mountain. The weather people call it *thundersnow*.",
"It's possible. Meteorologists call it \"thundersnow\", but it's pretty rare. I'm far from a weather expert but I can make an educated guess on why this is the case.\n\nThunderstorms are caused when you have columns of warm, humid air clashing with cooler air. Since hot air is less dense, it rises, forming towering clouds. Daytime heating energizes this cycle, forcing more hot, unstable air upwards. The huge amount of energy in these clouds creates a strong convection current. Any particles within that current will collide building up a static charge, and you get lightning. \n\nWinter storms though just don't have that kind of energy. They tend to start life as cooler, dryer air moving across relatively warm bodies of water. They can suck up a huge amount of moisture, but without the daytime heating, there's just not enough energy to create the convection currents necessary to produce lightning. \n\nTo get thundersnow, you have to have a line of storm cells move over top a layer of cooler air, where precipitation will turn into snow before it hits the ground.",
"As a resident of Montana I will say that although it is quite rare, thundersnow does happen. It is bloody creepy."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why is there no thunder or lightning during a snowstorm?
[removed] | [
0.004965921863913536,
-0.01348151359707117,
0.021924268454313278,
0.052503328770399094,
0.02851131558418274,
0.018828071653842926,
0.023205159232020378,
-0.018819155171513557,
0.1385057121515274,
-0.04242736101150513,
-0.0036176505964249372,
0.031138742342591286,
0.04955313727259636,
-0.04... | |
7mve2z | How and why do spider webs become cobwebs? | What processes go into webs becoming cobwebs? How do the webs lose their "stickiness"? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drwx4x2",
"drwx7oj"
],
"text": [
"> How do the webs lose their \"stickiness\"?\n\nThey get covered in dust. Spiders frequently rebuild their webs in new locations. The old, abandoned web ends up collecting dust, which makes it less sticky, just like covering a piece of tape with dirt and debris makes it less sticky.",
"i believe its an accumulation of dust and detritus on the web. imagine a sticky piece of scotch tape, laid face up, and you blow a weeks worth of accumulated house dust onto it. all the dust will stick to the sticky part of the tape, making it not sticky any longer. same concept, i think."
],
"score": [
21,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How and why do spider webs become cobwebs?
What processes go into webs becoming cobwebs? How do the webs lose their "stickiness"? | [
0.022631779313087463,
-0.08459889143705368,
0.008298704400658607,
0.02148621715605259,
0.024074813351035118,
-0.06318632513284683,
-0.03590976446866989,
-0.03958551213145256,
-0.043009426444768906,
-0.002402007346972823,
0.004159143660217524,
0.012382937595248222,
0.008557806722819805,
-0.... | |
7ckd1l | Why does the raidio only play certain songs by an artist and not any song that is good by them? Even old artists with no albums to promote. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpqmbal",
"dpqrgy3",
"dprgjvi"
],
"text": [
"To put it simple, it's been analysed that the audience stay on the station when the music is recognisable.",
"A local radio morning show actually explained this a few weeks ago in my area. Basically, the stations quickly lose listeners if they play \"unknown\" music. Playing popular and recognizable songs is what most people actually want and will stick to a station for.\n\nE: a word",
"Real answer is that labels pay them to promote their songs. If the song is played a lot people think it's popular and thus good. If you request another song they won't play it unless it's already on their playlist.\n\nRadios play ads right? Well every single time a song is played they earn royalties. Ads pay for them, and the station had a contract. More plays is more money for everyone. \n\nIt is a system in the business and that's why you never hear the whole CD or less known artists on major stations."
],
"score": [
13,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does the raidio only play certain songs by an artist and not any song that is good by them? Even old artists with no albums to promote.
| [
0.05959140136837959,
-0.09625262767076492,
-0.022859910503029823,
-0.0645960122346878,
-0.016952374950051308,
0.03686979413032532,
0.010084736160933971,
-0.057631902396678925,
-0.005796034820377827,
-0.03795180097222328,
-0.06255581229925156,
0.05938640236854553,
0.042905908077955246,
-0.0... | ||
429j3s | How come it seems no one on the east-cost of America is able to handle and prepare for a snowstorm? | I feel like the media is blowing this out of proportion and I also understand that a heavy snowfall can seriously affect congestion in a major city. Maybe because I am from Ottawa and therefor my definition of a snowstorm is jaded, it doesn't seem all that bad. This isn't anything new right? You guys get these at least once a year I think. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cz8oq1v",
"cz8o8s5",
"cz8ssbc",
"cz8o64t",
"cz8ou2e"
],
"text": [
"I live in coastal New England. One thing to note is our winters are extremely unpredictable. Last year we had like 20 feet of snow, this year we haven't had any (and am only getting a few inches from this storm). How do you budget in something that can cost anywhere from five million to nothing. \n\nAnother thing to note is that our snow tends to be very wet and heavy. 18-24 inches of snow means collapsed buildings and roads that can't be plowed by anything but heavy duty, commercial trucks and machinery. My town of 80,000 relies mostly on private contractors to plow neighborhoods and uses big city plows to focus on the highways. Well we got 20 inches of wet heavy snow and the private contractors simply couldn't push it. On top of that we had downed power lines. So there were millions of people who had no power, no heat, and no ability to go anywhere.\n\nAlso, the east coast of the US has ALOT of people. Any weather event that effects millions of people is overly covered.",
"Most of the east coast gets blasted with this kind of snow all the time; people are only really panicking in the southern areas that typically don't.\n\nFor pretty much everything south of D.C., a snowstorm on this scale is very unusual.",
"The people on the East coast are quite capable and ever-ready to handle any Winter storm. It's the local media that turns every snowflake into a raging snowman with wildly speculative forecasts designed to get you to tune in versus to give you the real facts. I may be biased, but I've lived through 44 years of New England storm forecasting to know enough to wait it out, it's never as bad as they say it's going to be.",
"> This isn't anything new right? You guys get these at least once a year I think. \n\nPretty much. Some of the southern cities affected don't have a lot of snow removal equipment and will have to lease/borrow some, and maybe close school for a week. Other than that it's just the media's usual annual \"SNOWMAGEDDON!!!!\" coverage because it's a slow news week.",
"It's a big deal in the southeast, but anywhere above DC is used to it. It's getting so much coverage in the media because there's not much else to cover right now."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How come it seems no one on the east-cost of America is able to handle and prepare for a snowstorm?
I feel like the media is blowing this out of proportion and I also understand that a heavy snowfall can seriously affect congestion in a major city. Maybe because I am from Ottawa and therefor my definition of a snowstorm is jaded, it doesn't seem all that bad. This isn't anything new right? You guys get these at least once a year I think. | [
0.04121391475200653,
-0.07555577158927917,
0.16693395376205444,
0.06803876906633377,
0.023134568706154823,
0.019922299310564995,
-0.0606226846575737,
0.027582766488194466,
0.026238171383738518,
0.0753350630402565,
-0.07524721324443817,
0.06534390151500702,
0.03854073956608772,
-0.011119519... | |
2ylk80 | Why is it a bad idea to freeze food that's been defrosted? | Thanks for your answers! Everyone seems to focus on food quality which I understand why can be deteriorated. But all food safety guides are adamant that refreezing is dangerous and risky and should always be avoided but I don't understand their rationale. How does it alone increase the bacterial load of the food? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cpao8d8",
"cpanyi6",
"cpanomo"
],
"text": [
"Freezing and unfreezing food can destroy the integrity of that food. When you freeze something whether it is meat, vegetables, a fully prepared meal, or bread the water in the food crystallizes. These crystals can ever so slightly damage the material/tissue around them. When you thaw the food the crystals disappear, but if you refreeze it the next crystals will not be the same shape or size. So you are continuing the \"damaging process\" over and over. There are many different things that can happen when you refreeze something that's been fully thawed, for some foods you may just ruin the flavor and texture (like freezer-burn) but with other foods there may be health concerns with refreezing. Raw meat for instance shouldn't be thawed out and refrozen since bacteria may have had a chance to start growing and could make you sick. Precooked foods (like leftovers you've stored in the freezer) shouldn't have that kind of problem but the more times you defrost and refreeze the less tasty it will become. If you let your frozen foods start to thaw on the way home from the store you shouldn't have a problem tossing them back in the freezer when you arrive.",
"Ice crystals form during freezing. These crystals cause microscopic damage to the food by poking tiny holes in the food's structure. When thawed the food's texture has changed. A second freeze-thaw cycle makes the problem worse. The food's quality after the first thaw is not as good as fresh, but still acceptable. After a second thaw the quality will be worse. Some foods may be OK after several thawings, others may not survive the first.",
"It's just to be careful mostly because the total time the food has been at a temperature at which bacteria that can make you sick directly or bacteria that produce toxins in the food that can make you sick can easily go beyond a safe amount if you are refreezing and defrosting again. It's also recommended to not refreeze because this can lower the quality and taste of some foods. With other things it's fine though, it depends on the food in question."
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is it a bad idea to freeze food that's been defrosted?
Thanks for your answers! Everyone seems to focus on food quality which I understand why can be deteriorated. But all food safety guides are adamant that refreezing is dangerous and risky and should always be avoided but I don't understand their rationale. How does it alone increase the bacterial load of the food? | [
-0.056362368166446686,
-0.0534551739692688,
0.048866961151361465,
0.06322694569826126,
0.03395897150039673,
0.024903584271669388,
-0.02264629676938057,
0.07414870709180832,
0.014876222237944603,
0.03460376709699631,
-0.050184283405542374,
0.0379343181848526,
0.032913271337747574,
-0.043319... | |
7fg9ur | I’ve stood every single day of my life, so how are my legs and back still sore after a day of work when they should be used to the strain? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqblfi4",
"dqbm1hl",
"dqbq5pu",
"dqbmyym"
],
"text": [
"Your body doesn't handle standing all day well . It didn't evolve that way. Standing and moving takes a lot of muscle effort for us to maintain and is very hard on our joints.",
"You can only get used to it to a certain extent and then it starts to strain.\n\nIt'll take evolution over generations doing the same thing to get that \"used to strain\" feeling.",
"There are two basic types of muscle exercises: isotonic and isometric. Isotonic means the muscle is contracting, while isometric means tension is increasing but the muscle stays the same length. Standing (and posture in general) is isometric. Your muscles are constantly engaged to make sure you don't fall over or slouch or anything like that. When you're actually doing work and moving around, that is isotonic exercise. Your muscles simply aren't used to activating in a different way.",
"This may not be your point, but there's a difference between standing every day and standing for an entire day. \n\nThe same way there is a difference between doing 1 push up and 1000 push ups."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | I’ve stood every single day of my life, so how are my legs and back still sore after a day of work when they should be used to the strain?
[removed] | [
-0.013482474721968174,
0.007257821504026651,
-0.01865505799651146,
0.10388635843992233,
0.022706108167767525,
-0.006697281263768673,
0.015615595504641533,
0.037487879395484924,
-0.025960683822631836,
-0.05449184402823448,
-0.06741082668304443,
0.1151316910982132,
0.025484776124358177,
0.06... | |
8q9dcj | Why is it sometimes so hard to remember someone’s exact face? | I noticed that I only remember my parents’ faces and the people I see daily, but aside from them, I take a long time to recall someone’s face from my memory and fail most of the time, even if I’ve known the person for years. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e0hfvhd",
"e0hgiya",
"e0hewqt",
"e0hi90t"
],
"text": [
"I'll be mainly referencing How to Create a Mind by Ray Kurzweil.\n\nAccording to the book, the brain's working mechanism heavily relies on redundancy. The more you experience something, the brain creates more and more pattern recognizers for you to recognize.\n\nIn the case of faces, for people that you see often, your brain have assigned more neurons for the task of recognizing them in different situations, different lighting, different angles, different facial gestures etc.\n\nAlso, again referencing the book, remembering something means, reconstructing the memory from the information encoded in your brain. So people who you see more have more patterns for you to reconstruct their faces, thus you have more vivid mental images of them.",
"Previously worked in memory research \\- here's my take. u/sinabey has part of the answer anyway though!\n\nWhen you perceive an image, a certain set of circuits in your brain get activated in a pattern specific to the characteristics of that image.\n\nIf you just see it once, nothing else happens \\- you perceive it, then its most likely gone for good.\n\nIf you see it lots of times, the strength of the connections between parts of the circuit get stronger each time. All connections in your brain have an inherent resistance to being activated, so the strengthening of the connections makes it a lot easier to activate. \n\nThat makes it easier to see it \\- so you'd perceive and recognise the face under a variety of conditions (e.g. if it was dark, if they were wearing a fake moustache, etc). \n\nThat also makes it easier to remember \\- because if (for example) you see your mum's glasses, that can trigger the neurons at the start of the \"mum's face\" neural circuit, and the whole circuit then activates.\n\nLess practice seeing something means the connections are weaker, so its less likely to get activated in that exact way. \n\nNote that there isn't a specific set of dedicated neurons for someone's face \\- its the broader pattern of activation that's important. The same set of neurons are used in lots of different tasks, just activated as part of different circuits.",
"It's different for every person, but your brain decides what information is important to remember and what isn't. For people you don't see daily, your brain probably recognises it as information not needed for long term and discards it (or pushes it back somewhere).",
"Memory is mainly there for making sure you don't make the same stupid mistakes twice, if you don't have a certain negative experience with someone, you probably won't remember their face for future references."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is it sometimes so hard to remember someone’s exact face?
I noticed that I only remember my parents’ faces and the people I see daily, but aside from them, I take a long time to recall someone’s face from my memory and fail most of the time, even if I’ve known the person for years. | [
0.03040202334523201,
0.024007294327020645,
0.021112248301506042,
0.03344523534178734,
0.06466720253229141,
0.051944222301244736,
0.01267009973526001,
0.01063060387969017,
0.06367819011211395,
-0.0556609220802784,
0.019944876432418823,
-0.038110509514808655,
-0.009172632358968258,
-0.018809... | |
2qcva1 | Why does looking at a monitor from a sharp vertical angle change the color of the image on the screen? | When I look at my laptop monitor from a sharp up or down angle, the colors on the screen seem to change dramatically, or sometimes not at all.
For example, [pure red](_URL_0_) seems to remain the same color, but [this shade of blue](_URL_1_) looks yellow when looking at my monitor from an angle.
What's going on here? And why does it only work vertically and not horizontally as well? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cn4z1lb"
],
"text": [
"It's not the easiest question to answer, but basically because of light refraction.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhen the light from your monitor passes through layers of liquid crystals, polarizing filters and others, the light will bend if not viewed directly perpendicular to the surface. It will bend more the larger angle you view it from, and also, in doing so, the light's wavelength (which is literally color) will also change. The refractive index of these layers are also dependent on the polarization of light. Normally, light is comprised of all polarizations, and change in one component is not easily noticed because of other, less affected components. However, the light coming from liquid crystal display is polarized, and you'll have one orientation where the effect is noticeable. The worst orientation is basically always placed to the vertical plane, since people generally sway their heads side-to-side more than up-down."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Red.svg/120px-Red.svg.png",
"http://wallalay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Solid-Blue-6.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/RefractionReflextion.svg/2000px-RefractionReflextion.svg.png"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why does looking at a monitor from a sharp vertical angle change the color of the image on the screen?
When I look at my laptop monitor from a sharp up or down angle, the colors on the screen seem to change dramatically, or sometimes not at all. For example, [pure red](_URL_0_) seems to remain the same color, but [this shade of blue](_URL_1_) looks yellow when looking at my monitor from an angle. What's going on here? And why does it only work vertically and not horizontally as well? | [
-0.05559335649013519,
-0.008973835036158562,
-0.009066433645784855,
-0.07313061505556107,
0.03722454607486725,
-0.07357323169708252,
0.02936294674873352,
0.003560489509254694,
0.1189902275800705,
-0.03362313657999039,
-0.01815660297870636,
0.055116407573223114,
0.014066342264413834,
0.0413... | |
55e9ob | Why is the United States giving up control of ICANN? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d89t83c"
],
"text": [
"It can help stave off employment off the \"nuclear option\" by other countries of building their own competing DNS servers. \n\nAccording to the World Bank (via Google), as of 2013 45% of China's population used the Internet, compared to 84% of the US. (Both figures seem low to me, which probably says something about mobile users and the sheer speed of growth.) Nevertheless, this means that China still has roughly twice the number of Internet users as the US. Add into this the fact that the Chinese already have a sophisticated system of routing Internet traffic based on DNS and there's absolutely no technical reason why they could not, if they chose, build their own DNS. It's extremely difficult to predict what consequences this would have, but I think it's a smart policy move for the US to sacrifice a little bit of direct management in exchange for preserving an institution (ICANN) over which it will still have influence disproportionate to its population."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is the United States giving up control of ICANN?
[removed] | [
-0.006852368824183941,
-0.03447861224412918,
0.06446567922830582,
-0.035172492265701294,
0.040716689079999924,
-0.013241961598396301,
0.05757247656583786,
-0.04822881519794464,
0.08713364601135254,
-0.0070596663281321526,
-0.058317314833402634,
0.11367149651050568,
-0.006982030812650919,
-... | |
15k718 | Why does soapy water pressurize a sealed container when I shake it? | I was just cleaning out a reusable milk carton with hot water and soap. I filled it 1/5 full with very hot water, and put in some liquid soap. After shaking it for a minute or so, I removed the screw-on cap, and it came off with a hiss, obviously slightly pressurized.
I'm not actually five, so you can explain like I'm fifteen or something. I want a real explanation as well as a LIF explanation, thanks. :) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7n6cqy",
"c7n7qa3"
],
"text": [
"It's not the soap thats pressurizing it. It's the super hot water. The water is turning to steam in the carton and building pressure. You could watch it happen in a ziploc bag with hot water then sealing it!\n\nHope this helps!",
"put very hot water in, let it sit for a couple of minutes to warm the air inside. and then put the cap on. watch the jug crush in as the water (and hence, the air) cools."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does soapy water pressurize a sealed container when I shake it?
I was just cleaning out a reusable milk carton with hot water and soap. I filled it 1/5 full with very hot water, and put in some liquid soap. After shaking it for a minute or so, I removed the screw-on cap, and it came off with a hiss, obviously slightly pressurized. I'm not actually five, so you can explain like I'm fifteen or something. I want a real explanation as well as a LIF explanation, thanks. :) | [
-0.0441044420003891,
-0.10322309285402298,
0.044567812234163284,
-0.016935115680098534,
0.058948393911123276,
-0.08969410508871078,
0.07292946428060532,
0.008090423420071602,
-0.000724365352652967,
-0.09568733721971512,
0.016831740736961365,
-0.007235661614686251,
-0.015142899006605148,
0.... | |
1wr5hc | If California is in a drought, why not build water desalination plants by the Pacific Ocean to make water readily available for everyone? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cf4m33u"
],
"text": [
"Because a large scale plant costs literally a billion dollars and takes years to design and build. It's extremely expensive and requires a lot of approvals, environmental assessments, etc. This isn't something you can do on a whim."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If California is in a drought, why not build water desalination plants by the Pacific Ocean to make water readily available for everyone?
| [
-0.0025878127198666334,
0.03006342425942421,
0.05600578710436821,
-0.010755770839750767,
-0.009990195743739605,
-0.029725264757871628,
-0.03625721484422684,
-0.036162883043289185,
0.009158649481832981,
-0.0031247364822775126,
-0.0013333091046661139,
-0.054722774773836136,
0.00334586738608777... | ||
pstrb | The mindset of very rich people that are trying to get even richer | Why people like Rupert Murdoch want to get even richer and many times are (accused of) doing it by immoral ways? There are many conspiracy theories about how super rich are screwing millions of lifes to get even richer. Why they would do that?
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c3rz6jo",
"c3rydes",
"c3s0ml3",
"c3rzxns",
"c3s4saz",
"c3s1u6d",
"c3rzbvc",
"c3sa591"
],
"text": [
"Some people decide that there is a direct connection between happiness and money. From their perspective, the more money you have, the happier you are. There is no limit to how much happiness money can create, as long as you keep having more money. These people might associate money with love, respect, power, freedom or owning things. Since money is the greatest source of happiness, these people choose to ignore what others see as alternative direct sources of happiness (such as health, human relationships, adventure and doing good things). Some examples of people in this category are Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump and Conrad Black. They believe that they are worthy of respect and admiration even if the ONLY worthy thing they've done in life is make a lot of money.\nSome other people see making money as more of a game, where you \"win\" by getting as much money as you can by any means necessary. They get addicted to this \"game\" and play it over and over again. People in this category may become investment bankers or work in finance. They will do ANYTHING to earn money, and may not care whether they or someone else gets to keep the actual earnings.\nHope that helps!",
"You ever seen the show \"Hoarders\"? Some people do that with money.",
"You know how you put your money in a bank? Well when you have a lot of money, a bank is a very bad place to keep money. It becomes risky and loses money to inflation. Therefore you put money into stocks. This gives you partial ownership of a company. It is on average much more profitable and will outpace inflation but is also very risky. Now that you own part of the company you really want that company to do well and since you own part of the company, people listen to you. Whenever it looks like there's a threat to the well-being of the company, you speak up and tell them to do something about it. They respond by doing something. These actions sometimes screw people over.\n\nHow to apply this: If you want a say in what a company does (and to make money doing it), buy stock. The company cares a lot less about customers than it does about share holders. A boycott of a company is irrelevant unless the shareholders get upset. When the customers get upset, nothing happens, when the shareholders get upset, shit gets done.",
"Third World Kid wonders why we need to buy a computer at home when they're free at the library, or why we need a $600 phone when a $50 one will do. your answers to those questions will be very similar to the answers rich people give when you ask them that.",
"I don't think all rich people have the same motivations.\n\nProbably it just comes down to needing somewhere to go and something to do every day. I think when you're super rich, you don't work because you need money or because you think that next million will make you happy, but because you find your work intellectually stimulating. I think for a lot of people, they'd rather be doing deals in Manhattan than sunbathing in Florida or golfing in Hawaii for the rest of their lives. \n\nI mean... In the grand scheme of things basically everything humans do is a waste of time. Different people enjoy wasting that time in different ways.",
"I work at high-end conferences for investors (where it costs like $10,000 just to get in), and I always find it kind of pathetic when I see elderly guys, multimillionaires, with nothing better to do in their old age than go to conferences about how to make more money. It appears to be all they know, all they understand. They have been working all their lives to make a fortune that they haven't a clue how to enjoy.",
"I was gonna try to explain it, but as a poor guy, I really can only guess.",
"A coworker asked me what I would do if I won 30 million dollars. My first response was: \"It's not enough.\"\n\nHe was very surprised, and asked why I would say something like that.\n\nI told him that I would be set for life, but it is not enough to help all of my extended family for the rest of their lives.\n\nHowever, 100 million is not enough either. Sure, my extended family would be set for life, but I happen to know that one of my favourite museums needs 100 million dollars to build a new facility. I would love to be able to help them in a significant way.\n\nBut if someone gave me 200 million dollars, it would still not be enough. You see, if I invested the money instead of building the museum, perhaps after a few years I could afford to fund some planet exploration missions. Why build a museum when I could send an ice drilling machine to Europa?\n\nBut it is still not enough. With just a little more, I could build a space elevator, which would be much more useful than a drilling probe that may crash land.\n\nStill not enough though. With just a little more... maybe a couple of billion dollars... I could help combat hunger and malaria in Africa.\n\nBut it is still not enough. Even if I had 7 billion dollars, and I wanted to try to help everyone in the entire world, that only equates to 1 dollar each. Not enough to get anything significantly useful work done on a global scale.\n\nMake no mistake here: I'm quite happy with what I have, and as long as I keep working I can keep my family living in our house with food on the table, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I can definitely see how it is possible to have 7 billion dollars in the bank and still think that it is not enough."
],
"score": [
10,
8,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The mindset of very rich people that are trying to get even richer
Why people like Rupert Murdoch want to get even richer and many times are (accused of) doing it by immoral ways? There are many conspiracy theories about how super rich are screwing millions of lifes to get even richer. Why they would do that? | [
0.0453982949256897,
-0.0602160319685936,
0.0028348169289529324,
0.007925313897430897,
-0.009988969191908836,
-0.06624554097652435,
0.051794204860925674,
0.0714060440659523,
0.020076297223567963,
0.03360160067677498,
0.03271684795618057,
0.08172374963760376,
-0.02972087822854519,
-0.0201560... | |
jqwlg | only because my son is five and I didn't have an answer. Where do primary colors come from? (We were mixing play doh) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2eemgx",
"c2eebdr"
],
"text": [
"It's because each of your eyes is actually three eyes!\n\nYou have one eye which only sees red, one which sees green, and one for blue/violet. But they're all combined into one eye. (That's what they mean when they say that your retina contains cones for red, green and blue light.)\n\nBut actually your red eye can see red-ish light: it sees red, but also orange and yellow. Why? What's this about? And the green one sees greenish light: green, but also yellow-green and yellow, blue-green and blue. And the blue eye sees blue-green, blue, and violet.\n\nYour eyes work this way so they can see all the colors BETWEEN pure red and pure green ...and all the colors BETWEEN pure green and pure blue.\n\nFor example, if you're looking at the pure yellow part of a rainbow, your red eye see it, and so does your green eye. Your brain converts the two signals and makes you see yellow color.\n\nEyes are weird because they can't really see combinations of colors. For example, if you look at a mixture of pure red, pure green and pure blue, you think it's white. But if you look at genuine white light which contains all wavelengths, you STILL think it looks white. (Perhaps there are alien eyes which see all colors and not just three. Those eyes would know that red+green+blue light is not actually white.)",
"Primary as well as secondary colors are named as such because they are the six colors that are seen in reflected natural light. The three primary colors red, blue, and yellow are used in combination to create the three secondary colors orange, violet, and green.\n\nFun experiment: Find a prism, stick it in the sunlight and have it reflect onto a wall. You'll see the natural color spectrum made up of the primary and secondary colors. \n\nFor YOU in case you're still interested: Isaac Newton discovered the primary and secondary colors between 1670 and 1672 by doing a very similar experiment."
],
"score": [
16,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | only because my son is five and I didn't have an answer. Where do primary colors come from? (We were mixing play doh)
| [
0.049873750656843185,
0.03022356703877449,
0.032282594591379166,
-0.05298241972923279,
0.013560892082750797,
0.05676334351301193,
0.04066098853945732,
-0.023775944486260414,
0.08533095568418503,
0.07343655079603195,
-0.012782943435013294,
-0.04170248657464981,
-0.021339192986488342,
-0.049... | ||
1vd5yf | How am I able to sleep eight hours without having to take a piss yet I can't even last three or four hours on a long car ride? | I'm beginning to notice this when I wake up; it's as if my bladder just patiently waits for me or something. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cer242l"
],
"text": [
"When you sleep, your body secretes anti-diuretic hormone (also called vasopressin), which instructs the kidneys to reduce urine production (the inability of some young children to produce this hormone at high enough levels is what causes bedwetting).\nWhen you are awake, this hormone is not produced, your body makes more urine making you have to go pee."
],
"score": [
15
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How am I able to sleep eight hours without having to take a piss yet I can't even last three or four hours on a long car ride?
I'm beginning to notice this when I wake up; it's as if my bladder just patiently waits for me or something. | [
0.04891910031437874,
0.000519703549798578,
0.013614438474178314,
0.11737820506095886,
0.017513997852802277,
0.024836597964167595,
0.012851044535636902,
-0.0024863125290721655,
0.07207854092121124,
-0.022385085001587868,
-0.18025043606758118,
-0.0019011719850823283,
0.02113456279039383,
0.1... | |
8r1s3m | Do atoms or molecules have colour? | How do things get their colour? Does each molecule have its own colour which gives an object it's colour or is it the atoms that have colours. I feel like, if you can't see oxygen or hydrogen because air is transparent, is that the reason why water is also transparent? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e0npej7",
"e0npbtp",
"e0npekv"
],
"text": [
"When a photon interacts with the electrons on the outside of an atom, some of the interactions result in a photon of a different wavelength (= color). Certain molecules hold their atoms in a way that causes them to absorb all but one color and reflect that color, and we call these molecules pigments.",
"Nothing inherently has a color. Objects either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light. Then your eye has rods and cones that detect that light. Then your brain interprets the action potentials triggered by the short, medium, and long wavelength cones as a color. Color is all in your brain.",
"Each molecule either emits or retains certain wavelengths of visable light. Your eye is like a sensor that is able to detect what wavelength is being emitted, and your brain processes the colors thus you see different colors. [This is what the spectrum looks like](_URL_0_). This is a very simplified explanation, im sure someone will be more thorough"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.factmyth.com%2F2016%2F07%2Fvisible-spectrum-of-light.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffactmyth.com%2Ffactoids%2Fvisible-light-is-electromagnetic-radiation%2F&docid=vNC4_Cc7ld63yM&tbnid=iEHJjcLHYbTjvM%3A&vet=1&w=1200&h=630&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim"
]
} | train_eli5 | Do atoms or molecules have colour?
How do things get their colour? Does each molecule have its own colour which gives an object it's colour or is it the atoms that have colours. I feel like, if you can't see oxygen or hydrogen because air is transparent, is that the reason why water is also transparent? | [
0.07493709027767181,
-0.04289838299155235,
-0.03018990159034729,
-0.0038667614571750164,
0.06762194633483887,
0.03610531985759735,
0.11438745260238647,
-0.025521842762827873,
0.09234276413917542,
0.07839909195899963,
-0.03865795210003853,
-0.051889363676309586,
-0.033008281141519547,
-0.01... | |
7n6fk9 | Why do our public universities spend enormous sums of money on football/basketball coaches? Why do they need athletic teams at all? Universities should focus on education. | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drzexl0"
],
"text": [
"Money. People watch sports, which earns them more money. Money they can then put into education."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do our public universities spend enormous sums of money on football/basketball coaches? Why do they need athletic teams at all? Universities should focus on education.
[removed] | [
0.060185886919498444,
0.02025611512362957,
0.04228592291474342,
-0.007432440761476755,
0.05536181107163429,
0.04994531348347664,
0.007956724613904953,
-0.0336524173617363,
0.12269739806652069,
0.10235945880413055,
-0.005160244181752205,
0.06060359627008438,
-0.03921082615852356,
-0.0259533... | |
3g6ymn | How does the world look like to People with stereoblindness | I've met someone who is suffering from stereoblindness. She tried to explain to me what the world looks like to her but I could not imagine what it's like. I know they cannot see anything in 3D unless they are using technological help like the Ocolus Rift. But I just can't imagine what our everyday World would look like in 2D. I also can not find any example pictures on the internet that simulate the vision of someone with stereoblindness... | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ctvgcaf"
],
"text": [
"Every picture you see on the internet simulates stereoblindness. Another trick is to cover one eye and try to go about your normal activities."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does the world look like to People with stereoblindness
I've met someone who is suffering from stereoblindness. She tried to explain to me what the world looks like to her but I could not imagine what it's like. I know they cannot see anything in 3D unless they are using technological help like the Ocolus Rift. But I just can't imagine what our everyday World would look like in 2D. I also can not find any example pictures on the internet that simulate the vision of someone with stereoblindness... | [
0.04782211035490036,
-0.02571682631969452,
0.006448477040976286,
-0.05503411963582039,
-0.05666510760784149,
-0.040859486907720566,
-0.022797798737883568,
-0.006850237958133221,
0.014463088475167751,
0.0030987944919615984,
0.00417649932205677,
-0.03999467194080353,
-0.0015174314612522721,
... | |
1y8h54 | EL5: Bill Nye and the irony of green plants. | In the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Bill Nye is asked what's his favorite color, in which he states that it's green and that it's ironic that plants are green. I've tried looking this up, and everything seems to suggest that green is efficient for the photosynthesis process. Where's the irony? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfifyl0"
],
"text": [
"Plants can not absorb green light, it is reflected away and is why the plant looks green. The reason it is ironic is because \"green light\" is emitted from the sun more than any other color. Basically the plants excluded the most common wavelength of light from being part photosynthesis, which is rather ironic."
],
"score": [
11
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | EL5: Bill Nye and the irony of green plants.
In the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Bill Nye is asked what's his favorite color, in which he states that it's green and that it's ironic that plants are green. I've tried looking this up, and everything seems to suggest that green is efficient for the photosynthesis process. Where's the irony? | [
-0.0006831143400631845,
0.023271121084690094,
0.07210033386945724,
-0.005474137142300606,
0.07415103912353516,
0.026309609413146973,
0.06322459876537323,
0.030176913365721703,
0.03288676217198372,
0.056373484432697296,
-0.06913803517818451,
0.030290447175502777,
-0.06579115241765976,
-0.07... | |
6vc932 | We can totally forget something and then remember it in an instant upon hearing a keyword/seeing something related to it. Does this mean that we essentially have EVERYTHİNG stored in our brain, and we just cant pull it out without a reminder? | I will try to explain what i am asking a bit better. Now lets say we were given a 30-word list to memorize all. And one of those words is "sea". Sometimes we are not able to remember the word "sea" initially, but if someone said "maybe there was something about water", we might remember and say "yes, 'sea' was one of the words.
Does this mean our brain DOES memorize all 30 words but need a keyword ("water" in our example) to remember them? Or am i just talking nonsense? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzd1at",
"dlzl15r"
],
"text": [
"How exactly memory is stored in the brain is a fairly complex and vastly unknown process. There exists a hierarchy of information processing that will determine whether something is stored in short-memory, long-memory, working memory, that basically represents the amount of time you spend actively thinking about something and the quality of that thinking (contextualization). Contextualization can be conceptual (like the example you just gave water -- > sea) or emotional (emotions tip the scales towards never forgetting, like that time you got heart-broken or such (looking at you, Linzy)). \n\nHow this translates into the physical realm is still debated. It implies neuron changes in different places that are strengthed the more you try to memorize something. Basically, think of it as walking through a patch of grass. The more you walk through it, the less grass there will be, eventually forming a path. The clarity of the path is how much you will be able to remember something.\n\nNow, following this metaphor, memorizing a list is like walking through different patches of grass one or two times. It might not be clear at first what paths you just tried to create, but if someone says \"hey, don't these look like footprints?\", you might make a connection (through a contextualizing clue). \n\nDoes your brain remember all 30 words? It might, tenuously, for a limited period of time, until the grass grows over it again. \n\nI don't know if this helps. Also, I'm a bit rusty with my neurobiology, so if someone with a more modern understanding comes along, please be gentle.",
"It would probably be incorrect to say that the brain remembers everything, but we do know beyond any reasonable doubt that the brain retains a significantly greater amount of information than most people are readily able to recall at a given moment. This has been proven through not only various types of memory regression studies, but also in studies relating to drugs that effect the memory, and among many other studies. \n\nThis is just my personal anecdote, but I was once part of a memory study where I was assisted into a meditative state, and I was able to recall every single word on a text book page that I had read two weeks prior. A page that was among many others I had read, that I was not instructed to specifically remember. In my normal waking state, I wouldn't have been able to tell you anything about what was on that page, or even what chapter it was, but the photographic image seemed to be stuck somewhere in my mind, and it was able to be accessed in an altered cognitive state. \n\n\nMy theory is that the brain retains a significant amount of the information that you **consciously process**, but I doubt it is able to retain something you only passively glance at, at least not to a great extent. There are some advocates that suggest it can, and that even this information can be accessed through various subconscious manipulation techniques, assuming you do so not long after the exposure.\n\n\nI also seem to recall a few stories of people going into comas and waking up speaking a foreign language which they never fluent in, but had studied. In some cases, they claim the individual never consciously studied it, but was only passively exposed to it.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn this story above, the man claimed to study Mandarin in school but was never fluent in it. It seems that when he was in the Coma, his brain drastically amped up the Mandarin part of his brain to the point where he was able to be fluent with the information he did know. Fluency in a language however goes a step beyond simply being able to recall information, so this is more of an extreme example. \n\nIn the above story about the kid becoming fluent in Mandarin, there are also mentions of:\n > In 2010, a 13-year-old Croatian girl woke up had replaced her fluency in her native language with speaking German.\n\n > More recently, a U.S. navy veteran was found unconscious in a motel room and had no recollection of who he was and spoke fluent Swedish in July 2013.\n\n\n\nAs others have said... how the brain functions in many regards is still quite a mystery, and there is a significant amount of understanding about it to be had."
],
"score": [
25,
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740708/Aussie-man-wakes-coma-car-crash-speaking-MANDARIN.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | We can totally forget something and then remember it in an instant upon hearing a keyword/seeing something related to it. Does this mean that we essentially have EVERYTHİNG stored in our brain, and we just cant pull it out without a reminder?
I will try to explain what i am asking a bit better. Now lets say we were given a 30-word list to memorize all. And one of those words is "sea". Sometimes we are not able to remember the word "sea" initially, but if someone said "maybe there was something about water", we might remember and say "yes, 'sea' was one of the words. Does this mean our brain DOES memorize all 30 words but need a keyword ("water" in our example) to remember them? Or am i just talking nonsense? | [
0.05459906533360481,
-0.0990820825099945,
-0.056581657379865646,
0.04573788866400719,
-0.017352266237139702,
0.08399184048175812,
0.09649050980806351,
0.015155690722167492,
0.05458588898181915,
0.006434120703488588,
-0.012856636196374893,
0.043419431895017624,
0.03693672642111778,
0.011527... | |
60ogbo | What happens to neighborhoods when there is filming in that location? | For movies/tv shows (Shameless, for example) where the majority of filming is at a house located in a neighborhood and includes frequent outside filming, what happens to other people living in that neighborhood when filming happens? Are they asked not to leave their house? Does the street get blocked off so there aren't interruptions? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df823lx",
"df97cau",
"df8ashh",
"df7zzi1",
"df82dlo"
],
"text": [
"I read a book about an obscure but fairly recent TV adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma for an essay once. They said:\n\n\"in the weeks before filming, deals had to be negotiated with all the businesses that would lose trade. Each householder had to be approached about letting us change their curtains or door-knockers, possibly putting film lights in their front windows, and what arrangements would be made for parking their cars.\" \n\nThey had a public meeting in the local town hall so people could discuss their concerns, and if they were filming in or outside particular houses they negotiated with inhabitants about staying elsewhere if necessary. Presumably this sometimes involves financial compensation. \n\nThey said filming was like a \"military exercise,\" and they carefully filmed as quickly as possible and with minimal disruption. So if you're filming on a busy suburban street, for example, you might organise a time *other* than 3-4pm when kids are coming home from school, and you'd avoid weekends. \n\nIt seems like a pretty complicated process, but you'd basically have a team whose job it is to liase with the community and stay on their good side.",
"'Lake Placid' filmed several scenes two blocks from my house; this is pretty much everything I can recall.\n\nThe production company called my mother (who was working in an office locally) to ask about things like renting storage space, getting permission to film the exterior of her building, and so forth.\n\nSeveral months later, the crew arrived; they were responsible for (temporarily) redecorating the exteriors of local businesses with signage appropriate to the film, casting the extras and preparing the 'back lot' (cast and crew trailers, craft services ('the food guys'), etc).\n\nOn the day of shooting (if I recall, they were only there for one or two days), the cast arrived. Traffic on the main street (really, the *only* major through street in town) was redirected, and/or stopped temporarily while the cameras were rolling.\n\nAny of us that happened to be walking in the area were either asked to wait (if filming was in progress), or else pointed to an off-camera viewing area that had been set up just outside the local barbershop (our instructions were 'When I wave you on, walk straight down the street to the barbershop, and please don't stop to look around').\n\nAll in all, the cast and crew were incredibly polite and relaxed in spite of the crazy shooting schedule.\n\nAn amusing anecdote: while the film crew was in town, a pair of international visitors tried to buy US postage stamps in a video store that had been redressed as a US post office. XD",
"Well, Shameless just uses the house for exterior shots. The interior is a sound stage. There was a Johnny Depp movie being filmed on my block once and there were movie trucks (food, gear, trailers, etc) around the entire block for a week. The scene they shot was 20 seconds long. So basically, the neighborhood just goes on as it always does, except that you're wondering when they're actually going to film and get they're shit out of the way so we can park on our streets again.",
"The street generally is blocked off to cars (for practical reasons, as in most cases the entire street is filled up with cameras, trailers, lights, generators, etc). Pedestrians aren't allowed to walk through the shot while they're filming, but film shoots aren't shooting anywhere near 100% of the time, so they generally only have to wait 30 seconds or a minute before the current shot is over and they can go on their way.",
"I worked Downtown Vancouver for many years, and a lot of shows and movies were shot around the building. Usually during the summer, we'd get a note saying that they were going to shoot a scene on a specific block at this time during the next week. They'd have cordoned off the stretch they were going to shoot and usually be out of there in two hours or so."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What happens to neighborhoods when there is filming in that location?
For movies/tv shows (Shameless, for example) where the majority of filming is at a house located in a neighborhood and includes frequent outside filming, what happens to other people living in that neighborhood when filming happens? Are they asked not to leave their house? Does the street get blocked off so there aren't interruptions? | [
0.10406386852264404,
-0.07071986794471741,
0.005018099211156368,
-0.013156797736883163,
0.11330728232860565,
0.013198617845773697,
-0.01975119486451149,
-0.07745610177516937,
0.02140408754348755,
-0.057495005428791046,
0.14149783551692963,
0.05160235986113548,
-0.04780024662613869,
-0.0196... | |
yziap | Why doesn't tin foil burn your fingers when its been in the oven for 15 minutes? | The other day I was making myself a tuna melt, and after I pulled out the delightful package of tuna, cheese, and bread, I thought to myself... why doesn't this tin foil sear my skin with unbearable heat? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c606cbw",
"c606ek0"
],
"text": [
"Aluminum has a low [specific heat](_URL_0_) - the change in energy required for it to increase or decrease in temperature is relatively low. That is to say, not much energy is stored in a piece of hot aluminum (compared to, say, an equal mass of hot water). Since aluminum foil is so thin, you're talking about a very small amount of material which is lousy at storing energy. \n\nThe specific heat of human tissue is much higher than that of aluminum (though lower than that of pure water), say roughly 3 times (depending on the kind of tissue). So in order for you to feel a 1 degree increase in temperature over some mass of tissue, an equal mass of aluminum foil would need to have stored 3x that amount of energy. Of course, the mass of your hands is probably much greater than the mass of the tinfoil, so the actual amount of energy needed is even greater.\n\nTL;DR: foil sucks at storing energy.",
"I love aluminum foil. This is one of the top reasons why it's my best friend when baking. \n\nSo heat can be transferred in 3 different ways: firstly by direct contact (like when you leave a metal fork next to an operating stove), secondly through a circulating fluid (such as air or running water), and lastly by radial energy (like microwaves). \n\nWhen you take your tuna melt out of the oven the hot tuna melt is still transferring energy to the aluminum foil, but since the aluminum foil is beaten so thinly and because the foil is such a great direct conductor of heat, the hot energy is sent into the air much faster than it can be pulled out from your sandwich."
],
"score": [
6,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/sphtt.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why doesn't tin foil burn your fingers when its been in the oven for 15 minutes?
The other day I was making myself a tuna melt, and after I pulled out the delightful package of tuna, cheese, and bread, I thought to myself... why doesn't this tin foil sear my skin with unbearable heat? | [
-0.009280738420784473,
-0.02668309397995472,
0.05562809109687805,
0.029098328202962875,
-0.00037688371958211064,
-0.08369828015565872,
0.09981391578912735,
-0.023627089336514473,
0.020937912166118622,
-0.012870621867477894,
0.003133755875751376,
-0.06931064277887344,
-0.026410657912492752,
... | |
3rnip0 | Why do we take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for anxiety and depression, instead of just taking serotonin? ELI5ish. | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwpn1pj",
"cwpltk2",
"cwpwz6l",
"cwpw16d",
"cwq5f9q",
"cwpz1ji",
"cwpu3v6",
"cwq5xn1",
"cwq9hhz",
"cwpqygv",
"cwpmk01",
"cwpqtkb"
],
"text": [
"A *very* ~~convoluted~~ ELI5ish explanation.\n\nSerotonin is a messenger molecule that causes many different reactions. Let say that cells are like machines with switches, messenger molecules switch them on for some time before they switch back off. \n\nSerotonin works on many switches in different parts of the body - bowl movement, sleep, mood, blood clotting, memory, learning - flooding the system with serotonin would turn all of them on and it wouldn't be good.\n\nHowever these switches are not all the same and what we can do is change how they work. SSRI basically turn on the switch for a longer period of time or make it so that it takes less serotonin to switch it on in the first place. Because the switches are different we can change how one work, but everything else keeps more or less the same.",
"From u/CharlesOSmith\n\nCouple issues. First, a physical barrier. Serotonin (5-HT, 5-Hydroxytryptamine), cannot cross the blood brain barrier (BBB) the BBB is a physical boarder that separates/filters what components of our blood can reach our brain. _URL_1_\n\nSerotonin isn't one of these (but variation of Serotonin have been synthesized which can! _URL_0_)\n\nSecond, a barrier of knowledge. When it comes to how the biochemistry of the brain relates to behavior and moods we have very little basic understanding. For example. Serotonin works because it is a ligand for a receptor in neurons _URL_2_. The problem is, there are many types of these receptors, and we don't really know what they all do. They are expressed in different brain cell types and may have different functions (not all of which is triggering or inhibiting depression)\n\nSo simply pouring Serotonin in the brain is not the solution. We need to know specifically which parts of the brain regulate mood in response to serotonin, which parts of the brain release the serotonin, and how much serotonin is the right amount.",
"Fuel-inefficent vehicles are running out of gas in isolated areas between fueling stops. Can't we just dump a whole bunch of 93 octane all over the country from 20,000 feet up?\n\nWait, why is everything on fire?",
"The key is in the word reuptake. The SSRIs block the reabsorption of serotonin within a nerve synapse, leading to a more prolonged stimulation at that synapse. Simply taking serotonin would not change the duration of time that serotonin stays in the synapse, so it would not have any effect.",
"Our brains are like a great big office. There are candy machines in the office, which pop out candy into a trough to keep people happy. They also take candy back out of the trough to make sure it doesn't overflow and give everyone the diabeetus. Everyone likes this arrangement, and the work gets done.\n\nSometimes though, the office candy machines get stingy, and they either give out less candy, or take it back too quickly, and not everyone can get their candy. The office is sad, and the work isn't getting done.\n\nSSRIs are like sticking a bucket over part of the trough so the machine can't take back the candy as quickly. More candy for the workers, happy office again! Too many buckets (overdose of SSRI) and the office is just full of people eating candy and getting sick, and no work is getting done (seizure, serotonin syndrome).\n\nGiving serotonin is like spraying M & M crumbs through the sprinklers. Not much really gets in the trough to help, and everyone gets sticky. It doesn't really cheer any of the workers up, because the trough is still mostly empty - morale is still terrible, and the work still isn't being done. Worse, all that sticky stuff will probably end up all through the building and make the workers in the whole place not get their work done.",
"hmm seems to be some misinformation here. IIRC the main reason is that your brain has this special protective layer called the blood/brain barrier and one of the things it does is keep neurotransmitters like serotonin in your brain not all over your body which is good buut it also keeps them out of your brain too, which means giving a serotonin or dopamine pill is possible but pointless as it would never reach the brain. instead we can only give chemicals that can sneak through the blood brain barrier and affect the neurotransmistters in different ways, like SSRI's, or give the body plenty of precursor/building block material so it can max out its neurotransmitter production such as 5HTP for serotonin or L-dopa for dopamine",
"SSRIs don't add serotonin in the literal sense. They regulate how serotonin is managed, therefore increasing it's availability.\n\nBasically, cells in your brain communicate by sending a bunch of neurotransmitters (like serotonin) across the synapse, the space between nerve cells. Neurotransmitters that aren't immediately used are reabsorbed, so they aren't available. SSRIs prevent reabsorbtion, hence the 'reuptake inhibutor' part if their name. The theory is that increasing the availability of serotonin increases communication in the brain.\n\nBut as other people have mentioned, too much serotonin can kill you.",
"The really short answer to the original question is: It's very important that the body have mechanisms to clear neurotransmitters, otherwise neurotransmitters wouldn't work! These mechanisms are everywhere, speedy, and really effective so taking a neurotransmitter (like serotonin) is never going to be clinically effective for CNS disorders. \n\nAll the other comments here so far focus on the acute effects of SSRI's on the brain. There is something else happening with SSRI's that is not an acute effect, otherwise people would take SSRI's and bang, depression solved. This does not occur in practice. SSRI's take some time to produce clinical results. \n\nThis is almost certainly down to plasticity. While SSRI's might do something at the synapse level, their clinical effectiveness as anti-depressants is probably occurring at a more gross, pruning level. \n\nAdditionally the receptors at each synapse are subject to desensitization and/or internalization, and other regulatory mechanisms. \n\ntl;dr: What is exactly happening is very complex, and we don't understand what all the components of the clinical effects are as yet.",
"Its very difficult to get extra serotonin into the brain. Its a big molecule and just won't go. However we can make drugs that will pass into the brain and make what serotonin there is work better",
"bioavailability-\nthe amount of drug that reaches in ur system or has the appropriate amount of effect in the system is less when taken oral\nin simple language it gets destroyed quickly in our body",
"Mostly because too much serotonin is toxic. And our brains already produce serotonin. So there's a risk of killing whoever you administer the serotonin to.",
"I asked my anatomy teacher something similar and he said \"You can't take supplements for neurotransmitters. It doesn't work like that.\""
],
"score": [
94,
33,
14,
9,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06201.x/pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%E2%80%93brain_barrier",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT_receptor"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do we take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for anxiety and depression, instead of just taking serotonin? ELI5ish.
[removed] | [
0.03765967860817909,
-0.010044347494840622,
0.033646922558546066,
0.08349617570638657,
0.0232266653329134,
0.05322950705885887,
-0.04558917507529259,
0.04675289988517761,
0.12974224984645844,
-0.004406141582876444,
-0.07527580857276917,
0.10955414175987244,
-0.04362565279006958,
0.01808905... | |
4uhaee | Why does it feel like every damn book is "#1 on new york times best seller list"? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d5ppg1k",
"d5ppqyj",
"d5pq148",
"d5ps1fs",
"d5ppehv",
"d5ptm9o"
],
"text": [
"There is more than one New York Times bestseller list (the lists are split up into different genres/categories), so more than one book can be #1 at the same time, just not on the same list.\n\nAlso, these lists are frequently updated (I believe weekly), but you get to claim the title forever. So a book may have been #1 on the list briefly for one week a couple of years ago, but it is still a \"#1 New York Times Best Seller\".",
"The New York Times bestseller list has several categories, so several books can be number one at the same time. Also, it is published weekly, so many books can reach number one in a given year. Finally, it can be manipulated and often is manipulated. Some publishers and authors will purchase massive orders of their own book during a week in order to hit the top of the list, which then opens many doors for further sales. There are even companies that will assist in manipulating the lists. The New York Times has attempted to combat this by putting daggers next to books with bulk orders, but that is not a perfect system and the publisher/author can still claim to be a number one bestseller.",
"One thing that nobody seems to have mentioned: According to Wikipedia, 304,912 books were published *in the US alone* in 2013. How many bestsellers have you heard of? A few hundred? Maybe a few thousand? That's probably less than 1% (likely as low as 0.1%) than the books published *in a single year in only the US*.\n\nSo it seems like a lot, but it's really, *really* not.",
"Own a publishing ompany here. Its actually really easy. Pre-orders are counted as first day sales, and all you need to do is pump enough advertising during pre-order and during the first week. I'd estimate it would cost < 10k for a self published author with no following to hit the NYT bestseller list and if you're a semi-established author it's really quite easy.\n\nTl;dr: You can buy a spot if you plan it right using pre-orders and study how they calculate the data\n\nThere are a lot of NYT bestselling authors who barely make enough to live on, it's a massive circlejerk and not a real accomplishment at this point. Only thing an authot should brag about is total profit.",
"Because the #1 books on the NYT bestseller list are the ones that are being prominently displayed and advertised and the ones being turned into movies, so you're seeing them more.",
"Despite there being many best seller lists with respect to the different categories, which get updated quickly and all that, its just that you end up seeing only those that are the best sellers more often- they are placed in the most obvious spot in the bookstore, come up as advertisements on the internet, etc, since they are as the name suggests, best sellers. The 'money making machines' if you want to call them that. \nIt's due to such marketing schemes that we perceive like 'every damn book' is #1, but you need to keep in mind the number of books written that never make the list, let alone be #1."
],
"score": [
415,
54,
52,
23,
13,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does it feel like every damn book is "#1 on new york times best seller list"?
[removed] | [
-0.05016906186938286,
-0.05749024450778961,
0.03293552249670029,
0.019815752282738686,
0.025990914553403854,
0.03363680839538574,
0.056535109877586365,
0.018726056441664696,
0.07759630680084229,
0.014698977582156658,
-0.04258015751838684,
0.18790903687477112,
0.015805235132575035,
-0.02476... | |
xi3ko | Why were women's doubles badminton players deliberately trying to lose in the Olympics? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c5ml8cw",
"c5mlvzi"
],
"text": [
"Think of it in groups, where the top 2 teams in each group continue on to the next round. Let's assume, in the next round:\n\n* The Winner of Group A plays the 2nd place team of Group B\n* and\n* The Second place team in Group A plays the winner of Group B\n\nIf the 2nd placed team of Group A was a particularly strong team, The two teams playing each other to decide who would win Group B would each try to lose, so that they would come 2nd and then avoid having to play the difficult team. The 2 teams at the top of group B already knew that they had won enough games to progress, so their head to head was just to decide 1st versus 2nd place - both wanted 2nd place so therefore tried to lose the game in a very obvious manner.\n\nFor clarification to earlier post - Highly Seeded means a favoured team that are highly ranked in, e.g. world rankings.",
"In the tournament, there is a round robin phase and a knockout phase.\n\nThe round robin only determines the seeding for the knockout. You can lose every game, and still move on.\n\nSo in one case, if the Chinese team won, they'd have to play another Chinese team in the first game of the knockout round, where the loser is out of the medals. By intentionally losing, the seeding changed, and those teams could have met in the finals, and both got medals. \n\nThis isn't just unsporting, but it means that teams who play later, and know what the seedings could be, have an advantage they shouldn't have."
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why were women's doubles badminton players deliberately trying to lose in the Olympics?
| [
-0.025852996855974197,
0.07510804384946823,
0.07119741290807724,
-0.014045007526874542,
-0.007841854356229305,
0.026761729270219803,
0.058741454035043716,
0.019251106306910515,
-0.004203552845865488,
0.0786672905087471,
-0.08245033770799637,
0.00863457378000021,
-0.02334108203649521,
-0.02... | ||
3d2n2t | Why haven't scientists genetically engineered trees to grow faster than they do now? | Wouldn't it be beneficial if trees were made to grow ten times faster? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ct18o1v",
"ct1c4by"
],
"text": [
"The thing about fast growing plants is that they usually have very little biomass compared to slower growing plants. Things that grow quickly would be things like corn and bamboo. \n Things that sequester more carbon are the things that grow more densely and more slowly. \n \nI'm no botanist, and what I know of plant genetics is that it's really *weird*. For instance, to make a miniature palm tree, you just remove some chunk of the genome, which would kill an animal zygote, but just shrinks the tree. \n \nAnd the thing about GMO is that we need the gene to already exist somewhere. We don't create new genes, we just take them out of one thing and stick them in another. \n\n \nSo to make something grow more quickly we would have to rely on the mechanisms that already exist and they produce plants of low density. So it may not be a terribly effective thing to do.",
"There are some fairly \"hard\" limits on how fast plants can grow under normal conditions.\n\nTrees, especially, tend to require way more nutrients than, say, bamboo. (And most wood is a *lot* denser than bamboo).\n\nTo make a tree grow super-fast, there are a couple big problems:\n\n- You'd have to \"program\" it to uptake nutrients at a higher rate than normal tree biology allows. This would involve a fuckton of genes and is way more complicated than any genetic modification that's ever been done so far. It's not like with animals, where you can just \"turn off\" a few genes that limit their growth-- trees are already evolved to grow at very close to maximum efficiency.\n\n- You'd have to provide nutrients at a much greater rate than normal air and soil does. That means hydroponics and greenhouses with extra CO2 pumped in. The costs would almost certainly add up to more than just planting 10x more trees in normal soil.\n\n- A faster growth cycle would almost certainly alter the properties of the wood, *probably* for the worse, especially in hardwoods."
],
"score": [
9,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why haven't scientists genetically engineered trees to grow faster than they do now?
Wouldn't it be beneficial if trees were made to grow ten times faster? | [
-0.0593770332634449,
0.018164625391364098,
0.016620710492134094,
-0.002068517031148076,
0.1279730200767517,
-0.07372009009122849,
-0.10690753906965256,
0.011074547655880451,
-0.01392683107405901,
0.06229883432388306,
0.03578893095254898,
0.054817330092191696,
-0.04560209810733795,
0.017652... | |
3wtawa | How do things like Vending Machines know which paper Bills are being deposited? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cxywa64"
],
"text": [
"They use optical sensors to determine the location of markings on a bill. Since the markings on each form currency are unique to that specific amount, its very easy to set it up so it knows which markings correspond to a value.\n\nIts the same idea as bar code readers, at least as far as detection goes."
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do things like Vending Machines know which paper Bills are being deposited?
| [
-0.035067781805992126,
0.053871169686317444,
-0.05306800827383995,
-0.00201048725284636,
-0.005461819935590029,
-0.03238804265856743,
0.013313318602740765,
-0.04084433242678642,
0.06191784515976906,
-0.051516540348529816,
0.017963580787181854,
0.02698254957795143,
0.05484260991215706,
-0.0... | ||
5fq9yk | STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Why are some people trying to add "Art" to STEM and calling it STEAM? Isn't that the exact opposite of the purpose of promoting STEM fields? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dam5gjo",
"dam70z4",
"dam54m9"
],
"text": [
"The idea is that the arts are intertwined with STEM at this point, which becomes obvious if you think of something like product design or communication. \n\nI can tell you that I work for a software development company and I wish a lot more developers had *some* kind of background in the arts. Even something as basic as requirements development would be so much more effective if the developers could think beyond bare bones functionality and take into account aesthetics or intuitiveness. Don't get me wrong, some developers absolutely have an understanding, but a lot more don't. \n\nI suspect it's less of a problem for large companies who can attract top talent, but if you've ever used a government website, you'll know what I'm talking about.",
"In my own understanding, throwing art into the equation is showing how everything is intertwined. It's encouraging people to be creative thinkers, to pull not only from one side of the brain. I think if you teach a kid that B happens because of A it's great. Structure and rules are great in STEM but learning to value art as well helps to train our brains into thinking well yes A leads to B but maybe also 1 leads to B. Art teaches creativity and allows your mind to make connections that aren't taught and memorized or exactly logical. In a developing world where almost anything is possible it's important to make our kids creative thinkers to innovate and bring us forward instead of replaying A to B ten different ways. Also, there is art in science and engineering. Its beautiful to look at a cell and watch it divide. Its beautiful to look at a cathedral built ages ago. If we teach kids to value that they may be more inclined to follow a path that leads them to create or study the beauty of these things.",
"I cant say I have heard of this new term, but theres certainly some defensiveness about the criticism of liberal art degrees.\n\npeople passionate about fine arts dont take kindly to the notion that it is not a productive field of study, so why not try to insert yourself into the STEM conversation?\n\nUnfortunately, while I fully encourage creative hobbies and proper logical thinking, the simple facts of unemployment and earning trends for lib art degrees is quite discouraging. And those that do find success, mostly do so in a conventional career field."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Why are some people trying to add "Art" to STEM and calling it STEAM? Isn't that the exact opposite of the purpose of promoting STEM fields?
[removed] | [
-0.017616530880331993,
-0.03383995592594147,
0.036400191485881805,
0.013443493284285069,
0.06492844969034195,
0.03255041688680649,
0.0005058943061158061,
0.0367230623960495,
0.007989087142050266,
0.007730490993708372,
-0.0479498989880085,
0.026255851611495018,
-0.11930400878190994,
0.01888... | |
43my0n | Why do scientists assume that without liquid water, a planet cannot have life? Why can't aliens function off a different substance, why must it be water? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"czje8qj",
"czjehpk"
],
"text": [
"More about likelihood, then absolutes. Of course a planet without liquid water could sustain life, but in our experience, only planets that have life, to our knowledge, are those with liquid water, to which life is dependant.",
"It is the only thing we know. Life on Earth depends on liquid water. \n\nThe assumption is that we are indicative of the average. We are not unique. If life exists elsewhere, statistically we are average, the conditions which allow us to live would also allow the average form of life to exist elsewhere."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do scientists assume that without liquid water, a planet cannot have life? Why can't aliens function off a different substance, why must it be water?
[removed] | [
-0.03718860447406769,
0.007670835591852665,
0.016961554065346718,
0.019158819690346718,
0.11563044786453247,
-0.02565046027302742,
0.051329899579286575,
-0.003141576424241066,
0.046378277242183685,
-0.01370222494006157,
-0.048700764775276184,
-0.08032692223787308,
0.007099315989762545,
0.0... | |
2gejyr | Could Texas vote for Independence? | Quebec had a vote, Scotland will vote, for independence from their countries. Could Texas vote for independence from the United States? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ckicjnp",
"ckicht3",
"ckicg9b",
"ckijcbn",
"ckid2sa",
"ckiclvb",
"ckie50x",
"ckik9is",
"ckickkb"
],
"text": [
"We fought a war over that question, and the winning side was the 'no' side.",
"They tried that back in 1861. You probably learned about it back in school. It did not end well for them, or for the rest of the Confederacy.",
"This will explain it better than I can.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Vote? Yes. Legally separate from the union as a result of that vote? No.",
"As the Civil War demonstrates, Texas can't unilaterally become independent. It could happen if they could get the U.S. government to agree to it (as Scotland got the U.K. government to agree to their referendum), but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Although Texans like to talk up seceding, there isn't actually that much support for an independent Texas and the only way the U.S. government would ever even consider a Texan independence referendum would be if the support for Texan independence was very significant. On the other hand, there was very little support for Scottish independence just a few years ago...",
"By the current laws, both federally and statewide in Texas, they are not allowed to leave. So legally, they cannot leave without a change to the laws. They can try to leave by force, as many states did in the civil war, but chances are they won't win a war of texas vs everyone else in america.",
"Texas could absolutely vote for independence. Whether or not the rest of the country could go along with it is a different matter entirely. The American Civil War gives a good indication of how that would go.",
"No. Secession is illegal, self-determination be damned.\n\nHowever, Texas *could* leave the Union with a super-majority vote in Congress, but that's not happening.",
"Only by amending the US constitution to allow it. Which seems extremely unlikely to happen."
],
"score": [
14,
7,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S92fTz_-kQE"
]
} | train_eli5 | Could Texas vote for Independence?
Quebec had a vote, Scotland will vote, for independence from their countries. Could Texas vote for independence from the United States? | [
-0.020575067028403282,
-0.06036456301808357,
-0.0006663820240646601,
-0.004080589395016432,
-0.020520886406302452,
-0.019688142463564873,
-0.01186691876500845,
-0.10326146334409714,
-0.01848532445728779,
-0.036425698548555374,
0.011369116604328156,
0.0708644837141037,
0.10067915171384811,
... | |
6imynb | How can it be possible to be declared innocent of a crime when there is video and audio of the event? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj7g75m",
"dj7gq48",
"dj7pex6",
"dj7wga0",
"dj7gu7m",
"dj7h4vt",
"dj8au1r",
"dj8ewxb",
"dj885gy",
"dj7rkg8"
],
"text": [
"The point isn't to be declared \"innocent\", more \"not guilty\". The distinction is important because innocent means \"we know he didn't do it\" which is nearly impossible to know. \n\n\"Not guilty\" means there's not enough evidence to convict someone of a crime.",
"Crimes are specific. For example, for murder, you need to fit certain requirements for it to be murder. There can be video and audio available, but that doesn't always mean that what is on there is enough to fit those requirements.\n\nIf, say, the jury feels that the video / audio does display a man killing another man, but they feel it was self-defence, you are not guilty of murder. If the killing happens, but the prosecution does not adequately prove it was planned, it is not murder.\n\nSometimes juries will convict of a lesser sentence (manslaughter instead or murder for example), but sometimes they won't. Sometimes the defence can introduce enough reasonable doubt (is that really their client in the audio?) that the crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt (which is the standard in criminal court) in which cause you are ruled not guilty (never innocent)",
"If someone was arrested for a crime, and released, then evidence was found, they could be ARRESTED again. \n\nWhat you can't be is TRIED twice for the same crime, so it puts some pressure on the prosecutor to be sure they have a full case before they bring it to court, otherwise they may lose. It helps prevent frivolous charges as well. \n\nThere is both the criminal and civil cases though, which are separate, you could be found not guilty in a criminal case (you go to prison), but guilty in the civil case (you pay them money) and this happens like in the OJ case, where he was found not guilty of the murder in the criminal, but guilty in the civil. \n\nThis happens because it's a hell of a lot easier to prove that someone's actions damaged another person's livelihood than it is to prove without a doubt that they murdered someone. \n\nA cop may kill someone and be found not guilty OF MURDER in the criminal case, so they go free, but then the family Sue's the state in civil court and wins a large settlement due to the WRONGFUL DEATH. \n\nIt's easier to prove that someone should not have been killed by a cop than it is that the cop murdered them.",
"I've got a pretty solid piece of video evidence that Captain America saved New York from aliens with some costumed help. Doesn't make it real. Especially in our modern day with video editing software.\n\nIt's possible to make one piece of evidence very convincing that something happened when it really didn't. It's possible, but much harder, to make many pieces of evidence both consistent and convincing of the same thing. And a little bit of counter-evidence can put reasonable doubt into the jury's mind about which evidence is true.\n\nThat's why criminal trials are by jury, and why as much evidence is presented as is reasonably possible, rather than just one piece of apparently-solid evidence. The jury needs to be sure that the defendant really did commit the crime, that it couldn't have been anyone else, that the evidence wasn't fabricated or misinterpreted, and so on.",
"would have to speculate without a specific case.\n\nperhaps the tape was obtained illegally, \n\nperhaps its unclear if it is the defendent or not. \n\nPerhaps there is contradicting evidence that is equally compelling somehow that cast doubt on the tape being authentic. \n\nPerhaps there was justification to the crime that makes it become self defense or maybe its manslaughter instead of murder. \n\nIf your found not guilty, you can never be retried for that crime again, it would be double jeopardy. Even with new evidence, cant do anything. Though sometimes you can try them for a different crime, or try them for a federal crime (if they were acquitted of a state crime)",
"If you can force a jury to give a particular verdict, then you do not have a true jury system, since the government could just decide evidence is 'blatant' when it is convenient for itself. \n\nAs such, the jury is able to make up their own minds about the suspect's innocence or guilt. \n\nA jury can find a man innocent if he's standing in the court room holding the deceased's head and yelling \"I did it!\" at them, and they could find a man guilty if there is proof he was not born at the time of the crime (although that'd be quite likely to be overturned on appeal).",
"The are at least two parts to a crime, the act itself and the intent behind the act.\n\nOne can perform a particular act with zero criminal intent, and so not be guilty of a crime.\n\nSo let's say you run over a cat with your car...\n\nIf you intended to hit or kill the cat, it's criminal abuse of an animal.\n\nIf you didn't even know the cat was there, it's just some unfortunate shit that happened.\n\nSo the whole (slightly inaccurate) \"means, motive, and opportunity\" mantra from police procedurals on television? That's only partly true.\n\nSo say I have a movie of a guy hiding in some bushes, then when another guy comes by he leaps out of the bushes and buries a pickax into the other guy's chest.\n\nOn the surface it's a movie of a murder while \"laying in wait\"...\n\nNow if the guy with the pickax did it because he hates catholic priests and he knew the guy walking by was such a priest, and he'd planned the whole thing it's not only murder while lying in wait, it's also a \"hate crime\" because the victim was chosen for his status as a catholic priest.\n\nOn the other hand, if the guy in the bushes had just escaped wrongful imprisonment and torture at the hands of some gang. and he was actively evading pursuit by that gang. And he saw the man coming, and saw that he was dressed like the gang members, and so he thought the oncoming man was one of his captors who meant to return him to torture and captivity, then it's self defense or otherwise \"justifiable homicide\".\n\nIt even remains justifiable homicide if the guy who got killed wasn't part of the gang at all, but just happened to reasonably mistaken as a gang member in the circumstance.\n\nSo in essence, in a general sense, you have to be guilty of the \"what\", but you also need to be guilty of the \"why\".\n\nPart of the inverse problem is that people, particularly law enforcement, get away with assuming the why.\n\nIn some ways it started with what I call \"the intent statutes\". Cops and prosecutors and legislatures started saying things like \"we can assume he had 'intent to distribute drugs' because that's a lot more drugs than we think one person could use.\"\n\nOf course this is flawed logic, just as its predecessors in american racism used to lynch black guys for \"looking at\" white women, because that was \"obviously intent to rape\" or whatever.\n\nNow it's not super obvious, but one can reasonably follow this sort of logic to the \"he was reaching for a gun\" excuse so often cited of late.\n\nIn this latest case that I am assuming brought this question to mind, the victim of the shooting was reaching into his glove box to retrieve the documents requested. He'd already told the officers that he had a licensed gun in the same location. So the officer says \"he was reaching for a gun\" even though we also know he was \"reaching for his registration\" which was colocated with the gun.\n\nIn our legal system, and our social conditioning, we give arguably unreasonable credit to the officials. We are conditioned to think, even in lessor circumstances, such as a criminal trial, that if the prosecutor has brought charges then the guy must be guilty of _something_, _somewhere_ so why not convict them of _this_ thing?\n\nIn the same breath that logic says \"if the cop shot him, then he was probably guilty of something, so why not 'reaching for a gun'? Does it really matter?\"\n\nSee we have this culturally naive and parochial sense of guilt.\n\nThat's why, if some kid gets shot and the media _want's_ the shooter to be innocent, then we hear about how the victim was once in a fight in middle school.\n\nWe construct a fantasy story of great and terrible men because that makes us feel like a miscarriage of justice can only happen to bad people.\n\nIn neuroscience there is something called \"The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight\" (paste that phrase into google for references). It's the tendency to see ourselves as subtle and nuanced actors with a rich inner life, while seeing others as simple creatures with obvious and blunt motivations.\n\nIn short, IMHO of course, cops get improperly exonerated for a slew of crappy reasons. We make endless excuses about how dangerous the job is and \"man in the moment\" justifications. But the truth is that as a culture, we _want_ the cops to be innocent because then we are safe from being victimized ourselves.\n\nIn truth the vilification of the minorities and the macho legend of the lone ranger, the mythology of the old west, and an endless stream of other cultural iconography from television, movies, and whatnot has lead to a serious problem that nobody wants to admit...\n\nOur police forces are chock full of people who joined the force for the mystique.\n\nThen there is the thing the FBI has been warning about for decades, where they _know_ that White Supremacists™ and religious nutters have been deliberately joining the ranks of law enforcement in order to \"win the race or culture wars\".\n\nNow the thing is, there are plenty of good people in law enforcement as well.\n\nBut the culture of hating the people who keep the cops honest, such as every mention of Internal Affairs in movies and such as being the enemy of the force, is sort of a real thing. The \"fraternity\" mind-set, the \"us versus the world\" mentality, tends to become toxic. Particularly to those who did and do join the force because they want to be The Man™ and so above reproach.\n\nOf course this happens in all manner of cases. We try the rape victim more than the rapists. We _want_ the vigilante to be right because we harbor revenge fantasies of our own.\n\nAnd there are _also_ cases where the cop was exactly right but the community wants to lynch him anyway.\n\nAnd \"they\" do bad things because \"They Are All Terrorists™\" but \"people like us\" do bad things because \"obviously he was just a confused and disturbed young man\". After all, when was the last time that a white guy in the U.S. killed a bunch of people for a religious or political idology? Not too long ago, but when was last time you saw such a white man called a terrorist? Like never? Even McVeigh wasn't labeled as the terrorist he was... because \"people like me just don't do that sort of thing unless they are of diminished capacity\".\n\nWe are a bunch of stupid monkeys.\n\nSo when the **_what_** of events cannot be reconciled, we will go through great effort to reconcile a **_why_** that lets us be happy.\n\nDISCLAIMER: I am so white it's my last name. Some would call me liberal, and on some topics I am. But what I _really_ am is old enough, and socially aware enough, to be able to call things as I've seen them. I was in school during later-day desegregation. I was raised in both The South and The South-West, so I was raised at both extremes. We've made great progress in my lifetime, but there is so much further to go as a species that it boggles the mind. So this is my shovel-full of balanced analysis thrown onto the fire in hopes of taking down some of the flames.",
"Are you referring to the Yanez / Castile case in Minnesota? Basically the video and audio showed him shooting into the car. The fact that he did so wouldn't have been in dispute even without the video. The issue was whether a reasonable person would fear for his life and assert self defense after Castile kept reaching for something after being screamed at to stop when the officer knew there was a gun in the car.\n\nSome factors in the trial:\n\n* The camera just captures a wide shot of the scene. Exactly what went on inside the car was a he said / she said situation\n\n* The issue on whether Castile was baked on weed at the time. There was weed in his system and some found in the car, and he had prior arrests for it. (and this brings about the issue about if he lied about his drug use on his permit to carry a pistol).\n\n* The prosecution team was vastly outmatched in skill by the defense team, and the prosecution expert witnesses in police procedure were clearly outmatched. \n\n* In deference to how dangerous their jobs are and their service in keeping commutes safe, juries are loath to convict cops of misconduct while acting in the course of their job\n\nFinally, they did not find him innocent. They found him not guilty. There is a difference. Not guilty doesn't necessarily mean they think he's innocent, but that the prosecution didn't fulfill their obligation to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. My personal opionion is juries should have the option of \"guilty\", \"not proven guilty\" or \"innocent\". The latter two would both legally bar further prosecution, but an innocent verdict would preclude civil action related to the case as well as distinguish between people that we think did it but can't prove it, and those we think didn't do it.",
"Two elements are required for a criminal act. \n \nMens rea, the intent to commit a crime. Intent or willful disregard of what a reasonable person knows is wrong. \nActus reus, the actual act (or lack thereof) that is against the law. \n \nA video cannot tell \"why\". It can show what happened. Context is essential. \n \nAdditionally, a crime requires multiple elements. If not all are met, one is not guilty. In many of the most public cases, the defendant is under a charge which is too difficult to prove. \n \nThis is because there are different burdens of proof within the courts. The standard for a criminal conviction is often \"beyond a reasonable doubt\". This is an extremely high standard. It is very easy to introduce a basic amount of doubt. Real world forensics are far behind CSI (many jurors have an unreasonable expectation of the criminal justice system based on TV shows).",
"Spot on points about double jeopardy.\nOur justice system is designed (in theory) not to put \"bad people\" behind bars, but to prevent \"good people\" from mistakenly being imprisoned. The philosophy is, it is a greater crime to let an innocent person go to jail, than it would be to let a guilty person go free"
],
"score": [
122,
19,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How can it be possible to be declared innocent of a crime when there is video and audio of the event?
| [
0.04992019012570381,
0.04327751696109772,
-0.024156935513019562,
-0.07571440190076828,
0.13495519757270813,
0.08148478716611862,
0.009797201491892338,
-0.011102143675088882,
0.10255642235279083,
0.011623881757259369,
0.07652781158685684,
-0.033982791006565094,
-0.028329746797680855,
-0.002... | ||
75p20j | If 10% of accidents are caused by wet roadways, why can't we create a tire type that doesnt hydroplane and is easily fitted for all vehicle types? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"do7sdyb",
"do7upah",
"do7ulbh",
"do7sbwv",
"do7t3at"
],
"text": [
"Because we need to have tyres that work in all weather conditions, including completely dry roads. Producing a rubber compound that was super effective in wet conditions would likely involve a fairly soft tyre surface with loads of grooves to disperse water - if that tyre were driven on dry roads, it would introduce a lot of vibration from the grooves, and the rubber compound would break down, dramatically shortening the life of the tyre.",
"/u/togoboldly has the right idea with his response, however I'd like to go a bit deeper. Keep in mind, the contact patch (area that connects tire and ground) is roughly just a tad bit bigger than a grown mans hand laid flat.\n\n**What causes a tire to lose effectiveness or hydroplane in wet conditions?**\n\nWhen it's raining, water forms on roads. And some of it stays on top of it. Now, you remember as a kid when you were playing in a tub or pool, pushing water on the surface to create tiny waves? That's what an ungrooved tire surface is basically doing. It's pushing water away from it, and by rotating also pushing it under it. Water is a nasty bugger because it doesn't compress, and many a wonders of modern world use this to their advantage.\n\n**Alright great, so we just gotta do grooved tires, right? Can't be that hard!**\n\nWell, yes and no. There is a lot of research going on all the time by the top manufacturers, on how to optimise the tire performance. They come up with shapes and compounds which they test through. Very popular way of shaping the tires has been the upsidedown V shape. It catches the water that is supposed to go under the tire inside the groove, and pushes it to the sides and out.**THIS IS ALSO THE REASON WHY ITS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROLL DIRECTION, WHEN YOU INSTALL NEW TIRES**. If you'd mount up a tire with the V going wrong direction, it would CATCH that water and push it under the tire. Not good. Unless you want to turn your car into a sled.\n\nThe thing with grooves is, it adds edges. And edges adds friction. It isn't bad to have friction on tire, but too much of it and you get noise (annoying as hell), vibration (also annoying, but wears your car a lot), decreased fuel economy (Which is a big factor in consumer tires) and tire wear.\n\nSome of these can be battled with changing the tire compound a bit, but there is a limit. Too soft, it wears out and is noisy. Too hard, it has no grip, dry or wet.\n\n\nSo believe me, there are tons of engineers working on the best possible solution. Here in Finland, our roads are very coarse, and we have snow and ice at least 3-4 months a year. Maybe 2 dry months and the rest is wet as fuck. Police are super strict on the tires and you can get a fine that is a % of your income, which can rack up to hundreds of euros. The reason is simple, public safety.\n\n\nHere is a great image about how the tire wear affects the amount of grip: [Link](_URL_0_)\nIt is in Finnish, sorry for that, but it gives you the idea. Leftside column is speed, top column is the amount of millimeters in groove depth. Minimum required depth in Finland is 5/32 inches or 4mm. Quite fucking scary, when you think that that's the only thing trying to get your car where you want it, instead of sliding around.",
"There are such tyres already, but they are unsuitable for dry conditions.\n\nA standard tyre is a compromise - its not the most performant in the dry, nor the wet.\n\nIt would be up to the driver to adjust their driving to the conditions - which I suspect is the real culprit behind your '10% of accidents are caused by wet roadways' statistic",
"We can't fix the fleshy thing behind the wheel that either chooses to ignore the necessity to replace it, or is too ignorant to know otherwise. \n\nI just drove around the other day in a car where the back wheel locks up because the slave cylinder is malfunctioning. I didn't crash into anything. People fail to take appropriate action, and caution, when driving. They fail to learn what is required to remain safe. They fail to plan ahead to avoid issues. \n\nIt's not the tire, or the engineer, or the material, or anything else but the fault of the driver.",
"its much easier just to have people slow the fuck down when driving on a wet roadway, especially during turns. i bet 99% of accidents are caused by bad driving and not the fault of any equipment, like car or tires. tires are already meant to be able to work VERY well on wet roadways. i've driven through sheets of rain without any traction control warnings"
],
"score": [
14,
12,
7,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.turvallisetrenkaat.fi/userData/turvallisetrenkaat/Urasyvyys-ja-vesiliirto.jpg"
]
} | train_eli5 | If 10% of accidents are caused by wet roadways, why can't we create a tire type that doesnt hydroplane and is easily fitted for all vehicle types?
| [
0.001178104430437088,
-0.044268492609262466,
0.10149291157722473,
0.03206053003668785,
0.03676880896091461,
-0.061463866382837296,
-0.008022678084671497,
0.10043837875127792,
-0.021469760686159134,
0.04662181809544563,
-0.0618182010948658,
0.0631224662065506,
-0.017896242439746857,
0.10614... | ||
8d0ryu | How can a negative emotional state create physical symptoms, such as depression causing you to become sick or sore ? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dxjz0fn"
],
"text": [
"Think about fight, flight, or freeze response. When do they usually kick in? When you perceive a threat. Your body physically responds to that emotion of fear. Adrenaline increases your heart rate, blood pressure, & energy supply to do what you need to.\n\nThere’s also this other hormone called cortisol. It’s known as the “stress hormone.” It usually does it’s own thing and helps adrenaline out.\n\nNow, if your body is always under a lot of emotional/mental stressors, then your body keeps thinking it’s going through fight-flight and kick in those necessary hormones to help you out. But you aren’t really. So now your body is being over exposed to cortisol and some other stress hormones. Those hormones normally regulate things like your blood pressure, digestion, sleep regulation, & other life essentials. But because it’s overexposed to all these hormones, all of the sudden you’re always feeling anxious because your heart is beating fast. Your stomach can’t really digest well. Your metabolism has gone haywire. You feel sweaty and nauseous and now your body is just tired because it keeps getting ready to fight or run but it’s not that kind of stress going on.\n\nKeep in mind, this is an over simplification. Hope it helps."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How can a negative emotional state create physical symptoms, such as depression causing you to become sick or sore ?
| [
0.030199000611901283,
0.014152192510664463,
0.027912339195609093,
0.2045421302318573,
0.02241496555507183,
0.006125327665358782,
0.0025127578992396593,
0.058123670518398285,
0.05861314386129379,
-0.039547935128211975,
-0.013843080960214138,
-0.06820952147245407,
0.023253029212355614,
0.007... | ||
7ccxrs | Why do phones sound so much worse when on speaker? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpp4iqw",
"dpp2wql"
],
"text": [
"The energy in a sound signal dies off pretty fast the farther away you get from it. This is fine for really small speakers that you put *very* close to your ears like headphones, earbuds, and telephone speakers.\n\nWhen you switch to \"speaker\" mode on a phone the speakers used are still very small and the power dies off pretty fast, unfortunately not all the frequencies die off at the same distance so the sound gets distorted.",
"The sound isn’t even MP3 quality to start with. It sounds fine on that small speaker you hold up to your ear, but you can tell that the quality’s bad when the sound goes on speakerphone\n\nTL;DR: the quality isn’t rich enough to sound good on speakerphone"
],
"score": [
9,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do phones sound so much worse when on speaker?
| [
0.030910000205039978,
-0.007858802564442158,
0.046097420156002045,
-0.020775001496076584,
-0.06525315344333649,
-0.08411996811628342,
0.022545382380485535,
0.015172196552157402,
0.1077081635594368,
-0.06100224331021309,
-0.02762136235833168,
0.05034763738512993,
0.011732380837202072,
0.015... | ||
5ln62q | What exactly is a Diplomat and why do we have them? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbwwyrc",
"dbwxglq"
],
"text": [
"Trade agreements, negotiation of travel between boarders, military cooperation, cultural study, national security advisory....",
"Diplomats are points of contact for official communication between countries, and are of particular importance in making agreements between governments. If you had a king for example the king isn't going to visit a neighboring country in order to discuss trade arrangements. They would send a representative who is well-spoken and delegated a certain amount of authority to negotiate the agreements on behalf of the king. Communication would otherwise have taken far too long.\n\nThese days diplomats basically do the same sort of thing."
],
"score": [
7,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What exactly is a Diplomat and why do we have them?
| [
-0.04099178686738014,
0.02614242024719715,
-0.015463728457689285,
-0.0011516031809151173,
-0.05606421083211899,
-0.005816594231873751,
0.03568636253476143,
-0.028976475819945335,
0.09308789670467377,
0.01579306088387966,
-0.001224093372002244,
-0.04804115369915962,
-0.042644672095775604,
0... | ||
1lf3hr | Why don't your palms grow hair? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cbylclh"
],
"text": [
"Animals evolved to not have hair on palms/soles of feet in order to have better traction for movement. Dogs, cats, primates, etc - all mammals have areas of hands/feet without hair.\n\nPrimate have broader palms instead of the pads you see on the feet of other mammals, so our entire palms are hair free for practical use."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why don't your palms grow hair?
| [
0.009908104315400124,
-0.038392916321754456,
-0.04237730801105499,
0.02030232548713684,
0.05121166259050369,
-0.0803958997130394,
0.030476709827780724,
-0.02953212894499302,
0.03362288326025009,
0.05661603808403015,
0.12695041298866272,
-0.017163731157779694,
-0.060307640582323074,
-0.0448... | ||
1mcgcr | What causes the sound you hear when two people harmonize? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cc81ezl"
],
"text": [
"Do this:\n\nCount in your head 1, 2, 3, 4, nice and even, over and over.\n\nNow tap your right foot on 1.\n\nNow tap your left foot on 1 and 3.\n\nPretty easy for you feet to fall into a nice pattern, right? That's what happens when you harmonize, the soundwaves fit together in a nice pattern.\n\nStart over.\n\nTap your right foot on 1.\n\nTap your left foot every 3rd beat.\n\nThat's pretty hard, and it doesn't make a real nice pattern. That's what happens when two sounds are out of harmony."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What causes the sound you hear when two people harmonize?
| [
0.015885483473539352,
-0.08868768066167831,
-0.0069547388702631,
-0.011059658601880074,
-0.07415325194597244,
-0.008795863017439842,
0.027265969663858414,
-0.0297709833830595,
0.0985875204205513,
-0.04267266020178795,
0.014215718023478985,
-0.029743116348981857,
-0.027652587741613388,
-0.0... | ||
640lfp | what causes surges in a free flowing river? | Especially in the spring, I notice short (a few seconds) increases in the flow of the river. This is on a free flowing (not dammed) river, so I know the surges are not caused by dam releases. Since this happens mostly in the spring, when water levels are rising, I thought it might have something to do with snow melt, but that seems like too gradual of a process to create these surges.
Edited to add: this river begins about 50 miles upstream from where I experienced the surges and is formed by the confluence of a bunch of small tributaries. The flow range for this river is from 3,500 cfs during peak to about 350 cfs during August. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfymkuv"
],
"text": [
"A few seconds seems to be a really small time scale for a surge, and could really only be caused by a couple things. First, as was mentioned, a flash storm upstream, in addition to a few really wide areas of the river could result in surges of that nature. Another reason could be groundwater pumping. If a well is being developed nearby and they are drawing significant amounts of water in a short time period, the groundwater table may drop significantly near the river. This will cause the stream flow to drop for a short period as river water equilibrates with the new groundwater conditions. Lastly, if you're basing this off USGS stream gages, you should know that it is unprocessed data and contains a bit of noise. It would be interesting to take a look at the data after it's subjected to a high pass filter."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | what causes surges in a free flowing river?
Especially in the spring, I notice short (a few seconds) increases in the flow of the river. This is on a free flowing (not dammed) river, so I know the surges are not caused by dam releases. Since this happens mostly in the spring, when water levels are rising, I thought it might have something to do with snow melt, but that seems like too gradual of a process to create these surges. Edited to add: this river begins about 50 miles upstream from where I experienced the surges and is formed by the confluence of a bunch of small tributaries. The flow range for this river is from 3,500 cfs during peak to about 350 cfs during August. | [
-0.08541282266378403,
-0.047753993421792984,
0.08516444265842438,
0.03478135168552399,
-0.02635851688683033,
-0.03843804448843002,
-0.04551933333277702,
0.031949035823345184,
0.04427780210971832,
0.005214427597820759,
-0.07432612031698227,
-0.022631805390119553,
0.036215782165527344,
-0.03... | |
88hlkn | How can bird/predators eat bugs or insects that are venomous? | I always wonder how they eat insects that has poison/venomous insects ( or do that realize they have poison and not choose to eat???) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dwknzw1",
"dwko9n1"
],
"text": [
"There's a difference between poison and venom. Poison takes effect when eaten or inhaled. Venom takes effect when injected into the blood, typically through a bite or sting. Their predators may produce a natural anti-toxin or, in the case of those that prey on venomous creatures, are just really good at avoiding getting hit.",
"Venom and poison is not the same thing.\n\nEating a venomous animal is not a necessary a problem. A venom is something that is dangerous if injected with a fangs, singer or som other way.\n\nYou can eat most venom as they are broken down by the instants. Venom often proteins like meat and is broken down into amino acids.\n\nVenom are dangerous if injected. Poison are dangerous if you eat them. Poison is of course also dangerous if injected."
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How can bird/predators eat bugs or insects that are venomous?
I always wonder how they eat insects that has poison/venomous insects ( or do that realize they have poison and not choose to eat???) | [
0.0866452157497406,
-0.016073767095804214,
-0.011556663550436497,
0.036480870097875595,
0.004093179013580084,
0.026678189635276794,
0.08071243017911911,
-0.03732089698314667,
-0.029041746631264687,
0.029456809163093567,
-0.012000157497823238,
-0.09151975065469742,
-0.005394503474235535,
0.... | |
3mqub6 | Why do small dogs think they are big and big dogs think they are small? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvhf7bj"
],
"text": [
"I believe it is discipline.\n\nLarger dogs are heavily disciplined - controlled from barking and mis-behaving. \n\nWhere as small dogs receive little discipline from barking or jumping because they are more harmless do to their size."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do small dogs think they are big and big dogs think they are small?
| [
0.13264940679073334,
0.04904720559716225,
0.06325355917215347,
0.07773906737565994,
-0.039293479174375534,
-0.0468670129776001,
0.029518328607082367,
0.03650675714015961,
0.04023575410246849,
0.0799684077501297,
0.022922774776816368,
-0.040956925600767136,
-0.028430119156837463,
-0.0210538... | ||
623qan | Why African Americans are not given the prefix of their country of origin while European's are? | An example being Solvenian-American and such | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfjhles",
"dfjhotq",
"dfjhk33",
"dfjqc1t",
"dfjhi81",
"dfjq471",
"dfjtel5"
],
"text": [
"Because Black Americans who are descendants of slaves usually don't know their family's country of origin. Slave owners and traders were not interested in the ethnic origins of their slaves and kept only the most rudimentary records. Many Black Americans find it impossible to trace their families back more than a few generations.",
"Because most African-Americans are descended from slaves, and thus don't know their country of origin. Even if distinct \"countries\" as we understand them could be said to have existed at the time of the slave trade, detailed records were not kept.\n\nFor more recent immigrants and their descendants, it certainly would not be uncommon to adopt a \"hyphenated\" ethnicity, e.g. Nigerian-Americans or Ethiopian-Americans.",
"Many do not have records of their ancestors' country of origin.\n\nMany have ancestors from numerous different African countries.\n\nSome of the countries in Africa where slaves were usually kidnapped from no longer exist.",
"I have previously asked some friends of mine this exact question, because some of them DID know where they came from (generally-ish, at least), but all still wanted to be thought of and called African American or black.\n\n\nThe reasons varied a bit, but could be paraphrased like this: \"Black Americans are their own culture and totally different from African Africans of any type. I'm not one of them, I'm different. I'm not my country of origin, I'm a unique culture that only exists here.\"",
"Because most of them are descended from slaves, and don't know what country they're originally from, what languages their family originally spoke, etc. Slaves weren't usually permitted to talk about that stuff, families were broken up and sold off so many slaves never knew their parents, non-English/French languages were forbidden.\n\nThat's also why there are Irish-American bars/parades/traditions/pride things, German-American, English-American, etc, but just 'black' for the descendants of slaves. They don't know.",
"In addition to what others have said, at the time that slaves were being taken from Africa, there didn't exist countries in that area in the sense that we think of today - essentially every country that currently exists in western africa is a relatively modern political concept, and many of these countries have complicated mixes of different ethnicities within them.",
"In addition to this, I've always been interested in the American system of putting a prefix in there at all. I've noticed Americans saying 'I'm Irish' or 'Italian', when in other countries, it's more typical to just say that you're the nationality you were born in.\n\nIs it because America still holds a lot of value over the idea that they're a 'nation of immigrants'? A lot of countries are, but they don't tend to hold onto that idea as much."
],
"score": [
19,
12,
8,
4,
4,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why African Americans are not given the prefix of their country of origin while European's are?
An example being Solvenian-American and such | [
0.01616162247955799,
-0.004569608718156815,
-0.04359646514058113,
-0.017680857330560684,
-0.07299310714006424,
-0.07145116478204727,
-0.04860316216945648,
-0.0733814612030983,
0.030820926651358604,
-0.034529998898506165,
0.04358338192105293,
-0.09151908755302429,
-0.03375682607293129,
-0.0... | |
3z6n1o | What exactly is the Internet, where does it exist, how am I receiving it, and who is sending it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cyjmu9x",
"cyjo9q0",
"cyjo2gw"
],
"text": [
"This is like asking where does mail exists. The Internet is a collection of devices all around the world that communicate using IP. There are major data centers for peering/etc but the answer is it's all around us.",
"You know how connecting your phone to your computer through a cable lets you do all sorts of stuff in one device that affects the other? They're really just sharing information. \nThe internet is a bunch of wires connecting millions and millions of devices, doing more or less the same thing as the USB cable you use for your phone.\n\nA good analogy is to compare this to water or electricity and the systems that deliver it to your home. As a collection of many many connections, it exists everywhere; you're receiving it as digital information, ones and zeroes, through the cable in your computer; the senders are any number of devices connected to this huge network.",
"who is sending it. everyone is. you are\n\nyou sending this question to ELI5 on reddit is making the internet content. \n\nus reading this question on ELI5 are taking in that content."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What exactly is the Internet, where does it exist, how am I receiving it, and who is sending it?
| [
-0.023416558280587196,
-0.05088837444782257,
0.012453056871891022,
-0.05270624905824661,
-0.026424305513501167,
-0.04767938703298569,
0.06831757724285126,
0.004522052127867937,
0.0722985491156578,
0.006790897808969021,
-0.01521935872733593,
0.016095001250505447,
0.022400125861167908,
-0.08... | ||
5d2xir | If lower frequencies mean less energy, why does bass seem so much more powerful than treble? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"da1b8df",
"da1b87f",
"da1odat",
"da1u1og"
],
"text": [
"Because the described frequency/power relationship assumes the same amplitude.\n\nBass can be played at higher amplitude without being uncomfortable, and frequently has dedicated (large) speakers for it (woofers and subwoofers). Thus, the bass is played at a higher amplitude.\n\nThere is also the association of low-frequencies with large, heavy impacts due to resonance.",
"humans like high energy bass, and dislike high energy treble, so are generally exposed to high energy bass often, and high energy treble close to never. so you're comparing powerful bass to weak treble.\n\nif you were ever the victim of a sonic weapon you wouldn't even think of asking such a thing.",
"Like others have said, humans like low frequencies more than high. So lower frequencies are amplified more. But the human body also has various parts that resonate with frequencies between 0.5 and 80 Hz, which is why you feel the vibrations in your chest from bass and not higher pitches.",
"It takes less energy to produce low frequency sounds, so it is easier to make loud low frequency sounds. If two sounds have the same amount of energy and one is high frequency and the other is low frequency then the lower one will be louder."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If lower frequencies mean less energy, why does bass seem so much more powerful than treble?
| [
0.07481252402067184,
-0.03514566272497177,
-0.04876222833991051,
0.014739207923412323,
-0.03346015512943268,
-0.04639187827706337,
-0.021539026871323586,
0.07856667786836624,
0.01771862991154194,
-0.013469407334923744,
-0.07850226014852524,
-0.0009821091080084443,
-0.047582536935806274,
-0... | ||
1aebug | Does fire weigh anything? | I wanted to know if fire actually had a set weight or if there was a way to the measure the weight of fire?
Thanks for the answers guys, it really helped my drunk self understand :-)
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c8worf9",
"c8woaj7",
"c8wo4n5",
"c8wocn9",
"c8wp4h8",
"c8wooq9",
"c8wp2l4"
],
"text": [
"Fire is simply burning matter. The visible flame is basically plasma, which is when a gas gets hot enough to ionize giving it the distinctive appearance. Solids are the first state of matter, then liquids, gases and finally plasma. As such it has mass, but it's a very hot plasma (ionized gas). \n\nThink of the molecules of a gas as a bunch of tiny balls, all bouncing around. Heating a gas makes the bounce with more speed, so when a ball on is filled with a gas, you are seeing the result of trillions of trillions of impacts of those balls each second with the sides of the balloon. If you heat up the gas in the balloon, the balls pick up speed causing them to hit the balloon harder making the sides push out and expand. This expansion makes the gas less dense, in that it's the same amount of matter but spread out over a larger area.\n\nSo because of the heat, a flame's density (and the density of the air around it that gets heated) is lower than that of the much cooler air around the fire. This causes the gases to rise and makes the flames go upward. Even though they have low density, they still have mass. But mass =\\= weight. Weight is gravity times mass, so two objects that have the same mass will have different weights on the Earth and the moon. Still, just because it floats doesn't mean the Earth isn't pulling on it. Just think of a life jacket that floats in water, but if you pull it out, it can still be weighed on land. \n\nAs for weighing it, you could probably best estimate it through stoichiometry (taking the formulas for the reactions and multiplying for the amount of material being reacted.)\n\nTLDR: flames are ionized matter, they have mass and have weight.",
"Fire is in itself a really fast reaction with oxygen, releasing energy in the form of heat and light. The answer to your question depends on what you mean by fire. \n\nIf you mean the reaction, no, that doesn't have mass, just like walking doesn't have mass. \n\nIf you mean the flame though, that is actual chemical compounds giving off light - and that does have mass.",
"Not sure about fire itself, but I do remember learning that if you could take a giant plastic bag over a fire that would collect all the byproducts from a fire (ash leftover on the ground included) that it would weigh as much as the original product before burning. Conservation of energy and all.",
"The term you're looking for is \"flame\" - the red hot gases you see - and not \"fire\" - the chemical reaction. And since flame is a gas then yes, it does have mass and therefore weight as well.",
"> /r/askscience, a great place for detailed science answers\n\nFrom the sidebar.",
"Fire is what results when some things mix together and they form a really hot reaction. Whatever mixed together has a weight, which is still part of the fire, and as it burns it turns to gas which gets released into the atmosphere. If anything a fire is just the weight of whatever mixed together that gets smaller over time because the gases float away",
"Fire is a plasma. \n\nIt's lighter than air though, but yes, it does have some mass."
],
"score": [
54,
35,
26,
7,
6,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Does fire weigh anything?
I wanted to know if fire actually had a set weight or if there was a way to the measure the weight of fire? Thanks for the answers guys, it really helped my drunk self understand :-) | [
-0.0019138072384521365,
0.062764972448349,
-0.041973087936639786,
0.10538559406995773,
-0.01861119456589222,
0.0018472071969881654,
0.08925164490938187,
-0.0016258670948445797,
0.02905431017279625,
0.01025099866092205,
-0.06350347399711609,
-0.044798992574214935,
-0.028569746762514114,
0.0... | |
4dvmqv | How do people (and pornstars) manage to fit so much stuff in their ass without doing crazy damage? Is everyone built like that? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d1uprln",
"d1uspqb",
"d1uqpg1",
"d1uso8p"
],
"text": [
"The same way you do anything. Practice. They start small and ease their way up over a few years (Crawl- > Walk- > Run). They also learn to control the 2nd sphincter which allows them to go deeper (Very dangerous if not done properly or with care). \n\nSource: Asked DirtyGardenGirl how she got to be the way she was, 3 years of practice was her answer.\n\nEdit: Essentially if you really want to, you can condition yourself to do it as well. just do not expect to fit an eggplant in before a golf ball.",
"Follow up question -\n\nHow do they poop? Does it just, flop out? Is their anus like a loose bag of jelly beans that poops just kinda trickle out? Do they fart, or does butt gas just kinda seep out constantly?\n\nI've always wondered these things.",
"Same way women can carry a child without rupturing. The body is very flexible and very adaptable.\n\nAnd, as Hellguin pointed out, it takes practice. Just like building muscle, you have to build extra tissue over time to accommodate larger items.",
"Best analogy I can give you - ever see someone with stretched earlobes? They didn't insert a large ring on day 1. Just gradually increasing ring size, as body adjusts."
],
"score": [
33,
10,
7,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do people (and pornstars) manage to fit so much stuff in their ass without doing crazy damage? Is everyone built like that?
[removed] | [
0.07124298810958862,
-0.008412085473537445,
0.03724883124232292,
0.05838478356599808,
0.001469109789468348,
-0.0977633148431778,
0.09244349598884583,
0.04481374844908714,
-0.05706705152988434,
0.014648220501840115,
-0.0053431689739227295,
0.06630247831344604,
0.052717264741659164,
-0.02966... | |
5dwlx1 | with regards to vodka, how can something that has such a strong flavor, have such a weak smell? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"da7zekb"
],
"text": [
"Smell happens when volatile compounds (that is, compounds that readily evaporate and enter the air) are clouding around an object and you inhale them. Vodka is mostly alcohol and water. Alcohol has a pretty distinctive smell but compared to something like rum with a bunch of other aromatic ingredients like sugar and spices, vodka's gonna have a pretty muted smell."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | with regards to vodka, how can something that has such a strong flavor, have such a weak smell?
| [
-0.01597476936876774,
-0.09404850751161575,
-0.054621629416942596,
0.06304977089166641,
0.03129034861922264,
0.009625953622162342,
0.056785374879837036,
0.018692191690206528,
0.09284820407629013,
-0.08820049464702606,
-0.07538586109876633,
0.05473528429865837,
-0.05977596342563629,
0.08493... | ||
19fm87 | Why is WiFi loss measured in dB? and how does that work? | I constantly see things like -92dB or -23dB I have no idea what is better and also I see "signal-to-noise" whatever that is | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c8nl8u6"
],
"text": [
"Most people associate decibels (dB) with sound, but really decibel doesn't actually measure anything. A decibel is a way of comparing something to some reference point. Every 10 dB marks being 10 times larger or smaller than you were before. This scale is called a logarithmic scale, and basically involves scaling things by adding or taking away zeroes at the end of a number, instead of counting. It's not easy to calculate dB values that aren't multiples of 10, but a good rule of thumb is that 3dB is around double or half the original value, depending on which way you go.\n\nEvery decibel measurement has a reference point, that is called 0dB. For sound, this is roughly the softest possible noise that human ears can detect. If you have a sound that is 10dB, it is then 10 times more powerful than that. If you have a 20 dB sound, it is 10 times louder than a 10 dB sound, or 100 times louder than a 0 dB sound. A -10 dB sound is 1/10th the power of a 0 dB sound, and a -20dB sound is 1/100th the power.\n\nWifi signal is measured by how much electromagnetic power is picked up by the antenna. 1 milliwatt (one one thousandth of a watt) is equal to 0 dBmW (decibels of milliwatts), or more commonly just called dBm. So if you have a signal of -23dBm, the power picked up by your antenna is less than 1/100th of 1mW, or 0.01mW. That gets you to -20dBm. A difference of 3 dB means power is roughly doubled or halved, so -23dBm is roughly half the strength of -20dBm, or about 0.005mW. -92dB is much much much weaker, at around 1/1000000000th the strength of 1mW."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is WiFi loss measured in dB? and how does that work?
I constantly see things like -92dB or -23dB I have no idea what is better and also I see "signal-to-noise" whatever that is | [
-0.0037813095841556787,
-0.005214146804064512,
-0.02755327895283699,
0.0695255920290947,
0.013820936903357506,
0.02680605836212635,
0.07261040061712265,
0.01640387251973152,
0.06692022830247879,
0.004445657134056091,
-0.05613208934664726,
0.005376485176384449,
0.059134211391210556,
-0.0463... | |
49tudu | How does this 64K algorithm generate a beautiful 6 minute long video with no resources? | [Content Source](_URL_0_)
[Generated Video](_URL_1_) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d0usa7d",
"d0v7f8j",
"d0urc7t",
"d0urnix",
"d0v01h8"
],
"text": [
"Most programme code nowadays is large because it has to be flexible and react to a variety of exceptions, test inputs, perform garbage collection, and play nice in an operating system with other programmes.\n\nThis code doesn't have to do any of that. It takes direct advantage of in-silicon data processing. It doesn't have to manage memory well except to the extent that it needs to, to avoid crashing before finishing. It doesn't have to include hooks to libraries, or test inputs for security exploits, or query databases. It doesn't even necessarily need to deal with an operating system.\n\nIt's also probably optimised by hand to the point where it would be extremely difficult to change any part of it without affecting other parts.\n\n64k of machine code is a *huge* amount of machine code. Modern programming methods sacrifice code size in order to gain security, interoperability, and ease of debugging / maintenance, because storage and RAM are cheap, today.",
"Well, think of it as an orchestra playing a symphony. A recording of the audio is probably several 100 MB. The notes however, are just a few kB. The sound of the instruments is being reused according to the notes.\n\nThe trick is to build \"instruments\" that creates the sound and visual according get to the notes you include.",
"These videos generate the visuals using formulas and algorithms - not stored images - and those don't take up much space at all. A Fractal such as the Mandelbrot Fractal can be programmed in a few hundred bytes because it's a combination of a couple of simple formulas ran in a loop.",
"They can do so much with so little code because of several factors.\n\nThere may be some resources, but not many (and those would be highly highly compressed)..... not many because the whole point of a demo or intro is to generate needed resources procedurally - i.e. every texture (like the marble) is generated either on start or when required by an algorithm.\n\nAlso, folks in the demo scene don't use C#, .net etc. to write this. They're using C or most likely assembly code. So there's no bloat which comes with higher level languages or graphics run-times.\n\nAlso, you'll notice there's a lot of repitition and re-use. That corridor of marble alcoves and columns - you can see the repeating marble textures and of course the models for the columns and blocks are all identical. You can even see the same pattern of different marble textures starts to repeat after a while. Once you have one set, having the algorithm draw the same thing but offset down the corridor is easy. Then, later on twisting the geometry to make the corridor spiral is just applying some transformation math to the same thing.\n\nEven the music is generated procedurally to an extent. I haven't kept up with the demo scene lately, but back in the day the music were \"mod\" or tracker files. These aren't digitized audio like a CD track or an mp3..... and not entirely synth generated like a midi track. Tracker files are kindof like having a sampler played by midi - a short base waveform of an instrument at various octaves is modulated and pitched up and down to get other in between notes; stretched and repeated to make longer notes; envelopes applied to the playback to get attack and fade out effects. But the samples themselves might be only a few hundred bytes.",
"Imagine you want to show someone a play. You can either take a video of it, which will likely take hundreds of megabytes, or you can hire a group of actors to learn the script and a director to recreate the play. The script is likely only kilobytes (much smaller than the video file). \n\nHere the algorithm generates processes that can create the images, rather than storing any of the images. Much of the heavy-duty graphics work is contained in code outside of this application because it's useful to all sorts of programs. (The competition this was submitted to had computers with DirectX or equivalent graphics code)."
],
"score": [
34,
14,
10,
6,
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://gizmodo.com/this-incredible-animation-was-made-by-code-that-could-f-1565294456",
"https://youtu.be/lwFVlNytq0Q"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does this 64K algorithm generate a beautiful 6 minute long video with no resources?
[Content Source](_URL_0_) [Generated Video](_URL_1_) | [
-0.011020258069038391,
0.047926753759384155,
-0.05199051275849342,
-0.05254938080906868,
0.03315971791744232,
-0.0681881383061409,
-0.10440710186958313,
-0.08045145869255066,
0.031010836362838745,
-0.041611552238464355,
-0.050980281084775925,
-0.010002168826758862,
-0.004169185645878315,
-... | |
62gifs | Scientists grow beating heart tissue from plants | Here's the article
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfmcshq",
"dfmguae"
],
"text": [
"Scientists grow bigger by beating up the heart tissue from innocent plants?",
"We can get cells to turn into heart tissue fairly well with our research. But we mix them up in a test tube and if we just grow them that way we get a lump of unorganized tissue rather than something we could hook into the blood supply of a living organism. What we need is for them to be organized in a structure with veins such that blood can supply them all.\n\nThe plants used have a good vascular structure. All the plant cells are stripped out and the general structure used as a scaffold or general organization plan as they grow. This makes more useful tissue."
],
"score": [
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S0142961217300856"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Scientists grow beating heart tissue from plants
Here's the article _URL_0_ | [
-0.008921783417463303,
0.0659501925110817,
-0.013807650655508041,
0.07855195552110672,
0.03216543421149254,
0.0026700810994952917,
-0.10357178747653961,
-0.04848681390285492,
-0.0006878650165162981,
0.06441997736692429,
0.053849957883358,
-0.03400621563196182,
-0.03522086516022682,
0.02880... | |
17d4cy | Inline Hockey | Also regular hockey for that matter so I know the difference. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c84dyn0"
],
"text": [
"Are you asking like, what is the sport of hockey I have no idea what this is? Or like what is the difference between inline and ice hockey?"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Inline Hockey
Also regular hockey for that matter so I know the difference. | [
-0.004667727742344141,
0.002595328725874424,
-0.018834007903933525,
-0.00037793483352288604,
0.07006777822971344,
0.06310635805130005,
-0.01345164142549038,
0.0447651706635952,
0.0830889567732811,
0.06602247059345245,
-0.020099898800253868,
0.09754054993391037,
-0.039272427558898926,
0.038... | |
5j0h6q | why is it generally taboo to ask someone how much they get paid even when you guys are friends? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbcc8go",
"dbcfty8",
"dbcnlc0",
"dbcggmz",
"dbclxmf"
],
"text": [
"Generally because it can cause tension, if you work with that friend on they work in similar roles and you earn considerably more - while you might expect them to be happy for you - many people are simply annoyed by it.",
"People often define themselves, or expect that others define them, by how much they make. If the number is too high, maybe people are impressed or maybe they are bitter because they think you're overpaid. If the number is too low, maybe they pity you. Or maybe you expect that people will pity you and your small salary even if they wouldn't. \n\nIt's a bit like asking how much someone weighs. There is no inherent reason why it is wrong, but we attach a lot of meaning and assumptions to it so it becomes an uncomfortable question for many people.",
"Because our corporate overlords do everything they can to discourage us from talking about salary. They fear us demanding a raise to the level of a coworker that does half the work but is better at bargaining.",
"[Here's a pretty good argument as to why people should ask.](_URL_0_)",
"Also because business have ingrained this concept into us because they don't want people to realize how unfairly wages work. Adam Ruins everything touches on this somewhat in their internship episode"
],
"score": [
27,
20,
19,
15,
10
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI"
]
} | train_eli5 | why is it generally taboo to ask someone how much they get paid even when you guys are friends?
| [
-0.001975926337763667,
0.0752578005194664,
0.025971291586756706,
-0.011866698041558266,
-0.005248080939054489,
-0.06300852447748184,
0.047184284776449203,
-0.023718465119600296,
0.08500668406486511,
-0.016366977244615555,
-0.01575309783220291,
-0.05822069197893143,
-0.02735627256333828,
0.... | ||
2k2hso | Why are television channels such as TruTV allowed to advertise that what they show is true, when it obviously isn't? Isn't this false advertising? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"clhalgf",
"clhane0",
"clhghz2"
],
"text": [
"I believe (though I could be incorrect) that a false advertisement claim can only be filed if the advertisement somehow put the plaintiff in some sort of danger or caused a financial, legal, or moral burden to them or their family. The use of \"or\" was rampant in that sentence, but in my sleepy state I can't think of any other way to word it.",
"Fox \"Faux\" News does this all the time, along with the other \"opinion media\" stations.",
"Sometimes it's cheaper to pay the fine because you still profit from the programme."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are television channels such as TruTV allowed to advertise that what they show is true, when it obviously isn't? Isn't this false advertising?
| [
0.025332048535346985,
-0.0658329427242279,
-0.03676549345254898,
-0.00005305181548465043,
0.058495067059993744,
-0.013269143179059029,
0.036478012800216675,
-0.028299562633037567,
0.08446265012025833,
-0.02642766572535038,
-0.02019636332988739,
0.04767708107829094,
0.02826549857854843,
0.0... | ||
1mfmfc | What causes people to have fetishes, esp bizarre ones? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cc8vnwc"
],
"text": [
"Youi basically have something happen to you at some point during/close to puberty. Something that somehow combines sexual arousal with something normally not associated with it. I remember my Psych professor (it was only 101, I'm not a psychologists) told us a story of how a certain man came to have a fetish for cutting himself during sex.\n\nI don't remember it exactly but i remember the important details. Boy grew up on a farm, some kind of accident happened, I think he got his upper legs wrapped in barbed wire somehow or something, the important thing is that he had bad lacerations and/or cuts on his ass/thighs. They go to the local doctor and he's trying to clean them but the kid is freaking out already, so every time the doc tries to clean the cuts the stinging makes the kid freak out and jump. So the nurse, who was a very well endowed lady, holds onto the kid to keep him calm/still, inadvertently shoving her glorious cleavage into the kids face and keeping him there while the doc did his work. So his first (or one of the first, early enough to define what he considers sexually attractive) sexual experiences also involved him being in pain from cuts. \n\nHope that helps, I'm sure even a layman would be able to find things that need correcting in what I just said, let alone someone educated in the subject."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What causes people to have fetishes, esp bizarre ones?
| [
0.014250221662223339,
-0.043196678161621094,
0.07297248393297195,
0.053182657808065414,
0.04703272879123688,
-0.038262009620666504,
0.09153340756893158,
0.07766568660736084,
0.02057100459933281,
0.013529475778341293,
0.01798880845308304,
-0.04843864589929581,
-0.06529243290424347,
0.023987... | ||
1r14gs | When couples get married, why does the wife take the last name of the husband? | . | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdii7gv",
"cdii7mq",
"cditj8e",
"cdiipnv"
],
"text": [
"Historically women were, by today's standards, sold. Their original last name tells you that they are still 'possessed' by their father. The new last name tells you that they are now 'possessed' by the husband. Many of our marital traditions are carry-overs from this paradigm.",
"Because in traditional culture she becomes his property",
"Property yes. Also think about it in terms of leaving her family and joining his - keeps the children in his name. The honeymoon was a time where literally the dude is hiding his desired mate from her family long enough to knock her up so that they can't take her back.",
"Because in the olden days women were property."
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | When couples get married, why does the wife take the last name of the husband?
. | [
-0.03964333236217499,
0.05033699795603752,
0.036445923149585724,
0.01405017077922821,
-0.04424281790852547,
-0.01734803058207035,
0.04466400295495987,
-0.06275763362646103,
0.14861881732940674,
-0.0020568999461829662,
0.009494059719145298,
0.02115584909915924,
0.027845367789268494,
-0.0911... | |
11b0xz | Why does sleep feel *so* good? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c6kw5o8",
"c6kxjje",
"c6l19at",
"c6l0lta",
"c6kwvnm",
"c6l342b",
"c6kzif2",
"c6l262c",
"c6l4yvi",
"c6l2rbe",
"c6l3anj",
"c6kz768"
],
"text": [
"Anything that you need to survive feels good when you need it. \n\nTry not breathing (for just a few seconds) and see how good that first breath feels. Or try not eating for several hours past mealtime. You feel very hungry, and the food tastes *so* good. Sleep is the same way. When you need sleep, it feels very good because that's what your body needs.\n\nThis is because of evolution. Creatures that didn't enjoy eating, sleeping, or breathing wouldn't live very long, and wouldn't have much of a chance to make baby creatures like them. Creatures that did survived longer, and had little baby creatures that liked the same things.\n\nThis is part of the reason why Mommy and Daddy love each other so much, too. Creatures who *ahem* love each other are more likely to survive and have babies. You'll learn more about that when you're older. You'd just think it's yucky right now. (There's a lot of kissing.)",
"I really wish I could go to sleep right now.",
"I dunno, ask your mom. She sleeps with everyone.",
"Because if it didnt you would be less likely to do it.",
"It's a break from anxieties, social pressures and physical exertion.",
"We have a bias towards being awake due to all the awarenes we have while being awake. But evolutionary not being awake is the default position and being awake consumes a lot more energy.",
"I don't understand this question. I never \"feel\" sleep. I fall asleep. I wake up. End of.",
"Why do all these questions have to do with topics from my psychology class??\n\nAnyways, sleep is a time when your cells rebuild themselves and create neural connections. This feels good because your body is basically refreshing itself. \n\nIt also depends on your sleep cycle and your circadian cycle. If you wake up while in deep sleep (stage 3 and 4), you will feel a lot more tired than if you were woken up in REM, stage 1, or stage 2 sleep.\n\nThere's a lot more to this but this is ELI5.",
"The real question is, why does sleep feel so good in the morning, but not that great at night?",
"Part of it has to do with your brain reshuffling and storing everything from the day in it's proper places. \n\nIf you go through an INTENSE study period, the best thing you can do is to take a 30 minute nap where you get REM sleep. Then wake up and try to remember all your studying. You should find that your brain feels very alert and that the information is at the end of your fingertips.\n\nFYI: This is why over-studying is a very real thing and that people who pull all nighters often do terribly. You haven't properly given your brain a chance to rest, relax, process and store all of the material that's coming in. \n\nSCIENCE!",
"Release of dopamine (a chemical) that is positive re-enforcement to keep you doing things like sleeping or eating so you survive; because it feels good, you do it more.",
"Sleep was good, before i get married. \n\nIt was even slightly better before we had kids."
],
"score": [
1046,
60,
38,
11,
9,
8,
7,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does sleep feel *so* good?
| [
0.027808088809251785,
-0.06540244817733765,
0.042281314730644226,
0.1102929562330246,
0.08463700860738754,
0.09023605287075043,
0.030602069571614265,
0.003831523936241865,
0.11463330686092377,
0.022225791588425636,
-0.13161876797676086,
-0.0034723766148090363,
0.03751957789063454,
-0.02744... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.