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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
qt3o2 | Why do guys get hard in the morning? (NSFW) | As a female, I am very curious as to the science behind this. Why do guys wake up with boners? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c40alkx",
"c4084dd",
"c40fuzw",
"c40cm4n"
],
"text": [
"During REM sleep, the deepest part of the sleep cycle, during which dreams occur, a lot of the body's functions effectively run on autopilot. One hypothesized consequence of this is that the chemical signals made by the body to prevent erections are not made during REM sleep. As a result, men will get erections during their sleep and possibly immediately after waking up. \n\nFun Fact: The scientific term for morning wood is \"nocturnal penile tumescence.\"",
"Something-something bladder pressure something stops us from pissing ourselves. (maybe)\n\nI personally notice if I have a rager in the morning, I probably really need to take a piss.",
"Your nervous system normally tries to keep a balance between being too revved-up and being too relaxed. There are different systems with different chemicals (hormones, neurotransmitters etc) in your body that accomplish these goals. When you need to run away from a dangerous situation, you activate your Sympathetic System, also known as \"fight or flight\". When you want to relax in a hammock and take a nap in the sun, you activate your Parasympathetic System, also known as \"rest and digest\".\n\nGetting an erection depends on the chemicals of the Parasympathetic, not the Sympathetic System. You don't need a boner to run away from a lion, no matter how hilarious it might sound. However, if you're in \"rest and digest\" mode (like when you're sleeping), you have a predominance of Parasympathetic hormones and neurotransmitters, and therefore you're pretty likely to get an erection.",
"Full bladder stimulates nerves responsible for reflex erection. This stimulation is not very strong, but it's enough when there are not that many other signals. \n\nAlso there are certain neurons that are supposed to inhibit erections, but are themselves turned off during sleep."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do guys get hard in the morning? (NSFW)
As a female, I am very curious as to the science behind this. Why do guys wake up with boners? | [
0.025054030120372772,
-0.025360476225614548,
0.042165376245975494,
0.11751168966293335,
0.03827403858304024,
-0.04594046249985695,
0.02937428653240204,
0.007026075851172209,
0.07752346992492676,
0.03660118207335472,
-0.11514511704444885,
-0.003279289696365595,
-0.046983376145362854,
0.0866... | |
2vih0b | why diffrent alcohols effect me. | I can drink vodka all night and other clear liquors and get drunk with no issue. Yet if I spend the night drinking bourbon I get a terrible hangover. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cohxrb3",
"cohykph"
],
"text": [
"Because they're different alcohols made of different things. \n > One reason for the different effects of vodka and bourbon, Rohsenow says, could be that bourbon contains 37 times more toxic compounds than vodka does, including nasty organic molecules such as acetone, acetaldehyde, tannins and furfural. A good rule of thumb for liquors, she says, is that the clearer they are, the less of these substances they contain.\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"The biggest reason is vodkas tend to have fewer congeners, which are basically all the nasty substances produced during fermentation other than alcohol.\n\nAlso, enjoy it while it lasts, because the older you get, the less you'll be able to drink any alcohol all night without a hangover :)"
],
"score": [
8,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.wired.com/2009/12/dark-liquor-makes-for-worse-hangovers/"
]
} | train_eli5 | why diffrent alcohols effect me.
I can drink vodka all night and other clear liquors and get drunk with no issue. Yet if I spend the night drinking bourbon I get a terrible hangover. Why is this? | [
0.056435808539390564,
-0.11052185297012329,
0.013738255947828293,
0.09693334251642227,
0.03656550496816635,
-0.03956469148397446,
0.06749813258647919,
0.005009966902434826,
0.0779360681772232,
-0.0831727683544159,
-0.07898520678281784,
0.011487316340208054,
-0.06319496780633926,
0.00362450... | |
3sge3u | How does 'zipping' a file make it smaller? Why does it need to be unzipped? What is actually happening? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwwyla3",
"cwwyuv8"
],
"text": [
"File compression usually looks for patterns within the file on your disk and replaces them with something smaller.\n\nLet's compress ``banana``. \nWe'll replace the pattern ``na`` with the character ``%`` \nWhich reduces the word down to ``ba%%`` \nThen we build a table of things that were replaced so we know ``%==na``\n\nDecompressing a file does that in reverse so you know ``ba%%`` is actually supposed to say ``banana``.",
"Lets explain by example. \n\nIf I want to write \"heeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllooooooooo\" I can save space by writing \"1*h13*e14*l9*o\"\n\nIf I gave you \"1*h13*e14*l9*o\" you may have to first write out \"heeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllooooooooo\" before you could pronounce \"heeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllooooooooo\".\n\nWhile this saves letter space, it takes time to unconvert/unzip for use later. \n\nSome compressions are designed to be unconverted quickly, so a computer program can read a MP3 or JPEG immediately. Some compressions, like ZIP, are designed to save space so they have be unzipped to be understood."
],
"score": [
35,
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does 'zipping' a file make it smaller? Why does it need to be unzipped? What is actually happening?
[removed] | [
-0.05444180965423584,
0.14243412017822266,
-0.06991134583950043,
0.07981020957231522,
0.09597127884626389,
-0.05389070138335228,
0.01830129697918892,
0.0274032149463892,
0.028018321841955185,
0.07511251419782639,
0.011794171296060085,
0.14510026574134827,
-0.01593438722193241,
-0.006554143... | |
32zeku | Why do I always need to go to the toilet at the same times every single day? How is there no variation? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cqg2csv",
"cqga9d3"
],
"text": [
"You must have a fairly regular diet and fiber intake. Most people would kill for that kind of regularity.",
"A word of advice for those suffering irregularity problems. Morning coffee."
],
"score": [
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do I always need to go to the toilet at the same times every single day? How is there no variation?
| [
0.0702347680926323,
-0.07165715843439102,
0.05343131721019745,
0.07265142351388931,
-0.03096696361899376,
-0.03756089508533478,
0.013832654803991318,
-0.006822178140282631,
0.1497858613729477,
-0.02095414139330387,
-0.08424598723649979,
0.019398368895053864,
0.003956649452447891,
0.0574448... | ||
52kyjo | How does a computer antivirus work? Hoes does it find, erase and prevent viruses from computers? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d7l2kap",
"d7l2gdg"
],
"text": [
"They have a library of known viruses and what they look like. So when they scan, they are looking for those signatures in the types of files each virus targets. If it finds one, it usually gives options to the user depending on the type of virus with the most typical option being to simply delete the infected files.\n\nMost antivirus packages also have options to scan incoming downloads to look for the virus signatures as they come in, potentially protecting your computer from infection in the first place.\n\nHowever, all this relies on the company actively finding and maintaining the library of known viruses. Should a new virus come along that infects computers in a different way than previous ones, it may not be caught by the antivirus until the company can analyze how the virus works and figure out how to identify and sanitize it.",
"Two ways. First it has a big data base of code snippets from the companies research department, who basically go out and find viruses and take them apart to see what they do. On your computer, the scanner will look for files known to be associated with known viruses.\n\n\nSecondly, most have the capacity to look for suspicious behavior such as opening up network ports, changing memory values or taking over important parts of the computer. It will try to stop those programs as a better safe than sorry policy."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does a computer antivirus work? Hoes does it find, erase and prevent viruses from computers?
[removed] | [
-0.05575603246688843,
0.10156254470348358,
-0.01829790137708187,
-0.05077911168336868,
0.07013315707445145,
0.02665124461054802,
0.07832737267017365,
-0.03412656858563423,
0.04465283453464508,
0.035299498587846756,
-0.0006398864788934588,
0.13358138501644135,
0.016447169706225395,
-0.07084... | |
5knxvm | Why do people seem more saddened by the abuse & death of animals than the death or abuse of other human beings? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbpbl9t"
],
"text": [
"generally speaking animals are viewed as innocent almost child like. humans on the other hand are viewed based off what they do and how they act. depending on how cynical of a person you are you will view people as less than innocent."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do people seem more saddened by the abuse & death of animals than the death or abuse of other human beings?
[removed] | [
0.08953343331813812,
0.05842091888189316,
0.06872420012950897,
0.08176881074905396,
0.056460145860910416,
-0.019983870908617973,
-0.015561931766569614,
0.04471065104007721,
0.10144083201885223,
0.05090608075261116,
0.03154639154672623,
-0.005943526513874531,
-0.02000696212053299,
0.0126226... | |
1w4ejk | Currently, what are the two sides of the Net Neutrality debates? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ceymbv5"
],
"text": [
"This is a bit complex and hard to put in ELI5 terms.\n\n(a) many people who consume content online believe that all the content they consume should be treated the same by the ISP, whose role is limited to just *transporting* things that the consumer are asking for from the source to the consumer.\n\n(b) a lot of ISPs use 'shared bandwidth' which means that, for example, everyone in a given apartment building is sharing a single pipeline ... so there's a limit on the amount of content which can be provided in total. this can create situations where nobody is able to get everything they want from the ISP, because too many people are trying to get too many things at the same time.\n\n(c) building bigger pipes is extremely expensive.\n\n(d) some content consumes more 'space' than other content. movies consume a lot; email consumes very little.\n\n(e) many ISPs believe that if they are able to charge content providers for transporting large content, this will (1) somewhat reduce demand for the large content, (2) generate money that can be used to build bigger pipes, and (3) allow them to prioritize content so that the things customers really want get through faster and more reliably, while things that are less important to customers are subject to delays.\n\n(f) some content providers are really in favor of this as they think it will enhance the experience of their customers. other content providers are really opposed to this as they think it will raise their costs and put them out of business.\n\n(g) many customers are concerned about this because they think that ISPs will prioritize content that makes business sense for the ISP. For example, a lot of people get their internet through cable companies, and it's plausible that those companies will choose not to route, or to route only at high cost, netflix and other streaming sites (because they compete with cable). Similarly, it's not hard to imagine a branding deal between time warner cable where suddenly coca-cola's website is inaccessible because time warner has agreed to an exclusive deal with pepsi.\n\n(h) many activists and economists are concerned that if this happens, *new internet content companies* will have a hard time forming and competing because they won't be able to pay the ISPs what is necessary to get their data routed."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Currently, what are the two sides of the Net Neutrality debates?
| [
0.0014129563933238387,
-0.019970929250121117,
0.02566356211900711,
-0.03569899499416351,
0.0484212227165699,
0.07335755228996277,
0.06982278823852539,
0.004488829057663679,
-0.0036439469549804926,
0.007037092931568623,
-0.029330793768167496,
0.039866767823696136,
-0.040793295949697495,
0.0... | ||
5gj43c | What is ActiveX? | Researching hasnt helped me much since the terminology used is out of my knowledge.
Basically, im wondering what ActiveX is, how it works, and why its being discontinued. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dasoa28"
],
"text": [
"ActiveX was a way of allowing programs to run as embedded objects in Microsoft Internet Explorer.\n\nThe problem is, that's a massive horrible security risk and only works on Microsoft Windows.\n\nIf your on a Mac, your SOL. If your using Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or any other browser under the sun that isn't Internet Explorer, your SOL. If the applet has an exploit that can allow itself to run, you're really SOL since it's essentially the same as running a random program on your computer that could be a virus.\n\nJava has had similar security problems, but it works fine in any browser and platform. This is why Oracle is trying to kill Java in the browser."
],
"score": [
8
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is ActiveX?
Researching hasnt helped me much since the terminology used is out of my knowledge. Basically, im wondering what ActiveX is, how it works, and why its being discontinued. | [
-0.020262958481907845,
-0.05209052935242653,
-0.04212188348174095,
0.041292887181043625,
0.02958168089389801,
0.006274000741541386,
0.1001846119761467,
0.06379786133766174,
-0.04143040254712105,
0.03484876826405525,
0.003181405132636428,
0.11437997221946716,
0.0274191964417696,
-0.04044058... | |
25mjy0 | The California Energy Crisis of 2000 and the Enron Scandal | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"chimpjc",
"chinil4"
],
"text": [
"As for the energy crisis, basically Enron would cut off the power supply so that the cost of electricity would skyrocket, and then turn it back on in order to make more money. Enron in general, that was mostly down to a type of accounting they used that let them declare potential earnings, so that it always looked like they were making loads of money when they were, in fact, losing money. I would recommend the documentary \"The smartest men in the room\" If you want to learn more",
"Enron was an energy company that engaged in a lot of fraudulent accounting tricks to make it look like they were much more profitable than they were. It wasn't a complete fraud like Madoff - they had some legitimate businesses like pipelines and actually did produce electricity, but they also had a lot of pie-in-the-sky ideas, most of which lost a ton of money. And when those schemes lost money, instead of admitting it, they either lied about it or used more accounting tricks to hide the losses. When they were losing too much money, it became too hard to maintain their shell game of hiding losses and moving them around, and sooner or later it was clear that the company was in trouble, and investors lost confidence in the company and started selling the stock. When the stock price started declining, it became impossible to maintain the accounting tricks, because they couldn't do things like use overvalued stock as collateral for loans. They went from being one of the ten largest U.S. companies by stock market capitalization to being bankrupt in about 18 months.\n\nEnron was a major factor in the California energy crisis of 2000, but they weren't the sole cause of it. During a heat wave where demand for electricity soared, Enron created artificial shortages of power in order to be able to jack up the price."
],
"score": [
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The California Energy Crisis of 2000 and the Enron Scandal
| [
-0.04748006910085678,
0.05169610306620598,
0.056004397571086884,
0.0915384292602539,
0.0419144481420517,
-0.010861487127840519,
0.018778594210743904,
0.0051209526136517525,
0.007325341459363699,
0.0025296660605818033,
0.016056329011917114,
0.045292388647794724,
0.038112904876470566,
-0.040... | ||
15eqsm | Why does McDonald's only sell the McRib for part of the year? | I don't understand why the McRib is such a seasonal and random sale from McDonalds. It doesn't seem to fit the seasonal-type restrictions provided with things such as the Shamrock shake or peppermint hot chocolate. And if it is such a profit-producer, why not just sell it all year-round? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7lsyc6",
"c7lswwl",
"c7lsuv5",
"c7lvvms",
"c7lswvl",
"c7luwgl",
"c7lwk4t"
],
"text": [
"To give a bit of evidence for what everybody else is already saying: \n\n > Aside from weak sales, other theories for the limited availability of the McRib include the higher prices and unreliable supply of pork, the limited-time allure making it a better loss leader for McDonald's, and the scarcity adding to the hype of the sandwich.[19] An informal 2011 study into the \"Existence of the McRib\" draws a correlation between the price of pork and the timing of McDonalds offering the sandwich, as all five of the US McRib offerings beteween 2005 and 2011 have occurred during low points in the price for pork.[20]\n\n_URL_0_",
"McRibs are (supposed to be) made from pig meat. When this pig meat (pork) costs too much, Ronald McDonald can't afford to buy it. The changes in the price of pork determines if Ronald can sell you your yummy rib sandwich.",
"It's based on fluctuations of the price of pork.",
"Strangely enough, in Germany the McRib is available all year round.",
"It has something to do with the cost of pork and how their supply chain isn't set up to get it regularly. Its worth it as an occasional promotional item when they want to boost sales.",
"While it is partly due to cost issues of pork, it's also a marketing tactic. Trust me, the McRib wouldn't be as \"famous\" or \"iconic\" if it were simply a mainstay on the menu. The limited period and exclusivity helps to make it more wanted.",
"Well because the elusive Mcrib pig is a rare animal and the game warden only allows so many per year to be used and processed when making the Mcrib. Until science provides a way to breed more Mcrib pigs we are going to have to be conservative with our consumption of this rare and beautiful creature."
],
"score": [
43,
20,
16,
6,
5,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McRib#Limited_availability"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why does McDonald's only sell the McRib for part of the year?
I don't understand why the McRib is such a seasonal and random sale from McDonalds. It doesn't seem to fit the seasonal-type restrictions provided with things such as the Shamrock shake or peppermint hot chocolate. And if it is such a profit-producer, why not just sell it all year-round? | [
-0.005308233201503754,
-0.10012800246477127,
0.10632249712944031,
0.025365186855196953,
0.07817195355892181,
0.03337936848402023,
-0.054389894008636475,
-0.015515360049903393,
0.045489344745874405,
0.021167565137147903,
0.022872108966112137,
0.02066679298877716,
-0.025871625170111656,
-0.0... | |
31ym7q | Why doesn't North and South Dakota concatenate to just form a single Dakota state? | Why can't a single Dakota state with a population of roughly 1.7 million and a GDP of roughly $110 billion exist? Also, what are the upsides and downsides of this merge happening?
EDIT: Since I am from Canada, and have no idea regarding the US political system, please do elaborate any political reasons you list to a depth that a non-American can understand. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cq67ja3"
],
"text": [
"Because they'll go from 4 senators to 2, that's a reduction of political power. And then you'd have to harmonize the taxes, and that's going to be annoying."
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why doesn't North and South Dakota concatenate to just form a single Dakota state?
Why can't a single Dakota state with a population of roughly 1.7 million and a GDP of roughly $110 billion exist? Also, what are the upsides and downsides of this merge happening? EDIT: Since I am from Canada, and have no idea regarding the US political system, please do elaborate any political reasons you list to a depth that a non-American can understand. Thanks! | [
0.013058315962553024,
-0.11599988490343094,
0.021295957267284393,
-0.013927393592894077,
0.027457863092422485,
-0.014196627773344517,
-0.0861053392291069,
0.03007347509264946,
0.0291326642036438,
-0.02042088285088539,
-0.011814857833087444,
0.008165383711457253,
0.012415270321071148,
-0.07... | |
1x700w | How does wind make it colder outside? | How would wind affect the temperature if when it blows by things it creates friction, wouldn't that make it warmer out? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cf8nkst",
"cf8vzj7",
"cf8txlf",
"cf8niua",
"cf8nm30"
],
"text": [
"Our bodies give off heat which heats the air around us. If that air stays around us longer then we feel warmer, but if it is quickly pushed away by wind, we'll feel as if it's colder.",
"For a human being, your body puts out x amount of BTU. You maintain 98.6 degrees faranheight body heat. If its 50 degrees outside but no wind is blowin.\n\nthere are two terms endothermic and exothermic properties.. whats going to happen is your body temp will drop because the air around you is colder than your body temp. The air around you will heat up because you are hotter that the air around you. In essence the cold air around you is stealing your heat because thats not its ideal temperature it wants to be at. It wants to be warmer and it will take for weaker things like a human.\n\nthe problem is, there is more cold air than hot you. So you will be cold... stay out there lets say 5 hours and you will probably get hypothermia because 1 person cannot heat an entire outdoor area, just impossible. Its like 1 you fighting 4 people... you may survive for an amount of time but eventually you will get beat up.\n\nSo, if its 50 degrees outside and the wind is blowing any amount, it will sap heat from you faster, the faster the wind the faster the sap...\n\nSo if its 10 mph outside at 50 degres, think of it as 5 people demolishing a house... its gonna take some time to strip the house but eventually theyll do it in say, 5 days\n\nIf its 50 mph wind at 50 degrees think of it as 500 peple demolishing a house. they can probably do it in less than a day. They just have more hands to pick apart that home\n\nthe higher the wind the more likely your entire body will have a constant exposure to 50 degrees, whatever the heat exchange is, or the math... After a few seconds you body simply cannot compete you will get colder and probably die at some point.\n\nAs far as friction goes, air is not really that dense, the only way you can cause significant friction in air to heat things, you whould be moving really really fast...\n\nfor example when spacecraft reenters the atmosphere, theyre at speeds in the 10s of thousands of MPH, that creates alot of friction and stuff gets hot...\n\nthe wind we experience on the ground, 20-100 mph, even 300 mph would not have that significant of friction to cause noticable heat, or at least anything above 98.6 degrees to signal it was heating up.",
"You get cold because of an increase in heat transfer. This heat transfer is increased from your normal loss of heat by convection. More specifically forced convection. Forced convection is when the air around you is being moved, wind.\n\nJust to elaborate \nHeat transfer (convection) = h(heat transfer coefficient) * A (source of heat body) * (temp of body - temp of wind) \n\nSorry if I was too technical",
"The friction would make things warmer, but there are other factors. \n\nWhen wind meets water, the water will more quickly evaporate, losing heat with it. So anything remotely wet is going to get colder.\n\nThen there is the temperature of the air itself. Cold air is going to make things colder than warm air.\n\nI'm not a scientist, I hope this is acceptable.",
"The friction that wind creates is too little to increase temperature.\n\nWind increasing water evaporation, which reduces temperature.\n\nAlso, wind increases the rate of heat transferring with the air. For example, hot food cools down normally to the same temperature of the room. But you can make the food cool faster by blowing on it."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does wind make it colder outside?
How would wind affect the temperature if when it blows by things it creates friction, wouldn't that make it warmer out? | [
0.012470539659261703,
0.03133704885840416,
0.04684727266430855,
0.07612716406583786,
0.01974848099052906,
-0.0029784375801682472,
0.052555620670318604,
-0.016954330727458,
0.09471063315868378,
0.09251079708337784,
0.022769780829548836,
-0.01547918375581503,
0.04438241943717003,
-0.06534784... | |
jvs3d | No, we aren't actually 5. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2fi90z",
"c2fik1f",
"c2fijlo",
"c2fiz70",
"c2fixw2",
"c2fixbl",
"c2fiy3o",
"c2fixss"
],
"text": [
"Keep your answers simple! We're shooting for elementary-school age answers. But -- please, no arguments about what an \"actual five year old\" would know or ask! We're all about simple answers to complicated questions. Use your best judgment and stay within the spirit of the subreddit.\n\n- as per the Subreddit's guidelines.",
"Actually, I find the the answers that use simplified - if a bit silly - metaphors to be the most enlightening. _URL_0_",
"Sometimes, people want to say something even though they have nothing to say. This is human nature - I too am frequently guilty of it. It's why many of ProbablyHittongOnYou's posts are followed by an inane comment such as \"LOL are u hitting on me?\" In this subreddit, the default easy thing to say is \"Well, a 5-year-old wouldn't understand that.\"\n\nThat is my theory; what do you believe?",
"It really bugs me when people add the condescension of talking down to a five year old to their answers, or use contrived 'playground' analogies when everyday ones would do just as fine or better.",
"Thank you. This is also my biggest complaint about this subreddit. I was even thinking about taking this off my front page, but hopefully people listen to your advice.",
"To be fair, the title of the subreddit is a little confusing I think. \"Explain like I'm 5\" suggests that the person asking has the intelligence of a 5 year old. \n\nA more appropriate name for the subreddit would be \"Explain it to a layman\"",
"I think it should be thought of more as Explain like i'm a layman rather than literally 5 years old. Just give a simple answer to the question posed.",
"ELI5 is basically a tl;dr for wikipedia...but turns into a \"well if you have this many cookies and share it with so and so\" or \"consider these building blocks\""
],
"score": [
42,
8,
6,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3cls/a_quick_announcement_on_the_direction_of_this/"
]
} | train_eli5 | No, we aren't actually 5.
| [
0.02060513198375702,
-0.05569279566407204,
0.05735526978969574,
0.03580751270055771,
0.01892608404159546,
0.007301918230950832,
0.0061988309025764465,
-0.06642762571573257,
0.04523476958274841,
0.054969895631074905,
-0.020924145355820656,
-0.02426895871758461,
-0.03323210030794144,
0.00960... | ||
1abr75 | Can someone please explain the six-day war to me? | I am trying to learn about the 1967 six-day war. There is so much information that I just end up confused. While I was reading articles, I came across negotiations that I did not understand. I read that Israel expressed desires to negotiate with its neighbors, the U.S. involvement to try to prevent the war through negotiations, and something about peace negotiations. Can someone please simplify what happened to me? Thanks!
Edit: Thanks everyone for your help. You've all been really helpful and I appreciate the time everyone took to help me understand the issues. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c8vz9d7",
"c8w1tfl"
],
"text": [
"Okay. I'm going to write this as if presuming that you know how modern Israel was created. If not, go [here](_URL_0_) first.\n\nSo, following the first Arab Israeli war/War of Israeli Independence, the status quo is this: \n\nYou got \n\n1. Israel, who are really really excited to be their own country (esp. after everything that happened in WWII) and are super worried and nervous it could all be taken away from them if the great powers in the world decide to fuck them over\n\n2. the Palestinians, thousands of whom fled the war and ended up as refugees, the bulk of which are now stuck in a kind of no-man's-land between the new borders of Israel and what today is the Kingdom of Jordan. This the West Bank/Disputed Palestinian Territories. They're poor, they're hungry, they're hopping mad about losing the war and they haven't given up hope of getting their old homeland back. A lot of them are just trying to get by, but some people are still trying to think of ways to carry on their fight against Israel, including the leadership of what will become known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). \n\n3. The other Arab states, the most important and influential of which are Egypt and Syria. All up until WWII, they were all pretty much colonized by European powers. Most of their leaders were appointed by those powers on their way out the door, in order to keep someone friendly to them in place. They're super pissed off about losing the war, too, and support the Palestinians. But they're also poor, struggling countries too and have their own internal problems to deal with. \n\n4. The rest of the world, but most importantly, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., who are revving their engines for the Cold War, and are competing with each other to make friends with these poorer countries. Particularly the ones which control important strategic resources. \n\nOkay, so that's the sitch from about 1948 through the mid-1950s. By the mid 1950s, some important shit starts going down in (3) the other Arab states. Namely, the rulers installed by the former colonial powers are overthrown, usually by the military, but with the support of the people. \n\nThe first place this happens is Egypt (the biggest and most important Arab country) and the guy who pulls it off is called Nasser. Nasser was a general, but he was also a populist. He saw how Egyptians, and Arabs in other countries, had been screwed over by the Europeans during the colonial days and he wanted to fix things, and he called on all Arabic speaking peoples to work together to try and make their part of the world powerful and respected. When he took over Egypt, England and France, the former colonial powers, freaked the fuck out and were this close to invading the country --- because Egypt controls the Suez canal, which in those days was the choke point for oil coming from the Middle East, and if he wanted to he could order the canal shut and really fuck over the economy of all of Europe. \n\nWhen England and France were threatening to invade, Nassar stayed cool as fuck and was just like, \"Fine, come at me if you think you're hard enough.\" At the last minute, Eisenhower got England and France to back off (Like I said in 4, the US is trying to make nice with everybody at this point). Nasser became a hero to pretty much all Arabs --- the European powers had ruled them like ten years before, and Nassar just told them to bounce and they did it --- and his ideas got a lot more powerful. \n\nBack to (2). By the late 1950s early 60s, some Palestinians, led by the PLO, are trying to find ways to fight back against Israel. The first sorts of things they do are sneak into villages across the border and conduct guerilla style attacks against Jewish settlers. The Israelis are obviously super angry about this --- at first they approach the King of Jordan, hey man, these refugees are all in an area that's technically supposed to be part of your kingdom --- why can't you put the clampdown on this shit? And the King, who doesn't really want to do anything that would hurt and/or piss off his fellow Arabs, but doesn't want to piss of the Israeli military either, kind of hems and haws and is like, \"well, I'll see what I can do.\" Nothing much changes. \n\nIsrael, like I said in (1) is super worried about making sure everybody respect their right to exist. They decide they can't put up with the king's shit anymore, and they start to launch raids right back, sometimes crossing the border into Jordan and Syria. \n\nThe king of Jordan was like, well fuck you too, then, and meanwhile he turns to his fellow Arab states, like, hey guys, you got my back over here or what? Nassar and the similarly Arab nationalist leaders in Syria see this fucked up situation as the perfect opportunity to help unite the Arab peoples behind a common cause --- pretty much every Arab thinks the Palestinians got screwed when Israel was created, we can't sit by and let them send solders into a fellow Arab state whenever the fuck they feel like it, let's get together and deal with this situation for once and for all. So they form an alliance to fight Israel. \n\nThis alliance has the blessing of the USSR --- Syria had explicitly allied itself with the USSR at this point, and Nassar was hemming and hawing about it. If the Soviets were gonna be on the Arab side, that meant the US was going to be on the Israeli side. Not that the US wanted the war; in fact, it was in the US interest to have peace in the area and not to piss off the Arabs too much (oil). But if it came down to it, the US was willing to stick up for Israel at the UN, help them cut a peace deal, and most of all give them money and guns so that they could fight the war. \n\nSo that the deal by 1966-67 --- the raids by each side are increasing, tensions are high, everyone can tell a war is likely. When the war finally does come, the Israeli army size wise is somewhat bigger than the combines Arab forces, and it was better equipped and prepared. Israel was able to destroy a bunch of the Arab coalition's airplanes in a surprise attack, giving them a huge advantage, and some miscommunications among the coaliton led to fuck ups they were able to exploit. By the end of the six days they'd captured huge swaths of territory in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, most importantly the West bank and the city of Jerusalem. Everything since then has been a fight about whether to give any of it back and if so how much and if not how to govern it.",
"Israeli here.\n\nFeel free to ask any questions, i see someone has already given you the history lesson on the six day war."
],
"score": [
71,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zjxpc/eli5_the_israelipalestinian_conflict_i_have_zero/c6598mi"
]
} | train_eli5 | Can someone please explain the six-day war to me?
I am trying to learn about the 1967 six-day war. There is so much information that I just end up confused. While I was reading articles, I came across negotiations that I did not understand. I read that Israel expressed desires to negotiate with its neighbors, the U.S. involvement to try to prevent the war through negotiations, and something about peace negotiations. Can someone please simplify what happened to me? Thanks! Edit: Thanks everyone for your help. You've all been really helpful and I appreciate the time everyone took to help me understand the issues. | [
-0.013399777002632618,
0.09511883556842804,
0.026227455586194992,
0.010796061716973782,
-0.07049436867237091,
0.07284388691186905,
0.0019883790519088507,
-0.0776650607585907,
-0.030864747241139412,
0.055788785219192505,
-0.09321771562099457,
0.053466666489839554,
-0.010817467235028744,
-0.... | |
8slz2d | How does a defibrillator help with a physical blockage of the heart, such as myocardial infarction? | I can't seem to find a detailed explanation online. Heart blockage is a "plumbing" problem of the heart which causes heart tissue to die. An AED only helps cure electrical issues. Even if you're in fibrillation and an AED shocks you back to normal, the blockage is still there and the heart muscle still dying is it not? So how is it that an AED can help with those issues? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e10i0wo",
"e10i8zz",
"e10h0p0"
],
"text": [
"AED are only useful for ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. That is when the heart beat in a way that is out of sync so it doe not pump any blood. It does it by stoppning the heart so it come back in sync by it self. It can't help if the hear does not beat at all.\n\nSo if the myocardial infarction result a change in the pattern the heart contract like ventricular fibrillation AED can help to fix that \n\nventricular fibrillation is disorganized electrical activity in the heart so it does not contract is sync like is has to to pump blod. You stop the heart with a electric shock and rely on the natural system to restart it in sync. Ventricular fibrillation 10% of people in cardiac arrest.\n\n\nIt will not fix the underlying problem but can fix the immediate problem of the heart contraction out of sync and not pumping blood.\n\n\nThe tissue death of no blood supply to part of the heart can take 15-30 minutes and you can survive some damage part of the heart. Without any blood supply the brain can die within 4-6 minutes.\n\nSo AED can fix the immediate problem of no blood to the brain without fixing the heart problem. So the fact that part of the heart continue to die is not good for you but is not imminent fatal the same way no blood to the brain is.",
"It's usually a CPR scenario, where the heart muscle is, indeed, still dying, but without blood pumping neurons in your brain are also dying, quite a bit more rapidly than heart muscle cells, and also irreversibly. And, ultimately, artificial hearts and heart transplants are possible, whereas brain replacements or transplants are not.\n\nCPR scenarios are very much \"tough choices; deal with the biggest emergency now, leave the 'possibly fix later' for later.\" As another example, the chest compressions that you see recommended in the basic CPR videos are somewhat likely to [break ribs](_URL_0_), and in training they do mention to continue even if you feel and hear the cracking sounds, because getting blood to the brain is super-critical, and your chest compressions may just deliver a little bit of blood pressure, perhaps just enough.",
"It doesn't do anything to reduce/remove the physical blockage (infarction) within the blood vessel, but it does help to re-establish a more regular cardiac rhythm. As you've noted the muscle tissue/cells downstream from the blockage can still die off due to lack of oxygenation, but that isn't immediately fatal in and of itself. Perhaps, one of the biggest misconceptions around AEDs and coding, in general, are the overall survival rates, which are quite low. Contrary to what you see on TV and movies, even in a hospital setting with fully trained staff, survival rates are only about 20% and \"survival\" doesn't mean retention of all higher functions either. While AEDs aren't perfect, they're better than nothing and at least give the patient a fighting chance, if only a small one."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.cprconsultants.com/is-it-true-that-ribs-can-break-during-cpr/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How does a defibrillator help with a physical blockage of the heart, such as myocardial infarction?
I can't seem to find a detailed explanation online. Heart blockage is a "plumbing" problem of the heart which causes heart tissue to die. An AED only helps cure electrical issues. Even if you're in fibrillation and an AED shocks you back to normal, the blockage is still there and the heart muscle still dying is it not? So how is it that an AED can help with those issues? | [
-0.10134110599756241,
-0.00756670581176877,
0.07587502896785736,
-0.03231462463736534,
0.022281046956777573,
0.00209387787617743,
-0.02230983041226864,
0.04070250689983368,
0.038728196173906326,
-0.025888588279485703,
-0.0037839156575500965,
-0.0023780218325555325,
-0.03540573641657829,
0.... | |
2m0dk7 | Couldn't one just buy hundreds of wine bottles as a long term investment? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"clzso9x",
"clzsqfp",
"clzsoxf"
],
"text": [
"Because only some wines are likely to bring any *real* profit; and in most cases buying more than a few is going to be insanely expensive for a 10+ year investment.\n\nDon't get me wrong, there is an entire industry concerned with fine wine investment, this is a real thing. But since you have to keep the product in top quality preservation conditions to avoid the price dropping, generally can't expect it to be a high-gain investment and be ready to realize that your bottle is just the most inefficient way to store money ever invented it would just be better to invest in some stock.",
"The big problem here is that a 'good vintage' now might not be so good down the road; you have to wait a while to tell how valuable your wine would become. Certain years are great 5-10 years down the road but not so great or prestigious 25-50 years down the road and vice versa. In order for you to have a better chance at the bottle becoming a lot more valuable you would want to spend quite a lot of money initially on the bottles; this is where you will find wines that are made specifically for sale/use far off in the future.",
"Older wines are not technically always more valuable. Many times the price of a wine bottle depends on how the grapes did on that particular year. \n\nFor example, in 2001, grapes did exceptionally well and people generally preferred the taste of them in that year; Why? I'm not to sure on that.\n\nBecause of that, if you were to have a long-term investment in wines, you are also playing a risky game. You would be buying lots of money worth of wine that may not appreciate in value too much in the coming years"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Couldn't one just buy hundreds of wine bottles as a long term investment?
| [
0.06525322794914246,
0.026241783052682877,
-0.06062871590256691,
0.003556470386683941,
0.00407729297876358,
0.024225803092122078,
-0.052841030061244965,
0.02514541521668434,
-0.04183100536465645,
-0.026643889024853706,
-6.634190299337206e-7,
0.08938416093587875,
-0.041321638971567154,
0.04... | ||
3gsict | why do clouds look like they have flat bottoms and fluffy tops, why not fluffy bottoms too? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cu1993b",
"cu1am2r"
],
"text": [
"Environmental science major here!! I paid $600 to learn about this for a semester so listen up.\n\nFirst off, think about what a cloud is: It's water particles suspended in the atmosphere correct. How does that water get there? The water cycle. A continuous cycle of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, more or less. When this water is in the process of evaporation, it rises in the atmosphere. The atmosphere decreases in pressure and temperature as you go up, and depending on the daily conditions, there will be a point where the conditions are right for this water to once again condense and at this elevation, the cloud will start forming. That being said, we return to your original question, why are the bottoms flat? Well think about an iceburg: You see the tip which ends at the waterline, this also makes iceburgs look like they have flat bottoms when in reality the rest of the iceburg is just not visible. This is pretty much what's going on with those fluffy clouds and their seemingly flat bottoms. What you're seeing is a large mass of water particles, those above the point of condensation are visible, forming a cloud, and those below are not.",
"To understand this, you need to know what the dew point is. For any humidity and pressure, there is a certain temperature at which water vapor (H2O in gaseous form) condenses and becomes liquid water. Above this temperature and it stays as gas. At and below this temperature, it condenses. \n\nAnother key component is the fact that air generally gets cooler the farther away from the earth it gets. Air at higher altitudes is usually cooler than air near the earth's surface. \n\nSo let's say it's 90 degrees outside at the surface and the dew point is 80 degrees. Unless there is a temperature inversion, the air will cool between 2 and 4 degrees per 1000 feet of altitude. Let's use 2 degrees. So the temperature will not reach the dew point until an altitude of 5,000 feet above the ground. At that point the temperature equals the dew point and water can condense on small particles of dust to form clouds. Below that temperature and it says as gas. \n\nSo basically clouds cannot form at any point below the altitude where the temperature is above the dew point and can form anywhere at and above that point. That's why clouds have flat bottoms and fluffy tops."
],
"score": [
11,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why do clouds look like they have flat bottoms and fluffy tops, why not fluffy bottoms too?
| [
-0.0023267606738954782,
-0.0025194345507770777,
0.11149527877569199,
0.018747780472040176,
0.014473890885710716,
-0.0715608298778534,
0.03430052474141121,
-0.01877935603260994,
0.11486038565635681,
0.016799626871943474,
-0.08604012429714203,
-0.05433585122227669,
0.005980140995234251,
-0.0... | ||
2cu5e4 | Why the word I is always capitalized but he and she aren't? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cjj0wbq"
],
"text": [
"Nobody knows, but you can read about some theories here: _URL_0_"
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(pronoun)#Capitalization"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why the word I is always capitalized but he and she aren't?
| [
0.10468779504299164,
0.011345681734383106,
0.03664041683077812,
0.008044718764722347,
-0.002526776399463415,
-0.09502498060464859,
0.09772782027721405,
-0.011619317345321178,
0.08181797713041306,
-0.021230734884738922,
-0.005582381971180439,
-0.018274778500199318,
0.04040752351284027,
-0.0... | ||
5janjv | Why does running water increase the sensation of having to urinate? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbeowxa"
],
"text": [
"When you urinate, you produce the sound of running water. The sound and the sensation of urinating then become linked, much as Pavlov's dogs linked the sound of a bell with food. The dogs involuntarily salivated when hearing the bell, you feel like you're going to pee your pants when you hear running water."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does running water increase the sensation of having to urinate?
[deleted] | [
0.001752279233187437,
-0.043350446969270706,
0.0599391832947731,
0.08933655917644501,
-0.0018805506406351924,
-0.022137347608804703,
0.04527980834245682,
0.022270139306783676,
0.0110035864636302,
-0.0268170814961195,
-0.09907014667987823,
-0.013821697793900967,
0.0047065322287380695,
0.089... | |
1mx7jc | Hand signals given from the dugout/sidelines in baseball/football | How do they work? It always looks really complex on TV. Who is being signaled, how do they know what to do, etc... | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ccdgfgs"
],
"text": [
"The team is taught the various signals. In the case of football today, the Quarterback is informing the players of something HE sees on the defense, so the players (Wide Recievers, Tight Ends, Running Backs) will know he's going to try to exploit that. He may also be changing to a pre arraigned \"check down\" play (where the QB sees the play called in the huddle will not work, so a more generic, more likely to succeed play that was already agreed upon is going to be run now.)\n\nDitto the defenses, but to a lesser orchestration, it's usually to say \"watch out for the run\" or \"I think you need to be here\" or such.\n\nFor baseball, the base coaches will look to the dugout, and the manager may send in a desired play. The base coach then is going to look right at the batter, and vice versa, and the base coach will signal the play to him. Whether to take a pitch or swing away or whatever. If they need to relay that to the runners, same deal. Everyone knows to look to the base coaches to get the plays while their side is on offense.\n\nFor the pitcher/catcher, the catcher is 'running the show', for the most part. He's the field general. His job is to asses the field of play, and also to know about the batter, and try to get a pitch called that will either ensure the batter doesn't swing, or misses when he does, or hits it and makes an out somewhere.\n\nIn ALL these cases, there are fake signals that are shown. When the catcher is flashing all those symbols to the pitcher when a runner is on base, there is a preagreed system that only those two know. So that's why the catcher will flash all kinds of different signals sometimes instead of just one, they are trying to not let the opponent see the call. It may be the third signal, or the one after two fingers down, or...\n\nIn the case of the base coaches, same deal. It may be a combination of two gestures in a row that makes a correct sign, or the one after he taps his left ear, or the swipe across the chest is the one but only if followed by the tap on the head. That sort of thing. \n\nObfuscation and esotericness is the key to signs in sports. And that's why it seems so confusing."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Hand signals given from the dugout/sidelines in baseball/football
How do they work? It always looks really complex on TV. Who is being signaled, how do they know what to do, etc... | [
-0.009038922376930714,
-0.0037420832086354494,
0.02167755737900734,
-0.06857609748840332,
0.01310128252953291,
0.00117319799028337,
0.016024909913539886,
-0.011807812377810478,
0.14031803607940674,
0.01603887975215912,
-0.036022935062646866,
0.019516296684741974,
-0.07113175094127655,
0.03... | |
8ri9yn | How does the ocean go through two tide cycles in a day, where the moon only passes 'overhead' once every 24 hours? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e0rjwbc",
"e0rin1d",
"e0rpo2k",
"e0rpzek",
"e0rzky3",
"e0rqm5x",
"e0rrbsl",
"e0rk89h",
"e0sb41t",
"e0rzziw",
"e0rw9cw",
"e0rtdko",
"e0s2c0h",
"e0rp7jq",
"e0runsk",
"e0s1tkx",
"e0rua4e",
"e0sd69q",
"e0rpi6a",
"e0sthwj",
"e0rqxhc",
"e0s79d4",
"e0shl31",
"e0sjfwu"
],
"text": [
"The moon has a stronger pull on objects close to it and a weaker pull on objects farther from it.\n\n* The water between the earth and moon is closest to the moon\n* The Earth's body is at a moderate distance from the moon\n* And the water on the opposite side is farthest from the moon.\n\nThe moon pulls these three parts at different strengths and cause them to separate from each other.\n\nThe moon pulls the body of water close to it, causing high tide where the moon is. The moon also pulls the earth toward it, but not as much. And since the earth is being pulled towards the moon, it leaves behind a body of water on the opposite side where the moons pull is weakest.\n\nSo there is a high tide on the area close to the moon and another high tide on the opposite side of the earth. As the moon orbits the earth we experience these two high tides.\n\n---\n\n**Edit:** Help me improve this answer by discussing below and upvoting good explanations! There are a few issues with this answer and there are several excellent details in the comments below that I'd like to give visibility to\n\n* Is there a good illustration of this explanation?\n* What about moon phases? is there a difference in tide height when there's a full moon vs a new moon? (hint: Syzygy)\n* Is the moon being pulled by the earth? Or is the earth being pulled by the moon? Upvote the best explanation below.\n* The two high tides on each end of the earth are not the same height - why?\n* There are some areas where the tides barely rise and fall. What are these areas and why? (hint: tilt, geography)\n* Other than water, are there other stuff that is affected by the moon's gravity? (hint: fluids other than water)\n* Sometimes there's only one high tide in a day - why?\n* If tides are caused by gravity, what about other stuff that has gravity? Do they affect the tides at all?\n* My answer implies that the earth is moving towards the moon which is not the case. Can someone help me clarify this?\n\n\nComment your clarification and additional information below and upvote those that you like! Have a nice day everyone!\n\nEdit2: added more hints",
"To grossly oversimplify, one tide is caused by the gravity of the Moon, the other is caused by the centrifugal force of Earth orbiting the shared centre of gravity of the Earth-Moon system. \n\nBoth are delayed from when you'd expect them to happen by the friction with the bottom of the ocean.",
"The Moon also pulls the Earth away from the water on the opposite side, so that water gets deeper. \n\nOther answers here are more comprehensive but I thought this was a good literal eli5.",
"Just skip all of the comments that mention centrifugal force: they are not correct.\n\nI have to leave for work, so I'll have to add more later, but even if the Earth and moon were not orbiting each other (they could be moving in any fashion whatsoever), there would still be 2 tidal bulges on either side of the Earth (and moon, for that matter). \n\nTides are a purely gravitational effect: a relative stretching across an object, due to the differential of gravitational force caused as the strength of gravity falls off with increasing distance.\n\nEDIT: At work and trying to answer when it's slow.\n\nFirst: a [visual](_URL_0_).\n\nThe bright smudges are two galaxies which are in the early stages of a galaxy collision and merger. Between them, a bridge of stars is forming, as each galaxy gravitationally rips stars off of the nearby edge of the other galaxy. On the outer edges of each galaxy, there are streamers of stars ( called tidal tails) that look like they're being ejected *away* from the centers of the galaxies, as well. This is what tidal forces look like on large scales.\n\nThe galaxies used to look like this (\"A\" and \"B\" for the centers, \"s\" for stars at the edges):\n\nsssAsss .......... sssBsss\n\n\nNow, they look like this:\n\n s s s A s s s s s s B s s s\n\nThe strength of gravity weakens with distance, so stars on the near edge of galaxy B are accelerated towards galaxy A more than the center of galaxy B is accelerated towards galaxy A. The near-side stars, then, are pulled away from the center of the galaxy.\n\nThis is also true for the center of the galaxy and the stars on the *far* side, but in reverse. The center of galaxy B is accelerated towards galaxy A more than the stars on the *far* side of galaxy B are accelerated towards galaxy A. The center of galaxy B, then, is pulled away from the stars on the far edge of galaxy B.\n\nFrom the perspective of the center of galaxy B, then, it looks like the stars on either side are being pushed *away* from you in opposite directions.\n\nTides in the Earth-moon system work the same way. In this case, though, it's the water on the surface of the Earth that's being pushed away from the center of the Earth (the moon is also stretched into a slight potato-shape because of this effect). \n\nThe easiest way to see why the centrifugal-force explanation doesn't work is to notice that the sun contributes to the tidal forces the Earth feels as well. When the sun and moon are aligned with the Earth ( new moon and full moon) their effect add, and we experience *spring tides*. These tidal forces are the same, whether it's new moon:\n\nS-M-E\n\nor full moon:\n\nS-E-M\n\nFor the new moon configuration, the centrifugal-force thing kinda works: the bulge on the near side of the Earth is a result of the addition of the gravity of the Earth and moon (they're on the same side). The far-side bulge is similarly the result of the addition of the centrifugal forces from the earth-moon and earth-sun orbits. \n\nNothing obviously wrong so far, but this reasoning falls apart when you look at the full moon configuration, when the sun and moon are on opposite sides of the Earth. Now, the centrifugal-force contributions from the Earth-sun and Earth-moon orbits are pointing in *opposite* directions, partially cancelling each other out. You would predict that tides would be much *lower* in the S-E-M configuration than the S-M-E configuration, but that's not what we observe.",
"There's a large part about the tidal bulge that isn't being discussed, here. It is *not* simply that the side of the of the Earth facing the moon experiences more gravity and the side furthest experiences less. If it were, tidal forces would be able to lift any arbitrary object the 0.6 meters or so that we see waters rise or fall. Similarly, we don't see tides in rivers or lakes, so it's not just gravity at work. \n\nGravity, itself, is not that strong. If you work the math, the presence of the moon has a virtually unmeasurable contribution to the local gravity on Earth.\n\nThat said, that virtually unmeasurable change in gravity adds up to create a gradient of water pressure that's lowest on the sides facing and opposing the moon's position and highest on the sides orthogonal to the moon's position. In order to balance that change in pressure, the higher-pressure water sinks and the lower-pressure water rises until the forces acting on the water as a whole are in equilibrium--kind of like a tube manometer, but on a planetary scale.\n\nAddendum: Hydrostatic forces being at the core of the tides also explains why you don't see tides in cups of coffee, rivers, or lakes. At small scales, the variation in gravity and hydrostatic pressure are too small to notice; I think even Lake Superior's tides would be measured in millimeters at best. It takes having a body of water that encompasses the planet itself (as the oceans do) to make that variation noticeable.",
"There is another tide on the far side of the earth. This is because the moon attracts all the water on earth. The water closest to the moon is attracted more than the water on the far side of the earth. In effect, the water \"stretches\".\n\nSo you have two bulges of water, directly in line with the moon. The bulge on the near side of the earth to the moon is bigger than the one on the far side.\n\nThe low tides are simply the two areas that don't have a bulge (halfway between the bulges).\n\nThe sun also affects the tides (somewhere around 30% of tidal effects are from the sun). When the sun and the moon are in line with one another, the suns tidal effects and moon tidal effects add. This is called a spring or a King tide. It doesn't matter if it's Sun-Moon-Earth or Sub-Earth-Moon, as long as they are in a line.\n\nWhen the sun and moon make a 90 degree angle with the earth, the effects of the sun and moon don't work with each other, and the tides are lower. This is called a neap ride. The earth bulges the water along one axis and the sun pulls the water along an axis at an angle of 90 degrees, and this rounds out the bulges so the low tide is higher and the high tide is lower (less extreme).\n\nSpring and neap tides occur twice a month (remember a month is about how long it takes the moon to rotate about the earth). So every 7 days you get a neap or spring tide. \n\nAdding to all this is the fact that the earth is rotating, and because a day is shorter than a month, we rotate into the tides. This cause the earth's rotation to slightly slow, making our days longer, very slowly.",
"This is the simplification that made it click for me... Imagine the Earth is completely surrounded by water and the moon is pulling on that water forming it into an ellipse with the long axis along the Earth-Moon line, like in [this schematic.](_URL_1_)\n\nNow imagine the moon and the ellipse are stationary, and the Earth (land only, without the water) is rotating beneath the water. Focus on a single point and count the number of cycles it would go through in one full revolution.",
"Imagine a baby that likes to collect toys but can't crawl yet, put in the middle of a room with a lot of toys spread evenly about. The baby grabs all the toys it can reach and has them with them.\n\nHow are the toys distributed? There is the highest concentration of toys right near the baby, then a patch of fewer toys where the baby has been collecting and then a middle amount of toys further away where the baby can't reach. \n\nThe moon is like the baby, and the water in the oceans is like the toys. Gravity acts with less force the further away the two things are, so the moon can pull the water on its side of the earth more than the water elsewhere.\n\nThe low tide in between is where water is pulled away to the moon's side, and the high tide at the other side is water that's too far away to be pulled by the moon.",
"The simplest I can put it: The moon squeezes the water on both sides of the earth, so there's two bulges. One facing the moon, and one away from the moon.",
"Short answer: It passes overhead once, which means it passes under once as well. High tide both times.",
"Marine Biologist here\n\nTide are quite a bit more complicated than the simple textbook diagram will tell you. \n\nThe simple illustration of tides looks like[this](_URL_7_)...the moon pulls at the earth, and causes a bulge of water to face the moon, but also a bulge on the far side of the moon. Why isn't there just a bulge on the near side of the earth? That's what you'd get if the earth was, eg, stuck on an immovable rod and the moon was just pulling the loose stuff on the surface toward it. But that's not how it works. Instead, it pulls the whole earth. It pulls the near part a lot, the center a middle amount, and the far part a less amount. Basically the furthest bit of the planet is bulged out because the rest of the earth is pulled away from it.\n\nBut it's more complicated than that. For starters, there is also a substantial pull from the sun, which means there are actually [two sets of bulges](_URL_8_). When they line up, we get bigger tides, when they cancel out, we get smaller ones. The bulges also [don't point directly](_URL_8_) at the moon. Because the earth spins faster than the moon goes around the earth, the tidal bulge is drug \"ahead\" of the moon due to friction. As a result, the spin of the earth is slowed and the moon gets a little bit further away. In the early days of the planet the moon was closer and the days were shorter.\n\n\n**BUT**...the biggest, most important caveat is that all the stuff I just mentioned is a description of what goes on at the planetary scale. What happens with the actual tides at the actual seashore is another story entirely. For example, London in the UK, Valencia in Spain, and Lagos in Nigeria are all at about the same longitude (0.13W, 0.37W, 3.37W). But the [high tide in London](_URL_7_) today occurs at UTC 3:22pm. In [Valencia](_URL_8_) it occurs at UTC 10:26 PM. And in [Lagos](_URL_8_) it occurs at UTC 5:35PM.\n\nOr consider Chile, which is stretched out along the same latitude but where the tides vary by more than four hours.\n\nAnd note that the height of the tides varies drastically from place to place too. In the Bay of Fundy the tides vary by 16+ meters, in the Mediterranean they can vary by centimeters. So what happened to that nice neat picture with two uniform bulges going around the earth?\n\n[This](_URL_7_) is a map of the actual movements of tides in the ocean. What's going on here? Well, first, an explanation of the map. The lines labeled \"tidal delay\" reflect lines along which tides are delayed by that many hours from the theoretical lunar tide. Notice how they radiate out from the center of the ocean. You can think of real life oceanic tides as bulges of water washing around the ocean, with the \"Crest\" of the bulge along each line at a different hour. \n\nIn short, the actual planetary scale tides caused by the moon set the water sloshing around in the ocean. And that sloshing leads to the actual tides at the seashore. Imagine getting a cake pan and filling it halfway with water, then adding a few rocks (to simulate the continents). The planetary scale tidal forces are simulated by you shaking the pan back and forth slowly at regular intervals. The observed tides are simulated by the way the water sloshes around in the pan in response.",
"You have two tides a day, because you have a tide when the moon is overhead and one when the moon is on the opposite site.\n\nThis is because the moon pulls different points on the earth's surface in different directions in relation to earth's center, [like in this picture.](_URL_9_)\n\nThe forces are tiny, but added up over a whole ocean, the forces **on the top and bottom** bulge out the ocean towards (and away from) the moon. That is also the reason why you don't have tides in smaller things full of water - because the forces are tiny and you need to have enough surface area to create them. [It's explained in greater detail in this video](_URL_10_) .",
"Here's an amazing youtube video about it, with some great graphics, that also addresses a lot of very common misconceptions: [_URL_11_](_URL_11_)\n\nThe essence of the reason has to do with a \"gravity difference\" I've seen mentioned in a lot of different comments here, but none of them are actually complete. We need to look at more points around Earths surface. We use the moon's gravitational pull on the center of the earth as a baseline, and subtract that vector from the gravity vector on the surface. Directly under the moon, the gravity is in the same direction and stronger, so our resulting vector is directly up from the earths surface. Directly opposite the moon, the gravity is in the same direction and weaker, so again the result is directly up from the earths surface. Since its gravity, everything is pulled on exactly the same way, and the earth is flexible enough to be pulled up as much as the water from just this effect.\n\nOther points on the earth surface get more interesting. Imagine a globe, with a point on it directly under the moon. At 90 degrees in any direction from that point, the gravity from the moon pulls about as strongly as as the center, but slightly angled toward the center of the earth. The resulting gravity difference points at the center of the earth. Now, at every other point on earth this gravity difference changes smoothly between the straight up at points under/opposite the moon, and straight down at 90 degrees to those points. For most of the earth's surface, that gives a gravity difference that points sideways across the surface, exactly toward the point under the moon or opposite it. With all the sideways pulls across the huge surface area of the ocean, the oceans basically flow to the points under/opposite the moon, creating the tidal bulges.\n\nThis also helps explain (partly) the variation in tides at different places. At a given place, the strength of the tide will be related to the amount of ocean that can be pushed there.",
"I'll add, in addition to the useful replies already given, that there are some parts of Earth that do in fact only have a single tide per day (one high, one low). For example, according to the NOAA, some parts of the Gulf of Mexico (_URL_12_)",
"If I leave a half full glass of water outside why doesn't the moon pull the water closer to the top of the glass?",
"What happens when you pull on a sphere? Recognize the symmetry?",
"I see a lot of explanations in here that I feel only cover half the story. \n\nSo the first part is this:\nThere are 2 bulges of water (high tides). One on the side where the moon is, and one on the opposite side of the earth. The opposite side happens because of the fact that the earth is pulled towards the moon. The entire earth is made into an oval. Water is more affected by this than landmass, so you'll notice the tides in the water, but you need scientific instruments to measure the tides in the crust.\n\nThe second part:\nThe moon only rotates around the earth once every month or so, but the earth is spinning around it's own axis. So the bulge of water, pointing both towards and away from the moon, stays kind of the same, whilst the earth is 'spinning through' the water. This is why you have roughly 2 times high tide per day. If the moon would always be on the same spot in the sky, you'd have exactly 2 tides. However, the moon is also revolving around the earth. So every day, the position of the moon relative to the earth moves a tiny bit, and that's why you don't have exactly two high and low tides per day. \n\nNow you can also understand why there is an extra strong high tide when it's full moon or new moon! When it's full moon, the moon is as far away from the earth as ever, so the 'force of the moon' doesn't increase, but when it's full or new moon, the moon and the sun are aligned! So now both the moon and the sun are 'forming' the bulge in the same direction! Even though the sun is really far away and pulls on the water a lot less, it's effect can still be noticed! Hope you found this explanation informative!",
"The top answer on this this is part of the answer, but it isn't fully correct. I'll tell you where you can find a full answer just because explaining it with text would make this a very long comment.\n\n[This 9 minute video](_URL_14_) explains how the tides work without using any math, relying only on visuals and intuition, although this description is fully informed by mathematical rigor. The guy doing the presentation has a degree in physics and so really does understand what he's talking about. The style of description, avoiding all math and such, is done to make the video accessible to a general audience, but the only thing that would needed to be added to make this video *entirely* correct is math calculations. The video is actually 15 minutes but the last 6 are responding to comments from a previous video. [This video](_URL_13_) has comment responses to the first video I linked to starting at 11:54. The comment response here is only ~2 minutes long.",
"The earth and the moon constantly attract each other. This means that, in a way, the earth is constantly falling towards the moon. \n\nNow the closer to an attracting body you are, the more you get attracted to it and thus the faster you fall towards it. The water that is on the side of the earth that is closest to the moon gets attracted the most and thus creates tide there. The ground right underneath the water however gets held back by the part of the earth that is further away from the moon and thus falls slower than the water above it. \n\nOn the other side of the planet, we have the opposite: the ground right underneath the water gets pulled more by the part that is _closer_ to the moon than the water above it. So earth \"falls away\" from to water on it, and thus a tide gets created on that side as well. As a result, we see the tide twice.",
"Sit in a bath, with your legs outtretched, and push the water down the bath with your hands. The water level will rise at your feet and sink at your torso, then rise at your feet and sink at your torso. Now after that happens, pull your hands back. The water will sink at your feet and rise at your torso, then sink at your torso and rise at your feet. With one cyclic motion of your hands, you have made two tidal motions. This is the same for the moon as water is completely connected, and tidal motion is due to a variation in gravitational forces. So when the moon is furthest, and closest to your location, some time after that you get tidal peaks, and 2 for every one cycle of the moon.",
"Gravity pulls less and less hard the farther away things are. There’s a bulge of water that’s directly under the moon because it’s closer than the earth is sits on and is thus pulled harder. Likewise, the entire earth is pulled harder than the water exactly on the opposing side of the earth from where the moon is. Therefore there are two bulges of water on exact opposite sides caused by the moon. These two bulges cause the high tides.",
"Omg, so many wrong explanations... It's not that the water is pulled. The earth is not exactly solid, it stretches like an oval to the direction of the moon, leaving the sea to \"fall\" from the two points to the shorter sides.",
"Bc moon is always pulling water on one side the opposite side has to experience tide too so 2 tides at all times and both are passing in 24h",
"So does the atmosphere bulge more toward the moon/where the moon is overheard too?"
],
"score": [
2178,
408,
148,
74,
15,
13,
10,
9,
8,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AMerging_galaxies_NGC_4676_%28captured_by_the_Hubble_Space_Telescope%29.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#/media/File%3ATide_overview.svg",
"http://www.digbyneckinstories.com/images/springneap.jpg",
"http://images.slideplayer.com/16/5041211/slides/slide_1.jpg",
"https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Lagos-Bar-Nigeria/tides/latest",
"https://i.stack.imgur.com/9oenG.jpg",
"http://scienceblogs.com.br/cienciaaonatural/files/2013/02/tidal-bulge.jpg",
"https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/London-Bridge-England/tides/latest",
"https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Valencia/tides/latest",
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b3WJicuhKxM/maxresdefault.jpg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4&t=2s",
"https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides07_cycles.html",
"https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY",
"https://youtu.be/pwChk4S99i4"
]
} | train_eli5 | How does the ocean go through two tide cycles in a day, where the moon only passes 'overhead' once every 24 hours?
| [
0.013978736475110054,
0.020625388249754906,
0.07132679969072342,
-0.00029752968112006783,
-0.05260464549064636,
-0.08185326308012009,
-0.056237127631902695,
-0.06899992376565933,
-0.017657345160841942,
-0.08168433606624603,
0.03393757715821266,
-0.06503362208604813,
0.002936038188636303,
-... | ||
zc204 | The difference between "internal" resolution and "monitor" resolution in video games | I was reading [this article](_URL_0_) and they use the terms, but I don't know what they mean. Thank-you | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c63annz"
],
"text": [
"Slycone is speaking out of his or her ass. Resolution is the dimensions of the number pixels you're talking about (e.g. 1024x720). Framerate is framerate (e.g. 60FPS = 60 Frames Per Second)\n\nBasically, the game is being rendered (produced) at 1024x720. It is then \"upscaled\" to the chosen resolution, which means something has to basically make up stuff to go in the gaps between the \"actual\" content. To see why this is bad:\n\n[Original image](_URL_1_)\n\n[Image after being resized to 30% then \"upscaled\" to the size of the other image](_URL_0_)\n\nAs you can see, data is lost, and it just isn't as good. It's better to render (produce the images) at the resolution you want to display rather than scale it up. Takes more processing power to properly generate the images rather than \"upscaling\" which is probably why they did it."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-darks-souls-pc-tech-comparison"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://imgur.com/V6NRY",
"http://imgur.com/U97aS"
]
} | train_eli5 | The difference between "internal" resolution and "monitor" resolution in video games
I was reading [this article](_URL_0_) and they use the terms, but I don't know what they mean. Thank-you | [
-0.0018357668304815888,
-0.013178051449358463,
-0.05186054855585098,
-0.07809722423553467,
-0.015148571692407131,
-0.07563614845275879,
-0.012287984602153301,
0.09405763447284698,
0.056560635566711426,
0.07130216807126999,
-0.03208586946129799,
-0.0010147516150027514,
0.004367724992334843,
... | |
78zd5y | What causes that unique smell of snow? | Searched and I found some similar questions but not the question I was looking for. Why is it that when it's snowing there's such a distinct smell in the air? Why does snow smell and taste different from water? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dozeyiw"
],
"text": [
"Cold air dampens your sense of smell because it numbs the scent receptors in your nose.\n\nAlso, similar to rainfall the water has been cycled from source to cloud to destination so it is fresh and not stagnant like a pond could be. Static water goes off due to external chemicals leeching into the water and contaminating it. So what you are smelling is true H2O.\n\n\nSimilar to if you burn your tongue food tastes different."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What causes that unique smell of snow?
Searched and I found some similar questions but not the question I was looking for. Why is it that when it's snowing there's such a distinct smell in the air? Why does snow smell and taste different from water? | [
-0.04952574148774147,
-0.049706656485795975,
0.09451921284198761,
-0.0007470196578651667,
0.0952729880809784,
0.010545898228883743,
0.06137966364622116,
0.00695849908515811,
0.09891814738512039,
0.00739781791344285,
-0.05998624116182327,
0.012946232222020626,
0.0006939101731404662,
0.00303... | |
37cshl | Why do I get goosebumps when I hear really good music? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"crlmqvy",
"crlmrea",
"crloy3a",
"crls6g2",
"crlubwa"
],
"text": [
"There is a flight or fight, adrenalin release which explains that. When very high emotions are felt, dopamine and other neurochemicals can be released. This causes a thrill thru the body, occ. tingling sensation, increased heart rate, goose bumps & so forth. \n\nThis is often seen with the \"1812 Overture\" by Tschaikovsky when real cannon and large bells are used. it's fairly overwhelming. Similarly very moving scenes in some films can create this state.\n\nIN Beethoven's \"9th Symphony\" the first time the Scherzo was played, the audience was so profoundly moved, they had him play it again. And when the \"Ode to Joy\" was played, inspired by Schiller's poem of the same name, a similar encore was demanded.\n\nPlease peruse section 18 of this article under \"Die Gotterfunken\" Literally, Spark of God.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nand also this, which explains the dopamine boost, what it does and how to create it voluntarily.\n_URL_0_",
"I'm not a scientist or anything, but the way I understand it is a chemical known as dopamine is released into ^(from?) your brain. The same chemical is released (in much larger amounts I assume) when someone does certain drugs, it's responsible for feelings of euphoria. Something like that.",
"It has a lot to do with how your brain processes music, which is actually very complex and there is a lot of research being done on this. /u/herbw gives a good ELI5 answer regarding dopamine and the flight or fight response.\n\nAdding more detail to that, music is one of the few things that can stimulate multiple parts of your brain simultaneously. It has the ability to bypass the cerebral cortex (part of your brain that plays a key role in memory, attention, perception, awareness, thought, language, and consciousness) and go directly to the thalamus (responsible for receiving and relaying sensory stimuli/information; plays a major role in regulating arousal and awareness), creating a response without you having to consciously think about it. This process is called the thalamic reflex, and is really quite interesting. It can create many different reactions in your body physically (tapping your feet), physiologically (raise/lower heart rate, release dopamine/give you goosebumps), and emotionally.\n\n\nThis same process is the reason that music can be used to retrain someone who had a stroke or any other traumatic brain injury to talk or walk, to tap into the memory of someone with Alzheimer's, and to engage and motivate someone with a cognitive disability.\n\nedit: added word",
"My google play music thumbs up list is all music like this. Love it when I get it so bad my scalp actually hurts from the frission!",
"So is there a reason that I don't get music goosebumps?"
],
"score": [
65,
7,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/",
"https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-4/"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do I get goosebumps when I hear really good music?
| [
0.0351334773004055,
-0.09646384418010712,
0.02610277570784092,
0.07688645273447037,
-0.01096388977020979,
0.017669856548309326,
0.08858979493379593,
-0.04441142454743385,
0.07037904858589172,
-0.10306823253631592,
-0.00016357318963855505,
-0.06296508014202118,
-0.01672474853694439,
-0.0965... | ||
3hsqmn | What is a Kernel in computing? | I've heard about it a few times. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cuabirz"
],
"text": [
"The [kernel](_URL_0_) is the the core of the operating system. It's what actually handles multitasking when multiple programs are running, managing system resources and all of the low-level things going on.\n\nIt's normally talked about in contrast to \"user-land\", where user interfaces, programs and all of that lives."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_\\(operating_system\\)"
]
} | train_eli5 | What is a Kernel in computing?
I've heard about it a few times. | [
-0.031012320891022682,
-0.0336417555809021,
-0.08370038866996765,
0.015400649048388004,
0.04613358527421951,
-0.1149442121386528,
0.024391669780015945,
0.07398153841495514,
0.04578879103064537,
0.00742541765794158,
0.032254476100206375,
0.047787830233573914,
-0.012704944238066673,
-0.05188... | |
5gxanm | Why can a person doing an illegal action (burglary, trespassing) sue the property or owner? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"davscmb",
"davs4op"
],
"text": [
"Often these cases are thrown out almost immediately.\n\nThey are not thrown out, however, if there is a case of disproportionate or illegal actions taken by the homeowner (what is considered disproportionate and illegal is obviously defined by the laws of that place).\n\nBasically, just because the robber is breaking the law, doesn't mean the homeowner is also suddenly allowed to break the law. And if the homeowner breaks the law, then yes, they open themselves up to get sued.",
"You can sue anybody for anything. Whether or not a judge will hear it because it's ridiculous, is a different story."
],
"score": [
8,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why can a person doing an illegal action (burglary, trespassing) sue the property or owner?
[removed] | [
0.029174115508794785,
0.11225678026676178,
-0.035467587411403656,
0.007216815836727619,
-0.0020370834972709417,
-0.02306763269007206,
0.017818478867411613,
-0.01855170726776123,
0.0008463635458610952,
0.07435920834541321,
0.060049377381801605,
0.06936682015657425,
-0.045506689697504044,
-0... | |
vg9yo | V-Sync in video games. | If I have a low-end PC, do I want it on or off? What is it actually doing? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c548zyx",
"c548s0r"
],
"text": [
"tl;dr - Enabling vsync ensures that your monitor's displaying of images stays in sync with your video card's drawing of the in-game world. Disabling it can lead to lesser image quality. Enabling it can lead to slightly more control lag, but probably not enough for anyone who's not a pro gamer to notice. If you want your games to look good, you will usually want it on. However, *forcing* it to be on all the time may not necessarily be a good thing. It's usually best to let the individual game choose whether it wants to use vsync or not.\n\n\nSo, first you need to understand how visual processing in the human brain works. When the brain gets a quickly changing series of still images sent to it by the eye, it will smooth out the transitions between these still images, and perceive a smoothly changing image instead of a series of rapid \"jumps.\"\n\nComputer monitors take advantage of this. They redraw the image they're displaying between 50-80 times per second. This is fast enough so that when there are small changes between consecutive images, the brain perceives a smooth transition between images.\n\nThe idea of vsync originated in older CRT monitors. Older CRT monitors paint the image onto the screen by sweeping an electron beam across the screen, hitting individual pixels with exactly the right amount of electrons to make them glow the correct amount. The pixels are hit by the beam in a strict order that never changes. The beam sweeps across the screen horizontally, lighting up a row of pixels. Then it moves on to the next row, which is immediately adjacent to the row it just swept. It keeps going in this fashion, painting horizontal lines one after the other, until the whole screen has been drawn. Now the electron beam has to be re-pointed back at the first line.\n\nThere is where vsync comes in. Vsync is the period of time it takes for the electron beam to be moved back up to the first line. It isn't a long time by human standards (generally less than a thousandth of a second), but it actually turns out that a modern computer can do quite a bit of computation in that short vsync interval.\n\nIn particular, it turns out that if you tell the video card \"give me the next frame, now!\" during the vsync, it can usually give it to you. (Often because it has the frame already drawn and stored in fast memory, waiting for you.) Then the monitor paints that frame on the screen, you look at it for 1/70th of a second (or whatever), and all is well. The next vsync happens, the next frame is fetched from the video card and painted to the screen, you look at briefly, all good. This gives a very consistent image on the screen. Motion looks smooth because everything is moving very consistently.\n\nNow consider what would happen if the video card was halfway through drawing the game world when the monitor asked for the next frame. The video card might send a partially drawn image to the monitor. Strange things could happen. If an object in the game was moving, you might see that object half in one position and half in another. You'd only see this for maybe 1/70th of a second, but sharper-eyed people can spot this \"tearing\" effect and it's kind of annoying. Vsync prevents this tearing.\n\nNow, you'd think that with modern LCD monitors, this wouldn't be a problem. LCD monitors don't use a sweeping electron beam. Instead they brighten and dim each pixel individually, with an individual control line for each pixel. As it turns out, though, the way a video card output a video signal, it still chops the signal up into individual frames. And if the video card has vsync disabled, it might send part of one frame and part of another frame down the cable to the monitor. So the image could look torn, even though the LCD monitor itself doesn't have a vsync.\n\nThere are disadvantages to vsync. For starters, turning on vsync will limit the frame rate of your video card to what your monitor is capable of displaying. This also means that the visual response to your keyboard and mouse inputs may get delayed a little bit. Again, this is something that mostly pro gamers care about. The difference is very small, probably below the threshold of reaction for nearly everybody people. Also, some game engines pay attention to the timing of vsync, and ensure that the video card doesn't send out partial frames. In these cases, forcing vsync isn't a good idea either, as it could in theory half your frame-rate if the vsync of the card and monitor are just exactly wrong in terms of their relative timing.\n\nSee also _URL_0_",
"Monitors don't paint the whole picture at once. Now with flatscreens it's even more confusing than it used to be so let's assume a CRT. The picture is created by lighting up the picture starting in the upper left corner and then going row by row to the bottom right. Then that starts again really fast.\n\nHow often the whole picture is redrawn is the vertical refresh rate. How often a new line is created is the horizontal refresh rate.\n\nOnce your computer has drawn a picture it could be displayed. Unfortunately it can not just push a new picture to the monitor whenever it wants to because the monitor has to finish the picture it is currently drawing. So when the computer is too fast the picture changes early: while drawing the old picture its content changes. This results in so called tearing. The top and bottom parts of the picture don't align perfectly and you get a offset effect.\nThere are ways to solve that. One is to use a buffer. There are two places to store pictures and as long as the picture is drawn to the screen the content of one place may not change. Once that's done the two buffers are exchanged. Of course that means that the computer may calculate more pictures than you actually get to see, wasting processing power.\n\nAnother way is vsync. In a perfect world the computer calculates only lines that have already been sent to the screen and always finishes lines before they need to be drawn. On old machines where the programmers had total control over the system that worked very well. That's why Mario on the original famicom was smoother than emulators are.\n\nA problem is if the computer can't finish calculating in time. The picture is not ready but it has to be displayed. So either you display the old picture again. Or you display a mix of the picture you already have and fill the rest in with the old picture. Now the computer is late already and my guess is that it will still finish calculating the picture. then start the next and be late again. Which is still better than never finishing the next picture.\n\nSo do you want it on or off? I don't know. If your computer is fast enough to deliver the next picture in time it should give you the same experience as having it off while creating less load on the system and thus less heat. What actually happens depends on so many factors that your best bet is to give it a try and use what feels better.\n\nWhat I really don't get is why with Flatscreens being basically a kind of memory we don't get more variable refreshs. Shouldn't it be okay to have a minimum and maximum refresh rate? The refresh rate is not a useful timebase in most cases anyways. Pal is 50Hz NTSC is 60Hz. Cinema material is at rates that don't fit evenly in either. Imho that needs to be solved. It's like having a 800x600 resolution on a 1024x768 panel except in time instead of a plane.\n\nLY5: You flip through a flipbook and the pages need to be drawn while you're flipping. With vsync on the guy drawing the pages needs to put them in at a constant rate. If he is faster everything's great. If he isn't things become sloppy in different ways and you need to try what looks better to you. \nWith vsync off a lot of pictures go to the trash and the guy starts sweating without you benefitting."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | V-Sync in video games.
If I have a low-end PC, do I want it on or off? What is it actually doing? | [
0.020381780341267586,
0.00869001168757677,
-0.0371522530913353,
-0.03258059173822403,
0.062161244451999664,
0.04340368136763573,
-0.058818887919187546,
-0.02534574642777443,
0.04390980675816536,
-0.028253385797142982,
0.021694501861929893,
0.06292445212602615,
-0.1146002933382988,
-0.09698... | |
3k5ujm | What is the purpose of the "Insert" button on a keyboard? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cuv0x3p",
"cuv1hzf",
"cuv0xfy"
],
"text": [
"Depending on the program, it lets you toggle insert mode between \"insert as I type and shift characters to the right\" and \"insert as I type, but delete characters to the right\".\n\nIn simpler text widgets like in your browser here it does nothing. Standard behaviour is to shift characters to the right as you insert.\n\nIt really is more of a holdover from the old DOS/*ix terminal days when inserting characters and deleting to the right was something you'd actually want to do on a command line.",
"It is only the most awesome button ever! In World of Warcraft Online, it allows a player on a flying mount to fly upside down or even do back flips in the air! =)",
"Change insertion point behavior during typing.\nIn Word or other text editor/ document processing programs. Insert can switch from adding letters in-between wherever your insertion point to overriding the next letter, whichever the user finds more preferable."
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is the purpose of the "Insert" button on a keyboard?
| [
-0.07792387157678604,
-0.020360002294182777,
-0.02832573466002941,
0.036054085940122604,
-0.013225151225924492,
0.04295841231942177,
0.079497329890728,
-0.0009795185178518295,
0.11280950158834457,
0.04640449583530426,
0.07401103526353836,
0.0657539963722229,
0.0246221162378788,
-0.03777134... | ||
2u1uji | Can animals become feral? | So when humans are raised by other animals (and are removed from human contact), they become "feral" as in they can't properly / have a hard time communicating with other people and generally have a tough time learning a human language.
That being said, can animals become feral? Suppose a puppy is taken from his mother as soon as it's born, or a chinchilla and don't communicate with others of their kind... are they still able to properly communicate with other dogs/chinchillas or do they exhibit traits to humans who are feral. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"co4d68l",
"co4m6mf",
"co4dm70"
],
"text": [
"Pigs revert. When domesticated pink pigs escape barnyards and get into the woods, their hair grows thick and bristly and they grow tusks. It doesn't take them generations to do this, the actual pig who escaped gets wild again.",
"The word \"feral\" originally refers to domestic breeds of animals that live in the wild without humans. So feral dogs that live on garbage dumps and not with people, or feral horses that escaped from the Spanish and lived wild on the American plains, or feral goats which were placed ashore on many deserted islands by sailors and lived there without people. So in that sense there are many feral animals.\n\nBut you mean feral by analogy with feral humans, which is a term sometimes used to discuss people who grew up mostly without human contact. Animals raised without social contact with their own species also exhibit behavioral changes. I'm finishing up my dissertation and it has a chapter on this exact topic. In my experiment, I raised fish (that aren't even social, really) in isolation and with another fish of the same age. The isolated fish wound up smaller, and they seemed less able to modify their aggressive behavior according to the situation. Other research has been done on animals like rats, which if deprived of contact with other rats also show aggression at inappropriate times. Many songbirds fail to learn the song of their particular species if not allowed to hear it at the right time. Animals that imprint may imprint on the wrong species if the appropriate model is not present. \n\nAs for communication....communication in dogs isn't like people talking to each other. There are no words to learn (or fail to learn). But think about the nonverbal cues that people pass back and forth: body posture and facial expressions that tell you how someone is feeling. It's the dog equivalent of those that makes up dog communication--instinctive, but in the sense that it's something that is partly instinctively learned at a young age. Kind of like walking. Without social contact at a young age, a dog would be worse at reading these signals (which probably leads to aggression at the wrong times, etc). Also, stress at a young age from insufficient \"motherly love\" really messes with the parts of the mammal brain that deal with social interaction. In sum, they'd be less far from the dog norm than a feral human would from the human norm, because humans rely a huge amount on learning specific things like language, but they'd still likely show some behavioral effects.",
"We have feral cats living in our local park (which is practically a small forest)."
],
"score": [
25,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Can animals become feral?
So when humans are raised by other animals (and are removed from human contact), they become "feral" as in they can't properly / have a hard time communicating with other people and generally have a tough time learning a human language. That being said, can animals become feral? Suppose a puppy is taken from his mother as soon as it's born, or a chinchilla and don't communicate with others of their kind... are they still able to properly communicate with other dogs/chinchillas or do they exhibit traits to humans who are feral. | [
-0.028660649433732033,
-0.04863695800304413,
-0.02437630295753479,
0.10688117146492004,
-0.0514814667403698,
-0.04052477702498436,
-0.04230679199099541,
-0.08154353499412537,
-0.02149617113173008,
-0.03483022004365921,
0.07306008785963058,
-0.02434283122420311,
0.0018403579015284777,
0.049... | |
7ckp0b | What's the difference between sweet potatoes and yams? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dpqp6ir",
"dprz98b",
"dpqnjzv"
],
"text": [
"in North America, we call a particular variety of sweet potato, Ipomoea batata, \"yams\". This variety of sweet potato is very sweet even for a sweet potato and with markedly orange flesh. Most other sweet potato varieties are more white and less sweet and more starchy. It is a staple crop, after all. \n\nThis also gets confused with the yam of Polynesian and African cultures, which is in the class (or is it order or genus?) Diascorea, the various cultivated species all being similar in cultivation, growing underground over a long period of time and making HUGE 80+ lb. tubers which keep pretty well once unearthed. These plants are more related to elephant ear plants, whereas the sweet potato is in the morning glory family.\n\nSo it's a confusing clusterfuck of repeated names, specific varieties vs. species , and what have you",
"Quite a bit. Sweet potatoes are a kind of morning glory while true yams are their own thing. Sweet potatoes are dicots and yams are monocots so they're about as far apart as two flowering plants can be. Of course, sweet potatoes end up being called yams quite a bit because they're visually similar at least as far as having tubers and being vines.",
"There is no consensus, as these words are used to represent different species in different geographic regions.\n\nReal yams are rarely found in North America.\n\n_URL_0_"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-between-yams-and-sweet-potatoes-word-of-mouth-211176"
]
} | train_eli5 | What's the difference between sweet potatoes and yams?
| [
0.051133766770362854,
-0.14817515015602112,
-0.07170959562063217,
-0.00015423199511133134,
0.004150054883211851,
-0.07571066170930862,
-0.018669329583644867,
-0.018867136910557747,
0.0734592154622078,
0.08696819096803665,
0.13648879528045654,
0.05926232412457466,
-0.06835350394248962,
-0.0... | ||
5fjdkz | Why do we have nerves in our teeth? Wouldn't a tooth ache that hinders our ability to eat end up being a disadvantage for survival? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dakmfnm",
"dakr7zi",
"dakmjxi"
],
"text": [
"If you have a tooth ache caused by an infection, how would you know if you didn't feel it? that infection would go untreated and become more dangerous.",
"Nature doesn't care if a member of a species survives as long as they live long enough to reproduce. Historically, without so much sugar in our diets, tooth decay hasn't been quite as bad of a problem. To the extent that it is, your teeth remained serviceable, for the most part, until you were old enough to have passed on your genes. Past that point, there is no evolutionary pressure for any changes in anatomy/physiology.",
"Well we kind of don't know. There's really no hard evidence as to why we have nerves in our teeth. Here's a more detailed explanation. _URL_0_"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evolutionary-reason-for-teeth-to-have-nerves"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do we have nerves in our teeth? Wouldn't a tooth ache that hinders our ability to eat end up being a disadvantage for survival?
| [
-0.011068831197917461,
-0.04326016455888748,
-0.005521947052329779,
0.08783847093582153,
-0.06192021071910858,
0.026308799162507057,
0.010600656270980835,
0.07152444869279861,
-0.025480180978775024,
0.05995345488190651,
-0.06280608475208282,
-0.033494800329208374,
0.040003906935453415,
-0.... | ||
1nzrgl | Why do people look visibly different when they wake up in the mornings? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ccnjiyj"
],
"text": [
"It has a lot to do with the horizontal vs vertical body position. The body has a high water content and throughout the day gravity plays it's part moving fluids around the body, and even compressing the spine so that we are very slightly shorter at night than we were in the mornings. Laying in a horizontal position whilst we sleep redistributes fluids with a stronger bias towards our face/head, which may result in a puffy face, particularly if you don't use a pillow or your heads leans off the side of your bed. With these fluids are toxins, and since the face consists of sensitive membranes and thinner skin, inflammation is much more prevalent and noticeable. Allergies, which often kick in at night, may also contribute to puffiness along with the dehydration. \nAlso keep in mind that when someone wakes up you are also seeing there unadulterated natural appearance ie scruffy bed hair and no make-up or creams!"
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do people look visibly different when they wake up in the mornings?
| [
0.026956697925925255,
0.06914736330509186,
0.036874305456876755,
0.04182432219386101,
0.08731220662593842,
-0.017329132184386253,
0.04644264280796051,
-0.016351882368326187,
0.05234570428729057,
-0.047436829656362534,
-0.07545580714941025,
-0.06312360614538193,
-0.03574783727526665,
-0.025... | ||
63ul3z | How do civil engineers ensure the on-ramps and overpasses supported by manmade dirt slopes never collapse? | I've always been curious how these last without issue. Is the dirt just packed really hard, or is there more to it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfx426j",
"dfx393w"
],
"text": [
"A pile of granular materials has a property known as \"angle of repose\" which is the angle the side slopes of a pile of that material spills to when left alone. Embankment sideslopes are designed at an angle less than this angle of repose to keep the sideslopes stable.\n\n\nSecondly, the material is compressed, this tends to lock the edges of the grains together and it also tends to remove voids. Remove the voids prevents water from running between grains which could destabilise them.\n\n\nCompacted earth is often also vibrated as it compacted so that the grains move around and fit together better - as an experiment, try gently shaking a coffee jar, and you'll see the level of the coffee drop as the grains fit together better.",
"They are not generally supported by dirt slopes. They are supported by concrete and steel pillars that go down into the ground all the way to bedrock. The packed dirt is simply there to help the pillars not shift and to be more aesthetically appealing."
],
"score": [
6,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do civil engineers ensure the on-ramps and overpasses supported by manmade dirt slopes never collapse?
I've always been curious how these last without issue. Is the dirt just packed really hard, or is there more to it? | [
-0.06684047728776932,
-0.018510526046156883,
0.10587865114212036,
0.08227111399173737,
-0.024257509037852287,
-0.10368699580430984,
-0.08114729076623917,
0.09260207414627075,
-0.05824878066778183,
0.05095215141773224,
-0.08235776424407959,
0.015943283215165138,
-0.03799309954047203,
0.0188... | |
xscnd | how do rockets move | My brother asked this "How do rockets move with fire? " | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c5p5oda"
],
"text": [
"The rocket moves by propulsion. In a nutshell, when you push burning fuel out the back of the rocket, you are exerting a force backward.\n\nThe laws of physics dictate that every force must have an equal and opposite reaction, so the rocket is propelled forward in the opposite direction that the force is applied. This is why the flames come out the back, and the rocket accelerates forward."
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how do rockets move
My brother asked this "How do rockets move with fire? " | [
0.020852146670222282,
0.06715800613164902,
-0.008896282874047756,
-0.03658458590507507,
-0.07867729663848877,
0.004232377279549837,
0.11914277821779251,
-0.02543759159743786,
-0.03221403807401657,
0.013471386395394802,
0.012361099012196064,
0.03453229367733002,
-0.005510637070983648,
0.007... | |
8w7kps | Why do TV shows use fake bills with small amounts of money? | I was just watching TV and a woman had a $5 bill in her hand that was clearly fake. Is there any specific reason they could not use a real $5 bill in the scene instead of a fake one? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1td4tx",
"e1tcs8s",
"e1tdrcb"
],
"text": [
"On the Breaking Bad Insider Podcast they talk about how showing real money on TV is illegal. The reasons for this are complicated and strange but basically they'd be showing real serial numbers which can be used by counterfeiters.",
"If they have to destroy it in the show that is illegal to do to actual legitimate currency. \n\nIt is also very risky to use real currency on a show as it has a high tendency to be stolen by cast or crew. Many TV shows have a policy to just use prop money at all times to eliminate this risk.",
"They have a prop department with fake cash already. Why not use the props when you have them as opposed to trying to keep track of real money?"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do TV shows use fake bills with small amounts of money?
I was just watching TV and a woman had a $5 bill in her hand that was clearly fake. Is there any specific reason they could not use a real $5 bill in the scene instead of a fake one? | [
-0.08429571241140366,
0.03770634904503822,
-0.000844558933749795,
-0.011692955158650875,
-0.009519373066723347,
-0.07043613493442535,
0.018090054392814636,
-0.003903253935277462,
0.14091169834136963,
-0.0066327122040092945,
0.017220383509993553,
0.0258165430277586,
0.0017968651372939348,
-... | |
66obog | Help me understand the 'exposure triangle' | I have 0 experience in using an SLR camera, my previous camera is a GoPro HERO4 Silver. I want to understand the exposure triangle because I know that it can help me improve my Photography skills.
P.S.
I just bought a Nikon D3300 and I want to know all of its secrets and hidden treasures. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dgk1w1u"
],
"text": [
"First off, a CCD sensor in a digital camera has a certain range of light intensities where the full range of tones in the subject map onto different signal strengths. It's equivalent for film darkening but I'll stick with digital for simplicity. If you have too little light all the dark areas merge into one black area losing detail. The same with too much where the whites get \"washed out\" into one detailless area.\n\nBearing that in mind there are three factors you can vary to get the optimum image, your exposure triangle. There are two ways of controlling the number of photons hitting the detector, the shutter speed and the aperture ie controlling how long they get through for or how many can get through at the same time. Finally you can adjust the sensitivity of the detector, the \"iso\" setting which comes from film days as a measure of how much the emulsion darkens for a given light input.\n\nIt's easier to consider the first two for a fixed iso setting. If you want to capture fast movement or minimize camera shake, you need a fast shutter speed. So you need a large aperture to compensate -more photons coming through the lens for a shorter time. If you want to be creative with motion blur you might do the opposite. But if you only had a low light level or a lens like a telephoto with a limited maximum aperture (f-number) you might not be able to open up as much as you would like so couldn't use the fastest shutter settings.\n\nAperture setting allows creative control of the depth-of-field, the range where objects at different distances from the camera appear in focus in the image. Small apertures give wide d-o-f which is maybe what you want for a landscape with foreground objects. On the other hand you might want to isolate your subject in something like a portrait by using a shallow d-o-f and throwing the background out of focus - of course you need to be more accurate in focusing as a result. As you can probably guess, you now need to set the shutter speed to a value that allows you to use the aperture you want.\n\nYou can't have a free choice in both. Automatic settings on the camera usually compromise to middling values of each, but there are shutter speed or aperture priority modes where you chose one and the camera sets the other appropriately. Depth of field markings may also be present on the lens barrel that you can read off directly against the focus scale without needing to calculate it.\n\nFinally iso. You might think why not just wind it up to the maximum? In film cameras fast film had large silver grains so gave a poorer resolution image. High resoution needed slow film with small grains. In digital sensors it affects the signal-to-noise in the image, you're collecting more or less total number of photons. So if you compensate for low light by raising the iso setting you'll get a poorer quality image and vice versa.\n\nIn the end you have to pick the optimum choice of all three factors for the light conditions and the image you want to take - ie the point within your exposure triangle where you need to be.\n\n\nedited for typos"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Help me understand the 'exposure triangle'
I have 0 experience in using an SLR camera, my previous camera is a GoPro HERO4 Silver. I want to understand the exposure triangle because I know that it can help me improve my Photography skills. P.S. I just bought a Nikon D3300 and I want to know all of its secrets and hidden treasures. | [
0.002931050956249237,
0.01347268559038639,
-0.005933251231908798,
-0.05565214529633522,
0.019521981477737427,
-0.01963513344526291,
-0.005405809264630079,
0.02579469606280327,
0.012637816369533539,
0.029647380113601685,
0.03311948850750923,
-0.05145443603396416,
-0.014275270514190197,
-0.0... | |
2y92ht | Why should I give money to PBS when they have ads for Ralph Lauren, Goldman Sachs, Viking Cruises and more? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cp7c6pj",
"cp7c9ln",
"cp7cjch"
],
"text": [
"Your local affiliate doesn't get funding from those entities, the production companies do.\n\nYour local affiliates need to pay bills and pay fees and are non-profits.",
"If their only funding comes from corporations this will likely be reflected in their programming. They need the widest base of support in order to justify programs which might not be as popular or receive corporate sponsorship..",
"If you want to swallow what Ralph Lauren, Goldman Sachs, and viking cruises gives you on PBS then be my guest and let them fund everything. The programing will reflect it."
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why should I give money to PBS when they have ads for Ralph Lauren, Goldman Sachs, Viking Cruises and more?
| [
-0.0220912154763937,
-0.02619387023150921,
0.0320175364613533,
-0.009717898443341255,
0.03710631653666496,
0.053187839686870575,
0.076291523873806,
-0.024160243570804596,
0.06509137153625488,
-0.04345322772860527,
-0.028932560235261917,
0.048265449702739716,
-0.010804647579789162,
-0.05344... | ||
5clmrf | Why do we get lightheaded when standing up quickly after sitting/laying down? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d9xfc21"
],
"text": [
"It's called orthostatic hypotension.\n\nWhen you are sitting your blood vessels contract or bend depending on how you're positioned, restricting the blood flow. When you stand up too quick, your blood vessels open up all the way and give the blood a lot more space to move which lowers the pressure. \n\nAll of a sudden, your brain isnt getting the blood it needs so it starts cutting off major functions to conserve energy, starting with eyesight and hearing until you eventually faint (if it were bad enough). \n\nFor most people it only takes a few seconds for their bodies to adjust and get their pressure back to normal but people who already have low blood pressure or people who are drunk (alcohol lowers blood pressure) are at a much higher risk of fainting or worse because their bodies cant restore pressure quickly enough.\n\nIf it happens to you often, have your blood pressure checked out or stretch out your legs before you stand up. \n\nHope this helped!"
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do we get lightheaded when standing up quickly after sitting/laying down?
[removed] | [
0.03411117568612099,
0.05876116827130318,
0.018374023959040642,
0.09341464936733246,
0.06548614054918289,
0.04189110919833183,
0.04456472769379616,
0.03240754082798958,
0.04658946022391319,
-0.008686527609825134,
0.027967745438218117,
0.017040301114320755,
0.020273873582482338,
0.021213144... | |
1734pe | [NSFW] ELIama5yearoldwhofoundhisdad'shiddenpornfolder: Why does so much porn end with the man coming on the woman's face? | No, seriously, what's up with that? It seems far too common to be a fetish.
Or so I'm told. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c81rtrr",
"c81sj4k",
"c81rsai",
"c81sv0h",
"c82118q",
"c81y94k"
],
"text": [
"Explain it like you're five?\n\nYou know better than to go playing around on daddy's computer, you're only allowed to use *these* games over here. Now, I'm not mad at you, but what you saw is for daddy and mommy to watch. Starting tomorrow, you're not allowed to use the computer until we can get you your own. Now go watch some TV, Mr. Rogers is on.",
"IMO it's a power trip thing. It's a chauvinistic dominance move, I think intended to degrade the woman. It doesn't appeal to me as a man even a little bit so I'm not really sure what it's all about.",
"Theory: The porn gentleman and the porn lady don't want to make a baby. Or, since the porn lady is probably taking medicine so she won't have a baby, maybe the idea is that the fellow who is watching will not be scared about baby-making and that will allow him to enjoy the movie more.",
"A lot of porn subscribes to the \"something for everyone\" theory. So in the course of a movie, they are going to go through a laundry list of sex acts and fetishes to keep everyone happy. And since most people aren't actively turned off by those fetishes, it doesn't hurt to include them.",
"Apparently this is a highly political thread, so I'd like to preface my comment by saying that I believe in gender equality and I am an active member in the feminist club on my college campus.\n\nThat being said, the #1 reason for this is NOT that it degrades women, but that you can see it. Porn is watched, not felt. There are awkward angles in porn that a real loving couple would never perform, so it's easier to see the naughty bits of the actors. Similarly, it's harder to see any real results when the man finishes inside the woman. And just to be clear, it CAN be degrading; but lots of things can be degrading depending on the situation. Also, not all porn is harmful to the women actors... \n\nAlso, a fetish is something enjoyed in a sexual manner that isn't required for sex, i.e., something that turns people on but isn't just penis-in-vagina. Liking boobs is technically a fetish, I have been told. It seems such a strange concept, I know. \n\nIf you're looking for a much longer discourse, ctrl+f the user cat_mech, he had a few interesting insights. \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n^^^As ^^^with ^^^any ^^^thread ^^^discussing ^^^political ^^^opinions, ^^^I ^^^am ^^^bracing ^^^for ^^^downvotes.",
"I think it is a few things. One, there is the dominance thing that many have referred to. That is why you see a decent amount of porn where the woman is tricked in various ways (casting couch, bang bus, captain stabbin, etc) where the girl is promised something in exchange for sex and then fucked over.\n\nAnother thing is that cream pies, the act of finishing inside the woman, take away from showing the completed act. The act is over when the man finishes and so you usually see him finishing on the woman's face, ass, back or stomach.\n\nAnother thing is that it can be a turn on to see a woman who is so into it and so turned on by getting fucked, that she's even turned on by him blowing his load on her face. It has the consistency of snot and you can say it is probably pretty universal that if someone sneezed on your face you'd get grossed out, but this is the woman getting turned on by something almost the same."
],
"score": [
9,
8,
4,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | [NSFW] ELIama5yearoldwhofoundhisdad'shiddenpornfolder: Why does so much porn end with the man coming on the woman's face?
No, seriously, what's up with that? It seems far too common to be a fetish. Or so I'm told. | [
0.07039127498865128,
-0.028442181646823883,
0.04345451667904854,
-0.010653751902282238,
0.04173104837536812,
-0.032875608652830124,
0.044417548924684525,
-0.00040577922482043505,
-0.018687698990106583,
0.0021947259083390236,
-0.036335114389657974,
-0.03702177852392197,
-0.05635259300470352,
... | |
jauzj | (explainlikeimfive) : Stocks and the Stock Market Explained! | A number of people have asked questions on ELI5 related to how stocks and stock market work. Here goes:
----
** Part One : Stocks **
First, let's imagine that down the street there is a toy store. Mr. Jones owns the toy store, and he has owned it for the last ten years. The toy store is a company which sells toys and all the kids love to get toys from Mr. Jones' toy store.
Let's suppose we wanted to buy Mr. Jones' toy store from him so that all of the kids would buy toys from us instead. Would we be able to buy it for a dollar? No, of course not. It is worth a lot more than that. How about ten dollars? A hundred dollars?
Well, how exactly would we find out how much we need to pay in order to buy Mr. Jones' toy store? The most important thing to consider is simply how much money is the toy store making. If the toy store is making $100 every day, that means it is making roughly $3,000 (30 days of $100) every month, or $36,000 every year (12 months of $3,000). Let's suppose we are able to figure that the toy store should be able to keep making this much for the next ten years. Then we could consider that the entire toy store is worth $360,000 (which is $36,000 for ten years).
Now, in practice this is a lot more complicated. But the basic principle is simply to figure out how much money a company can be expected to make in a certain time frame. Fortunately, we don't have to figure it out ourselves. There are big companies whose job is to figure out how much other companies are worth, and they do all of the hard work for us. They will tell us just how much Mr. Jones' toy store is really worth, and then we can decide to buy it or not.
So, let's consider that the toy store is worth $360,000. If we want to buy it (and if he is willing to sell it), we can pay Mr. Jones that much money and now the toy store is ours!
Now, this is all well and good if we have $360,000 and we want to own the entire company. But let's suppose we only have half that much, we have $180,000. What can we do now? Well, as long as Mr. Jones is willing, we can buy *half* of his company instead of the whole thing.
This means that we will own 50% or half of the company, and he will own the other half. That means that instead of all of the money from selling toys going to Mr. Jones, half will go to him and the other half to us.
Another way of saying that we own 50% of the company is to say that we own 50% of the stock in a company. When a company is set up in a way that you can buy pieces of it, those pieces are called stock. There are two ways to think about stock: percentages, and shares.
What we just talked about are percentages. We can buy 50% of the shares in Mr. Jones' toy company for $180,000. Similarly, we could buy 10% of the shares in Mr. Jones' toy company for $36,000 (assuming the total value of the company was $360,000), or we could buy 1% of the shares for $3,600, and so on.
When you hear people talk about stocks, you will hear them talk about shares of stock. What exactly does this mean? Well, let's imagine that Mr. Jones has a lot of people who want to buy a piece of his company. What he can do is say "Hey everyone, I have 100 different pieces of my company for sale."
In this example, there are 100 total pieces he has for sale, each one being worth 1% of the stock. To buy all 100 pieces would cost you $360,000 and this would mean you own the entire company. This would mean that whenever the company makes money, you get all of the money. But let's suppose we only have $3,600 to use. This means all we can afford is *one* piece of his company, but that one piece is worth 1% which means that every time the company makes a hundred dollars, we will get one dollar.
So in this example, Mr. Jones' looks at the situation and realizes it is very hard to find people to buy pieces of his company, because each piece costs $3,600 which is a lot of money. So he decides rather than just have 100 pieces, or shares, he is going to have a thousand pieces! Now it takes ten shares to have 1% of the company, but each share is only $360. That is a lot more affordable. He could even decide to make 10,000 shares which means that you could buy a share for only $36.
So this is the basic concept. Companies cut their value into pieces, or shares, and then sell the shares to people who will buy them. The people who buy shares are called "investors" and the act of buying a share is called "investing". This means that they are buying shares in a company because they think that eventually they will make back more than what they paid, because they are getting a piece of all of the money that the company makes.
When a company is enormous, worth billions of dollars, even a thousand shares is simply not enough. They need to have many, many shares in order to make sure that shares are affordable. Some companies have millions of shares of stock.
Now, we have covered one aspect of what it means to own stock in a company. You are able to keep some of the money the company makes, based on how many shares you own. But when you own part of a company, you don't just get some of the money it makes. You also get to make decisions. Everyone who has shares in a company has the right to vote for what the company will do next. The amount of voting power you have is equal to the percentage of shares you have.
Imagine that a company is owned by three people: Billy, Melissa, and James. Imagine that Billy owns 40% of the total shares, and that Melissa and James each own 30%, which is less than what Billy owns.
Let's suppose that the toy company is trying to decide whether to sell a certain toy. Billy thinks it is a good idea, but Melissa and James think it is a bad idea. Well, even though Billy has more shares of stock in the company, and more voting power, he will still be *out voted* by both Melissa and James. This is because together Melissa and James have 60% compared to Billy's 40%.
When a company has a lot of share holders (people who own stock in the company), they will have meetings called shareholder meetings. In these meetings, everyone gets to vote based on the shares they own. The company will do whatever the prevailing vote decides.
So then, this brings up a question. What if there are a lot of people who own shares, but one of them owns more than half of all the shares? Would that person be able to out-vote everyone else, no matter how many other people there are?
The answer is yes. If a single person owns more than half of all the shares, then they have what is called "controlling interest" in the company. This means that they can decide anything for the company and outvote everyone else.
----
** Part Two : The Stock Market **
So by now you should have a pretty good idea of what stock is. Now let's imagine that there is also a video game company owned by Mr. Smith. Now, Mr. Smith's company is doing a lot better than Mr. Jones'. We had said that Mr. Jones' company is worth $360,000 based on how much it is expected to make over ten years, but Mr. Smith's is worth twice that! His video game company is worth $720,000.
Let's imagine that Mr. Jones' company has 100 total shares of stock, each valued at $3,600 per share. Let's also imagine that Mr. Smith's company also has 100 total shares of stock, each valued at $7,200 per share. This means that if we had $7,200 we could choose to either buy two shares in Mr. Jones' toy company, or one share in Mr. Smith's video game company.
Let's suppose that we already own two shares of stock in Mr. Jones' toy company. Our two shares are worth $7,200 which is enough to buy one share of stock in Mr. Smith's company. We looked at both companies, and we decided that Mr. Smith's company seems like it is doing the best, so we decide to sell our two shares in Mr. Jones' toy company, and buy one share of stock in Mr. Smith's company. And this is the basics of stock trading.
Now here is where things get interesting. How much a company is really worth *changes* constantly. Mr. Jones' company has been making $100 every day for ten years, but all of last year his company was only making $50 per day! Is it still worth $360,000 ? Maybe it is losing value, or maybe it is just going through a rough period. If we owned stock in the company, we would have to decide which it is. If we decide the company is losing value, then we will probably want to sell our stocks and buy stocks in a company that is doing better.
There are a *lot* of reasons to assume that a company is doing better, or worse. We might have heard a rumor that Mr. Jones' toy company, even though it has only been making $50/day is about to start selling a really, really cool toy. We say "Wow, if he sells that toy lots of kids will buy it!" and so we decide to buy a lot of stock because we think that the stock is actually worth more than Mr. Jones says.
Similarly, we might have heard a rumor that an even better toy company is going to be opening up a store right next door to Mr. Jones' toy store. In this case, we might say "Oh no, we have a lot of shares of stock in Mr. Jones' toy company, and we better sell it fast! If we don't, we will lose money because the kids will all shop at the new toy store instead." You can see that emotion plays a big role in this.
Now let's imagine that instead of two companies (Mr. Jones' Toy Company, and Mr. Smith's Video Game Company), there are hundreds of companies. Let's also imagine there are thousands of people all trading stock in each company at the same time. Now you have what is called a stock exchange. If you take the value of *all* of the companies and add them together, and then divide that by the total number of companies in your stock exchange, you get an average that you can track over time to see how well on average all of the companies are doing.
Let's suppose that all of the companies combined are worth a million dollars, and that there are only ten total companies in the stock exchange. Then we would say that the average value is a million divided by ten which is $100,000. Remember though that how much companies are worth changes over time, so the very next day it might turn out that all ten companies combined are now worth two million dollars, which means our average is now $200,000.
If we keep track of this average over time, we can create a graph. We can watch this graph to get a good feel for how the companies in the stock exchange are doing. This can also help us decide whether or not investing in more companies is a good idea, or a bad idea.
There you have it, the basics of stocks and the stock market. I hope you enjoyed it.
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2akt9y",
"c2akwdr",
"c2alk0x",
"c2am1k4",
"c2an4x1",
"c2anbxd",
"c2apxg1",
"c2amgos",
"c2ani3h",
"c2b0bbq",
"c2amgef",
"c2alxmu",
"c2ao4d6",
"c2uy2bk",
"c2b3vly",
"c2aqkkc",
"c2anxiq"
],
"text": [
"now someone needs to explain futures, options and derivatives\n\nedit: Also one thing I am not sure about is what someone with a controlling interest can decide versus the board and CEO. I know the board is appointed ?by who? and the CEO is elected by the owners who can pick themselves? like Rupert Murdoch, right? I am thinking Carl Icahn deciding things when he owned stuff, but you hear of stock holder protests when a CEO does something they don't like???",
"Pretty good description. It might be important to mention that instead of earning a piece of what the toy store makes (dividends), the toy store may instead reinvest that money in the business to get better toys, open an additional store or sell toys online, or manufacture their own toys to grow the business quicker.",
"Just curious, is there any sites/books I can read so I have a good understanding what they are talking about in the Wall Street Journal?\n\nLike interest rates, the economy, Greece defaulting and effects on the world, the different types of stocks/bonds, futures/options, hedge funding, banking, etc.",
"Upvote to the skies! I've always wondered about how stocks work but was too lazy to research it; then I saw this.",
"This is the kind of thing they should be teaching you in elementary school. Instead, you have to memorize useless tidbits of information such as what crops Native Americans of different regions grew. Think of the possibilities if we actually learned practical things in school.",
"My question is this. How do you know what stock to invest in? For example, obvious choices would be google apple amazon etc. But is it even worth it to invest in these big companies this late in the game? What about other not so popular companies how do you know which companies are buying and selling how do you know one is a good bet etc... obviously, when/if facebook goes public I can assume that mass amounts of people will be scrambling to buy fb stock... is it a good idea to buy? Also how do you buy/sell? How do you get good tips/tricks? Is it worth playing the stock market if you don't have millions? What if you have only like 10k is it advisable to buy 10k in a safe stock like apple or better to buy in lesser known stocks? Thanks.",
"Okay, so what I'm asking is based entirely on the movie Dodgeball, so if this can't actually happen in real life then nevermind, but you know when Peter says that he's going to buy the controlling shares of Globo-gym and White says he wouldn't allow it, then the girl says that it's **publicly traded** and he cant stop it. How is that possible? Can you buy stocks simply because you have the money even if that means taking over the company? And why wouldn't White just buy it back?",
"Who buys stock when you are selling them though? Can I immediate click sell and someone immediately buys it? What if the stock is tanking? How do people sell it off if no one wants to buy it?",
"As someone who has basically ignored the financial world, this was excellent. One thing that bothers me though. You talk about selling shares: \n\n* Who do you sell them to? Someone else who is interested? \n* Do they negotiate the price? \n* What if no one wants the shares? Can you sell them back to the company you are invested in or can the company also refuse to buy back shares?",
"ELI5 Please. How does the company, in this case Mr Jones' Toy Store, make money off of people buying stock of his company? Like, why would a company want to sell stock? Wouldn't you want to own 100% of your business?",
"This was an amazing read...can you go a little further and explain the DOW Jones to me like I'm 5 years old?",
"Thanks! I somewhat understood it, but this cleared things up for me.",
"Loved your programming stuff. This is good, too! You rock!",
"Mr. CarlH, you do a really wonderful job explaining things. I've been a huge fan since your programming lessons on C and now am getting interested with economics.\n\nThank you!",
"That's way too much for a 5 year old to read. Clearly you don't understand their attention spans.",
"Wow. THANK YOU SIR! I feel like an intelligent man (or five year old!)",
"And it's done by the famous CarlH! Thank you, sir."
],
"score": [
51,
17,
10,
8,
7,
6,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | (explainlikeimfive) : Stocks and the Stock Market Explained!
A number of people have asked questions on ELI5 related to how stocks and stock market work. Here goes: ---- ** Part One : Stocks ** First, let's imagine that down the street there is a toy store. Mr. Jones owns the toy store, and he has owned it for the last ten years. The toy store is a company which sells toys and all the kids love to get toys from Mr. Jones' toy store. Let's suppose we wanted to buy Mr. Jones' toy store from him so that all of the kids would buy toys from us instead. Would we be able to buy it for a dollar? No, of course not. It is worth a lot more than that. How about ten dollars? A hundred dollars? Well, how exactly would we find out how much we need to pay in order to buy Mr. Jones' toy store? The most important thing to consider is simply how much money is the toy store making. If the toy store is making $100 every day, that means it is making roughly $3,000 (30 days of $100) every month, or $36,000 every year (12 months of $3,000). Let's suppose we are able to figure that the toy store should be able to keep making this much for the next ten years. Then we could consider that the entire toy store is worth $360,000 (which is $36,000 for ten years). Now, in practice this is a lot more complicated. But the basic principle is simply to figure out how much money a company can be expected to make in a certain time frame. Fortunately, we don't have to figure it out ourselves. There are big companies whose job is to figure out how much other companies are worth, and they do all of the hard work for us. They will tell us just how much Mr. Jones' toy store is really worth, and then we can decide to buy it or not. So, let's consider that the toy store is worth $360,000. If we want to buy it (and if he is willing to sell it), we can pay Mr. Jones that much money and now the toy store is ours! Now, this is all well and good if we have $360,000 and we want to own the entire company. But let's suppose we only have half that much, we have $180,000. What can we do now? Well, as long as Mr. Jones is willing, we can buy *half* of his company instead of the whole thing. This means that we will own 50% or half of the company, and he will own the other half. That means that instead of all of the money from selling toys going to Mr. Jones, half will go to him and the other half to us. Another way of saying that we own 50% of the company is to say that we own 50% of the stock in a company. When a company is set up in a way that you can buy pieces of it, those pieces are called stock. There are two ways to think about stock: percentages, and shares. What we just talked about are percentages. We can buy 50% of the shares in Mr. Jones' toy company for $180,000. Similarly, we could buy 10% of the shares in Mr. Jones' toy company for $36,000 (assuming the total value of the company was $360,000), or we could buy 1% of the shares for $3,600, and so on. When you hear people talk about stocks, you will hear them talk about shares of stock. What exactly does this mean? Well, let's imagine that Mr. Jones has a lot of people who want to buy a piece of his company. What he can do is say "Hey everyone, I have 100 different pieces of my company for sale." In this example, there are 100 total pieces he has for sale, each one being worth 1% of the stock. To buy all 100 pieces would cost you $360,000 and this would mean you own the entire company. This would mean that whenever the company makes money, you get all of the money. But let's suppose we only have $3,600 to use. This means all we can afford is *one* piece of his company, but that one piece is worth 1% which means that every time the company makes a hundred dollars, we will get one dollar. So in this example, Mr. Jones' looks at the situation and realizes it is very hard to find people to buy pieces of his company, because each piece costs $3,600 which is a lot of money. So he decides rather than just have 100 pieces, or shares, he is going to have a thousand pieces! Now it takes ten shares to have 1% of the company, but each share is only $360. That is a lot more affordable. He could even decide to make 10,000 shares which means that you could buy a share for only $36. So this is the basic concept. Companies cut their value into pieces, or shares, and then sell the shares to people who will buy them. The people who buy shares are called "investors" and the act of buying a share is called "investing". This means that they are buying shares in a company because they think that eventually they will make back more than what they paid, because they are getting a piece of all of the money that the company makes. When a company is enormous, worth billions of dollars, even a thousand shares is simply not enough. They need to have many, many shares in order to make sure that shares are affordable. Some companies have millions of shares of stock. Now, we have covered one aspect of what it means to own stock in a company. You are able to keep some of the money the company makes, based on how many shares you own. But when you own part of a company, you don't just get some of the money it makes. You also get to make decisions. Everyone who has shares in a company has the right to vote for what the company will do next. The amount of voting power you have is equal to the percentage of shares you have. Imagine that a company is owned by three people: Billy, Melissa, and James. Imagine that Billy owns 40% of the total shares, and that Melissa and James each own 30%, which is less than what Billy owns. Let's suppose that the toy company is trying to decide whether to sell a certain toy. Billy thinks it is a good idea, but Melissa and James think it is a bad idea. Well, even though Billy has more shares of stock in the company, and more voting power, he will still be *out voted* by both Melissa and James. This is because together Melissa and James have 60% compared to Billy's 40%. When a company has a lot of share holders (people who own stock in the company), they will have meetings called shareholder meetings. In these meetings, everyone gets to vote based on the shares they own. The company will do whatever the prevailing vote decides. So then, this brings up a question. What if there are a lot of people who own shares, but one of them owns more than half of all the shares? Would that person be able to out-vote everyone else, no matter how many other people there are? The answer is yes. If a single person owns more than half of all the shares, then they have what is called "controlling interest" in the company. This means that they can decide anything for the company and outvote everyone else. ---- ** Part Two : The Stock Market ** So by now you should have a pretty good idea of what stock is. Now let's imagine that there is also a video game company owned by Mr. Smith. Now, Mr. Smith's company is doing a lot better than Mr. Jones'. We had said that Mr. Jones' company is worth $360,000 based on how much it is expected to make over ten years, but Mr. Smith's is worth twice that! His video game company is worth $720,000. Let's imagine that Mr. Jones' company has 100 total shares of stock, each valued at $3,600 per share. Let's also imagine that Mr. Smith's company also has 100 total shares of stock, each valued at $7,200 per share. This means that if we had $7,200 we could choose to either buy two shares in Mr. Jones' toy company, or one share in Mr. Smith's video game company. Let's suppose that we already own two shares of stock in Mr. Jones' toy company. Our two shares are worth $7,200 which is enough to buy one share of stock in Mr. Smith's company. We looked at both companies, and we decided that Mr. Smith's company seems like it is doing the best, so we decide to sell our two shares in Mr. Jones' toy company, and buy one share of stock in Mr. Smith's company. And this is the basics of stock trading. Now here is where things get interesting. How much a company is really worth *changes* constantly. Mr. Jones' company has been making $100 every day for ten years, but all of last year his company was only making $50 per day! Is it still worth $360,000 ? Maybe it is losing value, or maybe it is just going through a rough period. If we owned stock in the company, we would have to decide which it is. If we decide the company is losing value, then we will probably want to sell our stocks and buy stocks in a company that is doing better. There are a *lot* of reasons to assume that a company is doing better, or worse. We might have heard a rumor that Mr. Jones' toy company, even though it has only been making $50/day is about to start selling a really, really cool toy. We say "Wow, if he sells that toy lots of kids will buy it!" and so we decide to buy a lot of stock because we think that the stock is actually worth more than Mr. Jones says. Similarly, we might have heard a rumor that an even better toy company is going to be opening up a store right next door to Mr. Jones' toy store. In this case, we might say "Oh no, we have a lot of shares of stock in Mr. Jones' toy company, and we better sell it fast! If we don't, we will lose money because the kids will all shop at the new toy store instead." You can see that emotion plays a big role in this. Now let's imagine that instead of two companies (Mr. Jones' Toy Company, and Mr. Smith's Video Game Company), there are hundreds of companies. Let's also imagine there are thousands of people all trading stock in each company at the same time. Now you have what is called a stock exchange. If you take the value of *all* of the companies and add them together, and then divide that by the total number of companies in your stock exchange, you get an average that you can track over time to see how well on average all of the companies are doing. Let's suppose that all of the companies combined are worth a million dollars, and that there are only ten total companies in the stock exchange. Then we would say that the average value is a million divided by ten which is $100,000. Remember though that how much companies are worth changes over time, so the very next day it might turn out that all ten companies combined are now worth two million dollars, which means our average is now $200,000. If we keep track of this average over time, we can create a graph. We can watch this graph to get a good feel for how the companies in the stock exchange are doing. This can also help us decide whether or not investing in more companies is a good idea, or a bad idea. There you have it, the basics of stocks and the stock market. I hope you enjoyed it. | [
-0.028676556423306465,
-0.008913367055356503,
-0.008117369376122952,
-0.01136774942278862,
-0.06991750001907349,
0.017728224396705627,
0.050020113587379456,
0.022191926836967468,
-0.016271209344267845,
0.04271784424781799,
-0.01335107535123825,
0.009432803839445114,
0.018173616379499435,
0... | |
15u5fv | Why should I not eat too much sugar? | What's the harm? If I eat candy all day every day, what will happen to me down the road? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7ptxdn",
"c7ptn9i"
],
"text": [
"The short answer: Health concerns that increase risk of diabetes. *Note that I did not say diabetes directly. Read on*\n\nThe reason why: Your body produces two hormones, insulin and glucagon. *Insulin* is the guy that helps to lower your blood sugar level when it's too high, like after you just ate that bag of M & Ms or pasta dinner. The pancreas notices that blood sugar levels are high, and releases more insulin after meals to maintain balance, or homeostasis.\n\n*Glucagon*, on the other hand, is released when blood sugar is too low. It's also released by the pancreas, and causes the liver to release glucose to the blood, maintaining that homeostasis.\n\nThe common misconception is that sugar = diabetes. This is not technically correct. What we know is that a sugary diet puts people at a much higher chance for developing the risk factors leading to diabetes, mainly *a higher central body fat*. Other risk factors can be found here.\n\nSo why is being overweight bad for me in terms of developing diabetes? The extra weight also makes it more difficult for insulin to do its job. This is known as *insulin resistance* and is a complication that results in diabetes.\n\nDISCLAIMER: Understand that anyone can get diabetes; while many of the health problems an overweight/obese person has are also factors, many underweight and normal weight people fail to realize it is also a genetic disease.\n\n*TL;DR -eating sugar - > more calories - > more weight - > overweight - > chance of Type II diabetes - > :(*\n\nThere are some terrible complications that arise due to diabetes. Many people suffer blurred vision or blindness as well as amputations. It is a serious condition that affects millions in the US. Diabetes is ranked at #7 for the top killers in the US as of 2011.\n\n**In addition**, it will completely ruin your teeth!\n\n*Fun fact*: a granola bar typically is more detrimental to your teeth than a sticky caramel candy. Simple sugars remove quickly from teeth, while complex sugars stay longer and cause cavities",
"First, unless you're very good about brushing your teeth, you will start getting lots of cavities.\n\nThen you'll start getting fat. Now, it's not good to judge other people for their weight, but that doesn't mean that getting fat off of candy is healthy.\n\nSoon after, you might get something known as diabetes. Diabetes can do all sorts of nasty things to you; it can break your kidneys, make you see worse, and even lose you a foot. If you don't stop eating sugar, these things get more and more likely."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why should I not eat too much sugar?
What's the harm? If I eat candy all day every day, what will happen to me down the road? | [
-0.03980599716305733,
0.009466045536100864,
0.00942020770162344,
0.06755948066711426,
-0.05388365685939789,
-0.002666002605110407,
0.05776971951127052,
0.061778921633958817,
-0.07459887117147446,
0.04233980551362038,
-0.044710613787174225,
0.017212525010108948,
-0.0030156380962580442,
-0.0... | |
1s2mfg | The main differences between Catholic, Protestant,and Presbyterian versions of Christianity | sweet as guys, thanks for the answers | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdtfk29",
"cdtahth",
"cdtmgfm",
"cdtabm5",
"cdthkmg",
"cdtahzc",
"cdtchu1",
"cdtna2z",
"cdtgx9k",
"cdtbh5d",
"cdtmred",
"cdtallj",
"cdtdi9e",
"cdtbmv1",
"cdtalxv",
"cdtjzr0",
"cdtjfov",
"cdtdb17",
"cdtfzdt",
"cdts9ei",
"cdtq6zo",
"cdtcmav",
"cdtmfjd",
"cdtsse2",
"cdtpmea",
"cdtq4b7",
"cdtkgts",
"cdtrl3i",
"cdtc2dy",
"cdtpj7z",
"cdtqge4"
],
"text": [
"Wow there are some bad answers near the top of this page.\n\nI'm a child of a Baptist-Catholic home and I'm pretty comfortable explaining the differences.\n\nThe Catholic (Latin for \"universal\") Church believes strongly in something called the Apostolic Succession, which is the idea that Jesus endowed his disciples, most notably Peter, with the ability to pass on their religious authority (specifically the ability to bind in heaven what is bound on earth). Peter became the first bishop (\"episcopus\" meaning overseer or leader) of Rome. The Pope is also the Bishop of Rome today and thus derives his authority directly through the Apostolic Succession from Peter, who was basically the #1 Disciple. The Pope therefore, Catholics believe, has the authority to bind in heaven what is bound on Earth, by his decree, just like Peter had. Essentially, Catholics believe the Pope has the power to set doctrine and that whatever is revealed to him is consistent with what the rules are in Heaven at any given moment. This is the theological underpinning of the doctrine of infallibility in the Papacy.\n\nProtestantism originally derives from a German monk named Martin Luther, who objected to many of the arcane rules which had developed in the first 1500 years of church history. Luther didn't like, for example, the practice of selling pardons for sin; the Catholic church at the time would literally let you buy your way out of sin. Luther favored a doctrine of salvation by grace alone, meaning your *actions* on earth weren't the cause of your salvation/damnation, but were rather a reflection (or symptom, if you will) of your inner condition. The person who had accepted the grace of Jesus Christ and become a true Christian in his heart would act in a Christian manner automatically: they would be Christ-like, humble, moral, and loving to others. Thus in Lutheranism there is a requirement that you act as a Christian, but it is meant to be reflective of an inner change--a personal rejection of original sin and a desire to do right by God, rather than a calculation that if you just do this and do that, God will reward you by sending you to heaven. In some respects Protestantism was an attempt to do away with the cynicism of connect-the-dots Christianity to that point in history.\n\nAll Christians believe Man was created in a state of original sin. All Christians believe that repentance from sin and striving to \"do the right thing\" is a fundamental requirement of being a Christian (although Christians also believe all humans remain sinners, prone to fail, despite their salvation). Catholics believe in salvation through works and grace (meaning you can act to save yourself) while Protestants believe in salvation through grace alone (meaning your acts merely reflect your inner state and it is your psychological or inner state; your \"personal relationship with Jesus Christ,\" which earns you salvation).\n\nSome Protestant groups took this dichotomy to its logical extreme. John Calvin, a Swiss Protestant from the 16th century, believed that since God is all-knowing (omniscient), he must already have designated those bound for heaven versus those bound for hell. In Calvinism, one strove to be a Christian and act with Christian principles merely to *demonstrate* one's \"pre-destined\" salvation. Theoretically one could be predestined to heaven and act as a sinner, but Calvin taught that acting as a sinner necessarily meant you were *not* predestined for heaven (catch-22, right?) Thus Calvinism became one of the strictest, most \"Puritanical\" sects of Christianity as everyone sought to demonstrate their inner righteousness. \n\nCalvinism started in Switzerland but really became popular in Scotland. Scottish people favored the term \"presbyter\" to designate the leader of their local churches, just as Catholics had favored \"bishop.\" Thus Scottish Calvinism, softened from its earliest super-strict stance, became Presbyterianism over the centuries.\n\nIn the United States we had a strong \"dissenter\" presence made up primarily of members of the Church of England who objected, much as Martin Luther had, to the excesses of their original faith, often moving to this continent to be able to worship as they pleased. The Church of England had been created when Henry VIII needed a divorce, also in the 16th century, and the Pope wouldn't give it to him. Thus Henry declared himself head of the English Catholic Church and split it off. (He was a huge Catholic, actually, having even been given a special award as \"Defender of the Faith\" for some writing he had done in favor of the Pope). Once Henry split the church, the English or \"Anglican\" church began to go off on its own, doctrinally-speaking. Anglican dissenters who came to America were known here as Puritans because they wanted to *purify* the Anglican version of Catholicism, in many of the same ways Martin Luther did. Technically they were still all members of the Church of England. Puritans favored very small congregations led by local leaders without lots of fancy titles or trappings of power. This was known as a \"low church\" philosophy (versus the \"high church\" of European Anglicanism).\n\nThe Puritan \"congregationalist\" movement attracted many European and American advocates, each of whom often wanted to put their own interpretation on increasingly obscure elements of doctrine. Southern Baptists (including myself) derive from the Anabaptists, a similar dissenter/congregationalist sect, on a complicated path leading through Rhode Island. They get their name from the rite they perform of dunking new Christians in water (\"baptism\") just as John the Baptist did to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry.\n\nMeanwhile, Scottish Presbyterians had also moved to the United States, bringing their version of Calvinism with them. In England in the 18th Century the Anglican Church underwent a split when a man named John Wesley began advocating a new Method of approaching God (a much humbler, low church method). These thus became Methodists--another division of Anglicanism, initially like a latter-day Puritanism. Methodists moved to the U.S. Eventually the old High Church Anglicans also moved to the U.S., but here, for political reasons, the Anglicans disassociated themselves with the Anglican Church, calling themselves Episcopalians after the original name of their leader (bishop = episcopus). (England was the U.S.'s enemy for much of the early period in this country, and Anglicanism was the official religion of England).\n\nIn the United States today there are many sects, but the largest are the Catholics on the one hand, and then the Baptists (mostly Southern Baptists), the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Lutherans and the Presbyterians on the other. Those last few groups make up the main body of \"Mainline Protestant\" churches, although there are several more. Thus they are all \"protestant,\" because they protested against the Pope's derived authority and Catholic doctrine, but they are also individually distinct between themselves. Most Protestants feel relatively comfortable in other Protestant churches because they are all more similar than not. But there remains a split--and a \"comfort level\" distinction--between low church sects like Baptists and Methodists, and high church sects like Catholics and Anglicans. Members of low church versus high church sects often feel out of place when visiting Christian churches from the opposite liturgical bent.\n\nTl;dr: Catholics primarily believe in salvation by works + grace and have a high church liturgy. Protestants primarily believe in salvation by grace with works demonstrating the inner change, and mostly have a low church or simplified liturgy.",
"To understand the divisions we have in the church today you need to back it up circa 50 CD. Up until that point there had been lots of little religions around the world, the one we are concerned with is Judaism. The Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible, the Jewish holy books) and the writings of the prophets foretold of a king and savior. When Jesus came, the Jewish leaders of the day rejected him. After his death and resurrection there were Roman and Jewish leaders of the day trying to wipe out the little sect of Christianity. (When Christians were thrown to the lions and gladiators, Nero's time, around 64 AD). Okay, so, now we have this little sect of \"Followers of the Way\" without much of a centralized leadership. In the book of Acts in the New Testament, Luke recorded a minor area of contention in the church leadership: some felt they should focus on feeding the hungry, others felt they should take care of the widows, others still thought they should only be preaching. So they sat down and devised this program where they would have 12 deacons to divide the work of the church leadership among them. (This is where the Catholic church gets their basic premise for leadership.) *Until this time there was no church structure specified, and after this time nothing much changed for several hundred years*\n\nNow, moving along. For the next 300 years we have what was called the Apostolic Period--no one \"central\" leader, just small churches throughout the world following the doctrines recorded by eyewitness--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter etc. (i.e., the whole new testament)\n\nThen, we move into what is known as Late Antiquity, which is when (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Orthodox churches began being official. We also have occurring in this time period a struggle between Islam and Christianity. \n\nThis continued until around the late 800s, early 900s, when, with the Baroque and Medieval and Renaissance periods we see the development of a centralized Catholic leadership--particularly with the influence of political leaders in various countries. We also see breakaway groups forming, as well. Now, in the 11th century we still see the whole crusades (Islam vs the established Christianity which, really, was mainly a government attempt at generating revenue) Around this time we have Papal Infallibility (when the pope became more than just a figurehead, he was a political force to be reckoned with), and other major doctrinal tenants established that the Catholic churches holds to, today. \n\nUp until early 1500s the only two opposing views to the \"christian church\" were orthodoxy and islam. In 1517, Martin Luther read, and reread, the book of Romans and was convinced that there were doctrines the church was teaching that were not right. Specifically, indulgences (a cash purchase to forgive a specific sin). Martin Luther posted his 95 theses (95 points that he believed the church was teaching wrongly) on the door of his local college/church, and mailed a copy to all the church leadership. Very, VERY quickly, this spread throughout the known world. \n\nWhat resulted was the first establishment of Protestantism, from \"To Protest.\" Specifically, Lutheranism, but other leaders quickly followed suit, and as a result we have Calvinism, Brethern, Methodists, Anabaptists, Baptists, etc. In the Protestant history, this period is divided as \"Pre-Lutheran\" and \"Lutheran\" Protestants. (i.e., all those sects that fell away from the church up until Luther made it a giant schism.) \n\nNow, Presbyterianism: This is one smaller version of Protestantism that traces their particular roots to John Calvin's teachings. John Knox brought Calvin's teachings to the British Isles and it resulted in the Presbyterian church being established. It's just a sect of Protestantism.\n\nOkay, now that the history is established, the actual views on doctrinal teachings? I'm not Catholic, so I can't give you a play-by-play on what they believe, however, [a quick google search turned this up](_URL_8_) but I will say in short that the major differences between Protestantism (all of the sects of it, because there are a LOT, more than I listed earlier) and Catholicism is:\n\nThey agree on these points:\n\n1. All are sinners (Romans 3:23)\n\n2. God desires a relationship with man (1 Timothy 2:3-4)\n\n3. God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin (1 Peter 1:16)\n\n4. God made a way for man to be reconciled (Romans 5:8)\n\n5. In the Old Testament this was through a blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22)\n\n6. In the New Testament, Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, now we don't have to atone yearly for our sins (Hebrews 10:14-24)\n\n7. Jesus came to earth, died, rose again three days later (1 Cor 15:4)\n\nNow, a few points that most Protestants disagree with Catholics on are:\n\n\n1. Praying to God through an intermediary (Mary, Apostles, Priest, saying confession)\n\n2. Certain acts of contrition canceling out sin (praying the rosary, or any other result of going to confession, attending mass, the Seven Sacraments)\n\n3. Baptism--not necessary for salvation, according to Protestants it is an outward sign of an inward change, according to Catholicism it is the very moment when you receive your salvation; this is why infant baptism is performed. \n\n4. The Sacraments to include Baptism, Penance/Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extremunction or Anointing of the Sick--Not necessary for entry to heaven per Protestantism, according to Catholicism they are a part of the salvation process\n\n5. Papal rights--the Catholic church is the final authority on what the Bible teaches vs Protestants belief that each individual has the ability to interpret the Bible\n\n6. Eucharist: the taking of the bread and wine does not become the literal blood and body of Christ, it is something done \"in remembrance\" of Christ's sacrifice on the cross per Protestantism \n\n7. Salvation cannot be lost per Protestantism, per Catholicism teaches 'mortal sin' can cause you to lose your salvation; salvation is an ongoing process\n\n\nHope that helps clear up the confusion. Sorry to launch into a (probably a little unnecessary) history lesson, but to understand what the Protestants were protesting you have to see how the church was formed into a geo-political entity in Martin Luther's day, over time from the early, Bible days.\n\nEDIT: I can't believe I spelled their like there. My inner grammarian wants to perform hari-kari. \nEDIT 2: Au? Wow, thanks guys. \n\nEDIT 2 Continued: Thank you for all the replies. I do realize that each of the various sects of Protestantism have varying (and sometimes disagreeing) doctrinal statements (prayer, speaking in tongues, the eucharist, covering of the head for women, women in leadership, baptism, etc), but I was trying to give blanket \"this is what the differences/similarities are.\" Sorry for leaving out the Orthodoxes--I didn't know enough about their teachings to address The Great Schism of 1054 with any degree of accuracy. Also, everyone's fussy about my \"Catholics believe\" statements--I looked up each one of those from catholic sites. Give me a second and I'll put my sources in here. Also, according to Catholic tradition and most Protestants, Luke was one of the 70 disciples of Jesus. I removed the sentence because it was getting quite a bit of reaction--sorry. Allow me to clarify: I was trying to state in that paragraph that the only centralized leadership the church had at this time were written-accounts-from-eye-witnesses (either the author as an eyewitness or the author wrote down what eyewitnesses said)\n\nEDIT 3, sources: \n1. Praying to Mary _URL_5_\n\n2. Penance _URL_0_\n\n3. Baptizing of infants _URL_3_\n\n4. Sacraments: _URL_7_ \n\n5. Papal Infallibility _URL_6_ \n\n6. The bread and wine is the blood and body of Christ; the Catholics take John 6 literally. Catechetical Homilies 5:1 and _URL_1_\n\n7. Salvation according to catholicism: _URL_4_\n\nEdit 4: Edited in accordance with /u/izelpii, who made the following points: \n||For example, you are linking a wiki on last rites. Nowhere there, and in no place it says Catholics believe that is required to go to heaven. --I edited the post to include all 7 of the sacraments, not just \"anointing of the sick\" (which I was referring to as \"last rites\") because the Catholic doctrine teaches that all of these lead to Salvation in accordance with the decisions made at the Council of Trent. ( [Summarized here](_URL_2_) ) Protestants believe that none of the sacraments are required for salvation because salvation is by grace through faith.\n|| 4 and 5 also are wrongly worded. The REAL difference between Catholics and protestants is that Catholics believe that the Church should interpret the Bible, where the Protestants think each individual is the only and last authority of interpretation of the Bible. --I changed them as such, thank you for the clarification.",
"**Catholic**: Closed-source, cloud based, shared hosting environment. Registration required. Expensive up-front licensing agreement, but discounts available for charitable gifts, charitable acts and confessions. Governed by iron-clad EULA. Dedicated 24-7 customer support. Help files are extensive, but patches are rarely released. \n \n \n**Protestant:** Open sourced, free download! System requirements are minimal, and there's a huge array of modules available, but not all of them are compatible since there have been several major development forks. Usually easier to do a fresh install on a new partition than to debug. \n \n**Presbyterian:** Technically a major fork of Protestant 1.0, but embroiled in an ongoing flame war by user \"John Calvin\" who claimed the O.S. was \"predestined\" and therefore not subject to previous EULA or DMCA requirements. Focused heavily on user interface and localized (mostly Scottish) language hooks.",
"Us Catholics have a Pope; the protestants don't. I'm not sure if the protestant religions even consider us proper Christians (edit: Of course we all believe in Jesus; what I meant by the last sentence was that I've been to places where if you say \"Christian church\", it refers to a place of worship that is protestant, but not Catholic).\n\nCatholics were around first, until the 1500s when some guy named Martin Luther started a movement that created protestantism. The protestant movement started because some people didn't like the way the Catholic Church handled things and I guess they wanted to get more back to basics (that is, focus more on the Bible rather than all the Catholic traditions) - that last part may be my personal opinion.\n\nThe protestants have a common set of 3 fundamental beliefs: that scripture (the Bible) alone is the source of all authority (unlike Catholics that have a Pope and a Church that can decide some stuff), that faith in and of itself is enough for salvation, and the universal priesthood of believers (which means that any Christian can read and interpret and spread the word of God, unlike Catholics which have a dedicated priesthood). \n\nAmong protestants they have different denominations - Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. They all observe the same fundamental beliefs mentioned above, but they vary in their practices and on what stuff they focus on.",
"ELI5, not ELI am a fucking theology major in university.",
"Presbyterians *are* Protestants.\n\nAnd Protestantism is a movement started in the 16^th century by Martin Luther in Worms, Germany, in protest (hence the name) of Catholicism and its rites and immoral practices (especially selling of indulgences, which was basically salvation for money). \nAmong many other things Protestants reject the pope's authority, have priesthood that's open to anyone and by far not as authoritarian and, contrary to Catholicism's salvation by good deeds, teaches that salvation is a gift for everyone thanks to the crucification of Christ.\n\nAnd very importantly they re-established the second commandment (\"You shall not make for yourself an idol\") and thus put the \"10 commandments\" into their original form, which is why Protestant churches are generally not littered with those depressing paintings of martyrs and the stations of the cross as you'd find in most and certainly all older Roman Catholic churches.",
"Posting because the top comment in this thread is just... not good.\n\nAfter Jesus' death, there was only one church. It took a few centuries for Scripture to be written and compiled, so oftentimes communities relied on their leaders (priests, bishops) to perpetuate the teachings handed down to them by the apostles. \n\nOver time, with significant contributions from a rich philosophical tradition, the Christian faith became complex. In the beginning, it was somewhat ritualised, but over time, these rituals became more beautiful and meaningful (externally and in meaning). Many traditions not explicitly commanded in Scripture (but nonetheless built on scriptural foundations) were carried through the centuries by the successors of the apostles, known as bishops. \n\nSome of these rituals became corrupt, and people abused them for personal gain - like priests telling people they had to pay money in order to have a better chance of getting into heaven.\n\nIn the 16th century, a priest named Martin Luther became convinced that his personal interpretation of scripture - namely the letter of Paul to the Romans - was more correct than the teachings that had been handed down through time. Martin Luther pointed to some corrupt practices in the Church which needed to be corrected, but he took it a little too far and ended up causing a huge split. He even took it upon himself to demand that several books in the bible be removed.\n\nThe people who agreed with Luther became known as \"protestants\", because they were \"protesting\" against Catholicism by forming their own version of Christianity. \n\nNow, there are so many versions of \"protestants\" these days that it's nearly impossible to give you a definitive overview. There are a few defining characteristics that make one \"protestant\", though.\n\n1. A rejection of the belief that the pope has teaching authority over the body of Christian believers.\n2. Scripture is sufficient all by itself to tell you anything and everything you need to learn about Christianity; traditions mean nothing.\n3. All you need to do to get to heaven is have faith in Jesus. Ignore all that ritual stuff and moral theology.\n4. Each individual person can decide for him/herself what is true based on their reading of the bible.\n5. Saints (holy people currently in heaven with God) aren't special and can't hear your prayers so don't ask them to pray for you because it is pointless.\n\nPresbyterians are a type of protestant. Their origins lie in 17th century Britain - namely Scotland. They rely heavily on the teachings of a man named John Calvin, who taught that free will is an illusion, that all human beings are evil creatures that naturally deserve hell and can do nothing to avoid it, and that God determines whether someone is destined for hell or heaven before that person is even born, and they can't do anything to change it. Scripture is the presbyterian's only authority and they stress study of scripture as a life-long pursuit.\n\nNote: before Luther, Henry VIII of England decided to form his own church because he wanted to get his marriage annulled (that means that the marriage was never valid in the eyes of God). England was Catholic at the time, so Henry had to ask the pope. The pope said he could not give Henry an annulment because Henry's marriage was valid, and Henry got so upset that he declared himself head of the church in England, forming the Church of England, also known as Anglicanism.\n\nHowever, the most devastating split resulted from Luther's little crusade.\n\nHope that helps.",
"Think about when our extended family gathers for a special occasion – like Thanksgiving. Even though we’re one family (Christians) who can trace ourselves to a common root (Jesus), our extended family of uncles and aunts, cousins and second-cousins once-removed, in-laws and the like have a mix of different last names (Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, and so on). \n\nWe all come together and celebrate a meal. The Catholics have been hosting the meal since we started, and they put the meal together using a recipe book (Bible) as well as family traditions passed down since the meal started (Apostolic Tradition). Both the recipe book and family traditions carry equal authority in the Catholic house. Awhile back, Uncle Marty (Luther) was reading the recipe book and noticed some family traditions weren’t explicitly in the recipe book. One year, when the family gathered at Uncle Marty’s house on 1517 Protestant Lane, he only made the recipes using the exact instructions written out in the recipe book (Bible) saying the traditions not in the recipe book were unnecessary. The extended family then got in an argument and deep discussion about HOW the meal should happen, including who should make decisions about the meal menu and traditions, the importance and recipes of certain meal item, and the like. \n\nThe meal still continues to this day, and even though it looks similar-yet-different at each individual family members house, the overall family is still agrees on the central importance of the meal (faith in Jesus).",
"Catholics believe the Church is a visible institution with authority vested in bishops whose authority has been passed on through time to the apostles. Every bishop can actually trace their authority back through time to one of the apostles. Protestants believe that the church is an invisible institution of believers with the result that each person makes up their own dogma from their own unique interpretation of the Bible. Presbyterians are one branch of Protestantism. Protestantism was made-up much later with new doctrines based on reactions to certain abuses of Christian religion mixed with secular rulers desire to be free from the restrictions the Church placed on government.\n\nCatholicism: Started when Jesus gave authority to the Apostles.\n\nProtestantism: Started by men based on their own authority.",
"Catholics see grace (as in the grace of God and forgiveness) as something to be earned and\\or lost while Protestants believe grace cannot be lost and cannot be earned (You just have it). There is also some outstanding debate on the nature of free will (Predestination vs Chaos).\n\nThis is ELI5 people not Theology 101 in college.",
"Three main differences between Protestants and Catholics (Presbyterian is a sub group of Protestants):\n\n* Succession:\n\nCatholics follow the Pope, who they trace as a direct successor from Peter, who was ordained by Jesus.\n\nProtestants broke from the Catholic succession and the Church in 1517 when Martin Luther published the Ninety-five theses. Each protestant group follows a leader or group that broke from their own protestant group since that period.\n\n\n* Interpretation:\n\nCatholics believe the Bible needs to be interpreted by people that study the Bible, so aside of the Bible you have tradition and studies of it.\n\nProtestants believe that each person is the sole main authority for the interpretation of the Bible. This main principle is why you have so many different branches of Protestantism: Baptists, Presbyterian, Lutherans, etc.\n\n* Salvation:\n\nCatholics believe you need to be baptized AND good works to be saved. \n\nProtestants believe you only need to be baptized.\n\nBoth believe that non-believers can be saved, but from different perspectives.",
"Catholics were the first Christian religion, and they are centrally run by the Pope (the guy in the big white hat you see in the news a lot).\n\nProtestants are any Christian religion that broke away from the Catholic church after the 1500s for one reason or another (they are *protesting* the Catholics). Presbyterian is one type of Protestant Christian religions. (just like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc).",
"First off, Presbyterians are a type of Protestant.\n\nThe actual Christian church divisions, in their high level arranged by membership count, look like this:\n\n1. Roman Catholicism\n\n2. Eastern Orthodox \n\n3. Oriental Orthodox\n\n4. Protestants\n\n5. Mormons\n\n6. Other assorted offshoots (Assyrian Church of the East, Jehovah's witnesses, Old Calendarist Orthodox, Sedevacantist Catholics, etc.)\n\nRoman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox compose the vast majority of self-identified Christians in the world, with their numbers reaching over 1.5 billion people. They are very similar in how they practice Christianity, but have minor variations in doctrine and history that separate them. These three \"communions\" all trace their lineage back 2000 years and are all three the most ancient forms of Christianity today.\n\nProtestants are a relatively young offshoot of Christianity, only about 500 years old. They are almost infinitely diverse in doctrine and organization and very dynamic in how they practice their faith. If you were to walk into the average Protestant church 100 years ago and the average Protestant church today, they would look nothing alike and the people in them would likely not believe exactly the same things.\n\nMormons are an even younger offshoot of Protestantism since they borrow the idea of dynamic and special revelation from Protestants, but they are a separate Christian communion in their own right since they have an additional holy book and a relatively large number of members compared to individual Protestant denominations.\n\nHowever, it should be noted that even if you were to combine all the Mormons and all the Protestants into one group and count them, it wouldn't come remotely close to the number of the first 3 groups (Catholic, EO, and OO). Mormons/Protestants are a uniquely western thing and although they have global missionaries, they do not have a significant presence outside the United States and western Europe.\n\nIf you live in the United States, Protestants are everywhere, but that's a unique thing to this country. The truth is, Protestantism is not that common in the rest of the world because it doesn't fit well with other cultures. It's very ethnocentric to white Europeans.",
"The MAIN difference is the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. English: Catholics believe that the wine and bread cracker literally turn into the physical blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. Protestant religions see the wine and bread as a symbol. Along with a long history of philosophical disagreements, but the main part is the transubstantiation.",
"What's with this trend on ELI5 where the answers are long and deep? None of the top answers could be understood by a five year old.",
"Since most of the top answers aren't very simple (and granted this is a very difficult question to explain simply) I wanted to try my hand at answering said question. I'd say the biggest difference is Authority.\n\nCatholics think they have it, and it's necessary to perform ordinances (Sacraments, Baptism etc.) and that those things are essential and binding in heaven.\n\nProtestants claim authority doesn't matter, all that matters is intent. Thus, no works (including ordinances like baptism) are 'essential' for salvation.",
"There are scads of differences, some big and some small, so as someone who grew up Catholic and now is a Presbyterian pastor, let me hit the main points.\n\nFirst, the difference and commonality of Protestant and Presbyterian. There are two major forking points in mainstream Christianity: in the mid-11th century Christianity split east-west, with the east eventually becoming the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the west stayed focused on Rome and the pope. In the 16th century (give or take) a bunch of people had serious qualms, problems, questions regarding how the Church conducted itself—people like Father Martin Luther in Germany, Father Jean Cauvan (a.k.a. John Calvin) in France and then Switzerland, John Knox in Scotland, and more…those are just some of the biggies. The Church split along the lines of those who were loyal to Rome and those who protested…in other words, Protestants. So Protestants are those traditions whose origins are in the 16th century protests against the Roman Church, of which Presbyterian is just one.\n\nThe Church centered in Rome still claimed it was the only true Church, and universal, a.k.a. \"catholic\", so it came to be known as the Roman Catholic, or Catholic, Church. Those who looked to the Johns—Calvin and Knox—became what we call the Presbyterian tradition.\n\nCatholics and Presbyterians are pretty close on the essentials: the nature of Jesus as fully God and fully Human, the reasons for the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit), things like that. And you'll find common elements in both traditions' worship services, like certain prayers and songs. Both believe in saints, but in different ways—Presbyterians believe that all who are called by God to relationship and growth and service in love are saints, there are no miracles or formal recognition by a Church authority, and Presbyterians don't pray to them.\n\nWhere the Catholics and Presbyterians really diverge is in two places. The first is the number and nature of sacraments. The Roman Catholic tradition holds there are seven sacraments (concrete signs of God's grace instituted in a ritual practice)—baptism, communion, confession, confirmation, marriage, ordination, anointing of the sick/dying. I won't go into the details of all of those, except to note that in the Roman Catholic tradition the sacrament of communion holds that at the words of institution (when the priest says \"This is my Body/Blood…\") the bread or wine instantaneously becomes the literal flesh/blood of Jesus, even though it continues to look like a wafer or wine. This is what is meant by \"transubstantiation\", and it's why until recent decades those who weren't priests were not allowed to touch the elements and why the leftover wafers from communion are stored in a special cabinet until the next worship Mass.\n\nFor Presbyterians, there are only two sacraments, those they say were instituted by Jesus himself because he participated in them: baptism and communion. Presbyterians also believe the presence of Christ is in the elements of bread and cup. (Presbyterians in the U.S. stopped using wine in communion during Prohibition, and never went back afterwards so that those who are struggling against alcoholism would be able to take communion.) Presbyterians do not go as far as saying it changes into flesh and blood, but that the elements and the giving and receiving of the elements contain the \"real presence\" of Christ, so therefore any leftover bread and/or juice must be returned to the ground or consumed that day.\n\nI mentioned ordination and authority, and this gets to the word \"presbyterian\". Knox and Calvin really had a problem with the hierarchy of the Roman Church and how there was such a wrong separation between the people in the pews and the bishops, cardinals, and the pope. They believed the Holy Spirit did not speak or work through only certain special people, but through all people, so their churches were based not on the authority of clergy but on elders drawn from within the congregation (who don't actually have to be old), which in Greek is *presbuteroi*, presbyterian. In this tradition there are three ordained offices, and I'm going to use the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s names for them: Deacons (who traditionally provide for the spiritual care of the congregation), Ruling Elders (people from the pews who lead the church), and Teaching Elders (what you would call a pastor, who is tasked with nurturing and equipping the congregation in their faith so that they would be the hands and eyes and feet and ears and hearts of God at work in the world). All three are lifetime ordinations, even though deacons and Ruling Elders only serve for 3-6 years at a time before taking some time off.\n\nHigher up within the denomination, each congregation sends elders and clergy to what is known as the presbytery (the regional grouping of congregations) and the meeting of those representatives vote on the business before the presbytery. Every two years in the PC(USA) each presbytery elects representatives from its midst to go to General Assembly, what amounts to the Presbyterian Congress. So presbytery is akin to the Catholic Church's bishops and diocese, and General Assembly is the closest Presbyterians have to the pope and Vatican.",
"Some good answers in this thread, but a lot of them are getting hung up in arguing details.\n\nCatholic and Protestant are the two main philosophical branches underneath the umbrella of Christianity, while Presbyterian is a type of government structure used by some sub-groups (called denominations) under the branch of Protestantism. Over time, all of these terms have been used in the names of organizations claiming to espouse their respective beliefs, so that it is hard to tell when someone mentions \"Catholic,\" \"Protestant,\" or \"Presbyterian,\" whether they are referring to a system of religious belief, a historical movement, or a specific organization.\n\nPresbyterianism is a type of church government that utilizes a group of \"elders,\" men of spiritual maturity who are elected to this position by the congregation, to oversee the spiritual health of the church. These elders are then themselves accountable to the oversight of a regional committee, or \"presbytery,\" which is itself accountable to a national committee. This is contrasted with other forms of church government in which the authority rests solely with priest/pastor/denomination or in the hands of the congregation itself.\n\nThe Catholic and Protestant split is traced, of course, to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Today the differences are mostly about whether the Pope has authority granted from God to administer Christendom (guess which one believes this), whether tradition should have the same authority as scripture, the role and efficacy of human effort in relation to God's favor, and other major interpretations of scriptural beliefs.\n\nAlthough Protestants are generally united in not being Catholic or Orthodox, over several decades many branches have arisen underneath Protestantism which follow widely different beliefs, so much so that a lot of them don't consider the others to be Christians at all. For example, there are two main Presbyterian denominations within the U.S.: the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in America, which is a more recent split. On paper their beliefs are almost identical, but in practice they are almost diametrically opposed.\n\nRecently there have also been several movements by new denominations to simplify Christianity by reducing it to only one or two necessary beliefs, though whether such movements can still be considered Protestant is debatable.\n\nThere are a few groups such as Mormons who have so sharply departed from the historical traditions of these philosophies that they warrant their own, separate designation.",
"Presbyterian here. I think the distinctions between Catholics and Protestants have been properly covered. But, since the OP asked, I figured I'd weigh in on what makes Presbyterians distinct from other protestant denominations.\n\nPresbyterians have two main distinctives: government and doctrine.\n\n**Government**\n\n\"Presbyterian\" comes from the Greek *Presbyter*, which means \"elder\" or \"old one\", and particularly describes our form of Church government. Presbyterian churches are ruled by a session of elders, which belongs to a greater group of all the elders of all the churches in the region called a presbytery, which meets once a quarter. All of the presbyteries send representatives once a year to a General Assembly, where big decisions are made about doctrine and practice.\n\nThere are two other types of church government. The first is Episcopal, which is rule by bishops. The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, and many African-American denominations use this form of government. The other is congregational, which is where congregations decide matters democratically. Most Baptist, non-denominational and Pentecostal churches have this form of government. Lutherans tend to be one or the other depending on denomination.\n\n\n**Doctrine**\n\nHistorically, Presbyterians are Calvinist in doctrine, based in part on the teachings of a guy named John Calvin. The biggest things Calvinists believe that most non-calvinists do not are the following:\n\n1. There is no inherent goodness in man, man cannot choose to love God.\n2. Salvation is not based on a person's goodness or the things they have or haven't done.\n3. Jesus died only for those elected to be saved, not for all people.\n4. Salvation is not a choice one makes, one is chosen and cannot resist.\n5. Those who are saved cannot lose their salvation, even by doing evil.\n\nNot all Presbyterians believe all these things anymore. Particularly, the largest US Presbyterian denomination, the PC(USA), denies point 3.",
"I'm a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America and an adjunct college professor at Reformation Bible College. \n\nThe question of OP causes some problems in that all Presbyterians are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Presbyterian. He's conflating two different categories. \n\nLet's ask it this way: How are Protestants and Catholics different? \n\nLook at the Protestant Reformation to find out. The Reformation is described as a movement that revolved around two issues. The so-called “material” cause was the debate over sola fide (justification by faith alone). The “formal” cause was the issue of sola Scriptura, that the Bible and the Bible alone has the authority to bind the conscience of the believer. \n\nChurch tradition was regarded with respect by the Reformers but not as a normative source of revelation. The “protest” of Protestantism went far beyond the issue of justification by faith alone, challenging many dogmas that emerged in Rome, especially during the Middle Ages. Worship of saints, the cult of Mary, the cults relating to Jesus' body parts (Sacred Heart of Jesus....they adore/worship his literal heart), multiplied sacraments (seven instead of the two that Jesus initiated)--there were other extra-Scriptural issues that the Reformers opposed. \n\nTLDR: It's Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.",
"Catholics believe they are the true church and gather into itself things and people of faith to reaffirm their beliefs. There is a lot of focus on the individual - \"I\" is used a lot, the Pope is a single entity, priests are single people of authority, saints - \"look at this person, they were awesome\", etc.\n\nOrthodox differs by taking away from the individual and placing emphasis on the group. Humanity and it's cooperation and co-experiences are the path to god (theosis), and while personal it cannot be achieved alone. They also place less emphasis on individualized things like original sin and the authority of the pope.\n\nProtestant believe the Catholic structure is wrong and inherently corrupt. They think the idea of gathering saints and the like is flawed because the bible is the only source of faith. They believe that anyone is automatically a priest by simply believing. If a bible and belief is all you need, why do you need a pope? Or authoritarian priests?\n\nTLDR: Catholic's think the members of the clubhouse are the focus, Orthodox think the clubhouse as a whole is the focus, and Protestant thinks the clubhouse is stupid and doesn't want to play anymore.",
"Governance is a major difference.\n\nThe Catholic Church has a global leader- the Pope. Protestant churches do not have a global leader, and depending on the denomination may not even have national governing bodies.\n\nFor example, most Baptist churches are self-governed, although they may belong to an association. The church members choose their own pastor and have the ability to fire them. \n\nPresbyterians (since you asked) are also protestant, but have a hybrid governance system. Each church has appointed/elected elders and representatives within the local presbytery, which then has representation with the national association. Churches are dependent on their presbytery for approval to hire/fire pastors.\n\nDifferences in beliefs have been explained elsewhere.",
"ITT, people who think they know more than they do about the topic.",
"/u/ZachMatthews covered it pretty well. I'd just like to put in some earlier background and call out the fact that Presbyterian *is* Protestant. Most of the large non-Catholic Christian denominations fall under the \"Protestant\" category; the major exceptions are The Greek Orthodox Church and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons).\n\nThere were originally a wide variety of Christian churches with widely different beliefs and practices. Paul's epistles represent some of the earliest attempts at making them consistent with each other. There were a number of historical gatherings where leaders came together to try and agree on points of doctrine - for instance, the Council of Nicaea in 325, where the Nicene Creed was formalized along with the rules for determining Easter. One of the more significant developments represented by the Creed is the idea that Jesus and God were \"of one substance\" - that Jesus was inherently Divine, not a mortal made divine after the fact. This was the resolution to the Arian controversy.\n\nThere were all sorts of little controversies like that. They were mostly resolved, until there was, at least in theory, one \"catholic\" Christian Church - where \"catholic\" means \"universal\"; that's why even Protestants declare their belief in the \"holy catholic church\".\n\nBut the unity lasted only a few centuries before the first major split in 1054 - the Great Schism dividing the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) churches. \n\nHalf a millennium later came Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517, which led to the formation of dissenting, or \"protesting\" - \"protestant\" in Latin - churches. The denomination closest to his original teachings is now called Lutheran in his honor. \n\n17 years later, King Henry VIII declared the Church of England to be independent of Roman Catholic control, forming a new category of protestant church, which became the modern Church of England and, in the US, the Episcopal Church.\n\nThis was far from a bloodless division; there were plenty of military conflicts fought between Protestants and Catholics in Europe, notably the Thirty-Years' War in the 17th century. Ireland has long been a hot spot of such conflict, and the modern flag of (southern) Ireland represents the eventual peace (white) established between the Catholics (green) and the Protestants (orange).\n\nProtestants in general eschew the idea of saints or priests being placed between mortals and God; the only mediator between them is Jesus himself. Most Protestant faiths have no priesthood, just congregational leaders (ministers, vicars, etc). There are Anglican/Episcopal priests, but they aren't required to be celibate.",
"All I can really tell you is what I know about Catholicism (because I'm Catholic). So here's our Nicene Creed.\n\nI believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things seen and unseen. \n\nAnd in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstancial with the Father, for (by?) whom all things are made.\n\nWho, for us men and our salvation, came down from Heaven, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, suffered death and and was buried. On the third day He rose again, in fullfilment of the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven, and is seated on the right hand of the Father. He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.\n\nI believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father is worshipped and glorified, as spoken by the prophets.\n\nI believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sin, and I look forward the the ressurection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.\n\nAnd of you're one of those people that think that we worship, three gods, you're wrong. It's One God in three Divine Persons. Oh, and we don't worship Jesus on the crucifix, it's just a symbol. I don't know if anybody actually thinks that, it's just what e're taught that you think.",
"In very broad terms, Catholicism holds that protestant sects are groups of Christians who hold at least one incorrect belief (heresy) that prevents their full participation (communion) with the universal Church. Protestantism is so multifarious that its difficult to generalize about how each sect specifically differentiates itself, but in very broad terms, all Protestants essentially believe that the Catholic/orthodox Church is an illegitimate institution that does not represent Christ's true intent for the world. Presbyterianism in particular comprises various sects that arose out of England and Scotland in the last few hundred years. A Presbyter is an elder/leader of a given congregation, so a (nominally) Presbyterian church is one which is governed by a local group of elders. There's more to it than that, but that's what the name is derived from. Evangelicalism is arguably distinct from protestantism in that it generally doesn't define itself in terms of its distinctions from the Catholic/orthodox Church. Evangelical Churches are largely indifferent to historical controversies. They're probably more relevant to discussions of global Christianity than protestantism writ large, since most protestant churches are dying off as fewer people can be bothered to define their beliefs in terms of controversies they're not even aware of, much less that they'd even understand if they were.\n\nIf you have a serious interest in discussing the nuances between various Christian beliefs, you really shouldn't take it to a sub like this, filled with drive-by teenage atheists who want to make sure you know how much they hate Christianity. r/explainlikeimfive just seems to be filled with shitposting.",
"Catholic: Based on the Bible and about a thousand years of additional religious traditions centered around Rome. Religious leaders are called \"priests\" who must be celibate men. Led by the Pope in Rome.\n\nProtestant: Catch-all term for various offshoots of the Catholic church after 1517 who split off to \"protest\" against certain practices of the Catholic church at the time. Practices and theologies vary.\n\nPresbyterian: One of the protestant churches, founded in Scotland by John Knox. Based on the Bible and largely rebuffs much of the post-Bible-era traditions of the Catholic Church. Religious leaders are called \"pastors\" or \"ministers\", can be either men or women, and are permitted to marry and have children. Led by semi-democratic assemblies of representatives divided by political jurisdictions.",
"Like you're five.\n\nCatholic was the first Christian church. Some people thought that their understanding of the bible was less than correct so they started another church, which was called the \"Protestant church\". The Presbyterian church is an example of the Protestant church.\n\nThat's if you're five.",
"I just called up the guy I work for, he is a Protestant and said the other two are wrong.\n\nI just asked my girlfriend, she is a Catholic and she said the other two are wrong.",
"As a northern irish person I can say that amidst all this catholic vs protestant shinnanigans, 99% of people dont even know what protestant means and 99% of catholics probably arent even christian.",
"Catholics came first, then Protestants protested against that church and they kept splitting then."
],
"score": [
1304,
210,
96,
34,
15,
13,
11,
10,
7,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/sacraments/penance.html",
"http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist",
"http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/sacraments_of_faith_and_salvation.html",
"http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/teaching-infantbaptism.html",
"http://www.catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation",
"http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/prayingtomary.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility",
"http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php",
"http://www.catholicdoctrine.org"
]
} | train_eli5 | The main differences between Catholic, Protestant,and Presbyterian versions of Christianity
sweet as guys, thanks for the answers | [
0.05916125327348709,
-0.058951348066329956,
0.0032485281117260456,
0.024426627904176712,
-0.025173230096697807,
-0.0235687717795372,
-0.10544613748788834,
-0.06321585923433304,
0.07480090111494064,
-0.019368303939700127,
0.025580694898962975,
-0.018503820523619652,
-0.07380811870098114,
-0... | |
72yopo | Why is it that when in warm water we gain the urge to pee? | I was just wondering this question today as I was in some hot springs and the urge came to me and I was wondering why this is? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dnmarqt"
],
"text": [
"Warm water relaxes you - when this happens, the parasympathetic nervous system (also known as the \"rest & digest\" system) takes over. It basically lets your body know \"Hey, you're in a safe place where you won't be attacked, this is a good time to pee\""
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is it that when in warm water we gain the urge to pee?
I was just wondering this question today as I was in some hot springs and the urge came to me and I was wondering why this is? | [
-0.008853178471326828,
-0.08728407323360443,
0.045658402144908905,
0.06589200347661972,
0.01600646786391735,
0.021327245980501175,
0.10854791849851608,
-0.015074039809405804,
0.046465709805488586,
0.031213488429784775,
-0.06443999707698822,
-0.023511098697781563,
0.028080930933356285,
0.07... | |
6d72st | Why does skin peel after a sunburn? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"di0ewko",
"di0ezry"
],
"text": [
"You skin is made of several layers of cells. \nWhen the DNA in a skin cell get whacked by the sun's ray hard enough, the cell self-destructs and dies (if it doesn't you might get skin cancer). \nWhen you get badly sunburned a whole bunch of skin cells in the layer might self-destruct.\nOther cells in charge of clean up for your body, see that there is a dead cell, so they eat it, cutting it's connection to the living cells. \nSince the cells in the sun burned layer are dead, there aren't any cells to cut it apart, so the whole patch in the whole layer peels off.",
"When your skin cells die, they get removed by detaching from the living cells around them. Bad sunburn kills the whole top layer of skin so it all comes off at the same time."
],
"score": [
6,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does skin peel after a sunburn?
| [
0.02485055848956108,
0.004334499593824148,
0.021339859813451767,
0.09760894626379013,
0.04731448367238045,
-0.02974534034729004,
0.09209998697042465,
-0.0009591400739736855,
0.038943979889154434,
-0.02834450639784336,
0.0506378710269928,
-0.0044771479442715645,
-0.028698580339550972,
0.039... | ||
4pe5k1 | Why is Brazil still hosting the Olympics? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d4k7j5w",
"d4k7sgb"
],
"text": [
"They are the ones that won the bid. There is not really a system in place for the Olympic committee to withdraw who won once it has been decided, and even if there were there is not time for an alternate to prepare.",
"It's too late to have somebody else host. Hosting takes years off planning and building new infrastructures."
],
"score": [
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is Brazil still hosting the Olympics?
[removed] | [
0.022803714498877525,
0.06467579305171967,
0.075277179479599,
0.01585971936583519,
0.06326384097337723,
0.02386709861457348,
-0.018611615523695946,
-0.07505260407924652,
0.043984245508909225,
0.09323778748512268,
-0.08434834331274033,
0.005220359656959772,
-0.05590977147221565,
0.026239925... | |
3njjez | Why did brown sugar get so popular instead of recipes calling for sugar and molasses separately? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvoos0i",
"cvoo2bl",
"cvonwcc"
],
"text": [
"It's because brown sugar is actually an intermediate step in the refining of sugar, it's not just literally white sugar + molasses. (Or at least it used to be - today it probably is white sugar and molasses in the United States.) So brown sugar was an ingredient on its own.",
"Because using one prepared ingredient is much easier than using two. Especially molasses, which isn't often kept in the house, and is thick, sticky and difficult to work with. Brown sugar is also made with a different style of sugar than traditional granulated sugar, so in addition to keeping molasses in the house, you'd have to keep another sugar. Easier to just have brown sugar.",
"Brown sugar is manufactured and pretty consistent, whereas with mixing white sugar and molasses at home you get inconsistent results and it's just more of a hassle."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why did brown sugar get so popular instead of recipes calling for sugar and molasses separately?
| [
-0.06966046243906021,
-0.02917420119047165,
-0.01634952798485756,
0.021029064431786537,
-0.0126864118501544,
-0.0371665358543396,
0.031819798052310944,
-0.005905655212700367,
0.06297789514064789,
0.019015060737729073,
0.0034570316784083843,
0.032650429755449295,
-0.08418344706296921,
-0.10... | ||
1qhzdx | Why when we want to smell something do we take multiple short sniffs instead of one giant one? Dogs seem to do it too. | I figure it's something to do with maximising the ratio of 'smelly stuff' to air we inhale when sniffing but I'm thinking there might be something to do with how our 'smell receptors' work.
Edit: downvote the shit out of me but since when is ELI5 and invitation for every man and his dog to throw out their idea? I thought this place was for people that know answers and can explain them to an uninformed asker. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdczut1"
],
"text": [
"First off I'm not sure on this answer but I would say its because it does you no good to take a big sniff. You end up just inhaling the air and you don'[t smell with your lungs. By taking a bunch of short sniffs you are getting particles just to your smell receptors and then rapidly bringing in more. With one sniff you probably suck them right by the receptors and into your lungs."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why when we want to smell something do we take multiple short sniffs instead of one giant one? Dogs seem to do it too.
I figure it's something to do with maximising the ratio of 'smelly stuff' to air we inhale when sniffing but I'm thinking there might be something to do with how our 'smell receptors' work. Edit: downvote the shit out of me but since when is ELI5 and invitation for every man and his dog to throw out their idea? I thought this place was for people that know answers and can explain them to an uninformed asker. | [
0.0818827822804451,
-0.06148223578929901,
0.14158625900745392,
0.05494965612888336,
0.05559951066970825,
-0.04623361676931381,
0.06244206428527832,
0.002115009818226099,
0.10029172152280807,
-0.039272017776966095,
-0.026001853868365288,
0.016762543469667435,
-0.01031531859189272,
0.0544733... | |
2o6d43 | Why some states aren't eligible for participation in sweepstakes, promotions, etc.. | An example is Amazon Smile, while people from states can enter and participate, they are limited to what kind of activities that can take place, solely for residing in a state.
i.e.
3. Advertising AmazonSmile
You may promote or link to the AmazonSmile Site only so long as you comply with the following requirements:
You may only do so on your site and may only use such of our or our affiliates' trademarks or logos ("Amazon Marks"), links to the AmazonSmile Site ("Links"), or other content we may make available to you (collectively, "Content"), in all cases in accordance with Program Participation Requirements and the Program Trademark Guidelines;
You may not do so in a way that is misleading or confusing to customers or that does not accurately represent the AmazonSmile Site or the Program (e.g., by expressing or implying that we sponsor or endorse you or any other cause or that we support your position on any issue);
You may not engage in any promotional, marketing, or other advertising activities on behalf of us or our affiliates, or in connection with the AmazonSmile Site or the Program, in any offline manner, such as in any printed material, mailing, or other document, or any oral solicitation; and
Charitable organizations headquartered in one of the states listed below may not send emails that exclusively advertise AmazonSmile, although these organizations may include information about AmazonSmile in emails, such as email newsletters, that also contain other content unrelated to AmazonSmile. These states are: AL, AR, CO, DC, FL, HI, ID, IL, IA, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NM, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, and WY. Organizations headquartered in any other state may promote AmazonSmile to their supporters using email advertising dedicated to the promotion of AmazonSmile, or emails that contain AmazonSmile information along with other unrelated content. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cmk4v4d"
],
"text": [
"Some states have passed specific laws banning these types of promotions.\n\nThere was a time when there were a lot of scammy, fraudulent \"sweepstakes\" that harmed a lot of people. The states took action to restrict the ability of companies or individuals to run those kinds of promotions.\n\nSince Amazon is so big, it would face meaningful sanctions in those states if it ignored those laws."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why some states aren't eligible for participation in sweepstakes, promotions, etc..
An example is Amazon Smile, while people from states can enter and participate, they are limited to what kind of activities that can take place, solely for residing in a state. i.e. 3. Advertising AmazonSmile You may promote or link to the AmazonSmile Site only so long as you comply with the following requirements: You may only do so on your site and may only use such of our or our affiliates' trademarks or logos ("Amazon Marks"), links to the AmazonSmile Site ("Links"), or other content we may make available to you (collectively, "Content"), in all cases in accordance with Program Participation Requirements and the Program Trademark Guidelines; You may not do so in a way that is misleading or confusing to customers or that does not accurately represent the AmazonSmile Site or the Program (e.g., by expressing or implying that we sponsor or endorse you or any other cause or that we support your position on any issue); You may not engage in any promotional, marketing, or other advertising activities on behalf of us or our affiliates, or in connection with the AmazonSmile Site or the Program, in any offline manner, such as in any printed material, mailing, or other document, or any oral solicitation; and Charitable organizations headquartered in one of the states listed below may not send emails that exclusively advertise AmazonSmile, although these organizations may include information about AmazonSmile in emails, such as email newsletters, that also contain other content unrelated to AmazonSmile. These states are: AL, AR, CO, DC, FL, HI, ID, IL, IA, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NM, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, and WY. Organizations headquartered in any other state may promote AmazonSmile to their supporters using email advertising dedicated to the promotion of AmazonSmile, or emails that contain AmazonSmile information along with other unrelated content. | [
0.000942938553635031,
-0.055560220032930374,
0.011116530746221542,
-0.0415278784930706,
0.07684355229139328,
0.061903730034828186,
0.0029013154562562704,
-0.02565719746053219,
0.02861006371676922,
-0.03827783092856407,
-0.009583119302988052,
-0.03555721789598465,
0.1025371253490448,
-0.014... | |
38gfiw | Why do Zambonis need to be so big? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cruu5rw",
"cruwgyj",
"cruvvwo"
],
"text": [
"To hold more warm water so they can clean/smooth ice more effectually. \n\nHow whole internal parts works I am not 100% on. But playing hokey for 10 years you tend to notice things. I know it picks up the ice it scrubs off and melts it for more water to use. As well as it needs weight so the tires/treads can actually move.",
"Contrary to popular belief, a majority of the body on an ice resurfacer is devoted to collecting shavings, not storing water. The top half of the machine is called the dump tank and all the \"snow\" is collected here through an auger system just like a snow blower. Beneath the dump tank is an engine (or battery pack on electric models) as well as a 200ish gallon tank for ice making water. There is an addition 90 gallon tank for cold water located between the operator's seat and the dump tank that is used to wash debris from the ice. The area to the right of the operator is devoted to the hydraulic system.\n\nThe machine is designed to resurface a standard 200x85 rink. There are larger and smaller models available depending on the needs of the rink. It should be noted that the original Zamboni model was built on a jeep chassis, which basically dictated the size of the machine.",
"There are a lot of components under the hood. The engine to drive the machine, there is a blade that shaves the ice, augers that pick up the shavings (snow) and store it in a large bucket, water tanks that spray water. You want an entire rink done in a single pass to be efficient as possible so the tanks need to be large enough to hold enough water to cover the entire rink."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do Zambonis need to be so big?
| [
0.06788989156484604,
0.0734163150191307,
-0.02544565498828888,
0.05240344628691673,
-0.016162095591425896,
-0.10110422968864441,
0.04315226152539253,
0.04152120277285576,
-0.015522376634180546,
0.06250258535146713,
-0.043511126190423965,
0.010318719781935215,
0.005329255014657974,
-0.01133... | ||
64dq20 | The process of an american traveling to Cuba | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg1c4fi"
],
"text": [
"First you have to get a visa. There are no tourist visas right now, so you have to apply under the following categories:\n\nFamily visits;\n\nOfficial business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations;\n\nJournalistic activity;\n\nProfessional research and professional meetings;\n\nEducational activities;\n\nReligious activities;\n\nPublic performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions;\n\nSupport for the Cuban people;\n\nHumanitarian projects;\n\nActivities of private foundations or research or educational institutes;\n\nExportation, importation, or transmission of information or informational materials; and\n\nCertain authorized export transactions.\n\nOnce you have a valid visa, you get on a plane."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The process of an american traveling to Cuba
| [
0.04492538794875145,
-0.009411238133907318,
-0.06144174188375473,
0.04099128767848015,
-0.02155212126672268,
-0.012773971073329449,
-0.0021534734405577183,
-0.06195443496108055,
-0.043334927409887314,
-0.017171243205666542,
0.05072542279958725,
0.08277878165245056,
0.0011091537307947874,
0... | ||
4v1dcn | The Raven paradox | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d5uku82"
],
"text": [
"It's not a true paradox, so let's start with that. Maybe let's call it the Raven Quandary, because it's just a weird thing.\n\nTake the statement \"All ravens are black.\" This statement necessarily also mean \"If something is not black, it is not a raven.\"\n\nNow let's imagine we're trying to prove that all ravens are black. If we look at 1000 ravens and they're all black, this would *support* our argument. It doesn't *prove* it though, but it is evidence that makes it more likely that all ravens are black. The more ravens we see that are black, the more likely it's true that all ravens are black.\n\nBut, because \"all ravens are black\" also implies \"all non-black things are not ravens\" evidence that support this second claim also supports the first claim. So, we see a green apple. It's not black, and it's not a raven, thus providing evidence that non-black things aren't ravens. And that in turn supports the claim that all ravens are black.\n\nTHAT'S FRIGGIN WEIRD THOUGH. Seeing that an apple is green should tell us *nothing* about ravens. In terms of formal logic though, it does actually work as support.\n\nThe way to understand this is that it's just very, very, exceptionally weak support, so minuscule that it's not worth really considering. In court, it wouldn't be allowed. Despite tending to help prove one side's case, the confusion caused by the evidence would be ruled to outweigh the minimal evidentiary value.\n\nBut now imagine that we've actually seen every non-black thing there is in the world. And none of them were ravens. Well now that's interesting! It wouldn't just be evidence that all ravens are black, it'd be *proof.* There can't be a non-black raven because we've seen all the non-black things and none were ravens.\n\nThose green apples were just a very tiny part of working our way towards that proof. So, they're a very tiny speck of evidence towards the claim that all ravens are black."
],
"score": [
29
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The Raven paradox
_URL_0_ | [
0.06251618266105652,
-0.014552690088748932,
0.03057507611811161,
0.0664806067943573,
-0.0489797368645668,
-0.045427173376083374,
0.00600024126470089,
-0.08863157778978348,
0.07418597489595413,
-0.0153659638017416,
-0.008447803556919098,
-0.03412746638059616,
-0.014706422574818134,
0.036627... | |
64gwht | the difference between "Innocent" and "Not Guilty" in the legal system | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg22cae",
"dg22795",
"dg2e4js"
],
"text": [
"\"Innocent\" is not typically a term used in the legal system.\n\n\"Not Guilty\" means there isn't compelling evidence to find a person Guilty of a crime. The law only cares if you're found Guilty. If there isn't enough evidence, it doesn't automatically assign you as \"Innocent\" (because you might not be innocent...) it just means you are not yet found Guilty (and might never be found Guilty, depending on what kind of evidence there was to begin with - for example, it is difficult to be found guilty of a crime that happened somewhere you definitely were not at the time of the crime unless you were doing it via a proxy agent).",
"Innocent means that it had been proven they did not commit the crime. Not guilty means there might not have been enough evidence present to conclude innocent or guilty.",
"Innocent = solid evidence proves that suspect didn't commit the crime\n\nNot guilty = not enough evidence to neither prove nor disprove suspect's guilt - \"he might be innocent, he might be guilty, we can't tell for sure\""
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | the difference between "Innocent" and "Not Guilty" in the legal system
| [
-0.02693997323513031,
0.051079731434583664,
-0.06543507426977158,
-0.04187900573015213,
0.08802488446235657,
-0.023050440475344658,
0.010337519459426403,
0.04364398866891861,
0.09566232562065125,
0.06596461683511734,
0.15698139369487762,
-0.006693112198263407,
0.04192212224006653,
-0.03046... | ||
3w1qvh | How can the "deep Web" allegedly be so much larger than the surface Web if only a minority of people use the deep Web or hidden Internet. | Just something that doesn't make sense in my mind. Or am I wrong and every second person uses the deep Web and I'm behind on the times. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cxsm2o8",
"cxsvzk4",
"cxsm0g6",
"cxsm8el",
"cxt4bnl",
"cxspl24",
"cxslzh7",
"cxsvu4r",
"cxsz35j",
"cxsrho8",
"cxstpis",
"cxszfju",
"cxt8gvi",
"cxst3kl",
"cxtflyn",
"cxt9x94",
"cxtgwza",
"cxt1ds8",
"cxszknl",
"cxt2r3n",
"cxt9pcs",
"cxt5qsb",
"cxsvpdz",
"cxt3ul9",
"cxt1w44",
"cxt5m6w",
"cxt3ly3",
"cxsx5nu",
"cxsxy5c",
"cxsvrq6",
"cxt2lag",
"cxt102b",
"cxthr5w",
"cxt7oo3",
"cxtvnql",
"cxspxbc",
"cxszkn8",
"cxtdm4v",
"cxtj2xi",
"cxsy1rg",
"cxtt9r9",
"cxsv5fb"
],
"text": [
"It's a bit of a buzzword, and sounds more mysterious than it really is. The deep web is essentially anywhere you can access with an Internet connection but is not publicly visible without an account or some form of access control. \n\nForum that requires registration, even free, to see content? Deep web. Passworded Minecraft server? Deep web. Your online banking solution? Deep web. Your Google drive, Onedrive minus what you set to publicly visible? Deep web.\n\nIf you cannot see it with a Google search, then it's essentially part of the deep web.",
"Surface web - anything that has been cataloged by a search engines. If you can find it via search engine then it's surface web.\n\nDeep web - Anything that is not cataloged via a search engine. You can access the deep web from any browser if you know what you are looking for. You do not need to use TOR to access deep web content.\n\nDark web - Part of the deep web that has been blocked off and/or hidden from normal access via standard web browsers. This is where you would need TOR or something to that affect to access. \n\nSome of the information that people are providing here is misleading or flat out wrong.\n\nEdit: Thank you very much I really wasn't expecting gold, let alone my comment getting this much attention. Thanks you guys.",
"The deep web just means that it does not get indexed by search engines. This means a lot of companies websites that they dont want outside people to have access to is considered the deep web. If you have worked for a company that has an intranet site for its employees then you have accessed the deep web. It is not just all illegal sites for hiring hitmen and selling drugs.",
"The way I've heard it explained is that the \"deep web\" is everything on the web that doesn't show up on a Google search (insert your own search engine). That includes the vast majority of internet traffic - emails, search engine searches (not the results, but the actual page of results), and gobs and gobs of other things.\n\nThe confusion comes when people mix up \"dark web\" - a corner of the internet accessed through a special client (I think it's called \"tor\" and the pages are .onion) where shady stuff like drug dealing, murder for hire, snuff films, and child pornography apparently goes down - with \"deep web\", of which dark web content is only a tiny, tiny fraction of an iota.",
"Imagine yourself in the world's largest library. There are thousands of rooms, with billions of books. The books are not organized at all, just on the shelves in a random way. The \"librarians\" are search engines like Google, they are trying to sort through each book and organize them in a logical way that can be easily navigated, but there are just so many books that they can get to them all. More books and rooms keep being added on top of what already exists, making the pile even bigger. \nIn an effort to showcase some of the more popular items, the librarians have created a \"popular\" section at the front of the library, this is the regular **visible web** that can be found using a search engine. \nMost of the other books will remain lost in the massive pile, to anyone who doesn't know exactly where to look. Not many people know where they are, but anyone who knows where to go can access them. This is the **deep web**. \nThen there is the restricted section, a portion of the library that can only be accessed if you know where to look *and* have been given access. This is the **dark web**.",
"Go to your account \"preferences\" page.\n\nThat's the deep web - can't be indexed by search engines. Everyone on Reddit or Facebook uses the \"Deep Web\".\n\nIt's not all Tor and Onion routers. It's things as simple as administration back-ends and services which aren't public-facing.",
"Deep web is not only a hacker secret completely different network.\n\nDeep web is anything that you cannot acces by typing letters in the address bar of your common research engine.\n\nAny mails that are not on the web client = > > deep web\n\nAny private server from a company that they use for transmiting data from one of their location to another = > > deep web\n\nAny private ftp server that people use to exchange stuff with only people they know == > > deep web",
"Search engines work by using bots called \"crawlers\". They go through every web page they can access, reading the content on the page and following every link on it to find more pages. They keep a list of the sites they find and some basic information, and every so often all the crawlers combine those lists into one big one, called an index. When you do a google search, you aren't actually searching the web itself, but instead google's index of what it crawled.\n\nThe deep web is basically just anything that can not be added to the index, or is not added because the owners of that page chose to opt-out. There are several reasons why this happens. Pages that need a password or other authentication to access can't be indexed since the crawlers don't know the login info. Pages that can only be accessed using something like flash or javascript can sometimes be unaccessible to crawlers. And pages that do not have a single link to them anywhere at all on the indexable web will never be found by crawlers, since they just follow links.\n\nOne example of a situation where a webmaster might choose to block part of their site from crawlers is online shopping. Of course you want the front page, products, etc to show up on a search, but what about the administrative login for employees? Finding that login page can tell a potential attacker a lot about what system you are using and its weaknesses, so this page is usually kept secret. Fortunately, there is a way to tell the crawlers *not* to index a particular page. There's a few variations, but typically it's a single line of code that looks like this:\n\n < meta name=\"robots\" content=\"NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW\" > \n\nIf a crawler loads a page and sees that code, it will not add the page to the index or follow any links on it. There's also a way to use a file called robots.txt to instruct crawlers to ignore whole sections of your site.\n\nSo any time you check your private messages on reddit, or use any other forum or service that cannot be accessed without a password, you're using the deep web. If you buy something online, the cart and/or checkout may be on the deep web - and your order history almost certainly is. Any company that has a website for employee use that requires a login but can be accessed from anywhere - deep web. Many people use the deep web daily and may not realize it!",
"Imagine the Internet as a vast Avenue of store fronts. The surface is the exterior of each store plus the show rooms and aisles where you can shop, view things, use services, etc. Behind all that are the warehouses, databases, maintenance, employees only offices, forums, special services, and infrastructure that constitutes the \"deep\" Web.\n\nThis is how i like to visualize it, to get an innate sense of where you are and what you're seeing when you're using the Internet.",
"Deep Web = Something that is not indexed and not normally accessible by search engines. This includes your Reddit messages, for example, as it requires a login that the search engines do not have to access. Your profile page is part of the surface web, as anybody can access it.\n\nThe dark net, however, is what you're thinking of a \"minority of people\" using.",
"Deep web is simply all those places on the internet that can't be freely entered by just anyone, even by Google. Only a small bit of that is made up of dark net stuff. The rest of it is simply private.",
"\"Deep Web\" just means \"not on Google\"\n\nSo it could be your nans niche website that has some pictures on that it tsn't linked anywhere.\n\nOr the internal network of a huge company like Boeing.\n\nPeople use \"Deep\" and \"Dark\" interchangably, and are usually wrong",
"The deep web is NOT the dark web. The dark web is, however, part of the deep web.\n\nThe deep web is anything that's not indexed by search engines. I.e. if you don't know where to look, you won't find it. If your Facebook profile is set to private, it's part of the deep web. With the exception of your Facebook friends, the public can't find your profile by searching for it.\n\nThe dark web consists of websites that are only accessible from a computer that's connected to a special network. These websites are inaccessible without going through these special networks, and their addresses are somewhat meaningless unless you're connected to one. Anyone connected to the Internet can visit _URL_0_, but only people on machines with access to The Potato Router can visit f80cad36.potato.",
"Conflating \"deep web\" (90% of the iceberg underwater, e.g. the content that isn't indexed by search engines) and \"dark web\" (accessible only through encryption protocols).",
"Common misconception.\nDeep web does not mean the same as Dark Web. What you're thinking of is the Dark web.\n\nI'll quickly define the,\nDeep Web consists of all possible websites and webpages not indexed by any search engine. These can be dynamically generated webpages such as account settings pages or print-out pages. As well, any online resource not indexed is included. This can be intranets by companies, document databases, and many other things.\n\nThe Dark Web is what you hear in the news. These are websites that are inaccessible through typical means and are accessed with a Tor-browser. Tor is used to hide and conceal yourself and remain anonymous. Now, yes some illegal activity does occur but Tor-browsers are also just used for secure private connections. Think businesses having to do private meetings on sensitive matters.",
"The \"deep web\" is simply anything NOT publicly linked. The database that runs my Minecraft sever is 5 GB of data that is internet connected but not publicly linked, by comparison my website isless than 100mb thT is. In this case my \"Deepweb\" footprint is 50x larger than surface web. Deep web is often not see by media to sou d cool or as a buzword. For tech types its just a resource like a can of beans, a phone book, or a living room window that is simple, slightly boarding, and is drawn upon as needed.",
"You are misunderstanding the term. The \"Deep Web\" is all the websites and other services that are not publicly listed. You need to know where they are located to find them. It could be information that is behind a paywall, stuff that is not listed on sites like google and such, or that have no links from other pages. Just because its \"Deep Web\" doesnt mean its illegal or bad, just that its not listed where you can find it. (its more complicated than that at times too)",
"The deep web isn't anything special. It is just sites not catalogued by google. Say you make your own space and don't have google index it yet, boom deepnet site. I think you are confusing it with the darknet that you need TOR to see. From what I have seen that isn't very big, but I didn't venture far...it's not a good idea to go there.",
"There is a difference between \"Deep web\" and \"Dark net\". What you seems to think about is the Dark net, which is the internet only reachable with Tor.\nDeep web refers to any place on the internet where you cannot actually go by clicking on hyperlinks (where search engine's crawler bots can't go)",
"There are also a lot more protocols being run on the internet than just HTTP or HTTPS. The deep web encompases things like usenet, vpn's, tor, IOT, open api calls between hardware and software etc.",
"My answer: I work at a large corporation. We maintain many web sites internally, available only to those who work at our company. This includes competitive intelligence, source code, bug trackers, support sites, documents we collaborate on, and much more. This is part of the \"deep web\" because only a minority of people can access it (a few hundred thousand people) and is not available publicly. This \"intranet\" deep web is many orders of magnitude larger than the relatively tiny amount of data we expose to the public Internet.\n\nIn addition, I use a service at home called \"Plex\". This allows me to share music, media, and other data with a select group of friends who also use Plex. My data is shared only to those with whom I choose to share. This is a kind of \"deep web\", where no data at all is shared with anyone whom I do not individually select.\n\nFinally, I also run a web server for some friends. On those web servers exist old backups of web sites, shared applications, development environments for some charity sites, photo archives for the model aviation clubs I'm a part of, and so forth. The only way to get to these sites is to know the right combination of IP address and port, and then once at the right location to have a user name and password to allow you entrance. This is another kind of \"deep web\".\n\nThe \"deep web\" is not sinister. It's simply data that individuals, corporations, governments, and non-governmental entities choose to share among themselves but not outsiders for various valid reasons.",
"I'm sure this has been mentioned already but after going through the first 20 or so shitty comments I'll reiterate it anyway. The \"deep web\" is simply any part of the internet that isn't indexed by search engines. Someone mentioned \"poorly made websites from years ago\" and that is part of it, but anything that requires a username and password to access is deep web. For example, your online banking, email inbox, etc. Think about scientific journals and article databases that you gain access to with a university account - you're talking millions of papers, textbooks, etc. that don't show up on search engines because they aren't available to the public. That is why most internet content is \"deep\" content - it isn't available to the public without special access. The Dark Web, by contrast, makes up a small portion of the deep web used primarily for illegal activity. Not so long ago you'd be in the \"deep web\" by accessing reddit or 4chan. Even Wikipedia was deep content in its infancy.\n\nEDIT: Some further clarification - most people confuse the deep net with the dark net (or think the terms are interchangeable), which you need TOR to access. /u/ThisIsReLLiK pointed this out in an earlier comment, I thought I should add it to my summary.",
"So an example of the Deep Web is a lot of journal articles and other academic research paper need a user name and password to access the database and has login information. This blocks off the meta data from a search and while efforts have been made to make that meta data available to search engines it still is strangling a lot of the information that's available so because a search engine cant bypass the login screen that means that entire databases of information are existing in a digital space without any real convenient way of finding them. So just like you can't find something in the dark this has become the somewhat cumbersome term to refer to this information.",
"So many people talking about the dark net like it's some horrendous pit of hellfire from which evil spawns. It's just a bunch of poorly made websites that look like a 5th grader made them in Notepad in 1998. Yeah, you'll find the occasional forum of illegal porn, or someone trying to sell drugs in their state/country, but otherwise it's just a load of shit. You can't buy a hitman on it, the 'human experimentations' crap is literally just a text based website with no pictures. You can literally find the exact same conceptual shit on google that you'll find on the dark net, the only difference is the sheer amount of edge you have to wade through",
"How many times have you searched for something you saw on the web a while ago but can't find now? In many cases, if not most, it's still there but the search engines do not burrow deep enough to see it.\n\n\nIn addition, there is a \"do not index\" meta tag which instructs the search engines to not recognize what's on a page. You could see it if you knew the url. \n\n\nAll of this falls into the category of deep web which is different from dark web (restricted).",
"My bank has one page for me for every month going as far back as I'm their customer, for statements; plus another two dozen for accounts and special offers and pay this and transfer that.\n\nMy reddit account has a dozen pages - inbox, sent mail, preferences, & c.\n\nThe various control panels, dashboards, inboxes, outboxes, and so on.\n\nGoogle Analytics probably has 75 pages per thing it's tracking.\n\nNone of these things will ever be indexed.\n\nNor will yours.\n\nNor will your neighbor's.",
"Back in the day there used to be a network called \"Direct Connect\" and there were \"DC Hubs\" where you could chat with people and share files back and forth sorta like a cross between KaZaA and mIRC file servers. Most of the time these places had rare files you would be hard pressed to find anywhere else. Usenet servers are another example of content that isn't found on the regular web.",
"Deep web isn't a lower level or anything like that. Quite simply everything on the internet such as email, your Facebook page, normal google results ect, are all on the internet. There is only one and anything you, or anyone, can access is on this single internet. \n\nDeep web refers to the part of the web that normal search engines won't search through. Technically your email is part of the deep web.",
"because the main web has been consolidated into a handful of regularly used websites while the so called deep web is intentionally fractured to cater to specific niches and activities. Originally, the regular web was the same thing, but as corporate interests began to monitize the web, the regular web shrank so corporations could consolidate their influence and maximize their data collection and ad revenue.",
"Are you sure you didn't mean \"DARK WEB\" and the hidden Tor sites and Tor network? This is NOT bigger than the normal web, but I imagine you were thinking of that when you heard \"deep web\" and thus got the two confused",
"Think about the page you see when you log into your email. That is part of the deep web. Now think of all the millions of people who open the same screen. That's a lot of pages.",
"A lot of the deep web is private servers. Schools, businesses, governments and so on. Anything that you can't find with a search engine. Most of it would be absolutely meaningless you me and you.",
"Do you have an email inbox?\n\nThen you use the deep web.",
"I run a server on my machine. \nThe only way to access this server is if I give you my current IP, which changes periodically. It is not crawled by search engines, most of it is behind .htaccess(an access control mechanism for servers) and it's down half the time(such as when I'm asleep and PC isn't on).\n\nI am part of the deep web.\n\nThe control panel on my public server - it is on a specific IP address, on a specific port, behind a username/password prompt. \nYou are not going to be able to access it, or even know of its existence without many pieces of highly specific information.\n\nIt is also part of the deep web.\n\nThe deep web is basically like dark matter - you know it's there, you know there's more of it than what is apparent, but unless you know where and how to look, you're not gonna see any of it.",
"The deep web is just what can't be found by search engines. Any traffic or data.\n\nSo it would be anything. Your encrypted data on a bank server is on the deep web. In fact, a lot of traffic on the internet is \"noise\" like pings, machine to machine communication, attack traffic and the like. Most of the front end stuff you see when you Google something or go to a URL is supported by databases and other things that are much larger than the form you see.\n\nYou're thinking dark web, stuff that is intentionally obscured from search engines but left open to be viewed by those it is intended for. It is quite large, but not as large as the open web.\n\nHere's some info on internet background noise _URL_1_",
"the deep web is made up of sites and data which cannot be accessed via regular search engines.\n\na good example of this is archiving of videos and other files from sites like YouTube, when a video is \"deleted\" it's not really deleted for legal reasons, instead it's archived onto a server on the Youtube closed network which only employees can access for legal reasons.\n\nso when they say \"the deep web is bigger than the regular internet\" that only means that there's a ton of archived shit. it can be accessed, however you need to know how to access the servers which can't be done without a search engine so you would need to know the URL.",
"The dark net is what you're thinking of and that only takes a small portion of the deep web. The deep web is anything that isn't a webpage indexed on google. My desktop that I ssh into is on the deep web, private video game servers count as the deep web.",
"\"The deep web\" is not just intentionally hidden content it's everything not indexed by Google or other search engines. Everything from The configuration page of your router, your work's intranet, a test webpage server being run at home and the gateway of your cellular provider are all deep web.",
"Deep web =/= dark web. People often incorrectly use these terms interchangeably. Deep web is simply anything on the internet that is not reachable from a search engine. This is massive. The dark web is the \"hidden\" web, and is very very small in comparison",
"Anything that can't be accessed DIRECTLY from a web browser like google is technically the deep web. This includes things like, Your Email, your Bank account, as well as any other account you have, excluding pretty much only social media.",
"It can be the size it is and have 30 users. Or it can be the size it is and have 2 users. The amount of users doesn't dictate its size.",
"The Golden Gate bridge has more traffic than the Mackinac Bridge, but the Mackinac Bridge is bigger."
],
"score": [
4430,
3604,
572,
145,
55,
46,
27,
26,
16,
13,
8,
7,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"google.com",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_background_noise"
]
} | train_eli5 | How can the "deep Web" allegedly be so much larger than the surface Web if only a minority of people use the deep Web or hidden Internet.
Just something that doesn't make sense in my mind. Or am I wrong and every second person uses the deep Web and I'm behind on the times. | [
0.01900029182434082,
-0.11036879569292068,
0.07669178396463394,
-0.04746396839618683,
0.035720985382795334,
-0.07998715341091156,
-0.0635627955198288,
0.10456555336713791,
0.0162486732006073,
0.036868758499622345,
0.02202966995537281,
0.016762111335992813,
0.0042042117565870285,
-0.0062932... | |
48zvuo | How did people back in the day not realize that cigarettes were very unhealthy? | I feel like it's obvious the negative effects it has on your body and how you feel if you smoke. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d0ny9o3",
"d0nzkar",
"d0o069u",
"d0nz5j2",
"d0nylwe",
"d0o2tep",
"d0o0k54",
"d0oba97",
"d0ny82t",
"d0o5wym"
],
"text": [
"There was a time when brands were endorsed by the medical profession. \n\"More doctors smoke camels...\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"Consider that today we are having a debate about \"big is beautiful\". \"Love your body\" is the new mantra, yet the average american is at least 30 lbs. overweight. 1 in 4 medicare dollars is spent treating type-2 diabetes. Are we really so learned today?",
"Oh, don't make the mistake of thinking people didn't know. They did, they just kidded themselves and ignored the obvious. Besides, there were other things to worry about. \n\nIn 1604 King James of Scotland said...\n\n\n\n > Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.",
"They did- the nickname \"coffin nails\" was used for decades before the Surgeon General's report.",
"Basically nobody really bothered to run any tests to show there was a connection with certain health problems and smoking. Cigarette companies denied that smoking was harmful for a very long time. It was only really discovered that it caused lung cancer when there was a spike in the amount of people who had lung cancer around the 1940-50s. Even then cigarette companies continued to deny it. A lot of studies eventually showed clear evidence that it was actually harmful around the 60s.",
"If smoking killed people in six months, there wouldn't have been any question about it. Instead it can take decades for lung cancer to show up, and a 50-year-old with cancer isn't seen as a gross miscarriage of the natural order of the universe. It's about the age when you expect to have a few friends start dying off and it's not as sensational as a 25-year-old with cancer.",
"Probably the same way people today think Vaping is not dangerous for them. In 20 years, there will be a post like\n\nELI5: How did people back in the day not realize that vaping was very unhealthy? I mean, its literally water vapor in your lungs",
"1) smoking does not kill right away, even if it smells awful. You can pretend it's not killing you if you want the nicotine effect.\n\n2) People drink. Why? IMO that one's a mystery. And even alcoholism-level drinking doesn't kill you right away. Alcohol tastes awful, but people still drink enough to harm themselves. It's the buzz, and the convenience/escapism of being drunk I guess?\n\n3) Tobacco smoking preceded most of health science, so it was an established \"thing\" and people may not have thought they had any reason to question it.\n\n4) Scientists eventually did study whether smoking caused health problems. It started to become obvious to these scientists that it did cause health problems. Tobacco companies put massive time, money and effort ensuring word would get out slowly if at all, and tried to keep findings from gaining any credibility in the public eye.\n\n5) Tobacco companies actively advertised their product as healthy, and convinced many people that it was supposed to be healthy. Saying \"it's not healthy, it's dangerous\" can start to make you look like a crazy person if everyone else wholeheartedly trusts that it's a good thing, and only you are questioning it.\n\ntl;dr: substances gonna get abused, + propaganda and lies.",
"People as a whole are very good at self-denial. Along with tobacco companies trying to push the message that they're healthy as hard as possible, people just bought into it. (those companies did their best to push it into popular culture as much as possible). \n\nI mean, look at alcohol. People know its bad for them, the evidence for it is insane. yet, people still drink. Or soda for example, i'm sure you drink soda from time to time, don't you know it's bad for you? If so, why do you still drink it? and boom, theres the answer to your question",
"Why would it be obvious. People who smoked had pleasurable, positive feelings from smoking, so they associated it with good health."
],
"score": [
23,
17,
11,
5,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/blowing-smoke-vintage-ads-of-doctors-endorsing-tobacco/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How did people back in the day not realize that cigarettes were very unhealthy?
I feel like it's obvious the negative effects it has on your body and how you feel if you smoke. | [
0.04641920328140259,
0.08859924972057343,
0.029772313311696053,
0.08894345164299011,
0.023097442463040352,
0.02727450244128704,
0.021282562986016273,
0.13665834069252014,
-0.02319648489356041,
0.02314411848783493,
0.019116604700684547,
0.020507073029875755,
-0.0062617352232337,
-0.08351357... | |
6gfpg7 | Why can you use a negative adverb to make an adjective more positive? Ex: Awfully good | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipxhex",
"diq74n5",
"diqncvi",
"dipyzdy",
"dipx9h7",
"diq0dho",
"diq7f5d",
"diqfmp5"
],
"text": [
"The adjectives which spring to mind - awfully, terribly, dreadfully, frightfully, fearfully, scarily - all come from words related to fright. And this, I think, is because for many things we fear, that fear is mixed with respect - we both fear and respect the mighty power of nature; we both fear and respect a large predator; we both fear and respect whatever god we happen to believe in.\n\nSo the comparison is being made with that - \"He is a terribly good footballer\" literally implies that he is so good that we must fear and respect his powers.",
"This reminds me of a technique in art and animation actually. Contrast is not only beautiful but it can act as an amplifier. In Animation, if you want to show a character smiling, you can first move the corners of the mouth down and then spring it back into a smile. The contrast gives the landing pose more impact. So my guess is that the contrasting adverb makes the landing adjective more impactful. \n \nIt works both ways by the way: \nPOSITIVE - Awfully Good \nNEGATIVE - Positively Awful\n\nEDIT: \nThere's a lot of focus on \"Awe\", the problem is there are plenty of combinations not using \"Awe\", for example: \nPOSITIVE - Insanely Good \nNEGATIVE - Incredibly Bad",
"We recently covered this in a linguistics class! It's basically all about intensification. I'm using English as an example, but other languages do this too. When we want to make a statement more intense, we put a word before it to emphasise it:\n\nE.g. Good = very good.\n\nBut over time, people overuse the intensifier and it starts to lose its impact. So people use it more:\n\nE.g. Very, very good.\n\nThis makes it lose its impact even quicker. So people look for another word to replace the overused word, the stronger, the better! \n\nIn the Early Modern English period (c. 1450-1800), people started to use words to describe terrible things for emphasis, such as awfully good, terribly good, etc. These words originally had much stronger meanings than today - terrible meant something more like disastrous. But because we've used them for several hundred years, they are losing their strength too, and so we look for other terms to replace them to get the intense meaning. Using awful, as in OP's post, is sometimes called 'terrible emphasis' in linguistics. \n\nThis is the same reason people use 'literally' for things like 'I will literally kill you' when they don't really mean they will kill someone. They are using a strong modifier for emphasis.",
"Remember that the root of awful is \"awe\". People overuse words like awesome and it cheapens it, but awe is mingled respect and terror. True awe is something that tingles your spine.",
"In this case, it's because \"awful\" (\"filled with awe\") had a positive connotation.",
"We do that in italian too. I feel like it makes the adjective bigger and stronger, as it hides something behind.",
"Interesting question! We do the same thing in German as well and I have never given it much thought... I guess it's just a practical way of expressing a superlative (or sth close to it) without actually saying \"it's the best/worst/dumbest\" and negative words sort of have an implicit hierarchy like \n\nbad -- > terrible -- > awful -- > horrible \n\nThere seem to be fewer nuances like this with positive adverbs and a double-positive (amazingly, awesomely [insert positive adjective]) feels insincere/comical...",
"Keep in mind it also works the other way — \"His costume was wonderfully vile\" or \"Her farts were exceptionally putrid.\""
],
"score": [
531,
65,
64,
61,
8,
7,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why can you use a negative adverb to make an adjective more positive? Ex: Awfully good
| [
0.0229136124253273,
0.009101646952331066,
0.059454724192619324,
0.04967505857348442,
0.018258458003401756,
-0.06852294504642487,
0.0387166365981102,
0.0037856372073292732,
0.03567475453019142,
-0.026216795668005943,
0.04658574238419533,
0.036551039665937424,
0.018950210884213448,
0.0407697... | ||
sydfo | Why are all of the bees dying? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c4i10rf",
"c4i1aeh",
"c4i1m0p",
"c4i28f7",
"c4i1uor",
"c4i30w5",
"c4i337m",
"c4i6utu",
"c4i4c8i",
"c4i3ed9"
],
"text": [
"You like honey, don't you? Who doesn't like honey? Honey comes from bees. Certain types of honey bees are better at making the kind of honey that you like (they make more of it, and it's tastier, yay!), so people keep breeding more of these honey bees and less of other types of honey bees. This is all well and good, because we're getting lots and lots of good honey, but it's a really bad thing when a disease (a disease is what makes you sick) comes along that is particularly dangerous to this type of honey bee (the disease could be anything from a mite or parasite, to an actual virus or bacterial, or some kind of latent genetic trait that makes the bees unable to reproduce). It's bad because since so many of these bees are the same, they all get sick at the same time and they all die. If there were more types of bees, not all of them would get sick at the same time, and the disease wouldn't spread as quickly!\n\n[Obligatory non-ELI5 disclosure: selective breeding is only one of many proposed mechanisms for Colony Collapse Disorder. Mites, pesticides, climate change, homogenization of pollen sources through industrial farming, and aggressive Africanized honey bees are all either considered to be confounding or alternative mechanisms for CCD.] \n\nEdit: Special thanks to firefoxx336 for sharing [a beekeeper's perspective on CCD and alternate theory](_URL_0_) and to dragpent for providing an [ELI5 explanation for the other reasons mentioned in this post](_URL_1_).",
"The short answer is we don't know.\n\nThere's been a number of studies which have identified a higher amount of parasites and disease within affected colonies but theories are that these are just the symptoms of what lead to the deaths, not the cause. Theories about the cause range from climate change to pesticide poisoning to an unintended byproduct of cross breeding by beekeepers.",
"Well, there are a few reasons, but mainly, a pesticide used by many farmers and produced largely by Monsanto called \"neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid\" is being used on crops and plants in which the bees draw the nectar from. Now, when they draw this nectar, which is tainted with the pesticide, they bring it back to the hive, and it is spread to the rest of the hive. Basically the pesticide gets in the brain of the bee and causes convulsions, paralysis, and eventually death of the poisoned insect. Because this pesticide is selective, and binds much more to insect brains than mammals, it is much more toxic to insects, rather than mammals.\n \nSources: \n[Book on the effects of the chemical on insects vs vertebrates](_URL_6_) \n \n[More research](_URL_6_) \n \n[A. Recent article about pesticide killing bee colonies](_URL_6_) \n [B. Research paper referenced above](_URL_5_) \n\n[Monsanto Buys research firm calling them out](_URL_5_)",
"The Bees from Melissa Majoria are leaving Earth, so it seems like they are dying out.",
"There's a movie on Netflix instant called \"The Vanishing of the Bees\" that explains everything pretty well. Bees aren't simply dying, they are actually disappearing. Pesticides are a big part of the problem, but our whole system of farming seems to be the root cause, fields and fields of the same crop, instead of diversified farming. Check out the movie though, it's extremely eye opening and also very scary.",
"The correct answer is that no one knows, but there are 100's of theories. I work in the pest industry & speak to many experts.",
"Their returning to their home planet, it having been rescued from the crucible by The Doctor Donna.",
"Most people don't know this yet but [the bees are eating poison.](_URL_7_) Farmers put poison on plants as a way to kill other bugs who try to eat those plants. We just discovered this poison also kills bees.",
"Question: Is it possible that radio frequencies are a cause of the deaths? I'm talking frequencies that emanate from cell phone towers, for example. I apologize if it's a dumb question. It's just something I've been speculating on.",
"Is there any geographical data on how the supposed die-off of bees is distributed? Here in Texas, I have a yard full of them at various times of the year."
],
"score": [
624,
85,
52,
19,
9,
5,
4,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sydfo/eli5_why_are_all_of_the_bees_dying/c4i7nkp",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sydfo/eli5_why_are_all_of_the_bees_dying/c4i5gwx",
"http://www.examiner.com/article/more-proof-pesticide-causes-bee-colony-collapse-disorder",
"http://www.care2.com/causes/research-firm-blames-monsanto-for-bee-deaths-so-monsanto-buys-it.html",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=_kbFQ9-RUyUC&lpg=PP1&dq=443170213X&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/hsop-uoc040212.php",
"http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/imidaclo.htm",
"http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0405-hance_colonycollapse_pesticides.html?utm_campaign=General+news&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=SNS.analytics"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why are all of the bees dying?
| [
0.08474179357290268,
-0.04524628072977066,
0.09579148143529892,
0.03294575586915016,
0.05686170235276222,
0.01491086371243,
0.009588070213794708,
-0.058800991624593735,
0.0093690799549222,
0.13832958042621613,
0.053843818604946136,
-0.05836563929915428,
-0.038087908178567886,
0.01568864472... | ||
6akbsu | Why isn't the immune systeme able to handle cancer, although I might now what the cancer is made of and therefore what parts had to be destroyed to kill the cancer? | *know | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dhf5uyt",
"dhf9qop"
],
"text": [
"Immune system will react to anything that doesn't have the marker chemicals that identify it as part of the body. Unfortunately, cancer is when the cells in some organ in your body start multiplying out of control, due to a mutation. Thus the immune system isn't detecting anything because it just sees cells from an organ multiplying, which isn't abnormal (as far as the immune system is concerned).",
"The cells in your body are always dividing to make new cells and then the old cells die, and each time the cell divides, you need to make a copy of the DNA in the cell. Cells have a 'timer' (huge simplification) that tells them how often to divide. \n\nCopying the DNA can lead to mistakes in the DNA. Some of these mistakes lead to the cell's 'timer' going out of whack and the cell just constantly divides to make new cells. This is a tumour. \n\nSo the reason your immune system isn't great at dealing with cancer is because cancer is *your own cells*, just dividing without care. \n\nAlthough in actuality, your immune system is *constantly* getting rid of potentially cancerous cells in the body since often tumour cells will look *slightly* different to your normal cells, so often a cancer requires a second mutation that also allows it to evade the immune system. Many cancers produce chemicals that 'shut off' immune cells that are nearby."
],
"score": [
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why isn't the immune systeme able to handle cancer, although I might now what the cancer is made of and therefore what parts had to be destroyed to kill the cancer?
*know | [
0.018408028408885002,
0.03556877747178078,
0.052390728145837784,
-0.03966088593006134,
-0.004434202332049608,
0.011297236196696758,
0.04305489361286163,
0.04948968067765236,
0.008987479843199253,
0.0245266854763031,
-0.09788704663515091,
0.07478269189596176,
0.06889068335294724,
-0.0151783... | |
5p1grl | Differences between summer seasons on the North and South hemispheres | I was told that on the southern hemisphere, during the summer, the mornings get earlier and earlier until the solstice. This is as opposed to the summer on the northern hemisphere where the evenings get longer until the solstice. is this true? can you help me understand? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnr175",
"dcnod7n"
],
"text": [
"you seem to be confused - the days do not get longer at just one end of the day. both sunrise and sunset get earlier and later at roughly an equal rate. the closer you are to the poles, the more drastically they change, and the closer you are to the equator the less they change. \n\nthe graphs below help demonstrate this. go to the link, and slide your mouse along the big blue graph with the red line. underneath you will see the sunrise and sunset times growing and shrinking together. (those jumps near the beginning and end is when daylight savings comes in). i chose london and melbourne as the cities to use as examples, both relatively far north and south respectively. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"Quick little answer here: \nThe reason for the seasons is because of the angle of the sunlight hitting the earth. When it is summer, the lift is hitting more directly than in winter. Back to different seasons for different hemispheres: because the earth is tilted, when the sun's light hits the earth directly in one hemisphere it will hit less directly in the other. This is also why the equator's seasons are less extreme."
],
"score": [
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/melbourne",
"https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/london"
]
} | train_eli5 | Differences between summer seasons on the North and South hemispheres
I was told that on the southern hemisphere, during the summer, the mornings get earlier and earlier until the solstice. This is as opposed to the summer on the northern hemisphere where the evenings get longer until the solstice. is this true? can you help me understand? | [
0.017415910959243774,
-0.02709951251745224,
0.07284373790025711,
0.024368997663259506,
0.1012992188334465,
-0.037040796130895615,
-0.05669914186000824,
-0.036971718072891235,
0.05683515593409538,
0.029577799141407013,
-0.0096979271620512,
0.0449456050992012,
0.03548727557063103,
0.05567449... | |
144qwz | why you can set .gifs as background in windows 95 but not in Windows 7 | Was there some actual reason I'm missing, or it Microsoft just stupid? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7a0elh"
],
"text": [
"The reason behind this is called 'Active Desktop'. It's basically a function in the default internet browser called 'Internet Explorer' also made by Microsoft, just like Windows itself. It was basically a browser window without borders that would be layed over the wallpaper but under other stuff like desktop icons, so it could display search bars, websites and thus gifs, because they are animated when shown in a webpage.\n\n Active Desktop is a feature for IE 4.0 to 6.x . When Vista came around, IE 7 was introduced and the feature was removed from that version. That's why you can't have gifs as desktop wallpaper anymore.\n\nEDIT: a word\n\nEDIT2: why was Active Desktop removed from Windows? You may remember that Vista had a new feature called the sidebar with all those fancy widgets, so they felt no need to continue development on such an old technology and removed it. Those fancy widgets are now the desktop widgets on Windows 7."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why you can set .gifs as background in windows 95 but not in Windows 7
Was there some actual reason I'm missing, or it Microsoft just stupid? | [
0.02423754520714283,
-0.04623020067811012,
-0.009124062024056911,
0.046400297433137894,
0.14352421462535858,
-0.00967340636998415,
-0.015372274443507195,
-0.02083825320005417,
0.016765190288424492,
-0.016616398468613625,
-0.061178646981716156,
0.09322381019592285,
-0.015401242300868034,
0.... | |
6y43vs | - Can someone explain the negative associations I'm seeing about the Red Cross and the recommendations for donations to be directed to other charities besides the Red Cross? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dmkirhi"
],
"text": [
"Iirc, there has been multiple scandals coming up, originating from Red Cross. Charging people money for care (not recent but still applicable), and a lot of donor money missing, and not being spent on relief, as they were supposed to be.\n\nI believe during hurricane Katrina, only 4 permanent houses were built, and around 25% of the finished money was actually used for hurricane Katrina relief. \n\nAlso, not 100% sure, but I seen posts on Facebook about the meals the Red Cross are currently offering in Houston, and they were very small. A few pieces of cheese, ham, and two cheap packets of crackers with a little bit more, for supposedly $8.\n\nNot sure if they're still corrupt, or if they every truly meant to be, but yours and everyone else's donations can go to a much better charity."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | - Can someone explain the negative associations I'm seeing about the Red Cross and the recommendations for donations to be directed to other charities besides the Red Cross?
[removed] | [
-0.03356298431754112,
-0.05271555483341217,
-0.014537710696458817,
0.04934919625520706,
0.05781698599457741,
0.06299974769353867,
0.045297812670469284,
0.007842885330319405,
-0.06473033875226974,
-0.08272198587656021,
0.02247507870197296,
-0.005223572254180908,
0.0129010621458292,
-0.00355... | |
8an0hi | Why do humans seek familiarity like staying in the same house or bed but get bored of performing the same task over and over? | I think it contradicts how the mind works | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dx000ev",
"dwzzrjj",
"dwzwmzy",
"dx0w8jt"
],
"text": [
"As just stated, Safety is first, so comfort and familiar environment can last a long time until the person feels they can attain that same safety elsewhere. When it comes to tasks however, purpose and passion come in. To be useful or valuable, the brain wants to do something meaningful, creative, successful, etc., which usually means a variety. Some people do find their favorite passion and do the same thing for 20 years, but that’s rare to find.",
"Maslow’s hierarchy of needs comes to mind. Safety is the very first (base of the triangle), so maybe seeking the familiarity of Home is related to that.",
"You are looking at it from the same angle...sure it's the same, but it's not.\n\nHaving or staying in the same home provides a certain amount of comfort or a safe place to go. But doing the same thing over and over can become monotonous and mind numbing. Humans (and animals to a lesser extent) need to do things that engage the brain. That's why puzzles, games, treat balls for dogs, etc are needed.",
"Because we, like all animals, like to keep things simple and easy. Imagine moving to a new house every day; wouldn't you forget where the bathrooms are? you would have to learn how to operate a new stove or have a new location for your trash can. It makes everything a lot harder. Having the same orientation of items around the house makes more sense in our minds."
],
"score": [
47,
17,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do humans seek familiarity like staying in the same house or bed but get bored of performing the same task over and over?
I think it contradicts how the mind works | [
0.13068045675754547,
-0.09036684036254883,
0.04534726217389107,
0.048833925276994705,
0.03838378190994263,
0.016713248565793037,
0.0896836444735527,
-0.01424532663077116,
0.07886287569999695,
0.013803716748952866,
-0.07213487476110458,
0.01554858312010765,
-0.011240017600357533,
-0.0412659... | |
15lvbt | When making security questions for password recovery, why don't they let you write your own question? Wouldn't that be significantly safer? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7nnhlc",
"c7no9hc",
"c7nmd3l"
],
"text": [
"Not really.\n\nImagine your average user - their password is probably \"12345\" or \"password,\" and they probably have the same password everywhere.\n\nNow, imagine if that guy could write his own question. \"What is 123?\" Or \"MY PASSWORD IS PASSWORD?\"\n\nThere is very little the site could do to protect people from simply giving away their password due to sheer stupidity. Not letting the user write the question prevents them from sending themselves a clue.\n\nMy trick is that I have only a few answers. Whether it asks my mother's maiden name, my first pet or the name of the street I live on, the answer is always \"Sasquatch.\" (Not really).",
"It could be safer...if someone understood the security implications and created an appropriate question.\n\nBut people who don't understand might come up with a stupid question, like \"What is Garfield's favorite food?\".\n\nThese are the people who security experts are most worried about, much better to force everyone to use good questions rather than let them become security holes.",
"Some place do, other places are just lazy. Simple as that.\n\nThere is no reason besides time and storage that prevents them from doing it.\n\nTime, you could spent between 30 seconds and 30 hours figuring out how to set up a way to let you make your own and record them on servers.\n\nStorage, the servers for the website must record each unique question and distribute it accordingly to the correct person. But that would be a < 50 Kilobyte file at most, and today that is not that much. So it is generally the first."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | When making security questions for password recovery, why don't they let you write your own question? Wouldn't that be significantly safer?
| [
-0.043540291488170624,
0.014124313369393349,
-0.0420457161962986,
-0.008462988771498203,
0.0018616488669067621,
0.06245945021510124,
0.05765743926167488,
0.0275204386562109,
0.06937490403652191,
-0.010974924080073833,
0.022526253014802933,
0.07474976032972336,
0.05662006884813309,
-0.06887... | ||
5g1sub | What's the difference between ethanol that's in hand sanitizer and ethanol that's in different types of drinkable alcohol? | And if there isn't a difference, then why couldn't you safely drink hand sanitizer? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"daot19n",
"daoulas",
"daou8tf"
],
"text": [
"Chemically, ethanol is ethanol.\n\nThe difference is that ethanol that's \"not for human consumption\" is *denatured* so that it's unpleasant or poisonous to drink. Since it can't be consumed, it doesn't have the high taxes associated with liquor ($22/gal in my state).",
"Moat hand sanitizer contains isopropyl alcohol, aka rubbing alcohol. It's totally different. \n\nSome do have ethanol and its the same as any other ethanol. But they add stuff to it that would not be good to drink.",
"The Ethanol is the same in both. The other chemicals in the mixture though are very different. As ameoba said, Ethanol in most houshold chemicals is denatured. That means they mix in a chemical that is tasting so bad that you literally can't swallow it."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What's the difference between ethanol that's in hand sanitizer and ethanol that's in different types of drinkable alcohol?
And if there isn't a difference, then why couldn't you safely drink hand sanitizer? | [
0.044204771518707275,
-0.07956425100564957,
-0.01734926365315914,
0.0010937516344711185,
0.05746239796280861,
0.03954852744936943,
-0.04831476882100105,
0.07295823097229004,
0.0404675230383873,
-0.0997885912656784,
0.00994861125946045,
0.028036439791321754,
-0.08806363493204117,
0.09154921... | |
2e9haa | Why does holding a glass against a wall make you hear better what is being said in the other room? | You always see this in movies, but does it actually work and if so, why does it work? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cjxbtmz"
],
"text": [
"It does work, often not very well.\n\nWhat's happening without the glass is the sound vibrations are transmitted from the air on the other side, into the solid material of the wall, into the air on the other side, and finally to your eardrum.\n\nPut a glass against the wall and stick your ear up next to it, and now the solid part of the glass is continuing the structure of the wall right up to your ear, plus collecting and focusing more vibrations in the wall to deliver them closer to your ear due to its greater surface area of contact. \n\nSound vibrations generally travel better through solids than through gasses - this is the principle between two kids' \"phones\" made from tin cans connected by a string - and the glass helps this along a little."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does holding a glass against a wall make you hear better what is being said in the other room?
You always see this in movies, but does it actually work and if so, why does it work? | [
0.0490146204829216,
-0.0647459402680397,
-0.009738008491694927,
-0.016067590564489365,
0.004338797647505999,
-0.004499839618802071,
0.0934002697467804,
-0.03439792990684509,
0.0769776701927185,
-0.11787103861570358,
-0.0710512325167656,
0.014251390472054482,
0.0014713132986798882,
0.034792... | |
176bqr | A coma | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c82tv89"
],
"text": [
"Coma is indeed a prolonged state of deep unconsciousness. Coma typically lasts a maximum of 4 to 6 weeks, after that people die or go into a vegetative state. (or they have already gone to a more conscious state)\n\nIn a vegetative state patients will open their eyes and breathe spontaneously, however there is no possible way of contact because they are not really aware of what's going on. \n\nTo determine whether somebody is in a coma we use the [Glasgow Coma Scale](_URL_0_) which tests eye, verbal and motor response.\nWhen a patient has a score lower then 8 (E1-M5-V2)* they are in a coma. \n\nI am not sure why people go in a coma but I do know people are kept in coma if their body needs more oxygen. (because a comatose brain/body uses less oxygen)\n\n**(E1 means the patient doesn't open their eyes, M5 means he can find a place where they are being hurt but he can't follow commands, V2 means they make noises but utter no words)*"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale"
]
} | train_eli5 | A coma
| [
-0.0031768151093274355,
0.022277478128671646,
-0.06504100561141968,
0.0053834314458072186,
-0.04575712978839874,
0.0620000846683979,
0.11682530492544174,
0.06557651609182358,
0.06753715872764587,
0.011115043424069881,
0.011999058537185192,
-0.03229982405900955,
-0.014917545951902866,
0.019... | ||
4tje4y | How does the immune system store information about infections that it has defeated? How is it able to "remember" diseases to produce antibodies? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d5hxlcr",
"d5hsm43",
"d5hudvl"
],
"text": [
"Imagine your immune cells all start with a set of different patterns. 50 cartoon heads, 10 bodies, and 6 legs. These are written in your DNA.\n\nWhen the immune cell matures, it randomly cuts out and chooses a head, body and leg from it's DNA, and throws away the rest of the DNA. That immune cell then goes around looking for the head/body/leg combo it's created. If it finds it while it's still at immune cell university, then it gets told that's \"self\" and it shouldn't respond. That immune cell then shuts down. If it doesn't get told it's \"self\", then the immune cell graduates university and goes to a lymph node, looking for the head/body/leg combo.\n\nOne day, a dendritic cell comes running into the lymph node and shouts he's seen a scary looking chap around! He's got a photo of him, and it looks a bit like the head/body/leg the immune cell has. This is the trigger the immune cell has been waiting for, and it starts churning out it's antibody from it's own DNA combination.\n\nThe cell also reproduces, to create more specific cells for that target. Each generation will modify their antibody DNA slightly (draw with marker pen on their head/body/legs combo), and the ones which are better at binding the target will reproduce more, evolving rapidly into a highly powerful antibody. This is written in these immune cells' (BCells) DNA. After the disease has gone, some of these cells go dormant and live in the bone marrow/lymph nodes as memory BCells, waiting to be activated by that disease again.",
"When the adaptive immune system (the part that makes antibodies) recognizes a pathogen and sets to work attacking it, most of a special kind of cell (a B cell) get turned into a plasma cell when activated which does nothing but crank out antibodies. A small number of the B cells will instead turn into memory B cells which sit around and wait to see the antigen in the future. When they do, they divide and make a bunch of plasma cells. There is also T cell memory, but that is a whole different monster",
"Your body produce a lines of immune cells that recognize foreign substances. Initially you might only have a couple of cells that recognize a certain foreign substance; however once exposed to the complementary foreign substance these cells divide into active cells, which deal with the current foreign substance. It take about 7 - 14 days for the body to mount a defense this way. In addition to dividing into active cells they also divide into numerous memory cells which live within your lymph nodes. Thus once you are re-exposed to the foreign substance you already have a small army of cells ready to act."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does the immune system store information about infections that it has defeated? How is it able to "remember" diseases to produce antibodies?
| [
0.0394744835793972,
0.01950841210782528,
-0.06328628957271576,
0.03699468821287155,
-0.010632475838065147,
0.08762945234775543,
0.04539256915450096,
0.06410282105207443,
0.04174737632274628,
0.04214370250701904,
-0.05953317880630493,
0.05957498401403427,
0.07109575718641281,
0.037267107516... | ||
1djru4 | Whats the nearest distance for an aeroplane to land after take off? | I hope the title makes the question straight forward, I was wondering about this because i was told that an aeroplane cannot make a safe landing during the take off, where it flies oblique to the ground,if anything unfortunate happens it may cause the plane to crash!
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c9r0awj",
"c9qzgqx",
"c9qz0kl",
"c9r1n02"
],
"text": [
"Before using any runway for a take-off, the pilot of a commercial jet will do some calculations to ensure the runway is long enough, and also to calculate the important speeds for the take-off.\n\nOne of those speeds is the \"decision speed\", better known to pilots as \"V1\".\n\nBefore reaching a certain speed, usually 80kt (about 90mph), if there's anything slightly wrong, the pilots will immediately abort the take-off and stop.\n\nAfter 80kt, but before V1, there are a list of major failures for which a pilot will stop. Anything minor can be dealt with safer in the air. The major failure which we talk about most often is an engine failure. So if an aircraft experiences an engine failure before V1, it will stop.\n\nAfter V1, the take-off will not be aborted for any reason. Even an engine failure will be dealt with in the air.\n\nSo what is V1? Well, it's a speed at which you are guaranteed that, if you abort the take-off, there will be enough runway left to stop. And if you continue the take-off even after having had an engine failure, you are guaranteed to be able to take off on the remaining runway and safely clear any obstacles.\n\nHow is it calculated? Well, there are many factors that go into calculating it, but the main ones are the runway length, the amount of distance after the runway in which there are no obstacles (called the\"clearway\"), and the amount of distance beyond the end of the main part of the runway which can still be used for braking and coming to a stop if you have to abort the take-off (called the \"stopway\"). The weight of the aircraft is a big factor. The runway surface condition will be a major factor too - on a wet runway it's harder to brake, so it may be safer to continue into the air, and this is reflected by a lower V1.\n\nVery often, V1 is the same as the speed at which the aircraft begins to take off. So if a failure happens at any point before the controls are moved back to \"rotate\" the aircraft for take-off, then there is usually enough runway to stop, and that's exactly what the pilots will do. But only if the calculations show that this is a safe value for V1.\n\nV1 can't be higher than the rotate speed, though. So once the pilots begin to move the controls back to take off, that's it - they will not be landing straight ahead on that same runway again, whatever happens.",
"The problem isn't getting the plane back on the ground, it's getting the plane stopped before it runs out of runway and crashes into something. \n\nIf you have a long enough runway that it's not a factor, the pilot could nose the plane down back on to the ground immediately after the wheels leave the ground (although it might not be the most pleasant landing, as long as the pilot doesn't over-do it, the plane should be fine). \n\nCommercial airports generally don't have runways long enough for that sort of maneuver, so once a commercial jet gets up off the ground, it usually doesn't have much runway left. Odds are that instead of runway ahead of it, it's got something a bit less ideal for landing, like trees or buildings. At that point, if the plane wants to land back at the same airport, it needs to fly out far enough to turn around and come back. The radius of that turn depends on the specific aircraft, but big jetliners don't turn very tightly. \n\nOf course, in a situation like that there's also a concern about other planes moving about the airport and making sure the runway is clear and all that.",
"The space that you need HEAVLY depends on the plane and how much it's loaded (a fighter jet? a bomber? an empty cargo with almost no fuel? a cargo completely loaded and every tank full? tail wind?)\n\nThe point is: you need a certain amount of space to take off and a certain amount of space to land. If the landing strip is long \"100\" and you need AT LEAST \"50\" to take off (detach from the surface) and \"50\" to land and stop completely you are fine.\n\nBut if your plane takes \"70\" to take off you need to decide if you want to abort the operation BEFORE you reach \"50\", otherwise you are forced to continue the take off procedure since you won't have enough space to land and stop. That's why there is a \"non return point\" during take off: if you are over a certain speed you won't be able to stop before the end of the tarmac.",
"Given a runway of infinite length, an airplane can make microflights all day long - take off, get a foot off the ground, land.\n\nThere are no infinite runways. Planes need runways to safely take off and land on. If the plane is taking off, it's already used most of the runway - there's nowhere safe for it to go except Up. \n\nIf the problem is severe enough, the plane might turn around and immediately land, essentially flying in a big circle. If the problem is really severe, it won't even try to turn but to find a nice flat place to land on straight ahead."
],
"score": [
11,
4,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Whats the nearest distance for an aeroplane to land after take off?
I hope the title makes the question straight forward, I was wondering about this because i was told that an aeroplane cannot make a safe landing during the take off, where it flies oblique to the ground,if anything unfortunate happens it may cause the plane to crash! | [
0.12208284437656403,
0.042411744594573975,
-0.07575885206460953,
-0.02764142118394375,
-0.0031409047078341246,
0.05367046594619751,
0.003605676582083106,
0.13941547274589539,
0.03048168495297432,
0.024493081495165825,
0.029980041086673737,
0.06483185291290283,
-0.042528558522462845,
-0.021... | |
1jlb6v | What's the deal with these Obama Phones? | Thanks in advance! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cbfsmbp"
],
"text": [
"There is a program to give poor folks phones. It is meant to make sure everyone has access to services like 911. It started a long time ago before Obama and applied to regular telephones. Later it started working on cell phones. This also happened before Obama. Now people call them Obama phones because of some political stuff and the fact that it is a catchy name. People with one get a limited number of minutes every month. The phones are actually paid for through a non-profit company and tax dollars are not used to fund them."
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What's the deal with these Obama Phones?
Thanks in advance! | [
-0.07512154430150986,
0.05173265561461449,
0.0561281219124794,
-0.054484885185956955,
-0.025164857506752014,
0.01427466794848442,
0.003812467912212014,
0.006037332117557526,
0.06188230589032173,
-0.006487763486802578,
0.0099774906411767,
0.10882801562547684,
0.05715009197592735,
-0.1057129... | |
ntrp0 | how microwave presets like "popcorn" or "plate of food" know how long to cook the food? | Is there any rhyme or reason to this or is it just a set time? Any insight is appreciated. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c3bvyev",
"c3bv62b",
"c3buzak",
"c3bwq0z"
],
"text": [
"I think it's just a set time/power setting that has been determined by hardworking people wearing lab coats and a table with many bags of burnt-up or undercooked popcorn. \n\n/dream job.",
"My microwave supposedly has a sensor that measures the steam coming off of whatever is getting heated up and knows when to turn off.",
"They generally have preset times. Popcorn bags, for example, are usually 3.5 or 3.0 oz, which you can usually enter in the settings after you push the popcorn button. The microwave has a certain power rating, so it knows how long it needs to cook a bag of popcorn of a certain weight, and it turns on for that amount of time. Similarly with a plate of food.",
"Newer technology has also added the wrinkle of sensor cooking in microwaves. Whereby an internal sensor in the cooking bay monitors moisture and temperature along with being able to attach a probe.\n\nAlso as a side note: metal can be placed inside a microwave as long as it has no direct contact with any of the sides top or bottom of the microwave (newer models even have metal racks inside them)"
],
"score": [
13,
11,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how microwave presets like "popcorn" or "plate of food" know how long to cook the food?
Is there any rhyme or reason to this or is it just a set time? Any insight is appreciated. | [
0.015381374396383762,
-0.0282227024435997,
0.005825440399348736,
0.02953069657087326,
-0.059273336082696915,
-0.02866789698600769,
-0.057467494159936905,
-0.029666615650057793,
0.0578940287232399,
-0.04017690196633339,
0.0725565105676651,
-0.058614581823349,
0.002249917248263955,
-0.034980... | |
1auqfs | Dominance Theory | It's for an Advanced Mathematics assignment. Any help would be lovely. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c90xjlt"
],
"text": [
"Post your answer and we will provide feedback. We will not, however, get you off the hook on your assignment without some of your own original thoughts."
],
"score": [
10
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Dominance Theory
It's for an Advanced Mathematics assignment. Any help would be lovely. | [
0.04529581964015961,
0.025427162647247314,
0.056693680584430695,
-0.02662518434226513,
-0.0649915337562561,
0.030463932082057,
-0.0804654061794281,
0.003161801490932703,
-0.020689744502305984,
0.04062981158494949,
-0.019849425181746483,
0.06513760983943939,
0.06902658194303513,
0.036032568... | |
6viimq | What relieving the US 7th Fleet commander accomplishes in light of the recent accidents. | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm0hbr2",
"dm0h492"
],
"text": [
"After an incident with one ship you can blame the captain (and they did, as well I'm sure as a whole host of other people). If the captain is not implementing the proper discipline and attention to details (as well as keeping morale high) it's his fault.\n\nAfter a second incident, you have to think the problem goes higher. If you just punish the junior navy officers, the higher ups will think they are untouchable. By punishing the admiral in charge you put on notice to all the other admirals and captains that shit is going down. You can sure bet that all admiral and captains in the whole navy are reviewing ship procedures as we speak (write).\n\nUnlike in the corporate or political worlds in the US, when a major accident happens in the military everyone in the chain of command is at fault.",
"\"Shit happens\" isn't a valid excuse in the military. Someone has to take the fall and besides, he obviously didn't crack enough heads after the last incident."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What relieving the US 7th Fleet commander accomplishes in light of the recent accidents.
[removed] | [
-0.042800791561603546,
0.036970105022192,
0.05836714059114456,
0.03595734015107155,
0.05862177908420563,
0.06853820383548737,
0.00012072730896761641,
0.010357122868299484,
-0.18141892552375793,
0.04554320499300957,
0.007383052259683609,
0.1064567044377327,
0.017100712284445763,
0.020219083... | |
71zu4v | Why do we lose our sense of "play" as we age? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dnera9u"
],
"text": [
"Just a guess, but maybe it's a learning vehicle wherein we practice life skills. Once we've mastered them we no longer need to \"play\"."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do we lose our sense of "play" as we age?
[removed] | [
0.13392187654972076,
0.004120238590985537,
0.07098955661058426,
-0.0324680469930172,
0.004463581368327141,
0.12073096632957458,
0.0956820473074913,
0.019986679777503014,
0.0060792784206569195,
0.05645199120044708,
-0.03369754180312157,
0.02645762450993061,
0.011893738061189651,
0.016523171... | |
1ecnqw | What is 3D printing and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c9z12xx"
],
"text": [
"3d printing is a way to turn a 3d model on your computer into a 3d model made of plastic. \n\nYou use your computer to either draw an object in 3d (the model) or borrow a model someone else has created. Then you use a special program to turn the model into a language your printer can understand. \n\nOnce you transfer that model to your printer (usually using an sd card) your 3d printer gets to work. It takes these long spools of plastic (sort of like huge spools of yarn, only its a bendy plastic) and melts it into a really neat pattern. You can think of It like a pen leaking ink in a cool pattern. This pen is called the \"extruder.\" \n\nAlmost as soon as that melted plastic leaves the extruder it cools back down to room temperature and hardens again. The printer melts the plastic out in the exact shape you had on your computer and it cools almost right away."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is 3D printing and how does it work?
| [
-0.1165861189365387,
0.013371632434427738,
-0.08808882534503937,
-0.003102538175880909,
-0.0409369170665741,
-0.045139335095882416,
0.02489134669303894,
-0.047513555735349655,
-0.06457584351301193,
0.005841813050210476,
-0.015909530222415924,
0.04506569355726242,
0.0202709399163723,
0.0340... | ||
6hnbqn | why is the ol sailor saying "pink sky at night sailors delight, pink sky in the morning sailors warning" so accurate? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dizlihl"
],
"text": [
"Pink or Red sky comes from sunlight going through clouds on the horizion. The saying works where weather mostly moves east to west so clouds on the horizon are likely to be over the viewer if they're to the east (ie in the morning) because they're likely to be moving west, rather than on the horizon to the west (ie in the evening) where they've either already passed over the viewer or have formed beyond the viewer."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why is the ol sailor saying "pink sky at night sailors delight, pink sky in the morning sailors warning" so accurate?
[removed] | [
0.036787718534469604,
0.06538829207420349,
0.06458856165409088,
0.09141828864812851,
0.09946015477180481,
-0.06828653812408447,
0.11587837338447571,
0.023333055898547173,
0.07041886448860168,
-0.08738803118467331,
-0.01919228956103325,
-0.0031392185483127832,
0.019109182059764862,
-0.01579... | |
1385qc | What is the nature of the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c71vjtx"
],
"text": [
"Puerto Rico is an *unincorporated organized territory* of the US.\n\nUnincorporated means that rights granted by the US Constitution are not fully extended to citizens of Puerto Rico."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is the nature of the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico?
| [
0.10568718612194061,
-0.011494669131934643,
-0.07312313467264175,
0.06985730677843094,
-0.061711762100458145,
0.00908720213919878,
-0.04636063426733017,
-0.06496533751487732,
-0.0022892234846949577,
-0.047154489904642105,
0.02816646173596382,
0.04337063804268837,
-0.006120447069406509,
0.0... | ||
3qjala | How does slowing down time in a game work? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwfod27"
],
"text": [
"You can stop time in a game by simply not updating the state of the world. Objects don't move unless your code calculates their next position and updates them so if you don't do that then nothing will move or change.\n\nYou can run a physics simulation at normal speed by taking the time that's passed since the last frame and updating the position and motion of objects to match.\n\nTo run the simulation slower you \"lie\" about how much time has passed. If you step the simulation forward 0.001s at a time when in reality you're updating every 0.01s then it will appear to run ten times slower. The code doesn't care, it's just crunching numbers."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does slowing down time in a game work?
| [
0.07262490689754486,
0.049717146903276443,
0.024678660556674004,
-0.009258056990802288,
0.054653801023960114,
-0.016887739300727844,
-0.03267499804496765,
-0.04546613618731499,
0.09839774668216705,
0.01635025069117546,
-0.024683700874447823,
0.06263416260480881,
-0.05909435823559761,
-0.01... | ||
2vnuni | How do avalanches really work? | In movies and television, avalanches can be triggered by all manner of loud noises, is it really like this? Does the ground actually shake right before an avalanche? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"con9spv"
],
"text": [
"There are two main types of avalanches.\n\nIn very steep terrain, you can get loose snow avalanches, which are kinda like the classic image of a snowball rolling down a hill and becoming larger and larger. The snow doesn't actually gather like that, but [you will get an inverted V-shaped path](_URL_2_), and they tend to start by someone or something jarring some snow loose (like with the snow ball). They tend not to be terribly dangerous, though, since if you cause one you'll be at the top, where there's not much snow.\n\nThe more dangerous kind of avalanche is the slab avalanche. A slab avalanche is caused by having [strong, cohesive snow on top of weak snow](_URL_0_). One great example of weak snow is [depth hoar](_URL_4_), which are ice crystals that bind together about as well as table sugar. If it rains or melts and refreezes, a solid layer of ice can also work as a weak layer.\n\nSlab avalanches tend to happen when the weak layer can just barely support the stress of the slab on top of it. You introduce some additional stress, and at the weakest point nearby, the slab will fracture and just start to slide. [Afterwards, you can very clearly see where the slab broke off from the snow up-slope of it](_URL_3_).\n\n > In movies and television, avalanches can be triggered by all manner of loud noises, is it really like this?\n\nWhile sound can technically trigger an avalanche, it would need to be unimaginably, painfully, deafeningly, ear-bleedingly loud. Something like firing a rifle, or standing right next to a jet-engine.\n\nAlmost always, avalanches that humans are caught in are caused by the *weight* of a human on the snow. 90%+ of avalanches that skiiers are caught in were caused by someone in their party.\n\n > Does the ground actually shake right before an avalanche?\n\nNot that I know of.\n\nHowever, snow *can* collapse with a [whumpf](_URL_1_). Whumpfing snow is a gigantic warning sign of instability, but it doesn't mean that an avalanche is just about to start. Only that if the snow you were standing on were steeper, you'd already be starting to slide."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/nie/archives/2007/011110-2.gif",
"http://blog.sfgate.com/ski/2012/12/16/whumph-the-sound-of-avalanche-danger-and-how-to-avoid-it/",
"http://go.owu.edu/~physics/StudentResearch/2007/ClintDavis/loose_snow.jpg",
"http://www.mtavalanche.com/sites/default/files/images/chabot.jpg",
"http://jeffreyhammond.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IMG_7991.jpg"
]
} | train_eli5 | How do avalanches really work?
In movies and television, avalanches can be triggered by all manner of loud noises, is it really like this? Does the ground actually shake right before an avalanche? | [
-0.042420439422130585,
-0.08009320497512817,
0.08045624196529388,
0.015380306169390678,
-0.01893184706568718,
-0.05147796496748924,
0.04986484348773956,
-0.023474864661693573,
0.12382561713457108,
-0.06226060912013054,
-0.08004988729953766,
0.05149054527282715,
0.0008627439965493977,
-0.04... | |
1xsqxo | Most mammals with bald areas have them around the crotch and stomach. Why are we the opposite? | Humans have hairy crotches. Most human men have hairy chests and stomachs too, but we rarely have hairy backs. Dogs have very thin stomach/crotch hair, monkeys seem to have no hair in the crotch, and generally animals have either no fur or much less fur on their undersides than their backs. Why are we so different? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfearg2",
"cfeb1u4",
"cfeas8v",
"cfefeup",
"cfeb5jl",
"cfee2tj",
"cfebu7g",
"cfed9fa",
"cfear4j",
"cfed011",
"cfep84k",
"cfewcsk",
"cfei36q",
"cfeexej",
"cfef39m",
"cfenx5e",
"cfemyoa",
"cfed720",
"cferryw",
"cff0r60",
"cfebm2v",
"cfecoob",
"cfebnp8",
"cfebwnv",
"cfegc2o",
"cfei806",
"cfeqkic",
"cfenmna"
],
"text": [
"According to this \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's because when we split from primates having a bush was sexy. The bigger the better.",
"Humans, standing upright, need protection for vulnerable areas such as the chest, stomach and genitals. In addition, the hair serves to draw attention to those areas and provide for sexual selection. Think peacocks and displays of virility.",
"I don't know about animals but humans have hair where skin touches skin (like armpits and private parts) to prevent friction that would cause chafing/irritation.",
"We have little body hair so we can cool ourselves while running. We are the only animal on this planet capable of cooling itself so efficiently while at a \"gallop/run/etc\". We can run farther, faster, then everything else. We may lose at sprints to some animals...but when it comes to distance we are the reigning kings of efficiency in locomotion.",
"I always thought that we have hair in **places where most of our heat escapes** i.e.: chest and head or **places we have holes and we don't want dirt getting in** i.e: eyes lips ears genitalia ..etc",
"ITT: Science doesn't know, but people have proposed various unsupported bullshit ideas using language from evolution theories.",
"Pubes cultivate and share our sex musk. Really! In the linked article it tells of a study where women were able to sniff out sexy men via sweat. Hair near specific sweat glands cultivates it. Mmmm \n\n\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)",
"If I'm not mistaken, areas covered in pubic hair (e.g. Armpits, genitals, etc.) are covered in apocrine sweat glands which release pheromones. The hair in these areas act as wicks to help get our \"scent\" into the air to potential mates.",
"This is a question I've been wondering about for a while. Now if only someone who knew about it would comment....",
"No one knows for sure.\n\nIf I had to guess, given that we fuck and can get impregnated year round, it's probably nature's popup timer.\n\nI'm sure that's an unpleasant thought for some, but be realistic as to what kind of mores hunter-gatherers likely had. I doubt fucking a 13 year old was outside of the bounds of acceptable behavior.",
"Our underside is no longer our stomach, hence the need for hair as a protection as we would move forward through brush and whatnot. Whereas dogs do not need the protection on bottom, only on top. \n\nHumans have prominent pubic hair as it is a sexual modifier and social organ. It indicates sexual maturity and offers some protection. Also, our body odor is more easily diffused into the air as we walk when we have pubic hairs to cause more friction.\n\nHope that helps.",
"Actually our pubic hair is meant to trap the stench. And I didn't make that up.",
"I think the point is to draw attention to the pubic area as a sign of sexual maturity. Thus humans have hairy crotches because they lack hair everywhere else making us the mirror image of pretty much every other mammal.",
"I think it could be that the human body uses developed pubic hair to signal sexual maturity to the opposite sex. The same way beards work for men. \n\nIt is kinda funny because maybe nature didn't factor in humans clothing themselves and making the system less useful, also .. shaving ;)",
"I remember reading they trap pheromones, and also work as sort of a lubricant at those joints, reducing friction and preventing chafing.",
"We are largely hairless because we used to be endurance hunters and it helped prevent us from over-heating.",
"Simple really, They can lick their own balls! We can not!",
"All of those places are areas with skin to skin contact and shearing motion. I've always thought that hair functions as a sort of solid lubricant in those areas, to prevent chafing.",
"I dunno, I'm still trying to contemplate the greatest mystery of life..... Why do I have nipples?",
"So for the actual answer...\n\nThe best answer is that we don't really know. The prevailing theory is that during our early history, parasites were a very big problem with our ancient ancestors. Lack of hair over certain parts of the body became a great mating benefit because it 1.) made you less likely to have parasites and 2.) made it much easier for the opposite sex to identify whether or not you had parasites. So thinning hair made you less susceptible to parasites and more attractive to the opposite sex.",
"It could be that there is more than one set of genes coding for hair. Some genes for the thin hair in crotch/head/belly, and others for fur. Supposing we're all mutant bastards without the fur gene, we might still have the patchy fuzz elsewhere. (dogs, et. al are not exactly hairless on their bellies, just relatively so)",
"I am by no means an expert but I'll give it a shot. Humans evolved to have no fur like primates and this causes us to give off heat very rapidly. In order to keep the important bits as warm as possible (head, heart, reproductive organs) we needed the hair to stay there",
"Because of how we stand and move (in comparison to most animals), we need hair to cover the parts of us that get exposed (think about if you were have to run to the nearest McDonald's naked, how happy you would be that your chest, crotch, and head have hair)",
"I once read that pubic hair was there to trap feramones in our sweat, which the human nose used to be able to smell",
"What about Neoteny? This is a fascinating subject. Maybe the next question is why the brain size doubled.. Maybe the two are related.",
"Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Bonobos, the closest relatives of the Human, all appear to have hairy crotches, chests and bellies.",
"> but we rarely have hairy backs\n\nThat's because I'm carrying enough for half of you.",
"Because... don't know about you, but I have trouble scratching my crotch with my foot."
],
"score": [
589,
241,
220,
61,
40,
29,
20,
15,
14,
8,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/02/why-humans-alone-have-pubic-ha.html",
"http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1757/"
]
} | train_eli5 | Most mammals with bald areas have them around the crotch and stomach. Why are we the opposite?
Humans have hairy crotches. Most human men have hairy chests and stomachs too, but we rarely have hairy backs. Dogs have very thin stomach/crotch hair, monkeys seem to have no hair in the crotch, and generally animals have either no fur or much less fur on their undersides than their backs. Why are we so different? | [
0.051273513585329056,
0.03978460282087326,
0.06670687347650528,
0.057683639228343964,
-0.03553437441587448,
-0.05878480151295662,
0.020499158650636673,
0.015176761895418167,
0.09435094147920609,
0.0606522411108017,
0.040376316756010056,
-0.0416959673166275,
0.00013450541882775724,
-0.02418... | |
3nsk67 | Why does being hit in the face hurt more that being hit in the rest of your body? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvqx07u",
"cvqwh5r",
"cvqyey7"
],
"text": [
"One reason for it is the increased amount of nerve endings in your face. You know how you can feel it if there's a hair touching your lip, or any subtle touch for that matter? Now compare that to a body area like your back. Nerves there are less dense and more spread out, so you might not feel a touch if it is light enough. If you google the word \"homunculus\" you will get a picture with body parts that are sized proportionate to how well they can feel things. So you'll notice that things like lips, hands, tongue, and genitalia are all very large. These are the parts of our body that are best at discerning the tactile stimuli in our environment. That's a long winded way of saying that our faces have a lot of dexterity and high perceptive properties, so it hurts if somebody punches you there.",
"This has to be a perspective thing, I've had liver, kidney and groin punches that hurt way more than any punch. I get that the brain wants to protect itself, so if that's the case am I'm in the minority, maybe that could be why, but personally I don't agree.",
"In addition to the thorough answer that /u/nicetomeetyoufriend provided, our faces don't have very much padding. It's just skin and bone, with a little bit of muscle and fat."
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does being hit in the face hurt more that being hit in the rest of your body?
| [
0.09665725380182266,
-0.03572296351194382,
0.04011542722582817,
0.13596679270267487,
0.026681046932935715,
0.016196396201848984,
0.039797574281692505,
0.04266295209527016,
0.06034182757139206,
0.032500095665454865,
-0.027757395058870316,
-0.0757569894194603,
-0.008650146424770355,
0.057725... | ||
2v56vm | how did Chromecast become so huge and popular? It is pretty much the go to standard I see in most apps no matter if it is android or iOS. | Especially since there are lots other choices including apple pay, roku and etc. And I'm not saying its bad. I use a Chromecast and I love it, I'm just wondering how a new product like Chromecast pretty much took over and became mainstream so fast. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"coej7ro",
"coejgd8"
],
"text": [
"It costs 35 dollars and have basically zero setup or learning curve.",
"/u/Hodldown is correct; also, everyone knows who Google is. However, I know way more people who own an Apple TV than Chromecast."
],
"score": [
10,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how did Chromecast become so huge and popular? It is pretty much the go to standard I see in most apps no matter if it is android or iOS.
Especially since there are lots other choices including apple pay, roku and etc. And I'm not saying its bad. I use a Chromecast and I love it, I'm just wondering how a new product like Chromecast pretty much took over and became mainstream so fast. | [
0.002689406042918563,
-0.09539473801851273,
0.05882900953292847,
-0.05501866340637207,
0.08865592628717422,
0.07094147056341171,
-0.030593568459153175,
0.11424785852432251,
-0.04818692058324814,
0.01964590884745121,
0.0007592692272737622,
0.050866708159446716,
0.053459860384464264,
-0.0290... | |
2zy5w0 | Why does eating too much candy make you sick? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cpncpjq"
],
"text": [
"it's as simple as too much sugar. your body can't process it."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does eating too much candy make you sick?
| [
0.06025415286421776,
-0.014072389341890812,
0.03172416239976883,
0.0838216096162796,
-0.013082470744848251,
-0.012801011092960835,
0.08964701741933823,
0.10054553300142288,
-0.05347883701324463,
0.015204431489109993,
-0.04069402441382408,
-0.03259367495775223,
0.02687958814203739,
-0.07721... | ||
2jw2bz | What part of the brain interprets humor? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"clfl2yq"
],
"text": [
"According to a quick google, '2 cm x 2 cm was identified on the left superior frontal gyrus' .... so a bit of the front left lobe of your brain :)"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What part of the brain interprets humor?
| [
0.14245401322841644,
-0.05572003871202469,
-0.022578030824661255,
0.022364065051078796,
0.021069632843136787,
-0.0035214850213378668,
0.11164224147796631,
0.013652199879288673,
0.03647376224398613,
-0.03026403859257698,
-0.0019704937003552914,
-0.045888956636190414,
-0.08577575534582138,
-... | ||
1z1186 | What is the Swiss Bank and why is it so important? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfpjlxk"
],
"text": [
"The Swiss used to have a law that made it illegal for a Swiss Bank to disclose the name or any identifying information about the owner of an account.\n\nThat meant that if you put money into an anonymous Swiss Bank account, no country's police could subpoena that bank to force them to disclose who's money that was. \n\nIn other words, if you were a drug dealer or a tax evader you could hide your money and that would make it very hard to convict you of controlling that money.\n\nRecently those laws have been relaxed. The absolute prohibition on such disclosures is no longer in effect."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is the Swiss Bank and why is it so important?
| [
-0.004774494096636772,
0.07036949694156647,
-0.07150367647409439,
0.001964160706847906,
0.07122622430324554,
-0.07403005659580231,
0.04490846395492554,
0.04292885214090347,
0.030476978048682213,
-0.06430598348379135,
-0.08973541110754013,
0.0026635127142071724,
-0.026413731276988983,
-0.03... | ||
6s6p9w | Is it technically possible for countries to 'build' a nuclear bomb, even if not given the technology by another nuclear country? | I was wondering whether North Korea, or any other country to that regard, even if not giving the 'technology' by another nuclear country would have been able to obtain nuclear power.
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlafqxx",
"dlaj12w"
],
"text": [
"All the theory is well known, you can search it online right now. Nations are usually limited by the availability of weapons grade fissile material for the bomb itself and the elaborate detonators required, which are much harder to obtain or construct.\n\nTo make the bomb useful they also need a delivery system, which requires advanced ballistic missile technology that again is hard to build.\n\nSo the basic science is public knowledge, but managing to build your own nuclear detonation device with your own weapons grade uranium mounted on your own ICBM is a more difficult and costly.",
"The first country built it without being given the technology by another nuclear country; ergo, yes."
],
"score": [
7,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Is it technically possible for countries to 'build' a nuclear bomb, even if not given the technology by another nuclear country?
I was wondering whether North Korea, or any other country to that regard, even if not giving the 'technology' by another nuclear country would have been able to obtain nuclear power. | [
-0.006438432261347771,
0.07198384404182434,
-0.06273562461137772,
-0.016152337193489075,
0.018873419612646103,
-0.06526372581720352,
0.009016229771077633,
-0.038440726697444916,
-0.07641516625881195,
0.024700112640857697,
0.04409930482506752,
-0.000836002582218498,
0.08646073937416077,
0.0... | |
8zvmne | Can you file a sexual harassment complaint against the “kiss cam” at sports stadiums? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e2lox3a",
"e2lp1hz"
],
"text": [
"No. There’s no “harassment”. They may be putting you on the spot but they can’t force you to kiss and they’ll move on if you don’t.",
"Nothing is forced, many people kiss on the cheek on those cams, which even in today's world wouldn't get much traction as a sexual harassment case."
],
"score": [
5,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Can you file a sexual harassment complaint against the “kiss cam” at sports stadiums?
[removed] | [
-0.033109188079833984,
0.10834309458732605,
-0.033770136535167694,
-0.07918477803468704,
0.05963831767439842,
0.04214838519692421,
0.018558001145720482,
-0.035652436316013336,
0.04758147522807121,
0.04703175276517868,
-0.005362937692552805,
0.02003125101327896,
-0.050930000841617584,
0.094... | |
27xsqk | the new qualifications for student loan forgiveness after 20 years. | Say I still owe ~15,000 from my student loan that I took out around 25 years ago (I'm 48 now). Say I make just under $40,000 a year.
Would I qualify for the forgiveness? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ci5gcry"
],
"text": [
"You have to pay a percent of your paycheck to your loans for a certain number of years (10 for government work and 20 years for private industry) to be eligible for forgiveness. The time starts when you sign up for the program not when you started paying your loans personally. For all we know you could be paying off your interest only."
],
"score": [
9
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | the new qualifications for student loan forgiveness after 20 years.
Say I still owe ~15,000 from my student loan that I took out around 25 years ago (I'm 48 now). Say I make just under $40,000 a year. Would I qualify for the forgiveness? | [
-0.020082201808691025,
0.05699697136878967,
0.08728847652673721,
-0.02728990837931633,
0.020221330225467682,
-0.06393599510192871,
-0.07141266763210297,
-0.054246898740530014,
0.01930784061551094,
-0.01362687349319458,
0.08738118410110474,
0.0023968839086592197,
0.06332726031541824,
-0.021... | |
4cawz0 | Why do we celebrate the birth of Jesus on a set date every year but we celebrate his death on different days depending on full moons and the spring equinox? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d1ghy2g",
"d1ghv77",
"d1ghste",
"d1gir35",
"d1gie3r",
"d1gi83g",
"d1gj8ag"
],
"text": [
"We don't know what date Jesus was born on. By the time people started using Dec 25th as the date, they were using a modern-ish calendar. \n\nJesus is recorded in the Bible as having died on the Friday near the Jewish Passover feast. The Jews at the time had their own calendar, which was based on the lunar cycle. So Passover is still calculated based on that, and Good Friday/Easter are calculated in a related way.",
"A lot of Christian Holy Days were set up to correspond to feast days from other belief systems. It's a whole lot easier to gain converts if you don't change any of their traditions and instead just alter the focus.",
"Both Christian holidays piggy-back on traditional already-existing celebrations and follow the existing practices for scheduling.",
"Easter corresponded with the Jewish holiday of Passover.\n\nJudaism uses a complicated calendar that has months that correspond to the lunar cycle. To keep it in sync with the solar year, they have three different kinds of leap days and even sometimes a leap month. So on the Jewish calendar, Passover and Easter *are* the same day each year.\n\nNotes that dates also shift around in the Gregorian calendar, and we don't bother to correct them. Between 1903 and 2099, the calendar and the solar year will be almost [three days out of sync](_URL_0_).",
"Because Christmas represents the winter solstice which was being celebrated long before Christianity.",
"When the date for Christmas was set, people were not already celebrating Christmas on their own. So basically, the church made up a new feast and a pope was able to say \"Jesus was born on December 25th, so we will have the Feast of Nativity on that day every year.\" \n\nEaster was celebrated by early Christians and its date was calculated in different ways by different groups, but the calculation was usually based on Jewish Passover since that's when the Last Supper happened. Since Passover is based on a lunar calendar and the date changes every year, the same thing happens with Easter.",
"The date on Easter actually has very specific requirements. It's held on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21st. The reason it's March 21st is because March 20th is the Spring/Vernal/March Equinox. It's done like this because Jesus died on the first Sunday after Passover, but because Passover also varies each year, Christians celebrated Easter on different times as a result, with it being on the first Sunday after Passover. Christians eventually grew to dislike this as it involved waiting to be told by a Rabbi when Passover was going to be and then celebrating Easter the next Sunday, so started doing it this way rather than just taking a specific date and using it or stick it on a Pagan holiday (like with most other holidays)."
],
"score": [
46,
18,
18,
7,
7,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Gregoriancalendarleap_solstice.svg"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do we celebrate the birth of Jesus on a set date every year but we celebrate his death on different days depending on full moons and the spring equinox?
[removed] | [
0.02901616133749485,
0.1100466325879097,
0.09036368876695633,
-0.024241914972662926,
0.009078893810510635,
-0.004019984044134617,
-0.041955702006816864,
-0.03810838237404823,
0.05597273260354996,
-0.029259011149406433,
0.02456243708729744,
-0.027178851887583733,
-0.047216784209012985,
-0.0... | |
4yvrrv | Why do console games not use 16x Anisotropic Filtering? | I watch Digital Foundry's videos on youtube in which they analyze console and PC ports of video games. For some reason, almost all console games they play only have about 4x Anisotropic Filtering, never the full 16x. When I turn it up to 16x vs 4x on my PC, there is literally no performance difference. My framerate doesn't change at all, but distant textures look so much better.
Anyways, is there any reason why console games don't utilize full Anisotropic Filtering when it has such a minor performance penalty? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d6qr8jz",
"d6qrtom"
],
"text": [
"> When I turn it up to 16x vs 4x on my PC, there is literally no performance difference.\n\nConsoles are built on the budget hardware of the time and are expected to age for 6-8 years. \"Good enough\" rules console development decisions.\n\nConsole players are expected to sit farther back from the screen too so narrower fields of view are common, and better texture filtering just isn't a priority.",
"Just wanted to add, you likely have an fps limit in the game you are playing, which of course wouldn't cause frames to drop if your PC can handle above that fps cap."
],
"score": [
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do console games not use 16x Anisotropic Filtering?
I watch Digital Foundry's videos on youtube in which they analyze console and PC ports of video games. For some reason, almost all console games they play only have about 4x Anisotropic Filtering, never the full 16x. When I turn it up to 16x vs 4x on my PC, there is literally no performance difference. My framerate doesn't change at all, but distant textures look so much better. Anyways, is there any reason why console games don't utilize full Anisotropic Filtering when it has such a minor performance penalty? | [
0.0930413082242012,
0.013665386475622654,
0.08415031433105469,
-0.09645945578813553,
0.04446771740913391,
-0.033504411578178406,
-0.06409411132335663,
-0.022205283865332603,
0.036082923412323,
0.00713872816413641,
-0.05237307399511337,
0.04211194068193436,
-0.09590692818164825,
0.003778694... | |
2y0nl9 | During WWII when Jews were being killed overtime, why didn't the remaining Jews pretended not be Jews to save themselves? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cp53wc9",
"cp53yib",
"cp5z27o",
"cp54aqh",
"cp558cf"
],
"text": [
"Because everyone already knew they were Jews and there was frequently government documentation demonstrating they were Jews.",
"Many did, but almost all of the Jews had to register with the government well before the camps and killing began so they were already known to be Jews.",
"There were a large number of barriers to pretending to not be Jewish. for example:\n\n* Most Jews' mother tongue was Yiddish. They might have spoken the local language too, but perhaps with an accent\n\n* Difficult to forge papers\n\n* Might \"look Jewish\". Anecdotally, Jews who didn't \"look Jewish\" had a better survival rate.\n\n* The Nazis worked to keep it secret that they were killing Jews, so people weren't necessarily sure of the stakes involved. One person might be able to pass for not Jewish, but what about the rest of your family and friends? Would you abandon them to their fate? People struggled with this issue. They knew they couldn't take their parents into hiding or into an underground existence, or they could do it but they'd have to leave their spouse behind. \n\n* In a lot of places, this is what happened: the Nazis invaded, the locals fought back. The Nazis took possession of a town, then quickly separated the Jews from everyone else. There wasn't time to go underground or pretend you weren't Jewish. If you were living in the town, as you had been doing your whole life, then everyone knew you were Jewish. No hiding. Of course you'd want to run away, but so did everyone else, Jewish or not. But the town was conquered, there was no running away. At this point, they'd tell the Jews that they were going to be transported somewhere or other. Then they'd march everyone out of town and kill them all in a mass grave. In other cases, they'd round everyone up, giving them 5 minutes to gather--surprise, violence, and speed were the weapons. Then you'd gather, and they'd put you in a ghetto. One day they'd rouse everyone in the middle of the night in the ghetto. No place to run",
"Some did try to pretend. Those who caught on to the pre-holocaust registration either fled the countries or got fake papers/tried to avoid registering. Most dutifully registered and that's how they were caught. Many felt compelled to own their Jewish heritage and stand up for the god and religion they believed in - they felt dying for being \"gods chosen people\" was a worthy death. No different than believers of many other religions.\n\nAlso they were commonly snagged for \"looking\" Jewish. Some of the Ashkenazi features are pretty strong, and whether they were practicing Judaism or not, simply having the Jewish lineage was enough to get them killed.",
"In Norway you needed to carry your passport around at all times and in Jews passport there was a huge \"J\" on the first page (remember NO ONE LIKED THE JEWS, NOT EVEN USA) to mark them, if you where caught without your passport they sent you to jail anyway. \n\nThere is altso the fact that circumsicion is not performed in europe as standard. Jews did, so if there was a question if a guy was jewish or not they just pulled his pants down and had a look."
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | During WWII when Jews were being killed overtime, why didn't the remaining Jews pretended not be Jews to save themselves?
| [
0.043922144919633865,
0.10800664871931076,
-0.030318884178996086,
0.002311526332050562,
0.03383297100663185,
0.015655487775802612,
0.008970553055405617,
-0.015894699841737747,
0.016862155869603157,
0.020459217950701714,
-0.011711499653756618,
0.01968180015683174,
0.0007378820446319878,
0.0... | ||
2a72u5 | How is the "1 in 35 million chance of a shark bite" statistic calculated? | Or any such statistic (e.g. You have a 1 in 1 million chance of being struck by lightning, etc.) for that matter.
My friend asked me this a couple of weeks ago. The only reasonable explanation I could think of was that they take the total number of bite victims compared to the estimated number of swimmers in waters where sharks frequent.
Edit: It seems I was more or less correct. Number of incidents / total number of people exposed to situation that could lead to said incident = chance of said incident happening to any given person.
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cis5yyl",
"cis4jht",
"cis6pwq",
"cis5cui",
"cisl1zl"
],
"text": [
"It is based on beach attendance. [The university of Florida has some statistics that get you to a 1 in 11.5 million chance of being attacked by a shark](_URL_0_). \n\nEstimated attendance at US beaches is ~264 million. The number of shark attacks is 23. 264 million divided by 23 give you 11.5 million. That is, for every 11.5 million beach visitors, one was attacked by a shark in the year 2000.",
"I'm no mathemagician, but I think it has something to do with the total world's population, the number of shark attacks per year, and the total number of individuals attacked by sharks.",
"I will state up front that I am not an expert in this. However, I have taken post-graduate probability and statistics. And looking at this on the surface, there are a couple of possibilities:\n\n#1) Survey a random sample of people.\n\nNow, the obvious problem here is that with the odds calculated, the sample size for such a poll would have to ridiculous. So, for practical purposes that rules this out.\n\n#2) Calculate a contingent probability.\n\nBased on #1, it would make more sense to do a simple poll of a random sample of people to determine how many people have been to a beach in their lifetime. The random sample of people should provide a good benchmark for the proportion of population that goes to the beach. Then, in addition, you need some beach metrics for average attendance per year. This will allow you to extrapolate the average number of beach visits per beachgoer. Finally, take the number of shark attacks and calculate a simple probability...\n\nWhat is the probability of a random beach-goer being attacked by a shark in a single beach visit? P{Attack | Visit}\n\nWith that answer...and the information for average number of visits per beachgoer, you can calculate the probability that an average person will not be attacked in any visit. The probability of attack is 1 minus that.\n\nLike I said, I'm not an expert. Statisticians might have a much simpler method than that, but that's how I would set up the math problem to get the information based on statistics that are readily available.",
"I think it's actually done by population. There is a nice freakonomics article here: _URL_1_",
"They made a guy swim into the ocean a bunch of times until he got eaten."
],
"score": [
40,
9,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/Statistics/beachattacks.htm"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/Statistics/beachattacks.htm",
"http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/08/how-are-sharks-less-dangerous-than-vending-machines-an-exercise-in-conditional-risk/"
]
} | train_eli5 | How is the "1 in 35 million chance of a shark bite" statistic calculated?
Or any such statistic (e.g. You have a 1 in 1 million chance of being struck by lightning, etc.) for that matter. My friend asked me this a couple of weeks ago. The only reasonable explanation I could think of was that they take the total number of bite victims compared to the estimated number of swimmers in waters where sharks frequent. Edit: It seems I was more or less correct. Number of incidents / total number of people exposed to situation that could lead to said incident = chance of said incident happening to any given person. _URL_0_ | [
0.016705017536878586,
0.0084115881472826,
0.04069060459733009,
0.07434801757335663,
-0.01761508174240589,
-0.06537540256977081,
0.03817052021622658,
0.1035706102848053,
-0.019601311534643173,
0.09669437259435654,
0.047674477100372314,
-0.1606113612651825,
0.040951382368803024,
0.0577135272... | |
1jwgrf | I would like to know the name of and discuss the concept in which excellence starts becoming undetectable except to experts. | I've always been completely fascinated by human abilities. If you mention the International Space Station to your average person they might think it's pretty cool, but they probably have no idea how cool it actually is, or how much resources and mind-blowing ingenuity goes into it. To fully understand it you would have to read quite a lot about it, something also I have not done. The fact is there is a gap between how impressive it is and how impressive it seems to the people who don't know much about it.
Again more recently I talked my girlfriend into driving out of town (to the only theater equipped with it near where we live) to see Pacific Rim in Dolby Atmos. (For the interested though not pertinent to my post: _URL_0_ )
The difference in technical ingenuity, possibilities for the filmmakers, and (in my opinion) audience immersion from the previous sound systems that maxed out at 7 channels (Atmos is not a channel-based workflow but if we were to compare it would max out on well over 100!) is staggering. The actual difference seems to be not that much to untrained ears. I can easily hear that the pans are much smoother and more frequent and that individual sounds move more naturally in the theater, but apparently it's pretty subtle because she said she could hardly tell if at all. It just makes me sad that all this engineering, programming and human progress happened and only a few really interested people care or can tell.
Does this concept have a name? Why is it like that with people? I mean I can understand that you wouldn't understand something you haven't learned about, but I find it is sort of celebrated by many people. We even have cautionary tales championing calling bullshit on supposed snake oil like The Emperor's New Clothes, but I can think of no such tales that teach that maybe something is amazing even if you can't tell yourself. So many times I have heard people say stuff like “Experts! Hah! What do they know?”, “The film critics know nothing about films (because I never agree with them)!”, “Just because he has a doctorate doesn’t mean he knows anything.” and then people around agreeing with these sentiments. Why isn't more popular to think that knowing things actually means you know things? Are people that afraid of facing how little they know about everything individually?
**TL:DR** – A lot of things are really great, and some of them are quite complex and often it takes a bit of knowledge on the matter to truly understand how great something is. I was wondering if the gap between how great something actually is, and how great it seems to untrained eyes has a name and if there's been any psychological discussion on the matter. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cbizslj",
"cbjay9v"
],
"text": [
"Perhaps not exactly what you're asking about, but has close parallels, I recommend you take a look at the Wikipedia article for [Dunning-Kruger effect.](_URL_0_) \n\nYou have to have a certain amount of knowledge first to even appreciate how much you don't know!\n\n\n > Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:\n\n > * tend to overestimate their own level of skill\n* fail to recognize genuine skill in others;\n* fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;\n* recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.",
"Not sure whether this helps, but the best phrase I can think of to describe your situation is the \"refined palate.\" That can be a literal taste palate or a figurative one.\n\nIf I get a whiff of two perfumes, I smell A) flowers, and B) slightly different flowers. In contrast, people with extremely refined scent palates can precisely identify all the different, intermingled scents in a way that seems like magic to me. They have sensitized their palates-- through education and repeated exposure-- in order to appreciate the subtle differences in scents. Same goes for tastes, sounds, etc.\n\nI'm not sure what psychological discussion has been done on the matter. For me, it suffices to say that education and experience with a given subject render one better equipped to perceive it in finer detail and analyze it in greater depth. \n\nOne thing I might add is that our understanding of any given subject tends to ratchet ever upwards (barring a brain injury or something). A musical neophyte listening to Dvorak's New World Symphony might think, \"huh, there are some strings and horns playing neat music.\" On a second listen, that information is no longer news. They pick up on something new, \"the horns play *these* parts, while the strings play *those* parts.\" Now they're facile with that information, and on a third listen they start picking up on themes or whatever. \n\nOn the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a classical music aficionado who has heard that symphony and countless others, countless times. They are quite facile with ideas like melody and harmony, all the instruments and their parts, crescendo and decrescendo, how different classical styles contrast, etc. When they listen to Dvorak, the idea that \"some strings and horns play neat music\" is too simple and boring. Like watching a movie that you've seen too many times, it (meaning the low-level analysis) no longer stimulates the brain much. But the deeper analysis, full of nuances and subtleties, stays fresh and intriguing to the hungry (and prepared) mind."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://vimeo.com/40699179"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect"
]
} | train_eli5 | I would like to know the name of and discuss the concept in which excellence starts becoming undetectable except to experts.
I've always been completely fascinated by human abilities. If you mention the International Space Station to your average person they might think it's pretty cool, but they probably have no idea how cool it actually is, or how much resources and mind-blowing ingenuity goes into it. To fully understand it you would have to read quite a lot about it, something also I have not done. The fact is there is a gap between how impressive it is and how impressive it seems to the people who don't know much about it. Again more recently I talked my girlfriend into driving out of town (to the only theater equipped with it near where we live) to see Pacific Rim in Dolby Atmos. (For the interested though not pertinent to my post: _URL_0_ ) The difference in technical ingenuity, possibilities for the filmmakers, and (in my opinion) audience immersion from the previous sound systems that maxed out at 7 channels (Atmos is not a channel-based workflow but if we were to compare it would max out on well over 100!) is staggering. The actual difference seems to be not that much to untrained ears. I can easily hear that the pans are much smoother and more frequent and that individual sounds move more naturally in the theater, but apparently it's pretty subtle because she said she could hardly tell if at all. It just makes me sad that all this engineering, programming and human progress happened and only a few really interested people care or can tell. Does this concept have a name? Why is it like that with people? I mean I can understand that you wouldn't understand something you haven't learned about, but I find it is sort of celebrated by many people. We even have cautionary tales championing calling bullshit on supposed snake oil like The Emperor's New Clothes, but I can think of no such tales that teach that maybe something is amazing even if you can't tell yourself. So many times I have heard people say stuff like “Experts! Hah! What do they know?”, “The film critics know nothing about films (because I never agree with them)!”, “Just because he has a doctorate doesn’t mean he knows anything.” and then people around agreeing with these sentiments. Why isn't more popular to think that knowing things actually means you know things? Are people that afraid of facing how little they know about everything individually? **TL:DR** – A lot of things are really great, and some of them are quite complex and often it takes a bit of knowledge on the matter to truly understand how great something is. I was wondering if the gap between how great something actually is, and how great it seems to untrained eyes has a name and if there's been any psychological discussion on the matter. | [
0.08134696632623672,
-0.0896494910120964,
-0.010423741303384304,
-0.04215605556964874,
-0.04047364741563797,
-0.026324031874537468,
0.014602509327232838,
0.03315185010433197,
-0.025949619710445404,
0.0011039817472919822,
-0.17122642695903778,
0.03102060966193676,
0.06308847665786743,
0.001... | |
1ut4yc | How is it that at night I can sleep continuously for eight hours, but if I take a daytime nap I wake after 20 minutes? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cele9fh"
],
"text": [
"Humans have evolved to be diurnal creatures. Our sleep cycles, for the most part, are tied to the sun cycle. When the sun is up, we're up and at 'em -- hunting, foraging, farming, what-have-you. When the sun goes down, we're huddled around our fires and in our caves for warm and safety. It's a legacy of our ancestry when the darkness could men death. You can nap during the day, but many people find that their sleep during the day is somewhat less-than-restful, and that they aren't able to sleep for long periods during the day."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How is it that at night I can sleep continuously for eight hours, but if I take a daytime nap I wake after 20 minutes?
| [
0.04300106689333916,
0.022254930809140205,
-0.027516063302755356,
0.10820630937814713,
0.04627090319991112,
-0.029503753408789635,
-0.02352830395102501,
0.017372524365782738,
0.07834279537200928,
-0.02829926833510399,
-0.0858403891324997,
0.03314845636487007,
0.010294733569025993,
0.102874... | ||
299oxv | why, 25 years later, is there a new inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ciit3s5"
],
"text": [
"Documents that were not released at the time of the original inquiry were made public, which have evidence to malpractice and cause the formation of another inquiry."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why, 25 years later, is there a new inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster?
| [
0.008855517022311687,
-0.023005813360214233,
0.04097888618707657,
0.04909015819430351,
0.1073274090886116,
-0.0006620550993829966,
-0.06372348219156265,
-0.0032091797329485416,
-0.0451870821416378,
0.026619208976626396,
-0.050784602761268616,
0.04195953905582428,
0.010648617520928383,
0.00... | ||
1zchbh | Why does coke taste better in glass than in plastic ? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfsj1u3",
"cfsic7l",
"cfsj79o",
"cfsqxws",
"cfsna65"
],
"text": [
"It's likely that the coke in glass is \"mexican coke\" or similarly foreign. Different cokes in different countries have different recipes, so its entirely possible that the coke you had in the glass bottle had real sugar cane while the coke in the plastic had fructose corn syrup",
"Temperature is one of the factors that affect taste perception, so if it made any difference, other than being completely subjective (some like it Coke cold, some like it no so cold), I'd say glass because it is a poor conductor of heat, and aluminum is highly conductive, so basically the temperature of the drink would change at a different rate, even with plastic lining inside aluminum cans, if held at the same conditions. And nothing sure is better than a cold refreshing beverage on a Summer day.",
"I would think that the largest influence on any beverage in a glass vs from a mostly closed container is the ability to smell the beverage while you are drinking it. I know that bars use a wide variety of glasses to help affect taste, control the release of carbonated products, retain or absorb temperature, and of course, show off the look of the drink. It makes sense to me that these factors would be important for soft drinks as well.",
"Simple, Coke in Glass is normally made in Mexico. Check the labels, they are most likely in spanish. \n \nMexican Coke-a-cola is made with real sugar-cane, not high fructose corn syrup... thus the different taste.",
"The coke you buy from a glass bottle is probably the international version of the product (check for Spanish on the bottle) which contains real sugar in stead of high fructose corn syrup."
],
"score": [
12,
7,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does coke taste better in glass than in plastic ?
| [
-0.02499539591372013,
-0.07779787480831146,
0.03404022753238678,
0.026629891246557236,
0.04504011571407318,
-0.05889953672885895,
0.06117355823516846,
0.07579610496759415,
0.012512854300439358,
-0.06189756095409393,
-0.056164778769016266,
0.008510330691933632,
-0.01052494253963232,
0.05451... | ||
7otztg | ; How do ghostwriters get reputation? How do they prove their ownership on works when getting employed? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dsc8wmw"
],
"text": [
"they build their reputation through networking, it isn’t uncommon for artists/labels to pass around a GW. \n\nalso — they prove ownership through credits. if it’s a commercial project, it’s illegal to withhold the credit of the GW."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | ; How do ghostwriters get reputation? How do they prove their ownership on works when getting employed?
[removed] | [
-0.0884706974029541,
-0.016149718314409256,
-0.017459716647863388,
-0.019116943702101707,
-0.0468088798224926,
0.030839093029499054,
0.07030501961708069,
-0.12140870839357376,
-0.018173402175307274,
-0.04617932066321373,
0.06633798778057098,
0.029592063277959824,
0.03288448601961136,
-0.03... | |
2ygblm | What would happen if the whole world switched to one universal currency? | Exactly why don't we do this? (Aside from the stubbornness of political leaders) What economic obstacles stand in the way? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cp9822p",
"cp97vit",
"cp97wam",
"cp984j6"
],
"text": [
"The issue is someone has to be in charge of monetary policy. Someone has to set interest rates and decide when to print more money.\n\nThe monetary policy that benefits a country in recession is different than one in a growth period. What is good for an oil exporter might not be good for a manufacturing country. Every country is going to want to set the policy to its own benefit, and that is not possible with a single currency.\n\nThat's what is happening with the euro right now. Germany has a strong economy, while Greece is in shambles. The monetary policy that helps one country will hurt the other.",
"The concept of a single worldwide currency has been suggested since the 16th century, and came close to being instituted after World War II -- yet the idea remains little more than that. Proponents argue that a universal currency would mean an end to currency crises like Zimbabwe's. A single currency wouldn't be subject to exchange rate fluctuations because there would be no competing currencies to exchange against. In other words, a universal currency would lose its value as a commodity bought and sold on open markets and would have value only for its worth in buying other commodities. To put it plainly, money would become just money. Its purchasing power would be the result of the adjustment of interest rates and other monetary policy tools in response to inflation or deflation.\n\nWho would be responsible for adjusting those interest rates, though? \nOne of the chief fears among opponents of a universal currency is the creation of a central body formed to oversee the monetary policy for a single world currency. An extant international body, the United Nations (U.N.), provides an example of the potential pitfalls and strength a central global monetary body could expect. Successes like peace-building missions in nations as disparate as El Salvador, Mozambique and the former Yugoslavia attest to the power a unified international body can have to resolve conflict. On the other side of the coin, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely accused of replacing science with diplomacy, as nations responsible for contributing to climate change aren't openly taken to task in IPCC reports.\n\nThese reasons and others continue to prevent the adoption of a universal currency. Perhaps closer on the horizon is the integration of separate currencies within regions into unified currencies. This has already occurred in some areas. The most famous example is the euro. As of 2013, 17 countries in Europe use the euro instead of their local currencies. Some the benefits touted include stimulation in trade activities and a reduction in transaction costs and fluctuation risks as member countries no longer need to exchange currencies when doing business with each other. Tourists also don't have to switch currencies when they travel either [sources: Currency Solutions, European Commission]. At the same time, there are significant disadvantages. For instance, a debt-laden country is no longer able to devalue its own currency to make its goods more attractive to buyers from other countries. The financial troubles of countries like Greece and Spain in the 2010s have been exacerbated, some experts say, by the fact that they use the euro [sources: Schoen, Currency Solutions].\n\nThe euro is not the only example of a shared currency. Eight West African nations share a common currency, the West African CFA franc (CFA stands for Communauté Financière d'Afrique or African Financial Community), which was introduced in 1945. A further six Central African countries use the Central African CFA franc, though the two currencies are interchangeable [source: Miller and Bouhan]. In 2008, Central American nations agreed to create a single currency for the region, but as of 2013 it has not happened [source: Central America Data]. Meanwhile, the Union of South American Countries put the brakes on their own common currency project in 2011, citing the experiences it observed with the European Union and the euro",
"The concept of a single worldwide currency has been suggested since the 16th century, and came close to being instituted after World War II -- yet the idea remains little more than that. Proponents argue that a universal currency would mean an end to currency crises like Zimbabwe's. A single currency wouldn't be subject to exchange rate fluctuations because there would be no competing currencies to exchange against. In other words, a universal currency would lose its value as a commodity bought and sold on open markets and would have value only for its worth in buying other commodities. To put it plainly, money would become just money. Its purchasing power would be the result of the adjustment of interest rates and other monetary policy tools in response to inflation or deflation.\n\nWho would be responsible for adjusting those interest rates, though? \nOne of the chief fears among opponents of a universal currency is the creation of a central body formed to oversee the monetary policy for a single world currency. An extant international body, the United Nations (U.N.), provides an example of the potential pitfalls and strength a central global monetary body could expect. Successes like peace-building missions in nations as disparate as El Salvador, Mozambique and the former Yugoslavia attest to the power a unified international body can have to resolve conflict. On the other side of the coin, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely accused of replacing science with diplomacy, as nations responsible for contributing to climate change aren't openly taken to task in IPCC reports.\nThese reasons and others continue to prevent the adoption of a universal currency. Perhaps closer on the horizon is the integration of separate currencies within regions into unified currencies. This has already occurred in some areas. The most famous example is the euro. As of 2013, 17 countries in Europe use the euro instead of their local currencies. Some the benefits touted include stimulation in trade activities and a reduction in transaction costs and fluctuation risks as member countries no longer need to exchange currencies when doing business with each other. Tourists also don't have to switch currencies when they travel either [sources: Currency Solutions, European Commission]. At the same time, there are significant disadvantages. For instance, a debt-laden country is no longer able to devalue its own currency to make its goods more attractive to buyers from other countries. The financial troubles of countries like Greece and Spain in the 2010s have been exacerbated, some experts say, by the fact that they use the euro [sources: Schoen, Currency Solutions].\n\nThe euro is not the only example of a shared currency. Eight West African nations share a common currency, the West African CFA franc (CFA stands for Communauté Financière d'Afrique or African Financial Community), which was introduced in 1945. A further six Central African countries use the Central African CFA franc, though the two currencies are interchangeable [source: Miller and Bouhan]. In 2008, Central American nations agreed to create a single currency for the region, but as of 2013 it has not happened [source: Central America Data]. Meanwhile, the Union of South American Countries put the brakes on their own common currency project in 2011, citing the experiences it observed with the European Union and the euro [source: MercoPress].\n\nSo while the debate over regional and universal currencies continues, people like Mike Hewitt will have to count money the old-fashioned way.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)",
"The issues of who or what would control the currency and how do you adjust it for the cost-of-living in certain places to reflect a balance value around the world would be difficult to do."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm"
]
} | train_eli5 | What would happen if the whole world switched to one universal currency?
Exactly why don't we do this? (Aside from the stubbornness of political leaders) What economic obstacles stand in the way? | [
-0.015573302283883095,
-0.018929384648799896,
-0.08542974293231964,
-0.05258062109351158,
-0.008381891995668411,
-0.07150062918663025,
-0.07136831432580948,
0.009020528756082058,
0.010490509681403637,
-0.05963308736681938,
0.030213413760066032,
-0.027010900899767876,
-0.04689585790038109,
... | |
5wl1rl | What do astrophysicists understand with certainty? | any idea? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deb0jbc"
],
"text": [
"Basically the only thing astrophysicists know for sure is the stuff they can directly observe and the stuff they can prove with observations or calculations. \n\nFor example we know for sure the universe is expanding because we can actually see everything moving away from us. What we don't know is exactly how, because we can't see what is physically pushing things away. By all means gravity should be pulling things together and things should be moving the other way. But the observations say that everything is moving away so we know for sure that SOMETHING is pushing everything away from us."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What do astrophysicists understand with certainty?
any idea? | [
-0.01952582225203514,
-0.04512893036007881,
0.02885495126247406,
0.047748107463121414,
-0.03509717807173729,
-0.07220423221588135,
0.026393461972475052,
-0.03503255918622017,
0.03896467760205269,
-0.019654856994748116,
-0.031968023627996445,
-0.05956926941871643,
-0.09963853657245636,
-0.0... | |
2y9su9 | Why does hearing a song you like on the radio or in a club feel more enjoyable than simply playing the song yourself? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cp7j8g9"
],
"text": [
"Simple answer would be the element of surprise"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does hearing a song you like on the radio or in a club feel more enjoyable than simply playing the song yourself?
| [
0.07836660742759705,
-0.09901885688304901,
-0.03206653520464897,
-0.0022851533722132444,
0.042632244527339935,
-0.006536094471812248,
0.08154880255460739,
0.06890510022640228,
0.0920557752251625,
-0.023623444139957428,
-0.07813958823680878,
-0.010775336064398289,
0.0021417185198515654,
-0.... | ||
3qq5sh | Why does the software I download always try and change my browser preferences to Yahoo? | Is this an actual strategy of Yahoo's? It feels like most of time I download a third party app, they're trying to sneak in yahoo as my homepage or search function. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwhcav9"
],
"text": [
"Capitalism.\n\nYahoo pays that software installer company money to add \"_URL_0_ Homepage\" as an installer feature. Yes, we all know you don't really need it. But for little companies who are likely to not make a dollar off you downloading their Freeware, it's a way for them to make a few bucks on the side."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"Yahoo.com"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why does the software I download always try and change my browser preferences to Yahoo?
Is this an actual strategy of Yahoo's? It feels like most of time I download a third party app, they're trying to sneak in yahoo as my homepage or search function. | [
-0.013922050595283508,
-0.07063784450292587,
0.06410032510757446,
-0.0428941436111927,
0.04714518040418625,
-0.08664582669734955,
0.03582761064171791,
0.009274749085307121,
0.04542810097336769,
-0.034903787076473236,
-0.04593135043978691,
0.046194110065698624,
-0.02680526115000248,
0.00794... | |
3fxmly | What would happen if you wore metal jewelry while lying down in an MRI? | Like a necklace, ring, etc. The MRI is basically a big magnet, right? It couldn't cause your necklace to decapitate you or anything could it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ctswp5t"
],
"text": [
"The machine is a superconducting magnet of 3-ish Tesla strength, 30,000 Gauss. The Earth's magnetic field is 0.5 Gauss. The machine can accelerate a paperclip at 3-4 Gs, fast enough to injure you. They have pulled belly-button ornaments out of young lady's bodies.\n\nDepending on the metal, this could be very bad. Not decapitate you bad, but get so hot it left a burn bad. No sane technician would allow such a thing, they would get in tons of trouble."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What would happen if you wore metal jewelry while lying down in an MRI?
Like a necklace, ring, etc. The MRI is basically a big magnet, right? It couldn't cause your necklace to decapitate you or anything could it? | [
-0.03267446160316467,
0.031283117830753326,
-0.02620367333292961,
0.006430375389754772,
-0.06218939274549484,
-0.07396705448627472,
0.02336103655397892,
0.002728874795138836,
-0.024709688499569893,
-0.09471498429775238,
0.0032769388053566217,
0.13074274361133575,
0.1010206788778305,
0.0050... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.