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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3ohtzc | Why do we hear our own chewing loudly when we close our ears? | So when you, lets say, chew on chips with our ears closed (or with headphones on) the sound seems really louder in the ear. Why is it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvxbh7k"
],
"text": [
"Normally you're hearing the sounds from outside your head, that go into your ears. But, you also hear a lot of sounds from inside your head, that are less from the vibration of the air (like most sound) but the vibration of your actual body/head. This is actually why your voice sounds different recorded than it does when you speak - because you're used to hearing your voice vibrating inside your own head.\n\nSo, when you chew, especially with headphones or something on, you're ignoring all the normal external sounds and instead focusing a lot more on the sounds inside your head that other people (mostly) can't hear."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do we hear our own chewing loudly when we close our ears?
So when you, lets say, chew on chips with our ears closed (or with headphones on) the sound seems really louder in the ear. Why is it? | [
0.06426747143268585,
-0.09379615634679794,
-0.007212502416223288,
-0.011006488464772701,
-0.042939089238643646,
-0.06254283338785172,
0.12467905879020691,
-0.009310659021139145,
0.03909542039036751,
0.03568890318274498,
-0.012270482257008553,
-0.054295193403959274,
-0.09795128554105759,
-0... | |
1ua3l3 | Why don't we trigger our gag reflex when we swallow food, but we do if we put our finger down our throat? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cefyy22",
"ceg5588",
"cefz9qq",
"cegdg1j",
"ceg5iqj",
"cegdegh"
],
"text": [
"Our body doesn't like something being both down our throat and out of our mouth at the same time as it will choke you. Same goes for toothbrushes. You mouth is very aware of the size and shape of things you shove it it.",
"The pharyngeal (gag) reflex, like many others, can be over-ridden for any of a number of reasons. Swallowing involves a number of somatic (conscious) and autonomic (unconscious) processes. Humans have a long and fantastic evolutionary history which involved a lot of organisms swallowing a lot of things. As such, the action of swallowing is deeply ingrained into the way our brains and bodies are built. Therefor, deeply rooted autonomic processes take over momentarily when you swallow food and shut down other autonomic processes like gagging and breathing. \n\nThis state of affairs only evolved for the purpose of swallowing food, which happens quickly, and has a number of different actions leading up to it (chewing, tasting, closing the mouth). For good reason, our body releases it's over-ride of the pharyngeal reflex if something persists in the throat or if the normal cues for eating aren't met (Try swallowing something soft with your mouth open sometime. Actually, don't. I's unpleasant).",
"Your gag reflex is located towards the back of your tongue, I think it's only if something pushes on it, or touches it that it is set off. Food passing over it doesn't set it off, but if it stops on it then you would gag.\n\nBabies gag reflexes are a lot further forward on their tongue, which helps them push objects out of their mouth.",
"Your body is good at knowing what should be going into it, and what shouldn't. Since food is supposed to go there, your body allows it. Since your finger is not supposed to go down your throat, your body tries to get rid of it, by using the gag reflex.",
"The Epiglottis is a leaf shaped structure that covers the trachea that prevents food and other objects from going down there. If that area is agitated a gag is also produced",
"Some people had a gag reflex that was triggered by food.\n\nThey all dead now."
],
"score": [
23,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why don't we trigger our gag reflex when we swallow food, but we do if we put our finger down our throat?
| [
0.06923525780439377,
-0.09625905752182007,
0.024905383586883545,
-0.05372731015086174,
-0.07159814983606339,
-0.01808599755167961,
0.05298682674765587,
0.002384858438745141,
0.09249795973300934,
-0.08889750391244888,
-0.00001687839176156558,
-0.04560042917728424,
-0.013759531080722809,
0.0... | ||
zowte | The movie "2001" A Space Odyssey" | I just saw the movie, which by the time I finished it, seemed like a huge waste of time. It seemed extremely slow-moving, and confusing (especially at the end). Yet somehow, it has a very high rating on [rotten tomatoes](_URL_0_). I read the plot on wikipedia to better understand what was happening at the end, but I'm still lost.
**Can someone explain to me like I'm five, what the point of this movie is, and why it's so popular?** | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c66h7of",
"c66hoo3",
"c66mw66"
],
"text": [
"> I read the plot on wikipedia to better understand what was happening at the end, but I'm still lost.\n\nThe plot is as follows. At some point, godlike aliens placed mysterious monoliths throughout the universe. They are completely inscrutable, but their discovery always triggers an immediate and profound change.\n\nIn the first segment, primitive apes are starving and roaming the African savannah. They encounter the first monolith, and suddenly a switch goes off in their minds, and they see the use of tools. They begin using bones to kill other animals and feed themselves, and they are now the masters of nature. They will become humans.\n\nThe second segment begins with a match cut between humanity's first tool -- the thrown bone -- and humanity's latest tool -- the space station. After millennia of making use of the first monolith's gift and mastering earth's tools, humanity has reached the moon, where it uncovers a second one. This triggers another rapid change: a switch goes off in humanity's mind yet again, and they develop artificial intelligences superior to their own that spur them on even further.\n\nThe third segment takes place with David on an odyssey to the moon of Jupiter. During this odyssey, he is betrayed by HAL, but defeats him and gains mastery over man's latest gift. After defeating HAL, Dave's odyssey concludes with his being pulled through space to what appears to be the home of whoever built the monoliths. The sequence with all the bizarre imagery and lighting is Dave finishing his odyssey by flying over dozens of worlds and through the universe, which boggles his mind. At the end, he is in a lavish baroque palace, which seems to be whatever the monolith-makers interpret Earth to be. We see this palace on a TV set, so presumably they have received some of Earth's old TV transmissions radiating through space and built what they saw, something to make Dave comfortable.\n\nIn this palace there is the final monolith. Dave's exposure to this causes him to shed his body -- he ages 80 years instaneously -- and take his new form, the spherical baby. He is no longer an adult human, he is an infant god, having transcended humanity.\n\n > what the point of this movie is\n\nIt expresses both humanity's incredible development and achievement so far, as well as its immaturity and insignificance in the overall terms of the universe. It also fuses pseudoreligious elements with modern sci-fi.\n\n > and why it's so popular?\n\nIt was very innovative in terms of style, content and message. It makes a very strong effort to tell a story using purely cinematic techniques, which is unusual -- of all the movies you've seen, can you think of a half-dozen that have less reliance on existing artforms like writing and theatre? Remember also that this was released in 1968. Not only was this at the peak of the space race and modern liberalisation of society, when the future of humanity and man's role in the world was a very hot topic, but it was a serious and very ambitious sci-fi film made by a major director with philosophical theme at a time when sci-fi was very much associated with children's adventure stories. Then there's the unusual and effective structure -- the segments are only connected thematically, not by any real plot and not by characters really -- the special effects (very realistic and meticulous attempts to depict centrifugal force and zero-gravity, which hadn't been seen much) and the unusual stylistic choices (like the use of well-known classical music to score a very modern science-themed film).\n\nA lot of people walked away from the premiere calling it deranged and bizarre, but no one could deny that it was a very technically well-accomplished realisation of very bold ideas.\n\n > extremely slow-moving\n\nThat's really just Stanley Kubrick's style.",
"Once upon a time there were these weak, stupid, ineffectual animals at the bottom of the food chain. They were barely keeping themselves from starving. They couldn't protect themselves from stronger predators. They were afraid of the dark. They couldn't even resolve problems amongst themselves in any definitive way. They were obviously complete losers, headed towards extinction. Those pathetic, pussified animals were US. This is where WE came from. This is who we used to be. It's embarrassing.\n\nDESTINY INTERVENES. Mysterious outside forces, call it the finger of God or whatever, provide the inspiration for these dumbass creatures to become the RULERS OF THE PLANET. Importantly, this was not a case of \"God\" turning these creatures into zombies or robots of His will. Rather, God simply provides the inspiration, and these creatures realize their *own potential,* previously untapped. They become Men. Being a man means KILLING and WAR. It means fucking nature instead of allowing nature to fuck you.\n\nThings look promising for these new men, but flash forward 100,000 years, and oh, what do we have here? BACKSLIDING. Re-pussification. It really helps if you see these early Moon sequences as comedy. Are these characters fucking boring? Do they talk about boring shit like sandwiches and bushbabies? Kubrick is boring you ON PURPOSE. Did you notice the incredible tonal differences between the initial savage, kinetic African scenes and the Moon sequences? Hard to believe it's the same species, right? Something has gone very wrong with these animals. We've become dull, complacent, and grey.\n\nGood news! The viewer recognizes that there's hope! The finger of God revisits these animals. Will they once again recognize their potential and use their creativity to remain Men? This sets the stage for the showdown between HAL and the humans en route to Jupiter. Here we see in stark terms the extent of our emasculation: we've done a good job of conquering nature, but in so doing we've wrapped ourselves in this technological cocoon that has sapped our independence, initiative, and ballsacks. We've actually given authority to this gay computer (this is a trope, by the way--the gay homicidal maniac) which threatens God's own hopes for us. Luckily the dull humans, in the nick of time, remember that being human means to KILL YOUR ENEMIES, and they pull the plug on HAL. This allows for the continued dominance of these interesting animals.\n\nThe 30 minutes of psychedelic trippy bullshit at the end, I think is a case of style over substance, others may disagree.\n\nSo Kubrick is trying to make some deep comments about what it means to be human. If you happen to disagree strongly with Kubrick's cock-centric ideas of who we are, yeah, that's understandable. But how many movies attempt something so ambitious, and do it in such a visually beautiful way?",
"Some really poor descriptions here, so I'll give it a go. First, why it was so popular: \n \nThis is mainly due to Kubrick's visual style in the movie. He did multiple things that no one had done before. For example, no sound in space. Most SF films previously had ignored the fact that sound doesn't propagate in a vacuum. Kubrick did things like playing the Blue Danube Waltz, and having you listen to the astronauts' breathing inside their helmets. His depiction of zero gravity was a first. Remember, this is pre-CGI, and making a guy walk through a doorway and turn upside down while he was doing it was non-trivial at the time. He added neat little touches like Pan Am (a major airline at the time) running the shuttle going up to the space station. The film is mostly a beauty to watch, except the star gate sequence near the end (more on that later). \n \nKubrick had a great collaborator in making the movie, SF writer Arthur C. Clarke (inventor of the communications satellite). The story came mostly from him, and was sourced from ideas in some of his previous works like \"The Sentinel\" and \"Childhood's End\". The story goes in 3 major parts, with a subplot added in the middle part. The theme of the movie is *intelligence*, not space travel. \n \n1st part: Homo-whatever is a bunch of monkeys with potential. Aliens put a black monolith among them to enhance their intelligence, and suddenly they learn to use the first tool. Unfortunately, they choose to use the tools to attack their cousins and beat the shit out of them. But, so it goes. \n \n2nd part: The aliens wanted to know when the monkey-men became a spacefaring race. So they left a sentinel buried on the moon (another black monolith, maybe the same one). When mankind was able to find it and sunlight hit it, an automatic signal was sent out towards Jupiter announcing that the kids were growing up and were ready to leave home. The mission was mounted and the crew sent off to see what was going on out there near Jupiter, hoping they might find aliens. (More about this part later.) But the crew wasn't told the whole story about why they were going. \n \n3rd part: David Bowman finds another monolith orbiting a moon of Jupiter. When he flies near it, the top opens up and....it's full of stars. It is not full of stars actually, it is a stargate that takes him on a tour of the wonders of the universe. (Unfortunately, Kubrick got carried away with his attempts to make a visually cool movie here, and a lot of this is just crap. But hey, no CGI back then.) At the end, Bowman finds himself in a sterile white room with another of those monoliths. Like in Part 1, it fiddles with his brain (or DNA, or whatever) and helps him evolve to the next stage of mankind's evolution. He is represented as an embryo floating in space at this point. He has more power than humans can even imagine. (In the book, he decides to do something fairly drastic.) \n \nBack to the 2nd part: There was a subplot with the computer HAL9000 and the crew, playing with the idea of what intelligence really is. (This is the actual theme of the entire movie.) HAL was an Artificial Intelligence, and could do amazing things. But he was given conflicting programming requirements...the requirement to keep the mission details secret from the crew, and to make the mission succeed at all costs. When the crew started to question what the mission was all about, he decided that the only way to make the mission succeed without them knowing what was going on was to kill them and finish the mission without them. That achieves both goals! Was HAL driven insane? Was it a reasonable way to reconcile the goals he was given? Was HAL truly intelligent, or did he just simulate intelligence? Did he have feelings? Are emotions and empathy important for an intelligence to have? Is it OK for an intelligent species to create another intelligent species? This whole subplot was really meant to explore those kinds of ideas, since the whole movie was about the nature of intelligence. And remember what the monkey-men did when the first monolith enhanced their intelligence and they first started using tools? \n \nAnyway, that's a long-winded summary. The trick to enjoying and appreciating the movie 2001 is to **read the book** first, then watch the movie. If you do, it is one of the great SF movies of all time. And the last few pages of the book are awesome in a way that the movie can't be."
],
"score": [
27,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000085-2001_a_space_odyssey/"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The movie "2001" A Space Odyssey"
I just saw the movie, which by the time I finished it, seemed like a huge waste of time. It seemed extremely slow-moving, and confusing (especially at the end). Yet somehow, it has a very high rating on [rotten tomatoes](_URL_0_). I read the plot on wikipedia to better understand what was happening at the end, but I'm still lost. **Can someone explain to me like I'm five, what the point of this movie is, and why it's so popular?** | [
-0.030199605971574783,
-0.027522921562194824,
-0.011879976838827133,
-0.006187047343701124,
0.05840127170085907,
-0.007102866657078266,
-0.006783181335777044,
0.036059971898794174,
0.08034639805555344,
0.04483336955308914,
-0.06603669375181198,
0.07014946639537811,
-0.06461908668279648,
0.... | |
27ncgx | How does the "bidding website" scam work? | The websites where you bid on TVs, cameras and other electronics for super cheap. How do these websites operate and scam you, because you know they do. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ci2gyg9",
"ci2lgig"
],
"text": [
"Those web site you see ads for that say PS3 just sold for $2.56. Well it did \"sell\" for that but the trick is that you must pay for each bid you enter like $1.And they will keep changing the end time of the auction so more people will pay that dollar to enter a bid. Technically it did sell for that, but that was after several hundred bids were placed at a dollar each, so really it is that sell price plus how many bids were placed, they make a lot of money off that.",
"It's basically a lottery. You are betting you will be the last person to buy a ticket. With each ticket (bid) costing you $0.60, $1, etc. The so called \"price\" of the item is irrelevant."
],
"score": [
11,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does the "bidding website" scam work?
The websites where you bid on TVs, cameras and other electronics for super cheap. How do these websites operate and scam you, because you know they do. | [
-0.10201749205589294,
0.007859856821596622,
0.03246745839715004,
-0.006340548861771822,
-0.014785907231271267,
-0.005889358930289745,
0.02967207133769989,
-0.014795699156820774,
0.05744897946715355,
-0.011349315755069256,
-0.047318313270807266,
0.03430823236703873,
0.08995611220598221,
0.0... | |
7ol7iw | Why when you pour water into a pot with hot oil it reacts like that? | Well, a long time ago a friend of mine was cooking with hot oil and accidentally poured some water into it, and the whole thing like "exploded", letting in some serious burns in her face due to the hot oil. And now I want to know why is that | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dsaa9e7",
"dsaa9fs",
"dsaa936"
],
"text": [
"Oil floats on water, so the water gets under the oil, quickly boils, and the escaping steam blasts little droplets of oil all over the place.",
"Water immediately falls to the bottom of the pot/pan, underneath the oil. Because the pan/pot is presumably at a high heat, it vaporizes very quickly into steam. Since the water is coated by oil, the steam can only escape by \"exploding\"",
"Oil is really, really hot (like 150-200 degrees C when you cook with it), so when you pour water into it it will turn into steam more or less instantly, and that \"explosion\" of steam will throw oil into the air as well"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why when you pour water into a pot with hot oil it reacts like that?
Well, a long time ago a friend of mine was cooking with hot oil and accidentally poured some water into it, and the whole thing like "exploded", letting in some serious burns in her face due to the hot oil. And now I want to know why is that | [
-0.010761849582195282,
-0.0663772001862526,
0.05785690248012543,
0.04782764986157417,
0.019220683723688126,
0.01056736335158348,
0.04779521003365517,
0.03302256017923355,
0.04220755025744438,
-0.07640674710273743,
-0.02634515054523945,
-0.024658765643835068,
-0.05109631270170212,
-0.058525... | |
7ocmoi | How do meteorologists report what the temperature “feels” like | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ds8gnai",
"ds8fvtm"
],
"text": [
"How the temperature \"feels\" actually matters. The feel is actually a better measure of how much heat loss/gain your body is experiencing than the actual ambient air temperature.\n\nFor instance, say it is 1F today, and the Wind Chill makes it feel like -10F. As your body radiates heat, a buffer of warmer air forms around your body (that was heated by your body), helping insulate you from that 1F cold air. The reduced temperature gradient means you lose heat more slowly. However the wind _blows away_ that shell of warmer air, constantly replacing it with 1F air, which means the temperature gradient between your body and the air is steeper, and you lose heat faster. That is why it feels colder, and that heat loss is much more relevant to your health than ambient air temperature.\n\nThe same sort of thing is involved with humidity, when it feels hotter than the ambient air temperature. High humidity inhibits your body's evaporative cooling system (makes sweating less effective as a means of cooling the body), and therefore your body has a harder time getting rid of the excess heat it is generating. That is why it feels hotter, and that heat retention is much more relevant to your health than ambient air temperature.",
"That number is a combination of the temperature, wind chill, and heat index. Basically it takes wind speed (feels cooler) and humidity (feels warmer) into account."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do meteorologists report what the temperature “feels” like
[removed] | [
-0.014209028333425522,
0.07015030831098557,
0.07525007426738739,
0.11760270595550537,
0.10056331008672714,
-0.08758523315191269,
0.02205497957766056,
-0.04951411858201027,
0.04802660271525383,
-0.011784295551478863,
-0.039428647607564926,
-0.10410532355308533,
0.027736898511648178,
0.00406... | |
vgpcb | EL5: Honestly, what the fuck could happen if my iPad stays on when the plane lands? (I'll check this in 15 minutes when I'm on the ground) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c54bzu0",
"c54ft3z",
"c54gdww"
],
"text": [
"Nothing electronic-wise. Its so you 1)Will pay attention if there is an emergency and not be listening or music or distracted. 2)In case there is a hard landing they don't want those things flying around the cabin (hence stowed). Off is so you won't be tempted to grab it anyways.",
"The issue with electronics on a plane isn't so much \"what could one iPad broadcasting in the 2.4GHz band do to our systems?\" as it is \"what could thirty-one laptops, forty-seven cell phones, eighteen tablets, fourteen iPods, and twenty-three e-readers broadcasting on a variety of 2.4GHz, 700Mhz, 1700MHz, 2100MHz, and 5GHz do to our systems in a worst-case scenario?\"\n\nSo, no, your iPad is not going to crash the plane on its own. However, in combination with the sixty to a hundred other people on the plane, you definitely have enough broadcasting power to mess some shit up.",
"The reason you have to turn it off is that there's an FAA regulation that says you have to turn it off. The regulation was put in place for a few reasons, but really not a lot of people were carrying electronics onto planes when the regulation got put into place, so it wasn't really a big deal.\n\nThe regulation never changed back for several reasons:\n\n1. If a plane crashes because it turns out some device actually WAS dangerous, the guy who changes the policy gets fired. If the guy never changes the policy, he doesn't get fired. So the policy stays the same.\n2. It's possible, although VERY unlikely, that some devices or combination of devices could actually interfere with a plane's electronics during landing. Figuring out which ones might be dangerous is complicated. So they just all stay banned.\n\nWeirdly, although I have to turn off my Kindle during take-off, nobody's ever asked me to take the battery out of my digital watch. They probably use about the same amount of power."
],
"score": [
31,
11,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | EL5: Honestly, what the fuck could happen if my iPad stays on when the plane lands? (I'll check this in 15 minutes when I'm on the ground)
| [
0.023466067388653755,
-0.04463363438844681,
0.040770430117845535,
-0.0019406344508752227,
0.14210456609725952,
-0.02012317068874836,
0.02423812635242939,
-0.05104714259505272,
0.10652325302362442,
0.026005694642663002,
0.07334193587303162,
0.09286036342382431,
-0.08225913345813751,
0.01037... | ||
ts2f2 | - Why the countries of the world don't cancel their financial debts to one another. | The world's pretty messed up finically, and I know Bob Geldolf and that guy from U2 did that concert a while back about cancelling third world debt because it's sapping the economies of third world countries, and a lot of developed countries said no because that money was stimulating their own economy which was necessary if these developed countries are going to pay off debts of their own, such as the UK who only recently(ish) paid off their Marshell Plan debts.
This got me thinking, why don't we cancel first world debts as well, and second world and third world debts in one big cancelling party at the World Bank HQ in DC, nearly every country in the world owes money to another country, institution or body, if all these debts were cancelled (or maybe not all, just the really really big ones) developing counties will have more money to provide for their own citizens and more money to GIVE (i.e. not loan) aid to developing countries, and the developing countries are no longer paying off interest fees on their unrealistic loans so can begin to stimulate and develop their own economies.
Of course, I understand this would require some ridiculous regulation, full participation of countries around the world and basically a negation off of the past century of global trades but wouldn't some sort of debt amnesty bring nothing but good to the world?
The obvious answer is responsibility, that cancelling debts ignores people's responsibilities to take care of their economies and cancelling world debt would send the wrong message, but surely the fact almost every country in the world is owed money by someone else is enough to suggest we need a global financial do over?
SOURCES: Google and hypothesising.
TL;DNR : if countries cancelled debts to one another, every nation would start on a level playing field again and economies can start to grow again instead of being sapped by loan repayments.
Thank you for your time =) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c4p8anp",
"c4pe4mm",
"c4pkt3q",
"c4p8agc"
],
"text": [
"Because the countries that lent money are made up of people who lent money and want it back, with interest. There is no one entity called \"a country\" that leads money to other countries. It is people who back financial tools such as bonds with the expectation that there will be a return on investment.",
"Because I have time on my hands:\n\nThere are a huge number of reasons why this isn't really feasible / sensible.\n\nFirst of all, as LindLTailor mentioned, you do not have countries acting as single entities borrowing and lending as an individual would. These countries are made of public and private institutions all holding and issuing different kinds of debt.\n\nSecondly, the different types of debt will all be structured differently. If I owe you £10, and you owe me £10, I might suggest cancelling the debt since we're \"even\". However, if I have agreed to pay £1 per week interest on my debt, whereas you are only paying me £0.10 per week interest, it should be clear that these debts are actually worth different amounts. Taking this into account you can work out what the Net Present Values (NPV) of the debts are, which is a true description of today's value of the debt in today's money (remember, money is not worth the same amount tomorrow as it is today).\n\nWhat's more, let's say I owe you £10, but you owe me $10, with the different levels of interest. Not only do I have to work out how the different levels of interest affect today's value of the debt, but I also now have to start predicting future exchange rates - if the $ appreciates significantly over the next week, what I owe you is suddenly worth a lot more. This makes it extremely difficult for people to agree on the present day value of debts across different currencies.\n\nWhat's more, there are many different kinds of debt - which ones do you want to cancel? Currently private banks owe a huge amount of money to public institutions who have created bailout lending facilities. Governments and companies issue debt as a matter of course to raise money, for example by issuing bonds. These bonds are then bought by central banks, private banks and private individuals. So there is significant asymmetric distribution of debt, and even if you cancelled all of these, bond issuers would not stop issuing bonds, and so would not stay \"debt free\". \n\nAnother example for why you cannot forgive bond debt, these bonds are used as investment vehicles - bonds issued by blue chip companies and secure western governments are often seen as essentially \"risk free\" investment. As such, they are often bought by risk averse investors - such as pension funds. Pension funds are often heavily invested in high rated bonds, forgiving bond debt would wipe a huge amount of value off global retirement funds.\n\n**tl;dr** It is not possible to determine with certainty who owes how much to who in today's money. Additionally, blanket debt forgiveness would have massive *uneven* effects on the whole global economy.",
"Because it's not about the countries, it is about the banks. The debts are bank debts. It has to do with the artificial false financial system economy that symbiotically feeds off of the real economy.\n\n\nIf the financial system was cut off from the regular economy, the economy would function with increased efficiency and stability. Note, I am not talking about doing away with fiat currency, merely the financial system that takes resources from the world in the form of money, but produces no actual real resources for the world.",
"apologies - just saw the side bar and got linked to this thread \n\n_URL_0_"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l7nx0/eli5_the_implication_of_cancelling_all_world_debt/c2qftxo"
]
} | train_eli5 | - Why the countries of the world don't cancel their financial debts to one another.
The world's pretty messed up finically, and I know Bob Geldolf and that guy from U2 did that concert a while back about cancelling third world debt because it's sapping the economies of third world countries, and a lot of developed countries said no because that money was stimulating their own economy which was necessary if these developed countries are going to pay off debts of their own, such as the UK who only recently(ish) paid off their Marshell Plan debts. This got me thinking, why don't we cancel first world debts as well, and second world and third world debts in one big cancelling party at the World Bank HQ in DC, nearly every country in the world owes money to another country, institution or body, if all these debts were cancelled (or maybe not all, just the really really big ones) developing counties will have more money to provide for their own citizens and more money to GIVE (i.e. not loan) aid to developing countries, and the developing countries are no longer paying off interest fees on their unrealistic loans so can begin to stimulate and develop their own economies. Of course, I understand this would require some ridiculous regulation, full participation of countries around the world and basically a negation off of the past century of global trades but wouldn't some sort of debt amnesty bring nothing but good to the world? The obvious answer is responsibility, that cancelling debts ignores people's responsibilities to take care of their economies and cancelling world debt would send the wrong message, but surely the fact almost every country in the world is owed money by someone else is enough to suggest we need a global financial do over? SOURCES: Google and hypothesising. TL;DNR : if countries cancelled debts to one another, every nation would start on a level playing field again and economies can start to grow again instead of being sapped by loan repayments. Thank you for your time =) | [
0.04622432589530945,
-0.06889557093381882,
-0.009896072559058666,
-0.020199216902256012,
0.03161535784602165,
-0.10325929522514343,
0.025334937497973442,
-0.03842793405056,
0.04692918807268143,
0.016419200226664543,
0.020288551226258278,
-0.029034016653895378,
0.0036246732342988253,
0.0278... | |
2pll82 | Why do we use anti-bacterial toilet bowl cleaner? | It's a surface you never touch, and I've never seen anything growing on the inside of a toilet bowl. It is frequently rinsed by flushing and easily cleaned with just a brush. So why are almost all toilet cleaners either bleach or anti-bacterial? It seems like a waste and bad for the environment. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cmxs5ww"
],
"text": [
"Bacteria grow and make bad smells or nasty looking messes in the bowl. Killing them stops that."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do we use anti-bacterial toilet bowl cleaner?
It's a surface you never touch, and I've never seen anything growing on the inside of a toilet bowl. It is frequently rinsed by flushing and easily cleaned with just a brush. So why are almost all toilet cleaners either bleach or anti-bacterial? It seems like a waste and bad for the environment. | [
0.024266190826892853,
-0.06105516105890274,
0.06913170963525772,
-0.02946569211781025,
0.013786359690129757,
0.017705582082271576,
-0.01053854264318943,
0.01455480046570301,
0.09222665429115295,
0.09518366307020187,
-0.061199851334095,
-0.020937234163284302,
0.045748304575681686,
0.0597781... | |
20jh4i | If I pay off my visa with a mastercard within my 21-day grace period, assuming the mastercard had said grace period as well, could I not just shuffle a debt indefinitely? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cg3u7ij",
"cg3u8m9",
"cg3v9gp"
],
"text": [
"What you're describing is called a balance transfer.\n\nMost credit cards only give you the 21-day grace period for making purchases. You have to pay interest immediately on cash advances and balance transfers.\n\nTL;DR - probably not. You'd have to pay interest on your MasterCard from the day you use it to pay off your Visa. But check your cards' terms and conditions, because I'm only generalising.",
"Usually there's a fee for doing the transfer (3% is common), so while you possibly could bounce it around: it would still get bigger each time.",
"No. The grace period applies to purchases, not cash outs or balance transfers."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If I pay off my visa with a mastercard within my 21-day grace period, assuming the mastercard had said grace period as well, could I not just shuffle a debt indefinitely?
| [
0.011755704879760742,
0.05499006435275078,
0.019752852618694305,
0.03220918029546738,
-0.039661359041929245,
-0.0007171766483224928,
0.02395341359078884,
-0.09159353375434875,
0.017926931381225586,
-0.07632971554994583,
0.04051481559872627,
0.08541538566350937,
0.07900749146938324,
-0.0379... | ||
27qvzj | Why do I feel like shit after a nap? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ci3itb8",
"ci3gu7n",
"ci3ic4d",
"ci3j64p"
],
"text": [
"You wake up in the middle of a sleep cycle. When you sleep, your body is reorganizing your brain. Waking up in the middle of a sleep cycle is like waking up when your body has pulled everything off the shelves but hasn't started putting it back yet. I started using _URL_0_ and it made a HUGE difference.",
"I was always the same way. I never could take a nap without feeling like crap when I wake up.",
"It depends on when you're waking up from your nap. While asleep, you'll cycle between lighter and deeper sleep. (IIRC, Rapid Eye Movement or REM sleep is one of the deeper stages). As a result, waking up in a 'deeper' stage of sleep will leave you often with 'sleep inertia', feeling tired if not more than when you went to sleep! \n\nTry fooling around with how long your naps take. 30-50 minutes, or 90 minutes, has generally been a good time for me, but everybody has a different cycle.",
"If you don't reach REM stage of sleep, aka a power nap(30-45 minutes), then you will feel refreshed instead of sluggish."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://sleepyti.me/"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do I feel like shit after a nap?
| [
0.017925582826137543,
-0.08715472370386124,
-0.038885172456502914,
0.10135714709758759,
0.0714573860168457,
0.006761191412806511,
0.0473206602036953,
-0.02442498691380024,
0.12102670967578888,
-0.02870156243443489,
-0.19008077681064606,
-0.028295468538999557,
0.027893532067537308,
0.079459... | ||
25caya | How is it possible that I can completely forget how to do something that I've done hundreds of times, even immediately after successfully doing it once? | Scenario: I'm getting dressed, and I tie my tie. Its a bit too short, so I undo it and begin again...only this time I stand there with the ends in my hands like an 8 year old who has never even seen a necktie. I try several things - none of which work - give up, and skip the tie for the day. Perhaps later on in the day it works.
I've tied a tie hundreds (thousands?) of times in my life, and do it a few times a week. Yet this still happens to me with alarming frequency... | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"chftom6"
],
"text": [
"I have discussed this with my Psych professor a few times. Our brains are still a deep mystery. I can give an example of myself struggling with this. I have put in my passcode for my dropbox hundreds of times. Then one day I forgot. I did not have the faintest idea what my code was. I didn't forget for a day or week. I forgot for a whole month a passcode I had used plenty of times before. \n\nSo can we forget? I have discussed with him cases of people having strokes and forgetting how to do most tasks. However, a few of the tasks they had done many of times were easily remembered.\n\nCertain diseases like Alzheimers will make you forget those tasks. \n\nSo there can be different causes for you to forget how to do something. You never really have to think about certain actions but there is still a cues that will go off and set off the set of actions required. If the cues aren't there, then that set of actions aren't correctly activated and just sit in your mind. \n\nI hope that makes sense."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How is it possible that I can completely forget how to do something that I've done hundreds of times, even immediately after successfully doing it once?
Scenario: I'm getting dressed, and I tie my tie. Its a bit too short, so I undo it and begin again...only this time I stand there with the ends in my hands like an 8 year old who has never even seen a necktie. I try several things - none of which work - give up, and skip the tie for the day. Perhaps later on in the day it works. I've tied a tie hundreds (thousands?) of times in my life, and do it a few times a week. Yet this still happens to me with alarming frequency... | [
0.07817131280899048,
-0.06172562018036842,
0.02243686653673649,
0.06164193153381348,
-0.010710508562624454,
0.020304279401898384,
0.012236070819199085,
-0.0020838158670812845,
0.08470215648412704,
-0.04498538374900818,
-0.025590036064386368,
0.07401484251022339,
-0.01660914719104767,
0.025... | |
1auume | How does mopping clean the floor, if the soapy water just stays on the ground? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c910cp0",
"c91lhxi"
],
"text": [
"you will typically mop in back and forth passes. The mop will get the floor wet which will help dissolve dirt on the floor. A second pass will catch the dirt. You repeat multiple times until the floor looks clean. You then put the mop in the bucket to get fresh water and release the trapped dirt. You do not necessarily use soapy water. That can leave a residue. Other cleaners that evaporate however can be used.",
"Usually the mop soaks up the dirt and releases into the bucket of water you dip it in. Thats why if you mop a big area, you have to change out your water."
],
"score": [
12,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does mopping clean the floor, if the soapy water just stays on the ground?
| [
-0.027792232111096382,
-0.07971791923046112,
0.05117451027035713,
-0.01183975301682949,
0.025264402851462364,
-0.051140546798706055,
0.024660158902406693,
-0.06758727133274078,
0.045087020844221115,
-0.053597062826156616,
0.023481084033846855,
0.022392133250832558,
0.008099029771983624,
0.... | ||
6elzki | Why does the scent of petrol, cellotape, glue, correction fluid and a few other objects that aren't used for their scent appeal to people? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diba10y",
"dibr57q",
"dic72it"
],
"text": [
"A lot of those chemicals contain some amount of benzene. Benzene-like compounds are referred to as \"aromatic\". They have a fairly strong and often pleasant or sweet odor.",
"I find the smell of gasoline and diesel appealing. Pretty much any fluid for a vehicle other than coolant I like. I assume it's because I am a gearhead and the smell of fresh fluids means that everything is working great, and you're getting to work on your vehicle. The smell of Coolants however is known as a problem, as the vehicle is overheating or having issues. It might just be psychological me not liking coolant though.",
"Diesel exhaust smells amazing to me but this is probably just nostalgia for childhood boat trips."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does the scent of petrol, cellotape, glue, correction fluid and a few other objects that aren't used for their scent appeal to people?
| [
0.007499335333704948,
-0.04332969710230827,
0.14450007677078247,
0.06550121307373047,
0.10237280279397964,
0.006167107727378607,
0.059560101479291916,
0.028080474585294724,
0.06193618103861809,
-0.07275080680847168,
-0.01792207919061184,
0.0029221135191619396,
-0.0909208208322525,
0.040950... | ||
kdq8z | How does a speedometer work? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2jg3h8",
"c2jh8h8"
],
"text": [
"Speedometers work by linking a flexible cable to the car's transmission. As the engine powers the drive shaft, it spins the cable about it's central axis (can I use axis)?\n\nThe cable then spins a magnet near the speedometer. The speedometer has a metal needle and a spring that pushes the needle towards 0 mph. As the magnet spins faster, the needle is pulled along with it. The spring prevents the needle from just flying wildly around.\n\nThe physics behind how the magnet pulls the needle is fairly cool. It involves eddy currents, but it might be too much for ELI5.",
"In newer GM FWD speedos, the VSS (vehicle speed sensor) is a simple electrical generator, sitting right next to one of the transmission gears (final drive, I believe). Every time a tooth from that gear passes by the VSS, an electrical pulse is generated. The rate at which they are created varies from transmission to transmission; but for example, the Getrag 282 generates 4000 pules per mile. The shorter the interval between pulses, the quicker the car is travelling. Circuit boards in the dashboard interpret the VSS output and move the speedo needle accordingly. Here is a ELI25 explanation:\n > The speedo needle is driven by a so called air-core meter (the meter in the image is from an 86-88 backlit speedo: note that it is not soldered, but plugged in!). Regular meters work by a needle which is pulled back to zero by a spring and a coil forces a magnet away from the zero position if current flows through the coil. An air core meter uses two coils which are at an angle of 90 degrees to each other. These coils are called the sine coil and cosine coil. Each coil produces a magnetic field proportional to the current flowing through it. Since the two coils are at a 90 degree angle, the two fields add up to a \"magnetic vector\". If a magnet is placed in the middle of this field, it will point in the direction of this magnetic vector. By varying the current through the two coils, the needle can utilize all 360 degrees of the gauge. [Source](_URL_0_)"
],
"score": [
9,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.fieros.de/en/articles/speedo.html"
]
} | train_eli5 | How does a speedometer work?
| [
-0.01770705357193947,
0.03571445122361183,
-0.06221705302596092,
0.00496551813557744,
-0.0017178610432893038,
0.005005359649658203,
-0.035983942449092865,
-0.03754020854830742,
0.0714363306760788,
-0.05804866552352905,
0.08934073150157928,
-0.024713119491934776,
-0.06411196291446686,
-0.04... | ||
1odc7b | Why does everyone with Down syndrome look the same? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ccqz2rb"
],
"text": [
"You are right that people with Down syndrome share very similar physical characteristics. With that said, they are no different than you and I, individuals in their own way. \nSome of the common physical signs of Down syndrome: \n\n-A flat face with an upward slant to the eye. \n-Tiny white spots on the iris. \n-Single crease on palm of hand. \n-Poor muscle tone or loose ligaments. \n\nThe reason why they share very similar physical characteristics is because simply put, they have an extra chromosome copy rather than the normal 46 chromosomes in babies born without Down syndrome. The CDC estimates that 1 out of every 691 babies are born with DS in the U.S. \n\nDown syndrome occurs when an individual has a full or partial extra copy of chromosome 21. People normally have 2 copies of chromosome 21, if a baby is born with a third copy (trisomy) they will have DS. Because people who are born with this third copy of chromosome 21, they share similar physical features especially within their facial structure, however the severity of DS can vary from individual to individual. \n\nHowever DS does not only affect the development of facial features but unfortunately it affects many other parts of the body: \n\n-Increased risk for heart defects.\n-Respiratory and hearing problems.\n-Alzheimer's disease\n-Childhood leukemia\n-Thyroid conditions. \n \nHowever due to increases in medical technology and treatable conditions, many of the conditions stated are treatable, and most people with DS lead healthy and very fulfilling lives. The life expectancy of a person with DS today is 60 as compared to 25 in 1985. \n\nThey are wonderful and sweet loving people who have just as much (or in some cases more) to offer to society than you and I. With todays advances and special educational programs, they are able to contribute to their community more and lead a more fulfilling life. I have no doubts that this will continue to be the case. \n\nNext time you encounter a person with DS either child or adult, don't feel weird because you are looking at them different (we're humans, we detect people that are different than us, may it be race, religion, sexual orientation, etc..), however do not judge them or look down on them because they have DS. They are capable of being a contributing human within the given community and are able to live a happy life. I hope I covered most of your question as to 'why they look the same'. \n\nSources: \n_URL_1_ - National Down Syndrome Society\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"www.wikipedia.org",
"www.ndss.org",
"www.cdc.gov"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why does everyone with Down syndrome look the same?
| [
0.023801224306225777,
0.009287381544709206,
0.023956574499607086,
0.013688143342733383,
-0.06098739802837372,
-0.09455204010009766,
0.06704164296388626,
0.07901481539011002,
0.03521351143717766,
-0.06848553568124771,
0.0066904341802001,
0.011854249984025955,
-0.03500727191567421,
-0.023516... | ||
2u9vq4 | How hard is it to change your name? | What reasons must you give? Does it take long? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"co6mw07",
"co6hkau",
"co6heco"
],
"text": [
"In the UK, it's similar to what RabbaJabba says about the US. Here, we call it \"changing your name by deed poll\". You obviously need to prove who you are, and there are rules about what you can change your name to. The really don't care why, although you do have to affirm that you aren't trying to get out of something legally - under oath. When I did it, the law here was disjointed between the sexes - women can (for once) get it easier - when getting married or divorced, for example, it's free and there are no special forms to fill in other than the marriage papers. \n\nOn the basis of equality, my wife and I decided to double-barrel our names meaning we would both have a name change. We could have gone for the option of recording her name change on the marriage papers, which would have been cheaper, and instant, but our names would have been different for a while. In the end decided to both of us would go down the \"deed poll\" route.",
"The process will vary depending on where you live. In the US, it'll even vary by state. Usually, though, as long as you're not doing it to evade legal troubles or to change your name to something to intentionally confuse or incite people, it'll fly. Usually it'll be something you file with the state, after which you have to contact Social Security and one or more state agencies to update your information. In many states, though, you can just start using a new name (again, as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes), and it can become your name for legal purposes.",
"This entirely depends on where you live - different areas have different rules, and different countries even more so.\n\nIn generally it's usually just going down to your local government office, pick up a form, and fill it out. There will be a small fee and you'll often times have to file an announcement somewhere like a local newspaper. \n\nYou cant escape debt or legal trouble this way"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How hard is it to change your name?
What reasons must you give? Does it take long? | [
-0.009012419730424881,
0.011919054202735424,
0.03535130247473717,
-0.03544151410460472,
-0.010905420407652855,
-0.030011173337697983,
-0.03260641172528267,
-0.05587567016482353,
0.04507598280906677,
0.014442781917750835,
-0.023396069183945656,
-0.036396194249391556,
-0.01895718462765217,
-... | |
92o2y0 | why are certain products designed so differently in different markets? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e3735p2",
"e373qdy"
],
"text": [
"Some of it is market preferences, which may simply have been set way back when products were first introduced decades ago. Could also do with things like what surfaces get cleaned most — Americans have more carpeting on floors while I think European homes use vacuums on hard floors, drapes, etc.\n\nTrucks are a combination of road/space constraints, various safety and fuel economy regulations.",
"The truck design have a lot to do with the law that regulate them. \n\nThe US limits are for the semi trailer only and not the total length including the truck. The EU limits are for the total length of the vehicle including the truck. \n\nSo a long engine i front of the truck is simpler to access the one where the engine is below the carbine. So the US truck are longer because the are simple to manufacture and manage. \n \nEU truck are included in the length limit so if it is shorter you can have more cargo so there is a reson to build them that way even if it complicate maintenance and make them a bit more expensive because you get more cargo space.\n\nI don't know why the regulation are different. The US federal regulation done have a max length but say that a stat can't have a lower limit then 48 feet for the trailer and cant limit the total length.\n\n\nI don't have a good idea for vacuum cleaner but the likely explanation is when they where introduced the manufacturers in the US for some reson designed one model and manufacturers in Europe made another model. The design stuck and is what the consumer are used to.\n\nProduct like vacuum cleaner was back in the day manufactured locally and international trade was lower then today. They was also design for 110V vs 220V so you could not import a US vacuum cleaner without a total redesign of the engine so the US and EU marker are a bit more separated then one would guess today compared to other product that don't use mains power directly."
],
"score": [
5,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why are certain products designed so differently in different markets?
[deleted] | [
0.018192069604992867,
-0.0587657205760479,
0.012167476117610931,
-0.03226355463266373,
0.08907507359981537,
-0.02954455465078354,
-0.018481101840734482,
0.03130386024713516,
0.0634898841381073,
-0.08741104602813721,
-0.013906260952353477,
0.0827130526304245,
-0.017204998061060905,
-0.00909... | |
3122gw | Why Intel and AMD don't make smartphone CPUs? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cpy2u5r"
],
"text": [
"Because they were making a lot of money off of desktop and server CPUs. And smartphone CPUs need to be fundamentally different from desktop CPUs because they need to be very power efficient. Thus they would effectively have to start from scratch to create a mobile CPU or try to make their x86 CPUs more power efficient. By this time ARM had already cornered the market. We do see that Intel has been slowly trying to get their inherently bulker x86 architecture on mobile CPUs, such as Atom and whatever they put into the rare Intel smartphone/tablet, but in terms of power efficiency, they are still catching up to ARM based CPUs."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why Intel and AMD don't make smartphone CPUs?
| [
-0.0300193652510643,
0.03125389292836189,
0.09200119227170944,
0.011394210159778595,
0.003136615501716733,
-0.12655939161777496,
-0.0527578666806221,
0.004453485831618309,
0.0751364454627037,
0.006968426518142223,
0.050914302468299866,
-0.029317790642380714,
0.02475338988006115,
-0.0018325... | ||
684uk0 | How Stephen Hawking has managed to survive with ALS for so long? | Don't people usually die much sooner? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dgvuant",
"dgvp4ql",
"dgvow0w"
],
"text": [
"It is common knowledge that Stephen Hawking died long ago. His chair achieved sentience at some point, critics disagree on when, and is currently posing as the scientist.",
"> Don't people usually die much sooner?\n\nUsually, but he got the [early and slow version](_URL_0_). Most ALS patients don't live past five years or so after diagnosis.",
"Last I read, nobody knows. It's a progressive disease, symptoms first appear mild and then get worse until they kill the person by stopping their breathing. There's variation in how fast it progresses, for Stephen Hawking it's been exceptionally slow."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stephen-hawking-als/#"
]
} | train_eli5 | How Stephen Hawking has managed to survive with ALS for so long?
Don't people usually die much sooner? | [
0.07442331314086914,
-0.05887094512581825,
0.015276775695383549,
0.014958188869059086,
-0.0379725843667984,
0.006695341318845749,
-0.0031055097933858633,
0.03699903562664986,
-0.03067978471517563,
-0.049733344465494156,
0.02668287605047226,
0.017736880108714104,
-0.018642740324139595,
0.02... | |
2b9802 | Why Google might possibly not go national with fiber when internet is an industry in desperate need of disruption. | Google is a company that loves to change the world and disrupt corrupt / out of control industries. However, i've read many posts all over stating that many people think google may never go national with their google fiber service. And if they do, it won't be for many many years. How could this be? This service seems in desperate need of google disruption. It seems right up their ally. What could be the possible hold up / reason for not going thru with it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cj30b8o",
"cj33c1l"
],
"text": [
"They don't have to offer fiber in every single market to disrupt the ISP ecosystem. All they have to do, and all they're trying to do, is embarrass the ISPs into making progress. \n\nGoogle doesn't really want to be everyone's ISP because that's not their core business.",
"When Google deploys fiber in a few cities, ISPs will have to deal with something they haven't in a long time. Competition. They are going to need to offer something comparable in order to keep customers. It might not be as fast as fiber but cheaper and a hell of a lot better than what they are offering now. Now here is the catch, If say Comcast offers much better speeds and prices in cities where Google fiber is deployed, whats stopping them from offering it in cities where fiber is not deployed? They can't pretend it's not technically possible or too expensive as they are doing it in other cities. The consumer demand and even Government pressure will force them to upgrade everywhere due to fair practice laws. The goal is forcing ISP's to show that they can do much better than they are now and once it's revealed that they can, there is no going back."
],
"score": [
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why Google might possibly not go national with fiber when internet is an industry in desperate need of disruption.
Google is a company that loves to change the world and disrupt corrupt / out of control industries. However, i've read many posts all over stating that many people think google may never go national with their google fiber service. And if they do, it won't be for many many years. How could this be? This service seems in desperate need of google disruption. It seems right up their ally. What could be the possible hold up / reason for not going thru with it? | [
-0.00925965141505003,
-0.10411067306995392,
0.14578507840633392,
-0.04495284706354141,
-0.009630639106035233,
-0.0180033091455698,
-0.02125920169055462,
-0.05800854042172432,
-0.0529073067009449,
-0.05657322332262993,
-0.015862399712204933,
0.08535097539424896,
-0.0856085941195488,
0.00508... | |
5cyuvn | Where did the idea that classical music makes infants smarter come from, and has it been proven? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"da0frhl"
],
"text": [
"There was a study that showed pretty well that listening to music made adults temporarily better at doing a spatial reasoning paper folding task. \n\nThis sort of melted into \"classical music only specifically makes people smart\" to \"classical music makes babies smart\". It's some pretty big leaps from the original study."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Where did the idea that classical music makes infants smarter come from, and has it been proven?
| [
-0.006309119984507561,
-0.055054694414138794,
0.023746078833937645,
0.051169708371162415,
-0.06662941724061966,
0.09745082259178162,
-0.006978238932788372,
0.01760486327111721,
-0.029780786484479904,
0.07470688968896866,
-0.006860069930553436,
0.06901199370622635,
-0.03877701237797737,
-0.... | ||
3quqqq | If elephants are being slaughtered for their tusks, why don't reseves remove them without injuring the elephant so the poachers have nothing to slaughter for? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwihdlr",
"cwiil6s",
"cwihf78",
"cwiife0"
],
"text": [
"Quite often, poachers don't kill the elephant first-just cripple or sedate as necessary. Removing the tusk is a severe enough injury that the elephant will die from blood loss soon after, while in debilitating pain for the remainder of their life. Keep in mind, they go deep into the elephant's face, often a foot or more.\n\nThere's no safe way to de-tusk elephants.\n\n(I'm sorry for such a gory answer, but the reality of poaching is often hidden from us.)",
"I think everyone is also missing the fact that elephants have tusks for a reason in the first place. They kind of need their tusks: \"Tusks serve multiple purposes. They are used for digging for water, salt, and roots; debarking or marking trees; and for moving trees and branches when clearing a path. When fighting, they are used to attack and defend, and to protect the trunk.\" - Wikipedia.\n\nEven if it were possible to safely remove the entire tusk and remove any incentive for poachers, the elephant probably wouldn't do well living in the wild without them. You may have saved it from a poacher only to die from an injury when a predator or other elephant attacks and it can't defend itself.",
"For one thing, it's difficult to 'remove them without injuring the elephant.' Sedating a large animal is not an exact science, and tusks are like our teeth, connected to the animal in somewhat more complicated fashion than a rhino horn. Also elephants use their tusks, so you're potentially reducing the animals' chances anyway. And it's also simply not certain that removing the tusks will save the animal. If you are a poacher and you track some elephants only to find they have no tusks, you don't want to wind up tracking them again next week and wasting your time. Killing the elephant prevents that problem.",
"They have tried this with some animals, I don't think elephants but rhinos *(citation needed)*. The poachers will kill the animal so they don't pick up and follow their tracks for nothing"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | If elephants are being slaughtered for their tusks, why don't reseves remove them without injuring the elephant so the poachers have nothing to slaughter for?
| [
0.00031053106067702174,
0.13008001446723938,
0.0984765961766243,
0.026088271290063858,
0.033829960972070694,
-0.08698569238185883,
0.008151015266776085,
-0.05954547971487045,
0.04558267444372177,
0.04533201456069946,
0.01839367114007473,
-0.018034029752016068,
-0.05654837191104889,
-0.0493... | ||
12y7vh | the U.S. fiscal cliff approaching and why it's coming? | Thank you for any responses. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c6z52ar"
],
"text": [
"This was asked a couple hours ago and got a pretty good response I thought. I'll link it _URL_0_"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12x7w6/eli5_what_is_the_fiscal_cliff/"
]
} | train_eli5 | the U.S. fiscal cliff approaching and why it's coming?
Thank you for any responses. | [
-0.022726142778992653,
-0.03916483744978905,
0.010279416106641293,
-0.06607948988676071,
0.019464297220110893,
0.06323543936014175,
-0.0510154590010643,
0.10213945806026459,
-0.019688408821821213,
0.08684580773115158,
0.005702197086066008,
0.08146699517965317,
-0.07477668672800064,
-0.0833... | |
5b334s | What has atmospheric pressure to do with wind speeds and the wind force? More Info In Text | They say on Mars, the wind speeds can go up to 60 miles per hour, but it isn't strong enough to overturn a rover because of the atmospheric pressure on Mars is so low.
What effect does the static pressure have on the force of the wind?
Or is it because the composition of Mars atmosphere has such a low density? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d9lcl6w"
],
"text": [
"Atmospheric pressure is basically the weight of the column of air sitting on top of you, so it's directly linked to the atmosphere's density. Wind speeds are just, well speeds, it's an important factor but in physics, we know kinetic energy (the energy that an object has due to the fact it is moving) is directly proportional to the object's mass. Mars' surface pressure is only 0.6% of that of Earth, which makes its strongest winds incredibly weak compared to ours."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What has atmospheric pressure to do with wind speeds and the wind force? More Info In Text
They say on Mars, the wind speeds can go up to 60 miles per hour, but it isn't strong enough to overturn a rover because of the atmospheric pressure on Mars is so low. What effect does the static pressure have on the force of the wind? Or is it because the composition of Mars atmosphere has such a low density? | [
0.02389223873615265,
0.0539131797850132,
0.06310664862394333,
0.06294285506010056,
0.05260786786675453,
-0.02430889941751957,
0.018193118274211884,
-0.01989297941327095,
0.024215491488575935,
0.05591834709048271,
0.006895918864756823,
0.0005349954590201378,
0.014231868088245392,
-0.0797086... | |
3logyq | What happens if you move a nocturnal animal from one end of the world to the other? | Lets say you take an oppossum from it's East Coast home in North America and drop it off in Shanghai, China. Would it eventually adjust it's sleep schedule to be active duting the Shanghai night, or stay active at day? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cv7ziws",
"cv83kbf"
],
"text": [
"No, it would be active at night. In the same way that we adapt to time changes when we travel so would they.",
"We moved our cat with us across time zones and he adjusted to the new day/night schedule just like we did."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What happens if you move a nocturnal animal from one end of the world to the other?
Lets say you take an oppossum from it's East Coast home in North America and drop it off in Shanghai, China. Would it eventually adjust it's sleep schedule to be active duting the Shanghai night, or stay active at day? | [
0.09387031197547913,
-0.007716665975749493,
0.067816361784935,
0.127677321434021,
0.025123080238699913,
-0.05234512686729431,
-0.04233449697494507,
-0.08262347429990768,
0.02102592960000038,
-0.011620943434536457,
0.027174212038517,
0.007300626952201128,
-0.037803784012794495,
0.0800335705... | |
39f13z | In terms of web - what is a cache and how does it work? | E.g. Varnish? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cs2tlf9",
"cs2tfwz",
"cs2tjkn"
],
"text": [
"Imagine you run a pizza business that does delivery. The pizza business in your town is pretty cut-throat and delivery times are crucial. The pizza company with the best delivery times generally gets the most repeat customers. Deliver too slow, and you'll go out of business.\n\nYou open your new pizza business with you making the pizzas and you've got one delivery driver. You get an order for a Hawaiian pizza to be delivered near the university. You make it as fast as you can and send your delivery driver out there.\n\nWhile he's out, you get another order: Another Hawaiian, again by the university. You make the pizza, wait for your delivery driver to get back, and send him back out to the university.\n\nThis keeps happening. You do have other deliveries, but a *lot* of them are the same: Hawaiian pizza, near the university.\n\nSo the next time you get a delivery for a pizza for the university, you make up four extra Hawaiian pizzas and give them to your driver. After he leaves you get another order for two Hawaiian pizzas near the university. \"Sure thing!\" you say, \"It'll be right there!\" and then you call your driver tell him the new address and tell him to deliver some of those extra pizzas. And before he can even deliver those two, you take another order for another one.. and a bit later for another one.\n\nBecause you driver is already near the university and has the extra pizzas, those customers are getting their pizza's *fast*. In fact, it's almost impossibly fast. He's at their door almost as soon as they hang up the phone. You're the fastest pizza delivery in town by far.\n\nAnd that's essentially how caching works. It looks at what people are 'ordering' from a web page and prepares it before they even ask for it. Then instead of asking the web server to prepare and send another web page, it just sends a copy of the cached version. Suddenly web pages appear much much faster. But, just like the pizza delivery, there are some exceptions. What if someone orders a custom pizza instead of just a Hawaiian? Well, then the process slows down again. But, in general, caching can make access the web a lot faster in certain situations.",
"When you load a web page the server does a lot of work to calculate how that page should look. A cache basically stores the result of that work. If somebody want to load that page again, it doesn't do all that work again, but just delivers the finished result from the cache. Less work for the server = faster loadtimes",
"The normal meaning of \"cache\" means \"a small collection of objects stored for later\". A web cache is similar, except that instead of storing physical objects, it stores webpages and web content. \n\nMost of the time when we talk about caches, we're talking about your browser cache, where your browser downloads the contents of a webpage and stores it on your computer. This way, the next time you visit the same webpage, instead of having to download everything from the server again, it just reuses the content that hasn't changed from your last visit from your computer, thus saving you both loading time and bandwidth.\n\nVarnish is a little different because it's a reverse proxy. This service is employed server-side, not browser-side, so there's really nothing you as a user can do with it. How it works is a little technical, but you can basically think of it as a fast little server that all your requests go through before going into the larger but slower main server of your webpage. This little server stores (or caches) the more popular bits of the website and serves it up to you in a fast manner, thus reducing the website's load time."
],
"score": [
16,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | In terms of web - what is a cache and how does it work?
E.g. Varnish? | [
-0.014356323517858982,
-0.0032899905927479267,
-0.017471568658947945,
-0.031677890568971634,
-0.04495829716324806,
-0.0612516924738884,
0.0666823610663414,
-0.037645746022462845,
0.050518035888671875,
0.03398187458515167,
-0.010098730213940144,
0.05687650293111801,
-0.015516254119575024,
-... | |
k6drx | Why is the Swiss National Bank saying it will buy all other currencies in unlimited quantities? ELI5 | _URL_0_
I don't understand economics! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2hunsb",
"c2hvetf",
"c2hvoil"
],
"text": [
"The Swiss Franc is actually too strong verses other currencies right now. This sounds like it would be a good thing and too a degree it is but Switzerland relies on exports as a major part of its economy and if no one can afford your exports then you have problems so they wanted to cap the value of the Franc verses the Euro at 1.2 Euros per Franc. \n\nNow capping your currency on paper is one thing but actions is louder than words so they feel they have to enforce this by buying the crap out of currencies in an effort to make the market do what they want it to do. The idea is, we set the cap, now we are going to buy currencies and make the currency market follow what we are doing.",
"Maybe not quite at the 5-year-old level, but here's a good podcast about this topic: _URL_1_\nAnd a blog post: _URL_0_\n\nThe gist is that because of all of the uncertainty in the markets, a ton of investors have been buying up the Swiss Franc over the last couple weeks drastically inflating its price and making their exports too expensive.",
"How much does one who lives it Switzerland earn? - could you work in Switzerland buy currency and retire in america like a king?"
],
"score": [
25,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/us-swiss-snb-idUSTRE7851LV20110906"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/06/140211340/swiss-to-everybody-else-go-away-now",
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/19/139791374/the-friday-podcast-switzerlands-too-strong-for-its-own-good"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why is the Swiss National Bank saying it will buy all other currencies in unlimited quantities? ELI5
_URL_0_ I don't understand economics! | [
-0.011211557313799858,
-0.017861973494291306,
-0.042984649538993835,
0.0036380060482770205,
0.07258081436157227,
-0.09434295445680618,
-0.009291104041039944,
0.05636496841907501,
0.06140230968594551,
-0.014874476008117199,
-0.04611571878194809,
-0.0007796894642524421,
-0.004248233046382666,
... | |
2bu11p | Why is the Middle East perpetually in conflict? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cj8zs03",
"cj8vxht",
"cj8xrvb"
],
"text": [
"* Muslims have multiple sects and some of the members want the others dead. \n* Israel and Palestine both feel they have divine claim to the same portion if land. Neither side has a point of compromise and many would rather die than lose.\n* The US and Russia have enormous monetary interests in the area and use these countries for proxy wars from time to time. The first gulf war was a great example of this; it was a weapons demonstration between the US and Russia \n* Countries like Afganistan have some 3 trillion dollars of untapped natural resources\n* Little wars used to be common everywhere... Before machine guns became a thing. A lot of the world fought two world wars learning how machine guns changed things",
"The area was cut up like Africa. Meaning none of the conflicts between cultures was an influence in the diving up of land.",
"Basically, they invented three different religions that all claim the same cities as 'holy ground'. That kind of thing seldom ends very well."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is the Middle East perpetually in conflict?
| [
0.009680768474936485,
0.023156702518463135,
0.0667906105518341,
-0.026601243764162064,
0.013990800827741623,
-0.015301674604415894,
-0.0922686979174614,
-0.06786247342824936,
0.04222288727760315,
0.04571794345974922,
-0.040143948048353195,
0.0066906120628118515,
0.055145371705293655,
0.003... | ||
15l0jj | Why commercial airliners don't use ejector seats? | If fighter jets use them, why don't we put them in commercial airplanes? And would they be safer than current safety measures? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7ne6gb",
"c7ner80",
"c7nemuc",
"c7nejmk",
"c7ng6wk",
"c7nkce6"
],
"text": [
"Two reasons, mainly.\n\n1. They're ridiculously heavy. You're flying, you see. Weight is the opposite of flying.\n\n2. They're ridiculously expensive. Would you pay an extra $10,000 per ticket?\n\nMore reasons than that, but those should cover the most important.",
"A number of reasons -a few have been listed above/below:\n\n1: Cost. You can afford to put one or two ejector seats in your super-hightech fighter jet, but not 50+ on a commercial airliner.\n\n2: Design. Too many to list, but the main one is the annoying fact that ejector seats don't teleport the user through the roof...\n\n3: Weight. Both of the seat itself (all that equipment makes the seat heavy) and of the person using it. IIRC, ejector seats in fighter jets are calibrated specially for the weight of the pilot. Too much force for the user, and the G-forces could kill them. Too little and they won't get clear of the aircraft. Anyone could be sitting in that seat, and getting the exact (or even near exact) weight of the person with that seat number would be way too much of a hassle.\n\n4: Comfort. Sounds kind of stupid at first (as in \"This plane's about to be smeared across the landscape, why do you care how comfortable you are!?\") but most people (me included, I have no first or even secondhand experience) would probably be shocked by the process of getting flung out of an aircraft, and what if someone was out of their seat when an incident occurred? That could probably be worked around, but with all the reasons listed above, nobody's going to bother to try.",
"Others have gone over the weight/cost factor. So I'll just go over the health/safety factor.\n\n > If fighter jets use them, why don't we put them in commercial airplanes? \n\nPassengers are not trained fighter pilots. \n\n > And would they be safer than current safety measures?\n\nProbably not, actually. Civilian air travel is already the safest method of motorized travel, by far. And even when the airplanes crash, it is not uncommon for most passengers to walk away unharmed, despite what the media would have you believe. \n\nEjection seats actually hurt like hell, bust up your spine, and can sometimes be fatal. It is possible that an ejection seat would do more harm than merely letting the passengers remain in the aircraft until it comes to a stop on the ground, however it comes to that stop.",
"Besides the logistical reasons airliners don't do the kind of the flying that fighter jets do, commercial craft aren't at risk for getting in to the type of situations that fighters would get into.",
"could you imagine 400+ people ejecting at once?",
"The argument against ejection seats is pretty well covered already... but what about parachutes.... remember on Air Force One (the movie) the plane is certain to crash so everyone jumps out the back door to safety... \n\nThen again I guess we are dealing with the general public who would no doubt want a full safety briefing / step by step on how to use a parachute."
],
"score": [
11,
4,
4,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why commercial airliners don't use ejector seats?
If fighter jets use them, why don't we put them in commercial airplanes? And would they be safer than current safety measures? | [
0.039546944200992584,
0.07397723942995071,
-0.0058237118646502495,
0.0020335677545517683,
0.05090790241956711,
0.023260921239852905,
0.057721830904483795,
0.03363172337412834,
0.09077063202857971,
0.11323035508394241,
0.043206654489040375,
0.060072459280490875,
0.027946868911385536,
0.0858... | |
3tu8ls | why does turning on your wifi on your phone, even if not connected to a wifi, help pinpoint your location. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cx97lm7",
"cx9bksr"
],
"text": [
"In the background the phone is scanning for which wifi hotspots it can see around you. Given this information your phone can ask Google/Apple/etc over your mobile data connection where hotspots with these particular names are located, these companies will have large databases of such information and can tell you roughly where you are given this list of hotspots. The relative signal strength of these different networks can then be used to calculate where you are relative to all of them.\n\nGoogle/Apple/etc build these databases by occasionally having your phone report it's GPS coordinates along with what hotspots it can see. I think androids used to commonly do it when you put them on charge. Google also used their streetview cars to do the same thing on a slightly larger scale, recording what hotspots they could see constantly as they drove around photographing.",
"Google Street view cars also catalog access point ssid's and Mac addresses and bind them to the GPS location of the car. Then your phone says, \"yo Google, here's some info. Where I be?\" (those are the exact words your phone sends btw). The info is then triangulated using info in the database created by the street view cars, to give your phone its most likely position on this pale blue dot. I believe Google was sued by some jack knob for collecting this additional information, but I'm too lazy to do a simple Google search, so I'll leave the rest up to the reader."
],
"score": [
14,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why does turning on your wifi on your phone, even if not connected to a wifi, help pinpoint your location.
| [
0.049424849450588226,
-0.030679019168019295,
0.051579080522060394,
0.001238864497281611,
0.0675058662891388,
0.0013149265432730317,
-0.005551188252866268,
-0.014478505589067936,
0.12303256243467331,
-0.011341451667249203,
0.0694286897778511,
0.057837583124637604,
0.026893069967627525,
0.02... | ||
2b2siu | Why can it be really bright inside and I can see my phone screen just fine but when I'm outside it becomes hard to see? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cj18bak",
"cj18tuz"
],
"text": [
"It's because the surroundings are really bright, your pupil contracts. This helps you see the surroundings. But your phone can't match the brightness. This makes your phone appear darker.",
"The brightest it ever gets inside is only a fraction of how bright it is outside even on a cloudy day.\n\nThat we don't perceive it that way is a function of our pupils contracting to shut out light in excess of what we need while we're outside, and expanding to allow additional light in when needed while we're inside.\n\nSo when you're outside and your pupils are contracted, the dim output of the screen is insufficient to make it appear bright in contrast to its surroundings. While you're inside, your pupils are allowing in much more light, and it's not competing with as much external light, so it appears brighter.\n\nConsider that even putting it on the lowest illumination setting, the screen will still appear bright in a darkened room: your pupils are trying to pull in as much light as they can, and the contrast between the small amount of light the screen is outputting and the surrounding darkness makes it appear much brighter than it would under better lighting."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why can it be really bright inside and I can see my phone screen just fine but when I'm outside it becomes hard to see?
| [
0.03154558315873146,
-0.028127461671829224,
0.09582672268152237,
0.008057770319283009,
0.029882648959755898,
-0.10485776513814926,
0.015394973568618298,
0.03668675944209099,
0.06506873667240143,
0.00036896459641866386,
0.013142365030944347,
-0.021135730668902397,
0.04997318983078003,
0.032... | ||
1woito | Why do we get white marks on our fingernails? | I see them all the time. I was once told it was something to do with diet, but what specifically in a diet? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cf3y10d"
],
"text": [
"Your nails are actually layers bind together. When something hits your nail the layers separate and the trauma spot will become opaque. The only way diet could affect it is when you don't get enough nutrient and your nail becomes weak and more prone to damage."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do we get white marks on our fingernails?
I see them all the time. I was once told it was something to do with diet, but what specifically in a diet? | [
-0.05601898953318596,
0.04362780973315239,
0.010894229635596275,
0.06039104983210564,
0.01547663751989603,
-0.011637577787041664,
0.03483250364661217,
0.03339152783155441,
-0.029950832948088646,
-0.045923665165901184,
-0.009782888926565647,
-0.038599707186222076,
-0.004732030443847179,
-0.... | |
8wundx | Why do airlines force people to keep their seat belts on for so long when people in private planes can lay down, sleep, party, etc.? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e1yme8c",
"e1z34ng",
"e1ypbqi",
"e1z5tox",
"e1yt7t5",
"e1z1qne",
"e1ysosf",
"e1z7258",
"e1ywplh",
"e1ylsy2",
"e1yzd50",
"e1yviwh",
"e1z171x",
"e1z4n4r",
"e1z1ssm",
"e1z5o4s",
"e1z30n4",
"e1z827o",
"e1zc3dj",
"e1yrtcn",
"e1zfqth",
"e1znzcy",
"e1zg53n",
"e1z3fes",
"e1zb7ip",
"e1zcoik",
"e1zldcg",
"e1zuz1e",
"e1zxdb1",
"e1zj0al",
"e1zb6s6",
"e1z3psr",
"e1zrc8u",
"e1zbl3c",
"e1zfgxc",
"e1zc73z",
"e1zvaj1",
"e1zd064",
"e1z3qnt",
"e1zkzfl",
"e1zubpk",
"e1zpanf",
"e1z813n",
"e1z91oq",
"e1z1llt",
"e1zaemh",
"e1z9w8z",
"e1z67kh",
"e1zuiq6",
"e1zkjzt",
"e20bts8",
"e1z7ict",
"e1z21i8",
"e1zqayo",
"e1zmkp2",
"e1zb1s4"
],
"text": [
"Seatbelts aren’t just for collisions or sudden stops while taxiing. They are primarily there to keep you in your seat in the event of bad turbulence. Turbulence can happen suddenly and without warning. If you’re not secured you can easily fly up and hit the ceiling. On your way back down, you can land on another passenger and injure them too. \n\nOn private planes, it’s more of a “your house your rules” deal as no one will be liable for injury but you, but I can guarantee the pilots up front who know what’s up are wearing theirs at all times. \n\nEdit: pilots are required to wear seatbelts at all times. Even in private aircraft. What I meant to imply was that given their awareness of clear air turbulence, I’m sure they would do so regardless of requirement.",
"There also was [Aloha Airlines Flight 243](_URL_0_) where the roof of the plane ripped off during flight and a flight attendant was sucked out. Since the passengers had seatbelts on, no other fatalities occurred. The incident was caused by failure in some of the rivets due to the high number of pressurization/depressurization cycles because that particular aircraft was used mainly for short flights. Ever since I learned that in a materials science course, I’ve always kept my seat belt on at all times.",
"[Last year a private jet got into the wake turbulence of an A380 over the Arabian Sea.](_URL_1_) \n\nThe result: “One passenger suffered from head injuries and a broken rib; another fractured a vertebra. The other passengers and the flight attendant sustained minor injuries.”",
"I've flown private a fair amount. I'm not remotely rich, but I've worked for several very rich guys. \n\nThey keep their seatbelts on! When we move seats to change the conversations we take the seatbelts off in the old seat and put them on in the new seat. One of my bosses often takes a nap on the couch of his jet if we have an early morning departure. He wears a seatbelt around his middle while he's napping. \n\nRich guys are usually pretty smart. Just because no one there is forcing them to put on their belts doesn't mean they don't understand the risk/reward of doing so.",
"Liability. If you’re able to afford the ability to fly on a private jet, you A) aren’t going to sue the operator for minor “damages” incurred on your flight or B) won’t get much sympathy from the courts if you try. \n\nContrast that economic status versus the average Joe who bumps his head and incurs significant medical bills because a commercial airline was negligent in enforcing its seatbelt policy when the plane was flying through hazardous conditions (ie. turbulence), and you see why it’s prudent for the airlines to be as conservative as possible with the seatbelt sign. \n\nAlso, a completely different set of rules applies to scheduled air carriers (Part 121, read: commercial airlines) and charter/on-demand carriers (Part 135).",
"Easiest way I can explain why you SHOULD wear your seatbelt on a plane: In case of turbulence, you don't get thrown against the ceiling, *the entire plane slams against you*. That's because you're free-falling inside the airplane while the airplane itself is suddenly pushed downwards by aerodynamics and air pressure.",
"This is actually one of my pet peeves with people flying. The moment the seatbelt sign is off, you can hear dozens of click-clacks yet no-one is standing. What the hell is wrong with people, why would you ever remove your seatbelt if you don't intend to stand up? I can't understand this at all, and it annoys me. I don't care if you bang your head, but given bad enough turbulence, you could become a projectile. Wear your damn seatbelt, people!",
"I am a pilot. I fly private jets (Mostly Citations) for private clients.\n\nFirstly let me make something clear. There is a considerable difference in what occurs in regards to seatbelts when the question is whether you are \"Renting\" a private aircraft, and owning a private aircraft and having a pilot on staff. I will come back to this as it's kind of relevant.\n\nSo why are you forced to wear a seatbelt on take off and landing on a commercial flight? Safety, as you might suspect. Take off and landing are the two most dangerous phases of the flight and traditionally where the most accidents occur. By wearing a seatbelt during this phase, you reduce the risks somewhat, particularly when it comes to flying bodies. It's actually advisable to keep your seatbelt on for the duration of the flight, even if it's loose around your waist.\n\nQuite often, during turbulence you will be asked to return to your seat and put your seatbelt on. While turbulence can in very rare and extreme circumstances be so bad as to force you out of your seat and sometimes cause injuries, the general reason most airlines ask you to do this is because they do not want you up and about if the aircraft is getting thrown about as a fall can result in serious injury to yourself or someone else. By making you return to your seat, this is mitigated. Buckling your seatbelt up makes you less likely to want to stand up again for any reason. In short, it reduces their liability and makes a very packed aircraft a safer place to be.\n\nNow, back to what I said about the difference between commercial air and the world of private hire aircraft. ICAO rules actually require you to be restrained during take off and landing regardless of the aircraft you are in, so the rules do not actually differ for private aircraft when it comes to the use of seatbelts. To that end, when you hire a private aircraft, the crew will quite often require you to still wear your seatbelt during the take off and landing phase, particularly if you have hired the aircraft and will brief you accordingly.\n\nThese days I find myself flying a lot of \"Dead leg\" passengers. This is basically when someone has hired the aircraft to fly somewhere as a private hire, and then the aircraft has to return to it's home airport. In previous years the aircraft would fly back empty and the cost of the fuel for this part of the journey, known as the \"Dead leg\", would be written into the hire fee the client pays for the journey. However in recent years most private aircraft operators have realized they can make more of a profit from the aircraft by \"Selling\" the seats at a knock down price on the return journey and removing that portion of the charge from the original hirer. Thus the original client gets a better deal and the aircraft makes an actual profit on what would have been a empty return trip or the \"Dead leg\" of the journey rather than just cost recouping.\n\nThese dead leg seats have become so popular, a number of services have popped up to market them. You don't really get much choice in locations or timings as it's strictly limited to when the aircraft has to return so you have to fit your travel arrangements around it but it's quite an effective way of getting your own private jet or aircraft at a knock down price. For example I flew out to Italy the other week and the return seats where booked up by a stag party returning to England, they got each seat for £2000 each which is great considering it would have cost them a hell of a lot more to hire the aircraft for the bespoke journey!\n\nNow the point is these passengers, regardless of whether they hired the aircraft directly for a bespoke journey or they are dead leg passengers, are still required to observe the rules regarding seatbelts. That means in their seats and buckling up for the take off and landing. The difference is, nobody is enforcing it. There's no air steward or stewardess back there (Sometimes there is, but not always and it's generally an exceptional case). As long as they aren't running up and down the aircraft we are more interested in safely operating the flight. Once we are at the cruise portion of the flight they can do whatever they like (Within reason naturally).\n\nWhen it comes to private plane ownership, as long as the pilot has asked the owners to put their seatbelt on, he generally isn't going to press the issue. That's the boss you're flying after all! If he/she chooses not to wear their seatbelt then that is on them as you have exercised your safety mandate, you can't physically after all fly the plane and watch that he/she is wearing his/her seatbelt.\n\nSo in short, your required to be in a seatbelt for take off and landing regardless of what aircraft your in. It's just enforced differently in the two different types of air travel for liability reasons.",
"Since this is ELI5, I'm going to keep it simple. In the United States, the government sets rules (laws) that tell pilots and owners/operators of planes when they must wear seatbelts. The rules are the same: everyone in the plane needs their seatbelt on for taxi, takeoff, and landing. Passengers can unbuckle outside of these times, although it may not be wise. Airlines set 10,000 ft as a transition point. Takeoff (at least for our seatbelt purpose) ends here, and the landing process begins when the plane crosses 10,000 ft again in descent. It normally doesn't take long at all to climb to 10,000 ft.\n\n\nPrivate planes don't necessarily have the 10,000 ft transition point; it takes me a good 15 minutes to climb that high on a good day. If my passenger wants to take their belt off and go to sleep in the back, I'll let them know when I feel that it's safe outside of the immediate takeoff and landing phases (typically above 1000 ft).",
"Airlines are concerned about people falling over and injuring themselves while taxiing, the ability of people to exit in an emergency, etc. To prevent this they want people seated when the aircraft is moving as much as possible. Their insurance against people suing probably requires such a policy.\n\nPrivate aircraft though only answer to their owners. If they want to walk around while taxiing and potentially bust their face it is their own choice.",
"People have mentioned turbulence but I didn't see anyone post about if the pressure vessel is punctured via foreign debris, metal fatigue, etc. As recent as early this year, there was a flight in the states where one of the engine's compressor blades detached(on a fairly new Boeing I believe) and propelled through the fuselage, puncturing it, and the unlucky woman on the other side nearly got sucked through the hole(she later died from blunt force trauma from striking her head on the way out). Nearby passengers were able to pull her back in.\n\nThere also was an incident where a pilot's windscreen was forced outwards(imagine the outward pressure? You're flying at hundreds of miles per hour against the windshield)due to the wrong fasteners being used(too short), and the pilot got sucked out. Again, he was held in place by his crewmates until they landed, but he survived!\n\nSo yeah, keep your seatbelt on. If the pressure vessel is broken, it could be bye-bye!",
"Also in serious turbulence with a dreamliner you have several hundred people to keep in place. With a private plane you'd have no where near that many.",
"The lady on the southwest flight that partially got sucked out of the window and died, probably didn't have her seat belt on properly. Otherwise, she'd still be in the seat.",
"It's mostly a liability thing. Airlines don't want to be sued by the idiot who was wandering around the cabin when the airplane hits turbulence. You can, however, be as stupid as you want on your own property like a private plane at 10,000 feet on the understanding that you're paying for it if you hurt yourself because, what are you going to do, sue yourself when you get hurt?",
"And why does the FAA think there's anyone left who doesn't know what a seatbelt is, or how to buckle & unbuckle it?",
"FAA requires seatbelt use during taxi, takeoff and landing, even in private aircraft. Once out of airspace, you can remove your seatbelt. \n\nHowever, turbulence can be unexpected. If my dad is flying me in a Cessna, he'll just call me a dumbass if we hit turbulence and I hit my head on the roof. If I'm flying Delta, and the same thing happens, I could try to sue them. So for liability sake, they keep the \"fasten seatbelt\" sign illuminated. Legally, though, once you're cruising you don't need to wear it.",
"I fly a lot and always keep my seatbelt on, and while it hasn't exactly saved my life, it's kept me from a lot of random bullshit injuries I've witnessed. Severe turbulence is literally always a possibility. I'd say about every 10th flight i've experienced notable turbulence that made me glad I had the belt on. About a year ago a kid (about 5) from the row in front of me, got thrown up and back into my row. He was mostly just terrified.",
"Are people allowed to smoke on private planes? I know this is a dumb question because doing so is probably illegal but imagine you buy your plane outright and your pilot was interviewed and hired by you, you employ and control everything and everyone on the plane. Could you just light up? What if the captain (who totally depends on you financially to keep her and her family fed) was totally turning a blind eye?",
"I've never really understood the mentality of some folks who regularly choose not to use provided safety devices. I'd much rather wear a seatbelt (even when the light is off) if one is provided than have any chance of being physically harmed by not wearing one.",
"In Australia the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), mandate that as part of the rules and regulations, seat belts technically only need to be worn on takeoff and landing. As one can understand due to inertia this is to prevent injury to people during these segments of the flight. Though airlines will ask that you keep your seat belt fastened at all times to again prevent any injury should unsuspected turbulence occur. It's more so a measure to cover their own bases and say, \"Well hey, it could've been avoided if you wore your seat belt.\" It's also a requirement as part of the pre-flight safety brief that the Pilot In Command, or in the case of airlines the flight attendants, cover the use of seat belts. You'll notice that they emphasise that they be worn on takeoff and landing, however more so ask or advise passengers to wear them during all times whilst seated.\n\nIn the case of private jets etc, as /u/Dickulous01 mentioned it's more of a \"your house, your rules\" scenario. However again, at least in Australia due to the aviation regulations here, (and presumably elsewhere in the world), the passengers in private jets will be asked to wear them for takeoff and landing for safety, but then after or before those respective parts they can do as they please.",
"What I don't get is, why can't the seats be reclined during takeoff and landing? I mean, those shitty seats only recline like 10 degrees anyway, so I don't really see how it'd improve safety or anything.",
"I think it same reason I get in trouble at movies when I take off my pants but not so when I do it on couch watching movie at my house.",
"Maybe I’m going senile in my middle age, but I seem to recall that domestic airlines in the USA were more relaxed about this until some widely publicized incident that happened in the early 1990s where a plane hit some sudden unexpected turbulence and quickly lost a few thousand feet in altitude. After that the messaging in the planes about the seatbelt sign going off changed—airlines started saying that when the light went off you could go on short walks around the plane but should still keep your seat belt on at all times while you sat.\n\nOr at least that’s how I remember it, and we had to do it uphill, both ways, in the snow.",
"Not sure how it is in your country, but in my country the seatbelt light goes off when the plane hits cruising altitude, and doesn't come on again until you're beginning descent. Unless they are coming across very strong turbulence. That is the same as flying private. The only difference is, in private you don't have to stay in your seat the whole fight.\n\n\n\n\nIt's like.. riding a public bus vs. riding a party bus. In one, the sole goal is to get the destination with as few issues as possible. The other, the journey is part of the entertainment and is treated like that.",
"I see a lot of misinformation on this thread, people in private planes still follow most of the rules the airliners do. They still receive a safety briefing, they still need to comply with the seatbelt sign and any crew instructions. And crew members are required to stop serving alcohol to drunk passengers. They don't get away with anything because they are rich, but when you own you're own plane you can bring your own beer, listen to your own music and pay for passenger seats that fold flat. \n\nI hope that helps!",
"The private planes essentially have the same rules, but the biggest reason why there is a difference is that private planes, more often than not, do not have cabin crew to enforce those rules.",
"This is like asking why at McDonalds you have to stand in line at the counter to get food, but at home you can just go to fridge and grab something to eat.",
"Private planes (135) are required as well....they just don’t enforce it like we do (121) I assume. Source: Captain at a major airline for 11 years.",
"Because people in private planes are under their own responsibility.\n\nCommercial airlines are responsible for their passengers.",
"As a pilot who has flown aircraft, both with all the amenities like the ability to lay down, party (I guess?), as well as full economy class layouts. I can say it's not because of a lack of rules in private or chartered aircraft. It's more of a \"I own this, I will do what I want\" mentality.\n More than 99% of the time you would be perfectly fine standing up the whole flight. You've probably noticed flight attendants moving around well before and after we turn the seatbelt sign off. It's really just a liability issue where if something happens an airline doesn't want to be sued. I've had a regular passenger who would bring a hammock stand and sleep in a hammock from before takeoff to after landing most days. Is that unsafe? Probably. But they were only endangering themselves, and it wasn't the kind of person who would sue anyone over it. \n\nEven when the sign is off it is highly recommended that you keep the belt on and you will nearly always find a sign in front of your seat stating that. That being said if you are having an emergency, just go and do what you need to do. I've never met a flight attendant who would rather clean up any \"mess\" over just letting you get away with it. \n\nAs a pilot I have no way of accurately predicting if there will be turbulence (other than the obvious large convective clouds, and mechanical turbulence caused by terrain.) it might be reported by other people, but unless you are on a busy route that could be quite old information. In the cockpit our seatbelts (usually a four point harness) are almost always kept on. \n\nBack to the private jets. If we truly ever thought there was going to be more than light turbulence we would tell the flight attendant who would nicely let people know in advance. Or if we were caught off guard we would make an announcement telling the flight attendants to sit down. People usually get the hint pretty quickly when that happens.\n\nTl;dr: us pilots (and airlines) don't want anyone getting hurt. I care, and airlines don't want to get sued. If you are the only person who will get hurt, I care less so do what you want and don't sue me, you're rich and important already suing will make you look bad anyways.",
"When I was a restaurant food safety manager, one of my charges asked me a probably obvious question: Do I follow all these food safety guidelines at home? No, of course not. So are all those rules valid, and backed by sound science? Yes, they are. So why are you allowed to do that at home, but not at the restaurant?\n\nIt comes down to liability. Liability is, to select one popular and relevant definition, \"the quality or state of being legally obligated or responsible; the position of one who, by actual or threatened wrongdoing, is subjected to legal proceedings, whether criminal or civil in nature.\" (Black's Handbook of Basic Law Terms, 1999) For practical purposes, liability is the risk of exposing yourself to consequences for injury or damages which might result from choices that you make. Liability can be extremely expensive.\n\nWhen you're at home, the liability for your choices is limited pretty much to you and whomever's around you. If you're a business, liability for those same choices may be many times greater. If I'm a private pilot and I do something foolish and crash my plane and kill a passenger, that can cost me a lot. If I'm an airline and I do that, it could be many millions of dollars and even financial ruin. And because airline operators are also answerable to regulators and shareholders, it could mean years of painful litigation and in the most extreme cases even prison time.\n\nIt is in the airline's interests to not take chances with stuff like that, but to adhere to both the guidelines of regulators and the prescriptions or requirements of their private insurers, to minimise their liability.",
"There's a few reasons. \n\nFirst off, when you OWN the plane, you basically take more responsibility for your own safety and comfort. An airline has to maintain the safety of ALL the passengers, or they face serious federal and legal liabilities. \n\nSecondly, aircraft do not see clear air turbulence. An air pocket can make a plane drop several hundred feet in a couple seconds. The plane can handle this pretty easily. The passengers, not so much. Basically, everything in the airplane goes weightless for a second or two, and then everything falls back to the floor again. If you are strapped into your seat, no worries. You have a scary story, you may have a bruise on your waist, the overhead bins may jostle around, your drink splashes you, but not a big deal. If you're NOT strapped in, you may hit your head on the ceiling compartment. You may fall into the seat in front, to the side, or behind you. You could end up with broken bones or worse. People have died from clear air turbulence hits. \n\nThe cost (wearing a seat belt while you're sitting, anyway) is better than the alternative (getting seriously injured).",
"I’ve been around long enough to remember cars without seatbelts (chipped a tooth on the steel dashboard of a ‘52 Pontiac when my Dad slammed the brakes). I even had an uncle who believed that wearing a seatbelt in a car posed a greater danger of injury than being unbuckled and thrown clear of the vehicle in an accident. Years of frequent air travel overcame any issues I may have had with seatbelts, and yes, I’ve had experiences with heavy turbulence where they really proved their worth. The last thing I want to be is a human projectile in a confined space with lots of hard, sharp edges. Whether as a driver or passenger, if a vehicle has a seat belt I buckle up when I get in and don’t unbuckle until the vehicle’s stopped. Reminds me of a pet peeve: I was in a carpool at one time and a couple of my fellow passengers insisted on unbuckling their seatbelts when we were about a quarter of a mile from our destination and still moving. They claimed they couldn’t stand to be restrained any longer and “nothing can happen when we’re this close.” Unbelievable.",
"The captain can *always* turn on the fasten seatbelt sign at their discretion and the aircraft must have enough seatbelts for all passengers to comply. This includes all types of flights regardless of whether it's a charter flight, corporate jet, passenger jet, etc.\n\nCommercial carriers want you to be safe so that they don't have to deal with your lawsuits. If there's risk of turbulence then they'll turn that sign on so that you don't get hurt if the plane suddenly drops ~5 ft and then rebounds and smacks you. Most passengers expect this as well. They *want* the captain to tell them to put their seat belt on if that's going to keep them from getting hurt. But a chartered flight *hired for a party* is expected to be fun and to allow passengers to move around the cabin as they please. The captain will only turn the sign on when there is a serious issue and everyone absolutely needs to be seated with belts fastened.",
"My dad was a crew chief -lead mechanic for a major airline in the 40's to 70's after being in the Army Air Force in WW II. Very strict about those seat belts because he had seen the results of bad turbulance many times - carts thrown around, toilet contents flying out (I am still, an old woman now, the quickest person in those bathrooms!), overhead bins crashing down, etc. I know planes are larger and safer now, but all the flying I did as a kid taught me well. Leave it on, even if it's loose - it could prevent a ton of hurt.",
"We were descending through 8000’ to anchorage international airport in a Pilatus PC-12. I was in the right seat in the cockpit and was wearing the double shoulder lap belt harness when we encountered turbulence or wind shear. The force was so violent that it threw me upward against the should harness. The next morning my shoulders were bruised. I can assure you that I always wear my seatbelt on commercial flights and I only leave my seat if it’s absolutely necessary",
"There's the story when some Greek-Cypriot politicians where killed in an accident back in 1999. Those in the cockpit were sitting in the plane not knowing that the passengers they were carrying did not wear their seatbelts. It was only after they landed that they realised passengers were gone as a result of turbulence during the flight. BBC article tells the story:\n\n_URL_2_",
"While I was still active duty military (roughly 2005), I recall a loadmaster on a C-130 cargo plane broke his leg when it was caught in a microburst. He had been walking across the cargo compartment when the plane dropped roughly 200 feet in seconds, and he was bounced off the ceiling and slammed into the deck when the plane stopped falling.",
"Was on a commercial airline,that hit \"severe turbulance\"....there was an announcement and a mad rush to get seatbelts on. Passengers would have been thrown into ceilings and bulkheads if we weren't belted in. Even with seatbelts on we were grabbing on to the armrests. I developed a fear of flying that lasted over 5 years from that event.",
"I always thought that seat belts on airplanes are there so that if the plane crashed and burned or end up in the ocean, it's easier to collect the bodies and identify them using the passenger name and seat list. Since private plane has very small number of people on board, it's not a requirement.",
"All the turbulence stuff everyone else mentioned, but probably also just to keep people in order. Sure you can lay down and party up on a private jet, but that's not the case when you're using public transport and have hundreds of other people who will complain to the airline about your stupidness.",
"It really comes down to ‘my house my rules’. With commercial airlines there’s a certain level of liability involved where as on a private jet it’s exactly that, private. This puts the liability on you, the owner and not an airline where you’re essentially borrowing a seat on their plane.",
"Safety. Bad turbulence can come out of nowhere and they are responsible for your being on the flight. Private planes have different charters so different regulations.\n\nIt also helps identify anyone who might be rushing rhe flight deck or to assault a flight attendant which may present a present threat.",
"You don't fly much do you? I have always left my seatbelt on and I've been flying for over 50 years. It is the smart thing to do because planes can move around very fast and in unexpected ways. A quick drop and your head is in the ceiling.",
"Because if your body is flying around a public plane injuring people during heavy turbulence the airline is going to have a lot of lawsuits on its hands.\n\nIf you fly around and kill yourself on your own plane it's your own damn fault.",
"They do this so they can more easily identify the bodies in the event of a crash.\n\nPrivate planes file manifests as well so its easy to know who is who, ut on a larger commercial airliner things get far more difficult.",
"400 souls on board vs. 4.\n\nIt’s really about natural selection not being allowed to play out on airlines. You have children who would run the aisles, adults who would stand around and block the flight attendants’ service, etc...",
"Same reason I‘m allowed to hold our twin babies on my lap but my wife has to take the purse off her shoulder and put it under the seat in front of her...It’s all about $$$ and plausible denial.",
"From what I understood it is to maintain the plane's balance. If everyone is seated properly there is little likelihood of the plane tipping from the humans inside shifting to one spot like the bathroom area.",
"Why is it okay for children less than 2 years old to sit on a parents’ lap??? This sounds like it should be illegal yet it’s common.",
"There is an excellent book written by Michael Crichton titled ‘Airframe’ that illustrates how sudden and severe turbulence mixed with un-seatbelted passengers can produce ghastly results.",
"they should too\n\nthe reason is turbulence unless you like the idea of hitting the top of the cabin at 50mph",
"I would guarantee that even on those private planes they still have seat belts and warning lights.",
"Based on the context, the correct word is \"lie\" instead of \"lay\". \n\n[Usage Chart](_URL_3_)",
"What we really should be asking is why school buses don't have seatbelts?",
"different conditions. fulfill wishes, conditions, insurance, guarantees 100 passengers- against one"
],
"score": [
14635,
2425,
1876,
589,
484,
427,
345,
259,
131,
50,
27,
21,
12,
8,
8,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243",
"http://m.aviationweek.com/ebace-2017/german-challenger-totaled-after-a380-wake-turbulence",
"news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/447724.stm",
"http://freeology.com/wp-content/files/lielay1.png"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do airlines force people to keep their seat belts on for so long when people in private planes can lay down, sleep, party, etc.?
[removed] | [
0.08523096144199371,
0.056396082043647766,
0.011067420244216919,
0.058776505291461945,
0.03413925692439079,
0.020853985100984573,
0.047445036470890045,
-0.05830065906047821,
0.06609658896923065,
0.06350916624069214,
0.03332698717713356,
0.14915412664413452,
-0.0014752923743799329,
0.012950... | |
70yph5 | When birds fly, do they know where they're going every time or do they just land wherever? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dn72cr4",
"dn6umv6"
],
"text": [
"I live near a long string of parks. Over decades I have watcher the behavior of Canadian geese in particular. Groups will do to the golf course or another pond on a regular schedule. They fly a direct route between these locations. They definitely know where they are going. I remember one terribly windy winter day when a group wanted to go up wind about three miles. They all took off, but one goose could not keep up the pace in the wind. The lead pack turned around and landed while the tired goose rested. I don't think they ever visited the other pond that day. I have seen many examples of such behavior. Other observations: you can tell how far a group is going by how high they fly. Geese flying from pond to pond may fly 100M above the ground whereas birds going 10 miles or more will fly 500m or more high. I conclude they know what they are doing.",
"i believe birds have a \"magnetic sence\" that allows them to always have a mental compass. They also have pretty good memory. back in my grandma's house there's a chandelier just next to a window. every year at the same month the birds would come in and make their nest on the chandelier. my grandma just lets them be. I figure either they are the same birds or the children of said birds"
],
"score": [
4,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | When birds fly, do they know where they're going every time or do they just land wherever?
[removed] | [
0.19625461101531982,
-0.0019916805904358625,
0.008335237391293049,
0.0323382169008255,
0.05051247030496597,
-0.029453784227371216,
0.098365418612957,
-0.11974909901618958,
0.06508263200521469,
0.015152208507061005,
0.0027958934661000967,
0.034588105976581573,
-0.07472938299179077,
0.032680... | |
3xh4b0 | Where does the term 'ninja' come from if in Japanese it's 'sasuke'? And is ninjutsu something different in Japanese? Sasukejutsu? | I was watching a documentary and it occurred to me that the Japanese-speakers weren't actually saying the word 'ninja'. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cy4neyy",
"cy4oz2c",
"cy4ny3u",
"cy4nuvj",
"cy4wz92"
],
"text": [
"Are you talking about the show Ninja Warrior? That show was called Sasuke. Ninja is a Japanese word, as is the alternate reading, Shinobi. The word literally stems from the character \"endure.\" \n\nThere's arguments that there was never really a historical ninjutsu, as a distinct art, but that most of the ninja aesthetic comes from theater, where the all-black outfit originated with stagehands.",
"The word ninja is made up of two different 'kanji', characters that have (often several different) pronunciations and meanings. The first character that makes up the word ninja is '忍'. It can be seen as the verb 'shinobu', or to sneak around (there are other meanings as well, but this is the relevant one here). Now, to indicate someone is what we would call a ninja/sneak thief/incognito traveller, you could use 'shinobi no mono' (忍びの者), or, roughly translated, a person of sneaking. Abbreviated, you get 'shinobi' referring to these sneaky ninja guys.\n\nOk, with me so far? I'm not too good at explanations.\n\nThe first character in the word 'ninja' (忍者) has an alternate pronunication from the one given above (called the on-reading), that of 'nin', again with the same sneakyness-meaning. The second character (者) simply means person (sha, or ja in this case). Notice that this second character is also used as 'mono' in my example of 'shinobi no mono'.\n\nTL;DR: Shinobi and ninja are the same thing, they're Japanese words with basically the meaning of 'sneaky person'.",
"Sasuke is a term used to refer to male ninja, while Kuno-ichi is used for females.\n\nYou have probably heard of the term \"Shinobi\" used to refer to what you know as ninja, written as 忍 in kanji. Each kanji character can be read in many different ways, and so ninja (忍者) which basically means \"shinobi person\", can be read as both \"shinobo-mono\" or \"ninja\".",
"Not sure where you're getting sasuke from. But shinobi is the other word more commonly used for ninja.",
"Well there are different prefixes and suffixes in Japanese that change the meaning of a root word. You have Ninja which is a person, Nindo which is the way of the ninja, and you have Ninjutsu which are Ninja techniques. Similar to having ken, or fist, kendo or the way of the fist (ironic in that it uses swords). Or bushi warrior or bushido the way of the warrior. \n\nSasuke is a name though and not a word for ninja. I think you're thinking of shinobi which is based on the root word shin or death. aka assassin. Most of the history on the subject is pretty vague with there being a fair amount of hollywood invention and literary traditions. Most of the warriors were Samurai or ronin and they were more like medieval knights and had an honor code. Ninja are more like assassins or hitmen."
],
"score": [
75,
55,
11,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Where does the term 'ninja' come from if in Japanese it's 'sasuke'? And is ninjutsu something different in Japanese? Sasukejutsu?
I was watching a documentary and it occurred to me that the Japanese-speakers weren't actually saying the word 'ninja'. | [
-0.10722709447145462,
0.011762605048716068,
-0.07051745802164078,
0.045082442462444305,
-0.05802607536315918,
-0.032554153352975845,
0.0797252282500267,
0.06302185356616974,
0.03115091845393181,
-0.043696898967027664,
0.08708492666482925,
0.022431327030062675,
0.14847031235694885,
-0.01416... | |
6hum5p | Why is the 1-2-3 on the top row of a phone keypad but on the bottom row of a calculator? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj17zpd",
"dj18wh0"
],
"text": [
"the first phones with an actual keypad used it to match the old rotary phones, which had the lowest number first.\n\ncalculators existed before that, and had already established the 7-8-9 on the top row",
"Numberphile did a video on this:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTldw;\n\nThe 3x3 grid style was settled on because it was the easiest to make. Calculators existed before phones with keypads and that layout was decided upon without much thought. When keypad phones came in, Bell labs performed experiments and found that the 'phone layouts' led to fewer errors in entering the numbers and was considered more natural by the general population. So, phones adopted the new, better layout whilst calculators stuck with the older layout."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://youtu.be/kCSzjExvbTQ"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why is the 1-2-3 on the top row of a phone keypad but on the bottom row of a calculator?
[removed] | [
-0.0654054656624794,
-0.023819515481591225,
-0.025659367442131042,
-0.06043466180562973,
-0.00009651187428971753,
-0.04896315559744835,
-0.0024781785905361176,
-0.012082711793482304,
0.15168529748916626,
0.03763570263981819,
0.08566201478242874,
0.04559555649757385,
0.021749351173639297,
-... | |
4wkq5w | What is inflation and how is it caused? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d67qhsr",
"d67rvi8",
"d67qjsu",
"d67qsev",
"d67qy98"
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming you're talking about economics. Imagine there's this thing called money that works far better than bartering. Now the amount of money in an economy is not totally fixed. If there is not enough of it, the price of everything goes down. If there is too much of it, the price goes up. Now remember that money in whatever form is more or less useless - people only demand money because they want goods and stuff.\nWhat makes \"too much money chasing too few stuff?\" Well, it might be useful to look at what determines price of anything - supply and demand. Perhaps the demand for stuff has risen because everyone got a raise. Or perhaps the supply of goods has fallen because the things needed to make and transport most of them (say, oil) has become more expensive.",
"I can't remember where I read it but... \n\nImagine you are at a show. Everyone is seated. 1 person stands up. Behind them, since they can't see anymore another person stands up. Behind them, another. This continues until everyone us standing. Now nobody is better off, but everyone is standing. Soon, someone will stand on a chair. Soon after that everyone will be standing on their chairs. This is inflation.",
"Inflation is basically the extra you need to spend this year to buy the same thing as last year. It is averaged over many products, but if it costs you $105 to buy this year what you bought for $100 last year, then inflation is 5%.\n\nIt causes are many but boil down to - if it costs you more to buy things you ask for a higher pay rate in order to afford it. But making wages higher increases the costs to the producer, so they put their prices up, which means that the wage earners now need a pay rise to keep up with the increased cost of products, so the producer has to incrase the price again . . . rinse, repeat--its called the wages/prices spiral for that reason.",
"Just to cover all ends. Inflation is when an object is expanding due to a gas being added inside the object. It will expand due to pressure increasing inside is greater to outside the object. Depending on the object it may also rupture. \n\nPerhaps inflation in that sense now applied to economics shows the inevitable future at the end of the road?",
"Inflation is partially caused by interest on loans. If a bank loans $1000 and expects to receive back $1100, that extra $100 had to come from somewhere. Of course it could be scraped from the rest of economy, but when banks all over issue tones of loans on a daily basis, that means there are a lot of people trying to get more out of the economy then they put in, dollar wise.\n\nIn an inflationary system this works okay, because the government is always pumping more new currency into the economy. Under ideal conditions, that new money will represent new value that businesses are creating with their loans and there will be almost no inflation of prices, but the reality is that it is better to keep the supply of money slightly ahead of the supply of real world value. Thus there is usually a slow, steady amount of inflation."
],
"score": [
5,
5,
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is inflation and how is it caused?
[removed] | [
-0.056407708674669266,
0.011781799606978893,
-0.048801239579916,
0.09020881354808807,
0.0004012627759948373,
-0.022911421954631805,
0.0023660536389797926,
0.0007686084718443453,
0.03424568101763725,
0.022956565022468567,
0.05761520564556122,
-0.025691790506243706,
-0.028383653610944748,
-0... | |
2vs12t | Why is the search for "intelligent life" so widely talked about and seems to be a prominent goal for NASA? | Surely even the discovery of a worm-like creature, an organism would be completely ground-breaking in itself? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cokghab"
],
"text": [
"First of all, you're correct. Finding any life would be a big fucking deal.\n\nHowever, that's actually not very likely to happen. What's much more likely is that we will find evidence of alien technology, such as radio signals or something else that travels at light speed.\n\nRemember, any evidence that we find will have to travel from where the aliens are to where we are. If you think about a cow, or a worm here on earth, there would be no way for an alien who is not on earth to know that the cow is here. \n\nBut humanity's technology does have signals that could be picked up from other planets (given enough time for the signal to get there). \n\nSo the assumption could be made that without setting foot on an alien planet, the only way we are going to detect life is via the signals that technology puts out. Therefore the life would be intelligent."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is the search for "intelligent life" so widely talked about and seems to be a prominent goal for NASA?
Surely even the discovery of a worm-like creature, an organism would be completely ground-breaking in itself? | [
-0.018691763281822205,
-0.012037565000355244,
0.07805562019348145,
0.01256998348981142,
0.07938046753406525,
-0.03539380058646202,
-0.004808939062058926,
-0.021138370037078857,
0.014101415872573853,
0.09907419234514236,
-0.01144772581756115,
-0.05078874155879021,
-0.03232721611857414,
0.03... | |
1m3pul | Why do we use White and Black to describe race when the skin tone is actually Beige and Brown? | And when did this usage originate? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cc5h3br",
"cc5jkpz",
"cc5hyxg",
"cc5pljm",
"cc5guwu",
"cc5heee",
"cc5llup",
"cc5xybn",
"cc6071p",
"cc5jcl0",
"cc5ktm0"
],
"text": [
"(1) Color vocabulary has evolved and expanded throughout time. I highly doubt the word 'beige' was around when this usage was solidified. \n\n(2) We do this all time time when it comes to naming binary pairs, in order to easily distinguish them, even when the designations don't match up perfectly. Think about white pepper. It's definitely beige, but we call it white because it's easy to contrast with \"black,\" which is the name of the other kind of pepper we use.",
"[Some people are actually black or white](_URL_0_). Either way, the words beige and brown were probably not around back when they needed a word for it.",
"White people are pink/peach/brown. You don't notice until you open a photo of someone and use the colour-select tool n random places",
"First, it's important to note that the origin of 'black' and 'white' as racial denotations is Western European. It actually has less to do with skin color than most would assume. Notable is the fact that black can be, and was, seen as the antithesis of white, meaning that it was the direct opposite and shared no common characteristics. We see colors today not as opposites but as part of a spectrum, because of our understanding of light, and this was not always the case.\n\nHistorically, colors have been deployed linguistically as 'symbols' that represent certain understandings that have nothing to do with them. White for purity and salvation, black for sin and darkness, green for life and luck, purple for regency and wealth...the list goes on and differs between cultural understandings.\n\nAs mentioned originally, black and white were considered opposites in the medieval/early scientific cosmology and as a result, we began associating things to them that we saw as polar opposites. Religion, race, culture and myth were assigned color characteristics to emphasize their true nature. The pope is white, while most high medieval depictions of Satan make him black or red.\n\nAs Europe began to interact with the edges of the world, or even more familiar segments of its own racial diversity, it used the semiotics of color as a marker for its understanding of those races. Despite color differences, as you noted, most Europeans (there are differences based on time period and nationality) will refer to other races or even their own as a color that is 'less than true'. Actual skin color, like on a color wheel or spectrum, only became recently important as science was asked to make statements about race rather than the older institutions of religion, myth, or superstition. Australian aboriginals are referred to as 'blackies' by European Australians despite their lighter skin tone. Turks and Arabs were called black, despite racial and phenotypical differences between them and Africans. Even certain genetic populations of the Irish have been referred to as 'black Irish' because of a then-disgraced mix of Spanish and Irish ancestry.\n\nEssentially, Europeans had assigned 'white' as a color understanding of positive attributes long before it denoted race, and they continued its symbolic relation to itself as it explored the world and interacted with race as a justifier of truths rather than a genetic difference.",
"Humans are very good at spotting differences in each other, it was beneficial for us in tribal times. It helped us discern if somebody may be 'foreign' which meant they may steal your women or have new diseases. I imagine the black and white thing was used because we focus on and exaggerate our differences and you can't get much further apart than those 2 colors. I don't know of any proof of this but it would be my slightly educated guess.",
"Because when the words were taking hold, people were trying to contrast and show as different the two groups as much as they could anyways.\n\nOther than that, it's just hyperbole. Easier to call someone black then describe with precision.",
"Because the first time someone made that distinction to you you were 5, and it made things a lot easier to understand.",
"Let me dissect your question backwards:\n\n(1) skin tone is actually Beige and Brown?\n\nThere is a vast range of skin colors ranging from pinkish-white to dark-brown\n\n(2) describe race \n\nWhile \"ethnicity\" has some merit and use in biology (shared cultural, linguistic, historic, and genetic background), \"race\", particularly \"color-based race\" itself has been shown to be constructed largely by societies with no biological basis, it's basically useless as a broad construct, or as useful as using a hammer for eye-surgery. In the US, for example, how we define race comes out of the the historical context of (a) western expansion (b) slave trade (c) migration waves. The word also has changed meaning throughout time and space. Today, it is used almost inter-changeably with \"ethnicity\"/cultural heritage.\n\nFor more information visit the Wikipedia page on how different cities and countries, societies, civilizations have conceptualized differences between themselves and \"others\" \n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n(3) why do we use black and white\n\nIn the US, the terms \"black\" and \"white\" had a strong practical use during the foundation and expansion of the country that were first skin-color based (because everyone coming in under the \"black\" label shared skin color as a trait) but then came to have little to do with someone's \"actual\" skin color, and more with their position in a constructed power hierarchy kind of like an iteration of feudal systems of europe (i.e. you're born a peasant, you died a peasant) and caste-based systems of India (i.e. you're born a dalit, you die a dalit). For example, the One drop rule _URL_3_ which was law in some states in the 20th century, said that people despite looking completely \"white\" would still be considered \"black\"... because it really wasn't about their skin color, but a strong political, social, and legal heirarchy that was formed around creating socio-economic strata in this particular manner.\n\n(4) when did this usage originate?\n\nThere is really no \"origin\", or multiple origins, because the concept of race, ethnicity, color change throughout time. Some countries don't have a word for race, or their word for race is synonymous with ethnicity, where the guy living two cities over for two thousand years is considered a different \"race\". Looking at US in particular: In early slave trade race wasn't actually, based on what I read, such a strong driver in American thought. Race became a prominent issue in the 18th century really because of two things (1) European countries were banning slavery one by one, and in the US there was an increased need to justify the existing social-stratification system (2) 18th century Victorian attempts to systematize and classify \"race\" (Negritoes, mongoloid etc.) and later social darwinist thoughts about race (inferiority/superiority). \n\nAgain though, the words \"race\" \"black\" \"white\" are meaningless without context of the country/history/language they're spoken in.",
"Back in the 1700's, a man named Carolus Linnaeus was helping to develop a theory of 'scientific racism,' and divided the world into four categories, which he assigned colors. Europeans were called the white race, Asians the yellow, Americans were red, and Africans were black. His protege, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, added a fifth color: brown for the islanders of the South Pacific. This system was so neat and easy to use, that we keep on using it, even though it's not really based on skin color.\n\nTo my knowledge, this is the first time people were put into these categories. Dark and light were common before that, and 'black' was used metaphorically in Hebrew scriptures to describe how people acted, but it was in the 1700's that people started using these colors for races.\n\nBlumenbach's continued to study the races, and decided that the races weren't really different after all. Those in the black category were just as smart and talented as those in the white. Unfortunately, that part didn't stick nearly as well as the color list.",
"It was a term used to differentiate between the north africans and the south africans. The north being \"white\" and the south being \"black\". When the europeans came to africa, they misinterpreted what the terms meant and assumed that all people of dark skin were black.",
"Every language has different sets of colors they decide to name. (Russian doesn't have \"blue\" but instead just \"light blue\" and \"dark blue\".) But every language in the world has words for \"black\" and \"white\"."
],
"score": [
149,
23,
18,
12,
5,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://imgur.com/3u6Hzuy,ZfoUKPf#0",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do we use White and Black to describe race when the skin tone is actually Beige and Brown?
And when did this usage originate? | [
0.024261370301246643,
0.1383834183216095,
-0.04606214165687561,
0.05303124710917473,
-0.006927988026291132,
0.04089183732867241,
0.030157575383782387,
-0.01188739761710167,
0.06796810775995255,
-0.004297836218029261,
-0.014808236621320248,
-0.06985190510749817,
-0.010009567253291607,
0.015... | |
3t3n12 | Why do TV shows do the fake lines on the screens to make it look like a home recorder, when today they look the same quality? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cx2svc1"
],
"text": [
"To convey to the audience that the scene is taken with a recorder, in universe.\n\nThey do a lot of shorthand like that. The \"shink\" sound of a knife being picked up. Dial tones on cell phones. People typing on computers and the individual letters appear on their face. It's not realistic but serves the story."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do TV shows do the fake lines on the screens to make it look like a home recorder, when today they look the same quality?
[removed] | [
-0.08140706270933151,
-0.005369966849684715,
0.035204607993364334,
-0.0850171148777008,
0.0254331324249506,
-0.03913727030158043,
0.0041905720718204975,
-0.05766976997256279,
0.0712626650929451,
-0.11427286267280579,
-0.039612285792827606,
0.06696249544620514,
-0.01907128281891346,
-0.0077... | |
2xzju4 | Why is it wrong to drive using 2 feet? | Like right foot on the gas and left foot on the brakes. People always tell me it is wrong. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cp4uitu",
"cp4x5hg",
"cp4ukfi",
"cp4vdcg",
"cp4uzyv",
"cp4yd1c",
"cp4xnrq",
"cp4ycvo",
"cp4zjob",
"cp4unwd",
"cp57w1x",
"cp4vjsq",
"cp509c0"
],
"text": [
"Because it's bad for your car to have the gas and break pedals pressed at the same time, and it's too easy to do that when you have one foot on each. If you only use one foot for both pedals, you can't press them both at the same time.",
"How is it wrong? I always use my two feet. Left foot for the clutch, right foot for break/gas.",
"It is easy to accidentally put both feet down on the pedals at the same time which is inefficient and bad for the engine.",
"Also keep in mind historically the left foot was used on the clutch.",
"Mainly just lots of extra wear on the brakes. You are going to be braking while accelerating accidentally even if it is just a little pressure from resting your foot on the petal.\n\nEver see someone driving down the road with the brake lights on? That is what they were doing. Pretty hard to tell if they are stopping or not!",
"As a manuel driver I was like: How are you supposed to press the clutch and brakes at the same time with one foot?",
"The biggest reason is because of how humans react in an emergency. Ever been in a crash? Your reactions usually go; attempt to correct, 2nd attempt to correct, brace for impact. The third (and usually final) reaction is the problem, you extend your elbows and push yourself back, your legs extend, these actions push you into the seat because in a split second, you're going to be moving forward. So if you go to brace for impact, and say your left foot misses the brake pedal, your right foot now just slammed on the gas, increasing the speed into the impact, making it more deadly. Conversely, if you brace with only your right foot near the pedals, you're more likely to hit the brake, whats more, if you miss the brake, you're at least not able to increase the speed into the collision. If you have a manual shift vehicle, the clutch is a third pedal, all the way to the left, if you brace for impact and press the clutch with your left foot and brake with right foot, it wont help you more than if you were in an automatic, but at least applying this combination will not add momentum into the collision\n\nTl;dr: You're told to use the right foot only in vehicles to make them safer from human reaction and to prevent mistakes.\n\nEdit: half delirious from a chest cold, mixed up left and right",
"Another reason to not use 2 feet is because your brake lights. Even the slightest pressure on the brake pedal activates the lights (maybe not the brake, at least in my truck). If your brake lights are always on the car behind you doesn't know when you are actually slowing down.",
"The most important quality you can cultivate on life and in driving is decisiveness. Using one foot forces to to decide, at every moment, whether you are accelerating or stopping. If you are not confident you can safely accelerate, then you should be covering the brake. Using two feet allows you the illusion of more control when in reality it makes it easier to hesitate, to hedge, and ultimately make things more dangerous for you and everyone around you.",
"Try slamming on the brakes. Both legs tense, and you speed up (or don't slow down as fast).",
"Dad life tip:\n\nIf you apply gas and brakes at the same time your doing it wrong",
"It's not wrong, it's just going to increase wear on your brakes if you press both, which is really easy to do with your left foot resting on it. \n\nA bunch of people do it though, even professional drivers, and they have reasons behind it too. It'll make you faster in some cases.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"You need your other foot for the clutch. Best not to learn a restrictive habit. There's never any need to use both the accelerator and break at the same time any way."
],
"score": [
52,
39,
30,
18,
11,
10,
6,
6,
5,
5,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://jalopnik.com/why-you-should-brake-with-your-left-foot-434604934",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-foot_braking"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why is it wrong to drive using 2 feet?
Like right foot on the gas and left foot on the brakes. People always tell me it is wrong. | [
0.03122715651988983,
-0.02980996109545231,
0.05373368039727211,
0.03964328020811081,
-0.012333633378148079,
-0.01949356496334076,
-0.05459476634860039,
0.1043880358338356,
0.019881198182702065,
0.05599282681941986,
0.011014992371201515,
0.08237399905920029,
-0.007825770415365696,
0.0427979... | |
klwwq | Financial Derivatives | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c2lkcxc",
"c2lbv54"
],
"text": [
"Derivative server two purposes. One is to provide insurance (protection) against something happening.\n\nFor example, say you needed lemons for your lemonade stand. Say they cost 50 cents today, but you're worried about them going up. You could agree to buy 100 lemons each month for the next year for 75 cents each from the lemon farm. Now maybe they don't go up and you end up overpaying for lemons, but if they do you can still sell lemonade even if they're $100 each.\n\nThe second purpose is to bet on or against something. The could be almost anything. Say your dad lends you $10 for new cardboard boxes for your stand. You bother sees this and goes: \"He'll never pay you back, he only sells 3 glasses a day\", but your father believes in you and says \"wanna bet\". You father bets $5 that you you'll pay him back, and your brother bets $5 that you won't.\n\nIn this case if you didn't pay your father back he'd be out $15 instead of $10, but the bet could have went the other way. Your dad could have been worried he'd never see the $10 again so could have bet $2 with your mom that you'd never pay it back. That way the most he could lose would be $8.\n\nNow for what ModernRonin was talking about. Say if your Mom has 10 children all running lemonade stands. The risk of any stand failing might be too risky for people to want to bet that it will succeed (like Mom just did with the $2), but if you group them all together then people might see that as less risky. Even if one stand fails they could still make money on their bet, and how likely is it that 10 lemonade stands in 10 parts of town could all fail?\n\nThe problem arises when something happens that shows that they weren't really less risky at all. Maybe there's a bad crop of lemons that year, or it's discovered that lemonade causes cancer. Now all of a sudden the 'safe' bet is shown to be not very good.",
"It's kinda like hot dog filling. They take other investments (like mortgages and bonds and just about anything else) and grind it all up, then sell the result.\n\nIn theory, these derivatives are supposed to have lower risk - less chance of losing all your money. However, just like with hot dog filling, if you start out with utter crap (like mortgages that are already almost in default) then the result really isn't much better. No matter how much the pretty packaging they slap on the derivatives may claim otherwise.\n\nThe problem is, people were too stupid to notice that these financial derivatives were made from crap. And the government regulators who were supposed to supervising investment firms and preventing them from passing off crap investments as good investments were asleep at the switch, or confused about these derivatives, or sometimes they even believed the bullshit themselves.\n\nConsequently, most people who bought these derivatives (intentionally or not - sometimes they let other people invest their money and those people bought derivatives) lost their shirts. And there were a lot of people who did. And that's how the whole economy got fucked up.\n\nThat, and the stupid wars that we keep wasting hundreds of millions of dollars a month on. But that's another story."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Financial Derivatives
| [
-0.02734057419002056,
0.0018952770624309778,
-0.03268487751483917,
0.024895520880818367,
-0.0022356254048645496,
-0.004184494260698557,
0.02786179818212986,
0.03328734636306763,
0.061576347798109055,
0.050731074064970016,
0.05474449694156647,
0.043469469994306564,
-0.04961496964097023,
0.0... | ||
33hlau | We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively | I heard this theory often - and as much as I try to get my mind around it, I can't.
Can you explain it in simple words?
Thank you!
Edit: I searched in older posts, but couldn't understand the explanations. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cqkywxq"
],
"text": [
"Here's a short story that I think gets the idea across very effectively: _URL_0_\n\nThere might be more 'philosophical' ideas about it out there, but this introduces one idea about it in a very understandable way; with this context, it might be easier to understand the more complex ideas."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/1a07cy/short_story_the_egg_by_andy_weir/"
]
} | train_eli5 | We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively
I heard this theory often - and as much as I try to get my mind around it, I can't. Can you explain it in simple words? Thank you! Edit: I searched in older posts, but couldn't understand the explanations. | [
0.058044664561748505,
-0.10124582052230835,
0.00496797077357769,
0.049139637500047684,
0.01634228229522705,
-0.033882513642311096,
0.09695417433977127,
0.02937253937125206,
0.13472525775432587,
0.028894437476992607,
-0.021520372480154037,
-0.09063317626714706,
-0.03084593079984188,
-0.0124... | |
3frcjk | Why the smoke curling off the tip of the cigarette is blue, but when you smoke the color of smoke is white? | FYI: [visualization](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ctr7ui4"
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the lungs adding water vapor / stuff to the smoke which affects its Rayleigh scattering.\n\nWalter Lewin has a nice demonstration/explanation of this in one of his MIT lectures.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_).\n\n(the smoking starts at about 3:30)."
],
"score": [
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://i.imgur.com/hAhzssV.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQSIt5CRFj8"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why the smoke curling off the tip of the cigarette is blue, but when you smoke the color of smoke is white?
FYI: [visualization](_URL_0_) | [
0.0522899404168129,
0.053152166306972504,
-0.00015927212371025234,
-0.0055226171389222145,
-0.01416026707738638,
0.01745622232556343,
0.09007733315229416,
0.0006883315509185195,
0.09906094521284103,
0.028430156409740448,
-0.006660424172878265,
0.01794799230992794,
0.00831796694546938,
0.03... | |
4cvueh | Pokemon | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d1lsltm",
"d1lt1dg",
"d1lsmg6",
"d1lsu91",
"d1lwavl",
"d1lxpg4",
"d1lsum5",
"d1lw6yc",
"d1lvfn8",
"d1lvczw"
],
"text": [
"The games are an interesting take on an RPG. You play a fledgling Pokemon trainer, choose a starter Pokemon and venture out into a fantasy world populated by an enormous range of magical beasts. You have to fight them and catch them, and train them to learn new magical powers. They evolve into bigger, cooler beasts. \n\nYou go from town to town meeting other trainers, dueling them, doing quests and stuff like any other RPG. The main course of the game is that you duel the gym leaders of each town, this is a badass pokemon trainer with strong pokemon, and if you win you get a badge that is like a ranking. The more badges you get the bigger opponents you can face in the \"pro\" pokemon league. There are also a million other activities.\n\nAnyways, the original Pokemon games were called Red and Blue on the Gameboy. The newest game on the 3DS is still absolutely excellent, and stays true to the Pokemon spirit. However the originals had 150 Pokemon, the new ones have like 600 or some shit. Spin off games like Pokemon Stadium on home consoles are not the same. They might be fun but they are not pokemon RPGs. The real games are all mobile: Gameboy, DS, 3DS.",
"It's an RPG/adventure. You start with a basic Pokémon that grows stronger with use. You use it to catch others, which have differing strengths, weaknesses and moves. They evolve into bigger, more badass, forms as they get stronger thereby allowing you to catch stronger Pokémon and so on. There's a story to each game, which you play through in order to gain access to all the areas (and therefore Pokémon). There's no set \"goal\", as such. You could play to beat the story, which will necessitate forming a strong team of Pokémon, or play to catch them all, which necessitates beating the story. It's very sandbox in its nature.\n\nThe games are released in generations. Gen I, for example, is Red, Blue and Yellow. They take place in the same world, Red and Blue are a matched pair with the same story but differing exclusive Pokémon, so you'd need access to both to catch them all. Yellow is a different story, which is actually based on the first season of the anime.\n\nThe chronology goes:\n\n* Red/Blue/Yellow\n* Gold/Silver/Crystal\n* Sapphire/Ruby/Emerald\n* Pearl/Diamond/Platinum\n* Black/White/Black 2/White 2\n* X/Y\n\nWith re-releases of older games into generations from gen IV onwards. FireRed/LeafGreen, HeartGold/SoulSilver, Alpha Sapphire/Omega Ruby.\n\nThe actual mechanics of the game are extremely well explained within the games themselves, so I won't go into detail about that.\n\nIf it's something you're looking at getting into, I'm sure your local used electronics store can set you up with a Game Boy and one of the older games (I'm sure emulators and ROMs exist, but I couldn't *possibly* speak to that beyond mentioning the possibility). The latest games in the series (that aren't re-releases) are X and Y for the 3DS. They're fantastic games, with a great engine, that are a true pleasure to play.\n\nI've been into this stuff since I was 8 and it was all new, if you've got any questions I'd be delighted to go into a huge amount of detail for you :)",
"Well many people will try and tell you that a specific generation is better than the other, but one thing they all have in common is that you start with one and try and complete the standard game. By standard game I mean you get a team of 6+ pokemon, you technically don't need more (or even all 6 if yours feeling ambitious), but you use this team to get through various gyms (challenges I guess), and acquire a badge. Once you get all 8 badges you can challenge the pokemon league. They're supposed to be the elite team, aka elite four and a champ. Once you do that you're pretty much done story wise, unless you have a second gen game like sliver (soulsilver for most current), because that one has two regions. \n\nExtras: basically different games have different side quests you can do. All of them have the pokedex challenge in which you try to obtain all the pokemon in that region, and the national dex which is getting all the pokemon that has ever been. Some games have a contest you can compete in, third gen has them in various towns for example. Other games have a battle frontier which you can connect via WiFi and kick butt, or kick your butt handed to you, from people across the globe. They have different non WiFi battles in the frontiers as well. \n\nEdit: I forgot to add that there is also a criminal organization that tries to a different task based on the game I don't want to spoil it for you, but they're part of the original story. \n\nEdit2: there is also some tricky mechanics in the game as well. Something I got into the last time I played was EV training. And this is just a specific training used to boost your team to the absolute best. Like for example a lv 100 pikachu naturally raised is going to be less powerful than an EV trained lv 100 depending on the specific stats you boosted. But just go through the game naturally first. The EV training is not necessary just to beat the game.",
"The best place to start would probably be Omega Ruby or Alpha Sapphire. Both are remakes of the third game in the series, with small variations between the two versions. More on this later. They are great entries into the series, and offer a good starting place for first time players. \n\nPokemon games follow the adventures of a young child as they get their first Pokemon and begin traveling around the world. The objective is to beat 8 gym leaders (bosses), and then to take on the 4 best trainers in the game back to back as the final boss fight. Players catch more Pokemon to level up like a team on an RPG, and battle with other trainers while exploring the world.\n\nThe games naming scheme is a little confusing, but it'll make sense. The original games are considered generation 1. Red, Blue, and Yellow are three slightly different versions of the same game. Generation 2, the sequel to the first set of games, is Gold, Silver, and Crystal. Each generation has new Pokemon, a new world, and new mechanics, and each new generation has several versions, and which one you pick isn't very important.",
"Alright, let's go!\nPikachu, Squirtle, Venasaur, Arcanine\nDiglett, Jigglypuff, Muk\n\nAsscloud, Nippleclamp, Poopypants, Dingledoodle\nRanchbreath, Turkeyburger, Beefhead, Clyde\n\nHaterade, Bubbledump, Overdraft, Headcheese\nPicklefeet, Frontbutt, Softbrick, Commonwhore\nUnderloaf, Chairwolf, Manateats, Freebase\nNickelback, Lumbersack, Tinyhead, Door\n\nJigglystuff, Adamsapple, Frognut, Waterbottle\nCandyass, Tracklighting, Pikadilly, Man\nLamborguineapig, Artstudent, Tinkleburn, Flavorsaver\nTrainlick, Coffeemunch, Poodlehat, Dataplan\nWondernug, Telechubby, Ravermouse, Milkstain\nYogafish, Oldperson, Freezeclump, Ponysquirt\nOilyshorts, Dadsweater, Poppasquat, Hairystump\nWetsocks, Shatternut, Noodlearm, Shirt\n\nStinkledink, Cuddlydeath, Arguemint, Pillowbite\nDrumsolo, ActuallySatan, Weinisfriend, Dinobooty\nXanajew, Clevergirl, Straightuptoilet, Whalesnail\nFiddly-Faddly-Biddly-Baddily-Diddily-Doodily-Hiddily-Hoodily\nSnaggletush, Poolboy, Drizzlenips, Spatulander\nThuma Urman, Bunchanugget, Mangorubber, Catdeer\nFuglyrump, Phlegmycough, Whiskertoes, Chocolatefart\nFreenburglar, Swordtaint, Monkeychunk, Beer\n\nGotta catch em all!!",
"You're a small child in a futuristic world where wild animals can be caught in objects known as pokeballs, short for pocket balls, because of their ability to change in size from a handheld thrown ball to something that is about the size of a large marble that will fit in your pocket. These wild animals that can be captured with pokeballs are called pokemon, short for pocket monsters, regardless of size or density of the captured animal. This is where the futuristic technology of the pokeball comes into play, where by some undisclosed method, all data on the biological being captured is recorded and transferred into the pokeball. Its on par with technology you would expect if we were able to prove that we ourselves were inside of a video game, and were to transfer animals from out reality to inside of another hard drive for storage and later retrieval.\n\nSo you, as this child with the amazing pokeball technology, feel it's time for you to venture out into the world. However, as you leave, the towns professor comes by and warns you that pokemon live in tall grass, and that 'it's dangerous to go alone, take this', and thus you are granted by the professor one of three captured pokemon to keep you safe from wild pokemon. His grandson, your rival of the same age, also takes a pokemon that, at least according to it's type, is on the surface the one that would be best to beat yours with.\n\nYou see, all pokemon have different types, and some types are stronger than others against certain other types, and some types are resistant to some types. A Ground type pokemon, for example, will be completely immune to Electrical type attacks. Just because a pokemon is of a specific type does not mean it can't use other type attacks however, or a Normal type attack which are things such as body slams, tackles, and scratches. A pokemon which uses an attack type which matches its own type receives a bonus to that attack, known as a Same Type Attack Bonus. Some attacks will be Super Effective against other types, such as a Water type attack being used against a Fire type pokemon.\n\nSome pokemon will gain extra types as they Evolve, which is a transformation that occurs during a specific event such as obtaining a certain level, being exposed to a certain item, or being traded from one trainer to another.\n\nYour goal as this child, given to you by the professor, is to catch every known pokemon, and to help you do this the Professor also gives you a Pokedex, Pocket Monster Encyclopedia, which helps you to record information on pokemon you've seen such as where they can be found, and extra data on pokemon you've caught. The real goal then, is to catch and obtain data on every pokemon, not necessarily have them all at once. Actually having every pokemon in the early games can be difficult, as you're limited to how many pokemon you can store in Boxes on PCs which can be found throughout the game.\n\nYou also have the goal of becoming a Pokemon Master, which requires you to defeat the Elite Four of Indigo Plateau. To do so, you will have to capture and train pokemon to defeat Eight Gym Leaders who are located around the continent and obtain their Badges. Only after obtaining the eight badges will you be allowed to travel the Victory Road and challenge the Elite Four.\n\nYour pokemon retain their damage after battles and wild encounters, including status effects such as poison which will continue to harm them after battle without treatment. Healing your pokemon is as easy as taking them to a Pokemon Center, where they will heal your pokemon for you quickly and effectively. You might argue they have universal health care, or that they're rearranging their data to where it was pre-damage, but either way the healing happens inside the pokeballs and is very quick.\n\nWere it not for the idea that this is all futuristic technology where the population realizes they're inside a game, you could argue that this is a game about animals fighting each other. Go, my captured slave who will fight for my amusement or be left abandoned inside of a digital box, fight and use this attack against this other captured animal slave! But, maybe it's all data in their eyes, and either way it is never presented this way. Many characters often tell you to take good care of your pokemon. There is even a pokemon graveyard where people mourn their lost companions.\n\nPokemon raised by trainers are stronger than ones that are not, and some pokemon are stronger than others. There are different stats, Strength, Agility, Special, Attack, Defense, and they all have different status gains when the pokemon levels up. Even if a pokemon might appear weak to a certain type, if it has a strong enough special it might be able to shake it off.\n\nLevels go from 1-100, there are calculators and really the game has a lot to learn about it if you intend to play against other people who have figured out all the tricks by this point.\n\nIf you're just looking to get into it and check it out, I would suggest getting Red and Blue, if you can find them at a reasonable price. These are the originals and with both games you are able to get all of the pokemon in the game. If you want to go the old school route, you'll need two gameboys and a link cable so that you can trade pokemon from one game to the other. Same pokemon game only be obtained through trades, so if you want to get actually get all of them, you will need both games and preferably a second person to start the game with you on the opposite game. There is no real point in obtaining all of the pokemon and filling the pokedex with info, you get a diploma certifying that you've done so but it confers no benefit.\n\nIf you like the game after that, I would suggest an online pokemon RPG. Some of them are actually pretty nice, they allow you to play with people online and watch their battles, trade, fight them too, have tournaments, etc. \n\nThat about covers the bases for the first two games, Red and Blue, which have 151 pokemon (or 150 if you don't want to use in game exploits to obtain Mew). I didn't go in depth on the stats or calculators but they're easy to find and get more information on if you want the best of the best pokemon. Later games introduced breeding which sometimes can help you to get the stats you want if you're going to be playing other people and not just NPCs. Avoid MissingNo off the coast of Cinnabar Island, it's an in game glitch which wasn't fixed, and was meant to be Mew. MissingNo is short for Missing Number, and may crash your game or corrupt your save if you capture it and then save it. It will also duplicate certain items. Your best bet is to run away from it and ignore it if you don't want to learn about it or abuse an in game exploit that might ruin your save.\n\nEnjoy.",
"Pokemon is about (shows and games) your or the protagonist's journey from a regular kid to the Pokemon league champion. You didn't mention whether or not you've seen the shows though, so I guess I'll assume you have. \n\nIn the game, you basically go from town to town collecting pokemon and defeating whatever pseudo-terrorist organization is in the region (Team Rocket, Team Alpha, Team Magma, etc.). All the while you're also fighting your collected team of 6 (maximum) pokemon in turn based combat versus any other trainer you lock eyes with and gym leaders to make them stronger.\n\nHonestly, the entire thing is pretty detailed, so if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer anything.\n\n\nEDIT: Just in case you are wondering, there are 721 pokemon now, and more will be coming later this year when Pokemon Sun and Moon are released. There's no reason to feel overwhelmed though, if you're not min-maxing for competitive fighting, you only need to know your favorite ones anyway. \n\n\nI'd say pick up watch a few let's plays, download the Omega Ruby/Alpha Sapphire demos and try it out, that's the only way you're really gonna get a proper feeling for it. The game is designed to be VERY friendly to newcomers and challenge really only comes when you fight other (real) people.",
"OP i was a kid who was able to enjoy pokemon when it first hit north america the cards the gameboy games etc and stoped playing for a long time until recently. I bought Alpha sapphire (most recent game) its twin omega ruby is also most recent they differ only by what wild pokemon you can catch, i would highly highly reccomend you buy a 3DS and grab one of these or get the newest one on the way (Sun and moon) the games are amazing and the online battles are very competitive.",
"Pokémon is a game anyone at almost any age can pick up and play and really enjoy. I highly recommend checking it out if adventure, strategy, rpg games are your forté. Every game has a wide selection of Pokémon, but if you start from the earlier versions you can even transfer your team to the next games. It's kinda funny how complicated it is to ELI5 for Pokémon; there's just so much greatness.",
"When you are done with the RPG/adventure part of the game, you can take it to a whole new level by playing competitive. (Loads of precise stat and moveset planning, as well as matchups) You won't see it as a kids game anymore once you enter that realm. Check out competitive players like Aaron Zhang, he's pretty hardcore. _URL_0_"
],
"score": [
65,
21,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cybertronvgc"
]
} | train_eli5 | Pokemon
[removed] | [
-0.11059471219778061,
0.045358847826719284,
-0.031149733811616898,
-0.03557151183485985,
-0.028088878840208054,
-0.0015281746163964272,
0.09931981563568115,
0.004082180093973875,
-0.05599719285964966,
-0.017294012010097504,
-0.004252849146723747,
0.004508425481617451,
-0.012370200827717781,
... | |
1nceu9 | What's the behind the meaning of a "neckbeard"? | Can someone please explain what a neckbeard is? Why do they wear fedoras? Why the "le" in front of words? Is it an insult? I'm still pretty new to this and a bit lost? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cchbmmh",
"cchar7n",
"cchbgmb",
"cchdtxa",
"cchel4f"
],
"text": [
"A decent beard should be, to at least some degree sculpted or manicured. Just basic hygiene really. \n\nA \"Neckbeard\" refers to someone who has a beard not because they want one, but most likely simply as a result of inattention to grooming. Usually paired with wrinkled, smelly clothes, a surly attitude, and poor social skills.",
"Neckbeard refers to someone who has grown a beard but its really only on their neck. Its fairly common among nerd / geeks. \n\nThe term has become a derogatory term for nerds and geeks, generally referring to those who take themselves to seriously and who tend to have a bad taste in fashion and about their general appearance.\n\nBack when rage comics where popular people used Le instead of The, it was funny at first but quickly got unfunny.",
"A neckbeard is just a really unkempt beard, such that it grows off the neck as well as the chin. It doesn't really mean the traditional internet denizen (the fedora, le trole, etc.), it does imply it, as usually internet denizens dont care very much about social situations or hygene.",
"\"Neckbeard\" is also a term derived from an older insult, \"Beardy\". Calling someone \"Beardy\" was used to reference fringe hobbies, like Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40K, etc. It implied that the man didn't have a job, social live, or any reason to shave and take a shower. \n\nCalling something \"Cheesy\" has the same implications, joking that only a dork who smells like cut cheese could have thought up a certain play-style or tactic. Recently though, beards have started becoming popular, especially with hipsters. As a result of this, having a beard isn't as much a bad thing anymore, so now saying someone has a dorky, unkept, neck-beard is the insult of the day.",
"There are two kinds of beards in the world. The first kind is basically facial topiary; it is carefully trimmed, washed, and managed.\n\nThe second kind of beard is the neckbeard, the chaotic, sprawling, oily and crumb-ridden face-shrubbery that nature intended. This was once considered socially acceptable but now the neckbeard is only found on men and unusually hairy women who are utterly oblivious to personal hygiene."
],
"score": [
24,
14,
5,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What's the behind the meaning of a "neckbeard"?
Can someone please explain what a neckbeard is? Why do they wear fedoras? Why the "le" in front of words? Is it an insult? I'm still pretty new to this and a bit lost? | [
0.018932469189167023,
0.03088563308119774,
-0.0026600398123264313,
-0.021315475925803185,
0.035194896161556244,
-0.019223053008317947,
0.03385673463344574,
0.026182441040873528,
-0.025755014270544052,
-0.016762929037213326,
0.056571658700704575,
-0.08839113265275955,
0.04602985829114914,
-... | |
yqwwd | how is it technically possible for Lance Armstrong to have Doped when he passed over 500 tests throughout his career? | Not looking for a debate on whether he's guilty, that's happening elsewhere. Just wondering how it *could* be possible technically. How could he have avoided detection for all those years?
EDIT: Hacksawjim provides an [extremely long and thorough interview](_URL_0_) with a drug-test developer involved in one of Armstrong's hearing. It pretty much explains everything you could ask about on the subject. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c5y31wk",
"c5y2wp7"
],
"text": [
"[Here is a resource on doping in sports that could answer your questions](_URL_0_). \n\nI refer to this book mainly because doping in sports is a very big onion, with a lot of layers.\n\nThe best distillation is that sports has an evolving sytem of tests, regulations, drugs, and ways to dope without being caught. There is also the relationship among what is proven (Doping works but it is banned by most sports organizations), what people want to see (Records broken, championships won, and amazing feats), and what athletes have to do if they want to be elite (Train hard, be lucky/talented, and dope while not getting caught).\n\nThe sad truth is, Lance Armstrong probably doped a few times in his career, even if he passed all his drug tests. The nature of testing and doping in sports points to the likelihood that he did it, even if just a little, although what he used may have been legal or untested *at the time*. The problem is the general public hates being told this though. They want to believe in the pure, naturally gifted athlete who'd never stoop to doping. Doping is cheating in the eyes of the public. They don't want to know how records are set and broken, they want to see them happen.\n\nThe public perception is that doping is cheating, while the truth is much more complicated. Is it cheating? Yes but in a way, it's almost necessary just due to how widespread it is. Public demand for higher and higher levels of performance practically demand it. Armstrong, even if he had never cheated, won 7 Tour de France titles. Now that bar is set at 7. The chances of winning 8 is up to either a freakishly good, once in a generation cyclist doing it, or an extremely good one who's trainers know the testing/doping system, and gave him the extra edge to accomplish it. The truth people don't like is that the latter is far, far more likely to occur.\n\nSo the accusation that Armstrong is subject of a witchhunt is most likely overblown. The facts, if they ever come out, will probably not clarify much for people. If he doped, there's the chance he did it with an illegal substance and simply didn't test hot for it at the time. Or he used something which wasn't illegal at one point but is now, or he used one that wasn't tested for at the time of those particular tests. See how complicated all this can be? That's one reason why Armstrong decided to acquiesce. The investigation would've likely hurt a lot of people, not just because of the facts revealed, but because of the *perception* of those facts. He's likely protecting people he believes to be innocent. Or he's simply innocent and there's a small chance this really is a witchhunt. The truth is we'll probably never figure that out.",
"Other riders who did get caught also passed hundreds of tests.\n\nArmstrong just failed one less than they did."
],
"score": [
6,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden?null"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.amazon.com/Dope-History-Performance-Enhancement-Nineteenth/dp/0313345201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345819210&sr=8-1&keywords=doping+in+sports"
]
} | train_eli5 | how is it technically possible for Lance Armstrong to have Doped when he passed over 500 tests throughout his career?
Not looking for a debate on whether he's guilty, that's happening elsewhere. Just wondering how it *could* be possible technically. How could he have avoided detection for all those years? EDIT: Hacksawjim provides an [extremely long and thorough interview](_URL_0_) with a drug-test developer involved in one of Armstrong's hearing. It pretty much explains everything you could ask about on the subject. | [
0.04786756634712219,
0.07096558809280396,
-0.06448880583047867,
-0.06407160311937332,
0.0770391896367073,
-0.04802720993757248,
0.023245563730597496,
0.07434826344251633,
-0.06299713253974915,
0.024243224412202835,
-0.013112379238009453,
0.0028732025530189276,
0.09842418879270554,
0.046366... | |
1ip1m0 | How anxiety and stress cause physical symptoms (Specifically tinnitus, dizziness, headaches, numbness) | I have been having these symptoms for over year as well as have been diagnosed with health anxiety. The doctors have not done extensive investigation for these symptoms, saying it is probably due to stress. I am willing to accept this but would like a better understanding about what physically happens in the body to cause this and why the body has evolved to react this way.
| explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cb6oae3"
],
"text": [
"Stress causes your blood pressure to rise and this causes the headache and numbness. Higher blood pressure also makes it easier for your blood to transfer oxygen therefore increasing your stamina. This helps if you are being chased by a lion but is bad for your health if you are always stressed out. Check with your doctor if you have high blood pressure, maybe he will give some high blood pressure med's or an anti-anxiety drug like Valium."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How anxiety and stress cause physical symptoms (Specifically tinnitus, dizziness, headaches, numbness)
I have been having these symptoms for over year as well as have been diagnosed with health anxiety. The doctors have not done extensive investigation for these symptoms, saying it is probably due to stress. I am willing to accept this but would like a better understanding about what physically happens in the body to cause this and why the body has evolved to react this way. | [
0.04445570334792137,
-0.040420856326818466,
0.08174024522304535,
0.1543574184179306,
-0.02622111886739731,
0.06030828505754471,
0.09926453977823257,
-0.0007708965567871928,
0.046892229467630386,
-0.029290325939655304,
-0.05886820703744888,
-0.05619847774505615,
-0.005845226347446442,
-0.07... | |
5uahvs | how the Nazi identify the Jews in the holocaust | I mean, just by accusation? Did they had a census or anything? In the common cold war dictatorships delation or previous political activities were the cannon for getting people into trouble, but in the Nazi regime the idea was to delete an entire ethnical and cultural belief, so I can't figure it out. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddsocx7",
"ddsmil9",
"ddsypza",
"ddsu9ep",
"ddt6xl0",
"ddsol1h",
"ddt051g"
],
"text": [
"The Nazi party in Germany identified Jews through military records, census records, tax returns, synagogue membership lists, parish records (for converted Jews), routine but mandatory police registration forms; the questioning of friends, relatives, neighbors, businesses was also used, as well as Jewish community membership lists, individual identity papers, captured census documents, police records, and local intelligence networks. \n\nWhen we think about the holocaust, or read about it, or hear about it, the focus is usually on the apex, the peak of the horror...but you have to understand that this happened gradually over a period of years. There were a number of methods employed to identify and exclude European Jews (amongst others), and it began with giving the power to Hitler and those who would follow him. In 1933, Germany passed the Enabling Act, which essentially ended democracy in Germany, giving the government the power to enact legislation by decree. This gave them the legal ability to make the discriminatory policies that were to come. It also meant Hitler was allowed to make legislation that violated the Weimar Constitution without the approval of the parliament. They began by suspending the licenses of Jewish doctors and others in service industries. They forbade Jews from taking the bar exam, thus preventing them from becoming lawyers. They used a claim of overcrowding in schools and Universities to prevent Jewish students from attending public schools. They then taught students to love Hitler, obey authorities, and hate Jews. All of this happened in 1933, and it was just the first steps. By 1934, Jews were prohibited from slaughtering animals, which prevented them from obeying Jewish dietary laws. Nearly every aspect of Jewish life was subject to arbitrary-seeming legislation. In 1935, the Nazi leaders announces the Nuremberg Laws. These laws (among other things) excluded Jews from having citizenship, from marrying or even having sex with German women, denied Jews basic political rights including voting, denied Jews the right to hold political office. They also made it nearly impossible for Jews to make a living, reducing Jewish-owned businesses in Germany by two-thirds. \n\nAnd so it went, until things finally got so horrific the rest of the world was forced to stand up and take notice and, more importantly, to act. It took far too long for that to happen, with a near global Depression making for hostile times all around.",
"That's part of it, but they also checked public records of lineage and church records. Most Jews didn't think anything about the government knowing they were Jews before Hitler.\n\nMany Jews had names that made them easy to identify, like names ending in Stein or Burg, which were disproportionate compared to similarly named Aryans.\n\nAnd they used comparisons of facial features to show if you were Jewish.\n\nThey didn't care if there was a false positive, so they could be as stereotyping as they wanted to be.",
"Several posters have provided much more specific and superior answers. However, your question reminded me of a scene in Jerry Spinelli's historical fiction novel, \"Milkweed.\"\n\nThe main character is shocked when NAZIs shoot at him protesting, \"But I'm not Jewish!\" To which an older, wiser character responds: \"If they shoot at you, you're Jewish.\" \n\nThis is pretty much how things were. Jewish, Polish, Gypsy people were whoever the NAZIs decided they were. Of course, you are probably aware that Hitler himself was likely Jewish, and certainly far from Aryan. Yet he was exulted as an ideal man. \n\nEdit: ~~Jerri~~ Jerry",
"Social records: Military records, medical records, census records, tax records, synagogue membership lists, etc.\n\nWord of Mouth: Your neighbors knew you were Jewish, or just said you were Jewish. \n\nLooks: The Jewish people do have some minor phenotypic differences that can be used to identify them from other ethnicities. So if you had very curly hair, dark eye, the right shape of nose, slightly darker complexions than the Germanic population you would often be assumed to be Jewish.",
"In the Netherlands the government had extremely detailed registries of it's citizins. They practically knew everything they had to, where people lived, what their religion was, what their jobs were, etc etc.. When the Germans invaded they got controll of these registries and used them to arrest and deport the Jews. Because this was so efficient they almost completely eradicated the Jews from the Netherlands.\n It really shows the dangers of government surveillance, our government did not have bad intentions with that info, but someone else who did eventually got controll of it and the results are horrible.",
"They got most of the Jews to willingly identify themselves by making it seem like it was no big deal. Then used that about 5-10 years later to start the killings.\n\nMost denominations of Judaism themselves regard someone as a Jew if their mother was, regardless of their own religious affiliation. So for the Nazis, just knowing that your parents or even grandparents were Jewish was enough to regard you as a Jew.",
"My 7th grade history teacher told me that some officers would go to the synagogues, which had records of adherents, their families, residence, place of work, and so on."
],
"score": [
41,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | how the Nazi identify the Jews in the holocaust
I mean, just by accusation? Did they had a census or anything? In the common cold war dictatorships delation or previous political activities were the cannon for getting people into trouble, but in the Nazi regime the idea was to delete an entire ethnical and cultural belief, so I can't figure it out. | [
0.018457867205142975,
0.1303488165140152,
-0.10299880802631378,
0.07804086804389954,
0.016123278066515923,
0.08186356723308563,
0.04721444472670555,
-0.0529632531106472,
0.05926954373717308,
-0.06501564383506775,
-0.030056672170758247,
-0.05638958513736725,
-0.01133644301444292,
0.05879688... | |
2eo5c1 | when my phone is fully charged it tells me to unplug it to save electricity. Is it actually more efficient to run it off the battery? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ck1bltj",
"ck1ghtq"
],
"text": [
"power is being converted by the transformer even when it is plugged in and being converted to heat, so yes sort of.",
"A phone uses an infinitesimal amount of electricity when charging. Let's do the math.\n\n1 amp X 5 volts = 5 watts (a nightlight)\n\n5 hours a night = 5 watt hours.\n\n365 days per year = ~2 kilowatt hours. \n\nIn NYC right now, the cost is 20¢ per kilowatt hour, so, a year's charging is around 50¢.\n\nFor those saying there are power losses from the transformer, I'll round up to $1 per year."
],
"score": [
5,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | when my phone is fully charged it tells me to unplug it to save electricity. Is it actually more efficient to run it off the battery?
| [
0.004227831494063139,
0.15323837101459503,
-0.03177747130393982,
0.08029065281152725,
0.06173026189208031,
-0.020721297711133957,
-0.012820973992347717,
-0.01551943551748991,
0.018050208687782288,
0.03713737428188324,
0.018167853355407715,
0.06204790994524956,
0.024951128289103508,
0.05148... | ||
16enap | Why Words With Friends is not being sued by Scrabble? | Seriously...it's the same game. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c7vea2k",
"c7vbu4a",
"c7vd125",
"c7vdbr5",
"c7ve8vs",
"c7vqw3a"
],
"text": [
"Because (in America, at least), [you cannot copyright the rules of a game](_URL_1_).\n\n > Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.\n\nYou could patent the rules of a game (as it would be a \"system\" or \"method\" of play), but Scrabble's patent [expired in 1970](_URL_0_).\n\nThe only legal protections Scrabble has is the exact *wording* of the rules (which you *can* copyright) and the trademark. You could create your own game just like Words With Friends or Scrabble and sell it, and they couldn't really do anything about it legally.\n\nHowever, they could still inundate you with drawn-out lawsuits to drain your money. Some companies will consider a lawsuit they'll never win as a perfectly good expense if it will bankrupt their competitor under legal fees.",
"Hasbro probably doesn't have a patent on the concept behind the game.\n\nEdit: _URL_2_\n\n\"The board is laid out slightly differently and the letter point values are just different enough to make it hard for Scrabble to prove copyright violation.\"",
"Because words with friends (the board game edition) is being made by the same company that makes Scrabble.\n\nedit: For all the downvoters, am I wrong? Hasbro makes the board game, they also make Scrabble.",
"Protecting the underlying rules of a game is a very difficult thing - there's no single branch of IP law, be it copyright, patent, trademark etc which directly covers this sort of thing. Copyright could come into play if they literally used all the art from a scrabble board, but if they make it just a bit different that sort of goes out the window.\n\nNowhere is the difficulty of protecting game concepts or core game mechanics more obvious than in the world of videogames. Every year different games come out from different publishers which work nearly identically. The videogames industry is very iterative and a bit slow to innovate, and were someone to say \"Hey we own the IP rights to making games where you point a gun from a first person perspective and shoot people\" the whole damn industry might just collapse, so while it is unfortunate that we can end up with lots of games that are very clearly rip offs of other games, like words with friends, or possibly everything Zynga has ever produced, it is perhaps best in the long-run that basic game mechanics aren't really covered by any particular form of intellectual property.",
"Scrabble can't actually copyright the game. There is a copyright on the art, and any \" substantial literary expression in the form\" of the directions however the actual method of playing is not copyright protected. All that is required is to explain the directions of playing in different language than Hasbro did in theirs.\nFrom the U.S. Copyright office: \"Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.\"\n\nEdit: My original comment was inaccurate.",
"Similarly, I've always wondered how there's not been conflict between these companies:\n\n* Lays and Jays potato chip companies.\n\n* GameStop and GameSpot."
],
"score": [
120,
70,
36,
27,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/issues.html",
"http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html",
"http://www.slaw.ca/2012/02/27/how-words-with-friends-is-killing-scrabble/"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why Words With Friends is not being sued by Scrabble?
Seriously...it's the same game. | [
-0.008727425709366798,
0.025804486125707626,
0.01893918216228485,
-0.0849524661898613,
0.007492723874747753,
0.0057344213128089905,
0.052126407623291016,
-0.037678636610507965,
0.0002143027086276561,
0.04535338655114174,
0.04523484408855438,
0.04754963144659996,
0.06617644429206848,
0.0043... | |
5xdyju | Do twins get concieved from the same singular sperm that reaches the egg first? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehbdhm"
],
"text": [
"There are two types of twins, identical and non-identical (fraternal).\n\nIdentical twins form when a single sperm fertilises a single egg, but somewhere, early in foetal development it splits in two and both continue developing into children, resulting in two children with identical DNA.\n\nFraternal twins form when two different sperm each meet a different egg, and both fertilised eggs develop into children. This results in two different children in one pregnancy."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Do twins get concieved from the same singular sperm that reaches the egg first?
[removed] | [
-0.06976869702339172,
0.007716219872236252,
-0.021075254306197166,
-0.031750716269016266,
-0.011739847250282764,
0.0039013938512653112,
-0.03363636136054993,
-0.01562589220702648,
0.013895243406295776,
0.044438686221838,
0.11291732639074326,
0.010304979048669338,
-0.06705810874700546,
0.01... | |
73m6la | Why do newly released blockbuster films only circulate on the internet when they have been released on DVD? | I find it strange that when a film is released to cinemas worldwide, it never leaves their systems. It doesn't get hacked. Angry employees don't leak them. It is tightly contained within the bounds of where the filmmakers want them and quite literally does not leave that spot until they want it to --and I'm not quite sure how they achieve this. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dnrc57j",
"dnravuz",
"dnrodvn",
"dnrfkeg",
"dnrbru9"
],
"text": [
"First of all, cinemas don't get their movies on DVDs (or Bluray for that matter). They used to get movies on movie reels back in the days of analog film. These days cinemas receive a Digital Cinema Package, or [DCP](_URL_0_), which is basically a computer hard drive in a special enclosure which contains the movie.\n\nSo, as long as a movie is still only in theaters, versions of it in the wild on optical media should be few and far between. A proverbial handful of 'screeners' is likely in the hands of journalists and critics around the world though, in the form of DVDs usually, for reviewing purposes. Security on these is really, really strict. They are usually unique for each person that receives one and contains secret watermarks and other security features.\n\nAs for the previously mentioned DCP's: the format the movies are in on these devices is very unusual, consisting of hundreds of thousands of individual files (as mentioned in the linked article). Besides that, it probably has additional security to prevent copying, if it can be done at all.\n\nSo, in a nutshell, that's why we have to wait until the retail release for good quality releases of movies.",
"Sometimes they are, but it's rare.\n\nBefore DVD release pirates have to rely on cams, which are of questionable quality. \n\nAlso, it's not really worth the time and effort to steal one of the theaters copies. Getting caught is too easy.",
"These days, movies are all sent digitally to movie theaters. The data is strongly encrypted in such a way that it can only be played back on a specific projector. the enclosures are tamper-proof and log every time the film is played. Even if somebody were to steal one, it'd be nearly impossible to get the movie off of it.\n\nBeyond that, movie pirates don't want to commit actual felonies by breaking into a theater and stealing one in order to get movies. Piracy is only copyright infringement, a civil issue, something you can't go to jail for.",
"One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that studios started watermarking the videos they send out, so if it gets leaked they know which copy it was.",
"It does happen, screener copies (copies sent to award shows or to critics) that then get leaked. Actually stealing from a theatre might take some more work though, I doubt theatres just get an email with an mp4 attached."
],
"score": [
22,
6,
5,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-video-format-played-in-digital-cinemas"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why do newly released blockbuster films only circulate on the internet when they have been released on DVD?
I find it strange that when a film is released to cinemas worldwide, it never leaves their systems. It doesn't get hacked. Angry employees don't leak them. It is tightly contained within the bounds of where the filmmakers want them and quite literally does not leave that spot until they want it to --and I'm not quite sure how they achieve this. | [
-0.006972428411245346,
-0.10254427790641785,
0.02911066822707653,
-0.06204552575945854,
0.025258123874664307,
0.06022937223315239,
-0.01581883244216442,
-0.05097879096865654,
0.16119451820850372,
0.029567772522568703,
0.040107712149620056,
0.12002058327198029,
-0.004788664169609547,
0.0068... | |
2gqah2 | Why do guys insist on sending unsolicited dick pictures. Does that ever REALLY work? | Have you sent dick pictures without the other person asking? Did you have any success with it? Are you aware that its super creepy? Why do you do it?
Or if you don't send dick pictures, do you understand it? Is there some kind of psychological reason some guys do this? I'm just wondering. Every time I see it happen or that it happens to me, I always write the guy off as creepy. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cklkqda",
"cklivo7"
],
"text": [
"Men are very visual creatures, and quick to arouse. A man can go from no arousal to immediately turned on just with a quick flash of a girl's boobs. As a result of this nature, many men don't grasp that women don't work the same way, and aren't interested much in seeing a dick unless already aroused.\n\nCombine that with the general negative effect that arousal tends to have on your ability to make good decisions, and you have horny men sending what they think are arousing pictures to someone who is in no mood for them.",
"Because it gets them off. Depends on which side of the scale between mother superior and super-horny fairy-queen the recipient is.\n\nSource: I'm the latter, generally speaking."
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do guys insist on sending unsolicited dick pictures. Does that ever REALLY work?
Have you sent dick pictures without the other person asking? Did you have any success with it? Are you aware that its super creepy? Why do you do it? Or if you don't send dick pictures, do you understand it? Is there some kind of psychological reason some guys do this? I'm just wondering. Every time I see it happen or that it happens to me, I always write the guy off as creepy. | [
0.009132505394518375,
0.006165509577840567,
0.05863572657108307,
0.05150645598769188,
0.0416116826236248,
-0.09077484160661697,
-0.010713273659348488,
0.012829908169806004,
0.01670689694583416,
0.028656093403697014,
-0.0050307586789131165,
0.06417848914861679,
0.10064258426427841,
0.054759... | |
3sl58e | Why are some people "naturally smart" and seem to get through academics/life in general with ease? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwy7k7y",
"cwygo86",
"cwyl00n",
"cwy7png",
"cwy7j9l"
],
"text": [
"As someone who went through school pretty easily without ever really trying all that much, the key to my success, or what makes me \"naturally smart\" is my ability to memorize things quickly and relatively easily. It made cram sessions for tests much easier, and resulted in me doing well a lot of the time. The way I describe it to some people, is I feel like my brain functions like a computer. It's great at processing information quickly, and I can retrieve info quickly, but I'm not always great and taking the next step with that knowledge. Taking what I know, and applying in different ways (I.E. creatively) has always been harder for me. A good example is music. I played the piano, trumpet, and guitar for many years. I was great at reading music, and very technically proficient. But that was only so because of my memorizing ability. I could never write my own music, or even just \"jam\". For me to be good, I need to know exactly what to do.",
"There are no solid answers on this because so much goes into \"intelligence\" or being smart.\n\nGenetics give you potential. You really can't fight or change this.\n\nEnvironment can let your potential flourish, or greatly hamper it.\n\nBut what is \"Intelligence\"? There are two factors involved, one can help cover lack in the other.\n\nOne factor in intelligence is memory, the ability to retain information.\n\nThe other is functional understanding, the ability to figure out information. You could call this logic or reason.\n\nEither category being the majority of that person's \"intelligence\" results in people that can be a lot less than a good mix of the two.\n\nWe've all seen people that seem smart, but do some drastically stupid things. These people have an imbalance of the above, or commonly act without regard for one or the other(often a factor of environment).\n\n__________\n\nFor a rough Eli5(as with all analogies it breaks down if you examine it too hard, but it sounded fun to try and do):\n\nGenetics would be road conditions and quality(since you can't change them while driving, the laws of physics are going to limit your potential).\n\nEnvironment would be speed limits and other traffic laws(since they can be willfully ignored) *existing*.\n\nMemory would be *knowledge of* traffic laws.\n\nFunctional understanding would be how your car(and other cars) works, eg, understanding the various impacts of applying the e-brake, how far to turn the wheel to make that corner, turn on the headlights when the environment becomes dark, how to go above the speed limit somewhat safely.\n\nHaving any of these be deficient can greatly impact your trip, but a partial lack in one area can be compensated by another(excepting road conditions as immutable fact).\n\nIf you know and obey the traffic laws, you don't need as much functional understanding, the professionals told you what was safe to do.\n\nIf you have a good working knowledge, but little knowledge of the laws, you can eek by relatively safely.",
"It depends on how your brain prioritizes things. The reason that some people have taken like 6 courses in Calculus, but still forgot is the same reason that some students excell in academic areas. Basically, your brain subconsciously decides \"is this important or not?\". Something important might be like the vocabulary for a test, when you take that test, you'll probably know all of it. Let's say you never used that again, try remembering it a month later. You probably won't remember most of it, because your brain starts scrapping away that kind of stuff because it's not important. This happens with language too, the longer you spend in a foreign country, the more you start to speak like the foreigners. \n\nFor some people, some things are prioritized differently. For a \"smart\" person, school might be a huge factor in him/her. I mean, imagine getting beaten up if you didn't get an A in that test, that would force your brain to mark that as important. For that lazy slacker who just plays video games 24/7 and never turns in his homework, school would be like the last thing on his list, and he would learn literally nothing from going there.",
"Unless I'm mistaken, your question seems to be, \"why is there variation in intelligence?\" This is the question I'll answer, and if it wasn't your real question then I'll try again. \n\nIntelligence is the result of a lot of complicated interactions, but ultimately it is a trait like height or hair color or foot size or any other trait. Like any other trait, an individual's intellgence is based on the interaction between their genes and their environment. A conservative estimate is that genes and environment play equal roles in a person's intellgence. If a growing person doesn't have enough calories or micronutrients, or they are exposed to a lot of diseases, their intelligence will not be as high as if they were healthier and better nourished. These are all environmental factors. If a person did not inherit a good combination of genes, their intelligence will not be as high as a person who did inherit the right genes, even if they had a good environment.",
"As far as I know natural intelligence is genetic. If you want to know more here's an article _URL_0_"
],
"score": [
31,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/"
]
} | train_eli5 | Why are some people "naturally smart" and seem to get through academics/life in general with ease?
| [
0.08920479565858841,
-0.04035649821162224,
0.09072165191173553,
0.0852947011590004,
0.05621207877993584,
-0.06970459967851639,
0.02049908973276615,
0.06044500321149826,
-0.030535077676177025,
0.06599407643079758,
0.014084231108427048,
0.02726777084171772,
-0.09175357222557068,
-0.019594658... | ||
3gdsxe | Why don't phones just capture video in horizontal mode no matter which way you hold it? | We all agree that nobody likes the vertical video footage, so why is it even there? Is it really that difficult to just make the phone capture in horizontal mode no matter how you hold the phone? Is there any purpose to the vertical capture? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ctx7grk",
"ctx6x7i"
],
"text": [
"The actual sensor in the phone that captures the image is itself also rectangular - in the same direction as the phone screen. To make the phone record video in horizontal mode when it is held vertically would result in using a lower resolution, as it would require ignoring a large portion of the sensor (keeping it widescreen by chopping of the top and bottom of the image captured). To continue to capture the image in full resolution, horizontal mode would require the sensor to rotate with the phone.",
"It is capturing in \"horizontal mode\" - people are just holding their phones the wrong way."
],
"score": [
6,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why don't phones just capture video in horizontal mode no matter which way you hold it?
We all agree that nobody likes the vertical video footage, so why is it even there? Is it really that difficult to just make the phone capture in horizontal mode no matter how you hold the phone? Is there any purpose to the vertical capture? | [
-0.03639024868607521,
0.044037848711013794,
0.080935537815094,
-0.11440886557102203,
0.046820927411317825,
0.014063888229429722,
-0.07479140907526016,
0.022616874426603317,
0.10318116843700409,
0.00396735267713666,
0.05180796608328819,
0.06314905732870102,
0.013089140877127647,
0.038968354... | |
3lg7j4 | Why after drinking energy drinks do you get a phlegmy throat? | I talked to my friends about this and they experience the same thing and I can't find anything about it anywhere online.
It doesn't apply to usual carbonated drinks because this doesn't happen with them. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cv607rw"
],
"text": [
"My throat doesn't get phlegmy at all after drinking energy drinks... Do other people experience this?"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why after drinking energy drinks do you get a phlegmy throat?
I talked to my friends about this and they experience the same thing and I can't find anything about it anywhere online. It doesn't apply to usual carbonated drinks because this doesn't happen with them. | [
0.010413557291030884,
-0.028443962335586548,
-0.06934195011854172,
0.04196837916970253,
0.017506709322333336,
0.0026558549143373966,
0.03654062747955322,
0.048134926706552505,
0.04639816656708717,
-0.08631429821252823,
-0.041940826922655106,
-0.01799714006483555,
0.0358419343829155,
0.0233... | |
3awgpw | How can a ziplock bag seal tight enough to hold water, but you can smell marijuana through it easily? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"csgmj7w",
"csgnr5g",
"csh3d80",
"csh30fk",
"csgmg7m",
"csh0xnb",
"csgw4cv",
"csgm4g0",
"cshcbhe",
"csgxy3x",
"csh9hol",
"csh8lnq",
"cshbvb1",
"cshc9wn",
"csh4s9r",
"cshe9qy",
"csh17s6",
"csh17su",
"csh2cao",
"csh5v9w"
],
"text": [
"Water is a special substance with a high surface tension. That means that water molecules have a firm grip on each other, and it takes significant pressure to push then through a tiny hole because they have to loosen their grips to fit through one at a time. Odors are gasses, and gasses love to drift around bumping into things like your nose. The Ziplock has tiny holes that are part of the thin membrane. Also, unless you're really careful, you get your pot on the outside of the Ziplock when you handle it.",
"Hmmm. What if you put your weed in a ziplock bag and then put that ziplock bag in a bag of water?",
"As someone who makes plastic bags for a living, the simplest answer is that oxygen transfer rating and moisture vapor transfer rating (colloquially used as OTR and MVTR) are totally separate. If you want something that can keep the smell of weed inside, look at multilayer structures with high OTR barrier properties like a metallized Biaxially Oriented Polyethylene Terephthalate. A name brand one would be DuPont's \"Mylar\" but there are many options. There's also some a few PET/Foil/LLDPE structures that do a good job holding a vacuum.",
"This is one of the reasons you should use a mason jar. The rubber on glass seal is one of the few that is airtight. It is also a great way to improve your bud long term.",
"Probably because water is a polar liquid and its attracted to itself more than is to the plastic molecule or air molecules. The liquid oils(possibly even some solids) of the marijuana has vapor in the gas phase above it. Even though the bag seems pretty solid, if you were to zoom in on the molecular level there is probably pores and tortuous paths that the marijuana molecule diffuse through. It would also diffuse into the bag material as well as the through the pores due to the being a concentration gradient outside the bags",
"You should be using mason jars anyway, it keeps the green nice and fluffy.\n\nIf you HAVE to use ziplock bags, use *freezer* bags - they are made to retain moisture and keep in the smell much better. I usually use a regular ziplock inside a freezer bag.",
"Is aluminium foil a good way to wrap your stash?",
"How smell works and how liquid works is very different. First of all, part of it is probably smell on the bag or the smell leaks out of the zipper part. And while it doesn't let water through, mostly because of water tension, it does let smells through because they are smaller. I hope that was basic enough.",
"Although this porous thing everyone's talking about in this thread may be true, I was told by a K-9 unit cop that the dogs can't actually smell the pot inside the bag. The only way dogs smell weed that's in a zip lock is from when the residue of the weed that is on the outside of the bag from you putting the weed in the bag and closing it.",
"Plastic bags are not a perfectly smooth surface of plastic. It has tiny holes, just like how your tshirt has tiny holes between the fibers. These holes are small enough that water molecules are too big to fit through, but other molecules are small enough to pass through. You can easily see this with a simple experiment. Add some food coloring to some water inside of a plastic bag, then dip the sealed bag in a bowl of clean water overnight. In the morning you should find that the clean water has become colored, this is because the molecules in the dye are small enough to be transferred through the holes in the bag even though the water is too big.",
"You'll do well to hide drug smells from a good dog. \nI once saw a border collie detect drugs which were in: plastic wrapped 3 times and sealed with varnish, which was inside an alarm clock, in a box (shrink wrapped), all inside sealed plastic bags x 2.... and this was sat on a 7ft high shelf, dog leaning up. \nSource: prison.",
"Ever heard of Gore-Tex? Gore-Tex is a very thin Teflon membrane (a polymer akin to plastics) that has been stretched so that it has zillions of tiny holes. These tiny holes allow the passage of water vapor (single molecules) but not the passage of water as liquid, which conglomerates into groups of thousands/millions of molecules, yet has the capacity to flow at the macroscopic level, and also has the capacity to break off and reconglomerate into other groups.\n\nAs a result, Gore-Tex is \"waterproof\", yet \"breatheable\" (it also allows passage of air molecules).\n\nAll plastics have some capacity to do this since they polymer chains are not as consistently connected as crystal solids. It is possible for \"solid\" plastics to be porous, and this is the case for nearly all of them.",
"Well, you can see the surface of water. You can hold water in your hand and it maintains some form. You can't see scent. You can't hold it. Water seems to want to hold itself together, mostly while aromas disperse. I'd imagine that causes some shifting of the molecules and allows them to pass through. I'm speaking from zero percent scientific knowledge.",
"Polyethylene is permeable. The molecules responsible for the smell will pass through. Slowly but most definitely surely. We do stability studies of packaging at work, and the amount of material that passes through LDPE bottles is amazing.",
"It's best to put that sack of stickie icky in a mason jar and screw it down tight, voila - no smell. Or if you're ballin' those \"smelly proof\" baggies work quite well.",
"the volatile oils in the weed must interact in some way with the plastic. Plastic being an oil derivative. Glass is not oil base and is chemically more neutral. just my guess",
"Could you not hide it in a burrito inside the wrap in the baggie?\nThat way the dog looks to be after an old burrito not drugs.",
"Get Op-Sacks at REI. Military grade zip locks made for keeping bears from smelling your food. They are the bomb",
"If this thread was talking about beer, I'd become thirsty. What would the herb equivalency to \"getting thirsty\"?",
"What is your address? I will come over and explain this to you."
],
"score": [
2336,
77,
56,
44,
13,
11,
7,
5,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How can a ziplock bag seal tight enough to hold water, but you can smell marijuana through it easily?
| [
0.02134929969906807,
0.07851837575435638,
-0.0005967762554064393,
0.0036772156599909067,
0.05691473186016083,
-0.08689787983894348,
0.04281875491142273,
0.002518896944820881,
0.032875314354896545,
-0.05240485444664955,
-0.03329451382160187,
0.03270329535007477,
-0.0241946280002594,
0.07485... | ||
1ys40n | why storing 256mb of data in the 70s require a massive machine, compared to a tiny USB stick now? | I know very little about this area, I can only assume back then storing data working based on a completely different principal that didn't enable things to be compact. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cfn9t8s"
],
"text": [
"There's two reasons, really: the second is as a result of the first, to some extent. \n1. Our ability to manipulate minute things has improved, as has our capability to mass produce fiddly little things. \n2. We've developed different things to store the data in/on. \n\nBack in the day electronic data storage was limited to tape - yes, the same kinda stuff as your old audio cassettes/VHS and Betamax. The tape is magnetically charged and the charge can be altered along the length to produce a string of different states which represent your data (This is still actually the best solution we have for reliable backups of critical data - even Microsoft & Google backup to tape). Storing data like this is sequential, so it means that you have to rewind to the right part of the cassette to find your data - it's slow & clunky. \nHard drives employ a similar idea in that the data is stored as magnetic charges, but instead of being along a strip of tape, it's stored on the surface of a coated metal plate. The data is stored along a spiral path a bit like the groove on a vinyl record. This is much more densely packed and precisely made that it can spin at high speed making it much faster to access than a tape - but you still need to find the right part of the drive before you can access your data. \nFlash drives (USB and SSD hard disks) work on a different principle. They are a series of memory locations (think numbered boxes) which can be electronically written to & read directly. You specify what you want to write, & tell it the memory location, and it writes directly to that location without the time needed to find the right part of the drive. \n\nThe reason these technologies have gotten smaller is that each one reduces the need for any mechanical parts which take up a lot of space. In addition we have become more adept at packing data in more densely."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why storing 256mb of data in the 70s require a massive machine, compared to a tiny USB stick now?
I know very little about this area, I can only assume back then storing data working based on a completely different principal that didn't enable things to be compact. | [
0.03824014589190483,
0.012886700220406055,
-0.007132876664400101,
0.035535067319869995,
0.05308026820421219,
-0.0804143026471138,
-0.10995113849639893,
0.10286431759595871,
0.012292053550481796,
0.055732712149620056,
0.03456723690032959,
0.12969782948493958,
0.019474433735013008,
-0.022557... | |
1rqfiw | The difference in the types of guns (revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc) and what the numbers (.32, .22, .45) in their names mean | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdptncu",
"cdpsudu",
"cdpucfk",
"cdpu41t",
"cdpw68n",
"cdpss57"
],
"text": [
"Guns are classified according to their action and their caliber. The types of action for long guns (carbines, rifles and shotguns) are Pump, Lever, Semi-automatic, break barrel, Bolt action, Revolver, and automatic. Pump guns require the operator to pull the fore end grip back then push it forward to chamber the next round. Lever is where the operator has to pull a lever down then back up to chamber the next round. Revolver (very few long guns use this) is a cylinder that holds generally 5 rounds that rotates every time the trigger is pulled, and can be fired either single or double action (cocked or un-cocked). Break barrel is usually a single or double shot gun (rarely triple) that requires the user to open a hinge that exposes the spent shells to be replaced with new rounds. Semi-automatic is a gun that has either a magazine or an internal magazine that fires every time the trigger is pulled until it is out of ammunition, fully automatic is the same except it fires in either burst or full auto as long as the trigger is depressed. Bolt action has a magazine (detachable or internal) that every time it is fired the user has to unlock the bolt, pull it back to eject a shell then push forward to chamber a new round.\n\nFor Pistols, the same rules apply, they just have no stock to shoulder, and they have shorter barrels. All of the same actions apply (I can't think of any pump, lever or bolt action ones but that does not mean they do not exist).\n\nThere are also black powder/muzzleloaders. These are single shot guns that do not use a cartridge, are loaded from the firing end and require an external ignition source, like a percussion cap or a flint striker. \n\nNow to the numbers. These indicate the caliber of the firearms. Caliber is the diameter of the projectile in inches. .22 is 0.22 inch diameter bullet. .223 is a 0.223 inch bullet (5.56 mm). The confusing part comes with the types of ammunition. There are a bunch of different .45s. There is .45 ACP, which is used in semi-automatic .45s and a very few .45 revolvers. There is .45 long colt, used in revolvers. There is .45 Heavy, or Buffalo, used in revolvers. There is 45-70Government, used in big rifles and gatling guns. then there is the big guy, the .454 Casul. It is basically the magnum .45, only to be used in revolvers specifically marked for its use. a lot of calibers are like this, so if you are buying ammunition for a gun for the first time, do not assume just because it says .357 that it will shoot in a .357 revolver.\n\nI don't think this is \"like I'm 5\" but it is as basic as I can make it and still be thorough",
"A revolver is a handgun where the bullets are stored in a circular cylinder. A pistol is a handgun where bullets are typically stacked vertically in a spring loaded magazine. A rifle is a long gun that shoots solid bullets. A shotgun is a long gun that shoots a bunch of small pellets.\n\nThe caliber (.22, etc) is the measurement, in inches, of how wide the bullet is. Some bullets are measured the same way, but in millimeters instead of inches. With shotguns, the gauge is the measure of ammuntion. It's number of pellets per a specific weight, so smaller gauges tend to be more powerful.",
"A handgun is a firearm that typically wielded and fired by \"one hand\", although this is not technically accurate, the general concept is that the weapon is designed to be gripped by one hand. A revolver, as mentioned below, is a handgun in which the cartridges or shot is carried in a cylindrical \"wheel\" that rotates either by manual manipulation( single action) or by action of pulling the trigger (double action) and moves the next round into position to be fired. The other type of handgun is referred to as an \"automatic\" or \"semi-automatic\" handgun. (With semi-automatic being the more accurate term). In this design the weapon functions by automatically cycling the next cartridge into the chamber by using the force of expelled gases to eject a spent casing and load a fresh one, typically from a spring loaded magazine. Most of these fire one round per pull of the trigger (hence SEMI-automatic). Handguns that fire multiple rounds with each pull of the trigger are generally referred to as machine pistols. Handguns fire \"pistol\" rounds, which are generally shorter and sometimes fatter than rifle rounds. Bullets have a lower velocity and shorter range, consistent with their intended function.\n\nA rifle, is a firearm that is designed to be wielded and fired with two hands, has rifling in the barrel, and fires a full size or intermediate sized cartridge. \n\nA shotgun is also a two handed firearm,but distinct from a rifle in that it usually has a smooth bore barrel (although rifled shotguns are common) and designed to fire \"shot\" (many small pellets, birdshot may have hundreds of bb sized pellets, where 00 buckshot is nine .30 cal lead pellets. any variation like that you can think of) or slug rounds, which are thick heavy bullets. The distiction is that shotgun rounds generally do not fit snugly in barrel when traveling out, like a rifle. (A rifled shotgun allows the shooter to fire a smooth slug sized bullet, with performance similiar to a rifle because it is a tighter fit) Shotguns are beneficial in that one shotgun can fire shot, slugs, or basically anything that will fit in the barrel, but always have a shorter range and velocity than a rifle.\n\n.30 cal/.45 cal refers to the bullets diameter in inches. 9mm is the same thing, just using the metric system.",
"A revolver is a handgun has interior ammo storage that revolves as you pull the trigger and does not expel spent rounds. \n\nA pistol is a generic name for a handgun that is not a revolver. It can have many types of ammo storage and actions. \n\nA rifle is a long gun with a rifled barrel that shoots rifle bullets. \n\nA carbine is a long gun with a rifled barrel that shoots handgun bullets. \n\nA shotgun is a long gun usually without rifling that usually shoots shot or lots of little bullets, but sometimes shoots slugs which are big heavy bullets. \n\nThere are 3 types of numbers. There's caliber, such as a .22 caliber which is .22 inches in WIDTH and is used for Americanized rounds. There's millimeter, such as a 9 millimeter, which is 9 millimeters in WIDTH but if followed by an x, such as 7.62x39 millimeter, includes LENGTH of the bullet which is for non Americanized rounds, and there's Gauge, which is the width of shotgun shells and is bigger the smaller the gauge is. A 12 gauge shotgun shell is bigger and can carry more powder/shot than a 28 gauge shotgun shell.",
"Geez Dianne, if you wanted to know all you had to do was ask. =)",
"It is the diameter of the round in inches instead of millimeters.\n\nTake the M2 Browning Machine Gun commonly called the .50 cal. .50 or one half an inch which is 12.7mm, the gun fires the 12.7mmx99mm round, 99mm being the length of the rounds case.\n\nSo a .22 caliber round would be a 5.7mm round."
],
"score": [
47,
9,
5,
4,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The difference in the types of guns (revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc) and what the numbers (.32, .22, .45) in their names mean
| [
0.01169583760201931,
0.016938263550400734,
0.0017508355667814612,
-0.016317259520292282,
-0.03116951324045658,
0.022364387288689613,
-0.0012248976854607463,
0.043285343796014786,
-0.003930671140551567,
-0.04617185890674591,
0.05840405076742172,
0.062132421880960464,
0.02984788455069065,
-0... | ||
6qdlbv | What happens if I bring a plant with a seasonal lifecycle indoors? Will it skip its dormancy or die out of confusion? | Furthermore, if I bring native annuals indoors, how does that affect the plant's lifecycle since frost never comes? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dkwgh6o",
"dkwgdoa"
],
"text": [
"That depends. Plants are numerous and very diverse. The easiest example I can think of is the Venus Fly Trap. The biggest mistake short of not giving them full sun is that people bring them indoors to keep them warm over the winter. These plants require a cold, relatively dark winter dormancy or they will die of stress after two or three missed dormancy. Other plants might be fine, and others might enter and leave dormancy at arbitrary points. It depends if the dormancy is strictly required or not.\n\nAs for annuals, it depends if it is a true annual or just a plant that happens to live as an annual. True annuals will die after reproducing regardless of temperature. Plants that happen to live as annuals in the area can live much longer, but are killed by unfavorable environments first. True annuals will live no longer, and might live shorter indoors, while plants that are really perennials will live for years if you actually take care of them.",
"This will very much vary between plants, and the environment they expect vs what they experience indoors. \n\nSome might be fine. Some will still have cycles but they will be different than the ones they'd experience in nature. Some *will* die, because they need that dormancy period (there are indoor plants where the instructions will tell you to simulate \"winter\" by keeping them somewhat dark and cold)."
],
"score": [
12,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What happens if I bring a plant with a seasonal lifecycle indoors? Will it skip its dormancy or die out of confusion?
Furthermore, if I bring native annuals indoors, how does that affect the plant's lifecycle since frost never comes? | [
0.0057829744182527065,
-0.011249123141169548,
0.004258946515619755,
0.016297880560159683,
0.10280812531709671,
-0.06258036941289902,
-0.06910136342048645,
-0.07461769878864288,
0.014272495172917843,
-0.001618638401851058,
0.04860331118106842,
-0.020883290097117424,
0.008174831047654152,
-0... | |
5qpy14 | Orthogonal projection of a vector onto the subspace spanned by two other non-parallel vectors | There's a lot of terminology wrapped up in this sentence and I'm having trouble putting it all together and forming a coherent image of what this means. Can somebody break down what this refers to? Bonus points for plain English and graphs! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd1orwv",
"dd19e4v",
"dd1mydj",
"dd156sc"
],
"text": [
"Say you have three arrows whose ends are all glued together (but you can't individually move the arrows around, they move together). Put the three on a piece of paper on a flat table, so that two of them will actually be touching the table (but the third might be in the air). Call the one in the air arrow A, and the other two arrows B and C. Shine a bright light directly overhead, and trace out the shadow of arrow A onto the paper. That shadow is the projection.\n\nB & C are the two non-parallel vectors (well, I didn't say they were non-parallel, but let's assume they are). The table is the subspace spanned by them.\n\nThis operation is called a 'projection', mathematically, because doing it twice yields the same result. I.e., if the third arrow was actually already on the table, then the arrow and it's own shadow would basically be the same vector.\n\nThe projection is orthogonal because the line that goes from the tip of arrow A to the tip of its shadow is always perpendicular ('orthogonal') to the table. edit: If the light were not directly above arrow A, but was hitting it at an angle, then you'd have a non-orthogonal projection. There are many ways you could non-orthogonally project A onto the table, but only one way to do it orthogonally.",
"think of a vector in ℝ^(3). say, < a,b,c > \n\nyou can express this as a linear combination of three unit vectors along the x, y, and z axes.\n\na < 1,0,0 > + b < 0,1,0 > + c < 0,0,1 > \n\nbecause these unit vectors are an orthonorma basis, we can easily look at the projection of < a,b,c > onto the span of any two of them just by dropping the third from the sum:\n\n < a,b,0 > projection onto xy plane\n\n < a,0,c > projection onto xz plane\n\n < 0,b,c > projection onto yz plane\n\ni just used the canonical basis to illustrate, but the idea is that you're \"removing\" an orthogonal component and looking at what's left.\n\nif the two vectors weren't part of an orthonormal basis, you'd have to use inner products, but the idea is the same. you're looking at how much the two non-parallel vectors \"contribute\" to the vector. or you can think of it as a shadow on the 2D subspace",
"Imagine you're working in 3 dimensional space like the world we live in. Now draw two arrows (vectors) on the ground. The span of these two vectors is the entire ground and it forms a subspace of the original 3d world (obviously this isn't really the case in real life since the world isn't flat).\n\nNow take a pole and stick it out of the ground (doesn't have to point straight up). This will be the third vector. Now imagine the sun is shining directly above this pole. The shadow casted from the pole is the orthogonal projection of the pole (vector in R3) onto the ground (the subspace).",
"Start with \"two non-parallel vectors\". What does that look like? When I picture a vector, I picture a line with an arrow on the end. If you have two non-parallel arrows, then the subspace they span is a surface. Orthogonal means independent or perpendicular. So an orthogonal projection of a vector onto a surface would be a vector perpendicular to that surface. A pole sticking out of the flat ground. That's my answer, but it's been at least 10 years since I studied linear algebra."
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Orthogonal projection of a vector onto the subspace spanned by two other non-parallel vectors
There's a lot of terminology wrapped up in this sentence and I'm having trouble putting it all together and forming a coherent image of what this means. Can somebody break down what this refers to? Bonus points for plain English and graphs! | [
-0.07637696713209152,
-0.02748171053826809,
-0.07641175389289856,
-0.03275677189230919,
-0.0035658010747283697,
0.02327282913029194,
0.006762234028428793,
-0.031973425298929214,
0.029538558796048164,
-0.0034445570781826973,
0.026088567450642586,
0.016915692016482353,
0.05621286481618881,
-... | |
1hkaub | Why don't submarines have cameras mounted on the outside to aid in the use of sonar? | Surely that technology would have been developed by now? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cav55vn",
"cav566d",
"cav587w"
],
"text": [
"It gets dark underwater really quickly. Without a visible light source, you probably wouldn't see more than a few feet, which is vastly less than what sonar can give you. And that's assuming you got clear water, which usually isn't the case.",
"It wouldn't help. Unless you are dangerously close to the surface, there's no light penetrating deeply enough below the surface to make a camera useful.\n\nAlso, it would possibly cause problems with the flow of water over the hull, which could make noise.",
"It's dark and you can't see very far. Maybe a few yards most of the time. You might see a litle further if you turn on the lights but when was the last time you saw a ninja with a flashlight?"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why don't submarines have cameras mounted on the outside to aid in the use of sonar?
Surely that technology would have been developed by now? | [
-0.048189666122198105,
-0.0005766808171756566,
0.005245830398052931,
-0.09017269313335419,
0.133161723613739,
-0.04228352755308151,
-0.06682173162698746,
0.048012688755989075,
-0.017259851098060608,
-0.012602082453668118,
0.04665683954954147,
-0.004632874857634306,
-0.008562346920371056,
0... | |
2z2ch0 | Why does my room not stink to me, but when my mom walks in she thinks it's horrible. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cpf1w5c",
"cpf1rni"
],
"text": [
"Animals rely on scent as a sense to understand their surroundings. Take a poodle, give it a perfumed bath, and it'll still sniff that fire hydrant given a chance. Take a retriever, have it roll in a carcass that it uncovered somewhere, and it'll still be able to whiff out a concealed hot dog.\n\nOur mammalian brains have figured out how to filter and erase the most common and strongest scents that we are exposed to over time so we can smell new ones that might mean \"food\" or \"danger\", and we've carried this forward into our modern lives.\n\nIt's why we can't easily smell our own B.O., but other people get a nose-full and WOOO.",
"Simply because if you're in your room more often than her, your nose is far more used to the smell of your room than her. That's it."
],
"score": [
4,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does my room not stink to me, but when my mom walks in she thinks it's horrible.
| [
0.13746169209480286,
-0.03477562963962555,
0.023024514317512512,
0.034194640815258026,
0.05328693985939026,
-0.046283476054668427,
-0.020866893231868744,
0.009603980928659439,
0.07270266115665436,
-0.03928985074162483,
0.031704388558864594,
-0.029905075207352638,
0.016677165403962135,
0.07... | ||
6h0wg0 | Why does your jaw drop when you are amazed or horrified? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"div2b4j"
],
"text": [
"Does it actually do that for most people? I've always just thought that was a cartoonish way to show those reactions so it would be clear."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does your jaw drop when you are amazed or horrified?
| [
0.0028256673831492662,
0.03311333432793617,
0.055545490235090256,
0.015184961259365082,
-0.01701762154698372,
-0.0034804216120392084,
0.04574138671159744,
0.1604776531457901,
0.017826233059167862,
0.0063155647367239,
0.019818948581814766,
-0.06534119695425034,
0.02113608829677105,
-0.01585... | ||
3opjkk | why should the ex-partner of a marriage get half of their ex-partner's business when they divorce | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvz9sko",
"cvz9uh2",
"cvz9rkq"
],
"text": [
"You have to look at these things from the perspective of the \"whole family\". \n\nOne spouse might be working day and night to build a business and generate a lot of money for the family. But in doing that, they're NOT looking after the house or the kids or the dog, they're not cooking or cleaning or setting up the house for a business social function. The business person's spouse is often doing all of that, contributing to the whole family in other ways while the moneymaker is off earning money. \n\nIn the eyes of the court, the stay-at-home spouse deserves half of the money that the business spouse makes because they contributed all those other things to the marriage and made it possible for the moneymaker to spend their time and energy on non-family activities. It's the equivalent of their salary for all of the years of service that they pumped into the marriage.\n\nThere's other factors such as \"maintaining a certain standard of living\" and \"funding the raising of the children\" (which usually leads to some form of child support), but the contribution to the marriage is usually the biggest factor.",
"The reasoning is that if you share your life with someone then anything you do during that time is made possible by their support.\n\nFor example if your wife is a stay at home wife and your a business man making lots of money, the reasoning is that you would not have the same amount of time to dedicate to work if you had to look after your own house and/or children.\n\nThat being said many place only take into account what happened during the marriage in the 50/50 split as they understand anything accumulated before the marriage was done on your own.\n\nIt gets tricky when things persist before and after the marriage like a business because it's an ongoing effort to maintain it that in theory was made easier by your partner joining you. That would entitle them to some percentage in most areas but possibly not 50%\n\nThis is all dependent on the divorce laws in the area your talking about though as they vary widely and some are more strict on splitting assets than others.",
"Because it is assumed that couples don't operate in a vacuum. While one half of a couple may be doing most of the direct work in building a company, they get support from their spouse (supposedly)."
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why should the ex-partner of a marriage get half of their ex-partner's business when they divorce
[removed] | [
-0.023906521499156952,
0.03984701633453369,
0.08082374185323715,
-0.006866873241961002,
-0.013466090895235538,
-0.0004976555937901139,
0.037559617310762405,
-0.03957134857773781,
0.13224510848522186,
-0.04930531233549118,
0.08648792654275894,
0.11983533203601837,
-0.00543538574129343,
-0.0... | |
2tdyge | Why are alleged sexual assault victims subject to publications bans during trial but not the accused? Should not all parties have anonymity until a verdict is determined? What’s the legal reasoning behind it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cny5xnz",
"cny65lp",
"cny85zq",
"cny8a3r"
],
"text": [
"I have always wondered this myself. Several lives have been ruined by false accusations long before a verdict is reached. Sad really.",
"The stigma attached to being a rape victim was thought to be preventing legitimate victims from coming forward, thereby allowing dangerous rapists to remain in the community. To stop this some jurisdictions have made it illegal to identify the alleged victim of sexual assault in an attempt to lessen the harm the process itself causes already traumatized human beings.",
"I've always thought it was to keep the government honest. In other words no secret arrests/trials, disappearing people, and so that anyone who knows of the accused's innocents could come forward to testify. By being allowed to keep the name of an accused quiet the government would be able to get away with all sorts of shenanigans. It also has the benefit of allowing others who may have been victimized to come forward and identify an accused.\n\nOn a side-note, I believe (though may be wrong) that the name of victims are public information it is just that newspapers chose not to identify them.",
"Basically you're correct. The accused should be anonymous unless they are found guilty.\n\nThe problem is that Feminists disagree with this and kick up a major fuss everytime changing the law is mentioned."
],
"score": [
14,
7,
6,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why are alleged sexual assault victims subject to publications bans during trial but not the accused? Should not all parties have anonymity until a verdict is determined? What’s the legal reasoning behind it?
| [
-0.03995716571807861,
0.0990457609295845,
-0.02760845422744751,
-0.020182644948363304,
0.057361144572496414,
0.057215601205825806,
-0.023728717118501663,
-0.034041546285152435,
0.14028388261795044,
0.040648553520441055,
0.08189950883388519,
0.08015704900026321,
-0.009865215048193932,
0.026... | ||
5suwy9 | Why do our noses run when we're outside in the winter? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhzrb9"
],
"text": [
"In the winter, it's important that air becomes warm and humid before entering your windpipe and lungs. Cold, dry air would harm the delicate tissues there. \nOne of your nose's jobs is to help make air more suitable for breathing. The snot your nose is producing helps moisten the air you're inhaling. It actually has fun-shaped chambers inside that air swirls around so it has plenty of time to get warm/wet/whatever enough."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do our noses run when we're outside in the winter?
[removed] | [
0.05271698534488678,
0.04179833084344864,
0.07475174963474274,
0.07202953845262527,
0.10144728422164917,
-0.044386763125658035,
0.04892084002494812,
-0.056003227829933167,
0.016136514022946358,
0.011175649240612984,
-0.056888945400714874,
-0.0040882122702896595,
0.01536642387509346,
-0.001... | |
24yud2 | Why is it obvious when someone deliberately avoids looking at you? | **Example:** You're walking down a hallway and another person is coming toward you. You can sense they're trying not to look at you. Why? Or do we just feel that way because we're paranoid? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"chbzdil"
],
"text": [
"There are very few people who can exude a natural demeanor when they are actually forcing it. Basically, they are trying to physically fake what they think they look like when they aren't paying attention to a specific stimuli. It's easy to spot because people aren't good at this and it's apparent in their face, body, and just how they carry themselves in general."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is it obvious when someone deliberately avoids looking at you?
**Example:** You're walking down a hallway and another person is coming toward you. You can sense they're trying not to look at you. Why? Or do we just feel that way because we're paranoid? | [
0.06102632358670235,
-0.04474775493144989,
0.032791364938020706,
0.02389778383076191,
0.17134998738765717,
-0.01781846396625042,
0.0971565693616867,
-0.05433398857712746,
0.06280383467674255,
-0.05367372930049896,
0.051247868686914444,
-0.06973816454410553,
0.02096228301525116,
-0.09993427... | |
2ew9rx | Knot, as a unit of speed | I think i have a good grasp of this myself, but i didn't find it on here when i searched. And reddit always does a great job of explaining things! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ck3k4gy",
"ck3jprb"
],
"text": [
"If you represent the earth as a circle containing 360 degrees, a nautical mile would be one minute (1/60) of a degree.\n\nA knot is one nautical mile per hour, or one minute of a degree per hour.\n\nVery useful.",
"A knot is a nautical mile per hour. A nautical mile is 6000 feet, so a knot is slightly faster than 1 MPH."
],
"score": [
7,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Knot, as a unit of speed
I think i have a good grasp of this myself, but i didn't find it on here when i searched. And reddit always does a great job of explaining things! | [
-0.02495637908577919,
-0.048186056315898895,
-0.041350118815898895,
0.009338700212538242,
-0.046940337866544724,
-0.025312677025794983,
0.017441747710108757,
0.039109352976083755,
0.014633195474743843,
-0.02668594755232334,
0.09587638825178146,
0.07118279486894608,
-0.05069964751601219,
-0... | |
5ndiri | Why does intense hunger sometimes cause nausea? That seems like the opposite of what should happen. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcalxvn",
"dcaxb4n"
],
"text": [
"Because your body is trying to encourage you to eat! Here are the two possibilities I've read about:\n\nAccording to when you eat, your body will release a hormone called Ghrelin which makes you feel like you're starving, possibly to the point of feeling nauseated. So if you normally eat every four hours and you missed a meal, your stomach starts to release ghrelin whether you need food or not because you've trained it on a schedule. Ghrelin normally stops being released after 30-60 minutes so it doesn't impact you actually getting food and that feeling of nausea will go away.\n\nIt could also be low blood sugar! Your body could be releasing the hormone, Glucagon, which can cause nausea. If your diet is higher in refined carbohydrates, you're not used to burning fat because you have more sugars in your diet. If those sugars run out, your body starts to burn fat and this might cause a dip in your energy levels, headaches and nausea.",
"Gastric acid starts to fill your stomach up because there's nothing to dissolve. The acid touches the intestines and oesophagus, which is the exact same thing as puking."
],
"score": [
25,
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does intense hunger sometimes cause nausea? That seems like the opposite of what should happen.
| [
0.07461723685264587,
-0.07109182327985764,
0.01798725128173828,
0.06478478014469147,
0.02895374782383442,
-0.053255606442689896,
0.07567400485277176,
0.039026014506816864,
0.06836371123790741,
-0.038976896554231644,
-0.06874192506074905,
0.03142295405268669,
-0.02325270138680935,
-0.070740... | ||
13xjgw | Why do most SUV's, Hatchbacks, Station wagons, Vans all have rear window wipers, but almost ALL sedans, never do. | Yeah, I just noticed it driving around in a storm today - that hardly any sedans ever have rear wipers. As a driver of a sedan, I often wish I had rear wipers, and then I see all the SUV, Hatchback, Van drivers out there with their rear wipers and I'm sad. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c780y6a",
"c781bg0"
],
"text": [
"I think I know the answer to this one! The near-vertical boxy non-aerodynamic shape on the rear of SUVs vans etc tends to cause dirt from the road to end up on the glass, sedans don't suffer from this effect as much.",
"I live in Canada, and I have always wondered this as well. \n\nThe snow does not collect as much on the almost vertical surface of the rear SUV window but piles quite nicely on the slant of a sedan's rear window. \n\nAnother note: Rear wipers are always the first thing to go on a car, and since i don't care they never get fixed"
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do most SUV's, Hatchbacks, Station wagons, Vans all have rear window wipers, but almost ALL sedans, never do.
Yeah, I just noticed it driving around in a storm today - that hardly any sedans ever have rear wipers. As a driver of a sedan, I often wish I had rear wipers, and then I see all the SUV, Hatchback, Van drivers out there with their rear wipers and I'm sad. | [
0.04536447301506996,
0.0050308434292674065,
0.1140340194106102,
0.06871970742940903,
-0.005878611002117395,
-0.044718556106090546,
-0.00880439393222332,
-0.03138558939099312,
0.13744410872459412,
0.022156305611133575,
-0.015012885443866253,
0.04944624751806259,
0.030303139239549637,
0.0135... | |
7dyr64 | What does the "Night Shift" feature on an iPhone actually do? What are it's benefits? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dq1axyb",
"dq1b5u1"
],
"text": [
"it basically reduces the amount of blue light that's displayed by the display when the ambient lighting is low. blue light can interrupt sleep patterns and is generally bad for your eyes in low light.",
"It reduces the amount of blue light generated by the screen. Blue light mainly affects sleep in humans, when blue light hits your retina, it reduces melatonin production. Melatonin is one of the hormones responsible for sleepiness and being tired, so it essentially reduces your ability to fall asleep. We evolved this way to sleep during the night, when little light overall was present (or if it was, it was from fire which generally didn't produce much blue light) and stay awake during the day. Technology of course affects this so we find ways around it."
],
"score": [
11,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What does the "Night Shift" feature on an iPhone actually do? What are it's benefits?
| [
-0.034704435616731644,
-0.00030221507768146694,
0.04244624078273773,
0.04222865030169487,
0.012254259549081326,
0.008222097530961037,
0.016391485929489136,
-0.05186709389090538,
0.11571864783763885,
-0.07202616333961487,
-0.005024957936257124,
0.012307198718190193,
-0.023708712309598923,
-... | ||
34j5h6 | why is the reverse side of a coin called "tails" ? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cqv4x9i",
"cqvbf54"
],
"text": [
"Typically the other side has someone's head on it, so the opposite of \"heads\" being \"tails\" is rather fitting.",
"Because \"Head or Ass?\" is a question for a different situation."
],
"score": [
6,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why is the reverse side of a coin called "tails" ?
| [
-0.0015920932637527585,
0.08154251426458359,
0.035234175622463226,
0.03331281244754791,
-0.05728226527571678,
-0.07851405441761017,
0.047776959836483,
0.04487036541104317,
0.09573139995336533,
0.03462466225028038,
0.0680185928940773,
0.03428574651479721,
-0.038121435791254044,
-0.033439349... | ||
1x4aaa | Why do we find organs and other insides of the body so revolting? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cf7yw18",
"cf802gn",
"cf7zo6i"
],
"text": [
"I would have to say that it's just a natural response. Those things are supposed to stay inside and when they come out your brain just automatically knows something isn't right.",
"Because it's all one giant blob you see, and then realize that that stuff is inside you too!\n\nIf you are over your initial shock and take things apart however you will go \"oh cool, that is a kidney.\"",
"I accidentally looked down after my wife had her C-section (doctor said not to what did he expect?) It was the grossest thing ive ever seen."
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do we find organs and other insides of the body so revolting?
| [
0.07810083031654358,
-0.02665477991104126,
0.07249170541763306,
0.07238392531871796,
0.06529435515403748,
-0.05285153165459633,
0.05256635695695877,
0.05154436454176903,
0.0749138817191124,
0.023931827396154404,
-0.03727300837635994,
-0.03961106389760971,
0.006179862655699253,
-0.012185744... | ||
3oc89g | How do you train a dog to do complicated tasks like grab something from the fridge? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cvvwdkq",
"cvvwywb"
],
"text": [
"Operant conditioning. Basically, dog does something vaguely relating to the task and gets rewarded. Teaching a dog to open the fridge would start with the dog being rewarded for approaching the fridge upon command. Them rewards would subside and they would be encouraged to interact with whatever handle is given to them on the fridge. Often times this \"handle\" is an object they've already been trained to pull. Essentially, be patient and reward baby steps. Spoiling your dog is OK, as long as it's done at the right times. Dogs will do what gets them rewards. If you reward them for nothing, they'll want to do nothing. The thought process is \"why should I work for this thing if I get this thing from [easier behavior]?\" Don't feel bad about your dogs rolling over btw, a lot of dogs aren't comfortable doing it on command. I don't believe in dominance based training but rolling onto their backs is body language for \"I am begging you not to hurt me,\" so it's very uncomfortable for a lot of dogs especially if you're pushing them over with your hands. [The now passed Dr. Sophia Yin](_URL_0_) has amazing resources for positive training.",
"If you haven't already then you MUST watch the documentary about how they trained dogs to drive a car!\n\n_URL_1_\n\nEdit: the above link is the short version. Find \"drivingdogs\" on youtube and they have a video on each of the stages. Makes it even more impressive!"
],
"score": [
15,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://drsophiayin.com/",
"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20614593"
]
} | train_eli5 | How do you train a dog to do complicated tasks like grab something from the fridge?
[removed] | [
-0.014612551778554916,
0.028309233486652374,
0.04980913922190666,
0.0709490180015564,
-0.02425980754196644,
0.007834904827177525,
0.025423314422369003,
-0.05350738763809204,
-0.012701572850346565,
-0.027181189507246017,
-0.0047019305638968945,
-0.01596001163125038,
-0.021835023537278175,
0... | |
5xu4ng | Why does attraction cloud judgement? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"del909k",
"delgcc2"
],
"text": [
"You have a reproductive instinct that drives you to breed. It is outranked only by basic survival - the hierarchy of needs (air, water, food, shelter.) Genetically, reproduction is your one and only purpose beyond survival, and even the quality of your attempt (i.e. fitness of mate, personal success) is secondary to any mating at all. The reproductive drive also doesn't need any rational analysis getting in the way, so it can't let you stop and think whether you actually *want* to breed. The solution is to slam you with a wall of endorphins and similar substances that basically intoxicate you and affect your decision making. Life itself invented the idea of getting us *drunk* so we get laid.",
"It's the \"What would you do for a Klondike Bar syndrome\".\n\nWhile you may not want to do X for \"reasons of judgement\", you may reconsider your reasonable judgement if you get Y in exchange for X."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does attraction cloud judgement?
| [
0.023915644735097885,
-0.006631660275161266,
0.01612021028995514,
0.07843313366174698,
0.07701238244771957,
0.07190172374248505,
0.08919058740139008,
-0.03636029362678528,
0.11288733035326004,
0.023978639394044876,
0.024193547666072845,
-0.09215391427278519,
0.038343995809555054,
-0.018828... | ||
3tfn01 | What is the difference between a budget car tyre and a premium brand. What happens during the manufacture of them to make such a noticable difference in grip? | Basically, how are budget tyres so bad compared to a premium make? Different process in making them? Poor design? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cx5qbmb",
"cx5z4w3",
"cx6bdin",
"cx5vfn4",
"cx5wh2v",
"cx5ymn4",
"cx68wtq",
"cx5z1sn"
],
"text": [
"First you have the rubber; what ingredients are used? The natural rubber can have several qualities, everything from pure condom rubber to rubber with sticks and insects in it. Then you have the additives, what proportions are used? Sulfur and stuff. Porpotions between natural and synthetic rubber. The best premium recipes are guarded secrets.\nSome rubbers are soft and some durable, a consideration has to be done.\n\nThen you have the cord, how well did they manufacture them? What materials?\nOh, and we must not forget the \"baking\" of the rubber, times and temperatures, expensive brands care, cheap brands don't care.\n\nThen the pattern design.",
"Rubber compounds important for: \n-winter traction, \n-durability, \n-environmental concerns (your tire shoots off microscopic particles of rubber which get into soil, water, air)\n-heat management (think of all of the friction going on between the tire and cement)\n\n tread design important for:\n-water and slush evacuation (hydroplaning resistance)\n-siping (the really thin cuts in the rubber create more braking surface area. Particularly on ice)\n-studding (helps dig into ice. Square or diamond studs being the most superior over round studs)\n-asymmetrical vs symmetrical treads change water/slush evacuation and heat management. \n\nInner radial (the wire windings inside the rubber that give it strengtg)tire construction is important for:\n-durability against impacts like potholes and curbs\n-survivability againts punctures\n-protection from bead leaks (air escaping between the tire and rim)\n-protection from belt slippages which create bulges on the sidewall (blowouts follow bulges)\n-decreased rolling resistance (fuel efficiency)\n\nAnd lastly sizing is important for:\n-overall cost (popular tire sizes will be cheaper more rare sizes will be much much more expensive)\n-vehicle footprint (traction)\n-styling\n-vehicle load requirements (their ability to not pop when hauling in overloaded conditions)\n\n\nThere is alot more but I havent been a Nokian tyre salesman in quite a while. \n\nMy bias leans towards:\n\nNokian (hakkapelita) which are fairly rare and Bridgestone (blizzak) which are much more common tires for winter tires. Soft rubber compounds that are environmentally friendly and dont freeze rock solid in deep freeze conditions.\n\nNitto/Pirreli tires for performance (hard rubber compounds, dry track performance at the cost of wet track performance)\n\nMichelin tires for your regular all season/summer tires (because of their warrenty, cost, ease of repairing punctures, soft sidewall, popularity and supply will be high making finding a replacement non warrebty tire for cheap and low rolling resistance)\n\nbut thats just me. There will be lots of people that are passionate about other tires. I had to state my bias, especially on a consumable.",
"Ex engineer at tire plant (first real job out of college 20 years ago). that went from making low quality tires (Sears/Armstrong) to higher quality (Pirelli) right as I was hired. Been awhile, so doing this from memory, and may be a little out of date. High and low quality tires were built on the same machines using the same workers. Quality of rubber (said elsewhere, never saw sticks and insects in there though) and raw material matter, and the various additives; whitewall tires more expensive to make. Pirelli tires would wear faster, but would have better performance; number of layers of material--low performance, fewer layers (or not included). Density of the cords and steel size in the steel belts. Think of that like the thread count in sheets. Quality control for the high performance was a lot stricter than low performance, so more scrap from high performance. Always imperfections in the process, the lower the quality, the larger the imperfection allowed through. Biggest thing I thought was just the batch size. At our factory 10-12 separate processes to build the tire. High performance tires, because less are sold, have a smaller batch size. When building a tire it takes a bit to dial in the machines so the start up costs make that batch are a lot higher than lower performance tires which had larger runs, often a factor of 10. As tires have a limited shelf life, you can't just build a ton and sell them off over the years. You manufacture more closely to what is ordered versus projections. I always thought the limited batch sizes eventually killed the plant where I used to work. Couldn't make them profitably. Pirelli calendar also increased the cost a tad, but not suitable for a five year old.",
"YouTube \"how it's made tires\" and it will show just how much goes into a tire. All those parts are engineered to perform a certain way. Budget tires use less and cheaper materials with less Engineering time (usually) and are made for faster mass production.",
"I don't understand why people cheap out on tires? Think about it,the *ONLY* part of your car that actually touches the road are you tires. Everything (driving related) is tied to make things those things go, stop and turn. They blow, you dead. The flat, you pull over, get hit by a car, you dead. Bad tires, you dead. Don't cheap out like my cheap friends. Be smart. Do the right thing.",
"Premium brands spend a lot of time and money on R & D (research and development), non premium brands will often buy outdated formulas/tread patterns, and use those as their tires so they don't have the R & D overhead, just the manufacturing costs. But that means you get an older style tire, but cheaper.\n\nAlso premium brands often have different (often but not always Better) warranties on their products. \n\nA lot of the premium brands are made in countries with higher labor rates (USA, Japan, France, Germany) so charge more. but you feel better about the tire (vs buying a \"Chinese Tire\").\n\nPremium brands also spend a lot of $ on advertising so that their brand name sticks in your head and you spend your money with them vs other brands.",
"I bought a set of discount tires once and they had been manufactured poorly. The mIn defect was that they were not totally round. There was a bump on the tread do that you drive, there was a sound from the car's suspension getting this bump ever wheel turn. Tire shop refused to take them back (this after just a drive around the block). Had to call the corporate complaint line to get them changed.",
"I've been told there are actually only a handful of tire manufacturers which are then branded under many different brands. The plot thickens..."
],
"score": [
124,
10,
10,
9,
7,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | What is the difference between a budget car tyre and a premium brand. What happens during the manufacture of them to make such a noticable difference in grip?
Basically, how are budget tyres so bad compared to a premium make? Different process in making them? Poor design? | [
-0.06219055503606796,
0.03471988067030907,
-0.02491922117769718,
0.04288729652762413,
0.014339754357933998,
-0.03815796971321106,
-0.030298173427581787,
0.08484718948602676,
0.03576669469475746,
0.030938832089304924,
0.04665942117571831,
0.0805511400103569,
0.020878447219729424,
-0.0061364... | |
8tqr8j | What causes the rhythmic beating of helicopter blades in motion? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"e19zzfu"
],
"text": [
"Vortexes!\n\nA wing moving through the air creates high pressure below it and low pressure above it. At the tip of the wing, the high-pressure air from below spills sideways and swirls around to the top of the wing, creating a [wingtip vortex](_URL_0_).\n\nThe rotors of a helicopter are just like the wings of a plane, so they have wingtip vortices too. But unlike a plane where the vortices just dissipate after the plane has flown by, with helicopters there's an extra layer of difficulty. As a rotor spins around, it ends up slamming into the vortex of the rotor ahead of it! This creates a *whumph* sound as the moving air hits the moving aluminum at high speed. When it happens repeatedly at certain speeds, you hear a repeated *whumph whumph whumph whumph*."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg"
]
} | train_eli5 | What causes the rhythmic beating of helicopter blades in motion?
| [
0.0054986560717225075,
-0.04417593404650688,
-0.023877514526247978,
0.045488547533750534,
-0.006083700340241194,
0.0008092739735729992,
-0.058729786425828934,
-0.07952188700437546,
0.08199430257081985,
0.03138143569231033,
0.1397254467010498,
-0.005887247156351805,
-0.017321012914180756,
-... | ||
3r60t5 | Why is being fat less attractive? | i mean, from a survival stand point , it seems fat people are better suited for survival ( like have a surplus of food and such).
wow, guys this is the most responsive subreddit I've ever posted on, thanks for all your answers | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cwl7st6",
"cwl7hsd",
"cwl9kk4",
"cwlafou",
"cwldhdk",
"cwm17m3",
"cwl7oh9",
"cwlnjk9"
],
"text": [
"I read somewhere once that attraction has a lot to do with a primal/subconscious desire to pick a mate based on chance of success for offspring. Like a woman would want a muscular man because her children could be strong. So maybe more obese people would be unlikely to out run danger and therefore not a good choice as a mate. \n\nAdditionally as someone pointed out society/culture probably has some influence as well.\n\nSource: I likes to internet",
"Attraction is partially culturally determined. Past cultures have viewed fat as attractive. One of the earliest works of art is a stone piece of a very large woman. Perhaps to represent fertility. If you look at older works of Art in the west, you'll notice that the women are rarely thin. They're not necessarily obese, but they're definitely bigger than the current standard.",
"Personally for me it's a lack of control. No discipline and or desire to be healthy. And I also like the firm right feeling as oppose to the squishy jiggly feeling. Another point for me is odor. Not all heavyset people smell but the worst smelling people to me have been heavy set people.",
"I've never bought the evolutionary or cultural explanations because every individual has their own taste. I think it's even simpler.\n\nDudes and ladies have distinctive shapes, that you as a lady or dude are attracted to. The fatter you are, the more hidden those shapes are. \n\nThink about butts a minute. Why do some dudes like big asses? Well, if you look at the big asses dudes like, the good ones still maintain those distinctive lady shapes. It's not just that they're fat asses.\n\nEveryone has their own unique tolerances for what's too skinny and what's too fat. I prefer a little meat on the bones, so that the lady shapes are accentuated. Because that's awesome.",
"Maybe its because i once fit into a 3XL but I've always found girls with curves to be sexier. Now that I've lost the weight and get attention fron smaller girls, i prefer the shorties that are a little chubby. A little bit of the muffin top drives me mad.",
"Eh, I don't think the major factors have been covered explicitly enough.\n\nOther than being a healthy organism in general (not sick, not weak, not crippled, not dumb) what you want more than anything else in a partner is *fertility*. Fertility is caused by different pathways in men and women, since their bodies do different things in reproduction; male fertility is roughly related to having a lot of testosterone and other chemicals that regulate the male developmental pathway, and female fertility by estrogen, estradiol, and female chemicals. These chemicals have *accidental affects on human growth that affect human appearance*. These are called secondary sex characteristics. These include especially bone structure, but also the distribution of fat and muscle. A skinny man and a skinny woman look distinctly different, due to the different way they store what little fat they have on their bodies, the hip-to-shoulder ratio of their skeleton, the greater prominence of the man's muscles, and especially the unmistakably male and female facial structure. The more fat you add to this basic set up, the more of these hormonally-caused differences in human body size disappear. As a human being adds fat, the shape of the human body approximates a perfect sphere, which is sexless and therefore unattractive. The structure of the hips, shoulders, skull, musculature, and sex-linked fatty deposits are buried under a mountain of lard. Also, fat screws with metabolism and causes breakdown in hormone regulation for both sexes. Men lose body hair where they should have it, women grow attractive mustaches.\n\nSecond, you say that \"fat people are better suited for survival\", but this is false in two ways. At what point in human history would human beings have learned to associated obesity with better food storage? You can only evolve to be attracted to something under circumstances where the trait exists. People probably did *not* get obese in our ancestral environment, because there just wasn't enough food to go around. Hunter-gatherer societies rarely have people who are so much as overweight, because they fight a daily battle for calories. Farmers tended to suffer terrible malnutrition, as their populations expanded to fill up all fertile land. That's sort of like saying \"you should be attracted to people who are good at calculus, because they'll get good jobs and help you raise a lot of children.\" That may be true in theory, but was there anyone who was studying calculus around when humans evolved to be attracted to secondary sex traits?\n\nBut further, survival was much more physical in our ancestral environment. People who are obese are often 50-100 lbs overweight. Yes, they could survive a famine better than I could, but what about a lion? What about a rival tribe? Pack 100 lbs of books into a big hiking pack and ... well, first, just try to stand up. Then run up a flight of stairs. Jump. Practice your alternating lunge. Pick up a piece of paper off the floor. How does it feel to be obese? Do you think your chances of surviving in the wild are good?",
"Well, for one we are no longer in the hunter gatherer stage. Also, personally, I want a partner that will be with me for the long run. Being fat decreases the chances of a long and healthy life together, which is selfish. Selfishness is instantly unattractive. I don't find fat attractive because I shouldn't have to. It isn't my responsibility to take care of someones feelings who obviously didn't take of their body. I could go on, but my first sentence covered it.",
"Sex just isn't as good with fat people. She needs to be able to ride me like a wild octopus for me to get off. Overweight people have too much fat on their pubis mons, and it gets in the way."
],
"score": [
37,
20,
10,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is being fat less attractive?
i mean, from a survival stand point , it seems fat people are better suited for survival ( like have a surplus of food and such). wow, guys this is the most responsive subreddit I've ever posted on, thanks for all your answers | [
0.06569664925336838,
0.025035636499524117,
0.057254984974861145,
0.14312249422073364,
0.0909985676407814,
0.03887985274195671,
-0.010342808440327644,
0.016451945528388023,
-0.026936568319797516,
0.027306364849209785,
0.039902009069919586,
-0.08373113721609116,
0.02668067254126072,
-0.05789... | |
4z80v9 | How does wrinkle-free clothing work? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d6tp5sc"
],
"text": [
"Fabric wrinkles because the chemical bonds that hold it in place are broken by heat and water. When they dry and cool the bonds reform and they get stuck in the new shape.\n\nDifferent materials are more or less susceptible to this. Polyester for example is not so bad. But it not so nice to wear.\n\nFor example: Water breaks the hydrogen bonds in cotton that's why it's really wrinkles easily. Manufacturers replace these hydrogen bonds with other chemicals so that they don't break when they get wet. So it can stay wrinkle free-ish.\n\nThere is are problems with changing the chemical bonds in fabrics that make them weaker and less pleasant to wear. That's why there are no really great wrinkle free fabrics yet."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How does wrinkle-free clothing work?
[deleted] | [
-0.08427104353904724,
-0.0023642205633223057,
0.055880457162857056,
0.13249929249286652,
0.08976800739765167,
-0.0388028658926487,
0.07239839434623718,
-0.028661351650953293,
-0.0504862405359745,
0.031988583505153656,
-0.0001577452349010855,
0.06475351750850677,
0.011568133719265461,
-0.02... | |
5tsb25 | why are computer viruses being created and spread? Do they have a function other than wrecking computer software? | Been wondering about this for a while. Are all viruses just product of douchebaggery? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddon7tx",
"ddomgna",
"ddp04t3",
"ddp6oq5"
],
"text": [
"Some are just douchebaggery, some are in good fun (the hello world virus), some are for profit (ransomware), some are for spying and then you have the viruses that have a very explicit goal (like stuxnet). There probably are other types, but the basic premise is running a program on an infected machine with a specific purpose. What that purpose is depends entirely on the intentions of the creator. \n\nTake stuxnet for example. This was most likely the product of US-Israeli collaboration with the extremely specific purpose of shutting down certain parts of an Irani nuclear powerplant. Since that powerplant had closed circuit electronics (not connected to internet or other networks) the virus needed to be implemented manually. \n\nThe way it worked was quite ingenious. It spread through the internet but only to other computers that were physically closer to its intended target. The goal was to eventually infect a usb-stick that would be connected to the closed circuit of the nuclear power plant, which it did after a 2 year journey on the internet. The damage it caused took 2 years to repair. \n\nAnyway, most viruses are written for some form of gain. Be that in personal information, monetary gain (through ransomware or by stealing credit card credentials) or political and/or geostrategic gain. \n\nBut like I said, everything depends on what the creator of the virus intends.",
"Several reasons: \n\nWrecking software just for the sake of it would be one. Also, give me money and I'll restore your software back.\n\nGaining control of computer resources to make them work for your own interests would be another.\n\nObtaining personal information such as log-in data to email or bank accounts is also very sought after.",
"Computer virus is a broad term. We call that any program that's capable of replicating itself for unscrupulous motivations. They certainly have other purposes, and the most harmful ones are those that *don't* wreck software.\n\nViruses that want to spread as much as possible rely on the fact that its host is unaware of its existence. Therefore it's in the best interest of the author that the computer were it resides keeps working as good as before the infection.\n\nAs far as I can remember viruses started as \"douchebaggery\". Long before the Internet they spread by hiding themselves on magnetic discs. Some did impair and eventually break the systems, while others just displayed funny messages and messed with your screen (e.g. Ping Pong).\n\nBut it didn't take long, specially with the Internet, for viruses to be used as a form of lucrative venture. If they can replicate and reside silently on a host system, with administrative privileges, the constant online state of most computers enabled them to send private data back to their author without much effort.",
"It depends, really.\n\n\nThere are viruses that are designed to simply ruin your day. These were very popular in the early years of the internet. \n\nDesigned purely to cause upset. \n\n\nHowever, there are also other types of viruses which are more malicious. These are RATs (Remote Access Trojans) which infiltrate your system to steal information (bank details, social logins etc.) and ransomware.\n\nRansomware is a more modern and devious type of virus, it is usually disguised as something trustworthy like a free anti virus, then once you open it it will spread everywhere on your system, it will change settings on every browser and force you to only connect to their website. \n\nUsually on these website there'll be a phone number for you to ring to give money to save your computer. \n\nBasically ransomeware is disgusting, it targets the tech illiterate and cons them into thinking their computer is being held hostage, thus making the victims give the attackers money. \n\n\nA common theme with most viruses is they self replicate and attempt to spread to other systems, like actual viruses. \n\n\nBut in short, all viruses are a product of douchebaggery, but some are also a product of greed and true malice."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | why are computer viruses being created and spread? Do they have a function other than wrecking computer software?
Been wondering about this for a while. Are all viruses just product of douchebaggery? | [
-0.05626572668552399,
-0.032707951962947845,
0.06362920999526978,
-0.013883808627724648,
0.057017650455236435,
-0.030423276126384735,
0.03114013932645321,
0.100354865193367,
0.10490532219409943,
0.020447326824069023,
-0.03129194304347038,
0.05122246593236923,
0.05365834757685661,
-0.060957... | |
122jaf | Rule Against Perpetuities | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c6rlsoe"
],
"text": [
"Well, Gus, the \"rule against perpetuities\" sounds funny. Who talks like that? A better way to think of what you're talking about is \"the rule against things that last forever.\"\n\nYou see, one of the things we lawyers talk about all the time is what's called \"property.\" Property is the stuff we own. You own your bike, and the new bow-and-arrow set with the suckers on the ends of the arrows that you got for your birthday. That's your property. And your mom and I have property, like our house, and our car. And I have my iPhone. Sometimes I let you use my iPhone to play Bad Piggies, but when you're using it, it's still mine -- it's my property. We sometimes call property rights a \"bundle of sticks\" -- you have one stick, the right to use the iPhone to play Bad Piggies before dinner -- but all the other sticks are still mine. At dinnertime, I get the iPhone back, and I have all the sticks again.\n\nSo what is this \"rule against things that last forever\"? It's a rule that keeps us from making really long-lasting deals about those sticks in the bundle, and it comes up when we're talking about land, like houses. Your mom and I own our house -- we have all the sticks in the bundle. We could change that -- we could make it so that we have the right to live in the house for twenty more years, then it became yours. That's called a \"estate for a fixed term.\" We would be giving you the sticks in the bundle that would let you own the house in the future. Or we could set it up so that when we die -- and don't worry, that won't be for a long time -- you would own the house. That's called a \"life estate.\" But either way, you the house isn't yours now -- you have what's called a \"future interest,\" because you won't own the house until something happens in the future -- twenty years passes, or your mom and I get hit by a meteor. It's only when that thing in the future happens that your rights \"vest.\"\n\nWhat the \"rule against things that last forever\" means is that we can't make deals that would give someone any of those sticks in the bundle -- a future interest -- if that thing that happens in the future is too far away. There are good reasons for this, because what if I gave someone an interest in our house and they wouldn't get that interest for five hundred years? Will our house still be standing in five hundred years? Will society have totally changed? Who will be around to collect on that deal in five hundred years?\n\nSo here in our state, we have what's called the rule against perpetuities, or what I like to call the rule against things that last forever. And it says that we can't create future interests in property that are too far off in the future. \n > ORS 105.950 Statutory rule against perpetuities. (1) A nonvested property interest is invalid unless:\n > (a) When the interest is created, it is certain to vest or terminate no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive; or\n > (b) The interest either vests or terminates within 90 years after its creation. > \n\nSo your mom and I can't say that your great-grandchildren get our house in 200 years, for example. After all, you don't even have great-grandchildren!"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Rule Against Perpetuities
| [
-0.039572324603796005,
0.11713577061891556,
0.0047444929368793964,
-0.08534615486860275,
0.007880563847720623,
0.060688599944114685,
0.05166282132267952,
-0.026188449934124947,
-0.0009697001078166068,
0.03218408674001694,
0.11826533079147339,
-0.02640269510447979,
0.03997301682829857,
0.08... | ||
5z2p61 | Why dont other countries have military bases in the US, While the US has bases in many other countries? | Can you explain why we have bases in so many other countries while they have none in ours? I caught interest in this when watching a video on the US vs The European Union, and how our militaries match up against each other. | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deutar2",
"deutt2s",
"deutif4",
"deuvzmi",
"deuubqa"
],
"text": [
"The US has a huge military force with the primary mission of projecting force worldwide. Most other countries have comparatively small forces with a mission of only local self defense or regional force projection. Local self defense obviously does not require bases half the world away.\n\nMany countries also depend on the US for military protection. The US has always been the backbone of NATO forces, with the other members being a relative footnote. Western European states therefor have many US bases because they depended on US forces to protect them from the USSR during the Cold War.",
"It is the result of the end if World War 2. In short, as the war was winding down, Stalin, Churchill, and FDR convened in Yalta in Crimea to discuss how the liberated countries of Europe would be granted self governance. In reality, as the war ended, the Russians already had plans for occupied territories. The UK and U.S. realized this, so it outlined essentially how the powers would be divided as the Cold War commenced at the end of WWII. The U.S. began spreading its military throughout its occupied territories as Europe was rebuilt and subsequently divided across ideological lines.\n\nFurthermore, Europe lost a lot of power after the war. As a result, their territories fought and gained independence quite rapidly. Power vacuums were left, and communists, nationalists, republicans, etc. fought for control of their governments. Well, that, or brutal dictatorships developed from offices once regulated by European powers. These nations were easily exploited and/or open to influence from both the Soviets and the Americans. As a result, aid and resources flowed from both the world's superpowers. A lot of countries had resources from either power, especially in the Southeast Asia and some Latin Countries. \n\nBecause our power and influence was contingent on having control of these countries in some regard, the U.S. stationed basis there. For instance, n Europe, the U.S. had control of military strongholds.",
"Well, primarily because the US doesn't allow other countries to, nor do they really want to.\n\nSome countries often to take US bases into their territory for two primary reasons, they want the protection of the US or just want something from the US in exchange for a permit to build a base in the country.",
"We literally had this question asked yesterday. The answer was that there are in fact countries that have bases in the US, such as Germany. But most countries don't because most countries aren't interested in keeping an eye on Canada and Mexico.",
"Short answer: we spend enough money on the military to do so, other countries spend enough just for themselves."
],
"score": [
13,
10,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why dont other countries have military bases in the US, While the US has bases in many other countries?
Can you explain why we have bases in so many other countries while they have none in ours? I caught interest in this when watching a video on the US vs The European Union, and how our militaries match up against each other. | [
0.06395009160041809,
-0.11299197375774384,
-0.010879351757466793,
-0.02411186881363392,
0.0574575737118721,
-0.011149600148200989,
-0.04839964583516121,
0.035175856202840805,
0.0673367828130722,
-0.02821027860045433,
-0.029643172398209572,
0.018093088641762733,
0.09498962759971619,
0.03186... | |
5616sr | How do pictures get from the hubble telescope back to earth? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"d8fhdys",
"d8fhe4w"
],
"text": [
"Pictures are taken by instruments, digitized, and sent to Earth by radio. It's sent to a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, from there to White Sands New Mexico, via ground optical fiber to Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt Maryland, and finally to the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. About 125GB/day is sent through this path.",
"Radio.\n\nThe HST uses a digital image sensor, so all the data it works with is digital, and is transmitted to the ground on S-band microwave at 2255.5 MHz."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | How do pictures get from the hubble telescope back to earth?
| [
0.053400635719299316,
-0.0028009398374706507,
0.029614152386784554,
0.003653417807072401,
0.09858041256666183,
-0.02311762608587742,
-0.0658501461148262,
-0.008884098380804062,
-0.04309302940964699,
-0.03312845900654793,
0.05099938064813614,
0.04694383963942528,
0.04980239272117615,
-0.045... | ||
6stht7 | How did the word sanction come to have two completely different meanings: 1. to approve something and then 2. A threatened penalty? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlfdbps",
"dlgjn3w"
],
"text": [
"It comes from the root (Latin) sānctiō, meaning \"a law or decree that is sacred or inviolable.\"\n\nThe **verb** sanction still essentially means the same thing for the positive or negative - to 'sanction' something is to give it official approval.\n\nSo technically the **noun** also means the same thing - a rule or decree that has official approval - even though this rule can be a positive or a negative.",
"It's an [auto-antonym](_URL_0_) or \"contronym\", a word that also means the opposite of itself.\n\nOther examples are:\n\n* clip - to attach or cut off\n* dust - to remove or add dust\n* literally\n* overlook - miss something or watch over something\n\n\"Nonplussed\" is also one. It actually means \"surprised and confused\" but because of how it looks (not-plussed) people thought it meant the opposite (unperturbed) and started using it that way, so now it's a contronym. \n\n\"Literally\" went down a similar path when people were using it for effect to mean the opposite, so now it means both."
],
"score": [
35,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym"
]
} | train_eli5 | How did the word sanction come to have two completely different meanings: 1. to approve something and then 2. A threatened penalty?
| [
0.04346241056919098,
0.05826709419488907,
-0.02244877628982067,
0.005298952106386423,
0.04873364046216011,
0.05430583655834198,
-0.0021307263523340225,
0.03553660586476326,
0.06498550623655319,
0.03470008820295334,
0.12248437106609344,
-0.028896231204271317,
0.05818234756588936,
0.03519738... | ||
6h74az | Why is it that mirrors flip images horizontally (i.e. Left to right) but not vertically (up and down)? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"divzr4b"
],
"text": [
"They flip front to back, up remains on your up, and your left remains on your left. You just see a face in the mirror and assume that you must have rotated, since you have an arm on your left and an arm on your right, you assume that they were swapped since that's the only way people can do that in real life. You don't think people flipped top to bottom because they have a head on one side and feet on the other, that obviously didn't happen."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why is it that mirrors flip images horizontally (i.e. Left to right) but not vertically (up and down)?
[removed] | [
0.002726698527112603,
0.01509551890194416,
0.09918729960918427,
-0.04892955347895622,
-0.040657542645931244,
-0.06442873924970627,
-0.04076077789068222,
-0.028295565396547318,
0.048383377492427826,
0.00728711299598217,
0.04326740279793739,
0.13635283708572388,
0.003670887788757682,
-0.0318... | |
1qagao | Why does inhaling helium from a balloon make your voice sound high pitched like a cartoon character? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cdatrpd"
],
"text": [
"Helium is 6x less dense than oxygen, so the sound waves travel through them faster and you sound like a cartoon character speaking quickly.\n\nFun Fact: Sulfur Hexafluoride is 6x more dense so it'll make your voice sound slower."
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does inhaling helium from a balloon make your voice sound high pitched like a cartoon character?
| [
-0.016043810173869133,
-0.04044848680496216,
-0.013434040360152721,
0.011727861128747463,
-0.02584630623459816,
-0.004485751502215862,
0.06770025193691254,
-0.002666651038452983,
0.001718179089948535,
-0.08189406245946884,
-0.0012890242505818605,
-0.009784781374037266,
-0.11815687268972397,
... | ||
19ovup | Why do I suddenly shake when I have to pee really bad? | Or am I the only one? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c8q29gj",
"c8pzeva"
],
"text": [
"When your bladder starts to fill the pressure sensing nerves present on its outer walls send a signal to your brain alerting you that you need to pee. The pressure sensing nerves send this signal before your bladder is completely full to prevent damage. When you ignore that signal, your bladder continues to fill. You still have to pee, but you have decided it is ok to ignore your bladder approaching full.\n\nYour bladder is and can never be completely empty, because your body is constantly producung and filtering liquid waste from cells into your bladder. \n\nLuckily the bladder walls are very stretchy. Everytime you get the urge to pee, but ignore it, the walls stretch further. When you really have to pee and suddenly shudder, your bladder is full. At this point, the filtration system has backed up. Your bladder can rupture. You will probably pee your pants, as that is a natural way for your body to override your brain to keep from damaging the system.\n\nTL;DR The shuddering is the result of your body telling you it is in pain and you really need to pee.\n\nYou can cause permanent damage to the stretchy properties of your bladder if you hold your pee for too long, too often. Basically, you cause micro-tearing that heals and forms scar tissue, limiting the bladder's ability to stretch in those scarred areas.",
"When you pee, your body loses heat (If you pee outside during the winter, you can actually see your pee steaming). To compensate for this loss, your muscles \"shake\" to create more body heat. It's your body maintaining homeostasis."
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why do I suddenly shake when I have to pee really bad?
Or am I the only one? | [
0.039004839956760406,
-0.133115753531456,
0.058359935879707336,
0.013817750848829746,
0.030620688572525978,
-0.06510467082262039,
0.05200888589024544,
0.04367581009864807,
0.08464012295007706,
-0.08700580894947052,
-0.12187815457582474,
-0.058817293494939804,
-0.02359030954539776,
0.060985... | |
33uxnq | Why does most graffiti look similar? | Obviously this is pretty objective, but to a person who doesn't pay attention to graffiti details, why does so much of it seem to be consistent in the style, font, etc? Is it the same person or people doing it? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cqom8uc",
"cqoo62t",
"cqol3fo",
"cqolufa"
],
"text": [
"It looks similar to you because you haven't learned how to distinguish styles or quality. If you had, you'd be able to pick out good from bad.",
"Although graffiti varies signifigantly if you pay attention, at first glance i know what you mean. Similar curved 's' and sharp yet bubbley, overlaping letters, etc? I would think that It is just an easily noticed and selfidentifying style in that subgenre of art. Why does most heavy metal sound like, what could be described as the heavy metal sound? It is an easily recognizable selfidentifying quality. Otherwise it might just be jazz...",
"I'm gonna have to take a guess here and say that people are influenced by other people and add their own touch to it. The average person may not notice that difference, just like the average person doesn't notice brushstrokes in a painting? There really are so many styles though that if you pay attention you will see a difference.",
"There are graffiti styles and they develop in different regions. So in one place you will see a lot of similarities. Also, the really well done pieces are quite possibly members of a crew who will have their own variation of a similar style. BTW I'm no expert so these are speculations but ya."
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why does most graffiti look similar?
Obviously this is pretty objective, but to a person who doesn't pay attention to graffiti details, why does so much of it seem to be consistent in the style, font, etc? Is it the same person or people doing it? | [
0.0006152860587462783,
0.021514177322387695,
0.018623610958456993,
-0.03446023538708687,
0.03497486189007759,
-0.009041805751621723,
0.0032600383274257183,
-0.03977365791797638,
0.05484576150774956,
-0.05145129933953285,
-0.043089330196380615,
-0.011858752928674221,
0.018214045092463493,
0... | |
76u93x | When scientific papers refer to the mass/size of the Mt. Everest (to compare), what numbers are they actually taking? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dogqbad",
"dogr88i"
],
"text": [
"This is why *real* scientific papers use actual numbers and actual units, not \"as heavy as a fully loaded 747\" or your example.\n\nThere is no official answer. They're winging it.",
"When you get to huge numbers like that, size comparisons are usually a pretty rough estimate. So it doesn't especially matter whether they mean just Mt. Everest itself (like the rock below the peak in a pyramid-shape), or the whole Everest massif (which is more like the picture you linked), because both of those numbers are pretty similarly massive. So the article is just trying to say \"really freaking heavy\" and it's not trying to say \"nearly this exact number.\"\n\nIf it helps, the mass that google gives for a teaspoon of neutron star is somewhere in the range of 5 trillion kg. Which would probably (I'm estimating now, based off of some napkin math) closest to the mass of Everest himself - the smallest division of your picture. Which is incidentally around 1000 Great Pyramids of mass. All of those numbers are estimates and there's nothing really scientifically rigorous about them - all they're supposed to convey is *scale* rather than exact comparison."
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | When scientific papers refer to the mass/size of the Mt. Everest (to compare), what numbers are they actually taking?
[removed] | [
-0.06606461107730865,
0.08644415438175201,
-0.010281757451593876,
0.09860685467720032,
-0.010104240849614143,
-0.05860941484570503,
-0.09347669780254364,
0.08176194876432419,
0.0060956282541155815,
0.01320361252874136,
-0.02097950503230095,
-0.02191510982811451,
-0.011980307288467884,
-0.0... | |
3y59ih | If a handheld GoPro can record at 4k resolution, why do movie and television productions use such large cameras? | Whats the factor that isn't immediately apparent that makes a larger camera better? It seems that GoPro cameras film better quality than movies and TV so I must be missing something. Thanks!
Edit: Thanks for the answers guys ,I really appreciate the new-found knowledge!! | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cyan7x9",
"cyasxnc",
"cyan8q8",
"cyas1qz",
"cyanbzs",
"cyan3ca",
"cyaujz8",
"cyar225",
"cyasnas",
"cyaxcls",
"cyaxgaz",
"cyaqsl9",
"cyapxy6",
"cyatifq",
"cyau5jx",
"cyb4jsg",
"cyb48zm",
"cyav4mk",
"cyau5iw",
"cyatgif",
"cybfx76",
"cyayi91",
"cyb22qn",
"cyazeip",
"cyb2zgr",
"cyavn7v",
"cyb8j8z",
"cyb3vt9",
"cyatcoq",
"cyat06k",
"cyas0lg",
"cyatzq4",
"cyaw5tq",
"cyb163x",
"cyasxt5",
"cyan4op",
"cyb1vl6",
"cyayq0w",
"cyb1sxx",
"cyazzv3",
"cyat56b",
"cyaqocu",
"cyaygns",
"cyauokl",
"cyb1oyc"
],
"text": [
"The bodies of cinema cameras are getting pretty small. But they still need to be big enough for a large sensor and a mount for high-end cine lenses, as well as inputs for sync and reference audio, and outputs for a external monitors and external recorders.\n\nAttached to them will be a follow-focus, possibly an external recorder, viewfinder, and a matte box.\n\nPlus, you want a bit of weight to it for steadier handheld shots. News stations still use big shoulder-mounted ENG cameras partly because the size and weight gives you steadier handheld shots than a small, light, handheld format.\n\n**EDIT:**\nA lot if people are commenting that my post doesn't really ELI5. \nSo I'm pasting one of my responses below that I think does a better job. THere are also a lot of other good responses if you scroll past the banter. \n\n \nThe answer can get a little complicated because Television cameras and movie cameras are different. One of the big differences is that movie cameras have a smaller body with lots of attachments, whereas TV cameras (called ENG cameras) are a little bigger with have more of the features built-in. For movie (cinema or 'cine' for short) cameras, most of the size you are seeing is from the attachments.\nBut I'll try to summarize a better answer in 3 areas. \n\n\n**1 - Image Quality: Go Pro cannot paint a picture as well as Bigger Cameras can**. \n\nThe image quality of a go pro is not particularly good compared to pro cameras because there is more to image quality than 4k resolution. \nCompression, bit depth, noise floor, and colour subsampling are all fancy terms you may not know, but they all contribute to making an image good or bad. A user does a good job of comparing it to painting [here.](_URL_0_). \n\nProfessional movie and tv cameras need to be heavier and bigger than a go pro because they need bigger 'eyes' (called a sensor) and a bigger 'brain' (processing) and to keep those big eyes and brain cooler. \n\n**2 - Lens - the viewpoint of the camera.**. \n\nGo pros have only one 'viewpoint' of the world: a very wide fish-eye view that only sees well in bright light. If you want to see something far away, you need eyes more like an eagle, or like a person with binoculars. If you want to see things in the dark, you need eyes that gather more light, like a raccoon's eyes or a person with night vision goggles. Movie cameras are made so that when you want one of those other views, you can swap the lens to a different one. TV cameras have the ability to zoom in and out very far, as well as to 'put on sunglasses' built right into them. \nThese abilities require some heavy glass and solid mounting for that glass. \n\n**3 - Practical concerns like inputs/outputs, controls, weight and balance, and professional appearance**. \n\nThere's a lot in this category. But professionals need to be able to record audio (another word for sound), and they might need to be able to show their boss (a director or producer) what is happening. So they need jacks for cables to go in and out. Professionals need a lot of controls to tell the camera what they want it to do in different conditions, and they need space on the camera for those controls. The camera also needs some wight to it and be well balanced for a pro to get a steady handheld shot. Sometimes crews even add weights to a camera 'rig' to get the balance right. TV news cameramen also find that they are seen as more professional and get more respect with a full sized camera than a smaller one. \n\nHope that helps.",
"My attempt to truly ELI5 (this took a lot time to trim down):\n\n1. GoPro **\"squishes\"** video to make it fit into small SD cards. Big cameras do not, so editors can greatly control color in the video to add style/convey emotion.\n\n2. GoPro can't see very **bright**, or very **dark** things. Big cameras can. Big cameras can also show darker/brighter parts of a single image, allowing for beautiful/detailed shots of sunsets for example. GoPros will show a sunset as a single, \"blown out\" spot, while Pro cameras show all the subtle detail our eyes can see.\n\n3. GoPro doesn't have interchangeable **lenses**. With control over a lens, you also have control over what is in focus in the video. Focus control is the first big thing audiences distinguish between \"pro\" and \"amateur\" video. A video with the actor in focus, but his background tastefully blurred (out of focus) creates **depth and separation**. GoPros are also stuck with a very **wide** view of the world. Lenses allow filmmakers to chose how wide, or narrow they'd like their shots to be. Lenses can also allow cameras to see very distant, or very tiny objects with stunning detail.\n\n4. GoPros can't connect to all the cool **accessories** that filmmakers need. Special accessories allow filmmakers to have much longer battery life, provide focus control to a separate operator, help stabilize the camera, record professional sound, provide bigger screens with built in tools to help set focus/exposure, etc.\n\n5. There are a **millionbillion** other reasons, but these are some of the basics.",
"GoPros have a fixed focal length. The are designed to show things close to the lens in focus but if you try to shoot something from far away you'll see things get blurry quickly. This doesn't mean the GoPro is poor quality, it's just designed to do a specific thing really well (and my GoPro certainly does it well.)\n\n\nMovie and TV cameras on the other hand need to be able to focus on things that are close or far or in between and this requires large lenses. They also have large covers called shrouds that only allow light coming from the thing the camera is pointed at to enter the lens. This is helpful for outdoor shots like sporting events. \n\nIn addition to that there are lots of other bulky add-ons that help the camera operators like built in monitors; large, easy to grip handles with zoom and focus controls. GoPros only have a few buttons to save space and it makes changing settings very time consuming. With large body cameras all the settings can have their own switches and dials and experience operators can make changes very quickly which can be crucial for live events. \n\nFor really large cameras there are even motion-assist devices built in that allow the operator to make really smooth camera movements. \n\nWhen you control the shooting environment there's no need to make things small. You make then the the size that is the easiest to use.",
"Resolution is not everything. Sensor size matters too. For each sensor pixel, the bigger it is, the better it can sense light. That means that there will likely be less noise than a smaller sized sensor, especially at night.\n\nThen there is something called latitude. Latitude is the ability of the sensor to still perceive detail even in bright lights or very dark shadows. The ARRI Alexa cinema camera has about 14 stops of latitude, making it much more useful than something like an entry level DSLR, which might have 5, or 7. It makes the job of lighting significantly easier, especially in post production.\n\nThen there is the ability to record in Log, Raw, etc. Raw requires a lot of processing power to shoot, especially in 4k. This requires power, and fast processors and drives to do.\n\nThen there is ease of use. Putting on something like a follow focus system, a matte box, a monitor, EVF, battery pack, etc. is very easy to do with an Alexa. The menu is fairly simple too. Lenses, which are of the utmost importance, are quick to change out, and are much easier to change than on something like a GoPro.\n\nCamera movements, whether they are on a Chapman Leonard dolly, or just sticks with a fluid drag head, will be significantly smoother than what a GoPro would be able to do. Pretty much every GoPro video you see that looks smooth, likely was shot in 4k, and then stabilized in After Effects. GoPro footage never looks that smooth directly off camera.\n\nBasically, there are a lot of reasons. But the best reason is, it's just easier to do, and it usually looks better in the end.",
"Resolution does not necessarily mean quality. Professional cameras have far more in terms of customization (e.g. swapping out lenses or changing the filming modes) and quality (e.g. quality of footage shot in less-than-ideal locations and color balance/depth.) Microphone quality is also a major factor. \n\nGoPro cameras are very durable and can film during motion, but are otherwise more-or-less equivalent on what you'd find on a smartphone.",
"Expandability is a huge factor. How many zoom lenses can be added to a gopro versus a large scale camera?\n\nLikewise, depth of field is, I believe, a function of lense ratios and distances. So having a longer, large camera allows more careful focusing and zooming. I'm not sure about this one as much, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. \n\nFrom there, sensor size can matter too. A gopro has 4k pixel counts, but a smaller sensor, so less light sensitivity and a higher amount of noise. Pixel count isn't all.",
"GoPro cameras are not that good, really. Same as smartphones, they will only film well in perfect conditions. \n\nNumber of pixels isn't that important in a camera, quality of footage is. You need a large sensor for that.",
"The answer beyond just expandability and sensor size is Bit rate and compression. While it is true GOPRO'S can record 4k it is at a relatively high compression and low bit rate which does not require a whole lot of computing power where in Prograde cameras can record at extremely high bit rates and near zero compression. This makes it easier to color correct and gives you a crisper image among other benefits. How ever it requires a lot of computing power to record like that; so it requires a camera body large enough to hold the computer capable of processing such an image at high bit rates.",
"There are three reasons:\n\n1. The quality is still shite. Tiny little lens like that, no focal length, and a small CCD: it's gonna look like crap.\n\n2. It's compressed to fuck-all. We shoot in all-i-frame if we can. When we can't we shoot in minimally compressed archival quality so you can EDIT with it.\n\n3. 4K is irrelevant. Nobody can differentiate between 1080 and 4K. There might be a corner case where sports shoot in 4K and transmit in 1080 so they can zoom without losing quality, but that's about it.\n\nSource: I work at a TV network. I'm one of the guys who decides what format we're shooting. I've participated in the AB tests on 1080 vs. 4K.",
"Simply put, resolution (number of pixels recorded) is only one of the measures of quality of an image. The larger cameras can provide better quality images in a number of ways.\n\n- Sensor size - the larger the sensor, the more 'cinematic' the image looks because of the shallow depth of field (soft backgrounds whilst foregrounds are sharp).\n\n- Dynamic range - the dark shadows like the shade under a tree is clear, but so is the blinding sun. One of the biggest challenges in digital cinematography.\n\n- Quality of recording - resolution is not the only thing. Chroma subsampling (the amount of 1s and 0s dedicated to colour), colour range, bitrate (the mbps) all factor in too - bigger cameras can do more (smaller cameras can too but they need to be hooked in to high quality recording devices).\n\n- Base ISO - Bigger cameras with bigger sensors can do better in low light. They can shoot in near darkness, and the image will be clean - as a general rule, dark images without adequate light are grainy - but the graininess 'kicks in' later on high ISO cameras. That said, cameras don't have to be 'huge' to have a high base ISO - the highest ISO cameras like the Sony a7sII are quite small.\n\n- Ability to change lenses - big lenses mean brighter images, sharper images, and more even images 'edge to edge'. Bigger lenses need bigger cameras (most of the time).\n\n- Battery and power - all the above mean the cameras churn through batteries.\n\n- Accessories - All sorts of bits and pieces hanging off the camera allow the filmmakers to accurately measure things, and provide fine tune manual control. A lot of cinematography is done extremely manually - technicians are so highly trained that they can do things like focusing by hand with much more nuance than electronic equipment can.\n\n- Build quality - bigger cameras are battle ready for filming.\n\n- Integration into existing tripods/dollies/cranes - To be honest, big cinema digital cameras don't have to be as big as they are. But cameras like the Alexa (a common 'Hollywood camera') are matched in size to the old 35mm cameras (which had to be large because they had 400 feet of film attached to them) just so everyone can keep using their gear in the same way.\n\nWhen you work with higher end cameras, you start to see a lot that the cheaper cameras can't do. That said, cheaper and smaller cameras are optimised to give a very crunchy, saturated and 'flashy' image. They'll lack the subtlety of higher end cameras, but that said, they often will look great. Just because a higher end camera *can* look better doesn't mean it always does. There's plenty of people out there shooting better stuff on their phones than pros are with all the big toys.\n\nIf you're making a low budget film, your money is better spent going with the 'cheap' gear (because cheap gear nowadays is absolutely amazing) and putting your money towards every possible other element of the film.\n\nAt the end of the days quality of images goes up with camera size and price. But there are limits. I'm currently shooting a film on DSLR (bigger than GoPro, smaller than cinema) when we could have easily afforded pricier cinema equipment. We did it because that camera choice best suited our film.",
"1) Big cameras are more stable\n2) Big image sensors produce better quality.\n3) Professionals cameras have three image sensors instead of one, for red, green, and blue. \n\nHad some experience with professional ENG cameras back in the old days (early to mid 1990s) when cameras still used tubes. Nowadays the chips are cemented to a prism, but back then you had to allow expansion and contraction as tubes heated up, and had a complicated optical system of mirrors to direct light to the appropriate tube. Each time you did a shoot you had to allow the cameras to warm up, and then adjust a bunch of pots to electronically line up the images, compensating for the final position of the tubes. If one popped out of registration in the middle of a production, ideally you'd have a grip run out from the truck with a registration chart, but if that wasn't possible you'd have to point the camera at something with a large number of horizontal and vertical lines. If a camera got whacked to hard, it meant a trip to the shop to realign the mirrors. If they were pointed at lights it wrecked the tubes, which were expensive enough you'd think about replacing the camera. Oh, and with all the tubes and optical stuff and metal case these were as heavy as fuck, and you had a thick cable behind you (that you hopefully but not always had a grip to deal with).",
"Bigger cameras have larger imagers and multi-element, high resolution lenses.\n\nAssuming identical pixel resolution, a larger imager (sensor) has larger pixels, which take in more light faster. This is not an issue with still shots in sunlight, but low light and motion cause blurring and noise issues, to name a few. \n\nThere is a lot that can go wrong with an image due to lens distortion. Spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, pincushion effect, keystoning, etc. happen with all lenses to a certain extent, but the large, high quality lenses with multiple elements can minimize the effects. Try taking a picture with your smartphone camera of a tall building with a straight edge. Aim the shot so the edge is near the edge of the camera's field of view. Observe how straight the edge appears in the picture. Compare that with the images of buildings in tv and movies. \n\nLenses also have a resolution. There is a minimum feature size that a lens can resolve in an image. Images taken with low resolution lenses can appear to have all the necessary information, but the lens distorts the tiny details that give depth perception. An image taken with a really good lens can appear almost 3d because of the improved perspective information\n\nSource: I worked in high resolution industrial optics for 9 years.",
"Large cameras like a RED or an Alexa are hardly even cameras to be honest. What I mean is, they are basically computers attached to a sensor. This sensor is much larger than a GoPro, which allows it to perform far better than a GoPro sensor could. Shooting 4K isn't that difficult, what is difficult is capturing high bit-rate, RAW 4K. Higher bit-rate footage has more detail, meaning you can push it farther in post processing. Bit-rate is almost as important as resolution, because even the highest resolution won't look very good with a low bit-rate. The computer in large cameras is capable of processing this footage and getting it out to the SSD packs for storage, unlike a GoPro which can only output a low bit-rate video. These larger cameras also require lots of wiring to deal with multiple inputs such as multiple microphones and external monitors. There is also a cooling unit inside the camera to keep the processor cool and running correctly. \n\nThis is why they are much larger, because they have to house a small computer inside them to deal with the footage. Not to mention that they have mounts for lenses, so that adds to the size.",
"The same reason that a 21MP camera on your phone can't match the might of a 12MP SLR camera.\n\nReason : Bigger sensors, aperture and lenses allow for more light to get through and hence, better capture quality. True for both Photo and Video equipment.",
"Did you see that river scene in the hobbit? That's why...",
"The actual quality of the picture. You can have a really grainy 4k image, and it'll look way worse than a good quality 1080p image. Bigger cameras have bigger sensors and better lenses, and they have much more manual control to get the perfect shot. GoPro is basically just \"push record, and you get what you get\". \n\nIt's the same reason DSLR's are better than phone cameras. Yes, there's a 40MP phone camera in one of the Lumia phones. But if you compare it to a 40MP shot from a DSLR, the DSLR will look a lot better.",
"The lenses on movie cameras are far far far nicer in every way. Resolution is a way to ensure your maximum potential video quality, but to reach that potential, you need a lens that is far nicer than what a gopro has.",
"Have you seen the second film in the hobbit series? They used a few go pro to film the river barrel scenes and compared to the rest of the footage? It looks terrible.",
"High resolution sensor + shitty optics = Shitty 4k video. \n \nHigh resolution + shitty optics + hateful user interface = GoPro",
"I may be late but.... \n\nFilm cameras(Digital)\nA good example is a RED camera(epic for my example) but Alexa and Sony works as well for this example. If you look at the body it's actually fairly small. Inside you have a 5K sensor which is true 5K not like the smaller go pros/smart phones which only up convert to 5k. Also a fan and the brain that allows an image that big to process. You can't do anything with just a body. Now we add a lens mount, lens, ssd card reader, battery mount, battery, control/grip, monitor, then you add some \"rods\" mount a follow focus, mattbox, counter weight. This setup I would use for a run and gun shoot something small. Now for a larger production, if you want to send a feed to on set producers and the director and the AC (to pull focus) you need another attachment and run cables, if your follow focus is wireless(RF) then you might have a motor as well. \nAs you can see there is a lot of \"attachments\" that can be added making the cameras big and bulky.\n\nStudio/EFP\nThese cameras have most of this built in as well as a radio so you can talk to the director. And a few other things. The cameras you see at a football game are really big because of the lens the actual camera is a fraction of the size. Those lenses are huge because of all the glass in them to be able to zoom in longer distances without loosing the width of your image.\n\nSorry if I didn't make much sense or missed a few things.I'm at a Christmas party outdoor freezing. I'm sure some one else will chime in.\n\nSource: this puts bread on my table.",
"Here's the shortest way I can explain it: It all boils down to your ability to produce cinematic, film-like images, like the professional stuff you see. 4k resolution from your phone or go pro is only a very small part of the equation. Here are the two biggest parts of the equation. \n\n**1.) Interchangeable Lenses** \n\nWith a go pro you're stuck with the lens you got. With a higher end camera, you can use telephoto lenses, wide angles lenses, fast lenses for low light situations, shallow depth of field, etc... And the different lenses add a huge difference in the cinematic quality of your videos. \n\n**2.) The actual amount of image information being captured by your camera sensor, not just the resolution.** \n\nNot only does this determine your overall image quality, it also effects how much you're going to be able to manipulate your image during editing, which is huge. Say you shot a scene out of order at two different times of day. If you try to edit it together, it will look pretty damn weird. Well if your camera captures lots of color information, the way a go pro can't, then a skilled editor or color correctionist can match the two shots seamlessly, and it will all look much richer than a go pro. \n\nAside from the amount of color information your camera can capture, you also have to consider it's low light sensitivity. Go pros are not going to work in low light situations, it will produce an ugly, grainy, noisy image. A higher end camera will give you a much cleaner image in low light. Plus you have a lot more control over all these settings in a pro camera, with a go pro you're much more constrained. \n\nHope that helps!",
"The main factor here is sensor size. Go Pros have a tiny sensor while digital cinematography is shot on a 35mm sensor. With a go pro / small sensor camera you have the following disadvantages:\n\n-can't save uncompressed/raw footage \n\n-no ability to control depth of field- telephoto shots with a sharp subject and blurry background require a decent sized sensor\n\n-no interchangeable lenses- massive issue obviously unless you want all the same shots all the time\n\n-poor dynamic range- smaller sensors are limited in terms of the difference between the brightest and darkest pixel values before washing out to all black or all white. Basically, on a 35mm camera, the shadows will have details while on a go pro they will just be black. This makes a big difference in terms of texture.\n\n-larger sensors have more surface area per pixel and therefore have less noise. This allows you to turn up the ISO way higher on a 35mm, break out an F1.8 lens and basically see in the dark\n\n\nOther differences stem from the playback frame rate. Go pro footage is usually played back with a very high framer rate which gives it this weird \"hyper-real\" look which makes it look sharp and impressive (but kind of like daytime TV) while footage off a more expensive camera is likely to be in 24p, which loses a bit of apparent sharpness in exchange for a familiar film feel. \n\n\nLast thing, the price difference isn't that huge. You can get a nice 4k video camera that will rek your go pro footage for under $1k, like the Panasonic GH4k\n\n\nTo:dr; go pros are sweet but if you can't see the difference between that and a Red Epic you seriously need your eyes checked.",
"One must understand that pixel resolution is not the REAL resolution. REAL resolution is how tiny is the smallest detail that can be captured at certain distance, and that's the so called angular resolution. And for good angular resolution you need physically large lens and sensor. There's no way around it.\n\nLet's say that you have smartphone with a physically tiny sensor behind a physically tiny lens, and that sensor has resolution of 3242154 terapixels. What does that mean? It will mean capturing shitty image in 3242154 terapixels. It means capturing many megabytes of chromatic aberation, noise, blur, vignetting and god-knows-what else.\n\nOn the other hand, you can have EOS1 mk1 with sensor resolution of \"only\" 4 megapixels, but with full-size sensor and with proper f/1.4 glass in front of it. \n\nDespite the huge \"megapixel\" difference, the latter will capture indescribably better photos, especially in less-than-perfect light conditions.\n\nRead more about angular resolution on wikipedia and don't allow marketing buzzwords confuse you. No, more megapixel do NOT always mean better picture. Sometimes, paradoxically, it means WORSE picture (more noise).\n\nWhat you need for really good, commercially competitive image is LARGE sensor and LARGE glass. That's it. No way around this.",
"Resolution is probably the least important factor in an image looking nice so long as it's above a reasonable minimum. A movie playing at 720p still \"looks like a movie\" cause the cinematographer knows what he's doing. On a cinema camera, you need space for a PL mount, which is not exactly small, weight for stability, a large sensor, and space to rig things onto the camera such as monitors,follow focus, matte box, sound stuff etc. \n\nIn my humble opinion go pro footage looks somewhere between poor and mediocre and it's quite easy to differentiate between something clearly shot on a red or an Alexa vs a go pro. Dynamic range (latitude), color rendering, global shutter and high fps options make a good camera, not high res, but even a good camera doesn't mean an inherently good image, lighting and composition are still the two most important things as far as the aesthetic beauty of a shot is concerned",
"GoPro cameras are used extensively in TV and feature film nowadays. It just takes a bit of work to get it to the same level.\n\nSource: I'm a VFX compositor and spend a LOT of time getting shitty GoPro footage to sit with 'high end' footage",
"Because glass matters.\n\nSo does the sensor being used.\n\nA tiny little CMOS sensor is total garbage really. Even a full frame CMOS one is garbage.\n\nFor quality on a sensor, that requires full frame (3 of them) in rgb CCD sensors. Nothing else can compare.",
"If a motorcycle can go 100mph, why do you need a Rolls Royce?",
"Larger sensors capture cleaner images per pixel. The larger sensor when combined with professional lenses captures images in ways that are more equivalent to traditional film. If you take a 35MM film and the sensor is smaller than 35mm film, the sensor is only capturing a portion of the image from the lens, meaning the lens isnt performing in the way it was designed to. \n\nTake the Hateful Eight for example, if you shoot on 70mm film like they did... you need a bigger camera with lenses that match the area of the film surface to maximize the image exposed on the film and you want to be using the lens to its performance spec. Lenses ARE HEAVY. They require a sturdy body to mount them to and the camera needs to be balanced for the operator to use it without struggling if using it handheld. Thats another reason why film cameras are generally larger. Back to the lens vs film gate issue.... If you're using a lens designed for 70mm film and you're using a tiny sensor smaller than 70mm... you're going to be getting a very odd image that appears cropped. This is why in digital format we call them \"cropped sensors\" They usually dont cover the full 35mm frame or support 35mm lenses. To use a crop sensor, you require a lens designed to output the equivalent of what a 35mm full sensor lens would. Crop sensors typically arent common outside of consumer cameras in large offerings. Crop sensors or small sensors are generally muddier or less sharp, higher in noise. The same for film btw. Smaller film because of how you're exposing it, wont be as nice or as sharp as something like 70mm. Its a resolution issue. Smaller censors have come a long way but there is a reason why iphone photos dont look as good as 35mm, medium format pro gear. Tiny censors are a smaller area for photons to collect in an ideal manner for best image quality. \n\nNow really, today with cameras like Red, they're not that big. They look big because the lens and some of the rigging and the additional battery but compared to traditional film cameras or even some of the early HD stuff, they're pretty small by comparison.\n\nSo the additional size basically allows for larger film gate, larger censor that matches traditional film stock such as 35mm or more which means cleaner, sharper pixels, Larger lens support, battery and storage support, wireless or other additional output units on the device for real time monitoring on set, and additional rigging/mounting points on camera body to allow it to be used in various setups. Small cameras like Go Pros have a problem with being too light. A camera that is too light doesnt counter your body movement well and will shake more in handheld shots. A camera with a bit more weight that can be shoulder held can be smoother to use. A camera with more weight in a steady cam rig will also perform better. \n\nSo there are many factors that add up to the weight and size of pro cameras for film. There are also color reasons why you want pro gear. Color reproduction is a science in itself. Go Pros are ok but for serious color work you're going to need a better sensor designed to capture at higher bit depths, resolution,",
"Resolution isn't everything (though higher res final products are slowly becoming the norm).\n\nThe biggest thing that hasn't been mentioned is **dynamic range**. this is basically the range of light that a camera can be sensitive to. A GoPro not only auto-balances the ISO (or light sensitivity of the sensor), but it does not have a great dynamic range.\n\nFor example, imagine you're standing in front of two cameras in the mid afternoon, a GoPro and a Red Epic (gonna use RED cameras to compare for my own ease). Because of the harsh afternoon sunlight, one side of your face is completely lit up while the other remains in shadow. \n\n-The GoPro (or any camera with a small dynamic range) will either expose the 'lit' side of your face and thus the dark side will be too dark to see, OR it will expose the shadowed side of your face and the lit side will be blown out white.\n\n-The Red Epic (which is stated to have '15.6' *stops* in its range), will be able to look at your face and expose both sides without losing any part of the image to noise (black) or clipping (white).\n\nOther reasons that are a little tougher for me to explain are:\n\n-**RED Cameras shoot RAW**, meaning ISO and white balance can be changed in post (super useful for quick shoots). \n\n\n-RED Cameras **shoot far higher resolutions** at far **higher framerates** (meaning more crisp of an image/safe area to crop or stabilize, and slower slow motion if wanted).\n\n-RED Cameras shoot at **higher bit rates** meaning there is a lot more color data for the computer to look at in post. This is huge for color grading and correction at the end of a film, plus it just looks crisper.\n\n-**Interchangeable lenses**, for deep or flat space, playing with depth of field (GoPro Hero4 is locked at an f-stop of 2.8, and is also locked at a ~20mm wide lens), or putting characters closer or farther from the camera.\n\nThere are certainly many more reasons, such as the fact that they're designed to be used on a set, thus are very efficient in that environment.\n\nI think one thing to point out here is this: the best filmmakers are successful NOT because of the gear they tote, but because of execution of a good story. There are fantastic movies that were shot on Canon 7Ds, and fucking terrible films shot on Arri Alexas and Red Epics. \n\nThere isn't really any reason a filmmaker couldn't be successful shooting a movie with GoPros as long as he intimately understood his limitations.",
"Better lenses, larger sensors, industry standard connections, modular construction, stability through solid construction, active cooling, and capturing video without compression. \n\nLenses: The number of elements in a lens affects the image quality more than the sensor does. Cheap and simple lens construction results in chromatic abberations, lack of detail and sharpness, and low contrast. They also have smaller light gathering ability. The larger the lens aperture the harder it is to keep everything in focus. \n\nSensor: The size of each pixel affects it's light gathering capability regardless of the resolution. Larger sensors result in more light, lower noise, and better color reproduction. They also require larger lenses as a larger sensor reduces the effective focal length of the lens. A zoom lens on a small sensor acts like a wide angle lens on a larger one. \n\nModular construction: Movie cameras can be upgraded or configured for different needs. The camera body, lens system, storage system, audio system, sensor system, are all interchangable. This means larger modules that connect together. \n\nSolid construction: Stiffer chassis and higher strength to support the weight of a massive lens means a larger camera body. The weight also helps stabilize the image due to it's mass. \n\nActive cooling: Camera sensors get noisy if they get hot. Active cooling of the sensor allows for a lower noise floor and better low light performance but the cooling system adds bulk. \n\nStorage medium: Small sports cameras and cellphones store video in efficient and small compressed video formats like mpeg 4 or AVC. This is fine for home videos but a movie camera must capture video in lossless format for the best video quality and to allow editing and later encoding into other formats without loss of quality. This means much more storage space and the need for a high bandwidth storage system. A minute of uncompressed movie quality video takes several terabytes of storage (terrabits lol. Less than a terrabyte a minute but thats still a lot).",
"Best I can explain it as a DP is that despite the \"4k resolution\" of the GoPro sensor, it is not nearly as large or advanced as the sensor on a Pro cam that Hollywood uses. \n\nA Red or Arri or whatever you choose records at an insane BITRATE, uncompressed RAW frames into fast SSD media; a GoPro records to microSD cards in compressed h264 at much lower bitrate (less data per frame IE: Blockiness in motion and shadows etc - think of a Red cam like BluRay and GoPro like youtube) \n\nIn addition the lens is fixed and only a semi fisheye which works for \"press record and go\" to capture wide areas, but which sucks in low light or in situations where you want longer focal lengths (zoom). In a Hollywood production, the Lenses are more expensive than the camera bodies in a lot of cases.",
"> It seems that GoPro cameras film better quality than movies and TV so I must be missing something.\n\nYour TV might not be showing it/able to, but trust me the original files filmed on large TV/movie cameras are *much* better quality than what a GoPro can produce.\n\nIt's the reason why GoPro 4K cameras are hundreds of dollars, and RED 4K cameras are tens of thousands of dollars. Another comparison is point-and-shoot cameras that are a couple hundred dollars vs. DSLRs that are thousands.\n\nThe more expensive cameras can shoot uncompressed video, at massively higher bitrates, which is why they're more expensive in the first place, and just better in general. And there's a whole slew of other reasons why they're better other than just bitrates too.",
"Resolution has very little to do with \"quality\" in a movie camera. Sensors that are larger (only 2x larger than GoPro) can produce various depths of field (out of focus background, foreground in focus), low light performance with minimal grain, and high Dynamic Range. Bitrates are also a factor. GoPro puts out a pretty small bitrate therefore doesn't need much cooling. Camera's with larger bitrates that produce cinema quality images need some room for heeatsink and dissipation. This is all ONLY the camera body which can still be fairly small (like half the size of a shoe box). The accessories are what make the pro cameras large. Long lenses, matte boxes, external monitors, external batteries, focus gears, focus wheel, viewfinders, and extra large tripods.",
"I know a lot about this but it will probably be buried.\n\nBasically, the main thing is that they take in exponentially more information.\n\n- \n\nSimply compare these two images taken at roughly the same conditions.\n\n[Image 1](_URL_2_)\n\n[Image 2](_URL_2_)\n\nIt's pretty clear which one is the professional movie camera and which is the gopro. High end movie cameras take in so much more light, at slight variations, and at much higher range. All at once. \n\nGopro takes one range at once. That's it. It is more tuned for daylight since it can't be perfect everywhere. These professional camera are capturing for bright light, darkness, and normal brightness all at once. It's really amazing seeing just how much information pro cameras take in.",
"Short answer: there's a lot more to capturing an image than resolution.\n\nThis has to do with lenses, viewfinders, other attachments, and functionality. It also has to do with sensor size (a larger sensor is more important than a high resolution, usually, and contributes to better dynamic range and color range), and often directors use film for these reasons as well, which requires a lot more room.",
"Higher quality glass, manual controls, etc.\n\nSimply put, the technology in those industry cameras are superior in probably all ways except portability when compared to go pro.\n\nThere are many reasons why a Ferrari is a better car than a Honda civic. If you had the choice to drive either, which do you think would perform better?",
"Resolution is far less of a factor in image quality than:\n\n- lens choice and quality\n- bit-depth and color science\n- sensor size\n\nadd in the fact that the ergonomics of the gopro is not suitable for high-quality filmmaking (inability to control focus, battery life, recording media, controls/buttons, audio inputs, etc)",
"OK... Look at the quality of movies, now go look at the quality of 4k the gopro records in, drastically different. Cinema cameras are thousands and thousands of dollars more to produce a crisp and clear image while go pro doesn't seem to worry about any of that.",
"4K is just the resolution. It's kinda like the MP wars for cell phone cameras. The resolution by itself doesnt determine the quality of the picture. There are other variables. That's why a 12MP picture from a DSLR is way better than a 12MP from a cellphone.",
"There is a movie called Tangerine being released soon that was shot entirely on an iPhone 5. There are valid reasons listed in the other responses of why to use actual movie cameras but it is possible to shoot an entire movie with a consumer camera.",
"Because movies and TV shows want to produce better images than gopros. A better image requires bigger things. Gopros at 4k and all small action cameras take terrible video. It looks like crap compared to even a DSLR at 1080.",
"No one has mentioned durability. Professional production cameras have to be able to take a lot abuse day after day after day and keep running.",
"The real mystery is why they can't make the big cameras silent, like the GoPro. I'm a sound mixer. Couldn't resist. ;)",
"signal to noise ratio, smaller sensors have more of it then larger sensors with the pixels further apart from each other. physics.",
"GoPros are in no way shape or form better than cinema cameras.\n\nFind me a GoPro that can provide movie quality."
],
"score": [
4233,
491,
327,
301,
172,
35,
24,
15,
12,
10,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y59ih/eli5_if_a_handheld_gopro_can_record_at_4k/cyax11t",
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-HLJvywMk-8/maxresdefault.jpg",
"http://red.cachefly.net/R3D/london2.jpg"
]
} | train_eli5 | If a handheld GoPro can record at 4k resolution, why do movie and television productions use such large cameras?
Whats the factor that isn't immediately apparent that makes a larger camera better? It seems that GoPro cameras film better quality than movies and TV so I must be missing something. Thanks! Edit: Thanks for the answers guys ,I really appreciate the new-found knowledge!! | [
0.06957275420427322,
0.04073547571897507,
0.03601301461458206,
-0.06767798960208893,
0.018922070041298866,
0.015828866511583328,
0.011912072077393532,
0.07258270680904388,
0.06691154092550278,
0.04217007756233215,
-0.04212907701730728,
0.04958166554570198,
0.005045525263994932,
0.059599030... | |
25hnc5 | The guy that spent $700 at a vet who couldn't find what was wrong with his cat, only to have a different vet immediately know what's wrong, are there any consequences for the original vet? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"chhagpy"
],
"text": [
"Basically no.\n\nIf a professional carries out their duties to the best of their ability with no intent of fraud then you should have picked a better vet. They can be sued but as long as the vet wasn't negligent the suit wouldn't be successful."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | The guy that spent $700 at a vet who couldn't find what was wrong with his cat, only to have a different vet immediately know what's wrong, are there any consequences for the original vet?
| [
0.025517616420984268,
0.09896767884492874,
0.009707669727504253,
0.014907621778547764,
-0.01827293634414673,
-0.04391469061374664,
-0.002909037284553051,
-0.020888516679406166,
-0.04506993293762207,
-0.015314919874072075,
0.08342068642377853,
0.04300734028220177,
0.03904091566801071,
0.064... | ||
2s5kfn | what would the Catholic Church do if Jesus came back? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cnme20t",
"cnmdoif",
"cnme555",
"cnmdo7n",
"cnmeewn",
"cnmdzqg"
],
"text": [
"Probably flip a shit, when he turns out to be brown.",
"They'd probably ask him to perform a miracle or two to prove it",
"That depends on whether he returns as a mature male, or is reborn from a modern-day Maria. If the latter, I don't thinks the parents will allow the church access basic on recent events. If born as a mature male, why would he need the church?\n\nSo, Jesus 2.0 will probably not be compatible with the Catholic church",
"Maybe he already has. I would imagine that they would denounce anyone claiming to be Jesus if he disagrees with the Church on anything.",
"Probably not much, as they believe that the second coming will be part of the sequence of events of the end times.",
"The expectation is that He will return in quite a spectacular manner, leaving nobody in any doubt as to who He is."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | what would the Catholic Church do if Jesus came back?
| [
-0.01961096003651619,
0.07999701052904129,
0.0120472377166152,
-0.009928488172590733,
-0.04503853619098663,
0.0006969081005081534,
-0.07346798479557037,
-0.09122350066900253,
0.02189621515572071,
-0.09730643779039383,
0.06835588067770004,
-0.006494332570582628,
-0.04430586099624634,
0.0046... | ||
2d0onu | Where does award money on game shows come from? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"cjkwkwf"
],
"text": [
"The TV company producing the show. A game show usually has significantly lower costs than a normal show, the only have to pay the salary of the host, there is only one set and very little special effects. That allows them to spend that saved money on prizes."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Where does award money on game shows come from?
| [
-0.028345512226223946,
0.03279552608728409,
-0.041478171944618225,
-0.06135094538331032,
-0.014847816899418831,
0.1222587525844574,
0.13527697324752808,
-0.03198380023241043,
0.07093987613916397,
0.037196412682533264,
-0.02233823575079441,
-0.03079962730407715,
-0.0012298895744606853,
0.00... | ||
19c9lk | Why don't I always have the same level of cell phone service in the same spot? | I usually have 5 bars of service and 3G (sometimes even 4G) in my living room, but occasionally I only have 1 bar of service and no 3g. Why is that so? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c8mwv2p",
"c8mr3ii"
],
"text": [
"The service depends on how many people are also using the same tower - the bandwidth is like a pipe. If there are lots of people around you with lots of pipes branching off the main one, there's only a little bit of water for each person.",
"To take a guess I would say that there may be some kind of interference. Just because your in the same spot doesn't mean everything between you and your cell providers tower are as well."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Why don't I always have the same level of cell phone service in the same spot?
I usually have 5 bars of service and 3G (sometimes even 4G) in my living room, but occasionally I only have 1 bar of service and no 3g. Why is that so? | [
0.021729758009314537,
-0.0981907919049263,
0.04444723203778267,
-0.041960109025239944,
-0.038402948528528214,
-0.0677918940782547,
-0.03944072499871254,
0.0265840794891119,
0.13746964931488037,
-0.027515236288309097,
-0.008063209243118763,
0.03038029745221138,
0.0665094256401062,
-0.014494... | |
5rcwo9 | I'm 27/m. How can girls on "The Bachelor" be ok with dating a guy who's making out with 20 other girls and in fantasy suite when there's 3 girls? | [removed] | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd69e5w",
"dd69eln"
],
"text": [
"Most of them aren't. That's pretty much the entire plot line of the show. Jealously, cat fights, and falling in love for the \"right reasons.\" The show has it all--except reality, basically.",
"You'll come to realize that the term \"reality show\" is only half correct. They are shows that have almost no basis on reality. Heck, most of them are rigged before the season premiere."
],
"score": [
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | I'm 27/m. How can girls on "The Bachelor" be ok with dating a guy who's making out with 20 other girls and in fantasy suite when there's 3 girls?
[removed] | [
0.11683192849159241,
-0.0862652063369751,
0.019824206829071045,
-0.056917812675237656,
-0.010649817995727062,
0.056385405361652374,
-0.019559063017368317,
-0.037089571356773376,
0.015900710597634315,
0.04400240629911423,
-0.009878752753138542,
-0.04070189222693443,
0.03876681625843048,
-0.... | |
5ssy25 | Who authorises drone strikes and ground missions on foreign ground? | *Please note, I don't want a political discussion here whether it's morally acceptable or not.*
Hey,
After seeing an article with the headline: [Yemen Withdraws Permission for U.S. Antiterror Ground Missions](_URL_0_) I asked myself, who authorises the attacks of the U.S. or other nations (like airstrikes from France or Russia) to foreign ground? Do they get a permission for every single drone strike they do, do they have a blank cheque from the government, or do they simply give themselves the permission for such operations?
*Please note, I don't want a political discussion here whether it's morally acceptable or not.* | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhkolw",
"ddhmdmi"
],
"text": [
"The person that authorizes it is different for each military. It is the person that is in charge of the military. For the US it is the POTUS. \n\nThere is no higher authority that a country has to seek permission from, there is no global government.\n\nEdit: The link you are talking about is about Yemen giving aid to the US for their actions on Yemen soil. But the US does not need permission to carry out those actions. Yemen can choose to help (as they have done in the past), Choose to ignore it, or choose to attack the US for being on their soil.",
"In the US, it is ultimately the president.\n\nThey might authorize it personally, or they might issue an executive order stating the conditions needed to authorize a strike and leave it at the discretion of the military.\n\nNote this is essentially true for *all* military action. The president issues executive orders, which the military turns into policy and rules of engagement."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-special-operations-missions.html"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Who authorises drone strikes and ground missions on foreign ground?
*Please note, I don't want a political discussion here whether it's morally acceptable or not.* Hey, After seeing an article with the headline: [Yemen Withdraws Permission for U.S. Antiterror Ground Missions](_URL_0_) I asked myself, who authorises the attacks of the U.S. or other nations (like airstrikes from France or Russia) to foreign ground? Do they get a permission for every single drone strike they do, do they have a blank cheque from the government, or do they simply give themselves the permission for such operations? *Please note, I don't want a political discussion here whether it's morally acceptable or not.* | [
0.09477011859416962,
0.01814858242869377,
-0.014266247861087322,
-0.11616494506597519,
-0.006983946077525616,
-0.02997027151286602,
0.03072344698011875,
-0.017015788704156876,
-0.003818371333181858,
0.09314880520105362,
-0.001808730186894536,
0.05984873324632645,
0.024074111133813858,
0.05... | |
1bstgc | Thunder and lightning | why does the time between which the lightning is seen and the thunder is heard, increase/decrease depending on the distance away from you the storm is? | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"c99pqbj",
"c99pqd7"
],
"text": [
"Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second. Sound travels at 343.2 meters per second.\n\nSince light is so much faster than sound, you see the lightning much sooner than you hear the thunder. It simply takes the sound longer to cover the same distance.\n\nThe farther away a lightning strike hits, the longer it takes for the sound of thunder to catch up with the light of the lightning.",
"It's because of the difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound. If you are right next to a lightning strike the light and sound will both reach you almost instantly. If you are 10 miles away from the lightning strike the light will still reach you instantly but the sound will take a few seconds as it travels a lot slower than light does."
],
"score": [
11,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | train_eli5 | Thunder and lightning
why does the time between which the lightning is seen and the thunder is heard, increase/decrease depending on the distance away from you the storm is? | [
0.06030650436878204,
-0.04136371985077858,
0.0494578517973423,
0.019072500988841057,
0.01496183779090643,
0.032191041857004166,
-0.0009995753644034266,
-0.03187808766961098,
0.15664052963256836,
-0.09169984608888626,
0.047847647219896317,
0.021001804620027542,
0.03791677579283714,
-0.02856... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.