q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
301
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 3
values | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
s1u61
|
Just what exactly happened to my drink tonight?
|
Tonight I made a mixed drink with Diet A & W (room temp) root beer and Lucid Absinthe (slightly cool as it was stored in the basement). I put ice in the glass, poured about a shot or two of Absinthe in the bottom, then filled the glass up with the root beer. Immediately I noticed that the characteristic dense foaming normally associated with pouring root beer was gone (new bottle so it wasn't flat, plus I had drank some plain earlier and the foam was quite dense when I poured it) and as soon as I filled the glass, I saw that it had turned the drink completely opaque and a muddy brown.
[See picture](_URL_0_).
Clearly some chemical reaction occurred here, but what? Why did it change the color and eliminate almost all the foam? It's worth noting that this has happened to me before with Di'Amor Sambuca and Diet A & W, but when I tried to replicate it with Jager or another brand of Licorice flavored alcohol, it behaved like normal root beer.
Help me /r/askscience, you're my only hope!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s1u61/just_what_exactly_happened_to_my_drink_tonight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4af1lu",
"c4ago8d",
"c4agp5q",
"c4ah5z0",
"c4ahbdm"
],
"score": [
12,
42,
23,
2,
13
],
"text": [
"Alcohols are notorious for breaking down foam. In fact, in the fire service, you have to use special foam at a higher concentration for alcohol based fires. It breaks the surface tension that allow bubbles to form.",
"Dilution of absinthe with aqueous solutions causes relatively insoluble compounds to precipitate out, causing the cloudiness. This is known as the louche, according to Wiki.",
"Louching. Different types of absinthe louche in various ways. The amount of louching is dependent on the amount of anise in the absinthe. Higher anise levels will generate a cloudier liquid, with some absinthes turning almost white in response to the cold water, while lower levels will result in less cloudiness. Other drinks which traditionally contain anise, such as ouzo, are also sometimes louched before service. Louching provides a useful visual indicator that the drink has been diluted, making it less potent than it would be in straight form. In the case of absinthe, dilution is desired, as this beverage is extremely strong.\n _URL_0_",
"Try pouring out a glass of soda, and when all the foam is bubbling away, pour in any hard liquor. The foam is kind of destroyed. Alcohol reduces surface tension.",
"Louching is correct. Hydrophobic molecules in the Absinthe can dissolve in the ethanol present, but as the concentration of ethanol decreases, the hydrophobic compounds in the drink become less soluble. If you were to add large amounts of Everclear to your drink (and I'm not recommending this, at least not if you were planning on drinking it) you would see the cloudiness go away.\n\nI actually more or less did just that only on a smaller scale for a recent organic chemistry lab. We first synthesized dimethylaminopropiophenone hydrochloride, then dissolved it in water because it was a salt. By then reacting it with a strong base, we removed the salt and it was no longer water-soluble and a milky white substance formed, not unlike what you witnessed. By then adding 95% ethanol, the substance dissolved back into solution because there was more organic solvent present to dissolve the reagent."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/5uZRH.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Preparing_absinthe.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
49uz7q
|
why do we have stomach acid instead of stomach base/alkaline?
|
Are there any reasons or is it a case of a 50/50 chance that went the way of acid instead of base?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49uz7q/eli5_why_do_we_have_stomach_acid_instead_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0v28cm"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A lot of bases have real poor interactions with water compared to a lot of acids. I think if you rerolled life over and over you'd see things figuring out a way to digest things with lye or something but hydrochloric acid makes sense as a kind of chemical you could make and deal with in a living creature. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
34qhb4
|
Why is the formula for angular momentum different from the formula for linear momentum?
|
At wikipedia I found the [following formula for angular momentum (for a single particle):](_URL_1_)
L = r*m*v
Where:
L is angular momentum
r is distance from the mass to the axis of rotation
m is mass
v is linear velocity of the mass
If you'd compare it to the [formula for linear momentum (for a single particle)](_URL_0_):
P = m * v
where P is the linear momentum, and 'm' and 'v' are the same as above.
You see that in the formula for angular momentum the radius pops op without any equivilant variable in the formula for linear momentum.
My question is; This difference seems to imply that conservation of angular momentum doesn't mean you necessary conserve linear momentum (and the other way around), is this true? And if that is the case, where would the formula for angular momentum come from?
Note:
Obviously there is a difference in the way the velocities 'work' in both formulae as the velocity itself would be a funcion of the radius in the case of angular momentum while it is constant for all praticles in linear momentum. In both cases the unit for v is m/s and represents the linear speed of a particle, so figured it shouldn't be the cause of the difference.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/34qhb4/why_is_the_formula_for_angular_momentum_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqx3gie",
"cqx3rdg",
"cqx3ve5"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The conservation of angular momentum and linear momentum are two independent quantities. \nYou can prove their conservation by using the Noether theorem. The laws of nature are symmetric under rotation and translation. The former leeds to a conservation of angular omentum and the latter to the conservation of linear momentum. ",
"Consider a particle moving in free space. Fix some reference point. This reference point allows you to calculate angular and linear momentum. Let's assume the particle is moving in a straight line. Then its linear momentum is trivially constant. \n\n What may not be immediately obvious is that its angular momentum is also constant, even though the radius changes. The formula L = rmv that you have is only true for circular motion. The general formula is L = I & omega;. Fortunately, the Wikipedia page tells us (or we can derive from basic math):\n\n > This simple analysis can also apply to non-circular motion if only the component of the motion which is perpendicular to the radius vector is considered. In that case, L = rmvsin & theta;.\n\nSo as the particle travels with respect to our reference point, r changes and sin & theta; changes. It turns out that they change in the exact same way, i.e. that rsin & theta; is constant. So both angular and linear momenta are constant for a single particle in free space. \n\nBut to answer your question,\n\n > This difference seems to imply that conservation of angular momentum doesn't mean you necessary conserve linear momentum (and the other way around), is this true? And if that is the case, where would the formula for angular momentum come from?\n\nIt's true that one doesn't necessarily imply the other. Conservation of linear momentum fundamentally comes from the fact that it doesn't appear to matter where you are translated in space - the fundamental laws of motion are the same. And conservation of angular momentum fundamentally comes from the fact that the same thing appears to apply to rotation in space.\n\nBut while neither necessarily implies the other, the fact is that both must simultaneously be satisfied, since both of the underlying facts appear to be true.\n\n",
"Linear momentum is sort of angular momentum about an axis at infinity. If you take the limit of L/r as the axis approaches infinity, you get one component of angular momentum.\n\nThe two are not equivalent on their own. However, if you conserve angular momentum around every axis (or just specific ones), it implies conservation of linear momentum. Similarly, conservation of linear momentum along with conservation of angular momentum around an axis implies conservation of angular momentum around other axes."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Single_particle",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Definition"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1lgot6
|
Have there been other examples of rogue states like North Korea? How were they dealt with if at all.
|
By which I mean a independent country of state which was potentially dangerous and acted belligerently but was just easier to leave alone rather than intervene militarily or otherwise?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lgot6/have_there_been_other_examples_of_rogue_states/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbzegsc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Obviously this was not a case of \"Leave Them Alone\" and it did devolve immediately into military intervention, but the Sacred Wars I feel are a good example that captures the same sentiment in Ancient Greece. I'm most familiar with the 3rd Sacred War, in which almost all of Greece, later led by Philip II of Macedon (Alexander's dad), went to war with the apparently insane Phocians.\n\nPhocia was a city-state near Delphi, a holy site, which broke the sacred laws by cultivating a nearby valley which was off-limits due to being part of the holy site. Much like with NK today, this was basically a case of the whole world (well, most of Greece, at least) looking down at these guys and deciding they were a stain on the world. It didn't end well for the Phocians.\n\nI don't know of any early modern examples off the top of my head, bit I hope this partially answered your question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6pu3wd
|
can we use ocean water for toilets, car washes, etc. and leave freshwater for drinking cause there is much more ocean water available to us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pu3wd/eli5_can_we_use_ocean_water_for_toilets_car/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dks7a2t",
"dks7b78",
"dks7e6w",
"dks8qte"
],
"score": [
19,
7,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Two problems, firstly you would need an awful lot of extra infrastructure to have two water pipes to every home, and the salt water would have quite a damaging effect on pipework, as the salt would crystallise out over time, would build up inside pipes,and dry and damage rubber seals. ",
"For toilets maybe, but sea water has a bunch of bacteria, diseases and corrosive shit in it and it wouldnt be good to use",
"Another problem is that even if you use it only in toilets, this may cause health problem. Imagine a child or a pet dying because they drank salt water from the toilet.",
" > leave freshwater for drinking cause there is much more ocean water available to us?\n\nThe problem is that ocean water isn't really available to us.\n\nOur water distribution infrastructure is based on it raining up high and flowing to where it is needed lower down. Ocean is about as low as you can get, so the water there really doesn't do us a whole lot of good, fresh, salt, or otherwise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10dvdv
|
why do things float towards eachother in liquids?
|
I first noticed it with cereal in milk, when you put it in there the cereal clumps. I wasn't sure if it was the iron in the cereal so I tried bits of styrofoam in milk, still went towards eachother. I've experimented with this a bit and I'm stumped. I thought it might be something to do with the surface tension in the water/milk/liquid but I added dish soap to the water once to lessen the tension and they still clumped.
Then I was curious about it might be gravity pulling them together so I used two things of known mass and figured out the ammount they should accelerate and in practice they accelerate much faster. I am at a complete loss as to why this is and was wondering if anyone knew. Sorry about formatting weirdness I'm posting this from my phone.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10dvdv/elif_why_do_things_float_towards_eachother_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6cnrnc",
"c6cnsif"
],
"score": [
37,
12
],
"text": [
"Try to imagine it this way:\n\nYou have a piece of cloth stretched out. If you place a ball in the middle of this cloth, you're going to create a dip in the cloth. Place another ball at the edge of the cloth now, and it's going to be \"attracted\" to the first ball. \n\nThe same concept applies, but you have the milk's surface as the cloth instead, and the cereals act as the balls. Each cereal actually 'dent' the milk surface, but it's just so small we can't see it. The effect is still there though, and thus each cereal would clump together.",
"Funny enough, this is called the [cheerios effect](_URL_0_). \n\nBasically, things float on water because of surface tension, and the air and water together work to pull things together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerios_effect"
]
] |
|
j2bsb
|
how does satellite television work?
|
I mean does the satellite transmit all 600 channels you payed for, or does it just transmit the channel you're on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j2bsb/how_does_satellite_television_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c28jxhm",
"c28k1j5",
"c28k4kr",
"c28kqtc",
"c28l01q"
],
"score": [
12,
10,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Disclaimer: I'm not 100% sure, but this is my best guess as a techy...\n\nDirect TV has approximately 19.2 million subscribers. It makes much more sense to broadcast each channel once, rather than 19.2 million separate transmissions. Most satellite dishes only listen, and do not send (imagine 19.2 million people sending messages to you... in space... all at once)\n\nSources:\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n_URL_2_",
"They broadcast all the channels at the same time. The satellite has no way of knowing which channels you are subscribed to, that's why if you steal satellite television you can watch pay-per-view channels for free.",
"How do the dishes work? Direct TV has STATIONARY dishes affixed to the houses of it's subscribers. Where are those satellite dishes pointing? How many satellites does DTV have floating in the sky that theres always one in the air aligned directly with every dish on every house across the world? How come we don't lose connection whenever a satellite orbits to the other side of the earth? ",
"It sends all the channels at once over a specified frequency range down to your own satellite dish. The LNB (what gathers the signal at the end of your dish) collects the signal and converts it to another frequency that is usable by satellite boxes in your house. \n\nYour satellite box will tune to a 'channel' by narrowing in on a specific frequency. For example, channel 206(ESPN) may be on frequency 55MHz so when you tune to that channel the box is actually just focusing on a specific part of the signal coming to the box even though it's all being delivered at once.",
"I'm in radio transmissions so I don't specialize in satcom but I think they share a lot of the same principles. The only way that I can think that it would work is that your receiver is constantly receiving one signal with the intelligence of 600 channels on that signal. When you use your remote and select channel 50 you are telling your amp filter that you only want channel 50 and that anything else that just came through on your antenna should be filtered out. So you are receiving every channel at once but your console only holds onto the one that you want."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB-S2",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tv"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5cp3zx
|
How did the Marian Reformations influence the transition of the Roman Republic into an Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5cp3zx/how_did_the_marian_reformations_influence_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9ye8vy"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"**Marian Reforms?**\n\nThe \"Marian Reforms\" aren't neccessarily considered to be that distinctive a change, nowadays. It used to be that historians gave Gaius Marius the credit for turning the Roman army from a militia of small-time landowners into a professional force of urban proletarians, thereby solving Rome's endemic manpower problems, but this view is something of an oversimplification. \n\nFor one thing, modern evidence suggests the Roman army didn't actually have that big manpower problem in the late 2nd century B.C. The losses of the Punic Wars were severe, but Italy recovered quickly, and afterwards the population remained steady. Nor is it really believed that the peasant class was eroded by soldiers being forced to serve for long campaigns abroad: most recruits were younger, unmarried rural men, for whom there wasn't enough work anyway and who would welcome the chance to win glory and booty in war. (Well, they welcomed it if they got to fight in the rich Greek east. Nobody wanted to go to Spain to fight the hill-tribes there.) Unless there was a great crisis, there doesn't seem to have been much resistance against or difficulty with conscription.\n\nWhat happened was a more gradual evolution of the Roman army, in response to their empire changing from a city-state to an entity spanning the length and width of the Mediterranean. Marius played a role, but perhaps more to confirm and codify practices that had already been getting more common. The changes that took place around the turn of the 1st century B.C. were significant, without a doubt. Property requirements for enlistment had been steadily eroded for decades, but Marius abolished the requirements altogether, and also took steps to standarising organisation and equipment. The role of the Italian Allies disappeared after the Social War, (91-88 B.C.) and soldiers came to see their service much more as a career, getting their pay, clothing, equipment and retirement fund from the state... or their general. These more permanent legions had a stronger identity, but it was one that was often tied to their general. We see several armies in this period that even took their name from the general leading them. (The *Fimbriani*, the *Sullani*) For many of the men serving in these units, the army wasn't a sideline, but it was their way of life. Although we shouldn't overstate these changes: soldiers may have served an average of 8-10 years, but it's a long way from the 20-25 of the Imperial army, and legions continued to be disbanded when the war they were recruited for was finished. Additionally, while most troops were volunteers at this point, conscription did continue.\n\n & nbsp; \n\n**The loyalty of the army**\n\nNow, the army certainly played a very important role in the cycle of civil wars and general chaos that finally ended up breaking the back of the Republican system of government. (Although as Publius Clodius or Lucius Appuleius Saturninus demonstrated, armies weren't an absolute requirement for chaos and civil strife.) The armies' willingness to follow their generals even against fellow citizens and soldiers was a crucial factor.\n\nHowever, it has to be said that the Roman Senate played its own part in creating this situation. They absolutely refused to organise any kind of standard reward or pension for discharged soldiers, and their generals had to fight time and again to get laws passed that would grant their soldiers the land they needed. Without their generals, these soldiers from poor backgrounds had an extremely uncertain future. Add in the bonds forged by shared danger, hardship and glory, as well as the fact that most soldiers were recruited from remote and poor rural regions in Italy and did not feel that strong a connection to the city of Rome itself, and it is not all that surprising that their loyalty went to the man who led them, rather than the notables ignoring them back in Rome. \n\nStill, that loyalty-to-the-generals thing shouldn't be overstated. There are also cases of Roman soldiers refusing to fight eachother, such as during the struggles between Marcus Antonius and Octavianus. And those Roman generals that did march on Rome or on other Romans always had to justify it to their troops, with appeals to injustices done to them or their honour, or to the soldiers themselves. Particularly notable is Caesar's use of two Tribunes of the Plebs, who had been injured in a riot in Rome while doing their duty. They returned to Caesar's army in northern Italy, where he paraded the wounded tribune (a legally inviobale official with great symbolic value, as they were supposedly the protector of the common plebeians, though by this time they were mostly acting in a different role) to instill outrage in his soldiers and convince them they have the right to march on Rome and restore order. You could even try to make the argument that Caesar's army (or at least some of the soldiers within it) were marching to save the republic, not destroy it.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**The Late Roman Republic: Transformation or fall**\n\nSo, did the changes in the army influence the transition from the Republic to the Principate? They likely did, but I'd suggest it is more the case that both changes were influenced by the same thing, already referred to above: the Roman Empire had gotten too darned big to govern as if it were a city-state. \n\nJust as a part-time militia army wasn't really suited to campaigning in Armenia or Syria, yearly elections and a political system carefully designed to minimise the possibility for change and reform weren't really effective for governing an empire spanning thousands of miles. The republic ended up sticking to the old ways for the governance of Rome and Italy, and just delegating governance of the provinces to former magistrates, who for the most part were equally hunger for power, wealth and glory. This led to even further expansion, as the governors were always seeking wars so they could earn a triumph and acclamation back in Rome. These wars made a select few of the Roman elite extraordinarily rich and powerful, which created divisions and damaged the cohesion of institutions such as the Senate. It also led to hardship for the provincials, and sometimes to unrest, as either the Governor or the privatised tax-collectors known as *publicani* —or both— would extort them and drain them dry.\n\nObviously, much more could (and perhaps should) be said about the state of the late Roman republic than I can go into here, and I should note that there's a considerable division of opinion on how sound or unstable the republic was at this time. As ever, historiography on the matter is divisive. There are those like Brunt who say the Republic had lost the faith of all its driving figures and was ready to topple no matter what, those like Gruen who say it was essentially sound until civil war happened, and all kinds of positions in between. I'd disagree with the latter argument, but even so there's a difference between saying that the Roman Republic as it was could no longer effectively govern its empire, and saying that monarchy was the only viable alternative. Perhaps reform would have been possible.\n\nSo how significant was the post-Marian army's contribution to the eventual transition to the Principate? That kind of question is always extremely difficult, and the answer you arrive at largely depends on how you interpret the state of the late Roman Republic, as outlined above. It's certain that the army played a big role: just look at all the civil wars. But it's impossible to say whether the civil wars could have been avoided if the senate had taken a more pro-active role in regulating the new army, or if they had reformed their governmental institutions to better suit the administration of a vast empire, or if they had found ways to maintain the loyalty of the elite noblemen leading these armies. Perhaps a monarch would have arisen anyway. Perhaps a different system could have emerged. Perhaps the entire republic could have fallen apart into an \"Age of Warlords\" such as we have seen so often in other times and other places. This nearly happened after Caesar's assassination, after all. \n\nIn the end, I'd answer your question by saying that the post-Marian Roman army played a very significant role in the process of the transition from Republic to Principate, but many other factors were also in play, and it's difficult to say how significant a cause the changes in the army's structure were. \n\n & nbsp;\n\n**Sources**\n\n* Goldsworthy, Adrian, *The Complete Roman Army.* (2003)\n* Rosenstein, Nathan, and Robert Morstein-Marx, *A Companion to the Roman Republic.* 2011. \n * of which Chapter 29, Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx, *The Transformation of the Republic.* \n * and chapter 13, Paul Erdkamp, *Army and Society.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22gs22
|
Loud sounds can cause ear damage. How about continuous low-tone sounds?
|
I know that high decibel sounds lead to a loss of hair cells in the ear, but how about continuous low-tone sounds? I like to have a background noise when I sleep or study and was wondering if this would have a bad effect on my hearing. Can low-tone sounds "accumulate" over a long time to cause ear damage?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22gs22/loud_sounds_can_cause_ear_damage_how_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgmol08"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) can be caused by sudden high-decibel sounds, or continuous lower-volume (but still pretty objectively loud) sounds.\n\nThis [source] (_URL_1_) suggests that 85 dB, or the volume of \"heavy city traffic\", is probably about the threshold at which chronic noise exposure can lead to NIHL. Not knowing exactly what background noise you're talking about (and not wanting to give anything that resembles medical advice), I can't speak to your specific case, but I will say that if your background noise is at or above 85 dB, you and I have differing definitions of \"background\".\n\nIn case anyone is curious, I'll also try to discuss the reason why. Without getting into it too much, when sound enters the ear, it stimulates specialized cells (called hair cells) that are responsible for generating the electrical signal interpreted by our brain as sound. Like nearly all cells, when hair cells are active and working, they produce metabolites (byproducts of energy generation, basically) including compounds called free radicals. Cells are equipped to handle small amounts of free radicals, but if too many accumulate, they can cause irreversible cell damage. Prevailing wisdom seems to be, as shown in [this paper] (_URL_0_), that free radical accumulation is a major source of NIHL. Extrapolating a bit from there, it seems that even constant, 24-hours a day exposure to low noise (below 75-85 dB) would not generate free radicals faster than they could be removed/inactivated, meaning the hair cells would not be damaged. \n\nInterestingly, as that paper mentions, this mechanism of NIHL means that the damage does not occur immediately after exposure to a super loud noise (since the free radicals take time to accumulate/cause damage), and so it may be possible to prevent NIHL with interventions up to 3 days after the noise exposure. Not exactly relevant to your question, but pretty awesome nonetheless!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1995566/",
"http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/noise.aspx"
]
] |
|
6wev0b
|
how do human nails grow back evenly when one chips or breaks them unevenly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wev0b/eli5_how_do_human_nails_grow_back_evenly_when_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dm7hnw8",
"dm7im3o"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Nails grow from the base not the tip of your finger. Sometimes they do grow unevenly if they are damaged badly. ",
"The nail keeps growing from the base and the sticking out uneven part kinda 'erodes' over time? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2t2rbv
|
Why is the background of a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background always an ellipse?
|
[An example](_URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2t2rbv/why_is_the_background_of_a_map_of_the_cosmic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnvagfk"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Those are just maps of the whole sky. You could put it in any [map projection](_URL_0_) you wanted, but astronomers tend to prefer equal-area projections like the Mollweide.\n\nYou can also [find them](_URL_1_) in rectangular maps."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections",
"http://planck.cf.ac.uk/all-sky-images"
]
] |
|
3jzbzn
|
why are condoms more expensive to buy in bulk than they are to buy individually?
|
Why are they 75¢ out of a gas station vending machine, but $1.50 or more each when bought in boxes at the drug store? Shouldn't they be cheaper to buy in bulk like everything else is?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jzbzn/eli5_why_are_condoms_more_expensive_to_buy_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cutmvdu",
"cutw7yn"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The gas station ones probably aren't as good quality, and having sat in that environment, probably haven't been stored according to the instructions on the box, especially when it comes to not letting them get too warm.\n\nI'd rather get them from the drugstore, thanks.",
"The drug store isn't really \"bulk\", per say - that's the standard packaging size. And yes, they are REALLY overpriced. However, most people think the drug store is the place to get them and assume that's the going rate.\n\nThey can be purchased in actual bulk (boxes of 40, 50 or more) and then they do become markedly cheaper. No pun intended, at all, but I buy bulk packs at BJ's (which is like Costco or Sam's Club), which are 40 count for 13.99. That's about 35 cents a condom. If you're willing to order them REALLY in bulk - by the case, like health clinics might order them - I just found Durex brand on Amazon, selling 144 in a variety pack tub for 29.61 - 21 cents a condom. \n\nNo one shops around, and if people are willing to pay it, why price them lower?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1y1mpi
|
why is it illegal to post a full movie online, but it isn't illegal to post a full video game online (like those "let's play"-style things on youtube)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y1mpi/eli5_why_is_it_illegal_to_post_a_full_movie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfgjmt3",
"cfgjt3n",
"cfglg7h",
"cfgmpcm",
"cfgn2eb"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
7,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Fair Use, they're reviewing the material. That said, the bigger game companies don't like that much either.",
"A movie only plays one way. Just sticking it up in full on the internet is piracy. A let's play video is generally considered to be fair use as it can be seen as commentary, review, etc. You can place large segments of movies online as long as you review them. ",
"In a movie the primary attraction is the movie, and it will always be the same experience. With a game the lper is often the main attraction, and games will play out differently for each person. Watching a game on the internet is very different from playing a game, while watching a torrented movie isn't noticeably different from the DVD of Netflix",
"**TL;DR: Historically accepted as beneficial by most game developers, so they tend not to claim ownership of videos (though they may still do so if they wish).**\n\nI won't say its legal or illegal, but i will say that typically rights holders for video games have found that its more advantageous for their content to be available in a Let's Play form as a means to drive community, fanaticism, advertisement, good-will and sometimes better sales for the games. When it comes to film, understandably companies found they don't get as much out of it. (Although YouTube dose have legally free movies and animated works uploaded by their rights owners to achieve similar goals, they just don't distribute them in a Let's Play (crowd source) manner as it would cut into their monetization and film isn't really transformative compared to Let's Plays)\n \nA video game publisher can still complain to YouTube about a Let's Play video, either through intentional flagging, or through an automated service known as Content ID. With the automated service, samples of songs and video are given to YouTube and matched on videos giving the rights holder of the matched content options. These options technically aren't completely based on law or the DMCA, but on YouTube's assumption that the registered rights holder is in the right, and any claims made by them, or through them by proxy of an automated service are in the legal right, and those with their video claimed are in the legal wrong. This is mostly a scape goat method for YouTube to remove its self as much as possible from any legal actions taken after a video owner rejects a rights holder's claim. \n \nLet's plays actually started pretty small, and had plenty of legal hurdles and complaints from rights holders on YouTube. However, as some companies allowed the process and saw better reception, and indies found how well it suited them, over the years more and more companies came on board. Now you'll have companies send games to popular Let's Players as press copies for review, and even play some Let's Players to feature their game as a form of advertisement. More recently, consoles like the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One have partnered with twitch (and i believe XBone can also upload to YouTube) basically creating an internal system to show support for Let's Players and video game streamers.\n \n*Some Links you may find helpful:*\n \nA list of publishers that have allowed or denied LPs: [_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n \nA sub-reddit for Lets Players who may be able to answer your questions better:\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"The selling point of a movie is its viewing experience. The selling point of a game is its playing experience. You can view a movie on YouTube, but you can't play a game there--you can only view a game there, which isn't as fun."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/letsplay",
"http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/%22Let%27s_Play%22-friendly_developers_Wiki"
],
[]
] |
||
45m9i3
|
Origin of steel-cut oats?
|
A group of friends have been scouring the net for the origins of steel-cut oats to no avail. Maybe the food historians (/u/agentdcf?) or archaeologists (of Britain?) can help us?
We find that steel-cut oats are also known as "Irish" oats, so are they from there?
When did steel-cutting begin - the industrial revolution?
Why are they marketed as "steel" cut, rather than simply "cut" / "chopped"? What is the significance of steel, if any, or is the designation simply meant to contrast with stone (as in milled / ground)?
Thanks all!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45m9i3/origin_of_steelcut_oats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czyu066"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"I don't pay particular attention to oats in my research, generally skipping directly to wheat. That said, I have never come across mentions of steel-cut oats in historical documents. I've seen mentions of rolled oats, but never steel-cut oats outside the stuff the sell at Trader Joe's (an American grocery store)--and, funnily enough, those are marketed as \"Irish,\" but having spent plenty of time in Ireland, I've never seen anything of the sort there. In Ireland, they eat \"porridge,\" which I suppose could be a kind of steel-cut oats; they taste quite different, though.\n\nBut, as for when, the earliest possibility has to be the 1860s or so. It's only at that point that millers begin using iron and steel rollers to grind grain. Before that, it's basically all millstones. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4v95mi
|
what is the role of a ceo in a company?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4v95mi/eli5what_is_the_role_of_a_ceo_in_a_company/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5wiiw3",
"d5wj8qi",
"d5wjmp0",
"d5wrlk2",
"d5wsg7q"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
30,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The [boss of bosses](_URL_0_), who makes major decisions and handles major strategy. They often act as a conduit or go between for the Board of Directors as well.",
"Knowing the business the company is in.\n\n\nMaking the decisions nobody else can make.\n\n\nEmploying the right people.\n\nProfit.\n\n\n",
"CEOs have two main duties:\n\n- to manage the direction of the company (basically, the boss of the executives, who do most of the decision-making legwork)\n- to act as a liaison between the board of directors (who are elected by the shareholders of the company) and the other executives\n\nthe executives are the people in charge of certain facets of the company. you may have heard of CFO (chief financial officer), CTO (chief technology officer), COO (chief operations officer). well, these guys all report to the CEO, but have many people reporting to them. the reason why these guys all report to the CEO is because the CEO is the one who is there to make sure the company is going in the direction that the board and the executives agree that it should go. (this agreement is key.)\n\nthe board of directors represents the shareholders, who are the people who own the company. they have the ability to put decisions to a vote. the people who vote are the shareholders, who own the company.\n\nnote that when i say 'voting', it's not as if all shareholders get a vote, or even equal voting rights. it's not a democracy. some shareholders get a greater number of votes, other shareholders get no votes. the way this is determined all has to do with the individual company, and there are few hard and fast rules. \n\nthe CEO represents the company, but has a duty to act in the best interest of shareholders. otherwise, the board of directors (and other shareholders) can vote to fire him.\n\nthis tends to be how it works in public companies... but private companies may have different setups. some do not have CEOs.",
"In case it interests you, here is a similar question with the top answer written by Reddit's CEO at the time:\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"A company doesn't need a CEO. You could have a single person who owns a company, they can be the President, and call the shots. \n\nIf you have multiple people who own a company, they might be managing partners. There's probably some difference in responsibility, but they own a part of the company and they run the company. \n\nHowever, when a company gets large enough, there's sometimes a desire to go public. What this means is that they will hold an IPO, where members of the public can buy a part of the company. This can mean the company can raise a lot of money really quickly, but it also means that there are quite a lot of people who have different levels of investment in the business. It's stupid to try to let everyone who has an investment in the business have a say in the direction of the company, because that could be thousands or millions of people, many of whom probably don't even know they own part of the company because it was bought as a part of some kind of fund. \n\nSo in that case, the owners of the company are represented people they choose to direct the company, called a board of directors. The board of directors is elected, precisely how is a bit complicated, but suffice it to say that the people with the most investment in the company elect them. \n\nThe board of directors don't run the company though, they're essentially a group who has been chosen to represent the people who have invested in the company. To make decisions on the direction of the company for all the shareholders. They might not know how to run that particular kind of company, they are just the representatives of the people who have invested in the company.\n\nThe board of directors appoints a CEO to be the person who actually runs the company. This person is generally the boss. They can hire the other executives and officers. They're essentially responsible for the whole business, as long as the board of directors is happy with them. The real specifics of what they can and can't do is determined by the bylaws."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceo.asp"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/210to8/eli5_what_does_a_ceo_of_a_large_company_do_in_a/"
],
[]
] |
||
1e6jlq
|
how is life in really corrupt countries? and what are they?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e6jlq/eli5_how_is_life_in_really_corrupt_countries_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9x9g9s",
"c9xevx8",
"c9xi2a9"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"These types of questions don't work in ELI5. It is impossible to explain to someone in simple and yeoman's language the intricacies of internal political makeup/culture of dozens of different countries, with descriptions of both this culture in practice and everyday life.\n\n",
"A whole lot of bribery.\n\nIn corrupt countries, you have to pay bribes to get anything done, or sift through a lot of often impossible bureaucracy. ",
"i suggest looking at the documentary by vice about the cannibal warlords of Liberia. you get a good look of everyday life in the cities, which include corruption, cannibalism, drugs, prostitution, and some of the worst living conditions in the world. i would give you the link to YouTube, but im on mobile and not really sure how to do it :( "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4914mg
|
why is the finale of dexter so universally hated?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4914mg/eli5_why_is_the_finale_of_dexter_so_universally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0o8shi",
"d0o8z0s",
"d0o94w9"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Because at the end of it I felt like I just fucking *WASTED* 8 YEARS of my FUCKING LIFE just to watch him blow up a fucking boat and become a god damn lumberjack in the end!",
"Most decent shows try to kind of wrap up a series finale in a way in which doesn't suck ass. Taking a bad ass murdering mofo and having him live in the woods like a hermit was kind of the opposite of an appropriate ending to this type of show. \nIf you replaced serial killing with log cabin making throughout the series then this would have been an appropriate ending. ",
"Well, in case you change your mind about the whole \"no spoilers\" thing... yeah, this comment has spoilers. But as a quick way of telling you without spoilers: the series was too long, moral of Llamas with Hats. And if you having seen Llamas with Hats... it's on Youtube, 12 2-minute episodes, please try not to watch it with spoilers, it's a valuable lesson on serial entertainment that has to be seen in its entirety.\n\nTBH as a guy who watched Dexter to the end, I have to say that the seasons were getting worse and worse. Now, all TV series tend to do that after a while; the only way to really keep things fresh is generally to do a monster-of-the-week thing. And Dexter was doing that, only thing is it also had an overarching plot every season. And that slowly was losing its tension, and was becoming less and less like the show it once was.\n\nDespite all this, the viewers wanted the show's final, final episode to end in a way that is faithful to the original idea of Dexter as a man and as a monster. Instead, none of the B-plots of the season are rounded up, Debra dies, Dexter kills in plain sight in front of all his cop buddies but they let him go, and... he also becomes a lumberjack. Yeah, if I told you that there once was a serial killer who became a lumberjack, would you believe me? Probably not. I believe the writers tried to go for a bad ending to be more artsy, and give the idea that violence doesn't pay in a very Hotline-Miami-2 kind of way, but they botched the whole thing because there were too many questions at the end, and not enough tension.\n\nLook, I don't know how much stuff you watch. But if you watch good shows like Death Note, Code Geass or Breaking Bad, villains and anti-heroes may win or lose at the finale. That's okay; knowing it could go either way is part of the tension. But for the love of God, if you're going to end the series, you need to instill the feeling of risk and at the very least, give an epic ending befitting of those villains or anti-heroes. Dexter didn't get that ending, because despite all this he still survived, and wasn't really at any risk of dying. And that is why the ending sucked."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2w2hzx
|
why do i get abnormally thirsty when i stay up late after midnight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w2hzx/eli5_why_do_i_get_abnormally_thirsty_when_i_stay/
|
{
"a_id": [
"con0rtq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing it has to do with what you had for dinner. Your body probably needs just as much water when you're sleeping but you don't notice it (but am guessing you wake up thirsty). If you eat dinner early and have lots of fluids during the day, I'm wondering if you won't see this?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
brx91d
|
are carbs or sugars in foods like bread or crackers “equal” to those in fruits?
|
I saw my friend eating a banana, and he said “I’m trying to eat more fruits instead of junk like bread and crackers”, and my other friend said “that doesn’t matter. Carbs are carbs.”
Now at face value, it seems a bit silly: we are all brought up to believe that fruits have other nutrients that are beneficial to us. But in the end, are the carbs in both sources the same? Similarly, can one say that the sugars one obtains in a fruit are the same as those obtained in a candy bar?
My intuitive understanding is, while “sugar” is in fact just sugar (irrespective of the source), the reason we consider fruits or vegetables important is because of the other nutrients and vitamins they contain, giving them an overall better nutritional profile than their processed counterparts. In addition, I think that the chemical modifications that manufacturers make to their goods are considered unhealthy. But In the end, is it fair to say that a “carb is just a carb”? Or sugar a sugar?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/brx91d/eli5_are_carbs_or_sugars_in_foods_like_bread_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eohat86",
"eohau4l",
"eohbknl"
],
"score": [
24,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Every type of carb provides the same amount of energy by weight but the speed they get converted to usable energy varies. This is known as the glycemic index. Simple sugars found in soda and simple starches in processed/fried foods quickly get converted to blood sugar. More complex starches like those in oatmeal take longer to enter your blood stream. Spikes in blood sugar can lead to health issues like diabetes.\n\nFruit sugars are a bit more complicated. Studies have shown that eating whole fruit makes the processing slow down due to the fiber in the fruit. In addition, you may not realize how much fruit sugars you are taking in while drinking juice (one glass of orange juice can be 2 - 4 whole oranges. Try eating that in one sitting).",
"There are complex and simple sugars. Things like candy bars and sodas have simple sugars, which don’t require as much time to be broken down and can be used very quickly to create energy . This is what people call a sugar high. The sugar crash happens when we quickly exhaust the sugar and are left with low energy. \n\nComplex sugars require time to be broken down, so they are absorbed and converted into energy much slower. This means that they provide sustained energy over a longer period of time.",
"You're correct regarding vegetables & minerals; bear in mid also that there is a wide array of other vital chemicals (e.g. omega-3) in some fruits & veggies which might not appear in, say, a multivitamin.\n\nOne important difference in the carbs is the glycemic load of a food. Yes, they are all carbs - and yes, the fructose in an apple is the same as the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup. What makes it different is how hard & fast the sugar hits your body - known as the **glycemic load** (similar to the related **glycemic index**, but multiplied by serving size). The glycemic load is mostly used by diabetics to know what foods to avoid, but there is some evidence that it is also useful for things like *avoiding* diabetes, maintaining low cholesterol, and maintaining a healthy weight - all factors that make a food \"healthy.\"\n\nThe glycemic load is based around serving size (e.g. a bottle of soda versus one banana), the type of carbohydrate (glucose goes straight to your bloodstream, whereas others must be broken down first), and whether the carbohydrate is trapped inside a sponge of fiber, protein and fat. Trapped carbs are slow to enter your blood stream, as they must be released first.\n\nPure sugar has a glycemic load of 100. Simple starchy carbs can have a high glycemic load, whereas the glycemic load of fruits and vegetables tends to be much lower. You can look up glycemic load charts online, but be sure to check the serving size listed. One slice of white bread has a low load of 10... but two slices have a moderate load of 20, and three have a very-high load of 30."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ezzbgv
|
How hard would it be for Slavs (Croats, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians etc...) in Austrian/Habsburg imperial army to rise to high officer position, was it possible?
|
Usually reading about history of Habsburg state and wars they fought emphasis is that rank and file was recruited from all parts of empire while officers who led them mostly were Germans (Austrians) and aristocrats.
So would it even be possible to rise to high officer rank by someone from Croatia or Polish parts for example? Through what kind of hurdles and obstacles would some ambitious young officer from Croatia for example need to go to rise to high officer rank in imperial army?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ezzbgv/how_hard_would_it_be_for_slavs_croats_czechs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgr1zw4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I recently answered a similar question [here](_URL_0_) that you may be interested in. I hope it helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ebvuz3/z/fbaoox0"
]
] |
|
ztnsu
|
how was reddit founded, and what are some major events that shaped reddit into what it is today?
|
What was the original intent of Reddit? Who were the key players? What significant things happened to create the Reddit we know today?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ztnsu/eli5_how_was_reddit_founded_and_what_are_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c67ma47",
"c67mkv7",
"c67mmlc",
"c67ms77",
"c67need",
"c67no68",
"c67ntpv",
"c67nzq0",
"c67o44b",
"c67owtk",
"c67prpm",
"c67q41s",
"c67qaem",
"c67qeyl",
"c67qfte",
"c67ql0b",
"c67rqm8",
"c682e4g"
],
"score": [
9,
59,
14,
165,
142,
122,
12,
7,
23,
10,
6,
2,
782,
9,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Once upon a time, there were these [two](_URL_0_) [guys](_URL_2_) who thought the internet didn't have quite enough cat pictures, rage comics, atheists, porn, ~~jailbait~~, 2 am chili recipes, and ice soap, so they decided to make a website where people can submit stuff and vote on it. Eventually they added [comments](_URL_1_) too. ",
"Documentary about the start of reddit: _URL_0_",
"looks like /r/answers kind of topic to me.",
"And then God said, \"Let there be Reddit.\" And there was Reddit.",
"As for significant things that happened to create the Reddit we know today... When Digg released v4, there was a great migration to reddit, which really allowed it to boom. Reddit is now much larger than digg ever was, however.",
"An important but often under-appreciated milestone in the evolution of Reddit was Randall Munroe's contribution of a Best Comment algorithm in late 2009. A big part of Reddit's appeal is that the top comments are often so great!\n\nSee:\n_URL_1_\nand\n_URL_0_",
"I would've never expected that such a simple and self-evident phrase as \"explain like i'm 5 (years old)\" would be so misunderstood and misapplied so often as to have the constant barrage of posts as ignorant as this one. ",
"Is this really so difficult to understand that you would need it explained to you like you were a five year old child?!?",
"[war 1/3](_URL_0_)\n[war 2/3](_URL_2_)\n[war 3/3](_URL_1_)\n\nEdit: fixed",
"Go here: _URL_0_ And read \"The Whole Shebang\"",
"Here's a video of Reddit in 2005 when it was just beginning: _URL_1_\n\nHere's Alexis' post on Google+ about the beginning and history (through pictures): _URL_0_",
"There was once a significant AMA with a very famous person on Reddit. It had users talking about it for weeks. But enough about that, let's talk about Rampart. ",
"Reddit was started by two guys out of college (Kn0thing and Spez, if you want to check their user pages) using seed money and guidance from a guy called [Paul Graham](_URL_1_), who made millions off of Yahoo! stock in the late 90's. Now he devotes his time to finding internet startups to micro-invest in, and training the people they choose for success. \n\nTherefore, the original reddit was mostly populated by young white male programmer types (people in Grahams network). Actually, the reddit guys made Graham a [\"hacker news\"](_URL_0_) site which still resembles the original reddit in demographics.\n\nOriginally, the idea was 1) people submit links and others vote on them, to create a \"front page of the internet\", and 2) Your votes would create a special, customized page of \"recommended\" links just for you. That second goal turned out to be a lot harder than it sounds and eventually fell to the wayside, to the point that there isn't even a \"recommended\" button on the page anymore. I don't think the original site even had a comments section at first. At first the site was overshadowed by _URL_2_, which had beat them to launch by a few months, and for years it was seen (unfairly) as a digg clone with a simpler, cruder appearance. There actually used to be a pretty bitter rivalry, at least on reddit's side.\n\nWeb 2.0 was hot though, and after a short time they sold the site to the publishing giant Conde Nast for something around 10-30 million. They stayed on a few years more to make sure things were on track. kn0thing still serves on the board of directors.\n\nI actually wrote an \"oral history\" of reddit on /r/TrueReddit on my 5th Cake Day here last year. Here it is-\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI first came here in late 2006 and made an account early 2007. Reddit didn't have any subreddits yet, just one big page. The top submissions would get about 200, 300 net upvotes tops. One of my first submissions got to #2 on the front page with 250 upvotes, and almost no downvotes (this was before \"vote fuzzing\"; most top submissions now actually get 5-30k real upvotes). When the admins added the first subreddits and I started seeing subscriber info, there might have been 20,000 subscribers. Basically, it was still very much in the shadow of Digg. But the links were more interesting, and if you submitted a story, it might actually get seen. So I stuck around.\n\n\nThe seed investor Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky had already began to move off, complaining that it was getting full of \"kids\". But it still had the feel of a place mostly populated by programmers. Lots of sciencey, general-interest stories. The comment section was still small enough you got to know most people by name. I remember seeing xkcd as a commenter, and then finding out he did the comic and thinking \"yeah, that sounds about right\": redditors were mostly self-proclaimed geeks in their mid 20's with some interesting hobbies.\n\n\nThen Politics seemed to get more and more dominant, and for a while everything was Kucinich, Ron Paul and vote up if you hate Bush. I'm very liberal, but it got pretty monotone after awhile.\n\n\nSubreddits, and later allowing people to create their own, was an utterly genius move in retrospect, but it took a while for them to catch their individual strides. For a while most of the subreddits outside of r/politics felt like backwaters without much going on (everybody still posted to a generic \"reddit\" subreddit). But of course, that changed. Alexis and Spez (the founders) wanted make-your-own dubreddits because they were fully committed to the self-creating community concept. I believe it was this that allowed reddit to thrive even after they left. Some of the biggest subreddits now are about stuff that never would have occurred to central management.\n\n\nEventually, and probably especially after the subreddits gained traction, a split was created between people that viewed reddit as a tool and people that viewed it as a community. The \"tool\" people just used it like you would use BitTorrent for links, and didn't have as much stake in what other users thought (or at least not much more than what diggers did, if they even bothered reading comments at all). The \"community\" people saw the comments as the main show. They wanted the acceptance of others here. At the time, that was a bit of a novel concept (initially, r/circlejerk started as a bit of a parody of the tearfully happy, \"guys, we're a community!\" mindstate).\n\n\n\"Self\" posts became popular before it was even possible to add text; people would just put a message in the link itself. This led to a lot of upvotes of one-liners (\"Vote up if you think Bush should go to jail\"). The mods hated it because it seemed like reddit would inbreed, as far as they were concerned, the point of the site was to find links from the outside. So they announced no karma would be given for self posts.\n\n\nThe community responded by upvoting self posts more than ever. Today there are enormous self-post subreddits like Askreddit and IAMA that get several times more traffic than the original reddit ever got.\n\n\nThe comment section got better and better. The upvote system saw to it that only the wittiest (or most informed) comments would reach the top, and that in term only the wittiest and sharpest replies would rise. The end result was conversations that seemed as if 100 writers had sat there trying to think of the perfect line for each end of the exchange. Because actually, there had been. I think the comment section is one of the best features of the site. When I see a story elsewhere on the net that I'm wondering about, I click the \"submit\" button on my browser just to get lead to the existing reddit thread, where inevitably someone with some expertise on the subject has chimed in to add detail.\n\n\nPeople began lobbying for \"comment karma\", which was granted. Eventually, celebrity redditors emerged known only for their comments, not external links.\n\n\nWhen McGrim made a post to announce that he had made a free, easy to use image hosting service (Imgur), it hit #1 on the front page. Until then, user-generated content had been frowned on because it was potentially \"blogspam\". Since with imgur you could link to an image with no ads, users could prove they had no ulterior motives posting stuff. It quickly became the site standard, and eventually user-generated content became much more common.\n\n\nStuff from 4chan became popular, and the joke was that what was on 4chan yesterday winds up on reddit today. I know that's still true to an extent, but reddit seems to have made ragecomics a thing of their own, even if most of the original faces came from elsewhere. Still, a lot of the user-made stuff seemed (and still does) derivative and done for attention.\n\n\nEventually the frontpage got full of a lot of stuff that just wasn't very interesting IMO. I unsubscribed from pics, funny, wtf, etc and just stuck to stuff like math and philosophy of science and todayIlearned. In my opinion if you filter reddit that way, its as good as ever. But doing that secluded me from the mainstream front page for a long time. I've introduced a lot of friends to reddit, but when we talk about it we often talk about stories the other hasn't seen because its all in different niche subreddits.\n\nRecently, I hit on \"all\" to see the \"real\" front page, and it was like coming back to a village you once lived in only to find its a city, with different communities in every borough. Subreddits like r/trees and r/Ffffuuuu now have more subscribers than the original reddit had, total, and they look, feel and behave completely differently. There's a lot more /self posts (entire subreddits of them, like this one), and a lot more user-generated content and memes. It has its own identity now, rather than just a bookmark system for aggregating stories from other websites.\n\n\nThe most surprising thing is how influential reddit has became. It blew my mind to see the New York Times take reddit seriously as an agent of internet activism when it covered SOPA. Internet forums always seem to have an inflated sense of importance, so its very surprising seeing it make a transition to something that's actually on the radar, and can now influence the news events it links to stories about. It's like watching the fourth wall break down.\nIn a way, I see those successes as the final victory of the \"community\" faction of redditors over the original \"tool\" link exchangers: they proved that the site really could (and perhaps even should) be more than a link aggregator. I admit that as an old-timer I was skeptical anything would come of it; it seemed like armchair internet activism that just gave an illusion of effectiveness. But in light of things like the SOPA resistance, it's becoming clearer people like me were wrong. .\n\nTL,DR: Major impetus for evolution: the founders took (IMO) almost unprecedented steps to empower voters and commenters (\"redditors\") to make the major decisions regarding content and the standards of the \"community\". It took me a while to become convinced of this, but IMO reddit provided an algorithm that allowed the site to realize the lofty vision of \"Web 2.0\", user-generated and chosen content on the internet.",
"I've been here a while. I think the original intent of Reddit before I even got here has been covered in a few other posts so I'll focus on the events I can remember.\n\nI can think of a few significant events that steered the course from where the site was when I joined to where we are today:\n\n* Introduction of subreddits: Originally, all we had was one big reddit so everyone's front page looked exactly the same. When subreddits were introduced, there was some hemming and hawing about missing out on content but I think we can all now agree that more content gets posted in one day than one can read in a year.\n\n* Introduction of self posts: I don't remember when these began, maybe with the subreddits? Some top subreddits are all self posts and these wouldn't be possible a few years ago. I believe that this has redirected focus to my next point - > \n\n* Shift from popularizing posters to commenters (those who comment?): There have always been a few users who are \"popular\" on the site. u/qgyh2, whose name I can recall because I used to see it on half the posts submitted, was a huge contributor in the pre-Digg days. He also commented a lot but most posts referencing his activity were on the number and quality of articles he was submitting. This focus changed over time to where now users are popular based on the quality and/or humor of their comments.\n\n* The Digg migration: Pre-Digg v4, reddit's users viewed their site as having a significantly higher quality of articles and comments to Digg. There was pride in \"scooping\" a good article and the joke was that if you wanted to see what reddit's front page was 2 days ago, look at Digg today. When Digg v4 launched, that all changed overnight. I don't know the stats but it certainly seemed like nearly all of the Diggers created reddit accounts within a few days. I really don't know what impact this had on the site but it probably was positive. Back then, it wasn't just reddit v. Digg. It was reddit v. Digg v. stumple.upon v. 3 or 4 other sites all battling for link aggregation dominance. I think the Digg influx helped put reddit ahead in the numbers game.\n\n* Imgur: I remember when Mr Grim made that post announcing the creation of Imgur. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Seriously though, it's a great addition to the internet (and to reddit) but I had to unsubscribe from half the default subreddits because of it.\n\nSo yeah, there have been a lot of popular events that others are referencing (ice soap, cum box, etc.) but the events above are the ones that I think actually had a substantial effect in how people interact with the site.",
"2am Chili and Ice Soap",
"Reddit was once \"All Linux and All Ron Paul Spam, All the Time.\"",
" > What significant things happened to create the Reddit we know today?\n\nCancer.",
"I can remember a few of the more interesting events in Reddit's recent history:\n\nWartoad's story\n\nPresident Obama does an IaMa. ShittyWatercolor's art headlines a CNN article.\n\nA writer from Gawker pretends to have cancer and then writes a nasty article about us. \n\nRedditor discovers that his car has a GPS tracker on it and the FBI is indeed tracking him. Wired magazine writes a piece on it\n\nAnderson Cooper gets /r/jailbait shut down\n\nhihibirdie and some guy realize that they're both think each other is hot and they're sitting next to each other in class. Start dating.\n\nGrandpa Wigley is exposed as a fake\n\nThe Karmanaut Scandal\n\nIGN, G4TV and several other gaming websites are caught playing the system to have their posts upvoted. They all give half-assed apologies and subsequently have any links to their sites banned. (good riddance)\n\nWeightlifting icon Mark Rippitoe takes questions on /r/fitness\n\nI know that none of these aren't major things like \"the algorithm got changed\" but they're still major user generated moments in the history of Reddit. I can try and provide links to the incidents above if people would like to see them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/user/spez",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/17913/reddit_now_supports_comments/?sort=old",
"http://www.reddit.com/user/kn0thing"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rZ8f3Bx6Po"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://blog.reddit.com/2009/10/reddits-new-comment-sorting-system.html",
"http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://ncomment.com/blog/2009/04/08/war-13/",
"http://ncomment.com/blog/2012/01/06/war-33/",
"http://ncomment.com/blog/2009/12/17/war-23/"
],
[
"http://alexisohanian.com/pages/about"
],
[
"https://plus.google.com/+AlexisOhanian/posts/FdLvCct7fAb",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rZ8f3Bx6Po"
],
[],
[
"http://news.ycombinator.com/",
"http://www.paulgraham.com/",
"Digg.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s3cra
|
why do psychological disorders, such as anxiety, cause physiological distress?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s3cra/eli5_why_do_psychological_disorders_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdtkpff",
"cdtmxb0"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well Generalized Anxiety Disorder is caused by too much adrenaline being produced.\n\nThink of it like you are always faced with a life or death situation and your body produces adrenaline to help you fight for your life or to run for your life \"Fight or Flight\"...\n\n\nTo much of that is gonna be bad for you",
"I don't know as if there is a clear-cut scientific answer for that. The short answer is that it likely has a something to do with alterations in neurotransmitters (like epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine). These neurotransmitters also have an influence on other body organs, like the heart, the intestines, the kidneys, and so forth. So, when there is an change in norepinephrine and epinephrine, these changes may also cause an increase the heart rate, shakiness, and other such symptoms.\nThis likely is not the only explanation. After years of study, it has turned out that it is not as simple as we previously thought. It was often thought that anxiety was a result of an increase in norepinephrine and epinephrine and that depression was a result of too little serotonin. This was the initial reason behind using the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to treat depression - give the drug, increase serotonin, and you treat the depression. This just is not the case. The problem is, when you study people with psychological disorders, you don't conveniently find high or low levels of the previously hypothesized, respective neurotransmitters. This is even further supported after years of effective use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), which is clearly not specific for any particular neurotransmitter.\nThe question is a really interesting one. If you are more curious, try reading about particular disorders, like conversion disorder. It shows that the physiological symptoms people experience as a result of physiological pain often is specific to that individual person and, as such, is often amenable to psychotherapy. Individuals, regardless of who they are, interpret and react to perceptual phenomena in light of a set of background beliefs whose structure is a product of social influences and individual psychological dispositions. There is a very unconscious and painful process at work, which can be uncovered, interpreted, and spoken openly about, often with positive results.\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2myn67
|
why are some people able to open their eyes in the ocean without any discomfort, while other people's eyes can be very irritated by the salt water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2myn67/eli5_why_are_some_people_able_to_open_their_eyes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm8redh",
"cm8srsy"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Bitch grade or non bitch grade, Poseidon decides.",
"I find it hard to believe that people can open their eyes in the ocean without discomfort. I've swam all over the world, and it always stings. That said, cold water is a lot harder to deal with than warmer water. And some water has more minerals that irritate than others."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4xkp08
|
what are the effects of trauma causing genetic imprinting?
|
There have been many posts regarding how trauma can lead to genetic imprinting that can last for generations, but how does this occur and what effects does someone experience from it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xkp08/eli5_what_are_the_effects_of_trauma_causing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6g8c2p"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's such a thing as epigenetics. Molecules can attach to specific parts of DNA, and activate, deactivate or modify the effect of the gene.\n\nThe specifucs are not well understood. Research is ongoing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1pl17f
|
Why is it bad that Zinn's 'People's History' is biased? Is it even possible to write history without bias?
|
First an apology. If this question has already been answered, I'm sorry. I skimmed through the threads about Zinn's work and I didn't really see this question specifically ('Why is it bad?') answered.
Some people in this sub seem very critical of 'People's History' for it's bias. For me this doesn't denegrate the quality of the work in the slightest. Every work of history is biased. Whether intentionally or not people bring their own history, culture, prejudices and ideology to anything they write. Because of the limits of time to study, and pages to write on, the very act of focusing on one event or trend as opposed to another is a bias. Focus on the big men and you ignore the overall social forces. Focus on overall social forces and you ignore the daily life of common people. Focus on the daily life of common people and you ignore religious and ethnic minorities. Focus on minorities and you ignore women. And so on, you get the point.
I feel that you can say Zinn doesn't effectively use evidence to support his arguments, but I feel that to dismiss Zinn because he is 'biased' is bad history. What do you think?
Should elimination of bias be the top goal when writing history? Or are other goals, such as telling previously undervalued stories equally valuable?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pl17f/why_is_it_bad_that_zinns_peoples_history_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd3g6zq",
"cd3gprl",
"cd3ipyx",
"cd3m9pv"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"FYI, you can catch up on some of the previous discussions, which touch on bias, in this section of the FAQ\n\n[Historians' views of Howard Zinn's \"A People's History of the United States\"](_URL_0_)",
"I'm going through grad school right now, and we're currently tackling some of these very same issues.\n\nAt heart is the idea that no matter what, the works we write well contain this bias of what exactly we focus on - in terms of topics, at least. Truth be told this is fairly easy to dismiss - there's enough room for historians to write on any given topic, so long as they are fair to the sources. So the idea of \"bias\" in terms of topics is really not an issue. If there isn't any publication on a given topic, that's merely a niche for a future historian to write on.\n\nHaving not read Zinn's work, it's tough for me to comment. But I suppose the idea it's that he tried to shoehorn American history into a \"grand narrative\" which is where the issue comes from. while other historians writing on the topics you mentioned place events in the context of their respective discussions, Zinn portrays the entire American experience as one of class struggle - in doing so oversimplifying and being intentionally selective in his sources. \n\nI'd read Arthur Marwick's *The New Nature of History* for more examples.",
"There's going to be an open round table discussion about a very similar issue in /r/AskHistorians on November 6th -- the notion of historiography (the writing of history) in relation to polemic. Zinn is very likely to come up, as are many other popular historians; the idea is to discuss the complications that arise when history is written with any sort of agenda -- to discuss if an \"activist historiography\" is possible, desirable, or defensible.\n\nIn short, there's going to be some talk about the big issues related to this broad subject, and I hope you'll come check it out!",
"There was a good discussion on this just last night: [check it out](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/theory#wiki_historians.27_views_of_howard_zinn.27s_.22a_people.27s_history_of_the_united_states.22"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pjsz6/how_do_historians_account_for_presentism_bias_and/"
]
] |
|
5n38bu
|
Since light takes time to travel how many stars in our night sky don't actually exist anymore?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5n38bu/since_light_takes_time_to_travel_how_many_stars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc8geg9",
"dc8ikic"
],
"score": [
30,
5
],
"text": [
"The stars you can see in the night sky are all pretty close -- tens or hundreds or, in a few cases, thousands of light years. Stars have lifetimes of millions to billions of years. So probably they all still exist.",
"As others said, the lifetime of the stars we can see is much longer than the time it takes for their light to reach us as they are so close. However there are a few that are expected to go supernova in the near future, though \"near future\" may be much longer than a human lifetime. Betelgeuse (Orion's shoulder) is one of them, it's at 600 light years. It could have already exploded and the light of the explosion may be travelling towards us... or it may take 15000 years before exploding. We don't know and can't know."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ctfwvc
|
why you can instantly dislike someone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ctfwvc/eli5_why_you_can_instantly_dislike_someone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exkha2s",
"exkjj5d"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Yeah sometimes it's not about what you can see but what you can sense. Vibes, energy, trust your gut - all the same thing really. If it doesn't feel right don't do it. Just because you have similar friends doesn't mean you have to be friends with her. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe flip side is she could have been hurt or used previously and so is putting off a negative vibe to keep people away. After spending some time together you might find you actually connect but it will take a while. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nBottom line - let it go and see what flows",
"There isn't a good scientific explanation for this, but I will offer some psychological insights.\n\n1. Imagine that only 7% of your communication is what this person actually says, the rest is body language and tone of voice etc. This isn't very well proven, but for simplicity that is the usual number. So when thinking of what she said, she could easily have been saying good things, but the 93% of other communication could have signaled something else. This, however, is much harder to reflect back on, therefore the feeling of her not saying anything bad but still disliking what she said.\n2. We have evolved to distrust people that are unrelateable. In this case, her \"childish\" voice could drive a wall between your rapport (subconscious connection) without you being able to say why.\n3. Your subconscious and your instincts take most of your decisions. Also a difficult thing to prove, but it is probably around 90% of your decisions that are done subconsciously. This is often done through the help of shortcuts (heuristics). This makes life much easier, but also makes us prone to errors. In this case, maybe her voice or behavior connects it to a child, seeking attention and being impulsive.\n\nTo connect these dots, there are many things your brain is up to without you realizing. It is very important to understand this, because all of this is done to conserve energy for your brain, not to lead you to the best decision. The best decision is always done actively, but taking your instincts into consideration. Keep an open and humble mind. She might be a fantastic person, or she is not, but don't trust your gut blindly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5857h1
|
why is reddit so popular?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5857h1/eli5_why_is_reddit_so_popular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8xio2u",
"d8xjs32"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"People post content for others to enjoy/engage, it's like asking why any social media platform is popular. This difference with a site like YouTube is that for the vast majority, the uploaders are not the creators, so there is no following that any user has. \n \nAs for why Reddit became more popular than similar competitors, that's a different question.",
"Other social media platforms are connected to your identity. \n\nOn places like Facebook people know who you really are, so you feel you have to fabricate to impress. \n\nOn Reddit, your identity remains hidden so there's a better chance for authenticity. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4ookbz
|
when a news story says something like "the fire caused $50 million in damage" how are they calculating the dollar amount?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ookbz/eli5_when_a_news_story_says_something_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4ebezl",
"d4ehfx9",
"d4ei3is",
"d4elxvl",
"d4eo1iu"
],
"score": [
46,
4,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Depending on the scope of the damage, they could get an estimate from the fire department. They know the extent of the damage, and can guestimate what it would cost to repair/rebuild.\n\nWhen you talk about larger disasters, like the Fort McMurray fire, they also take into account a number of other factors like disruption to the local and larger economy.",
"Insurance providers for expensive things tend to have valuations and assessments as part of the establishment of the policy. Dunno whether this information gets used by the news, however. ",
"This is part of what actuaries do (technically they work on risk management, but this is generally kind of tied in) and the reason that actuarial sciences is the highest paid undergrad degree in the US. ",
"It's not really accurate, it's just an average. If you assume every house is worth $1,000,000 all in, and 50 houses burn down, then you can assume there was $50m in damage. It gets more difficult when things like roads, cars and parks are destroyed, but same principle. ",
"The way journalism works, it's usually just someone (with or without knowledge of the subject) mentioning a number to the journalist, who then repeats it without checking if it's reasonable or not.\n\nSo, hardly an exact science."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5djso2
|
why does eating straight garlic cause a burning sensation in your mouth and throat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5djso2/eli5_why_does_eating_straight_garlic_cause_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da53elx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There are defensive compounds in the garlic that turn into sulfuric acid when mixed with water. This is the second sentence."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
18qufl
|
why is the 1/4 mile stretch and 0 to 60 the benchmark cars are rated for?
|
What makes thoes the choice for rating cars? Why can't we test on 0-100 or 1/2 mile stretch?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18qufl/eli5_why_is_the_14_mile_stretch_and_0_to_60_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8h5rmj",
"c8h5t2e",
"c8h7fsp"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
5
],
"text": [
"Some cars are unable to get to 100? And 60 is a speed that's legal on highways pretty much all over the world. In Europe they mostly test 0-100kph (62mph).\n\nA 1/4 mile is the usual run for drag racing, which I believe is due to the length of the runways when they first started drag racing.",
"The European standard for measuring acceleration is the time for 0-100 *kilometers* per hour. This is converts to about 0-62mph which was then rounded down, so both numbers are very similar and can be easily compared.\n\nThe quarter mile seems to come from quarter horse racing ([source](_URL_0_)), but I figure that this is just a good distance that is not too short (cars don't reach max speed) and not too long (difficult to find, cars drive max speed for the majority of the track).",
"0-60 MPH is a bit more relevant than 0-100 MPH because it is a greater indicator of torque at low speeds. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/the-history-of-drag-racing-ar110505.html"
],
[]
] |
|
2kxlmv
|
why in this day and age are suppositories still prescribed? why would anyone choose a suppository over taking it orally?
|
Unless you have a physical problem with taking something orally I dont see a medical reason why someone would choose or be asked to take a prescribed medicine as a suppository.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kxlmv/eli5_why_in_this_day_and_age_are_suppositories/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clpls8i",
"clpm1gt",
"clpm3r1"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on teevee, but the suppositories I occasionally take are for hemorrhoids. It kind of makes more sense than taking a tablet by mouth.",
"Some people get upset stomachs taking certain medications. The rectal route bypasses that. Additionally, absorption into the bloodstream can be even faster via that route. ",
"I would hazard a guess that the stomach acts as a delay (digestion, then absorption), so there might be some medicines that need immediate and rapid absorption, which the rectum is excellent at. Tweak the pill coating so it comes apart easier, and you're good to go.\r\rAnecdotally, I fucking *hate* swallowing pills. Alternatively I enjoy a little ass play. If I could just slip an Aleve or those massive fucking multivitamin horse pills up my ass, I'd be ecstatic, no more fear of the pill getting stuck in my throat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
iue3o
|
If the Universe were to end in a 'Big Crunch' at this exact moment, what would happen?
|
Would the whole universe cease to exist immediately, would everything end over time, or would something completely different happen? The question's been in my head for the last few days and I can't find any real discussion on the topic. Any answers are much appreciated.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iue3o/if_the_universe_were_to_end_in_a_big_crunch_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c26pdul",
"c26pmo6"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"It would take a *long* time, similar to the expansion of the Universe. It would be an unlikely scenario though, as the most likely theory for the shape of the Universe, is a flat universe. As it doesn't curve, it won't end in a Big Crunch. It will either end in heat death, or possibly a big rip. ",
"Well, bear in mind three things: First, there is no evidence to suggest that a \"Big Crunch\" can ever happen, and evidence telling us it can't. Second, a \"Big Crunch\" isn't an *event* but rather a process that would play out over about 400,000 years, after (if we started at the present moment) about 10 billion years of metric contraction.\n\nAnd third and finally, remember that a \"Big Crunch\" is *literally* just a Big Bang played back in reverse. So it would be, hypothetically, exactly like the time evolution of the universe from the first event to the present moment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4oo7wn
|
why are they selling the ufc in the peak of its business booming?
|
I'm sure I'm wrong but it sounds like a terrible idea. They have spent health, people and millions to get it up where it is.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4oo7wn/eli5_why_are_they_selling_the_ufc_in_the_peak_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4e7xnt"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It makes good business sense to sell while you're at the peak. If the current owners feel that the UFC will never get more valuable, selling now will net them the best profits. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
17dm71
|
the israeli election outcome, what it means to the rest of the world, and how it will affect future peace negotiations
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17dm71/eli5_the_israeli_election_outcome_what_it_means/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c84p9q8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are four main blocs in Israeli politics: the right, the left, the Ultra-Orthodox parties, and the Arab parties. The Arab bloc is the easiest to understand: they usually have around 10% of the 120 seats, and they neither get invited nor seek to join a government coalition. They remained at 11 seats between the previous and the current elections.\n\nThe Ultra-Orthodox have recently sided with the right; however, because their interests are somewhat more specific (e.g. Shas, the Sephardic religious party, has social justice elements in its discourse because they see Sephardic Jews as traditionally being underprivileged in comparison to Ashkenazic Jews), they can also side with the left, potentially playing the role of king-makers. They grew from 16 to 18 seats.\n\nThe right camp has long been led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party. Prior to this election, he announced Likud would file a joint list with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, which is nationalistic and appeals to the Russian immigrant vote. This alliance saw its support crumble from 42 seats pre-election to 31. It is still the biggest party, though, and Netanyahu will most likely remain PM - but it still remains to be seen what will be his coalition partners.\n\nPart of the right-wing vote was taken by the Jewish Home party, led by Naftali Bennett. Their main power base are the modern Orthodox (not religiously Ultra-Orthodox) settlers. They grew from 5 to 12 seats. In total, the right-wing bloc now has 43 seats, with less power directly in Netanyahu's hands, from a previous 49 (a smaller party failed to make the threshold).\n\nThe left-wing bloc is perhaps the most complex. It has \"traditional\" political forces, which were already represented in Parliament - such as the centrist Hatnuah and Kadima parties, the centre-left Labour and the more purely left Meretz - but its biggest component is a new, centrist party, Yair Lapid's *Yesh Atid* (There's a Future). Out of the 48 seats held by the left, Lapid holds 19, Labour has 15, Meretz and Hatnuah have 6 each and Kadima, the biggest party following the 2009 elections, barely passed the 2% threshold and has 2 seats.\n\nNetanyahu has, theoretically, two options: either form a government with the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox) and nationalist parties, or reach out to some of the left to form a grand coalition. One big issue is that the Ultra-Orthodox are currently exempt from serving in the army; there's massive unemployment among their community, and many of them live on welfare. The secular folks complain this is unfair, and want the Haredim to carry a more proportional share of the national burden. If Netanyahu chooses to address this issue, he'll be pushing the Ultra-Orthodox parties into opposition, and will need to consider the leftist parties' concerns. Kadima is now irrelevant, Meretz is too far to the left and Labour isn't too content with the prospect of joining a coalition; that would leave the possibility of a Likud Beiteinu + Jewish Home + Yesh Atid coalition, with just 62 seats (out of 120). Conversely, Netanyahu could keep dodging the issue of drafting the Haredim into the army, inviting their parties into a coalition with Jewish Home, which would total only 61 seats.\n\nThe whole thing with the Haredim seems to prevent a Haredim-left coalition, but if they could miraculously work it out, they could reach a majority without Likud Beiteinu and Jewish Home; the Ultra-Orthodox have signalled they prefer allying with the right.\n\nSo, how does this all relate to the peace process? Badly. Apart from the Arab parties - which won't be in government anyway - the only party which has made this an issue during the campaign was former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's Hatnuah, which holds just 6 seats. The election's biggest winner, Yesh Atid, campaigned focussing on internal issues, like housing, the economy and social justice. They wouldn't have much leverage to bring up the issue of the peace process even if they wanted to.\n\nLikud Beiteinu want to keep stalling the process while the Palestinians don't make a definitive commitment to the security of the Jewish state. They might rightly point out that the Palestinians have twice (2000 and 2007) been offered the best possible deal: a state made up of Gaza and over 97% of the West Bank, with land swaps compensating the remainder, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Anything over this is simply impossible and will never happen (not without \"pushing the Jews into the sea\", anyway), and Netanyahu won't even make such an offer again, since the Palestinians not only rejected it when it was made but replied with violence instead. One other reason why the process probably won't move too far is that the Likud Beiteinu candidates elected are more hard-line than in the previous Parliament, and that Jewish Home now have more power, and are is essentially opposed to a Palestinian state.\n\nFrom the left, given that Netanyahu can claim that he won the last Gaza war and that the \"recognition\" of Palestine by the UN has meant little in practice (and given that the Palestinians haven't renounced violence), it is hard for a party like Labour to attack him for not having moved forward with the peace process.\n\ntl;dr - Whatever coalition arises, it is unlikely the peace process will move forward too soon, as the Israelis either reject it altogether or care more about their own internal affairs; the Palestinians haven't taken any real steps towards it either."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dizs4a
|
why is it when our body experiences moments of stress, sicknesses in the body seem to momentarily disappear?
|
For example, I had a fever, then an earthquake hit, suddenly I had no fever for a while.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dizs4a/eli5_why_is_it_when_our_body_experiences_moments/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3zwvb6",
"f3zza3g",
"f40jjwo"
],
"score": [
18,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The symptoms are caused by your body, not the disease. Your body raises your temperature to kill whatever is causing you to be sick because that’s better than the damage that would otherwise be dealt. In times of stress, sickness is less important than your immediate survival and so the body focuses on getting tf out of there rather than fighting the sickness.",
"It's not that they disappear. It's that the heightened state of alertness reallocates your resources, making you unaware of the symptoms. It's still there, but you're no longer conscious of it. It's the same mechanic responsible for your sudden lack of hunger when you are under stress. When you are relaxed again, all of those somatic needs slowly return. It's actually not entirely psychological either, as your brain redistributes blood flow to less vulnerable areas of your body.",
"It's somewhat a survival reflex.\n\nAdrenaline is a stress hormone which raises the body's alert status from \"oof ouch owie I'm sick\" to \"Be ready to fight or run, we can deal with those symptoms later\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
48eknm
|
if the space station is going 17,000mph, how does anyone get on or off it? also once off, how do they slow down and return to earth?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48eknm/eli5_if_the_space_station_is_going_17000mph_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0j0kb4",
"d0j0t4a"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"anything orbiting earth must be traveling that fast (the exact speed varies by orbiting height, lower you are, faster you need to go to orbit), infact reaching that speed is a substantial part of the rockets job. Its why we cant just float up on a balloon or plane and chill, once your at altitude, you still have to get moving sideways really freakin fast. If you watch a rocket launch, you'll notice its basicly flying sideways not too long after takeoff, just get past the densest atmosphere and get moving sideways as you finish your climb.\n\nAs for coming back down, pretty simple, just tap the brakes and you'll start falling, the atmosphere will slow you down the rest of the way.",
"They get on it by docking. Two things going fast now become one larger thing going fast. Sort of like in action movies when two cars match speeds so the hero can jump from one to the other. Except they are in actual contact in orbit and docked together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
abomqv
|
portuguese man o' war life cycle
|
How do the four individual organisms/polyps come together as a colony? Do they start out that way or is there a stage where they join each other?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abomqv/eli5_portuguese_man_o_war_life_cycle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ed2903s"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This is a fascinating question I have never thought about. After some googling, I have found an answer. A man-o-war is a siphonophore, which are “animals” composed of multiple colonies of these organisms called zooids. Each colony has a specific purpose in the whole “animal”, like our organ systems. One colony is called the gonozooid, and it is responsible for reproduction. Gonozooids are both male and female, and can release both eggs and sperm. Man-o-wars (men-o-war? plurals are weird) gather in large groups occasionally, and release eggs and sperm into the water. These come together and form fertilized eggs. Each egg then grows into a man-o-war... which sounds a lot like a regular animal. That’s because siphonophores are weird and science thinks they’re weird and doesn’t know a lot about them. \nTo be more like ELI-high school biology, all the colonies share the same DNA. Once the egg is fertilized, there is an intermediate colony called the protozooid. The protozooid uses asexual budding, and produces each colony."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
11egql
|
Elizabethan Sartorial Customs
|
Hopefully a short, simple question. In class a few days ago my professor told us that Elizabeth I began wearing heavy white makeup after contracting and subsequently surviving small pox. Did this influence any change in sartorial modes for women of the court in the short or long term?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11egql/elizabethan_sartorial_customs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6lr3ff",
"c6lxv59"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There was a significant difference in sartorial elegance in the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. \n \nArmour is an extremely good example; Henry was a great sportsman as a young man, he jousted, he went to war, he wore and he used armour as a tool. \n \nHis armour was the best (he was the King after all, who would dare wear armour better than the King?) and as [can be seen](_URL_0_) it was well made, brutal, and functional. \n \nNow, his daughters reign. As a rule, Elizabeth didn't wear full armour for combat and didn't joust. The armour she did have was lavish, ornate and decorative. \n \nWhat happened during her reign was that armour became a fashion statement, your Robert Dudleys et al were spending the equivilant of *millions* of dollars on suits of armour that had lavish decorations and etchings on every part of the metal, the [‘Almain Armourer’s Album’](_URL_1_) wasn't a Jane's catalog of war gadgetry, it was a Jean-Paul Gaultier torpedo breasted fashion magazine. \n \nOverall, with Henry as King clothing and armour was functional, finely made, well crafted, and nobody exceeded the King in extravagance ... with Elizabeth as Queen the floodgates for peacock like behaviour amongst the male courtiers were opened with a vengeance. \n \nThere are definite theatrical overtones to many aspects of her reign, where a sporting king can lead by physical prowess a slighter queen follows by theatre of power - the \"virgin queen\" tableaus, pearl encrusted dresses and so forth were all brilliant uses of power fashion. ",
"Speaking specifically about whitening make-up, this was nothing new to the Tudor Period. People had been using lead based make-up to whiten their skin since ancient Egyptian times and the preference for lighter skin for woman was pretty universal throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, Central Asia and further afield (some indigenous cultures around the world have a preference for darker skin for women but they're few and far between.) Note that the modern preference for tanned skin in Western Europe and North America is very recent in terms of human history, dating only from the 1920s. \n\nThe difference with Elizabeth is that she used a larger amount than was usual and created a striking effect. This is what was copied by ladies of the court, not the using of the whitening make-up, previous generations had already done that, but the plastering it on to make it very obvious that they were using it. \n\nThe make up contained lead and mercury and must have caused health problems, although it's difficult to be specific about that since there were so many opportunities to be poisoned or infected in the Tudor world. But there's an established link between excess lead and mercury exposure and brain damage. Hence the Victorian 'mad as a hatter' since hatters used mercury and so often suffered brain damage. \n\nFor more on Elizabethan fashion generally: \n\n_URL_0_ "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_eng.html",
"http://www.royalarmouries.org/visit-us/leeds/leeds-galleries/tournament-gallery/elizabeth-i"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1550%E2%80%931600_in_fashion"
]
] |
|
217f3s
|
how do electronic speakers/headphones make different "types" of sounds?
|
I can understand how they make different pitches, but I don't understand how they make different types of sound, like certain letter sounds. How does a speaker make a "shhh" sound or a "z" sound or any other?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/217f3s/eli5_how_do_electronic_speakersheadphones_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgacdyd",
"cgag68s"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of the letter \"A\". Now say it out loud. Sounds like you sorta said \"Aiee\" right? What you just heard in your own voice is exactly what a speaker does. It has the data that tells it to vibrate at a specific frequency and intensity at a given time.\n\nCompare a ventriliquist to a speaker. A good ventriliquist can speak without showing signs of movent in their lips, jaw, cheeks, or neck. Now look at a speaker. You dont see either of them moving (except if you get up really close and look hard enough). This is because the speaker, like the ventriliquists vocal chords, is vibrating several \"disks\" at different frequencies and intenseities in order to be combined and make a complex or textured sound.\n\nI hope this helps.",
"They combine a whole lot of different notes, each at different amplitudes and for different lengths of time. The combination of those all leads to the unusual sounds. In fact, almost nothing you hear is a \"pure\" note (just the one frequency, with no other overtones).\n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is a pretty good example of how two sounds can seem to be in tune but have very different sounds (different [timbre](_URL_1_)). It breaks down the middle-C note on a piano, comparing it to a pure sine wave at the same frequency.\n\nIf you start combining enough notes, you end up with things that don't sound like one note at all, but instead can produce any noise you've ever heard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoeJk-1UVn0",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre"
]
] |
|
f99g3i
|
how do animals find water sources set by humans?
|
I've seen some videos of people leaving containers full of water for wild animals.
How does animals find these? How do they know there is going to be water in the strange object and not just walk past it? Do animals have some kind of sense for water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f99g3i/eli5_how_do_animals_find_water_sources_set_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiqc6ti",
"fiqlmhj"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"They don’t. What they do know is that this is a New Thing. New Things are worth investigating, because they might be food (or, conversely, might be a threat that needs to be dealt with.) When investigating, they discover that this New Thing contains water. Lucky day!\n\nThey find them in the first place because most animals keep territories they patrol (for, say, food, or rivals to chase away). They just happen across it when they’re patrolling.",
"Animals can smell water.\n\nEven humans can smell water (in theory), but our sense of smell isn't quite as good as that of other creatures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1rjesn
|
What was the per-enlightenment explanation of 'static electricity' and other elector-magnetic forces?
|
I noticed today that I could make a hair on my scarf move without touching it directly. To me this is a fairly normal process, but before there was concept of electricity and magnetism; how did ancient-to early modern thinkers and people explain a static shock? Or the conductive nature of wool and hair?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rjesn/what_was_the_perenlightenment_explanation_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdo1hhd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Check the FAQ before posting, my friend \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18h0fy/did_the_ancients_give_one_another_tiny_static/"
]
] |
|
35meqo
|
why are school buses still built the same as the always have been?
|
As far as I can tell, school buses are still built like they have been for decades. As in I see shiny new ones driving around, but they look and drive like they were built in the 70's/80's. Why hasn't their design been updated like every other vehicle on the roads?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35meqo/eli5_why_are_school_buses_still_built_the_same_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr5qkqk",
"cr5s4fn",
"cr65igf",
"cr67in9"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there's very little need. Cars are updated because of many reasons, such as aerodynamics and current aesthetic design considerations.\n\nSchool buses, on the other hand, don't have a need to be updated for their looks. We want them to stand out -- be big and bright and easy to identify.\n\nIt's as if we want them to scream to every other vehicle on the road: \"Hey! Notice me! There's a bunch of kids on board.\"",
"School bus designers are pretty conservative by nature since they're responsible for the lives of 60 kids or so. Depending on where you live, you might see some different designs. When I was in school, all buses were of the front-engine design. The school district that my kids are in has those type, plus a collection of rear-engine designs. You can now get a school bus that runs off propane or one that runs off compressed natural gas.\n\n[Here's](_URL_0_) a quick summary of what's available from Bluebird--one of the larger school bus manufacturers.",
"Since I last rode a bus in the 70s, most now have :\n\nAutomatic transmission\n\nStop signs as well as flashing red lights\n\nPowered doors\n\nWhite roofs to cool down by 15°F\n\nCrossing arms to keep kids from crossing so close the driver doesn't see them\n\n\nMany have:\n\nInternal video cams\n\nExternal cams to catch light runners\n\n2 way radio\n\nEdited: road to rode\n\nAir conditioning\n\nHeaters that actually work\n\nGPS so parents & dispatchers know bus location\n",
"Economics is probably a major reason in addition to what everyone else has said.\n\nCity/transit buses, for example, get updated designs partly to attract more people to ride them. Obviously the ridership of school buses is not affected by their design."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.blue-bird.com/blue-bird/our-buses.aspx"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
er755r
|
when you move the mouse cursor quickly across the computer screen and see multiple cursors simultaneously, is it your eyes that cause the effect or the display?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/er755r/eli5_when_you_move_the_mouse_cursor_quickly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ff213qa",
"ff21pzt"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Its the refresh rate (Hz) of the screen causing this. Higher refresh rates gives a smoother image. \n\n\n_URL_0_",
"Not sure if this is the cause of the efdect but there is actually a setting that you can cause that effect. Go to your mouse/pointer settings and you can increase or decrease the mouse \"trails\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/Q1cmhZs1P54"
],
[]
] |
||
59ddt4
|
apple pay
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59ddt4/eli5_apple_pay/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d97ke9g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Credit cards have major security problems. Every time you use one in a store, you give your card number to the store. The card number can be stolen by hardware installed on the payment terminal, by malware installed in the POS or other merchant systems, or by hacking into merchant databases (which can contain tens of millions of card numbers). \n\nWhen you add a card to Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch, a new card number is generated. When you pay, this number, along with a dynamic security code (instead of the static number printed on your card) is sent to the merchant. The merchant never gets your real number and, unlike the number printed on your card, the one sent by Apple Pay *cannot* be used without the dynamic security code, which only your iPhone or Apple Watch can generated.\n\nEvery other aspect of the transaction works basically the same. The payment is information comes from your device instead of your card, but otherwise looks like a normal NFC/contactless/tap (pick your term) transaction and goes to their payment processor on to the payment network (eg. Visa) where the alternate number is matched up with your real card number, and then sent to your bank for approval. There are *no* additional parties added to the processing; Apple is not involved in the transaction. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1nov86
|
Why did France abandon its colony in North America (Quebec)?
|
After the battles of the plains of Abraham, France left its territory to Britain but never tried to conquer it back during napoleonic wars/french revolunary wars/american revolutions. Even though there was, and still is, a vast majority of francophone in the territory.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nov86/why_did_france_abandon_its_colony_in_north/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cckolff",
"ccky2zi"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Simply put, there wasn't any interest among the French elite in reclaiming the costly Quebec colonies. As Voltaire put it the loss of Canada was the loss of \"a few acres of snow\".\nFar more important to the french was reclaiming Haiti, which revolted in 1791. Before the revolt the colony contributed a great deal of income to France. Napolean sent an army under the command of his brother-in-law to try and retake, but between the resistance of the hatians and yellow fever they were forced to withdraw. \n",
"The time when France had the best chance of recapturing Quebec was during the American Revolution, when they had naval parity with Britain, and the American Colonies as allies on the North American Continent.\n\nThey did not seem very interested in recovering Quebec at this time. I think I remember Benjamin Franklin, who was American ambassador to France, being anxious to prevent the French focusing on reclaiming Quebec in any deals with the Americans. (Can't find a reference, though, so maybe I'm wrong. Anyone with better knowledge of Franklins diplomacy in France?).\n\nThe French might have been able to maneuver during the negotiations around the Peace of Paris in 1783 to recover Quebec. The anti British allies had an awkward set up for conducting these negotiations. The Americans had a treaty with France, which forbade a separate peace. The French had a treaty with Spain (unknown to the Americans) which said that France would not make a peace with Britain that did not include Spain reclaiming Gibraltar. America had no treaty of alliance with Spain. The Dutch were also in the war against Britain, but had no binding treaties with America, France, or Spain.\n\nThe French and Spanish had been attacking Gibraltar for three years, but the British defense remained as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.\n\nOnce peace negotiations started (after the fall of The Lord North government in British Parliament, and a new government which wanted to end the war), the Rockingham government started feeling out the four enemy forces about peace treaties, but also stalling, because they hoped that Admiral Rodney, who had just taken a British fleet to the West Indies, might reclaim some of the British islands taken by the French, and give them a better bargaining position.\n\nAs it turns out, Rodney, with 36 battleships intercepted a combined French and Spanish fleet of 45 battleships, sailing to invade Jamaica (Britain's crown jewel in the Caribbean). Rodney was victorious, capturing or sinking six enemy ships of the line, and damaging many more.\n\nThis naval victory gave Britain the upper hand in the Caribbean. Now it was France who stalled for time, hoping that a massive French and Spanish assault could be launched against Gibraltar.\n\nWhile France was stalling, Britain offered favorable terms to the Americans, hoping to detach them from the French. While this was going on, the Great assault against Gibraltar failed, the Americans told the French that they were going to accept Britain's favorable peace. \n\nNow France did not have much to negotiate with. Almost all territories France and Britain captured from each other in the war were returned, except France got to keep Tobago. Spain won a fair amount if territory, East and West Florida, and Minorca. The Dutch won nothing and lost one small base on the coast of India.\n\nIf France had wanted to reclaim Quebec, their best chance would have been to strike a quick peace once the British were ready to negotiate, and trade British Islands in the Caribbean for Quebec. Their treaty with Spain, and combined failure to capture Gibraltar prevented this.\n\nThe stout British defense of the Rock of Gibraltar was very good for the Americans. An early peace (whether or not it included returning Quebec to the French) would have probably not extended the US border all the way to the Mississippi.\n\nSources:\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Paris_(1783)",
"http://www.jstor.org/stable/1836697?seq=3",
"http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/history/ch3.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Saintes",
"http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0103/sich/sicherman_franklin.html"
]
] |
|
20tk03
|
why are lite beers so heavily advertised on american tv instead of full strength beer?
|
As an Australian there is nothing worse then lite beer it's basically an avoid at all costs but I can't quite understand whenever I watch American sporting events (mainly NBA) why lite beers are so heavily _URL_0_ this because Americans just prefer lite beer or are there rules/restrictions in place to only allow lite beer ads in a way to promote safer drinking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20tk03/eli5why_are_lite_beers_so_heavily_advertised_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg6kioq",
"cg6kj1h",
"cg6kjaj",
"cg6pu2o",
"cg6s5ku"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Lite\" doesn't refer to the alcoholic content, but rather the calorie count. As for the amount of advertising...I dunno, maybe Americans drink more light beer than \"heavy\" beer?",
"Because American's like Lite Beer, and we could prefer lower calorie drinks. \n\nAmerica is becoming increasingly health conscious (whatever the stereotypes will say) and Lite Beer is an outgrowth of that.",
"The big kick in the US is \"healthy\". Low-fat, low-carb, salad this, veggie-that, etc. Lite beer is just part of that because it's slightly lower calories, so it tends to sell more.",
"Americans just love light beer. Bud lite by itself is almost 20% of the entire beer sales volume in the US. Personally it's my favorite lite beer too. I just can't justify the cost increase or the extra calories that other beers consist of, even though I love craft beers, and my favorite \"factory\" beer is guiness I almost always drink bud light instead.",
"In America we like to drink large quantities of beer, not so much quality or tasty beer. It's about drinking 15 cheap, lite, unfilling beers, rather than 3 tasty, full flavored beers. \n\nLite beers appeal to the party crowd because you can drink quite a bit more without feeling so full. They appeal to me when I'm in a party situation. I want something I can do beer bongs with, and chug, and things like that. Nobody wants to chug full flavor stouts and the like. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"advertised.Is"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
w6uok
|
Do three-star systems exist?
|
I've heard of binary stars, but are 3-or-more star systems physically possible? If so, have we observed any?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w6uok/do_threestar_systems_exist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5as79o"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Our nearest stellar neighbor is Alpha Centauri, which is a binary star system with Proxima Centauri orbiting around them. So yes, it's technically a triple-star system, but more like a pair of stars with a red dwarf orbiting around them at a distance further than Pluto. Well, if Pluto were 300 times further away, that is.\n\n...\n\nOn a side note, Pluto is a quintile planetary system. Pluto, Charon, Hydra, Nix and S/2011 P 1. Wait, would it be called a quintile planetary system or just a planet with four moons. How do we determine if a system is multiple or not?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
357s2v
|
how does the change in legislature regarding marijuana use affect drug testing for major companies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/357s2v/eli5_how_does_the_change_in_legislature_regarding/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr1ssdb",
"cr1ssyp",
"cr1ul9l"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes a company can have a policy which the employees sign up to for not using either drugs or alcohol if they believe that it will harm the way they work. If employees then break the policy then they can face the sack or other action from the company.",
"This is still very much up in the air. Companies in every state with legalization (and DC) are still able to set their own hiring and retention standards (and therefore may deny a hire, or fire, due to a failed drug test). There is at least one pending state supreme court case due to be heard this year, in Colorado, on the question of whether it should be legal to fire an employee for marijuana use in a state that has legalized it. There may be pending cases in WA, AK, OR, or DC (I'm not sure what the process would be there), but I'm only aware of the CO case.",
"This is actually a bit of a legal nightmare. Marijuana is detectable on a standard urine test for 30 days. This means that while the lab can tell you whether or not the subject has consumed marijuana within the past 30 days, they can't (presently) tell you when the use occurred. That being so, how can a company restrict their employees using a legal substance (be it alcohol or marijuana in select states) on their own time? With alcohol, you can administer a breath test at the workplace to see if outside employment use is causing at work impairment. That can't be done with any field testing or urine testing I am aware of. I believe a blood draw can give you greater specificity but that opens up a whole new array of issues. Until the technology exists to differentiate between personal time use and at work (or immediately before) use, the courts will inevitably be wrong. They will either unfairly punish those who are using a legal substance on their own time or they will have to protect persons under the influence of marijuana from employer punishment. I think we can all guess what side the courts will opt for."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1xrq6i
|
why is random mating important for the hardy weinberg equilibrium?
|
I understand the other points of HWE (no selection, no migration, etc.), but I am struggling to understand why random mating keeps a population in equilibrium.
I've searched for an explanation for this particular aspect, and it keeps going over my head. Help?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xrq6i/eli5_why_is_random_mating_important_for_the_hardy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfe14c5",
"cfe1vss",
"cfe1w5d"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nonrandom mating is essentially a form of selection.",
"Consider eye color, where Brown is dominant and blue is recessive.\n\nIf people preferred mates with the same eye color, the Bb genotype would be less likely, and the population would gravitate towards a 50-50 BB/bb equilibrium.\n\n",
"If there isn't random mating then that is selection. Selection leads to nonrandom mating. They are almost the same thing, you can't have one without the other. If you understand why selection leads to the equilibrium getting out of balance, then you already know why random mating would get it out of balance. You have just not put them together yet. If the mating isn't random then species would select of certain alleles and after a few generations the equilibrium would change. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1w0eb5
|
if it is the duty of police to protect the rights of the citizens, why do they protect the government when citizens rights are being violated?
|
I am in a police academy in hopes to one day become a peace officer and defend the rights of my fellow people. Everyday they drill it into us that police authority comes from the people, and it is their duty to protect people and their rights. Why then, do police fight people when they are protesting for their rights? If people do not like their government, do they not have the right to overthrow it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w0eb5/eli5_if_it_is_the_duty_of_police_to_protect_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cexibiv",
"cexif54",
"cexishr"
],
"score": [
2,
15,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I would suggest that LEO's aren't there to protect *people*, they are there to protect the *community*. The courts are supposed to protect our rights.\n\nWhen there is peaceful protesting going on, there is no issue. When the protest gets violent or destructive, it harms the community. \n\nFinally, remember that in protesting, only *some* of the people do not like their government. The others are impartial or support it. That is the theory, anyway. ",
"Because that isn't their job. The job of a police officer is to enforce the law, plain and simple. If the law says people can't mob city hall, then you will prevent people from mobbing city hall no matter what rights they are protesting for. And if you don't, you will be fired in short order. \n\nMore importantly, I don't want police officers deciding who does and who doesn't have a valid reason to overthrow the government. Maybe a disenfranchised class is holding an unauthorized protest and disrupting traffic in a major city. You might want to help them because you agree with their goals. But what makes them different from a Klan rally? I don't want police to bend the rules on behalf of neo-nazis, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do it on behalf of gays/black/other-oppressed-group either.",
"\"Peace officers are *required* to ensure that a person's First Amendment rights are protected and enforced...\" "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
17wlo0
|
Has the "Deep South" ever really recovered from the destruction and economic upheaval of the Civil War?
|
By deep south I specifically mean states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia. As I understand it these states were heavily dependent on slave labor and were major battlegrounds during the war. I noticed these states lag behind the rest of the US in a lot of areas like wealth, education and infrastructure. How much of this lag is related to the Civil War?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17wlo0/has_the_deep_south_ever_really_recovered_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c89h6d1",
"c89itx9",
"c89l0aa"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
16
],
"text": [
"I think at least some of it could be. The Union's stated policy late war was to destroy or liberate all confederate industry, infrastructure and property. Every levee, factory, plantation, mill, and warehouse was looted or destroyed, especially later in the war.",
"The American economy is entirely different than what it was in the 1850's and 1860's. It is now a service economy, and the reason why the South is lagging behind is not because of the damage that their region suffered over a hundred years ago. As to why the \"Deep South\" is not doing well in today's economy is a question more geared for a sociologist. ",
"This is a tough question, and I don't think we'll be able to answer it as solidly as we could others. However, I'd like to add a few thoughts:\n\nYou're correct on trying to make sense if the destruction from the Civil War affected the Southern economies. However, industrialization took hold fairly quick in most Southern states towards the end of the 19th century. Railroad building was a constant, as was increased building of mills, mines, and factories. I'd say they picked up their economies rather quick. They even used convict leasing to keep things moving, which functioned a lot like slavery.\n\nThe real question is more about what the Southern economy looked like after the Civil War. Unlike the North, which was rather diversified, and the West, which was increasingly turning to livestock and crops among other industries, the South only diversified so much, and it usually continued its focus on agriculture. They increased production of various and different crops, but many states continued to produce cotton as their major one. In doing so, they stopped using the now-illegal slavery and started sharecropping and tenant farming. These two forms of labor promote cycles of debt where the farmer can never get out from under his employer and the local merchant. In this way few Southerners could become rich, leading to a fairly large agricultural working class. These systems of sharecropping and tenant farming continued well into the 20th century, some as late as the 1950s and 1960s. The North had changed their systems of labor a few times since the 1870s by this time, but the South continued to use a few old ways. I think that this is in part your answer why Southern states seem so poor and lag behind the others.\n\nThere's a lot that someone could talk about in terms of Southern history making these states different from other parts of the country, but I think one thing that may be happening here is your perception of those states. Generally Mississippi does find itself at the low ends of most state rankings, and I'm sure some brilliant sociologist/historian could attest for why, but Louisiana and, more certainly, Georgia aren't usually ranked so low.\n\nAs for education, I'm not sure that's entirely true that the South lags so definitely behind everyone else. There *are* many Southern states that are quite low on the rankings, but there are numerous other states from different regions that are low as well. These fluctuate quite a lot; at the turn of the century, Georgia was well-regarded for its public education push. [One study](_URL_0_) places Nevada and New Mexico below Mississippi, and Alabama and Louisiana are quite close to California. Georgia ranks #38, and it's the state that suffered through Sherman's March. The other highest Southern states are probably North Carolina at #25 and Virginia #11. To note, Pennsylvania (a Northern state in the war) suffered quite a lot of damage in the conflict, but it's ranked #8. Various other studies show that Southern states are pretty well dispersed amongst Western and Northern states, at least by the twenty-first century, see [here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_3_). (That second one is ENORMOUS but *very* helpful in seeing how totally diverse our education in the U.S. is.)\n\n[For wealth, it's much the same.](_URL_2_) Georgia is #33 of the richest states in America. However, quite notably, much of the South remains quite low on the list (except Virginia which is #7). I'd attribute this to agriculture more than the Civil War, and the systems of labor that Southern states tended to use. A more skilled sociologist or historian could probably give you more factors, however. In a pretty interesting series of lists on the highest-income places in the United States, you can see that much of the wealth in America is in New York, California, and Florida, but many Southern states get their moments. Georgia has the highest-income place with a population of at least 50,000 - Johns Creek, Georgia, which is a suburb of Atlanta. Georgia actually has two other cities on that particular list, all around Atlanta (which as you may remember burned in the Civil War, but it recovered tremendously and truly shone by the early twentieth century). \n\nWhew. Sorry for the wall of text! **In short**: Some lag is from the Civil War, but most likely, it's due to how individual states socially, politically, and economically decided to plot their future in the conflict's aftermath. Some Southern states have triumphed, like in the case of Virginia, while others remain like most of the country, such as Georgia, and a few, like Mississippi, trail at the very end of the pack almost every time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?loct=2&by=v&order=a&ind=7247&dtm=14341&tf=868",
"http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_of_education_in.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income",
"http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates_FINAL_20120209.pdf"
]
] |
|
bjw9y3
|
In feudal Europe and the Middle Ages, Jews were generally prohibited from owning weapons and armor. Where were the exceptions and when?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bjw9y3/in_feudal_europe_and_the_middle_ages_jews_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emcmwv1"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"I can give you two examples of exceptions to this rule in Hungary:\n\n1) Under the rule of Matthias Corvinus (1458-1490) \"Jewish prefects\" were allowed to own and wear swords in public. The most influential Jewish prefect, Jakab Mendel (or Mendel Jakab in Hungarian), and his son attended the wedding of Matthias Corvinus. As part of the ceremony they rode their horses in front of the royal couple and greeted them with drawn swords.\n\n2) Jews were allowed to own and wear swords in Ottoman Hungary between 1541 and 1686 due to the different attitude of the Ottomans towards Jews and necessity: Jewish subjects had to be able to defend themselves from raiders.\n\nKohn Samuel: \"A zsidók története Magyarországon\" covers the importance of the right to own weapons for Hungarian Jews, unfortunately I couldn't find it in English for you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3b3b58
|
why your nose gets plugged up on one side, then you roll over and the clog slides to the other side, all while keeping just 1 nostril clogged at a time...
|
This gets annoying at night when trying to sleep
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b3b58/eli5why_your_nose_gets_plugged_up_on_one_side/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csif12u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I was surprised when I learned that this wasn't just my nose being screwed up. There is a small bit of tissue in your sinuses that partially blocks one nostril at any given time (and changes from side to side). The working hypothesis is that this is to help us determine which directions smells are coming from."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ehxy62
|
rare genetic conditions. for example the odds of being born with an extra hand or leg is supposedly 1 in 1700, or the odds of having a 178+ iq is 1 in 10 million. with > 7 billion people why don’t we see these conditions very often
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehxy62/eli5_rare_genetic_conditions_for_example_the_odds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcmacpo",
"fcmfzjd",
"fcmjzes"
],
"score": [
77,
25,
13
],
"text": [
"Where have you got the odds of an extra hand or legs as 1:1700? \n I can't find any info that Polymelia that is an extra limb is that high.\n\nPolydactyly that is extra fingers or toes can be as high as 13.5 per 1000 in some population group but we will not see it in adults in the west because it can be fixed with simple surgical intervention at an early age.",
"1) Big malformations frequently result in death of the foetus, or abortion by the parents.\n\n2) Smaller malformations can frequently be handled through chirurgical operations.\n\n3) You won't remark most of them, as peoples don't particularly like to look weird. You can keep extra limbs under your clothes. Extra/missing fingers is pretty much not noticed most of the time (I had a girl with only 3 fingers on one of her hands at my high school, peoples outside of our class didn't pay attention to it).\n\n4) Rare genetic conditions are genetics. Which mean they tend to appear in the same family, not randomly through the whole population.",
"Regarding high IQ, it's not a visible trait. We're not all tested, and it wouldn't necessarily translate to academic and scientific success - someone with an IQ of 200 might just become a really good accountant. They don't all become Einstein's."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2afem8
|
the difference between the effects of a zero calorie, zero gram sugar soda and a regular soda
|
I feel like when you compare the two at face value, it's almost like the diet soda is good for you. But what exactly is the difference between the two, and what they're doing to my body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2afem8/eli5_the_difference_between_the_effects_of_a_zero/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciujfmr"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Zero calorie drinks have an artificial sweetener in it called Aspartame (or sometimes Saccharin). It's zero calorie because your body doesn't use the sweetener as energy, and it doesn't give you the effects of regular Sucrose (insulin response).\n\nAspartame is an aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. When you digest it, your body breaks down the aspartic acid and the phenylalanine which creates a (very) small amount of methanol. Aspartic acid is a very common amino acid. We get more from various other food sources in higher doses. Similarly, phenylalanine is an essential amino acid, but those ~~with naturally high levels of~~ that cannot digest phenylalanine need to watch their intake (people are born with this disorder). You may see a warning on the bottle of diet sodas warning these people (Phenylketonurics) that the drink contains phenylalanine.\n\nThe methanol released from the breakdown of Aspartame is the main source of the 'cancer' and health risk claims, since Methanol in high doses is toxic. Methanol that is released when consuming aspartame from diet drinks is far *far* less than the methanol released from other food sources such as fruit juices or fruit in general, or any methanol you consume in other parts of your diet. \n\nAs far as better than regular soda. If you *must* have a soda, then diet soda would be much better to drink than regular soda, as regular soda has High-Fructose Corn Syrup in it. HFCS is digested similar to alcohol in terms of the body's response to it (it is primarily metabolized in the liver). HFCS has also been linked to [Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome](_URL_0_), as well as [Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease](_URL_1_).\n\nEdit: Mistake on Phenylalanine. Phenylketonurics cannot digest phenylalanine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup_and_health#Obesity_and_metabolic_syndrome",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease"
]
] |
|
2j815t
|
how does google get the money to drive google map cars all around the world without getting anything in return? what do they get from doing all that work and from all those expenses?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j815t/eli5_how_does_google_get_the_money_to_drive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl97kib",
"cl97mfm",
"cl97nps",
"cl9a3fa",
"cl9aoh7",
"cl9ecau",
"cl9ek4f",
"cl9eo7d"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
112,
5,
12,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Google gets a lot of money in return for their services. They just don't get the money from you. Google is an advertising company. Every time you search something on Google, they learn a bit more about you- where you go and what you do. Especially if you have an Android phone, in which case they can use location tracking to figure out where you live and where you work. All that information that Google learns about you when you use Google's services means that they know more about you than just about anyone else in the world. And that means they can target advertisements to the people they know would be most interested in them. Because they're so good at it, they can charge companies more for advertisements and those advertisements give them 50 billion dollars a year in revenue.",
"What they get is the best mapping system available for the average user. There is no equivalent to StreetView.\n\nBecause their mapping system is the best, they have lots and lots of users. And many of those users also have GMail accounts, and YouTube accounts, and Google+ accounts.....\n\nNow, they can find out what locations you've searched for recently in Google Maps (which they wouldn't be able to do if you used a different mapping solution, maybe because you found a better one). And they can combine that with knowledge of your e-mails, your video viewing habits, even your search history.... to give you more relevant ads. More relevant ads means more click-throughs, which means more money for them.\n\nThey don't just use it to give you more relevant ads, of course. They also use it to give you more relevant search results. Which means that you're more likely to use Google than another search engine, because it consistently just seems to know what you're looking for.... and that provides another platform where they can show you ads, as well as collect more information about you to show you more relevant search results and ads in future.......",
"You have to remember that although Google has its finger in many technological pies, the vast majority of its income still comes through selling advertising. And to be a world-class multi-billion-dollar online advertising broker requires you to hold as much data as possible on the people who will be viewing your adverts -- the better the data you hold the more accurately you can target advertising, and therefore the more money you can charge your advertisers.\n\nAll of this is a roundabout way of saying that what Google gains from its streetview programme is simple: lots more people using Google Maps in preference to any other mapping product. The more people who use Google Maps (especially on an auto-geolocating device such as a mobile phone), the more data Google has about those people, which in turn it can use to boost its revenue stream as described in the first paragraph.",
"Google charges other companies to use their maps, search for directions, things like that. They also use it to deliver better advertisements based on the locations of their users.",
"Can I post a semi-related question here?\n\nWhat about Red Bull? Do they really sell that many energy drinks to finance all their sponsorships? They sponsor fucking everything.",
"Data. If you access Google Maps they can relate your searches to a location/ interest in a location and sell it to even more advertisers and similar entities for even more money.",
"I asked this question a few days ago:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Google just needs to put those cameras on the top of the USPS mail delivery vehicles and update their maps every dang day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hjmgs/eli5_how_does_google_maps_make_money/"
],
[]
] |
||
5jj6e6
|
why are 2 litre bottles of coke in australian supermarkets cheaper than 500 ml bottles of coke in australian supermarkets? (2$ vs 3$)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jj6e6/eli5why_are_2_litre_bottles_of_coke_in_australian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbgjryx",
"dbgk05y"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"In general, the 2l bottles are much larger, and are frequently served warm, making them unattractive to those who want a grab-and-go drink. By contrast, 16.9oz bottles are a reasonable portion size, are frequently served chilled, and fit into car cupholders and hands a lot easier.",
"They're targeted at different customers. Serving size bottles are sold chilled for customers who want the convenience of a cold drink right now. They pay a large price per volume for that convenience. \n\nMeanwhile customers who are OK with buying large bulk bottles, spending time doing any necessary chilling at home themselves and pouring glasses to serve get a better price per unit volume because their needs are logistically easier/cheaper to fill. Shipping larger units is simpler and unrefrigerated goods are easier to store. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4yn3zx
|
why do competitive divers shave their body hair, yet not wear swim caps?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yn3zx/eli5_why_do_competitive_divers_shave_their_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6p18xu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"From what I've been told, swim caps are frowned upon by judges in competitive diving. My daughter dives. Some girls wear caps during practice, but only one wears a cap in competition and it's because she has a braid that goes to het butt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
249a5y
|
Did TIME magazine suffer a backlash for naming Hitler "man of the year"?
|
Pre-WW2, obviously...
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/249a5y/did_time_magazine_suffer_a_backlash_for_naming/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch4wtzr",
"ch53lob"
],
"score": [
49,
10
],
"text": [
"Time's Man of the Year was historically awarded to the most prominent news-maker of the year. Naming Hitler man of the year was not intended or taken by most people to be an endorsement of Hitler or of Nazism. The tone of the article is ranges from neutral to critical, remarking on how much power Hitler had attained in a very short period of time. You can read it for yourself here: _URL_0_",
"The fact that they didn't mean it as a positive thing is obvious from the cover, [which shows an etching of Hitler as an \"unholy organist\" playing a \"hymn of hate\" on some kind of medieval torture rack](_URL_0_). \n\nI did a brief ProQuest Newspapers search and found very little discussion of it from the time period amongst major newspapers — just mentions that it was the case, which also discussed the cover (which was a departure from the usual portrait). There was much more discussion of the fact that the graduating class in Princeton in 1940 chose Hitler as the \"outstanding\" man of the year, which caused some confusion (the Princeton students emphasized they weren't supporting him, to no avail). \n\nAs an aside, my favorite Man of the Year cover from that period is that of Truman in 1945, where he is [knocked off of his own cover by the power of the atomic bomb](_URL_1_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html"
],
[
"http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/5ed66428a0b38cd4_large",
"http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/7c32ba098418d406_large"
]
] |
|
2xrv78
|
Was the Battle of Vimy Ridge important for anything other then Canada's ego?
|
I'm Canadian and when i learned about it in high school the teacher really pumped it up and made it sound really important but when i asked an American friend about it whose really into history he barely knew anything about it. Now i know it was an important defining moment for Canada and I'm not discounting the importance of that but did it really have any effect on the war and did Canada really act exceptionally or is it just puffed up to be more important then it actually is?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xrv78/was_the_battle_of_vimy_ridge_important_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp2vf8e",
"cp2y0ig",
"cp2yob7"
],
"score": [
36,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Its a bit of a subjective issue, how important is “really important”?\n\nIt was certainly a useful piece of territory to possess. From Vimy Ridge, the Germans had line of sight giving a clear overview at least as far as Mont St Eloi and on a fair day as far as Arras. This was important stuff and the Germans could monitor the BEF’s activity in a strategically vital hub.\n\nConversely, when captured, it afforded the BEF with similar oversight to the east with the [mine dumps of Lens](_URL_0_) pretty clear.\n\nObviously, in a war dominated by artillery, possessing such a feature is jolly useful as you can spot your shot and the enemy cannot. \n\nThat said, advancing much beyond the ridge was a bit of a problem. As you can see from the photo, there is little cover but flat ground running all the way to Lens. \n\nSo yes, it was strategically and tactically an important feature to hold but its seizure was not by itself going to win the war, nor would the failure to seize it mean the war would be lost.\n\nIts a battle best viewed as one of the BEF’s ‘Bite and Hold’ operations of 1917 (which would include battles such as the Menin Ridge Road and Polygon Wood) in which it was demonstrated that they could smash their way into any given German position, given adequate preparation, but that there was as yet no way to push on and turn the break-*in* into a break-*through*. \n\nRecommend reading White Heat by John Terraine and Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield as good solid descriptions of how the BEF’s operations evolved from the groping attacks of 1915, through the nadir of the first day of the Somme, through Bite and Hold of 1917, and eventually to the successful implementation of all-arms open warfare of 1918.\n\n\n",
"Another poster has answered your question, but a nice book for general survey reading is [A Military History of Canada](_URL_0_) from Desmond Morton. A big point he makes is that First World War Canadian troops were caught between being underestimated by the British military and overestimated by their own evaluation (they at times really bought into their own frontiersman mythology)- so battles like Vimy Ridge kind of served well for everyone. These sort of engagements also came at an important time for defining and also reassuring Canadian identity and sovereignty; after the war there were some meetings to discuss the Empire and eventually in 1931 you had the Statute of Westminster which was a further step in Canadian independence. \n\nGallipoli is another interesting situation, which is very important in the national identities of New Zealand and Australia; I'm sure there are some comparisons to be drawn there. ",
"The contemporary German sources considered the battle to be a draw at worst due to the lack of an allied breakthrough in that sector. When the Germans mounted their spring offensive in 1918 they ignored Vimy ridge, which suggests that it was of limited value.\n\nSource: 'Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment', specifically the section titled \"The German Army at Vimy Ridge\" by Andrew Godefroy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/106097450747729461739/gphoto/6067608434586191298?gl=gb"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.ca/Military-History-Canada-Desmond-Morton/dp/0771064810"
],
[]
] |
|
dh7tht
|
how is it that some of us can eat a diet of junk food and look like a picture of good health and others of us end up with bad skin, digestion issues, poor sleep and other complaints?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dh7tht/eli5_how_is_it_that_some_of_us_can_eat_a_diet_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3jmekh",
"f3js0sb",
"f3juj62",
"f4nk36l"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Nobody is healthy eating junk food, there was a story a month or two ago about a kid who went blind from eating nothing but crisps and chocolate.",
"There are more factors at play than just the junk food. Someone who eats mostly junk food, and neither exercises or grooms themselves properly might see someone in a fast food restaurant or the chips aisle at the supermarket and think that it's unfair that they look so much healthier, but their lifestyles can be vastly different in ways that they ignore when they reduce it to \"we both eat junk food\"",
"So many factors. Not all junk food is equal. Some are probably not that bad in acceptable portion sizes. Some are even maybe healthy, like nandos chicken quarter and salad for instance. All because someone is buying take out does not mean they are making a bad food choice. People's activity levels. Genetics are a huge part of it. What else do they eat and drink.",
"Everyone’s physiology is different. And these differences are largely rooted in a person’s genetic makeup. What you are describing as bad skin can be due to a genetic predisposition for acne. [In some people, the inner lining of the skin pores sheds cells more frequently, contributing to the formation of deeper blockages that are difficult to remove using topical over the counter products.](_URL_0_) Digestion, of course is related to how the body reacts to certain foods. And poor sleep is often due to deep seated emotional/ psychological issues which has more to do with our responses to life events as well as neurochemistry. \n\nHowever, the quality of any person’s life will be determined by how well they are able to cope with the challenges they face. Many skin problems can be overcome through modern advances in dermatology. We can also choose the right foods and learn to master relaxation techniques for better health and sleep."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://dru.com/acne-treatment-services-los-angeles/"
]
] |
|
3a1dol
|
How does Confucius of Ancient China compare to Socrates of Ancient Greece?
|
Are there any parallels between these two great philosophers from the East and West? Parallels in things such as their educational methods and philosophies, philosophical teaching, lasting effects on their cultures, etc.
I just find it very interested how the East and West have evolved so independently, yet both have great philosophers in their histories that changed their cultures in impactful ways.
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3a1dol/how_does_confucius_of_ancient_china_compare_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs8yxrj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Both of the philosophers you mentioned were somewhat secular in their philosophical theories. Confucius dealt with social structure and bringing stability to the Warring States Period of Chinese History by claiming that the stability of a nation and the Mandate of Heaven (the right to rule from ancestors) could be achieved by the stability of the 5 important relationships on an individual level:\n* Father-Son\n* Ruler-Subject\n* Elder Brother-Younger Brother\n* Husband-Wife\n* Friend-Friend\nIf one respects the natural order of these relationships and seeks to further develop them, they will have a fulfilling life. \nAs for Socrates, he dealt with the scope of knowledge. We have no written records from him, but his pupil, Plato was inspired by Socrates work and developed Platonism, which sought to practice the separation the platonic mind from the material/bodily world in order to eternally separate from the material world through death, known as enlightenment. Platonic ideas are things like justice and beauty, which can be attributed and eternal but not specifically identifiable, but are able to be discussed because humans have brains that can just reach platonic ideas, but not grasp them (theoretically at death, if practiced in life). This was the goal of Platonists. Hope this analysis helps!\n\nAs for their impacts, Confucianism was embraced by the Han Dynasty and focused on family values. Confucius is often seen as more political, whereas Socrates greatly influenced the academic world.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
292lrv
|
During WWII, why did the Allies choose to invade Normandy and free France first instead of directly invading Germany?
|
Sorry if it's a really obvious answer I am completely unaware of. I just thought that it would be more effective and timely if they directly invaded and destroyed Nazi Germany, since then France (and other Nazi-controlled areas) would also be freed.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/292lrv/during_wwii_why_did_the_allies_choose_to_invade/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cigwhfe",
"cigzclg"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the parts of Germany (ex. Bremerhaven) that are on the North Sea are much further from British ports than Normandy was. That creates a huge logistical problem and it meant the invasion forces was almost certainly going to be spotted at sea. It also would have been much more difficult to provide tactical air cover. ",
"Apart from the distance, there's another problem, to get to the German mainland you have to go through the Frisian sea (*Wattenmeer*), an area full of shifting mudflats, sandbars and strong currents. At low tide, much of it is dry(ish) land, dry enough that you can actually walk from the mainland to some of the Frisian islands (if you know what you're doing). Not a good place for a vast invasion fleet. Oddly enough i wasn't able to find a good map, but [this](_URL_0_) one should give you an idea. Bear in mind, the exact geography shifts with every big storm, so even getting good maps would have been hard. The gray areas are above water at low tide, much of what *is* water is less than 10m deep. HMS Warspite had a draught of over 9, so it wouldn't have been able to maneuver there much. \n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.raonline.ch/images/edu/edugal1/waddenmap04.gif"
]
] |
|
5yo7dk
|
Why was it acceptable for male masters to have sex with their slaves, but not for females in antebellum southern society?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5yo7dk/why_was_it_acceptable_for_male_masters_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dervz5g"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Some research makes the argument that it was perhaps not as unheard of as we assume. Martha Hodes wrote a great book in the mid 1990s called *White Women, Black Men.* She argues that interracial relationships between white women and black men were far more common than is typically believed. \n\nHer work focuses more on lower class women, but the man who was the subject of my master's thesis was the son of a wealthy white woman and a slave. He was born in 1789 in Georgia, and was raised by his mother until he was apprenticed to a plaster worker at 11. His mother had married at some point during Solomon's childhood, so a bastard child of mixed race was not necessarily enough to prevent a woman with sufficient financial means from making a respectable marriage later on. \n\nIf you're interested in the cultural machinations that prevented white Southern women from having families with slaves, I would recommend Bertram Wyatt Brown's *Honor and Violence in the Old South.* In chapter five he discusses the place of white women in the context of a Southern patriarchy. The cult of domesticity was pervasive throughout the United States, and Wyatt Brown argues that white Southern women were seen as indicators of their husbands' honor. Virtuous, dutiful women were as much a part of the carefully cultivated Southern ecosystem as their brash, martial, and honor-bound male counterparts. \n\nI hope this is helpful. I would expound more if I weren't on mobile. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have. This is exactly my cup of tea, and honestly an area that I believe more scholars will begin to research in the next few years. It's really fertile ground!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2xk02v
|
why does the cold side of the pillow feel so good?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xk02v/eli5_why_does_the_cold_side_of_the_pillow_feel_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp0sa70",
"cp0w6nn"
],
"score": [
416,
8
],
"text": [
"Your head has a lot of hot.\n\nBut it doesn't like to be so hot!\n\nSo your head gives the extra hot to the pillow. But the one side of pillow gets hot then too. It gets filled up with hot and then it can't take any more. So now your head is hot and the pillow is hot, and your head has nowhere to give it's extra hot and it's sad. \n\nThen you flip the pillow and your head is happy again, because it can share it's extra hot stuff with the cool side.",
"Behind my bed is a vent cover type thing and it isn't perfectly sealed but it lets in wisps of cold air at night. Cold side of the pillow is one thing but this is an entirely different plane of existence. Icey side of the pillow is incredible. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bektoh
|
Why is everyone so worried about a measles outbreak of they're already vaccinated?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bektoh/why_is_everyone_so_worried_about_a_measles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el6lrk1",
"el6mu8e"
],
"score": [
59,
8
],
"text": [
"A range of reasons. First, not everyone is vaccinated yet.\nIn particular, infants. Who, you know, people tend to care about keeping healthy. Or people with certain allergies or medical conditions who can't receive immunizations.\n\nSecond, vaccines don't magically give 100% immunity. Think of it like a training system that teaches your immune system to recognize and fight a disease. The odds are low, but it's possible that the virus still infects a person despite a nominally functional immunization.\n\nPlus, there are a range of conditions or other diseases, and even certain medical treatment for other diseases, which can impair immune function. If your immune system is temporarily or permanently impaired, it may not be able to prevent measles despite a vaccine.\n\nAlso, many vaccinations slowly lose effectiveness over time, this the need for booster shots in some cases.\n\nAt the end of the day, here's the key point. Herd immunity, the idea that enough people are vaccinated that an outbreak is unlikely to spread easily, only works if more than about 95% of a population is immunized. If it's 90%, or as in some heavily impacted communities more like 70%, the disease can bounce around and infect that 30% along with the small portion of the 70% who for various reasons are still susceptible.\n\nBasically, it should be seen as the communal duty of anyone who can get the vaccine to do so, in order to protect those who cannot. As well as themselves.",
"Measles also has a horrifying side effect that no one seems to be talking about. It's the only disease I know of that wipes your immune systems \"memory.\" it basically causes a hard reset on your IS. If you did have vaccinations, you'll need to get them again if you catch Measles.\n\nThe podcast Thus Podcast Will Kill You did an awesome episode on the Measles. They cover this aspect in there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2wh5pq
|
how does nutrition affect healing?
|
Muscles need nutrients to heal, do wounds need the same? Is there a way to cut off nutrients to things that we don't want developing, such as tumors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wh5pq/eli5_how_does_nutrition_affect_healing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coqshl8",
"coqsroc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cancerous cells promote angiogenesis (meaning the growth of blood vessels). This causes cancerous tumors to be kind of like a parasite in that they're able to use whatever nutrients you gain from your diet to proliferate. I do not believe there are any methods at this moment that completely cut off blood supply and subsequently nutrient supply to the tumor. \n\nAs for \"healing\" I'm assuming you're asking about fighting off infections? The nutrients that you ingest and have stored up are used in maintaining proper body function. A lot of the energy is used to maintain homeostasis and when you get sick you lose your appetite, so a lot of your glycogen and fat stores are converted to be used as an energy source for your body to maintain immune function, the growth and maturation of white blood cells.\n\nEdit: sorry I didn't see the wound healing haha. Basically when you get a wound, immune function is stimulated and vasodilation occurs to allow the white blood cells through your blood vessels. So in a sense, nutrition is important in healing since these processes require energy",
"in theory i suppose the cutting off nutrients is a possibility but tumors grow from healthy cells so in order to do that you have to cut off the nutrients to the healthy cells as well.\n\nin terms of wound healing whenever you get a injury your body sends things like [lymphocytes] (_URL_0_) which are a type of white blood cell (white blood cells fight off invaders to the body) to the affected area and those are the things that cause the wounds to close and generate. This pool of white blood cells is what causes wounds to swell and raise a bit, cause you got all these extra cells in the area. \n\nin terms of healing and nutrition. Having proper nutrition keeps your body fighting off invaders at an optimum level by avoiding decay of your body. Better nutrition and hydration mean your organs are more functional and allows you produce more white blood cells faster to heal and such"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphocyte"
]
] |
|
81a9v2
|
closed timelike curve
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81a9v2/eli5_closed_timelike_curve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv1xhdd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi a closed timelike curve is a path that an object can follow through spacetime such that it arrives back at the same spot, in both space and time. \n\nObjects travel through both space and time. There are limits on how far something can travel in space in a given amount of time. Therefore there is only a specific set of locations an object can move to in a specific amount of time. This set of possible locations in both space and time is called a light cone. \n\nGravity bends spacetime, and so it bends light cones. If you play with the math of general relativity, you can come up with a situation where a set of light cones are bent in such a way that they loop back on themselves. That is called a closed timelike curve. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8hhjta
|
Who would John Wilkes Booth and his family be compared to today, in terms of popularity and celebrity status?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8hhjta/who_would_john_wilkes_booth_and_his_family_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyjs9qf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sorry, but your submission has been removed because we [don't allow hypothetical questions](_URL_0_). If possible, please feel free to rephrase the question so that it does not call for such speculation, and resubmit. Otherwise, this sort of thing is better suited for /r/HistoryWhatIf. You can find a more in-depth discussion of this rule [here](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_is_this_the_right_place_for_your_question.3F",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mtauf/rules_roundtable_no_12_dont_play_the_whatif_game/"
]
] |
||
6rgws8
|
if the moon is 1000 miles across why will its shadow only cover 70 miles miles during the eclipse?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rgws8/eli5_if_the_moon_is_1000_miles_across_why_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl4xfrq",
"dl4xigj",
"dl5068v"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Because the Sun is Enormous.\n\nThe total eclipse is just the region where the whole huge Sun can be blocked by the tiny Moon.",
"Because in our sky, the sun is roughly the same diameter as the Moon. This means only a very small area sees the sun as directly behind the Moon, which is when you are in its total shadow, the Umbra. If the Sun is not directly behind the Moon where you are, then you can see it peeking around the edges, and are in the penumbra, a partial shadow, not as bright as day time, but not fully dark. And if the sun isn't behind the Moon at all, you aren't in its shadow.\n\nThis [image](_URL_0_) may help. ",
"Take a quarter and hold it up at arms length between your eye and the sun. Move it closer to your eye until the entire sun is blocked by the shadow of the coin. When you find that point, the shadow of the coin is covering your whole eye. \n\nDuring an eclipse, the moon does the same thing to a seventy mile wide swath on the earth. The moon (and the quarter) are so much smaller in diameter than the sun that rays from the outer edges of the sun come it at an angle. That reduces the diameter of the shadow of the moon on the earth and the shadow of the coin on your eye. If the moon was orbiting at 24,000 miles instead of 240,000 miles, its shadow would be much larger. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/SolarEclipse.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
2kr3rx
|
why do we have callus on our feet but not on our ass?
|
Calluses grow on areas where a lot of pressure is put on the skin, we spend a majority of our lives sitting down and applying pressure down there, how come we don't have thickened skin from all the pressure put on that area like we do on our feet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kr3rx/eli5_why_do_we_have_callus_on_our_feet_but_not_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clnxc3y"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Mainly due to the amount of pressure being applied versus amount of friction. When you sit you rarely move around much. Compared to hands and feet that meet constant pressure and resistance when used.\n\n*Edit, also the ass is quite big...(in the case of your mother..or my mother) and thus displaces most of the callus creating forces. Hands and feet are much more focused on areas of impact."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3jbdur
|
sometimes whenever a game updates a mechanic is broken or some major bug might happen. why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jbdur/eli5_sometimes_whenever_a_game_updates_a_mechanic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cunupih",
"cunurt2"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"There is 1 bug approximately in every 1000 commands in the source code. They must test the software properly to find the bugs. If they modifying it, but not testing it properly, then the bugs won't will be discovered and fixed.",
"Everything in games work off each other, and changing one thing can change how different things work off of eachother.\n\nSay a sword breaks when it contacts with an object with 5 hardness. It is purely based off collision, or in other words, if the sword animation touches another object. If the hardness is beneath 5, the sword will pass through. The game runs as it should.\n\nThen they update the game. The developers decide that in the Dungeon and Darkness, when a bunch of debris fall from above, it would be cool if they shattered upon impact. Rather than program each individual piece of debris to break, they just increase the hardness of the ground beneath it to 5 so the game engine does the rest.\n\nThey don't think about how the same ground they just programmed, is also in the main city of the game. While this normally wouldn't be an issue, the Broadsword of Awesome is *super* big, and sometimes drags on the ground during the walking animation. The sword now breaks in that area as a 'bug' from the update."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
557c0l
|
what is this central bank bubble that is being talked about a lot, and how it compares with previous market bubbles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/557c0l/eli5_what_is_this_central_bank_bubble_that_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d889qpu",
"d88fz0t"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"An economic bubble occurs when something is being traded at much higher price than it's real value. Best explained by an example:\n\nIn early 1620s Netherlands tulips became very popular very quickly, and were in high demand. They soon became a symbol of luxury and status, their price kept rising, people started \"investing\" in tulips, hoping to turn a profit by selling them later. Some people sold their homes to buy tulips for speculation. There is a record from 1635 of 40 tulip bulbs being sold for 100,000 florins (roughly equates to $1.5million today). So you can clearly see tulips were very very overpriced, but people kept buying them because they believed they could make money by selling them later and didn't expect prices to fall... until it all crashed in 1637, tulip prices plummeted and lots of people lost everything, while some who sold their \"stocks\" of tulips just before the crash became very rich.\n\nIn today's world some people believe that Central Banks have made money so easily available through low interest rates and Quantitative Easing that most of this money was invested in all sorts of assets from housing to stocks to oil and precious metals, and caused the prices for these items to become overinflated (creating a bubble). Also, investors who look at the figures will just see prices of these items rising and start investing more to speculate (just like with tulips).\n\nPeople on the other side of the argument say that there is no bubble and the prices are accurate, this is what housing, stocks, etc are actually worth.",
"An economic bubble refers to having something (houses, stocks, anything really) where the demand is higher than it should be because people are buying it with the sole intention of selling it again (called speculation). They don't care how useful the things are that they're buying, they just want to have some, so when the next guy decides to do the same thing, they can sell their stuff to him and make some money because the price is elevated. Bubbles are notoriously difficult to predict because it's hard to tell how much demand there 'should' be for a given thing.\n\nThere's a belief that there's a bubble right now on currency. What exactly this means is kind of complicated and gets into how central banks work, but the gist is that it's really cheap to use money right now. As a result, there's more money in the economy, people are doing more borrowing and that's making the economy seem like it's improving. If interest rates rose, things would get difficult again because there'd be less money around.\n\nSo right now, there's more demand on borrowing than there probably should be. This differs from a usual bubble because the interest rates are sort of determined by central banks. They would really prefer to increase the interest rates back up to a 'normal' level but there's a fear that doing so will trigger another collapse. In a normal bubble, this wouldn't matter. It would pop of it's own accord. For this bubble, there's a quasi-government institution that can continue to maintain the bubble. And that's why we can say with some certainty that there is a bubble, because the central banks are propping one up, and have been since 2008."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4kpazf
|
the potential bayer-monsanto merger
|
I recently read via a BBC article (_URL_0_) that Bayer was interested in purchasing Monsanto for $62 Billion. What are the potential consequences if this deal goes through? Also, why does Bayer even want to buy Monsanto, especially for such a large amount of money?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kpazf/eli5the_potential_bayermonsanto_merger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3gorb3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Bayer and Monsanto are two of the world's five largest seed companies (most farmers don't save seeds from year to year, they buy seeds that are developed to maximize yield or minimize cost). Bayer appears to be concerned that the other seed companies have been increasing their own linkages (Dow and DuPont wish to merge while Monsanto tried to by Syngenta recently) and doesn't wish to be the smallest firm if the other 4 were to combine and form two companies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36356022"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
6s2r41
|
Does the refractive index of a medium change as pressure and/or density changes?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6s2r41/does_the_refractive_index_of_a_medium_change_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl9p7ap"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It depends whether you are comparing a density change in the same medium or a density difference between two different media. \n\nWhen comparing different media, higher density will usually also have a higher refractive index, but that is not always necessarily true. For example, olive oil has a higher index of refraction of water (but is less dense). \n\nAs far as I know, pressure isn't usually too important unless you are driving a shock wave (density change) or a phase transition, but compressing a medium can cause it to develop stress induced birefringence, which is why you see patterns like [this](_URL_2_) on architectural glass when wearing polarized sunglasses. \n\nIf you are considering pressure or density fluctuations within a medium, then they can change the refractive index in a way that is predictable and exploitable. An example of this is [Brillouin scattering](_URL_0_) where light scatters inelasticity off of sound waves in a medium. Interferometry and shadowgraphy are techniques that register a change of index of refraction in a medium, and are used extensively in the study of shock waves, fluid flows, and plasma dynamics. See Fig. 3 in [this paper](_URL_1_) for an example. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brillouin_scattering",
"http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n1/full/nphys2130.html?foxtrotcallback=true",
"https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3735/9500104368_ea10f921bc_m.jpg"
]
] |
||
39m78w
|
why do almost all dogs show relatively the same amount of intelligence and behavior when the size of their brains' differs greatly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39m78w/eli5why_do_almost_all_dogs_show_relatively_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs4i9qq",
"cs4ifj7",
"cs4jeyj",
"cs4kq5d"
],
"score": [
3,
16,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Size of the brain has little to do with the degree of intelligence in this case. Biggest isn't always better.. Look at crows for instance, highly intelligent birds with tiny brains.",
"Brain size and intelligence are not a one-to-one correlation. Whales have bigger brains than humans, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks they're more intelligent than humans. Brain size isn't the main factor in intelligence, the complexity of the neural structure is.",
"All dogs showing relatively similar amounts of intelligence has not been my experience. Some breeds overall display more intelligence than others. Labrador Retrievers have been a favorite for service training because of their low failure rate compared to other breeds. \nEnvironment can also be a barrier to intelligence, or a chance to shine. A dog kept in a kennel and rarely interacted with will show poor social skills and may not impress anyone with intelligence, where a similar dog placed in a social environment with challenges and opportunities will seem well-rounded. \nAnother issue is to recognize characteristics of the breed- some breeds excel at certain tasks. A Labrador Retriever would need to work very hard to understand herding livestock, where a Blue Heeler would pick-up the basics very quickly.",
"You're talking about something called the [encephalization quotient](_URL_0_) - in very basic terms, the bigger the animal, the bigger the brain. There is *some* correlation between IQ and *relative* brain size - that is, if your brain is bigger than expected for your size, you're likely to be a relatively intelligent species. The link above provides a much better explanation. Note that humans are *massive* outliers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient"
]
] |
||
1x6z9h
|
on older tvs/networks, why do blank channels have black and white rapidly moving images and make loud painful sounds [static]? is the occurence a factor of the older tv, or the way networks used to work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x6z9h/eli5_on_older_tvsnetworks_why_do_blank_channels/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf8n3pq",
"cf8njyd"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's due to analog signal noise.\n\nWhat essentially happens is that because there is not any dominant signal on that frequency, you end up seeing the electromagnetic interference from other sources. These may include: Radio, Other TV channels, Other broadcasting antenna, Random interference from outer space, etc.\n\nThe white dots are literally your TV showing the actual interference!",
"The way TVs used to work (and mostly still do). \n\nSince there is no signal at all on those channels the TV antena picks up random noise from the air and amplifies it so you get random noise (though this helps with weak channels where the amplification would let you see the channel even if drowned by noise).\n\nA TV signal has a recognizable pattern so if such a pattern is not present (or too weak to be recognized) the set just shows no image to avoid showing the random noise, though it also prevents you from watching weak/far channels. [Analog TV signals only].\n\nOn a digital signal, it's an all or nothing affair, as what the TV receives can't be directly translated into an image, so the TV just can't construct an image out of random noise. \n\nSo, where does this random noise come from? Lots of places. Nearby machinery can produce some of it, heat sources, some even comes from outer space.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7787hg
|
i created a new facebook account with a completely fake name, and temporary email address. that is all the info i gave. how does facebook suggest people i actually know as 'friends'?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7787hg/eli5_i_created_a_new_facebook_account_with_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dojr0ck",
"dojrfr8"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Reads your contacts, emails, text messages, emails, people in close proximity to you, fb groups you are in, freinds of friends",
"You gave a lot more than just a fake name and fake email, I'm afraid. For starters your IP address and possibly also your location would have been collected. \n\nThere's also your browser fingerprint, cookies, advertising ID etc. I don't know for sure though \n\nPlus if you used the Facebook app to sign up, your contacts are among the permissions granted when you use the app; along with a bunch of other stuff.."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ugrzq
|
How do people with brain tumors of large sizes function normally?
|
I see post of people showing their family members after having "lemon/baseball sized tumors" removed. Wouldn't such a large tumor cause massive brain damage?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ugrzq/how_do_people_with_brain_tumors_of_large_sizes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4vam2p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is because the architecture of the brain is highly modular on the one hand, with different regions responsible for different functions, and on the other hand somewhat redundant, so that some regions can take over the function of others. Therefore, it depends very much on the precise location of a brain tumour if it causes symptoms early on, or only once it has grown to baseball size. To illustrate the redundancy, there are people who are basically normal despite having had removed an entire brain hemisphere, i.e. half of their brain ([wikipedia](_URL_1_)).\n\nAlso, brain tumours tend to be \"benign\", which doesn't necessarily mean harmless, but is a technical term meaning that the tumour is well defined like a ball and does not grow messily into the surrounding tissue. Therefore, even if a tumour causes symptoms by compressing surrounding tissue, there is a chance that after removal of the tumour, the surrounding tissue is not permanently damaged and can re-expand to it's normal position and continue to function.\n\nHowever, brain tumours can most definitely have a huge impact on brain function. They can cause epilepsy or impact very specific mental functions (such as speech), depending on their location. Stark examples are provided by some serial killers such as Charles Whitman, who suddenly turned to monsters without apparent reason and were later found to have brain tumours in locations required for the regulation of emotions (see [here](_URL_2_), and [here](_URL_0_) for Whitman's own description of his mental changes)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#Prelude_to_the_tower_shootings",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#Autopsy_and_burial"
]
] |
|
yr8ar
|
Is there a nice summary of the American Revolutionary War?
|
Hello,
The American Revolutionary War doesn't get covered in German schools which means that I have almost no knowledge about that but I'd like to have at least an overview about what happened why and what was the cause and the result of the war (well the general result is kind of obvious). I'm not sure if wikipedia is the right place for a summary.
Thanks.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yr8ar/is_there_a_nice_summary_of_the_american/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5y5bfp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[Short video on it by John Green](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlUiSBXQHCw"
]
] |
|
26w8d0
|
I'm not positive this belongs here, but I have a question regarding the practice of jury nullification in the United States legal system:
|
Hey everybody, this is my first question but I love lurking on this sub! Anyway, I'm not 100% positive that this belongs here or anyone will be able to answer, but here goes anyway, and I'm sorry in advance if this is not considered within the scope of this sub. I was reading through the [wikipedia page on jury nullification](_URL_0_) and I came across this statement:
> In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.
I am wondering specifically if anyone knows why the Supreme Court's decision in the Sparf case has led to judges punishing defendants/lawyers who try to inform juries of their right to nullify? Does anyone have any specific insight into why this is the way things are done or why the case was interpreted in this way? Also, the following paragraph states:
> In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.
What is the reasoning behind this? Why would officers of the court be considered ethically prohibited from informing jurors of their legal right to nullify a trial or law that they consider wrong/unfair/etc?
I'm looking forward to your responses, thanks in advance.
Note: I also posted this in /r/asklaw, but this seems to be a slightly more active sub. Any legal historians out there by any chance?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26w8d0/im_not_positive_this_belongs_here_but_i_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chv7h3g",
"chv9qbs",
"chvbcl4"
],
"score": [
11,
9,
12
],
"text": [
" > I am wondering specifically if anyone knows why the Supreme Court's decision in the Sparf case has led to judges punishing defendants/lawyers who try to inform juries of their right to nullify? Does anyone have any specific insight into why this is the way things are done or why the case was interpreted in this way?\n\nFirst of all, some background. Jury nullification, as briefly noted in the Wikipedia article, was used to acquit members of the KKK and similar ilk who clearly violated laws. As such, the historical background already provides us with an explanation of why jury nullification was so frowned upon, especially in the late 1800s. Now, to get a little more detail in this:\n\n > In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws.\n\nThis statement is...ambiguous at best. The judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws, and [the opinion in Sparf v. U.S.](_URL_0_) explains this after numerous examples of how the jury *cannot* interfere with the *law*, only understand and pass judgment on the *evidence and facts of the case*. As the opinion says on page 101 (read pre-page 100 for examples):\n\n > Any other rule than that indicated in the above observations would bring confusion and uncertainty in the administration of the criminal law. Indeed, if a jury may rightfully disregard the direction of the court in matter of law, and determine for themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, it is difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict of conviction can be set aside by the court as being against law.\n\nThe point, then, is that the *judge* is the one who clarifies the law. The defendants and lawyers, in informing the jury, place the question of law in the hands of the jury, not the judge. The *judge* must provide the instructions, *not* the jury, and if a jury hears that they can \"nullify law\" simply because the lawyer has informed them of said right, the jurors are getting involved in the realm of law they shouldn't have any involvement in.\n\nThat's why the next paragraph explains that the circuit courts don't believe there is any room for jury nullification to be a right. The Wikipedia article says that it's wrong to \"inform jurors of their right to nullify\", but it doesn't mention that the right itself was questioned heavily in Sparf, and denied. Essentially there is no \"legal right to nullify\" according to Sparf, because that would encroach on the judge's right to explain the law, so unless he explains that they have said right, it would not be allowed. That would be frowned on heavily, again, because of the situations that lead up to that point, which include economic considerations (necessitating predictability of the law in cases, which jury nullification works against) and because of the spotted history of its use (both for and against racist principles, dating back to the fugitive slave act if memory serves).",
"As an experienced attorney, I don't know if I qualify as a law \"historian,\" or if my knowledge based on experience will get deleted as inappropriate. However, I am familiar with how the legal profession generally views jury nullification, both from law school, legal discussions and actual trial experience. Lawyers don't write much bio or history because of the attorney-client privilege, which belongs to the clients.\n\nNo one wants to promote a practice that can come back to bite them. If you believe the law is in your client's favor, then certainly you want the jury to feel obliged to follow it. Hence, in some other case where the law is against your client, even though your client might benefit from nullification, it's like turning loose a fractally spawning mutant. Once it gets going, it could nullify everything it touches.\n\nFor the most part, it comes up in criminal cases where disfavored laws like marijuana bans are enforced. Or when someone commits violence in revenge, like beats up or kills the person who molested their child. There are cases where everyone knows the jury didn't find innocence - they just nullified. But the people who actually get the benefits from this are almost universally wealthy or at least upper middle class, because no one else can afford to make bail, or hire their own lawyer, and the public defender system is heavily pressured to just guilty-plead everyone on through like chickens on a slaughter line.",
" > Why would officers of the court be considered ethically prohibited from informing jurors of their legal right to nullify a trial or law that they consider wrong/unfair/etc?\n\nJurors have the *power* to nullify, but not the *right* to do so, because it means that the jury is willfully ignoring its oath to apply the law. The power of nullification exists because of two reasons:\n\n1. The government can't punish a jury for deciding a case a particular way, and \n2. The government can't retry a defendant twice for the same offense under the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause.\n\nSo, what this means is that the jury has the power to ignore the law, and get away with it, but it's a bug of the American legal system, not a feature.\n\nFYI, /r/law has had innumerable threads on this."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification"
] |
[
[
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7239960765972592290&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
92etxs
|
corporate mergers
|
For instance, in regards to the recent news on Disney buying fox, what specifically is being paid for? Who gets the money and who approves a buy out? Did fox say "we don't want it, it's for sale" or did Disney just say "here's a ton of cash, we now own more of your company than you do, it's ours."? Generally, the whole process is unknown to me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92etxs/eli5_corporate_mergers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e356z8y"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The process of merger or acquisition can vary greatly depending on the nature and structure of the two business.\n\nBut in a common situation, the merger will take place when one company buys all are most another company's stock. Often this is done by saying something like \"Hello Company A, I'll give you X number of shares of my Company B for every share of your Company A.\" The deal will be voted on by the Board of Directors of Company A, who theoretically are voted on the Board to represent the stockholders' interests.\n\nSo the value of that exchange is determined by the relative stock prices and the amount agreed to trade. So if Company A is trading at $10 a share, Company B might offer $13 per share, and pay it in stock of Company B. So if Company B is trading at $26 per share, then every one stock of A is traded for 0.5 shares of Company B. (Yes, you can own fractional shares.) \n\nSo the \"payment\" is in stock, and it comes directly from the stockholders of company B since they are issuing new shares, and thus devaluing the existing shares (although the value of the new combined company may or may not make up that difference). Former owners of stock of A will be given the option to instantly cash in their new stock for the value of the exchange in case they don't want to own the stock. (There are also some tax advantages to cashing immediately if you think you want to cash out anyway.)\n\nAgain, though, this is a general example, and a lot can differ depending on whether a company is buying all the stocks, whether they are keeping the target as a separate entity, whether the target is privately owned, etc. Also it's common some form of cash rather than only trading stock can be used by B in the purchase of A."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
61z8do
|
Why do rockets turn when leaving the atmosphere?
|
In basically every video of a rocket leaving the atmosphere, it banks at an angle and then exits. Why is this?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/61z8do/why_do_rockets_turn_when_leaving_the_atmosphere/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfieoto",
"dfierzg",
"dfigpt7",
"dfit6an",
"dfiu9qk"
],
"score": [
11,
13,
3,
7,
15
],
"text": [
"It's called a [gravity turn](_URL_0_) to allow acceleration due to gravity to assist the flight path.",
"It's going into orbit. \n\nObjects can't just \"float\" in space, the Earth's gravity would pull them in. Much like the planets around the sun, our satellites need to rotate around the center of mass at a speed fast enough that gravity doesn't pull them back down again \n\nHalf the trouble with getting to space is achieving escape velocity, which is when you overcome gravity. \n\nThe other half is achieving orbital velocity, which is when you curve into the final shape of your orbit. \n\nThe Orbital Velocity problem is why you don't see weather balloons and high school model rockets floating around up there ",
"Several things are happening, both accurately described above. \nIf we are launching a rocket to say, the Moon, sure we COULD just use a whole lot of fuel and try to fly there directly. Or we could use the Earth as a sling shot and use a lot less fuel (more room for a payload too). By angling the rocket you are setting a ballistic trajectory where the apoapsis (highest point) and periapsis (lowest point) are no longer a ballistic arc, but an oval. So now the rocket is constantly, to quote Hitch Hikers Guide, 'throwing itself at the ground and missing'. So the rocket is falling. As we know, when you fall you gain speed. So falling from the apoapsis where the rocket has effectively 0 forward momentum (toss a ball in the air, where it reaches its highest point, it no longer has forward momentum and falls back down) to the periapsis gains quite a bit of 'free' momentum using nothing more than earths gravity. \nNow at our lowest point we have a LOT of momentum, enough so to 'fall back up' to the apoapsis. So we sling around Earth. \nWe hit the periapsis, fire the rocket and using that extra momentum, move the apoapsis to encounter the moon's gravity. \nThis is called a Hohmann Transfer. Now, we just fall back up to the apoapsis using the 'free' momentum gained in the elliptical orbit (near-round orbits like satellites do not experience this as drastically since their high and low points are not very different in terms of ground-distance) and it slings up to the moon! Where we then slow down and use the moons gravity to bring the periapsis up to us to form an orbit. \n\n-=EDIT=-\nSome info on how Apollo got to the moon using the Hohmann Transfer. \n_URL_0_",
"Pro tip, play kerbal space program you'll learn quickly why. \n\nAn object in orbit (which is the case of almost every object launched by human) is in fact falling to the earth but has enough speed to miss the earth while falling and keep falling. So what matter is not the altitude but the horizontal speed. \n\nThe fact that the ship is free-falling is the reason why astronaut don't feel the gravity. In fact they feel it but the ship feels it too and thus they are free floating in the spaceship. The same happens when you take the Zero-G plane (For around € 6000 you can fly it as a tourist : _URL_0_ ) ",
"To get into orbit, you need to do two things: Go fast upwards, and go *REALLY REALLY fast* sideways. If you fire your rocket straight up, you'll be directly fighting gravity the entire time, and while you're firing sideways you won't be pushing yourself upwards at all. By performing a gravity turn you can fire your engines such that you are gaining both lateral and vertical velocity simultaneously plus you aren't firing directly opposite the force of gravity, which makes it easier to gain speed. There is a balance to be made here, because if you perform the turn too early then you end up spending too much time in the lower, dense atmosphere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn"
],
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/26572-how-it-worked-the-apollo-spacecraft-infographic.html"
],
[
"http://www.airzerog.com/en"
],
[]
] |
|
osui7
|
How does a radio coherer work?
|
A [coherer](_URL_0_) was one of the earliest devices that could detect radio signals. It was essentially a glass tube filled with metal filings, and an output wire on each end. Initially it would be in a nonconductive state until an rf signal smacked the filings into a more conductive state. This would only work once, however. So before receiving another pulse it would have to be hit with something to shake up all the filings again.
It doesn't seem like this device should react to rf, but it does. Why?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/osui7/how_does_a_radio_coherer_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3juyo9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The effect isn't strictly limited to RF, but easier to reproduce with an alternating current signal. This same principle was used in early lightning protection. Carbon granules would not conduct electricity, but a strike would cohere and conduct the energy to ground. These were used in telegraph lines.\n\nThe cause of this transformation in conductance is a mix between electrostatic forces, piercing of surface oxidation, and localized thermal effects at the contact points. Depending on the substance used, it could be a combination of them.\n\nIt is most likely more affected by rapid alternations of signal present in RF, as the signal will have literally thousands of times per second to attempt to break a path through the particles, than a DC signal of similar amperage. \n\nA similar reason in the opposite sense is why a switch will be rated at a higher AC current, than a DC current. The reversing of the current will kill an arc being struck as the switch contacts are separated. A DC current of the same amperage may continue to arc.\n\nThis page of [making your own might be of interest] (_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Coherer"
] |
[
[
"http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/coherer-el.htm"
]
] |
|
6sbmfy
|
how does china enforce its internet restrictions and how do they deal with people that try to circumvent those?
|
Even though some websites are technically blocked, there appears to be no real legal consequences for people who access sites like Facebook or Youtube.
I heard people from mainland China openly mention how they use VPN or a proxy to access Youtube and they don't get fined by authorities or arrested. Some Chinese are even employed by Facebook or Google and face any legal issues afterwards. If the Chinese government is more serious about the ban of certain sites they would crackdown on people who are members of Facebook or other sites
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sbmfy/eli5_how_does_china_enforce_its_internet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlbjalb",
"dlbjq96"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"China doesn't really care people being able to access certain websites at all, they care about people being able to access those things *easily*. Its a matter of being able to control media on least common denominator level, sure people can get around it, generally decently educated at least middle class people. But kids and poorer people aren't as likely to circumvent it. China has a billion people, they don't care about a few here or there bypassing state media, they care about the overall picture. ",
"Lived in China for 4 years - at this point it's almost more of a symbolic thing. They don't *really* care if you use a VPN, the point is just that it's easier for you to use the Chinese alternatives (assuming you're Chinese).\n\nThe rest of the reason for the block is mostly economic.\n\nBy making Youtube/Google/FB/etc hard to use in China, they automatically promote their Chinese competitors. For most people, it's not worth it to use, say, Facebook if they have to download and run a VPN to do so. And if most people don't want to / know how to do that, then there's no point for the people who are fine with getting around the block to do so, since none of their friends use Facebook or whatever anyways. So you end up having either tiny niche groups of people bypassing blocks, or foreigners (who the government obviously doesn't bother too much).\n\nAt this point there are many alternatives to all the popular western blocked sites, things like Baidu or Weibo or even WeChat probably would not have been so successful if China hadn't stifled growth of sites like Google and Facebook from early on.\n\nAnd as a small note answering your question, they basically just block things the same way that like a school would block sites for school computers except on a larger scale (starting higher up on the chain of internet service)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1mvwf1
|
Would Aristotle be famous without Alexander the Great?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mvwf1/would_aristotle_be_famous_without_alexander_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccdd034"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Absolutely. By the time Aristotle went to Macedon his reputation was already very much cemented as the leader of the Academy school of philosophy. His move to Macedon was at the end of his career and he had already visited several important cities to teach. His philosophical school had already spread well throughout the Greek world and he was considered already within a few years of leaving the Academy and Plato's death the most important philosopher in the contemporaneous Greek world. Aristotle's works were not written in Macedon, but well before, and he was fairly idle in Macedon as a matter of fact."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3llal8
|
why is there a black dot in the center of the sun when trying to take a photo of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3llal8/eli5_why_is_there_a_black_dot_in_the_center_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv76lhx"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Basically what's happening is that when you point the camera directly into the sun, the sheer huge intensity of the light directly on the sun is overwhelming the little chip inside the camera that's responsible for taking the picture. What the camera does is pretty much turn off those parts of the sensor that are receiving the overwhelming light in order to not be damaged. The result of this is what you see - a black dot.\n\nIf it didn't do this, pointing the camera at the sun would cause a permanant mark on the sensor that would come up on every photograph from then on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7uwmwj
|
Shouldn’t an aircraft body act like a faraday cage? How am I able to get a cellular signal inside an aircraft?
|
Is the signal coming in through the windows? Surely those are too small and sparsely distributed across the body?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7uwmwj/shouldnt_an_aircraft_body_act_like_a_faraday_cage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtnycdk"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Those windows are more than big enough. An effective Faraday cage needs holes that are smaller than one half the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation you want to block. The typical cellular transmission has a wavelength of roughly 30cm, so airplane windows would have to be smaller than 15cm to be effective — and very rarely are they.\n\nYour phone also does not need electromagnetic line of sight to an antenna to maintain a connection. The same properties that cause the aluminum skin of the aircraft to block RF signals also cause it to reflect RF signals. So the interior of the plane is awash in bouncing radio waves from both the inside and outside."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7p2rcs
|
how do doxxers find out personal info through platforms such as psn and xboxlive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7p2rcs/eli5how_do_doxxers_find_out_personal_info_through/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dse1oar"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"People are dumb and use the same screen names/email addresses for everything.\n\nGoogle PSN name, find PSN account, see email, Google email, find other accounts, repeat as necessary till you find their Facebook page."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
48zigm
|
how survivable is nuclear explosion if you are in a tank?
|
I know that the nuke can level a city, but buildings aren't that durable. How far your have to be from the explosion to survive if you are in some real armor? (I know that the bombs are much more destructive now, I mean relative to being in a house)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48zigm/eli5_how_survivable_is_nuclear_explosion_if_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0nv37a",
"d0nvrib",
"d0nwpzu",
"d0nwrqw"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as the blast goes, I guess it would be possible to survive the blow, but the radiation that would kill you.",
"It would depend on a lot of things; the strength of the armor, the distance from ground zero, the strength of the nuke, and so on. But almost any tank or bunker right under the explosion won't be survivable, even for smaller nukes. As you get farther the survivability goes up. The tank would also have to be shielded from radiation. Even if it's a super strong tank, it could also be covered in debris and impossible to escape. So basically, if you're planning on surviving a nuclear attack, the best strategy is to be nowhere near it.",
"Tanks are astonishingly tough compared to any kind of normal building. In 1953 a British Centurion tank was placed 500m from a 10 kiloton blast and was still driveable afterwards. It was determined that the crew would have almost certainly died in the blast, but this was a tank developed in the 1940s.\n\nFor obvious reasons there isn't a lot of data published about how well modern tanks would do against nuclear weapons, but you'd certainly be safer in a tank than just about anywhere else that wasn't a specifically nuclear hardened shelter. \n\nOf course the tank's optics and antennas are almost certainly going to be destroyed even after a blast where the crew survived. Also, while the guys in the tank might live the guys following them in the soft skinned trucks filled with fuel and ammo are in for a rough time. These two factors (among others) would mean that your ability to *fight* would probably be pretty compromised even if you survived. \n\nThey actually developed a special kind of nuclear bomb (sometimes called a neutron bomb) for use against armor concentrations. Since tanks are quite tough against blast damage but only so-so against radiation the idea was to produce a weapon that was optimized to produce a ton of prompt radiation so that the crew would rapidly die of radiation poisoning even if they survived the blast effects. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nBasically if you are in the red circle you will die.\nIf you are in the green circle you will probably die.\nif you are outside the green circle you might live."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/classic/"
]
] |
|
3ps0wf
|
what is the use of horizontally split doors (if they are real)?
|
In Tom and Jerry episode "Baby Butch", Butch escapes with his cart that is filled with food, but Jerry tricks him by closing the lower half of the door.
This is a example. I've seen this type of doors in many cartoons. Are they real? and they are used for?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ps0wf/eli5_what_is_the_use_of_horizontally_split_doors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw8v4id",
"cw8v4od",
"cw8v5r8",
"cw8vmjr",
"cw8yatg",
"cw8yn8q"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the UK they're called Stable Doors, and they're really handy if you have dogs or children - you can have the door open, talk to visitors etc without letting the livestock out.",
"Before baby gates and air conditioning, this was a way to keep the toddler (or sheep) from getting away while still allowing air flow.",
"They're real. Often referred to as [\"Stable Doors\" or \"Dutch Doors\"](_URL_0_) \n\nWe have one at work for the coat check closet. That way the employee can stand inside with the bottom half closed to accept coats for guests.\n\nThe accounting office also has one. ",
"Dutch doors ! I have one in my apartment. I think years ago you could operate a little shop out of one.",
"We had one on a door to a storage room at my school. Every morning they would open the top a and sell school supplies out of it.",
"We have one at work. There is a specific office area which is restricted to the few people who work in that unit. It's a way to keep the door open (top) and still keep people from walking in (bottom).\nWe call it the \"horse\" door.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_door"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5v6rvh
|
If the Higgs mechanism explains how things have the property of mass, are similar mechanism needed to explain properties like electric charge?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5v6rvh/if_the_higgs_mechanism_explains_how_things_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddzqakj"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Just to clarify - the Higgs mechanism gives elementary particles mass but has little to do with the mass of everyday objects, which mainly comes from the energy of the bound states of QCD (~strong nuclear force).\n\nAnother thing to note is that the Higgs mechanism doesn't allow you to predict the masses of the fundamental particles, just the input parameter is the coupling constant between those particles and the Higgs field rather than a bare mass.\n\nHaving noted those two things I can now get onto the actual question. There is no known mechanism which generates other properties of the fundamental particles but they don't need one. The reason the Higgs mechanism is important is that without it, or some alternative, the theory of the weak force would become inconsistent above a certain energy scale, the Higgs mechanism fixes this inconsistency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1kx0vw
|
lotr dwarves. where do they come from? why didn't the help out more during the events of the trilogy, what happens to them afterwards?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kx0vw/eli5_lotr_dwarves_where_do_they_come_from_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbtmh0t",
"cbtmw3l",
"cbtn2fz"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
21
],
"text": [
"Afterwards they dwindle in number, but [may persist well into the age of man](_URL_0_), as they are a tough and stubborn race",
"Because there aren't a lot of dwarves left. It is explained better in The Hobbit, but most dwarf outposts were destroyed, overrun or worse (Moria for example) over the years. \n\nAnd they fled and spread all over Middle Earth. Some lived in small groups in towns, making a living with blacksmithing, others became mercenaries, etc.\n\nThey don't have a big role anymore because there aren't just much left. The big war between Elves and Dwarves didn't help, and the war against goblins that takes place around the time of the trilogy wasn't optimal either. ",
"**Warning**: major \"the Hobbit\" spoilers down below.\n\n > Where do they come from?\n\nThe first Dwarves were constructed by the smith god Aule. He wanted to make a new race of intelligent beings that would have the same technical inclinations as him, but he found he could only make automatons bound to his will, with no independent life. In the end Eru, the God (capital G) of Tolkien's universe, discovered Aule's work and, while initially enraged, decided to give true life and sentience to the Dwarves. These first few Dwarves were scattered around Middle Earth and each became the ancestor of one of the main Dwarf lineages. \n\n > Why didn't they help out more during the events of the trilogy?\n\nThere are two main reasons:\n\n- Compared to their former glory, Dwarves as a race had considerably dwindled both in numbers and in power.\n\n- Most Dwarves did not live close to the regions of Middle Earth that were involved in the War of the Ring. Dwarves have always been isolationist and only the Dwarves that were directly affected by Sauron's threat (the ones of the Lonely Mountain) intervened.\n\n > What happened to them afterwards?\n\nAfter Sauron's defeat there was a brief period of general prosperity and growth. Gimli, with King Eomer's permission, took a group of Dwarves to colonize the Glittering Caves under Helm's Deep; centuries later, Durin VII led an expedition to once again re-settle Moria, this time successfully.\n\nHowever, the general trend of decline continued. Their population dwindled because women were only a third of their population and male dwarves had little desire to take wives or had difficulty finding one to their taste. \n\nWe don't know the ultimate fate of the Dwarves, but we know that they have a place in Eru's (God's) plan for the world and that they will participate in the Dagor Dagorath, the final battle between good and evil at the end of time. According to Dwarven legends, when the apocalyptic battle is finished they will help their creator Aule rebuild the world in its final, perfect form."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dwarves#Fourth_Age"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
4h8pgj
|
are facial expressions genetic or do we learn them?
|
Do we pick them up from adults while we're young?
Or are the muscles in our face 'programmed' to make certain expressions when we're happy, upset, angry, etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h8pgj/eli5_are_facial_expressions_genetic_or_do_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2obmqp",
"d2oiie2"
],
"score": [
30,
16
],
"text": [
"It's a little bit of both.\n\nThere are certain things we all instinctual just know of - Things like smiling when we're happy. Like grimacing when in pain.\n\nEven people who are blind and have never seen another face smile, frown, grimace.\n\nBut there are definitely things we adapt to those around us as well.\n",
"Charles Darwin originally proposed that there were universal facial expressions that everyone could understand. Through research, psychologists have found that 6 expressions can be recognized by cultures all around the world, even those completely isolated from other people. The 6 are joy, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear. So, there are certainly expressions that everyone can recognize, but there could be a genetic component to other facial expressions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
yn0ub
|
Why is Arachnophobia so common?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yn0ub/why_is_arachnophobia_so_common/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5x1oxh",
"c5x29ej",
"c5x4vmd"
],
"score": [
26,
16,
8
],
"text": [
"Wait, *is* arachnophobia common? I know that most people don't like spiders or are startled by them, but actual diagnosed cases of arachnophobia are common?",
"I seem to recall reading that many people are naturally uncomfortable around spiders because we are unable to follow their motion with our eyes (individual leg movements are too fast to resolve in time and \"follow\" what is actually happening as they move). Interesting, but obviously invalid, as slower species (turantulas, etc.) still scare people, and by that logic we should also be scared of hummingbirds.",
"Like many things, the argument boils down to nature vs nurture vs a mix of both. \n\nOne school of thought is that due to the presence of deadly venomous spiders, we evolved an innate fear to the very sight/shape of them. The extra caution, and instinctive fight or flight response, thus gave arachnophobes a slight advantage in terms of survival. However, it can be argued that rather than aiding survival, inheriting such phobias would actually be debilitating, and ultimately disadvantageous. \n\nIn response to your question, it's not so much the fact that it's common, but that it's disproportionately common compared to fear of other dangerous creatures, a fact which cannot be explained by evolutionary pressure alone.\n\nCultural learning is the most likely culprit. In most of Europe in the dark ages spiders were closely linked with disease; if a spider fell into a water source, it was then considered to be contaminated; they were also believed to be messengers of the Black Plague. \n\nThis theory is backed up by the fact that despite there being no deadly spiders native to Northern and Central Europe, these areas have higher incidence of arachnophobia than almost anywhere else. Including regions that *do* have deadly native spiders."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
236kf9
|
What part of arc welding is blinding?
|
So I've been wondering. When you are weld (mig, Tig, stick etc.) why is it so blinding? Is it the actual material burning, or the electric arc?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/236kf9/what_part_of_arc_welding_is_blinding/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgty03v"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Eye damage (blindness) is caused by UV radition (photokeratitis). The UV radiation is emmitted from the electric arc. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1q6n7s
|
why are carbonated beverages (coke,pepsi) called soft drinks?
|
They seem too harsh to be called "soft"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q6n7s/why_are_carbonated_beverages_cokepepsi_called/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd9pqej",
"cd9pqjn",
"cd9rxbm"
],
"score": [
35,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In contrast to a \"hard\" drink, which contains alcohol. It first became popular during prohibition, so it was clear that the beverage being served did not contain alcohol.",
"It's soft in contrast to hard (i.e. alcoholic) drinks. As in phrases like \"hard cider,\" \"hard lemonade,\" or \"hard liquor.\"",
"Because liquor is referred to as \"hard drinks\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9n7b08
|
Do all animals/insects have stereo hearing?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9n7b08/do_all_animalsinsects_have_stereo_hearing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7m6otk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As far as I'm aware, all vertebrates have two ears, though size, shape, structure and presence of external apparatus varies.\n\nInsects have evolved their own hearing organs (several times, actually), called tympanal organs. As far as I can tell from searching for information on these, there are always two of them, or zero.\n\nFinally, there are many organisms, including snakes, insects, spiders and worms, that are able to \"hear\" using touch receptors, either under their skin, at the base of hair follicles, or in specialized organs.\n\nWhat they are actually doing is feeling the vibrations in the ground or air to such sensitivity they can essentially hear the sounds being transmitted through it. These generally only work at very short ranges (or for very loud sounds), and typically only for a narrow range of frequencies for any particular receptor. Collectively these are called \"near field receptors\".\n\nSo for those, there could be two, or there could be lots of them, but generally an even number, and they can be used for directional hearing.\n\nSo there you go, hearing seems to generally be done with 0, 2, or many organs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ygj4u
|
Can you test positive on a drug test for eating poppyseeds?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ygj4u/can_you_test_positive_on_a_drug_test_for_eating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5vcc32"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. I don't know the threshold, but opiates are made from the poppy flower/plant. Poppy seeds can in fact make your urine test positive for opiates. How many it takes, I'm not sure, but best bet is to just avoid them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.