Datasets:

Pavithree

/

eli5_0_19710

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "dd03bf6" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Electronic circuits are designed to only allow electricity to pass through certain parts at certain times. That's how your phone works.\n\nIt's a set of boolean functions (1 or 0/true or false). Electricity passes through chip, and it makes a decision such as \"and/or\". If it's 'and', it sends the signal one way, and if it's 'or', it sends it another way. After it does that, this step is repeated through other logic gates that have other functions that aren't and/or (not/or or any of the many other variants).\n\nOnce you submerge it into water, it doesn't follow this designed 'trail', and the phone short-circuits. Because water is conductive, the electrical signals go wherever they can, and electronics can't handle that.\n\nTo make something of a comparison; It's the same reason you get in a line when you're shopping. Imagine if all the customers just threw all their items onto the counter at the same time and talked over each other. The cashier wouldn't know what to do. That's what the submersion is." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb0nj8p" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Ok. \n\n**HMO** = Health Maintenance Organization. It's where you have one doctor who oversees your general care: your Primary Care Physician [PCP]. Your PCP is the one you see most often, and who is most familiar with your situation. The PCP determines if you need to see a specialist for lab work or additional services, and will write a referral to those other physicians or facilities. If you go to one of them *without* a referral, your insurance pays considerably less (if at all) and you have to pay out of pocket. HMOs tend to cost less per month, and have a lower deductible. (A deductible is an annual minimum amount that you have to pay out of pocket before the insurance kicks in for certain types of treatment)\n\n**PPO** = Preferred Provider Organization. Unlike with an HMO, you do not have a PCP. Instead, there is a list of preferred providers within the network that you may visit as you see fit without being penalized. You can also typically see a doctor who is not on that list and still be covered (tho' not as well). PPOs give greater freedom to see who you want, but tend to cost a bit more per month and frequently have a higher deductible than HMOs.\n\n**Indemnity** = Pay for service. Indemnity plans are mostly a thing of the past, tho' some people might still have access. They let you see any provider without penalty, and do not require you to get referrals or select a PCP. They might require you to pay for the services you receive out of your own pocket, and then the insurance company will reimburse you afterwards. And there's typically a deductible involved." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddglpi4", "ddgmdux" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "That's three dimensions, but two directions; the magnetic poles of the star. The magnetic fields involved create those jets. ", "Doesn't that image [look familiar](_URL_0_)?\n\nThe spectral matter is chasing the magnetic field. " ] }

[]

[ "http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2017/02/the_calabash_clash/16798460-1-eng-GB/The_Calabash_clash_node_full_image_2.jpg" ]

[ [], [ "http://www.coolmagnetman.com/images/fldmag1.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cufuxtt", "cufuyqp", "cufuyw6", "cufwhz3", "cufwu51", "cufx940" ], "score": [ 7, 3, 2, 4, 2, 6 ], "text": [ "You might not like the answer.\n\nOther animals don't need to wipe because they can reach around and clean themselves with their tongue. They still clean themselves as needed, I'm surprised you haven't seen the dog doing it. ", "Do you think your dog minds when there's a little bit of poop left behind? We're the only animal that does. ", "We don't require it. We are just the only ones that choose to use paper and most of us don't.\n\nAnimals drag their anus on the ground or lick it.\n\nI suppose the real answer is we are the only ones smart enough to do it.", "Where did you shit that you got an ass whiping afterwards?", "dogs dont really care about being dirty (in fact they seem to enjoy it). people wipe their ass because they dont want to smell like shit.", "Another reason besides that humans are the only people that care about having a shit encrusted anus, is that humans (and all other animals) are not designed to shit sitting down. The most efficient way to shit for a human is squatting. \n\nIf you squat to shit, the shit falls out much more efficiently and will require next to no wiping. \n\nNext time you take a shit, put a stool (no pun intended) under your feet, so your legs are raised up. This is closer to a squatting position. You may be surprised at how little you have to wipe." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmyrlp9", "cmyrp1h", "cmyrpki", "cmys7dz" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Is there something about socialized healthcare that automatically mandates all pay is equivalent? ", "why is it that some people think everyone needs an incentive to better themselves and excel in life? some people do it just because they can.", "Countries with public healthcare still have private practices which you can pay money to see. There's a basic service provided by the government, but nobody is stopping patients from purchasing more extensive coverage on top of it.\n\nYou also have to keep in mind that hospitals are still competing with each other, so they will pay more to have good doctors. Yes, everyone's healthcare is subsidized, but a hospital with better doctors will have more patients and thus make more money.", "Many (perhaps even most) doctors pursue their careers not for financial gain, but (for the most part) for the purpose of helping people. These doctors are not incentivized, or disincentivized, by financial gain to \"be better and compete for careers in the toughest specialties within healthcare systems\". Even in a socialized healthcare system however there are specific hospitals, research positions and clinics that are more desirable than others, and doctors within a socialized healthcare system are very much incentivized by these locations to \"be better and compete for careers in the toughest specialties within healthcare systems\". Furthermore, different types of doctors still receive different salaries in socialized healthcare systems (anesthesiologists in Canada, for example, are a different pay grade than a neurosurgeon).\n\nI wonder how much financial incentive there will be in privatized healthcare in USA now that diplomatic (and most importantly trade) relations with Cuba have improved. If I owned a hospital in USA, and was primarily interested in financial gain, I would employ Cuban doctors through the Cuban government to replace most of my staff. And because Cuba is economically poor compared to USA, I would probably be able to do so for *significantly* less than I had for 2014. Cuban doctors are [considered some of the best in the world](_URL_0_) after all, so it's a bit of a win-win, don't you think? Flood the market with doctors and their average pay will drop, making their services affordable to everyone!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fa5utpc", "fa5uykc", "fa5vahj", "fa5vowu" ], "score": [ 3, 9, 19, 4 ], "text": [ "While I can't speak for every fighter, there's some boxers/mma fighters with scar tissue and thats why they open up and bleed easily.", "The gloves aren't sharp but the way it happen is from friction of the glove sliding across the skin & dragging it tight against the skull before tearing it under the force of the punch", "Friction.\n\nEven with gloves on, often times glancing blows still carry enough force to cause enough glove-to-skin friction to split the skin open. This is why you see boxers and fighters put Vaseline on their cheeks and eyebrows.", "Its more of a tear than a cut. But you see some fighters when they get petroleum jelly put on their face before a fight. Its to help keep the gloves from sticking to their skin. As it wears off. Then gloves can stick to the skin and cause it to rip/tear. \n\nMost common spots are also where skin is close to the bone. So cheek bones and eye sockets." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjpwe3l" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "***Hand-eye coordination*** is quite complex, involving *several regions of your brain* dedicated to processing visual information, motor control, proprioception, eye movement, et cetera. \n\nGenerally speaking and without getting into details of human neuroanatomy, this kind of **coordination requires your** ***brain*** **and your** ***body*** **to communicate well with each other**, so they both have to work well. \n\nYour ***genetics*** influence your *potential* to be faster, stronger, smarter than others, so that's a start, and there is a *relationship between motor skills and intelligence* (intelligence isn't actually one single component, but entails many qualities, such as visuo-spatial intelligence). But genetics isn't everything. Humans are born to learn language, but if we trap a human in a dungeon forever, he won't learn anything.\n\n***Coordination*** is related with how efficient your *neuronal wiring* is and *how fast your neurons fire*. The human brain is ***plastic***, which means it can *reorganize itself* to a certain extent (more so when you're young rather when you're older), for example to heal itself, to remove useless cerebral connections to become more effective or to reorganize regions to become more specialized in something (ex. learning a language - which is why it's easier to learn a language while a child). \n\n*Like a muscle, you can train it:* typing is an easy example, you're learning a complex sequence of rapid finger movements and with daily practice you learn to be very quick and efficient. While you're practicing, you're stimulating the brain into changing its cortical excitability (how easy it is to make neurons fire) and reorganizing itself, reflecting you learning how to type and making you better at doing that.\n\n***Summing it up***, some people are born with a better body and a brain that is more efficient at processing and coordinating its information and transmitting everything to the body and backwards, but depending on your physical activity, you're not only making your body stronger/faster but you're also stimulating your brain into getting specialized at \"throwing punches\" (therein the importance of repeating the same punch several times while learning martial arts)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvtlcgk", "cvtlcmk", "cvtlcv3", "cvtlybc", "cvtlypc", "cvtm2df", "cvtolby" ], "score": [ 6, 10, 18, 6, 13, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Because, and I shit you not, the US dollar has replaced gold Bullion as the foundation for the worlds currencies. Instead of stashing gold, other countries stash US dollars in their vaults, and *we* stash the gold. Sort of. There actually is no gold. Just Dollars. The US dollar is currently being used as the reserve currency for many other countries currencies.\n\nIf the Dollar collapses, so do many others.", "Debt is not a bad thing in and of itself, and can in fact be beneficial. Being unable to pay your debt is bad. So far, the government meets its obligations on debt, although they do enjoy making it look precarious. ", "The US is in *such* a better financial position than it was just 7-8 years ago. No one's talking about the banks and financial system collapsing this time. \n\nAlmost all countries have debt. Debt isn't a problem unless other countries stop believing you can pay it back eventually. \n\nThe dollar is neither particularly strong nor particularly weak right now, compared to long-term historical values. ", "Because the people that tell you it will imminently collapse are just trying to sell you the doomsday product. There are a ton of issues with how America's finances are being managed, and the fiat money experiment in general, but a Mad-Max style collapse isn't one of them.\n\nPut very simply, if people all over the world kept lending you money no matter what your debt/income ratio was, and accepted payment from you in the form of pieces of paper that you printed, no matter how much you printed, you're in a pretty good spot. It works until it doesn't.", "Because America's economy does not run like your household economy does. In fact, there are two entirely different fields of study: microeconomics and macroeconomics. It is a common misconception that the US economy can be balanced the same way your household can be.\n\nHaving debt at the national level is not a bad thing, and we even own *most of our own debt.* It is a very complex process that even the most well educated people don't understand entirely, but basically our debt only becomes a problem if other countries stop believing we can pay back our debt, which is highly unlikely.\n\nAs for the dollar, it is not particularly weak right now, even if it is slightly weaker than recent years.", "First off, the dollar has been pretty stable since we devalued it in the early '80s, so I'm not sure what loss of value you're referring to.\n\nSecond, debt doesn't stand alone, it's debt vs GDP, and our GDP is massive. Not that we don't need to deal with our debt, but it's not end-of-the-world level debt...Everyone knows we're good for it.\n\nIt's pretty much unavoidable that we need to bump taxes in order to bring our expenses in line with our revenues. This is facing the same headwinds as the Fed however: raising taxes and raising interest rates both have a negative effect on the economy, and even though *parts* of the economy are doing well, a lot of the indicators aren't as good as we'd like, so this keeps getting pushed down the line.", "Debt alone is not necessarily a bad thing.\n\nThink of it this way. Most people buy a house by taking out a loan from the bank for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their total 'debt' is now far greater than their annual income.\n\nBut the bank doesn't make them pay it all back at once, it's broken down into a system of far lower mortgage payments over a period of decades. As such, while the total amount of debt can seem like a very large number, it is also very manageable to pay off with the average family's finances. Many people even refinance, take out second mortgages or otherwise take out additional loans against their house before paying off the original mortgage so that they have extra cash on hand while keeping their payments low enough to handle.\n\nThe US Debt works on a similar, though much more complex basis. Our total debt might be greater than the annual value of all that our country produces, but we are not required to pay off all that debt at once. We continue to borrow, predominantly against ourselves via government bonds, and can repay the loans slowly over time even accounting for accumulated interest.\n\nAmerica's national credit rating is one of the best in the world because we are so good at being able to repay our (national) debts." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2y541b", "d2y74tq", "d2y8zuf" ], "score": [ 6, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "The debt ceiling is an artificial limit on debt. It has no effect on actual interest rates or the borrowing power of the US. It is simply a red tape tool used to cause debate about spending every few months. Because it was created by congress, they can also raise it. This is like you saying, I'm only going to eat 6 more times. After that 6th meal, you can then tell yourself that you'll raise the total amount of meals by 3 to a total of 9. You will do this every day, adding 3 more meals to the total amount of meals you will ever allow yourself to eat. The US gains debt whenever it spends more than it collects. (taxes, funds, tariffs) The US also gains debt whenever someone buys a US backed bond. These bonds are an investment in the US and accrue interest. The money gained from these bonds pays for whatever our taxes don't. Each year we pay the interest on these bonds. Whenever someone says the US owes debt to China or to Social Security, it really means that those groups own bonds. The only thing they can do is essentially collect the interest off the bonds or sell the bonds. Currently US Bonds are the safest and most secure investment since US is very unlikely to default anytime soon. Because the interest rate on the bonds is so low, it actually makes great financial sense to grow our debt by investing more into the US. So long as the money spent grows the economy at a rate higher than the interest rate on our debt, the US profits. If we were ever to pay off our debt, it would be a later generation, but paying it off any time soon would actually hurt us and make it even harder for future generations.", "There's no rational reason for there to be a debt ceiling at all, and it would be abolished, other than that it's a useful political tool for deficit hawks. The US government needs to fund its operations, and because US Treasury Bonds (read: debt) are considered more or less the safest investment on earth, it can do this really cheaply. As long as the interest payments on those bonds stay reasonable compared to tax revenue, the actual dollar value of the total debt is almost immaterial. Plus, if for some reason the US stopped issuing treasury bonds, it would actually be hugely disruptive to financial markets, which would have to find a new safe place to store excess money. ", " > Are they simply pushing the debt onto the future generation?\n\nNot necessarily. Gov't and most organizations need to borrow money as a part of doing business, and in an inflationary economy, the amount they can borrow will increase over time.\n\nI have a job where I travel a lot. I put my business expenses on my credit card, submit an expense report to my employer, and get reimbursed. Over there years, I have asked to have my \"debt limit\" increased, because the cost of travel has increased. I'm not doing anything differently, nor am I kicking debt down the road, it is just that hotels and taxis and meals are more expensive than they were ten years ago." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv9gqb9" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "If you say something is a threat to nation security or something similar you will automatically mobilize a huge segment of conservative votership against someone. It's nothing more than a cheap political move, but it will probably work." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2ga9mj", "c2gacrj", "c2gb5hq", "c2gbd7t", "c2ga9mj", "c2gacrj", "c2gb5hq", "c2gbd7t" ], "score": [ 9, 3, 11, 5, 9, 3, 11, 5 ], "text": [ "You have these cells at the back of your eyes that are photosensitive (they have the ability to turn a particle of light into a stimulus that your brain can interpret). Light enters your eyes and travels through a lens, which sort of projects an image of the world onto the back of your eyes, where these photosensitive cells are. Each of these cells then tells your brain some of the wavelengths of light it is receiving. Your brain does the hard (read: extremely so hard you don't even know) part: it takes all the continuous streams of information from all the cells in the backs of your eyes, and BAM, color vision with built in face/object detection.\n\nHow do we specifically see color? These cells are sensitive to wavelength of light, and others are sensitive to intensity. Together, they send your brain data on the color and brightness of the light hitting them.", "That was sort of [explained in here](_URL_0_).", "if you are british you can watch this _URL_0_\n\nits an episode of horizon that explores how people see colour. in recent research there's evidence that not everybody sees it the same way. for example in modern society we see primary and secondary colours as being very distinct. but a certain african tribe find it difficult to distinguish between certain colours. but that tribe sees the difference between certain shades of green more greatly than we do. because maybe it helps them distinguish ripe vegetables when gathering food.\n\nit's a good watch.", "Ok, like a five year old. I'll do my best. \n\nThere are these cells in your eyes that are sensitive to certain colors. There are actually 3 types of these, lets call them Red/Green Sensors Blue/Yellow Sensors and White/Black sensors. This tells your brain what colors you see. \n\nAll the light from a scene goes into your eyes, so your brain has to process it somehow. The cells that detect red/green blue/yellow white/black will get \"activated\" when the color they detect hits them. Think about it like table with different size and shape holes cut in it. Triangles, Rectangles, and Circles. If you dropped a whole bunch of shapes of blocks onto them (light) then only the correct shapes can go into the correct holes (light sensitive cells). Triangle blocks will fall into triangle holes. The blocks that don't fit will just bounce away (because these are bouncy shapes!) Pretend this table is really big, and there are a lot of holes of different sizes everywhere. It doesn't matter if a few triangles bounce off circle holes, because there are so many other triangles holes around they will get activated if there are a significant number of triangle blocks falling onto that area. \n\nThat's basically how you perceive color. It's pretty simple. The hard part is figuring out what all those colors in those positions mean. ", "You have these cells at the back of your eyes that are photosensitive (they have the ability to turn a particle of light into a stimulus that your brain can interpret). Light enters your eyes and travels through a lens, which sort of projects an image of the world onto the back of your eyes, where these photosensitive cells are. Each of these cells then tells your brain some of the wavelengths of light it is receiving. Your brain does the hard (read: extremely so hard you don't even know) part: it takes all the continuous streams of information from all the cells in the backs of your eyes, and BAM, color vision with built in face/object detection.\n\nHow do we specifically see color? These cells are sensitive to wavelength of light, and others are sensitive to intensity. Together, they send your brain data on the color and brightness of the light hitting them.", "That was sort of [explained in here](_URL_0_).", "if you are british you can watch this _URL_0_\n\nits an episode of horizon that explores how people see colour. in recent research there's evidence that not everybody sees it the same way. for example in modern society we see primary and secondary colours as being very distinct. but a certain african tribe find it difficult to distinguish between certain colours. but that tribe sees the difference between certain shades of green more greatly than we do. because maybe it helps them distinguish ripe vegetables when gathering food.\n\nit's a good watch.", "Ok, like a five year old. I'll do my best. \n\nThere are these cells in your eyes that are sensitive to certain colors. There are actually 3 types of these, lets call them Red/Green Sensors Blue/Yellow Sensors and White/Black sensors. This tells your brain what colors you see. \n\nAll the light from a scene goes into your eyes, so your brain has to process it somehow. The cells that detect red/green blue/yellow white/black will get \"activated\" when the color they detect hits them. Think about it like table with different size and shape holes cut in it. Triangles, Rectangles, and Circles. If you dropped a whole bunch of shapes of blocks onto them (light) then only the correct shapes can go into the correct holes (light sensitive cells). Triangle blocks will fall into triangle holes. The blocks that don't fit will just bounce away (because these are bouncy shapes!) Pretend this table is really big, and there are a lot of holes of different sizes everywhere. It doesn't matter if a few triangles bounce off circle holes, because there are so many other triangles holes around they will get activated if there are a significant number of triangle blocks falling onto that area. \n\nThat's basically how you perceive color. It's pretty simple. The hard part is figuring out what all those colors in those positions mean. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j7yps/eli5_why_is_air_invisible_from_my_3_year_old/c29wdrr" ], [ "http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b013c8tb/Horizon_20112012_Do_You_See_What_I_See/" ], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j7yps/eli5_why_is_air_invisible_from_my_3_year_old/c29wdrr" ], [ "http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b013c8tb/Horizon_20112012_Do_You_See_What_I_See/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chsho1q" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The compression bands are meant to be worn about an inch or two down from where the tendon attaches to the bone. This helps to take the pressure off the tendon and allow it to heal. Basically the bands make our body think that the tendon actually attaches at the band, rather than at the bone. This allows the tendon to heal because when you use the muscle, the inflamed area isn't being used. \n\nIn response to the person talking about shin splints, the bands for shin splints don't work because a lot of times there is too much compression in the shin and that's what causes the shin splints. Also, shin splints are not usually located in the tendon, as much as the entire muscle. So there's really not a specific area to take the pressure off." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2ysnz3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ " > they seem to consistently post losses, in both revenue and market share.\n\nThat's not enough information. Is that in only one market sector? AMD gave up on the PC market years ago, and that only makes up a small percent of their entire revenue stream. They make semi-conductors, and that's more than just processors, but also things like photo sensors, power converters, amplifiers, different types of diodes..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e868uyf", "e868xl8", "e868zwy", "e86dpv9", "e86dxmi", "e86i8vd", "e86il1g", "e86mqxf" ], "score": [ 5, 190, 11, 66, 6, 3, 3, 52 ], "text": [ "New money is created every day. A lot driven by fractional reserve banking. You deposit $1,000 in the bank, and the bank then loans out a multiple of that, creating money in the process. ", "When we convert raw materials into other resources, the value increases.\n\nRaw steel and rocks isn’t that useful, but build a building and you can house people/do commercial activities. Wood isn’t useful, but you can print knowledge on paper and books are more valuable than raw wood.\n\nThis concept extends to ideas, not just physical materials. A new technology like self-driving cars increases the value of the economy. A new app that allows you to easily order food delivery also adds value.\n\nAs Long as economic activity exists, humans are constantly transforming resources, and value will increase.", "There’s not only so much money. As value is added to a society they can make more “money” and everything is okay. In fact if societies don’t increase the amount of money in circulation at any time as the value of goods within their society increases then the money becomes more expensive and it becomes harder for the economy to work properly because there isn’t enough money to allow everyone that needs it access to it and that inhibits growth and trading of goods and services. \nThe opposite is also true, if you make to much money then each unit of money becomes worth less and that leads to inflation above what is beneficial. People lose faith that a dollar (for example) will buy the same amount of goods and services tomorrow that it does today. This also impacts the functioning of the economy. \n\nRemember money is really just something we believe has value in it. Shiny metal or paper or whatever, in reality there no to little actual value to it other than what people say it does. Money is just an easier way of doing bartering. Instead of a farmer with milk having to find someone that wants milk and that has what he wants we trade for little pieces of something or electronic digits so we can more efficiently work in the economy. ", "To understand wealth creation, I feel its better to eliminate currency and look at a barter system. \n\nI'm a farmer that handles chickens and you handle plants. My chickens need your plants to eat. You and your big family need the eggs from my chickens to eat. \n\nYou want to be able to buy more eggs. You work longer hours to plant more plants to be able to sell more to me so I can feed more to my chickens. My better fed chickens produce more eggs and you can buy more of them because I bought more plants from you. My farm now produces more eggs and yours produces more plants. We've increased our production, and therefore the size of our economy.\n\nWealth creation comes in when you deal with products that store value. Obviously, chickens eggs spoil and plants die. However, suppose you take a surplus of plants you made and sell it to another guy who in return for those plants, builds you a house. Now you have a house. That is wealth. The people in our little town know that it takes an X amount of plants, or X amount of chicken eggs to build a house. That house is part of your wealth now. You can sell it if you want in the future at a market price.\n\nObviously, I have no idea how farming actually works, but you get the gist of it. ", "In simple terms, the pie (total human economic value) increases as we exploit more of Earth's resources, and do so more efficiently. As the pie grows, so does each slice.\n\nSay you and four friends have $100 between you. One friend might have $50 while the rest of you have $12.50 each. You all really like rocks. You all have a certain number of rocks between you, and trade them back and forth. Obviously, the richer friend has more leverage to accumulate more rocks.\n\nBut the number of rocks isn't static. You decide to go dig up more rocks and bring them back to your friends. Obviously, with these new resources, you'll grow wealthier, but you friends will too. The supply in rocks has increased, debasing the value of each rock and increasing the purchasing power of each dollar. You are all now wealthier despite there being no change in the money supply. Overall wealth increases when the purchasing power of the currency grows.\n\nEconomics is not zero-sum, at least from a human perspective. Technically nature is losing value, but nature is a stingy bitch and doesn't put her resources to use. Printing money actually debases the currency. It can potentially sap wealth.", "Raw resources turned into goods, combined with a constant printing of money to maintain a certain value of the currency. ", "Money is just a tool used to keep track of value. The money is constantly being recycled. Just because Bill gates has billions of dollars doesn’t mean he has billions of dollars sitting in the bank, that billion dollars is all theoretical and made up of assets and investments. Even if it was all in the bank, the bank uses this money to loan to other people and other banky activities. ", "None of these are very useful explanations to a 5 year old...so let me try.\n\nWe're in a class of 20 people and we all really like purple marbles. They're all identical, but as stupid 5 year olds we can't get enough purple marbles. We'll do anything for them.\n\nJake has all the marbles. His parents bought out the store, and he now has ~100 marbles. And he won't give them to anyone. The wealth of the entire economy is 100 marbles.\n\nThe teacher starts randomly gives the kids a toy to keep each day. Some suck (the creepy old stuffed animal) where other's are awesome (Buzz Lightyear with extending wings). Everyone wants Buzz, and his companion toy, Woody. \n\nTeacher gives Jake a creepy stuffed animal, and gives Susie and Billy the Buzz and Woody toys. Jake's really into Toy Story, so he gives 15 marbles to Susie for Buzz and 10 to Billy for Woody.\n\nEveryone wants Buzz and Woody. Now that this transaction has happened, Jake knows that any other kid would happily give him 20 marbles for Buzz or 15 for Woody.\n\nThe total wealth in this economy is no longer 100 marbles, but since the toy story transaction there are still 100 physical marbles in the economy, and two assets (Buzz and Woody) worth a grand total of 35 Marbles, for a total economy the size of 135 marbles. Your marble-based economy just grew by 35%. Even though the number of physical marbles stayed the same. \n\nThere is currently only about $1t of physical US dollars but the US economy is about $20t/yr. So that's like the total value of all the toys being 2,000 marbles while still only having 100 physical marbles.\n\nMarbles are pretty gate, so people start doing all sorts of stuff to do them. Samuel can make a pretty awesome clay figurines that people will buy for 5 marbles; Susie will let you come to her house and watch her 3D TV for 3 marbles, Billy is really neat and will be your friend for 1 marbles/day\n\n\n--How Banks Create Money--\nMartha is a hell of a business girl, and starts a marble bank. Because the class is only 20 people, let's say she's the only bank (so I can talk about her like she's the whole banking industry).\n\nMarbles are great to play with, and look at (they are purple, after all), but it's hard to save 25 marbles up when they're so easy to lose, will roll out of your cubby, might get stolen by that one kid, etc. So, while it might be useful to carry 1-5 marbles on you, it's probably a good idea to give them to Martha for safekeeping.\n\nMartha is in an interesting spot. She now has 60 marbles in her care. What to do with them?\n\nThe Friend for money business is good, and Billy has amassed a fortune: 20 marbles and a number of toys worth a total of another 40 marbles. No toy is quite like his first, though, and Billy desperately wants to buy Buzz Lightyear back from Jake. Its traded hands a few times, and most recently sold for 40 marbles.\n\nBilly could sell half his toys and buy Buzz back, but that might take a while and the rumor is that Susie has 40 physical marbles today and is thinking of buying it.\n\nMartha offers to make Billy a loan, based on the fact that he has 3 people who give him a marble every day for friendship. She'll lend him 20 marbles, and he'll give her all his marble income for the next 10 school days (30 marbles in all). If he is business goes poorly, Martha has the right to seize 30 marbles worth of his toys, which are being put up as collateral. She could then sell those to the highest bidder to recover her losses.\n\nBilly happily accepts, Buzz is his.\n\nBut physical marbles don't really change hands. All 20 of Billy's saved marbles are being held by Martha, and the 40 marbles given to Jake don't come in a bag: but via a bank transfer where Martha deducts 40 marbles from Billy's account and credits them to Jake's.\n\nIn other words, the Bank of Martha just created 20 marbles of value by lending it. BoM could potentially lend far more virtual marbles than exist on Martha's cubby.\n\nAgain, there are about $1t of physical us dollars in the world. If you added them all up, the amount of USD in all accounts is about $10t. So Martha could potentially totally have accounts totalling 1,000 marbles.\n\nThe more that people buy and sell things, the greater the velocity of money and the more that more people get to use it. Wealth, in that sense, is created when you either find ways to sell things for more money, or increase the total number of things worth buying.\n\nHope this doesn't get too buried ;)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dpj9e52", "dpj9n66", "dpj9z48", "dpjm2zd" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 7, 2 ], "text": [ " In a room of just 23 people there’s a 50-50 chance of two people having the same birthday. In a room of 75 there’s a 99.9% chance of two people matching.\n\nThis is whats called the Birthday Paradox. It has to do with exponents and maths I am not good at, but here is a link that might better explain. (_URL_0_)[_URL_1_]\n\nedit. Fixed link", "Someone mentioned the Birthday Paradox (which is just pure stats on combinations), but also, [birthdays aren’t evenly distributed across the calendar.](_URL_0_) ", "You expect to see lots of pairs (we'd need more precise data to determine whether your group of friends shows more than the expected number, however). \n\nAlthough this is counterintuitive at first glance, it's actually fairly obvious if you look at it the right way.\n\nThe point is that although the chance of any two people sharing a birthday is quite low (1/365), there are so many pairs of people that this *could* happen to, that it becomes almost inevitable that it *will* happen to a fair number of pairs.\n\neg with 200 people, there are 19,900 different pairs of people, so we'd expect a lot of matches.\n\nIndeed with only 23 people (so 253 possible pairs of people) there is already 50/50 chance you get at least one pair sharing a birthday.\n", "Probably some cognitive bias in remembering unusual things better too. Objectively it'd be far more probable to have one person with a birthday than multiple (about four times more probable in fact). With 200 people, on a given day (assuming 365 days and uniformly distributed birthdays) there would be a 31.74% chance exactly one person has a birthday, and an 8.68% chance of exactly two, and it drops off from there (57.77% chance of no one having a birthday on a day given a specific day)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "BetterExplained.com", "https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox/" ], [ "https://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/birthdays-most-common/" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccxfgiq" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It's boring. We need something to keep our minds occupied. Reader's Digest was the original smartphone for that." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddr6xvl" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "i covered this topic in a class in university way back in the caveman days they would sit around the fire with their half wild dogs stroking their fur elicited the guard guard guard instinct in the animal thats the theory anyways so basically the theory is we were able to relax knowing we were protected " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8f6m6k", "c8f6pds", "c8f72gk" ], "score": [ 2, 14, 11 ], "text": [ "You have the right to *own* both guns and swords. That does not necessarily mean you have a right to openly carry either of them around town.", "If the Congress of the United States tried to pass a law unreasonably restricting your right to keep and bear a sword, that law would be challenged on the same grounds as a law unreasonably restricting your right to keep and bear a gun.\n\n\"Arms\" means arms. It doesn't mean *fire*arms specifically.", "As far as I know, there aren't any Federal restrictions on sword purchases. You can buy and own as many as you like. Most cities, however, have laws against carrying large bladed weapons around in public, for safety reasons. This is all as it should be." ] }

[]

[ "http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-13/news/fl-klingon-sword-arrest-20130213_1_long-sword-klingon-fort-lauderdale-intersection" ]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9ksgtq", "c9kslk5", "c9ksxqu", "c9ktdp0", "c9ktdwq", "c9ktene", "c9kth74", "c9l3zjl" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 6, 13, 9, 3, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "You really can't but that's ok. Most will not get offended if you ask nicely where there are from. Same goes for Hispanics as they generally are hard to differentiate but often people will appreciate that you did not just assume anything without asking first.", "_URL_0_ This will help you practice !", "Ask them.\n\nDon't bother guessing, it's not worth it.", "Sometimes you can tell by their surnames. Common Korean names are Kim, Park, Cho, or Han. Very simple. You can usually recognize a Japanese name, like Takahashi, Nakamura, Hayashi, Yamamoto, etc. - very different from Korean or Chinese names. Japanese names never start with V, X, or Z, but Chinese names may start with X or Z. Common Chinese names are Wang/Wong, Chang, Wu, Yang. But there is some overlap, of course, so use this with a grain of salt. A lot of Asians can't even differentiate by looks most of the time, so don't feel bad. Just ask politely like you're just curious and they probably won't mind telling you. ", "I'm Asian, let me just throw this story here: I was on a bus once, two other Asians sat a few rows behind me. They discussed/argued for a good half an hour about my ethnicity, in my language\n\nEdit: just curious, why is it imperative for you to know? Do you ask a white person what is his/her ethnicity? ", "Just by eye? It's hard if you aren't one of those, and it's not easy even if you are. Best to ask. It's usually not a touchy subject.\n\nThere are certain subtle physical features that appear in, say, Koreans but less so among southern Chinese, or in certain Japanese populations but not in Northern Chinese, but because of mixing, migrations, war, etc. relying on those won't be reliable. You can also listen in on them, but again, that's unreliable. I solely speak fluent English whenever I'm outside, and many others do so as well. And being unable to write my language won't help.\n\nSo. Just ask. Nobody's gonna get offended, and it's a good conversation opener.", "Here's a question\n\nCan you differentiate between a Russian, a Pole, a Czech or an Austrian?\n\nThey look exactly fucking alike, barring extreme regional differences.\n\nHowever, get their cultures mixed up and you'll likely have offended them.\n\nIt's the same idea with Asians. Only, they're yellow so they're \"foreign\" compared to the relatively white faces of european countries", "You can't/shouldn't in general.\n\nThere's people that look distinctly Chinese, those that look distinctly Japanese and those that look distinctly Korean. I would estimate like 25% of them look like that. The other 75% it's hard to tell. There's definitely people I could easily recognize but for everyone that I can easily recognize, there's MORE that I can't.\n\nThe other way to try to tell is by their accent or what language they speak. If you're some what familiar with the different Asian languages you can tell what language they're speaking even if you don't understand it.\n\nOr you can tell by last name like someone already suggested." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "asianlookalikes.com" ], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djc2pe8" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A fear of clowns deals with something known as the \"uncanny valley\". It applies to objects that are close enough to humans to be recognized as such, but they aren't quite \"right\".\n\nFeatures are drawn to be highly exaggerated. Your brain doesn't know how to react. \"It's like me... But it's not. It might attack.\" It's the same reason that people are afraid of dolls. They're so familiar, but something is off." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "flcepf3", "flcfv38", "flcjid6" ], "score": [ 10, 8, 4 ], "text": [ "The patient can still take extra breaths when the body is signaling it needs more oxygen, but a ventilator takes away the work of breathing (the energy required to move the diaphragm again and again). A patients diaphragm may not be able to keep up with inspiratory demands with the rest of the body needing energy for other things, such as fighting off the virus. I don’t remember exactly how much breathing is in terms of energy usage, but a ventilator (if set to the right deepness, pressure, and frequency of breaths) takes away that work so your body can put it to other uses.", "A ventilator has several modes to work on. Some people are so incredibly sick they have no ability to use their diaphragm to aid in breathing, it’s not that it functionally doesn’t work they just can’t. So the ventilator has modes where it does everything for them. Other modes allow the patient to breathe on their own in conjunction with the ventilator, and every time they breathe on their own the ventilator will assist with smaller amounts of pressure to make it easier. \n\nThere are several components to what the settings mean, but I’m not sure I can explain them in 5 year old terms, but if you’re interested and have questions I can certainly try! \n\nSome ventilators are also fancy and you can insert a probe down their esophagus and it can actually sense when the nerve is triggering your diaphragm to contract, and will help with the breathing that way too. Don’t ask me how, we don’t use them in my unit, but my husband has experience with them, I literally thought he was making it up when he was explaining it to me, lol.", "There are a few modes to work with in a ventilator. We sometimes use a ventilator even when the diaphragm is working. We look for impending signs of respiratory collapse. If the body has high needs for oxygen, the diaphragm may get tired by working tirelessly and eventually stop working. So we step in with a ventilator before that happens. Also, there are a few conditions in which when a person breathes out, his lungs remove most of the air and the next inhalation takes a lot of struggle (normally some air stays inside even when we exhale fully so that small alveoli in lungs stay inflated). Consider the example of a balloon. It takes comparatively higher pressure to START blowing in air in a non-inflated balloon but once it has some air in it, it gets easier to fill more air in it. The same happens with lungs. Hence, one mode of ventilator keeps giving a background pressure even after exhalation to keep those alveoli open" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdgoy39" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "All bacteria have certain temperatures that their enzymes, or proteins in their bodies which process nutrients and other things perform at the maximum rate. As the environment temperature increases, enzyme action increases until it reaches a high enough temperature that enzymes denature, meaning that their substrate area (where enzymes attach to food) unfold, therefore not allowing them to interact with what they are supposed to. As temperature gets colder, enzymes simply work at a slower pace. So I guess the basic answer to your question is that temperature speeds up enzyme activity, allowing them to process nutrients faster allowing for faster growth. Sorry for the lengthy response..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch71lrg", "ch71mp7", "ch71yp9", "ch72en2" ], "score": [ 11, 8, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "He was already found guilty, the issue here is that the sentence for the guilt was out of line considering the sentencing guidelines.\n\nDouble Jeopardy protects from being tried again for the same crime (decision of guilt or not), not protection from an improper trial (hung jury, mistrial, etc).", "Lawyer here! Double jeopardy exists to keep someone from being *tried* multiple times (for the same conduct). That's it. There's nothing saying a defendant can't be re-sentenced.\n\nIn the case here, the trial has already happened. The guy was convicted. The ship has sailed. But the sentence imposed by the trial court was legally flawed, so the appeals court told it to try again. It's not uncommon.", "Double Jeopardy is a bit more complex than people assume.\n\nIt isn't a major concern in the appellate process for cases like this. The man was already found guilty, the question was whether the sentence was appropriate. \n\nMost states have a certain amount of time that it is appropriate to sentence someone for whatever crime. Generally speaking, if you are convicted of, let's say, a \"level X felony\" there is a specific amount of time you are supposed to go to jail. Again, generally, if a judge does not sentence that proscribed amount of time, the sentence handed down is subject to appeal. There is almost always a list of criteria that can allow a judge to go outside the proscribed time, either sentencing more time, or less. For this crime, it seems that one of the criteria was how much control the victim had over the situation. Because the sentencing judge felt the victim had substantial control, the judge sentenced him for less time. The prosecution said that the convicted person should have served at least four years, so they appealed the judges sentencing, not the determination that the person was guilty. (EDIT: It wasn't that the prosecution just felt like he should have served four years; four years was probably what the statute proscribed that he serve. Had the judge sentenced the person beyond what would have been proscribed in the statute then the convicted person's lawyers could have appealed the sentence to try to get it lowered. The same way that certain factors can mitigate the length of a sentence, certain factors can enhance the sentence handed down, like if the crime had been done for racial reasons[depending on the statute, there is a lot of broad strokes stuff going on in my answer because 99% of the law depends on something that depends on something that depends on something])\n\nThis is not a jeopardy issue. A jeopardy issue would be if the original court had found the person not guilty, and then the state charged him again. There would also have been a jeopardy issue if the judge had sentenced him to a time proscribed by that state's statutes and then the state tried to appeal it to get a different sentencing time. \n\nYou are protected from being twice put in jeopardy by the Fifth Amendment, when jeopardy occurs is a legal issue that may vary in each situation and jurisdiction. If I recall correctly, jeopardy generally attaches when the jury is sworn in for jury trials, and I believe when the first witness is called in a bench trial.", "Others answered the main part here pretty well. But I should also point out that there are other ways in which Double Jeopardy does not apply.\n\nThe biggest thing being the appellate courts. When you appeal something, the courts don't examine your guiltiness/nonguiltiness. They don't care about that. They examine the case itself and ensure that everything was conducted the way it was supposed to be conducted. If there's anything that looks like it could possibly be unfair or perhaps evidence was submitted that actually shouldn't have been allowed etc, the appellate courts can overturn the ruling and another trial can commence." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616949/Montana-teachers-1-month-rape-sentence-overturned.html" ]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "edwli5n" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "They're not really waterproof, is the simple answer. They're mostly waterproof, and rely on angles to shed and wick the water away faster than it would drip out the other side. \n\nThis means you can make a relatively light and inexpensive material that still allows for airflow. \n\nAs to why your finger makes it come through, it's basically surface tension. When there's nothing touching the inside, the water sticks together and drains down, but when you touch it, the water can stick together and flow onto your finger. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eta3mkt", "eta6gt4" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "There is a radiolab pod cast about this topic....pretty much all debris is clasified by size and tracked individually by an agency sort of like NASA. They ping alerts to crews who might encounter the larger peices so they can avoid it but they said there is pretty much no way to keep track of the really small bits as there is soo much of it.\n\nAlso mentionioned is that if too much builds up due to a major incident then we are pretty much fucked.", "The [US Space Surveillance Network](_URL_0_) includes both ground-based sensors and satellites that do the tracking." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drllvya", "drlm2z7", "drlmhys", "drlmo53", "drlw7lg" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 9, 83, 2 ], "text": [ "The board of directors vote him out. They might do so under pressure from prominent shareholders. Ultimately, though, the board of directors determine the executive structure of the company (including voting in new board members). He's still the chairman of the board, but that doesn't mean he runs the board, so he can be voted out.", "Public companies like Papa johns are beholden to their stockholders; often there are a board of people who own a majority of the stocks who have more power than the CEO; if they dont like what the CEO is doing they can replace him", "just because he's the founder doesn't mean he owns majority share of the company. when he sold shares of the company to investors for money, he sold majority share away. \n\nbill gates only owns 4% of microsoft.\n\nmark zuckerberg only owns 28% of facebook.\n\njeff bezoes only owns 17% of amazon. \n\nwhoever has majority shares get majority power influence over the board. that's how you share a company with thousands of owners. \n\n", "Papa John's is a publicly traded company. This means that individuals can buy portions of the company called \"shares\" and the company can use that money to invest and grow. John Schnatter kept 25% of the company for himself when they went public, but the other 75% was sold in order to grow the brand. \n\nThe shareholders are represented by a board of directors. Schnatter has a lot of power, but if they all agreed he shouldn't be CEO then they can make him. They can choose a new CEO. What they *can't* do is take away his 25% of the company.\n\nSo he still owns 25% of the company. He still will make millions and millions of dollars from Papa John's. He just doesn't actually *run* the company any more.", "It's a great question, and it touches on a lot of public confusion over what \"CEO\" means, versus Chairman, versus Founder, President, etc. The best way to explain it is to walk you through the differences in how small and large companies are owned and managed.\n\nLet's say you own a corner store with your spouse. Ownership and decision-making rests entirely with you two, right? If you ever disagree on how money should be spent, or how the company should be run, you can probably talk things out, so no formal mechanism for that stuff is necessary.\n\nBut take a slightly larger company. Like say... a Silicon Valley startup just past its infancy. It needs $10M to grow, and the Founder doesn't have that cash on hand. So they go and look for investors willing to pony up the money.\n\nWell, investors don't know this Founder personally. They're not going to turn over, say... $2M to some random person and let them do whatever with it forever, even if they tentatively like what they've done so far. They want to make sure that money is spent wisely. But the Founder isn't going to turn over control of their business, either. So what do they do?\n\nThey vote on it! Typically, they will form a council, called a Board of Directors. Each investor, along with the Founder, gets a seat on the Board roughly equal to how much money they put in. And then the Board votes on all major decisions the company makes.\n\nExcept it's not practical to have the Board vote on *every* decision. (Imagine if the Board had to get together and vote on every hire and fire in a 500-person company!) So the Board votes to appoint someone -- the Founder to start -- to make all the day-to-day decisions, with the caveat that they could vote again to fire that person if they don't like what they're doing. That is the CEO. *The CEO works for the Board, not the other way around,* even if the CEO also has a vote on that same Board. This is the biggest important distinction between a CEO and say... just a President.\n\nThings are a little more complicated in a huge, public company, with millions of shareholders, but the principle is the same. The shareholders vote in groups to nominate a Board of Directors, and then again, the Board votes to nominate the CEO. If the CEO does something that enough shareholders dislike (like, say... pops off in public about kneeling NFL players and tanks the stock price) they can lean on the Board. If enough Board members flip, they can vote to fire the CEO.\n\nBut there is another, important title: In very large companies with large, unwieldy Boards with billions of public shares, the Board will typically nominate its *own* leader, called a Chairman, to manage the Board itself. Ideally, for separation of powers purposes, you want this to be a different person from the CEO, but very powerful and successful CEOs (like Disney's Bob Iger) can often convince the Board to also name them Chairman too.\n\nIt's now *very* difficult to fire the CEO, because as Chairman, the CEO manages the voting schedule and agenda of the very council that could conceivably ever vote to fire them. You can still do it, but it takes a *huge* majority of the Board to overrule the Chairman, and usually by that point the Chairman and CEO realizes they are so screwed that they will negotiate a resignation before it actually comes to a vote.\n\nThis is what happened in Papa John's case. But as part of his resignation negotiation as CEO, he got to keep Chairman. The Board then voted to make his former second in command the new CEO. So you can argue that Papa John really isn't giving up a huge amount of control.\n\nThe politics of these Board seats, CEO, Chairman, Founder, and shareholders can get *extremely* complicated and very dramatic -- just as complicated as any national government, with its dueling separation of powers, factions, voters, parties, etc. [Entire books have been written](_URL_0_) about some of the more famous and dramatic wars for control of major companies, if you're interested in knowing more." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.amazon.com/DisneyWar-James-B-Stewart/dp/0743267095" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2s0nkv", "c2s1isa", "c2s1zqm", "c2s2pqt", "c2s2x5r", "c2s3ap7", "c2s3ubi", "c2s5arx", "c2s0nkv", "c2s1isa", "c2s1zqm", "c2s2pqt", "c2s2x5r", "c2s3ap7", "c2s3ubi", "c2s5arx" ], "score": [ 13, 37, 9, 7, 22, 4, 18, 2, 13, 37, 9, 7, 22, 4, 18, 2 ], "text": [ "It reduces the overall quality of the housing. It actually creates less available housing and also raises the price of homes that should be lower. \n\nI personally think that it is morally wrong because it is a violation of property rights. If someone wants to rent out his house for $1k/month and someone else is willing to pay that, why should the government not allow the two parties to make that deal?", "One of the main reason capitalism works is that prices somewhat accurately reflect supply and demand. Rent control takes away this information. As a result, there isn't the same incentive to create new developments. Less new development means less supply, which would increase prices, but they're kept artificially low which compounds the problem. You end up with a situation where the government then has to step in to create new housing, because businesses don't find it profitable.\n\nHow disastrous it ends up depends on how out of tune the government rent control is with what the open market prices would have been. This isn't like banking regulations or employment insurance though, it's a reduction of information that never ends well.", "In my town it is not uncommon for tenants to own property down the street while living in a rent controlled apartment at less than half the market rate for 10 years.", "The laws around rent control can get really complicated really quickly, and they vary a lot from city to city . . . but let's say the basic rules are that I'm a landlord and I can only raise rent 2% per year as long as a tenant stays in their apartment.\n\nAs rent everywhere else starts going up, my tenants have nowhere else to go that they can afford. I'd really like to make more money, but I can't raise rent on my existing tenants because they don't want to leave (since everywhere else is more expensive now).\n\nThe landlords and tenants are now stuck with each other. I don't want to spend money fixing the place up, because my tenant has below-market rent. In fact, I don't care if they're unhappy, because I'd be thrilled if they moved out--I can rent that apartment out at a current rate to new tenants in a heartbeat.\n\nThe end result is people wind up sitting on apartments they should have left ages ago, but couldn't afford to, and landlords do the bare minimum maintaining their properties because they'd rather the renters come and go more often so they don't get locked in to the rent control limit. Everybody winds up worse off.", "TLDR: It causes housing shortages and degradation.\n\nImagine rent was fixed at $1/month in Saskatchewan. This is obviously ridiculous, but it'll prove a point.\n\nEveryone in Saskatchewan who is renting would be able to afford to rent. In fact, word spreads of Saskatchewans great rental prices. People begin to move to Saskatchewan, where they can take advantage. In fact, many people who used to own their homes sell their houses and begin to rent. Then one day, there's no more rental properties available.\n\nSaskatchewan Mining Company is looking to hire people all across Canada, but they can't get people to move to Saskatchewan. because there's no housing left. Even new college kids can't get a place to live.\n\nPeople are starting to realize that more apartments need to be built, but no one is willing to build them. At $1 rent, its not profitable to do so. Homelessness increases.\n\nFurthermore, landlords stop paying for things like fixing pipes because they don't have money. The quality of already existing properties declines.\n\nThe same thing happens to varying degrees at any price below equilibrium price (the price the market would set absent of any rent control).\n\nCan rent be set at a price which doesn't have these effects? Yes. But it would require politicians to set a reasonable price, while many in their constituency (renters) would want the ceiling lowered as much as possible. \n\nConsensus from economists is that the market prices rent more effectively than politicians.", "Rent control is bad for cities in the **long run**. If landlords can only charge a very low rate for rent, they won't add more properties and won't bother to maintain the ones the already own. Low rent encourages more people to try and look for apartments. When more people want apartments than there are apartments to be had, **less people get housing, the housing that is rent controlled is in worse condition, and the way in which landlords decide who gets housing often ends up biased** (long waiting lists, giving preference to people they know, discriminating against race, etc.) ", "I'll explain like you're five:\n\nLet's say you are fortunate enough to have a few playhouses that your family gave you as presents. Obviously you can't play in all of them all the time, so you, being a smart little boy or girl, decide to let the other kids from your class borrow them from you for some extra money. Let's say it's going to be $5 per week.\n\nYour friends Arthur, Bashir and Carol can afford to pay you the money because they each have a successful lemonade stand, so they get to have the playhouses for the week. Let's say they borrow it from you like this, while paying, for a few weeks (renting). You also agree that you'll come and help them fix things that break through normal play (i.e. basic landlord stuff). Eventually, you might even have enough money to buy new playhouses, and rent that out to more classmates (invest in more housing). The amount your friends pay you might change from week to week, depending on if there are other fun games they can play or other playhouses in the area they can use (market price for rents).\n\nNow a few new kids moved into town and want to rent a playhouse from you. Their parents don't give them a big allowance (lower-income families), so they can't afford to pay you, and then can't get a playhouse. They think this isn't fair, so your teacher and parents (government) come and tell you that you have to charge less money so the other kids can play too (rent control). They may outright tell you that you can't charge that much money (price ceiling) or you'll get in trouble, so now you can only charge $1 a week.\n\nSince prices are so much lower now, everyone and anyone wants to come borrow a playhouse from you, but there aren't enough to go around (housing shortage).\n\nSo now what do you do? Well, you can't get enough money to invest in new playhouses, so you don't bother to get more playhouses for your friends. You also know that, since there is so much demand, that you don't need to bother fixing stuff that breaks. Even if your friend gets mad at you and doesn't want to keep playing and paying, you can easily find someone else.\n\nThe only way other kids can even get playhouses now is if their parents buy them one (government housing), since they can't borrow from you. So now nobody's really happy.\n\n**tl;dr** You rent some playhouses for $5, your teacher says that isn't fair to the other kids, now you can only charge $1. There are more kids than playhouses and everybody loses.", "Devil's advocate here:\n\nTHE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!", "It reduces the overall quality of the housing. It actually creates less available housing and also raises the price of homes that should be lower. \n\nI personally think that it is morally wrong because it is a violation of property rights. If someone wants to rent out his house for $1k/month and someone else is willing to pay that, why should the government not allow the two parties to make that deal?", "One of the main reason capitalism works is that prices somewhat accurately reflect supply and demand. Rent control takes away this information. As a result, there isn't the same incentive to create new developments. Less new development means less supply, which would increase prices, but they're kept artificially low which compounds the problem. You end up with a situation where the government then has to step in to create new housing, because businesses don't find it profitable.\n\nHow disastrous it ends up depends on how out of tune the government rent control is with what the open market prices would have been. This isn't like banking regulations or employment insurance though, it's a reduction of information that never ends well.", "In my town it is not uncommon for tenants to own property down the street while living in a rent controlled apartment at less than half the market rate for 10 years.", "The laws around rent control can get really complicated really quickly, and they vary a lot from city to city . . . but let's say the basic rules are that I'm a landlord and I can only raise rent 2% per year as long as a tenant stays in their apartment.\n\nAs rent everywhere else starts going up, my tenants have nowhere else to go that they can afford. I'd really like to make more money, but I can't raise rent on my existing tenants because they don't want to leave (since everywhere else is more expensive now).\n\nThe landlords and tenants are now stuck with each other. I don't want to spend money fixing the place up, because my tenant has below-market rent. In fact, I don't care if they're unhappy, because I'd be thrilled if they moved out--I can rent that apartment out at a current rate to new tenants in a heartbeat.\n\nThe end result is people wind up sitting on apartments they should have left ages ago, but couldn't afford to, and landlords do the bare minimum maintaining their properties because they'd rather the renters come and go more often so they don't get locked in to the rent control limit. Everybody winds up worse off.", "TLDR: It causes housing shortages and degradation.\n\nImagine rent was fixed at $1/month in Saskatchewan. This is obviously ridiculous, but it'll prove a point.\n\nEveryone in Saskatchewan who is renting would be able to afford to rent. In fact, word spreads of Saskatchewans great rental prices. People begin to move to Saskatchewan, where they can take advantage. In fact, many people who used to own their homes sell their houses and begin to rent. Then one day, there's no more rental properties available.\n\nSaskatchewan Mining Company is looking to hire people all across Canada, but they can't get people to move to Saskatchewan. because there's no housing left. Even new college kids can't get a place to live.\n\nPeople are starting to realize that more apartments need to be built, but no one is willing to build them. At $1 rent, its not profitable to do so. Homelessness increases.\n\nFurthermore, landlords stop paying for things like fixing pipes because they don't have money. The quality of already existing properties declines.\n\nThe same thing happens to varying degrees at any price below equilibrium price (the price the market would set absent of any rent control).\n\nCan rent be set at a price which doesn't have these effects? Yes. But it would require politicians to set a reasonable price, while many in their constituency (renters) would want the ceiling lowered as much as possible. \n\nConsensus from economists is that the market prices rent more effectively than politicians.", "Rent control is bad for cities in the **long run**. If landlords can only charge a very low rate for rent, they won't add more properties and won't bother to maintain the ones the already own. Low rent encourages more people to try and look for apartments. When more people want apartments than there are apartments to be had, **less people get housing, the housing that is rent controlled is in worse condition, and the way in which landlords decide who gets housing often ends up biased** (long waiting lists, giving preference to people they know, discriminating against race, etc.) ", "I'll explain like you're five:\n\nLet's say you are fortunate enough to have a few playhouses that your family gave you as presents. Obviously you can't play in all of them all the time, so you, being a smart little boy or girl, decide to let the other kids from your class borrow them from you for some extra money. Let's say it's going to be $5 per week.\n\nYour friends Arthur, Bashir and Carol can afford to pay you the money because they each have a successful lemonade stand, so they get to have the playhouses for the week. Let's say they borrow it from you like this, while paying, for a few weeks (renting). You also agree that you'll come and help them fix things that break through normal play (i.e. basic landlord stuff). Eventually, you might even have enough money to buy new playhouses, and rent that out to more classmates (invest in more housing). The amount your friends pay you might change from week to week, depending on if there are other fun games they can play or other playhouses in the area they can use (market price for rents).\n\nNow a few new kids moved into town and want to rent a playhouse from you. Their parents don't give them a big allowance (lower-income families), so they can't afford to pay you, and then can't get a playhouse. They think this isn't fair, so your teacher and parents (government) come and tell you that you have to charge less money so the other kids can play too (rent control). They may outright tell you that you can't charge that much money (price ceiling) or you'll get in trouble, so now you can only charge $1 a week.\n\nSince prices are so much lower now, everyone and anyone wants to come borrow a playhouse from you, but there aren't enough to go around (housing shortage).\n\nSo now what do you do? Well, you can't get enough money to invest in new playhouses, so you don't bother to get more playhouses for your friends. You also know that, since there is so much demand, that you don't need to bother fixing stuff that breaks. Even if your friend gets mad at you and doesn't want to keep playing and paying, you can easily find someone else.\n\nThe only way other kids can even get playhouses now is if their parents buy them one (government housing), since they can't borrow from you. So now nobody's really happy.\n\n**tl;dr** You rent some playhouses for $5, your teacher says that isn't fair to the other kids, now you can only charge $1. There are more kids than playhouses and everybody loses.", "Devil's advocate here:\n\nTHE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d36l1vx", "d36l4ux", "d36nzb0" ], "score": [ 24, 21, 5 ], "text": [ "There are many videos of what is apparently misconduct in the voting process aimed at benefitting Hillary Clinton and suppressing the supporters of Bernie Sanders.", "Several bernie-supporting delegates were rejected for various reasons, it got rowdy because of accusations of voter suppression, and the hosts said they couldn't maintain security anymore so they had to leave.", "Nevada had what is called a 3 tier primary process. The 1st tier (voting by citizens) went in favor of Hillary. The second tier (delegate Selection at a congressional district level) went to Bernie, because not enough Hillary supporters showed up. The third tier (state level) was last night, and it flipped back to Hillary because (supposedly) 64 2nd tier Bernie delegates were denied entry. When people protested in favor of Bernie,they were ignored. There are several videos of the resulting chaos. In my opinion, the entire delegate/superdelegate process is rediculous and decidedly undemocratic.\n\nEdit: added \"state level\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cprmbva" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Every now and then I remember how pointless and insignificant everyone's lives are." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd5kkcu" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "From a Euro-American perspective, the Sabbath has been around since Biblical times, so the idea of having one day per week to take a break is ancient. \n\nI believe that current 5-day work week started around the later Industrial revolution, when more people began paying attention to things like worker welfare (no more children playing around with heavy machinery), as well as starting to introduce a shorter workday (eventually ending in the 9-5 workday we have now)\n\nHard to say what the sole effect of making a five week day was since it was a change accompanied by shorter workdays and better labor regulation.\n\nWiki: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Reform" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxtqngl" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Lets everybody enjoy their holidays without watching TV and having to keep up while with family and gives more time to film and edit episodes\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f9au9e1", "f9b84bf", "f9bbpbz", "f9bgco3" ], "score": [ 63, 9, 6, 12 ], "text": [ "There are animals like a sponge that you would likely mistake for a plant if you didn't know better, and plants that can move and eat \"meat\" like a venus fly trap. I know that plants and animals are different in that plants have cell walls and animals have cell membranes, and given how far back on the tree of life we are related, those two things must be really different and important.", "Animal cells don't have the recipe to make chloroplasts cells, new cell recipes are not easy to develop. It's something that was discovered only once in history by a cell, and all nowadays plant are the descendant of this cell. \n\nSome slugs steal chloroplasts from plants and then do photosynthesis for themselves.", "The distinction seems very vivid in part because it's a simplified way of classifying different living things. Fungi are an obvious weird further case but there are others. Some organisms - like [kelp](_URL_1_), for example - look like plants and can photosynthesize, but aren't *really* plants according to modern classification schemes. Meanwhile, the creepy wriggling [parasite that causes malaria](_URL_2_) is actually more closely related to plants than animals. [Golden Algae](_URL_0_) aren't plants but they can photosynthesise and have cellular tails that let them swim. In short, plants and animals may seem as different as chalk and cheese, but there all sorts of other weird chalky-cheesy mix up organisms out there we don't usually hear about.", "If plant could walk it would require much more energy and photosynthesis can't produce enough food for that much work. \nAnd animals can't do photosynthesis cause they need more energy and can't be dependent on photosynthesis." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_algae", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelp", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_falciparum" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd3nn6p", "cd3nndh", "cd3pm2a" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The dropped object would accelerate toward the center of the earth until it reached terminal velocity, and once it passed the earth's center it would start to slow down and then fall back toward the center again, oscillating back and forth until gravity and wind resistance would keep it at the center of the earth. If there was no friction/air resistance, it would just oscillate back and forth indefinitely. \n\nIf you *threw* the object downward and there was no air resistance it would exit the other side of the tunnel with the same velocity that you threw it with.", "A [great video](_URL_0_) with Neil deGrasse Tyson that explains everything.", "People that claim it would oscillate back and forth are wrong. It's a nice thought, but it's a misinterpretation of the laws of nature. \nThat would happen if the gravity of earth was created by a small point at the centre of the earth, and that the object \"falling\" could pass through that point.\n\nFirst of all, lets take a look at the formula for gravitational force: F = G*M1*M2/r^2\n\nG is the gravitational constant, we don't need to worry about that for this example. \nM1 an M2 are the masses attracted to each other.\nr^2 is the interesting thing here. The r itself is the distance between the two bodies, but the ^2 means that the relationship is squared. I.e. if the distance doubles, the force is only a fourth. \n\nNow, to simplify things, lets just consider that the object is in a cavity in the exact centre of the earth, lets also assume that the earth is a perfect sphere with perfectly equal density.\n\nSince the object is inside what causes the gravity, we can't really treat earth as just one object, we have to think of it as very many objects stuck next to each other all around the object (I.e. particles), all have an equal amount of mass (and therefore equal gravitational pull). \n\nSo, there are forces trying to pull the object in every direction. As long as the object is perfectly centered, the net force acting on the object will be zero. But if we placed the object slightly off-zero, the formula for gravitational force tells us that the \"pull\" from the particles that make up earth won't be even, the ones that are closer will exert a slightly larger force than the more distant ones, so the sum of the forces would not be zero. Newton taught us that an object will remain in its current state until acted on by a force. Well, since we now have a net force that is non-zero, the object will start to move towards the closer one of the particles acting upon it. The closer it get, the more pull it will feel from the closer particles, and the less pull it will feel from the more distant particles. \n\nMany people like to think that a stationary object at the centre of the earth would be ripped apart, but this is not correct.\nSince gravity act on all particles with mass, ALL of the objects particles will be acted upon by the gravitational forces. I.e. all parts of the object is being \"pulled\" in all directions. But what about the r^2 from that gravitational force formula?! Yes, the particles in the \"northern\" part of the object will get a slightly larger pull to the north compared to particles in the south part of the object. This is a variant of what is called \"tidal forces\". Another example of tidal forces is the fact that your head feel slightly less gravity than your feet. However, the forces are far two weak to overcome the forces holding particles together. So if you happen to fall into a bottomless pit, at least you don't have to worry about being ripped apart :/\n\nSo, trying to get an object stationary at the centre of the earth would be like trying to get a steel ball centered between two magnets (magnets also have this r^2 thing), virtually impossible.\n\nAnother way to imagine gravity being a round bowl, with a pin in the centre representing earth (or any other object large enough to have a significant gravitational field). Put a ball in the bowl, and it will go to the centre and hit the pin = falling towards earth and eventually hitting is. Now, for the \"being in a cavity inside the large object\", flip the bowl upside down, letting where the bowl meets the table around the perimeter represent the walls of said cavity. Try to balance the ball on top of the bowl. It will race to either side, hitting the table (the walls of the cavity).\n\nNow back to the actual question:\nFrom what I wrote above, we can draw the conclusion that the object dropped would start off by falling down, since most of the gravitational forces acting upon it are \"coming from\" lower than where you are holding the object before you drop it. \nBut after a short while, when the object has passed into the earth a bit, you will have gravitational forces from the side as well, and here the above reasoning comes into play. Since the object can't reasonably be exactly centered in the hole, it will get a slightly larger \"pull\" off towards one side of the wall. And subsequently, it will end up sliding down against that wall until the friction overcomes the gravitational force pulling it down (remember, the net sum of the gravitational forces lessen as the object get closer to the centre of the earth), and there it will stop. It will never fully reach half way through." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHBDiR5urE" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e94e2xb", "e94e5b4", "e94eq42", "e94fris" ], "score": [ 5, 8, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "It’s the midterm elections for congress and some special elections for governors that are in new positions. \n\nEdit: just considered you might not know what Congress is. It’s kind of like the parliament if your from a country with that. ", "Every two years, the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election. This gives the possibility to flip the majority party in both chambers of the federal legislature, making it more difficult to pass legislation preferred by the Republican party. (But not enough to give a veto-proof Democratic majority in both chambers). [This is a drastic oversimplification making the assumption a lot of proposed legislation is sharpy decided along party lines]\n\nIn addition, as usual, many state/local elections are held simultaneously", "Basically the Republican party currently hold all three branches of government President, Senate, House of representatives 1/3 of the senate and all of the house are up for re-election. This could potentially leave the Democrats in charge and able to block any and all legislation from the President, in addition they could also impeach Trump on various breaches since he took office which would leave Mike Pence the republican vice president in charge.", "It's mostly too little too late for any real change. Most of the \"divisiveness\" in American politics is just theater to keep voters angry enough to vote for one of the two parties even if they don't like either, just to vote against the other. Meanwhile they happily work together behind the scenes to do things like keep the population in debt and over throw foreign governments that don't let American cooperations abuse their people and ecology." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcnsysv", "dcntrh9" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "considering there are living witnesses to some of the atrocities, it's hard to deny atrocities happened.\n\nthe Japanese story says there was no high level orders. and whatever stories of individual soldiers committing actions must have been fabrications because honorable soldiers always follow orders. \n\njust like flat earthers, no amount of evidence will ever convince them that their opinion is wrong. and once you're in deep, you're committed to go all the way.\n", "Unlike Germany, which took the high road of apologizing for all of their wartime behavior, the Japanese have never fully taken responsibility for their war crimes. Comfort women (sex slaves) are the other well-established atrocity that comes to mind.\n\nTo be fair, Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (where many many people learn about the details of the massacre) presents itself as a scholarly book but is not. Japanese scholars have seized on that. Still, the amount of evidence (including photographs) not to mention Japanese behavior all over the Pacific Theater make for a very solid case that something dark and grizzly happened there.\n\nOne particularly touchy issue is a Japanese report sent home describing a Japanese prince having a contest to see how many people he can decapitate how quickly. This is pointedly controversial because it involves Japanese royalty. Nevertheless, it fits with the rest of the scummy behavior and I'm not sure anybody outside of Japan contests this happening.\n\nNumbers are always a difficult thing when it comes to war crimes, but it is laughable to say that nothing happened there.\n\nI award the point to the Chinese." ] }

[]

[ "https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/japan-china-motoya-hotel-apa.html?_r=0" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c61mkxm", "c61op91" ], "score": [ 6, 5 ], "text": [ "It's not a denial of service or something like preferential treatment for a certain race, gender, etc. Actuarial science is just that: a science. Insurance is a business, and the different variables that determine how much someone pays for their insurance are based on past and present statistics of behavior. The price isn't set for me just because I'm a non-married white male with no dependents and so on, it's because all of those factors statistically show that I am a higher risk for an insurance claim. There is chemistry in the human brain involved as well that helps explain why the 18-25 partition has an upper bound of 25. There are subgroups within that partition as well.\n\nIf there was a flat rate insurance cost for everyone who owned a car, regardless of age, gender, driving history, etc, there would be a massive outcry from the 'safer' drivers who then pay more than their share for the claims of the young and old.", " > I believe there is a law that companies can't discriminate against things like age, sex, race, and in some states, sexual orientation\n\n\nRace is subject to strict scrutiny in discrimination. Age and sex are subject to a rational basis test (for instance, is it discriminatory to not give a 12 year old a driver's license?)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctm980c", "ctm9nnh" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because people want something to be upset about and this is the newest thing. Two weeks ago, no one ever even knew about this goddamn lion. The news said we should be mad, so everyone got pissed. Outrage gives people a feeling of purpose.", "Stories have characters, setting, plot, conflict and resolution. \n\nA rich American dentist traveled to Africa to shoot a lion named Cecil for fun. \n\nThis is a very striking premise to a story and sets up the characters, setting and plot. People want to experience the conflict (the backlash against the dentist, the morality and legality of hunting etc) and then see that conflict resolve (will the dentist be brought to justice?).\n\nThe broader issue of rhinos becoming extinct is very hard to tell as an interesting story. It's like the difference between a blockbuster thriller and a long, but important, documentary series.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clm19mv" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Your body is not an anatomical mirror. Your left side does not mirror your rigt side. Same as your left index finger is not identical to your right index finger. Thus your veins runs 'differently' in your body, meaning that some are close to the skin and some are not.\nAnother contributing factor might also be that you havent always exercised like now, and from childhood may have had a prefered arm (and leg) you used more than the other, leading to this arm being repetitively used more throughout life.\nNb! I am not a native english speaker." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fahh27q", "fahiqc9", "fahrs7o", "faiecu0" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "If you say that it's literally same exact milk (same brand, same type, same size, etc) then its probably different stocks. Lets say Whole Foods bought milk 2 weeks ago and Safeway bought theirs 2 days ago. So WF's milk is older, and thus expires sooner.\n\nHowever if you mean that brands are different, but product is essentially same - then it depends on what kind of milk it is, how it was processed, how it was made, from what animals (cows, goats, almonds (yes - almond is an animal :P )) etc. Pasteurised vs natural, etc. \n\nNo, the expiration date is not dictated by retailer. Rather its dictated by producer - whoever produces it marks it on the package.", "It's likely one of two options:\n\nIs the Safeway milk ultrapasteurized? It will say so on the label. Ultrapasteurized dairy products are heated to a higher temperature which better sterilizes them and allows them to last much longer than standard pasteurization. Some ultrapasteurized products are shelf stable (they don't require refrigeration until opened). However the higher temperature affects the flavor of the product, and is more \"processed\" which is similar to \"chemicals\" on a food label. \n\nThe other option (are they coming from the same processor, same brand, etc) is Whole Food's acquisition path for dairy takes more time than Safeway's (which may have different paths for different classes of products). If Whole Foods routes all purchases through warehouses then to stores, while Safeway has ships milk from processor to stores Safeway will consistently have fresher milk but higher shipping costs. This can be worth it if Safeway attracts customers with their milk.", "Probably the one with the short code was processed using HTST and packaged traditionally, while the other was UHT processed and packaged in an aseptic environment.", "If they were the same product from the same plant they will have the same expiration date. \n\nMilk products sold in the United States have a plant code. First two digits is the state the rest is the plant. They are limited on how long they can sell it based on the type of pasteurization.\n\nRegular homonogized pasteurization has a couple week shelf life. Ultra pasteurization has couple months and UHT has the longest, it’s also shelf stable, meaning you can keep it on the counter. Pasteurization changes the flavor profile that’s why everything isn’t just UHT milk. \n\nHowever for any milks, once you open them they all last the same. About 1 week before they go bad. \n\nTo recap, pasteurization is not an indicator of quality, and shelflife is based on pasteurization not quality." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4dv8gk", "c4dving", "c4dvzwl", "c4e21fc", "c4e25m9" ], "score": [ 7, 29, 21, 7, 4 ], "text": [ "[Check this out.](_URL_0_)\n\n > Every device connected to the public Internet is assigned a unique number known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address. IP addresses consist of four numbers separated by periods (also called a 'dotted-quad') and look something like 127.0.0.1.\n\n > Since these numbers are usually assigned to internet service providers within region-based blocks, an IP address can often be used to identify the region or country from which a computer is connecting to the Internet. An IP address can sometimes be used to show the user's general location.\n\nThere is more detail at the website I linked (including showing you your IP address and location).", "Kids these days are exposed to porn at a far too early age.", "It's called \"geolocation\". Every computer on the internet has a unique \"IP address\" (sort of like a telephone number). ISPs generally get large blocks of continuous IPs & assign sub-blocks to a geographical area. Through a lot of work, people have built databases that can figure out what geographical area your IP is likely to be coming from.\n\nIt's not always perfect. For example, they always place me two states away.", "they dont. It's actually real live local girls waiting to hook up. It's posted by your local ISP.", "they use your webcam then ask millions of mothers who is jerking it in the video, and then they find who it is and ask for the address " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://whatismyipaddress.com/" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuv7h1c", "cuv7owo", "cuvafty" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Capitalism. \n\nPeople want to get the most for their money and when it comes to food that means large sizes and cheap prices. If food costs go too high then people simply stop buying that food item and that costs a restaurant or grocery store more money by the food rotting than it costs them keeping a small profit margin for the dish. \n\n", "Besides farmers producing a surplus, tipping is a big factor. If you tip 15% on a $75 meal (not including tax in the equation), that's the same as the food costing $86.25 in a non-tipping culture.", "When you go to a restaurant, you pay for the service first, then for the actual food. As a rule of thumb, the ingredients usually make up only 1/4 to 1/3 of the costs. Additionally, the work of preparing a dish twice as large usually isn't twice as much for the chef.\n\nSo it comes down to the customer's expectations. Americans expect large meals, so the restaurants deliver - without hurting their profits much.\n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "diuqnm9" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Essentially yes. Except for the additional water in the 80 proof alcohol. But there is just as much alcohol in both shots so it will have the same effect on your blood alcohol content." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f28v39m", "f291zbv" ], "score": [ 105, 13 ], "text": [ "Basically (the way I was taught this at least) you have two major types of sweat glands, apocrine and eccrine. Sweat produced by eccrine glands is mostly water. Apocrine sweat is more oily and contains a whole bunch of other stuff (which I won't get into). So bacteria can metabolize the components of apocrine sweat far more readily. \n\n\n\nApocrine glands (which are heavily concentrated in your pits and groin) are stimulated by sex hormones, the levels of which rise sharply during puberty. So you get an assload of oily sweat, which is then colonized by bacteria, who generate foul odors.", "Fun fact: most east and southeast Asians and a significant percentage of native Americans have a gene that causes the apocrine glands to not secrete oils that bacteria like. So the bacteria don’t colonize their skin and they don’t get an unpleasant odor when they sweat. It’s called the ABCC11 gene." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eclhhj7", "eclho5x" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "It's all geometry. Assuming equal radii between all circles, if you place them in a way that they don't intersect but touch each other at exactly one point (tessellating) and you start with just 3 circles, those circles form a triangle shape. If you connect the centerpoints of those circles, it forms an equilateral triangle (equal length sides, each corner is 60°). So if you continue placing circles the same way around that center circle, you can do that a total of 6 times because 360°/60°=6. A hexagon has 6 sides. Hope this helps.", "To quote my mom, \"because of the way it is.\"\n\nWhen circles are layered, they seat with an offset of 50%. Each subsequent layer offsets the one beneath it by 50%. Once a bunch of layers have been added you can look at a single circle and see how many other circles touch it. In this case, a single circle will have 6 other circles touching it.\n\nNow you have a single circle with the 6 circles around it, and it is clear that this structure is hexagonal." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddw2xjv" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Male programmer type guy here. It just depends on how the programmers who made the game decided to handle the case where the game isn't getting updates from the server. Some games leave the character in place, and then warp him when the updates resume. Others avoid the warp by having the character fly from their old position to the new one. I seem to remember that neverwinter nights had a thing where it would try to estimate where the character would be based on their last position and trajectory, which led to weird glitches. I could be making that up though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9epuxs" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's because the game takes up the majority of your computer's resources and stays at the forefront. Your computer needs to load in all the other stuff that the OS and other programs need before you can use them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fdwbv6u", "fdwepex" ], "score": [ 11, 2 ], "text": [ "Barely any wear and tear, better for the environment as all that time you spend not moving while the engine running is time that CO2 and pollutants are spewing out when they don't need to be. Multiply all that time by millions and millions of cars and you have a significant CO2 saving.\n\nSaves fuel and thus cash too.", "We will see in a few years how those motors hold up. One starter replacement or rebuild would buy you enough fuel for years of idling at lights. Then there is the problem of oil distribution, if you're starving the top end of your motor for oil thousands of times I can't see it being great in the long term." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coswvtz", "coswvvv" ], "score": [ 4, 12 ], "text": [ "It really depends. Corpses are usually taken by troops of their own side, who wish to recover and bury the bodies: this is often the purpose of ceasefires. Military equipement is a bit different. During battles, it will be left, and probably for some time afterwards, but if the vehicle is valuable and salvageable, however, it will be recovered by the force in question: the RAF has a group dedicated to recovering lost aircraft.\n\nIn WWII, it is most likely that the equipment was left, and then either during or after the war, it was taken, probably for scrap value, by locals: if you were a farmer, you might see if you could recover some diesel from a damaged tank, or a scrap metal merchant might cut it up and sell it for the metal value.", "Usually they don't. Outside of Kursk you can take a spade out West of the city and dig down just a few inches to human remains, shell casings, etc. Vehicles were only removed if they were salvageable or were in the way. After the war civilians gleaned the site for years for scrap but anything else was just abandoned. Modern armies recover bodies for burial, but when the battlefields are too massive sometimes they dont. Remains are still found in Flanders when someone digs a well and new phone line is laid. \nIn Germany the Allies employed POW's for years in work gangs cleaning up battlefields. Once a tank burns it is useless. The heat from the fire ruins the temper of the armor, so they were just abandoned. Military trucks were used as work horses all over Europe for years so people stripped all the wrecks of parts pretty quickly. The hulks got towed to scrap yards. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e34gyam", "e34hcav", "e34hlj7" ], "score": [ 2, 10, 5 ], "text": [ "It’s UV over-exposure that increases the risk of cancer. Too much/little of anything becomes a hazard to the human body. Too much/little food, water, heat, cold, attitude, sunshine, pressure, speed, etc. The key is moderation!", "UV light is an energy source, since humans are automatically exposed in varying degrees to this energy source we have evolved to make use of the \"free\" energy to create vitamin D. We have also evolved to darken the skin to prevent over exposure to UV which would increase risks of skin cancer. Only animals like naked mole rats don't have to concern themselves about exposure to some degree or other to UV light _URL_0_", "We don't have an alternative path to synthesize vitamin D ourselves, because throughout our evolutionary history, there hasn't been a strong selective pressure to. After all, for most of human existence it's been pretty difficult to hide from the sun all day every day. \n\nThat's more or less unrelated to UV exposure increasing the risk of skin cancer. As noted, for most of human existence, *you were going to be in the sun,* full stop. \n\nThe body did evolve mechanisms to handle this better. As our precursors became open savannah dwellers, the ultraviolet radiation caused not just DNA damage, but also depleted folate, which breaks down from UV exposure. Among other things, folate is needed for fertility. As such, darker skin pigmentation, which absorbs some of the harmful radiation, was naturally selected for. \n\nThis would also provide some protection, albeit not absolute, from the DNA damage caused by ultraviolet radiation. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://youtu.be/64DP3CbpZUg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2u7k0m", "c2u7k0m" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I don't know the exact details, but I do know that any query made to the system goes to remote servers with the voice command. There, the technology across multiple servers parses your voice to determine exactly what you say (some say the original creators of the voice recognition technology, Nuance, [is still primarily responsible](_URL_1_)).\n\nAfter that, a completely separate process then parses the words you said to pull out key words and phrases to interpret what exactly you meant and how to resolve your request. Once that process knows what you want, then it's just a matter of calling the right sub-applications with the right arguments. Like setting a reminder at a certain time, calling a certain person, or looking up some query on [Wolfram Alpha](_URL_0_).\n\nThe accuracy of the transcription capabilities and Siri's interpretation power is what's cost Apple several million dollars in research and purchases to get Siri where it is now.", "I don't know the exact details, but I do know that any query made to the system goes to remote servers with the voice command. There, the technology across multiple servers parses your voice to determine exactly what you say (some say the original creators of the voice recognition technology, Nuance, [is still primarily responsible](_URL_1_)).\n\nAfter that, a completely separate process then parses the words you said to pull out key words and phrases to interpret what exactly you meant and how to resolve your request. Once that process knows what you want, then it's just a matter of calling the right sub-applications with the right arguments. Like setting a reminder at a certain time, calling a certain person, or looking up some query on [Wolfram Alpha](_URL_0_).\n\nThe accuracy of the transcription capabilities and Siri's interpretation power is what's cost Apple several million dollars in research and purchases to get Siri where it is now." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.wolframalpha.com/", "http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/05/apple-siri-nuance/" ], [ "http://www.wolframalpha.com/", "http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/05/apple-siri-nuance/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg6b4f0", "dg6c958" ], "score": [ 12, 3 ], "text": [ "Chemical weapons are worse because:\n\n1) They kill slowly. \n\n2) They are not as controllable as they drift in the air and on the water. This means they cause a lot of collateral damage. \n\n3) They often contaminate and kill those attempting to treat the injured, and they often have very few to no actual treatments that work. \n\n4) They contaminate the environment for a long time killing people years after the attack. There are still some battlefields from WWI that are toxic and make people sick or even kill them when they spend time in them. ", "Damn good question. I'm reminded of a line from Full Metal Jacket: \"The dead only know one thing: it is better to be alive.\"\n\nSetting aside the high number of very questionable assertions about the incident, two things: first, it wasn't sarin gas. How do we know? Because there were survivors.\n\nSecond, gas isn't an anti-personnel weapon. It's used to make an army move somewhere they don't want to go.\n\nExample: your defensive position is in a valley adjacent to some mountains. An offensive force is moving toward you across level ground, but you don't want to fight them there, for a number of reasons. You want to fight them in the mountains. So you lay down a chemical blanket on the entire valley where your opponent is approaching.\n\nYour enemy now has to make a difficult choice: button up and move VERY slowly through gas, diminishing their combat effectiveness by 80-90% - or avoid and approach from another direction, forced to fight you either not at all, or in the mountains, where you prefer to fight anyway.\n\nAt any rate, it's simply not logical for a military force to use chemical weapons in the way that is being asserted. A LOT of chemical weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq War during the 80's, but even then, they were used in the traditional manner.\n\nThe question itself has long been asked in regard to the atomic bombing of Japan, the firebombing at Dresden and Tokyo, and many others. Why is it okay to kill 60,000 enemy soldiers in a year, but not in a single night? I think that's one reason (among many) why war is so very self-destructive, even at its most necessary: it forces a society to make ethical judgments that don't make any sense in any context but war. Which is unfortunate." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxv44gn", "cxv59ok" ], "score": [ 15, 9 ], "text": [ "I can't do that. I just wanted you to know I both envy and respect your ability to whistle with your fingers", "When you whistle in the usual way (make an o with your lips, tongue down) you make your \"whistle\" with your lips. As these are \"soft\" tissue you can't blow with too much force as it would distort the shape therefor not function as a \"whistle\" anymore. Using your more rigid fingers you can blow with more force, increasing volume.\n\nI don't think this takes in account al factors though as acoustics are rather complex." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpexv3v" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "It's called \"vertical integration\" and it's regarded as a smart move because the more a company diversifies its products, the less hurt they are if one product takes a hit (for instance, if they need to recall, or if a competitor comes up with something better, or if a change in the marketplace at large makes the product less desirable -- like if you were selling bread when the Atkins craze hit, it would be nice to also have a sub-brand selling bacon).\n\n[30 Rock had a pretty great moment] (_URL_0_) explaining why some people find this phenomenon a bit worrisome." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ7oht6TD9c" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e32upix", "e32uu34", "e32v0n3" ], "score": [ 9, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "You need to look up what they call \"the rocket equation\". \n\nLets say you want to throw 10kg into orbit. Orbit speed means you have to accelerate it to something like 9.4 km/s (thats per _second_). Thats pretty fast. To accerlate your 10kg AND your rocket to that speed you need a certain amount of thrust. That means bigger engines, or engines that burn longer both of which requires more fuel. But that fuel has mass that you ALSO have to accelerate so now you have to bring MORE fuel to accelerate the other fuel, but wait the mass you have to accelerate drops as you burn fuel so now you need less fuel to accelerate it..... and now you have a 2nd or 3rd order differential equation. \n\nNow throw in multiple stages (why multiple stages I won't get into), the reserve you need to maybe land your rocket like SpaceX, and you have some hard math. If your payload changes weight at all, you have to recalculate the whole shebang.\n\nAs for the control - the aerodynamic forces acting on a rocket that is accelerating to that kind of speed - and before it leaves the atmosphere - are tremendous; and even relatively minute shifts in center of gravity of your rocket (as the fuel gets burned up) or a shift in payload (remember that resupply rocket in The Martian that blew up?) means you have to have control surfaces or nozzle gymbols to constantly adjust the thrust so its through the center of mass or things start tumbling and the forces rip it apart.", "If you launched the same rocket from the same spot in the same weather at the dame time of day on the same day of the year, the math *would* be the same. Since we're impatient and computers are good at math, it's easier to recalculate for a launch tomorrow than to wait for the variables to match.\n\nRocket science is complex, but ultimately predictable. That's precisely why we're able to launch so many rockets every year with minimal failures.\n\nThe failures that do occur are generally hardware failures, not failures due to miscalculation. Rockets are metal cans full of explosives after all, there's a lot that can go wrong. Most of the difficulties are not i the math but in the manufacturing.", "Each rocket launch is different\n\nPutting a 1000 kg payload into low orbit requires different thrust than putting 1500 kg into low orbit and requires significantly different thrust and trajectory than putting 1000 kg into polar orbit\n\nIf you wanted to launch the exact same payload into the exact same orbit from the exact same location in the exact same weather every time then you could set some constants. Unfortunately Iridium doesn't want to only be able to put their satellites in the exact same orbit as the Space Station and doesn't want to make them weigh the same so you end up needing to customize a bit for each launch\n\nBear in mine, these custom calculations aren't \"rederive the orbital mechanics equations!\", it's more like \"plug in new weight plus desired altitude, angle, and speed\" and out pops the answer" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e1zeiz8", "e1zekcb" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "A [dual SIM](_URL_1_) phone can hold / use 2 [SIM cards](_URL_0_). \n\nThe SIM card holds an identifying (hardware) number that identifies the phone, so you can set up a subscription and associate the SIM number with a phone number.\n\nSo dual SIM phones can answer/handle two separate phone numbers. These can be on the same provider (Verizon for example) or on different providers (one Verizon one AT & T). Popular with business persons; they can have a single phone device, but a personal number and an official business number on it.", "They work the same as a single SIM phone, but instead have two sets of cellular radios to allow it to connect to two networks at the same time. My dual SIM phones have two dialer and messaging applications, and has a toggle to quickly switch which SIM it uses for data transmission (unfortunately dont have automatic failover for lack of signal).\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscriber_identity_module", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_SIM" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3uzeii" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You need to be registered at an address so they know which constituency you are in so your vote can be cast in the right place. If they didn't voting would be chaotic and it would be difficult to detect fraud." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csz98g9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Money. The more people you can attract to your facebook page/website the more money you can get out of ads.\n\nPlus if you have some bad intentions you can try to infect the user when he visits your website, which is mostly equal to money." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckqp05g", "ckqp3vz", "ckqp4kw", "ckqp9fl" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "They have. I recently heard in America they have officially removed the cell phone restriction.", "You *can* have them on. You can't use them as a phone.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nOne, cell towers aren't designed for phones 30,000 feet in the air that can hit multiple towers.\n\nTwo, on a long flight having people babbling on phones would cause some passengers to politely invite others to step outside.", "I think that follows the better safe than sorry principle. Aeroplanes communicate with ground control using radio waves, and so do mobile phones.\n\n*that's a nice aeroplane you've got there... Would be a shame if something... Happened to it* **ring ring**", "They have they just don't want you to. Do you really think they are going to let you bring a phone on the plane if there is any chance it will make it crash? They are giving passengers patdowns and confiscating liquids, but they aren't going to stop you from bringing a phone that will make it crash?\n\nThey just don't want you to." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft#In_flight_technology" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2ta30c", "c2ta30c" ], "score": [ 14, 14 ], "text": [ "Well, we *don't*, is the short answer. But let's not stop there.\n\nSmall atoms work in a strange way. Normally if you think about two separate objects that you want to put together — think Legos or whatever here — you find that you have to *do work* in order to put them together. You have to pick up the Legos, line them up just right, then *squeeze* in order to get them to stick.\n\nSmall atoms are different. Small atoms, like hydrogen atoms, actually *want* to stick together. In other words, they *release* energy when they snap together, and it *takes energy* to pull them apart.\n\n*Big* atoms, like plutonium atoms, are just the opposite. They're so big and heavy and wobbly that it takes more energy to hold them together than it does to break them into pieces. That's how nuclear *fission* works. You take something that's just barely holding together, then you give it a little nudge and it comes apart into pieces, and you use the energy of those pieces flying apart to boil water to turn a steam turbine … or blow up a city, whatever. Same thing, different scales.\n\nBut small atoms actually release energy when they stick together to form bigger atoms. So you can, in principle, take two hydrogen atoms and stick them together and find that energy is released in the process — like putting two special Legos together and finding they get *hot* when they click into place.\n\nBut there's a challenge. Even though small atoms want to stick together, they naturally push each other part, like the north poles of two bar magnets. If you bring the two atoms *close* to each other, but not too close, they'll move apart, because they repel each other. So in order to get them *close enough* to stick together — and thus release energy — you have to work against that natural repulsion.\n\nThink of it like rolling a ball up the slope of a volcano. Up at the top of the volcano is a hole, a nice, deep one, and you want the ball to go into the hole — and the ball *wants* to go into the hole. If the ball rolled toward the hole, it would drop right in. But before you can get the ball to go into the hole, you have to get it up the slope. If you just nudged the ball up the slope, it would roll a little ways, but then stop and roll back down again. So in order to get the ball into the hole, you have to give it a real kick, really push it hard, so it climbs all the way up the slope and falls in.\n\nThe way we give atoms a real kick is to make them *hot.* Hot atoms are really moving fast, they're rocketing all over the place. So if you take a lot of hydrogen atoms — in a gas — and heat them up, you'll eventually get to the point where if two of the atoms happen to hit, they'll stick, and release energy.\n\nThe trick with that is, though, that hot gases create *pressure.* If you heat up a gas, it'll exert pressure on the walls of whatever container you're holding it in until the pressure ruptures the container and the gas comes rushing out (which, by the way, cools the gas back down to equilibrium temperature again).\n\nSo in order to get energy out of nuclear fusion, you have to first start with hydrogen gas, then you have to build a *really really strong* container to hold it, then you have to heat the gas up *a lot* to the point where fusion starts to happen. When that happens, you start to see pairs of hydrogen atoms hitting each other and sticking — which again, releases energy, thus heating up the gas *even more* … which ruptures your container and makes a pretty big explosion.\n\nThat's called a hydrogen bomb.\n\nBut in principle, if you built a *really really really super-incredibly strong* container, then did all those things, the container *wouldn't* rupture when the hydrogen atoms start to stick. In principle, if you could build a container like that — and also figure out how to let heat escape from the container in a controlled way, but while still keeping the hydrogen hot enough that it continues to fuse — you'd have a really good, really long-lasting source of heat that you could use to boil water and turn a steam turbine, thus doing mechanical work or generating electricity or both.\n\nBut nobody's figured out how to do that yet, which is why I said we *don't* directly harness the power of nuclear fusion. It's never been done … and in fact, it's not entirely clear that it's even possible at all.\n\nHowever, we do *indirectly* \"harness the power\" of nuclear fusion. We do it constantly, in fact. Because the sun is a big ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. In the case of the sun, you don't need a container to hold the hydrogen gas in; it holds *itself* in, by the pressure of its own gravity. The weight of all that hydrogen pushes down on itself, squeezing the hydrogen in the very center to the point where it can fuse. The energy released by that fusion percolates outward through the dense layers of hydrogen gas, heating the gas up and making it glow, and that's what sunlight is.\n\nSunlight goes out in all directions, and a tiny part of it hits the Earth, and that light is used by plants to break the chemical bonds holding carbon dioxide molecules together, and the oxygen is thrown away and the carbon is used to make trees and stuff, and either right away — in the form of logs — or many years later — once the trees and stuff have been squeezed into petroleum — we combine those plants with oxygen again and release the heat they stored from the sunlight, thus boiling water and turning a steam turbine to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nSometimes we can cut out the middle-man. Light from the sun can hit special metallic plates called photovoltaic cells and create a little trickle of electricity directly. That's useful when we only need a tiny bit of electricity. Or light from the sun can warm the air in some places while leaving it cool in others, making the warm and cool air circulate — wind, in other words — and we can stick a turbine at the top of a tall pole and suck mechanical energy out of the wind and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity. Or sunlight can hit water and heat it up, causing it to evaporate into the air and then later fall out as rain, some of which lands at high altitudes and then, due to gravity, runs downhill toward the sea, and we can stick a turbine in the flow and suck mechanical energy out of that and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nOr we can simply eat food, which uses sunlight to grow, and thus power our muscles so we can do work ourselves, with our own bodies.\n\nBut mostly, with precious few exceptions, all the energy we encounter comes pretty close to directly from the sun, which shines because of nuclear fusion. So there's more to the nuclear fusion story than so-far-unsuccessful experiments aimed at creating it in a laboratory and using it directly.", "Well, we *don't*, is the short answer. But let's not stop there.\n\nSmall atoms work in a strange way. Normally if you think about two separate objects that you want to put together — think Legos or whatever here — you find that you have to *do work* in order to put them together. You have to pick up the Legos, line them up just right, then *squeeze* in order to get them to stick.\n\nSmall atoms are different. Small atoms, like hydrogen atoms, actually *want* to stick together. In other words, they *release* energy when they snap together, and it *takes energy* to pull them apart.\n\n*Big* atoms, like plutonium atoms, are just the opposite. They're so big and heavy and wobbly that it takes more energy to hold them together than it does to break them into pieces. That's how nuclear *fission* works. You take something that's just barely holding together, then you give it a little nudge and it comes apart into pieces, and you use the energy of those pieces flying apart to boil water to turn a steam turbine … or blow up a city, whatever. Same thing, different scales.\n\nBut small atoms actually release energy when they stick together to form bigger atoms. So you can, in principle, take two hydrogen atoms and stick them together and find that energy is released in the process — like putting two special Legos together and finding they get *hot* when they click into place.\n\nBut there's a challenge. Even though small atoms want to stick together, they naturally push each other part, like the north poles of two bar magnets. If you bring the two atoms *close* to each other, but not too close, they'll move apart, because they repel each other. So in order to get them *close enough* to stick together — and thus release energy — you have to work against that natural repulsion.\n\nThink of it like rolling a ball up the slope of a volcano. Up at the top of the volcano is a hole, a nice, deep one, and you want the ball to go into the hole — and the ball *wants* to go into the hole. If the ball rolled toward the hole, it would drop right in. But before you can get the ball to go into the hole, you have to get it up the slope. If you just nudged the ball up the slope, it would roll a little ways, but then stop and roll back down again. So in order to get the ball into the hole, you have to give it a real kick, really push it hard, so it climbs all the way up the slope and falls in.\n\nThe way we give atoms a real kick is to make them *hot.* Hot atoms are really moving fast, they're rocketing all over the place. So if you take a lot of hydrogen atoms — in a gas — and heat them up, you'll eventually get to the point where if two of the atoms happen to hit, they'll stick, and release energy.\n\nThe trick with that is, though, that hot gases create *pressure.* If you heat up a gas, it'll exert pressure on the walls of whatever container you're holding it in until the pressure ruptures the container and the gas comes rushing out (which, by the way, cools the gas back down to equilibrium temperature again).\n\nSo in order to get energy out of nuclear fusion, you have to first start with hydrogen gas, then you have to build a *really really strong* container to hold it, then you have to heat the gas up *a lot* to the point where fusion starts to happen. When that happens, you start to see pairs of hydrogen atoms hitting each other and sticking — which again, releases energy, thus heating up the gas *even more* … which ruptures your container and makes a pretty big explosion.\n\nThat's called a hydrogen bomb.\n\nBut in principle, if you built a *really really really super-incredibly strong* container, then did all those things, the container *wouldn't* rupture when the hydrogen atoms start to stick. In principle, if you could build a container like that — and also figure out how to let heat escape from the container in a controlled way, but while still keeping the hydrogen hot enough that it continues to fuse — you'd have a really good, really long-lasting source of heat that you could use to boil water and turn a steam turbine, thus doing mechanical work or generating electricity or both.\n\nBut nobody's figured out how to do that yet, which is why I said we *don't* directly harness the power of nuclear fusion. It's never been done … and in fact, it's not entirely clear that it's even possible at all.\n\nHowever, we do *indirectly* \"harness the power\" of nuclear fusion. We do it constantly, in fact. Because the sun is a big ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. In the case of the sun, you don't need a container to hold the hydrogen gas in; it holds *itself* in, by the pressure of its own gravity. The weight of all that hydrogen pushes down on itself, squeezing the hydrogen in the very center to the point where it can fuse. The energy released by that fusion percolates outward through the dense layers of hydrogen gas, heating the gas up and making it glow, and that's what sunlight is.\n\nSunlight goes out in all directions, and a tiny part of it hits the Earth, and that light is used by plants to break the chemical bonds holding carbon dioxide molecules together, and the oxygen is thrown away and the carbon is used to make trees and stuff, and either right away — in the form of logs — or many years later — once the trees and stuff have been squeezed into petroleum — we combine those plants with oxygen again and release the heat they stored from the sunlight, thus boiling water and turning a steam turbine to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nSometimes we can cut out the middle-man. Light from the sun can hit special metallic plates called photovoltaic cells and create a little trickle of electricity directly. That's useful when we only need a tiny bit of electricity. Or light from the sun can warm the air in some places while leaving it cool in others, making the warm and cool air circulate — wind, in other words — and we can stick a turbine at the top of a tall pole and suck mechanical energy out of the wind and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity. Or sunlight can hit water and heat it up, causing it to evaporate into the air and then later fall out as rain, some of which lands at high altitudes and then, due to gravity, runs downhill toward the sea, and we can stick a turbine in the flow and suck mechanical energy out of that and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nOr we can simply eat food, which uses sunlight to grow, and thus power our muscles so we can do work ourselves, with our own bodies.\n\nBut mostly, with precious few exceptions, all the energy we encounter comes pretty close to directly from the sun, which shines because of nuclear fusion. So there's more to the nuclear fusion story than so-far-unsuccessful experiments aimed at creating it in a laboratory and using it directly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckgvrqf" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "They aren't actually shivering. Their muscles are rapidly changing the fibers they use to balance and lift the load. One set of fibers is doing the majority of the lifting while the other set relax slightly then they switch positions creating the illusion of shivering. This switching can happen upwards of several thousand times per minute." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvv74r5", "cvv7vpa" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Probably all to do with our survival instincts. We can get attached to places as a way to demonstrate that it's \"our area\", and to produce offspring we adore the person that is deemed by our brain as the best mate, for healthier and stronger children. This is my biased idea, so take it for what it is.", "Like other great apes humans look for love and gain attachment to build community. This provides safety and security. A sense of belonging also helps give people an overall better mental state." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu7tvig", "cu7tyc1" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It *completely* depends on the company doing the \"remastering\". There is no fixed set of things except, perhaps, as requirements from the licensor. In addition, there are often limitations on what can be overhauled because original development materials may have been lost or are otherwise no longer available. \n \nA good example of this is Beamdog/Overhaul Games' remake of the Baldur's gate series: Because the level/area files for BG are rendered 3D scenes, and because the original 3D model files had been lost, Beamdog had to work with the level images as they were originally released- with some fancy math used to upscale the resolution of those images while still seemingly retaining detail. \n \nOn some other games most or all of the original development materials remain, including original artwork, and higher resolution versions of the masters, including audio, used. \n \nBut how much work and what work is done is very much handled on a game-by-game basis.", "Depends on the remake. Some games such as the Grim Fandango remake changed nothing about the graphics or sound, and rather reworked the engine to run on modern hardware as well as updated controls.\n\nMeanwhile you have something like the Halo remasters like the Anniversary Edition where it rehauled everything.\n\nAnd there are other \"remakes\" such as The Last of Us for PS4 where probably what happened was they could just use higher quality versions of the original textures as they would have been compressed to run on the weaker hardware." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e776wco", "e77710y" ], "score": [ 5, 10 ], "text": [ "Becsuse the dont treat the issue itself but rather act on the pain sensors in the brain. You just don't feel the pain. ", "Prostaglandins are natural chemicals that are released into your body when you are injured or sick. When they're released, they make nearby nerves hurt. This is when your body can tell that something is wrong, and you feel pain. Meds like ibuprofen target prostaglandins. It keeps more of them from being made, which reduces more nerve pain. So it's not so much that pills can hit a wide variety of targets, it's that the body's target is the same for most injuries. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj9fdy2", "cj9feaf", "cj9fvwh" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 14 ], "text": [ "Because they're very expensive, so the owner doesn't want to buy a new one every few years. Plus there isn't really a huge demand for in depth arcade games: arcades are kind of dying out because of console/PC games ", "Modern arcade machines are large complicated pieces of machinery. They have 1 or more large HD TV's built in, an internal PC of some kind to run the game, custom built controllers and cabinets, speakers, a coin or card reader, ticket dispenser, and lights or special effects. The software running the game is most likely made specifically for that machine, so it costs more that a 360 or PC game. All of those parts together are fairly expensive. A better comparison would be an arcade machine to the entertainment center in your living room.\n\nAs to why they don't compare to modern video games, there are two reasons. 1, there's little to no demand for it. Arcades aren't a booming business right now, and the people at arcades do not expect the machines to be ultra high quality. Second, the market for arcade cabinets is small, so there is less money invested in creating high quality games.", "It actually used to be the opposite way around. Back in '94, we were getting things like Cruisin' USA and Sega Rally that were a generation ahead of where consoles were at the time, and that were built on hardware that wasn't bettered until the PS2 generation. Unfortunately, that's pretty much what killed arcades. Used to be that consoles advertised themselves as offering an arcade-grade experience. When the PS2 surpassed them, it rendered them redundant, basically killing their market, and killing their progress. And that's why today, arcade has gone from being an aspirational term to almost a dirty word." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxsdyuq", "dxse7kl" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Hyperinflation from printing money to cover government deficits happens because the supply of the currency is dramatically increased. Note that this happens relative to the currency of which the supply is increasing--for example, when there is hyperinflation occurring with the Zimbabwe dollar, prices when paying with U.S. dollars may actually be comparatively stable. This is why, when inflation becomes very bad, people try to abandon the local currency and use a more stable foreign currency, even if it is illegal to do so.\n\nDevelopment aid comes in the form of foreign currency or it's aid \"in kind,\" in the form of goods. So the supply of the local currency isn't changed at all. It can still have a strong effect on the local economy, but for different reasons.", "Because they get to keep that 5 mil euros/ dollars. They can pay with this money to import high tech or infrastructure from developing countries or medicine. It never gets converted to their own currency. A lot of developing countries import more than they export.\n\nEven if they did convert this money, they would have simply more to gain but this is more complicated to explain.\n\nImagine if you are a bakery. You have 10 breads and printing more money is like cutting those breads in half. You have 20 half breads but they are still worth 10 breads.\nBut let's say someone rich came to your business and gave you 10 more breads, you actually own 20 complete pieces of bread.\n\nMoney is just a piece of paper but it has value. That value is similar to bitcoin. 5 dollars of value does not equal to 5 pieces of a dollar paper. If you print 5 more pieces, that value will be divided by two and your money will be worth less. 5 dollars of value will equal to 10 pieces of paper\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqs6kiy", "dqscen8", "dqshi84", "dqsub61" ], "score": [ 11, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "You don't sound dumb. It's a good question. The heart has its own electrical system that keeps it pumping independent of brain function. Sometimes it misfires, though, and that can lead to things like heart attacks. Basically, as long as there's blood flowing through the heart to keep it alive it doesn't even need to be in the body. That's what they do for heart transplants.", "The power source for the heart actually runs off of electricity. The heart is a muscle that receives an electrical signal as specialized cells rapidly change their electrical charge from positive to negative and back. If you have ever been shocked with electricity, when it occurs, your muscles contract rapidly. Every time this electrical signal travels through the heart tissue, the part of the heart that is “shocked” will contract. Your body has a cardiac conduction system which handles creating and regulating these signals. This heartpump runs automatically after your first heart beat when you are in the womb by receiving these electrical signals. Your body does it instinctually, so we never even have to think about it unless it beats out of rhythm, beats too rapidly, etc. \n\nAnother way of understanding how the heart runs is to look at how a pacemaker works. The pacemaker is connected to sections of the heart. The “brains” of the pacemaker send out electrical signals from a battery at a set speed (beats per minute) to cause the muscles of the heart to contract in a specific order at a specific speed. This pacemaker behaves the way the cardiac conduction system is supposed to behave.\n\nAlso, the heart and circulatory system is a closed system with a certain amount of blood in it. Think of it like squeezing a water balloon where the water is your blood, and your hand and the balloon are the heart. When your heart contracts, the blood has two directional choices to go, either away from the heart where it came from(backwards), or away from the heart moving forward in your circulatory system. Simultaneously, as your heart muscle contracts, a valve closes that keeps the blood from moving backwards in your circulatory system. At this point, the blood can only move forward in the system.", "The heart has pacemaker cells in it that send an electric signal throw the top through the bottom of the organ once those cells has reach a threshold of sadism influx, it’s cause a contraction which pumps the blood through the body and the cells reset by pumping out the sodium only for it to hit threshold again and contract.\n\nThis spot is called the SA Node.", "The heart is a pretty special engine because it's what it's pumping around is it's own fuel! The blood stream is how all muscles receive the oxygen and sugar they need to work, also the heart, as it is a muscle. So as long as it the blood it's pumping is good, it has plenty of fuel to keep on running, only a fraction of the blood it's pumping is used to fuel the heart itself though!\n\nTo keep it's pace and keep on beating the heart is controlled by electrical nerve signals, but unlike muscles we control, they are not sent from the brain, but they start from the top of the heart itself in the so called Sinoatrial node and propagate downwards, so first the two atria (upper chambers) are contracted, then travels downwards, causing the ventricles to contract, then they relax in the same order before a new signal starts, rinse and repeat." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9qvfch" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The same reason black men date white women, because black women are crazy. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfy0np5", "dfy10b1", "dfybbpa" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Are you talking about octane rating? If so, it's not more powerful. Octane rating indicates how much compression the fuel can sustain before it ignites. A high octane rating can be compressed more, thus high-powered engines that compress the fuel more need it in order to avoid it igniting prematurely, causing knocking and engine wear. If your car doesn't have one of those engines, any octane gasoline will work just the same for you.", "a higher octane gasoline will resist spontaneous combustion when compressed.\n\nthe engine itself has to actually have the mechanicals for more compression though. an engine can't just adjust its compression ratio. that's determined by the physical lengths of the spinning metal rods and metal piston inside the engine. engines that use high octane gas are able to compress the fuel mixture without it going boom by itself. that means with the proper timing of the spark, it goes bang with more force than a lower compression of the same fuel amount. ", "The octane rating is a measure of stability.\n\nWhen you compress a gas (and I don't mean gasoline), like in a bicycle tire pump, it gets hot. Take a volatile compound like gasoline, that just dying to burst into flame at any moment, compress it enough in vapor form, and that compressed \"*charge*\" stands a good chance of spontaneously bursting into flame. You don't necessarily need a *spark* to ignite something, it just needs to get hot enough. Fry oil in a pan too hot can just flash ignite...\n\nSo Octane is a hydrocarbon that is the reference chemical by which gasoline, a cocktail of hundreds of hydrocarbons, but mostly octane, is measured. Anything less than 100 is less stable than pure octane, anything over 100 is more stable. They have two different methods of computing the octane rating, and in the US, we use both and take the average. Over in England, for example, they use only one of the methods, that gives them larger octane ratings for the same fuel, and they call ours *limp wristed*. Dumbasses.\n\nThe reason we need to take an average, the reason we use gasoline and not pure octane, is because oil isn't synthesized, it's refined through what is essentially distillation. Vapors collect where they condense in a column, and the runoff at a given tier is a particular product. Light molecules come off the top, like butane used in lighters, gasoline is somewhere in the middle, asphalt is near the bottom, and bunker fuel is actually the bottom - used in cargo ships.\n\nSo why do we need different levels of stability? The more you compress the charge, the more charge you can compress, the more energy you can extract from the fuel. High compression and turbocharged engines are more energy efficient. Unfortunately, these engines also produce more extreme environments for the charge, making them unstable, so you need a higher octane fuel to tolerate that extra density and compression, and the heat you get from it. But high octane fuels are hard to refine, you don't get that much, so it's more expensive. Low octane is cheap and easy to make, and so it's more plentiful. Engine manufactures build engines for use with this cheaper fuel, and it's plenty powerful and efficient for most consumer needs and market demands.\n\nSo use the fuel recommended by your car. If it says mid-grade, use mid-grade. If it says regular, don't bother with premium, you're just pissing away money for zero benefit. If you put a fuel too low in your engine, you're going to get that spontaneous detonation we talked about earlier, which physically damages your engine. Modern cars have \"knock\" sensors that will change the running parameters of your engine to protect it, and you'll run really rich, wasting fuel, and under powered." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d27jzhh", "d27k1iy" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "There has been much research done on corpses to analyze how strong bones and other tissues are and there are a great many analyses of injuries where we can estimate the forces involved using physics and then compare the forces with the degree of injury.", "Sadly there's little shortage of real-life data. Modern cars have accelerometers which record how forceful an impact was, and those data can be used to analyse injuries resulting.\n\nBefore that, reasonable estimates could be made of how fast a vehicle had decelerated from what speed and again related that to injuries.\n\nThen there's [this chap](_URL_0_) who used himself as a research tool. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c76k0g1", "c76k16m", "c76k6kz", "c76mf6x", "c76mogw", "c76yplr" ], "score": [ 5, 9, 4, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The tires rubber is partially melted due to the speed they go. If you ever watched NASCAR after a crash when they follow the pace car they swerve back and forth to keep the tires warm so they get better grip, the tires also have to be changed often because of this. ", "F1 (and NASCAR, etc) have different sets of tires for dry and wet conditions; they go into the pits to change tires when the wet happens. The \"rain\" tires have grooves. \n\nYour parent's tires have to handle all weather conditions (unless they are rich with a Ferrari and a racing garage) so your government has laws in place for road safety that require tires to have a minimum amount of grooves in them. ", "As others have said, your tires have to be able to handle rain, hail, snow, and other road conditions, and you can't change them once (or more) per drive. \n\nMoreover, though, you're not driving on a carefully engineered and curated course. Your tires might have to deal with objects in the road, potholes, oil slicks, etc. etc. ", "The main reason, aside from what others have pointed out about your road car's tyres working in a variety of conditions, is because F1 cars are designed to go really really fast. So fast that the rubber on their tyres heats up, expanding and thus providing a lot more grip onto the road. The next time you watch F1, pay attention to the warm-up lap - notice how they're constantly swerving from side-to-side? That's to get the tyres hot. Hell, they even put covers on the tyres when they're sitting idle on the grid - it's not to keep them dry or anything, it's to keep them warm. Every degree helps. The hotter they get, the better grip they have. You can't do that on a car, even on a main road your car won't be going anywhere near the speeds of an F1 car.", "Formula 1 teams during races have two types of tires for their cars, dry tires and wet tires. Dry tires are totally smooth on the bottom, they allow for enhanced grip on the road but have one fatal flaw, they hydroplane easily. The Formula 1 car will have dry tires on during the race but as soon as it starts raining or the track becomes wet, the car makes a pit stop to swap the tires out for wet track tires. \n\nRoad cars cant stop and change tires every time it starts raining so therefore the tires have to be built for both types of road conditions, wet and dry.\n\n---------------------------\n\nThe other side of this answer is that that racetracks have completely different rules about what's legal and not legal than public roads do. The types of tires that can be used on the racetrack dont have to be legal to use on public roads because they will never be used on public roads. \n\nIts kind of like tackling someone is perfectly legal during a football game but will get you arrested if you do it in public. ", "also note: there are some tires that fall into kind of a loop hole, Drag Radials are the 1st to come to mind. i have a set on my car and theyre GREAT when its dry and TERRIBLE when it rains. they only have 2 grooves around the center of the tire and a handful on the outside edge. this tread is also very shallow and after about a month or two the tires are almost smooth, much like the racecar tires your talking about. these are still street legal, but very unsafe in wet conditions. the best way to describe it, even when those tires are brand new is like having your back wheels(in my case, because its a mustang and RWD) on ice the entire time. literally anything over about 25mph was like skating on ice. this also makes them very unpredictable and ive had the car spin around on more then one occasion very suddenly and with out warning" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fnfs24v", "fnfzohg" ], "score": [ 4, 12 ], "text": [ "Fats tend to soak up smells and stuff around them. I’d recommend cleaning your fridge well every once in a while.", "All the food inside is drying out and all the moisture takes smells into the air with it. The fridge is closed and small, so all that smelly air is trapped in there. Over time, food left in there a long time will have a dry crust and the humid smelly air will start to go back into the dry crust. The yucky taste and texture is all those mixed smells and dried out crust combined." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7dv0wg", "e7dv294", "e7dv47q" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 6 ], "text": [ "Yes it does, a refrigerator is basically a pump that effectively pumps heat out of the inside and on the back coil, if you open it, air gets in from the outside, making it need to pump more heat out, but the heat then goes back in,\n\nTo be fair leaving it a bit open probably won’t waste that much power, but it definitely does ", "It does cost more electric because your letting the cold out so it has to use more power to try and keep it cool BUT it is never going to be noticeable on the electricity bill unless you leave it fully open all day in temps with 20c and even then it's going to add maybe 25p per day,\n\nBUT here's my question who on earth goes to the fridge and leaves the door open regardless of whether it costs more electric it will make your food go off sooner and not be cold,\n\nI have never met anyone that opens the fridge and leaves it open it litterally makes no sense", "Yes (but not very much), and the reason is pretty simple.\n\nWith the fridge door closed, the thermodynamic system is mostly closed -- (almost) no energy in, (almost) no energy out -- and so the guts of the fridge don't have to do a ton of work.\n\nBut every time you open the door, some of the cold air inside escapes, replaced with relatively warmer air from its surroundings.\n\nThe condenser and compressor in the fridge then have to work to take the heat from that air and vent it out the back, increasing the energy consumed.\n\nThe amount of air that's exchanged this way isn't very much, because the air inside the fridge isn't moving around a whole lot.\n\nYou'll actually spend more energy putting a plate of hot food in the fridge than you will opening the door several extra times, because the food is directly increasing the humidity and temperature of the internals!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czpy1qy", "czpyhso" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "That's a damn interesting question but impossible to answer because we do not know just how horribly inflated diamond prices are. ", "They are not really inflated, it's all based on supply and demand like any other commodity. Industrial diamonds are very useful and widely used, jewelry is not useful but high in demand for obvious reasons, marriage being a big one." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkqz82l", "dkr3hdx", "dkr6us3", "dkrhncg", "dkrjva7", "dkrlt5x", "dkrmf32", "dkrmtxd", "dkrqisx", "dkrrsuj", "dkrtror", "dkrul9u", "dkrvb1i", "dkrxg5c", "dkrxqes", "dkry2dc", "dkrzmzj", "dks2x6y", "dks39b1", "dks47mf", "dks4jqy", "dkxo5w4" ], "score": [ 75, 19089, 836, 34, 50, 1723, 17, 3, 3, 41, 2, 5, 2, 12, 2, 8, 2, 2, 4, 6, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Mostly by earthquakes. When there's a big shock from an earthquake the entire planet rings like a bell. This ringing can be detected by seismographs. On those readings we see reflections of the pressure wave. These reflections are caused by the wave reaching the boundary between different layers of the earth.", "The same way you are able to tell what's in the box your grandmother sent you at Christmas. When you shake it, a sweater sounds different from a PS4 controller. Obviously scientists can't shake the earth, but the earth shakes itself sometimes, and scientists in different places are always listening (or rather their seismographs are listening). By comparing what different locations record, they can make good guesses about what's inside, just like you may be able to do. \n\nEdit: Thanks for the gold!", "Adding more detail to previous answers...\n\n\nShockwaves travel at a speed that is dependant on the material it is traveling through. The more dense a material is, the faster the shockwave travels.\n\nAir: ~1131 feet/second\n\nWater: ~4900 feet/second\n\nIron: ~16800 feet/second\n\nIf the earth were made of just one substance with the same density throughout, it would be easy to calculate the exact time a shockwave would arrive at any point around the globe. If it doesn't arrive at that exact time it means the earth is made of different materials and/or materials with different densities.\n\nScientists have measured the exact speed of shockwave propagation in pure elements, minerals, conglomerate materials (solid mixtures) and everything else they could test. Using some pretty complex math and the actual arrival times of shockwaves from various places on the planet, a very good idea can be formed of what our planet is made of and what it looks like inside.", "Pretty interesting we've only been 12 or 13 km deep. Have you watched the video detailing Russia's attempt to get deeper and it being nigh impossible?", "In addition to the correct answers already mentioned above, there are also very clear boundary effects at play in between the layers of different density. For example, a shock wave will not only change speed, but will change direction or even bounce off the interface between two layers depending on the angle of incidence and the densities involved (see Snell's law). These scientists can then extrapolate where these layers are delineated based on the places where the shock waves emerge on the surface of the Earth.", "Earthquakes produce and travel via both **P**ressure waves (bits of earth pushing on each other) ans **S**hear waves (bits of earth sliding past each other and dragging other bits).\n\nIf you imagine a solid, you can push on one bit and have another bit move, or you can drag one bit and have another bit move. Solids allow both P- and S- waves to propagate.\n\nIf you imagine a liquid, if you push on it another bit will move, but if you slide your finger over the surface, other bits won't move. Liquids propagate P-waves, but not S-waves.\n\nEarthquakes are messy and produce both P and S waves. So when an Earthquake occurs on one side of the planet, you listen on the other side and you will detect P-waves quickly, and S waves much later (if at all). The reason for the difference is that pressure waves can travel through the middle of the earth, but shear waves can't - they either go the long way around the outside through the solid crust, or simply dissipate before making it, which suggests that the middle of the earth must be a liquid as something is blocking S-waves.\n\nHowever, if you're not on the exact other side of the planet and maybe only a quarter of the way around, and you listen very carefully, you will actually detect *two* sets of Pressure waves, not one. What gives? Well, the second set of pressure waves is coming after the first set, so it must have traveled further and gone via a different path. The different path means the P-wave must have reflected of something, and we have deduced that this something must be a large solid within the liquid.\n\nSo the fact that in some places you get P- but not S- waves means there must be a liquid under the solid crust, and the fact that if you listen at the right spot you get a second P- wave means there must be another solid under the liquid\n\nedit: (I didn't see you asked about the mantle) If you monitor the P-waves carefully, very near an Earthquake you will also get a second set, this time quite soon after the first. In fact, too soon for the second set to have reflected off the inner core. This is because the second set is both reflecting and refracting as it travels; the refraction means there must be a change in density and the reflection means it must be sudden (the mantle). There are a few refractions - one at the top of the mantle, another ~600km down - which means there are different density layers and that is why we divide into upper and lower mantle. It's thought that the difference in mantle is that at higher pressures, the rock crystals form into denser arrangements (hence lower mantle is denser). Beyond that, we don't know much about the lower mantle compared to the upper mantle (which is easy to measure refraction more accurately) and the core (easy to measure the sudden change in how P and S waves propagate)", "Something people haven't mentioned yet but are very important in our understanding of mantle composition are xenoliths (fragments of mantle rock that don't melt but get stuck in magma and float up with it to the surface) and other mantle rocks that get piped up to the surface (the Hawai'ian Islands are a partial melt of the mantle, we also have examples of komatiite lava which are very similar to the mantle compositions). ", "When they dug that hole they found many things that weren't expected or predicted. Don't believe the hype. Indirect measurements aren't the same as direct measurements.\n\nIf we really want to learn more about earth we need to dig more deep holes.", "OP if you're interested in this topic, take a geology class. I took a sequence and absolutely loved it. Would minor if I was relevant to my major (CS). \n\nBut to ELI5 basically an earthquake sends waves all throughout the earth and we noticed that some behave one way and others don't, and the others that don't clued us in that there are more layers that change that other waves movement. ", "Not a scientist or anything but I work in seismic and we put listening devices in the ground and vibrate at a really low frequency with these trucks and it lets us see anything from fault lines to oil pits about 1000ft deep using the lowest setting. We can turn it up 3000% higher than what we do allowing us to see 20000 ft deep. When earthquakes happen and the devices are planted we can see about 50000 ft deep and this is with equipment a small company has so Im sure the government and larger companies have much stronger and better technology that could let them see far deeper allowing them to see much farther into the earth. Now I don't know how if this is something they actually use determine anything related to the post but to me it seems like it would be. ", "Any correlating methods other than seismology?\n\nI'm just curious how well we've built up the case, and **all** of the other comments so far are about pressure and shear wave propagation being **the** evidence.\n\nI'm not doubting the effort, I'm just wanting to hear more.", "Even better question. Is it coincidence that the deepest drilled depth is almost exactly the deepest discovered part of the ocean?", "While observations of earthquakes is the direct answer to your question, as evidenced by the other responses, there are other theories that rely upon the existence of an inner and outer core. \n \nIn particular, the dynamo theory for earth's magnetism is based on convection currents of liquid metal being induced in the outer core by heat generated within the inner core. Furthermore, these currents have not stopped over X billion years due to the continual heat being provided to them from that inner core as it solidifies under gravitational pressure from the planet. An alternative model (one that lacked the inner core for example) would not fit the theory.", "So its the day before Christmas and there are 5 presents with your name on them. \n\nYou really wanted a Nintendo Wii for Christmas. \n\nYou pick up a box and shake it, it makes a dull soft sound, and you decide that it's boring socks. You pick up another box and shake it, and you hear a, \"Squeak.\" You know its the sound of Styrofoam scraping against cardboard. You know that the WII comes in Styrofoam, THIS IS THE WII!!!!!!!!!!\n\nIf you didn't see in the packages, how did you know what was in them? By shaking them, you send vibrations into the packages, then you listened to the sound things made when they moved. By listening carefully to the sounds, you were able to make a good guess.\n\nThis is how scientists tell what the earth is made of. When an earthquake happens, waves of vibrations go through the ENTIRE Earth. Scientists have lots of machines all over the earth that can, \"Listen\" to the vibrations earthquakes make. By analyzing the time and frequency of the vibrations, we can tell whats in the earth, just like it was a Christmas present. ", "They yell really loud and ask all their friends to listen for the differnet echos. Sometimes they use nuclear explosions to make the yelling even louder, or let earthquakes do it for them.", "Essentially science has no idea what is beyond 8 miles deep, layers are assumed (hypothesis), all we have right now is best guess based on the physics we know and extend our reasoning from there. As a side note drilling to 8 miles showed us that rock acts a bit like soft plastic because of the great pressures at work at that depth.", "A woman discovered that the earths core was solid her name was [Inge Lehmann] (_URL_0_)\n\nshe was somewhat doubted at the time but was proved right, if i recall correctly.", "When there is an earthquake it sends out 2 types of waves, S waves (like a sin wave, the up down kind) and p waves, or pressure waves (kinda like sound, something pushes whats in front of it which pushes in front of it etc.). If I remember correctly S waves can travel through liquid but not solid and p waves can do both. So when there is an earthquake and an s wave can only be picked up within a certain radius of the origin point and p waves on the opposite side of the earth they can determine the earth has a solid core, and some liquid in between, as well as their general size. And I'm sure knowledge of pressure, heat, and properties of metals suffice to create a model that is supported by the explained seismic testing.", "Think of screaming at the top of your lungs on land and when you're underwater in the swimming pool. The vibrations of your voice in the air is like seismic vibrations traveling through cooler, more brittle rock and the vibrations traveling through water are like seismic vibrations traveling through the more molten parts of the earth. If you notice, sound doesn't travel as well through a liquid. Same rule applies. The deeper you travel towards the center of the earth, the higher amounts of pressure and heat are apparent to melt rock to make it liquid. Measuring the different speeds of vibrations from tectonic activity (aka Earthquakes) can paint a picture of what state of matter the rock below the surface is. To get more in depth, look up P and S waves and how they travel through mediums ", "on a larger, philosophical level, it's important to remember that things like the inner structure of the planet are *best guesses* rather than hard fact. We have compiled a robust line of reasoning and the things we believe about the middle of the earth are based on good evidence, but nobody's seen it. There are probably some pretty big twists that nobody had imagined, but we literally cannot look to see for certain\n\nat least, not until we get star trek scanners. that's gonna be sweet", "Scientist used seismic waves. Some waves can pass through liquids and solids. Some can't pass through liquid. Waves go in, some bounce back, some don't.", "And I'm sure knowledge of pressure, heat, and properties of metals suffice to create that well because they had not enough or all information available?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inge_Lehmann" ], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dzp7trp" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Most often these are not mutations but conjoined twins. One case is when an egg doesn’t split properly during development; another theory, though heavily disputed, is the fusion of two separate fertilized eggs during development. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "feh8ln7", "feh9ro3", "feh9wcm", "feha849" ], "score": [ 7, 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "It's 100% Hollywood bullshit. It might have been true decades ago when phone calls were connected manually, but not since the electronic switches that we have since the 1970s.", "That’s not a real thing. The phone company would have the record of the call the instant the call was connected. Even if the police didn’t have anyone on the call itself they could call the phone company and get the record of the call. If they where looking for the location of the caller, they would call the phone company and have them give them the location the call was made from. They don’t have any need to keep someone on the line at all as far as locating the caller is concerned.", "This is a holdover from how telephones worked before the 1970s. Nowadays, it's all electronic, and assuming the [caller ID isn't being spoofed](_URL_0_), it's pretty easy to obtain this info.\n\nPrior to the late 1970s, telephone networks didn't use computers and electronic systems. They used [electrically powered mechanical switches](_URL_2_) that were stacked together in arrays that filled entire buildings, and would physically connect different cables together to make a call go through. Several of these switches were required (in larger cities) to complete a call. In fact, this old mechanical switching system is what dictated how phone numbers were formatted, and assigned. The numbers you dialed would literally tell a switch which central office you wanted to reach, and then tell it how many times to step through its gears, to pass your call to the next switch in a different part of the network, and eventually, to your called person's phone line.\n\nIn this era, tracing a call *literally* involved a person (or several people) in the telephone central office working through the series of switches to see where a call came from. They would have to **trace** the path the call took... from the called phone line, back down to each switch that contacted it from one part of the network to the next, and on to the originating phone line. This is what took so much time. And, if the caller hung up before the trace was completed, then the effort was wasted... the call would end and all the electromechanical switches would snap back to their standby positions, waiting to be used in the next call.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit: [Here's a video of these old phone switches in action.](_URL_1_)", "While all these technical explanations are great, have you noticed that your phone tells you what number it's receiving a call from before it rings. That's how long it takes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcvA5q8yOTo", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strowger_switch" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr0cyzm", "cr0czo5" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Everyone is making money but you. \n\nYou take out a loan from Bank A for $100,000. If they kept it, you'd probably end up paying them $150,000 back.\n\nThey sell it to Bank B for $120,000. Bank A makes $20,000 right away, and Bank B makes $30,000 in the long run because now you're paying THEM the interest for the loan.", "Some banks create loans without the intent of actually keeping them. They start loans with the intent of *selling* them to other banks that will get money from the interest payments. The original banks get money from origination fees and from the fee they charge the banks they sell the loans to\n\nJust wait until you have a mortgage. Those suckers bounce around all the time" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3vw9c0" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Sweet - Your basic energy unit is glucose, this taste makes you want to eat things high in sugar\n\nSalty - Sodium is a vital electrolyte is maintaining physiological balance (water, chemical, energy production, ect) so you need foods with it too.\n\nUmami - Tripped by the amino acid glutimate, and not present in all people. Belived to help attract you to protein based meals too, making for a balanced diet.\n\nBitter - Trips when you eat things with alkaloids and nicotines. These chemicals are present in a wide variety of poisonous plants. Good detection of these can help you stay alive.\n\nSour - Trips in acidic foods. Can both be a warning from poisonous food and needed food like lemons for vitamins " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ec3bysq", "ec3cmm0" ], "score": [ 12, 5 ], "text": [ "Why more sex?\n\nBirth control was more widely available.\n\nThe Vietnam war in the 60's/70's brought back boys that were now men who had horrible PTSD and drug exposures. \nWays of escaping could have been sex, \"Make love, not war\". They felt their lives were at their end, their number is called, might be up.\n\nWhy divorce rates? \n\nAbusive spouses could be left as women in the workplace was more mainstream. \n\nBirth control did not trap women in a marriage with 10 kids... \n\nChurch laws eased and remarrying after a divorce was possible, in church, about that time. \n\nA few points. Not comprehensive by any stretch!", "Two words: the pill.\n\nTo elaborate (and avoid the auto delete bot), it was the first time that women had easy reliable birth control, and for that matter the first time we all had access to good antibiotics. For the first time ever. Nobody had ever hear of HIV and other incurable STD’s." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6t52ti", "d6t5paz", "d6t6so2", "d6t75rv", "d6tarpd", "d6tgppu", "d6tgrqr", "d6tgs1a", "d6ti6jr", "d6tioyh", "d6tj5nn", "d6tj62o", "d6tjci9", "d6tjuos", "d6tjvpm", "d6tkhki", "d6tlb9w", "d6tlckz", "d6tlkix", "d6tm1io", "d6tmts8", "d6torer", "d6tp3fs", "d6tpczt", "d6tpekc", "d6tsy2f" ], "score": [ 1851, 20, 13, 179, 118, 3, 19, 807, 62, 6, 3, 8, 118, 11, 2, 14, 15, 3, 55, 2, 5, 9, 4, 2, 10, 2 ], "text": [ "I think you can eat it, it's just that salmon that have spawned have not eaten for months and are essentially on their last breath. Their meat becomes mush when cooked traditionally. It is not very appetizing. It also loses much of its oil. ", "It dies pretty much immediately after spawning, and by the time you collect it, it will already have been dead for who-knows-how-long. As a general rule, you don't want to eat an animal that died for any other reason than that a person killed it for its meat.", "I assume it's a lot of stress on the animal which makes the meat taste bad. If adrenaline is released in cows before they get slaughtered then the meat will be wasted as well.\n\n\nSo it's not a matter of whether it is edible (poisonous) but rather of quality and taste.", "You can, it would just not be very good. The salmon after they spawn have not eaten since they were at sea. So they are not at a good state because they have been starving for a while. \n\nAdditionally they die shortly after spawning so unless you made sure to get one alive it could have been dead for days or even weeks and that is dangerous. ", "Worked in a salmon hatchery, and wondered this exact thing. We killed the salmons ourselves, so it wasn't an issue with finding them already dead. The hatchery manager said basically once it enters fresh water again, it begins dying and decomposing while still alive, so by the time it spawns, the meat is already disgusting.", "Have you ever handled a spawned out fish? By that point they are already almost dead.", "If you took one look at the fish you wouldn't want to eat it. It's dying, covered in a white fungus similar to fin rot, skinny and gross looking. And it smells fishy, which is a sign fish has gone bad.\n\nI've never heard that it is poisonous, but I've also never heard of someone wanting to eat it. ", "Alaskan here, you can eat it. As one commenter stated already they stop eating once they leave the salt and begin burning all their fat reserves. The flesh becomes softer and less oily and can start to take on a muddier taste the longer they're in the fresh water. Also, they begin to develop bacteria growth on their exterior after being in the fresh water for some time, these fish are usually long past spawned and pretty much just running on auto-pilot and swimming around half dead. \n\nEDIT: Also caught and ate salmon my entire childhood hundreds of miles from the ocean and they're fine, good actually. There are genetic variances in a lot of salmon that dictate how big they get depending on how far they have to go to spawn. The Yukon River King Salmon for example have a comparatively much more fat than other King Salmon because they travel from the mouth of the Yukon in Western Alaska, all the way to Canada. Even when caught in Canada, they are still eaten, or were traditionally, not sure what the regs. are now. ", "Yeah, another Alaskan here who actually eats salmon regularly... You can eat it after it's spawned, but it's just not as fresh. When we fish we like to get them as they enter the rivers from the sea, but then again we live near the coast, so it's easier for us. But you can drive inland over 50 miles around here and still catch them as they don't usually spawn until they reach pretty far inland. It's all about timing. Pretty much once they start turning color they go downhill, but plenty of people around here will still catch and eat them until they start getting moldy and zombified.", "Fish is dying when they are going to spawn. They taste mushy. Some people will catch spawned out or close to spawning salmon and smoke them. Which is pretty good. ", "Do the bears still eat them?", "I think you're specifically asking about pacific salmon, which don't eat for long periods of time before they spawn, and die shortly after they spawn.\n\n\nAtlantic salmon do not die after they spawn, and they are caught and eaten at all ages, AFAIK.", "Looks like this has already been pretty well covered but to bring it home they go from looking like [this](_URL_1_) to looking like [this.](_URL_0_) Yum.\n\nEdit: Made my links suck less", "I want to piggyback on this question and ask, why do bears catch salmon that are still fighting upstream and not just go to where the salmons actually breed? The salmon are still alive for a bit after spawning, wouldn't a dying salmon make for an easier meal? ", "Was once a resident of a place named \"smells like fish\", from the aftermath of rotting salmon carcasses. One other small point, if everyone took the rotting salmon out of the streams, it would not be scavenged/decompose to the benefit of plants and other animals down stream. Also, going into spawning grounds to grab a juicy one would disturb the eggs. Just general reasons to keep kids out of the delicate streams.", "You can eat them, they just get further and further into zombie mode. I was a commercial salmon fisherman for 9 years and literally saw fish swimming around after their eyes had fallen out.", "ELI5: What does spawning mean in this context? I don't really know much about fish and what I do know I don't know the English words for", "When I lived on Adak Island, we just smacked the humpies with a rock and threw them to the eagles. They just start to taste pretty terrible, its been explained but theres a huge difference in taste, they stop eating in fresh water and pretty much.. start to fall apart, at least with pinks they do. Silvers and reds seemed a little more hearty than pinks. ", "Salmon don't eat or even heal wounds on their journey up. The salmon we get here lose 50% of their body weight to get here. We have several salmon at our facility with open wounds. By the time they start spawning their bodies are already falling apart. In fact females usually die within a day of spawning. The meat really isn't of quality. Additionally many hatcheries use chemicals like formalin to prevent infections and that makes the salmon unfit for consumption after we spawn them.\n\n-source, I work at a Chinook Salmon Harchery.", "Why can't they just swim downstream after spawning? It seems like swimming downstream would be ten times easier than swimming upstream.", "When the salmon spawn they are all but dead. They are basically rotting while alive. It's just not something you want to bite into. ", "The game devs put in a 5 second invulnerability timer on the salmon when they spawn to prevent spawn killing due to lag. ", "One other thing to consider is that the flesh is really bruised from the process of swimming upstream. They are often flinging themselves onto rocks to advance up the river.", "Salmon get an invincibility buff right after spawning, to prevent spawn killing for new Salmon ", "They are mostly dead after they reach the spawning grounds.\n\nThey've used up their energy reserves in the 3-5day marathon swim against current and uphill\n\nOrgan failure has set in\n\nBodies fill with toxins after kidneys and liver fail\n\n their flesh is macerated from the shock of leaving sea water and spending days in freshman water \n\nTL,:dr\n\nSalmon are swimming zombies by the end of the spawn.\n\nThey look terrible and taste terrible to humans.\n", "Well how do you eat it before it spawns? It's not on the map yet. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.naturebob.com/zenphoto/albums/fish/Coho-Salmon-female-spawned-out-guarding-nest.jpg", "http://www.wildsalmonkitchen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/silver-whole-e1304395488349.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxm76pd", "cxm79p8", "cxm79x8", "cxm9ns1", "cxmhg36" ], "score": [ 19, 6, 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Traditional reproduction has a sperm and egg. Both have half of a full set of chromosomes. When the sperm enters the egg it deposits its half of the chromosomes, now with the two combined the newly formed zygote has a full set. It begins to develop as a new individual with neither the exact DNA of its mother or father, but a mixture. \n\nIn cloning you remove the chromosomes of the egg and insert a complete set. It can be from the mother, father or any other member of the species The resulting individual will be an exact duplicate of whatever was the source of its chromosomes. This is a clone. \n", "The simple version is that you take donor an egg cell, remove the DNA and add in the DNA from the organism that you want to clone. You then put the egg into some sort of incubation machine or (more commonly) into a female to develop. Normally, the DNA, egg, and female surrogate are all of the same species, but the can sometimes be of closely related species (which has the potential to help save endangered species since we can use more plentiful surrogate mothers and eggs with DNA from the endangered species). \n\nThere are plenty of potential pitfalls and complications involved in the process and many clones aren't as healthy or long-lived as their natural counterparts and too many clones means less genetic diversity.", "The simple version is that you take donor an egg cell, remove the DNA and add in the DNA from the organism that you want to clone. You then put the egg into some sort of incubation machine or (more commonly) into a female to develop. Normally, the DNA, egg, and female surrogate are all of the same species, but the can sometimes be of closely related species (which has the potential to help save endangered species since we can use more plentiful surrogate mothers and eggs with DNA from the endangered species). \n\nThere are plenty of potential pitfalls and complications involved in the process and many clones aren't as healthy or long-lived as their natural counterparts and too many clones means less genetic diversity.", "Adding to the other posts, I imagine they have some way of controlling gene expression so that instead of growing an entire animal, they can force just one or two types of cells to grow (fat and muscle for example). I couldn't tell you exactly how it works, but I do know that there has been limited laboratory success in [growing specific organs.](_URL_0_)\n\nIt would be cheaper and less controversial to produce everything from a handful of donor organisms. Whether that be in the form of creating it from scratch with traditional cloning techniques, or harvesting stem cells (there are different types, and adults have some that will produce other types of cells) from a donor animal.", "China is truly the last place anyone ( human ) needs to be cloned. However, for animals that is a different story. In fact, recently a \"fish\" farming colony company that uses genetically modified salmon was approved to sell by the FDA ( this is very recent news - and honestly extremely surprising ). The tried and true method of cloning as posted before is specifically called SCNT; Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Strangely though, this SCNT process is as rudimentary as it is inefficient. China, somehow believes it has an upper hand in the field of cloning because of new techniques and better funding ( they claim to have human cloning capabilities ). \nStill, the reason cloning usually gets a bad rep is because of the many cells stimulated to \"clone\" only a handful actual make it to \"term\" ( begin the process of becoming an actual embryo ); one reason being that in vitro ( out of body ) some cellular proteins are not aggregated in copious enough amounts to sustain the cell's progression. [ this is a generalization, as the number of available molecules of any type might be less out of the body ]. You know a sort of cloning is always occurring in your own cells. Remember that cut you got a few weeks ago? Once the scab decided to fall off, the skin cells were made to mitotic-ally divide - which is essentially cloning - except a scientist didn't create the impetus for it. I hope I could add something to the table. I thoroughly enjoy discussing the biological world. * If I made some mistakes feel free to call me out XD " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.popsci.com/researchers-grow-first-ever-beating-hearts-stem-cells" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvuwipq" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "They come from banks in the US. The US doesn't officially sanction other countries using her currency, but you can't keep those slips of paper from going on vacation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck9my1g", "ck9o4u0", "ck9ojgx", "ck9oppj", "ck9ul0s" ], "score": [ 37, 7, 11, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Nobody talks about the ones that become janitors.", "Science is still working on an answer to what exactly autism is, but one recently popular theory is the [Intense World Theory.](_URL_0_)\n\n...That paper doesn't really fit in ELI5. Basically, the autistic brain is constantly in overdrive, to the point where way too much input is generated, causing it to shut out external signals in attempt to keep the noise down. Although this impairs the brain in ways which require detailed sensory input, like interpersonal communication, other, more internal thought processes are still allowed to run at full speed.", "There's plenty of geniuses and prodigies who don't seem to have any mental disorders. Also, there's plenty of people with Asperger's who aren't geniuses or prodigies, we just don't notice them. For some reason, we noticed and got excited about the handful of people who were in both minorities, the minority of people who are prodigies and the minority of people who have Asperger's and we assumed there was a connection. But there probably isn't. Or it's a correlation but not causation type thing. ", "They're not always. Sometimes they are just people with mild autistic symptoms.\n\nBut there is no denying that chances for being a savant are noticeably higher in those with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD).\n\nThose with ASD, essentially have an overactive brain, the connections in their brain work with such speed and frequency that too much input is created causing external shut downs in order to try and maintain order. Like when a classroom is noisy so the teacher shuts the door and windows.\n\nSavant Syndrome has yet to be truly studied, but from what those that do study it can tell, it's parts of the brain overclocking (like a computer) so that it can do amazing things without much study or explanation, such as flying around New York City for 20 minutes and then being able to draw it perfectly. Or being able to teach yourself piano by age 6 and play symphonies, or being able to do math.\n\nScience doesn't exactly know why, but from what they can tell, Savant Syndrome and ASD seem to have similar, if not the same causes.", "They're not and it kind of grates that people think they all do. \n\nSource- Have aspergers and no discernable talents. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010743/" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb1ogsp" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Chargers must convert Alternating Current (which is easy to transmit efficiently from the generating station, across the electrical grid, then to your home) to Direct Current (which is easy for digital electronic devices to use to process information). Converting AC to DC is not 100% efficient; some energy is lost--as heat. Properly used and cared for, the chargers' heat output is not dangerous." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpxqkpc", "cpxqnm8" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes and yes.\n\nTechnically, a single cell of bacteria or a single virus can infect you.\n\nBut, they are far more likely to make you sick if your initial exposure is bigger.", "Probably require to come into contact with many bacterial cells. The thing is, assuming you're a healthy individual, you have bacterial cells lining your epithelial cells. These bacteria can be \"good\" bacteria, the kind which doesn't do much except grow on your body and in exchange for a place to grow, they provide protection for you. The good bacteria will keep the bad bacterial population in check. IF, however, you introduce enough bad bacteria, then the bad bacteria may be able to produce enough toxins to kill good bacteria and outcompete for resources. In some cases, one bacterial cell may be enough since they undergo rapid replication. If you're on antibiotics and you introduce an antibiotic resistant strain, that one cell will start to proliferate. This is why it's important to take probiotics after your treatment of antibiotics." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c34uijj", "c34uijj" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Use it as an accent to your conversation. If you never look at someone you're either ignoring them or submitting to them, so when you've finished your conversation you stop making eye contact and look away until they get the idea. If you look directly at someone constantly you're either creepy as hell or attempting to dominate them. Make initial eye contact when you first greet someone and hold it for a few seconds while discussing the point of the meeting, this shows interest, respect, and confidence. As you chat you can look away off and on, or just look at different parts of their body (or even face) so that you're not just staring them down. As you make specific points, i.e. saying something you think is important look sharply back into their eyes to drive the point home. I'm often doing more than one thing at a time, so when someone comes into my office I'll glance at my monitor or flip a page of specifications I'm reviewing and then look back at them. Practice it for a while and you'll realize it's really just another way of communicating what you're thinking anyway and it's not all that difficult. The reason you're having trouble is that you're not normally focused on the people speaking to you because of the eyesight issue, so you'll have to make some extra effort. That, or wear your friggin glasses.", "Use it as an accent to your conversation. If you never look at someone you're either ignoring them or submitting to them, so when you've finished your conversation you stop making eye contact and look away until they get the idea. If you look directly at someone constantly you're either creepy as hell or attempting to dominate them. Make initial eye contact when you first greet someone and hold it for a few seconds while discussing the point of the meeting, this shows interest, respect, and confidence. As you chat you can look away off and on, or just look at different parts of their body (or even face) so that you're not just staring them down. As you make specific points, i.e. saying something you think is important look sharply back into their eyes to drive the point home. I'm often doing more than one thing at a time, so when someone comes into my office I'll glance at my monitor or flip a page of specifications I'm reviewing and then look back at them. Practice it for a while and you'll realize it's really just another way of communicating what you're thinking anyway and it's not all that difficult. The reason you're having trouble is that you're not normally focused on the people speaking to you because of the eyesight issue, so you'll have to make some extra effort. That, or wear your friggin glasses." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2bsm3i", "c2bsmiu", "c2bsm3i", "c2bsmiu" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 3, 5 ], "text": [ "You sound fairly intelligent, so here's a nice [article](_URL_0_) that explains the physics relatively simply (not like you're 5, but maybe like you're 17).", "When a guitar string vibrates without anyone pressing the frets, it makes a big wave in the air.\n\nHow fast the wave moves back and forth is what determines what note you hear. (frequency)\n\nWhen you play a 12th fret harmonic, you put a \"damper\" at the exact half-way point of the length of the string. This forces the string to vibrate as two smaller waves, each half the length of the string. These halves vibrate exactly twice as fast as the whole string (because math, that's why). When something vibrates twice as fast, the note you hear sounds twice as high.\n\nWhen you play a harmonic at the fifth fret, your \"damper\" forces the string to vibrate in quarters because the 5th fret is one quarter along the length of the string. There are four little waves along the length of the string, with your finger between the first and second one. This makes the notes you hear even higher, because the shorter string parts vibrate even faster. \n\nWhen you play normally at the 5th fret, the length of the vibrating part of the string is from your finger at the fifth fret all the way down to the end of the string by the fat end of the guitar, which is 3/4 of the total length of the string. When you make a harmonic at the fifth fret, the length of the vibrating string is 1/4 of the length of the guitar (the vibrating string is split into 4 little waves, remember), so you get a much higher note than if you play normally at the same fret.\n\nThe 7th fret is 1/3 of the fretboard, so the string is split into 3 equal parts, each vibrating equally fast. The vibration is slower than the 5th fret harmonic because the lengths of string are longer (1/3 vs 1/4). The note is lower than the 5th fret harmonic because the vibration is slower.\n\nThat's why only those frets work to give nice clear harmonics. Those are the ones that divide the string nicely into equal sections (thirds, quarters, halves).", "You sound fairly intelligent, so here's a nice [article](_URL_0_) that explains the physics relatively simply (not like you're 5, but maybe like you're 17).", "When a guitar string vibrates without anyone pressing the frets, it makes a big wave in the air.\n\nHow fast the wave moves back and forth is what determines what note you hear. (frequency)\n\nWhen you play a 12th fret harmonic, you put a \"damper\" at the exact half-way point of the length of the string. This forces the string to vibrate as two smaller waves, each half the length of the string. These halves vibrate exactly twice as fast as the whole string (because math, that's why). When something vibrates twice as fast, the note you hear sounds twice as high.\n\nWhen you play a harmonic at the fifth fret, your \"damper\" forces the string to vibrate in quarters because the 5th fret is one quarter along the length of the string. There are four little waves along the length of the string, with your finger between the first and second one. This makes the notes you hear even higher, because the shorter string parts vibrate even faster. \n\nWhen you play normally at the 5th fret, the length of the vibrating part of the string is from your finger at the fifth fret all the way down to the end of the string by the fat end of the guitar, which is 3/4 of the total length of the string. When you make a harmonic at the fifth fret, the length of the vibrating string is 1/4 of the length of the guitar (the vibrating string is split into 4 little waves, remember), so you get a much higher note than if you play normally at the same fret.\n\nThe 7th fret is 1/3 of the fretboard, so the string is split into 3 equal parts, each vibrating equally fast. The vibration is slower than the 5th fret harmonic because the lengths of string are longer (1/3 vs 1/4). The note is lower than the 5th fret harmonic because the vibration is slower.\n\nThat's why only those frets work to give nice clear harmonics. Those are the ones that divide the string nicely into equal sections (thirds, quarters, halves)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.guitarlessonworld.com/lessons/harmonics.htm" ], [], [ "http://www.guitarlessonworld.com/lessons/harmonics.htm" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwt30iu" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The bones are rigid but the flesh can distort. Moving one direction it may be spread down, becoming narrower; moving in the other direction it may be bunched up, becoming wider." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbu1vuj", "cbu1vwk", "cbu2czs", "cbu3ajh", "cbu3bcd", "cbu3lzz", "cbu3mwj", "cbu4tas", "cbu6bhh" ], "score": [ 36, 11, 18, 3, 2, 11, 3, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "I don't know exactly what drugs were used, but just because a drug is banned from use in sports does not mean it is also illegal to use outside of sports.", "Having used illegal drugs is not the same thing as a possession or attempt to distribute charge.", "I train pro athletes for a living. (You can check my other posts if you don't believe me) I can explain the processes athletes go through to not get caught if you want me to. It's not the question being asked, but you may find it interesting. I'll wait and see how many of you actually want to know seeing that it wasn't the question asked. ", "It isn't illegal to use drugs. It's illegal to possess them. ", "It is because having used illegal drugs cannot get you arrested, athlete or otherwise. ", "Many performance enhancing drugs are banned by the sports but aren't illicit narcotics monitored by the police, nor do they carry the kind of criminal weight that say cocaine or crack. \n\nFor instance, Lance Armstrong admitted to blog doping. That means he was getting blood removed from his body, getting replenished with oxygen, and then put back into his body. This isnt an illegal process, it's cheating at sports though. ", "It's just like someone saying I used to smoke pot. There is no good reason for the police or Feds to prosecute a former user. The only way people ever get arrested is if they are a big player in a distribution ring or if they lie under oath. Police don't go after low level drug users unless they are caught red handed using or possessing the drug (or if they are trying to fill a quota or they don't like minorities)", "The same reason that you can say/rap you smoke weed or use other drugs, but unless you are actually caught with them in your possession, you're fine.", "In many instances in europe they are charged criminally as well as through their sporting body, however it depends entirely on what drug they are caught for. Many gym monkey \"supplements\", or over the counter medications for a wide range of health issues are completely legal for anyone to buy/possess/use but are banned in sport. therefore they get banned from sport but face no legal reprocussions (except maybe sponsors sueing as in the case of lance armstrong" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co2ruxk", "co2rvlu", "co2rxnd" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Directly... No. Any individual is virtually nothing on the scale that the ISPs operate.\n\nIndirectly... Yes. Its not as simple as providing one person faster internet, you would have to provide everyone who asked faster internet. Soon you have to upgrade the entire infrastructure and that costs a few hundred billion.", "Think of it like water delivery. \n\nMore water (your streaming data) requires larger pipe (your connection).\n\nMaking the water flow faster through the pipe requires more pressure. \n\nSo pushing more data through a larger pipe, faster -- means higher costs. \n\n", "Yes.\n\nThe ISPs pay money for their uplinks. They are for specified speeds. If they want a faster connection (which they would need for more customers or faster connections), then they would have to pay more money to get those connections." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckosqtk" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Don't post loaded questions. \n\nClimate change is not in denial, it's the cause of which that is in dispute." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9punaa", "d9puvs1", "d9pw8y8", "d9pxogu" ], "score": [ 8, 7, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "We do. I knew a guy that couldn't feel pain or temperature. He had to be careful not to burn himself and constantly had to check himself to make sure he didn't get injured that day. ", "They certainly exist.\n\nHowever, a problem the lead to a lack of touch-based-senses (which taste, smell, touch are - physical sensing on the surface of the skin) are much more likely to be the result of things that also happen to be fatal - e.g. general failure of nervous system development can lead to no touch, but also no ability to get your heart to pump or you muscles to move or your brain to function. \n\nThe eyes and ears each of physical apparatus and _unique_ nervous system components that are _more_ subject to localized failures whereas the other system share more with other critical systems. ", "Because they're not a losses of senses that causes major disability in everyday life, like hearing or vision loss do, and thus there aren't public accommodations made for them. I have a friend who has no sense of smell. ", "Simply put, it's because you just don't. These people exist. I know some of them and know of others. Other people in this thread know them. If you don't hear about them, it's simply because you don't encounter them or news about them in your life." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0ftx9f", "e0fuuuu" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "I studied brain science in university, but am not a lawyer.\n\n\nThat's not actually what they are trying to decide. They decide something more specific: if the person was *unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions* due to mental illness. \n\nNormally this is done by having a couple of different psychiatrists examine the person, and then they give testimony in the trial regarding whether they think the person has a mental illness, and if so, which one, and would it have prevented them understanding the significance of their actions at that time.\n\nFor example \"I'm schizophrenic so I hate short people\" won't do, but \"I'm schizophrenic so I did not understand what was going on, and thought this person was a Nazi soldier sent to kill me\" might change the situation from a criminal one to a dangerous insanity one.", "During a trial, the final decision lies with the jury (assuming you are talking about the US court system)\n\nSince Reagan signed Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984, it is up to defense that to prove that the defendant was not sane. Both sides can call upon so called expert witnesses (someone who is specialised in a particular field and can therefore provide information) who give their opinion on the mental state of the defendant. This is generally done at the hand of interviews and possibly studying things like writings they left beforehand. \n\nThere are different standards and tests for criminal insanity, which vary from state to state. Mainly, it is all focused on whether or not someone was able to understand what they were doing at the time/was able to understand the consequences. This is a much more narrow definition than mental illness outside of the criminal justice system. Someone can be mentally ill (for example, due to depression or anxiety) but that doesn't necesarily also make them criminally insane. \n\nIn any case, the insanity defense is a very rare thing to pursue (used in less than 1% of all cases) and very often doesn't exactly lead to people going 'free'. Rather, they go to a mental health facility where they can actually get help for their problems. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvxrc7c", "cvxrny7" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "It's a system to describe how many resources are being devoted to a fire. More alarms means more trucks and firefighters are responding.\n\n_URL_0_", "Each \"alarm\" is essentially a call for multiple additional units to a fire. These are done in fairly standard packages; rather than say \"Send two engines and a truck\", a firefighter will say \"Send an additional alarm\", and a largely pre-planned response will be sent. The package details depend on the department and the area. The FDNY will send 3 engines, 2 trucks, and a chief for a first alarm; if the fire needs a bit more there's another smallish assignment containing mostly specialty units, and then a second alarm adds a bunch more units (including higher-ranking chiefs, communications units, etc.) At the high end (past 5 alarms), each new alarm is 4 engines and 2 trucks and 1 chief. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-alarm_fire" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5m9st5" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Immunology is one of those topics that can get extremely tedious and complicated. So, since I don't know how much detail you're looking for exactly, I'll just start with the basics and you can ask questions from there if you like!\n\n* Antigen (\"against life\") = anything that is harmful to you and triggers an immune reaction.\n\n* Antibody (*probably condensed from some longer phrase such as \"anti-toxic body\")* = Any of a bunch of proteins of the immune system that seek out and destroy antigens. They also have other functions including helping to trigger other antibodies to help them attack an antigen." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqtgaxr", "cqtgnju" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "The British in general and some other folk in the Commonwealth. My more elderly but still Canadian by birth family certainly has the same tea fixation even if they don't call anything in particular 'tea time' or 'afternoon tea'.\n\nTea is a common drink and there is a sort of 'tea time' some observe as a meal event and it's generally considered polite to offer tea to guests. A lot of people will have it at some point through the day.\n\nUnless otherwise specified it'll be a black tea usually. ", "In Ireland, \"tea time\" or \"having your tea\" is actually a colloquial term for the evening meal, as well as the actual drink. And to make it even more confusing, many refer to lunch as \"dinner\", and the dinner as \"tea\".\n\nBut pasically, praesartus is correct. People routinely drink tea throughout the day in both the UK and Ireland. As in at work or college, the occasional \"tea break\" where someone makes a pot of tea and everyone has a cup is pretty much as common as a smoke break for those who smoke.\n\nIf someone comes in to your house, even just to drop back a DVD they'd borrowed, it's pretty common to have a cup of tea with them. Tea would generally be included in the \"time to stay for a drink?\" question if someone's just dropping by, which in the US seems to be confined to having a beer. Over here, \"staying for a drink\" can mean anything from a cup of tea to a glass of whiskey. :p" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dk06p7a", "dk06qe2" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Sunlight comes from above, and it can only go through so much moisture before it's all blocked. Therefore the gray areas are just the thickest areas of cloud coverage. The clouds themselves are actually white throughout, just varying levels of sunlight.", "Large amounts of cloud.\n\nClouds appear white because they scatter incoming light in all directions. So regardless of which direction the sun comes from, some bounces off and reaches your eyes. \n\nBut when you have enough cloud or a dense cloud, their effect on light is so much it can't pass through. If the light is coming at an angle that it would need to pass through the cloud before hitting your eyes, it won't make it. And it will appear dark, or black. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbcywst" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Not yet.\n\nWhen ice forms, it forms tiny crystals. These tiny crystals tend to pierce the cell walls of animal cells. As you can imagine, having all of your cell walls shredded is fatal.\n\nThere are a few exceptions. Some species of frog, by modulating the solute concentrations (amount of dissolved stuff, like sugar) in their bodies, can survive a freeze without seeming to undergo too much trauma. The way they're able to do this is that they prevent actual freezing in most of the vital tissues, because freezing points are lower where solute concentrations are higher." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5dthui", "c5dtqc9", "c5dv25q" ], "score": [ 4, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Well, you have this thing called watersheds. Watersheds are basically an area of land in which we can safely predict that a healthy amount of the water available in this land will flow into a specific body of water, like lakes or rivers. So although you don't see rainfall specifically landing in the river, it will make its way there eventually as long as it lands within the watershed. Mind you, watersheds tend to be huuuuuuge, hundreds of square miles. The Mississippi's watershed, for example, runs from Idaho to Pennsylvania and from Canada to New Orleans.\n\nAlso, we can't forget about groundwater, which is about 20% of the world's freshwater. So there's fully 1/5th of our freshwater that's never visible to us - thus, the idea that it's all spring water isn't as crazy as it sounds.\n\nAnother large source of water is ice, snow, and glaciers. Remember, glaciers are so huge that they literally flattened the northern half of North America. Glaciers are so incomprehensibly big that it may be hard to imagine just how much of our water supply comes from their slow melting. ", " > it can't rain that much for the continual flow...\n\nYes, it can. And it does.\n\nThink back to a forecast that predicts rain. Maybe for a particularly rainy day you'll hear that they predict an inch of rain.\n\nFor *every single square mile* that gets an inch of rain, that's 17.38 **million** gallons of water falling from the sky.", "Well, Kiadawg, think about all the area of all the oceans in the world slowly evaporating in to the air as they are warmed by the sun and whipped up by the wind. There is always a fair amount of the water in the world held in the air as moisture, or you might have heard it called humidity. There is normally enough moisture in all the air on the planet that if it suddenly all condensed out, it would cover the planet in a layer 1 or two inches deep, although it's not really evenly spread out like that of course. The amount of water the air can carry depends on the temperature of the air, warmer air can hold more.\n\nNow as the air moves away from the seas over the land, it first gets warmed more so the moist air rises, and also keeps picking up more water from all the trees and plants that are continually sucking water up from the ground and then breathing it out from their leaves, (have a look at some images from the rain forests, lots of moisture formed there) then once the moist air reaches a height where it's cooler it starts to form clouds as the water starts to condense out as tiny vapour particles. \n\nEventually the layer of moist air is blown past areas of high land, mountains etc and at this point, because more of the moist air is pushed up higher into colder parts of the atmosphere, the air just can't hold as much water and it condenses out as rain. Of course the temperature and pressure of the air varies a lot all over the land, so you get water condensing out all over the place sometimes too.\n\nAs the water falls all over the land it tends to filter down slowly over several weeks towards the lowest points, back towards the sea. Areas of hundreds or thousands of square miles have lots of little streams forming, which gradually all add together and make bigger flows of water, the rivers. \n\nOver time, this cycle of evaporation, condensation and then flow of water forms channels cut in to the land at the points where most of the water ends up flowing because of the shape of the land. So you can see that there must be enough water in rain to fill the rivers, because that's what formed them. Don't forget, some of the water that falls as rain takes a long time to filter through the ground to the rivers, and at different times of the year some gets stored as Ice in colder parts of the world or up mountains, which then slowly thaws over the summer adding to the flow. There are areas of the world where the rivers only flow in certain seasons, for instance, drying up for part of the year, and starting again in huge floods every year.\n\nIn my country, Britain, it has pretty much RAINED NON STOP FOR THE LAST THREE DAMN MONTHS!, I'm sorry Kiadawg, I'm calm again now, come back, no shouting, no bad words.... the rivers can't really cope with the flow of water back to the sea any more, when that happens the rivers burst their banks and large areas flood, and everyone sits indoors bored and cheesed off waiting for a chance to have a barbeque or go to the beach, wringing their socks out and slowly growing mildew and staring at the calendar, wondering whether to start building an ark. \n\nSo yes, there is easily enough water to keep the rivers flowing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci0afr9", "ci0ajxp" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "This is one of those stupid things I think about every time I drive past one of those signs, and never think to research when I'm home. Next stop, Google. ", "There are lines painted on the side of the road. The planes will see your car cross a line and time how long until you cross the next one. They divide the distance traveled by the time it took and get your average speed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]