Datasets:

Pavithree

/

eli5_19710_39422

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cgu8um9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There was a \"revolt\" in South Ossetia, when Russian \"peacekeepers\" crossed the Georgian border, and subsequentally recognized South Ossetia as a independent state.\n\nIt was widely see as payback for NATO's recognition of Kosovo as an independant from Russia's Serbian allies, using US unilateral action in Iraq and Afghanistan as an excuse." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dn3nxsj" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Innovate and innervate are different words. :-)\n\nThe Soviets did both. For example, their rocket designs are in some ways better than US rocket designs, and their fighter plane designs are excellent and partly innovative. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "diu9zwn", "diukuha" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "A wifi extender works like a middleman. It is placed at a location where it is just in range of the main wifi router (say 10 meters). \n\nIt connects to the main wifi router. It then itself creates another wifi network at this distant location of another 10 meters. \n\n So now a device which is 20 meters away from the main router can't connect to it, but it can connect to the extender, since that is only 10 meteres away. Your device sends signals to the extender. The extender than re-sends these signals to the main wifi router it is connected to. Ditto in the reverse direction.\n\nThus, the extender becomes a middleman that allows a device that it out-of-range of the main wifi router to talk to it, usually with degraded performance and speed, but at least you get some connection.", "Imagine that the wireless router is a guy with a source of information, yelling at the top of his lungs. Devices are like other guys that yell requests for information to him and then listen to what he says. However, if they're more than 500 feet apart, all the yelling becomes unintelligible and no information gets through. So you put another guy in the middle, the extender. This guy listens to other guys yell their requests, yells them to the main guy, listens to his information, then yells it to the guys who requested it. \n\nOf course, you can see the problem with this. The guy in the middle can't listen and yell at the same time, he has to do one and then the other. So it takes twice as long for the information to get through. A Wi-Fi extender has exactly the same problem, it can't communicate with the devices and the router at the same time, so it cuts your speed in half. And that's half of what it can get, not half of what the router can provide. For this reason, they should NEVER be used.\n\nWhat you should use instead are Access Points. These are similar to extenders, but their connection to the router is made with Ethernet cable rather than Wi-Fi. Since they no longer need to use half of their Wi-Fi bandwidth to communicate with the router, they can use all of it to communicate with clients. In the above analogy, It's like giving the \"guy in the middle\" his own source of information.\n\nAlso, I want to clear up a common misconception: Routers have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Wi-Fi. What a router does is direct traffic between different networks (routing), allow multiple devices to connect to the internet at once through a single public IP address (NAT), assign IP addresses to devices on the local network (DHCP), and prevent unwanted internet traffic from reaching the local network (firewall). A \"wireless router\" is actually three devices combined into one: Router, Switch, and Access Point. The router does all the stuff I just mentioned. The switch is what gives you four LAN ports on the back. The access point is what gives you Wi-Fi. \n\nSo, when I say \"get an access point\" I DO NOT mean \"get a router\". A home network ALWAYS has exactly one router, because the duties of a router require a direct connection to the internet via a modem or ONT. What I mean is to get a device that's only an access point and does not include a router, as the router part of it will not be used and will cause problems if it's active." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfd4cyj", "cfd4ddr", "cfd5lh2" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The \"referrer\" header is a standard part if an http.request. When you click a link, telling where you came from is standard behavior.", "When your browser requests a webpage, there is a whole bunch of information provided by your browser to the webpage. Aside from things such as your IP address, the language you are using and the name of the browser you are using, there is something called the 'referrer' which is the URL of the page that you clicked the link on to get there.\n\nYou can see what information is sent in these 'request headers' using this webpage:\n\n_URL_0_\n", "Your browser tells it.\n\n**::Facebook::** Yo Chrome, suprised to see you here, where'd you come from?\n\n**::Chrome::** You know, just got back from Pornhub.\n\n**::Facebook::** NICE. Check out these ads about dating!\n\nEDIT- formatting" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.rexswain.com/httpview.html" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn93j78", "cn93v0i" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Probably because TV is high quality and a lot of data every second. Radio is just low quality audio, so if you don't get 100% of the signal it isn't a bad thing. The satellite will be pointing in your general vicinity, so your car can pick up the signal without much trouble", "_URL_0_\n\nLots of detail there...\n\nTL:DR Station beams to satellite, it then beams down to your receiver in no densely populated areas. It large metro areas it also beams to rooftop repeaters and the. To your receiver. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite-radio4.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgbcnes", "cgbcsow", "cgbe8tq" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "To add onto what others have said, you might be wondering why supercomputers aren't built very often. Simply put, they aren't very great value. You pour in a few million dollars for hardware, a few million more for the structure, and need to pay crazy amounts for cooling, power, and other ongoing costs. After all this, you *know* that next generation processors will have a few percent more computing power *and* consume a bit less power. After a few years, these small boosts would add up to a significant gap in computing power and major costs. Simply put, supercomputers are pretty crappy investment.", "It is possible but it doesn't help for many problems.\n\nThe classic example is that nine women can't make a baby in a month. \n\nSome things have to be done in a certain order. If reach step of a procedure relies on the result of the previous one, extra processors don't have any work to do.\n\nFor problems that can be sped up, keeping multiple processors organised and talking to each other is complicated - it not only creates the needs for more expensive hardware to hook everything together but you end up using CPU time to coordinate the messages between processors.\n\nThat messaging isn't free either. It takes time to send messages between processors, it takes time to stop what you're doing and wrap the info up in a message, it takes time to receive and decode a message and it takes time to combine dozens of messages into a single answer.\n\nThere are some problems that do scale up easily with more processors but most of them aren't the sorts of things that normal people want to do with their computers. \n\nHaving twelve cars won't get you to work earlier.", "You can, and some people do, but it doesn't make a < quote > super computer < /quote > .\n\nAs well as /u/ameoba response, a big issue for fast processing is the physical distance between components. To send a signal from the Random Access Memory to the Central Processing Unit, the Central Processing Unit to the Graphics Processing Unit etc takes a tiny amount of time.\n\nThe amount of time is dependant on the length of the circuit between these components. The longer the circuit, the longer the time. You can see this for yourself if you get a stupidly-long network (CAT-5 or CAT-6 cable), and a not-so-stupidly-long network cable, and plug one and then the other into your computer. There is a noticeable difference in connection speed.\n\nData is 'bussed' together (i.e., instead of sending one bit of data, then another, then another, you group the data together and send it out all at once), but there is a limit to how much you can bus.\n\nA long string of CPUs and RAM sticks would need a lot of space, and therefore more time to process.\n\nFurthermore, that amount of silicone chugging away requires a lot of cooling, making it more unfeasable" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "edz3dgc", "edz6qxq", "edz8x9t" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "They get converted to tiny amounts of heat by stimulating whatever they come in contact with.\n\nThat's negligible, depending on the light source, but typically the visual light waves we see have a tiny amount of energy", "The photons are absorbed by whatever they hit. Depending on exactly what the photon hits this will result in heat generation and possibly a tiny electric charge.", "Light is basically a stream of photons, photons are energy, once they enter our eyes they hit the rods and cones of our eyes which are responsible for colour vision and to help us see in the dark. That energy is converted to electrical impulses which are then sent to the brain where they are analysed and processed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cksuwd6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I think it's because of the replays. You go in to watch a movie and see it once. On your way to work/school/whatever, you could hear these songs 4 or 5 times, everyday. The repetition..\nEdit: words" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfthy9x", "cfthysw", "cftk4nk", "cftn64k" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "What purpose would it serve to switch every single machine in every store costing one hell of a lot of money, to scan some black lines just in a different formation?\n\nSame reason why many people still use Fax machines, if it aint broke don't fix it.\n\n(Plus QR scanning takes a few seconds rather than instantly)", "Because retail establishments like grocery stores have built up systems based on barcodes. The barcodes meets their needs, and changing would require them to make significant additions to their databases, or at least upgrades to their software. \n \nIt could be done, but for places that literally carry thousands of different items, it would be a pain. Unless there's a significant offsetting benefit, why devote the time and money to doing it?", "QR codes require a camera to read, where a barcode can be read with a simple and cheap laser-and-sensor combo.\n\nIt wouldn't be cost-efficient to replace a cheap system that requires no processor with one needing a camera chip and processors.", "What makes you think it would be practical at all?\n\nIt requires more tech to read a QR code, it would cost a shitton of money converting all the old stores to it, and you would gain basically nothing.\n\nThe only point of a barcode is to look up a product in a database. You don't need QR-code levels of information to do that." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cr5wip8", "cr5wjhk", "cr5ws70" ], "score": [ 9, 3, 7 ], "text": [ "It doesn't have a point anymore. Which is why lots of people are choosing to leave it out.\n\nNowadays, when you want to get married, you need to arrange the legal stuff beforehand - proof that you are legally able to marry this man or woman. Which generally comes down to showing that you are not blood related / that you are not already married. \n\nIn ye olden days, you didn't have to show so many records before trying to getting hitched and cross checking everything was a lot harder without computers. The objection part was so anyone who would know of a valid legal reason why these two people could not be wed could speak up.", "Honestly, That only happens in movies. I'm a wedding photographer, and in 53 weddings I've done, none have actually done the whole \"Speak now or forever hold your peace\" thing. It only exists in movies to be exciting.", "Back in the day (around the 13th century CE or so I believe) churches were running into problems with clandestine marriages (people exchanging vows without a priest, which created a marriage, but was otherwise not allowed) and marriages with people who were too closely related. To combat this issue, churches started issuing \"Banns\" (which just mean proclamations), which would state who was planning to get married. These Banns would run for at least three weeks and be read at the church service so people would know who was getting married when. \n\nIf you recognized a couple getting married who shouldn’t have been getting married, the church placed an obligation on you to show up and state your grounds for objecting. So if you’re son tries to marry his first cousin, you could show up and object. Or if your brother was getting married to someone but had already secretly married someone else you could show up and object. \n\nThe phrase “speak now or forever hold your peace” comes from the Book of Common Prayer, which was an English book first published in 1549 that contained the wording for a lot of religious rituals. \n\nNowadays the issues that could serve as the basis for an objection are taken care of elsewhere and not at the wedding ceremony. Most people who officiate weddings leave the “objection” part out entirely. Next time you go to a wedding listen for it and you probably won’t hear it. Those who do leave it in do so for the sake of tradition. No one really expects anyone to object. And you probably shouldn’t. If you have a valid objection, raise it before the ceremony or save it for a private conversation during the reception or even later." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpbhjqj", "cpbhmbj", "cpbhnqi", "cpbhp3x", "cpbhra3", "cpbhv1a", "cpbhyu5", "cpbijwz", "cpbjonx", "cpboww5", "cpbqdat", "cpbqfe9", "cpbu8d2", "cpbunpy", "cpbuq9d", "cpbvfd0", "cpbvjo7", "cpbvqgi", "cpbvsqv", "cpbw2vi", "cpbw94c", "cpbx1xb", "cpbx531", "cpbxflh", "cpbxh1z", "cpbxrsn", "cpby35f", "cpby4pt", "cpby68n", "cpby6no", "cpbybo3", "cpbyo4s", "cpc0g78", "cpc0rq6", "cpc20rk", "cpc27tn", "cpc2b9c", "cpc2f9h", "cpc2o8x", "cpc33wx", "cpc3a4e", "cpc3oat", "cpc3slc", "cpc4lu2", "cpc4ma1", "cpc4zou", "cpc54c4", "cpc585x", "cpc5d8s", "cpc5vjo", "cpc5vlk", "cpc64hf", "cpc69ty", "cpc6m10", "cpc6vqw", "cpc7cld", "cpc7nbr", "cpc7w8d", "cpc7x10", "cpc80dl", "cpc89f5", "cpc8pt3", "cpc92i1", "cpc9cm8", "cpc9f74", "cpc9k6u", "cpc9umw", "cpc9zqq", "cpca00q", "cpca255", "cpca4wx", "cpca7w2", "cpcaaur", "cpcas6i", "cpcatsh", "cpcawgv", "cpcb69x", "cpcbjk6", "cpcboqn", "cpcc8nh", "cpccsgl", "cpccyvf", "cpcdu19", "cpcdvb7", "cpceykk", "cpcf1zs", "cpcf3zf", "cpcfe4w", "cpcg0lt", "cpcgut6", "cpchj95", "cpchxi8", "cpcinxv" ], "score": [ 48, 5, 148, 10, 15, 1994, 4, 25, 1563, 4, 8, 2, 2, 3, 11, 15, 2, 4, 2, 8, 2, 8, 3, 2, 7, 9, 3, 3, 3, 43, 9, 2, 5, 2, 2, 27, 10, 12, 13, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 6, 30, 9, 3, 11, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 13, 2, 4, 8, 2, 12, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 7, 9, 2, 3, 31, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Economics. Oil is more valuable than water. While it might be economical to build a huge pipeline to transport oil, it probably a good economic decision for water. ", "In principle, we can. But it's very expensive and not worth the cost.", "You need someone that is willing to give up their water to California. Most places in North America are very protective of their water and wouldn't allow it to be piped away so some rich guy can live near the beach.", "Because even in LA, water < $0.01/gallon. [source](_URL_0_)", "They're called, \"Canals.\"\n\nThey have to get the water from someplace, too, and that's the problem. The pipelines and underground aqueducts that feed New York City provide more than 1.3 billion gallons of water. That's the requirement for a city. \n\nThe problem is more one of finding water to support the agriculture than it is finding water for people. ", "The average American uses [2000 gallons of water a day](_URL_0_). Most of this is hidden from you - used in farming the food you eat, or in manufacturing the products you use, or just in cleaning the tableware you eat with.\n\nThe Keystone pipeline will transport 155,000,000 gallons of Oil per day. Logistically, a project of that price could therefore provide water for 75 million people - sounds good so far, right?\n\nThe pipeline would cost 5.2 billion dollars. Again, sounds great - $72 per californian would build the whole thing. So, it's actually a feasible project if California could find a reliable source of water to have shipped. You would pay about $80 per person in extra taxes each yeah, then another $5 or so in maintenance per year.\n\n**Alternatively**, the San Diego Desalination Plant will cost $1 billion and provide 50,000,000 gallons of water per day. It's a much cheaper and less ambitious project that solves the problem without the need to find an outside buyer or negotiate eminent domain.", "Because of the cost, in comparison to oil. Also it is just a bandaid for the problem. A desalination plant would be the better option. ", "They already have this, where do you think LA gets its water from?", "There is already something like this in place, [The Califonia Aqueduct](_URL_0_). Southern CA does not get it's water from local rainfall but from the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada mountains in Northern CA. The aqueduct system is the delivery system for the water.", "Because there's more money to be made by oil pipelines....", "I feel the technical aspect of this question has been answered well by others, so I'll address the issue from another angle. \n\nWater is an increasingly scare resource, and it also happens to be the most important resource to human life -- literally. Take the Ogallala Aquifer for example. It supplies water to 8 states, states which also happen to be some of the most food producing states in America. People have been draining the aquifer at an alarming rate. Soon, relatively, there's going to be some serious issues. \n\nMy point is that water is a precious resource more akin to gold, than simply an abundant found-everywhere resource. If it is to be taken from one location and given to another, then whoever is receiving the water should have to pay through the nose to obtain it. It shouldn't be a national tax kind of thing, because your stealing from StateA to give to StateB. ", "Because water doesnt cost upwards of $100 a barrel. Also the people pushing the pipe line are doing so to make millions of $. Moral of story. Millions of $ > welfare of millions of people", "As many people have said, it is very profitable to do so, though I think one of the fundamental aspects underlying petroleum is being forgotten:\n\nOil is everything. From plastics to textiles, fuels to food additives. Our vehicles run on oil, our ships and tankers run on oil, the rubber and plastic parts that make cars, airplanes, ships, and trains are today very much petrol byproducts and they are all made on machines that are made of and full of petrol-derived products. Our clothing is too - rubbers, plastics, synthetics, polyesters, mesh, and a thousand other materials we clothe and decorate ourselves, our homes and furniture with. Let's not forget the plastics we know of as plastics - serving ware, household and office furniture, stationary and office supplies. Construction materials like laminate flooring that looks like wood, stone, or carpet, walls, siding, asphalt, window treatments, tar, roofing. Technology like all of our televisions, computers, smartphones, tablets, monitors, kitchen appliances, and so on and so forth. Every diskette, compact disc, case, K-cup, Lego, pen, electrical cord. It's all plastic.\n\nLook around you right now, whether you are in your home, at work, at school, in a motel/motel/no-tell using a public hotspot... everything is plastic. Plastic is petroleum. Petroleum is the most lucrative industrial resource to own (or monopolize) because nearly every aspect of our modern society is dependent on it. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be wielded in petroleum.\n\nTo answer your question - they already did. Southern California and Los Angeles and Orange Counties are, by and large, only in existence because of aqueducts built to transfer in water from the closest water source, which is the Colorado River... and the Colorado River doesn't exactly reach the Gulf of California anymore.", "Stop letting bottled water companies use the tap water in drought stricken areas.", "There are many pipelines already that do this. Much of California's water comes from sources in the Colorado Rockies. \n\n[Here's an infographic:](_URL_0_)\n", "I thought that boston should have shipped their snow out to California in empty coal cars on their return trip.", "They already do this....\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's actually a bone of contention in the areas they're taking the water from.", "I can't believe no one has said this yet- but a huge reason is mountains, or more precisely the amount of energy it takes to pump water up and over mountains. The Keystone XL doesn't cross any mountiain ranges- it traverses the Great Plains. \nWater is heavy to lift- at 8 lbs per gallon. As a reference, Los Angeles take 25% of the energy produced by Hoover and Parker Dams to pumps its water over the Tehachapi mountains- the largest water lift in the world at 2000 ft (at a cost of $50 million/year and growing). \n\nImagine if you had to cross the Rockies, the numerous ranges of the interior west, and *then* the Tehachapi. Quite an engineering feat- and where would the energy come from to run that system?", "This may have been mentioned by another user and I just missed it, but Riperian Laws must also be considered. If significant amounts of water are transmitted from one watershed, it would also need to be transmitted back to the original watershed.\n\nThere are cases where this happens, so it's not with precident. The water has to be treated then pumped back to its original location. ", "So what you're asking is \"why can't we build aqueducts?\"", "Such a thing has been considered in detail, and may eventually become necessary. The problem is that the only feasible source for an appropriately huge pipeline are rivers which flow into the arctic ocean on the other side of the rocky mountains. That means that the pipeline would have to be very long, and would have to traverse a major mountain range. The cost would be astronomical. \n \n \nBut the California economy is huge, and in the end they will have to spend whatever it costs to supply themselves with water. Another serious option is desalination, but that is expensive to maintain because of the huge energy usage, while a pipeline would be relatively cheap once it's built, and the energy to move the water could be provided by daming the source river at the point of extraction. ", "California and Nevada kinda already do this by taking from the Colorado River. The [Colorado Aqueduct](_URL_0_) is 242 miles long. It's no Keystone, but it does exactly what you're talking about. The problem is that California is already taking water from others, all that's left, constantly fighting for more, and it's STILL not enough. Meanwhile, Colorado has its own droughts. And taking the water from somewhere else doesn't necessarily solve the problem and could even be detrimental for the origin environment. The water cycle needs water tables and all that other science stuff. If you start draining water from the local environment, there's a chance it won't come back and then you have a new drought stricken area, only this new one is probably more sensitive to drought. \n", "We did, the problem is that the areas where it takes water from are also becoming drought stricken", "California already has that basically and it isn't working", "Because I'm from Michigan and \"get you're damn filthy hands off my water hippies!\" ", "I cannot believe that no one has brought up the fact that nobody wants to give up their water to supply a bunch of people who built a city in a dessert. Water is a contentious issue and the courts are backlogged with water rights cases.", "Because California needs to get their own damn water. The other states don't owe it to them and maybe if they quit growing lawns in a flipping desert they'd have enough.", "Hmmm, read all the comments and still thinking my investments in companies that build and operate desalination plants are a solid idea. It's like solar - used to be crazy expensive compared to oil but now the big oil companies and players are freaking out because the cost of solar has come way down and better and better ideas are coming out every day for storage of that energy. I think desalinisation is ultimately going to end up the same - it's kind of expensive NOW comparatively but I think that's going to change before long. And hey if global warming is going to cause sea-level rise ANYWAY might as well suck it out and desalinate it so we can use it :-)", "Because water companies don't own your congressman.", "We already do. We have canals and pipelines drawing water from the Colorado River, Northern CA, and the Sierra Nevada and bringing it to Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and other parts of the state that don't get enough rainfall to be hydrologically self-sufficient.\n\nThe problem is that the water sources (NorCal, Sierra, CO River) aren't getting as much rain as normal, so to alleviate this problem we'd have to build entirely new pipelines from the Columbia River or something, and that would require new interstate treaties and several years of construction before we see any results.\n\n_URL_0_", "I'd say it'd be slightly unethical too dry up other areas because people decided to live in a very dry area.", "If we ceased all incentives to stop global warming, maybe we'd get more rainfall as a result of the evaporating oceans and solve the problem for free.", "I recommend to everyone on this thread to read Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"Whiskey is for drinking, Water is for fighting\"", "Part of the issue is the question of \"Where is the water coming from anyway?\"\n\nOne thing people often mention is the Great Lakes, but they forget that 1) federal law and international treaty prohibits states from drawing water from the Great Lakes unless they border it, 2) transporting it would not be cheap nor easy (at least the construction wouldn't be cheap), and 3) even if it were legally possible, the Great Lakes states/provinces would never consent to Congress/Parliament allowing that water to be pumped halfway across the country since it'll never be returned, straining the water supply.", "They do this, but usually they build aqueducts instead of pipelines.", "Because the state of California has found water to contain cancer causing agents.", "Just a thought, but where will the fresh water come from to send to a place that maybe shouldn't be growing most of North America's fresh vegetables? This will create water issues where there currently are none. Let's rethink land usage and leave the fesh water to flow where it must. ", "British Columbia, Canada here, FUCK YOU! Stop watering your lawns, golf course and filling your swimming pools. I have to live in the cold rainy hell, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you 'mericans live in 80 degree weather with water that I suffered for. ", "How about we stop sending water from one of the most productive agricultural areas in the country down to a bunch of rich bastards living in a desert.", "When you can get 60-100$ a barrel for water someone will be willing to pipeline it. It's extremely difficult to transport something that amount of distance and even moreso when the item you are transporting is readily available at it's destination already and priced at pennies per gallon.", "As an Oregonian I really don't understand the California water system. Yeah, there are aqueducts allowing people to live in warmer drier areas, like Los Angeles, but it's so inefficient. Transporting water hundreds of miles seems like an environmental travesty. Call me a tree hugger, but logically, that's nonsensical. \nIn addition why is Los Angeles, one of the largest cities in the nation, located in an area where there are so very few naturally occurring freshwater sources? You would thing that the worlds largest cities are located in coastal regions or in close proximity to a major river, but LA just baffles me. ", "This system is in place and is the thing causing the drought.", "To quote Sam Kinison on the plight of Ethiopians: \"We have deserts in America, We just don't live in them.\" Well apparently we do but that doesn't make it right to plow up half the country so that the pioneers can get a drink. ", "I don't really understand the California aqueduct. I live in central California and with my job I cross the aqueduct a few times a day. Usually the areas that I cross it at are completely dry, with no trees or any other farming happening because nobody is allowed to use that water. My dad is a farmer in the area and when they are lucky they are allowed to use excess water out of a river that flows nearby, but if they're not lucky they'll get huge fines for touching it. Central California needs water and it all goes straight through us.", "The main reason is that the scales are completely different. According to the [USGS](_URL_0_), the US uses about 349 Billion gallons of fresh water per day. \n\nThe CIA World Factbook gives the US's daily oil consumption as 592 Million gallons per day. With an M. \n\nThat's right, as compared with our fresh water consumption our oil use is a rounding error - it isn't in the first three digits of the number. \n\nSo while they seem to be similar problems, they are fundamentally not. A few posters have mentioned the fascinating California Acqueduct. There are actually similar structures on the East Coast - the [City of New York](_URL_1_) is supplied in large part by two (soon to be three) *massive* deep underground tunnels connecting the city to the Hillview Reservoir. These tunnels are so large and complex that the third began construction in the 1970's - and is scheduled to be completed in 2020. \n\nBoth of these systems are gravity driven, however. The energy required to lift this water (just one day's water, mind you) would be colossal - on the order of the entire country's annual electricity consumption. \n\nSo the answer is energy. It's possible to let gravity do the work for us, but that ends in directional flows. \n\n", "I hate this idea, I know I'll catch flack for this but, it's ideas like this that fuck up ecology in other areas. Fresh water isn't unlimited and using it to water areas that are dry only speeds up the rate of loss. \n\nPumping water to places like Vegas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California which naturally have arid climates goes against the natural order of things and there is always a cost. \n\nTrying to have a lawn and farming in this region is the problem. It isn't meant to support that much vegetation or life and the plants being planted and methods are doing a lot of harm to the water table that does exist. Now you want someone else's lakes and rivers to keep supporting a poor living habitat, it's irresponsible. \n\nIf you want to do something to help lessen water problems in California then don't vote for public servants who let power and drilling companies use and contaminate the water resources. And stop watering grass that shouldn't be there in the first place. ", "We already have them. They're called rivers. Southern California's problem is that it *uses* too much water, often in stupid ways. And they're not alone: [Here](_URL_2_)'s the modern-day end of the Colorado River. (The bridge in the back ground illustrates how it used to be different.) It's overtapped, and no longer reaches the Gulf of Mexico as it used to. (This bridge is about 80 miles from there.)\n\nAqueducts can be done, but they rely on gravity. Meaning, your source must be higher than your destination, and your source must also be abundant with supply. Those kinds of sources are not common uphill from places like L.A. in abundance. You could tap Late Tahoe, perhaps, but then you'd give up Lake Tahoe. Humans are remarkably [good at this](_URL_0_), often with [devastating results](_URL_1_).\n\nSo it's not as simple as running plumbing all over the landscape. You also need pumping stations, maintenance, security, and more, and how is that going to get paid for? The cost of water would have to go up quite a bit.\n\nBy comparison, petroleum, even the crappy sludge from Alberta, is worth many times more than water (for now), so it's much easier to justify the costs.\n", "At $200.00 per barrel we can.\n", "Because the political will isn't there, the Great Lakes states are NOT going to let California steal their beautiful lakes...", "Rivers are natural pipelines of water. go rivers\nGatoraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaade,\n", "Because fuck California. They already use too much.", "Why is california your example? America has bottled water at every corner store, there are places in this world who have no idea what a corner store is. The answer youre looking for is: money. There is no money to be made in charitable acts. Thats why there is still not water access to every home / village in the world. ", "In all seriousness, this may be the start of the conflicts that are going to happen as a result of the shift of climate from Global Warming. It won't be the last. It'll get increasingly violent as it gets worse and people get more desperate.", "I believe the main reason why this hasn't been done, aside from the immense financial cost, is that it would be politically unpopular. The states that utilize the great lakes and major rivers of the mid-west for agriculture, drinking water, and recreation would not want to give up their natural resources to drought-stricken states out west.", "Not from my great lakes. People who want water should move east.", "It would probably be more cost effective and quicker to build a desalination plant.", "Because oil is worth 100 times what water is worth.\n\nReally. Oil is $50 a barrel and water is 50 cents a barrel.", "Monterey CA has 2 separate plans for Desalinization Plants. They are going through development hell but will be here in 10 years or so. Not sure exactly who gets the water but I think some is for agriculture, public areas, etc. They will make this thing run almost all on renewable energy. ...We have all the tools to fix the drought, its fucking corporate greed and government bureaucracy that is prolonging it.", "Stop stealing our water and move out of the desert.\n\n -Northern California", "Cause they can't have our great lakes water bitch. Don't live in the desert.", "California already takes far more than their fair share!", "Who's water are you going to take? People get very defensive over basic necessities ", "There is the California Aqueduct, as well as water purchased from Lake Mead and piped/sent down river, and water that individual communities can purchase and have trucked in. \n\nBut the bigger issue is that droughts are temporary things and it takes years if not decades to build pipelines. By the time you had one built the drought would be over. That makes it a very economically poor decision. ", "just to steal the thread a bit: why doesn't California (most places, actually) ban lawn watering all together? it accomplishes literally nothing useful, and requires more water than the next biggest crop, Corn. stopping people from keeping lawns green in a freaking desert would save a shit-tonne of water, and make a lot more sense as humans use up more and more fresh water like its going outta style.", "TIL that people really, really hate Californians.", "As someone who spent the day driving from southern California to Oregon, I was just thinking of this very question. I-5 North is littered with farms, and lots of home made signs blaming the water crisis on Congress, Obama.\n\nOn a good note, it did rain like hell today! No more drought, good job everybody!\n\n*And Oregon is beautiful so far, for the record.*", "As a person that lives in drought stricken central California, water is allocated to different parts of the state. We literally watch water flow down to southern California and can not touch a drop, once our allocation is used up. Reason being... That's where the money and people are.\nEdit: to answer your question... There\n hasn't been enough snowfall the last few years to create the water needed. The reservoirs get increasingly lower each year. Ground water gets used up and wells dry because there's not enough rainfall to replenish yadda yadda. So that is why the idea of a cross country system comes in. You guys get blizzards every winter. The rain and snow storms here are not producing enough. \n", "diverting that much water would probably ruin other ecosystems. ", "The biggest hurdle is that no one wants to give up their water. So where are you going to build a pipeline from? Farming and people living in deserts is taking all the water they can get already. Building a pipeline further up river from these locations that are already using the water won't go over well.", "Because we're not selling you any of our water.", "The short answer is no due to economics. Pumps are expensive unless gravity assisted as water is extremely heavy compared to value. Things like oil or natural gas are high value compared to their weight/volume.\n\nIt is possible to have a pipeline but due to price limitations it is unlikely to be economical. The price of water has a ceiling for various reasons. \n\nAlso, you have to question where the water would come from....\n\nCalifornia has been taking more than their share of the Colorado river water and have been using Nevada and Arizona's water shares. Nevada and Arizona plan on using more of their shares in the following years. (see: _URL_0_)\n\nAlso energy is a growing problem in California as well. Southern California actually gets a large portion of its energy from other sources such as Hoover Dam and Palo Verde(_URL_2_) which is located in Arizona. Nuclear energy in California has been put on hold due to various legislation (_URL_1_)\n\nThe end result is that the water shortage in California is only going to get worse and California will likely need to reduce their need if they cannot increase their supply.", "Because the water in the piped in areas will soon dry out as all the water would be removed. It's really that simple. Remove large amounts of water from the water cycle and voila the water cycle is broken leaving the affected area drained. The los angles aqueduct did this and changed some rather fertile farm land into desert to feed LA. They have diverted, dammed and built aqueducts and pipelines all over California and Nevada but it didn't fix anything. California once sat on one of the worlds largest aquifers but It's been pumped out and removed. The \"mighty\" Colorado river is a frigging trickle! \n\nInterestingly in California and Nevada there are posts that mark the former position of the soil before the ground water was removed. Here's a rather old one from 1977. I chose this one just to show how old this frigging problem is. 9m that's about 29.5 feet in 52 years and It's been done for about 90.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe truth is there are far too many people in California for the water table to support. The large cities exists because of what you're asking and it exasperates the problem. They never should have allowed the population to get so high in the region. How do you stop population growth? stop issuing building permits.\n\nshould we dry out the rest of the continent out because some asshats want to live in a desert but not have to deal with the lack of water. ", "You don't understand, California isn't drought stricken, it was always a desert. You have been pumping water from rivers into that desert for decades and the result is that you have drained the Colorado river dry. The problem isn't with the technology it's with peoples insistence on living in environments that aren't meant to support large populations of people. \n", "You communist hippies aren't getting any of my water, THATS FOR DAMN SURE", "You want our oil AND our water?!! \n\nSincerely,\nCanada", "\"You'll take our water from our cold dead hands. Learn to conserve and maybe not put golf courses in a desert.\"\n\n-Michigan", "Listen, if those people want to live in the desert that's fine. Questionable, but fine.\n\nBut they can't have our damn water.", "It is feasible, but it won't protect Californians in the long run, and it's a short-term solution for deep-rooted problems in how water is distributed in that region. The basics of it are that you can't expect to have rapid growth of the most wasteful population per capita in the world in the desert and *not* expect to run out of water.", " > ELI5: If it's feasible to make a pipeline thousands of miles long to transport crude oil (Keystone XL), why can't we get rid of illegal aliens in California?\n\nFixed that for you", "It seems that people forget that the Romans built giant aqueducts 2000 years ago. ", "We can, and do.\n\nA growing issue: Where's the water going to come from?\n\n- Often water rights are already spoken for and already piped into faraway cities.\n\n- Ways of life have developed in places that make use of the water available to them, both human and natural. Subtracting water from an area usually does environmental and socioeconomic damage, and the effects are often unforeseen because of the geological variability of the landscape and the complexity of hydrology.\n\n\nSuck it dry by wasteful water use; now import it? Doesn't pass the laugh test.", "Pipelines are known to cause cancer and birth defects in California.", "I think the best solution would be to pump sea water to the salt flats. As it evaporates it cools the surrounding areas and increases humidity eventually causing increased rainfall (hopefully). The salt flats are already a giant chunk of salt so who cares if there is more. Sadly the scale of such a project is too big to consider at this point. Oh and the jet stream would blow it away from CA. So then we build a pipeline to give CA some water. ", "oil is worth 80 dollars a barrel. water is worth 10 cents per barrel. ", "If we are foolish enough to let a Canadian company put a single walled pipe across our land to transport their oil to foreign ports they will make money. There will be construction jobs for a short time.\n\nIf a double walled pipe with automatic shut off valves were required it would not be economically feasible. Pipelines should be double walled because they break. Oil spilling on our land is a mess.\n\nBesides the double wall construction a fund should be established to pay for removal of their pipeline after it is no longer useful. Companies can cease to exist, become bankrupt, or become unable to remove what they operate. The EPA superfund should be replenished by taxing industries which generate toxic waste sites.\n\nWith these sensible rules the pipeline is not economically viable. It probably is not viable right now due to the low price of oil.", "Because a gallon of water costs a lot less than a gallon of oil.", "Ugh, reddit bot says my comment was too short....which was, \"one word: MONEY!\", OK SO! the thing is that american politics is very very naughty, instead of doing what they are told, they take candy from bad people to let them do bad things, SO, some Canadian's decide to give our politicians (mostly republicans and some democrats) lots of candy to let them build the keystone XL, which runs from Canada, cuts through the U.S. and onto mexico to ship elsewhere so that the Canadian company can make even more candy than what they gave to american politicians. so to cut it short, politicians are getting candy to approve the keystone XL so that the Canadian company can make more candy. They're not building a pipeline to California to transport fresh water because no one is giving politicians any candy to support the idea and even if a company were to do so, they wouldn't make enough candy from such a thing.", "Who wants to give California their water? They would want an ocean of it. Water is becoming scare everywhere. Even the great lakes are drying up. Besides, California isn't taking care of the water they have now, they don't really deserve more.", "California steals it water, and doing so has ruined untold natural environments. \nYou could run a large pipe for water to people that have chosen to live in the desert..or fuck 'em, they chose to live in the desert.", "There was some scuttlebutt years ago about a proposal to pipe part of the Columbia River in Oregon/Washington to California. Not sure if it was serious but Oregonians were not amused. Californians are/were not popular in Oregon and are blamed for Californicating the Northwest with high property prices and sushi bars.", "Cause we don't want you to take our Great Lakes water. You get to live in California. You get the sun. We get the fresh water. Fuck you.", "Considering how many open disputes there are between states about existing water resources, I think the biggest difficulty is sourcing the water.", "Why not drain all the water out of swimming pools that are so common in the SoCal area, and use those billions of gallons of water grow crops? \n\nAlso, ditch the green lawns that aren't native to the area and stop wasting fresh water on turf grass. Just an idea. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/price-water-2014-6-percent-30-major-u-s-cities-33-percent-rise-since-2010/" ], [], [ "http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.irwd.com/assets/images/Water%20Sources/CA-Water-Sources.jpg" ], [], [ "http://www.watereducation.org/where-does-my-water-come" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Aqueduct" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/California_water_system.jpg" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-Revised/dp/0140178244" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse-fresh.html", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_system#Overview_of_infrastructure" ], [], [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/AralSea1989_2014.jpg", "http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/AralSeaDriedup.jpg?aba085", "http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-11-20-CORterminusSIB1072010OHH.JPG" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://wrrc.arizona.edu/publications/arroyo-newsletter/sharing-colorado-river-water-history-public-policy-and-colorado-river", "http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station" ], [ "http://40.media.tumblr.com/c8f616e0df0ff62e5297a5b5664a33de/tumblr_nfd0d7zjop1sq04bjo1_500.png" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fimhlbk" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Our muscles are around 25% efficient. Electric motors can exceed 90% so an electrically powered robot could do much better, especially as they might be able to recapture some energy regeneratively. Still, the advantage of electric motors is not as big as it seems, since converting other forms of energy into electricity is very inefficient." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dawvm29", "dax3ofn", "dax4n8p" ], "score": [ 3, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "There is no real reason to not drink water before a blood sugar test. Being dehydrated can actually make certain tests more prone to false positives. ", "You can drink water. Measuring FBS is a good way to assess your body's regulation of blood glucose via the hormone insulin. After eating, blood sugar will be elevated but insulin should be secreted in order to reduce it. People with diabetes have an insulin problem - either via inadequate production or ineffective insulin - and their blood sugar remains elevated. Blood glucose tests are done to check for and monitor the treatment of diabetes or to determine if an abnormally low blood sugar level or hypoglycemia is present.", "I think you have it mixed up, usually they WANT you to drink water before a blood test, as it is easier for them to draw blood when you are more hydrated." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clrg4qo" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Most studies have shown that the energy savings are negligible if not completely nonexistent, so basically nothing would happen. We just don't because our government is decaying and sclerotic and can't get anything done, even non-controversial stuff. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cry3tqr" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Those cars can only be unlocked from outside if the wireless key is also outside, and within a couple of feet of the door. If you lock yourself inside the car, someone outside of it cannot unlock it with the touch mechanism, because they don't have the key on them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du8l4p7" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Hair dryers have a GFCI on the end of the plug. This checks to ensure the same current is flowing in hot as is flowing out neutral. If it detects a difference in this it will trip and cut the power because the missing current is getting to ground through another source (you in a bathtub)\n\nYou have to hit reset to reset this protection circuit so poerr can flow. Some unset themselves when power is removed so you need to push it every time you plug it in" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cez4gs6" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I would assume it involves a process of taking several different shots from different angles, and then compiling them in such a way as to edit out the arm holding the camera." ] }

[]

[ "http://i.imgur.com/UACwKNR.jpg" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d076bzv", "d076gkb", "d076pgj", "d07731g", "d0778in", "d077epq", "d077nq9", "d077t3y", "d077wj4", "d0780jm", "d0781ld", "d079f5g", "d07ajig", "d07cl21", "d07cwus", "d07d51m", "d07dq25", "d07e1a7", "d07en3e", "d07g7he", "d07h60t", "d07iltg", "d07jlsb" ], "score": [ 35, 335, 2162, 42, 237, 10, 118, 52, 163, 4, 27, 19, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 4, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "Interesting fact. Some people with heart conditions sleep in a up right position. It helps them breathe and reduces the symptoms from CHF etc.", "Some people will have physiological problems like COPD. They need to sit up to breathe. \nAnd, everyone is different. Different likes, spinal curves, noise level requirements, tics, personalities. It all affects sleep. \nPersonally I can fall asleep in pretty much any position, any time, any noise level. \nAnd if I don't want to wake up, I can ignore things and sleep through it. ", "You adapt to your surroundings.\n\nFind someone who just made it through Basic Training for any branch of military. They'll be able to sleep in any position you could imagine.", "I haven't slept in a car or plane or bus since I was in diapers. Impossible for me.\n\nMy wife can lean her head against anything and be out in 30 seconds. \n\nPeople are different.", "Apparently back in Thomas Jefferson's day it was the norm to sleep sitting a chair and considered healthier. Jefferson slept that way. Source - tour guide at Jefferson's plantation near Charlottesville, VA .", "Because most people aren't tired enough to be able to sleep anywhere.\n\nWhen I was in college, there was a time where I almost didn't sleep. I would jump on any occasion. There were only standing places in the bus, so I'd sleep standing. I had to.\n\nI had an internship in an oilfield service company where we slept about 2 to 3 hours per night, for a month, in the summer, while fasting (no eating or drinking for 16 hours, from sunrise to sunset), in the Sahara desert.\n\nThe days were long, you kept moving (couldn't eat or drink or rest) and there was a lot to do, which means sleeping at 3 or 4 am and waking up at 6am. \n\nYou can't sleep on the job, but you look at your bed in a very, very, different way.\n\nEDIT: I may have been expressed myself in a way that makes it sound terrible. It was a great internship. I was completely free to do what I wanted, and I chose to stay awake and learn about as much stuff as I could (they had some sweet tech). They have a slogan that goes \"Internships that don't involve photocopying\". Nobody prevented me from taking a break or eating or something, it's just part of myself. I'm addicted when something is cool and I can't unplug. They're big on security (not allowed to drive more than one hour at a time without a break, not allowed to drive during the night, etc). It's not an amateur company.. \n\n_URL_0_", "I've never been able to sleep on planes, but I took a flight with a friend once who feel asleep happily leaning forward with his face just fucking smooshed into the seatback in front of him. I wasn't even sure how he could breath like that, let alone fucking sleep.", "I cant fall asleep unless laying on my stomach. Why? ", "I need near complete silence, pitch black dark surroundings and to be really tired in order to fall asleep. Even with those criteria met it takes at least half an hour to fall asleep.\n\nOh, an unscheduled early wake up early tomorrow morning? 4 hours of sleep max. Im in the army and in a tent with others in the woods for a week? I better cope with 4 hours of sleep per night. VERY tired at the middle of a day and I need a nap? My \"nap\" needs 2 hours for an hour to fall asleep, 30 mins to sleep and then 30 mins to truly wake up from the coma that that 30min nap caused.", "For those who have trouble falling asleep I suggest working midnight shift for some time. ", "My SO can sleep through **ANYTHING**.\n\nI have to have all the lights off, no TV or any irregular sounds, and some sort of \"white noise\" such as a fan, space heater during the colder months, or ambient rain sounds.\n\nAlso can't sleep on my back **AT ALL**. It sucks ass.", "I can lay down anywhere and fall asleep in 5 minutes no matter what, but I'm usually getting just 6 hours of sleep a night. \n\nWell that's my secret op. I'm always exhausted. ", "On a similar note, why are some people able to fall asleep anywhere immediately, while others will toss and turn for hours trying to get to sleep?", "If I'm tired enough I can sleep anywhere, no matter the position or noise level around me. I was up working until 4am last night and had to get up at 6am for another 14 hour shift today. You bet I could sleep with my face on the desk, lots of people walking by and a huge PA and croud of people cheering just a few metres away today. Pretty sure anyone can do it if they're exhausted enough.", "i went to school for idk 10 years or something.. i just get used to falling asleap while sitting up. \n\nactually the only 2 things i learned in school were falling asleep while sitting, and not listening to people which are talking straight to my face. ", "Feel asleep sitting upright on a gun range once. When you are tired enough, you just don't care what position comes with sleep.", "Could be any number of things.\n\nMetabolism, diet, medication, heat, tiredness. The list is endless.", "I usually sleep at a 45 to 60 degree angle propped upright. I find I get a better quality of sleep with no tossing or turning. I wake in the same position I went to sleep. When I sleep flat on my back or side, I roam all over the bed and wake up upside down or sideways and find my blanket stuck up on the ceiling fan and my wife asleep on the couch. ", "For me it's simple as when I broke my arm lying down hurt so much that I simply could not sleep, learning to sleep while sitting up was the only way I was able to get any form of sleep. At that point those 1 hour naps was what kept me sane (I had to wait nearly 3 weeks before I got surgery to restore my arm). Now I have no problem to sleep sitting up for a couple of hours at a time.", "Conditioning. My siblings and I didn't have bedrooms growing up so my parents let us sleep wherever we passed out, whether it'd be the floor or three of us sprawled out on the couch. \n \nGoing off to college was the first time I regularly slept in a bed, but in-between classes I can pretty much fall asleep anywhere on campus despite the noise or light. It's actually much more difficult for me to sleep in a bed in a quiet room.", "Yeah. Lots of soothing strategies help to recreate in utero experience. The shushing in the ear that we now associate with telling someone to be quiet is about blood whooshing. Rocking and movement for a baby when crying resembles baby inside moving mother. Swaddling (wrapping babies snuggly in blanket) resembles tightness of uterus in final months. You can even get CDs of heart beats and other in utero sounds for helping babies sleep. It is also common for in utero babies to wake up when a mama lays down for bed. All that stillness wakes the baby up. Source: am mom.", "Everyone has a set of signals which to them mean \"it's safe to sleep now\". Maybe it's the birds getting quiet. Maybe it's your mom turning the TV off. Everyone has a different set of signals that mean to them \"OK, you're in the nest\".\n\nFor some people, there were times when they were tired and they were sitting up and all of their signals said \"ok, you're in your sleep nest\" so they fell asleep. If they were able to sleep without being startled awake, that strengthened those signals. Other people only ever slept while lying down so that became one of their sleep signals.\n\nYou can change your sleep signals if you want to, by staying up really late until you're so tired you could sleep anywhere, and then putting yourself around whatever you want your new signals to be. So if you wanted to learn to sleep on a plane, just stay up super late before a flight and then let yourself fall asleep when you're on board. If it doesn't work, try staying up later and using additional sleep aids (sound and light blockers, pills, etc).\n\nWith repetition your body will begin to associate different aspects of that situation (the hum of the engine, even the uncomfortable armrests) with sleeping and it will become easier, and eventually you'll find it hard to stay awake in that situation.", "my brother has narcolepsy and has fallen asleep while standing up. Unfortunately he cant stay standing while asleep." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://bitly.com/jugslb" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcz2684", "dcz5oh4" ], "score": [ 6, 7 ], "text": [ "Making hydrogen into a metal requires huge amounts of pressure. Pressure that's greater than what's at the center of the earth. After that it's uncertain whether it stays metallic if you take the pressure off at normal atmospheric conditions. It's a big deal because this could be a huge leap forward in superconductor technology increasing electronic devices efficiency. ", "It's a very big deal. Right now the only sample of this in the world where it was made not long ago. They used two diamond (a material with one of the highest hardness) to crush hydrogen with super high pressure to form metallic hydrogen. Now they are testing it as much as they can, but they plan to release the pressure sometime in the next couples of days or weeks.\n\nOn theory is that like Diamond, metallic hydrogen is metasable. Meaning that just like diamond is created from high pressure and temperature, it will still stay stable at room temperature and pressure. That's incredibly important because other wise we can't use it in our technology.\n\nThe main propriety that is interesting is that it's a supraconductor. Normal wire depending on the material, size of the wire and voltage lose more or less electricity when it travel through it. This wasted electricity is transformed into heat. That cause two problem. Thing can heat up more, you need bigger wire to stay safe, you need to produce more power than you actually need, etc. All of that make bigger, more costly and possible less safe equipment.\n\nBut a supraconductor will be near 100% efficiency when it come to electricity travel. That mean faster and smaller electronics, huge reduction in weight for wires (think of the weight reduction if we could replace all the copper wires), huge increase in efficiency in electric production and distribution. It would basically make everything with electricity better.\n\nI also heard that we could use it as a rocket fuel. Basically, you put a lot of energy to create metallic hydrogen and if you can release that energy in a rocket energy that would be a lot more powerful than our current rocket.\n\nBut the first step is to know if it's stable at room temperature and pressure. Then you need to develop a cheaper way to produce, so even if everything go perfectly we are still decades away to see commercial application." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dh30yoh" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "it depends on the country.. but in the UK there's a government department called the Land Registry, which you have to notify that you've built a new street.. and a Master Post Code Record, whom you also have to register with, who will assign your new road a Post Code (so that the road will then exist, officially), and THEN, once you've got a post code for your officially existing road, you have to notify either your local council (town/city), or regional council (county), who will assign a name to it.. (depending on if your new road is located in a town/city with a planning department, or if it's in a county without one. \n\ntl'dr it's bureaucratic hell in the UK building a new road. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ere9gfa" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Usually alcohol is a driving factor. \n\nFor the losing side there is the theory that the cheering during the game builds up testosterone, then at the end of the game the cheering suddenly ends and hormone levels drop quickly wich often causes aggression." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dint1l6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Switzerland use to have very strict customer protection laws for banks. That means that outside governments could not access any information on Swiss bank accounts or freeze assets. So, if you were hiding money offshore, you would do it in Switzerland because there is nothing your government could do to gain access to the information or the actual money. Switzerland has since changed their laws.\n\nWhen Switzerland changed their laws, the Grand Caymans saw an opportunity. They took the place of Swiss banks as the premier place to hide money. So if you are trying to hide money from the IRS, or hide assets during a divorce, or hide profits from illegal sources (like drugs), then the Grand Caymans is the place to do it. They won't even acknowledge that you even have an account with them.\n\nI know a few people who have offshore accounts in the Grand Caymas. They use it hide money they earned overseas so that they don't have to pay taxes to the IRS. They just have their paycheck deposited down there and use a debit card here in the USA to pay for things or get cash." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6dlnqi", "c6dmiai", "c6dmwjg", "c6doggw", "c6dpnyj" ], "score": [ 4, 8, 8, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Names are often derived from jobs or physical appearance or things like that. Some jobs are more common than others. For example, Smith is a common name. Blacksmithing was a common job: every town or village would have a 'smith so it's natural that there were more people called Smith than something else.", "I've read that mathematically with each generation the popularity of common surnames increases while the popularity of uncommon surnames decreases. Korea is facing this problem right now where something like 7 surnames consist of 80% of the population", "Surnames historically came from a few things:\n\n1. Your job \n2. Your father's name \n3. (rarely) Your mother's name\n4. Where you come from\n5. Your physical appearance \n6. A description of your personality\n\nMore common jobs, or first names, therefore lead to more common surnames. (e.g. Smith, Johnson)\n\nSadly I can't help with names from other languages, as naming conventions vary as far as I know", "I think families having more male children probably contributes to a certain extent, because in most cultures, that's how the surname gets carried on, but a lot of the extremely common names (in the English language anyway) are derived from common jobs (Smith, Miller) or son-of type names (Johnson, Thompson, Davidson, etc.)\n\nA lot of foreign names were also Anglicized back in the day so recent immigrants could better fit in, so a Scandinavian guy with a name like \"Jonsson\" would just change it to \"Johnson,\" or a German guy named \"Schmidt\" would just change it to \"Smith\" for convenience's sake.", "Aside from the ones mentioned, a big one for a lot of eastern countries is that the concept of a last name did not exist until fairly recently. When Ataturk made Turkey modern, part of his push was for people to pick last names. Lots of people picked similar last names. In Vietnam, one last name (Nguyen) accounts for 40% of the population. There surnames were treated in the early 1800s (and before) as either rewards by the emperor, or just something a bunch of people adopted." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "da2vbnv" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "You mean to be hidden by the sun? It would, but it's gravitational influence on other celestial bodies would give it away. In other words, it's not necessary to actually *see* a planet to detect it's presence. Most of the outer planets were, in fact, *predicted* to exist long before they were actually detected with telescopes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ex7mzcb", "ex8cjhy" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "This is how it's always been on the internet, and before (BBS, Telnet, Gopher). It's a natural way to express exaggeration through text, just like emojies and the lost art of proper punctuation. I'm pretty sure there are much older examples available in books too.\n\nThis connotation has been vastly spread across the internet most readily due to self policing, open explanation, and continued ignorance by new comers.\n\nJim: WHERE ARE YOU GOING TOMORROW?\nBob: The Store. Also, please don't use caps, it makes it seem like you are YELLING at me.\n\nAnd it forever was...", "This has even been the case long before the internet. News headers/titles would often be written in capital letters. Paperboys who shouted stuff like \"Get your latest news here\", etc. while selling them put one association behind it already. The second association would be the urgency and alertness coming with \"BREAKING NEWS\" from a diversity of TV shows, and so on. It's exaggeration through text, practically a highlighter. An exaggerated way of talking would be yelling, for example. So people associate capital typing with yelling." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "es5qlcv", "es5s0po" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Just guessin here. But as humans are social group creatures. When you are in a group and you get hurt sitting there quietly isnt going to net you any group assistance. I can imagine the ones that didnt cry out wouldnt get the help they needed to survive, thus removing them from the genepool?\n\nNot an expert on the matter though. But it sounds plausible in my head.", "I just want to mention that not everyone cries or screams when they're in pain. It has a lot to do with the way you've been raised. When your parents never reacted to your screams or even reacted negatively you simply stop doing it. It still hurts but you just don't have the urge to scream or you suppress it instinctively. \n\nThis works the other way around as well: you're communicating that you're in pain and your environment reacts in a positive manner, console you and so on - so you keep doing it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5tv52f", "c5tv66h" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "on a 5 year old's level. cancer cells are deadly; they also multiply much much faster than normal cells. \n\none way to kill off the cancer cells is to inject a poison into the body that kills all cells. because the cancer cells divide quickly, they die off quickly. while some of the normal cells die off too, they don't all die off, because they divide more slowly. \n\nof course it isn't as simple as that. some normal cells divide quickly, such as the cells bone marrow, digestive tract, and hair follicles. \n\nso it is a delicate balance of poisoning the body to kill the cancer cells, while you also have to kill a lot of the normal cells in bone marrow, digestive tract, and hair follicles. ", "Chemotherapy isn't radiation treatment. That's radiation therapy. Chemotherapy is treatment with chemicals.\n\nWhat these chemicals do, is make it difficult for cells to divide. The reason is that cancerous cells divide very rapidly. If you can stop their rapid division, the cancerous cells will eventually die off.\n\nUnfortunately, there are legitimate cells in the body that also divide rapidly, such as the cells that create hair, and the cells that line the digestive tract. That's why people under chemotherapy treatment often lose their hair, or become very nauseous.\n\nChemotherapy is often combined with radiation therapy to do a two pronged attack on the cancer." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6cyfxl", "c6cz1u9", "c6d5hd9" ], "score": [ 33, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "A very common misconception is that Satanist are devil-worshipers, but this is not the case and actually most Satanists don't believe that the devil exists. What they do believe is that the archetype (type of person) the devil represents is how one should act in the world.\n\nYou can think of Satanism as a rejection of Christian values. Christianity teaches people to be humble, to put others before yourself, to put your faith in a higher power, to reject sinful thoughts, to turn the other cheek, etc.\n\nSatanism says that's all stupid. You are the only thing that matters in the world, and your only job is to look after yourself and get as much pleasure as possible before you die. If anyone gets in the way of you getting what you want, you may \"destroy them.\" You are accountable to no one, however you shouldn't let yourself get out of control. It's sort of like a slightly more sophisticated version of hedonism.\n\nTo be fair, it isn't 100% terrible, they do have some worthwhile ideas like \"don't harm kids or animals,\" but I think the harm outweighs the good. I knew someone who used to identify as a Satanist, but he gave it up because he said the world became too horrible of a place. He started to see everything as a confrontation and became violent, detached and unhappy. I would not recommend it as a lifestyle choice.", "There's several different types of Satanism. I'm not familiar with all of them, but LaVeyan Satanism (named after Anton LaVey) focuses on sort of a responsible hedonism. It's basically tit for tat, treating good people well and bad people poorly, forming your own identity and not denying yourself gratification. Whereas religions like Christianity are about abstaining and the denial of pleasures (think sex, gluttony, etc.), LaVeyan Satanism is very much in favor fulfilling desires. There's also some ritual and magic (not media Satanism, like sacrifices, but more along the lines of Latin chanting in church) that I'm not as familiar with.", "A Satanist is someone who values the character and ideals of Satan, or the equivalent character in their culture. There are a number of different classes, and most satanists you meet will believe something different. It is difficult to summarise satanism, due to the wide variety of beliefs. I may update this if I think of anything more.\n\nI find the best way to differentiate satanism is through era: Traditional satanism and modern satanism. Most satanists are probably modern satanists, some sort of LaVeyan derivative.\n\nModern satanism is the set of satanism that developed after 1966, influenced by the publication of LaVeys satanic bible and the founding of the Church of Satan. Traditional satanism is anything that came before 1966, or is not influenced by LaVey. An example of a modern satanism organisation that isn't strictly LaVey, but influenced is [The UK Church Of Rational Satanism](_URL_2_). Chances are that there are more modern satanists than traditional, and LaVeyans make up the majority of modern. There is no satanic census, so we cannot know for sure.\n\nSatanism can have any theology: atheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, deistic, pantheistic or panentheistic satanists all exist. An example of polytheistic satanism is anti-cosmic satanism. I don't know of any organised pantheistic or panentheistic satanist groups, but I do know individuals with such a theology.\nOld satanism is more mystical, usually theistic. Ritual plays a large part. LaVeyan satanism is atheistic.\n\nModern satanism heavily values critical thinking and rationalism. It has influences from people such as Nietzsche, Rand and Crowley.\n\nLaVeyan Satanism doesn't recognise theistic satanists as satanists; considering them to be devil-worshippers or christian heretics.\n\nSome satanists are heavy into ritual and magick. Some consider magick to be real, and that their rituals have real effects. Some, such as LaVeyans, consider ritual to be simply cathartic. Some don't practice any rituals.\n\nSome satanists are religious, some aren't. Religion requires spiritualism; modern satanism tends to be entirely carnal. Traditional satanism tends to be quite spiritual and so traditional satanists are usually considered religious.\n\nThe history of traditional satanism is a little complicated, as there is limited records. It seems that the Catholic church spread rumours of satanism and extreme acts, such as the Black Mass, to drum up fear and support for itself. These rumours in turn provided fodder for those dissatisfied with the Church. The history of modern satanism is much more well understood, as long as you recognise that LaVey invented much of his life to make himself seem more interesting. \n\nIn general:\n\n* Satanism is selfish, heavily individualistic.\n\n* Satanism espouses an 'eye for an eye' morality, or no morality at all. Modern satanism draws on Crowleys work - 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.\n\n* Satanism is very reactionary, especially towards Christianity.\n\n* Satanism is hedonistic, but more on the epicurean side of the fence - 'indulgence, not compulsion', as LaVeyans say.\n\n* There is no specified politics, sociology or economics. There are some small fascist satanic organisations, though.\n\nThe [wikipedia](_URL_0_) article's pretty good, as is the [Church of Satan's website](_URL_1_) (aside from the fantastic colour scheme). If you have more question, read LaVey's Satanic Bible, and his other writings too. /r/satanism might answer some specific questions too." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism", "http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/index.html", "http://theukchurchofrationalsatanism.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/uk-church-of-rational-satanism.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "diy1bw8", "diy410z", "diy4yik", "diykcw5", "diyoj2y", "diyw33o", "diyzdup" ], "score": [ 97, 3, 47, 2, 2, 149, 6 ], "text": [ "Yes. If they don't eat enough they can become too weak to complete their transformation and die partway through. Insects that suspend rather than bury themselves need a solid anchor or they wont be able to shed their skin completely, [as this caterpillar demonstrates.](_URL_0_) Lots of ways it can all go wrong.", "I'm pretty sure that if they're not strong enough they won't be able to shed theirs cocoon/skin.", "Caterpillars when in the cocoon stage digest themselves with special enzymes that are powered from all the food that they eat. If the caterpillar doesn't meet the required food amount, it either dies while in a liquid state or doesn't liquidate at all and dies in the cocoon.", "There are certain aquatic parasites that cannot penetrante their hosts during their usual state and must penetrante (crabs usually) like Paragonimus westermani during molting. This is a a huge issue with the seafood population in the East. Not technically an unsuccessful metamorphosis but close. ", "Self doubt. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nBut actually any number of things. A rapid environmental change, predation, genetic defects or just birth defects in general. You'll find nature is much less forgiving than society is. \n\nLike someone else said, any number of defects can lead to being unable to even emerge. ", "The metamorphosis of insects is incredibly complex and there are uncounted ways such a process can fail. \n\nWhen I worked rearing moths for research, I usually found 15-30% of a batch could not to make it out of their pupae. \n\nSome common failures:\n\n* They got stuck inside and trapped\n\n* Couldn't free themselves of the pupa shell completely, and so became malformed when their exoskeleton hardened\n\n* portions of their body failed to express adult characteristics, usually the abdomen, so they remained soft and pliable without the proper organ development on sections of their body\n\n* they were too small/underfed before they pupated, so they likely died of malnutrition/exhaustion in the process\n\nYou can imagine that if you had to melt down and reconstitute your entire body at the level of individual tissues before you became an adult, that there are hundreds of places nature could throw a wrench in that.", "Certain insecticides work by preventing metamorphosis from occurring successfully. Some of these mimic hormones that keep the insect a juvenile. Instead of forming a pupa and metamorphosing to an adult, the insect keeps becoming a bigger and bigger juvenile, eventually dying. \n\nSome other insecticide prevent the production of chitin, which makes up the insect exoskeleton. The insect can't complete molting without building a new exoskeleton, so this hinders the process.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSW4WF974lk" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_growth_regulator" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce2i3qo" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The sails serve different functions. The triangular sails are capable of giving the boat usable thrust, *even almost directly into the wind*, because they can curve and act like vertical wings. Even larger ships have had such sails fore and aft to take advantage of this principle. The square sails (such as on larger, historic vessels) are for running with the wind, to catch as much of it as possible. On smaller, faster, modern boats, square sails have pretty much been replaced by the *spinnaker*--a roughly parachute-shaped sail that can catch a great deal of wind without requiring the larger crew that would be necessary with square sails." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fitvidx" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This is mostly confirmation bias - you don't recall the hundred times you felt uneasy and nothing bad happened, just the one time something did happen.\n\nIf your \"gut feeling\" has a good reason like poor weather or it's prime DUI hours, that's less psychic powers and more rational thinking." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cowvct0" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The easiest question first: It is illegal, but actually streaming the video rather than torrenting it is MUCH safer. Did you know it's technically illegal to buy a movie and watch is with friends who did not buy it?\n\nOk, so the countdown is bullshit. It pretty much wants you to think \"Wow, I don't want to wait like this forever, I might as well buy the premium\". The advertisements and redirects are there to 1. Make you buy a premium version of their service and 2. To make money off of you. Every time you get redirected, the website that you redirected from makes money from this. \n\nJust remember, companies want to make money, so if it's free to you, they are using you to make money (Whether it's Facebook or these movie streaming websites).\n\nSorry for the bad formatting and rambling, I'm tired as fuck." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fmdch7i" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Yes, it ultimately does end up in the lungs.\n\nInside your throat, you have a flap called an epiglottis that covers your trachea when you're swallowing something to eat or drink so that it goes down your esophagus and into your stomach instead. If this doesn't work and doesn't cover your trachea, it'll go into the trachea and into the lungs...assuming you don't cough it up first because of your reflexes, of course." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvg4s3c" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "The object of making wine is to capture the essence of the grape at the time of bottling, and the longer it sets and ages the more the sweetness And acidity balance out making it taste better. Some wines from the same vineyard have different prices because, as Bilbo mentions there are good years and bad years for the grapes. The environment alters the taste for better or worse.\n\nOh, and simple supply and demand. If a wine was great at only 5 years old, it will be drank and as supply of that run dries up, the years pass and the wine ages to become incredibly great, which increases demand on a dwindling supply, increasing price further." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqyl2i1", "cqynryx", "cqyq4xc" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Just to clarify, are you asking if someone lost their memory (their friends, family, and life experiences), would they still remember to, say, tie their shoes? Write? Read? Play piano (if they knew how before)?\n\nI'm not a doctor and I could be completely wrong, but from what I remember from TV (the single most reliable source on the planet), they use different parts of the brain. Please, someone correct my TV logic if I'm wrong.", "Not a doctor either, but there's a difference between skills, which are classified as \"procedural memory,\" and other kinds of memory like faces and names and events. It all depends on what caused to amnesia and what parts of the brain got damaged.", "It depends on the amnesia, there are different types of amnesia.\n\nRetrograde amnesia is one where you forget your past, but you can still form new memories. So this is the case for people who forget who they were and people around them, but they can continue living a normal life from that point on.\n\nAnteriograde amnesia is one where you remember you past, but you can't form new memories. Usually this is the case when people still think it's 1990 or something (like in 51 Dates or Momento if you've seen either movies). They can't form any new memories from that day. However there's been studies that show that they can form some latent memories after repeated exposure.\n\nAs to what type of memory you would remember. There are two types of memories, procedural and declarative. Procedural memory are things like riding a bike or playing the piano (procedures). Declarative memory are things like the atomic weight of hydrogen or who is Julius Caesar (things you can declare). Usually you retain procedural memory and forget declarative memory. However the brain is a tricky and particular thing. Damage a specific part and you'll see the corresponding results of it. I'd imagine if you forgot procedural memory, you'd be like a toddler, learning to walk." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2cq7po", "c2cq7po" ], "score": [ 4, 4 ], "text": [ "It wasn't so much that the Serbian government *itself* signed off on it. The Black Hand, from what I understand, was loosely controlled by the Serbian military, similar to how the Pakistani ISI is the major national intelligence agency but is much more autonomous than the Pakistani or American government would like (as has many ties and helps the Pakistani Taliban and other islamists). There were some ranking Serbian ministers and other officials in this movement, but it wasn't the official government.\n\nMuch like most nationalist movements, Serbia (and more aggressively the Serbian military) wanted to unite all Serbs in a \"Greater Serbia\" or even possibly all Southern Slavs (\"Yug\" meaning \"South,\" hence \"Yugoslavia\") into one country. The Black Hand really only wanted to make it too costly for Austria-Hungary to keep Bosnia and other Serbian territories, but they certainly did not want to create a war, which Serbia would obviously lose.\n\nAfter the assassination of the Archduke, Austria issued the July Ultimatum, which Serbia agreed to except for one stipulation to allow Austrian officials to investigate in Serbia, something the Serbian government saw as a breach of sovereignty. With the ultimatum not met, Austria withdrew its ambassador and soon declared war, triggering mutual alliances across Europe.", "It wasn't so much that the Serbian government *itself* signed off on it. The Black Hand, from what I understand, was loosely controlled by the Serbian military, similar to how the Pakistani ISI is the major national intelligence agency but is much more autonomous than the Pakistani or American government would like (as has many ties and helps the Pakistani Taliban and other islamists). There were some ranking Serbian ministers and other officials in this movement, but it wasn't the official government.\n\nMuch like most nationalist movements, Serbia (and more aggressively the Serbian military) wanted to unite all Serbs in a \"Greater Serbia\" or even possibly all Southern Slavs (\"Yug\" meaning \"South,\" hence \"Yugoslavia\") into one country. The Black Hand really only wanted to make it too costly for Austria-Hungary to keep Bosnia and other Serbian territories, but they certainly did not want to create a war, which Serbia would obviously lose.\n\nAfter the assassination of the Archduke, Austria issued the July Ultimatum, which Serbia agreed to except for one stipulation to allow Austrian officials to investigate in Serbia, something the Serbian government saw as a breach of sovereignty. With the ultimatum not met, Austria withdrew its ambassador and soon declared war, triggering mutual alliances across Europe." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "faevz87" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "Usually the town was there first taking advantage of the fertile floodplains, and the dam and reservoir came later.\n\nBefore the dam that was just a river valley, not a towering lake." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "df6a7a9", "df6al0k", "df6aq11", "df6ath6", "df6awn0", "df6b5hf", "df6bqiq", "df6d27d", "df6etnf" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 3, 4, 15, 2, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Jessie Waters tries, he jives with Fox viewers anyway. Uhhh, there's a pretty funny guy Bill O'Reilly hangs out with a lot, does shows with and all that, but I don't remember his name (Dennis?). They're out there, just unsurprisingly not as popular.", "There's some, but there is a much smaller audience for it. Fox has tried the late night comedy stuff, but never caught on and wasn't particularly funny. The target Demographic for that sort of thing is young male which tends to be overwhelmingly liberal.\n\nIf you look on the internet there's some conservative comedy like Steven Crowder, but it's still not as popular.\n\nIt's kind of like saying why isn't there women's basketball on TV? Because the demographic of people who watch basketball prefer male basketball.", "Penn Jillette is more libertarian than conservative.\n\nJoe Rogan tends to be more conservative/republican AFAIK.\n\nKelsey Grammar is mixed comedic/dramatic, but is republican", "Comedy tends to be subversive, challenging the status quo. When you make fun of something, you are implying that it needs to change.\n\nConservatism is about largely about preserving how thing are (or were). It is harder to find human in that.", "Comedy and satire tends to focus on punching up: on mocking authorities and those in power.\n\nConservative ideology tends to hold authorities as sacrosanct, and criticizing and mocking those is seen as immoral. That makes it really hard to do good conservative political satire. Conservatives inherently want to celebrate the status quo (that's what conservatism means: to conserve), and it's really really hard to write good jokes about how \"the people at the top deserve to be on top because they're the best\", and poor people deserve to be poor\". Political satire is subversive, and there are few things conservatism hates more than that.\n\nAdditionally, political satire tends to thrive on diversity, on having access to a broad variety of experiences and viewpoints. It's hard to come up with good jokes, and the more different experiences you have access to, the more material you have to draw on. If your neighbor is Hispanic, your friend is gay and you've got a few black people on staff, that means you'll be exposed to thoughts and ideas and reactions different from yours. And these different thoughts can help inspire and expand your work. However, exposure to diverse experiences and viewpoints tend to correlate strongly with liberal views (people who live in cities, where they meet lots of people of different backgrounds, are overwhelmingly liberal).", "I recall somewhere that Ann Coulter thought that much of what she did was sarcasm which is a type of comedy. I suspect there are a number of folks that consider some of what they do comedic that don't get much recognition for it outside of their target demographic.", "Conservatives tend to use talk radio: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, etc. \n\nOffhand I can't think of any liberal call-in radio hosts with a comparable format; they're all comic pundits instead. ", "A lot of it has to do with the current culture that political parties are aligned with. For better or for worse, Republicans have distanced themselves from more artistic endeavors and diversity whereas Liberals have embraced them. In order to be a successful comedian, you're going to be working in an industry with a ton of diversity of every kind and you're going to be working a lot with people whose politics you disagree with strongly. Basically a Republican comedian has to seek out a career path their party doesn't value and constantly work with people who they disagree with.", "Demographics is the primary reason. Conservatives skew older, are more likely to be married, more likely to have children and more likely have professional careers.\n\nAll of this means they're less likely to be staying up late at night, visiting comedy clubs or even watching significant amounts of television. If you're building an audience around people regularly watching your show at midnight, most of the people up at that hour will be young people with few traditional life responsibilities - and most of that demographic will be left-leaning.\n\nThe arts in general is also more left-leaning, which tends to get a false impression of the overall political views of the nation. Consider Rush Limbaugh vs. Jon Stewart. Both are 'comedy pundits'. But Limbaugh was doing it long before Stewart came along, is still doing it after Stewart has left and has maintained an order of magnitude larger audience than Stewart ever did. But Stewart is a much more significant *celebrity*, often appearing on other media platforms. In practice, this means that you're likely to know who Stewart is even if you never watched his show, while few people who aren't regular listeners know much of anything about Limbaugh beyond the fact that he's a conservative talk show host." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dwf36qx", "dwf38eh", "dwf3a0g", "dwf3m6k", "dwf3o58", "dwf3q96", "dwf8ipd", "dwf8lpn", "dwf8x5l", "dwf9fc3", "dwfbj82", "dwfbs00", "dwfc0re", "dwfccch", "dwfddj1", "dwfdi82", "dwfdnue", "dwfdy5z", "dwff7l4", "dwfguze", "dwfhows", "dwfhqky", "dwfhtkg", "dwfkp7f", "dwfl8qy", "dwfluma", "dwfmaua", "dwfmdp2", "dwfmej6", "dwfmx7f", "dwfn1mh", "dwfn3s3", "dwfra9l", "dwfwddt", "dwg0950", "dwg2ngu", "dwg2nqv", "dwg2ofm", "dwg5jah", "dwglz63" ], "score": [ 42, 294, 2349, 92, 18, 7, 78, 11, 11, 6, 666, 9593, 3, 3, 35, 12, 6, 3, 13, 6, 7, 3, 3, 5, 3, 2, 2, 4, 7, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The baseline wasn't so much reality as it was the previous generation of CGI. Compared to previous or just worse attempts, it looks incredible. Same as why today's look way even better if you.compare them to the ones that don't look as good when we look back.", "same way kids were super excited when action figures could bend their arms. or when High Definition was 720 pixels.. it's a comparison to what was available. nobody thought those effects \"looked real\" but they looked better than anything they had seen at that time so they were excited and praised the special effects.. i.e. a movie review of \"E.T.\" when it first came out could have \"best special effects I've ever seen!\" but that doesn't imply they ever thought it was realistic at all. ", "The baseline of comparison isn't reality, it's other CGI.\n\nWhen CGI first came out, it was obviously CGI, but it still wow'd people because you had this fantastic amazing stuff happening on screen.\n\nAs the push to make CGI \"realistic\" increased, new CGI was always compared to existing CGI.\n\nStuff \"looked real\" at the time because that was the best there was at the time *compared to other, less real, CGI*. Now it looks fake because we have better CGI today and that's what we compare it against.", "well a lot of it is to do with expectation - we just expect better now. Like my son is 2 and we've not let him have any sweets or cakes yet, so he thinks bananas are the ultimate in taste sensation.\n\nThe other thing is when something is a thing you've never seen before you're so taken with the newness that you don't notice it doesn't look quite right. Your imagination fills in the gaps. That's why kids loved the old Dr Who's - they'd _never seen anything like it_\n\nI would argue a little with your premise though - on the whole, bad effects have _always_ been bad effects. The rubber Arnie head in the Terminator _always_ looked like a rubber Arnie head, and the Scorpion King always looked like, er I dunno what it was meant to be. But the good effects knew their limits and pushed them\n\n(there's another level too - The stop-motion skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts _always_ looked liked stop-motion skeletons but nobody cared because OMFG HE IS FIGHTING SKELETONS)", "Like others mentioned, your basis for comparison for CGI is previous CGI—not reality.\n\nInterestingly enough, this is why movies like Independence Day and Jurrasic Park have aged so well. The emphasis was on practical effects with CGI added as icing on the cake. Movies that rely primarily on CGI will always look dated at some point, because there will always be something better.\n\nI think the uncanny valley is part of this conversation, too, but that's a separate issue.", "No, they never looked real. Even today, they don't look real most of the time. They look great, but usually not real. The first \"real looking\" CGI I remember is Lieutenant Dan Taylor's legs, actually the lack thereof, in Forest Gump. That effect looks as good today as it did then.", "So, the reason that CGI ages is more impressive graphics makes your brain less prepared to fill in the details with older CGI, but even current CGI isn't \"perfect\" and you still have to subconciously \"fill in the gaps\"\n\nOften this is why you also \"remember\" old favourites as perfect until you revisit them.\n\nThe brain fills in the gaps when you're consuming CGI\n\nIf you go back and play a playstation game and it looks pretty blocky and terrible, but at the time it looked \"amazing\" right?\n\nIf you play enough, you stop noticing the *very obvious* dated graphics and it begins to look good again (Had this when I replayed an old Final Fantasy)\n\nThe closer to perfect CGI is, the less you need to subconciously \"ignore\", and the better the CGI you are used to, the less prepared you are to \"ignore\" flaws in older CGI.\n", "Something I have not seen mentioned is the transition from analog storage formats to digital.\n\nOr how every time you encode and process a video, you lose quality.\n\nConverting a video from an analog format to a digital format introduces errors. Further complicating things, when that digital copy is re-encoded for transmitting it is again lowered in quality.\n\nDepending on how the viewer is actually viewing the content, there may be *hundreds* of re-encoding passes made before they see it.\n\nAnd the older content that was converted in the beginning is utter rubbish quality.\n\n\n\nAs far as old video games looking like crap now, looking back... well, that's because the human mind is the ultimate gap filler. Your imagination gets engaged when you *remember* something. Your mind just glossed over all the imperfections in the moment of excitement while playing.", "Medium of delivery changes with time and this leads to an unjustified evaluation of old cgi. Ofcourse new cgi is way better than old cgi but if you play a 480p movie at a 4k tv it will look like shit. You have to remember that old cgi was supposed to be watched at tv that is 360p or lower resolution and with washed out colors. Also this is not only true for movies or tv shows. Same phenomenon is true for video games. When you play old games in a new monitor it looks disgusting but the same game played with an old monitor which the game is meant to be played at the time of release looks pretty decent. ", "When people say soemthing look real they don't necessarily mean it in literal sense, come on...", "One of the factors for me was HD. I remember thinking Star Wars had the best special effects when watching it on VHS, and then blu-ray came out and, oh boy, those miniature models actually look like miniature models now. The same thing is happening with 4K where it’s making CGI look more fake.", "A slightly different approach to the other answers which sum up to \"We compare against modern CGI\"\n\nThe increase in quality for CGI has to do with the level of detail you pay attention to. At first, CGI was clearly using hard angles where it should be using soft curves.\n\nSo, when someone finally got soft curves right, it was \"So realistic!\" But now the thing which made CGI obvious was the colors and shadows.\n\nSomeone got colors and shadows right, and CGI was \"So realistic!\" But now the thing which made CGI obvious was the use of bulk motion where individual motion should occur (like clumps of hair instead of strands).\n\nThen we had issues of being TOO perfect.\n\nIssues of no superfluous motion (random breeze, background people, facial ticks).\n\nNot sure what precisely the latest issues are, and likely have some of the listed issues out of order. But it boils down to the people who work on CGI technology addressing the issues they are aware of as the most glaring, and then consumers of the media noticing new problems and focusing on those as the method of determining what is real and what is not.\n\nSo, when you look at older CGI, you bring with you a host of expectations, but that CGI wasn't even aware of needing to satisfy half of your needs.", "Because you are judging relative to other CGI. It never looks \"real\". It looks \"better than you expected\". ", "It’s all what you are use to seeing. I wouldn’t say they looked real back then, but we were use to it’s look and accepted it. Some movies, like Avatar may have been technologically impressive for the time but can’t compare to today’s big budget CGI. Even in this day and age, subpar CGI jumps out as extremely noticeable. Most recently was Hela fighting the asgardian army in Thor Ragnarok. Her movements had a rubbery look to them that was subpar for a Marvel movie. Let’s not forget about the infamous Superman jaw from Justice League.", "I see a lot of good answers, but I think the /best/ answer is just the fidelity of televisions and various mediums to display media.\n\nEver watch Matrix on VHS? That shit still looks real.\n\nEven on DVD, you can't really tell how bad effects are. In a way, we've painted ourselves into a corner where we enjoy media less because the fidelity is so much better on televisions and devices that present media to those televisions (blu-ray etc).\n\nIf we had 4k TVs and blu-ray when the Matrix came out, we would have thought the effects looked pretty bad. On 480i or p, things still look pretty good.", "People get jaded and always want the bar to be raised. If you look at some of the \"terrifying\" horror movies of the 40s-60s a lot of them are positively comical, yet were well received by the viewing audience. Now, people require more and more to be scared. Same with CGI - more and more realism is needed, although it can be considered a mature technology now that entire cityscapes and fully-believable creatures can be plausibly created in CGI-space. Star Wars' CGI was panned when they first started using it, now they make fantastic movies that almost exclusively use CGI for special effects and creatures.\n\nI remember when \"The Last Starfighter\" came out in 1984- I was completely blown away. It was the first movie to use CGI to simulate real-world objects (as opposed to the computer world of 1982's \"Tron,\" which IIRC was the first movie to use CGI of any kind.) Movie sites talk about the months of rendering on Cray supercomputers and similar feats used to create LSF's CGI scenes. However, by today's standards the graphics in LSF look rather crude, almost cartoonish. (Would love to see a reboot with modern CGI...)", "It's because it never looked that great to begin with and we just accepted it because we were comparing it to other CGI. I remember hating N64 games because the graphics were so shitty, even at the time. ", "Something other people haven't addressed is increased resolution; CGI made for a standard definition release looks garbage on a HD monitor, it's the same for HD to 4K too.", "Well... some people praised them. Not everyone. Some movies, like Jurassic Park, were pretty universally praised in the CGI department. The ones that haven't held up tended to have mixed reactions at the time.\n\nWhen Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within first came out, it was *marketed* as being ultra realistic, and a lot of people recognized that it *was* technically impressive compared to other existing CGI... but I also remember it being **super** uncanny valley when it came out, and a lot of people shared that sentiment.\n\nWhen Toy Story first came out, people were impressed with how realistic the toys looked, but nobody was praising how the humans looked. I remember people saying it would have been better if they had mixed in live action shots for the humans, because even the humans were looking like toys.\n\nNOBODY praised the Scorpion King's CGI in The Mummy 2 when it came out. When The Rock first showed up, I remember laughter in the theater. It was so bad, at the time.\n\nWhen Final Fantasy VII first came out, most gamers were wowed by the graphics, because there had never been anything like it before. But it was the pre-rendered cinematics and background art they were wowed at... nobody was impressed by the potato people running around on top of that background art, nor the PS1 graphics engine's texture rendering that made textures shift randomly and look all pixely. That stuff irritated the hell out of me at the time (especially in games like Tony Hawk, where walls seemed to jitter as the camera moved). And nobody thought the cinematics in FF VII were *realistic*, just that they were cinematic in a way console games couldn't be before. It felt like console games were starting to enter the big league.\n\nWhen Mario 64 first came out, I remember feeling ripped off because the in-game graphics didn't match the promotional material. His hands were all blocky and weird. The levels were tiny and very obviously constrained by memory limitations. I remember thinking all of that *at the time*. It was cool having all that free-range ninja-like movement, but the graphics themselves felt like... a prototype.\n\nZelda 64 mainly added three things over Mario 64: Cinematic camera work, higher-resolution textures, and larger regions. You could get *fairly close* to a character before you could start making out the pixels in their eye textures. Certain scenes, like the intro to the [Morpha boss battle](_URL_0_), felt like movie-quality camera work compared to earlier N64 games.\n\nDuring the N64/PS1 era, I remember feeling like the graphics in games took a big step *down* from SNES in certain ways. In the SNES, graphics were meticulously designed with pixel precision, but the N64 and PS1 were so graphically limited that everything just felt like *polygons trying to resemble characters*. Everything felt lumpy and ugly, and it wasn't until the Wii era that I felt games looked truly *good* again.", "Our standards are raised over time as things get better, the jump from SD to 720p was absolutely massive for visual mediums, but now we look at 720p like we used to look at SD, anymore SD is a joke because of the low resolution.", "It is like going to the eye doctor. \"Wich one of these slides is more blurry\" they ask, they flip slide 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. You thought those were fine untill you compared them too 5 and 6. ", "Standards change. Simple. “Oh that looks real!” Becomes less real as time advances, then you realise it wasn’t so good to begin with", "I want to know the answer to this one too. I was thinking about the other day about video games more so than movies. \n\nWhen 007 goldeneye came out it was amazing. Looked so good! 2018 I have a ps4 pro and have been playing horizon. Which today, horizon looks absolutely stunning. Only to be beat by the last of us 2? But. Will these games look like absolute shit in 2035? If you play goldeneye now. You can’t make out a facial feature. There wasn’t enough memory to have a good world. But today’s games you can. So will these games age better?\n\nUncharted 1 for ps3 looks like shit. So probably not. ", "People confuse looking semi-realistic with realistic. For example, in Rogue One the animated Tarkin was an impressive job, but he did NOT look real. In 10 years it will not hold up.", "This answer is going to get lost but...\nI can think of a short list of reasons.\n\n1. You are not comparing a 2D image to reality and not a virtual one to reality. You are actually comparing your expectations of 2D art to the 2d art from before. (I heard people saying graphics couldn't get better back when the 360 came out, I laughed at them then too but it's a good illustration.) Your expectations were tempered from the crap you saw before.\n\n2. You have additional practice with better and better effects training your eye to notice things like light and texture as the artist's tool box expands.\n\n3. Selection bias. Watch the Scorpion King and tell me The Rock looks real. Even back then they didn't. But the good movies had short cuts and were not over ambitious, these are what you are remembering. People made a big deal about the stained glass golem in *The Adventures of Young Sherlock Holmes* yet no one remembers it now.\n\n4. Higher quality mediums. Back in standard quality artists could add a .2 pixel blur to everything and get away with it. Now with remastered videos all of the imperfections get shoved in your face.", "To add to what others have said I think it's a matter of education and learning as well. When I was 7 years old watching Jurassic Park those dinosaurs were real! But as I got older it wasn't just that 'CGI got better'. It was me an an audience member becoming more knowledgeable about effects through exeperience of more films but also just generally learning about how film and CGI works. We \"age\" alongside what we're viewing and that compounds the \"looks less real now\" feeling.\n\n(Also the dinosaurs still are real! Damn that film was so ahead of its time.).", "One big reason is the initial reactions were always about comparing these special effects to what the viewer had seen before (an d there really is no other way to look at something, when you think about it.) so they impress because what I saw in Tron or Blade Runner was something I'd never seen before. I've seen lots of things since then so I guess you could call it \"context drift.\"", "As far as video games: You used to play them on Standard definition TVs. \n\nPS2-level graphics looked real on SDTVs -- or at least as real as anything could look on them. \n\nThey do not look real on HD-TVs", "The resolution of the screen makes a big difference. I remember being really impressed by the cave of wonders in Aladdin as a kid, but then years later, it was a let down to see how fake the CGI looked. That is, until I saw it yet again on my parents super old square-shaped tv. With the resolution on that thing, nothing was quite as crisp, so the CGI in the cave just blended in naturally with the rest of the movie. It’s like when you use a soft lens or put a pic in photoshop and blur it a little. It’s definitely not a good, sharp quality anymore, but the lack of sharpness disguises the imperfections.", "The audience learns what the tell-tale signs or artifacts of the effect are.\n\n2018: \"The video is a fake. It looks like a PlayStation 2 game.\"\n1998: \"What's a PlayStation 2?\"", "Look for [Kano Model](_URL_0_) \n\nIts a theory in product development \n\nBasically what was attractive quality is now basic quality", "It is 2 or 3 factors. The first is that yes, graphics and the way they are used tend to improve over time. But consider Jurassic Park and say some particularly garbage CGI from the early 2000's. JP has moments where you can tell it's fake, but others where it is really hard to tell what is automatronic and what is CG. Then you look at movies from just a few years later and things look like they belong in games not real life. The second factor is progression of graphics in games and perception of them. Early games were 2-3 colors and simplistic. As games developed, they began to look more \"realistic\" in comparison to those that came before. Mario is a prime example. In SMB1 he was just colored pixels that made out a shape, then by SMB3 his features are more defined. SMW progressed even more and by N64 he resembled a human shape in 3D. And his look has been refined the same way every few years. CoD is another example. It went from 3D that was very rough to now looking almost photo realistic. But at the time of its release what we saw was the most realistic thing to date. Before CoD there was things like Doom and Wolfenstein, and those were \"real\" for their time. And no one noticed it wasn't great at the time, because it was the best out there. Now as far as movies go, some were called out for bad effects even at release, some movies not still look bad, but the good ones hold up, JP for example. \n\nBut the 3rd factor is time. The main reason we call a certain look dated is because that is what it is. Even the best graphics are dated by the most current. That doesn't mean they are bad or worse, they are simply what the creators had at their power at the time. Games like Doom 3 stick out to me because at a time when other games were still looking for a fine polish, it was already there and stayed polished looking for years. But bad graphics ans design are always called out. When Rome 2 launched with some hilarious reviews, it made people just want to play Rome 1 or Medieval 2. Because even though they were older and not as updated, they still played well enough. ", " I feel the resolution we watch stuff at now greatly affects how well it “aged”. What looked good at 480i on 27in CRT doesn’t look good at 1080p 55” LED. ", "I work in the VFX/motion graphics industry in Los Angeles. I was going to write a lot, but then I found this explaining it better than I ever could: (_URL_1_)\n\nBear in mind that this is more for films and television, not video games. Video games don't use VFX they are purely CGI. \n\nA couple dumbed-down definitions to help you better understand: \n\nCGI - Computer Generated Imagery. = images made on a computer. \nVFX - Visual Effects = Incorporating CGI into live action footage (sometimes but not always) so it looks like part of the live acton footage. \n\nVFX involves a multi-step process involving many many people and it's used everywhere, not just for explosions, superheroes and aliens spaceships. \n\n90% of the time, VFX is used to extend or change backgrounds. VERY mundane stuff. Take a look at this: _URL_0_\nSee? THIS is VFX. You would've NEVER noticed that it was all fake! This comes to the main idea I'm trying to get at: good VFX shouldn't be NOTICEABLE and it should FEEL realistic. Bad VFX is when you notice it. (see the first link above as to why you see or feel it as fake)\n\nHope the links above help to get to your answer. ", "Did you really ever think that old/fake-looking CGI looked \"real\" back then? It always looked fake but it's suspension of disbelief. Once you have an example of something more believable, it's hard to suspend disbelief for something sub-par in comparison. \n\nI really don't think it's 100% age based too. Has a lot to do with the level of effort. For example, Jurassic park still looks amazing today but Star Wars Episode 1 looks horrible even though it came later. \n\n", "Independence day is a prime example. Super cool effects at the time but watching it now looks cheesy. ", "I remember reading something a few years back about how absolutely horrified movie goers were back at the start of cinema, like there was some scene with a train that went towards the camera and people were scared out of their mind because they thought this super grainy black and white train come to run them down\n\nEverything looks real until we have something real-er to put it up against ", "This is a human and probably a life on earth quality.\n\nEverything we learn, know, describe is always in comparison to something else. I describe something by saying it's \"like\" something. I cannot describe something directly except with maybe mathematics but even that is a comparison to a quantity and might not be different. \n\nI believe that we are mimics at the core. \n\nEvery new experience gives a new perspective. Only external stimuli as far as I can tell does this. When we see something like better CGI it pushes the goal post further of what existed in your brain and what can exist in our brain. It became the new final goal, the new boundry of understanding. Before that it was literally the best that existed and therefore looked incredible close to reality... compared to all your previous experiences. \n\nThis concept can be extremely powerful as it can extend into nearly all reaches of human experience. Calls into question what you think you know and what something is actually. I call this the deference between two realities, experiential and experimental. The reality which can be tested with external measurements at higher resolutions which I call the experimental reality (objective). The other reality is the one we experience, the experiential reality (subjective). The subjective reality is a piss poor representation of the objective reality due to crummy sensors like our eyes and crummy interpreters like our brain. Our subjective reality is all about copying, comparing and almost zero completely unique creation. Our reality changes as our experiences change and thus changing what we can compare to. \n\nEtc, etc, etc.", "Shading, physics, and textural detail have increased with the advent of more affordable and more powerful computer parts. If you made a modern day movie just 10 years ago it would have taken maybe 20 years to render.\n\nWe can only focus on what is the latest and greatest of the graphics. Certainly 10 years ago you didn't think it was realistic, but was definitely the best you have seen. And you remember it that way. Then when you go back and watch it you see how primitive it was because you have seen something way better in comparison. \n\nJust like how old cut scenes use to be. The game play was potato then the cut scene would be way better and you'd go \"holy toledo that looks so amazing why can't the game be that realistic?\". By realistic you mean *more* realistic, not exactly realistic. ", "I think the real explanation is that cgi never did and still doesn’t look totally real. It’s just how impressed we are with it at the time. As the newer stuff starts to look better and better the older stuff looks markedly worse by comparison. Even stuff that was once incredibly impressive eventually gets outdone by new technology and doesn’t look quite as good in comparison." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAgs0Eq6jlY" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model" ], [], [], [ "https://vimeo.com/239193453", "https://www.rocketstock.com/blog/opinion-10-reasons-why-cgi-is-getting-worse-not-better/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9rmykn", "d9rx5ec" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "As I understand it, Emergent Gravity theory explains the motion of large structures (e.g., galaxies) based on the mathematics of the theory itself, while Dark Matter is used to reconcile a discrepancy between =General Relativity and our observations of the movement of large structures.\n\nEG theory appears to *predict* our observations, while GR does not.", "EG basically says that particles tend to naturally travel towards the state of maximum entropy and this force is what we observe as gravity. Thinking about gravity like this removes the need for a mysterious dark matter particle because gravity is not dependent upon a great mass pulling other mass to it but rather the number of particles near it, which is why it's so easily observed on super large scales. AND the predictions that have been made using this theory match what is being observed. Correlation does not mean causation, but we're on the right track!\n\nI think I interpreted that right. Im not a student lol" ] }

[]

[ "https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cipz46s", "ciq3x2g" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "You are radiating heat and normally it dissipates into the air around you.\nIf you are touching something it transfers to that object, in this case another body and adds to the heat they already have.", "Heat wants to leave your body. When you feel something hot or cold you're not feeling the inherent temperature of the other object, you're feeling the energy leaving your body (if the other object is cold), or entering your body (if it's hotter than you). When you're in the bath/sauna/touching someone else the same temperature as you, the heat can't leave your body so it builds up, making you feel hotter.\n\nThe YouTube channel Veritasium did an excellent video all about temperature perception." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3rcouy", "d3rct6e" ], "score": [ 4, 5 ], "text": [ "Ohm's law states that I=V/R, I is current, V is voltage, R is resistance. So higher the resistance the lower the current it draws. Think of resistance as a guy trying to stop you from moving forward. The bigger the guy, the slower you can move (you being the current here). \n\nAnother equation which calculates power is P = V*I. So more current you draw the more energy per unit time is spent. Power is Energy spent per unit time. \n\nThe difference between 60W and 40W is the resistance. 40W has more resistance than 60W. So In a 60W due to less resistance current flows more than a 40W, and causes the light to glow brigher.\n\n", "This is not totally factually correct but may help you to visualise it.\n\nThink about your tap at home. The water pressure from the pump at your water supplier is always the same but the rate at which water flows changes depending on how far you open the tap.\n\nA power source always has the same voltage (pressure) but the amps (flow of water) change depending on how much resistance (how open the tap is) the bulb has.\n\nMathematically, V=IR. Voltage = current * resistance. For a set voltage (power supplies generally have a set voltage), if the resistance increases the current decreases.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5bc83c", "c5bebkk" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "A phoneme is the smallest piece of sound that can make words different (ie, it is *contrastive*.) If I were to take the word < butter > and analyze it phonemically, it would look something like /bʌtɹ̩/ (There's room for argument over that last sound, but that's another post.) In the real world, though, a phoneme is made up of allophones, which are the different realizations of a phoneme. The sound we actually produce can change depending on a lot of different factors. In this particular situation, the middle /t/ of < butter > is usually produced, in American English, as what's called a flap, [ɾ]. The flap is just one form of /t/. The /t/ of < top > , < stop > and < Batman > are all a little different. But, and here's the main idea, if you swap out any of those allophones with another allophone of /t/, it'll still be the same word. It might sound a little funny, but a native English speaker will recognize what you're saying.", "I actually just did this in /r/linguistics [yesterday](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/w7kqd/ipa_for_english_tr/c5ay8n6?context=3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdrs4eg", "cdrssiz" ], "score": [ 3, 14 ], "text": [ " > Are the banks using our money to lend out?\n\nYes. That's why they can offer you interest on your savings account.\n\n > What happens if I need to withdraw money from my account, but can't because \"They are in production of Avatar 2\"? Will that ever happen?\n\nBanks are FDIC insured. The government will reimburse them for up tp $200,000 per account if they cannot cover costs. Though this pretty much never happens, because they're very good at knowing how much money they need to have on-hand.\n", "1. Hypothetically, there are two different kinds of banks: Commercial Banks, and Investment Banks. The two kinds of banks can be analogized using the construction industry: when you want to build a building, you have two big groups: and engineering firm that designs the building and makes sure it works; and a construction firm that actually does the nuts and bolts of building the building. A commercial bank is like a construction firm - it does the 'work' of the banking industry. An investment bank (which isn't super relevant to your question but it's important to understand) is like the engineering firm: they plan financial transactions, study them, help facilitate them, they provide financial expertise. \n2. Commercial Banks are the banks that actually do the deposit taking. Commercial Banks get money from people who have money and want a place to keep it. Why would you give your money to someone else? Well, if they promise to give you something in return. The 'something' is 'more money' in the form of interest. \n3. So now you have a bank that's collecting money and storing it, and they are paying people a fee (interest) to get their money. Now there's a problem: how do you pay the fee? Well, you gather all the money you've got, and then give it to other people and charge *them* a fee (much like your depositors are 'charging' you a fee to get their money), that's slightly higher than the fee you pay your depositors. \n4. I'm assuming your movie comment is tongue in cheek, but just so we're clear movie studios don't usually borrow money from commercial banks. There are other, non-bank places to get money (which leads us to investment banks, but that's for another time). \n5. So the bank took your money, and then gave it to me. But joke's on them (and you!) I'm a moron and squandered it all on booze and women. Your money is gone. So what happens?\n6. The bank \"plans\" for this by making a loss reserve; ie, they set aside a certain amount of money based on the type of people who they are lending the money to. This reserve is tacked on *top* of the interest rate that they charge to the borrower (ie, me). There isn't just me borrowing money from the bank, there are dozens of other people, too, and lucky for you they are also much more responsible than I am (cha). So while I am not paying anything, they are all paying a slightly higher fee (interest) to cover the 'cost' of me not paying back the money. \n6. The loss reserve gets eaten up. At the end of the year, the bank looks at its books. Ideally, the loss reserve was exactly enough to cover the money lost - no more, and no less. If it was not - that is, if instead of just me not paying the bank back, it was me and someone else, then it gets more complicated. \n7. The bank may buy insurance (the cost of which is also paid by the borrower) to protect itself from too many people failing to pay back the money they borrow. When the losses exceed the reserve, the insurance kicks in and covers more. But as I'm sure you know, insurance policies generally have limits - ie, they don't cover everything. So let's say there's a disaster scenario, and *nobody* pays the bank back. So you deposited your money in the bank, and then the bank lent it out, and it's all gone. What now?\n8. The bank is screwed. You're screwed. Everyone is screwed. There's no money to be had - the bank will try to recover something from the money lent out by going to the borrowers and beating them with the lawsuit stick (and usually they are pretty successful - but this takes a *very* long time and it's extremely unlikely the bank will still exist when the process finishes). But in the near term, your money is gone, and there is nothing you can do about it. \n\nSo that's the end of the chain. But understand that there are some complications to this sequence. There first is called \"Fractional Reserve Banking\" and the second is called a \"Lender of Last Resort.\" \n\nIn the 19th century, the process that I just laid out was basically the way that the financial industry worked - word for word. And banks regularly went all the way to the 9th step - in fact it happened so often that many people (way, way more than do today) just refused to put their money in banks. Banks failed all the time, and when they did the effect on the community around the bank was catastrophic - people's life savings were wiped out. It happened about every ten years like clock work. \n\nEventually, people got sick of this pattern of screwing people and they got together and decided to write a set of rules that would 'short circuit' the process above. These rules are called banking regulations, and they are codified in (among other things) the Federal Reserve Act. \n\nThese banking rules setup some 'backstops' that help stop the process from going to the end (where everyone is screwed). One of the backstops is \"Fractional Reserve.\" Fractional reserve means, literally, that when a bank takes a deposit, a \"fraction\" of that deposit is held in \"reserve\" to ensure that there is always money available - so when a customer shows up at the bank and the bank is invested in a big expensive movie like Avatar 2, there is money set aside to give the customer. The reserve ratio is something like 10:1 (ie, for every ten dollars I lend out, I have to keep 1 in reserve to give depositors should they come to the bank to withdraw money). \n\nNow, the final question is *really* complicated, but I'm going to give the simplest answer and if you want more detail I can do that later. \n\nThe Federal Reserve Act establishes what's called a \"Lender of Last Resort.\" Basically, this means that in the event that *everyone* fails to pay back, and then the bank stupidly *doesn't* keep the money on hand necessary (the \"reserve fraction\") to give out to depositors, the *bank* then has someone to go to, from whom they can borrow money to cover your withdrawal (even if the money is being used to wipe James Cameron's butt). This lender of last resort makes it so that no matter what, even if the process gets all the way to step 9, the bank can never really run out of money. \n\nThat's how the modern banking system works. There are some simplifications (I compress some complicated structures into functions rather than giving you a list of individual agencies and people who are involved) but it is functionally complete. \n\nThanks for being interested in the way the banking system works! Very few people (even, disturbingly, many bankers I know) actually understand the way it works, and it's vital to our lives today. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7gt81n", "c7gtjqc", "c7gtp68", "c7gx2st", "c7gxbw0", "c7gyv25" ], "score": [ 19, 29, 8, 5, 6, 5 ], "text": [ "If the loophole is real, they aren't breaking the contract, that's the whole point of a loophole. That's not to say the customer knew this at the time, or what they do is moral, or that they don't sometimes simply break the law...but in principle, if there's a loophole meaning they don't have to deliver a service, your payments were never for that service in the first place.", "You bought insurance against X. \n\nYou didn't buy insurance against Y.\n\nIf Y happens, there's no reason for the insurance company to do anything.\n\nIf you thought you were insured against Y, this would be frustrating for you, but still nothing to do with the insurance company.\n\nIf the insurance company deliberately made it difficult to understand what was and wasn't covered, or even led you to believe that you were insured against Y, now you might have cause to say they owe you something. But it's not having a loophole that would be the issue but deliberately concealing the loophole would be.", "Along with the answers given, it should be stated that insurance companies pay out billions of dollars every year. In fact, some insurance companies are actually not-for-profit. They are owned by the policy holders and all the premiums go to loss payments and administration. \n\nAn insurance company has a duty to its policy holders to keep costs down, which means not paying out on fraudulent claims or claims for things that are not covered. If a company paid out every claim without checking, no one would be willing to pay the premiums required to cover that.", "Insurance is like making a bet. I bet my house will burn down, so I buy insurance. My house washed away in a flood but I didn't bet I would loose my house, I bet It would burn.\nYou have to be careful how you word a bet or you don't win.\n\nWith medical insurance your bet is based upon not only what you have but your history. If you didn't disclose something,Tell them a true medical history, you broke the contract so they don't have to pay. Basically you cheated so they get to keep your money.\n\n\n", "People prefer to assume rather than actually read the legally binding contracts they are signing.", "IIRC, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) will preclude this eventually. If you have the time, This American Life has some great episodes on healthcare, and they talk about this issue" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cs9fqrm", "cs9myz9", "cs9rg01", "cs9rovc", "cs9vdyx" ], "score": [ 405, 28, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The cursors 'point' is the very tip of the arrow and this cant leave the boundary of the working area (so your screen). When moved to the bottom right of the screen, the cursor is still on screen just the rest of the white arrow is not. ", "I'll expand on this. The visible representation of the cursor is purely there for looks. Other than that the computer is only keeping track of X and Y coordinates where the very tip of the cursor is. As far as the computer is concerned the rest of the cursor isn't there. Its just a picture. The reason you don't want the whole cursor to be physical and get stopped at the opposite borders of the screen is that if you need to click something in the bottom right corner you won't be able to because of the few millimeters that are keeping you away from the border. ", "Fun fact: if you have multiple monitors, and either they are not the same size or you drag them so that they are not perfectly aligned, there *will* be a completely invisible area of the screen.", "The arrow is pointing at the spot where you're going to click.\n\nIf the arrow always had to stay inside the screen, you wouldn't be able to click things that were waaaay on the right side or the bottom of the screen, because the back of the arrow would bump into the edge of the screen before it could reach them.\n\nTo fix this, your computer lets you move the arrow a little bit outside of the screen.", "I remember playing with Cursor Editors back in the 90's, I would make my own cursors and install them on windows, when you were done with the editing you had to choose the \"Hot Spot\" location on the new cursor, which is usually the tip if it were shaped like an arrow to make it visually easier to click on something with the hot spot, the Hot Spot is the pixel of the cursor image that Windows uses to understand where the actual click took place." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c405e2b" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "So there's this organization called ICANN. They are the ultimate authority on domain names. The fact that you can have domain names that end in .info, or .me? ICANN decides that. They are the Cartman of the domain world in that their authority is to be accorded the utmost respect.\n\nICANN approves of companies known as 'registrars'. So a company like GoDaddy or NameCheap go to ICANN and give them some money and ICANN says, you may sell domain names. Go forth. Think of it as having a license to sell.\n\nSo they go out and sell you domain names. \n\nIn a domain name, the last part is known as the TLD - the top level domain. In _URL_0_, the TLD is .com. There are loads, as you know - .net, .org, .me, .mx, .tv and many others. \n\nEach TLD has a domain name registry operator. For example, .uk domains are owned by a company called Nominet. .tv belongs to the island of Tuvalu but they sold its rights to a Verisign company. .com is operated by Verisign. Each of these registry operators set the fees that you pay when you buy a domain name or any rules that go along with it.\n\nVerisign says that you must pay around $7 when you buy a .com domain. So registr*ars* that you buy your domain names from take this into account. When a registr*ar* makes a TLD available for you to sell, it means that they have business dealings with the registry operators and some of that money you pay will go to those operators. \n\nThat means if I theoretically owned the .pizza TLD and NameCheap came up to me wanting to sell domains ending in .pizza, I could say \"Each domain will cost $800\". NameCheap can then sell it to you for $801. $800 goes to me, .50 (I think) goes to ICANN and the rest goes to NameCheap. \n\nSome registrars are resellers of resellers. It's like an inception of selling - they don't bother with talking to NameCheap or ICANN. They just buy it from a company that buys it from a company that talks to ICANN and Verisign and the rest. It's an inception of resellers. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "reddit.com" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfruynk" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "First the changes you've made are saved and then the RAM is dumped. After that the power is cut off." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d016xx9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Well I'm pretty sure that having a brownie before bed won't give you cancer, your body typically likes food to be digested to an extent before you lie down. Think about a bottle of water without a lid. Vertically, it can hold a lot of water. Turn it to its side, and it spills. While your food doesn't spill out during sleep, it bangs against your epiglottis, occasionally giving you heartburn. Midnight snacking is a big different, as it can also screw with the way you sleep and eat breakfast thanks to misaligned times." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e5b1lzc", "e5b1mbb", "e5b1nk9", "e5b1rjc", "e5b235p", "e5bfxp8", "e5c3nse" ], "score": [ 4, 4, 22, 3, 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The force of gravity between objects is proportional to their mass: larger objects exert a greater force due to gravity than a smaller object (even though they would accelerate at the same rate if no other forces acted upon them). \n\nThis is why some animals can fly: they don't have much mass and can generate enough force to stay airborne.", "You feel pressure from gravity every second of every day - it's what keeps you attached to the ground. It's the same force, applied to everything on the planet. \n\nIt takes a lot of energy for your body to fight against gravity, and while you can move about, jumping doesn't keep you airborne for long.", "This question is best answered with another question.\n\nWhat force is pulling the oceans off of the earth?\n\nyou are correct that the pull of the earth isn't that significant, but when its the only force acting on an object its gonna win every time. ", "Everything on earth is pulled towards the center of earth at 9.8 meters per second per second at roughly sea level. We can walk around freely but we feel a force of 9.8 meters per second per second times our mass pulling us down. We call that weight. The more mass an object has, the more pull that object has. We pull on the earth too, except it is mostly negligible because we are not massive enough to really have much of a pull ourselves. \n\nEdit: Furthermore, gravity pulls on each molecule of water equally and water has cohesion which causes the surface tension you see when you fill up a cup of water and it peaks up over the top of the cup. Water molecules are polar and they pull on eachother. So each molecule of water pulls on the molecules around it while being pulled down by gravity. Tides would be quite different if water were non polar like oil. Even if water were a non polar liquid, the force of gravity would still be pulling on water at 9.8 meters per second per second, so it would also form a \"body\" of some sort.", "You're feeling every day. Ever done a push up or picked a heavy thing up? It takes a lot of force to lift things. But you've just become so used to this force that you don't even think about it. \n\nNow consider this, the ocean has no legs to walk or arms to lift with. The only force acting on it is gravity pulling downward. If you let your legs go limp you'll fall down just like the ocean", "you might be used to the force of gravity but i can tell you one thing - if its removed you will certainly notice that.", "We still feel the pressure of gravity, it’s just that everything that lives on Earth has evolved to best withstand that pressure. Our skeletons are made in such a way that pressure along the y-axis (ie up and down) is dispersed across the length of the bone and we are fine. Think of the deep sea creatures. They are experiencing much more pressure all the time, but they have adapted to have skeletons dense enough to keep them alive and mobile. Also, water is much less dense than our skeleton, so it is much easier for the gravitational force to influence bodies of water than creatures. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "d5rfrgv", "d5rftqx" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The point is to measure the blood sugar when you haven't eaten. It's a key parameter in understanding if you have diabetes. It also offsets some of the other cholesterol readings.", "The idea is to eliminate any contribution of food you may have recently eaten. If you had a gigantic lard-burger and fried cheese curds, your blood might look like a strawberry shake even though usually it is fine. By fasting for 12 hours they can figure what cholesterol is systemic rather than varying." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ebh1pij", "ebh1spt", "ebh205z", "ebh2fo5" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The poster is pitching an idea called quantum immortality where essentially for every event that would cause you to die, there is a nonzero chance that you wouldn't die and your consciousness follows that path, never actually dying. The universe splits into each scenario possible and your consciousness follows the one where you live", "It is basically the equivalent of the quantum immortality theory. Imagine you are placed in a box with a bomb that has a 50% chance to go off per second. The moment it goes off, you die.\n\nThe theory is that your “consciousness” or “continuity” will never experience death, because there is always a possible world where you survive. Since dying would stop your consciousness, you can observe that, and it will never come true.\n\nAssuming there is no event that has 100% certainty of death, you will therefore live forever.\n\n\nHowever, this is only a thought experiment and is unlikely that any individual is immortal is this manner", "It's basically a theory saying that you live in your own personal universe that is only experianced from your point of view. That in your universe you never die, but reset back to the beginning. It's also a nice treatise on not doing too many drugs, because then you start to believe some really weird shit. ", "It's the quantum immortality hypothesis. Basically, since you can't observe yourself being dead, you are immortal from your own perspective. Anything that causes you to die will only happen in parallel universes." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cu4gxc3", "cu4gxl8", "cu4ijc7" ], "score": [ 6, 37, 3 ], "text": [ "So there are two basic types. Acetaminophen and NSAIDs. NSAIDs typically act on specific enzymes to block the function of pain receptors receiving more stimulation. I'm not even remotely quailified to answer this, but NSAIDs also reduce inflammation, hence the name. The main difference is in some side benefits.Some work to reduce fever, like Tylenol. Some help with muscle aches. \n\nThe short answer though is there are a lot of drugs because there are a lot of people, and no one drug typically works well in the body of everyone. I can't stomach Ibuprofen for instance.\n", "Firstly, Tylenol is the brand name for acetaminophen. It's one of the most common causes of accidental medication overdose. People take a combination medication that has acetaminophen in it, then take Tylenol (not realizing it is acetaminophen), overdose. Potentially fatal. You should never under any circumstances take more than 1000mg of acetaminophen every 6 hours, or 4g per day, and depending on certain medical problems you might need to take less than that.\n\nThe most common over the counter medications are acetaminophen (Tylenol), ibuprofen (Advil/Motrin), and naproxen (Aleve).\n\nGenerally, acetaminophen is regarded as less likely to cause problems with other medical conditions and safer when taken as directed, but less effective than ibuprofen or naproxen. It relieves pain, but does nothing for inflammation.\n\nibuprofen and naproxen are NSAIDs. They reduce inflammation and relieve pain. They have been shown to be more effective than acetaminophen for pain that involves any sort of inflammatory process, including headaches, sports injuries, menstrual cramps, etc. They also increase the risk for stomach ulcers, and should not be used by people with ulcers. They increase blood pressure, can be dangerous for people with kidney or heart problems, and rarely might contribute to asthma attacks. Generally, if you have any medical problems, it's a good idea to run it by the pharmacist before you buy NSAIDs. For a regularly healthy person who is using it once in a while for a headache or the usual aches and pains, they are not dangerous. In an overdose, they are significantly less dangerous than acetaminophen.", "When I had surgery, the surgeon prescribed naproxen sodium (aka Aleve), which had just been released at the time. It is meant to work for long periods of time, for chronic pain - such as surgery, a broken leg, arthritis, etc. \n\nIn my case, the naproxen sodium gave me a stomach ache (or I was just nauseous), and threw up for 8 hours. At the 8 hour mark, I stopped vomiting, so I figured it was the drug. After that, I took some Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol in the UK) and I was fine. (I think he prescribed it because a drug company paid him to try it.)\n\nWhen I've had cramps and muscle injuries, I took ibuprofen. The basic formula for Midol is just ibuprofen, caffeine, and a diuretic (a antihistamine called \"pyrilamine maleate\"). Men can take Midol, too." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr8b3st" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Sometimes, you just have to remember the saying \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\". As amazing as technology is, dental floss is a perfectly acceptable way to clean your teeth. \n\nthe EKG has been around for almost 120 years, and has had almost no change to how it works, and it is still one of the best diagnostic tools that emergency physicians and cardiologists have to diagnose heart attacks. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5t1nn8", "c5t1ox9" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "All modern steel is slightly radioactive due to fallout in the atmosphere.", "I'd encourage you to post this in askscience rather than ELI5.\n\nIn the meantime, ELI5 - Soil samples in certain areas where Nuclear testing was prevalent (i.e. Atolls where America tested their bombs) still show signs of increased radioactivity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dru7bld" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Police can be fired. In *some* locales, so can judges. But in *many* locales, judges are protected against removal except in extreme cases (like a felony), as are legislators. This is done to prevent abuses, like someone who doesn't like their policies working to get them fired." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eueafbc", "eueaj9g", "eueald9", "euecgmh" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "No matter, energy, or information can travel *through space* faster than *c* (the speed of light in a vacuum). But that says nothing about how fast *spacetime itself* can grow. The Big Bang was not an explosion that threw matter out into an empty void from a central point (as far as we can tell there is no center); it was a rapid growth of spacetime that changed the universe from hot and dense everywhere to cool and spacious everywhere.", "If I remember correctly, the space between galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light (which doesn't violate any laws of physics, as it is only information that can't travel faster than lightspeed, but the expansion of space doesn't count as information transmission).", "The universe is expanding. By \"expanding,\" we don't mean \"things are flying apart out of some explosion.\" We mean that *space itself* is getting larger. It's as though there was just...*more space* pouring out of every point in the universe.\n\nSince this is happening *everywhere,* the effect of expansion is cumulative. If you have two objects, and one is 1 million light-years from Earth and the other is 2 million light-years from Earth, and after a certain time the first object is 2 million light-years from Earth, then the second object will be 4 million light-years from Earth. It's \"moving,\" or expanding away from us, twice as fast. The farther away something is, the faster it's moving away from us.\n\nSo if you get *really* far away, all that expanding space adds up to the point where two things are moving apart from each other faster than the speed of light. Nothing can *move* faster than light, but neither object is really moving (at least not relative to each other), they're just being carried away like they're on a conveyor belt.", " > So how did the things all the way out get 49 billion lightyears away *from the centre...*\n\nAnd that is where the crux of the misunderstanding lies. There is no center, the Big Bang wasn't happening at a specific location in space. It wasn't just that every*thing* in the universe was in a small point, every*where* was in a small point.\n\nThe \"diameter of our universe\" is actually the size of the *observable* universe which is bounded by how much of it we can see. As we look at things a greater distance away there is more travel time required for that light to reach us so we are in essence looking backwards in time. The most distant thing we can see is the cosmic background radiation from when the universe was full of a glowing plasma that light couldn't travel very far though, meaning our vision is blocked at that point. However we have reason to believe that the universe as a whole is infinite in extent.\n\nFinally, the size of the universe is larger than the simple age and travel time of light would seem to indicate because space itself is expanding. The light speed limit seems to apply to things moving through space, but it doesn't translate to a limit for space itself expanding. After all any amount of expansion across a given length of space would, for a sufficiently great distance, mean two points in space would be moving apart faster than light. With an infinite universe it also implies there are points which are moving apart infinitely quickly." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "d27f13f" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "It is not really true that you cannot think out of depression. CBT (cognitive behaviour therapy) does exactly that. CBT aims at recognising which thought patterns are contributing / causing your depression, learning what triggers them, and then learning to break those patterns / have healthier alternatives to those patterns. For many people CBT / talk therapy is enough to help deal with their depression.\n\nThat said, therapy like that is not simple, not easy, and not necessarily quick. For many people it takes a lot of time and work to change their thought processes. So it is not right to say that if you are depressed, you just need to think happy and you will fix yourself! It's more complicated than that. But it is also not right to say that we always need drugs when depressed. For some people the drugs don't work at all, for others the drugs only work in combination with talk therapy and for yet others, talk therapy is all they need. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "da2huxd", "da2i4i4", "da2iw1r" ], "score": [ 4, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Because every other club is a white person club. Every other club is straight person club. These are not minorities, but rather the norm.", "Because social majorities rarely associate that part of their lives with their identity (be it white or straight). Social minorities however, often associate that part of their lives with their identity and this goes beyond race or sexuality. All hobbyist clubs, for example, exist because that hobby is a minority interest for those individuals in their day to day lives. \n\nNow that's an explanation for why they don't often form. As to why they might be deemed 'unacceptable', it could be because a straight group is viewed as reactionary to the minority groups on campus. I honestly can't say, I haven't enountered a group like that in real life. \nIn the specific case of a 'white group' I think that might have something to do with centuries of colonialism, the KKK, the nazis and so on, breeding a distaste for any sort of white pride.", " A wrongly self-entitled group legitimized global systematic oppression to make \"racial\" supremacy as close to true in appearance as possible. Heterosexual, \"Straight,\" western-european, \"white,\" males. Going as deep as the pseudoscientific level. This is where the fabricated idea of \"race\" comes from. There is only the human species. \"Race\" is used to otherize and dehumanize.\n\nThe same process is used to marginalize any group. After more than 500 tragic years of colonization and genocide the process is refined and rebranded for the modern consumer.\n\n\"White\" people should be able to have a \"white\" pride club if they identify as \"white.\" It's good to be proud of who you are. \n\nThe problem is, for some reason, the defunct ideas of racial supremacy take over and a club turns into a hate group.\n\nMy theory, because official systematic colonization and genocide are on going. Some people feel this makes it permissible to be hateful themselves." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e72u7is", "e72uaw0" ], "score": [ 9, 3 ], "text": [ "Weeds do, too. The impression that weeds will just grow anywhere is in part because we just happen to call all of them 'weeds' where some will definitely grow better in some places than others. No matter where you put an agricultural crop - one specific species of plant that you want to grow - there's going to be some kind or the other of plant that also likes to grow there and reproduces pretty well, and thus you end up with 'weeds' in your field, even though those weeds may not always be the same.\n\nOn top of that, weeds are often plants that grow or reproduce aggressively or are hardier kinds of vegetation, thus survive or proliferate more easily. If you look at a thistle - it's hardy, tough and spiny.", "Weeds also have certain conditions which they prefer but the key difference here is that \"a weed\" is generally classified as just some unwanted plant. Depending on the location and condition it will be different kinds of plants but they are all lumped together as \"weeds\". That there is always some other plant which grows well in a given condition is no surprise when you consider that it is just \"some other plant\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cz92i07", "cz9a68t", "cz9elav", "cz9k70d" ], "score": [ 111, 4, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Imagine you are the owner of a chain of fast food restaurants.\n\nYou look at what eats up your profits and realize you spend a great deal of money on government taxes and buying up raw meat and produce to make your food. You call up your food suppliers and they say they can't lower the price of their foods because every item has the added cost of government inspection.\n\nSo you and a number of other restaurant owners come together to ask the government if they can reduce the taxes and the regulations the foods have to pass. Your justification is that if taxes are lowered and regulations are relaxed, then we can charge less for our products. Lower prices means more demand. More demand means you will sell more products so that there is more total revenue to be taxed. It will be a net positive for the government despite the fact that the government will get less money in the short term. Plus, more money to companies means they can hire more people and pay them better! This is the basis of supply side economics.\n\nThe government ends up passing a law to reduce taxes and regulations. Now, as a manager, even if you sold the same amount of food at the same prices, you now make a lot more money because you pay less in taxes and the raw food costs a lot less. With all this money, you have some choices to spend it. Remember, a business exists to make money.\n\n* You can cut your prices but that just makes you earn less money. Why would you do that despite promising the government?\n\n* You can spend it on hiring more workers as you promised. But how much more money will one more worker give you? You are already maintaining the optimum staff so an extra worker will just be twiddling their thumbs and consuming your profits.\n\n* You can pay your current workers higher wages. But why would you want to? Will they really work harder if you pay them more? If someone doesn't work hard enough, you can just fire them. There's plenty of people looking for work.\n\n* You can put money into your company for capital to improve your business. You hear that other owners are looking into automated ordering machines. They'll replace the workers but they cost a lot less per hour! Maybe you'll put some money looking into that.\n\n* You can use that money to pay yourself. I mean, you are doing such a great job getting this extra cash so why not.\n\n* And lastly, you can invest that money to make it grow. Why not play the stock market? It's going up quite well. Or maybe we should spend some money to get a lobbyist so that you don't have to go directly to the government to propose tax cuts.\n\nSo you see, when a company gets more money, there is not much reason to spend it on the workers or for lowering prices as promised. If anything, they would want to reduce costs as much as possible such as replacing workers with more automated methods. As this occurs throughout the country, more and more people are out of work. More people out of work means less money for them to spend. Less money to spend means they can't buy things. When things are not bought, companies don't make money.\n\nOne last thing to mention is that the government now has less money to spend because of the tax cuts. This means that things that you take for granted like roads, education, police and fire safety, etc. are less efficient. The public now sees the government spending as inefficient. Why take our money if you can't maintain things properly? Then politicians run on the theme of cutting more of the government and get elected from the popular sentiment. They cut more government services and make the government less functional. People complain and the cycle continues.\n\nLower regulation also means large outbreaks are much more possible. Less regulations on food mean diseases can spread readily. One reason for the recent recession was that regulations on gambling with other people's money on the stock market were loosened. This created a bubble where people believed money would grow and grow until it popped, causing heavy losses. Regulations can be constricting at times but generally, they serve a purpose.", "Do [these previous explanations](_URL_0_) help?", "Ultimately, a lot of these explanations are just plain wrong, and based on what politicians want you to think supply side economics is. This explanation is not going to be particularly ELI5 (I'll try) but will be accurate, unlike the wrong/misleading answers posted before.\n\nSupply side economics is making people make more stuff by making it easier for them to make stuff. This includes:\n\n- Investment in education\n\n- Good, available healthcare\n\n- Large public sector investment in infrastructure\n\n- Subsidised natural monopolies to bring prices down to marginal cost\n\n- Minimising disruptive taxes\n\n- Government regulation when necessary to create competitive markets\n\nPoliticians generally when they mean supply side policies really mean cutting taxes and regulation. Worse, they normally mean cutting regulation to reduce competitiveness (which is an anti-supply side policy) and reducing taxes such as corporation tax, a tax which has almost no affect on economic activity (which means it isn't a supply side measure).\n\nTL;DR: No economist is against supply side measures. Actual supply side measures are either a) already being done, b) politically unpopular, or c) uncertain in their effect. Meanwhile, politicians lie through their teeths about economics.\n\nSource: Actual economics degree.", "Supply side assumptions in a nutshell:\n\n1- Cut as many government regulations on business as possible.\n2- Cut taxes (and allow enormous loopholes) on the wealthiest people in society to the bare minimum.\n3- Unshackled by regulations, and free to keep more of the money they earn, businesses and the wealthy will spend and invest more, businesses will earn more, and enough of that wealth will \"trickle down\" to the middle and lower classes in the form of jobs and wages to raise the boat for everyone.\n\nBut what usually happens in reality when supply-side is tried:\n\n1- With less regulation, businesses cut back on work safety, environmental protection, working conditions, wages and product quality.\n2- Businesses move work away from higher wage economies to lower wage economies.\n3- Unregulated industries become less and less risk-sensitive, and start doing incredibly risky and even destructive things, such as the Enron artificially jacking up energy costs in California or investment bankers who bet the whole U.S. economy on subprime (i.e.: crappy and very risky) mortgages, which blew up into the Great Recession of 2008.\n4- Virtually no wealth actually \"trickles down\". Instead the wealthiest get wealthier, the middle class stagnates, and the poor get poorer.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?sort=relevance&amp;t=all&amp;q=subreddit:explainlikeimfive%20supply-side%20economics" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5gtgsq", "d5gtldu", "d5gtwwq", "d5gzd8h", "d5h05w3", "d5h0iwn", "d5h4mb3", "d5h5mbt" ], "score": [ 141, 18, 21, 4, 3, 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "There are several parts of a person's brain operating at any time, not just the parts one is aware of.\n\nIdle fidgeting of fingers occupies a portion of the brain, which allows other parts to function, and suppresses other parts, producing a different manner of thinking. \n\nStudies have been done that show that students who take notes AND students that doodle during lectures AND students that fidget during lectures do better on memory retention than students who do none of the three.\n\nObviously notes are easier to revise.", "[Body focused repetitive behaviors](_URL_0_) are things like pulling hair, biting nails or lips, or skin scratching/nibbling/biting. These are behaviors that devert us from the nervousness or boredom we're feeling. As an occasional thing they're harmless. When they damage our body or interfere with our lives they become a compulsion and medical help is warranted.", "This phenomenon is not easily understood, but there are several theories as to why people fidget. It's a coping mechanism for people with anxiety related disorders such as ADD or tourettes. Speech and movement are both processed in the same areas of our brain. Therefore, fidgeting can help reduce excess energy or anxiety, making it easier to stay focused or communicate. There is also a theory that fidgeting is an evolutionary trait that we have developed to help us concentrate and multitask. For example it would not be good to focus 100% on a task while missing a lion crawling through the bushes next to you. That said you should avoid repeatedly clicking a pen at work or around other people or risk having it shoved somewhere quite unpleasant Kevin!", "My MIL has chorea, which is a neurological disorder that causes her to constantly feel the need to be doing something with her hands. ", "Keeping my hands busy with coins, pens, paper, etc. helps me narrow my focus due to a combination of ADHD and OCD. At first glance it looks like absentmindedness, it sometimes keeps me centered in even lightly stressful situations. \n\nEven if I'm having a good day at work, if I'm in the middle of something and I get drawn away, unconsciously my brain starts on the \"oh god what if i miss something, what if I can't get back to the task in time\" tangent. Drawing focus back to my fidgety hands helps calm me down and focus on the task in front of me. \n\nIt even extends to when I have to get my haircut. I have a thing about being touched and I need to have something in my hands or I start to have a panic attack. \n\nHaving OCD and ADHD can be a daily struggle and is not as quirky as TV and movies lead you to believe.", "People aren't designed to sit at a desk or a couch for several hours, we're designed to keep moving, keep finding food, friends, mates, etc. Foot and finger tapping is your body utilizing the energy it produces already, the mild anxiety is your brain saying \"dude let's go somewhere I'm bored\".", "For me it can keep the flow going and keep me thinking on track. The best way I can describe it is like... moving is like having some sort of nice background noise that you're almost not aware of. A fan running or something. When it stops all of the sudden (ie someone tells you to stop fidgeting) it's super distracting. Suddenly you're aware that the noise has stopped, and then you're aware of all the other sounds you didn't notice before, and it's harder to concentrate than it was before.", "I bought a ring off eBay and I fidget with it. Easily carried everywhere. Also listening to same song on repeat or similarly sounding songs helps me concentrate while working. \n\nYMMV" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.ahchealthenews.com/2016/07/14/nervous-habit-something/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]