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/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3g98tt", "c3g99zq", "c3g9bg1", "c3g9bg4", "c3g9wdp" ], "score": [ 5, 23, 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Changes just happen randomly and some are good enough that they continue on to future generations.", "It doesn't. \n\nEvolution is not a conscious process.\n\nThough random mutation, a population will develop differences in their genes that translate to differences in their stucture/physology/behavior. This is RANDOM. \n\nThe various pressures of survival placed on a species will change, and thus over a period of time the traits needed for survival also change. Thus nature and the selective pressures of survival will make it MORE PROBABLE that individuals with the most favorable random mutations will survive and breed, thus increasing the genetic frequency of their random mutation in subsequent generations. \n\nYour question is not stupid. It's often asked by those who think creation is a 'driven process' and that evolution is just a 'sub in for god.' For them it is hard, cognitively speaking, to imagine a process without a central actor. Evolution has no central actor, and for creationists, this is a hard step to process, so they think evolution should follow the same rules as their creation story. \"Well having wings would be a better evolution for people, so if Darwin was right, why don't we have wings?\" The answer being because no one in our ancestral lineage had the series of random mutations it takes to develop wings over the course of millions of years and millions of generations of breeding. Or if they did, it wasn't an advantage at that particular time and they didn't survive to breed. Conversely the \"Why don't people evolve better things that I thought up on the spot?\" question can be asked of 'god.' Why didn't he create us better. I can say as a medical student, that if someone designed the human body, they did a shitty job. \n\n Evolution is about random mutation and most probable to survive, there is no higher thought process than the laws of least resistance. \n\nEdit: Grammar and added things.", "I think if you wiki natural selection you will just about have your answer.\n\nBasically, there are random mutations in our (and other species') DNA. When these random mutations turn out to be advantageous, the organism with the mutation is more likely to live on ad pass on the mutation. If, for example, someone had a mutation where the did not have hands, then either they would die before they could mate (probably not today but in much much older times) or no one would want to mate with them. Thus the trait would not pass on.\n\nTo add, this is why viruses mutate so often and we see a new flu every season. Viruses do not have an enzyme that other organisms do (if you consider a virus an organism, but that's a different story) that corrects DNA errors, which are a common cause of mutations.", "Evolution (through natural selection) doesn't \"know\" anything, per say. It is just the process by which those who have the traits needed to survive until they can reproduce, do so and pass those traits onto their offspring.\n\nELI5 version: Imagine that there are a whole bunch of balls of different sizes all live on a mesh screen. Those balls that are too small fall through the mesh to their deaths and the big balls survive long enough to find nice lady balls and make some baby balls that are also big and can survive in this cruel mesh world.\n\nNow, that is a world wherein there is only 1 criteria for survival so it's extremely simplified. In the real world, there are all sorts of factors and all sorts of qualities of creatures that allow them to survive. Now, if the environment changes, how do things adapt? Randomly. Basically, slight random mutations will give some advantages and some disadvantages and those that survive will pass on that mutation, giving their offspring a better chance to do the same.", "Evolution has two parts: mutation, which is random; and natural selection, which is not.\n\nMutation is just when the DNA of an organism does a bad job of copying itself when it's reproducing. \n\nNatural selection is what decides which will stay and which will go. When I say 'decides', I don't mean it 'knows' or thinks about it. Essentially, the good mutations will live better, have more babies and not die so much. The bad mutations do die out. \n\nIt's a very slow process, evolution - has taken millions of years. But through lots of very random small changes, the ones that favour survival will be selected by entirely natural processes.\n\nThis is why the species vary so much in different parts of the world. A camel would not survive in the arctic tundra. If an animal with camel-like features were born in the arctic, it would die pretty quickly. That's not a conscious thing, but clearly, this creature would not be 'selected' to continue its bloodline." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "e0pk2oc", "e0pktla", "e0pl23i", "e0pxywe" ], "score": [ 2, 12, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "In biological testing, there are tons of variables to look at, and especially with general disease testing, there could be variants of a virus or bacteria that seem the same as the \"bad\" one but don't actually hurt you. This is important to remember when discussing specificity and sensitivity. \n\n\nIf I test for something and I can find one instance of it in every 10 million parts, that means my test is very sensitive, i.e. it detects very small amounts of things. This is useful for finding problems very very early on in their development. If I'm doing a cancer test, and I can detect 5 cancer cells in a sample of 200,000, that means I have a high likelihood of detecting any cancer earlier (ignoring false positives)\n\n\nIf my test is very specific, that means that it is very good at finding one particular type of bacteria or virus. In this example, I could be testing for cancer, but I wanted to test a specific type of cancer cell that's associated with colon cancer. If, given a sample of 20,000 cancer cells, my test can pick out the instances of colon cancer, that means I have a very specific test.\n\n\nSo if I up the specificity, and lower the sensitivity, that means that the test is very good at finding one particular type of thing, but it needs more instances of that thing in the sample to be triggered. To give one more example: say that I want to give you a test for HPV. I could either give you a test that detects 20 parts per million of the HPV virus, or I could give you a test that detects 200 parts per million of the specific HPV virus that causes ovarian cancer. The test I use depends on your circumstances, and also what you want.\n\n\nHope that helps!", "These terms relate to screening tests, such as identifying whether a patient has a disease or a person or object belongs to a certain group.\n\nImagine we had a test for determining whether something was an apple or not. And let's say we had a pile of fruit that was, in fact, 95% apples. We're looking to \"screen out\" or \"filter out\" non-apples, and correctly guess which fruit are apples and which are not. For such a test, we could define 3 measure of effectiveness: accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.\n\nAccuracy is just what fraction of \"guesses\" our test gets right. It's tempting to think that we want this number to be big and be done with it, but here's the rub: our test can be 95% accurate by just having it guess that *everything* in our pile is an apple, because 95% of our pile is apples!\n\nSensitivity is also known as the true-positive rate. For us, this would be the number of apples our test guesses are apples. Again, if our test guesses everything is an apple, this will be high: 100%.\n\nSpecificity is also called the true-negative rate. For us, this would be the number of non-apples we don't mistakingly guess to be apples. If we just guess everything is an apple, this ends up being 0%. Which, darn, means our highly accurate apple test has a serious problem!\n\nIdeally, we would have high values for all three metrics.\n\nSo, for our test to be more specific but less sensitive, that means it's correctly identifying non-apples more often, but at the expense of misidentifying more apples. \n\nMathematically, they can be thought of as:\n\nAccuracy = # Guessed Correct / # Total\n\nSensitivity = # in Group Correctly Guessed / # Total in Group\n\nSpecificity = # Not in Group Correctly Guessed / # Total Not in Group", "Sensitivity is the true positive rate for a test and specificity is the true negative rate\n\nIf you have a highly sensitive test and it says you don't have something, then you don't have it, because it's high sensitivity means it would tell you you had it if you did(and also potentially if you didn't)\n\nIf you have a highly specific test that says you have something then you have it, because it's high specificity means it would be negative if you didn't have it(but also potentially if you did)\n\nSensitivity and specificity tell you about the true positive and true negative rates, from those two you can figure out the false negative and false positive rates and decide what your test will be good for and how many wrong answers you expect to get", "Suppose you have a test for a disease.\n\nA really sensitive test will catch 99% of all people that have the disease, but maybe give you a FALSE positive in a bunch of people that don't have disease. This means you might over-treat the population for this disease.\n\nA really specific test means that it may not be positive for all people with the disease, but if it IS positive, you can be pretty certain they actually have it. A test that is specific (but not sensitive) means that you will under-treating people for the disease.\n\nThe ideal is a test that is both sensitive and specific, meaning you catch everybody that has the disease, but you also aren't \"catching\" people that don't actually have the disease.\n\n\nThis picture explains it well.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nPretend the test result units are for something called Disease Factor, and having a lot of it means that you have the disease.\n\nIf we set the cut off as 40 units of DF in order to be diagnosed, then we will only be diagnosing people that really have the disease, but also missing a lot of people. This is very specific, but not sensitive at all.\n\nIf we set the cut off of a \"positive\" test at 10 units of DF, then we will catch everybody that has the disease, but also be giving a false diagnosis to a lot of people as well. This would be very sensitive, but not specific.\n\nThe sweet spot is more around 25 units. At this point, we will correctly diagnose most people that have the disease, but not give a false diagnosis to people that do not actually the disease. This gives a good (but imperfect) sensitivity and specificity.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://i.imgur.com/95ADYD1.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eb7bk0i", "eb7hy1q" ], "score": [ 19, 3 ], "text": [ "Blowing heat directly on the windshield heats it enough to prevent condensation. \n\nHaving hot air in the car and cold air outside creates condensation on your windows.", "To add to answer about the effect of warm air on cold surfaces, most cars automatically turn on your A/C when you set them to the defrost setting, which dries the air." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc69p63", "dc69uej", "dc6altw", "dc6ff3p", "dc6pnbh" ], "score": [ 2, 7, 3, 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Really??? I was diagnosed as being allergic to penicillin when I was a kid. I haven't had it since, now 39, never heard of it being a child only thing before... ", "Most people that think they are allergic are actually not. It usually is a misunderstanding that leads to the label. eg A kid develops diarrhea while using penicillin - which is a common side effect. The doctor blames the penicillin and the mother assumes he is allergic. And you are doomed to the hell of expensive antibiotics with more side effects for the rest of your life. \n\nPenicillin allergy is life threatening. You will not find a doctor that will give you penicillin - just to see if you are still allergic. \n\nEven if your test comes back negative, I doubt that anybody will prescribe penicillin for you. \n\nThe test is used for when you have a life threatening infection and only penicillin will work. Then the doctors will prescribe penicillin if you are negative.\n\n", "It's common for young kids to either grow into to an allergy or out of it as their immune system encounters more things and changes. \nA lot of childhood viruses also causes rashes and can make it seem there's an allergy. \n\nYou can see an allergy specialist to test out of being allergic. There are enough antibiotics out there that you can probably safely avoid it for the rest of your life without an issue. \nSkin testing can be expensive (I live in the States) but is an effective way of finding out if you have a life threatening allergy. \nMost adults I test end up tolerating the test and turn out to not be allergic to penicillin. \n", "Several recent studies have shown that 90+% of folks with reported history of penicillin allergy are not allergic when tested. This probably happens for three reasons:\n\n1. Common side effects of medication and infections may be misinterpreted as signs of allergy, e.g. developed a rash while on medication. \n\n2. Not all \"hypersensitivity\" reactions are allergies, which are caused by a very specific chemical - IgE antibodies, not IgM, IgG, or cell-mediated. The other types of reactions don't show up in some allergy tests. \n\n3. It seems like people frequently outgrow penicillin allergies. This happens with many allergies, but not all. For example, kids are much more likely to outgrow a cow's milk allergy than a peanut allergy.\n\nThe first two reasons basically argue that the allergy never existed. \n\nSource: I am a physician", "As a pharmacist, this is one of those things that drive me crazy. We have to ask every new patient for allergies, and about 25% of people will often report a PCN allergy. Every time I see this, I always ask the patient, \"What did PCN do to you?\"\n\nMost of the time the response is diarrhea or stomach cramps. These are not true allergic reactions... just side effects. I always take a moment and attempt to educate the patient about that. It may seem trivial, but in the big scheme of medical treatments, its a pretty big deal!" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dd1mauy", "dd1mflo", "dd1p8uk", "dd1pr3x", "dd1q4nl", "dd1qp14", "dd1qskm", "dd1qsz6", "dd1r069", "dd1r0wi", "dd1rccr", "dd1rie1", "dd1rr0i", "dd1s0rf", "dd1s1k3", "dd1s37i", "dd1s7yz", "dd1s97u", "dd1sb7a", "dd1sbp5", "dd1scxb", "dd1sdb2", "dd1sfz7", "dd1shk7", "dd1sl2q", "dd1snhc", "dd1t517", "dd1t6d3", "dd1t8oq", "dd1te3g", "dd1tz3i", "dd1u77g", "dd1unq8", "dd1unqi", "dd1urcl", "dd1uww8", "dd1v0lg", "dd1v3ij", "dd1v3ms", "dd1v40z", "dd1vsiy", "dd1wtij", "dd1x0f9", "dd1xnf8", "dd1y26g", "dd1y4n0", "dd1y961", "dd1yji5", "dd1yxl8", "dd1zgqc", "dd202h2", "dd20928", "dd20hse", "dd20tno", "dd21301", "dd21blq", "dd21s4o", "dd22g4r", "dd22pz3", "dd22t09", "dd22yco", "dd2331s", "dd239fz", "dd23b72", "dd24ju7", "dd25gno", "dd263ty", "dd26psn", "dd26za4", "dd296x6", "dd29bq8", "dd29h7z", "dd2a7pt", "dd2apr5", "dd2b578", "dd2c4f6", "dd2epim", "dd2h2fo" ], "score": [ 214, 162, 2488, 30, 125, 760, 9, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 236, 3, 7536, 3, 2, 20, 2, 29, 30, 3, 4, 23, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 10, 5, 44, 2, 202, 2, 10914, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 338, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "They used state-of-the-art practical effects for as much of the movie as possible. Things like the raptors coming out of the eggs, the sick triceratops, the brachiosaur that sneezed on Lex, were all lifesized robots made for the film.\n\nAnd that tends to be leaps and bounds above CGI animation.", "It's because they went to extreme lengths to get everything looking great on screen. They built massive robots and rigs to get movement and creatures looking even better then what cgi, especially for the time, could keep up with. They also made their own camera rigs and sets to make scenes look far better then just green screening everything in. It wasn't cheap, but it got the job done like nothing else could.", "For the computer graphics, Spielberg originally wanted to avoid them and use stop motion and puppetry instead. It took a lot to convince him.\n\nEven so, most of the dinos you see are puppetry, models, and robotics. Most of the CG dinos were intentionally kept in conditions that were difficult to see. Dinos in the rain, dinos in the distance, dinos running quickly or jumping out. \n\nThere were very few scenes where the CG dinos were up close and personal. Thanks to that, those few scenes had the dedication of the entire crew. Modern movies have an enormous budget for computer graphics, but the cost per second is rather low because they are everywhere in the movie. Jurassic Park spent a fortune on computer graphics, but because they had so few scenes of them the investment per second is quite high. Each brief scene was meticulously reviewed and brought to exacting standards.\n\n", "They had some of the most talented people ever to work on effects, in their primes with a good budget, a good director. And most importantly they chose the most effective places to deploy the dinosaurs. There are almost no gratuitous shots. Tou can do a lot with newer technology but you can't replace talent and good decisions.", "There's about 5 minutes of CG, done with a big budget, and the shots were all very carefully planned. Basically, no smoke or atmospherics that would make compositing terrible difficult. No shakey cam that would make tracking harder. No half-assed \"this would be neat, let's not plan it and hope it can be fixed in post\" documentary style shots. Plenty of time for the VFX crew to get lighting references and the like. A very forgiving schedule.\n\nAnd some very talented maniacs who knew their tools and their art as well as anybody on the planet.", "There were only a small handful of actual CG shots and there's only about 18 minutes of dinosaurs in the film total, and most of those were puppets.\n\nThese days 9/10 of a movie is CG and on bonus material you see people say stuff like, \"well, we had 1,897 effects shots to do and render in the space of two months.\"\n\nJurassic Park had maybe 20:\n\n- A couple of the brachiosaurus and then the watering hole.\n\n- The most during the T-Rex attacks (after breaking out of the fence and then the Jeep attack).\n\n- The gallimimus scene.\n\n- A couple wide shots with the raptors in the kitchen.\n\n- Another couple of the raptors near the end with the skeletons.\n\n- The big T-Rex finale.\n\nBut I agree, it holds up so incredibly well.\n\nEdit: changed the spelling of \"gallimimus\" because I was on mobile and made a typo that people FREAKED THE FUCK OUT over. Good God, you people.", "Stan Winston studios was at the forefront of animatronics and special effects and basically made them so if you were standing looking at them in the face, they were still incredibly life like (although, as another user pointed out, they used other camera effects such as lighting and rain to make it easier to hide the flaws). CGI is just catching up to that point where it can mimic the real world, and you can generally still pick it out with things that are complex and move (such as a dinosaur), whereas it's much easier to make something look real, that well is real. ", "It was mostly achieved by doing a mix of practical and special effects. Some of the shots were puppets and animatronics, others were CGI or at least enhanced with CGI. The fact that it wasn't all or the other allowed each to shine at its best moments, as well as keeping our minds from being too \"used\" to how it looked to be able to easily tell.", "It's also because nowadays we do he whole scene so the background isn't believable also. Then they just did a single model, so the background being real helped as well as what others said.", "A lot of other people have answered, but I think that it's important to note how incredible the puppetry was. There is a great YouTube series on making the TRex puppet. The companies supplying the parts didn't think it would be possible to even do.\n\nEdit: typo", "Literally.... No fucking shit... Because the director cared.\n\nNowadays movies are pushed out as quickly and cheaply as possible so they can turn a profit on a re-hashed, likely re-booted, totally unoriginal shit-show.", "YES!!! I always use Jurassic Park as the measuring stick for any \"Fantasy\" movies, yet most fall utterly short of that masterpiece. I don't know how they made robotics and CGI look so authentic back then and nobody can duplicate it to this day", "You only notice CGI when it's bad. Or when it's the focus. \n\nTake a look here: _URL_0_\n\nThe Boardwalk Empire one with the boats, looks really well done. But it still seems a bit off. Because it's a major focal point. \n\nTake a look at the Life of Pi set. The one where he's standing on the boat seems a bit off, but that's from the tiger. The sky and sea look well done. That's because they're not the focus of the shot.\n\nNow, for Jurassic Park. There's some scenes where the cgi does fall flat. And falls just to the bad side of the uncanny valley. The brontosaurus in particular. But, the night scene with the trex looks great. But, if you look close there's not too much separating the quality of the cgi. What separates the two scenes is the intent behind the use of the cg. With the bronto meaning to wow the audience and the TRex showing us the fear of the characters. Also, the dim lighting helps.\n\nAnother things Jurassic Park has going for it is the uncanny valley point is so shallow. We've never seen (at least most of us, looking at you roswell) a dinosaur in real life. So we can accept it more readily. However, faces, tigers, boats, water, etc. we've all seen at least video of. So the valley is set much deeper. ", "Also note that you see a lot of VFX today that you have no idea was VFX. You only notice the bad stuff.", "One of the big primary factors that makes a CGI effect look real to the human eye is the way that light reflects off the generated object. The human eye is really good at noticing when an object is CGI when there is a lot of light illuminating it. \n\nThe visual effects team working on Jurassic Park understood this, so to compensate for the issue they tried to put their CGI characters in the dark. \n\nAdditionally, many of the scenes switch between puppet and CGI. For example, the T Rex scene switches between a giant T Rex puppet and a CGI object. The Raptors in the Kitchen scene is the best example. It's harder to notice the raptors are CGI because the room is dimly lit. And the character switches between CGI and puppet at different camera angles. \n\nThe fast switching between the puppet raptors and the CGI raptors in the kitchen is very deliberate. Because it tricks your brain into not noticing the CGI character as much. \n\nThe visual effects team was so cautious with CGI at the time that they avoided using it only in cases where a puppet character would be impossible. The hydraulic T Rex they built was supposed to be impossible to make, as no one had made hydraulics that could respond as quickly as they needed the character to move. \n\n But they were able to overcome some engineering hurdles by using a special fluid in the hydraulics. \n\nSo that should be some indication of just how much effort went into producing puppet characters, before resorting to CGI. \n\n\n**Edit**\n\nWoke up this morning and found my top comment of all time is about Jurassic Park. I'm really super ok with this. Apparently some people think I sounded smart. \n\nI've never worked in the film or visual effects industry. I'm just a nerd with a huge love for Jurassic Park. And I've watched a LOT of behind the scenes for the movie. \n\nMany people have pointed out that there are obviously scenes where dinosaurs are in the broad day light. I didn't mention these because I don't feel like they hold up nearly as well. And I hadn't given those scenes as much thought. \n\nBut as [Kaptain Kristian](_URL_0_) points out in his nice little video, Spielberg had a lot of other ways to hide the weaknesses in Jurassic Park. He used cinematography to give the dinosaurs perspective and dimension so that they would seem believable. Not to mention that seeing the actors on screen react to seeing the dinosaurs makes us see them as more believable creatures. \n\n\n", "2 reasons. \n\n1. Mixed with 'real' practical effects.\n\n\n3. You've never seen real dinosaurs so you have nothing to go on. \n\nAlso, 63 million dollar budget in 1993. That's about 110 million today and movies today can be 100% CGI so you can imagine more time invested in less frames. ", "Movie was 23 years ago. Looks like today's movies. \n\nThat's the definition of before it's time.", "Despite all the \"this is the answer\" posts, nobody's given the actual answer yet.\n\nThe big difference between Jurassic Park's CGI and the CGI of modern movies is Jurassic Park's lack of an established workflow. They were inventing the methods and the tools to create exactly the visuals they needed, step by step, because it had never been done before. So it wasn't just a CGI studio adding a bunch of dinosaurs in post, but the entire crew working to pull it off together.\n\nNow that workflow already exists, the tools to create CGI imagery already exist, and it isn't designed for specific images but for everything. But now there's an expectation that it costs a certain amount of time and money to produce a certain amount of shots, and the workflow has to be bent to that task.\n\nThink of it like a master carpenter inventing an intricate piece of furniture, and then a factory mass producing it. \n\n\nEdit: I knew I'd read a great comment about this very subject once and I've tracked it down. This redditor describes the reason a lot better than I did and is well worth reading if you want the actual answer to this question: _URL_0_", "The big action shots were shot in low dark light..you could get away with a lot. Plus, Steven Spielberg. ", "The puppetry has been repeated ad nauseam so I'll add something I don't see here yet.\n\nComputer graphics have a really hard time with light when it's diffused through skin, because it is slightly transparent. We're just now reaching the point where computer rendered skin looks realistic at all.\n\nIn Jurassic Park they were very clever with their scene composition. Remember the famous up close scene with the T. Rex? It was raining, which makes its skin shiny. This allows for a much more simple reflection that still looks good up close.\n\nThey used a lot of techniques like that. Limited light sources, low lighting in general, water to simplify the reflections, and when all else fails (like the sick stegosaurus) animatronics alone.\n\nSource: Some dude who answered a similar question in another thread long ago. I'd link him if I could.", "Because it was one of the first. Arguably the very first to do what we now just casually call \"CG.\" Meaning CG that an audience can watch and not really pick out as CG; that they can see as just part of the film as it was shot.\n\n*Terminator 2*, and two years later *Jurassic Park*, proved that **photo-realistic** CG was a thing. Prior efforts to use CG had largely been either extremely obvious as CG, or had been very, very, very minor pieces of the film that audiences saw.\n\n*T2* built on what Cameron had been trying to do with the water aliens in *The Abyss*. The T-1000 was a transformative character made out of CG (when it's doing the liquid metal thing). It was something new, something that had never been seen before. And even as good as it was, most of the shots were still obviously limited. Better than anything prior, but still not quite all the way to believably artificial-without-being-identified as such.\n\nThen *Jurassic Park* arrived in '93 and it looked even better than the liquid metal T-1000. It took the next step. Sure a lot of the movie was animatronic, but the CG was used to blend between what Spielberg wanted to show and what the puppets couldn't do well enough. The result was ... I mean, you really need to look at the history of movies in the late 80s/early 90s. Reference (look at the wikipedia article) the comments Spielberg and others had when they decided to try the CG. And when they got the tests they ran back and realized how well it was working.\n\n*Jurassic Park* was just something that really had not been done on that scale, that well, ever before. It was golden age Spielberg, but even with that everyone was still talking about the \"digital dinosaurs.\" It was something spectacular because it was something film hadn't been able to do before.\n\nFrom the wiki article:\n\n > But despite go motion's attempts at motion blurs, Spielberg still found the end results unsatisfactory in terms of working in a live-action feature film. Muren declared to Spielberg that he thought the dinosaurs could be built through computer-generated imagery, and the director asked him to prove it. ILM animators Mark Dippé and Steve Williams developed a computer-generated walk cycle for the T. rex skeleton, and were approved to do more. When Spielberg and Tippett saw an animatic of the T. rex chasing a herd of Gallimimus, Spielberg said, \"You're out of a job,\" to which Tippett replied, \"Don't you mean extinct?\"\n\nIt's not that *Jurassic Park* looks like today's films. It's that they largely look like it, because it was the first to do it. The tech has evolved a lot since, but there haven't been any seriously huge leaps ahead from what *Jurassic Park* offered, compared to what was available prior to *Jurassic Park*.", "Huh? A lot of the special effects in Jurassic Park look very dated. \n\nSource: I just watched it again two weeks ago.", "They made heavy use of rain and darkness to hide the limitations of cgi\n\nHowever take a fresh viewing and many of the effects look terrible, especially the brontasaurus scene", " > \"It seems almost comparable today's visual effects.\"\n\nNo it doesn't. Effects today are so far beyond Jurrasic Park it's not even close. I wish there were more videos like this one explaining that people these days often haven't a clue what is / isn't CGI / effects - and how far composite, practical effects / CGI / hybrids have come: \n\n_URL_3_\n\nYou can spot every instance of CGI / visual effects work in Jurassic Park. Nobody can spot every instance of CGI / visual effects in Life of Pi - you can spot a few of the very obvious ones, but you'll miss tons 'cause they are so well done. Same goes for Mad Max, Gravity, most Marvel films, etc. Most people couldn't even tell Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One was entirely CGI.\n\nVFX / CGI reel for Mad Max Fury Road: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nHell - here's an effects reel from Boardwalk Empire...a TV show... from like 5+ years ago: \n\n_URL_1_\n\nGame of Thrones Season 6 CGI reel: \n\n_URL_2_\n\nEven for live people / animals, the Planet of Apes two reboot films complete blow Jurassic Park out of the water in every single way: textures, expressions (probably the biggest leap forward thanks to motion capture), movement, hair, skin, eyes, etc. and also practical / CG hybrid effects. \n\nThis doesn't mean modern effects are perfect. Also doesn't mean the work in Jurassic Park wasn't spectacular (same could be said for T2 and The Matrix), but honestly, these are really dated examples by today's standards. If Jurassic Park came out today it would look SUPER dated compared to other heavy effects films.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "Did ILM do the CGI for this movie?", "I think this is a really excellent explanation \n_URL_0_", "Most of the big trex scenes with cars at the paddock fence was a giant model. Same with the scene where the raptors are in the power room are all models* and you have to remember when Jurassic park was made the animatronic and props and sets were all real and kinda at there peak in film industry. The CGI used was expensive and leading technology at the time. Also the raptors in the kitchen, its just them rendered on a real background and no filters or effects like lense flare, shudder etc so in being minimal it gives a really good and believable effect. Today's CGI where everything's CGI and going for ultra realism can have the opposite effect where your brain just knows its bs, whilst Jurassic park CGI your brain is just questioning it as 90% of the scene is real with the CGI over the top.\n\nMy 2 cents anyways :) ", "The sound. I was 13 at the time. The first time you heard T-Rex footsteps you expected it to be coming down the aisles. It gave me nightmares of being eaten by dinosaurs for a good bit.", "We used puppeteering/animatronics back then. Now all these panty waist film makers want to use is CG, which aren't near as real looking. ", "It's comparable to today's *bad* visual effects. Visual effects are so good nowadays that you don't realise they used visual effects. The only times you notice is when it's done badly", "They used practical effects which are 1000x better looking than the full cgi garbage of today. ", "A lot of effects that people think are CGI in Jurassic Park are animatronics, puppets or man in suits. Among other things they build a [life sized hydraulic T-Rex](_URL_3_) for the movie and used [man in suits for raptors](_URL_0_). Generally speaking, CGI is only used for dinosauriers far away from the camera, seen in total and moving.\n\nJurassic Park also mixes those different effects together constantly, so you get close up of a puppet, followed by a shot further out that is CGI. Thus giving you photo-realistic texture via the puppet and realistic movement via CGI, those two blend together in your mind to a realistic looking dinosaur and they compensate the shortcomings of each other. The CGI is also always used for only a small part of the scene, you always have a real background into which the CGI dino gets inserted, in modern movies it's often the other way around, the background is 100% CGI and you only have a few actors in front of a green screen.\n\nAll the physical dino props they build for the movie also had another effect: It provided reference for the CGI people. So they could tweak their CGI graphics until they matched the physical prop. Without the reference it is much harder to create realistic results, since you don't know how it should look.\n\nThat said, Jurassic Park CGI doesn't look perfect, you can for example see the [pixels in the textures of the Brachiosaurus](_URL_2_), but that is one of the few obvious faults one can find and would be invisible on a lower resolution version of the movie.\n\nEffects aside, Jurassic Park dinosaurs also look realistic because that was their goal from the start . They made those dinos to behave like real animals and had experts around to give advice. A lot of other movies don't aim for realism to begin with, they want scary monsters, relatable cute animals or cool action set pieces. Thus even so the graphics themselves might look better than JP, the behaviour and action happening on screen makes it obviously it is fake. Most [outrageous example is the King Kong dino stampede](_URL_1_), the compositing in that scene is horrible, but no amount of good CGI could fix that and make that scene believable, as the action itself is already completely removed from reality.\n", "They understood what the available technology could do, and they made the movie work within the limits of that technology. They didn't ask the visual effects people to promise more than they could deliver. \n \n\n At that level, you're dealing with the best people in the world. When they tell you \"No\", you need to listen. Clever beats high tech. \n \nYou can go all the way back to silent films, and see crazy special effects that still look totally real. \n \nYou can also go back and see a stop motion King Kong that looks like shit. And that was a blockbuster at the time. \n \nTry watching 2001. It was made in 1969, but it still looks so fucking real. \n \n\n\n \n", "Because it was done well & properly. I think a big part of this illusion is just the comparison to bad CG.\n\nIn terms of CG effects, Jurassic Park was groundbreaking. But after its success, a lot of other movies wanted to use similar effects, but weren't willing to pay top dollar for it. Because of this, a ton of bad/cheap CG was used in movies in the 90's and early 2000's. That's why Jurassic Park aged so well - because a lot of films from the same era really didn't age well.", "Finally a topic I feel qualified to contribute to... and everyone else has already done it!\n\nOne really key point - visual effects are what the filmmakers want them to be. If you want the photorealism of the Revenant, you can get it. It costs a certain amount requires extensive research and talented artists and technicians, but you can get it.\n\nHowever, many directors, producers, studios simply don't want that. They want to be bigger and more impressive than *insert rival studios summer tentpole* or *insert last summer's box office success*. So many times I've seen incredibly realistic vfx shots ruined because somebody who's been looking at it too long decides it needs to 'look prettier' and starts breaking physically correct and wonderfully invisible vfx.\n\nYou can also get amazing vfx on a budget. But that requires very careful planning, sticking to the original vision, and careful use of practical effects to complement the digital work (ala Jurassic Park) That's why movies like Ex Machina, Kon Tiki or The Impossible can seem to come out of nowhere and really impress with their visuals.\n\nIt's like wine. If you study regions carefully, make a sound selection, and enjoy it in moderation, you can have something great. Or you can grab the first bottle from the liquor store shelf, overindulge once you realise you quite like it, and end up shitfaced, with your head in the toilet bowl and waiting for the inevitable hangover to set in.", "People have already covered a lot of the nuts and bolts of Jurassic Park specifically so I'll just chime in with this generalization:\n\nTechnologies tend to have a life cycle where the emphasis shifts a bit away from perfecting an already adequate end result to refining the process so that it becomes cheaper or more practical to use the technology at all. Jurassic Park is one of those films where the end result looked great but there was still a lot of work to be done on simplifying much of the CGI and animatronic processes they used to get there, so many of the advancements that have been made since then are only obvious to those who work behind the scenes.", "A lot of people talking out of their butt on this one.\n\nOP, here's the actual answer you're looking for, posted a couple of years ago by u/teaguechrystie in a thread about the Jurassic World trailer.\n\n\"VFX artist here.\n\n[...]\n\n Aside from utilizing a whole slew of fairly basic (albeit smart) tricks that make it easier to look photoreal, Jurassic Park also had a few things going for it, historically speaking.\n\nAs a thing to attempt doing, it was more or less unprecedented. Just a ton of work, a ton of question marks, unforeseen innovations were certain to be required, and custom scripts and software would have to be written. They knew what it had to look like, but they didn't know exactly how to get there. Their target was a look. They'd know it when they saw it.\n\nSo, they started hammering away at it. There wasn't even a solid optimism that it was possible to pull off so much CG, at that level of quality, at that point in time — much less an absolute goddamned foregone conclusion that obviously it's possible to do twenty times as much CG at that level of quality — and so they benefited, a bit, from the exploratory nature of it. As far as executives and producers and studios and expectations go, the attempt to make that first CG dinosaur movie was akin to Apollo 11. \"Oh god, I hope this is fucking possible.\"\n\nWhen it actually worked, it was an accomplishment.\n\nThat was the context for that CG work. These days, the context for the CG in, like, The Avengers, is akin to Southwest Flight 782, service from Oakland to Burbank. \"Oh god, I hope I'll be able to rent a red car when I obviously make it to Burbank.\"\n\nIt became \"obvious\" (to the higher-ups) that we could do CG VFX. The process got figured out, the pipelines established, the groundwork laid, the procedures sorted... and now, the process of arriving at the end of the VFX process is seen as the goal. First you do your story art, then you do your modeling, then you do your layout, then you do your animation and sims, then you do your comp, then you render out the result. \"That's how ya do it.\" Once the process is complete, your VFX are complete. Congratulations, let's move on to the next movie.\n\nThe problem — and distinction — is that, remember, Jurassic Park's goal was a look. They didn't know what the process would be, but they'd know it when they saw it. Now the goal is, largely, a process. Finish the process. \n\nAre we capable of delivering CG at the level of quality you see in Jurassic Park? Fucking absolutely. (And, \"duh,\" quite frankly. Most movies with big CG setpieces are actually at that level of quality.) When that doesn't happen, these days, it's because we're working under a very different set of limitations. For instance, way, way, way more shots, way more complex shots, way harder shots, an atmosphere of assumed possibility, a wee bit of studio apathy, less-and-less money, higher-and-higher rez, stereoscopic delivery... and, uh, not to put too fine a point on it... not much of a premium being placed on quality of life for the artists. (That's a whole separate thing.)\n\nIn addition to that, like I said a few paragraphs ago, Jurassic Park also (smartly) utilized a handful of tricks to make life easier. In CG, realistic shiny things are easier than realistic matte things, so they made the T-Rex wet. They did the T-Rex scene at night. They did a tremendous number of hand-offs between the CG Tippet critters and the practical Winston critters. Not to mention, there's way fewer CG shots in that movie than you're probably remembering, and on and on.\n\nSo. Yeah, it was twenty years ago, but they were also climbin' a different mountain.\n\nNow, it's important to note that Jurassic Park deserves every bit of the VFX credit it gets. (That Gallimimus sequence blows my mind.) It's outstanding work, it stands the test of time, it's great — I know I'm basically saying, \"yeah, good job with the fucking Coliseum, you guys, you scrappy group of rag-tag weirdos,\" but. I want to make sure it's clear that I'm not throwing shade at Jurassic Park. I love Jurassic Park.\n\nBut, for being a trip to the moon with nothing but a tin can and a calculator — sorry, I'm very analogy-heavy this morning — for being just this impossible thing, it also managed to avoid some of the pitfalls of the modern CG experience. Expectations, mostly. Different flavors of expectations, at different points along the line. Being the first to do a very hard thing well isn't easy. For that matter, neither is being the 6000th to do a very hard thing well, when people are totally unimpressed with the assumption that you can do a very hard thing well. Like \"come on, knock it out. We're on a schedule here.\"\n\nNot that they weren't on a schedule, but. You know what I mean. I've rambled on long enough.\"\n", "I think the question overall is how is Spielberg so fantastic at making things look realist even to me today. \n\nA couple of observations:\nHe learned a huge amount filming Jaws. The shark, Bruce, was a hunk of garbage. Spielberg had to make it work or fail and he worked his ass off to hide the flaws. \n\nSpielberg is also very good at communicating menace. Even Duel's truck has a sense of menace that extends beyond even the driver. The truck itself almost feels like a living object. \n\nNo question the man is a genius. I think his technical craft is much better than James Cameron's and he brags about it substantially less.\n", "They spared no expense. \n\nBut seriously, there's a lot less CG in Jurassic Park than most people think. Today, it's quite common for the only live action element in many shots to be the actors. If JJ Abrams (hardly the most CG reliant director currently working) were to remake Jurassic Park today, he'd probably feel forced to engage in a full-on CG fuckathon for sequences where Spielberg simply did not have that option. Spielberg was, instead, forced to use every cinematic trick in the book to hide the short-comings of the comparatively awful CG elements he had available to him. Dark lighting, practical effects (models and animatronics), clever cutting... Jurassic Park is a tour de force in all of these things because the CG was still quite primitive. There are only a couple of full-CG shots that take place in brightly-lit daylight (e.g. the Brontosauraus reveal) and these are probably the weakest shots in the film. \n\nPeople today watch Jurassic Park and think they're seeing flawless, state-of-the-art CG, but what they're really seeing is mostly models and animatronics with only flashes of CG to tie the shots together. The CG was weak, but Spielberg hid it's weaknesses like the master he is. \n\nBonus example: Consider the cup of water in the Jeep when the T-Rex is first approaching. \n\n > > One other issue that was initially seen as very small turned into a big puzzling problem. As the T-Rex approaches our main characters, we hear it before we see it. In particular, we see a cup of water start to form “rings” from the T-Rex’s approaching footsteps. Spielberg got the idea after listening to loud music in his car and seeing his rear-view mirror vibrate from the heavy bass. He quotes, “I was on my way to do storyboards for Jurassic Park and I never forgot what it looked like when the bass rhythm went off. I thought in the middle of storyboarding ‘hey wouldn’t it be cool if, when the T-Rex began to approach, the low-end vibration of all that tonnage hitting the ground was causing these little concentric circles.’” The crew thought the gag would be really simple to pull off. As it turned out, however, forming these “concentric circles” proved to be much more arduous than anticipated. Everyone on the production team was puzzled. Sound engineers, physics specialists, and wave tank generators were called in and used to try to achieve the circles, but to no avail. Finally, a solution was found. Michael Lantieri, who was part of the special effects team, quotes, “The night before the shot, I’m at home and I’m still playing around and I took a guitar that I had at home and set a glass of water on the guitar and plucked the string, and it vibrated and did it.” So in the end, the gag was achieved by feeding a guitar string from the cup through the tour car down to the ground, where a guy laying under the vehicle plucked the guitar string (Jurassic Park DVD).\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\nDirectors often have a vision and go to great lengths to see it realized. However, I guarantee you that Michael Bay isn't going to call in physicists to help him make concentric rings in a cup of water (or to make realistic action scenes, apparently). He's just going to CG that shit and, most of the time, people won't even notice. CG has gotten really good at fixing seemingly small things that cause great pain for the production crew. I don't point this out to denigrate CG or directors today (except maybe Michael Bay), but rather, to illustrate how impressive it was for a director like Spielberg to pull off a film like Jurassic Park that still holds up so well, in spite of the technical limitations of his day. \n\n", "I just a few days ago watched the first Jurassic Park. The CG parts actually looked a bit dated. There were moments where I thought, \"modern games look better than this.\"\n\nIt was ahead of its time, but the CG, like the animatronics, has an obviously fake feel.", "They were deliberate about their use of CG and practical effects and when they provided the best result, instead of just dumping everything into CG. They used mostly practical effects for stills and close-ups, and only used CG when there was significant movement required. ", "In short. They put effort into it, and didnt cut corners. Now they couldnt cut them as we can today with SGI but still, the main cause for the high quality is a large budget and high standards. It was possible to make a very bad SE movie back then as well.\n\nFact remains, doing it without sgi looks better, costs 100x more. It is still true.", "...Because it was the last movie people actually put real effort into? ;) ", "_URL_0_\nA great video by the legendary u/kaptainkristian about the visual effects in Jurassic Park", "The visual effects/CGI were GREAT for the time, but I'm not sure if you've watched it recently. It doesn't quite hold water to today's effects. I'm not trying to diminish it but things have come a long way.\n\nHowever, I remember Jurassic Park being one of the go-tos for HIFI VHS for home surround sound systems. This brings back great memories of my dad hooking up our 1200w Cambridge Soundworks system to a 32 inch CRT TV. Oh how times have changed!", "Its simple, It was the first time they could render motion blur, this made the CGI look \"real\" at the time it took a huge amount of computer power and time because each frame had to be rendered multiple times _URL_0_", "There's a lot to be said for practical effects. Modern studios opt for CGI because it's quicker a day cheaper than making a prop or propert effect. \n", "It's a combination of a number of factors. For starters, there was a great lack of faith in CGI's ability to produce realistic creature effects. CGI had been used in movies since at least the 70s but never to create convincing lifelike creatures. As a result an extraordinary amount of care was taken to hide the imperfections in the CGI.\n\nSecondly, Jurassic Park had a big name director and a big budget. It could afford to take the best from both worlds. It used physical effects for the shots where those would work best. In a lot of the close ups where you can't see the entire animal but just snapping jaws, lunging claws and stomping legs, animatronics were used. They have a real world presence which means they reflect real light, have real texture, real fluids and give the actors and environment something real to interact with.\n\nVice versa, animatronics tend to be bad at convincing and lifelike motion. So for the full body shots where dinosaurs are walking, jumping and running in full view, CGI animation is used where the animator has much more control than someone using a mechanical puppet.\n\nAnd because the effects team was very concerned about making sure neither type of effect didn't stuck out like a sore thumb, a lot of care was taken to try and mask the way the effects blended with the environment. That's why the T-rex escapes it's paddock at night in the pouring rain for instance. Rain, fog, refracted light, shadows, lots of stuff to help hide any imperfection in the effects.\n\nBut more than anything, what helps sell the effects is 'movie magic', nothing more than basic psychology. Jurassic Park went to incredible lengths to convince you that the dinosaurs are real animals both before the fx works starts and during. Let's look at the T-rex for instance:\n\n* Your first introduction to the T-rex is... nothing. The characters sitting bored in the car while the rex hides in the jungle. A very recognisable feeling for anyone who has visited the zoo.\n* There's a lot of minor interaction between the dinosaurs and their environment that isn't relevant to the story but extremely relevant in convincing the viewer that they're real. For example...\n* The T-rex eats, like any other animal. It eats a goat and just for good measure it drops a goat leg on the car. Physical interaction between the rex and it's environment.\n* You see the rex's little forearms testing the fence, pulling on the wires before you see the wires snap one by one as he pushes his body against it out of view. Again physical interaction with it's environment.\n* And they do this over and over. The vibration of it's step makes the glass of water ripple. It's feet sink into the soaked mud when it walks, leaving footprints that fill with water. It's pupils dilate when Timmy shines the flashlight into it's eyes. It's breath blows off Grant's hat.\n* The rex acts like an animal too. It get's distracted by the tire on the wrecked car. It follows the dominant motion of Ian's flare. It's not a monster, it's an animal.\n\nOver and over Jurassic Park reinforces the appearance that these animals are having a real physical impact on the world around them. It makes the viewer want to believe. Looking at monster movies in the decades after, most movies simply don't take this much work to establish their creatures are real. Occasionally monsters fight the protagonists and that's it, none of the build up.\n\nAnd part of movie magic is also that if you convince the viewer once, he'll want to believe later. Stan Winston once pointed out that in the gallimimus scene in broad daylight, the rex looks like a rubber toy. But after the amount of work put into the rain storm escape scene of the rex, the viewers already believed it was real and they didn't notice it looks a lot worse in the daylight scenes later in the movie.", "I wouldn't say it looks great nowadays....great when I first saw it though, which was probably 2001.", "OP this is an awesome question. It's unbelievable how awesome those dinosaurs look 25 years later. ", "The screenwriters used cg as a tool instead of a crutch?", "Rather than feed you a repeat of countless Cracked articles, I'll do the thing people hate. \n\nEverything that was amazing about Jurassic World's effects:\n\n-The detail level was insane. Every bit of flesh that could be accounted for on modern CGI tech was there, at a resolution scale that almost-certainly constitutes all of Jurassic Park's work in a few frames.\n\n-The way the flesh and teeth interacted with light, revealing their perceptible texture and substructures was amazing. Until independent human craftsmen are 3D printing real bone and tissue, this is the most amazing and least disconcerting art our species could hope for.\n\n-The detail of the I-Rex's mouth as it sniffs out Pratt is another great example of a disconcertingly....\"meaty\" sort of dino. I think there might have even been some flies buzzing around that steamy mess of a mouth it had. \n\nAgain, silicon with paint and KY jelly on top looks like silicon with paint and KY jelly on top.\n\n-Animation. Good lord the animation. Where the intersection of human fact and myth starts to pay off visually. Most specifically, the way the I-Rex attacks the sphere-o with the exact timing and approach that an oviraptor (or any egg-eating bird/reptile) would.\n\nHeck, the scene that got people so riled up, where the lady gets snatched up by the pterodactyls, who attempt to drown her, and then both get chomped by the big beastie? Straight outta National Geographic through and through.\n\nThat scene was so well done, people weren't talking about FX, they were imagining that the nature on display owed them some karmic balance sheet to explain what they just saw and reacted to with their own deep human fears.\n\nIf FX came up? \"CGI.\" As if those words are a curse in and of themselves without any functional understanding of how to do this stuff.\n\n-If that one-shot in the finale doesn't justify CGI to you, you should read or watch more things about how this stuff is accomplished, and how films work, and why humans bother to make films in the first place. The flawless shifts in scale from dino to human and back. The modern choreography of massively detailed simulations being wrangled by factories of electron clouds buzzing....\n\nBonus:\n\nBlue: They turned a raptor from a clunky hand-off between \"real\" puppets with puppet-level emotions and a CGI super-animal....into a proper character. That hero shot was *flawless* in excess of anything Jurassic Park managed, including with the Amusement Park T-Rex. Not only visually convincing, but a well-earned bit of character work from a fully-digital character.\n\nThat is what defined the CG in Jurassic World to me.. Its utter commitment and execution of genuine character work through this digital realm, with animal characters given modern respect as to their evolutionary cultural capabilities. They needed one old-school Speilberg monster, and they had to genetically engineer it in their narrative of animals being animals. The thing Spielberg always talked about without ever managing to portray with his clunky giant robots...he settled on horror-movie tropes about not seeing anything. Great for \"holding up\" visually, but not so much scientifically/intellectually/philosophically.\n\nIn Jurassic World, we got a nature documentary so convincing, we hated the humans for being flawed humans and the dinosaurs for acting like dinosaurs at those humans we hated. Also, our brains are still clinging to the Uncanny Valley for dear life, and \"Pffft CGI\" is a spell to strengthen our hold. (Totally fair exaggeration of the Reddit Response :-P )\n\nBonus Bonus:\n\nYou guys realize that Reddit comments are CGI right? And that when you all cluster around the one that gets the most positive attention, that's when its influence gets questionable?\n\nGroupthink is great for facts, but considering this thread asks for an explanation of an incorrect perception of art, the top comment seems like a fireside retelling of like .075% of all internet content.\n\n(Edit: I called Reddit itself CGI, and it got revenge with auto-formatting. I will not go back to change my numbers back to the numbers that I typed before a machine tried to correct me. Particularly on one of these Jurassic Park CGI threads. Food for thought/vomit.)", "There was a sweet spot in the rise of CGI when you could produce fairly convincing visuals from a distance, but up-close detail was muddy. These days, since you can pretty much cram as much detail into a CGI character as you want, they often DO and it makes the characters look fake, ironically. On a real human face you don't necessarily see every pore, bead of sweat, every hair or blemish or whatever. At least, not to the level of detail that many CGI artists put into their work.", "Because, just like with the original Star Wars, 99% of it wasn't visual effects.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nPretty much the only times they were actually using CGI was when you could barely see the dinos and it was night/raining. And Steven Spielberg knew what CGI could and couldn't do going into the project so he wasn't like \"we need 15 T-rex's with laser cannons on their head fighting magic fireball casting Raptors but it's all gotta look 100% real\".\n\nAnd what they did use is not even remotely close to today's CGI. The majority of big budget movies are mostly CGI and you can't even tell. Unless the actors are directly interacting with an object or walking on something it's a good chance it's not actually there. Especially things like what's going on in the background. Most movies don't even go shoot on location anymore it's all in a studio with greenscreen walls and a handful of actual objects in the room. For instance this is \"New York City\" in The Avengers _URL_0_", "CGI went through 3 very radical phases in the late 80's early 90's. Each film redefined the way that CGI could be used in a movie:\n\n* The Abyss\n* Terminator 2\n* Jurassic Park\n\nThe abyss showcased the creation of a lifelike polymorph. Terminator 2 took this concept one step further and blended another polymorph with live action actors and practical effects. Note that in nearly every scene that included CGI in Terminator 2 it is always showcased by morphing from or into a live action actor or practical effect.\n\nJurassic Park redefined CGI because it was the first time that computer imagery managed to look believable without needing to blend from that live action or blend into it. The first encounter with the dinosaurs in the \"Welcome to Jurassic Park\" sequence is a great showcase of this. Every single dinosaur is CGI, they don't walk closer to the camera and blend into a puppet or animatronic, they just *exist* by being in the background and they looked entirely believable in the early 90's.\n\nBefore anyone mentions, yes, there were practical effects in Jurassic park. Yes, there were blending of cgi into live action or from live action. But the revolutionary aspect of the film came from the believability of the creatures being in the background and foreground without looking unnatural.\n\nMany of the aspects of this film built off of the greatness that was started in Terminator 2, this could be because one of the effects supervisors worked on both films, Stan Winston. Anything this guy touched is incredible. He's designed everything from the look of the Terminator, Alien Hive Queen animatronic puppet, huge animatronic T-Rex in Jurassic Park, to Tony Starks Iron Man suits in the first (2?) film. He sadly is no longer with us, but while he was living he was one of the kings of practical effects and blending that with CGI tech.", "I honestly get baffled when people ask this question. The brontosaurus reveal scene does not look good.", "They used real dinosaurs. Sure, it takes a lot of takes to get the trained dinos to act perfectly, but it doesn't get more life like than the real deal.", "Wait, you're wondering how it's ahead of it's time (1993) when \"it seem almost comparable [to] todays visual effects?\"\n\n\ndo you understand how time works? maybe we should start there.", "Have worked issues a CG animator for 20 years. Jurassic Park pretty much set the stage for all that came after. Every film I've worked on has a mix of live action, puppets and CG. As mentioned above the lighting is what makes the CG elements blend and believable. Films in the late 90s and early 2000s often put their characters in darkened situations to help with this. Think Early Harry Potter. Today films are mostly CG. Everything.... environment and characters. In the preproduction stage a rough 3D animated version of the film sets camera lens and movement, lights, rough acting cues for live actors and animated characters....everything. That information is used first to secure funding and approval from studio, then on set and finally in post production where the animation and compositing, sound and editing put the whole thing together. Lightning comes so late in the process that often it is rushed to meet deadlines. Which is a shame because it literally makes or breaks the shot. Lighters are seriously unsung heroes. They are painting with light. And worse often on VFX heavy films studios will limit the amount of credits leaving off more than half of the names of the CG artists who created the visuals. ", "As someone who lived through the 90'S this question is bittersweet. \n\nBack in the 90's most special effects to were a mixture of dare devil cut scenes and animatronics. CGI was a frowned upon because it was so obvious and cheese. Much like cgi is today. Except now there are whole movies filmed in green rooms. *puke*. ", "Practical effects enhanced with cgi rather than heavy or complete usage of cgi.\n\nThat's why the new movie didn't look as good. Too much computer, not enough practical. Always bad.", "I still think the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park look much better/real than the ones in Jurassic World.", "But doesnt the title explain it's amazingness already? A movie that is almost 25 years old visually holds up to movies today. We've all seen movies that just dont stand the test of time well and often it's because of stuff like that tarnish it over time", "Off topic, but what really blows my mind is Kubrick's tour de force in 2001: A Space Odyssey. From 1968, if you want to talk about being ahead of one's time.", "Here's an interesting short read about the demise of Silicon Graphics, Inc., the company that created the graphics workstations used in Jurassic Park. _URL_0_", "Thanks to that, those few scenes where dinosaurs are in the textures are perfected the real deal.", "I watched it last week, and there is no denying it looks dated. When I watched it when it came out, it looked amazing though. \n\nIt is not comparable to today's visual effects though, get off the glue. ", "You answered your own question. The effects are comparable to today's, but it was 20 years ago. ", "Mother fuckin to scale dinosaur puppets. The t rex was FORTY feet long!!!! And weighed 9 tons. 👀👀👀👀", "Another reason is that the artists working on the real models did a job unmatched till even today. There is a mutliple part series by stanwinstonschool about the building process of the dinosaurs. The T.rex in particular is just amazing: _URL_0_\n", "They used animatronics and less CG. Came across slightly more realistic than just CG would at that time. ", "I never really saw the hype around Jurassic Park CG, sure it was awesome as a kid but the CG shots are all pretty dated looking now. The actual robot T-Rex he built is fucking awesome though, I think that's what most people mistake as CG. ", "It was nearly all practical effects, which don't age as poorly as CG. Also, it was just really damn good practical effects, using amazing animatronics etc.\n", "They used really life-like puppets and amazing cinematography as opposed to CGI for the most part. ", "Practical effects. They always look better and you see the same thing in the old Aliens vs the new one. Where Jurassic park did use CGI it looks like total shit. That Brachiosaurus in the beginning for example.\n\n_URL_0_\n", "Can we get the dinosaur supervisor to post an AMA please. Where is Phil Tippett??", "The CG in Jurassic Park is amazing. Especially in the low light where the T-Rex walks through the fence and roars.\n\nThere's also the occasional funny hiccup like when the [raptor disappears in the T-rex's mouth for a frame.](_URL_0_)\n\n[The frame](_URL_1_)", "None of the replies here talk about the *actors* making the CG believable. At the end of the day, we react the way the characters react, and the acting is JP is totally REAL. Spielberg himself says in the behind the scenes that he cast \"naturalistic actors\" like Jeff Goldblum. Everything Ian Malcolm says is the absolute best response to anything, yet he delivers it in a this-wasnt-scripted way. \n\nThat said, good actors act, great actors REACT. There is no way you won't react to a real life-size T-Rex robot in your face or a dilophosaur robot or a raptor robot. Its real. Its huge and scary. The actors in JP sold the believability. You can see this is any movie - if the actors are responding to a CG creation thats actually in front of their face at the time of filming, its way more believable. The best example since JP is probably Davy Jones in Pirates. You have Bill Nighy being that character live on set so the actors have someone to look at and respond to. Made his CG that much better. Pirates also built giant ships on moving platforms. Real is real is better." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/movies-before-after-green-screen-cgi/" ], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rlr3Lzvqog" ], [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jurassic_world_trailer/cmcs22y" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnb-5AZmzGE", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHKwaW4Um8", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPRK92TtIY", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24" ], [], [ "http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAzQr3Ml0UI", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwOSFd0BBw", "http://imgur.com/C1cyb3i", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SK1qTnhHzI" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.cinemablography.org/blog/behind-the-scenes-jurassic-park-t-rex-entrance-scene" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://youtu.be/_rlr3Lzvqog" ], [], [ "https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c3/2e/7f/c32e7f49e21ab456ba41704b45a96d57.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/4DJdhb6.jpg", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4J9TBlFxAg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/silicon-graphics/" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SK1qTnhHzI" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cfr_XnvX1aA/maxresdefault.jpg" ], [], [ "https://youtu.be/gTWo9oLJOWk?t=2m6s", "http://imgur.com/a/6o6F2" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpykl6m" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Distribution companies, labels and publishing companies sign contracts with services like Tidal to allow them to use their catalogues. For example, my music is on Tidal. I give my distributor permission to add my catalogue onto any new streaming services I would like to include my content in. Copyright holders of music are then given a royalty (albeit a tiny one) for each time their song is streamed/played. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckaey4p", "ckaf0xh", "ckaf7uq", "ckag3mr" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 14, 9 ], "text": [ "Wide base, and mostly pyramid-like structures. Math, which is quite ancient, was also very helpful. Build it in small scale and blow it up.", "They invested huge amounts of money and resources into their buildings. They built them out of solid stone. Building them could take decades or even more than a hundred years in the case of some cathedrals.", "Trigonometry, basic geometry and some astronomy were known since before ancient Greece. That's all you need for astonishing precision.\n\nAs for moving heavy blocks - it's surprisingly easy. Here's a video of a single guy moving massive concrete blocks without using any modern tools: [link](_URL_0_). Imagine having a whole community of that guys working towards a single goal.", "Because ancient people were not as stupid as modern man chooses to believe" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dh0fqpf" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Here is a fantastic article about the evolution of insect metamorphosis:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe ELI5 version:\n\n* There's no definitive answer (there rarely is in evolutionary biology)\n* Metamorphosis provides a definite advantage for species that have it--the young and the adults have very different lifestyles and don't compete for the same resources, meaning populations can get bigger.\n* One theory says that insect embryos may have evolved the ability to eat while still in the egg, to make sure they absorbed all the available yolk in their egg. Over time, this may have meant that some of the embryos could survive outside of the egg, and then only develop into full adults later on. Again, over time, this could have changed so that they hatch when they're still embryo-ish, and complete their development later." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqtj4mt" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "to build publicity. reporters aren't following them all the time. in order to get reporters to show up, the person has to announce that they're going to make a major announcement that'll make news." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxtc1ry", "dxtetvf", "dxtf47f" ], "score": [ 15, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "For one they didn’t look directly at the sun, secondly the visors were meant to protect from UV Rays. You have to realize that it’s still a large body much like any continent, as long as you don’t look up you’re not likely to be blinded. But the layers on the visors was a big factor. ", "The visor of [spacesuit helmets](_URL_0_) are coated (tinted) with a very thin layer of gold which acts to filter out UV rays.\n", "From memory, sunlight is about 1300 & #8239;W/m^-2 above the atmosphere (and on the moon) and about 1000 & #8239;W/m^-2 at sea level. The difference is not that great. In fact, in visible light, it's probably less than those numbers suggest because the atmosphere is more transparent for visible light than to some other wavelengths." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/home/clickable_suit_nf.html" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc0hx58", "cc0pms0" ], "score": [ 23, 6 ], "text": [ "In America.... Everything ! I got pulled over coming home from work one morning. The cop was very nice. When he came back he asked if I had my pistol on me( have concealed carry permit ) I said \" huh , I was wondering if that came up \" his response \" Oh yeah everything comes up... you were a runaway at 12.... \" the look on my face was priceless. \" I thought that got erased when I turned 18 \" \"Oh no, it doesn't go away they just can't use it against you in court...\" I'm 33 now.... ", "Hey mate I'm a police officer in Aus .. Pretty much everything you have ever been in contact with police comes up in the system when we run a check.. However the main thing we look for when doing a licence check is whether its expired. Also if you have any intell for drugs/break and enter etc .. Giving a possible reason to search your car " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2o7ilj", "e2o7l7u", "e2o7md1", "e2o7uhd", "e2of1wf" ], "score": [ 2, 14, 2, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "I think its just that alcohol is usually used to kill bacteria. Since rotting is caused by bacteria feeding on dead cells and breaking them down. So because the alcohol is added it kills off the bacteria that breaks them down the animal is preserved. I think.....", "Rotting doesn't just happen, bacteria and fungi have to breed in the dead tissue and start consuming it.\n\nAlcohol kills them all off. If the environment around the body is too cold, too dry, too oxygen poor, or too toxic, the decomposers die too and the body is mummified.", "No bacteria can survive in the alcohol (or more likely formeldahyde), so the tissues don't rot and decay. \n\nAlso while 'big bodies' occur, fascinating reading there! ", "Rotting is caused by bacteria and other little critters that eat away at the dead body. When an organism is alive, it has an immune system that keeps all that stuff away. But the dead body can't fight those off, so they start eating, causing decay.\n\nAlcohol kills living things; it's especially good at killing small ones. So if I leave a dead animal in a cask of alcohol, there's no way for those tiny organisms to take up in the body and eat it; they'd simply die instead. They need a hospitable environment in order to live in that body and eat away at it.", "When an animal dies, it doesn't just rot all on its own. Without any help, the body will remain as-is indefinitely. But in most cases, the body won't be left alone for long. In the wild, a scavenger might come and eat it, but even in a controlled environment there tiny little \"scavengers\" that will still begin to consume the dead animal. Insects, bacteria, and fungus can all eat away at the body, what we call \"rot\" is just the effect of microorganisms eating something. This doesn't happen while the animal is alive, because their immune system keeps the microorganisms in check, though certain infections can allow parts of a living animal (or person) to rot even before they die.\n\nSince the problem is that the body is being slowly consumed by tiny living things, the solution is to kill those things as well. Alcohol, as well as various other chemicals, are effective at killing microorganisms. So just like putting a dead animal in a (secure) box would protect it from a scavenger, putting it in alcohol protects it from mico-scavengers.\n\nWater on the other hand, won't do anything to kill microorganisms, and many microorganisms thrive in moist environments, meaning water can speed up the process significantly. This is why things that die in dry places, like a desert, may lay almost perfectly preserved for many many years - the microorganisms need the moisture to live, so without it they can't do anything. Cold has a similar use, most microorganisms need warmth, so refrigeration will really slow them down, and freezing can make them completely dormant (or even kill them). This is who food lasts longer in a refrigerator, and even longer in a freezer." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cthu7sx" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[Asked, and answered, many many times](_URL_0_). The explanation does not change. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=website+crash&amp;sort=new&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;t=all" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f2xavgj", "f2xbhaj", "f2xbsb5" ], "score": [ 87, 11, 4 ], "text": [ "Because a compound bow differs from a recurve bow in that it has shorter limbs (the part that extends past the grip), the power to drive the arrow forward into flight comes from a system of pulleys, or \"cams\" on the ends of the limbs.\n\n\nEssentially, a regular recurve bow works by putting force into the limbs by pulling back on a string. The force is transferred to the limbs so that they are drawn back, and when the string is released, the limbs snap forward, pulling the string and the arrow along with it. This produces the force that propels the arrow.\n\nCompound bows, on the other hand, instead of putting the force of the string at a perpendicular angle to the limbs, use their pulleys (cams) to essentially try to pull the limbs together instead of back during draw. There is the part of the string that the arrow rests on, but there is an additional length that is doing the actual \"pulling\", and it pulls straight up and down on the limbs, pulling them together. When the string is released, the limbs snap back both up and down, instead of forward, making it easier to control. This reduces the strain on the archer, and allows for higher accuracy in a more compact frame, since you're not fighting against the bow trying to fly forward out of your hand. this design comes with the trade-off of needing stronger materials to function properly, but that isn't much of an issue with modern materials.\n\n\nAs for \"let-off\", the cams can be designed and positioned in such a way that the strain of holding the bow at full draw (all the way back) is reduced by a certain percentage, usually anywhere from 70-85%. If you look at a modern compound bow, the cams are not circular, but rather a strange ovoid shape; this is the design that allows for let-off. \n\n\nLet-off allows trophy hunters or casual archers to hold a drawn shot for longer while they sight the target or wait for their prey to come into range. If the let-off weren't there, you would have to hold a full 80 lbs or so of draw, which is difficult to do for any length of time; a let-off of 80 means that you're dropping 80% of full draw weight at the very end of your draw, so you only have to hold 20% of what you did to draw it back. An 80lb bow with a let-off of 80 only takes 16lbs to hold at full draw, which can be done relatively easily.", "Disclaimer, I am not a archer or any expert in the world of bows, but I do have enough approximate physic knowledge to some what understand. aka, take my world with a bowl of salt.\n\nThe goal of a bow is to transform the energy of a archer INTO the kinetic energy of a arrow.\n\nWhen you draw bow, you are essentially storing energy INTO the bent limbs.\n\nWhen you release the bow, the limbs return to their neutral state, and such, release the energy into the arrow via the string, producing a forward thrust.\n\nSurprise surprise, Energy imput to draw bow > energy of the arrow.\n\nTo make the arrow go fast, you store more energy into the draw, and we know energy = work X distance.\n\nby using pully, we essentially extends the length of the rope, creating more distance, thus more energy stored.\n\nAs for let off, the Pulley system when combined, creates a non linear draw cycle, meaning, instead of gradually increasing the effort to draw as you extend a traditional bow, the compound bow peaks during your draw, and then falls off, thus at the maximum of your draw, you are actually using less effort to extend the bow compared to a traditional bow. This nonlinear makes perfect sense, because the total amount of work is conserved, its just the peak that was moved.", "Compound bows are much stiffer than other bows, so for the same energy stored, the limbs move much less. This is more efficient. It is also much more difficult to draw, because a slight change in draw length makes a big difference in energy. A short draw length also flexes the arrow more, as more energy is imparted in a short amount of time. Bows with traditionally short draw lengths, like crossbows, tend to use bolts rather than arrows to deal with that. \n\nSo to lengthen the draw length, a pulley system is used. The trade-off is force against distance. You can pull with less force, but you have to pull back further to deflect the short limbs a certain amount (impart a certain amount of energy). \n\nAnd if you are putting pulleys in your bow anyway, you can add another trick: eccentric pulleys. So when the pulley is small, you have less leverage against the limbs than if the pulley is big. A limb with a small pulley will impart more force on the string, and thus on the arrow; which is what you want. A big pulley will give you extra leverage against the limb, and allow you to have to impart less force on the bow; which you want too. But the first one is important when the bow is driving the arrow, the second is important when you are holding the bow to aim. \n\nSo making a pulley that has a big radius on one side and small on the other; for example if it has the shape of a snail shell, marries the two concepts: a bow imparting a lot of energy when firing, but with a 'let down' that needs much less force to keep drawn when drawn far enough so you are in the wide part of the cam." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnf2sxe", "cnf30m5" ], "score": [ 14, 2 ], "text": [ "The main advantage the house has in blackjack is the player has to act first and if they bust the house just takes it's winnings. Even if a player busts and the house busts after them (if another person is still in the hand) they still take the wager it isn't a tie.", "Also, you play an ante on top of your bet. At the casino i frequent, table minimum is $5, with a .25 cent ante. Win or lose, the .25 cents is gone. That on top of the slightly favored house odds of players acting first, keeps money flowing for them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "egghxi6", "eggjckq", "eggjl35", "eggm7gy", "eggrg10", "eggrk29", "eggwznp", "eggx9em" ], "score": [ 89, 13, 34, 5, 2, 3, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "The framerate only tells you how often the screen updates, the cpu might have a clockspeed much higher than that, it is entirely possible to simulate the last half a second per millisecond to calculate the actual time in miliseconds", "The refresh rate only tells the story of the graphics that appear on your screen. The underlying program still runs in real-time to perform all the calculations needed -- importantly the physics, which would appear absurd chunked into such slow intervals.", "The image updates at 60 fps, but the physics may be updating more frequently than that.\n\nA common technique is to do multiple physics updates per frame. So maybe it does 5 per frame, each one being logically about 3ms apart. That means it works out 5 \"snapshots\" of where each object has been throughout the frame.\n\nAnother way it could do it is interpolate based on the object's speed. If it detects the car has crossed the finish line this frame, it can work out the precise time it hit it based on its previous position, its current position and its speed.\n\nThese two techniques could be used together for more accuracy.", "The reason is that the console doesn't always manage to calculate the next frame in time, causing a slight dip in frame rate. So two players might finish the game in the exact same amount of frames, but one avoided scenes where the console had to do a lot of work to render the graphics and therefore got a few ms lower time on the clock.\n\nYou might have seen Golden Eye or Perfect Dark speedruns (N64 games), where they keep looking at the floor - that is because this gives them a faster frame rate, resulting in much better times.", "You are right. All these people are wrong. I doubt Mario Kart has an advanced physics engine. All games run in a loop. Each loop outputs a frame. The game is just subtracting end time from start time when it his the finish line. I doubt they programmed anything more advanced than that to calculate something that was never made to be that important.", "Another way besides running the physics tick rate much faster than the graphics framerate, that is slightly less accurate, but a lot more computationally efficient, is interpolation.\n\nSay at 4:37 and 39 ticks, the car is 0.4 m behind the finish line, and at 4:37 and 40 ticks, it is 0.6 m ahead of the finish line. That means that it most likely actually crossed the finish line at 4:37 and 40.4 ticks (which, if physics runs at 60 tps, is 4:37.673, rounded to the nearest millisecond).", "At the exact frame the car enters the finish zone, you have a positive, typically non-zero, distance from the finish line to the front bumper. By dividing this \"overshoot\" distance by the current speed, you know approximately how long it took to overshoot the finish line (assuming constant acceleration). Subtract that from the current time to get an estimate of the exact time the front bumper touched the finish line.\n\nThe other answers about running physics hundreds of times per second are totally wrong. If anything, physics usually runs *slower* than graphics--30hz is not uncommon--and values are just interpolated.", "Math, just like telemetry systems interpolate 10hz GPS data to return pretty accurate times (1/100th of a second of accuracy or so). \nOnce you know your speed (or acceleration) and direction all it takes to calculate how long it took you to reach a certain set of coordinates is a simple mathematical operation. That's also why race engineers tend to set additional intermediate sectors on straight patches of tarmac... although they can also use other data like the distance travelled to further improve the result, something a videogame like mario kart might not take into consideration." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cgy0a5h", "cgy0koc", "cgy2zl0" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 8 ], "text": [ "I think it has to do with the animal knowing what a mirror is and have the intellect to know that the image they are looking at is actually a reflection and not another animal.", "I've seen a similar sounding test with toddlers. They put a sticker on their cheek and sit them in front of the mirror and if they see their reflection and then try to remove the sticker then they've recognised the reflection is them and not another toddler. There might be better ways of doing it though with animals.\n\nTL;DR - There are 2 kinds of organisms: those that can recognise their own reflection and those who can't.", "The mirror test is a simply a test we use to identify if an animal is self aware. Basically it just consists of placing a mirror in front of an animal and observing their reaction to their reflection. Only 9 animals can pass the mirror test that we know of.\n\nAll Great Apes: \n\n* Humans (Typically fail the mirror test until they reach 18 months)\n* Chimps\n* Bonobos\n* Orangutangs\n* Gorillas\n\nAs well as:\n\n* Bottlenose dolphins\n* Killer whales\n* Elephants\n* European Magpie\n\nThat being said some critize the test to be biased towards animals who rely mostly on sight. Dogs, for example, rely mostly on smell. So while they may not pass the mirror test they may be able to pass a self awareness test based on scent, but unfortunately we don't have an equivalent scent based test." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f7su7rx", "f7u07x9" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The cells responsible for the color of your skin (basal layer) are deeper than the layer of cells (epidermis) that eventually die and flake off.", "It's dead skin that should have fallen off you but is resting on you. It is no longer attached to you so it's not being hydrated and it dries out, giving it the dry powder color. When you shower or lotion you are hydrating it. This just hides it mostly. \n\nYou know when you take a toothpick and scrape the creases on a remote or game controller or computer mouse? Those skins cells you unclog from the device? That's what ashiness is. That skin, but on your body. Some people get it worse than others.\n\nThe best way I found with eliminating it is better shower techniques. The loofah and wash towels didn't work very well. Instead, I keep at least one fingernail a little longer than the edge of my finger and scrape my skin real good when showering. The amount of dead skin I take off of my body surprised me years ago when I tried this for the first time. I game a lot so the palms of my hands get a lot of skin gunk and scraping in the shower eliminates that. I wear socks in doors so the bottoms of my feet need a good scrape in the shower. I almost only wear jeans so my knees and calves acquire a lot of dead skin that has nowhere to fall off to and gets smushed back on me so they get a good scraping. I have curly facial and chest hair so skin won't escape those areas as easily so I scrape after a shave or through the hair. \n\nIf you're pretty ashy, give the scrape a try. Next shower let the skin get hot and hydrated and try to scratch yourself clean. I've tried some objects as scrapers but they haven't been as successful as the fingernail. Having extreme dynamic control on the scraping end and sensation on both ends really helps." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0i2c94", "e0i39e6", "e0igsjq", "e0igt27", "e0ij0fv", "e0ijevv", "e0ikv16", "e0ilbgg", "e0iluhh", "e0imia8", "e0inp4i", "e0ipj9j", "e0is565", "e0itzdh", "e0j0umf", "e0j2amg", "e0j4t2a" ], "score": [ 1963, 18, 67, 69, 32, 5, 15, 2012, 2, 164, 2, 5, 6, 4, 2, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "In a healthy brain, there's an incredibly complex system that helps the brain manage the connections between neurons. There's always new connections being formed, old connections being destroyed, inefficient connections being streamlined, yadda-yadda, etc, all based on a system of chemical and electrical signalling that I can't possibly give an ELI5 explanation for. The takeaway point here is that the brain is always simultaneously growing and trimming these connections, and this process underlies everything from learning to memory to adaptation in general. This process is *everything*.\n\nMany mental disorders are caused by glitches in this system which cause the brain to not \"wire itself up\" properly. Maybe the brain is cutting connections it shouldn't, or forming connections it shouldn't, or not forming them properly in the first place, or any number of other possible failure modes that all result in unusual mental functioning. If your *brain* is messed up, then your *mind* will be messed up.\n\nBy definition, psychoactive substances affect the brain by throwing extra chemicals into the mix. Sometimes (but not always) these chemicals can have an effect on how this wiring process happens, and trigger or accelerate the kinds of malfunctions that lead to mental illness.\n\nIn other words, chemically speaking, certain psychoactive substances are like throwing a wrench into the fine-tuned machine that is your brain. Some people's brains are robust enough for the wrench to not cause any permanent damage or changes; however, for other people whose brains aren't *quite* as well-balanced, the wrench can knock enough things out of whack for the brain to make problems worse on its own long after the wrench has been removed.", "The easiest way to explain this is to understand what causes most mental (psychotic) disorders. Disorders like schizophrenia (most extremely shown with hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking type of symptoms, etc.) are believed to be mostly caused by problems with your central nervous system (CNS) releasing too much dopamine.\n\nSpeed is a stimulant type of drug. Stimulants work by either increasing the release of these naturally, self-made compounds, or by mimicking the effects of these compounds that turn your on CNS’s “fight or flight” response. Dopamine, at high concentrations in your body, will also turn on your “fight or flight” response. By increasing the amount of substances that mimic and/or activate the release of these compounds you increase the risk of displaying psychotic symptoms. A classic example of stimulant overexposure is paranoia and anxiety.\n\nAnother interesting point linked to this is serotonin, another self made compound. Low serotonin-levels are thought to be the primary reason for why depression occurs. To counteract depression, lots of anti-depression medications work by increasing the body’s amount of serotonin concentration. But high serotonin levels can also cause hallucinations. An interesting example of this can be found through LSD, which is a compound that has a nearly complete serotonin molecule as part of its drug structure.\n\nLong answer short, stimulants can increase the concentration of compounds in your body that can cause people to have a psychotic event. If someone is already likely to undergo a psychotic event, increasing the concentrations of these compounds can only induce an increased risk for psychosis if taken by such a person.", "The fact that higher rates of psychedelic use in countries don't correspond with higher psychosis means that although they may trigger them earlier they don't seem to cause psychosis or trigger psychosis that would have remained dormant otherwise. ", "Major Depressive Disorder is the only diagnosis that can actually be decisively linked to substance use, but even that is dicey. There are some emotional control issues that come along with this substance or that substance, but the diagnosable condition is already there beforehand. Mainly, substance use disrupts sleep and the underlying condition is exacerbated by sleep issues. MDD will continue after the substance use is discontinued and can get worse.\n\nMany of the disorders that people struggle with are just part of the human spectrum of behaviors, so it's better to look at the problem as one of society and the detrimental effect the artificial constraints it has on people who are outliers.\n\nSubstance use is an indicator of an illness rather than a cause of it. People on the schizophrenic spectrum are very prone to self-medicate with any substance that comes to mind. People with ADHD will self-medicate with stimulants, alcohol or marijuana. Tobacco use is associated with several disorders and most certainly makes them worse.\n\nIf you're looking for a cause of mental illness then [epigenetics](_URL_0_) is where to look. Just because someone has the genes that predispose them for an illness doesn't mean that they will get expressed without epigenetics getting involved. Prenatal and postnatal development can be affected causing different conditions.\n\nThere is a single study that said marijuana causes psychosis as a permanent change, but it hasn't been properly reproduced. Similarly, stimulant use related psychosis is a thing. What is actually going on is that people are already ill and they are self-medicating.\n\nSo, no, but kinda.\n\nIf you are looking to partake in using substances, then above all do it in a safe space with people who you trust. Always stay hydrated. Avoid mixing substances, especially opioids. Some combinations are unavoidably dangerous. Others are deceptively so.\n\nStay safe.\n\nMental illness is not your fault.\n", "Generally, those who are predisposed to certain mental disorders tend to develop symptoms earlier when exposed to stress\\-inducing stimuli. Ignoring whatever transient or permanent psychological changes, psychoactive substances produce intense experiences that amount to stress at least on a physiological level. This would, in part, explain why the use of a drug that is otherwise relatively harmless could cause the early onset of psychological disorders amongst certain predisposed individuals. ", "Most of these answers are unfortunately only partly correct. An important distinction that needs to be made is at what point in development the exposure occurs. My guess is this question is primarily concerned with mental disorders that manifest in early teens / adulthood (e.g. schizophrenia). The underlying pathology in terms of incorrect \"wiring\" (to use another answer's terminology) is largely set at this point. Drugs in this case act largely as a trigger, with even a single (or limited) exposure capable of promoting a deteriorated mental state. Other stressors (e.g major life events) can have a similar effect in terms of promoting the manifestation of symptoms from an underlying pathology.\n\nThis is very different from exposure during e.g. pregnancy, where the excess / aberrant neural activity associated with drugs can, and does, affect the actual development of the brain, which relies on, among other things, signals about synaptic strength that are affected by pyshoactive substances.\n\nTL;DR\n\nThe answer to this question largely depends on the type of disorders you're thinking of, and the age (and duration) of the exposure to the drugs (as well as the particular drugs themselves). Generally, though, psychoactive drug exposure in early adulthood does not increase the likelihood of *developing* a mental disorder, but rather brings out the symptoms of an already present pathology.\n\nEdit: grammar", "Marijuana (for instance) is more common in people who have schizophrenia than those without mental disorder. But that doesn't mean it causes or speeds up symptoms. \n\nThis article states there isn't a clear relationship (but young people should be cautious nonetheless). Further it mentions BDNF (Brain derived neuro-tropic factor) and how if given to mice with genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, that are also given marijuana, do not develop schizophrenia. \n_URL_0_\n\nIt may just be that people with mental disorders use drugs as a means to control their life or the symptoms of their disease. Many people that do not use drugs still develop mental illness. Some schizophrenics prefer to control their life with psychoactive substances, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.\n\nLast point Id like to make here is that some psychoactive substances seem to result in experiences that exhibit strange behavior. To a Doctor this would appear to be symptom of psychosis and thus mental illness. But If you are tripping balls on acid (pardon me) some people act normal, but most act fairly odd and that would make your schizophrenia seem more pronounced. With Weed many healthy people report feeling a slight paranoia, if you already have paranoid schizophrenic symptoms it could get worse. It could get better too. \n\nI'm recently diagnosed with Schizo-affective disorder (which I think is BS), when I use weed I don't get paranoid or act weird, actually I feel a hell of a lot more calm and focused. Even if I truly have Schizophrenia I wouldn't give up marijuana because it helps me so much. Alcohol (not exactly a psychoactive substance) I had to give up. I was slowly, then quickly becoming an alcoholic and it affected my life terribly. The only reason I was diagnosed with Schizo-affective was because I was acting weird when I was black out drunk (don't most people act weird when black out drunk?) Anyways since I've given up the bottle I have been feeling absolutely healthy. \n\nTL;DR Psychoactive substances haven't yet been proven to cause or speed up mental disorders. The drugs may just be preferred by those who have mental disorders. Then I rant about my own experience with mental illness. ", "There are five types of interactions between mental illness and psychoactive substances\n\n1) Predisposing : psychoactive substances alters the chemical and, if used long enough, the physical makeup of the brain. Prolonged substance abuse leads to mental illness.\n\n2) Precipitating : psychoactive substances push the brain over the threshold of normalcy. There exists a biological hereditary aspect of mental disorders but if the psychological and social conditions are favourable, the individual might not develop the mental illness. Psychoactive substances are an unfavourable agent.\n\n3) Perpetuating : psychoactive substances prolong the psychotic and mood symptoms of mental disorders. In these cases, the individual already has a mental disorder and the usage of psychoactive substances further worsen them.\n\n4) Premedication : psychoactive substances might be used to deal with early symptoms of mental disorders. Downers are used to calm an anxious or irritable person down and uppers are used to give a boost of energy or elevate mood.\n\n5) Spurious : the usage of substance has no direct effect on a mental disorder.\n\nAll cases of drug usage and mental disorders fall into these categories. However, which category or combination of categories is highly debatable. \n\nFor instance : about 20-30% of meth users develop mood or psychotic symptoms - does the drug causes mental illness? Is it used to deal with the mental illness? Does it amplify the preexisting symptoms?\n\nSource: I'm a doctor in Psychiatry and currently in my masters\n\nEDIT: Since so many people asked: In Malaysia, where I'm currently practicing, MD or MBBS or their equivalents are medical doctors. You work first as a houseman (US equivalent: intern) and then as a medical officer (US: Resident). You can continue working as a medical officer or open up your own GP and live happily ever after or choose to specialise in a field. In my case, I am pursuing further studies to be a specialist. I have two choices to take here - do my Masters or apply for the Royal College of Psychiatry membership. I have worked 7 years as a doctor, now stop asking.", "A person's mind and mental capacity are a balance of chemicals in their brain. \"Psycho-active\" drugs change that balance of chemicals. Most people's brain chemicals never go back to exactly how they were before if that person does enough drugs over a long enough period of time. People with predispositions to mental illness tends to be more likely to have their brain chemicals pushed towards that mental illness, if they use certain drugs, more quickly than a person with no predisposition because their brain chemicals are already really close to being throw off balance. Once a person is \"broken\" its extremely hard to put them back together.\n-someone who had to put their self back together", "This is a great discussion. I have seen a lot of pro-psychedelic substance posts advocating for them as treatment of various psychological disorders. But trust me, they are a double edged sword. A scalpel can be used to cure you of cancer. But it can also fuck your shit up if used inappropriately. ", "There is a ton of good non-eli5 here and most worth reading, and I don't want to step on it.\n\nA \"mental disorder\" is a chronic difficulty in determining the difference between perception and reality. \n\nPsychoactive substances by definition alter the mind's perception of reality.\n\nThe incidence to which these substances can trigger a persistent disorder is not entirely confirmed.\n\nBut if your brain might have a minor or latent tendency toward this confusion, it is possible that using any substance which causes you to perceive the unreal as you would the real may exacerbate that inherent tendency. \n\nIt is also possible that the knowing use of such things may strengthen your mind's ability to resist.\n\nDrug laws, at least in the US, make this difficult to study effectively. ", "The five year old answer is that once you break from reality it becomes easier for your brain to go back there. We’re all on a spectrum of sorts as far as being predisposed to mental illness. So person A smokes weed every day and he’s fine. Person B smokes weed once and the break from reality goes much farther than it did in person A and triggers his first psychotic episode. ", "Haven’t read all the comments, but doesn’t seem like anyone answered the question with any validity. Mental illness is not just chemical or ‘wiring,’ it’s psychosocial. The brain is important but one’s mind’s perceptions and processing of internal and external stimuli also contributes a lot. Using mind altering substances doesn’t necessarily change your brain, it changes your mind. Read Huxley’s “Doors of Perception.” Your brain doesn’t necessarily create paranoia or narcissism or mania or anxiety. It can, but so can your mind, or both. Mind altering substances can upset the ‘homeostasis’ you’ve established with your interpretation of the world and ‘disorient’ you, unearthing something you may have been predisposed to in the first place. You’re out on a hike listening to music through your earbuds. You turn off the music. You hear the birds. Maybe you hear something else. Maybe it’s terrifying. Opening a new door to perception let’s some people see a world they’ve never seen.\n\nEdit- I guess no answers except the ones directly above this post. Dammit reddit.", "Science is just barely scratching the surface of the actual effects of psychedelic drugs on humans. A very small amount of legitimate scientific research is being done now (past decade) for the first time since the 60s, and our knowledge of brain physiology and chemistry is remarkably more robust than it was back then.\n\nNo one has the answer to your question yet. Be skeptical of anyone that says they do.", "If you are prone to hearing voices and do a drug that makes you think you are talking to beings that aren't there, it's going to hasten the inevitable ", "Think of the brain as top. It spins smoothly when you put power into it. Cool! \n\nAs it winds down, or if it’s predisposed (say because there was an error when it first got to spinning), it’ll wobble.\nOnce it’s wobbling, further insults will make it wobble more. Adding drugs is like this. Some of them make you wobbly for a while and that why you like them. To a normal person, it’s fun to be wobbly for a while.\n\nBut if you’re already wobbly it can knock you over and send you spinning off the table into the garbage disposal and then you’re done, man. ", "If you've ever been drunk enough to say something you didn't mean, you can understand how psychoactives can enable a person to *think* in ways they otherwise would not. \n\nThe problem is that we have an easier time forgiving what we say than what we think and feel, and so sometimes a trend in thought that began with drugs becomes an imbedded pattern of disordered thinking, and an imbalance ensues." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics" ], [], [], [ "https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317170.php" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2zozkg", "d2zykgi" ], "score": [ 18, 5 ], "text": [ "It is important to remember that the denomination of a currency does not equal it´s value or strength.\n\nFor example, one British Pound is worth more than one US Dollar yet the US economy is stronger then the British. \n\nBasically a country can chose to give out a certain amount of currency but it cannot dictate the total value of it. So if we assume that country A has money in the total value of 100 $ it could chose to give out 100 notes each with the value of 1 $ or it could give out 1000 notes each with the value of 0.1 $.\n\nNow at some point how many \"notes\" I spread is determined by practical concerns. If I have a population of 200 citizens it wouldn´t make sense to issue only 100 notes, so even if I like each note to have a 1 $ value it´s not possible.\n\nAdditionally I might have started with a more reasonable value per note, let´s say 1000 notes a 0.1$. But because my economy tanked all my money is now only worth 2.957 $ so each note now has a value of 0.002957$ meaning 2957 of my currency is only worth 1 $.", "Denominations are more or less arbitrary, and are set either by the history of the currency, or for pragmatic reasons.\n\nSome currencies like the Columbian peso have been in use for a very long time. Columbia switched to the peso in 1810, for example.\n\nAll economies experience a change in the value of the currency, typically inflation where the value of the currency falls over time. This happens slowly most of the time, but can add up over a few hundred years. For example, one US dollar in 1776 would be worth about $30 today.\n\nSometimes, currency can inflate quite quickly. For an example, see the Weimar Republic in post WWI Germany. _URL_0_\n\nIn addition, some currencies make deliberate choices to keep their currency value low. An example would be the Japanese Yen, which exchanges for US dollars at about 109 Yen per dollar at the moment.\n\nThat's because you really want to set a currency to be useful to buy all sorts of different things. The dollar accomplishes this by being divisible into smaller units like the penny, nickel, etc. You can buy things priced accurately to the .01 dollar.\n\nThe Yen doesn't have that, but because it's around 100 time less valuable, you just end up buying things in increments of roughly 100 Yen with prices accurate to 1 Yen. 599 Yen vs. 5.99 dollars for example." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ce424c7", "ce45qwt", "ce4lbcj" ], "score": [ 13, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Narcissism is an infatuation with the self as being superior to all else. Solipsism is the refusal to admit to anything even existing other than the self.", "Elaborating on what /u/Phage0070 said, narcissism is a type of personality disorder. Narcissists not only have a high opinion of themselves, but they have an obsessive need to have other people affirm this superiority, and as a result they engage in a lot of attention-seeking behavior.\n\nSolipsism is a legitimate philosophical position...just not a very popular one. Much like people don't want to admit universal skepticism—the idea that no knowledge of any kind is possible—no one wants to say that he is the only real person in the universe. So it usually regarded as a dead-end that means you have made a mistake somewhere if your argument leads to solipsism.\n\nNevertheless, solipsism as such says nothing about how you will behave or treat other people. Even if you regard all other people as some sort of illusion or creation of your own mind, you might treat them very nicely. After all, you observe that being nice to these phantoms tends to bring about good results for you. (That is just an example; it's not to say that egoism—the belief that the good is what benefits oneself—*must* be a consequence of solipsism.)", "Those are two fairly different subjects. Narcissism is an obsession with one's superiority to others, while solipsism is the inability to prove the existence of anything other than one's self." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxlv3y0" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "While sucking blood, they also inject their saliva into your skin (which was what makes it itchy). That stops any blood from coming out, since it clogged up the area with the saliva. \n\nHalf of the time a mosquito is on you, it actually fails to draw blood, as they have to probe around a bit to find a good vessel. When they've found a vessel, they can rupture it, and then drink the blood that \"spills\". [Sauce](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/06/heres-what-happens-inside-you-when-a-mosquito-bites/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "es86ibb" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Countries that cover it don’t hike up the prices many many times over the actual cost. They most likely pay fair market value for supplies, and pay the people involved their direct salary\n\nIn the US, hospitals can charge nearly anything they want to, and insurance companies often do not pay full value either. Medicaid, which is a federal insurance program for many people in poverty, isn’t even accepted by many private practices for this very reason. The doctor would only be paid the actual cost of the procedure, which would cover IT, but not a new boat." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djt2mdn", "djt3llk" ], "score": [ 3, 5 ], "text": [ "A CT scanner is just an X-ray machine mounted on a circular track (around the subject). When activated, the X-ray machine moves around on the track, taking still images from a variety of different angles. The resulting images are processed by a computer which knows what angle each still was taken at.", "Ok so basically it's just a shitload of x-ray shots.\n\nWhen you take a conventional x-ray, it passes through once and takes a photo, so to speak. So let's say you wanted to take a photo of a person, but someone else was standing in the way and they or your subject can't move. Or say you wanted to take a panoramic photo. You'd need to take multiple shots and tie them together.\n\nCT is like that. It shoots from multiple angles and stitches the image together to create a more 3-dimensional image, allowing for better details and thus better understanding of what's happening in there. The same thing could be done with a regular x-ray if they just kept rolling you around the table and hitting the button. The difference is that the CT puts them all together for you and allows you to see things more clearly and with less exposure time, because doing that with a conventional x-ray would take hours at least, depending on the target. Additionally, the X-ray shots would not differentiate relationships, while the CT program typically can. This means that your 3D image created by the CT would show dimensions, separating the organs and such, while your x-ray shots would not. Like maybe a doctor wants to look at the *front* of your lung, he would have trouble doing so with a regular x-ray because the heart's in the way.\n\nSo why don't they do this every time? Well, a CT is super expensive and not always available. The exposure itself is also way more expensive. Last and most importantly, the patient is receiving an x-ray dose through his body at hundreds of times higher than a regular x-ray, and every exposure a person receives leaves something behind permanently, so if they did a CT on you every time you needed an image, you'd hit critical levels of life dose pretty fast." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ehzw043" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "I’m not a doctor but this is my understanding based on some courses I’ve taken in school. Essentially, when you get a cut or an injury, the body does it’s best to heal the wound which usually involves trying to close it or heal-over any injured tissue. As a result, you sometimes get fibrous scar tissue which never quite “integrates” with the surrounding cells.\n\nIn the case of your knee, the skin around joints has to be very elastic - and at the very least, it experienced more stretching and compression than say a spot on your forearm. As a result, the healing process tends to take longer. Additionally, the constant stretching of skin in that region makes it harder for the body to cleanly heal a wound which tends to lead to more noticeable scarring.\n\nThere may be a more scientific explanation but I think the amount of pushing and pulling a region of skin experiences has a lot to do with how easily injuries can heal." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjawonr", "cjawple" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Taking a town or city is when you occupy an urban settlement. You take over places such as the goverment district while ensuring the local police are not able to rise up and stop you.\n\nyou dont want to kill the populace as that will bring upon a full scale anarchy which the soldiers prefer not to have done.\n\nWar is dirty business you start by ensuring you take control of power, communications, goverment, and policing and after that you've succesfully occupied an urban settlement.", "It just means that a particular force is in control of the city and that other forces have been defeated by death, retreat or surrender. Their solders make the rules and, if you're lucky, keep the peace. There isn't really a Battlefield-style set of points in the city that you can control in order to say you've taken a city - if both sides are entrenched then the city is disputed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czxnupp", "czxnxp0", "czxnyey", "czxskxk" ], "score": [ 13, 3, 7, 5 ], "text": [ "Your phone beeps when you press the buttons - the same beeps that tell the phone company which number you're dialling on a landline. The system on the other end listens for the beeps and knows which button you pressed. Each button actually makes two tones together - one for each column and one for each row.", "Modern telephones use a system called TouchTone to emit a specific signal in response to key presses or other system activities. That's why the buttons on your phone make that sound; the person (or computer) on the other end of the call can hear and respond to them.\n\nSince it's the sound that matters, you don't actually need a TouchTone-equipped phone. Even an old candlestick phone can use automated systems if you just play the sound into the receiver, and \"phone phreaking\" was a fad that relied on using sounds normally used by the telephone operators to hack the system.", "You should look into phone phreaking _URL_0_\n\nApparently in the 60's, people were able to make free calls at any phonebooth by blowing a whistle into the phone receiver (at the correct pitch)", "I remember having my mind blown about 15years ago when I put my landline phone against my computer speaker and played wav files that mimicked the tones, and it actually dialed the number without pressing any button." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.historyofphonephreaking.org/faq.php" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpy39ab" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "No, rabies is lethal, if you \"carry\" rabies then you are \"infected\" by rabies.\n\nRabies simply takes a while to become lethal, a few weeks at least. But the animal can infect other animals within days." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cre0t4p", "cre0x5i", "cre208o" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "There is an apocryphal story about someone asking Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, and his answer was \"that's where the money is.\"\n\nSo, the reason the GOP has moved towards evangelicals? Because that's where the money is -- and votes.", "Because [23% of the people who vote](_URL_0_) are evangelicals and someone is going to capture them. Goldwater only pulled 5 states (4 of the 5 voted Republican as a protest against the Civil Rights act not because they had strong feelings for the candidate) in his presidential election and cost 20 incumbents who endorsed him their seats. ", "It started with the [Southern Strategy](_URL_0_), which is when he GOP recognized that the civil rights movement along with modernization of industries that dramatically reduced the economic base of the southern US caused a lot of strain on the South. Per his Chief of Staff, Nixon \"emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to.\"\n\nIn a little over 10 years, the south went from majority Democrat to majority Republican, feeling the Democratic party had largely started to discount them on the basis of their declining influence. At the same time, you saw changes in the GOP - for instance the platform flip-flopped from being pro-choice to becoming pro-life.\n\nUltimately, the southern economy got better, civil rights became increasingly accepted, and capitalizing on the southern base meant having to evolve the strategy. The late 70's saw several charismatic evangelical ministers taking advantage of media to push politicians on \"moral issues\", especially Jerry Falwell and his \"Moral Majority\" movement (prompted mostly to the idea that society was crumbling due to the free love culture of the 1960s) and later Pat Robertson.\n\nSo, in the 1980's, Reagan's presidential campaign did two things: it identified big-money political contributors to focus fund-raising efforts on, and it actively sought out the support of Christian evangelists who were looking for a political outlet and saw Reagan as a man with a reputation not only for social conservatism, but a willingness to support laws that enforced social conservative ideas. The idea was that the southern strategy states could be kept republican through alliance with powerful religious organizations that could deliver votes. With the rich and the charismatic in his pocket, Reagan handily one, and the GOP saw a winning formula that they've more or less rode out to the point where it's now difficult to control. The party is being carried more right, more theocratic, and farther away from the mainstream. The candidates that they are attracting are ideological, but not terribly astute politicians, uncompromising, and often not terribly contemplative." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cs0mw3n" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "For most of history the underwear, such as it was, was much the same. \n\nBut it's down to the outer clothes, any outer clothes changed from tunics to those that are essentially pants, they needed different underwear than skirts/dresses. So hen people started wearing different outer clothes, the underclothes changed.\n\nMuch of the original function was for the underclothes to be easy to wash while the outers therefore needed less cleaning. Prior to washing machines etc, much outer clothing was very difficult to clean. \n\nFashions have changed, sometimes dictated by fashion, other times by available materials.\n\nWomen have only worn underpants relatively recently. Initially these were crotchless but huge, to allow for urination etc, then they were baggy, under heavy skirts. It's only relatively recently that women's underpants have become \"skimpy\", the materials were not available for this type before. Modern bras are also not very old historically. The history of women's corsets and the like is very detailed. So much of women's underwear was to force them into the shape they were expected to be, and that shape changed with fashion. \n\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct8nmth" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Animals are more or less going to be a color with blue incorporated into it subtly even if we as humans can't see it they can. It simply acts to attract them to veins if visible or just a body in general. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eiy5d9w" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "All the most common \"crease-free\" setting does is keep the temperature up in the dryer and spins the drum back and forth once a minute or so - in order to stop the clothes from settling in one spot and forming creases.\n\nIt just buys you some extra time between when the clothes are dried (i.e the main cycle) and when you need to take them out the drier. It is a terrible waste of electricity though.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4ucrnr" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "If it was oxygen deprivation, you'd likely get high simply by holding your breath. Granted, you can get hypoxia from smoking, but that's typically from long-term chain smoking (like, pack a day). An individual cigarette isn't going to induce significant hypoxia, and the buzz is entirely from the nicotine (otherwise e-cigs wouldn't work)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfmmqlk" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Wow you really made me curious about this. Here is what I found - Your hair curls both when wet or when the relative humidity is high due to a change in protein bonds for the Kerotin (one of the central layers) structure in your hair.\n\nSource:\n_URL_0_\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-humidity-makes-your-hair-curl-21127724/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eotatxn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Weigh the item. Heavily dry it, and weigh it again. This gives you how much mass was removed by the process, and then they are compared to find your percentage." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fntdv65" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "That's just a standard that's agreed on. Originally there were no addresses and people used IP addresses. Like you needed to remember that this website is on 1.2.3.4 which doesn't work really well if you need to remember let's say 20 addresses.\n\nTo move on from these dark times people invented the DNS system - a global system for domain names. The system has top level domains which divide into generic ones (com, org, gov etc.), national ones (de, cz, jp etc.) and so called new generic ones (ninja, xxx, shop etc.). These top level domains are clearly defined, you can't just create your own. The second level domain (the insertwebsitehere in _URL_0_) you can register for some amount of money (depends on the top level domain and the registrar). The third level domain (the www) is fully optional and used to be pretty standard and kind of still is but more and more companies go without it. But it can be anything, you can make as many third level domains as you want since you own the domain, you can also make 4th level, 5th level etc." ] }

[ "www.insertwebsitehere.com" ]

[]

[ [ "www.insertwebsitehere.com" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfrazft" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Weather is chaotic, which means the final result is extremely sensitive to the inputs. We don't (and can't) measure actual conditions accurately enough to get perfect forecasts. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuxmca5" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Listen to /u/WRSaunders because he is speaking the truth. Some scientists believe that Mars already had a much stronger atmosphere a long time ago, but once the core of the planet cooled the sun's radiation ripped it apart. So even if sending the evaporated polar caps of Mars into its atmosphere did provide some sort of strengthened atmosphere, it would be short lived as most of it would simply float off into space." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]